http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Health care shortage, anyone?
A new poll by Investor's Business Daily of more than 1,300 physicians finds that nearly two-thirds (65%) oppose ObamaCare and nearly half (45%) would consider quitting if the liberal health care plan passes.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Does He Lie?
Everyone (every Democrat, at least) is up in arms about Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst of, "You lie!" during President Obama's speech to Congress on Wed (09/09/09). I have heard about how it's rude, disrespectful, undignified, bad manners, etc, etc, Ad Nauseam. I personally, don't see how it's any different from Bush being booed and hissed during his speeches (just Google: "bush booed" "state of the union"). And Clinton was booed before him, as, I'm sure, have been many before him.
So, I don't see what all the offense and hoopla is about. There is more than enough bad manners and blame to go around, and no single party can claim a majority of it. Politics is just an exercise in bad manners.
Perhaps the real concern would be with the truth of the statement. Does Obama lie? Of course he does, he got elected didn't he? And don't take that as just cynical hyperbole. He certainly said untrue things during the campaign about John McCain, the country and the intentions of himself and the Democrats. Furthermore, there are certain things that he has not answered to, and he was very quiet about what, exactly, he was going to do once he took office. To me, silence when one should speak out is just as dishonest as saying something untrue.
Going further, heckling is just another form of dissent, and there's nothing wrong with it, as long as it's valid. (Libel and slander are a different discussion.) And Democrats and Republicans alike have defended dissent and heckling as being "part of the democratic process". To me, that's just calling 'em as you see 'em.
Wilson quickly apologized for his outburst, but I don't think an apology was necessary. Maybe for interrupting his speech, but no man should apologize for speaking his mind, or telling the truth.
Post Script:
And there's this, too:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=677700
So, I don't see what all the offense and hoopla is about. There is more than enough bad manners and blame to go around, and no single party can claim a majority of it. Politics is just an exercise in bad manners.
Perhaps the real concern would be with the truth of the statement. Does Obama lie? Of course he does, he got elected didn't he? And don't take that as just cynical hyperbole. He certainly said untrue things during the campaign about John McCain, the country and the intentions of himself and the Democrats. Furthermore, there are certain things that he has not answered to, and he was very quiet about what, exactly, he was going to do once he took office. To me, silence when one should speak out is just as dishonest as saying something untrue.
Going further, heckling is just another form of dissent, and there's nothing wrong with it, as long as it's valid. (Libel and slander are a different discussion.) And Democrats and Republicans alike have defended dissent and heckling as being "part of the democratic process". To me, that's just calling 'em as you see 'em.
Wilson quickly apologized for his outburst, but I don't think an apology was necessary. Maybe for interrupting his speech, but no man should apologize for speaking his mind, or telling the truth.
Post Script:
And there's this, too:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=677700
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
I Figured It Out
Maybe I'm slow, but this morning in that dreamy state between sleep and waking, I had a epiphany: I realized why Obama won, besides the weak showing by the GOP, Libertarian Party, and everyone else.
First, a few background quotes:
So, people have gotten lazy, greedy and selfish. They no longer value freedom over money and leisure. They ignore our history, and reject God. Because of this, they vote for the guy who promises them what they want, money for nothing. Thus our country has been taken over by the uneducated, godless and selfish. If this continues, we are doomed.
First, a few background quotes:
"Great nations rise and fall-the people go from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back again into bondage." Robert Muntzel
"We are torn by internal dissension. Each one denounces special privilege and government largesse-for the other fellow. But when it touches his own interest, he rationalizes his special privilege as being 'for the public welfare.'" Admiral Ben Moreel
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" Benjamin Franklin (maybe)
So, people have gotten lazy, greedy and selfish. They no longer value freedom over money and leisure. They ignore our history, and reject God. Because of this, they vote for the guy who promises them what they want, money for nothing. Thus our country has been taken over by the uneducated, godless and selfish. If this continues, we are doomed.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Value of Books
Today's lengthy quote:
It has often been said that we have but one life to live; that is nonsense. If one reads fiction he or she can live a thousand lives, in many parts of the world or in outer space. One can cross a desert, climb the Himalayas, or experience the agony of defeat, the triumph of victory, the pangs of starvation, or the choking thirst of the desert, all while safely at home.
The book has been man's greatest triumph, his most profound success. Seated in my library I live in a Time Machine. In an instant I can be transmitted to any era of history, any part of the world, even to outer space. Often I am asked in what period of history I would have preferred to live, and I wonder that they do not see, for I have lived in them all. I have listened to Buddha speak, I have marched with Alexander, sailed with the Vikings, or in their double canoes with the Polynesians. I have been at the courts of Queen Elizabeth and Louis the XIV; I have explored the West with Jedediah Smith and Jim Bridger; I have been a friend to Captain Nemo and have sailed with Captain Bligh on the Bounty. I have walked in the agora with Socrates and Plato, and listened to Jesus deliver the Sermon on the Mount.
Above all, and the most remarkable thing, I can do it all again, at any moment. The books are there. I have only to reach up on the shelves and take them down and live over again the moments I have loved. Surely, we live today in the greatest moment of history, for at no other time have books been so readily available, in the book stores, in the public libraries, and in the home.
- Louis L'Amour, The Sackett Companion, p.262,
It has often been said that we have but one life to live; that is nonsense. If one reads fiction he or she can live a thousand lives, in many parts of the world or in outer space. One can cross a desert, climb the Himalayas, or experience the agony of defeat, the triumph of victory, the pangs of starvation, or the choking thirst of the desert, all while safely at home.
The book has been man's greatest triumph, his most profound success. Seated in my library I live in a Time Machine. In an instant I can be transmitted to any era of history, any part of the world, even to outer space. Often I am asked in what period of history I would have preferred to live, and I wonder that they do not see, for I have lived in them all. I have listened to Buddha speak, I have marched with Alexander, sailed with the Vikings, or in their double canoes with the Polynesians. I have been at the courts of Queen Elizabeth and Louis the XIV; I have explored the West with Jedediah Smith and Jim Bridger; I have been a friend to Captain Nemo and have sailed with Captain Bligh on the Bounty. I have walked in the agora with Socrates and Plato, and listened to Jesus deliver the Sermon on the Mount.
Above all, and the most remarkable thing, I can do it all again, at any moment. The books are there. I have only to reach up on the shelves and take them down and live over again the moments I have loved. Surely, we live today in the greatest moment of history, for at no other time have books been so readily available, in the book stores, in the public libraries, and in the home.
- Louis L'Amour, The Sackett Companion, p.262,
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Make Honor the Standard
I recently encountered a speech given many years ago by BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson. In it , he discusses politics and how we should conduct ourselves. With an upcoming minor election, I think he makes some very good points that would would do well to remember, hopefully until the next major election.
Because this is a year for a national political election, I desire to make a statement with respect to the attitude of the university concerning politics.
Many people get so disgusted with politics that they take no interest in the issues of the time or the persons running for office. I remember a speaker on this campus when I was here as a student saying that "Politics is the worse kind of ticks and should be shunned like poison." In my judgment, this is an entirely wrong attitude whether you be a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. Our political life is corrupt only when the people permit it to become corrupt. Our political life is sound to the extent that the people have wisdom and participate in politics. We therefore urge all students to become active politically. And when I say active, I do not mean that you become rabidly partisan.
I remember a couple of years ago when I was still a young man, hearing the story of a politician in Missouri. He was from St. Louis and attended the state convention as a delegate. He nominated someone for governor and in order to make it plain that he was a faithful Democrat he said that he had been so faithful that he would even vote for a yellow dog if he were on the Democratic ticket. His nominee did not become the nominee of the party and he bolted the party. And he went out and campaigned in favor of someone on the other ticket. In a speech he was giving, someone heckled him and said, "I thought that at the state convention you said you would vote for a yellow dog if he were on the Democratic ticket." He answered, "That is true, but lower than that, I will not go."
Now I would like to suggest to you, contrary to this Missouri Democrat, that you should always place principle above party and not hesitate to change your party if it departs from the standards in which you believe or nominates candidates whom you do not consider experienced or worthy of your vote.
Second, I should like to suggest that in making up your political mind, you become well informed. If, because of heredity or environment, you are inclined to believe in the views of one party, I suggest you take as many occasions as you can to read or hear the speeches of those representing the other party. One does not get informed if he merely listens to the speeches of the party he already favors.
In becoming informed, please analyze critically the speeches you hear. Separate the unfounded allegations and assertions from those which are well supported and based on fact. While I do not believe as yet there has been as much exaggeration, vituperation or demagoguery in this campaign as there often is, yet I suppose we will have it before the campaign is over.
Make up your mind calmly, devoid of political emotion. There is no one quite as politically blind as one who cannot see inconsistencies in the conduct of his own party or his own candidate. Many Democrats, for instance, applaud Kennedy's criticism of the Benson farm program without recognizing that he was one of a few Democrats who voted for that program. Many Republicans applaud Nixon for pointing out that the Democrats are ignoring the principles of Jefferson whom they pretend to worship without recognizing that Nixon too departs from them.
To the end that this student body may hear both sides, over two months ago I invited both candidates, Nixon and Kennedy, to address this student body, Because of their crowded schedules, neither of them will be able to accept our offer. We are, therefore, trying to get Governor Dewey and Governor Stevenson both of whom were illustrious candidates for President of their respective parties on two occasions. I am sorry school was not in session when John Kennedy appeared in Salt Lake so you who do not live here could have heard him; I hope when Richard Nixon comes, you will all either go to hear him or listen to him on the radio. He addressed us in this Fieldhouse two years ago. The crowd of 12,000, he informed me, was the largest crowd he had at that time spoken to in the 1958 senatorial campaign.
In any event, I suggest it is your duty as college students to listen to the remaining four national debates between the candidates. That ought to be minimum preparation for you to know the issues of the day and your duty as citizens.
Finally, may I suggest that you attempt to judge the issues of the day from the standpoint of what is good for your country and not what is selfishly good for you as an individual. Both parties will attempt appeals to special classes and special groups when they ought to be thinking of what is good for the country as a whole.
What we need is a return to the belief of our Constitutional fathers that it is our duty to support the government and not the duty of the government to support us. If we become in this country mercenary to the extent that we favor men for office because they are going to favor our particular group rather than the country as a whole, we will be ready in this country to cease as a nation and to go the way that nineteen other civilizations have gone when they came to rely upon the government for their sustenance.
We have altogether too many people in both parties today who are trying to purchase your votes by promising you certain things that will be of help to you individually. In my judgment that is wrong. These appeals to minority groups have resulted in the prevailing tendency of nearly all segments of our economy to run to the government for help every time they are in need. The result has been the development of class hatred and bitterness in our public life to an extent never previously imagined. Let me read the words of former Admiral Ben Moreel:
The industrialist says the politician is venal and self-seeking; the politician paints the industrialist as a greedy monster; the teacher, the minister, the doctor, the workman-all point the finger of criticism at other elements in our body politic.
We are torn by internal dissension. Each one denounces special privilege and government largesse-for the other fellow. But when it touches his own interest, he rationalizes his special privilege as being "for the public welfare."
We businessmen look for government subsidies or loans when we are unable to obtain funds from private sources. The farmer wants a guaranteed income, subsidized electricity, irrigation and tools, The workman wants a subsidized house, food, medical care, retirement and burial. The doctor is opposed to these things but wants subsidized training, research and laboratories. The educator points out the deplorable lowering of moral standards resulting from government hand-outs-and suggests that the government subsidize his university! The scientist implores government to provide funds for research "essential to the common welfare."
The young people want government to provide them with an education, a job and a pension. The old people are content, for the moment, with generous retirement provisions.
Over all looms the confident politician who is sure that appeals to self-interest constitute the winning ticket-so much so that the Democratic national committee's booklet on the Brannan Farm Plan in 1952 was issued under the title, "What's In It For You?" Apparently with complete assurance of an eager welcome by both farmers and consumers.
If I take a man's belongings by stealth or violence, then this is called theft. And the law provides that I be punished. But by some strange reasoning we appear to have rationalized a code of ethics "whereby under the guise of taxation a person's property may be taken from him-without his consent-and used for the special benefit of ourselves or others." We then call it "promoting the general welfare," and in this guise, there is no imputation of dishonesty. In fact, our legislators who do these things are looked upon by many as public benefactors!
Now admittedly some taxes have to be exacted for the benefit of the general welfare, such as for education of our children. But both parties are now vying with each other to see who can promise the most to various segments of our economy under the false guise of promoting the general welfare. I suggest you analyze these claims very carefully and determine for yourself which party or which candidate offends most in this particular.
Now lest any of you think I am partisan in this, let me quote for the Democrats the founder of their party, Thomas Jefferson. Certain comments of his are particularly pertinent today:
I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared . . . To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt . . .
He then in prophetic language warned us of the choice which we must now make:
We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude . . . If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and in our amusements . . . If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
For the Republicans, I quote from Theodore Roosevelt. With prophetic vision he said:
The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price . . . and love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
This philosophy of Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt transcends party lines for it is based upon the philosophy that the spirit of man is the most important thing in life and that this spirit nurtures and grows through self-development-through working out one s own economic as well as spiritual development. That is also good Christian doctrine-the doctrine of developing and being rewarded for the development of our own talents, of rendering unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's and unto God those things which are God's, but being primarily responsible for our own deeds and accomplishments.
In the words of Howard E. Kershner:
One may lose his eyes, his hearing and his voice, or all three, and still be useful and successful. One may lose his hands, his feet, or both, and still do useful work and be a credit to his family and his country. One may lose his health and suffer all his life and still be a great musician, a poet, an artist or a statesman.
No one has ever written sweeter music than Beethoven, who could not hear. No one perceived more clearly the beauties of nature than Milton who could not see. Blind men have achieved fame as lawyers, senators, educators, and ministers. One can overcome almost any handicap if he retains his spirit. If his spirit falters, even though he may have a strong and perfect body, he will accomplish nothing.
That which strengthens, emboldens and ennobles the spirit of man, improves society and carries the world forward toward its goal of better, finer and more righteous living.
Poverty is no disgrace and scarcely a handicap to the courageous of spirit. If men develop their self-reliance by meeting and solving the problems that present themselves, they achieve great strength, integrity and force of character. They demonstrate the fact that they were created in the image of God. They achieve the potential given them by the Creator.
On the other hand, when men become accustomed to living from subsidies, bounties, long-continued charity or any means of sustaining themselves by the effort of others, they lose confidence, integrity, courage, initiative and independence. The soul grows smaller and the spirit withers as one seeks more and more to cast the burden of his life upon his neighbors, the taxpayers. Herein lies the soul-destroying evil inherent in any type of collectivism, call it socialism, fascism, communism or welfare statism.
All of these ideologies teach men that they are not custodians of their own weal or woe but that they are meant to be groveling creatures forever pleading with stronger men who exercise the authority of government for bigger and better handouts of ever increasing variety.
Such men may have strong, healthy bodies, but, having lost their spirit the image of God dies within them and they become leaners and not lifters. They become a part of the problem and not a part of the answer.
That which ministers to the courage, bravery and independence of man is from God and that which teaches him to obtain as much as possible of his living from the labor of others is from Satan.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is an ideology developed by the prince of the powers of darkness for destroying the souls of men.
I, therefore, suggest that irrespective of the party to which you belong you use your influence for the preservation of freedom of action on your part with concomitant individual responsibility; preserve in your life the spirit of adventure, of free enterprise, the right to choose your own vocation based on your individual responsibility, unsupported by government subsidies. I could say more on this point, but since I have urged restraint on each of you in formulating your own political views, I shall exercise that restraint myself. I think I may be pardoned, however, since at the present time my political affiliation is known to be Republican (it has not always been that) by referring to the philosophy of two great Democratic presidents.
Grover Cleveland, when he was presented with a legislative bill providing for a very modest gift of free seeds to farmers, vetoed it on the ground that though the people should support the government, the government should never support the people.
Woodrow Wilson in his day, with deep political insight, stated that he never wanted to see the little red school house subordinated to the political thinking of Washington.
In speaking of the typical American, he said: "He does not want a group of experts sitting behind closed doors in Washington, trying to pray Providence to him."
He observed that the things that had made America great were not the things which it did under compulsion of law, but of its own volition.
Finally, he concluded that "The history of liberty is the history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it." Oh, how far our political leaders have strayed from his philosophy!
Robert Muntzel has informed us that:
Great nations rise and fall-the people go from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back again into bondage.
Nineteen recorded civilizations have gone that way.
I hope the American people by their own action, regardless of party, will awaken to the fact that if this nation itself is to survive as a nation, we must avoid the dangers inherent in giving more powers to our government. If you think that I am biased in making that statement, let me quote from the father of our country, who was the only president we have ever had who was not affiliated with a particular political party. George Washington told us, "Government is not reason, government is not eloquence, government is a force; like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
May I conclude by saying a word with respect to our honor system. You have either seen or will see placards in the classrooms of this university containing a quotation from Joseph Smith which reads, "Make honor the standard with all men." Many of you may not know that statement comes from the political platform on which Joseph Smith aspired to be President of the United States. In that platform, some sixteen years before the outbreak of the Civil War, he urged:
Petition . . . your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850 . . . Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire them to labor like other human beings; for "an hour of virtuous liberty on earth is worth a whole eternity of bondage!" Abolish the practice in the army and navy of trying men by court martial for desertion; if a soldier or marine runs away, send him his wages, with this instruction, that his country will never trust him again; he has forfeited his honor. Make HONOR the standard with all men.
(An excerpt of an address given to the Brigham Young University student body by President Ernest L. Wilkinson on October 5, 1960.)
Because this is a year for a national political election, I desire to make a statement with respect to the attitude of the university concerning politics.
Many people get so disgusted with politics that they take no interest in the issues of the time or the persons running for office. I remember a speaker on this campus when I was here as a student saying that "Politics is the worse kind of ticks and should be shunned like poison." In my judgment, this is an entirely wrong attitude whether you be a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. Our political life is corrupt only when the people permit it to become corrupt. Our political life is sound to the extent that the people have wisdom and participate in politics. We therefore urge all students to become active politically. And when I say active, I do not mean that you become rabidly partisan.
I remember a couple of years ago when I was still a young man, hearing the story of a politician in Missouri. He was from St. Louis and attended the state convention as a delegate. He nominated someone for governor and in order to make it plain that he was a faithful Democrat he said that he had been so faithful that he would even vote for a yellow dog if he were on the Democratic ticket. His nominee did not become the nominee of the party and he bolted the party. And he went out and campaigned in favor of someone on the other ticket. In a speech he was giving, someone heckled him and said, "I thought that at the state convention you said you would vote for a yellow dog if he were on the Democratic ticket." He answered, "That is true, but lower than that, I will not go."
Now I would like to suggest to you, contrary to this Missouri Democrat, that you should always place principle above party and not hesitate to change your party if it departs from the standards in which you believe or nominates candidates whom you do not consider experienced or worthy of your vote.
Second, I should like to suggest that in making up your political mind, you become well informed. If, because of heredity or environment, you are inclined to believe in the views of one party, I suggest you take as many occasions as you can to read or hear the speeches of those representing the other party. One does not get informed if he merely listens to the speeches of the party he already favors.
In becoming informed, please analyze critically the speeches you hear. Separate the unfounded allegations and assertions from those which are well supported and based on fact. While I do not believe as yet there has been as much exaggeration, vituperation or demagoguery in this campaign as there often is, yet I suppose we will have it before the campaign is over.
Make up your mind calmly, devoid of political emotion. There is no one quite as politically blind as one who cannot see inconsistencies in the conduct of his own party or his own candidate. Many Democrats, for instance, applaud Kennedy's criticism of the Benson farm program without recognizing that he was one of a few Democrats who voted for that program. Many Republicans applaud Nixon for pointing out that the Democrats are ignoring the principles of Jefferson whom they pretend to worship without recognizing that Nixon too departs from them.
To the end that this student body may hear both sides, over two months ago I invited both candidates, Nixon and Kennedy, to address this student body, Because of their crowded schedules, neither of them will be able to accept our offer. We are, therefore, trying to get Governor Dewey and Governor Stevenson both of whom were illustrious candidates for President of their respective parties on two occasions. I am sorry school was not in session when John Kennedy appeared in Salt Lake so you who do not live here could have heard him; I hope when Richard Nixon comes, you will all either go to hear him or listen to him on the radio. He addressed us in this Fieldhouse two years ago. The crowd of 12,000, he informed me, was the largest crowd he had at that time spoken to in the 1958 senatorial campaign.
In any event, I suggest it is your duty as college students to listen to the remaining four national debates between the candidates. That ought to be minimum preparation for you to know the issues of the day and your duty as citizens.
Finally, may I suggest that you attempt to judge the issues of the day from the standpoint of what is good for your country and not what is selfishly good for you as an individual. Both parties will attempt appeals to special classes and special groups when they ought to be thinking of what is good for the country as a whole.
What we need is a return to the belief of our Constitutional fathers that it is our duty to support the government and not the duty of the government to support us. If we become in this country mercenary to the extent that we favor men for office because they are going to favor our particular group rather than the country as a whole, we will be ready in this country to cease as a nation and to go the way that nineteen other civilizations have gone when they came to rely upon the government for their sustenance.
We have altogether too many people in both parties today who are trying to purchase your votes by promising you certain things that will be of help to you individually. In my judgment that is wrong. These appeals to minority groups have resulted in the prevailing tendency of nearly all segments of our economy to run to the government for help every time they are in need. The result has been the development of class hatred and bitterness in our public life to an extent never previously imagined. Let me read the words of former Admiral Ben Moreel:
The industrialist says the politician is venal and self-seeking; the politician paints the industrialist as a greedy monster; the teacher, the minister, the doctor, the workman-all point the finger of criticism at other elements in our body politic.
We are torn by internal dissension. Each one denounces special privilege and government largesse-for the other fellow. But when it touches his own interest, he rationalizes his special privilege as being "for the public welfare."
We businessmen look for government subsidies or loans when we are unable to obtain funds from private sources. The farmer wants a guaranteed income, subsidized electricity, irrigation and tools, The workman wants a subsidized house, food, medical care, retirement and burial. The doctor is opposed to these things but wants subsidized training, research and laboratories. The educator points out the deplorable lowering of moral standards resulting from government hand-outs-and suggests that the government subsidize his university! The scientist implores government to provide funds for research "essential to the common welfare."
The young people want government to provide them with an education, a job and a pension. The old people are content, for the moment, with generous retirement provisions.
Over all looms the confident politician who is sure that appeals to self-interest constitute the winning ticket-so much so that the Democratic national committee's booklet on the Brannan Farm Plan in 1952 was issued under the title, "What's In It For You?" Apparently with complete assurance of an eager welcome by both farmers and consumers.
If I take a man's belongings by stealth or violence, then this is called theft. And the law provides that I be punished. But by some strange reasoning we appear to have rationalized a code of ethics "whereby under the guise of taxation a person's property may be taken from him-without his consent-and used for the special benefit of ourselves or others." We then call it "promoting the general welfare," and in this guise, there is no imputation of dishonesty. In fact, our legislators who do these things are looked upon by many as public benefactors!
Now admittedly some taxes have to be exacted for the benefit of the general welfare, such as for education of our children. But both parties are now vying with each other to see who can promise the most to various segments of our economy under the false guise of promoting the general welfare. I suggest you analyze these claims very carefully and determine for yourself which party or which candidate offends most in this particular.
Now lest any of you think I am partisan in this, let me quote for the Democrats the founder of their party, Thomas Jefferson. Certain comments of his are particularly pertinent today:
I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared . . . To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt . . .
He then in prophetic language warned us of the choice which we must now make:
We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude . . . If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and in our amusements . . . If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
For the Republicans, I quote from Theodore Roosevelt. With prophetic vision he said:
The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price . . . and love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
This philosophy of Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt transcends party lines for it is based upon the philosophy that the spirit of man is the most important thing in life and that this spirit nurtures and grows through self-development-through working out one s own economic as well as spiritual development. That is also good Christian doctrine-the doctrine of developing and being rewarded for the development of our own talents, of rendering unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's and unto God those things which are God's, but being primarily responsible for our own deeds and accomplishments.
In the words of Howard E. Kershner:
One may lose his eyes, his hearing and his voice, or all three, and still be useful and successful. One may lose his hands, his feet, or both, and still do useful work and be a credit to his family and his country. One may lose his health and suffer all his life and still be a great musician, a poet, an artist or a statesman.
No one has ever written sweeter music than Beethoven, who could not hear. No one perceived more clearly the beauties of nature than Milton who could not see. Blind men have achieved fame as lawyers, senators, educators, and ministers. One can overcome almost any handicap if he retains his spirit. If his spirit falters, even though he may have a strong and perfect body, he will accomplish nothing.
That which strengthens, emboldens and ennobles the spirit of man, improves society and carries the world forward toward its goal of better, finer and more righteous living.
Poverty is no disgrace and scarcely a handicap to the courageous of spirit. If men develop their self-reliance by meeting and solving the problems that present themselves, they achieve great strength, integrity and force of character. They demonstrate the fact that they were created in the image of God. They achieve the potential given them by the Creator.
On the other hand, when men become accustomed to living from subsidies, bounties, long-continued charity or any means of sustaining themselves by the effort of others, they lose confidence, integrity, courage, initiative and independence. The soul grows smaller and the spirit withers as one seeks more and more to cast the burden of his life upon his neighbors, the taxpayers. Herein lies the soul-destroying evil inherent in any type of collectivism, call it socialism, fascism, communism or welfare statism.
All of these ideologies teach men that they are not custodians of their own weal or woe but that they are meant to be groveling creatures forever pleading with stronger men who exercise the authority of government for bigger and better handouts of ever increasing variety.
Such men may have strong, healthy bodies, but, having lost their spirit the image of God dies within them and they become leaners and not lifters. They become a part of the problem and not a part of the answer.
That which ministers to the courage, bravery and independence of man is from God and that which teaches him to obtain as much as possible of his living from the labor of others is from Satan.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is an ideology developed by the prince of the powers of darkness for destroying the souls of men.
I, therefore, suggest that irrespective of the party to which you belong you use your influence for the preservation of freedom of action on your part with concomitant individual responsibility; preserve in your life the spirit of adventure, of free enterprise, the right to choose your own vocation based on your individual responsibility, unsupported by government subsidies. I could say more on this point, but since I have urged restraint on each of you in formulating your own political views, I shall exercise that restraint myself. I think I may be pardoned, however, since at the present time my political affiliation is known to be Republican (it has not always been that) by referring to the philosophy of two great Democratic presidents.
Grover Cleveland, when he was presented with a legislative bill providing for a very modest gift of free seeds to farmers, vetoed it on the ground that though the people should support the government, the government should never support the people.
Woodrow Wilson in his day, with deep political insight, stated that he never wanted to see the little red school house subordinated to the political thinking of Washington.
In speaking of the typical American, he said: "He does not want a group of experts sitting behind closed doors in Washington, trying to pray Providence to him."
He observed that the things that had made America great were not the things which it did under compulsion of law, but of its own volition.
Finally, he concluded that "The history of liberty is the history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it." Oh, how far our political leaders have strayed from his philosophy!
Robert Muntzel has informed us that:
Great nations rise and fall-the people go from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back again into bondage.
Nineteen recorded civilizations have gone that way.
I hope the American people by their own action, regardless of party, will awaken to the fact that if this nation itself is to survive as a nation, we must avoid the dangers inherent in giving more powers to our government. If you think that I am biased in making that statement, let me quote from the father of our country, who was the only president we have ever had who was not affiliated with a particular political party. George Washington told us, "Government is not reason, government is not eloquence, government is a force; like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
May I conclude by saying a word with respect to our honor system. You have either seen or will see placards in the classrooms of this university containing a quotation from Joseph Smith which reads, "Make honor the standard with all men." Many of you may not know that statement comes from the political platform on which Joseph Smith aspired to be President of the United States. In that platform, some sixteen years before the outbreak of the Civil War, he urged:
Petition . . . your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850 . . . Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire them to labor like other human beings; for "an hour of virtuous liberty on earth is worth a whole eternity of bondage!" Abolish the practice in the army and navy of trying men by court martial for desertion; if a soldier or marine runs away, send him his wages, with this instruction, that his country will never trust him again; he has forfeited his honor. Make HONOR the standard with all men.
(An excerpt of an address given to the Brigham Young University student body by President Ernest L. Wilkinson on October 5, 1960.)
A Lesson On Socialism
I recently got this in an e-mail. It's just urban legend, but I would do this in an instant if my students pressed the issue.
-------- Original Message --------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Why bother to study?
An economics professor stated he had never failed a single student before, but he recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, after the Great Equalizer plan was complete. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, and to their great surprise, the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)