Sunlight & Stars

Wall Street Journal: 16 Concerned Scientists

2012-01-28T10:29:00.000-08:00

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. ...

and...

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Read MORE:

Signed by:

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Mia Love Candidate for Utah's 4th Congressional Candidate

2012-01-20T09:15:00.000-08:00

During a time when politicians are seen as greedy, power-seeking and corrupt, one craves the dedication and honor of a George Washington type politician. A leader who doesn’t serve the country because of what they will receive from the office (glory, power, salary, first rate health care benefits, fancy party invites, etc.), but a leader who serves because they feel it’s their duty to leave the country in a better place for posterity. A leader who doesn’t see a win in an election as an opportunity for herself, but sees it as a means to create better opportunities for others. I believe I found this type of leader in Mia Love.

My first contact with Mia was during city council elections for Saratoga Springs, Utah in 2003. She was going door to door in my neighborhood introducing herself and asking if anyone had questions for her. When she reached my house I did ask her some questions, which she answered impressively. I liked her solution-focused approach. I spoke with other neighbors and found they were equally impressed with her.

A few weeks later, Mia followed up of her door-to-door introductions with a hot chocolate and donut question-answer session at our neighborhood park. I discovered she did this not only in my neighborhood, but in most of the neighborhoods throughout the city. Once again I was impressed, this time by the countless hours that she dedicated to her campaign. I knew she was involved for reasons beyond personal ambitions. I asked her, “What do you get from serving on the city council?” She answered, “I get to represent my neighborhood and give them a voice. I also get to teach my children by example.”

After serving for 6 years as a city council member, Mia decided to run for mayor. She was anxious to keep property taxes low. At the same time she would be engaged in helping her fellow citizens’ keep more of what they earned, she wanted to help create a more walkable, sociable and safe community. She ran a successful campaign in November 2009, making history as the first African-American woman to be elected as a mayor in the state of Utah.

In contrast to the excessive salaries and pensions of mayors of other cities, Mia’s pay out is $875 each month. No pension. On a less than part-time salary, she faithfully gives 40 to 60 hours of service to the city each week.

Mia’s attitude of hard work and service can be credited to father, Jean Maxine Bourdeau. Her parents immigrated from Haiti to Brooklyn, New York in 1973 with only $10 to their name. Mia was born in December 1974. Her parents were hard working and never received a hand out. Bourdeau even worked additional jobs to pay for his children’s college. On Mia’s first day of college, Bourdeau told his daughter, “You will not be a burden to society. You will certainly give back.”

Mia has a history of giving back, from serving her community through the PTA, as city council member, fitness instructor, Boy Scout merit badge counselor, Sunday school teacher, and mayor. She also shared her vocal talents as a singer in the community’s 2011“Celebration of the Arts” program.

On January 5^th, Mia formerly announced her candidacy for the US Congress to represent the people in Utah’s 4^th Congressional District. Her plans, if elected, are to cut government spending and reign in federal regulations. Mia believes these first steps are essential to create better opportunities for her constituents in Utah. Our district needs a leader like Mia. A leader that is motivated to serve because of a sense of duty to give back. Mia resonates with this selfless dedication. We need her effective leadership to represent us at a time when our state and country needs it most.

By Jessica Stanford

Environmentalism is a movement to destroy your rights...

2012-01-12T08:36:00.000-08:00

especially your rights to private property...
U.N. Agenda 21

Why is the United States funding the U.N.?

The Fake Solar Industry Steals more Tax Payer Money...

2012-01-05T17:51:00.000-08:00

...lines the pockets of Democrat candidates until the money runs out.. which is now. HERE...

Important Perspective.. The Death of Kim Jong-il

2012-01-02T08:32:00.000-08:00

How it is that anyone can take the main stream media at face value anymore is beyong my comprehension.
THIS shouldn't be missed...

Self Interest has fed more people than charity...

2011-12-14T20:21:00.000-08:00

If you haven't heard this perspective, then you are missing a big piece of your political education.

Greta Van Susteren inteviews Rush Limbaugh

Homosexuality and Mental Health...

2011-12-06T11:28:00.000-08:00

Interesting article HERE...

More Fraud, Distortion & Lies found at IPCC...

2011-11-25T08:20:00.000-08:00

"A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."

More at Forbes Magazine HERE...

Self Government and Private Morality...

2011-10-24T07:45:00.000-07:00

The first form of government is self government. If self government fails and men are immoral.. no goverment of the state will restore morality. Morality cannot be legislated. Immorality can be punished, but morality cannot be legislated and charity cannot be forced. Where a law is created, it can be broken. .. even if those laws were written by God (The Ten Commandments). In order to be free, we must be good.

"that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world." George Washington's First Inaugural Address

The GOP & RomneyCare...

2011-10-20T08:26:00.000-07:00

WSJ The GOP and RomneyCare...

Mr. Romney's response to his Mass. Healthcare plan gets more maddening every day. Not only have costs increased by 6% for the insured, the state is trying to more tightly regulate payments and care. And the most maddening thing of all, Mass. has never been able to pay for this themselves.. Mass receives huge transfer payment from the fed. gov. so you and I are footing part of the bill. Yet, Romney signed off on it and continues to defend it. He is not a guy who believes in free market solutions. I think Obama would be wise to drop Biden and run Romney as VP with him on the Democrat ticket.

Who's got Money? A Worldwide public list?

2011-10-17T19:11:00.000-07:00

Zbigniew Brzezinski

10th United States National Security Advisor
In office January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981
President	Jimmy Carter
Deputy	David L. Aaron
Preceded by	Brent Scowcroft
Succeeded by	Richard V. Allen
Personal details
Born	March 28, 1928 (1928-03-28) (age 83) Warsaw, Poland
Political party	Democratic
Alma mater	McGill University Harvard University
Profession	politician, critic

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski (Polish: Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński, pronounced [ˈzbʲiɡɲiɛf kaˈʑimʲiɛʐ bʐɛˈʑiɲski]; born March 28, 1928) is a Polish American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981.
Brzezinski is currently Robert E. Osgood Professor of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a member of various boards and councils. He appears frequently as an expert on the PBS program The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, ABC News' This Week with Christiane Amanpour, and on MSNBC's Morning Joe, where his daughter, Mika Brzezinski, is co-anchor. (the above 2 paragraphs are from Wikipedia)

Recent comments from an appearance on MSNBC ... HERE...

You know, I’ve been looking at these worldwide riots that are developing. They’re all a reflection of deep passion, deep resentment and fear. Now the question is “Where will this go? How can this be sort of concretized?” And one thought that has occurred to me — and let me sort of mention it here casually without having really thought it through systematically — I think it would be increasingly helpful if there was a movement to publish, worldwide, lists of who make, largely through speculation, enormous amounts of money almost instantly, and basically hide the fact from their social context. You know, how many Americans are really fully aware of how many other good people, let’s say like Warren Buffett and others, who really donate a lot of their earnings to charities, to philanthropy? But how many more are there in the hedge funds, in the banks, in a variety of other places, who, on the basis of speculation, literally make millions of dollars that would take a century or two for the average person ever to make? I’d like to see those lists. And they shouldn’t be that difficult to produce.

Makes you want to send your kids to Johns Hopkins, doesn't it? Zbigniew Brzezinski has been (continues as?) a senior foreign policy advisor to President Obama.

Dragon Mother...

2011-10-16T19:20:00.000-07:00

In the face of the David Browers and the Peter Singers of this world is the story of the (Oct. 15th NYT) Dragon Mother... who bless her, teaches us the infinite value of every life.

Environmentalists & Population Control...

2011-10-06T09:28:00.000-07:00

In the old testament, the people worshipped the Sun. Today, we worship the earth.

Baal

A male sun-god worshiped principally in Phoenicia (1 Kgs. 16:31) but also worshiped in different ways in various places: by the Moabites as Baal-peor (Num. 25:1–3), at Shechem as Baal

We have met the enemy and he is us. ~Walt Kelly
I believe in God, only I spell it nature. ~Frank Lloyd Wright

Jeremiah 19

The Lord will bring evil upon Judah—They sacrifice their children to Baal—In the siege they will eat the flesh of their sons and daughters.

Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license... All potential parents should be require to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing. ~David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club

Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worth of protection that the life of a fetus. ~Peter Singer from Rethinking Life and Death Peter Singer Professor of Bioethics Princeton University

Judges 2

...future events, a new generation arises that forsakes the Lord and serves Baal and Ashtaroth—The Lord is angry with the children of Israel and ceases to preserve them—He raises up judges to guide...

It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even inducing laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis becomes sufficiently severe to endanger society... If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility. from the book Ecoscience by Ehrlich & Holdren. John Holdren was appointed "science czar" by Barack Obama in 2009

Psalms 106:

36 And they served their ^aidols: which were a snare unto them.

37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,

38 And shed innocent ^ablood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the ^bidols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

More than 42 Million children are killed every year in the womb worldwide.

James E. Faust The Sanctity of Life

Moses 7:33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should ^alove one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they ^bhate their own blood;

During his graduate studies, my husband had a professor with a large family. One day he boarded a train in a large American city with children in tow.  An angry woman on the train asked, "How can you have such a large family on an over-crowded planted with limited resources?" My husband's professor responded, "We teach our children to contribute more than they consume."

Dr. Hal Lewis also resigned APS over AGW...

2011-09-16T08:31:00.000-07:00

AGW is a fraud that can cripple the economy of the entire planet and creat a global government. These fraudsters must be stopped. Dr. Lewis explains why so many are bought by it. His letter about why he resigned is an important read...

See it HERE...

Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever: Global Warming is a religion...

2011-09-15T13:40:00.000-07:00

Who are the consensus "scientists" ? They are mostly the folks who get their paychecks from the IPCC (the people who gather the research on global temps. and fudge them). Of the 1,800 or so (the number vacillates) scientists that work there... most are bureaucrats not scientists. Real scientists don't believe in settled science. AGW IS a RELIGION, one that has been a plague on the earth for a long time. Heard of Ba 'al?
Read Ivar Giaver's comments HERE...

Mexican Drug Cartels in Utah...

2011-09-12T12:29:00.000-07:00

Examiner...

they were up and running the next day...
SL Trib

Des News

Pot farm in Morgan Utah.. Fox 13
Pot farm in St. George Des News
Meth in Riverton KSL

If you start looking.. you'll be shocked at what you'll find...

Having lived through the nightmere that is having a drug ring in your neighborhood, my heart goes out to these people and my anger at the Obama administration for providing weapons to these cartels is not possible to express.

Fast & Furious...

2011-09-12T12:11:00.000-07:00

The Obama administration arms Mexican drug lords ... then blames the 2nd ammendement and Amercian gun owners for the the violence... a grab for guns.. you betcha. Read full article HERE... then do your homework and look up the details elsewhere..

WSJ Anne Jolis: The Other Climate Theory...

2011-09-08T18:25:00.000-07:00

This article shows how much climate science has become politics and NOT science. I don't know if I think this theory will see the light of day... But, in case you are curious.. HERE...

Why the U.S. was down graded & why an immediate course correction needs to happen...

2011-09-06T07:01:00.000-07:00

U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

Annual family income: $21,700.
Money the family spent: $38,200.
New debt on the credit card: $16,500.
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Total budget cuts: $385.

The age of white guilt: and the disappearance of the black individual

2011-09-05T11:56:00.000-07:00

THIS is a fascinating article. Read it.

LDS Scripture on Socialism...

2011-07-31T07:54:00.000-07:00

“Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!” D&C 56:17
“They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.” Isaiah 65.2

The principle of work is holy...

And it came to pass that after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did labor with him. Moses 5:1

Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings. Leviticus 23:3

By work we sustain and enrich life. It enables us to survive the disappointments and tragedies of the mortal experience. Hard-earned achievement brings a sense of self-worth. Work builds and refines character, creates beauty, and is the instrument of our service to one another and to God. A consecrated life is filled with work, sometimes repetitive, sometimes menial, sometimes unappreciated but always work that improves, orders, sustains, lifts, ministers, aspires.” Reflections on a Consecrated Life ~D. Todd Christofferson

From the very beginning, the Lord commanded Adam to till the earth and have dominion over the beasts of the field, to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow. I have always been interested in how often the scriptures have admonished us to cease to be idle and to be productive in all of our labors. … Teaching children the joy of honest labor is one of the greatest of all gifts you can bestow upon them.” The Joy of Honest Labor ~L. Tom Perry

The Divinely Inspired Constitution by Elder Dallin H. Oaks

2011-07-31T07:30:00.001-07:00

The Divinely Inspired Constitution

by Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve. “The Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Ensign, Feb. 1992, 68.
Not long after I began to teach law, an older professor asked me a challenging question about Latter-day Saints’ belief in the United States Constitution. Earlier in his career he had taught at the University of Utah College of Law. There he met many Latter-day Saint law students. “They all seemed to believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired,” he said, “but none of them could ever tell me what this meant or how it affected their interpretation of the Constitution.” I took that challenge personally, and I have pondered it for many years. 1
I hope I will not be thought immodest if I claim a special interest in the Constitution. As a lawyer and law professor for more than twenty years, I have studied the United States Constitution. As legal counsel, I helped draft the bill of rights for the Illinois constitutional convention of 1970. And for three and one-half years as a justice of the Utah Supreme Court I had the sworn duty to uphold and interpret the constitutions of the state of Utah and the United States. My conclusions draw upon those experiences and upon a lifetime of studying the scriptures and the teachings of the living prophets. My opinions on this subject are personal and do not represent a statement in behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Creation and Ratification
The United States Constitution was the first written constitution in the world. It has served Americans well, enhancing freedom and prosperity during the changed conditions of more than two hundred years. Frequently copied, it has become the United States’ most important export. After two centuries, every nation in the world except six have adopted written constitutions, 2 and the U.S. Constitution was a model for all of them. No wonder modern revelation says that God established the U.S. Constitution and that it “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.” (D&C 101:77.)
George Washington was perhaps the first to use the word miracle in describing the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. In a 1788 letter to Lafayette, he said:
“It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the delegates from so many different states (which states you know are also different from each other in their manners, circumstances, and prejudices) should unite in forming a system of national Government, so little liable to well-founded objections.” 3
It was a miracle. Consider the setting.
The thirteen colonies and three and one-half million Americans who had won independence from the British crown a few years earlier were badly divided on many fundamental issues. Some thought the colonies should reaffiliate with the British crown. Among the majority who favored continued independence, the most divisive issue was whether the United States should have a strong central government to replace the weak “league of friendship” established by the Articles of Confederation. Under the Confederation of 1781, there was no executive or judicial authority, and the national Congress had no power to tax or to regulate commerce. The thirteen states retained all their sovereignty, and the national government could do nothing without their approval. The Articles of Confederation could not be amended without the unanimous approval of all the states, and every effort to strengthen this loose confederation had failed.
Congress could not even protect itself. In July 1783, an armed mob of former Revolutionary War soldiers seeking back wages threatened to take Congress hostage at its meeting in Philadelphia. When Pennsylvania declined to provide militia to protect them, the congressmen fled. Thereafter Congress was a laughingstock, wandering from city to city.
Unless America could adopt a central government with sufficient authority to function as a nation, the thirteen states would remain a group of insignificant, feuding little nations united by nothing more than geography and forever vulnerable to the impositions of aggressive foreign powers. No wonder the first purpose stated in the preamble of the new United States Constitution was “to form a more perfect union.”
The Constitution had its origin in a resolution by which the relatively powerless Congress called delegates to a convention to discuss amendments to the Articles of Confederation. This convention was promoted by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two farsighted young statesmen still in their thirties, who favored a strong national government. They persuaded a reluctant George Washington to attend and then used his influence in a letter-writing campaign to encourage participation by all the states. The convention was held in Philadelphia, whose population of a little over 40,000 made it the largest city in the thirteen states.
As the delegates assembled, there were ominous signs of disunity. It was not until eleven days after the scheduled beginning of the convention that enough states were represented to form a quorum. New Hampshire’s delegation arrived more than two months late because the state had not provided them travel money. No delegates ever came from Rhode Island.
Economically and politically, the country was alarmingly weak. The states were in a paralyzing depression. Everyone was in debt. The national treasury was empty. Inflation was rampant. The various currencies were nearly worthless. The trade deficit was staggering. Rebelling against their inclusion in New York State, prominent citizens of Vermont had already entered into negotiations to rejoin the British crown. In the western territory, Kentucky leaders were speaking openly about turning from the union and forming alliances with the Old World.
Instead of reacting timidly because of disunity and weakness, the delegates boldly ignored the terms of their invitation to amend the Articles of Confederation and instead set out to write an entirely new constitution. They were conscious of their place in history. For millennia the world’s people had been ruled by kings or tyrants. Now a group of colonies had won independence from a king and their representatives had the unique opportunity of establishing a constitutional government Abraham Lincoln would later describe as “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
The delegates faced staggering obstacles. The leaders in the thirteen states were deeply divided on the extent to which the states would cede any power to a national government. If there was to be a strong central government, there were seemingly irresolvable differences on how to allocate the ingredients of national power between large and small states. As to the nature of the national executive, some wanted to copy the British parliamentary system. At least one delegate even favored the adoption of a monarchy. Divisions over slavery could well have prevented any agreement on other issues. There were 600,000 black slaves in the thirteen states, and slavery was essential in the view of some delegates and repulsive to many others.
Deeming secrecy essential to the success of their venture, the delegates spent over three months in secret sessions, faithfully observing their agreement that no one would speak outside the meeting room on the progress of their work. They were fearful that if their debates were reported to the people before the entire document was ready for submission, the opposition would unite to kill the effort before it was born. This type of proceeding would obviously be impossible today. There is irony in the fact that a constitution which protects the people’s “right to know” was written under a set of ground rules that its present beneficiaries would not tolerate.
It took the delegates seven weeks of debate to resolve the question of how the large and small states would be represented in the national congress. The Great Compromise provided a senate with equal representation for each state, and a lower house in which representation was apportioned according to the whole population of free persons in the state, plus three-fifths of the slaves. The vote on this pivotal issue was five states in favor and four against; other states did not vote, either because no delegates were present or because their delegation was divided. Upon that fragile base, the delegates went forward to consider other issues, including the nature of the executive and judicial branches, and whether the document should include a bill of rights.
It is remarkable that the delegates were able to put aside their narrow sectional loyalties to agree on a strong central government. Timely events were persuasive of the need: the delegates’ memories of the national humiliation when Congress was chased out of Philadelphia by a mob, the recent challenge of Shay’s rebellion against Massachusetts farm foreclosures, and the frightening prospect that northern and western areas would be drawn back into the orbit of European power.
The success of the convention was attributable in large part to the remarkable intelligence, wisdom, and unselfishness of the delegates. As James Madison wrote in the preface to his notes on the Constitutional Convention:
“There never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them.” 4 Truly, the U.S. Constitution was established “by the hands of wise men whom [the Lord] raised up unto this very purpose.” (D&C 101:80.)
The drafting of the Constitution was only the beginning. By its terms it would not go into effect until ratified by conventions in nine states. But if the nation was to be united and strong, the new Constitution had to be ratified by the key states of Virginia and New York, where the opposition was particularly strong. The extent of opposition coming out of the convention is suggested by the fact that of seventy-four appointed delegates, only fifty-five participated in the convention, and only thirty-nine of these signed the completed document.
It was nine months before nine states had ratified, and the last of the key states was not included until a month later, when the New York convention ratified by a vote of thirty to twenty-seven. To the “miracle of Philadelphia” one must therefore add “the miracle of ratification.”
Ratification probably could not have been secured without a commitment to add a written bill of rights. The first ten amendments, which included the Bill of Rights, were ratified a little over three years after the Constitution itself.
That the Constitution was ratified is largely attributable to the fact that the principal leaders in the states were willing to vote for a document that failed to embody every one of their preferences. For example, influential Thomas Jefferson, who was in Paris negotiating a treaty and therefore did not serve as a delegate, felt strongly that a bill of rights should have been included in the original Constitution. But Jefferson still supported the Constitution because he felt it was the best available. Benjamin Franklin stated that view in these words:
“When you assemble a number of men to have the advantage over their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does. … The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good.” 5
In other words, one should not expect perfection—one certainly should not expect all of his personal preferences—in a document that must represent a consensus. One should not sulk over a representative body’s failure to attain perfection. Americans are well advised to support the best that can be obtained in the circumstances that prevail. That is sound advice not only for the drafting of a constitution but also for the adoption and administration of laws under it.
Inspiration
It was a miracle that the Constitution could be drafted and ratified. But what is there in the text of the Constitution that is divinely inspired?
Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the same standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. For example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery or the minimum age or years of citizenship for congressmen, senators, or the president. President J. Reuben Clark, who referred to the Constitution as “part of my religion,” 6 also said that it was not part of his belief or the doctrine of the Church that the Constitution was a “fully grown document.” “On the contrary,” he said, “We believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.” 7
That was also the attitude of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He faulted the Constitution for not being “broad enough to cover the whole ground.” In an obvious reference to the national government’s lack of power to intervene when the state of Missouri used its militia to expel the Latter-day Saints from their lands, Joseph Smith said,
“Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. … Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury.” 8 This omission of national power to protect citizens against state action to deprive them of constitutional rights was remedied in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted just after the Civil War.
I see divine inspiration in what President J. Reuben Clark called the “great fundamentals” of the Constitution. In his many talks on the Constitution, he always praised three fundamentals: (a) the separation of powers into three independent branches of government in a federal system; (b) the essential freedoms of speech, press, and religion embodied in the Bill of Rights; and (c) the equality of all men before the law. I concur in these three, but I add two more. On my list there are five great fundamentals.
1. Separation of powers. The idea of separation of powers was at least a century old. The English Parliament achieved an initial separation of legislative and executive authority when they wrested certain powers from the king in the revolution of 1688. The concept of separation of powers became well established in the American colonies. State constitutions adopted during the Revolution distinguished between the executive, legislative, and judicial functions. Thus, a document commenting on the proposed Massachusetts Constitution of 1778, speaks familiarly of the principle “that the legislative, judicial, and executive powers are to be lodged in different hands, that each branch is to be independent, and further, to be so balanced, and be able to exert such checks upon the others, as will preserve it from dependence on, or a union with them.” 9
Thus, we see that the inspiration on the idea of separation of powers came long before the U.S. Constitutional Convention. The inspiration in the convention was in its original and remarkably successful adaptation of the idea of separation of powers to the practical needs of a national government. The delegates found just the right combination to assure the integrity of each branch, appropriately checked and balanced with the others. As President Clark said:
“It is this union of independence and dependence of these branches—legislative, executive and judicial—and of the governmental functions possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvelous genius of this unrivalled document. … As I see it, it was here that the divine inspiration came. It was truly a miracle.” 10
2. A written bill of rights. This second great fundamental came by amendment, but I think Americans all look upon the Bill of Rights as part of the inspired work of the Founding Fathers. The idea of a bill of rights was not new. Once again, the inspiration was in the brilliant, practical implementation of preexisting principles. Almost six hundred years earlier, King John had subscribed the Magna Charta, which contained a written guarantee of some rights for certain of his subjects. The English Parliament had guaranteed individual rights against royal power in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Even more recently, some of the charters used in the establishment of the American colonies had written guarantees of liberties and privileges, with which the delegates were familiar.
I have always felt that the United States Constitution’s closest approach to scriptural stature is in the phrasing of our Bill of Rights. Without the free exercise of religion, America could not have served as the host nation for the restoration of the gospel, which began just three decades after the Bill of Rights was ratified. I also see scriptural stature in the concept and wording of the freedoms of speech and press, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, the requirements that there must be probable cause for an arrest and that accused persons must have a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, and the guarantee that a person will not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. President Ezra Taft Benson has said, “Reason, necessity, tradition, and religious conviction all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights.” 11
The Declaration of Independence had posited these truths to be “self-evident,” that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights,” and that governments are instituted “to secure these Rights.” This inspired Constitution was established to provide a practical guarantee of these God-given rights (see D&C 101:77), and the language implementing that godly objective is scriptural to me.
3. Division of powers. Another inspired fundamental of the U.S. Constitution is its federal system, which divides government powers between the nation and the various states. Unlike the inspired adaptations mentioned earlier, this division of sovereignty was unprecedented in theory or practice. In a day when it is fashionable to assume that the government has the power and means to right every wrong, we should remember that the U.S. Constitution limits the national government to the exercise of powers expressly granted to it. The Tenth Amendment provides:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.”
This principle of limited national powers, with all residuary powers reserved to the people or to the state and local governments, which are most responsive to the people, is one of the great fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution.
The particular powers that are reserved to the states are part of the inspiration. For example, the power to make laws on personal relationships is reserved to the states. Thus, laws of marriage and family rights and duties are state laws. This would have been changed by the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (E.R.A.). When the First Presidency opposed the E.R.A., they cited the way it would have changed various legal rules having to do with the family, a result they characterized as “a moral rather than a legal issue.” 12 I would add my belief that the most fundamental legal and political objection to the proposed E.R.A. was that it would effect a significant reallocation of law-making power from the states to the federal government.
4. Popular sovereignty. Perhaps the most important of the great fundamentals of the inspired Constitution is the principle of popular sovereignty: The people are the source of government power. Along with many religious people, Latter-day Saints affirm that God gave the power to the people, and the people consented to a constitution that delegated certain powers to the government. Sovereignty is not inherent in a state or nation just because it has the power that comes from force of arms. Sovereignty does not come from the divine right of a king, who grants his subjects such power as he pleases or is forced to concede, as in Magna Charta. The sovereign power is in the people. I believe this is one of the great meanings in the revelation which tells us that God established the Constitution of the United States,
“That every man may act … according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
“Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land.” (D&C 101:78–80.)
In other words, the most desirable condition for the effective exercise of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and responsibility. In this condition men are accountable for their own sins and cannot blame their political conditions on their bondage to a king or a tyrant. This condition is achieved when the people are sovereign, as they are under the Constitution God established in the United States. From this it follows that the most important words in the United States Constitution are the words in the preamble: “We, the people of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
President Ezra Taft Benson expressed the fundamental principle of popular sovereignty when he said, “We [the people] are superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around.” 13 The Book of Mormon explains that principle in these words:
“An unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness. …
“Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws. …
“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.” (Mosiah 29:23–26.)
Popular sovereignty necessarily implies popular responsibility. Instead of blaming their troubles on a king or other sovereign, all citizens must share the burdens and responsibilities of governing. As the Book of Mormon teaches, “The burden should come upon all the people, that every man might bear his part.” (Mosiah 29:34.)
President Clark’s third great fundamental was the equality of all men before the law. I believe that to be a corollary of popular sovereignty. When power comes from the people, there is no legitimacy in legal castes or classes or in failing to provide all citizens the equal protection of the laws.
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not originate the idea of popular sovereignty, since they lived in a century when many philosophers had argued that political power originated in a social contract. But the United States Constitution provided the first implementation of this principle. After two centuries in which Americans may have taken popular sovereignty for granted, it is helpful to be reminded of the difficulties in that pioneering effort.
To begin with, a direct democracy was impractical for a country of four million people and about a half million square miles. As a result, the delegates had to design the structure of a constitutional, representative democracy, what they called “a Republican Form of Government.” 14
The delegates also had to resolve whether a constitution adopted by popular sovereignty could be amended, and if so, how.
Finally, the delegates had to decide how minority rights could be protected when the government was, by definition, controlled by the majority of the sovereign people.
A government based on popular sovereignty must be responsive to the people, but it must also be stable or it cannot govern. A constitution must therefore give government the power to withstand the cries of a majority of the people in the short run, though it must obviously be subject to their direction in the long run.
Without some government stability against an outraged majority, government could not protect minority rights. As President Clark declared:
“The Constitution was framed in order to protect minorities. That is the purpose of written constitutions. In order that the minorities might be protected in the matter of amendments under our Constitution, the Lord required that the amendments should be made only through the operation of very large majorities—two-thirds for action in the Senate, and three-fourths as among the states. This is the inspired, prescribed order.” 15
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention achieved the required balance between popular sovereignty and stability through a power of amendment that was ultimately available but deliberately slow. Only in this way could the government have the certainty of stability, the protection of minority rights, and the potential of change, all at the same time.
To summarize, I see divine inspiration in these four great fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution:
• the separation of powers in the three branches of government;
• the Bill of Rights;
• the division of powers between the states and the federal government; and
• the application of popular sovereignty.
5. The rule of law and not of men. Further, there is divine inspiration in the fundamental underlying premise of this whole constitutional order. All the blessings enjoyed under the United States Constitution are dependent upon the rule of law. That is why President J. Reuben Clark said, “Our allegiance run[s] to the Constitution and to the principles which it embodies, and not to individuals.” 16 The rule of law is the basis of liberty.
As the Lord declared in modern revelation, constitutional laws are justifiable before him, “and the law also maketh you free.” (D&C 98:5–8.) The self-control by which citizens subject themselves to law strengthens the freedom of all citizens and honors the divinely inspired Constitution.
Citizen Responsibilities
U.S. citizens have an inspired Constitution, and therefore, what? Does the belief that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired affect citizens’ behavior toward law and government? It should and it does.
U.S. citizens should follow the First Presidency’s counsel to study the Constitution. 17 They should be familiar with its great fundamentals: the separation of powers, the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the structure of federalism, the sovereignty of the people, and the principles of the rule of the law. They should oppose any infringement of these inspired fundamentals.
They should be law-abiding citizens, supportive of national, state, and local governments. The twelfth Article of Faith declares:
“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
The Church’s official declaration of belief states:
“We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them. …
“We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside.” (D&C 134:1, 5.)
Those who enjoy the blessings of liberty under a divinely inspired constitution should promote morality, and they should practice what the Founding Fathers called “civic virtue.” In his address on the U.S. Constitution, President Ezra Taft Benson quoted this important observation by John Adams, the second president of the United States:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” 18
Similarly, James Madison, who is known as the “Father of the Constitution,” stated his assumption that there had to be “sufficient virtue among men for self-government.” He argued in the Federalist Papers that “republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.” 19
It is part of our civic duty to be moral in our conduct toward all people. There is no place in responsible citizenship for dishonesty or deceit or for willful law breaking of any kind. We believe with the author of Proverbs that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” (Prov. 14:34.) The personal righteousness of citizens will strengthen a nation more than the force of its arms.
Citizens should also be practitioners of civic virtue in their conduct toward government. They should be ever willing to fulfill the duties of citizenship. This includes compulsory duties like military service and the numerous voluntary actions they must take if they are to preserve the principle of limited government through citizen self-reliance. For example, since U.S. citizens value the right of trial by jury, they must be willing to serve on juries, even those involving unsavory subject matter. Citizens who favor morality cannot leave the enforcement of moral laws to jurors who oppose them.
The single word that best describes a fulfillment of the duties of civic virtue is patriotism. Citizens should be patriotic. My favorite prescription for patriotism is that of Adlai Stevenson:
“What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? … A patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.” 20
I close with a poetic prayer. It is familiar to everyone in the United States, because U.S. citizens sing it in one of their loveliest hymns. It expresses gratitude to God for liberty, and it voices a prayer that he will continue to bless them with the holy light of freedom:
Our fathers’ God, to thee,
Author of liberty,
To thee we sing;
Long may our land be bright
With freedom’s holy light.
Protect us by thy might,
Great God, our King! 21

The United Order Vs. Communism...

2011-07-31T07:21:00.000-07:00

The United Order Vs. Communism

by President J. Reuben Clark Jr., First Counselor in the First Presidency

General Conference Report October 1942, 2nd Session
Brethren:
I have been trying for a week to relieve you of this experience, but Brother McKay, so kind, so sweet, and so merciful, has been perfectly adamant. So I stand before you here, not to preach, but to counsel with you.
There is a great deal of misapprehension among our people regarding the United Order.
I have not been able to believe that the United Order meant what some people have thought it meant, so within the last months I have spent quite a little time reading the revelations thereon, also reading our history, and at the same time giving some consideration to a dissertation which has been written regarding the Order.
There is a growing-I fear it is growing-sentiment that communism and the United Order are virtually the same thing, communism being merely the forerunner, so to speak, of a reestablishment of the United Order. I am informed that ex-bishops, and indeed, bishops, who belong to communistic organizations, are preaching this doctrine. So I thought that perhaps if I said just a few words to you tonight regarding the way I interpret the revelations that are printed about this in the D&C (if there are other revelations about the Order, I do not know of them), I thought if I said something about it, it might be helpful. I recommend that you, my brethren, read a few of the Sections of the D&C which cover this matter, beginning with Sections 42 and 51. ( See also Sections 70, 78, 82, 83, 85, 90, 92, 96, and 104.) If you will go over these sections, I feel sure that you will find that my explanation of the United Order will be substantially accurate.
Early Deviations
I may say to begin with, that in practice the brethren in Missouri got away, in their attempts to set up the United Order, from the principles set out in the revelations. This is also true of the organizations set up here in Utah after the Saints came to the Valleys. So far as I have seen there has been preserved only one document that purports to be a legal instrument used in connection with the setting up of the United Order, and that document is without date. It is said to have been found among the papers of Bishop Partridge. It was a "lease-lend" document. You may have heard that phrase before. Under this instrument the Church leased to Titus Billings a certain amount of real estate and loaned him a certain amount of personal property.
This instrument is not in accordance with the principle laid down in the revelations touching upon the United Order.
The basic principle of all the revelations on the United Order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of the property which we have, because it belongs to Him. This, I repeat, is the basic principle. (D. &. C. 104: 14-17, 54-57)
One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revelation (D. & C. 51:3) affirms that every man is to be "equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs." ( See also D. & C. 82 17; 78: 5-6. ) Obviously, this is not a case of "dead level" equality. It is "equality" that will vary as much as the man's circumstances, his family, his wants and needs, may vary.
Consecration
In the next place, under the United Order every man was called to consecrate to the Church all of the property which he had; the real estate was to be conveyed to the Church, as I understand the revelations, by what we would call a deed in fee simple. Thus the man's property became absolutely the property of the Church. (D. & C. 42:30; 72:15) Then the bishop deeded back to the donor by the same kind of deed, that is, in fee simple, and also transferred to him by an equivalent instrument, so far as personal property was concerned, that amount of real and personal property, which, the two being taken together, would be required by the individual for the support of himself and his family "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs." This the man held as his own property. (D. & C. 42:32; 51:4-6; 83:3
In other words, basic to the United Order was the private ownership of property, every man had his own property from which he might secure that which was necessary for the support of himself and his family. There is nothing in the revelations that would indicate that this property was not freely alienable at the will of the owner. It was not contemplated that the Church should own everything or that we should become in the Church, with reference to our property and otherwise, the same kind of automaton, manikin, that communism makes out of the individual, with the State standing at the head in place of the Church.
Now, that part of a man's property which was not turned back to him, if he had more than was needed under this rule of "equality" already stated, became the common property of the Church, and that common property was used for the support of the poor of the Church. It is spoken of in the revelations as the "residue" of property. ( D. & C. 42:34-36)
Land Portions
Furthermore, it was intended, though apparently it did not work out very well, that the poor coming into Zion, and by Zion I mean, here, Missouri-the poor coming into Zion were to have given to them a "portion" of land, which land was to be either purchased from the Government (and it was planned to purchase large areas from the Government), or purchased from individuals, or received as consecrations from members of the Church. The amount of this "portion" was to be such as would make him equal to others according to his circumstances, his family, his wants and needs.
The land which you received from the bishop by deed, whether it was part of the land which you, yourself, had deeded to the Church, or whether it came as an out-right gift from the Church as just indicated, and the personal property which you received, were all together sometimes called a "portion" (D. & C. 51:4-6), sometimes a "stewardship" ( D. & C. 104:11-12), and sometimes an "inheritance." ( D. & C. 83 3 )
As just indicated, there were other kinds of inheritances and stewardships than land or mere personal property; for example, the Prophet and others had a stewardship given to them which consisted of the revelations and commandments (D. & C. 70:1-4 ); others had given to them a stewardship involving the printing house (D. & C. 104:29-30); another stewardship was a mercantile establishment. (D. & C. 104:39-42)
Surplus
I repeat that whatever a steward realized from the portion allotted to him over and above that which was necessary in order to keep his family under the standard provided, as already stated above, was turned over by the steward to the bishop, and this amount of surplus, plus the residues to which I have already referred, went into a bishop's storehouse (D. & C. 51 13 and citations above), and the materials of the storehouse were to be used in creating portions, as above indicated, for caring for the poor (D. & C. 78:3), the widows and orphans ( D. & C. 83 6), and for the elders of the Church engaged in the ministry, who were to pay for what they received if they could, but if not, their faithful labors should answer their debt to the bishop. (D. & C. 72:11 ff)
Other Institutions
Now, as time went on and the system developed, the Lord created two other institutions besides the storehouse: one was known as the Sacred Treasury, into which was put "the avails of the sacred things in the treasury, for sacred and holy purposes." While it is not clear, it would seem that into this treasury were to be put the surpluses which were derived from the publication of the revelations, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and other similar things, the stewardship of which had been given to Joseph and others. (D. & C. 104:60-66) The Lord also provided for the creation of "Another Treasury," and into that other treasury went the general revenues which came to the Church, such as gifts of money and those revenues derived from the improvement of stewardships as distinguished from the residues of the original consecrations and the surpluses which came from the operation of their stewardships. (D. & C. 72:11 ff)
The foregoing is the general outline as it is gathered from the revelations of the law of the United Order which the Lord spoke of as "my law." (D. & C. 44:6; 51:15) There are passages in the revelations which, taken from their context and without having in mind the whole system, might be considered as inconsistent with some of the things which I have set out, but all such passages fall into line if the whole program is looked at as contained in all of the revelations.
Private Ownership Fundamental
The fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which he could alienate, or hypothecate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph, himself said, (History of the Church, Volume III, p. 28). The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system.
The Welfare Plan and the United Order
We have all said that the Welfare Plan is not the United Order and was not intended to be. However, I should like to suggest to you that perhaps, after all, when the Welfare Plan gets thoroughly into operation-it is not so yet-we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order.
In the first place I repeat again, the United Order recognized and was built upon the principle of private ownership of property; all that a man had and lived upon under the United Order, was his own. Quite obviously, the fundamental principle of our system today is the ownership of private property.
In the next place, in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the, United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing, all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church. After all, the United Order was primarily designed to build up a system under which there should be no abjectly poor, and this is the purpose, also, of the Welfare Plan.
In this connection it should be observed that it is clear from these earlier revelations, as well as from our history, that the Lord had very early to tell the people about the wickedness of idleness, and the wickedness of greed, because the brethren who had were not giving properly, and those who had not were evidently intending to live without work on the things which were to be received from those who had property. (D. & C. 56:16-20)
Storehouses and Projects
Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop's storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop's storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose.
As I have already indicated, the surplus properties which came to the Church under the Law of Consecration, under the United Order, became the "common property" of the Church (D. & C. 82 18 ) and were handled under the United Order for the benefit of the poor. We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, ward land projects. In some cases the lands are owned by the wards, in others they are leased by the wards or lent to them by private individuals. This land is being farmed for the benefit of the poor, by the poor where you can get the poor to work it.
We have in place of the two treasuries, the "Sacred Treasury" and "Another Treasury," the general funds of the Church.
Thus you will see, brethren, that in many of its great essentials, we have, as the Welfare Plan has now developed, the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time and in various wards to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund.
Now, brethren, the Church has made tremendous advances in the Welfare Plan. We shall have to make still greater advances. As the Message of the First Presidency said this morning, we are being told by Government officials that we face what we used to call "hard times." If the Welfare Plan is fully operative, we shall be able to care for every destitute Latter-day Saint wherever he may be.
The Constitution
Now, I would like to say something else, brethren, again by way of counsel I shall be accused, when I do, of talking politics, and perhaps on this point I may say I do not read anonymous letters. When they come in I just throw them into the wastebasket. I only read enough of the signed scurrilous letters that are sent to know that they are scurrilous, and then they follow along. So it is useless for anyone to try to take out any personal feeling in that way.
You and I have heard all our lives that the time may come when the Constitution may hang by a thread. I do not know whether it is a thread, or a small rope by which it now hangs, but I do know that whether it shall live or die is now in the balance.
I have said to you before, brethren, that to me the Constitution is a part of my religion. In its place it is just as much a part of my religion as any other part. It is a part of my religion because it is one of those institutions which God has set up for His own purposes, and, as one of the brethren said today, set up so that this Church might be established, because under no other government in the world could the Church have been established as it has been established under this Government.
I think I would be sale in saying that my fellowship with you in the Church depends upon whether or not I accept the revelations and the principles which God has revealed. If I am not willing to do that, then I am not entitled to fellowship. Anyone else who fails to accept the revelations and the principles which God has revealed stands in precisely the same situation.
In the 101st Section of the D&C, which contains a revelation received by the Prophet in 1833, when the persecution in Missouri was at its highest, the Lord told the brethren that they should appeal for help. Then He added these verses, which I want to read to you:
According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the fights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D. & C. 101:77-80)
Influence in the Americas
I suppose you brethren will all know, but I will recall it to your attention, that the Constitution of the United States is the basic law for all of the Americas, or Zion, as it has been defined by the Lord.
You brethren from Canada know that, your great British North America Act, in its fundamental principles, is based upon our Constitution, and you know that in the courts of Canada, the reports of our Supreme Court, and our Federal courts generally, are just as persuasive as the decisions of the courts of England, and even more so, where questions of constitutional law and constitutional interpretation are involved.
You brethren also know that from the Rio Grande down to the Horn there is no constitutional government except those that are rounded primarily upon our own Constitution. In Mexico the revolutionary party which more than a century and a quarter ago rebelled against the king of Spain and established a republic, copied almost verbatim, and practically overnight, our Constitution, and made it their own. Neither Mexico nor the others to the South interpret their Constitutions as we interpret ours. They have different standards and different canons of interpretation, for their fundamental system is the civil law, while ours is the common law. But the great essentials of that document, the Constitution of the United States, which God Himself inspired, is the law of Zion, the Americas.
The Law of Zion
So, brethren, I wish you to understand that when we begin to tamper with the Constitution we begin to tamper with the law of Zion which God Himself set up, and no one may trifle with the word of God with impunity.
Now, I am not caring today, for myself, anything at all about a political party tag. So far as I am concerned, I want to know what the man stands for. I want to know if he believes in the Constitution; if he believes in its free institutions; if he believes in its liberties, its freedom. I want to know if he believes in the Bill of Rights. I want to know if he believes in the separation of sovereign power into the three great divisions: the Legislative, the Judicial, the Executive. I want to know if he believes in the mutual independence of these, the one from the other. When I find out these things, then I know who it is who should receive my support, and I care not what his party tag is, because, brethren, if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees. You may look at the systems all over the world where the princiles of our Constitution are not controlling and in force, and you will find there dictatorship, tyranny, oppression, and, in the last analysts, slavery.
Allegiance
I have said enough. I believe you understand what I have said. Today, our duty transcends party allegiance; our duty today is allegiance to the Constitution as it was given to us by the Lord. Every federal officer takes an oath to support that Constitution so given. The difference between us and some of those to the South of us is this: down there, their fealty runs to individuals; here, our fealty and our allegiance run to the Constitution and to the principles which it embodies, and not to individuals.
God give us wisdom and enable us in these times of trouble and strife clearly to see our way, that we may be instrumental in sustaining the Constitution, in upholding our free institutions, our civil rights, our freedom of speech, of press, of religion, and of conscience. If we shall stand together we shall save the Constitution, just as has been foreseen, and if we do not stand together, we cannot perform this great task.
God grant that we may be true, I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

The Devastation Created by Artificial Scarcity...

2011-07-30T15:06:00.000-07:00

How Environmentalists Cause War and Repression
Right Side News ^ | 6/20/2011 | Daniel Greenberg
Posted on Monday, June 20, 2011 7:40:49 AM by IbJensen
No other group has done as much to keep America dependent on foreign oil as the environmentalists have. After leading successful campaigns against nuclear power and domestic drilling, the green movement may lecture on "oil wars", but it is responsible for most of them.
The math of it is very simple. Resource shortages are a major cause of conflict. And environmentalists have dedicated themselves to creating resource shortages in prosperous nations. Their campaigns against nuclear, domestic oil and coal production have been big on self-righteousness and short on consequences. And the consequences are that their scaremongering has not only cost millions of American jobs, it has forced us to keep sending money to Muslim oil states who use that money for domestic repression and international terrorism.
The environmentalists have done the same thing in Europe and Asia, turning formerly moribund Communist powers, Russia and China, into energy and manufacturing superpowers. By making it more expensive and in some cases impossible to conduct manufacturing and energy production at home, they exported Western industries to the East, and enabled the transformation of struggling tyrannies into international superpowers.
China's domestic repression is made possible by its economic boom. A boom created when American companies found it cheaper to do business in a country where they weren't under siege by college grads with a specialty in pretending to be Rachel Carson or Erin Brockovich, both frauds turned into legends thanks to the mythmaking abilities of the left-wing movement.
The legacy of Tiananmen Square would almost certainly have been reform or revolution, if not for a limited prosperity created through outsourced industries and cheap manufacturing. When the question arises, who killed the pro-democracy movement in China-- it wasn't the tanks, but their enablers, the liberals whose regulation and exploitation had made America into an uncomfortable place to do business. Those companies went elsewhere and the money they brought, propped up the Chinese Communist party. And the industries of the Chinese boom created such intense pollution that it is worse than the worst nightmares of the environmentalists. Pollution that they can and should take credit for, because they were the ones who made it happen.
Environmentalists who agitate against pollution caused by foreign companies in the Third World need to take a long hard look in the mirror. In many cases it was their own campaigns which drove American companies into countries where they wouldn't be so tightly regulated. Rather than apply reasonable regulations, they made it their goal to wipe out entire industries. They didn't get their wish. Rather those industries moved abroad to places where there were no regulations at all. And the resulting misery that caused lies at their doorstep.
In Germany, the Greens have succeeded in their campaign against the domestic nuclear industry. What is the net result of this? It further degrades Europe's energy capabilities and moves it into Putin's orbit. That empowers Russia to begin another campaign of conquest aimed at its former republics. That is what a "Green" victory really looks like. People freezing in their homes while a dictatorship sends its tanks and infantry on a new campaign of terror.
The environmental response is always something about solar and wind energy, two technologies that are still unready to meet a major country's energy needs. But that's exactly why the environmental movement champions them. Aside from the optics of "getting your energy from mother nature", the real goal has always been to drive up the cost of energy. The environmental movement is not interested in cheap energy. If solar power provided energy cheaply, the greens would be marching against it. Any technology that provides cheap power is their enemy.
The mandate of the environmental movement is artificial scarcity. But artificial scarcity doesn't exist in a global economy. If you raise the price of energy production, resource mining or manufacturing, it will move abroad to less regulated countries. The price will still go up and there will be other long term consequences, but people will still find a way to get what they need. Like the rest of the left, the green movement has never learned that people will act in their own interests, rather than in thrall to their dogma. That if they can't get it legally, they will get it illegally.
Americans are not about to freeze in their homes in winter or die of heatstroke in the summer. They are not about to drive midget cars to the lumber yard or let their families go hungry so that they can buy local. And that means more money flowing to Saudi Arabia and to China. It means more war and more repression. It means more families making do without and more firing squads and terrorist attacks. All for the greater glory of the environmental movement.
It will take a lot more work to push down the poverty level to the extent that Americans will bike to work or root through the garbage for food-- two behaviors popular in the environmentally pretentious left. Until then there will always be other options. No matter how bad they are.
Wal-Mart owes more to the left's war on small business and manufacturing than either would care to recognize. Its Made in China merchandise sold at the lowest possible price is the aftermath of an outsourced economy which has brought formerly prosperous towns to the poverty level, and compensated for it with cheap goods from the country that has taken their industries. The left has created the poverty that it mocks. And it has created the slave labor that makes the products which they deplore. It is responsible for all of it and it should take ownership of it.
And as China approaches a new war for Pacific dominance, the left may as well take credit for that too. If it wasn't for the shift in economic power, driven by their job killing regulations, and their spending sprees, there might be reforms happening in Bejing, instead of the clatter of factories and war machines. And if a war does come, if tens of thousands or millions die, then it too will be on their heads. Along with the clouds of pollution and the body parts of political prisoners being shipped to America for their edification and exhibition.
These are just some of the green chickens coming home to roost. And there will be lots more of them flocking on over if this goes on.
The environmental movement's manifest hypocrisy is that it causes the very things that it deplores. Its campaigns against the nuclear industry, has sent billions overseas to countries which are developing their own nuclear weapons and intend to use them. By shutting down nuclear plants in America, they have made it much more likely that nuclear bombs will be detonated in America.
It destroyed American industry in the name of worker protection and pollution, and sent the factories to countries where workers have no rights and the pollution looks like something out of a post-apocalyptic movie. And reduced those former workers to the point where they have no choice but to buy those same slave labor products at a non-union store with the profits going to China's war machine.
Domestic drilling? Allah preserve us. It's much better to send the money over to Saudi Arabia, which funnels it to terrorists, who kill Americans, and cause global wars. Wars that the left claims to deplore. Oil wars. Their own damn oil wars. Wars in which they are equal partners with the oil companies and the Gulf royal families who have fattened their pockets from the energy hunger of a country where there is plenty of oil, but no way to get at it.
These are all victories for the environmental movements and defeats for anyone with any sanity or sense. But the environmental movement refuses to acknowledge the consequences of its actions. Instead it champions further domestic and international repression. Like every tyrannical ideology it knows only one solution to every problem, more laws, more chains, more investigations and prison cells for anyone who disobeys.
Repression and propaganda is the environmental movement's solution to everything. Its imperative is to destroy, impoverish, oppress and intimidate. It spreads hopeless misery around the world, with a smile. The countless victims of Rachel Carson's malaria or the prisoners of the EPA go unnoticed as the latest children's propaganda cartoon is rolled out. Its implicit message is always that there is a war on between the environmentalists and the people who just want to live their own lives. And that it is the obligation of the youth to put on their uniforms and enlist on their side.
Generations of tyranny later, the environmental movement has little positive to show for it, besides a few cleanups. But its leaders have profited from a regulatory state that impoverishes the country and promotes war and oppression around the world. It is time for those who have chosen to align themselves with a movement that exists to enrich environmental consultants, Saudi Arabia, the People's Republic of China and Wall Street, while impoverishing Main Street to take a long hard look at what they have done. Before all the chickens really do come home to roost.

The U.S. Constitution is The Word of God...

2011-07-26T07:31:00.000-07:00

The statement of the Lord, “I have established the Constitution” puts it in the position in which it would be if it were written in this D&C itself. This makes the constitution the WORD OF THE LORD to us.

~J. Reuben Clark [CR Apr 1935]

I am America... by Carl Mouritsen

2011-07-19T12:05:00.000-07:00

You say America is fat and lazy,
but I am fit and work hard
and I am America.

You say America is racist and mean,
but I care for and try to serve all men
and I am America.

You say America has lost her values,
but I am honest, hard-working and kind
and I am America.

You say America lies and cheats,
but I am honest and fair
and I am America.

You say America is greedy and envious,
but I am content and happy
and I am America.

So, remember, when you point your
finger at this, our country,
that you, too, are America.

Carl Mouritsen

Global Warming: Science or Politics...

2011-07-19T10:40:00.000-07:00

Did you know that the position of NASA Chief is a political appointment? You don't get the job because a collection of your peers votes you the smartest guy around. You get there by appointment... Presidential Appointment. Do you think this makes a difference in whether NASA is a purely scientific venture or not? I do.

Meet Michael Griffin appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005...

Education:
Dr. Griffin currently holds seven degrees. He has earned a Bachelor of Arts in physics from Johns Hopkins University in 1971; a Master of Science in Engineering in aerospace science from the Catholic University of America in 1974; a Doctor of Philosophy in aerospace engineering from the University of Maryland in 1977; a Master of Science in electrical engineering from the University of Southern California in 1979; a Master of Science in applied physics from Johns Hopkins University in 1983; a Master of Business Administration from the University of Maryland in 1990; and a Master of Science in civil engineering from George Washington University in 1998.

Dr. Griffin was also working toward an MS in computer science at Johns Hopkins University before being appointed as NASA chief. He has worked at the Jet Propulsion Lab and APL. Dr. Griffin has been a professor at various universities, teaching courses in spacecraft design, applied mathematics, guidance and navigation, compressible flow, computational fluid dynamics, spacecraft attitude control, astrodynamics, and introductory aerospace engineering. He is the lead author of more than two dozen technical papers, and is co-author with James R. French of the graduate astronautical engineering textbook, "Space Vehicle Design." ISBN 1-56347-539-1 Dr. Griffin is also a general aviation flight instructor and pilot, and part-owner of a small airplane, a Grumman Tiger.

Other Experience:
Griffin's prior experience includes a previous stop at APL (Applied Physics Laboratory) in the 1980s, when he helped design the successful Delta 180 series of missile-defense technology satellites for the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. After leaving APL in 1986, he served as the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization’s deputy for technology, then as the chief engineer and later Associate Administrator for Exploration at NASA Headquarters.

In 1993, Michael Griffin wrote a letter criticizing problems in the design review process for the International Space Station, problems that the Clinton Administration and then-NASA Administrator Dan Goldin ignored, resulting in design changes that set the International Space Station program back several years.[citation needed]

In the years following his first tour with NASA, Griffin was president and chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, a private, non-profit enterprise funded by the Central Intelligence Agency to identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve national security interests. Griffin’s resume also includes leadership roles at Orbital Sciences Corporation and technical positions at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and at Computer Sciences Corporation.

Michael Griffin was formally sworn in by Vice President Dick Cheney on June 28, 2005. Before his appointment as NASA Administrator, Griffin was president-elect of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). He is a member of the American Astronautical Society and International Academy of Astronautics.

In 2004, Michael Griffin was named head of the Space Department at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [4]

Michael Griffin doesn't believe in Anthropogenic Warming to be settled science nor does he believe it is something we need to concern ourselves with:
"I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

This is current NASA Chief Charles F. Bolden appointed by President Barrak Obama

This is his education:
BS Electrical Science from US Naval Academy 1968
MS Systems Management from University of Southern California 1977
Other Experience:
Bolden is a gifted pilot and a highly decorated veteran. He flew many missions in Vietnam.
He was a recruiting officer.
He became an astronaut in 1981. His assignments dealt largely with safety.
He has flown 4 missions in space, considered very extensive experience.

Charles F. Bolden believes that Anthropogenic Warming is a grave concern. He believes in it because he's seen it with his own eyes.

Bolden flew 4 shuttle missions. Mission #1 in January of 1986. Mission #2 in end of April of 1990 Mission #3 in beginning of April 1992 Mission #4 in February of 1994.

So, he flew 4 mission in a period of eight years never leaving and arriving on the same dates. Everyone alive has experienced a light or a heavy winter. And, almost all of us have experienced something called seasons. In Utah January and April are two very different things. Just thinking out loud here, but there has to be more science to this man's science before we spend another Trillion dollars.. wouldn't you think?

Liberal Logic that I will never understand...

2011-06-20T14:19:00.000-07:00

Governor Rick Perry gave an amazing speech over the weekend. It was Reagan-esque and I was impressed. THIS article is a sampling of the liberal retort. It goes something like this. "We don't want conservatives telling what to do with OUR bodies. They should stay out of our business. And, after all, they are sick murderers who execute death row inmates. Who are they to talk?"

Let's look at that logic for just one second.
In the year 2010 over 1.2 million of the unborn were aborted. Killed. Murdered?
In the year 2010... 29 convicted murderers received the death penalty. In a country where in 2009 15,421 murders were committed.

It is possible that 1 of those death row inmates was innocent.. Maybe. It's not likely, but possible. (One of them received an extra trial in The New Yorker)

But, that injustice aside, I can tell you this: the 1.2 million babies that were aborted... ALL were innocent. Every one.

Userper...

2011-04-14T18:31:00.000-07:00

President Obama in his speech 4.13.2011

"Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize." Obama

TEXT OF ENTIRE SPEECH... Do you see what he did there? Our own money is not our own. It belongs to the government. Our labor and the results belong to the government which spends by allowing us to keep our own money. If you don't see that President Obama is an evil communist userper, you're not paying attention. (What would happen to private charity and civil society under president Obama's socialist utopia HERE...)
Then, did you see that he also included in that one sentence ending deductions for homeownership? The real estate market is in serious trouble, what happens when he does this... fewer and fewer people will purchase homes and invest in real estate causing the complete collapse of what is left of the private real estate market and making it all owned and operated by who? ... The Federal Government.
There was never such a wolf in lamb's clothing.

The EPA CFL's and other alphabet soup...

2011-04-14T18:01:00.000-07:00

This video is 5 minutes long and worth your time... HERE...

Ten Good Reasons to Eliminate the NEA...

2011-04-07T20:04:00.000-07:00

Read HERE...

A Nation of Takers...

2011-04-04T08:36:00.000-07:00

READ HERE... One way that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we've gotten.

Important Perspective on Japan's Nuclear Reactors

2011-03-18T08:51:00.000-07:00

From the Wall Street Journal...
By WILLIAM TUCKER
Even while thousands of people are reported dead or missing, whole neighborhoods lie in ruins, and gas and oil fires rage out of control, press coverage of the Japanese earthquake has quickly settled on the troubles at two nuclear reactors as the center of the catastrophe.
Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), a longtime opponent of nuclear power, has warned of "another Chernobyl" and predicted "the same thing could happen here." In response, he has called for an immediate suspension of licensing procedures for the Westinghouse AP1000, a "Generation III" reactor that has been laboring through design review at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for seven years.

Author William Tucker explains why the danger is limited at Japan's nuclear reactors.
Before we respond with such panic, though, it would be useful to review exactly what is happening in Japan and what we have to fear from it.
The core of a nuclear reactor operates at about 550 degrees Fahrenheit, well below the temperature of a coal furnace and only slightly hotter than a kitchen oven. If anything unusual occurs, the control rods immediately drop, shutting off the nuclear reaction. You can't have a "runaway reactor," nor can a reactor explode like a nuclear bomb. A commercial reactor is to a bomb what Vaseline is to napalm. Although both are made from petroleum jelly, only one of them has potentially explosive material.
Once the reactor has shut down, there remains "decay heat" from traces of other radioactive isotopes. This can take more than a week to cool down, and the rods must be continually bathed in cooling waters to keep them from overheating.
On all Generation II reactors—the ones currently in operation—the cooling water is circulated by electric pumps. The new Generation III reactors such as the AP1000 have a simplified "passive" cooling system where the water circulates by natural convection with no pumping required.
If the pumps are knocked out in a Generation II reactor—as they were at Fukushima Daiichi by the tsunami—the water in the cooling system can overheat and evaporate. The resulting steam increases internal pressure that must be vented. There was a small release of radioactive steam at Three Mile Island in 1979, and there have also been a few releases at Fukushima Daiichi. These produce radiation at about the level of one dental X-ray in the immediate vicinity and quickly dissipate.

Editorial Board Member Mary Kissel explains the Japanese response to the quake.
If the coolant continues to evaporate, the water level can fall below the level of the fuel rods, exposing them. This will cause a meltdown, meaning the fuel rods melt to the bottom of the steel pressure vessel.
Early speculation was that in a case like this the fuel might continue melting right through the steel and perhaps even through the concrete containment structure—the so-called China syndrome, where the fuel would melt all the way to China. But Three Mile Island proved this doesn't happen. The melted fuel rods simply aren't hot enough to melt steel or concrete.
The decay heat must still be absorbed, however, and as a last-ditch effort the emergency core cooling system can be activated to flood the entire containment structure with water. This will do considerable damage to the reactor but will prevent any further steam releases. The Japanese have now reportedly done this using seawater in at least two of the troubled reactors. These reactors will never be restarted.
None of this amounts to "another Chernobyl." The Chernobyl reactor had two crucial design flaws. First, it used graphite (carbon) instead of water to "moderate" the neutrons, which makes possible the nuclear reaction. The graphite caught fire in April 1986 and burned for four days. Water does not catch fire.
Second, Chernobyl had no containment structure. When the graphite caught fire, it spouted a plume of radioactive smoke that spread across the globe. A containment structure would have both smothered the fire and contained the radioactivity.
If a meltdown does occur in Japan, it will be a disaster for the Tokyo Electric Power Company but not for the general public. Whatever steam releases occur will have a negligible impact. Researchers have spent 30 years trying to find health effects from the steam releases at Three Mile Island and have come up with nothing. With all the death, devastation and disease now threatening tens of thousands in Japan, it is trivializing and almost obscene to spend so much time worrying about damage to a nuclear reactor.
What the Japanese earthquake has proved is that even the oldest containment structures can withstand the impact of one of the largest earthquakes in recorded history. The problem has been with the electrical pumps required to operate the cooling system. It would be tragic if the result of the Japanese accident were to prevent development of Generation III reactors, which eliminate this design flaw.
Mr. Tucker is author of "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey" (Bartleby Press, 2010).

Sarah Palin on $4-Per-Gallon

2011-03-15T18:54:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON — A feisty President Barack Obama defended his administration's energy policies Friday after weeks of attacks from Republicans and energy-state lawmakers of both parties who say the president has blocked new domestic oil and gas production.
“Any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn't match up with reality,” he said at a midday news conference. Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Obama-says-he-s-no-foe-of-domestic-energy-1081620.php#ixzz1GiwfHDEr

There is no nice way to say this. President Obama's statement simply is not true. Sarah Palin sets the record straight.

The $4-Per-Gallon President

by Sarah Palin on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 at 5:27pm

Is it really any surprise that oil and gas prices are surging toward the record highs we saw in 2008 just prior to the economic collapse? Despite the President’s strange assertions in his press conference last week, his Administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.

The evidence of the President’s anti-drilling mentality and his culpability in the high gas prices hurting Americans is there for all to see. The following is not even an exhaustive list:

Exhibit A: His drilling moratorium. Guided by politics and pure emotion following the Gulf spill instead of peer-reviewed science or defensible law, the President used the power of his executive order to impose a deepwater drilling moratorium. The Administration even ignored a court order halting his moratorium. And what is the net result of the President’s (in)actions? A large drilling company was forced to declare bankruptcy, the economy of the region has been hobbled, and at least 7 rigs moved out of the Gulf area to other parts of the world while many others remain idle. Is it any surprise that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 240,000 bbl/d in 2011 alone?

But that’s just the Gulf. There’s also the question of a moratorium on the development of Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf. It seems the Obama Administration can’t agree with itself on whether it imposed a moratorium there or not. The White House claims that they didn’t, but their own Department of the Interior let slip that they did. To clear up this mess, Gov. Parnell decided to sue the DOI to get a solid answer because such a federal OCS drilling moratorium would violate federal law.

Exhibit B: His 2012 budget. The President used his 2012 budget to propose the elimination of several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives. Eliminating these incentives will discourage energy companies from completing exploratory projects, resulting in higher energy costs for all Americans – and not just at the pump. According to one study mentioned in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, eliminating the deduction for drilling costs “could increase natural gas prices by 50 cents per thousand cubic feet,” which would translate to “an increased cost to consumers of $11.5 billion per year in the form of higher natural gas prices.”

Exhibit C: His anti-drilling regulatory policies. The U.S. Geological Survey found that the area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, one third of which is in Alaskan territory. That’s our next Prudhoe Bay right there. According to one industry study, allowing Royal Dutch Shell to tap these reserves in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort seas would create an annual average of 54,700 jobs nationwide with a $145 billion total payroll and generate an additional $193 billion a year in total revenues to local, state, and federal governments for 50 years. This would be great news if only the federal government would allow Shell to drill there. But it won’t. It’s been five years since Shell purchased the lease to develop these fields, but it’s been mired in a regulatory funk courtesy of the Obama Administration. After investing $3.5 billion in exploration programs (a significant portion of which went to ensuring responsible spill response and prevention), Shell announced last month that it has given up hope of obtaining the required permits to conduct exploratory drilling this year. That means no jobs and no billions in oil revenue from the Arctic anytime soon thanks to this Administration. Let’s stop and think about this for a moment. Right now Beltway politicos are quibbling over cutting $61 billion from our dangerously bloated $3.7 trillion budget. Allowing drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas will enrich federal coffers by $167 billion a year without raising our taxes. If we let Harry Reid keep his “cowboy poetry,” would the White House consider letting us drill?

Taken altogether, it’s hard to deny that the Obama Administration is anti-drilling. The President may try to suggest that the rise in oil prices has nothing to do with him, but the American people won’t be fooled. Before we saw any protests in the Middle East, increased global demand led to a significant rise in oil prices; but the White House stood idly by watching the prices go up and allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world.

This was no accident. Through a process of what candidate Obama once called “gradual adjustment,” American consumers have seen prices at the pump rise 67 percent since he took office. Let’s not forget that in September 2008, candidate Obama’s Energy Secretary in-waiting said: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” That’s one campaign promise they’re working hard to fulfill! Last week, the British Telegraph reported that the price of petrol in the UK hit £6 a gallon – which comes to about $9.70. If you think $4 a gallon is bad now, just wait till the next crisis causes oil prices to “necessarily” skyrocket. Meanwhile, the vast undeveloped reserves that could help to keep prices at the pump affordable remain locked up because of President Obama’s deliberate unwillingness to drill here and drill now.

Hitting the American people with higher gas prices like this is essentially a hidden tax and a transfer of wealth to foreign regimes who are providing us the energy we refuse to provide for ourselves. Like inflation, higher energy prices are a hidden tax on Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. And these high gas prices will be felt in the form of higher food prices due to higher transportation costs. Energy is connected to everything in our economy. Access to affordable and secure energy is key to economic growth, which in turn is key to job growth. Energy is the building block of our economy. The President is purposely weakening that building block and weakening our country.

2012 can’t come soon enough.

- Sarah Palin

Defund NPR... Here's why...

2011-03-11T09:27:00.000-08:00

NPR actually doesn't get that much taxpayer funding. They will make it just fine without it, I believe. But, NPR will not have to pretend to represent both sides. They can then go with their liberal agenda supported by most donors and listeners. They have some good programming on NPR, but the idea that NPR is unbiased is completely false and it's time for NPR to come out of the closet. While I enjoy some of the progams, I don't want my tax dollars promoting a liberal agenda that I don't believe in. If liberal programming can't survive in the market place, maybe that's because most of the populace is not socialist. Defund NPR and let's see how they do.

"Contrary to the perception that NPR is primarily funded by the government, the network only receives about 1 to 2 percent of its funds from federal grants. Individual NPR member stations, located around the country, rely on state and federal sources for about 10 percent of their funding.
Schiller, on tape, points out "that very little of our funding comes from the government" despite claims to the contrary. He adds that "in the long run we would be better off without federal funding."
The video has already been making the rounds on conservative sites this morning. And even though Schiller is no longer with NPR, the video is sure to give ammunition to NPR critics who already claim the network is too liberal and doesn't deserve federal funds.
Update: NPR put out an additional statement around 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday.
"The comments contained in the video released today are contrary to everything we stand for, and we completely disavow the views expressed. NPR is fair and open minded about the people we cover. Our reporting reflects those values every single day — in the civility of our programming, the range of opinions we reflect and the diversity of stories we tell."
"The assertion that NPR and public radio stations would be better off without federal funding does not reflect reality. The elimination of federal funding would significantly damage public broadcasting as a whole."
"Prior to the lunch meeting presented in the edited video, Ron Schiller had informed NPR that he was resigning from his position to take a new job. His resignation was announced publicly last week, and he was expected to depart in May. While we review this situation, he has been placed on administrative leave."'
More of the story HERE...

excerpt from Dallin H. Oaks The Lords Way...

2011-03-10T07:50:00.000-08:00

104There is widespread dissatisfaction with government welfare programs. Critics include not only the taxpayers who finance the assistance and resent the fact that it seems to fall far short of its stated aims, but also the persons who receive assistance and who resent the extent and nature of the aid and the administrative controls that accompany it. Some scholars and some politicians complete the chorus of opposition.

105The most severe critics contend that government welfare programs have failed to reduce poverty; they have probably increased it, while contributing to a host of associated social evils. 6 John Goodman, president of the National Center for Political Analysis, has said: "The USA's welfare system is a disaster. It is creating poverty, not destroying it. It subsidizes divorce, unwed teenage pregnancy, the abandonment of elderly parents by their children, and the wholesale dissolution of the family. The reason? We pay people to be poor. Private charities have always been better at providing relief where it is truly needed." 7

The passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 marked a turning point in modern social welfare development in the United States. The benefits granted under that legislation had little or no relation to the contributions recipients had made to what was called the insurance fund. So far as individual workers were concerned, they had no interest in a segregated fund.
118That is still true after more than a half-century. The huge sums that potential recipients and their employers pay as social security taxes are hardly distinguishable from income taxes, and the amounts received as social security payments bear little relationship to the amounts the recipient has paid into the fund. Some pay much more than their expected return; some pay much less. It can therefore be said that in economic effect, social security disbursements are difficult to distinguish from welfare payments. 29
118However, there is a great difference in terms of motive. Since all social security recipients have paid something for the assistance they are receiving (and some have even contributed more than they will receive), for purposes of the recipient's motive it is possible to liken social security to the purchase of an annuity for life. In any event, it is virtually impossible for employees or employers to avoid the taxes that are labeled for the support of social security payments. In those circumstances, church members and church corporations (as employers) have no practical alternative other than to participate, even though the social security system leaves much to be desired when measured against the principles of self-reliance.

In Mine Own Way... President Marion G. Romney

2011-03-08T09:29:00.000-08:00

“In Mine Own Way”
President Marion G. Romney
Second Counselor in the First Presidency
Marion G. Romney, "“In Mine Own Way”", Ensign, Nov. 1976, 123

Brothers and sisters, I seek your faith and prayers as I attempt to direct your thoughts a little while to the fundamentals of the welfare program. I want to congratulate the Brethren and Sister Smith on the fine presentations they’ve made here this morning.
Brother Featherstone’s account of the talking wall brought to my mind an incident that I was told about. Not long ago two of our security men were working high up on the temple, inspecting it or something, in the night, when it was dark. Down in front of the temple, two or three inebriated men were hanging on the gate looking up at the temple, and one of them said, “Oh Moroni, speak to me.” And one of our men said, “Yes, what is it you want?”
I won’t tell you anything new this morning. I’ll give you some remarks that I’ve given many, many times—not verbatim, but the substance of what I’ve been teaching about the fundamentals of the Church welfare program throughout the Church in the last thirty-five years. I have entitled these remarks, “In Mine Own Way.”
As our modern societies follow the course which led to the fall of Rome and other civilizations which succumbed to the deceptive lure of the welfare state and socialism, I think it not inappropriate for me to emphasize again the Lord’s plan for the temporal salvation of His mortal children.
To emphasize the contrast between the Lord’s plan and some of the absurd practices of our day, I shall read a clipping or two from my miscellaneous file.
The first concerns a hippie couple who were walking down the street. They both had long hair and were dressed in typical hippie attire, complete with beads, sandals, and headbands. The fellow said to the girl: “I’m going over and pick up my unemployment check. Then I’ll drop in at the university to see what’s holding up my check for my federal education grant. After that I’ll pick up our food stamps. Meanwhile, you go over to the free clinic and check your tests, pick up my new glasses at the city health center, then go to the welfare department and apply for another increase on our eligibility limit.
“Then I’ll meet you at five o’clock at the federal building for the mass demonstration against this rotten establishment.”
I clipped the following from the Reader’s Digest some time ago.
“In our friendly neighbor city of St. Augustine great flocks of sea gulls are starving amid plenty. Fishing is still good, but the gulls don’t know how to fish. For generations they have depended on the shrimp fleet to toss them scraps from the nets. Now the fleet has moved. …
“The shrimpers had created a Welfare State for the … sea gulls. The big birds never bothered to learn how to fish for themselves and they never taught their children to fish. Instead they led their little ones to the shrimp nets.
“Now the sea gulls, the fine free birds that almost symbolize liberty itself, are starving to death because they gave in to the ‘something for nothing’ lure! They sacrificed their independence for a hand-out.
“A lot of people are like that, too. They see nothing wrong in picking delectable scraps from the tax nets of the U.S. Government’s ‘shrimp fleet.’ But what will happen when the Government runs out of goods? What about our children of generations to come?
“Let’s not be gullible gulls. We … must preserve our talents of self-sufficiency, our genius for creating things for ourselves, our sense of thrift and our true love of independence.” (Reader’s Digest, Oct. 1950, p. 32.)
Now a contrasting clipping entitled, “It’s a Good Thing There Wasn’t Anybody Around to Help the Pilgrims”:
“They landed in a forbidding wilderness. No Federal Housing, so they went to work and built their own. No Free Stamp Program, so they raised what food they ate, and when they didn’t raise enough, went without.
“No Free Schools, so mothers taught their children. No Recreational Programs—they were too busy working. No anti-draft riots—everyone was expected to share in the protection of his country. No Social Security—no security at all, except what each provided for himself.
“But there were compensations. No rioters demanding something for nothing. No unwashed ‘students’ telling their mothers what to teach. No wasteful bureaucrats paying themselves out of the workers’ production.
“Nothing, really, for the Pilgrims but hard work and a lot of it.
“Did it pay off?
“Our standard of living proves it.” (Christian Economics, Nov. 1972, p. 25.)
Now to the Lord’s plan.
“I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth,” He said, “… and all things therein are mine.
“And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
“But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.
“For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.” (D&C 104:14–17.)
The underlying principles of God’s economy for the temporal salvation of His saints are clearly revealed in this scripture. Proclaiming Himself the creator of the earth and all things therein, He speaks of Himself as supreme landlord. He announces that it is His purpose to provide for His saints, at the same time declaring, “The earth is full, and there is enough and to spare.” He warns, however, that providing for His saints “must needs be done in mine own way.”
“And … this,” He continues, “is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.”
Following His way is indispensable to a well-ordered society.
We Latter-day Saints know that all men are brothers and sisters—“begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:24)—that we are responsible for the welfare of one another. These concepts are inherent in all the doctrines of the gospel.
We know that the ills of this troubled world have come about because men have failed to do what the Lord has commanded them. This applies to economic problems as well as to all other ills. We know also that the only cure for them is to do all things whatsoever the Lord our God commands us.
We know that the day will come when “every man” shall share equally in the good things of earth, “according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” (D&C 51:3.) We also know that attaining such equality must await the time when all men willingly work to sustain themselves and, motivated by love for their fellowmen, liberally “impart” of their substance unto the poor and the needy, “according to the law of [the] gospel.” (D&C 104:18.)
It is the responsibility of every Latter-day Saint to work and so impart of his substance, regardless of the shifting standards of this world. We must uphold these principles and oppose every derogation of them. We must be careful not to adopt the commonly accepted practice of expecting the government or anyone other than ourselves to supply us with the necessities of life.
The practice of coveting and receiving unearned benefits has now become so fixed in our society that even men of great wealth, and possessing the means to produce more wealth, are expecting the government to guarantee them a profit. Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens.
We cannot afford to become wards of the government, even though we have a legal right to do so. It requires too great a sacrifice in self-respect and in political, temporal, and spiritual independence.
Let us work for what we need. Let us be self-reliant and independent. Salvation can be obtained on no other principle. Salvation is an individual matter, and we must work out our own salvation, in temporal as well as in spiritual things.
Paul’s statement, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8–9), has been misunderstood. Some have interpreted it to mean that works are not necessary. This is an erroneous conclusion.
The truth is that we are saved by grace only after all we ourselves can do. (See 2 Ne. 25:23.) There will be no government dole which can get us through the pearly gates. Nor will anybody go into the celestial kingdom who wants to go there on the works of someone else. Every man must go through on his own merits. We might just as well learn this here and now.
The first principle of action in the Lord’s plan for our temporal salvation is, therefore, to take care of ourselves. This principle is so important that the Lord said to Adam, as he was about to leave the Garden of Eden, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the fruit of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying—Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed shall be the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.” (Moses 4:23.)
Note that the curse was not placed upon Adam, but upon the ground for Adam’s sake. Rather than a curse upon Adam, it was a blessing to him. It launched him and his posterity upon the only course by which they can eventually reach that perfection enjoined by the Master. The fact that when the Lord cursed the ground to bring forth “thorns” and “thistles,” thereby requiring men to labor in order to derive a living from it, it was for their “sake”—meaning “good,” “advantage,” or “well-being?” This cannot be overemphasized.
Since that eventful day in Eden, the Lord has frequently reemphasized the fact that individual effort is the basic principle in His economy—both spiritual and temporal. Let us never forget that the Lord’s way to provide for His saints is “that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.” (D&C 104:16.)
The poor can be exalted when and only when they are enabled to obtain independence and self-respect through their own industry and thrift. Our duty is to enable them to do this.
“The rich are made low” when they evidence their obedience to the second great commandment—“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matt. 22:39)—by imparting of their substance “according to the law of [the] gospel, unto the poor and the needy.” (D&C 104:18.)
In addition to maintaining our independence and self-respect by means of our own industry, and seeing to it that those to whom we extend Church welfare assistance do likewise to the full extent of their ability, we must never forget to honor our fathers and mothers. Since our obligation to so honor them is often observed in the breach and since the rewards for honoring them are so great and the penalty for failing to do so is so severe, I shall explain our obligation as I did in the October 1974 Welfare Services meeting, in the words of President Clark:
“This principle,” said he, “runs back to Mount Sinai.” It was there as you will remember that Moses received the “ten commandments, and one of them was ‘Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.’ (Ex. 20:12.) … I call your attention [first] to the command and then to the promise: ‘Honor thy father and thy mother’—the command. The promise: ‘That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.’ …
“Israel departed from this command, and in the time of the Savior the Jews had gotten so far away from it that the Lord took occasion to explain it to them and told them what it meant. You remember that on one occasion the Jews—[that is] the Scribes and Pharisees—came up from Jerusalem, trying to trick the Savior as usual, so they asked him why his disciples ate with unwashen hands, contrary to the teachings of the traditions of the fathers. The Savior did with them what he so frequently did with those who tried to entrap him, he answered their question by asking another, and the question which he asked of them was:
“‘Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
“‘For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: …
“‘But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
“‘And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.’ (Matt. 15:3–6 [italics added].)
“That is the account in Matthew. The account is virtually the same in Mark:
“‘For Moses said, [and Mark quotes] Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
“‘But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
“‘And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother.’ (Mark 7:10–12 [italics added].)
“This means [explains President Clark] that in place of observing the responsibility imposed by the Lord upon children to care for their parents, Israel had gone so astray that whenever a son or a daughter wanted to rid himself or herself of the obligation of caring for father and mother, he proceeded to say to father or mother, ‘From this time on, … I repudiate my obligation, and whatever I give to you is a gift (Corban), and not given under the commandment of the Lord.’”
Today the temptation, and too often the practice, is to turn father and mother over to public welfare and let the state take care of them. But to return to President Clark’s treatment of the subject:
“After calling their attention to this, the Savior said unto them, as recorded by Matthew:
“‘Ye hypocrites [that was the Savior’s statement about those who taught that we needn’t take care of our parents], well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
“‘This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
“‘But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’ (Matt. 15:7–9 [italics added].)
“Now I repeat to you, brethren, that command is without restriction. It runs to Israel, in my view, wherever Israel may be, and its promise as well as its command follows Israel in whatever land they may reside.
“‘Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.’ (Ex. 20:12 [italics added].)
“This land of ours is a chosen land to Joseph. I believe the promise applies here. In the Book of Mormon we are told what will happen to those who dwell on this land if they do not keep the commandments of God, if they do not worship Jesus the Christ who is the God of this land. He tells what will come to us when we are full of iniquity, and if we disobey that commandment of the Lord we are thus far under the condemnation which the Lord decreed, and we are thus far forward on the road to being full of iniquity.”
President Clark concluded this particular discussion with this reminder:
“I have given you what the Lord has said. We may use our agency as to whether we shall obey or disobey; and if we disobey we must abide the penalty.” (“Fundamentals of the Church Welfare Program,” October 6, 1944, pp. 3–5.)
That the Lord will give us the wisdom and the courage to understand and live by this principle, I humbly pray, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

The Book of Mormon is the Word of God...

2011-03-08T09:23:00.000-08:00

Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc. ~President Ezra Taft Benson

HERE...

Is Socialism the United Order?

2011-03-08T09:20:00.001-08:00

Elder Marion G. Romney Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
General Conference, April 1966
What I am going to give you now is a statement I have prepared in answer to the question, "Is Socialism the United Order?" Some of you may have already heard it. This is the first time I have ever attempted to give a talk a second time. My excuse is that the Brethren have asked me to give this talk here tonight.
I suppose the best way to start a comparison of socialism and the United Order is with a definition of the terms. Webster defines socialism as:
Socialism defined
"A political and economic theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods; also, a policy or practice based on this theory." (Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd ed. unabridged, 1951.)
George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that:
"Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, p. 895.)
George Douglas Howard Cole, M.A. noted author and university reader in economics at Oxford, who treats socialism for the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that because of the shifting sense in which the word has been used, "a short and comprehensive definition is impossible. We can only say," he concludes, "that Socialism is essentially a doctrine and a movement aiming at the collective organization of the community in the interest of the mass of the people by means of the common ownership and collective control of the means of production and exchange." (Ibid., p. 888.)
Socialism arose "out of the economic division in society." During the nineteenth century its growth was accelerated as a protest against "the appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories and the unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system."
Communism, starting point
The "Communist Manifesto" drafted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for the Communist League in 1848 is generally regarded as the starting point of modern socialism. (Ibid., p. 890.)
The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labour parties of Europe and the New World, and Communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy rather than of objective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith. Communists like other socialists, (1) believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production and (2) seek to achieve through state action the coordinated control of the economic forces of society. They (the Communists) differ from other socialists in believing that this control can be secured, and its use in the interests of the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change. (Ibid.)
German Socialism
A major rift between so-called orthodox socialism and communist socialism occurred in 1875 when the German Social Democratic party set forth its objective of winning power by taking over control of the bourgeois state, rather than by overthrowing it. In effect, the German Social Democratic party became a parliamentary party, aiming at the assumption of political power by constitutional means.
Fabian Society
In the 1880's a small group of intellectuals set up in England the Fabian Society, which has had a major influence on the development of modern orthodox socialism. Fabianism stands "for the evolutionary conception of socialism . . . endeavoring by progressive reforms and the nationalization of industries, to turn the existing state into a `welfare state.'" Somewhat on the order of the German Social Democrats Fabians aim "at permeating the existing parties with socialistic ideas [rather] than at creating a definitely socialistic party." They appeal "to the electorate not as revolutionaries but as constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful transformation of the system." (Ibid.)
Forms and policies of socialism
The differences in forms and policies of socialism occur principally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories.
They all advocate:
(1) That private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished and that all such property "pass under some form of coordinated public control." (2) That the power of the state be used to achieve their aims. (3) "That with a change in the control of industry will go a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system. . . ." (Ibid.) So much now for the definition of socialism. I have given you these statements in the words of socialists and scholars, not my words, so they have had their hearing.
The United Order
Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of the Lord and not my words. The United Order the Lord's program for eliminating the inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly possessions as stewards accountable to God.
On January 2, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Church was under obligation to care for the poor. (See D&C 38.) Later he said:
"I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, . . .and all things therein are mine.
"And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
"But it must needs be done in mine own way. . . ." (D&C 104:14-16.)
Consecration and stewardship
On February 9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what his way was. (See D&C 42.) In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2) stewardship.
To enter the United Order, when it was being tried, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a "covenant and a deed which" could not "be broken." (D&C 42:30.) That is, he completely divested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church.
Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his original consecration, the object being to make "every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs." (D&C 51:3.)
This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs.
The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse from which stewardships were given to others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.
These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying principles of socialism reveal similarities and basic differences.
Comparisons and contrasts: Similarities
The following are similarities: Both (1) deal with production and distribution of goods; (2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities; (3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system.
Differences
Now the differences:
(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order. Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.
(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God. One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, "You don't need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn't come into the United Order." (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 412-13.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.
(3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, "that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property" (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.
God-given agency preserved in United Order
Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.
(4) The United Order is non-political. Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man's agency.
(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order. Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.
The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as "the pure love of Christ." (Moro. 7:47.)
Socialism not United Order
No, brethren, socialism is not the United Order. However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.
"At the end of the year [1964] parties affiliated with the [Socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 Book of the Year, p. 736.)
United States has adopted much socialism
We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice according to the words of the President, that we are going much further, for he is quoted as saying:
"We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the `haves' and give it to the `have nots.'" (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)
Socialism takes: United Order gives
That is the spirit of socialism: We're going to take. The spirit of the United Order is: We're going to give.
We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans has been greatly
abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery.
As to the fruits of socialism, we all have our own opinions. I myself have watched its growth in our own country and observed it in operation in many other lands. But I have yet to see or hear of its freeing the hearts of men of selfishness and greed or of its bringing peace, plenty, or freedom. These things it will never bring, nor will it do away with idleness and promote "industry, thrift and self-respect," for it is founded, in theory and in practice, on force, the principle of the evil one.
As to the fruits of the United Order I suggest you read Moses 7:16-18 and 4 Nephi 2-3, 15-16. If we had time we could review the history, what little we know, of Zion in the days of Enoch and about what happened among the Nephites under those principles of the United Order in the first two centuries following the time of the Savior.
What can we do?
Now what can we do about it?
As I recently reminded my wife of the moratorium on the United Order, which the Lord placed in 1834 (D&C 105:34), that socialism is taking over in the nations and that its expressed aims will surely fail, she spiritedly put to me the question: "Well, then, what would you suggest, that we just sit on our hands in despair and do nothing?" Perhaps similar questions have occurred to you. The answer is, "No, by no means!" We have much to do, and fortunately for us the Lord has definitely prescribed the course we should follow with respect to socialism and the United Order.
Constitution God-inspired
He has told us that in preparation for the restoration of the gospel, he himself established the Constitution of the United States, and he has plainly told us why he established it. I hope I can get this point over to you. He said he established the Constitution to preserve to men their free agency, because the whole gospel of Jesus Christ presupposes man's untrammeled exercise of free agency. Man is in the earth to be tested. The issue as to whether he succeeds or fails will be determined by how he uses his agency. His whole future, through all eternity, is at stake. Abridge man's agency, and the whole purpose of his mortality is thwarted. Without it, the Lord says, there is no existence. (See D&C 93:30.) The Lord so valued our agency that he designed and dictated "the laws and constitution" required to guarantee it. This he explained in the revelation in which he instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith to appeal for help,
Just and holy principles
"According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
"That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
"And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose. . . ." (D&C 101:77-78, 80.)
Sustain Constitutional law
Previously he had said:
"And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind and is justifiable before me.
"Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land [the test of its constitutionality in the words of the Lord here is whether it preserves man's agency];
"And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil.
"I, the Lord God, make you free therefore ye are free indeed; and the law [that is, constitutional law] also maketh you free.
"Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
"Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (D&C 98:4-10.)
These scriptures declare the Constitution to be a divine document. They tell us that "according to just and holy principles," the Constitution and the law of the land which supports the "principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before" God; that, "as pertaining to [the] law of man whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." They remind us that the Lord has made us free and that laws that are constitutional will also make us free.
"When the wicked rule, the people mourn"
Right at this point, almost as if he were warning us against what is happening today, the Lord said: "Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn." Then, that we might know with certainty what we should do about it, he concluded: "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold. . . ."
In its context this instruction, according to my interpretation, can only mean that we should seek diligently for and support men to represent us in government who are "wise" enough to understand freedom—as provided for in the Constitution and as implemented in the United Order—and who are honest enough and good enough to fight to preserve it.
". . . under no other government in the world could the Church have been established," said President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and he continued:
". . . if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees." (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 58-59.)
Now, not forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support the just and holy principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord, I shall conclude these remarks with a few comments concerning what we should do about the United Order.
What to do about United Order
The final words of the Lord in suspending the order were: "And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption." (D&C 105:34.)
Further implementation of the order must therefore await the redemption of Zion. Here Zion means Jackson County, Missouri. When Zion is redeemed, as it most certainly shall be, it will be redeemed under a government and by a people strictly observing those "just and holy principles" of the Constitution that accord to men their God-given moral agency, including the right to private property. If, in the meantime, socialism takes over in America, it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or "the welfare state," for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical.
In the meantime, while we await the redemption of Zion and the earth and the establishment of the United Order, we as bearers of the priesthood should live strictly by the principles of the United Order insofar as they are embodied in present church practices, such as the fast offering, tithing, and the welfare activities. Through these practices we could as individuals, if we were of a mind to do so, implement in our own lives all the basic principles of the United Order.
As you will recall, the principles underlying the United Order are consecration and stewardships and then the contribution of surpluses into the bishop's storehouse. When the law of tithing was instituted four years after the United Order experiment was suspended, the Lord required the people to put "all their surplus property . . . into the hands of the bishop" (D&C 119:1); thereafter they were to "pay one-tenth of all their interest annually. . . ." (D&C 119:4.) This law, still in force, implements to a degree at least the United Order principle of stewardships, for it leaves in the hands of each person the ownership and management of the property from which he produces the needs of himself and family. Furthermore to use again the words of President Clark:
". . . in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church."
What prohibits us from giving as much in fast offerings as we would have given in surpluses under the United Order? Nothing but our own limitations.
Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop's storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop's storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose. . . .
"We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, . . . land projects . . . farmed for the benefit of the poor. . . .
"Thus . . . in many of its great essentials, we have, [in] the Welfare Plan . . . the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time . . . to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund."
It is thus apparent that when the principles of tithing and the fast are properly observed and the Welfare Plan gets fully developed and wholly into operation, "we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order." (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 51-58.)
The only limitation on you and me is within ourselves.
A Prayer:
And now in line with these remarks for three things I pray:
(1) That the Lord will somehow quicken our understanding of the differences between socialism and the United Order and give us a vivid awareness of the awful portent of those differences. (2) That we will develop the understanding, the desire, and the courage born of the Spirit, to eschew socialism and to support and sustain, in the manner revealed and as interpreted by the Lord, those just and holy principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States for the protection of all flesh, in the exercise of their God-given agency. (3) That through faithful observance of the principles of tithing, the fast, and the welfare program, we will prepare ourselves to redeem Zion and ultimately live the United Order, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

The United Order Vs. Communism

2011-03-08T09:06:00.000-08:00

by President J. Reuben Clark Jr., First Counselor in the First Presidency. The United Order Vs. Communism. General Conference Report October 1942, 2nd Session.
Brethren:
I have been trying for a week to relieve you of this experience, but Brother McKay, so kind, so sweet, and so merciful, has been perfectly adamant. So I stand before you here, not to preach, but to counsel with you.
There is a great deal of misapprehension among our people regarding the United Order.
I have not been able to believe that the United Order meant what some people have thought it meant, so within the last months I have spent quite a little time reading the revelations thereon, also reading our history, and at the same time giving some consideration to a dissertation which has been written regarding the Order.
There is a growing-I fear it is growing-sentiment that communism and the United Order are virtually the same thing, communism being merely the forerunner, so to speak, of a reestablishment of the United Order. I am informed that ex-bishops, and indeed, bishops, who belong to communistic organizations, are preaching this doctrine. So I thought that perhaps if I said just a few words to you tonight regarding the way I interpret the revelations that are printed about this in the D&C (if there are other revelations about the Order, I do not know of them), I thought if I said something about it, it might be helpful. I recommend that you, my brethren, read a few of the Sections of the D&C which cover this matter, beginning with Sections 42 and 51. ( See also Sections 70, 78, 82, 83, 85, 90, 92, 96, and 104.) If you will go over these sections, I feel sure that you will find that my explanation of the United Order will be substantially accurate.
Early Deviations
I may say to begin with, that in practice the brethren in Missouri got away, in their attempts to set up the United Order, from the principles set out in the revelations. This is also true of the organizations set up here in Utah after the Saints came to the Valleys. So far as I have seen there has been preserved only one document that purports to be a legal instrument used in connection with the setting up of the United Order, and that document is without date. It is said to have been found among the papers of Bishop Partridge. It was a “lease-lend” document. You may have heard that phrase before. Under this instrument the Church leased to Titus Billings a certain amount of real estate and loaned him a certain amount of personal property.
This instrument is not in accordance with the principle laid down in the revelations touching upon the United Order.
The basic principle of all the revelations on the United Order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of the property which we have, because it belongs to Him. This, I repeat, is the basic principle. (D. &. C. 104: 14-17, 54-57)
One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revelation (D. & C. 51:3) affirms that every man is to be “equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” ( See also D. & C. 82 17; 78: 5-6. ) Obviously, this is not a case of “dead level” equality. It is “equality” that will vary as much as the man’s circumstances, his family, his wants and needs, may vary.
Consecration
In the next place, under the United Order every man was called to consecrate to the Church all of the property which he had; the real estate was to be conveyed to the Church, as I understand the revelations, by what we would call a deed in fee simple. Thus the man’s property became absolutely the property of the Church. (D. & C. 42:30; 72:15) Then the bishop deeded back to the donor by the same kind of deed, that is, in fee simple, and also transferred to him by an equivalent instrument, so far as personal property was concerned, that amount of real and personal property, which, the two being taken together, would be required by the individual for the support of himself and his family “according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” This the man held as his own property. (D. & C. 42:32; 51:4-6; 83:3
In other words, basic to the United Order was the private ownership of property, every man had his own property from which he might secure that which was necessary for the support of himself and his family. There is nothing in the revelations that would indicate that this property was not freely alienable at the will of the owner. It was not contemplated that the Church should own everything or that we should become in the Church, with reference to our property and otherwise, the same kind of automaton, manikin, that communism makes out of the individual, with the State standing at the head in place of the Church.
Now, that part of a man’s property which was not turned back to him, if he had more than was needed under this rule of “equality” already stated, became the common property of the Church, and that common property was used for the support of the poor of the Church. It is spoken of in the revelations as the “residue” of property. ( D. & C. 42:34-36)
Land Portions
Furthermore, it was intended, though apparently it did not work out very well, that the poor coming into Zion, and by Zion I mean, here, Missouri-the poor coming into Zion were to have given to them a “portion” of land, which land was to be either purchased from the Government (and it was planned to purchase large areas from the Government), or purchased from individuals, or received as consecrations from members of the Church. The amount of this “portion” was to be such as would make him equal to others according to his circumstances, his family, his wants and needs.
The land which you received from the bishop by deed, whether it was part of the land which you, yourself, had deeded to the Church, or whether it came as an out-right gift from the Church as just indicated, and the personal property which you received, were all together sometimes called a “portion” (D. & C. 51:4-6), sometimes a “stewardship” ( D. & C. 104:11-12), and sometimes an “inheritance.” ( D. & C. 83 3 )
As just indicated, there were other kinds of inheritances and stewardships than land or mere personal property; for example, the Prophet and others had a stewardship given to them which consisted of the revelations and commandments (D. & C. 70:1-4 ); others had given to them a stewardship involving the printing house (D. & C. 104:29-30); another stewardship was a mercantile establishment. (D. & C. 104:39-42)
Surplus
I repeat that whatever a steward realized from the portion allotted to him over and above that which was necessary in order to keep his family under the standard provided, as already stated above, was turned over by the steward to the bishop, and this amount of surplus, plus the residues to which I have already referred, went into a bishop’s storehouse (D. & C. 51 13 and citations above), and the materials of the storehouse were to be used in creating portions, as above indicated, for caring for the poor (D. & C. 78:3), the widows and orphans ( D. & C. 83 6), and for the elders of the Church engaged in the ministry, who were to pay for what they received if they could, but if not, their faithful labors should answer their debt to the bishop. (D. & C. 72:11 ff)
Other Institutions
Now, as time went on and the system developed, the Lord created two other institutions besides the storehouse: one was known as the Sacred Treasury, into which was put “the avails of the sacred things in the treasury, for sacred and holy purposes.” While it is not clear, it would seem that into this treasury were to be put the surpluses which were derived from the publication of the revelations, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and other similar things, the stewardship of which had been given to Joseph and others. (D. & C. 104:60-66) The Lord also provided for the creation of “Another Treasury,” and into that other treasury went the general revenues which came to the Church, such as gifts of money and those revenues derived from the improvement of stewardships as distinguished from the residues of the original consecrations and the surpluses which came from the operation of their stewardships. (D. & C. 72:11 ff)
The foregoing is the general outline as it is gathered from the revelations of the law of the United Order which the Lord spoke of as “my law.” (D. & C. 44:6; 51:15) There are passages in the revelations which, taken from their context and without having in mind the whole system, might be considered as inconsistent with some of the things which I have set out, but all such passages fall into line if the whole program is looked at as contained in all of the revelations.
Private Ownership Fundamental
The fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which he could alienate, or hypothecate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph, himself said, (History of the Church, Volume III, p. 28). The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system.
The Welfare Plan and the United Order
We have all said that the Welfare Plan is not the United Order and was not intended to be. However, I should like to suggest to you that perhaps, after all, when the Welfare Plan gets thoroughly into operation-it is not so yet-we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order.
In the first place I repeat again, the United Order recognized and was built upon the principle of private ownership of property; all that a man had and lived upon under the United Order, was his own. Quite obviously, the fundamental principle of our system today is the ownership of private property.
In the next place, in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the, United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing, all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church. After all, the United Order was primarily designed to build up a system under which there should be no abjectly poor, and this is the purpose, also, of the Welfare Plan.
In this connection it should be observed that it is clear from these earlier revelations, as well as from our history, that the Lord had very early to tell the people about the wickedness of idleness, and the wickedness of greed, because the brethren who had were not giving properly, and those who had not were evidently intending to live without work on the things which were to be received from those who had property. (D. & C. 56:16-20)
Storehouses and Projects
Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop’s storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop’s storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose.
As I have already indicated, the surplus properties which came to the Church under the Law of Consecration, under the United Order, became the “common property” of the Church (D. & C. 82 18 ) and were handled under the United Order for the benefit of the poor. We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, ward land projects. In some cases the lands are owned by the wards, in others they are leased by the wards or lent to them by private individuals. This land is being farmed for the benefit of the poor, by the poor where you can get the poor to work it.
We have in place of the two treasuries, the “Sacred Treasury” and “Another Treasury,” the general funds of the Church.
Thus you will see, brethren, that in many of its great essentials, we have, as the Welfare Plan has now developed, the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time and in various wards to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund.
Now, brethren, the Church has made tremendous advances in the Welfare Plan. We shall have to make still greater advances. As the Message of the First Presidency said this morning, we are being told by Government officials that we face what we used to call “hard times.” If the Welfare Plan is fully operative, we shall be able to care for every destitute Latter-day Saint wherever he may be.
The Constitution
Now, I would like to say something else, brethren, again by way of counsel I shall be accused, when I do, of talking politics, and perhaps on this point I may say I do not read anonymous letters. When they come in I just throw them into the wastebasket. I only read enough of the signed scurrilous letters that are sent to know that they are scurrilous, and then they follow along. So it is useless for anyone to try to take out any personal feeling in that way.
You and I have heard all our lives that the time may come when the Constitution may hang by a thread. I do not know whether it is a thread, or a small rope by which it now hangs, but I do know that whether it shall live or die is now in the balance.
I have said to you before, brethren, that to me the Constitution is a part of my religion. In its place it is just as much a part of my religion as any other part. It is a part of my religion because it is one of those institutions which God has set up for His own purposes, and, as one of the brethren said today, set up so that this Church might be established, because under no other government in the world could the Church have been established as it has been established under this Government.
I think I would be sale in saying that my fellowship with you in the Church depends upon whether or not I accept the revelations and the principles which God has revealed. If I am not willing to do that, then I am not entitled to fellowship. Anyone else who fails to accept the revelations and the principles which God has revealed stands in precisely the same situation.
In the 101st Section of the D&C, which contains a revelation received by the Prophet in 1833, when the persecution in Missouri was at its highest, the Lord told the brethren that they should appeal for help. Then He added these verses, which I want to read to you:
According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the fights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D. & C. 101:77-80)
Influence in the Americas
I suppose you brethren will all know, but I will recall it to your attention, that the Constitution of the United States is the basic law for all of the Americas, or Zion, as it has been defined by the Lord.
You brethren from Canada know that, your great British North America Act, in its fundamental principles, is based upon our Constitution, and you know that in the courts of Canada, the reports of our Supreme Court, and our Federal courts generally, are just as persuasive as the decisions of the courts of England, and even more so, where questions of constitutional law and constitutional interpretation are involved.
You brethren also know that from the Rio Grande down to the Horn there is no constitutional government except those that are rounded primarily upon our own Constitution. In Mexico the revolutionary party which more than a century and a quarter ago rebelled against the king of Spain and established a republic, copied almost verbatim, and practically overnight, our Constitution, and made it their own. Neither Mexico nor the others to the South interpret their Constitutions as we interpret ours. They have different standards and different canons of interpretation, for their fundamental system is the civil law, while ours is the common law. But the great essentials of that document, the Constitution of the United States, which God Himself inspired, is the law of Zion, the Americas.
The Law of Zion
So, brethren, I wish you to understand that when we begin to tamper with the Constitution we begin to tamper with the law of Zion which God Himself set up, and no one may trifle with the word of God with impunity.
Now, I am not caring today, for myself, anything at all about a political party tag. So far as I am concerned, I want to know what the man stands for. I want to know if he believes in the Constitution; if he believes in its free institutions; if he believes in its liberties, its freedom. I want to know if he believes in the Bill of Rights. I want to know if he believes in the separation of sovereign power into the three great divisions: the Legislative, the Judicial, the Executive. I want to know if he believes in the mutual independence of these, the one from the other. When I find out these things, then I know who it is who should receive my support, and I care not what his party tag is, because, brethren, if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees. You may look at the systems all over the world where the princiles of our Constitution are not controlling and in force, and you will find there dictatorship, tyranny, oppression, and, in the last analysts, slavery.
Allegiance
I have said enough. I believe you understand what I have said. Today, our duty transcends party allegiance; our duty today is allegiance to the Constitution as it was given to us by the Lord. Every federal officer takes an oath to support that Constitution so given. The difference between us and some of those to the South of us is this: down there, their fealty runs to individuals; here, our fealty and our allegiance run to the Constitution and to the principles which it embodies, and not to individuals.
God give us wisdom and enable us in these times of trouble and strife clearly to see our way, that we may be instrumental in sustaining the Constitution, in upholding our free institutions, our civil rights, our freedom of speech, of press, of religion, and of conscience. If we shall stand together we shall save the Constitution, just as has been foreseen, and if we do not stand together, we cannot perform this great task.
God grant that we may be true, I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

10 Things You Need to Know About High Gas Prices and Obama’s Oil Policy

2011-02-24T21:13:00.000-08:00

Read more HERE...

The Obama Administration Has Been Held in Contempt of Court: Federal District Court Judge Martin Feldman held the Obama Interior Department in contempt of court on February 2, 2011, for dismissively ignoring his ruling to cease the drilling moratorium which the judge had previously struck down as “arbitrary and capricious.” Judge Feldman has since given the Administration 30 days to act on permits it has needlessly and purposefully delayed saying inaction was “not a lawful option.”

Global Food Prices...

2011-02-14T09:20:00.000-08:00

An interesting article in Time:
Less clear is what's actually behind the spike in food prices. Bad weather plays a major role — a devastating heat wave in Russia last summer ruined grain harvests and prompted that country to suspend exports, jolting global markets. Excessive heat in the Midwest stunted the corn crop, leading to a 5% drop in production last year. Rising demand for food — especially meat, whose production requires lots of grain and water — in the richer parts of the developing world is straining supplies. And then there's ethanol, the production of which sucks up grain and cropland that could be used for food. In America, 40% of the corn crop is currently diverted to make fuel for cars. "Ethanol uses 4.9 billion bushels of corn in the U.S.," says Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, an environmental think tank. "That's enough grain to feed 350 million people." (Read "Food Prices: Up, Up and Away.")Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2048885,00.html#ixzz1Dx7doAuE

Life Protected in North Dakota...

2011-02-14T09:19:00.000-08:00

Breaking: North Dakota House passes bill criminalizing killing unborn from conception LifeSiteNews ^ 2/11/11 Kathleen Gilbert
Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2011 1:39:05 PM by wagglebee
BISMARCK, North Dakota, February 11, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A strong majority of lawmakers in the North Dakota House of Representatives on Friday afternoon passed a law that would make it illegal to murder any human being from the moment of their conception.
The Defense of Human Life Act, HB 1450, recognizes every human being at any stage of development as a person under state law with a right to protection.
“The overwhelming community and legislative support for HB 1450 proves that North Dakota could be the first state to recognize the value and dignity of every living human being,” stated Representative Dan Ruby. “The Defense of Human Life Act is just common sense. Of course every human being is a person, and every innocent person should receive legal protection. I am motivated to see women and children protected by HB 1450, and I look forward to its passage in the Senate in the near future.”

Gay Marriages to be allowed in Church...

2011-02-14T09:15:00.000-08:00

The Telegraph...
Gay 'marriages' to be allowed in church
Ministers are proposing to change the law to allow homosexual couples to "marry" in traditional religious ceremonies – including in church.

Read full test HERE

Transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks talk at Chapman

2011-02-14T09:13:00.000-08:00

"I speak for what Cardinal Francis George described in his address at Brigham Young University just a year ago. His title was “Catholics and Latter-day Saints: Partners in the Defense of Religious Freedom." He proposed
“that Catholics and Mormons stand with one another and with other defenders of conscience, and that we can and should stand as one in the defense of religious liberty. In the coming years, interreligious coalitions formed to defend the rights of conscience for individuals and for religious institutions should become a vital bulwark against the tide of forces at work in our government and society to reduce religion to a purely private reality. At stake is whether or not the religious voice will maintain its right to be heard in the public square."63
We join in that call for religious coalitions to protect religious freedom. In doing so we recall the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin. At another critical time in our nation‘s history, he declared:
“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."64
In conclusion, as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ I affirm His love for all people on this earth, and I affirm the importance His followers must attach to religious freedom for all people—whatever their beliefs. I pray for the blessings of God upon our cooperative efforts to preserve that freedom."

Read the full transcript HERE...

Utah Homemakers for America Lincoln's Lesson: The Value of Work

2011-01-31T08:23:00.000-08:00

Theoretically, after President Clinton and Newt Gingrich’s Republican congress reformed welfare, one could only receive benefits for 5 years. This made a big difference for people and for the economy. The reforms were a good thing. However, in the interest of compassion, there are exceptions/loopholes meant to make sure that we help the truly needy. Unfortunately, they are abused. How?
"It depends on how committed one is to staying on welfare. The first wave is to have kids and be poor. In theory, you have 5 years of the dole for that. If you can get a physician to give you a phantom illness diagnosis, you can get disability payments forever (mental disorders are harder for the government to disprove...as are back injuries). Another tact is to do a terrible job raising your kids, so that they appear to have severe Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder...and apply for them to get disability. That can go on until the youngest one is 18." (Annon., Licensed Clinical Social Worker...and eyewitness.)
Recently an article appeared in the UK Daily Mail with some truly stunning claims. "269,000 homes are occupied by adults who do nothing and have never done anything to support themselves, the ONS said. The figure is just under double the 136,000 homes where the occupants had never worked recorded in Tony Blair’s election victory year of 1997."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350726/UK-unemployment-500k-adults-worked-jobless-homes-double-Labour.html#ixzz1CcvXZdas
Another article in the Mail makes this claim, "...almost 1.8million children, one in seven of all under 16s, growing up in households entirely dependent on state handouts."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469369/Six-million-Britons-living-households-works.html#ixzz1CcxpecDM
I wasn’t able to find statistics about how many children in the U.S. live in homes where parents have never held a job. There are many statistics about how many poor there are, but none that I could find about efforts put forward by the victims of poverty. The long cherished American standard of fairness has become an entitlement mentality. Watch a short, but fascinating debate here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI
Why do so many choose this life? I’m not sure. But, I know that our current welfare policies reward failure and when one does just a little bit better, one is punished. Even our tax policies are structured in a way that punishes achievement. 47% of American families effectively pay no federal tax. Those who make below a certain amount can qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit, (a program where the government taxes the poor and then gives them their money back.. which costs the actual tax payers millions a kind of monetary attrition where the original dollar is worth much less than the dollar in the end process. Government does not have the ability to add value.)
EITC is a program where you get money back from the government for simply being among the group the government has deemed "the working poor". But, if you make above a certain amount that EITC quickly disappears. And, you are actually paying taxes. The more you succeed, the higher percentage of the government’s bill you are expected to pay. If you happen to be one of the lucky few who succeeds into the top 1% of income earners in the United States, you will be paying nearly 40% of the government’s bill.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Utah Homemakers Believes: Each member of the human race possesses an intrinsic dignity with a right to freedom and self-determination. We uphold the principles of work, education, and industry as crucial elements of self-determination and the preservation of human dignity. Therefore, we encourage welfare services that promote the development of self-reliance. We support humanitarian efforts of compassion to provide for the basic needs of citizens in times of hardship and persuade all social institutions to support individuals in their quest for self-determination and employment opportunities.

What is the answer to caring for the poor and those who are unemployed? A flat tax? Maybe. But, whatever the answer is, it is something that promotes the dignity of work and self reliance. I was interested to see how one of our most beloved presidents handled this problem in his own family.

A Letter From Lincoln To His Brother-In-Law

Dear Johnston:
--Your request for eighty dollars, I do not think it best to comply with now. At the various times when I have helped you a little, you have said to me, "We can get along very well now," but in a very short time I find you in the same difficulty again. Now this can only happen by some defect in your conduct. What that defect is, I think I know. You are not _lazy_, and still you _are_ an _idler_. I doubt whether since I saw you, you have done a good whole day's work, in any one day. You do not very much dislike to work, and still you do not work much, merely because it does not seem to you that you could get much for it. This habit of uselessly wasting time, is the whole difficulty; and it is vastly important to you, and still more so to your children, that you should break this habit. It is more important to them, because they have longer to live, and can keep out of an idle habit before they are in it easier than they can get out after they are in.
You are now in need of some ready money; and what I propose is, that you shall go to work, "tooth and nail," for somebody who will give you money for it. Let father and your boys take charge of things at home--prepare for a crop, and make the crop; and you go to work for the best money wages, or in discharge of any debt you owe, that you can get. And to secure you a fair reward for your labor, I now promise you that for every dollar you will, between this and the first of next May, get for your own labor either in money or in your own indebtedness, I will then give you one other dollar. By this, if you hire yourself at ten dollars a month, from me you will get ten more, making twenty dollars a month for your work. In this, I do not mean you shall go off to St. Louis, or the lead mines, or the gold mines, in California, but I mean for you to go at it for the best wages you can get close to home, in Coles County. Now if you will do this, you will soon be out of debt, and what is better, you will have a habit that will keep you from getting in debt again. But if I should now clear you out, next year you will be just as deep in as ever. You say you would almost give your place in Heaven for $70 or $80. Then you value your place in Heaven very cheaply, for I am sure you can with the offer I make you get the seventy or eighty dollars for four or five months' work. You say if I furnish you the money you will deed me the land, and if you don't pay the money back, you will deliver possession--Nonsense! If you can't now live _with_ the land, how will you then live without it? You have always been kind to me, and I do not now mean to be unkind to you. On the contrary, if you will but follow my advice, you will find it worth more than eight times eighty dollars to you.
Affectionately your brother,
A. LINCOLN.

Governments must create policies that promote achievement and self reliance rather than societal destruction. Maybe we could listen to President Lincoln’s wisdom once more.

Mormon Women...

2011-01-21T13:16:00.000-08:00

Have always been encouraged to use their talents to raise good children, to create a healthy and beautiful home and to contribute to the world.

Read on the comments of a Salon Post... By Elsy11
I love this and thought I'd share...
1867: The Saints in Utah amended their constitution, removing the “Free, White, Male” requirement in order to vote. This cleared the way for both black citizens and women to vote. The U.S. Constitution would not guarantee these rights for blacks until 1870 and for women until 1920.
1868: In the October general conference, Brigham Young announced he would be sending Utah women to eastern universities to train as physicians. Many of the men in the medical schools were outraged and did anything they could to stop the women.
1872: The first woman to be deputized as a sheriff in the United States was an LDS woman named Ellen B. Ferguson.
1896: Martha Hughes Cannon ran for Utah State Senate on the Democratic ticket, and defeated her own husband who was running for the same seat as a Republican. She became the first woman in American history to serve as a state senator.
1953: Ivy Baker Priest, an LDS woman from Coalville, Utah, became the first woman to ever serve as U.S. Treasurer. Her signature appeared on U.S. currency from 1953 to 1961.
1972: Jean Westwood, an LDS woman from Price, Utah, became the first woman in history to serve as chairperson of the National Democratic Committee.
1981: Paula Hawkins, who was LDS, became the first woman elected to the United States Senate to accompany her husband to Washington, D.C. As a result, the long standing “Senate Wives Club” was forced to change its name to the “Senate Spouse Club.”

What's so bad about big government???

2010-12-03T09:05:00.000-08:00

Great Article...

"“Big” isn’t usually a pejorative. There is nothing wrong with big airplanes, which can carry more people more safely and economically than can small airplanes. There is nothing wrong with a big serve in tennis, although I don’t like to see one coming at me. But there is no “right” size for airplanes or “right” speed for tennis serves, so we have no grounds for calling them “too big.” There is, however, a “right” size for government. The right size relates not to its budget or number of employees, but rather to its functions."

A must read!

What happened to the Thanksgiving Protest that never was??

2010-12-03T09:03:00.000-08:00

"The TSA backed down on the day before Thanksgiving by roping off most of the scanners and ceasing the pat-downs in order to thwart the passenger backlog that National Opt-Out Day would have caused. TSA denied it of course, but passengers noticed the scanners were out of commission, and long lines never materialized because passengers had nothing to opt out of."

More here...

Is flying a right?

2010-12-03T08:56:00.000-08:00

"Scanner proponents of all persuasions claim that "there is no right to fly" and sniff, "if you don't like it, don't fly." This argument self-collapses. If flying is not a right, then there is no derivative right to security-vetted airline travel. An appeal to principle--the argument that there is an obligation to save every life regardless of practical considerations--puts them on opponents' ground. The principle of individual rights should not be abrogated by any consideration of consequences, and national security does not justify the sexual violation of citizens, even if it were effective.
In order to exercise your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you must be free to act on your own judgment in accordance with your own values. The right to pursue happiness necessarily includes the right to pursue personal or professional goals. These goals may require you to travel to another location to obtain them. Flying may be your only economically feasible means to do so.
The right to liberty includes your right to physically move about in the world in pursuit of your goals. In order to live, you must work. For many people, work requires travel by means of flying. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness therefore include the right to be free of interference with flying.
It is not the case that the enhanced measures do interfere with the freedom to fly. Thoughts and values belong to the individual and cannot be imposed or changed by the fiat of society. Forcibly laying a breach between one set of a person's values and another is preventing that person from pursuing his goals, because it is preventing the person from acting on the entirety of his values and judgment. You cannot reach your flight destination if you are sitting in jail or prevented from flying, and being offered an alternative that you cannot accept because it goes against your values is not a "choice," but coercion."

On the first page of this article, the author demostrates the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack in the air... Take your chances of being struck by lightening and divide them in half.

More here...

Climate-Change Group needs REFORM???

2010-08-30T14:32:00.001-07:00

Never was a newspaper headline so understated as this one from the WSJ today. Are we English now or something?
Here are some of the main points...

The IPCC also should establish an executive committee that includes people outside the climate-science community, and it should limit the term of its chairman to one term, the report said. The current limit of two six-year terms for the chairman "is too long," the press release about the report said.
Seems sound enough.

Then,
The reforms would aid in seeing that "due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views," according to a news release about the report issued Monday morning.
Ha! When Islamic Extremists stop blowing up stuff, when Mormons drink beef and when Jews take to ordering ham sandwiches.. In other words.. that would be renouncing their religion. It's not going to happen.
The earth is a religion to these Environmentalists who want humanity to give up the modern world and live in caves to "save the Earth" from mankind. Then, they will be able to control trillions in funds taxed away by fear mongering.

The 2007 IPCC report called climate change "unequivocal" and "very likely" caused by human activity. The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore Jr. for its efforts on promulgating information about climate change.

Not to mention that NASA was getting its climate information from the IPCC. The critical points of Gore's film have been debunked. But, where is the apology? Where is the prize and the prize money? It should have been returned or demanded back. It's too late for the IPCC where I'm concerned. They have lost complete credibility. The IPCC doesn't need reform, it needs to be defunded and those responsible for lying to the public should be tried and prosecuted.

Amazing Grace & The War Against Organized Religion Part 1&2

2010-08-24T10:48:00.000-07:00

Have you ever seen the movie Amazing Grace? If you haven’t, you ought. It is part of the life story of an exceptional man, William Wilberforce. For those of you who might not know his story, let me fill you in just a little. Wilberforce was an Englishman. He was a gentleman. He had money and had it maybe a bit too young. He made some of the mistakes a young man with money might make. He neglected his studies and stayed up late with friend playing cards. He was brilliant and talented and made friends easily. He became very close friends with William Pitt, the United Kingdom’s youngest Prime Minister at the age of 24. He was poised to have wealth and power and he was interested in both and in self-promotion. In 1785 (just 9 years after the signing of The Declaration of Independence), Wilberforce had some experiences that changed his life and helped him to dedicate himself to the service of God. He became an Evangelical Christian.

Through his study, he attained greater enlightenment, he came to have a broken heart and a contrite spirit. He wrote, "This [led] me to prayer and self-abasement – to penitential sorrow– to humble but earnest supplication for the promised aides of the Holy Spirit, for the sake of that Saviour who died upon the Cross to atone for our transgressions, in order to soften, to animate, to warm my dull heart." (Kevin Belmonte, Hero for Humanity: A Biography of William Wilberforce pg. 84).

This led him to overcome his fear of losing social status, power and influence by reclaiming a childhood friendship with John Newton, former slave trader turned preacher and author of the beloved hymn Amazing Grace. John Newton advised and encouraged Wilberforce to remain in Parliament assuring him that he could serve God there.

Wilberforce followed that advice. Over a period of 26 years and at great personal cost, he fought for the abolition of the Slave Trade. He was attacked and mocked. He was belittled and his relationships were strained. His patriotism was questioned. He said, "If to be feelingly alive to the sufferings of my fellow-creatures is to be a fanatic, I am one of the most incurable fanatics ever permitted to be at large." In the end without war and further bloodshed, Wilberforce won. Right won. Liberty won. God won. The Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807.

At his death a friend paid tribute to his memory, "he was great among the good and good among the great.... His disinterested, self-denying, laborious [and unceasing] efforts in [the] cause of justice and humanity... will call down the blessing of millions; and ages yet to come will glory in his memory" (Kevin Belmonte, Hero for Humanity: A Biography of William Wilberforce pg. 327).
The story of William Wilberforce as depicted in the film Amazing Grace is almost singular in our time. How rarely we see the good that religion does in civic life portrayed in film. How rarely we see in film, theater or television, the influence of God, of faith, of religion acting in the life of a man or woman to the good of others. And yet, those stories are all around us.

Like William Wilberforce, Mother Theresa changed the world in a big way. But, how many people of faith do you know that quietly change their small part of the world every day? I know a great number of these anonymous servants of God. Many of their lives would make great films and yet when I turn on the television, I don’t see these people or their likeness.

Instead, I see characters like Bart Simpson whose prayer goes like this, "Dear God, we pay for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing." I see women without chastity or modesty, men who behave like boys without character or integrity and who copulate like dogs with anyone that breathes. These are the examples our media puts in front of our children. Do they see a good marriage, a happy family, an honorable father, a sweet and tender mother? Rarely.

In his famous and important speech, Popular Culture and the War Against Standards, given at Hillsdale College in 1991, Michael Medved said, "One of the symptoms of the corruption and collapse of our national culture is the insistence that we examine only the surface of any work of art. The politically correct, properly liberal notion is that we should never dig deeper—to consider whether a given work is true, or good, or spiritually nourishing—or to evaluate its impact on society at large. Contemporary culture is obsessed with superficial skill and slick salesmanship while ignoring the more important issues of soul and substance. This is one of the consequences of the war on standards—a war that is currently being waged on three fronts: the glorification of ugliness, the assault on the family, and the attempt to undermine organized religion." http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1991&month=02
To undermine organized religion in America is to undermine our collective conscience and our collective soul. It is the duty of organized religion to watch public policy and encourage its followers to take corrective action when public policy is at odds with God’s law. This was the intention of the builders of our nation. John Adams said, "Religion and Virtue are the only Foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free Government, but of social felicity under all Governments and in all combinations of human Society." (John Adams to Benjamin Rush, August 28, 1811. Old Family Letters, 354.) And yet, the culture war on organized religion has achieved far too much success. That is something we must change.
End Part 1
　
Amazing Grace and the War Against Religion Part 2
Critics of organized religion are quick to point out instances in history like the Catholic inquisition, the bloody Protestant Reformation, the Salem Witch Trials, The Crusades and the like. The Founding Fathers were also well aware of these periods of great intolerance. However, any student of history knows that much terror and bloodshed has been committed by the intolerant and Godless. Intolerance from any singular vision can be dangerous. In his book, Knowledge & Decisions, author Thomas Sowell explains, "An ideological vision is more than belief in a principle. It is a belief that that principle is crucial or overriding, so that other principles or even empirical facts must give way when in conflict with it. The inquisition had to reject Galileo’s astronomical finding in the interests of a higher vision, as the Nazis had to reject Einstein in spite of any evidence about his theories or his individual abilities." (Thomas Sowell, Knowledge & Decisions pg.353).

Sowell explains how the Jacobins took an ideology and came to rule absolutely, "The brief rule of Jacobin intellectuals was not only despotic and bloody, but totalitarian in its pervasiveness. The very names of months and years were changed to correspond with their ideology, as were the names of streets, people, and even playing cards. Their regulations extended to friendship and marriage: each adult male had to publicly declare who his friends were, and any married couple who did not either have or adopt children within a specified time were to have their marriage dissolved and be separated by the government." (Thomas Sowell Knowledge & Decisions pg 351).

The Jacobins in their ideological tyranny murdered some 17,000 people just about two years after our Founders adopted The Bill of Rights. The First Amendment of the ten protects religion, religious diversity and diversity of ideological thought. It reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are many that assert that this amendment is a protection for the people from religion. It is not. The founders were brilliant men of diverse religious practice and thought. They knew that religion and religious societies made for a strong nation, but that creating a state church meant factions and war. So, they protected the people not from religion, but gave us freedom OF Religion. They did not "separate church and state," but they protected the religious freedom of all Americans. Congress could not dictate what faith would be practiced by the country. In addition, the state could not dictate how religion would be practiced. The citizens were granted freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of assembly so that they could speak and write and assemble to worship. If they felt these rights were impeded, they were given the right to sue to reclaim those rights. Whatever, rights the First Amendment granted, it granted that Americans could worship after the dictates of their own conscious and not be stifled in their worship or belief by the majority or by some ideological tyranny.

However, in our time, those that would spread ideological tyranny have found a way around The First Amendment. Culture. Through art, literature, television and film, they have created a constant barrage of negativity towards organized religion and people of faith.
In 1992, Elder M. Russell Ballard of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints warned, "I believe he [George Washington] would have been troubled to see a time when citizens are forbidden to pray in public meetings; when people claim that "you can’t legislate morality," as if any law ever passed did not have at is heart some notion of right and wrong; when churches are called intruders when they speak out against public policy that is contrary to the laws of God; when many people reject the correcting influence of churches if it infringes on daily living ; when religion is accepted as a social organization but not as an integral part of national culture; when people bristle if churches speak in any forum except from the pulpit.
Indeed, some people now claim that the founding fathers’ worst fear in connection with religion has been realized; that we have in fact, a state-sponsored religion in America today. This new religion, adopted by many, does not have an identifiable name, but it operates just like a church. It exists in the form of doctrines and beliefs, where morality is whatever a person wants it to be, and where freedom is derived from the ideas of man and not from the laws of God. Many people adhere to this concept of morality with religious zeal and fervor, and courts and legislatures tend to support it" (Elder M. Russell Ballard, Religion in a Free Society address given 5 July 1992).

In the recent battle over Proposition 8 in California, Catholics, Mormons and other people of faith voted together twice in order to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Many, many said that the faithful had no right to speak, that organized religion has no business in the public forum. In fact, in his decision to overturn the vote of the people, Judge Walker said, "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that... same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples..." If Judge Walker is right, then nothing can be considered immoral, everything must be morally subjective. If everything is morally subjective, how can any law stand at all?

Even if one takes extraordinary measures, it is impossible to fully protect ones family from the destructive filth in the prevailing culture. Our children must go to school, they may go with children whose parents are less careful about what their kids watch and listen to. Children are sure to hear foul language and be subjected to pornographic images and so their education at home must be more influential than their education outside the home. Those who know and love God must stand for morality and character and challenge, kindly, but challenge those who would make organized religion mute and everything morally subjective. As religious people, we need to be more active in our faith and our private charity. William Wilberforce once said, "Can you tell a plain man the road to Heaven? Certainly, turn once at once to the right and go straight forward." America has been heaven on earth, a place where we have had relative peace and great prosperity and greatest of all liberty to pursue our own happiness. Where will be if religion is banned from reminding us of the commandments and our obligations, impelling the citizens toward the greater good in society. Our Founders felt that we would only survive as a nation if we kept God’s laws. If that is so, our liberty is on the line.

To Legalize or Not...

2010-07-05T11:55:00.000-07:00

The debate over whether or not to legalize drugs is very personal to me. My husband and I owned a condo in Salt Lake City just north of the L.D.S. Temple there. It had a big balcony and a view of the sunset. In 1995 we paid $72,000 for a fixer upper and put a lot of money and sweat equity into making it very nice inside. It was our first home.
We lived there very peacefully for about 18 months until after one Christmas I noticed that the traffic of Christmas visitors seemed to still be there, the parking lot was always full. This was different. Then, a few weeks later, my husband who was serving as a member of the condo association was called into a meeting where a state official from the Drug Enforcement Agency notified my husband that we had a major drug ring operating in our building.
I was away at a family function that evening and returned to find the building evacuated, two fire engines, and many police cars. There had been a fire, the first of what would be three serious fires. Several people were arrested on possession of drug paraphernalia and some other things. I thought that would be the end of it, but it wasn’t. That night began a battle that over several years was like a part time job that cost rather than paid almost $100,000. Eight years later, we are still paying for it.
How did living in a drug house affect my life? In every way you can imagine. During the worst of it, I didn’t really live there. My husband escorted me out of the building with my new baby in the morning and I returned when he came home. He did the laundry when I couldn’t take it to my mothers to wash there because there was only one way out of the laundry room. Going to the grocery store was frightening, but during the worst of it, when 4 units of the building were being used to cook methamphetamine, the building was full of criminals and prostitutes dangerous and armed. When arrested, the guns they had were not the kind that put a bullet in a person and if they happened to miss or hit you just right you might survive, they were the kinds of guns that would blow away a brick wall. All of the guns they had were stolen property. None of them had a permit to carry.
These people were well aware that we were watching their every move and calling the police and had hired an attorney to remove them from our building and our lives. Some would say that right there was my problem, if I wasn’t trying to put them out of their homes and separate them from their drugs all would have been well.
Not so. How is a legal burnout any better than an illegal burnout? There is no difference. Both are a drain on society. Both pose a danger to their neighbors. My daughter was 6 months old when our battle with Meth began. She was almost 4 when it ended. During the worst year, we slept in our sweats with our sneakers to either side of the bed and our daughter in between so that we could leave quickly when the next fire happened. We inhaled toxic fumes that burned in our throats and our lungs. When Methamphetamine is being cooked, it smells like an old unchanged cat’s litter box. Our building smelled like that for three years. We were never safe from fire or violence, ever.
Why weren’t these criminals simply arrested? Well, we all pay a price for liberty. And, we’ve paid some too. We can’t just say to the police, "Look the place smells like a litter box and we have scary looking people living in these 4 apartments in the building." You must have evidence and lots of it. When we were sure meth was being made, we called the police, when we saw drugs changing hands we called the police, when there were fires, we called the fire department. We organized a neighborhood watch. We hired an attorney. We went to court. Sometimes there would be arrests, but most of the time the system puts drug offenders back on the streets pretty quickly even though police literally risk their lives to make these arrests. (I would love to see a three strikes law.)
We tried to keep the flower beds and lawn nice in order to clean the place up. As soon as I planted the flowers, they would drive their trucks through the flower beds. I was threatened by prostitutes I could barely understand they were so high and so angry. My baby and I were cornered by an angry, poorly fed and wild German Shepherd that belonged to one of them because they had kick in the glass all around our mail room making it accessible to outside. It was terrifying. They broke locks constantly so that doors would remain open and when they couldn’t break the locks, they broke the doors. There was graffiti and other damage sometimes to the tune of a thousand dollars a day. Most of these criminals collected welfare and or unemployment.
They had children with them too. It was heartbreaking. A girl about two with what would have been curly golden locks were matted by cradle cap and filth always dressed in a only a diaper that was never changed. And a boy about 9, already using. I called the state, but was told that the child had to have an actual address for a social worker visit. Not that it was safe for a social worker to visit because it wasn’t. They told me that a cop could give what they called a "wild child" assessment, but the adults and the children were very good at avoiding the police, that was part of the problem.
One of the users came to our door and tried to get my husband to come to his apartment to "talk". We took it as a threat. One neighbor heard two men say outside her door that they were going to cut her body into a thousand pieces and she would be found in a black trash bag. Another single woman received threatening calls.
We became friends with some of the police officers and firefighters. They were good men and we cared about them and we saw them in very dangerous situations. We almost saw a drug dealer/user shot. It was like living in a war zone.
I am well aware than my story is not unique. In fact, it’s pretty tame compared to what people deal with in many neighborhoods, but it was and still is a personal and financial tragedy to my family. We live in a wonderful neighborhood now, in a comfortable home and I am more than grateful that we were able to clean up the building and sell our apartment with our integrity intact. I have great compassion for those who live in the shadow of drug abuse. However, my life would be a little easier if I were $100,000 richer with interest. I will never recover that money or the time stolen from us, or the happiness. We were robbed.
It is easy to say that drugs are a problem confronted by other people, by other races. But in my situation. I did not see one Hispanic and not a single Black. Most of the people we saw were White males. Some I knew to be former members of the L.D.S. Church. In another neighborhood, the racial makeup could be different I know, but I’m just telling you what I saw.
Some want to make drugs legal, claiming the war on drugs is too expensive and ineffective. Maybe there things that will make it more effective. But, I know one thing for certain, when a person uses or makes or distributes drugs, they are doing more than hurting themselves. My husband said the other night, "Peace, prosperity and wealth are just the natural consequences of honesty, integrity and industry." When we do harm to ourselves, we harm our peace our industry and our honesty greatly and we can’t help but harm our neighbors. We need to recognize the damage drugs does to our society, take them seriously and teach our children to "just say NO!"

The New Deal Repeated...

2010-05-24T12:23:00.000-07:00

The New Deal Repeated...
My grandfather told me of a time when an agency of the federal government came into his small northern Utah town and slaughtered all the yearlings in order to prop up the price of beef cattle. He said, "some of my friends hadn’t had meat in over a year." The yearlings were not only slaughtered, but they were wasted when people were hungry. The idea that The New Deal was a good deal has gone on too long.
When we are facing trouble, we are afraid and anxious for someone to do something. But that isn’t always the best thing. G.K. Chesterton once wrote, "We are perpetually being told that what is wanted is a strong man who will do things. What is really wanted is a strong man who will undo things; and that will be the real test of strength."
Several scholars in three different articles in the Wall Street Journal school us on the real facts of the New Deal. For starters here is one point, "Roosevelt did famously well by one measure, the political poll. He flunked by two other meters that we today know are critically important: the unemployment rate and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. In his first inaugural address, Roosevelt spoke of a primary goal: "to put people to work." Unemployment stood at 20% in 1937, five years into the New Deal. As for the Dow, it did not come back to its 1929 level until the 1950s. International factors and monetary errors cannot entirely account for these abysmal showings." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010281 The Great Depression is said to have lasted about 10 years, but the poor affects to the markets did not correct until the 1950's. That is a high price to pay for experimentation.
We are now 2-3 years into a deep recession and repeating bad history. Really, I believe that is the love affair with socialism that almost every generation wants to try like an experimental drug. And yet, like drugs, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
In Roosevelt’s time, people felt that private industry was incapable of getting power to people in out of the way places, and so the government must do it. But, government does not have the ability to add value to the economy. It cannot give anything that it first does not take from the people. And so, nationalizing industry has always been a disaster.
Today there is an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP is having a heck of a time stopping the leak since they are required by law to drill so far from shore that the leak, almost a mile under water, is pretty difficult to stop. So, whose fault is it that the spill continues? Banks were required by government to lend to those whose credit was less than stellar. Whose fault is it that the housing market went bust? President Obama and the current congress propose more government involvement and more government solutions. They will, as they did in the 1930's further and deepen the disaster.
We have people in power who reverence The New Deal. And now, as we look at the fixes for this recession that started with President Bush and have been accelerated by President Obama, we can see that history is being repeated. Unemployment has not been reduced at all, but has risen. There are those that say unemployment numbers are much higher than being reported. Unemployment numbers don’t take into account those who have severance, those who have used up unemployment benefits, those who are under employed, or those who have given up looking.
And during this time of hardship, those who reverence The New Deal seek to expand government programs. Health care is a human right. Welfare recipients who already receive land lines via government assistance now are eligible for cell phones in 20 states. If you want to update your car, your furnace, your kitchen appliances, you just apply to a government program and the Government will fix you up.
While these programs have never been so all encompassing, they have always failed and so on a bigger scale, we know they will fail on an unprecedented scale. More importantly, they are morally wrong. " the argument of markets has its own powerful morality. It is immoral to cause unemployment by pretending that a big government policy is morally necessary. When Andrew Mellon and Calvin Coolidge put through their tax cuts in the 1920s, they made the efficiency argument that supply-siders make today: lower rates could yield, they posited, higher revenues. But they also had a moral argument: high taxes were wrong, confiscatory and illiberal, in the classical sense." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010281
What happened after Roosevelt died having literally being elected four terms, "President for life"? "Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war. Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits. Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304024604575173632046893848.html
In addition to all that, a constitutional amendment (the 22nd) was ratified in 1951 that states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..." To me that says that FDR was not so revered by those who knew him best.
"The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html
I hope our countrymen will very soon decide that The New Deal was a bad deal and leave off it’s destructive policies and ideas once and for all.

Private Property Rights...

2010-04-23T09:40:00.000-07:00

My Weekly Column for Utah Homemakers for America... Private Property Rights...
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is about more than keeping mum and not being compelled to testify against oneself, it’s also about property rights. It states, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
In his very interesting paper Property Rights in American history, James W. Ely writes, "...stable property rights are a powerful inducement for the creation of wealth and prosperity, prerequisites for successful self-government. Conversely, as the English politician and author Edmund Burke declared: ‘ A law against property is a law against industry.’" However, the paper makes a compelling argument that property rights have been diminishing since FDR and The New Deal. Why does this matter?
In his book Economic Facts and Fallacies, Thomas Sowell explains that the easiest way to see the importance of property rights is to look at societies where they don’t exist. These are not free people. And, in addition to a lack of freedom, they may really scramble and work very hard, but remain in poverty. Sowell writes, "The Economist magazine has estimated that, in Africa, only about one person in ten works in a legally recognized enterprise or lives in a house that has legally recognized property rights... Such lack of legal recognition is not a mere formality. It is a crippling handicap for those seeking to rise from poverty to prosperity, whether as individuals or as nations." A void in property rights literally means that whatever you are willing and able to obtain through your effort or labor may not actually remain yours. It may be taxed away or simply taken.
Property rights have been facing increasing infringements from many fronts here in the United States. Maybe the most subtle, but the most damaging is the current government bailout mania. The ten thousand little dishonesties from Wall Street to Main Street that have given us a climate where contracts are no longer inviolate, where someone’s word is not their bond and where government/taxpayers are expected to "bail out" Wall Street banks who did not fight legislation making it possible for people to buy homes well beyond their means and the people on Main Street who signed those loans. The bail out mentality sent us over a waterfall of trouble where we now hear radio ads pronouncing that we should look to the government to help us out of credit card debt. In order for The Fifth Amendment to remain a protection to the people, they must be honest and watchful.
Watchful because property rights have many challengers. Environmental law has become an encroachment on property rights. The Central Valley of California, a 400 mile long fertile garden, produces almost one quarter of America’s food supply, but there is a little minnow called the Delta Smelt on the endangered species list and that minnow gets stuck in irrigation pipes so the farmer’s water has been shut down. Beautiful almond groves that take years and years to nurture have dried up, died and been bulldozed. Millions in jobs and profits have been wiped out along with private property and the rights of owners.
In a landmark case, Kelo v. City of New London, The Supreme Court ruled that through eminent domain law, property can be taken and sold to the highest bidder. In his article, "Don’t Liberate me," Thomas Sowell wrote, "Through legislation and judicial rulings, property rights have been eroded with rent control laws, expansive concepts of eminent domain, and all sorts of environmental restrictions. Some of the biggest losers have been people of very modest incomes and some of the biggest winners have been fat cats who are able to use political muscle and activist judges to violate other people’s property rights. Politicians in cities around the country violate property rights regularly by seizing homes in working-class neighborhoods and demolishing whole sectors of the city, in order to turn the land over to people who will build shopping malls, gambling casinos, and other things that will pay more taxes than the homeowners are paying. That’s why property rights were put in the Constitution in the first place, to keep politicians from doing things like that."
If all that weren’t assault enough, property taxes have made it almost impossible to own or buy property in many states. In Rhode Island and many eastern states, property taxes are more than a thousand dollars per month on a modest family home making the dream of home ownership impossible for most. Here in Davis County, Utah, my property taxes have nearly tripled in seven years. I wonder if our county government is anxious to catch up with those eastern states. I also wonder how home ownership/property rights are really possible when those taxes are equal to rising lease payments to the government. Do you really own property that you must pay so much to the government to keep? In the United States, a little elderly widow on a fixed income ought not be put out of a home she purchased because of property tax.. and yet that can happen.
The answer is for our nation to be more honest and more responsible, know and understand The Constitution and work toward more limited government.

Tax Impact...

2010-04-05T10:36:00.000-07:00

For many Utahns, "Tax Freedom Day" arrives on April 11th. Whew! We are almost there! This, according to The Tax Foundation is, "the day is the day when Americans finally have earned enough money to pay off their total tax bill for the year. In 2010, Utah taxpayers work until April 11 to pay their total tax bill." However, the Tax Foundation’s figures are just including state, federal and local tax figures, those are just the obvious taxes. There are many more hidden taxes. In addition, this year we now have the national healthcare reform bill and the Bush tax cuts expiring, who knows where we will be.
I would like to know what my total tax bill actually is, but it’s difficult thing to figure out because they get you coming and going. In Utah we pay a five percent flat tax on all personal income and if it ended there, we would be doing great, but it doesn’t.
For example, in Utah we pay 24.5 cents per gallon of fuel we purchase, but then there is an added federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon making it 42.9 cents per gallon. My husband and I both drive cars that are very fuel efficient getting around 36 miles to the gallon. I fill up my tank, buying about 12 gallons each time, about twice per month. So for both cars, we spend at least $247.10 per year in just gas tax. Now if you drive an SUV or a Van, you can blow that figure to bits. There are also state tax and licensing fees. It was impossible to figure out what that number might be from the DMV web site. If you purchase a new car, the taxes can be thousands, but we don’t notice because those taxes are built into the car loan.
Utahns pay 3% tax on food. How much is that per year for your family? We pay 6.6 percent sales tax for items other than food. So if for example if you spent another $500 per month on other items like paper towels and clothes for your kids or new tires, you would pay another $400 to the state per year.
We are not even half done and we are getting into some real money here. There are taxes on all the utilities we use. If you live in Salt Lake County, you will find a $2.56 cent franchise fee tax on your Comcast cable bill. You pay a tax on you cell phone bill every month.
There are taxes we don’t even really see. There are payroll taxes that employers pay to employ us. Our doctors, hospitals and dentists pay taxes and those taxes are passed on to us, but I couldn’t find a bill when the taxes were itemized so I have no idea how much tax I’m paying there.
Even those Americans (about 50 percent of us) who don’t pay state and federal tax and also qualify for "earned income credit" (a government effort at wealth redistribution) pay most of these hidden taxes.
One great concern we have is that our property taxes have almost tripled since we moved to Davis County eight years ago. Tripled. What is government doing? My brother lives in Rhode Island and he makes a good living, but cannot afford a modest family home because the taxes are over $1,000 per month. And, in Rhode Island, the roads are horrible and the schools leave much to be desired.
The way tax monies are handled is a national disaster ripe for fraud and waste. Monies are taxed away from the states in federal tax and filtered through bureaucracy after bureaucracy until the value of the monies initially taxed away has greatly diminished. Government does not and can not add any value to the dollar.
In Davis County Utah, we recently had a stark example of this when $4.3 million federal tax dollars were embezzled away from the school district. Read here... http://www.clippertoday.com/pages/full_story/push?article--4+million+embezzled+from+school+district%20&id=164381
If you happen to own a business, you can spend more time dealing with taxes than working to earn money. It is no wonder that more than half of new businesses fail in the first year. Truly the power to tax is the power to destroy.
I often wonder if instead of hiding these taxes in all the little purchases we make, what would happen if we had to write out a tax check every month to the government for the entire amount for the month? Would we be warming the tar and shaking the feathers out of our pillows and sharpening the pitchforks to march on Washington? Benjamin Franklin wrote, "It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth part." We are far beyond that tenth.

NASA Admits Climate Data Flawed...

2010-04-01T11:50:00.000-07:00

Read here...

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.
E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.
The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate" than other climate-change data sets, NASA's Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said "the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate," admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.
"My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means," Ruedy told the reporter.
"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink."
related links
Global warming critics call this a crucial blow to advocates' arguments that minor flaws in the "Climate-gate" data are unimportant, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion -- that the Earth is getting warmer. But there's a good reason for that, the skeptics say: They all use the same data.

Bennett's Voting Record...

2010-03-26T12:34:00.000-07:00

*Links to Articles and Information about Senator Bennett: http://www.utahrising.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60%3Abennett&catid=902&Itemid=65* "Bend it Like Bennett" - a short video exposing the money trails between Senator Bennett and the "Big Money" special interest groups who keep funding his perpetual re-election campaigns.: http://www.ourcaucus.com/utah.html*
Ten Reasons to be Concerned about Senator Bennett's Voting Record:
1. Hailed as a “key Republican negotiator,” Senator Bob Bennett supported and voted for the massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout. (Roll Call Vote #213, 10/01/08)
2. “Few politicians have more ties to Freddie and Fannie than Utah Senator Bob Bennett, who topped all Republicans in campaign contributions from the mortgage duo since 1989.” (Salt Lake Tribune, 09/12/08)
3. Senator Bob Bennett sponsored and supported the so-called “Healthy Americans Act,” a trillion-dollar government takeover of healthcare that rivals ObamaCare for being a massive big government proposal. It would increase job-killing taxes, impose an individual mandate, increase health care costs, and would give Washington the authority to regulate every health care plan in the country.
4. Senator Bob Bennett broke his term limits pledge when he ran for re-election in 2004. Bennett has now been in the Senate for 18 years. (Deseret News, 10/07/98)
5. Bennett voted against an amendment that recommended eliminating free parking privileges at Washington airports for members of Congress. (Roll Call Vote #94, 04/20/94)
6. Bennett voted against an amendment that would defund the “Bridge to Nowhere” pork project. Over the course of his career, he has supported countless earmarks like $200,000 for a museum in Omaha, Nebraska, and $3.7 million for the AFL-CIO. He also voted against a one-year earmark moratorium. (Roll Call Vote #262, 10/20/05; #215, 07/06/09; #385, 10/23/07; #75, 03/13/08)
7. “Utah Republican Sen. Bob Bennett said he erred in voting three times in the 1990s for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, and today the public need not be overly concerned with the $7 trillion federal deficit.” (Salt Lake Tribune, 02/20/04)
8. Bennett voted against an amendment that recommended that the Senate had a “moral obligation” to offset the cost of new government programs and authorizations, in order to reduce deficit spending and the national debt. (Roll Call Vote #140, 04/24/07)
9. Senator Bob Bennett was named “Porker of the Month” in February, 2002, by the anti-earmark group Citizens Against Government Waste (www.cagw.org).
10. Senator Bob Bennett voted against an amendment that would prohibit Social Security surplus funds from being spent on other government programs. (Roll Call Vote #65, 03/13/08)*

Other Key Points of Senator Bennett's Voting Record:
Voted to approve Cass Sunstein to the Regulation Commission (You can read more about Cass Sunstein here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96301 ).o H.R. 1105
– Fairness Doctrine - Voted to allow funding to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (This required radio and television broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. The rule encouraged broadcasters to minimize controversial programming so as to avoid providing free air time for opposing viewpoints.)o H.R. 2997 \
– Voted for Agriculture Appropriations (Federal food subsidies are not within the proper role of government.)...o H.R. 5140
– Economic Stimulus (Voted for rebate checks that basically "created money out of thin air")o H.R. 3221
– Mortgage Relief –Voted for the bail out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (It is not within the proper role of government to be an insurer and wealth redistributor.)o H.R. 5501 – Voted for the Global HIV/AIDS Program. (Private charities, not tax dollars, should be used to provide foreign aid.)o H.R. 1424
– Voted for the Bailout Bill (This bill greatly increased the national debt and forced taxpayers to pay the price for the failures of private financial institutions.)o S.1927
– Voted for foreign-aid contributions – (Private charities, not tax dollars, should be used to provide foreign aid.)o House Joint Resolution 43
– Voted for a Debt Limit Increase (Raising the public debt limit by $850 billion facilitates continued, gross fiscal irresponsibility.)o H.R. 3043
– Voted for Labor-HHS Education Appropriations (Social-welfare programs and education are not part of the proper role of the Federal government.)o H.R. 2205
– Voted for Amtrak Reauthorization (Subsidizing a railroad)

Funny Polar Bears...

2010-03-07T18:29:00.000-08:00

Homemakers Newsletter 2.16.2010

2010-02-17T09:10:00.001-08:00

HERE...

Spot on opinion.. WSJ

2010-02-17T09:05:00.000-08:00

Spot ON opinion in the WSJ
HERE...

"Democrats have responded by blaming "obstructionist" Republicans, who lack the votes to block anything by themselves; or a failure to communicate the right message, though President Obama is a master communicator; or even Madison's framework of checks and balances, though this system has worked better than all others for some 225 years. "

More Climategate...

2010-02-11T18:46:00.000-08:00

Holly on the Hill

On the heels of the recent damaging emails about falsified climate data, we have another study that shows that NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) started taking climate measuring stations off-line in areas that showed cooler temperatures.

See the rest of the story on the link above.

Utah Homemakers for America... 1.25.2010

2010-01-28T17:44:00.000-08:00

Utah Homemakers for America Weekly Newsletter Jan 25th 2008...

This Week in Politics by Tiffany Hess
The Law of Unintended Consequences
Something I wish our representatives would consider more often is the law of unintended consequences. When our Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, they limited government to keep us free and to keep government out of our way. Our government was meant to do some very simple things. In his First Inaugural Address in 1801, Thomas Jefferson said, "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement."
The Constitution does not mention anything about the social welfare programs that cost not just in tax dollars, but in real liberty. There is no mention of health care, D.A.R.E., or providing for the poor, not that the Founders didn't believe in social welfare, they just didn't believe in Federal or even State level social programs, but felt that those things were best handled by private citizens at the local level.
Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. ... Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them." (On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor, London Chronicle, November 29, 1766)
The social programs of today have enslaved the poor by providing them just enough to keep them chained to poverty and claimed so
many that the heavy chains of the poor are dragging down the middle classes as well.
Liberals are long criticized for their social spending, but conservatives have spent a fair bit as well. One way they spend is by involving government where government does not belong. An example is the newly established health care program in Massachusetts. In a re-cent Wall Street Journal Editorial (RomneyCare Revisited: What Massachusetts voters knew about health reform. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013080421218008.html), the journal reports that, "In 2006, then GOP Governor Mitt Romney brought about a universal insurance plan that bears an uncanny resemblance to ObamaCare—and a meticulous new study confirms that the result has been high costs in return for minimal benefits..." and that, "...although Mr. Romney promised that his plan would lower costs, the liberal Commonwealth Fund reports that Massachusetts insurance costs have climbed anywhere from 21% to 46% faster than the U.S. average since 2005. Employer-sponsored premiums are now the highest in the nation." The costs are crippling.
Our Founders wrestled with the same problems. In a Letter to Samuel Kercheval, Monticello, July 12, 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring our-selves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers...
And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
No matter the good that government may intend to do, the voters must not allow government to "assist" in selling cars or homes, to regulate the use of energy in a private residences, to break contracts, to determine pay. The government does this badly and in a costly fashion further enslaving the tax payer. Legislators need to consider not just the ideal outcome of a piece of legislation, they must square it with The Constitution, then they must not just look at the good, but what is the worst consequence of a pro-posed law. Can it further burden the tax payer, can it further deteriorate personal freedom?

Founder’s Corner: Benjamin Franklin
" .. as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly in-creasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever... ~Benjamin Franklin before the Constitutional Convention, (June 2, 1787)

Taxation...

2010-01-25T18:58:00.000-08:00

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." ~Jefferson

Utah Homemaker's For America... Madame Defarge...

2010-01-23T14:22:00.000-08:00

Utah Homemaker's for America... Latest Newsletter

Madame Defarge is Knitting Again..
Do you remember Madame Defarge, one of Dickens’ most frightening villains? She was a tricoteuse, one of the old women who would sit around the guillotine knitting during the reign of terror. Her knitting was not a pair of Christmas socks for a nephew, but instead a denunciation that meant death for the accused. There was no court, no judge, no trial, no jury. The denounced were condemned by their accusers and by a desperate and blood thirsty public.
In our day amazing judgments have been made in the court of public opinion using more emotional than rational and logical thought. Both political parties have been guilty of feeding the frenzy.
Many of us depend everyday on prescription drugs. ("The vast majority of drug development takes place within the private sector and not, as some claim, in government-funded laboratories..." http://www.nysun.com/new-york/capitalism-said-key-to-finding-new-drugs/80569/) Yet, as much good as they do for many people, the entire pharmaceutical industry has been denounced and become a target of crippling regulation.
The oil industry makes so many things possible in our society. It warms our homes, provides us with transportation, brings our food, clothing and medicines to us and yet oil companies have been denounced and drilling stopped or not allowed in many places.
The coal industry brings us the electricity to light, cool and heat our homes and cook our food, but coal has been denounced. "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that green house gas that's being emitted." (Barack Obama January 17, 2008 San Francisco Chronicle)
Small business has been denounced for its lack of ability to pay health coverage for employees.
Big banks are being denounced. "President Barack Obama told banks Thursday they should pay a new tax to recoup the cost of bailing out foundering firms at the height of the financial crisis. "We want our money back," he said. And, those banks "... would have to pay up even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most that did have repaid the infusions."
Of course there is dishonesty, corruption and deceit in every industry, but we have laws and we have courts to punish those whose actions are illegal. I believe it is wrong, harmful and un-American to denounce and condemn an entire industry with out court, judge, trial or jury.
Now in Utah, ethics reform is being considered, Utah Ethics Commission Initiative,
where a 3 member panel (a lifetime appointment) would be able to anonymously point a finger of denouncement at any elected representative. http://files.meetup.com/1403508/Government%20Ethics%20Reform%20Initiative.pdf
Who is going to run for public office under this kind of pressure? The proposal is not going through normal legislative processes, but rather through ballot initiative. It will get on the ballot because someone will be at the local mall and they will ask if you are interested in ethics reform in government. Rather than read the twenty one pages of legalese, many will just sign the petition to get this on the ballot and many will vote for it with out ever reading it simply because our public servants have been denounced.
This is mob rule, this is ignorant and blood thirsty. This is not republican government. Before we denounce our entire economy and our republic into the dark ages, we need to send the ideologies of Madame Defarge to the guillotine.

Utah Homemakers for America Weekly Newsletter...

2010-01-15T09:07:00.000-08:00

HERE...

Please read and see the ways that you can become involved.

Types of Government...

2010-01-14T12:54:00.001-08:00

Don't miss THIS video.

Copenhagen...

2009-12-18T05:31:00.000-08:00

"These maniacs in Copenhagen are voting on your future:
President Chavez brought the house down.
When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.
When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation."
Read More here...

Copenhagen is not about saving the planet.

Frank & Dodd strike again.. Watch out!

2009-12-14T09:52:00.000-08:00

"Under the House version, large financial companies including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. would be hit with billions of dollars in fees and would see new restrictions on their operations.
The bill would strip nearly all of the Federal Reserve's powers to write consumer-protection laws and would allow -- for the first time -- an arm of Congress to audit the Fed's monetary policy decisions, supposedly a politics-free zone. The Fed has fiercely resisted the idea.
For consumers and individual investors, the bill gives shareholders an advisory vote on executive compensation and creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
The new federal agency would write rules and examine banks for compliance with consumer protection policies on mortgages, credit cards and other products.
The bill, written in large part by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, aims to fill gaps in the regulatory toolkit exposed by last year's crisis. It would give the government the power to break up even healthy financial companies if regulators believe they pose a threat to the financial system. It will also direct the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to collect $150 billion in fees from big financial institutions to create a fund to pay for future large failures."

Read the rest here...

Anthropological Warming...

2009-12-04T10:24:00.001-08:00

Whether you believe in Anthropological Warming or not.. before we allow the government to take over our thermostats, ban two ply toilet paper, diktat the size of our televisions and cars and homes, regulate our soap.. before we give up all our money to taxes and much of our freedoms.. let's make sure there are no crooks calling the shots.

Lord Christopher Monckton explains the false science behind the global warming scare...

2009-12-02T16:15:00.000-08:00

This is a 5 part series.. be patient with the first part .. an then watch them all. Very enlightening.
Part 1

National Education Curriculum...

2009-12-02T16:04:00.000-08:00

November 25, 2009

The Honorable John Cornyn
United States Senate
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Senator Cornyn:

I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding recent efforts by the U. S. Department of Education (USDE) to adopt a national curriculum and testing system in the United States. This effort can be seen as a step toward a federal takeover of the nation’s public schools.

As you are likely aware, a number of entities that develop and market education assessments and materials and several non-profits have banded together in an effort they have named the “Common Core Standards Initiative.” I believe that the true intention of this effort is to establish one set of national education standards and national tests across the country. Originally sold to states as voluntary, states have now been told that participation in national standards and national testing would be required as a condition of receiving federal discretionary grant funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) administered by the USDE. The effort has now become a cornerstone of the Administration’s education policy through the USDE’s prioritization of adoption of national standards and aligned national tests in receiving federal funds. The Secretary of Education has already reserved $650 million of ARRA funds for the production of these national tests.

In short, because Texas has chosen to preserve its sovereign authority to determine what is appropriate for Texas children to learn in its public schools, the state is now placed at a serious disadvantage in competing for its share of ARRA discretionary funding. Billed by Secretary Duncan as the “Race to the Top,” (RTTT) it appears that the USDE is placing its desire for a federal takeover of public education above the interests of the 4.7 million schoolchildren in the state of Texas by setting two different starting lines – one for nearly every other state in the country and one for Texas.

Texas has consistently maintained that states should retain their authority to determine the curriculum and testing requirements for their students. The elected Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) sets the standards Texas students are supposed to meet for each subject taught in the public school system. Texas law requires the direct participation of educators, parents, business and industry representatives, and employers in the development of the standards. Through this process, Texas has recently adopted college-ready math, English language arts, and science standards and will soon complete work on the social studies standards. The state has purchased new textbooks, created targeted professional development for our teachers, and developed new assessments aligned with these new standards. Joining the national standards and national testing movement would require Texas taxpayers to re-spend at least $3 billion.

If the USDE has its way, Texas’ process, along with every other state that has a similar process, will be negated. With the release of the RTTT application, it is clear that the first step toward nationalization of our schools has been put into place. I do not believe that the requirements will end with the RTTT; I believe that USDE will utilize the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to further the administration’s federal takeover of public schools, including withholding billions of dollars from our disadvantaged and special education students.

Ronald Reagan once said, “I believe a case can be made that the decline in the quality of public school education began when federal aid to education became federal interference in education.” Having the federal government use Washington-based special interest groups and vendors as proxy for the USDE in setting national curriculum standards and then using ARRA federal discretionary funds to develop national tests for every child in the nation represents unprecedented intrusiveness by the federal government into the personal lives of our children and their families.

I encourage and invite you to stand with me against national curriculum standards and national tests. The authority to determine what students in our public schools should learn properly resides with states, local school boards and parents. The federal government should not be engaging in activity that seeks to undermine our ability to determine what will be taught in our schools.

Sincerely,

Robert Scott
Texas Commissioner of Education

More from the WSJ on the Global Warming hoax...

2009-11-28T20:27:00.000-08:00

Rigging a Climate 'Consensus'

Cap & Trade...

2009-11-27T08:56:00.000-08:00

See article HERE...

So declares Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, taking a few minutes away from a Thanksgiving retreat with his family. "Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in."
If any politician might be qualified to offer last rites, it would be Mr. Inhofe. The top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee has spent the past decade in the thick of Washington's climate fight. He's seen the back of three cap-and-trade bills, rode herd on an overweening Environmental Protection Agency, and steadfastly insisted that global researchers were "cooking" the science behind man-made global warming.
This week he's looking prescient. The more than 3,000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have found their way to the Internet have blown the lid off the "science" of manmade global warming. CRU is a nerve center for many of those researchers who have authored the United Nations' global warming reports and fueled the political movement to regulate carbon.
Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn't toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. "It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents "could scarcely be more damaging." And that's from a believer.
This scandal has real implications. Mr. Inhofe notes that international and U.S. efforts to regulate carbon were already on the ropes. The growing fear of Democrats and environmentalists is that the CRU uproar will prove a tipping point, and mark a permanent end to those ambitions.
Internationally, world leaders finally acknowledged that the recession has sapped them of their political power to impose devastating new carbon-restrictions. China and India are clear they won't join the West in an economic suicide pact. Next month's summit in Copenhagen is a bust. Instead of producing legally binding agreements, it will be dogged by queries about the legitimacy of the scientists who wrote the reports that form its basis.
The next opportunity to get international agreement is in Mexico City, 2010—a U.S. election year. Democrats were already publicly acknowledging there will be no domestic climate legislation in 2009 and privately acknowledging their great unease at passing a huge energy tax on Americans headed for a midterm vote.
Add to that the CRU scandal, which pivots the focus to potential fraud. Republicans are launching investigations, and the pressure is building on Democrats to hold hearings, since climate scientists were funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars. Mr. Inhofe's office this week sent letters to federal agencies and outside scientists warning them not to delete their own CRU-related emails and documents, which may also be subject to Freedom of Information requests.
Polls show a public already losing belief in the theory of man-made global warming, and skeptics are now on the offense. The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell argues this scandal gives added cover to Blue Dogs and other Democrats who were already reluctant to buck the public's will and vote for climate legislation. And with Republicans set to pick up seats, Mr. Ebell adds, "By 2011 there will hopefully be even fewer members who support this. We may be close to having it permanently stymied." Continued U.S. failure to act makes an international agreement to replace Kyoto (which expires in 2012) a harder sell.
There's still the EPA, which is preparing an "endangerment finding" that would allow it to regulate carbon on the grounds it is a danger to public health. It is here the emails might have the most direct effect. The agency has said repeatedly that it based its finding on the U.N. science—which is now at issue. The scandal puts new pressure on the EPA to accede to growing demands to make public the scientific basis of its actions.
Mr. Inhofe goes so far as to suggest that the agency might not now issue the finding. "The president knows how punitive this will be; he's never wanted to do it through [the EPA] because that's all on him." The EPA was already out on a legal limb with its finding, and Mr. Inhofe argues that if it does go ahead, the CRU disclosure guarantees court limbo. "The way the far left used to stop us is to file lawsuits and stall and stall. We'll do the same thing."
Still, if this Democratic Washington has demonstrated anything, it's that ideology often trumps common sense. Egged on by the left, dug in to their position, Democrats might plow ahead. They'd be better off acknowledging that the only "consensus" right now is that the world needs to start over on climate "science."

Vanishing Liberty...

2009-10-29T18:07:00.000-07:00

"Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country."
~Thomas Sowell

A must read article by Thomas Sowell HERE...

Legislating Freedom...

2009-09-15T20:05:00.000-07:00

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005

A brilliant thinker...

2009-09-15T20:01:00.000-07:00

The government is not the source of anything.. the most it can hope to do is preserve the rights of individuals and coordinate their efforts.
~C. Hess

Two Articles about Wealth & Giving...

2009-09-11T14:23:00.000-07:00

Giving in America
"Americans give a lot. In 2006 they gave about $300 billion to charity. To put that into perspective, $300 billion is more than the entire national income of Sweden. Seventy-five percent of America’s families give every year. Fifty percent volunteer their time, and Americans give in myriad other ways that are not captured in data.
The most charitable state in the United States is Utah, where people give approximately twice as much as the second leading state. I’m tempted to say that that should make Utahns proud. But I suppose that’s not the right word. However, it should make you pleased—and determined to keep it up."

Read More HERE...

"In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."

Read More HERE...

The President's Healthcare Speech...

2009-09-10T09:56:00.000-07:00

"Perhaps Mr. Obama's most remarkable sleight-of-hand was his claim that he "will not stand by as the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are." The reality is that nearly all of those "special interests" are standing with him. The doctors' lobby, the hospitals, Big Pharma, even the largest insurers have all invested enormously in government health care. " WSJ

The rest of the article HERE...

The Collapse of the Dollar...

2009-09-10T09:47:00.000-07:00

"The dollar's fall follows a United Nations report released Monday calling for a reduced role of the dollar as the world's primary reserve currency..." Forbes Magazine

READ THE REST OF THE FORBES ARTICLE HERE...

Forrest Bird...

2009-09-08T09:16:00.000-07:00

Received the Presidential Citizen on December 10, 2008.

If you don't know Forrest Bird's inspiring story.

This piece on 60 Minutes was beautifully done.

See it here.

Muilticulturalism.. Something to think about...

2009-09-03T13:36:00.000-07:00

To many people, the word Multicultural and the idea of Multiculturalism are the anti-racism with the idea that all races and cultures should be appreciated the same. But, racism and multiculturalism really have nothing to do with each other.
Racism is the idea that someone has a license to hate, exclude or mistreat another human being because of their skin color or the shape of their eyes. Racism is wrong, stupid and immoral.

Culture is defined as: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group.

Multiculturalism is the idea that all cultures are equal and of equal value in the world.

NOT SO.

About a year ago, I read the book Three Cups Of Tea about the mission of the author Greg Mortensen to build schools for girls and boys in Pakistan. While the book was fascinating and the mission of Mr. Mortensen highly laudable, there was an underlying multiculturalistic attitude in the book. What a lovely slow-paced society! These people can really enjoy the simple things in life with out being materialistic. GAG!

I became angry as I read page after page of men sitting for hours drinking cup after cup of tea while their children had no schools to attend, no hospitals to be born in, and 40 percent of them were malnourished.

"In 2000, the infant mortality rate was 83 per 1,000 live births. Major causes of infant mortality are immunizable diseases, diarrhea, malnutrition, and poor environmental sanitation."
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Pakistan-HEALTH.html
But, hey.. don't get up.. continue with your little tea party.

Multiculturalism is a lie. There are cultures that are more valuable ... *better* than others. Those are the cultures that make their people smarter, healthier, stronger, safer, happier and wealthier. And, the culture that encourages those things not by force, but through greater liberty is superior to others.

I really enjoyed this little speech by the brilliant Canadian Mark Steyn...
Check it out HERE.

Healthcare...

2009-09-01T12:41:00.001-07:00

Healthcare solutions...
HERE..

Stanford University's Landmark Healthcare Study..

2009-08-31T18:37:00.000-07:00

If you haven't read anything else about the flaws in the current debate.. read this summary of Stanford University's Hoover Institute Study on Healthcare.. it's very enlightening...

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Read More HERE...

Who really are the uninsured?

2009-08-22T10:53:00.000-07:00

Politicians and the media often state that 47 million are uninsured, roughly 15 percent of people living in the U.S., but what are the numbers behind that statistic? Who are these people?
The Census Bureau points out that almost 10 million of those are illegal aliens. According to the same report there are 8.3 million uninsured who make between $50,000 and $75,000 per year. Many of these are the young and healthy who would rather spend $200 some odd dollars a month playing than paying for health coverage. Almost 9 million more make more than $75,000 per year.
If we count those that are transitioning between jobs, but that will have coverage in less than 4 months.. we may be able to discount a full 45 percent of the almost 20 million left.
Studies done by The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit founded to inform media and government on health issues... "puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media reports. Kaiser’s 8.2 million figure for the chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more."8.2 million represents about 2 percent of Americans. That said, I agree with President Obama that we are our brothers keeper.
It must be understood that Health Insurance is not the same as Health Care. Even illegals in this country have access to health care. There are free clinics where the poor and illegals can receive pre-natal care and have their cuts sewn up. Their babies are delivered in hospitals.. no questions asked. No one can be turned away from an Emergency Room.. it is against the law.
Crack babies born premature and in disastrous health will have a million dollars spent on their care before they even leave the hospital. Who pays for all of this?? We do. Americans are very generous. What do you think hospital and doctor bills would be like if the hospitals didn't pass these costs on to every patient who is able to pay? Some of this type of health care is tax payer funded and much is passed along to the insured who are able to pay.. in other words us.
Much of that is OK with me because I want to be compassionate and good. But don't wreck the best, by far the best, health care system in the world over faulty statistics and political power grabs.
That said, there are many things that we could do to improve our current system. I like the ideas John Mackey wrote in a recent article for the WSJ.
Socialized medicine is a Trillion dollar gamble with poor odds since it has compromised the economies of almost every European nation and Canada. Let's take some time and think it out very carefully and then when our representatives come up with something, let's do our own thinking on it. Let's ask that actual reform not be buried in pork spending so we can barely find the bill.If Americans tune into the fall television line up and stop watching their government, they may wake up in the spring to a lesser America.. one they don't even recognize.

Read more here.

Does single payer really help the poor?

2009-08-21T17:10:00.000-07:00

This story is anecdotal and I try to stay away from that kind of thing, but this piece points out at the core something real and true. Entitlement is an ugly word. It is beneath the dignity of liberty which requires self-discipline, hard work and integrity. When we give up our liberty for something "free" we are sold what we deserve.. something that is less.

This is a story from Canada...

"Everything I want to say about this is summed up in a story that happened to my partner Shelley. Shelley and I are partners in a restaurant, and she actually runs it. She was given an appointment at the hospital for a procedure, and she duly showed up at the appointed time. Two hours later she was still sitting there waiting to be called. Now she was only able to get a two-hour parking meter, and so she approached the desk and asked if she could go and put money in the meter. She was curtly told that she was free to go and put the money in, but that if her name were called while she was away, that her name would fall back to the bottom of the queue. So she just decided that she would take the parking ticket as part of the price of getting the medical service she needed. Another two hours passed, and still she was not called, so she again approached the counter, and very patiently and politely explained (as only Shelley can, because she is the soul of graciousness) that she actually had a small business to run; that she was there at the appointed time for her appointment; that she had waited four hours, which is far longer than she had been led to expect the whole thing would take; that she had other commitments because of the business; and could they possibly at least give her some idea of how much longer she might have to wait?
Well, the woman behind the counter got on her dignity, drew herself up to her full height, glared at Shelley and said, "You're talking as if you're some kind of customer!"
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the essence of the problem: When the government supplies you with "free" health care, you are not a powerful customer who must be satisfied. They are doing you a favor and you owe the state gratitude and servility in return for this awesome generosity. They can give you the worst service in the world, but because it is free, you are totally disempowered. One of the most important lessons I have learned from my contact with the Canadian Medicare system is that payment makes you powerful. And its absence makes you risible if not invisible.
Now the articulate and the middle class do not let little things like that get them down. Even though they do not pay, they still get in the faces of the people providing service and make their wishes known. But often the vulnerable, the poor, the ill-educated, and the inarticulate are the ones who suffer the most because no one's well-being within the health care system depends on patients/consumers being well looked after. And by depriving them of the power of payment within the health care system, Medicare disempowers them. And the poor see this, because while they may be poor, they are not stupid."

Read more here.

Wealth...

2009-08-17T07:44:00.000-07:00

Our current representatives do not understand the principle of wealth, they believe it is only money, but money is easily spent and gone. The wealth of our nation is not money, or resources although this land is blessed with both. Our true wealth is in the creativity and ingenuity and especially the industry of our people.

Hi, I'm from the Government & I'm here to help...

2009-08-14T08:31:00.000-07:00

I am sorry to admit that I was initially in favor.. strongly in favor of TARP. It seemed like a good idea to get money to the banks so that they could begin lending again, so that small businesses could make payroll and so that folks could finance homes etc... That was all when the program was about 4 pages long.
In a moment of crisis and panic, I trusted government. By the time the congress got a hold of the 4 page document, it was a mess. Henry Paulson met with Harry Reid and Harry explained to Henry the needs and expectation of his constituency... in other words.. the congress had to add thousands of pages of pork until now we are bailing out folks that made the horrid mistake of purchasing a Suburban rather than a Prius.
President Bush said that Wall Street got drunk.. maybe so.. but it is the constant and consistent bingeing of the congress (left and right) that has me worried.
And, so many Americans don't understand money. They don't get that we've spent it. It's gone. The Chinese who have been saving while we've been spending are not as comfortable with our treasury bonds as they once were. When they stop buying, we will have no choice but to print money causing inflation that is not so easy to predict or control.
So when the government now wants to be in the health care business I think of these words of President Reagan... "The ten most dangerous words in the English language are "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

The troubles of Industry...

2009-08-12T08:37:00.000-07:00

Federal regulation chokes industry while dishonesty starves it to death.
My husband, one of the smartest men I've ever met, said that last night.. Brilliant.

An Important Issue in the Healthcare Debate...

2009-08-06T16:56:00.000-07:00

One of the more insidious arguments from the left in favor of government involvement in health care is the infant mortality rate in the United States.
"The infant mortality rate is also called the infant death rate. It is the number of deaths that occur in the first year of life for 1000 live births." This is the definition used by the World Health Organization. However, it like so many statistics is flawed because when life begins is often fudged.

"Count again. We report mortality rates based on World Health Organization guidelines for a live birth. A baby fully separated from the mother and showing any sign of life, even a single breath, counts as a newborn, regardless of other factors. Many developed countries with better infant mortality rates don't follow that to the letter. They purposely exclude deaths according to weight, degree of prematurity, or how long the baby lives.
Be serious—if you try to save sicker babies, you will have higher mortality. Some are catching on. In a recent study, researchers found that by correcting for weight, the mortality risk was the same in the United States as in Canada—and maybe even a bit better—despite our northern neighbor's welfare entitlements and universal healthcare system."

Please read the full article in U.S. News

Other countries’ lower infant-mortality rates in the World Health Organization’s tables are often used to shame the U.S.’s health-care system. But those numbers hide the greater effort the U.S. takes to save the life of preterm babies, those born 6 to 20 weeks before they are due.

Please read the full article in WSJ
and
THIS ONE

It is a non-statistic and a non-issue. Please educate yourself on this issue. Again, please read the articles referred to.

Tax & Spend...

2009-08-06T07:04:00.000-07:00

During the past election, I used to see tickers everywhere. They were ticking the cost of the national debt as it rose. Bloggers had tickers counting up the mounting cost of the war in Iraq.
Well, Obama won the election. No one is watching ticking tickers now because when the dems took over they spent us into oblivion. They spent in several months the cost of the war in Iraq. And, they continue to spend.
During the election Obama promised that he would not raise taxes for folks who make less than $250,000 per year. A promise that he now is not and I think never intended to keep.
Cap and Trade will tax every person in the United States who owns a light bulb, who operates a vehicle or purchases anything made or grown in the United States. By 2035 it will cost every family of 4 nearly $7,000 extra per year in today's dollars. It will ding the rich. It will kill the middle class. It will devastate the poor.
But, that's not all. Heath Savings Accounts, which I think could be the answer to rising health care costs, will be taxed to the tune of 8.2 Billion dollars. Enough to kill one of the programs that really works. I know. I have an HSA.
I am against the Democratic platform in a big way. It seems like such a nice idea to tax money away from the rich and give it to the poor. But, instead it kills the producers, the employment creators, the generous supporters of every good cause are forced to give less.
It makes the government more powerful and the people less. It puts Americans on the dole and keeps them there for generations where they live in publicly paid for squalor and remain, uneducated and unable to live with the dignity that comes from being a contributor rather than simply a consumer, from helping others rather than mooching off society.
Drive by New York City sometime. The projects go on to the skyline, a great and monstrously hideous monument to Johnson's Great Society where we would simply give the poor enough and they would soon be able to care for themselves. Instead, people who are only people have preferred the little they get on the dole to what they must have the courage and industry to reach on their own. The great grandchildren of the Great Society live in conditions that I can only shudder at.
You want to help the poor. Throw out the spenders Democrat and Republican. Throw them out. Write them letters. Call them on the phone. Get them out. Get them out of the way of American industry, innovation and compassion. Help the producers produce more. Help them in producing more. Stop spending on social programs that have proven to keep people down rather than raise them up. Understand that dignity comes from putting your own bread on the table. Make that possible for more Americans rather than less.

Cap & Trade...

2009-08-05T11:24:00.000-07:00

Cap & Trade...

Important Articles about Climate Change...

2009-08-04T07:23:00.000-07:00

"The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon."
Kimberley A. Strassel WSJ 6.26.2009

" it isn’t just greater wealth that leads to a better environment, but greater freedom, too.."
Bret Stephens WSJ 8.4.2009

A Brilliant Opinion Piece...

2009-06-22T21:11:00.000-07:00

HERE...

"The reason is that too many of our intellectuals are themselves ensnared in a bad idea. That idea is multiculturalism -- the notion that no system or government is inherently better than any other, that the rules of morality are just a doctrine written by history's winners. Thus there are no enduring human truths, only "narratives" by which almost any beastliness can be explained away if committed by a people with a claim to having been victimized by a dominant culture.
This bad idea has all but silenced our nation at a moment when the world most needs our voice. Thousands of people in Iran are marching in the streets, protesting a sham election, heroically risking life and limb to try to tear some little breathing space in the smothering shroud of theocracy. Yet President Barack Obama, the leader of the most powerful free nation on earth, responds with mealy-mouthed strategic dithering. The man who in his recent speech in Cairo drew an absurd moral equivalence between Western errors and Islam's unstinting history of oppression has condemned the Iranian government's violent reaction to the demonstrations but remains canny and vague in his support of the protestors.
This is too shrewd by half. There comes a time in the affairs of men when bad ideas can be -- and therefore must be -- powerfully opposed by good ones.
Compare, if you can bear it, President Ronald Reagan's response to the 1982 crackdown on the Polish union Solidarity by the Soviet Union: "The struggle in the world today for the hearts and minds of mankind is based on one simple question: Is man born to be free, or slave? In country after country, people have long known the answer to that question. We are free by divine right." In less than a decade, in startlingly large measure because this one idea found so mighty a voice, the Soviet Union was gone."

By Andrew Klavan

Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell...

2009-06-18T06:38:00.000-07:00

Read this book. It's very enlightening...

"Most statistics on income inequality are very misleading in yet another way. These statistics almost invariably leave out money received as transfers from the government in various programs for low-income people which provide benefits of substantial value for which the recipients pay nothing."

According to Sowell the bottom 20 percent of income recipients receive more than two thirds of their income from such transfer payments... such as subsidized housing etc..

"In 2001, for example, cash and in-kind transfers together accounted for 77.8 percent of the economic resources of people in the bottom 20 percent. In other words, the alarming statistics on their incomes so often cited in the media and by politicians count only 22 percent of the actual economic resources at their disposal."

Why does government so encourage the increase in transfer payments to the bottom 20 percent? One reason I can see is that government workers rarely create any real value in the the economy and so many are paid in a portion of these transfer payments to the poor. If there is a new government program to provide say car seats to the poor by income, there must be scads of people employed to manage this program. Incomes must be checked and car seats must be purchased and distributed.

A second reason is that more and more the electorate will vote for the person or persons who can promise the most in programs and fixes that take from the "rich" and redistribute to the "poor". This has become the easy way to power for politicians in both major parties.

Anyway, this book is very enlightening.. I hope you'll get it and read on...

Visit Thomas Sowell's site here... and you really ought to read this blurb about him here..

Management 101...

2009-04-01T19:38:00.000-07:00

This is something my Dad wrote and sent me this morning. I thought it was funny, but then kind of too true to be really hilarious.

"Since they appear determined to dictate how all businesses should conduct themselves, and to run everything, perhaps the government should merge all mass transit systems in the country, and Amtrak, and Chrysler Corporation, into one single firm. If they did this, then the cars no one wants, the buses no one gets in, and the rails no one rides, could all be mismanaged by a bunch of megalomaniacs no one trusts."

No He Can't...

2009-03-14T17:48:00.000-07:00

I like this article. This women can say some things that I can't. I like the line she uses here, "the politics of victimization." We can victimize ourselves and say the the government should provide this and that for us, although those of us who are young enough to remember the lines at the DMV don't really think the government is an organization that does almost anything really well and keeping it out of the business of most things is the way to preserve both liberty and efficiency. It's going to be a long 4 years I'm afraid. I hope I recognize my beloved country when it's over.

Liberty...

2009-03-11T16:29:00.000-07:00

My brother sent me this and it was so wonderful.. I thought I would share with you...

In the critical year of 1944 a vast “I Am an American Day” ceremony was held in Central Park, New York City, on May 21. Many thousands of people were present, including a large number of new citizens. Learned Hand’s brief address was so eloquent and so moving that the text immediately became the object of wide demand. It was quickly printed and reprinted and also put into anthologies. The impact was so great that the speaker was invited to address a similar gathering the next year. (Judge Learned Hand [this was his real, albeit unfortunate, name] was a judge of the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals, and together with Judge Posner on the 7th Circuit and a few others, is among the most influential jurists in American history, despite having never served on the United States Supreme Court.)

“We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land. What was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us, to this choice? We sought liberty; freedom from oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then sought; this we now believe . . . . What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.

“What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be; nay, which never will be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create it; yet in the spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country.”

Taxing the Rich???

2009-03-02T20:20:00.000-08:00

"The composition of the tax hikes in the 2010 budget is frighteningly similar to the Revenue Act of 1932, the much-maligned Hoover tax hikes that put the “Great” in Great Depression by putting an enormous tax burden on millions of Americans, largely through excise taxes. These taxes, raised even further by FDR, were justified by the promise that the funds would be returned in the form of relief programs, which is to say that some portion of the tax revenue, after administrative costs in Washington, would go back to the states with strings attached, often to further political rather than economic objectives."

This is happening my fair folksies.

"Despite President Obama’s promise that “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime,” his new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured."

See the rest of the article Obama’s Scary Hoover-Style Tax Hikes
By Phil Kerpen Director of Policy, Americans for Prosperity HERE...

Tony Snow...

2009-02-13T06:13:00.000-08:00

I was trying to find a quote... a sign off really that came from one of Tony Snow's broadcasts during the Christmas season of 2001. He gave a sweet little message to his daughter. I couldn't find it, but ran across this quote...

“Yet even while staring into a mirror darkly, great and stunning truths begin to take shape. Our maladies define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out. But despite this — because of it — God offers the possibility of salvation and grace. We don’t know how the narrative of our lives will end, but we get to choose how to use the interval between now and the moment we meet our Creator face-to-face.”

How the conservative movement needs a thoughtful, graceful man or woman with the intelligence and kindness of Tony Snow! Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity are almost always right except in their delivery because they lack grace and forget that you catch more flies with honey. Tony Snow never forgot to be graceful, but he was so smart and so prepared that he was hard to argue with. Until the Republicans come up with a group of folks with Snow's many qualities including his integrity... they won't regain power.