Almond Joy has nuts, Mounds Don't because.....
This is what I'm talking about. This kind of ideology really worries me. You, John and maybe others, can think I'm being a bit nutty. I prefer to say I'm seeing the writing on the wall and it ain't pretty
http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArticle/CBUS/nbusinessNews_uUSTRE4A900K20081110?src=RSS-BUS
In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown -- who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions -- will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.
"The alliance between Britain and the U.S. -- and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. -- can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order," an excerpt from the speech says.
"My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society."
Brown and other leaders meet in Washington next weekend to discuss longer term solutions for dealing with economic issues following a series of coordinated moves on interest rates and to recapitalize banks in the wake of the financial crisis.
"Uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism with which we faced the storm, endured it and prevailed," Brown will say in his speech on Monday evening.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Oh This Just Gotta Be Good
Thanks to Jeff Schreiber at America's Right for this info. I had no idea. This just gotta be good....
"Obama's Pick for Chief of Staff Tops Recipients of Wall Street Money
(FROM: OpenSecrets) So, we already learned on Friday from ABC News that Rahm Emanuel sat on the board of directors of Freddie Mac during the beginnings of the scandal, and was complicit in the board's failure to recognize "red flags" in accounting and lending practices, and that he accepted more than $50,000 in contributions from the organization. Now, we're learning that Emanuel was, just this year, the top House recipient of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry, and that he has received more money from individuals and political action committees in the securities and investment business than from any other industry since being elected to Congress in 2002 after a previous job as an investment banker. Barack Obama tapping this gentleman to assist him in fixing the American economy is kind of like asking me to teach a class on writing concisely, or Rosie O'Donnell to manage a Weight Watchers franchise."
Jeff goes on to point out that Emanuel also co-authored a book in which he proposes mandating military service for all citizens ages 18-25. Don't believe me? Well, surprisingly (NOT), the web-pages he linked to the story are currently unavailable. Once again BO's goons are quickly shutting down your first amendment rights. There is still one link that works, so before it disappears to I will copy and paste the article here for you. All I can think is "Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid."
CHANGING OF THE GUARD
Web faux pas: Plan leaked for 'civilian security force'?
Before blogs caught it, Obama site told of requiring students to serve
Posted: November 08, 2008
3:36 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.
Originally, under the tab "America Serves" Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.
The language of requiring students to serve and the creation of a "Classroom Corps" sparked a surge of criticism from bloggers for bringing back memories of the much-publicized video of marching Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which the candidate said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.
Gateway Pundit called Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"
Following the furor raised by bloggers, however, the website's wording was changed.
The word "require" was stricken from the website yesterday, replaced with the phrase "setting a goal" and now also listing tax credits toward college tuition.
**It should be noted that the article has captured the web pages and shows the difference between the two here is the link http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80539 **
The new wording is consistent with Obama's campaign website, which also described the college tuition tax credit and detailed "enabling" Americans to serve, rather than "requiring" them to serve.
Elsewhere on the Change.gov site, however, it still describes the plan under the heading, "Require 100 hours of service in college."
J.D. Tuccille of the Civil Liberties Examiner also points out, "Most public schools depend on federal dollars. As Obama elaborated in a speech last December, 'At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities'
"So, it won't be the nasty federal government forcing your kids to donate their time to government-approved service, it'll be the local schools – but that requirement will be among the strings attached to federal money," Tuccille writes.
Obama's selection of an advocate for mandatory civil service, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff has further worried bloggers that Obama's plans may be more "requirement" than "encouragement."
In his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," Emanuel writes: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
**My Note**
This is very troubling to me as a member of the LDS faith. I doubt BO and his goons would allow our youth to take a leave to serve their missions. It wreaks of one more way satan will work to stop the rolling forth of the gospel. This is really bothering me!!! I know I'm jumping the gun here as they want only 3 months of service. What is troubling is that doesn't make any logistical sense. You cannot keep a civilian corp trained by giving them only 3 months of it. It requires yearly upkeep. Even in Switzerland, all citizens who serve go to yearly training. "Every soldier keeps his military outfit, his weapon, and war ammunition
at home at all times. The ammunition is sealed. The weapon can be used
for compulsory and voluntary shooting exercises, which are quite
popular (also drawing large female participation). The ammunition shall
only be opened in case of war.
After a basic (Academy) training of 100 days at about age 20, active
service requires 3 weeks long training courses approximately every
other year (or two weeks per year, depending on the affiliation) until
the soldier has served a total of 300 days. In addition, every
soldier must complete yearly shooting exercises, usually done in local
shooting ranges." http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/swiss-switzerland/3-2-1-Switzerland-Military-service.html**
Tuccille comments, "Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist 'this is not a draft,' but go on to write of young men and women, 'the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service.' They also warn, 'Some Republicans will squeal about individual freedom,' ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service."
Obama has also yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs, in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."
Obama spokesmen have declined to return WND calls requesting an explanation of what this security force would be or whether this force would be "required" or "encouraged."
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.
His call generated intense Internet discussions.
The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"
Michael Kinsley also commented generally on plans for enlisting America's youth in voluntary versus required volunteerism on Time's website: "Problem number one with grand schemes for universal voluntary public service is that they can't be both universal and voluntary. If everybody has to do it, then it's not voluntary, is it? And if it's truly up to the individual, then it won't be universal."
"Obama's Pick for Chief of Staff Tops Recipients of Wall Street Money
(FROM: OpenSecrets) So, we already learned on Friday from ABC News that Rahm Emanuel sat on the board of directors of Freddie Mac during the beginnings of the scandal, and was complicit in the board's failure to recognize "red flags" in accounting and lending practices, and that he accepted more than $50,000 in contributions from the organization. Now, we're learning that Emanuel was, just this year, the top House recipient of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry, and that he has received more money from individuals and political action committees in the securities and investment business than from any other industry since being elected to Congress in 2002 after a previous job as an investment banker. Barack Obama tapping this gentleman to assist him in fixing the American economy is kind of like asking me to teach a class on writing concisely, or Rosie O'Donnell to manage a Weight Watchers franchise."
Jeff goes on to point out that Emanuel also co-authored a book in which he proposes mandating military service for all citizens ages 18-25. Don't believe me? Well, surprisingly (NOT), the web-pages he linked to the story are currently unavailable. Once again BO's goons are quickly shutting down your first amendment rights. There is still one link that works, so before it disappears to I will copy and paste the article here for you. All I can think is "Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid."
CHANGING OF THE GUARD
Web faux pas: Plan leaked for 'civilian security force'?
Before blogs caught it, Obama site told of requiring students to serve
Posted: November 08, 2008
3:36 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.
Originally, under the tab "America Serves" Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.
The language of requiring students to serve and the creation of a "Classroom Corps" sparked a surge of criticism from bloggers for bringing back memories of the much-publicized video of marching Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which the candidate said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.
Gateway Pundit called Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"
Following the furor raised by bloggers, however, the website's wording was changed.
The word "require" was stricken from the website yesterday, replaced with the phrase "setting a goal" and now also listing tax credits toward college tuition.
**It should be noted that the article has captured the web pages and shows the difference between the two here is the link http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80539 **
The new wording is consistent with Obama's campaign website, which also described the college tuition tax credit and detailed "enabling" Americans to serve, rather than "requiring" them to serve.
Elsewhere on the Change.gov site, however, it still describes the plan under the heading, "Require 100 hours of service in college."
J.D. Tuccille of the Civil Liberties Examiner also points out, "Most public schools depend on federal dollars. As Obama elaborated in a speech last December, 'At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities'
"So, it won't be the nasty federal government forcing your kids to donate their time to government-approved service, it'll be the local schools – but that requirement will be among the strings attached to federal money," Tuccille writes.
Obama's selection of an advocate for mandatory civil service, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff has further worried bloggers that Obama's plans may be more "requirement" than "encouragement."
In his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," Emanuel writes: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
**My Note**
This is very troubling to me as a member of the LDS faith. I doubt BO and his goons would allow our youth to take a leave to serve their missions. It wreaks of one more way satan will work to stop the rolling forth of the gospel. This is really bothering me!!! I know I'm jumping the gun here as they want only 3 months of service. What is troubling is that doesn't make any logistical sense. You cannot keep a civilian corp trained by giving them only 3 months of it. It requires yearly upkeep. Even in Switzerland, all citizens who serve go to yearly training. "Every soldier keeps his military outfit, his weapon, and war ammunition
at home at all times. The ammunition is sealed. The weapon can be used
for compulsory and voluntary shooting exercises, which are quite
popular (also drawing large female participation). The ammunition shall
only be opened in case of war.
After a basic (Academy) training of 100 days at about age 20, active
service requires 3 weeks long training courses approximately every
other year (or two weeks per year, depending on the affiliation) until
the soldier has served a total of 300 days. In addition, every
soldier must complete yearly shooting exercises, usually done in local
shooting ranges." http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/swiss-switzerland/3-2-1-Switzerland-Military-service.html**
Tuccille comments, "Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist 'this is not a draft,' but go on to write of young men and women, 'the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service.' They also warn, 'Some Republicans will squeal about individual freedom,' ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service."
Obama has also yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs, in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."
Obama spokesmen have declined to return WND calls requesting an explanation of what this security force would be or whether this force would be "required" or "encouraged."
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.
His call generated intense Internet discussions.
The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"
Michael Kinsley also commented generally on plans for enlisting America's youth in voluntary versus required volunteerism on Time's website: "Problem number one with grand schemes for universal voluntary public service is that they can't be both universal and voluntary. If everybody has to do it, then it's not voluntary, is it? And if it's truly up to the individual, then it won't be universal."
New Two Story Outhouse
My MIL sent this to me. I tried putting it in as a widget, but you couldn't see the whole picture. Thought it was worth posting in it's full glory.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Isn't That Precious?
photo by Kevork Djansezian / AP
These signs actually crack me up. Let me tell you how glad I am that I don't live in west LA anymore. These whack-a-doodles are standing right in front of my last ward building and temple. At least they had eggs thrown at them from some apartments. Take that you protesters!! Imagine if those of us who oppose an BO presidency marched in protest. I don't think it would be just eggs being thrown at us.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion by Ezra Taft Benson
A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion
EZRA TAFT BENSON
Ezra Taft Benson was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this devotional
address was given at�Brigham Young University on 12 April 1977.
© Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.
My beloved brethren and sisters, humbly and gratefully I stand before you this morning and seek an interest in your faith and prayers that the message that I have may be accompanied by the Spirit. It is a wonderful sight that I view here this morning. It is good to be with you, my beloved young friends, distinguished members of the faculty, and special guests.
My wife and I have just returned from a glorious weekend at St. George, where I had the privilege of addressing three overflow audiences, two in the largest auditorium they have at Dixie College and made up largely of young people, and one on the fourth floor of the temple in a Solemn Assembly. We were honoring the centennial of the dedication of the St. George Temple, the first one to be erected in the western part of the country. We are still basking in the aftermath of another great general conference of the Church. Never in my memory have we had more explicit warnings from prophets of God; and nowhere in the world are there men better prepared or more obligated to issue such warnings.
The Celestial Kingdom
Today I want to discuss some principles and laws of the celestial kingdom, and some of the fallacies of their perverted counterfeits in the world. I share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. The celestial kingdom, residence of God, our Eternal Father, is comprised of men and women who have complied with divine law and who were not deceived by the craftiness of men or the doctrines of devils. They are just men made perfect through the mediation and atonement of Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:69). They are obedient to celestial law; for, as the Lord has said, he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory (D&C 88:22).
Celestial laws, embodied in certain ordinances belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, are complied with by voluntary covenants. The laws are spiritual. Thus, our Father in Heaven has ordained certain holy sanctuaries, called temples, in which these laws may be fully explained, the laws include the law of obedience and sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, and the law of consecration.
I want to speak more particularly this morning about this one law--the law of consecration. It is that one's time, talents, strength, property, and money are given up to the Lord for the express purpose of building up the kingdom of God and establishing Zion on the earth. Or, as we read in Doctrine and Covenants 105:5, "Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom."
Much has been written about this law and its attempted implementations in the early history of the Church; and much deception has taken root, even among some of our members, because of misinformed opinion or misguided interpretations. Some view it as merely an economic alternative to capitalism or the free enterprise system, others as an outgrowth of early communal experiments in America. Such a view is not only shortsighted but tends to diminish in importance a binding requirement for entrance into the celestial kingdom. The law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment.
The vehicle for implementing the law of consecration is the united order. The basic principle underlying the united order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; and, therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of our property, because it belongs to him. The united order was entered by "a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken" (D&C 42:30), according to the scriptures. In other words, an individual conveys his titles to all his property to the Church through the bishop. The property becomes the property of the Church. You read about this in the forty-second section of the Doctrine and Covenants.
The bishop then deeds back to the consecrator by legal instrument the amount of personal property required by the individual for the support of himself and his family, as the Lord declares, "according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3). This becomes the private, personal property of the individual to develop as he sees fit. It is his stewardship. When an individual produces a profit or surplus more than is needful for the support of himself and his family, the surplus is then placed in the bishops storehouse to administer to the poor and the needy. Under the united order, idleness has no place, and greed, selfishness, and covetousness are condemned. The united order may therefore operate with only a righteous people.
It has been erroneously concluded by some that the united order is both communal and communistic in theory and practice because the revelations speak of equality. Equality under the united order is not economic and social leveling as advocated by some today. Equality, as described by the Lord, is "equal[ity] according to [a man's] family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3).
Is the united order a communal system? Emphatically not. It never has been and never will be. It is "intensely individualistic." Does the united order eliminate private ownership of property? No. "The fundamental principle of this system [is] the private ownership of property" (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, October 1942, p. 57).
Two separate groups of saints have fully implemented this divine law. The first was the united order under Enoch, wherein the Lord designated this people Zion, "because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." We read of this in the seventh chapter, eighteenth verse, of Moses, in the Pearl of Great Price. A second instance was the Nephite civilization following the visit of the Savior to the Western Hemisphere after his resurrection. This is recorded in 4 Nephi, the third verse particularly. The failure of the early Saints in this dispensation to live according to the fulness of the law is explained by the Lord in revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections 101 and 105.
I repeat and emphasize that the law of consecration is a law for an inheritance in the celestial kingdom. God, the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and all holy beings abide by this law. It is an eternal law. It is a revelation by God to his Church in this dispensation. Though not in full operation today, it will be mandatory for all Saints to live the law in its fulness to receive celestial inheritance. You young people today abide a portion of this higher law as you tithe, pay a generous fast offering, go on missions, and make other contributions of money, service, and time.
Satan's Counterfeit System
But whenever the God of heaven establishes by revelation his design, Satan always comes among men to pervert the doctrine, saying, "Believe it not." He often establishes a counterfeit system, designed to deceive the children of men. His aim, as it was before the foundation of this earth was laid, is to thwart the agency of man and to subjugate him. Throughout all ages of mankind, the adversary has used human agents and despotic governments to establish his purpose. Satan is determined to destroy all that is dear, all that will ennoble and exalt man to a celestial kingdom.
Isaiah foresaw the time when a marvelous work and a wonder would come forth among men (see Isaiah 29:14). Isaiah also predicted that there would be those that "seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they [shall] say, Who seeth us?" (Isaiah 29:15). He saw the time when the work, man, shall say of him that made him, "He made me not," denying his creation (see Isaiah 29:16). It is well to ask what self-proclaimed atheists came on the human scene following the restoration of the gospel, who established secret works of darkness to overthrow nations by violent revolution and who blasphemously proclaimed the atheistic doctrine that God made us not. Yes, Satan works through human agents. We need only look to some of the ignoble figures in human history who were contemporary to the restoration of the gospel to discover fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. I refer to the infamous founders of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Today, if we are alert, we can see further fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies.
Communism--a System Antithetical to the Gospel of Christ
Through the instigation of Marx and Engels, a most successful counterfeit to the united order was introduced into the world. The declaration of principles found in their Manifesto to the World advocated the overthrow of capitalism and free enterprise, the abolition of private property, the elimination of the family as a social unit, the abolition of all classes, the overthrow of all governments, and the establishment of communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society. All this was to be accomplished by revolution.
On July 3, 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members. I quote it in part; I hope you will get a copy of the full statement for your files. In part, the statement reads:
. . . Communism is not a political party, nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government. . . .
Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism.
To our Church members we say, Communism is not the United Order, and bears only the most superficial resemblance thereto. Communism is based upon intolerance and force, the United Order upon love and freedom of conscience and action. . . .
Communists cannot establish the United Order, nor will Communism bring it about. . . .
Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a Communist.
We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [and shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America.
Signed,
President Heber J. Grant
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay
The First Presidency
You students have only to read some of the speeches and writings of the exiled Russian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to appreciate this farsighted warning of the First Presidency.
I have been on both sides of the Iron Curtain several times. I have talked to these godless leaders face to face. I say to you with all the sincerity of my soul that since 1933 this godless counterfeit to the gospel has made tremendous progress towards its objective of world domination, for over one-third of the human family are now under totalitarian subjugation.
Today we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of men. It is a battle between two opposite systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. The struggle today is more momentous than a decade ago, yet today the conventional wisdom, so called, is that we have got to learn to live with communism, to give up our ideas about national sovereignty. You hear that repeated today. Tell that to the millions--yes, the scores of millions--who have met death or imprisonment under the tyranny of communism. Learn to live with communism? Such would be the death knell of freedom and all we hold dear.
The gospel of Jesus Christ can prosper only in an atmosphere of freedom. As members of his Church, we have a major responsibility to do all in our power to see that freedom is preserved and safeguarded. I pray that God will bless you to see communism for what it really is: the greatest system of human slavery that the world has ever known. May you not be deceived into believing that the communists have moderated their goal toward world domination. I say to you that so-called detente is a fraud. Time will prove it to be such.
There is no excuse for any BYU instructor to grant a forum to an avowed communist for the purpose of teaching communism on this campus. It may be done on other campuses in the United States, but it will not be done here.
Socialism--a Philosophy Incompatible with Man's Liberty
Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord's plan is collectivized socialism. Socialism derives its philosophy from the founders of communism, Marx and Engels. Communism in practice is socialism. Its purpose is world socialism, which the communists seek to achieve by revolution, and which the socialists seek to achieve by evolution. Both communism and socialism have the same effect upon the individual--a loss of personal liberty. As was said so well by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "The two are as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties."
Why is socialism incompatible with man's liberty? Socialism cannot work except through an all-powerful state. The state has to be supreme in everything. When individuals begin to exert their God-given rights, the state has to suppress that freedom. So belief in God must be suppressed, and with that gone freedom of conscience and religion must also go. Those are the first of our liberties mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: "I said I did not believe the doctrine" (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33).
Socialism Disguised under Welfare State Measures
As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today's total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.
This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. I have recounted here before what took place in the St. George Temple when the Founding Fathers of this nation visited President Wilford Woodruff, who was then a member of the Twelve and not president of the Church. The republic which was established was the most nearly perfect system which could have been devised to lead men toward celestial principles. We may liken our system to the law of Moses which leads men to the higher law of Christ.
Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. [quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342]
That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!
Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right. One HEW official said recently, "In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something" (U.S. News and World Report, April 21, 1975, p. 49). President Grover Cleveland said--and we believe as a people--that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.
The chief weapon used by the federal government to achieve this "equality" is the system of transfer payments. This means that the federal governments collects from one income group and transfer payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of social security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and food stamps, to name a few. Today the cost of such programs has been going in the hole at the rate of 12 billion dollars a year; and, with increased benefits and greater numbers of recipients, even though the tax base has been increased we will have larger deficits in the future.
Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program--a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government--precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency.
Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced--that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest.
Are we part of the problem or part of the solution?
Recently a letter came to my office, accompanied by an article from your Daily Universe, on the matter of BYU students taking food stamps. The query of the letter was: "What is the attitude of the Church on taking food stamps?" The Church's view on this is well known. We stand for independence, thrift, and abolition of the dole. This was emphasized in the Saturday morning welfare meeting of general conference. "The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership" (Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3).
When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers' money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them. You did not come to this University to become a welfare recipient. You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society--to save society and to help to save this nation, the Lord's base of operations in these latter days, to ameliorate man's social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for "something for nothing" may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency.
Society may rationalize immorality, but God cannot condone it. Society sponsors Sabbathbreaking, but the Church counsels otherwise. Society profanes the name of Deity, but Latter-day Saints cannot countenance it. Because society condones a dole, which demoralizes man and weakens his God-given initiative and character, can we?
I know what it is, as many of your faculty members do, to work my way through school, taking classes only during winter quarters. If you don't have the finances to complete your education, drop out a semester and go to work and save. You'll be a better man or woman for so doing. You will have preserved your self-respect and initiative. Wisdom comes with experience and struggle, not just with going through a university matriculation. I hope you will not be deceived by current philosophies which will rob you of your godly dignity, self-respect, and initiative, those attributes that make a celestial inheritance possible. It is in that interest, and that only, that I have spoken so plainly to you.
My Hope for You, the Youth of Zion
In opening my remarks to you, beloved youth of the Church, I attempted to share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. In closing my remarks, I share with you my hope for you:
I hope that you learn through your struggles the joy of achievement.
I hope that you recognize in the gospel of Jesus Christ a solution to our problems, temporal and spiritual.
I hope that you marry well, live together in love, rear a family in righteousness, and have joy and rejoicing in your posterity.
I hope that you follow the example and counsel of him whom the Lord has appointed as prophet, seer, and revelator.
I hope that you learn the joy of work, the ability to postpone wants, and the economic independence not to be a slave to any man.
I hope that you keep yourselves clean morally and spiritually, that your confidence will wax strong in the presence of God, as the scriptures say, and the Holy Ghost will be your constant companion (see D&C 121:45–46).
I hope that you will be united in philosophy, purpose, and action to the laws of the celestial kingdom.
I pray God's choicest blessings on you, my beloved brethren and sisters. May I say to you that there isn't anything in this world that's right that the leadership of this Church wouldn't do for the youth of the Church; and so I hope and pray that you realize the hope of those who love you and serve you and the possibilities of your potential as sons and daughters of God. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
EZRA TAFT BENSON
Ezra Taft Benson was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this devotional
address was given at�Brigham Young University on 12 April 1977.
© Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.
My beloved brethren and sisters, humbly and gratefully I stand before you this morning and seek an interest in your faith and prayers that the message that I have may be accompanied by the Spirit. It is a wonderful sight that I view here this morning. It is good to be with you, my beloved young friends, distinguished members of the faculty, and special guests.
My wife and I have just returned from a glorious weekend at St. George, where I had the privilege of addressing three overflow audiences, two in the largest auditorium they have at Dixie College and made up largely of young people, and one on the fourth floor of the temple in a Solemn Assembly. We were honoring the centennial of the dedication of the St. George Temple, the first one to be erected in the western part of the country. We are still basking in the aftermath of another great general conference of the Church. Never in my memory have we had more explicit warnings from prophets of God; and nowhere in the world are there men better prepared or more obligated to issue such warnings.
The Celestial Kingdom
Today I want to discuss some principles and laws of the celestial kingdom, and some of the fallacies of their perverted counterfeits in the world. I share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. The celestial kingdom, residence of God, our Eternal Father, is comprised of men and women who have complied with divine law and who were not deceived by the craftiness of men or the doctrines of devils. They are just men made perfect through the mediation and atonement of Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:69). They are obedient to celestial law; for, as the Lord has said, he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory (D&C 88:22).
Celestial laws, embodied in certain ordinances belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, are complied with by voluntary covenants. The laws are spiritual. Thus, our Father in Heaven has ordained certain holy sanctuaries, called temples, in which these laws may be fully explained, the laws include the law of obedience and sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, and the law of consecration.
I want to speak more particularly this morning about this one law--the law of consecration. It is that one's time, talents, strength, property, and money are given up to the Lord for the express purpose of building up the kingdom of God and establishing Zion on the earth. Or, as we read in Doctrine and Covenants 105:5, "Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom."
Much has been written about this law and its attempted implementations in the early history of the Church; and much deception has taken root, even among some of our members, because of misinformed opinion or misguided interpretations. Some view it as merely an economic alternative to capitalism or the free enterprise system, others as an outgrowth of early communal experiments in America. Such a view is not only shortsighted but tends to diminish in importance a binding requirement for entrance into the celestial kingdom. The law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment.
The vehicle for implementing the law of consecration is the united order. The basic principle underlying the united order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; and, therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of our property, because it belongs to him. The united order was entered by "a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken" (D&C 42:30), according to the scriptures. In other words, an individual conveys his titles to all his property to the Church through the bishop. The property becomes the property of the Church. You read about this in the forty-second section of the Doctrine and Covenants.
The bishop then deeds back to the consecrator by legal instrument the amount of personal property required by the individual for the support of himself and his family, as the Lord declares, "according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3). This becomes the private, personal property of the individual to develop as he sees fit. It is his stewardship. When an individual produces a profit or surplus more than is needful for the support of himself and his family, the surplus is then placed in the bishops storehouse to administer to the poor and the needy. Under the united order, idleness has no place, and greed, selfishness, and covetousness are condemned. The united order may therefore operate with only a righteous people.
It has been erroneously concluded by some that the united order is both communal and communistic in theory and practice because the revelations speak of equality. Equality under the united order is not economic and social leveling as advocated by some today. Equality, as described by the Lord, is "equal[ity] according to [a man's] family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3).
Is the united order a communal system? Emphatically not. It never has been and never will be. It is "intensely individualistic." Does the united order eliminate private ownership of property? No. "The fundamental principle of this system [is] the private ownership of property" (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, October 1942, p. 57).
Two separate groups of saints have fully implemented this divine law. The first was the united order under Enoch, wherein the Lord designated this people Zion, "because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." We read of this in the seventh chapter, eighteenth verse, of Moses, in the Pearl of Great Price. A second instance was the Nephite civilization following the visit of the Savior to the Western Hemisphere after his resurrection. This is recorded in 4 Nephi, the third verse particularly. The failure of the early Saints in this dispensation to live according to the fulness of the law is explained by the Lord in revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections 101 and 105.
I repeat and emphasize that the law of consecration is a law for an inheritance in the celestial kingdom. God, the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and all holy beings abide by this law. It is an eternal law. It is a revelation by God to his Church in this dispensation. Though not in full operation today, it will be mandatory for all Saints to live the law in its fulness to receive celestial inheritance. You young people today abide a portion of this higher law as you tithe, pay a generous fast offering, go on missions, and make other contributions of money, service, and time.
Satan's Counterfeit System
But whenever the God of heaven establishes by revelation his design, Satan always comes among men to pervert the doctrine, saying, "Believe it not." He often establishes a counterfeit system, designed to deceive the children of men. His aim, as it was before the foundation of this earth was laid, is to thwart the agency of man and to subjugate him. Throughout all ages of mankind, the adversary has used human agents and despotic governments to establish his purpose. Satan is determined to destroy all that is dear, all that will ennoble and exalt man to a celestial kingdom.
Isaiah foresaw the time when a marvelous work and a wonder would come forth among men (see Isaiah 29:14). Isaiah also predicted that there would be those that "seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they [shall] say, Who seeth us?" (Isaiah 29:15). He saw the time when the work, man, shall say of him that made him, "He made me not," denying his creation (see Isaiah 29:16). It is well to ask what self-proclaimed atheists came on the human scene following the restoration of the gospel, who established secret works of darkness to overthrow nations by violent revolution and who blasphemously proclaimed the atheistic doctrine that God made us not. Yes, Satan works through human agents. We need only look to some of the ignoble figures in human history who were contemporary to the restoration of the gospel to discover fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. I refer to the infamous founders of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Today, if we are alert, we can see further fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies.
Communism--a System Antithetical to the Gospel of Christ
Through the instigation of Marx and Engels, a most successful counterfeit to the united order was introduced into the world. The declaration of principles found in their Manifesto to the World advocated the overthrow of capitalism and free enterprise, the abolition of private property, the elimination of the family as a social unit, the abolition of all classes, the overthrow of all governments, and the establishment of communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society. All this was to be accomplished by revolution.
On July 3, 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members. I quote it in part; I hope you will get a copy of the full statement for your files. In part, the statement reads:
. . . Communism is not a political party, nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government. . . .
Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism.
To our Church members we say, Communism is not the United Order, and bears only the most superficial resemblance thereto. Communism is based upon intolerance and force, the United Order upon love and freedom of conscience and action. . . .
Communists cannot establish the United Order, nor will Communism bring it about. . . .
Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a Communist.
We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [and shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America.
Signed,
President Heber J. Grant
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay
The First Presidency
You students have only to read some of the speeches and writings of the exiled Russian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to appreciate this farsighted warning of the First Presidency.
I have been on both sides of the Iron Curtain several times. I have talked to these godless leaders face to face. I say to you with all the sincerity of my soul that since 1933 this godless counterfeit to the gospel has made tremendous progress towards its objective of world domination, for over one-third of the human family are now under totalitarian subjugation.
Today we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of men. It is a battle between two opposite systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. The struggle today is more momentous than a decade ago, yet today the conventional wisdom, so called, is that we have got to learn to live with communism, to give up our ideas about national sovereignty. You hear that repeated today. Tell that to the millions--yes, the scores of millions--who have met death or imprisonment under the tyranny of communism. Learn to live with communism? Such would be the death knell of freedom and all we hold dear.
The gospel of Jesus Christ can prosper only in an atmosphere of freedom. As members of his Church, we have a major responsibility to do all in our power to see that freedom is preserved and safeguarded. I pray that God will bless you to see communism for what it really is: the greatest system of human slavery that the world has ever known. May you not be deceived into believing that the communists have moderated their goal toward world domination. I say to you that so-called detente is a fraud. Time will prove it to be such.
There is no excuse for any BYU instructor to grant a forum to an avowed communist for the purpose of teaching communism on this campus. It may be done on other campuses in the United States, but it will not be done here.
Socialism--a Philosophy Incompatible with Man's Liberty
Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord's plan is collectivized socialism. Socialism derives its philosophy from the founders of communism, Marx and Engels. Communism in practice is socialism. Its purpose is world socialism, which the communists seek to achieve by revolution, and which the socialists seek to achieve by evolution. Both communism and socialism have the same effect upon the individual--a loss of personal liberty. As was said so well by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "The two are as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties."
Why is socialism incompatible with man's liberty? Socialism cannot work except through an all-powerful state. The state has to be supreme in everything. When individuals begin to exert their God-given rights, the state has to suppress that freedom. So belief in God must be suppressed, and with that gone freedom of conscience and religion must also go. Those are the first of our liberties mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: "I said I did not believe the doctrine" (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33).
Socialism Disguised under Welfare State Measures
As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today's total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.
This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. I have recounted here before what took place in the St. George Temple when the Founding Fathers of this nation visited President Wilford Woodruff, who was then a member of the Twelve and not president of the Church. The republic which was established was the most nearly perfect system which could have been devised to lead men toward celestial principles. We may liken our system to the law of Moses which leads men to the higher law of Christ.
Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. [quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342]
That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!
Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right. One HEW official said recently, "In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something" (U.S. News and World Report, April 21, 1975, p. 49). President Grover Cleveland said--and we believe as a people--that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.
The chief weapon used by the federal government to achieve this "equality" is the system of transfer payments. This means that the federal governments collects from one income group and transfer payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of social security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and food stamps, to name a few. Today the cost of such programs has been going in the hole at the rate of 12 billion dollars a year; and, with increased benefits and greater numbers of recipients, even though the tax base has been increased we will have larger deficits in the future.
Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program--a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government--precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency.
Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced--that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest.
Are we part of the problem or part of the solution?
Recently a letter came to my office, accompanied by an article from your Daily Universe, on the matter of BYU students taking food stamps. The query of the letter was: "What is the attitude of the Church on taking food stamps?" The Church's view on this is well known. We stand for independence, thrift, and abolition of the dole. This was emphasized in the Saturday morning welfare meeting of general conference. "The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership" (Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3).
When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers' money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them. You did not come to this University to become a welfare recipient. You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society--to save society and to help to save this nation, the Lord's base of operations in these latter days, to ameliorate man's social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for "something for nothing" may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency.
Society may rationalize immorality, but God cannot condone it. Society sponsors Sabbathbreaking, but the Church counsels otherwise. Society profanes the name of Deity, but Latter-day Saints cannot countenance it. Because society condones a dole, which demoralizes man and weakens his God-given initiative and character, can we?
I know what it is, as many of your faculty members do, to work my way through school, taking classes only during winter quarters. If you don't have the finances to complete your education, drop out a semester and go to work and save. You'll be a better man or woman for so doing. You will have preserved your self-respect and initiative. Wisdom comes with experience and struggle, not just with going through a university matriculation. I hope you will not be deceived by current philosophies which will rob you of your godly dignity, self-respect, and initiative, those attributes that make a celestial inheritance possible. It is in that interest, and that only, that I have spoken so plainly to you.
My Hope for You, the Youth of Zion
In opening my remarks to you, beloved youth of the Church, I attempted to share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. In closing my remarks, I share with you my hope for you:
I hope that you learn through your struggles the joy of achievement.
I hope that you recognize in the gospel of Jesus Christ a solution to our problems, temporal and spiritual.
I hope that you marry well, live together in love, rear a family in righteousness, and have joy and rejoicing in your posterity.
I hope that you follow the example and counsel of him whom the Lord has appointed as prophet, seer, and revelator.
I hope that you learn the joy of work, the ability to postpone wants, and the economic independence not to be a slave to any man.
I hope that you keep yourselves clean morally and spiritually, that your confidence will wax strong in the presence of God, as the scriptures say, and the Holy Ghost will be your constant companion (see D&C 121:45–46).
I hope that you will be united in philosophy, purpose, and action to the laws of the celestial kingdom.
I pray God's choicest blessings on you, my beloved brethren and sisters. May I say to you that there isn't anything in this world that's right that the leadership of this Church wouldn't do for the youth of the Church; and so I hope and pray that you realize the hope of those who love you and serve you and the possibilities of your potential as sons and daughters of God. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Change of a Global Nature is Surely Coming
Let me set the record straight for any of you wondering. I do not believe in global, conglomerate governments. I do not think the US should concede any of her liberties, freedoms, or rights to a global courts system, government, or organization. I do not care what other countries think about my country. I think the EU was a horrible choice for Europe and applaud Switzerland's continued isolationist stand.***see footnote*** I have lived there. They are self contained, peaceful, and take care of their own (yes, they are socialized, that is for another essay). While living there in 1991 Swiss citizens celebrated their country's 700th anniversary. It was a huge celebration and rightfully so. They have survived two world wars by remaining neutral. They had, until recently, an unsurpassed banking system that guaranteed your privacy, and they live the boy scout motto:
Be Prepared. (ie their military and fortifications)
Don't get me wrong. I don't think the US could be neutral, or completely isolationist like Switzerland, who has made some concessionary agreements with the EU which I think have come about mostly out of necessity. However, the minute we give up our rights to a global court or organization like the UN, we are in for a giant, stinking heap load of Ship High In Transit. Before looking at Obama's plans for change on the global level let's review some of the current policy and suggestions.
From the Citizens for Global Solutions website:
Our Vision:
Citizens for Global Solutions envisions a future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms, and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone. This vision requires effective democratic global institutions that will apply the rule of law while respecting the diversity and autonomy of national and local communities.
Our Mission:
We are a membership organization working to build political will in the United States to achieve our vision. We do this by educating Americans about our global interdependence, communicating global concerns to public officials, and developing proposals to create, reform, and strengthen international institutions such as the United Nations.
Sounds good right? Ideologically, who could argue with this position? The problem is completely wrapped up in what Thomas Jefferson stated so many years ago: "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. " The fear that the ICC would have an anti-American prosecutor who would miss no opportunity to prosecute and find guilty any American citizen while traveling abroad of committing crimes of various nature, is not misguided.
"The International Criminal Court represents even greater threats to American sovereignty and Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. Unlike the American system of justice, the ICC would not perform trials by juries of peers; would not guarantee bail; and would not grant prisoners the right to face their accusers. The United States judicial system would not be permitted to intervene on behalf of American citizens.
More frightening is the manner in which the UN will choose the eighteen judges who will each serve for nine year terms. They will be elected by a two-thirds vote of the nations which ratify the court. This was the same process used to oust the United States last Spring from its long-held seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. The United States would hold one vote against the likes of Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, the very nations which now protect and even foster terrorists. Will the court elect a judge from Red China, where American rights aren’t just foreign, but represent the enemy? It doesn’t take a genius to see the direction the UN’s court will take when American soldiers stand on trial.
There is one more important point that must not be overlooked concerning the overwhelming power that the ICC will hold. The Court can prosecute anyone who violates UN treaties, including environmental agreements like the Biodiversity Treaty and those covering World Heritage Sites. This one provision makes the ICC a direct threat to ALL American citizens. Case in point was the Crown Butte Gold Mine that was shut down by UN intervention in 1997. Crown Butte was located on private property, miles from Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone was designated by the UN to be a World Heritage Site. The UN determined that the mine was a direct threat to Yellowstone and declared it the first ever "endangered" World Heritage Site. Had there been an International Criminal Court in place, there is little doubt that the Crown Butte owners would have been put on trial for violating a UN treaty." (http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/uncriminalcourt.htm)
History has shown the UN to be corruptible. Look at the oil for food program that helped Sadaam Hussein continue his regime. Many leaders of the UN have proven themselves to be corrupt and dishonest individuals. "The members of the U.N. staff administering the program [Food for Oil] have been accused of gross incompetence, mismanagement, and possible complicity with the Iraqi regime in perpetrating the biggest scandal in U.N. history." (http://www.heritage.org/research/Internationalorganizations/bg1748.cfm)
A new task force to ferret out corruption in the UN was supposed to deliver it's report last week to the General Assembly. In it "the report said that 22 vendors had been sanctioned by the United Nations during its years in operation and that it had identified more than 20 fraud and corruption schemes involved in about $630 million in contracts." (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/22/america/nations.php)
What does this have to do with our President Elect, Barack Obama you ask? Here ladies and gentlemen, is part of Barack Obama's vision for the US's role in the UN and a one world global government. Bill S.2433. "Obama's bill S2433 would require the U.S. to initially direct .7 percent of our GNP into the United Nations coffers for distribution as they see fit, for 'food' to third world nations. Under earlier agreements this would evolve into a national tax on the U.S. with the UN attempting to levy this on all first world nations.
The U.N. would have the power to increase this rate of taxation.
The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to 'banning small arms and light weapons' but also to adhere to the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol."
Furthermore, "In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child.
Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims." (http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/united_nations/news.php?q=1210170368)
If you haven't heard about the UN's Convention on the Rights of a Child, you really should look into it. "It's purpose was to craft a new system to resolve relationship and children's disputes.
The impact of the CONVENTION is particularly ominous in light of the fact that the United States Constitution declares treaties to be the law of the land. Under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause of Article VI, all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
The CONVENTION would give children the "right" to disregard parental authority. Although several of the treaty's provisions offer generally positive, non-offensive platitudes, a substantial portion of this charter undermines parental rights. The U.N. CONVENTION would: (1) transfer parental rights and responsibilities to the state. (SB 1051-B passed by the 1993 Oregon legislature), (2) undermine the family by vesting children with various fundamental rights which advance notions of the child's autonomy and freedom from parental guidance; and (3) establish bureaucracies and institutions of a national and international nature designed to promote “the ideas proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations and to investigate and prosecute parents who violate their children's rights. The state will determine the child's "best interest" (SB 1051-B from the 1993 Oregon legislature and SB 689 from the 1997 Oregon legislature).
All children must be immediately registered after birth. Severe limitations will be placed on the parent's right to direct and train their children. Section 1 of Article 13 declares a child's right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." Article 14 says children have a legal right to object to all religious training. Alternatively, children may assert their right against parental objections to participation's in other religions.
Parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with people deemed to be objectionable companions, i.e. gangs, cults, racist organizations, etc.
Article 18 says the state must assist parents in the raising of children (SB 1051 and SB 689). It calls on the State to co-parent by rendering "appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children", i.e. Parent training, Family Resource Centers, etc. Corporal punishment is prohibited. Article 43 says international experts will parent our children (SB 689)." (http://www.comeandtakeit.com/unchild.html#RITEOKID)
So far, we have avoided ratifying this convention due to legal arguments over sovereignty and federalism. You can thank President George W. Bush for protecting your right's as a parent. His administration has opposed this measure. What will Obama do? During the Walden University Presidential Debate, both candidates were asked specifically about this convention. Obama's broad answer was, "It is important that the US return to its position as a respectable leader and promoter of Human Rights. As President I will review this and other treaties and assure the US assumes it’s global leadership of human rights." However, it is clear in his bill S.2433 he wants the US to completely ratify this convention as it currently is written.
Michael Ferris, a writter for Christian News Wire believes, "Obama's wants to turn every family and every state legislature over to the supervision of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. They will condescendingly tell us why our traditional desires for our children are not acceptable in this day and age. They will explain us to ourselves and to others while usurping control of our family and utterly destroying the principle of American self-government."
To further this point take into account what Austin Ruse, president of the New York and Washington DC-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) has said.
"There is growing pressure both internationally and domestically for the United States to get with the new international program. The charge that America is isolationist rests largely on our refusal to ratify these treaties. Ignoring them is now seen as a remnant of the discredited Bush days.
Obama has endorsed CEDAW as has his vice presidential running mate Joe Biden. Both are in favor of the ICC, too. It is likely that, with a larger and more left-leaning Senate, a whole slew of left-leaning treaties will be ratified.
Besides existing treaties there is also the threat that an Obama administration will rejuvenate what has been a fairly sleepy United Nations. In the Clinton years, there were repeated global conferences on social policy. That died out in the Bush years. There is a lot of pent-up energy that will explode if Obama takes the oath of office.
But there are even larger issues than these particular treaties or new UN conferences. There is larger mischief afoot. It is called global governance.
The traditional understanding of international relations and international law is that they regulate behavior among and between sovereign states. By contrast, global governance holds that international relations and international law should have more to do with regulating the behavior of individual citizens within each state and that these decisions should not be left to sovereign states, but to international bodies like the United Nations and its various commissions and committees."
I fear that change is surely coming. Not just an increase in our taxes and our big brother government that will take care of you by spreading the wealth, but change that will strip us all of the rights our fore fathers fought so long and hard to ensure that we had. Our very constitution, which Obama has already stated is fundamentally flawed, will be under attack. I call for an uprising of voices, ideas, and grass root movements that will uphold the founding principals of our great country. We need to stand united against the tyranny that may well be coming our way. Will you join me? Where do we start? Share your ideas and let's get rolling before it is too late.
***It should be noted that Switzerland had applied for membership to the EU, but that was halted due to their referendum on the EEA. Also of note, they have made some bi-lateral agreements with the EU, but still remain their own independent country
Be Prepared. (ie their military and fortifications)
Don't get me wrong. I don't think the US could be neutral, or completely isolationist like Switzerland, who has made some concessionary agreements with the EU which I think have come about mostly out of necessity. However, the minute we give up our rights to a global court or organization like the UN, we are in for a giant, stinking heap load of Ship High In Transit. Before looking at Obama's plans for change on the global level let's review some of the current policy and suggestions.
From the Citizens for Global Solutions website:
Our Vision:
Citizens for Global Solutions envisions a future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms, and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone. This vision requires effective democratic global institutions that will apply the rule of law while respecting the diversity and autonomy of national and local communities.
Our Mission:
We are a membership organization working to build political will in the United States to achieve our vision. We do this by educating Americans about our global interdependence, communicating global concerns to public officials, and developing proposals to create, reform, and strengthen international institutions such as the United Nations.
Sounds good right? Ideologically, who could argue with this position? The problem is completely wrapped up in what Thomas Jefferson stated so many years ago: "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. " The fear that the ICC would have an anti-American prosecutor who would miss no opportunity to prosecute and find guilty any American citizen while traveling abroad of committing crimes of various nature, is not misguided.
"The International Criminal Court represents even greater threats to American sovereignty and Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. Unlike the American system of justice, the ICC would not perform trials by juries of peers; would not guarantee bail; and would not grant prisoners the right to face their accusers. The United States judicial system would not be permitted to intervene on behalf of American citizens.
More frightening is the manner in which the UN will choose the eighteen judges who will each serve for nine year terms. They will be elected by a two-thirds vote of the nations which ratify the court. This was the same process used to oust the United States last Spring from its long-held seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. The United States would hold one vote against the likes of Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, the very nations which now protect and even foster terrorists. Will the court elect a judge from Red China, where American rights aren’t just foreign, but represent the enemy? It doesn’t take a genius to see the direction the UN’s court will take when American soldiers stand on trial.
There is one more important point that must not be overlooked concerning the overwhelming power that the ICC will hold. The Court can prosecute anyone who violates UN treaties, including environmental agreements like the Biodiversity Treaty and those covering World Heritage Sites. This one provision makes the ICC a direct threat to ALL American citizens. Case in point was the Crown Butte Gold Mine that was shut down by UN intervention in 1997. Crown Butte was located on private property, miles from Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone was designated by the UN to be a World Heritage Site. The UN determined that the mine was a direct threat to Yellowstone and declared it the first ever "endangered" World Heritage Site. Had there been an International Criminal Court in place, there is little doubt that the Crown Butte owners would have been put on trial for violating a UN treaty." (http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/uncriminalcourt.htm)
History has shown the UN to be corruptible. Look at the oil for food program that helped Sadaam Hussein continue his regime. Many leaders of the UN have proven themselves to be corrupt and dishonest individuals. "The members of the U.N. staff administering the program [Food for Oil] have been accused of gross incompetence, mismanagement, and possible complicity with the Iraqi regime in perpetrating the biggest scandal in U.N. history." (http://www.heritage.org/research/Internationalorganizations/bg1748.cfm)
A new task force to ferret out corruption in the UN was supposed to deliver it's report last week to the General Assembly. In it "the report said that 22 vendors had been sanctioned by the United Nations during its years in operation and that it had identified more than 20 fraud and corruption schemes involved in about $630 million in contracts." (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/22/america/nations.php)
What does this have to do with our President Elect, Barack Obama you ask? Here ladies and gentlemen, is part of Barack Obama's vision for the US's role in the UN and a one world global government. Bill S.2433. "Obama's bill S2433 would require the U.S. to initially direct .7 percent of our GNP into the United Nations coffers for distribution as they see fit, for 'food' to third world nations. Under earlier agreements this would evolve into a national tax on the U.S. with the UN attempting to levy this on all first world nations.
The U.N. would have the power to increase this rate of taxation.
The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to 'banning small arms and light weapons' but also to adhere to the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol."
Furthermore, "In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child.
Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims." (http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/united_nations/news.php?q=1210170368)
If you haven't heard about the UN's Convention on the Rights of a Child, you really should look into it. "It's purpose was to craft a new system to resolve relationship and children's disputes.
The impact of the CONVENTION is particularly ominous in light of the fact that the United States Constitution declares treaties to be the law of the land. Under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause of Article VI, all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
The CONVENTION would give children the "right" to disregard parental authority. Although several of the treaty's provisions offer generally positive, non-offensive platitudes, a substantial portion of this charter undermines parental rights. The U.N. CONVENTION would: (1) transfer parental rights and responsibilities to the state. (SB 1051-B passed by the 1993 Oregon legislature), (2) undermine the family by vesting children with various fundamental rights which advance notions of the child's autonomy and freedom from parental guidance; and (3) establish bureaucracies and institutions of a national and international nature designed to promote “the ideas proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations and to investigate and prosecute parents who violate their children's rights. The state will determine the child's "best interest" (SB 1051-B from the 1993 Oregon legislature and SB 689 from the 1997 Oregon legislature).
All children must be immediately registered after birth. Severe limitations will be placed on the parent's right to direct and train their children. Section 1 of Article 13 declares a child's right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." Article 14 says children have a legal right to object to all religious training. Alternatively, children may assert their right against parental objections to participation's in other religions.
Parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with people deemed to be objectionable companions, i.e. gangs, cults, racist organizations, etc.
Article 18 says the state must assist parents in the raising of children (SB 1051 and SB 689). It calls on the State to co-parent by rendering "appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children", i.e. Parent training, Family Resource Centers, etc. Corporal punishment is prohibited. Article 43 says international experts will parent our children (SB 689)." (http://www.comeandtakeit.com/unchild.html#RITEOKID)
So far, we have avoided ratifying this convention due to legal arguments over sovereignty and federalism. You can thank President George W. Bush for protecting your right's as a parent. His administration has opposed this measure. What will Obama do? During the Walden University Presidential Debate, both candidates were asked specifically about this convention. Obama's broad answer was, "It is important that the US return to its position as a respectable leader and promoter of Human Rights. As President I will review this and other treaties and assure the US assumes it’s global leadership of human rights." However, it is clear in his bill S.2433 he wants the US to completely ratify this convention as it currently is written.
Michael Ferris, a writter for Christian News Wire believes, "Obama's wants to turn every family and every state legislature over to the supervision of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. They will condescendingly tell us why our traditional desires for our children are not acceptable in this day and age. They will explain us to ourselves and to others while usurping control of our family and utterly destroying the principle of American self-government."
To further this point take into account what Austin Ruse, president of the New York and Washington DC-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) has said.
"There is growing pressure both internationally and domestically for the United States to get with the new international program. The charge that America is isolationist rests largely on our refusal to ratify these treaties. Ignoring them is now seen as a remnant of the discredited Bush days.
Obama has endorsed CEDAW as has his vice presidential running mate Joe Biden. Both are in favor of the ICC, too. It is likely that, with a larger and more left-leaning Senate, a whole slew of left-leaning treaties will be ratified.
Besides existing treaties there is also the threat that an Obama administration will rejuvenate what has been a fairly sleepy United Nations. In the Clinton years, there were repeated global conferences on social policy. That died out in the Bush years. There is a lot of pent-up energy that will explode if Obama takes the oath of office.
But there are even larger issues than these particular treaties or new UN conferences. There is larger mischief afoot. It is called global governance.
The traditional understanding of international relations and international law is that they regulate behavior among and between sovereign states. By contrast, global governance holds that international relations and international law should have more to do with regulating the behavior of individual citizens within each state and that these decisions should not be left to sovereign states, but to international bodies like the United Nations and its various commissions and committees."
I fear that change is surely coming. Not just an increase in our taxes and our big brother government that will take care of you by spreading the wealth, but change that will strip us all of the rights our fore fathers fought so long and hard to ensure that we had. Our very constitution, which Obama has already stated is fundamentally flawed, will be under attack. I call for an uprising of voices, ideas, and grass root movements that will uphold the founding principals of our great country. We need to stand united against the tyranny that may well be coming our way. Will you join me? Where do we start? Share your ideas and let's get rolling before it is too late.
***It should be noted that Switzerland had applied for membership to the EU, but that was halted due to their referendum on the EEA. Also of note, they have made some bi-lateral agreements with the EU, but still remain their own independent country
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
My Point of View
Jeff Scrieber at America's Right posted an excellent essay that really sums up my feelings very well. Since I am tired and need to hit the gym to burn off some of this pent up frustration, I will post his words. You can echo them as mine. Chin up. It's not bad yet.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The 44th President of the United States
For two hours now, I have been trying to put words on paper. It hasn't been easy.
As a man who believes in the virtue of fundamental fairness, I am delighted that the United States of America will, come January, see its first African-American president. I was oddly moved by seeing Jesse Jackson's tears in the Grant Park audience tonight. As much as I may dislike the man, as awful as he may be on so many levels, it must have been an incredible experience for him and seeing him overcome by emotion without a camera directly in his face weighed heavily on me. It was not so long ago, after all, that black men were denied the right to vote and, tonight, one was elected president of the United States. That alone is a testament to the freedoms and opportunity afforded by the United States of America and everything for which She stands.
As an American, however, I wish that president could have been someone else. My God, we elected a socialist tonight. My God, we elected a man who has done nothing to show that he actually likes this country, nonetheless has its best interests at heart.
Still strugging for words, looking to connect my head with my fingers, I find myself disheartened because, if tonight is an indication of the near future, my daughter will not grow up in the same America I did. I find myself disappointed that my fellow Americans were not able to see past the rhetoric, past the spin, past the cloud of Bush Derangement Syndrome enough to do the right thing yesterday. I find myself angry knowing that more could have been done to prevail, that it was a better-run campaign and not a better candidate which won this race. I'm embarrassed that the electorate freely elected a man who, even in his victory speech, said that American "cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers" and somehow managed to speak of humility while delivering a speech before more than a million people. Humility, as Charles Krauthammer later said, is not one of Obama's strong points.
Yet, oddly, I find myself optimistic. Sure, I know full well that this loss will be blamed on Sarah Palin and the conservative movement as a whole, that news cycles for the next few days will focus on how the GOP needs to transmogrify itself into more of a big-tent party, that it was the religious right which lost this election for John McCain, ever concerned about their petty values and driven by their mindless faith in God. I also know, however, that this past evening's loss in reality falls squarely on the shoulders of a party and campaign mechanism that was, just like we saw party-wide in 2006, somehow hesitant and afraid to fight hard from its own traditional principled foundation.
We can Monday-morning quarterback as much as we want. We can talk about the inevitable, below-the-fold piece in the New York Times commending John McCain for his "respectful" campaign, and how the very presence of that piece will run to the heart of what is wrong with the Republican party and what needs to be done to retake the Senate, the House, and the residence and offices at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Strangely enough, it is that inevitable battle within the party which has be so optimisic. The GOP has some 'splainin to do, a real knock-down, drag out fight. The debate will be between (1) those who believe that moving the party to the center, that expanding the pie and building a bigger tent is the answer to the question posed tonight when America willingly elected a radical socialist to the presidency, and (2) those who believe firmly that America is a right-of-center nation and pandering to the center and left through La Raza events and cap-and-trade programs and the socialization of economic losses does nothing to benefit the GOP or the country as a whole.
I'm confident that the latter faction will prevail, that actual conservatives like Bobby Jindal and Mike Pence and Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin and Eric Cantor and Jim DeMint will be able to guide the conservative movement to, once again, the forefront of American politics by aggresively stressing and eloquently articulating the merits of fiscal conservatism, of smaller government, of free market principles, of a strong national defense and solid family values. Aided by the disastrous effects Obama's policies are sure to have on the economy, on our security and more, the process may not take as long as originally thought.
Six years, a good friend of mine said tonight, until we retake Congress. I think it will be less.
As corny as it may sound, it IS always darkest before the dawn. From Harry Truman came Dwight Eisenhower, from Jimmy Carter came Ronald Reagan. Tomorrow and the next day, the news cycles will surely not be easy and the pundits will be nothing short of ruthless -- but rest assured that news of the death of conservatism has been greatly exaggerated.
What these pundits, critics and know-it-all types fail to understand is that conservatism is bigger than John McCain, bigger than Grant Park, bigger than 2008. Conservatism wasn't invented by Reagan, by Barry Goldwater, Theodore Roosevelt or anyone else. Conservatism is not a trend, not a fashion or a theory designed for fleeting consideration before fading into fodder for books forever doomed to collect dust on the shelves of the elites. Yes, it will be written off tomorrow as out-of-touch, as antiquated, as too rooted in religion and the free market, but conservatism has been written off before -- it was written off in 1976 after the disappointment of Gerald Ford and Bob Dole; it was written off in 1992 after Democrats obtained control of the House, Senate and the White House; it was written off again in 1996 after Bob Dole's anticlimactic presidential run.
Barack Obama's victory a few hours ago was a turning point, a sea change pending for the Republican party as a direct result of the so-called "Big Tent" approach to party politics, a widely-inclusive but short-sighted approach which blurred the lines of the basic tenets of conservatism -- strong national defense and foreign policy, responsible and pro-growth fiscal policy, rich and grounded family and moral values. The more people, the more factions and more groups the GOP tried to cram into the left side of the Big Tent, the more those on the right side, the ones that had been there from the start and the ones who can deliver America to prosperity and keep Her there, were pushed out into a deluge of apathy and spite.
In these upcoming news cycles, the debate among those on the political left and right will surely include analysis of the relevance of conservatives and conservatism. If conservatives are so plentiful and so powerful, they'll ask, why wasn't it Barack Obama who was delivering the concession speech, why isn't it Cindy McCain measuring the drapes and preparing for her White House Christmas Special? Over the next few months, the pundits and pinheads will put forth the proposition that the country as a whole is moving to the left at a rapid pace. Look at the turnout numbers in the primaries, they'll say, pointing to the popular vote count discrepancy between democrats and republicans. Look at the general election, they'll maintain, pointing to numbers which show that Obama won by a larger margin than any democrat since Lyndon Johnson.
Don't believe what you hear. Don't let the same bitterness seen in so many liberals, that nasty venom and vitriol so artfully concealed behind empty smiles and yoga pants and gritty spirulina smoothies, don't let it seep into your daily lives. Don't allow it to happen. The core principles of conservatism--starting with a limited central government--are the very principles on which America was founded and, so long as we survive the next four years, those principles will be the reason that the party, and America as a whole, emerge stronger than ever.
Remember that the movement transcends the candidate. Remember that the principles transcend the election.
Keep your chin up, America -- Bobby Jindal is headed to Iowa next month.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The 44th President of the United States
For two hours now, I have been trying to put words on paper. It hasn't been easy.
As a man who believes in the virtue of fundamental fairness, I am delighted that the United States of America will, come January, see its first African-American president. I was oddly moved by seeing Jesse Jackson's tears in the Grant Park audience tonight. As much as I may dislike the man, as awful as he may be on so many levels, it must have been an incredible experience for him and seeing him overcome by emotion without a camera directly in his face weighed heavily on me. It was not so long ago, after all, that black men were denied the right to vote and, tonight, one was elected president of the United States. That alone is a testament to the freedoms and opportunity afforded by the United States of America and everything for which She stands.
As an American, however, I wish that president could have been someone else. My God, we elected a socialist tonight. My God, we elected a man who has done nothing to show that he actually likes this country, nonetheless has its best interests at heart.
Still strugging for words, looking to connect my head with my fingers, I find myself disheartened because, if tonight is an indication of the near future, my daughter will not grow up in the same America I did. I find myself disappointed that my fellow Americans were not able to see past the rhetoric, past the spin, past the cloud of Bush Derangement Syndrome enough to do the right thing yesterday. I find myself angry knowing that more could have been done to prevail, that it was a better-run campaign and not a better candidate which won this race. I'm embarrassed that the electorate freely elected a man who, even in his victory speech, said that American "cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers" and somehow managed to speak of humility while delivering a speech before more than a million people. Humility, as Charles Krauthammer later said, is not one of Obama's strong points.
Yet, oddly, I find myself optimistic. Sure, I know full well that this loss will be blamed on Sarah Palin and the conservative movement as a whole, that news cycles for the next few days will focus on how the GOP needs to transmogrify itself into more of a big-tent party, that it was the religious right which lost this election for John McCain, ever concerned about their petty values and driven by their mindless faith in God. I also know, however, that this past evening's loss in reality falls squarely on the shoulders of a party and campaign mechanism that was, just like we saw party-wide in 2006, somehow hesitant and afraid to fight hard from its own traditional principled foundation.
We can Monday-morning quarterback as much as we want. We can talk about the inevitable, below-the-fold piece in the New York Times commending John McCain for his "respectful" campaign, and how the very presence of that piece will run to the heart of what is wrong with the Republican party and what needs to be done to retake the Senate, the House, and the residence and offices at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Strangely enough, it is that inevitable battle within the party which has be so optimisic. The GOP has some 'splainin to do, a real knock-down, drag out fight. The debate will be between (1) those who believe that moving the party to the center, that expanding the pie and building a bigger tent is the answer to the question posed tonight when America willingly elected a radical socialist to the presidency, and (2) those who believe firmly that America is a right-of-center nation and pandering to the center and left through La Raza events and cap-and-trade programs and the socialization of economic losses does nothing to benefit the GOP or the country as a whole.
I'm confident that the latter faction will prevail, that actual conservatives like Bobby Jindal and Mike Pence and Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin and Eric Cantor and Jim DeMint will be able to guide the conservative movement to, once again, the forefront of American politics by aggresively stressing and eloquently articulating the merits of fiscal conservatism, of smaller government, of free market principles, of a strong national defense and solid family values. Aided by the disastrous effects Obama's policies are sure to have on the economy, on our security and more, the process may not take as long as originally thought.
Six years, a good friend of mine said tonight, until we retake Congress. I think it will be less.
As corny as it may sound, it IS always darkest before the dawn. From Harry Truman came Dwight Eisenhower, from Jimmy Carter came Ronald Reagan. Tomorrow and the next day, the news cycles will surely not be easy and the pundits will be nothing short of ruthless -- but rest assured that news of the death of conservatism has been greatly exaggerated.
What these pundits, critics and know-it-all types fail to understand is that conservatism is bigger than John McCain, bigger than Grant Park, bigger than 2008. Conservatism wasn't invented by Reagan, by Barry Goldwater, Theodore Roosevelt or anyone else. Conservatism is not a trend, not a fashion or a theory designed for fleeting consideration before fading into fodder for books forever doomed to collect dust on the shelves of the elites. Yes, it will be written off tomorrow as out-of-touch, as antiquated, as too rooted in religion and the free market, but conservatism has been written off before -- it was written off in 1976 after the disappointment of Gerald Ford and Bob Dole; it was written off in 1992 after Democrats obtained control of the House, Senate and the White House; it was written off again in 1996 after Bob Dole's anticlimactic presidential run.
Barack Obama's victory a few hours ago was a turning point, a sea change pending for the Republican party as a direct result of the so-called "Big Tent" approach to party politics, a widely-inclusive but short-sighted approach which blurred the lines of the basic tenets of conservatism -- strong national defense and foreign policy, responsible and pro-growth fiscal policy, rich and grounded family and moral values. The more people, the more factions and more groups the GOP tried to cram into the left side of the Big Tent, the more those on the right side, the ones that had been there from the start and the ones who can deliver America to prosperity and keep Her there, were pushed out into a deluge of apathy and spite.
In these upcoming news cycles, the debate among those on the political left and right will surely include analysis of the relevance of conservatives and conservatism. If conservatives are so plentiful and so powerful, they'll ask, why wasn't it Barack Obama who was delivering the concession speech, why isn't it Cindy McCain measuring the drapes and preparing for her White House Christmas Special? Over the next few months, the pundits and pinheads will put forth the proposition that the country as a whole is moving to the left at a rapid pace. Look at the turnout numbers in the primaries, they'll say, pointing to the popular vote count discrepancy between democrats and republicans. Look at the general election, they'll maintain, pointing to numbers which show that Obama won by a larger margin than any democrat since Lyndon Johnson.
Don't believe what you hear. Don't let the same bitterness seen in so many liberals, that nasty venom and vitriol so artfully concealed behind empty smiles and yoga pants and gritty spirulina smoothies, don't let it seep into your daily lives. Don't allow it to happen. The core principles of conservatism--starting with a limited central government--are the very principles on which America was founded and, so long as we survive the next four years, those principles will be the reason that the party, and America as a whole, emerge stronger than ever.
Remember that the movement transcends the candidate. Remember that the principles transcend the election.
Keep your chin up, America -- Bobby Jindal is headed to Iowa next month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)