I just listened to a radio program where immigration was being discussed. The moderators and guest were all LDS and they discussed the issue from an LDS perspective, giving me some new things to think about. They do not claim to be speaking for the Church as a whole, just to be voicing their opinions from a gospel perspective, as they see it. Here are my notes from that program. To hear the whole thing, click on the link at the bottom of the post. I'm going to try to do it in a question/answer type of format, as that will bring out the hot button issues in a way that will be easy to reference, should anyone want to come back to it. My own comments are in italics, not to be confused with the notes from the podcast.
1. What are borders for? When we talk about borders, what are we really saying? We have a border between Utah and Nevada, for what purpose? Is it to make sure that all the Nevadans stay on their side of the line? No, obviously, within our country people are allowed to go from one state to the other without restriction, usually. The reason for borders has to do with the governments and with sovereignty. Those who live within the delineated boundary lines of a state, are living under the laws passed by the government of that state. As long as people are willing to abide by the laws of the different states, they may come and go as they please.
The borders between nations are there for essentially the same reasons as the borders between states. Is there any reason why people shouldn't be able to cross national borders as freely as they cross state borders? What is the purpose in labeling someone as "illegal" when all they have done is cross over an imaginary line? If we as Latter-day Saints believe that our Heavenly Father is the God of this land, and that He is in control of who comes here, as he said that it was preserved for a righteous people, and those who come here who do not serve Him will be swept off, can we not then leave it in His hands to deal with those who come here? This is not to say that we shouldn't have laws that prosecute those who commit crimes. We should and we do, but why should coming here be the crime? One of our big problems is that our penalties for crimes are not sufficient enough to deter those crimes.
2. What about the economics side of the argument? Why should "they" be allowed to come here and steal from those of us who are already here? This point goes a lot deeper than the question appears on the surface. The real question that should be asked is "Do we agree with the system that is in place, that allows them to come and receive something for nothing?" Why is it any worse for them to come and live off the dole in this country, than for anyone else who is already here? The problem here is not that people are sneaking into this country and stealing from us, it is that a very corrupt government has put a system in place that enslaves people, both those of its own country, and now others coming here looking for a better way of life (or at least it would be better, if we'd stop giving them all this "free" stuff) by handing out all the goodies in order to buy their votes. Again, the issue is not the "illegals;" the issue is the people that we have elected to office.
The LDS religion considers the dole to be an evil that should be abolished; so where is the evil here? Is it in those who come here and get on it, or those who offer it for the purpose of enslaving those who come here and get on it?
3. The Constitution guarantees to each state a Republican form of government, and is to help each state guard against invasion. Some people will say that we are being invaded by those who illegally cross the borders. Why are thousands of Mexicans coming into the country considered to be an invasion, any more than thousands of people who might show up in a state for a weekend Amway convention? The only difference is that one group has already been labeled "illegal" before they get here. In the Book or Mormon we read about times when the Lamanites invaded the lands of the Nephites. The invasion was when they attacked them and tried to take away their freedoms. However, there were other peaceful times when they had a free exchange with one another, and it wasn't considered an invasion then. While there are groups who are coming here with evil intent, there are also many who just want to get away from the oppression that they are experiencing in their own country. Those who want to work honestly and just make a living should not be hampered from doing so. If our government stopped handing out money as if it were candy, that would stop the incentive for those who don't really want to work to earn a living. At least those who come here to work in the fields for low pay, are working, which is a lot more than thousands of our own people who sit around collecting welfare checks for doing nothing.
4. What about the numbers? There are millions of them that are coming here. If we start talking numbers, then at some point we need to be concerned about the babies that are born here. There are now nearly 310,000,000 people in the United States. How many do we think it can hold? Do we say we'll shut things down when it reaches 400 million, or 500 million? In terms of numbers, what difference does it make if they walk across the border, or are born here? It still adds to the total population. In the scriptures the Lord tells us that there is enough and to spare. We don't need to worry about using up all of the space. And as far as being a drain on the economy goes, everyone has to eat and has certain needs and wants that require making purchases. With more people come more opportunities for businesses to expand, requiring more people to work, etc. When the government gets out of the way and stops taxing and regulating, making it difficult for businesses to flourish, then the supply and demand even out and society runs well. The drain on society comes when government redistributes the fruits of the labors of the people who work, giving it to those who don't. That is never the way to prosperity, but the path to enslavement, and eventually the demise of the whole system.
5. What about the Church's policy to allow "illegals" to be baptized? Those of us who worry about this are, in essence, putting nationalism above Christian duty. We are saying that my nation, even if it is wrong, is more important than bringing these souls back Home. We, as members of Christ's church, must remember that our whole purpose on this planet, is to help each other get back Home. Period. All the rest is either fluff, or the means to that end. What right have we to judge another's worthiness to be baptized, when the only law they are "breaking" is to walk across a border that maybe shouldn't be there in the first place?
6. Let's make sure we're talking about the real issues when we talk about the immigration problem. If we are worried about all the crime, let's talk about laws that should be prosecuting crime, but don't. If we are talking about millions of people putting a drain on our society and bankrupting the system, let's discuss socialism and how that is not the system this country was meant to function under. When our own people will return to the Christian roots that founded this country, we will put people into the government who truly have our interests in mind, rather than padding their own wallets, and re-election campaigns. The laws will change to favor free enterprise, and will end the redistribution of wealth by government, leaving charity in the hands of individuals and churches, where it was meant to be handled. When those things happen, there won't be an immigration problem.
When I heard the Church leaders say that we needed to show compassion in the immigration issue, I was a bit put out, having a friend who was killed by someone who was here illegally. I now realize that my energy can be better spent working to educate people as to the proper role of government and how to elect good people to office, than standing around whining about the immigration problem. They are not the problem, we are. Let's get our own house in order so we won't be afraid to invite others to come and enjoy what the Lord has so graciously blessed us with.
This discussion is not meant to say that we shouldn't be enforcing our borders. Right now, we do have laws on the books regarding immigration. I believe the point of this discussion is to show that there are other ways of looking at the same issue. Many of the laws on the books of this country are just plain wrong and should be overturned. Those living on the borders, such as those in Arizona, are dealing with a horrendous problem. Tightening up the fences and putting more people with guns down there is certainly one way of dealing with it, but it will continue to be a small bandage on an infected, festering wound until the government changes its policies that encourage criminal behavior. We must demand more from our elected officials.
Listen here: http://ldsliberty.org/?p=294
Monday, June 28, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
My Favorite George Washington Portrait
I am reading a book called the Making of George Washington. This portrait is the one used for the cover art. Here's the story behind it: "In 1785, the renowned French sculptor Jeane Antoine Houdon visited Mount Vernon preparatory to creating his famous statue of George Washington for Virginia's Capitol rotunda in Richmond. The sculptor made life masks of Washington which he took to France. One mask was returned to the United States. It is a treasured artifact in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York.
For the cover of his 1970 book The Making of George Washington, General William H. Wilbur commissioned artist Ruth Stedman Druliner to present Washington as he appeared in the prime of his years to the men and women of the young American Nation. By meticulous study of that life mask, the best known existing portraits of Washington and the recorded impressions of individuals who knew the living man, Mrs. Druliner produced this exclusive portrait."
When I saw this picture, it immediately grabbed my attention as having more life to it than any of the other portrayals I've seen of George Washington. I love the twinkle in his eye, which makes him look less stern, and thus more approachable, as his friends and acquaintances described him as being.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Why Is Democracy Such a Bad Thing?
Why Is Democracy Such A Bad Thing?
by Doug Newman
dougnewman@juno.com
Special to The Libertarian Enterprise
I got an e-mail the other day from someone forming a grassroots lobbying organization. I told him that, while I agreed with the aims of his organization, he was wrong in asserting that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" was a characteristic of a democracy.
The differences between a democracy—a very bad thing—and a constitutional republic—a very good thing—are not just something to be discussed in college political philosophy classes. Political philosophy is about real things and the differences between democracies and republics have profound real world implications.
In the Mel Gibson movie The Patriot there is a great line about there being no difference between one tyrant 3000 miles away and 3000 tyrants one mile away. The Founders hated the concept of democracy and knew from history that democracy always degenerated into despotism. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution even mentions the word "democracy".
Democracy has been defined as the right of 51 percent to [spit] in the cornflakes of the other 49 percent. You have no rights in a democracy as they may be overridden by the whims of the majority. If the majority votes that half your income be confiscated before you can so much as buy groceries, oh well, this is a democracy! If the majority votes that you cannot alleviate your back pain in a socially unacceptable manner, oh well, this is a democracy! If the majority votes that Jews be rounded up and sent to forced labor camps on the North Slope of Alaska, oh well, this is a democracy!
It has often been said that, in a democracy two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what's for supper, while in a constitutional republic the wolves are forbidden on voting on what's for supper and the sheep are well armed. A constitutional republic is founded on the premise that rights are antecedent to government, and that government exists to protect those rights. These rights may not be violated either by the whims of 51 percent of voters, by a legislative or judicial majority or by a unitary executive.
For evidence that our Founders hated democracy, you need look no further than the Constitution. They went to great lengths to thwart democracy. They gave us three coequal branches of government with strictly limited powers. They set up an intricate system of checks and balances so that, when one branch stepped out of line, another branch could step in and say "we don't think so!" The powers delegated to the federal government—Article 1, Section 8—were "few and defined".
The Electoral College is not just some quaint relic from a more agrarian age. It serves as a brake on the rule by the runaway passions of the people, i.e. democracy. Likewise, we have two houses of Congress. The House of Representatives is elected directly by the people. Until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment—a bad one—in 1916, the Senate was elected by the various state legislatures. Why? Again, the Founders feared the runaway passions of the people, i.e. democracy.
Not only was democracy an anathema to the Founders, it should be abhorrent to every follower of Jesus Christ. In Luke 23, Pilate declares that he found Jesus not deserving of death. However, he caved into the roar of the angry mob and sent a totally innocent man to die an excruciating death.
One of the key delegates to the Constitutional Convention was George Mason. Mason refused to sign the Constitution because it did not contain a bill of rights. Mason is widely acknowledged as the "father of the Bill of Rights".
This Bill of Rights is more accurately a bill of prohibitions on federal power. These rights cannot be voted away either by the people or by their elected representatives.
The language of the First and Second Amendments indicates that the rights they protect already existed, and that government cannot infringe these rights, regardless of what the majority says.
The Fourth through Eighth Amendments protect the rights of the accused. These rights are not to be surrendered under any circumstances, e.g. War Between the States, Drug War, War on Terror or any other real or perceived emergency. Again, they cannot be voted away.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial. To the Founders, this meant a trial by a fully informed jury. Such a jury was the ultimate check on any bad law. If so much as one juror felt that the defendant was being tried under a law that was unbiblical, unconstitutional or just plain stupid, he could vote to acquit and the defendant would walk.
The Ninth Amendment protects your right to do things even if other people disapprove. Homeschooling your children and smoking that hooch come to mind. It is a very important check on the tyranny of the majority.
The Tenth Amendment forbids Uncle Sam from engaging in any activity that is not expressly authorized elsewhere in the Constitution, regardless of how people may vote.
So there you have it. A constitutional republic is a charter of liberty while a democracy is a recipe for slavery. And the next time you hear an old-school patriot wax indignant about how America is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic, I hope you will understand what he is talking about.
[Final 3 paragraphs edited out.]
Without Prejudice i.e. all Inalienable, Natural, Rights reserved, as per UCC 1-103 and 1-207
Entire article may be seen here: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle419-20070527-05.html I edited out the last few sentences because I didn't feel that they fit my attempts to keep this blog educational, as opposed to negative. I isn't going to be easy, but when possible, I will always provide the source so that anyone may read what I've taken out, if they so choose.
by Doug Newman
dougnewman@juno.com
Special to The Libertarian Enterprise
I got an e-mail the other day from someone forming a grassroots lobbying organization. I told him that, while I agreed with the aims of his organization, he was wrong in asserting that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" was a characteristic of a democracy.
The differences between a democracy—a very bad thing—and a constitutional republic—a very good thing—are not just something to be discussed in college political philosophy classes. Political philosophy is about real things and the differences between democracies and republics have profound real world implications.
In the Mel Gibson movie The Patriot there is a great line about there being no difference between one tyrant 3000 miles away and 3000 tyrants one mile away. The Founders hated the concept of democracy and knew from history that democracy always degenerated into despotism. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution even mentions the word "democracy".
Democracy has been defined as the right of 51 percent to [spit] in the cornflakes of the other 49 percent. You have no rights in a democracy as they may be overridden by the whims of the majority. If the majority votes that half your income be confiscated before you can so much as buy groceries, oh well, this is a democracy! If the majority votes that you cannot alleviate your back pain in a socially unacceptable manner, oh well, this is a democracy! If the majority votes that Jews be rounded up and sent to forced labor camps on the North Slope of Alaska, oh well, this is a democracy!
It has often been said that, in a democracy two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what's for supper, while in a constitutional republic the wolves are forbidden on voting on what's for supper and the sheep are well armed. A constitutional republic is founded on the premise that rights are antecedent to government, and that government exists to protect those rights. These rights may not be violated either by the whims of 51 percent of voters, by a legislative or judicial majority or by a unitary executive.
For evidence that our Founders hated democracy, you need look no further than the Constitution. They went to great lengths to thwart democracy. They gave us three coequal branches of government with strictly limited powers. They set up an intricate system of checks and balances so that, when one branch stepped out of line, another branch could step in and say "we don't think so!" The powers delegated to the federal government—Article 1, Section 8—were "few and defined".
The Electoral College is not just some quaint relic from a more agrarian age. It serves as a brake on the rule by the runaway passions of the people, i.e. democracy. Likewise, we have two houses of Congress. The House of Representatives is elected directly by the people. Until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment—a bad one—in 1916, the Senate was elected by the various state legislatures. Why? Again, the Founders feared the runaway passions of the people, i.e. democracy.
Not only was democracy an anathema to the Founders, it should be abhorrent to every follower of Jesus Christ. In Luke 23, Pilate declares that he found Jesus not deserving of death. However, he caved into the roar of the angry mob and sent a totally innocent man to die an excruciating death.
One of the key delegates to the Constitutional Convention was George Mason. Mason refused to sign the Constitution because it did not contain a bill of rights. Mason is widely acknowledged as the "father of the Bill of Rights".
This Bill of Rights is more accurately a bill of prohibitions on federal power. These rights cannot be voted away either by the people or by their elected representatives.
The language of the First and Second Amendments indicates that the rights they protect already existed, and that government cannot infringe these rights, regardless of what the majority says.
The Fourth through Eighth Amendments protect the rights of the accused. These rights are not to be surrendered under any circumstances, e.g. War Between the States, Drug War, War on Terror or any other real or perceived emergency. Again, they cannot be voted away.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial. To the Founders, this meant a trial by a fully informed jury. Such a jury was the ultimate check on any bad law. If so much as one juror felt that the defendant was being tried under a law that was unbiblical, unconstitutional or just plain stupid, he could vote to acquit and the defendant would walk.
The Ninth Amendment protects your right to do things even if other people disapprove. Homeschooling your children and smoking that hooch come to mind. It is a very important check on the tyranny of the majority.
The Tenth Amendment forbids Uncle Sam from engaging in any activity that is not expressly authorized elsewhere in the Constitution, regardless of how people may vote.
So there you have it. A constitutional republic is a charter of liberty while a democracy is a recipe for slavery. And the next time you hear an old-school patriot wax indignant about how America is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic, I hope you will understand what he is talking about.
[Final 3 paragraphs edited out.]
Without Prejudice i.e. all Inalienable, Natural, Rights reserved, as per UCC 1-103 and 1-207
Entire article may be seen here: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle419-20070527-05.html I edited out the last few sentences because I didn't feel that they fit my attempts to keep this blog educational, as opposed to negative. I isn't going to be easy, but when possible, I will always provide the source so that anyone may read what I've taken out, if they so choose.
Patriotism Preached Positively!
The following is a collection of quotes by former general authorities about the future of this great country, and how we should look forward with faith, rather than fear about the events to come. The emphases were put there by the person that sent the information, but I decided to leave them in to call attention to some very important points. Enjoy!
BRUCE R. McCONKIE
“It is our firm conviction as a people that the stars and stripes will be waving triumphantly in the breeze, as a symbol of the greatness and stability of the United States of America , when the Lord comes. This nation was established to be the Lord’s base of operations in this final gospel dispensation. From it the gospel is to go to every other nation and people. The greater its influence among the nations of the world, the more rapidly the gospel spreads. But the Lord has told us that all nations, the United States included, shall cease to be when he comes” (The Millennial Messiah, 491).
JOSEPH SMITH
“We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: ‘Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction” (Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City, July 19, 1840) (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 623 - 624).
JOSEPH SMITH
Words of James Burgess: “In the month of May 1843, several miles east of Nauvoo, the Nauvoo Legion was on parade and review, at the close of which Joseph Smith made some remarks upon our condition as a people and upon our future prospects, contrasting our present condition with our past trials and persecutions by the hands of our enemies; also upon the Constitution and government of the United States, stating that the time would come when the Constitution and government would hang by a brittle thread and would be ready to fall into other hands, but this people, the Latter-day Saints, will step forth and save it. . . .I, James Burgess, was present and testify to the above” (The Words of Joseph Smith, 279).
EZRA TAFT BENSON
“The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith there would be an attempt to overthrow the country by destroying the Constitution. Joseph Smith predicted that the time would come when the Constitution would hang, as it were, by a thread, and at that time ‘this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction’ (Journal of Discourses, 7:15). It is my conviction that the elders of Israel, widely spread over the nation, will at that crucial time successfully rally the righteous of our country and provide the necessary balance of strength to save the institutions of constitutional government” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 618 - 619).
| President Harold B. Lee: Men may fail in this country, earthquakes may come, seas may heave beyond their bounds, there may be great drought, disaster, and hardship, but this nation, founded on principles laid down by men whom God raised up, will never fail. This is the cradle of humanity, where life on this earth began in the Garden of Eden. This is the place of the New Jerusalem. . . . This is the place where the Savior will come to His temple. We are living in a time of great crisis. The Country is torn with scandal and with criticism, with faultfinding and condemnation. There are those who have downgraded the image of this nation as probably never before in the history of the country. I plead with you not to preach pessimism. Preach that this is the greatest country in all the world. . . . It is the nation that will stand despite whatever trials or crises it may yet have to pass through. We must be on the optimistic side. This is a great nation; this is a great country; this is the most favored of all lands. While it is true that there are dangers and difficulties that lie ahead of us, we must not assume that we are going to stand by and watch the country go to ruin. We should not be heard to predict ills and calamities for the nation. On the contrary, we should be providing optimistic support for the nation. You must remember . . . that this church is one of the most powerful agencies for the progress of the world, and we should . . . all sound with one voice. We must tell the world how we feel about this land and this nation and should bear our testimonies about the great mission and destiny that it has. If we do this, we will help turn the tide of this great country and lessen the influence of the pessimists. We must be careful that we do not say or do anything that will further weaken the country. It is the negative, pessimistic comments about the nation that do as much harm as anything to the country today. We who carry these sacred responsibilities must preach the gospel of peace, and peace can only come by overcoming the things of the world. Now, we must be the dynamic force that will help turn the tide of fear and pessimism. (Excerpts from a talk given at Ricks College Devotional Assembly, “Have Faith in America,” October 26, 1973, and printed in two sources: Ye Are the Light of the World: Selected Sermons and Writings of Harold B. Lee, 340, 350-351, and The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, edited by Clyde J. Williams, 365-366.) |
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
A Tribute to Our Veterans
|
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The Road to Serfdom: Are we on it?
The Road to Serfdom is a book that was written to expose socialist governments for the slavery-inducing entities that they are. It was banned in Europe when it was written, and a citizen, or should I say "comrade," in Russia could be put in jail if caught reading it. The author, who incidentally won a Nobel Peace Prize for his effort, was shunned by the academic crowd in the United States, and unable to find a job at any institution of higher learning in this country. I had to read this book for an economics class recently, and I think it is safe to say that at the time I read it, I was probably the only person I knew who had done so. That is probably still the case, but maybe not for long, as the book has been on the #1 Bestseller list at Amazon.com for the past week. The reason? Glenn Beck did a program on it, which included an interview with a Russian defector who actually did risk being put in jail by reading the book. The program is fabulous and gives a little taste of the content of the book, as well as a good discussion about where we are along this road. The following is the first of 4 segments of the program. Just click on the video and it will open up to the YouTube page, where you'll be prompted with links to the remaining segments of the show. It's about 41 minutes total, and well worth the time.
It's A Simple Answer After All
Wow! If this short little 3 1/2 minute speech doesn't get your patriotic blood boiling, I don't know what will. I miss Ronald Reagan.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Greatest Threat to America
Think you know what it is? You might be surprised! Watch as Dennis Prager nails it right on the head. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
