As we continue with reviewing some of the prophetic statements issued by President J. Reuben Clark regarding freedom in America, we need to pause for a moment and review how some of his warnings apply to our current national circumstances. Following are two video segments that everyone should watch. After watching and contemplating these clips, read on to see what President Clark had to say on the topic being addressed.
In an address given on October 7, 1943 President Clark delivered the following message:
"In violation of the fundamental concept of the Constitution that there are three mutually independent branches of government--the legislative, judicial, and executive--neither of which may usurp or have granted to it the power to intrude upon the functions of the other, we have seen grow up, under this destructive influence I have named, the theory and practice that the executive branch may in fact legislate. Many of the legislative-like enactments are dubbed 'directives,' a new and meaningless term in our constitutional government. Unless they are legal Executive Orders, they have no legal force. However sound such enactments may be under the principles and practices of the Civil Law-- with which the leadership of the communisitc publicists are familiar and in which they are probably trained-- they are outside our constitutional law and procedure. Behind them are no popular urges--indeed, they not infrequently fly in the face of the peoples desire; they are made without public notice or discussion, in violation of established law making procedure; they are not made by the representatives of the people with a responsibility runing back to the people. . .
"However, these "directives" involve more than the legislative usurpation. The units that frame them likewise enforce them, --thus becoming both legislature and executive. Furthermore, in cases of dispute, they not infrequently try, condemn, and pronounce judgment for violations, thus acting as a court in judging their own enactments; and finally, having made the law, and judged the law, and imposed the penalty, they act as sheriff to carry out the sentence. This combines all the elments of government into one. This is tyranny in its most complete form, however beneficent it may happen temporarily to be in fact. It was Thomas Jefferson who said: 'What has destroyed the liberty and rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and consolidation of all cares in one body.' . . .
"Thus, and speaking in general terms, the Federal Government has reached down and touched the individual lives of the citizens in a multitude of matters which for a century and a half were held to be untouchable by the Government under those constitutional provisions which declared that the Federal Government is a government of delegated powers, and that unless powers are expressly given they are reserved by the people-- who grants the power-- either to themselves or to their State Governments. Any provervbial school boy knows that the exercise of the Federal Government of a power not delegated to it by the people, is plain usurpation; so also he knows that any exercise by one department of the Federal Government of any power not expressly granted to it is a usurpation, whether that pwer be not granted at all or whether the people have in their Constitution granted that power to another department of the Government. These are merest commonplaces in constitutional law, but they are basic principles which are suffering daily violations.
"Unless these usurpations are stopped, social, economic, and governmental chaos will come. There are those who believe that the destructive influences wish chaos because they believe that out of it they can most easily build their projected communistic state here in America."
Are we flirting with tyranny in America? It is hard to even imagine what our country could look like today if the executive orders outlined in the second video segment had not been rescinded by a subsequent president. In a world rife with real and contrived crises, one seeking to gain power could have used these orders to usher in a state identical to the soviet empire of the 20th century.
So, if President Obama does resort to executive orders to advance the elements of his agenda that he cannot pass through normal legislative channels, there is extreme danger on the horizon.
The Congress and the Judiciary need to get a handle on the unmitigated power grab that can legally be conducted by our chief executive, or they stand in great danger of being rendered impotent, and we stand in great danger of becoming subjects to a veritable monarch.
I believe we should make this, along with other executive tactics such as unconfirmed appointments of powerful bureaucrats (czars), a key issue int he upcoming congressional elections. Those we elect should be willing to preserve the separation powers, which is one of the fundamentals of our the American system of goverment.
Thanks,
Richard
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
One Voice Among Many
Over the past couple of weeks I’ve spent some time reading several of the writings of President J. Reuben Clark. His insights into the mission and destiny of America were profound, and his warnings regarding the dangers that exist to individual liberty and the responsibility we bear to take actions in the preservation of liberty were clear. While he was alive, President Clark was just one voice among many warning of the potential for our liberty to be lost. But he was a powerful voice that we would do well to hear and follow.
I’m sure most are familiar with President Clark, but here are a few biographical facts about him to serve as a quick reminder.
Joshua Reuben Clark received a law degree from Columbia University , worked in the U.S. Attorney General’s office and later as an attorney for the U.S. Department of State. He was appointed to the post of Under Secretary of State in the Coolidge adminstration. In 1930 he was appointed to the role of U.S. Ambassador to Mexico.
In 1933 Clark was called by President Heber J. Grant to serve as Second Counselor in the First Presidency. This was a unique and unusual calling, since Clark was not a general authority of the church prior to this call. In 1934, upon the death of Anthony W. Ivins who had served as First Counselor in the First Presidency, Clark was ordained an apostle and called to replace Elder Ivins as First Counselor, with David O. McKay as Second Counselor. Following the passing of President Grant, Elders Clark and McKay were chosen by President George Albert Smith to continue as first and second counselors respectively. When David O. McKay became President of the Church, Elder Clark was called to be Second Counselor in the First Presidency, with Stephen L. Richards serving as First Counselor. Upon the passing of President Richards, President Clark was called to replace him in the capacity of First Counselor in the First Presidency where he served until his death in 1961.
President J. Reuben Clark was a very skilled man with a rich background. He was a distinguished statesman with many years of civic service within the U.S. government, and served nearly thirty years as an apostle and counselor to three church presidents. There is little question that he was eminently qualified to speak with authority on matters of civic government, as well as gospel matters. And speak of these things he did. President Clark was an outspoken advocate of the U.S. Constitution and spoke often and emphatically of threats to our freedom and our need to work to defend our liberties.
I want to share some of the statements made by President Clark regarding the defense of our liberty. I am placing these comments in a specific order, not necessarily chronologically, to help convey a clear message that emerges from his inspired counsel.
President Clark stated,
“The great struggle which now rocks the whole earth more and more takes on the character of a struggle of the individual versus the state. . . Upon its final issue, liberty lives or dies. The plain and simple issue now facing us in America is freedom or slavery. We have largely lost the conflict so far waged. But there is time to win the final victory, if we sense our danger and fight." (Church News, 1949)
In this first quotation President Clark is asserting several things. First, that there is a world-wide struggle that exists. We know from other statements by several latter-day prophets that the central theme of this battle is the agency of man, and that it is a continuation of the war in heaven.
President Clark suggests that this struggle has become characterized to an increasing degree by the conflict of individuals versus the state. What does this imply? It is clear from the writings of President Clark that he is alluding to the rights of the individual in contrast to the growing control of government in usurping these individual rights. The struggle essentially is this, the mechanism being used in many cases to rob man of individual liberty is government. This is not just true of countries under communist or fascist rule, but even here within our own land. If government extends beyond her rightful (or constitutional) bounds to deprive individuals of their freedom to choose, and dictates the actions of her citizens in a way that curtails this freedom of choice, individual liberty is diminished. It is important to note here that as freedom to choose is diminished, so to is accountability. Without accountability we cannot prove ourselves and one of the primary purposes of this life is thwarted.
On another occasion, President Clark said the following.
“This gigantic worldwide struggle more and more takes on the form of war to the death. We shall do well and wisely so to face and so to enter it. And we must all take part. Indeed, we all are taking part in that struggle, whether we will or not. Upon its final issue, liberty lives or dies.”
It is again affirmed by Pres. Clark that the struggle is worldwide, it is serious enough to be classified as a war to the death, and that either the preservation or loss of liberty depends upon the outcome of this war. Included in this statement is the added admonition that we all have a part to play in the struggle. We have no choice as to our participation (we all are taking part in that struggle, whether we will or not) but we do have a choice regarding the side we will join and the effort we will put forth.
The next statement I’d like to share from President Clark begins to describe how the war is waged by the forces intent on depriving individuals of liberty.
“I wish to say with all the earnestness I possess that when you see any curtailment of these liberties I have named [freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion], when you see government invading any of these realms of freedom which we have under our Constitution, you will know that they are putting shackles on your liberty, and that tyranny is creeping upon you, no matter who curtails these liberties or who invades these realms, and no matter what the reason and excuse therefore may be.”
We are here instructed that anytime government begins to take action, for any reason, that infringes upon the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution, liberty is under assault. Let’s consider this a bit more. There are many examples we can point to in our day of government making excuses for why this action or that must be taken, even if those actions infringe on liberty. Consider actions taken by the government in the name of ensuring public safety, stabilizing the economy, ensuring equality, supporting the less-fortunate, protecting the environment, encouraging growth, promoting diversity, maintaining peace, serving the ‘greater good’ and the list goes on and on. All of these may be worthwhile objectives when regarded on their own merits, and I certainly don’t mean to suggest that there is not a reasonable expectation of the government in regard to many of these pursuits, but when such ends serve as a mechanism for curtailing freedoms, we are at risk.
Consider some of the consequences that have resulted from the government overreaching with one of the aforementioned ends in mind. Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assemble, freedom of religion, and the right to property have been threatened, and in some cases completely disregarded. Excessive taxation has occurred, energy dependence has increased, God has been pushed out of public discourse, the family has been undermined, poverty has increased, single parenthood has exploded, personal property has been confiscated, and much more.
And President Clark continues,
“And do not think that these usurpations, intimidations and impositions are being done to us through inadvertence or mistake. The whole course is deliberately planned and carried out. Its purpose is to destroy the Constitution and our constitutional government; then to bring chaos, out of which the new Statism with its slavery is to arise, with a cruel relentless, selfish, ambitious crew in the saddle.” (Church News, )
This statement is painfully clear. Encroachments upon our freedom are no accident. They are planned, coordinated, and carried out with a purpose in mind. This personally gives me great pause when I consider some of the proposals made by those in government that will supposedly benefit us in this way or that, but actually undermine our freedom. For example, while many politicians suggest that government run healthcare is best for the American people, I cannot ignore the power this places in the hands of the state over our lives. Under government supported healthcare the state would be in a position to dictate our lifestyles, our diets, when we access medical care, what care we are entitled to receive, how we use our free time, how many children we have, if we’ve ‘earned’ the investment the state would make in keeping us alive, and many other aspects of our personal lives.
Part of proposed energy policy could dictate the temperature setting within our homes, the distance we can travel, when we can run home appliances, the quantity of emmisions we are entitled to create, the kind of automobiles that can be manufactured, etc.
Other proposals regarding education would give government control over who is given money to attend colleges and universities, what those intitutions teach, and who those institutions will admit. The government then has control over who has access to higher education and of what that education consists. Organic evolution, global warming, moral relativism, allegience to the state and other forms of indoctrination are then unfettered and uncontested. There are already many examples of state run education dictating aspects of curriculum that are objectionable and not in alignment with gospel truth. President Clark once said regarding education, “Our government with its liberty and free institutions will not long survive a government trained and supervised youth”. (Church News, 1940)
The partnership of government and labor unions limit employers, reduce production and productivity, and drive up both availability and cost of goods that we are free to purchase. Proposed legislation would even deprive workers of the right to a secret ballot, and ultimately, the right to not be represented by corrupt unions. Unreasonable gun control laws would limit who may have access to a firearms, how the weapon can be used, and where it may be taken. These rules would certainly diminish the ability of citizens to protect themselves from the violation of their rights by individuals or groups.
All of these threats to our freedom are real, and can be verified by just a few minutes of reviewing proposed and actual legislation in our country.
The terrifying truth that we are taught by President Clark is that these threatened encroachments on our liberty are not inadvertent, but are coordinated and purposeful. It would be foolish to think that the potential for these sundry proposals to subordinate our individual liberties to the control of the state is not well understood by those proposing and championing such causes. They are aware of the implications, and some of those pushing adoption of such measures are doing so for the very purpose of extending state control into the realm of individual liberty.
Well, this post has extended longer than I had intended, and there are still several things I wish to present from the writings of President Clark. I will hold the remaing for a subsequent post. But in way of conclusion for now, I’ll share one more quote.
“I say unto you with all the soberness I can, that we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back; and we of this church will, in order to keep the Church going forward, have more sacrifices to make, and more persecutions to endure than we have yet known.” (Conference Report, 1952)
This is sobering indeed. There is a real need, and an urgent need, when we see any force, whether from without or within, whether from our own government or elsewhere, begin to encroach upon individual liberty, we must stand up to prevent liberty from being lost. The freedom of our children depends on it. The continued mission of the Church requires it. And, our ability to answer to the Lord for how we spent the priceless gift of liberty we were given, at great sacrifice from so many before us, hinges upon it.
More to come from President Clark in the next post. . . .
Thanks,
Richard
I’m sure most are familiar with President Clark, but here are a few biographical facts about him to serve as a quick reminder.
In 1933 Clark was called by President Heber J. Grant to serve as Second Counselor in the First Presidency. This was a unique and unusual calling, since Clark was not a general authority of the church prior to this call. In 1934, upon the death of Anthony W. Ivins who had served as First Counselor in the First Presidency, Clark was ordained an apostle and called to replace Elder Ivins as First Counselor, with David O. McKay as Second Counselor. Following the passing of President Grant, Elders Clark and McKay were chosen by President George Albert Smith to continue as first and second counselors respectively. When David O. McKay became President of the Church, Elder Clark was called to be Second Counselor in the First Presidency, with Stephen L. Richards serving as First Counselor. Upon the passing of President Richards, President Clark was called to replace him in the capacity of First Counselor in the First Presidency where he served until his death in 1961.
President J. Reuben Clark was a very skilled man with a rich background. He was a distinguished statesman with many years of civic service within the U.S. government, and served nearly thirty years as an apostle and counselor to three church presidents. There is little question that he was eminently qualified to speak with authority on matters of civic government, as well as gospel matters. And speak of these things he did. President Clark was an outspoken advocate of the U.S. Constitution and spoke often and emphatically of threats to our freedom and our need to work to defend our liberties.
I want to share some of the statements made by President Clark regarding the defense of our liberty. I am placing these comments in a specific order, not necessarily chronologically, to help convey a clear message that emerges from his inspired counsel.
President Clark stated,
“The great struggle which now rocks the whole earth more and more takes on the character of a struggle of the individual versus the state. . . Upon its final issue, liberty lives or dies. The plain and simple issue now facing us in America is freedom or slavery. We have largely lost the conflict so far waged. But there is time to win the final victory, if we sense our danger and fight." (Church News, 1949)
In this first quotation President Clark is asserting several things. First, that there is a world-wide struggle that exists. We know from other statements by several latter-day prophets that the central theme of this battle is the agency of man, and that it is a continuation of the war in heaven.
President Clark suggests that this struggle has become characterized to an increasing degree by the conflict of individuals versus the state. What does this imply? It is clear from the writings of President Clark that he is alluding to the rights of the individual in contrast to the growing control of government in usurping these individual rights. The struggle essentially is this, the mechanism being used in many cases to rob man of individual liberty is government. This is not just true of countries under communist or fascist rule, but even here within our own land. If government extends beyond her rightful (or constitutional) bounds to deprive individuals of their freedom to choose, and dictates the actions of her citizens in a way that curtails this freedom of choice, individual liberty is diminished. It is important to note here that as freedom to choose is diminished, so to is accountability. Without accountability we cannot prove ourselves and one of the primary purposes of this life is thwarted.
On another occasion, President Clark said the following.
“This gigantic worldwide struggle more and more takes on the form of war to the death. We shall do well and wisely so to face and so to enter it. And we must all take part. Indeed, we all are taking part in that struggle, whether we will or not. Upon its final issue, liberty lives or dies.”
It is again affirmed by Pres. Clark that the struggle is worldwide, it is serious enough to be classified as a war to the death, and that either the preservation or loss of liberty depends upon the outcome of this war. Included in this statement is the added admonition that we all have a part to play in the struggle. We have no choice as to our participation (we all are taking part in that struggle, whether we will or not) but we do have a choice regarding the side we will join and the effort we will put forth.
The next statement I’d like to share from President Clark begins to describe how the war is waged by the forces intent on depriving individuals of liberty.
“I wish to say with all the earnestness I possess that when you see any curtailment of these liberties I have named [freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion], when you see government invading any of these realms of freedom which we have under our Constitution, you will know that they are putting shackles on your liberty, and that tyranny is creeping upon you, no matter who curtails these liberties or who invades these realms, and no matter what the reason and excuse therefore may be.”
We are here instructed that anytime government begins to take action, for any reason, that infringes upon the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution, liberty is under assault. Let’s consider this a bit more. There are many examples we can point to in our day of government making excuses for why this action or that must be taken, even if those actions infringe on liberty. Consider actions taken by the government in the name of ensuring public safety, stabilizing the economy, ensuring equality, supporting the less-fortunate, protecting the environment, encouraging growth, promoting diversity, maintaining peace, serving the ‘greater good’ and the list goes on and on. All of these may be worthwhile objectives when regarded on their own merits, and I certainly don’t mean to suggest that there is not a reasonable expectation of the government in regard to many of these pursuits, but when such ends serve as a mechanism for curtailing freedoms, we are at risk.
Consider some of the consequences that have resulted from the government overreaching with one of the aforementioned ends in mind. Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assemble, freedom of religion, and the right to property have been threatened, and in some cases completely disregarded. Excessive taxation has occurred, energy dependence has increased, God has been pushed out of public discourse, the family has been undermined, poverty has increased, single parenthood has exploded, personal property has been confiscated, and much more.
And President Clark continues,
“And do not think that these usurpations, intimidations and impositions are being done to us through inadvertence or mistake. The whole course is deliberately planned and carried out. Its purpose is to destroy the Constitution and our constitutional government; then to bring chaos, out of which the new Statism with its slavery is to arise, with a cruel relentless, selfish, ambitious crew in the saddle.” (Church News, )
This statement is painfully clear. Encroachments upon our freedom are no accident. They are planned, coordinated, and carried out with a purpose in mind. This personally gives me great pause when I consider some of the proposals made by those in government that will supposedly benefit us in this way or that, but actually undermine our freedom. For example, while many politicians suggest that government run healthcare is best for the American people, I cannot ignore the power this places in the hands of the state over our lives. Under government supported healthcare the state would be in a position to dictate our lifestyles, our diets, when we access medical care, what care we are entitled to receive, how we use our free time, how many children we have, if we’ve ‘earned’ the investment the state would make in keeping us alive, and many other aspects of our personal lives.
Part of proposed energy policy could dictate the temperature setting within our homes, the distance we can travel, when we can run home appliances, the quantity of emmisions we are entitled to create, the kind of automobiles that can be manufactured, etc.
Other proposals regarding education would give government control over who is given money to attend colleges and universities, what those intitutions teach, and who those institutions will admit. The government then has control over who has access to higher education and of what that education consists. Organic evolution, global warming, moral relativism, allegience to the state and other forms of indoctrination are then unfettered and uncontested. There are already many examples of state run education dictating aspects of curriculum that are objectionable and not in alignment with gospel truth. President Clark once said regarding education, “Our government with its liberty and free institutions will not long survive a government trained and supervised youth”. (Church News, 1940)
The partnership of government and labor unions limit employers, reduce production and productivity, and drive up both availability and cost of goods that we are free to purchase. Proposed legislation would even deprive workers of the right to a secret ballot, and ultimately, the right to not be represented by corrupt unions. Unreasonable gun control laws would limit who may have access to a firearms, how the weapon can be used, and where it may be taken. These rules would certainly diminish the ability of citizens to protect themselves from the violation of their rights by individuals or groups.
All of these threats to our freedom are real, and can be verified by just a few minutes of reviewing proposed and actual legislation in our country.
The terrifying truth that we are taught by President Clark is that these threatened encroachments on our liberty are not inadvertent, but are coordinated and purposeful. It would be foolish to think that the potential for these sundry proposals to subordinate our individual liberties to the control of the state is not well understood by those proposing and championing such causes. They are aware of the implications, and some of those pushing adoption of such measures are doing so for the very purpose of extending state control into the realm of individual liberty.
Well, this post has extended longer than I had intended, and there are still several things I wish to present from the writings of President Clark. I will hold the remaing for a subsequent post. But in way of conclusion for now, I’ll share one more quote.
“I say unto you with all the soberness I can, that we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back; and we of this church will, in order to keep the Church going forward, have more sacrifices to make, and more persecutions to endure than we have yet known.” (Conference Report, 1952)
This is sobering indeed. There is a real need, and an urgent need, when we see any force, whether from without or within, whether from our own government or elsewhere, begin to encroach upon individual liberty, we must stand up to prevent liberty from being lost. The freedom of our children depends on it. The continued mission of the Church requires it. And, our ability to answer to the Lord for how we spent the priceless gift of liberty we were given, at great sacrifice from so many before us, hinges upon it.
More to come from President Clark in the next post. . . .
Thanks,
Richard
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Doesn't Justice Need To Be Just?
I had started to type a post to put up on this blog based on some of the writings of J. Reuben Clark of the First Presidency. I will post that in a couple of days. But I decided today to write something different based on an experience I had earlier this week. The other night I spent some time reading an online article, and pages of reader commentary that it generated, by one who was advocating for the concept of Social Justice.
For those who are not familiar with the term, social justice is the idea of uniformity in society characterized by the elimination of class distinctions. There are no rich, nor poor, and the benefits and hardships of society are equally distributed among all. It is an idea of economic egalitarianism. It is also a rallying cry of progressives and socialists.
The author of the article, who is a University professor and a good man, was articulate and well reasoned. He was coherent in his arguments for the need to achieve social justice, and the idea that government was the instrument by which it could be attained. I respect the sincerity of the author and the spirit in which the article was written. It is clear to me that the opinions of the author were genuine and based on a Christian desire for the welfare of the less fortunate among us. I also agree with the desirability of achieving a just society such as was found in the City of Enoch.
But I disagree strongly with much of the premise of the article, and with the ideas included in the comments the article generated. The article was based on a popular idea, one that is common among much of the political left that social justice is to be attained through government policy. While I may not be as gifted and concise in writing and outlining an argument as the author of the article, I still wanted to share my thoughts about the idea of government taxation and distribution as a means of achieving social equality.
I believe that the concept of social justice, as it is popularly viewed in the world today, begins to unravel because it is not actually rooted in justice. Justice cannot exist if property is being forcefully taken from one and given to another. If a man toils to gain increase, the fruit of his labor belongs to him. Measures that would strip that man of a portion of his increase are not aligned with the concept of justice.
I believe that the idea of true “social justice” can only exist as a result of righteousness. As far as social equality is concerned, there are two elements of righteousness that must exist for it to take place. First, mankind must learn to put off selfishness and develop true charity. With charity, the pure love of Christ, in his heart, man will look upon those who stand in need of assistance and give to them willingly, out of a sense of compassion and love. A charitable person is not compelled to do for others, he does so as a byproduct of the Christ-like attribute he has developed within.
Second, social justice cannot be achieved until men are righteous to the degree that each exercises self-sufficiency to the full measure of their ability. There are some in our society who are content to live off the labor of others. Whether this comes as a result of laziness, a misplaced sense of entitlement, or any other reason, it is an obstacle to achieving equality and justice in our society and it is a form of wickedness. When possessions are taken from he who earned it and given to one who did not earn it, but was capable of so doing, justice is not present.
The presence of these two elements of righteousness, charity and self-sufficiency, are essential to real justice and equality in society. We read in the scriptures of two examples where Zion societies were achieved; the City of Enoch and the Nephite nation described in Fourth Nephi. In both of these cases the society that was achieved was the direct result of righteousness. I assert that the righteousness of these peoples included both the element of charity and self-sufficiency. It was not the product of government intervention.
I believe that real social justice can only attained by following this pattern. Efforts to achieve social justice through any kind of redistributive measures cannot succeed. There is an inherent problem with government and social policies enacted to achieve social justice and universal equality. Since righteousness cannot be legislated or forced upon man, neither then can the fruits of righteousness be enjoyed as a consequence of government mandate. There are several problems that arise when a government attempts to force equality in society.
First, the equalization must, of necessity, be a downward equalization. Government does not have the power to lift everyone to an equal economic position. It simply does not have the means. Government does not and cannot create wealth. It can only take wealth from her citizens through some means such as taxation. If government forces someone to live below the level that their talent and ability can produce, justice is thwarted. One can justly volunteer to part with the fruits of his accomplishment, but it must be a product of his own free will, not as a result of taxation and redistribution. Therefore, forced downward equalization is inconsistent with justice.
Second, the confiscating of a man’s wealth to give to others does not build charity within that man. Charity can only be developed through the free act of giving to others. It must be a choice. Mankind was created to act, not to be acted upon. A man who is forced to give is no more acting out of charity than the man who does not give at all. A government may enact laws to prevent men from performing evil acts (ie murder, robbery, assault, etc.), but its power can only go so far as to punish evil actions that infringe on the rights of others, it cannot force righteous actions. Just as preventing a man from committing murder does not take the murder out of his heart, forcing a man to give to others cannot instill charity in his heart.
Third, when government provides for the welfare of individuals through redistributive policies, those who are inclined to take without earning are both placated and reinforced in their behavior. There is no incentive for the slothful man to rise each morning to earn his living when the government is willing to simply provide for his needs. In this way many of the social programs that exist today, even though instituted with the best of intentions, increase dependency on government and perpetuate a sense of entitlement among the people. Now, there is no doubt that there are those among us who, through disease, accident, or other extreme misfortune are not capable of supporting themselves. What of these? I believe it is the responsibility of men, not government, to take care of them. Families, church groups, and private organizations can and do exist to care for the truly needy, and these organizations do so through the voluntary contribution of men and women, not through forced redistribution. This is the righteous application of charity in society. This is lifting others through the exercise of free-will.
Fourth, I believe the very act of government confiscation and redistribution prevents the true development of charity in the hearts of men. Why would a man look to step outside of himself to lift another if the very institutions of government have stepped in to usurp that role for him? This is reminiscent of Ebenezer Scrooge before being visited by the three spirits. Recall how, when approached to donate to charity, he asked, “are there not poor houses?” He explained that he had paid his taxes, so he was absolved of the need to help further.
Another way the interference of government in the care of the needy makes it difficult to develop charity is found in the scriptural fact that there must be opposition in all things. Can a man become selfless if he does not also have the option to be selfish? How can selfishness be overcome if you are not allowed to selfishly retain your possessions? Perhaps this argument seems counterintuitive, but ponder it for a moment. When God rejected Lucifer’s plan, which was essentially to force all men to be righteous by not allowing them to be wicked, He preserved for mankind the right to be wicked if they chose to be so. That is the whole concept of agency. The only way for a man to become righteous is to deliberately choose to reject wickedness. You do not become like God by default.
Unquestionably it is desirable to achieve a society in which there is true equality. It likewise was desirable that all of God’s children return to His presence after their experience in mortality. The desirability of an outcome does not justify the method by which the outcome is achieved. In other words, the ends do not justify the means. If it were so, Lucifer’s plan would have been acceptable. If it were so, the government could become an agent of social justice and achieve equality through forceful distribution. But it is not so. Man must achieve righteousness by overcoming wickedness and choosing the better way. Man must acquire charity through overcoming self. We will return to God through the righteous exercise of our agency, and equality in society will be achieved, as it was in Enoch’s day, only as individuals exercise their agency to become both charitable and self-sufficient.
The great lie of Lucifer’s plan was that the whole intent was to bring the children of God back to His presence. It was not. The real objective was for Lucifer to attain power. The great irony is that his plan never could have succeeded in exalting man. The very nature of his method would make it impossible for us to become like God, for it would have stripped us of the agency needed to choose righteousness rather than having it thrust upon us. We could not have progressed by experience and overcoming opposition.
In a similar sense, some of those who advocate for government control in the equalization of society are not sincere in their intent. Rather than seeking the welfare of mankind, they seek control of man through fostering dependency and centralizing all power of the lives of citizens in the government. Therefore mankind becomes beholden to government for all they possess. (NOTE: I do not suggest that all those who advocate for social justice or adhere to left-leaning political philosophies and support government social programs fall into such a category. I believe there are a great many who support such proposals because they believe it is the best way to care for the poor and needy. Although I don’t agree with these people, I don’t disparage them or feel they are not honorable and well-meaning individuals. But there are those, especially in positions of power, who are not honorable or sincere in their advocacy of government derived social justice.)
I believe there is also a great irony in the idea of social justice as held by the political left. While the mechanisms of social justice are intended to achieve equality and a righteous society such as was found amongst the Nephites, they can never succeed in that endeavor. If such a society can only be achieved through the principles of righteousness (including charity and self-sufficiency), and if government cannot force righteousness upon her citizens, government mandated societal justice will never be more than a poor counterfeit of Zion.
For those who are not familiar with the term, social justice is the idea of uniformity in society characterized by the elimination of class distinctions. There are no rich, nor poor, and the benefits and hardships of society are equally distributed among all. It is an idea of economic egalitarianism. It is also a rallying cry of progressives and socialists.
The author of the article, who is a University professor and a good man, was articulate and well reasoned. He was coherent in his arguments for the need to achieve social justice, and the idea that government was the instrument by which it could be attained. I respect the sincerity of the author and the spirit in which the article was written. It is clear to me that the opinions of the author were genuine and based on a Christian desire for the welfare of the less fortunate among us. I also agree with the desirability of achieving a just society such as was found in the City of Enoch.
But I disagree strongly with much of the premise of the article, and with the ideas included in the comments the article generated. The article was based on a popular idea, one that is common among much of the political left that social justice is to be attained through government policy. While I may not be as gifted and concise in writing and outlining an argument as the author of the article, I still wanted to share my thoughts about the idea of government taxation and distribution as a means of achieving social equality.
I believe that the concept of social justice, as it is popularly viewed in the world today, begins to unravel because it is not actually rooted in justice. Justice cannot exist if property is being forcefully taken from one and given to another. If a man toils to gain increase, the fruit of his labor belongs to him. Measures that would strip that man of a portion of his increase are not aligned with the concept of justice.
I believe that the idea of true “social justice” can only exist as a result of righteousness. As far as social equality is concerned, there are two elements of righteousness that must exist for it to take place. First, mankind must learn to put off selfishness and develop true charity. With charity, the pure love of Christ, in his heart, man will look upon those who stand in need of assistance and give to them willingly, out of a sense of compassion and love. A charitable person is not compelled to do for others, he does so as a byproduct of the Christ-like attribute he has developed within.
Second, social justice cannot be achieved until men are righteous to the degree that each exercises self-sufficiency to the full measure of their ability. There are some in our society who are content to live off the labor of others. Whether this comes as a result of laziness, a misplaced sense of entitlement, or any other reason, it is an obstacle to achieving equality and justice in our society and it is a form of wickedness. When possessions are taken from he who earned it and given to one who did not earn it, but was capable of so doing, justice is not present.
The presence of these two elements of righteousness, charity and self-sufficiency, are essential to real justice and equality in society. We read in the scriptures of two examples where Zion societies were achieved; the City of Enoch and the Nephite nation described in Fourth Nephi. In both of these cases the society that was achieved was the direct result of righteousness. I assert that the righteousness of these peoples included both the element of charity and self-sufficiency. It was not the product of government intervention.
I believe that real social justice can only attained by following this pattern. Efforts to achieve social justice through any kind of redistributive measures cannot succeed. There is an inherent problem with government and social policies enacted to achieve social justice and universal equality. Since righteousness cannot be legislated or forced upon man, neither then can the fruits of righteousness be enjoyed as a consequence of government mandate. There are several problems that arise when a government attempts to force equality in society.
First, the equalization must, of necessity, be a downward equalization. Government does not have the power to lift everyone to an equal economic position. It simply does not have the means. Government does not and cannot create wealth. It can only take wealth from her citizens through some means such as taxation. If government forces someone to live below the level that their talent and ability can produce, justice is thwarted. One can justly volunteer to part with the fruits of his accomplishment, but it must be a product of his own free will, not as a result of taxation and redistribution. Therefore, forced downward equalization is inconsistent with justice.
Second, the confiscating of a man’s wealth to give to others does not build charity within that man. Charity can only be developed through the free act of giving to others. It must be a choice. Mankind was created to act, not to be acted upon. A man who is forced to give is no more acting out of charity than the man who does not give at all. A government may enact laws to prevent men from performing evil acts (ie murder, robbery, assault, etc.), but its power can only go so far as to punish evil actions that infringe on the rights of others, it cannot force righteous actions. Just as preventing a man from committing murder does not take the murder out of his heart, forcing a man to give to others cannot instill charity in his heart.
Third, when government provides for the welfare of individuals through redistributive policies, those who are inclined to take without earning are both placated and reinforced in their behavior. There is no incentive for the slothful man to rise each morning to earn his living when the government is willing to simply provide for his needs. In this way many of the social programs that exist today, even though instituted with the best of intentions, increase dependency on government and perpetuate a sense of entitlement among the people. Now, there is no doubt that there are those among us who, through disease, accident, or other extreme misfortune are not capable of supporting themselves. What of these? I believe it is the responsibility of men, not government, to take care of them. Families, church groups, and private organizations can and do exist to care for the truly needy, and these organizations do so through the voluntary contribution of men and women, not through forced redistribution. This is the righteous application of charity in society. This is lifting others through the exercise of free-will.
Fourth, I believe the very act of government confiscation and redistribution prevents the true development of charity in the hearts of men. Why would a man look to step outside of himself to lift another if the very institutions of government have stepped in to usurp that role for him? This is reminiscent of Ebenezer Scrooge before being visited by the three spirits. Recall how, when approached to donate to charity, he asked, “are there not poor houses?” He explained that he had paid his taxes, so he was absolved of the need to help further.
Another way the interference of government in the care of the needy makes it difficult to develop charity is found in the scriptural fact that there must be opposition in all things. Can a man become selfless if he does not also have the option to be selfish? How can selfishness be overcome if you are not allowed to selfishly retain your possessions? Perhaps this argument seems counterintuitive, but ponder it for a moment. When God rejected Lucifer’s plan, which was essentially to force all men to be righteous by not allowing them to be wicked, He preserved for mankind the right to be wicked if they chose to be so. That is the whole concept of agency. The only way for a man to become righteous is to deliberately choose to reject wickedness. You do not become like God by default.
Unquestionably it is desirable to achieve a society in which there is true equality. It likewise was desirable that all of God’s children return to His presence after their experience in mortality. The desirability of an outcome does not justify the method by which the outcome is achieved. In other words, the ends do not justify the means. If it were so, Lucifer’s plan would have been acceptable. If it were so, the government could become an agent of social justice and achieve equality through forceful distribution. But it is not so. Man must achieve righteousness by overcoming wickedness and choosing the better way. Man must acquire charity through overcoming self. We will return to God through the righteous exercise of our agency, and equality in society will be achieved, as it was in Enoch’s day, only as individuals exercise their agency to become both charitable and self-sufficient.
The great lie of Lucifer’s plan was that the whole intent was to bring the children of God back to His presence. It was not. The real objective was for Lucifer to attain power. The great irony is that his plan never could have succeeded in exalting man. The very nature of his method would make it impossible for us to become like God, for it would have stripped us of the agency needed to choose righteousness rather than having it thrust upon us. We could not have progressed by experience and overcoming opposition.
In a similar sense, some of those who advocate for government control in the equalization of society are not sincere in their intent. Rather than seeking the welfare of mankind, they seek control of man through fostering dependency and centralizing all power of the lives of citizens in the government. Therefore mankind becomes beholden to government for all they possess. (NOTE: I do not suggest that all those who advocate for social justice or adhere to left-leaning political philosophies and support government social programs fall into such a category. I believe there are a great many who support such proposals because they believe it is the best way to care for the poor and needy. Although I don’t agree with these people, I don’t disparage them or feel they are not honorable and well-meaning individuals. But there are those, especially in positions of power, who are not honorable or sincere in their advocacy of government derived social justice.)
I believe there is also a great irony in the idea of social justice as held by the political left. While the mechanisms of social justice are intended to achieve equality and a righteous society such as was found amongst the Nephites, they can never succeed in that endeavor. If such a society can only be achieved through the principles of righteousness (including charity and self-sufficiency), and if government cannot force righteousness upon her citizens, government mandated societal justice will never be more than a poor counterfeit of Zion.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Who's right when it comes to Rights?
One of the most fundamental questions that exist in relation to our freedom and the role government occupies in our lives involves the origin of rights. Where do rights come from and how are they bestowed? What we beleive as the answer to this question determines, in large part, the position we take on many of the issues of our day. When we come to understand how others answer this question, especially those in positions of political or legislative power, we gain a glimpse into what motivates their actions and helps shape their attitudes.
The healthcare debate that has so occupied the national conscienceness over the past year is a fascinating case study into the all important concept of the origin of rights.
Watch this short clip of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Consider what the senator is saying here. Senator Harkin is asserting the notion that the inalienable rights to which we as humans are entitled are bestowed upon us by the benevolence of governement. The members of the U.S. Senate, according to Senator Harkin, in all their wisdom and generosity are taking the step to transform what was heretofore considered a privelege, into an inalienable right that they will now extend to American citizens. He goes even further within his remarks to state, "But like every right we've ever passed to the American people, we revisit it later to enhance and build on those rights". Not only is healthcare a new right in their mind, but other rights we already possess were first passed to us by them (congress). This last statement by Senator Harkin also implies that government has the discretion to revist rights and enhance those rights as they deem appropriate. Who, we may ask, decides what constitutes an enhancement of a right and according to what criteria? Who really is most likely to benefit from an enhancement deemed appropriate by career politicians who have repeatedly demonstrated their primary motivation is to retain and increase their own power? Does the very nature of a right even require or allow enhancement?
Senator Harkin is not alone in his belief that rights originate with those in government. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has stated, "So today we stand ready to pass a bill into law that finally makes access to quality health care a right for every American, not a privilege for a fortunate few in our country". He too seems to believe that it is through the magnanimous gestures of congress that rights are given to the American people. Then there's Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who said following passage of the senate version of the health care bill, "finally. . . healthcare is a right -a human right- and not just a privelege for the most fortunate".
I make reference to these statements not as a commentary on health care legislation, that is another discussion altogether, but to illustrate a very important point regarding how the belief in the origin of rights influences attitudes and behavior. As these senators, and many, many others within the ranks of our elected representatives subscribe to the belief that they are the purveyors of our rights, they place themselves in a position of power over us. If they believe that the rights we enjoy are ours because of their goodness, wisdom, virtue, and benevolence, how easy it is for them to begin to think of themselves as somehow superior to the rest of us. The elitism that has so infected those in elected power is a natural extension of this thinking that all good comes to us from them.
This causes me to think of the verse "Shall the ax boast itself against him that heweth therewith? Shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself as if it were no wood." (2 Nephi 20:15)
How easy and natural it becomes for those who believe that our rights exist at their pleasure to begin to think of those rights, and those of us to whom those rights are extended, as being subject to them, just as the saw is subject to "him that shaketh it".
We, as American citizens, therefore become subjects to our leaders (in their minds), and they become our mighty benefactors. This mindset certainly helps explain the elitism, entitlement, and self-importance exhibited far too often by those elected to represent us.
But the real danger inherent to the belief that rights originate with government, and are bestowed upon us through the beneficence of government leaders, is not the emergence of an elitist class or an oligarchy, or even the insufferable arrogance of those who believe themselves to be our superiors, it is something far more sinister.
This danger was clearly outlined by Elder Ezra Taft Benson in his work 'The Proper Role of Government' when he stated, "If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary, that they can be denied by government." If the government can give healthcare, it can at its later discretion, take healthcare away. If the government bestows freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc., it can, therefore, take these from us at its whim. This, my friends, is called tyranny.
The system of government established for this nation, and guaranteed by our constitution, does not support such abuses by government as would exist if efforts were made to take rights away from us. This is not part of the plan. Our inspired founders believed that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. Notice that they did not say "endowed by our congressmen, president, governors, etc. with inalienable rights".
This, therefore, takes us to the center of the issue. Elder Benson stated, "Let us consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know as human rights. There are only two possible sources. Rights are either God-given as part of the divine plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition, and religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights".
If we believe, as did our founding fathers, Elder Benson, the scriptures, and the words of latter-day prophets, that the rights we enjoy are granted to us from God, then the role of our elected officials (including Senators Harkin, Dodd, and Reid) is not to pass rights on to the American people as they've so declared, but to preserve and protect the rights our Father in heaven has already given us. How differently would the various debates in Washington sound if our representatives confined themselves to this role rather than trying to make themselves our gods?
As we stand together to defend our liberty and those rights with which God has endowed us, it is of the greatest importance that we understand and believe that our life, our liberty, our property, and our pursuit of happiness in this world are inherent to the human condition, and not a gift from those who seek dominion over us. As we understand, we must help others to understand also, so we can rise together to defend and preserve those rights.
When anyone speaks of rights being afforded to us by any authority other than our Father in heaven, we should consider long and hard if this person deserves our support, or whether we should act within our rights as American citizens to rescind the power we've afforded them through the electoral process.
Thanks,
Richard
The healthcare debate that has so occupied the national conscienceness over the past year is a fascinating case study into the all important concept of the origin of rights.
Watch this short clip of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Consider what the senator is saying here. Senator Harkin is asserting the notion that the inalienable rights to which we as humans are entitled are bestowed upon us by the benevolence of governement. The members of the U.S. Senate, according to Senator Harkin, in all their wisdom and generosity are taking the step to transform what was heretofore considered a privelege, into an inalienable right that they will now extend to American citizens. He goes even further within his remarks to state, "But like every right we've ever passed to the American people, we revisit it later to enhance and build on those rights". Not only is healthcare a new right in their mind, but other rights we already possess were first passed to us by them (congress). This last statement by Senator Harkin also implies that government has the discretion to revist rights and enhance those rights as they deem appropriate. Who, we may ask, decides what constitutes an enhancement of a right and according to what criteria? Who really is most likely to benefit from an enhancement deemed appropriate by career politicians who have repeatedly demonstrated their primary motivation is to retain and increase their own power? Does the very nature of a right even require or allow enhancement?
Senator Harkin is not alone in his belief that rights originate with those in government. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has stated, "So today we stand ready to pass a bill into law that finally makes access to quality health care a right for every American, not a privilege for a fortunate few in our country". He too seems to believe that it is through the magnanimous gestures of congress that rights are given to the American people. Then there's Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who said following passage of the senate version of the health care bill, "finally. . . healthcare is a right -a human right- and not just a privelege for the most fortunate".
I make reference to these statements not as a commentary on health care legislation, that is another discussion altogether, but to illustrate a very important point regarding how the belief in the origin of rights influences attitudes and behavior. As these senators, and many, many others within the ranks of our elected representatives subscribe to the belief that they are the purveyors of our rights, they place themselves in a position of power over us. If they believe that the rights we enjoy are ours because of their goodness, wisdom, virtue, and benevolence, how easy it is for them to begin to think of themselves as somehow superior to the rest of us. The elitism that has so infected those in elected power is a natural extension of this thinking that all good comes to us from them.
This causes me to think of the verse "Shall the ax boast itself against him that heweth therewith? Shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself as if it were no wood." (2 Nephi 20:15)
How easy and natural it becomes for those who believe that our rights exist at their pleasure to begin to think of those rights, and those of us to whom those rights are extended, as being subject to them, just as the saw is subject to "him that shaketh it".
We, as American citizens, therefore become subjects to our leaders (in their minds), and they become our mighty benefactors. This mindset certainly helps explain the elitism, entitlement, and self-importance exhibited far too often by those elected to represent us.
But the real danger inherent to the belief that rights originate with government, and are bestowed upon us through the beneficence of government leaders, is not the emergence of an elitist class or an oligarchy, or even the insufferable arrogance of those who believe themselves to be our superiors, it is something far more sinister.
This danger was clearly outlined by Elder Ezra Taft Benson in his work 'The Proper Role of Government' when he stated, "If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary, that they can be denied by government." If the government can give healthcare, it can at its later discretion, take healthcare away. If the government bestows freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc., it can, therefore, take these from us at its whim. This, my friends, is called tyranny.
The system of government established for this nation, and guaranteed by our constitution, does not support such abuses by government as would exist if efforts were made to take rights away from us. This is not part of the plan. Our inspired founders believed that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. Notice that they did not say "endowed by our congressmen, president, governors, etc. with inalienable rights".
This, therefore, takes us to the center of the issue. Elder Benson stated, "Let us consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know as human rights. There are only two possible sources. Rights are either God-given as part of the divine plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition, and religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights".
If we believe, as did our founding fathers, Elder Benson, the scriptures, and the words of latter-day prophets, that the rights we enjoy are granted to us from God, then the role of our elected officials (including Senators Harkin, Dodd, and Reid) is not to pass rights on to the American people as they've so declared, but to preserve and protect the rights our Father in heaven has already given us. How differently would the various debates in Washington sound if our representatives confined themselves to this role rather than trying to make themselves our gods?
As we stand together to defend our liberty and those rights with which God has endowed us, it is of the greatest importance that we understand and believe that our life, our liberty, our property, and our pursuit of happiness in this world are inherent to the human condition, and not a gift from those who seek dominion over us. As we understand, we must help others to understand also, so we can rise together to defend and preserve those rights.
When anyone speaks of rights being afforded to us by any authority other than our Father in heaven, we should consider long and hard if this person deserves our support, or whether we should act within our rights as American citizens to rescind the power we've afforded them through the electoral process.
Thanks,
Richard
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Power of the People
It has been a while since I've written. Between a hectic work schedule with far too much travel, the holiday season, and a temporary computer outage, I've completely blown my goal of keeping this blog updated. I've also been dedicating some time to another project that I look forward to sharing details about on this blog sometime in the Spring. But its a new year, so I'll pick up the shattered pieces of a goal left un-achieved, and start anew.
Despite my negligence in actually writing blog posts, there have been a number of them rambling around in my mind over the past couple of months. There is a lot I want to write about. I've mentally composed posts on global warming, Congress becoming an elite class, the origin of rights, a look back at the impact of 2009 on preserving our freedoms, and at least 3 other topics, including, of course, healthcare.
But what is most on my mind at the moment, that I'd like to spend a few minutes addressing, is the outcome of the special election in MA to fill the senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy. In the last couple of posts way back in November we discussed the small victories that had occurred in elections in New Jersey and Virginia and how these races have provided an example of what can happen when people take a stand and make their voices heard. The following post then focused on how we can ensure those running for office in the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections hear our voices and know what is expected of them if they wish to represent us.
I pick up that theme again in looking back at what happened in Massachussetes earlier this week. Massachussettes is arguably the most liberal state in the union. It is a bastion of left leaning thought that has served as a base for the Democratic party. This is the land of Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank. When one considers the prevailing center-right mentality of the nation as a whole, Massachussettes is generally looked at as an outlier. But the radical nature of what is happening in our country has proven too much for even this bluest of all blue states. So the voices of the people banded together to express their will.
It has been altogether interesting and amusing to watch many of the pundits and commentators on television, who clearly support a progressive agenda for our country, as they've reported on the outcome of this race and the movement that produced it. It is shockingly clear how out of touch these people have become with the mainstream mindset, even among independents and average members of the Democratic Party.
Here is one amusing example: (I was unable to edit out the last few minutes of this segment. To avoid some unnecessary and distasteful comments, stop this clip after the first 4 minutes)
There has been no shortage of commentary over the past three days outlining the implications of this election. Many are calling it a referendum on the radically progressive policies of the Obama administration. Its also widely reported that this outcome sends a resounding message about the feelings of the American people specifically regarding government run healthcare. Some claim it is a victory in maintaining a balance of power between the different branches of government. Practically everyone seems to agree that the outcome of the election will make it significantly more difficult for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to accomplish their stated agenda.
I agree with all of this analysis. But, I think the most important outcome of this election is the confirmation that despite all the efforts to disrupt and undermine our democratic system, which occur both overtly and covertly in this age, power still rests with "We the People" to shape the direction of our country. This is one of the key answers to how our liberty can be defended and perpetuated. The people of the United States are still a powerful force that cannot be silenced, despite the nefarious efforts of many. We are still the source of governmental power in this republic. That has not been lost yet. When the people of the United States, even in liberal Massachussettes, band together in support of our liberty, victories can be achieved.
Just as the small victories we discussed back in November in Virginia and New Jersey teach some valuable lessons, so to does the monumental election we just witnessed in Mass. The lesson I hope we all learn is that our voices do count for something, and banding together across the nation we can make a difference. The lesson I hope all of the elected representatives across America learn is that if they disregard the voice of the people and continue to move our country away from the principles upon which it was founded, they will lose the privilege of representing us.
Let's keep standing together and do what we can to keep the flame of liberty burning in this great land!
Thanks,
Richard
Despite my negligence in actually writing blog posts, there have been a number of them rambling around in my mind over the past couple of months. There is a lot I want to write about. I've mentally composed posts on global warming, Congress becoming an elite class, the origin of rights, a look back at the impact of 2009 on preserving our freedoms, and at least 3 other topics, including, of course, healthcare.
But what is most on my mind at the moment, that I'd like to spend a few minutes addressing, is the outcome of the special election in MA to fill the senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy. In the last couple of posts way back in November we discussed the small victories that had occurred in elections in New Jersey and Virginia and how these races have provided an example of what can happen when people take a stand and make their voices heard. The following post then focused on how we can ensure those running for office in the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections hear our voices and know what is expected of them if they wish to represent us.
I pick up that theme again in looking back at what happened in Massachussetes earlier this week. Massachussettes is arguably the most liberal state in the union. It is a bastion of left leaning thought that has served as a base for the Democratic party. This is the land of Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank. When one considers the prevailing center-right mentality of the nation as a whole, Massachussettes is generally looked at as an outlier. But the radical nature of what is happening in our country has proven too much for even this bluest of all blue states. So the voices of the people banded together to express their will.
It has been altogether interesting and amusing to watch many of the pundits and commentators on television, who clearly support a progressive agenda for our country, as they've reported on the outcome of this race and the movement that produced it. It is shockingly clear how out of touch these people have become with the mainstream mindset, even among independents and average members of the Democratic Party.
Here is one amusing example: (I was unable to edit out the last few minutes of this segment. To avoid some unnecessary and distasteful comments, stop this clip after the first 4 minutes)
There has been no shortage of commentary over the past three days outlining the implications of this election. Many are calling it a referendum on the radically progressive policies of the Obama administration. Its also widely reported that this outcome sends a resounding message about the feelings of the American people specifically regarding government run healthcare. Some claim it is a victory in maintaining a balance of power between the different branches of government. Practically everyone seems to agree that the outcome of the election will make it significantly more difficult for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to accomplish their stated agenda.
I agree with all of this analysis. But, I think the most important outcome of this election is the confirmation that despite all the efforts to disrupt and undermine our democratic system, which occur both overtly and covertly in this age, power still rests with "We the People" to shape the direction of our country. This is one of the key answers to how our liberty can be defended and perpetuated. The people of the United States are still a powerful force that cannot be silenced, despite the nefarious efforts of many. We are still the source of governmental power in this republic. That has not been lost yet. When the people of the United States, even in liberal Massachussettes, band together in support of our liberty, victories can be achieved.
Just as the small victories we discussed back in November in Virginia and New Jersey teach some valuable lessons, so to does the monumental election we just witnessed in Mass. The lesson I hope we all learn is that our voices do count for something, and banding together across the nation we can make a difference. The lesson I hope all of the elected representatives across America learn is that if they disregard the voice of the people and continue to move our country away from the principles upon which it was founded, they will lose the privilege of representing us.
Let's keep standing together and do what we can to keep the flame of liberty burning in this great land!
Thanks,
Richard
Monday, November 16, 2009
A Cascade of Voices
In the last post made to this blog I spoke about a letter I would be drafting for those entering the 2010 congressional elections. My intent is to outline for those seeking my vote exactly what it would take to earn my support. There are a lot of incumbents across the country who will be seeking re-election. There are also many challengers who feel they will be better suited to represent the people within their states and districts. In a few cases the sitting senators or elected representatives are retiring from office, and new candidates from both parties will be seeking to fill their vacant seats.
In fairness to those who will be campaigning for my vote, and in an attempt to use my vote to shape the direction of our nation in the way I believe to be most appropriate, I have pulled together this letter to outline for them what I expect of the successful candidate. The way I see it, candidates for office are actually applicants applying for a job. It is you and I collectively who make the hiring decision. It would not be fair to hire someone for a job if they did not know what was expected of them, right?
Our country is at a cross-roads. We are going to either preserve the nation and system of government inspired by God and laid out by our founding fathers, or we are going to witness the founding of a new America. The are many clamoring to be the founding fathers of a new nation that will have very little resemblance to the land we know and love. Our votes in the upcoming elections are not just votes for individual candidates, they are votes for what future we want to see for America. As outlined in the last post, some citizens in a few states have already started to let their voices be heard. They shouted a clear message. . . with their votes. We can do the same.
And so, back to the letter. I have provided the link below to a letter that I will be sending to those seeking office in my home state in the 2010 mid-term elections. I want them to know where I stand and where they need to stand if they want my vote and any influence I wield in shaping the opinions, and thereby the votes, of others.
Letter to Candidates For Office
I invite all to join me in this. You are welcome to use my letter if you would like. And by all means, please share with anyone else who you feel may adhere to the same views and would send the letter to those seeking office in their area. Or, perhaps this has stirred some thoughts in your own minds and you'd like to draft a letter of your own. I would love to see the offices of all candidates seeking office in 2010 flooded with such letters.
To help you with this, if you are interested, I'm also including the following link to see who is running for open seats in November across all 50 states for both Senate and House. Simply click on your state to see who is running for each position, and determine who you want to send a letter to.
Who's Running In My State -- House and Senate
If you draft a letter of your own, please share with the rest of us to help stimulate ideas. If you choose to use my letter, I apologize for my long windedness (if that's even a word), but I hope you can use it nonetheless. Together we can join to make a cascade of voices that will be heard and respected by those seeking to represent us.
Thanks and God bless. . .
Richard
_________________________________________________________________
All Class III Senate seats are up for re-election in November of 2010:
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennet, Michael F. (D-CO)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Burris, Roland W. (D-IL)
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT)
Dorgan, Byron L. (D-ND)
Feingold, Russell D. (D-WI)
Inouye, Daniel K. (D-HI)
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT)
Lincoln, Blanche L. (D-AR)
Mikulski, Barbara A. (D-MD)
Murray, Patty (D-WA)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY)
Specter, Arlen (D-PA)
Wyden, Ron (D-OR)
Bennett, Robert F. (R-UT)
Bond, Christopher S. (R-MO) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Brownback, Sam (R-KS) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Bunning, Jim (R-KY) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Burr, Richard (R-NC)
Coburn, Tom (R-OK)
Crapo, Mike (R-ID)
DeMint, Jim (R-SC)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)
LeMieux, George S. (R-FL) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
McCain, John (R-AZ)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Shelby, Richard C. (R-AL)
Thune, John (R-SD)
Vitter, David (R-LA)
Voinovich, George V. (R-OH) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
In fairness to those who will be campaigning for my vote, and in an attempt to use my vote to shape the direction of our nation in the way I believe to be most appropriate, I have pulled together this letter to outline for them what I expect of the successful candidate. The way I see it, candidates for office are actually applicants applying for a job. It is you and I collectively who make the hiring decision. It would not be fair to hire someone for a job if they did not know what was expected of them, right?
Our country is at a cross-roads. We are going to either preserve the nation and system of government inspired by God and laid out by our founding fathers, or we are going to witness the founding of a new America. The are many clamoring to be the founding fathers of a new nation that will have very little resemblance to the land we know and love. Our votes in the upcoming elections are not just votes for individual candidates, they are votes for what future we want to see for America. As outlined in the last post, some citizens in a few states have already started to let their voices be heard. They shouted a clear message. . . with their votes. We can do the same.
And so, back to the letter. I have provided the link below to a letter that I will be sending to those seeking office in my home state in the 2010 mid-term elections. I want them to know where I stand and where they need to stand if they want my vote and any influence I wield in shaping the opinions, and thereby the votes, of others.
Letter to Candidates For Office
I invite all to join me in this. You are welcome to use my letter if you would like. And by all means, please share with anyone else who you feel may adhere to the same views and would send the letter to those seeking office in their area. Or, perhaps this has stirred some thoughts in your own minds and you'd like to draft a letter of your own. I would love to see the offices of all candidates seeking office in 2010 flooded with such letters.
To help you with this, if you are interested, I'm also including the following link to see who is running for open seats in November across all 50 states for both Senate and House. Simply click on your state to see who is running for each position, and determine who you want to send a letter to.
Who's Running In My State -- House and Senate
If you draft a letter of your own, please share with the rest of us to help stimulate ideas. If you choose to use my letter, I apologize for my long windedness (if that's even a word), but I hope you can use it nonetheless. Together we can join to make a cascade of voices that will be heard and respected by those seeking to represent us.
Thanks and God bless. . .
Richard
_________________________________________________________________
All Class III Senate seats are up for re-election in November of 2010:
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennet, Michael F. (D-CO)
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
Burris, Roland W. (D-IL)
Dodd, Christopher J. (D-CT)
Dorgan, Byron L. (D-ND)
Feingold, Russell D. (D-WI)
Inouye, Daniel K. (D-HI)
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT)
Lincoln, Blanche L. (D-AR)
Mikulski, Barbara A. (D-MD)
Murray, Patty (D-WA)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Schumer, Charles E. (D-NY)
Specter, Arlen (D-PA)
Wyden, Ron (D-OR)
Bennett, Robert F. (R-UT)
Bond, Christopher S. (R-MO) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Brownback, Sam (R-KS) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Bunning, Jim (R-KY) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Burr, Richard (R-NC)
Coburn, Tom (R-OK)
Crapo, Mike (R-ID)
DeMint, Jim (R-SC)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA)
LeMieux, George S. (R-FL) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
McCain, John (R-AZ)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Shelby, Richard C. (R-AL)
Thune, John (R-SD)
Vitter, David (R-LA)
Voinovich, George V. (R-OH) - Retiring, will not seek reelection
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Small Victories
Its easy to be disheartened when so many things around you seem to be going wrong. The giants of history are those men and women who were able to transcend the moment when failure seemed assured and the path to victory was completely hidden from view. Have you ever wondered how Abraham Lincoln kept going when half the Union had seceded and families were raising arms against their own? It must have seemed an impossible task for him to hold the nation together and remain true to what he believed was right. Or what about George Washington? Imagine how he must have felt in the winter of 1776. His ragtag army had just suffered humiliating defeats and had been forced to retreat across the state of New York. The conscriptions of a large portion of his troops were on the verge of expiring and he stood to lose any semblance of a fighting force to go against the British. There were few people anywhere in the world that believed this revolution could ever succeed. I can’t imagine a situation in which failure could appear more assured. How did he muster the courage to cross the Delaware on Christmas Eve to attack forces in Trenton and then Princeton, effectively marking the turning point in the revolution?
Somehow these men, and others throughout history, retained their faith and vision, their courage and commitment. As we seek to emulate them, one way we can keep hope alive is to recognize small victories along the way. This is particularly true for those of us choosing to engage in the battle to preserve the nation we love and the freedoms it represents. When we hear the talking heads in Washington setting an agenda that is contrary to everything we hold dear, and do so with indifference and disdain for the opinion of those they represent, it can seem like a lost cause. Imagine the audacity of Nancy Pelosi to simply laugh off a US citizen who asked her where congress derives the authority to force Americans to enroll in healthcare coverage or be fined by the government. Rather than engage in dialogue to defend her position (although it is, in my view, indefensible) she was dismissive and disrespectful. This would be nothing more than an unfortunate incident if it had not become the modus operandi of politicians in Washington. I’m struck by the arrogance of politicians who label Americans who disagree with their views as ignorant, uneducated, or racist. The institutions of power, from politicians to media outlets to Hollywood are clearly committed to moving America away from our traditional moorings and initiating a socialist inspired new world. It would certainly appear that the house holds the advantage and the American people are about to lose their chips. In some ways it’s reminiscent of General Washington’s predicament so many years ago.
But like Lincoln and Washington, we should not give up the fight. When it seems that we’re faltering and the chances of success seem to be slipping away, we become aware of small victories along the way that give us hope and remind us that the fight can and must go on.
This past week I was driving from New York City to the location of a business meeting I had scheduled in New Jersey. As I merged onto the Jersey Turnpike and crossed over into New Jersey, I was greeted by a large sign welcoming me on behalf of Governor John S. Corzine to the state. As I saw this sign, I couldn’t help but smile as it caused me to think about one of these small victories. It was just the night before that the citizens of New Jersey went to the polls and exercised their democratic right to remove Mr. Corzine from office. Many of you are aware that the outgoing governor of New Jersey is very liberal and has a view of the role of government different than what was envisioned by the founders of our nation. So it certainly can be considered a victory that the voice of the people rejected an individual who does not defend economic freedom and individual liberty. But this victory is even more noteworthy when considering that New Jersey has traditionally been one of the most solid liberal strong holds in our nation. The victorious candidate, Chris Christie is not as staunchly conservative as I, or others, would like, but the fact that an incumbent democrat was unseated by a republican challenger in New Jersey indicates a substantial message being sent by the public . . and this is a victory for the conservative movement.
There was also a victory achieved in the state of Virginia on Tuesday night. Similar to the change achieved in New Jersey, a democratic governor was defeated by a republican challenger. In this case the victor, Bob McDonnell is not only Republican, but considered conservative in his political philosophy (unfortunately republican and conservative are no longer synonymous).
In the 23rd Congressional District of New York, perhaps the biggest victory of the night was achieved . . . and it occurred within an electoral loss. This race was supposed to be a battle between the democratic candidate, Bill Owens, and Dierdre Scozzafava, the candidate backed by the republican party. The problem, however, was that Scozzafava, despite being the republican candidate, does not represent conservatism and cleaves to fairly liberal ideology. With the two parties not presenting any real alternative in their candidates, the usually dormant Conservative Party in New York came to life. Doug Hoffman ran as a conservative candidate and sent a resounding message to both the republican party, and the nation. Although the democrat, Bill Owens, ended up winning the election, he edged Hoffman by only about 5,000 votes. The RINO candidate backed by the party, who actually withdrew from the race 3 days before the election and promptly endorsed the democratic candidate, left her name on the ballot and received only a paltry 5.5% of the vote total.
Democrats across the nation are pointing to this race as an indicator that the public is still choosing liberal candidates. However, the facts that Hoffman was a late entrant to the race, destroyed the prospects of the republican party candidate, represented a third party, and lost only by the narrowest of margins, cannot be ignored. This race has shown that the republican base is insisting on a return to traditional conservatism. Party leaders, take note. . .
These are small victories in the context of a broader fight to preserve our liberty, but victories nonetheless. There are a couple of reasons why these local elections represent much more than victories for just the states and districts wherein they occurred. First, these victories demonstrate that there is a shift occurring in the minds and hearts of the public in some of the most liberal areas of our nation. Second, the citizens of New Jersey, Virginia, and New York have given us an example of what can be done across our nation. Where elected representatives and public servants fail to uphold our constitution and preserve the role of government intended for our nation, they can and must be removed from office. This is the mandate of our founding fathers and the responsibility of those who love liberty. Those elected to public office serve at the pleasure of the citizens they represent. If they lose sight of this most important fact, the citizens they serve must remove them from their positions. These three states have shown the power of the electoral process, and a message has been sent.
Citizens of all states should sit up and take notice. We have the same opportunity to exercise the power of “we the people” and shape the direction of our land. In 2010 many of our nation’s elected representatives will be facing re-election in the congressional mid-terms. They are applying for a job, and we are making the hiring decision. I intend to send a very clear message to those in my state who will be seeking to retain their employment. I invite you all, regardless of the state wherein you reside, to join me.
In the next post on this blog I will be sharing a letter that I am going to send to those seeking reelection in my state. This letter will outline for each of them what I expect them to do and stand for if they would like to receive my vote and my influence in gaining additional votes. I will then send follow-up letters between now and next November reviewing how they’re doing in living up to these expectations. I want it to be very clear to them that they will face fierce opposition in their re-election efforts, unless they stand for the principles of individual liberty, economic freedom, and fiscal responsibility.
Once you see the letter in the upcoming post, I hope you’ll either use that letter as a template, or create one of your own to send to those holding public office in your state. It would be great to have their offices flooded with such letters making it abundantly clear what is expected of them if they want to retain the positions many of them seem to covet so highly.
Small victories can be very large when it comes to inspiring us forward. Thank you to the citizens of New York, New Jersey, and Virginia for supplying us with this gleam of hope in the face of the odds we face in our battle. Let us now carry on and be the purveyors of more small victories that will lead to larger victories, and inevitably overall success.
Richard
Somehow these men, and others throughout history, retained their faith and vision, their courage and commitment. As we seek to emulate them, one way we can keep hope alive is to recognize small victories along the way. This is particularly true for those of us choosing to engage in the battle to preserve the nation we love and the freedoms it represents. When we hear the talking heads in Washington setting an agenda that is contrary to everything we hold dear, and do so with indifference and disdain for the opinion of those they represent, it can seem like a lost cause. Imagine the audacity of Nancy Pelosi to simply laugh off a US citizen who asked her where congress derives the authority to force Americans to enroll in healthcare coverage or be fined by the government. Rather than engage in dialogue to defend her position (although it is, in my view, indefensible) she was dismissive and disrespectful. This would be nothing more than an unfortunate incident if it had not become the modus operandi of politicians in Washington. I’m struck by the arrogance of politicians who label Americans who disagree with their views as ignorant, uneducated, or racist. The institutions of power, from politicians to media outlets to Hollywood are clearly committed to moving America away from our traditional moorings and initiating a socialist inspired new world. It would certainly appear that the house holds the advantage and the American people are about to lose their chips. In some ways it’s reminiscent of General Washington’s predicament so many years ago.
But like Lincoln and Washington, we should not give up the fight. When it seems that we’re faltering and the chances of success seem to be slipping away, we become aware of small victories along the way that give us hope and remind us that the fight can and must go on.
This past week I was driving from New York City to the location of a business meeting I had scheduled in New Jersey. As I merged onto the Jersey Turnpike and crossed over into New Jersey, I was greeted by a large sign welcoming me on behalf of Governor John S. Corzine to the state. As I saw this sign, I couldn’t help but smile as it caused me to think about one of these small victories. It was just the night before that the citizens of New Jersey went to the polls and exercised their democratic right to remove Mr. Corzine from office. Many of you are aware that the outgoing governor of New Jersey is very liberal and has a view of the role of government different than what was envisioned by the founders of our nation. So it certainly can be considered a victory that the voice of the people rejected an individual who does not defend economic freedom and individual liberty. But this victory is even more noteworthy when considering that New Jersey has traditionally been one of the most solid liberal strong holds in our nation. The victorious candidate, Chris Christie is not as staunchly conservative as I, or others, would like, but the fact that an incumbent democrat was unseated by a republican challenger in New Jersey indicates a substantial message being sent by the public . . and this is a victory for the conservative movement.
There was also a victory achieved in the state of Virginia on Tuesday night. Similar to the change achieved in New Jersey, a democratic governor was defeated by a republican challenger. In this case the victor, Bob McDonnell is not only Republican, but considered conservative in his political philosophy (unfortunately republican and conservative are no longer synonymous).
In the 23rd Congressional District of New York, perhaps the biggest victory of the night was achieved . . . and it occurred within an electoral loss. This race was supposed to be a battle between the democratic candidate, Bill Owens, and Dierdre Scozzafava, the candidate backed by the republican party. The problem, however, was that Scozzafava, despite being the republican candidate, does not represent conservatism and cleaves to fairly liberal ideology. With the two parties not presenting any real alternative in their candidates, the usually dormant Conservative Party in New York came to life. Doug Hoffman ran as a conservative candidate and sent a resounding message to both the republican party, and the nation. Although the democrat, Bill Owens, ended up winning the election, he edged Hoffman by only about 5,000 votes. The RINO candidate backed by the party, who actually withdrew from the race 3 days before the election and promptly endorsed the democratic candidate, left her name on the ballot and received only a paltry 5.5% of the vote total.
Democrats across the nation are pointing to this race as an indicator that the public is still choosing liberal candidates. However, the facts that Hoffman was a late entrant to the race, destroyed the prospects of the republican party candidate, represented a third party, and lost only by the narrowest of margins, cannot be ignored. This race has shown that the republican base is insisting on a return to traditional conservatism. Party leaders, take note. . .
These are small victories in the context of a broader fight to preserve our liberty, but victories nonetheless. There are a couple of reasons why these local elections represent much more than victories for just the states and districts wherein they occurred. First, these victories demonstrate that there is a shift occurring in the minds and hearts of the public in some of the most liberal areas of our nation. Second, the citizens of New Jersey, Virginia, and New York have given us an example of what can be done across our nation. Where elected representatives and public servants fail to uphold our constitution and preserve the role of government intended for our nation, they can and must be removed from office. This is the mandate of our founding fathers and the responsibility of those who love liberty. Those elected to public office serve at the pleasure of the citizens they represent. If they lose sight of this most important fact, the citizens they serve must remove them from their positions. These three states have shown the power of the electoral process, and a message has been sent.
Citizens of all states should sit up and take notice. We have the same opportunity to exercise the power of “we the people” and shape the direction of our land. In 2010 many of our nation’s elected representatives will be facing re-election in the congressional mid-terms. They are applying for a job, and we are making the hiring decision. I intend to send a very clear message to those in my state who will be seeking to retain their employment. I invite you all, regardless of the state wherein you reside, to join me.
In the next post on this blog I will be sharing a letter that I am going to send to those seeking reelection in my state. This letter will outline for each of them what I expect them to do and stand for if they would like to receive my vote and my influence in gaining additional votes. I will then send follow-up letters between now and next November reviewing how they’re doing in living up to these expectations. I want it to be very clear to them that they will face fierce opposition in their re-election efforts, unless they stand for the principles of individual liberty, economic freedom, and fiscal responsibility.
Once you see the letter in the upcoming post, I hope you’ll either use that letter as a template, or create one of your own to send to those holding public office in your state. It would be great to have their offices flooded with such letters making it abundantly clear what is expected of them if they want to retain the positions many of them seem to covet so highly.
Small victories can be very large when it comes to inspiring us forward. Thank you to the citizens of New York, New Jersey, and Virginia for supplying us with this gleam of hope in the face of the odds we face in our battle. Let us now carry on and be the purveyors of more small victories that will lead to larger victories, and inevitably overall success.
Richard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
