Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Books, Books and More Books!

Well, I did it! Way back in December of last year, I told you about a challenge that Karl Rove and then President Bush had regarding how many books each had read during the year.

I challenged myself to read twenty-four books. It seemed a reasonable goal. I homeschool my children, I have other pursuits-politics is just one, and I felt like two books a month was going to be a stretch.
Surprise! Or not I suppose; I know I am a fast reader, but really, I read 33 books! I had no idea I could read that many, and still provide a hot meal for my family on a regular basis! I’ve read two just since Christmas; Ok, so one was like eating cotton candy and I read it in less than 12 hours, but I DID read it!

I thought I would read mostly nonfiction, that is my “preferred” genre, but I surprised myself.
I read a wide variety of books, including “The Hobbit” that I read for the very first time, and “The Screwtape Letters”, both of which I enjoyed very much. I read two from Michael Crichton, and two from Shannon Hale; Hale being the cotton candy type, Crichton being more of the “makes you wonder” kind of book.

I read a series from the LDS market: “The Brothers.” The series of six books is by Chris Stewart and starts out in the Preexistence, moves to the days after a nuclear attack on Washington D.C.; very interesting series.
Book 6(or is it seven?) in my favorite series “Outlander” came out in September, and while usually the world stops when Diana Gabaldon’s books come out, not so this time. I had a much harder time with this one; I’m still anxious for the next one however.

I read a couple of books with a spiritual message or theme, one about the women in the Scriptures, and one about Moroni, an ancient prophet from the Book of Mormon. Both recommended. I also read “The Life of our Lord” by Charles Dickens; a lovely little book.

I will admit a few failures-well, not failures so much as “ugh! I am going to finish these if they kill me” kind of books, and I really WILL finish them, but they were not terribly engaging, and while mostly interesting, I did move on to other things; they do still have the bookmarks in them though, making finishing them easier to do!

I have numerous books on my “shelf”, waiting their turn. I’ve also just started Sarah Palin’s “Going Rogue” which I received for Christmas, and am quite excited to read. I’m on chapter four and I love it already. I’m also reading “The Real George Washington” which I am enjoying immensely; we need more heroes like him.

In the next couple of weeks, I’ll be listing what’s on my shelf, and taking down the “Books read in 2009”, so if you’re interested in any of the titles, you can find them on the sidebar for now.

I also challenged those of you who were reading this blog last year to do the same. Did you? I’d love to know what you read, what you liked, and what you put down. Care to share?

Friday, December 25, 2009

Merry Christmas

Well, the stockings are empty, the packages opened; it will be a few hours until Grandpa arrives, and there is calm in the air. Books are being read, movies are being watched, and I have a few minutes to wish you all a Merry Christmas before I have to get busy in the kitchen in earnest.

I hope you all have a Merry Christmas. Whatever your political leanings, this is the one time of the year when, hopefully, we can put aside our differences, pull up a seat, and have a lovely day.

May your day be "Merry and Bright", and if you are lucky enough to have a White Christmas, all the better!

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Hate Mongers

Today brings news that the far left is attacking Mrs. Lieberman-Joe Lieberman's wife. Why you ask? Well it seems that Mr. Lieberman is opposing government run health care, and Mrs. Lieberman is the carrot to rein old Joe in.

Mrs. Lieberman is the global ambassador for the Susan G. Komen breast cancer foundation. I have no idea what her duties and responsibilities are, but that's not really the point.

For at least a generation, we, as women, have been told we don't need a man to complete us; we don't need to be defined by a man, we can stand on our own two feet and be independent; successful in our own right. Here we have a woman doing just that, and they want to tack her on to her husband’s coat tails in order to smear her.
I thought we didn’t need a man to complete us? I thought we were good to stand alone and be counted.

The hypocrisy of the left is staggering. Mrs. Lieberman has NOTHING to do with her husband’s job; nor he with hers. Why this good, successful woman should be excoriated because of her husband’s politics is beyond me.

The left is even calling in the big guns-Ellen DeGeneres and Neil Patrick Harris-both homosexuals, to join in the fight to get Mrs. Lieberman canned. This is an odd tactic. Does their being homosexuals make them better judges of character? Do they know something we don’t about ambassadorships?

What we see here is nothing more than liberal hypocrisy. It makes as much sense to smear Mrs. Lieberman for her husband’s voting record, as it does to blame Sean Hannity for Nancy Pelosi being a runner up for Time Magazines “Person of the Year” award.

People, liberals: call somebody, write somebody. Call off the attack dogs; the hate mongers. This good, sweet woman should be off limits, as should be any spouse or child of a politician or celebrity.

She doesn’t deserve to be attacked, and you all know it.

The Sky Isn’t Falling—Yet

The world is a crazy place right now. We have an out of control government, spending like drunken sailors on shore leave; we have communists and genuine radicals running said government, making decisions that are at once, equally outrageous and unconstitutional; we have unemployment numbers that are staggering despite seasonal improvements; our liberties and freedoms are under assault at every turn. We should be, and are rightly so, horrified. Yet through it all, we have hope. Not the kind of hope that Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” (his words, not mine) imagined, but real hope.

Whatever your Christian denomination, this season is a season of hope; the promise of a brighter day. We know our Savior lives; He was born to rescue us, His children, from our lost and fallen state. We also have the promise of scripture that the wars and rumors of wars are not a surprise to Him; that these, the Last Days, have been accounted for, prophesied of long before our country and our very way of life came under attack.

In this season of giving, we also need to think about renewal. We need to renew our efforts in behalf of our country. We need to step to higher ground, get out of our comfort zones, and fight for our freedoms.

December 15, marks the 218 anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. TWO HUNDRED EIGHTEEN YEARS! The Bill of Rights has withstood assault after assault, and now, today, December 15, 2009 it’s nearly unrecognizable; the Constitution specifies three federal crimes: piracy, counterfeiting and treason. Just three, yet the current administration would make it a crime for you to not buy health insurance.

I recently challenged a liberal friend of ours to read the Constitution and check everything coming out of Washington against it; he’d find very little that will hold up to Constitutional scrutiny. Since he has yet to report back, my best guess is he blew off my valid challenge.
So I challenge you. Read the Constitution; read the Bill of Rights. Know what legacy was given to us, and make the effort to do what it will take to put this country back on its Constitutional footings.

These are perilous times no doubt, but we have hope. My worldview is that our Constitution is a divinely inspired document; that the Founding Fathers were raised up specifically for their task; a country with a divine document as its firm charter will not be smitten by the hands of men. The Lord knows our plight, and will come to our aid if we prove worthy.

So, while the sky isn’t falling just yet, we must be prepared to stand firm and strong against the buffeting winds.

For today, our common motto is “Peace on Earth, Goodwill toward Men,” yet the adversary never sleeps. Be watchful this Christmas season, sleep with one eye open; try to have a Merry Christmas, to relax a bit, but use this season of rest and hope and love to fortify yourselves for the coming battles; they will be intense.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Spelling Software

My friend Ritsumei, also a homeschool mom, has a give away on her blog for some spelling software that looks pretty cool. I thought some one else might be interested too.
I am wondering if it will help my not so good older speller.
Check it out:

Visit Baby Steps
SpellQuizzer software works with any spelling program, whether homeschool or public. Click to enter Ritsumei's giveaway on Baby Steps for a chance to win SpellQuizzer!

Thursday, November 26, 2009

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation 1789

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

G. Washington

Tuesday, November 24, 2009


I was chastised today by a blog reader who made a comment about my post yesterday regarding Glenn Beck, and the new plan for refounding America.

This reader, a self described progressive Democrat, said I was dead wrong; progressives love this country as much as we (conservatives) “say we do”.

I hope today, to set the record straight; to clarify my comments and to expound a little on what Progressivism really is.

First, I said that Democrats as well as Republicans love this country, but to make no mistake, Progressives want to see the downfall of this great country.
I stand by this comment.

Progressivism, by definition is a plan for reform, egalitarian style. You’ve heard the term “Share the wealth”? That is egalitarianism, leveling the playing field if you will, which is at the heart of progressivism.

Progressives believe that we should all be equal; and cite the Declaration of Independence as proof:
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal…”

What they are missing, is the word “created”. We ARE all CREATED equal; we have the same rights across the board as the next guy. We have the same opportunities as the next guy.
What we DO with that gift of equality is what sets us apart; makes each of us unique. It’s also what makes us rich or poor, bond or free, contributing or criminal.

Progressivism is lock-step with Communism; it’s one in the same and it’s all about control.

Think about the health care “reform” that will save us from the greedy insurance providers; think about Cap and Trade that will save us from those rising temperatures and those who use incandescent lightbulbs(which we found out yesterday is one of the biggest hoaxes perpetuated on mankind-yes, even bigger than the balloon boy hoax.).
The progressives have taken over our banks and our industry, now they want our health care and our lifestyles.

It isn’t possible to legislate charity or goodwill; it isn’t possible to legislate wealth for the masses, but these things are what Democrats have been after for generations. Progressives want to take it a step further, and not only legislate, but regulate every aspect of our lives; they want to control us.

Progressives want to stifle free speech and dissent. They want to control what you hear and what you read. Cass Sunstein and Arianna Huffington have said so in the last few days. I’ve watched the video and read the transcripts, so don’t try to tell me it’s not being debated.

So, JeanB, I can accept that you are a Democrat, and I’m sure I’d even enjoy a lively discussion with you.
If you are a fiscally responsible Democrat, whose policies are constitutionally sound, I’d even consider voting for you, but do you really want to be a Progressive?
Do you really think controlling the population is a good plan? A Godly plan?
Do you really want to align yourself with those who would overthrow the Constitution?

Nancy Pelosi herself said in a recent press release that objections to the MANDATE to make you buy into the government health care plan are “nonsensical”, that the “power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited”. That is Communism; think USSR.

Are you sure you want to be part of THAT?

I don’t think that's part of the America that either of us love.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Glenn Beck at the Villages

Please watch this Glenn Beck rally. He was in Florida over the weekend, and gave an impassioned speech, with ideas and plans for taking our country back from the Progressive downward spiral we are on.
There are no doubts that Democrats as well as Republicans love our country, and that each of us wants what's best; please have no illusions that the Progressives feel the same way. They want the complete downfall of our country, we can't let that happen.

There are five parts, please watch them all, it will take about 45 min.

I will be joining Glenn in D.C. in August. Meet me there.

Thanks to for the video feed.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Another Failed Presidency

I have an article to share. I love The American Thinker blog, I read it almost every day. I think this article is relevant, maybe more so than when it was written 3 months ago--that's forever ago in political terms :D

Another Failed Presidency

Friday, November 13, 2009

Course Correction

It seems we are on a course correction in this country.

We’ve let the far left have a chance; we are good about taking turns in this country, but alas, finally, we’ve found it to be the wrong course. I could have told you as much.

Whether the far left likes it or not, we are traditionally a “center right” country. Here is the Gallup from October 26th of this year:
Gallup Poll

We like limited government, and maximum freedoms. We like to run our lives according to the dictates of our own conscience, and we like others to do the same. We like to give a hand up, not a hand out.

We believe in freedom of choice, but once you’ve made that choice, you should live with it, and make the best of it.

We believe we are the best ones to decide how our money should be spent, and who should receive it.

We believe we have the right to own a firearm, to discharge it in the protection of our homes and families; to guard against tyranny of all sorts.

We gave the Democrats a chance, they stuck us with a far, far left ideologue, in a word, a Marxist, and the tides are turning. The most recent Gallup poll from today, shows that 48% to 44% people-largely independents, are planning to vote Republican.

Well wahoo. The only thing that’s good about this will be watching the left go batty. It’s not a good thing, if we just hire a democrat lite for our next elected official, whoever he may be.

Did you see the fiasco in New York 23 by any chance? The Republican candidate, had taken money from Acorn, was pro abortion, and endorsed the DEMOCRAT when she dropped out of the race. This is NOT the kind of Republican we need.

We need solid CONSERVATIVES to come to the fore,(NOT solid Republicans, there is no such thing anymore) and lead this nation back to peace and prosperity; back to limited government, and Constitutional principles.

It’s going to take some research, some footwork and some letter writing campaigns, but I believe firmly there ARE genuine conservatives out there; those willing to fight for right, because make no mistake, it IS about right vs. wrong, not right vs. left.

Pay attention to your elected officials. If you feel that a candidate is a true conservative, then open a dialogue with them. Go to the Town Halls and other forums where they are speaking. Go to their offices, make appointments with them. Get to know them. Find those conservatives who hold the same values as you. You don’t have to agree with them on everything, but if you agree on 75-85 percent of the issues, then that’s a pretty darn good indication that they will be someone you can feel confident about voting for. And, if you find they are trying to subvert the Constitution, make sure they know they'll be fired.

We can maintain this course correction but it will take all of us, and it will take time and effort; it can be done, and I believe firmly God will be on our side.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Simple Truths

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn`t buy one.

If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

Friday, November 6, 2009

DC Debacle

Nancy Pelosi wants to force a vote tomorrow-Nov. 7th for part one of two votes, comprising the most egregious takeover of American liberties ever.
Health Care, and Cap and Tax. Two very bad plans if you are a liberty loving American; two very promising plans if you are a Socialist/Marxist.

What these two things together will do, is to strangle our liberties. What one doesn't cover the other will.

For Example, under the cap and tax scam, the only kind of Q-tips you will be able to buy is something from organic cotton, flimsily constructed out of some kind of degradeable material(because your carbon footprint is too large as it is), mandated to be too wide to go in your ear in the first place. Now, American ingenuity being what it is, you peel off some of the cotton, so that you can actually clean down in your ear canal, thereby cirumventing the government mandated safety feature.
Then, under the health care scam, if you puncture your eardrum using a Q-tip (that you of course have peeled back to fit into your ear), very likely it wouldn't be covered, because as we all know, you aren't supposed to actually stick a Q-tip  IN your ear; you behaved badly, SOL.

I know this sounds far fetched, but the point is to get  you to think about the ramifications of these horrendous bills. What one bill doesn't cover, the other will.

These bills are not about doing what's right, it's about doing what is expedient for the Marxist agenda-the takeover of every aspect of our lives, and putting it under government supervision; the collapse of captialism.

If you smoke, we all know it's genuinely bad for you, so first you will be taxed even worse than you are now, then, your health care will be less helpful, because you should have known better. You get lung cancer, well, we're sorry, but we're going to take care of someone who is in better shape, someone who hasn't smoked and ruined their lungs in the first place.

You like to leave your thermostat at 70 degrees in the winter? Well get used to the idea that under cap and tax, you will have to not only pay extra for those few degrees of comfort, but you will also likely be subject to having your thermostat remotely turned down for the good of the environment-sort of a share the warmth idea, you can't be comfortable if someone else is chilled; besides, those extra couple of degrees will increase your carbon footprint exponentially, and we can't have that.

These two bill will spell the end of capitalism as we know it in this country; that's the plan. We'll have a new caste system implemented, the Elites, and the rest of us. It happened in the Soviet Union, it happened in Communist Germany, it happens in North Korea and China. They want us to be next.

The election results on Tuesday were a fabulous start, they signal that the country is waking up to the mistakes of 2008, but it alone can't stop the witch and the wizard from trying to work their evil magic, and circumvent the will of the American people.

For the love of all we hold dear, fight back. To paraphrase one of my favorite hymns, we must make the air ring with the music of the telephone bells; the halls hum with the tattoo of shoes on marble floors. We must do what we can to stop this DC debacle, time is running out for all of us.

The Madness of Queen Nancy


It's one thing to be serene under fire, it's another to be delusional.
More than a few Democrats in Congress are perplexed and worried that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is insisting on ramming through a 1,900-page health care bill on Saturday, just days after her party took heavy losses in Tuesday's elections. "It reminds me of Major Nicholson, the obsessed British major in the film 'Bridge on the River Kwai,'" one Democrat told me. "She is fixated on finishing her health care bridge even as she's lost sight of where it's going and what damage it could cause to her own troops.

Indeed, the Speaker's take on Tuesday's off-year elections struck some of her own members as delusive "happy talk." "From our perspective, we won last night," a cheerful Ms. Pelosi told reporters, citing her party's pick-up of a single House seat in a New York special election and retention of another strongly Democratic seat in California.

That's not how many of her own troops see it. Democratic Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama told that members are "very, very sensitive" to the fact that the agenda being pushed by party leaders has "the potential to cost some of our front-line members their seats"

On health care, added New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell: "People who had weak knees before are going to have weaker knees now."

Ms. Pelosi, however, apparently thinks the moment is ripe to use sheer political muscle to pass legislation reordering one sixth of the economy, with zero Republican support. The right mixture of "incentives" and Rahm Emanuel-style pressure, she believes, will bring enough Democrats to heel to vote for the bill.

The obsession Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have with passing health care strikes some Democratic moderates as a completely misplaced priority. Polls show that fewer than a fifth of Americans rank health care reform as the most important issue. Their biggest concern right now is jobs. Only 29% of voters in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll believe the economy "has hit the bottom."

That's also the message from Moody's Mark Zandi, who has become the de facto chief outside economic adviser to the Democratic Congress in recent months and has been telling House Democrats to expect unemployment to be "sticky and stubborn," remaining near 10% a year from now. A similar warning comes from Christina Romer, chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, who predicts unemployment will be 9.5% when midterm elections occur a year from now.

These considerations spook not just the 49 House Democrats who sit in districts won by John McCain last year. Even liberals say lessons need to be taken from Tuesday's shellacking: "What the exit polls showed was real voter fatigue with how crowded the plate is," Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, chairman of his party's freshman class, told the New York Times. "We need to take a deep breath, step back and clean the plate before we add to it."

That the bill would be a job killer isn't the only concern. Democrats worry about a backlash from the one-fourth of seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage -- a program that faces steep cuts in both the likely Senate and House bills.

But Speaker Pelosi isn't about to step back. In fact, she plans to force her troops to vote on health care just one day after Friday's jobless numbers are due, which are likely to show unemployment still growing. "When I take this bill to the floor, it will win," she proclaimed earlier this year.
One Democratic House moderate says the leadership has mislearned a lesson from the 1994 collapse of Hillary Clinton's health care bill. "They believe they lost the elections that year because they failed to pass anything," he says. "But they forget it might have been even worse if they'd passed the wrong bill."
The obsession with passing a clearly flawed and overly complex health care bill does indeed recall the classic movie in which Major Nicholson (played memorably by Alec Guinness) convinces his fellow British POWs in Thailand to build a railway bridge for their Japanese captors -- losing touch with the larger reality that the bridge would be used by the enemy against his own people.
John Feenery, who worked for then-House Minority Leader Bob Michel, sees many similarities with Congress's ill-fated rush to pass "catastrophic" health coverage for seniors in 1988. "Like the catastrophic bill, the Democrats' health care bill frontloads the pain and backloads the gain," he told CNN last month. Because Democrats wanted to avoid a negative deficit score from the Congressional Budget Office, taxes went up immediately while benefits were phased in. But seniors revolted. House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski was famously chased down a Chicago street by an angry mob. In November, 1989 -- almost exactly 20 years ago -- Congress took the extraordinary step of repealing the catastrophic health care law.
Should the far more complex health care bill now being debated pass, no one expects it could be fully repealed. But Democrats surely would pay a political price for passing a liberal bill with no bipartisan support. Like Major Nicholson on the River Kwai, they may wake up to find they built a monument to a set of presumptions that were really a form of madness.

To read more stories like this one, please subscribe to Political Diary.

Keeping Up

Well, I've been offline for about a month, we moved, and there is no DSL here. Internet service, being a mid level priority for the breadwinner, finally found us a Verizon wireless modem, so we are back in business. Whew!

Much has happened in the political world, and there is even a glimmer of REAL hope on the horizon.
I'm anxious to get back to talking about the issues of the day.

I would, at this point, hope that everyone is calling and/or writing their representatives, and reminding them that they work for us; remind them their jobs are on the line.
Remember that Socialism, Marxism and the rest never sleep, and that vigilance is required to keep our Republic free.

I heard a quote today from Alcee Hastings, FL 23rd. He said that they would listen to the people who came to the Capital today for the "Emergency House Call" organized by Michelle Bachman; they'd listen to the gripes and complaints, but it wouldn't make any difference in the vote for health care.
Does that sound like he knows who he works for? The arrogance is astonishing.

They really do NOT care what the majority of American's want, and this is NOT about health care. It is about the systematic takeover of the liberties God has granted us, and that our Founding Fathers recognized. Plenty of people have been fooled. Write letters, call your representatives, write the editor of your local paper.
Make some more noise.
Then, in 2010, fire anyone who voted for the stimulus; who voted for the bailouts; who voted for cap and tax, and anyone who votes for socialized medicine. Vote in some new blood, those who hold dear the Founding Documents of this great nation.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Religious Freedom

Elder Dallin H. Oaks is an Apostle of the Lord, for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His remarks today at BYU-I were timely and inspired.

13 October 2009 Transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks speech given at BYU-Idaho on 13 October 2009.

My dear young friends, I am pleased to speak to this BYU-Idaho audience. I am conscious that I am also speaking to many in other places. In this time of the Internet, what we say in one place is instantly put before a wider audience, including many to whom we do not intend to speak. That complicates my task, so I ask your understanding as I speak to a very diverse audience.

In choosing my subject I have relied on an old military maxim that when there is a battle underway, persons who desire to join the fray should “march to the sound of the guns.”[i] So it is that I invite you to march with me as I speak about religious freedom under the United States Constitution. There is a battle over the meaning of that freedom. The contest is of eternal importance, and it is your generation that must understand the issues and make the efforts to prevail.


An 1833 revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that the Lord established the United States Constitution by wise men whom he raised up for that very purpose (Doctrine and Covenants 101:80). The Lord also declared that this constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77; emphasis added).

In 1833, when almost all people in the world were still ruled by kings or tyrants, few could see how the infant United States Constitution could be divinely designed “for the rights and protection of all flesh.” Today, 176 years after that revelation, almost every nation in the world has adopted a written constitution, and the United States Constitution profoundly influenced all of them. Truly, this nation’s most important export is its constitution, whose great principles stand as a model “for the rights and protection of all flesh.” On the vital human right of religious freedom, however, many constitutions fall short of the protections that are needed, so we are grateful that the United States government seeks to encourage religious freedom all over the world.[ii]


To illustrate the importance of basic human rights in other countries, I refer to some recent history in Mongolia, which shows that the religious freedom we have taken for granted in the United States must be won by dangerous sacrifice in some other nations.

Following the perestroika movement in the Soviet Union, popular demonstrations in Mongolia forced the Communist government to resign in March 1990. Other political parties were legalized, but the first Mongolian elections gave the Communists a majority in the new parliament, and the old repressive attitudes persisted in all government departments. The full functioning of a democratic process and the full enjoyment of the people’s needed freedoms do not occur without a struggle. In Mongolia, the freedoms of speech, press and religion — a principal feature of the inspired United States Constitution — remained unfulfilled.

In that precarious environment, a 42-year-old married woman, Oyun Altangerel, a department head in the state library, courageously took some actions that would prove historic. Acting against official pressure, she organized a “Democratic Association Branch Council.” This 12-member group, the first of its kind, spoke out for democracy and proposed that state employees have the freedoms of worship, belief and expression, including the right to belong to a political party of their choice.

When Oyun and others were fired from their state employment, Oyun began a hunger strike in the state library. Within three hours she was joined by 20 others, mostly women, and their hunger strike, which continued for five days, became a public demonstration that took their grievances to the people of Mongolia. This demonstration, backed by major democratic movement leaders, encouraged other government employees to organize similar democratic councils. These dangerous actions expanded into a national anti-government movement that voiced powerful support for the basic human freedoms of speech, press and religion. Eventually the government accepted the demands, and in the adoption of a democratic constitution two years later Mongolia took a major step toward a free society.

For Latter-day Saints, this birth of constitutional government in Mongolia has special interest. Less than two years after the historic hunger strike, we sent our first missionaries to Mongolia. In 1992 these couples began their meetings in the state library, where Oyun was working. The following year, she showed her courage again by being baptized into this newly arrived Christian church. Her only child, a 22-year-old son, was baptized two years later. Today, the Mongolian members of our Church number 9,000, reportedly the largest group of Christians in the country. A few months ago we organized our first stake in Mongolia. Called as the stake president was Sister Oyun’s son, Odgerel. He had studied for a year at BYU-Hawaii, and his wife, Ariuna, a former missionary in Utah, graduated there.[iii]

One of the great fundamentals of our inspired constitution, relied on by Oyun of Mongolia and countless others struggling for freedom in many countries in the world, is the principle that the people are the source of government power. This principle of popular sovereignty was first written and applied on the American continent over 200 years ago. A group of colonies won independence from a king, and their representatives had the unique opportunity of establishing a new government. They did this by creating the first written constitution that has survived to govern a modern nation. The United States Constitution declared the source of government power, delegated that power to a government, and regulated its exercise.

Along with many other religious people, we affirm that God is the ultimate source of power and that, under Him, it is the people’s inherent right to decide their form of government. Sovereign power is not inherent in a state or nation just because its leaders have the power that comes from force of arms. And sovereign power does not come from the divine right of a king, who grants his subjects such power as he pleases or is forced to concede, as in Magna Carta. As the preamble to our constitution states: “We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

This principle of sovereignty in the people explains the meaning of God’s revelation that He established the Constitution of the United States “that every man may act . . . according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:78). In other words, the most desirable condition for the effective exercise of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and responsibility — the opposite of slavery or political oppression. With freedom we can be accountable for our own actions and cannot blame our conditions on our bondage to another. This is the condition the Lord praised in the Book of Mormon, where the people — not a king — established the laws and were governed by them (see Mosiah 29:23–26). This popular sovereignty necessarily implies popular responsibility. Instead of blaming their troubles on a king or tyrant, all citizens are responsible to share the burdens of governing, “that every man might bear his part” (Mosiah 29:34).


“For the rights and protection of all flesh” the United State Constitution includes in its First Amendment the guarantees of free exercise of religion and free speech and press. Without these great fundamentals of the Constitution, America could not have served as the host nation for the restoration of the gospel, which began just three decades after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The prohibition against “an establishment of religion” was intended to separate churches and government, to prevent a national church of the kind still found in Europe. In the interest of time I will say no more about the establishment of religion, but only concentrate on the direction that the United States shall have no law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.

The guarantee of the free exercise of religion, which I will call religious freedom, is the first expression in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As noted by many, this “pre-eminent place” identifies freedom of religion as “a cornerstone of American democracy.”[iv] The American colonies were originally settled by people who, for the most part, had come to this continent to be able to practice their religious faith without persecution, and their successors deliberately placed religious freedom first in the nation’s Bill of Rights. So it is that our national law formally declares: “The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States.”[v]

The free “exercise” of religion obviously involves both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to “exercise” or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs, the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be qualified by the government’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizens’ person or property from neighbors whose intentions include taking human life or stealing in circumstances rationalized on the basis of their religious beliefs.

The inherent conflict between the precious religious freedom of the people and the legitimate regulatory responsibilities of the government is the central issue of religious freedom. Here are just a few examples of current controversial public issues that involve this conflict: laws governing marriage and adoption; laws regulating the activities of church-related organizations like BYU-Idaho in furtherance of their religious missions — activities such as who they will serve or employ; and laws prohibiting discrimination in employment or work conditions against persons with unpopular religious beliefs or practices.

The problems are not simple, and over the years the United States Supreme Court, which has the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the meaning of the lofty and general provisions of the Constitution, has struggled to identify principles that can guide its decisions when government action is claimed to violate someone’s free exercise of religion. As would be expected, most of the battles over the extent of religious freedom have involved government efforts to impose upon the practices of small groups like Mormons. Not surprisingly, government officials sometimes seem more tolerant toward the religious practices of large groups of voters.

Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. We are fortunate to have such a guarantee in the United States, but many nations do not. The importance of that guarantee in the United States should make us ever diligent to defend it. And it is in need of being defended. During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly.

Religious belief is obviously protected against government action. The practice of that belief must have some limits, as I suggested earlier. But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.


Religious freedom has always been at risk. It was repression of religious belief and practice that drove the Pilgrim fathers and other dissenters to the shores of this continent. Even today, leaders in all too many nations use state power to repress religious believers.

The greatest infringements of religious freedom occur when the exercise of religion collides with other powerful forces in society. Among the most threatening collisions in the United States today are (1) the rising strength of those who seek to silence religious voices in public debates, and (2) perceived conflicts between religious freedom and the popular appeal of newly alleged civil rights.

As I address this audience of young adults, I invite your careful attention to what I say on these subjects, because I am describing conditions you will face and challenges you must confront.

Silencing Religious Voices in the Public Square

A writer for The Christian Science Monitor predicts that the coming century will be “very secular and religiously antagonistic,” with intolerance of Christianity “ris[ing] to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes.”[vi] Other wise observers have noted the ever-growing, relentless attack on the Christian religion by forces who reject the existence or authority of God.[vii] The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing. The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom.

Atheism has always been hostile to religion, such as in its arguments that freedom of or for religion should include freedom from religion. Atheism’s threat rises as its proponents grow in numbers and aggressiveness. “By some counts,” a recent article in The Economist declares, “there are at least 500 [million] declared non-believers in the world — enough to make atheism the fourth-biggest religion.”[viii] And atheism’s spokesmen are aggressive, as recent publications show.[ix] As noted by John A. Howard of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, these voices “have developed great skills in demonizing those who disagree with them, turning their opponents into objects of fear, hatred and scorn.”[x]

Such forces — atheists and others — would intimidate persons with religious-based points of view from influencing or making the laws of their state or nation. Noted author and legal commentator Hugh Hewitt described the current circumstance this way:

“There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . .

“For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening.”[xi]

For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8:

“I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.”[xii]

Aside from the obvious fact that this objection would deny free speech as well as religious freedom to members of our Church and its coalition partners, there are other reasons why the public square must be open to religious ideas and religious persons. As Richard John Neuhaus said many years ago, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb.”[xiii]

Religious Freedom Diluted by Other “Civil Rights”

A second threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged “civil right” of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.

We have endured a wave of media-reported charges that the Mormons are trying to “deny” people or “strip” people of their “rights.” After a significant majority of California voters (seven million — over 52 percent) approved Proposition 8’s limiting marriage to a man and a woman, some opponents characterized the vote as denying people their civil rights. In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.

The real issue in the Proposition 8 debate — an issue that will not go away in years to come and for whose resolution it is critical that we protect everyone’s freedom of speech and the equally important freedom to stand for religious beliefs — is whether the opponents of Proposition 8 should be allowed to change the vital institution of marriage itself.

The marriage union of a man and a woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights. The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage — an institution of transcendent importance that they, along with countless others of many persuasions, feel conscientiously obliged to protect.

Religious freedom needs defending against the claims of newly asserted human rights. The so-called “Yogyakarta Principles,” published by an international human rights group, call for governments to assure that all persons have the right to practice their religious beliefs regardless of sexual orientation or identity.[xiv] This apparently proposes that governments require church practices and their doctrines to ignore gender differences. Any such effort to have governments invade religion to override religious doctrines or practices should be resisted by all believers. At the same time, all who conduct such resistance should frame their advocacy and their personal relations so that they are never seen as being doctrinaire opponents of the very real civil rights (such as free speech) of their adversaries or any other disadvantaged group.


And now, in conclusion, I offer five points of counsel on how Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves to enhance religious freedom in this period of turmoil and challenge.

First, we must speak with love, always showing patience, understanding and compassion toward our adversaries. We are under command to love our neighbor (Luke 10:27), to forgive all men (Doctrine and Covenants 64:10), to do good to them who despitefully use us (Matthew 5:44) and to conduct our teaching in mildness and meekness (Doctrine and Covenants 38:41).

Even as we seek to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled. As the Savior said, “so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matthew 5:12). And modern revelation commands us not to revile against revilers (Doctrine and Covenants 19:30).

Second, we must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described. We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. These are the rights of all citizens and they are also the rights of religious leaders. While our church rarely speaks on public issues, it does so by exception on what the First Presidency defines as significant moral issues, which could surely include laws affecting the fundamental legal/cultural/moral environment of our communities and nations.

We must also insist on this companion condition of democratic government: when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. Fortunately, some recognized such retaliation for what it was. A full-page ad in the New York Times branded this “violence and intimidation” against religious organizations and individual believers “simply because they supported Proposition 8 [as] an outrage that must stop.” [xv] The fact that this ad was signed by some leaders who had no history of friendship for our faith only added to its force.

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.

Third, we must insist on our freedom to preach the doctrines of our faith. Why do I make this obvious point? Religious people who share our moral convictions feel some intimidation. Fortunately, our leaders do not refrain from stating and explaining our position that homosexual behavior is sinful. Last summer Elder M. Russell Ballard spoke these words to a BYU audience:

“We follow Jesus Christ by living the law of chastity. God gave this commandment, and He has never revoked or changed it. This law is clear and simple. No one is to engage in sexual relationships outside the bounds the Lord has set. This applies to homosexual behavior of any kind and to heterosexual relationships outside marriage. It is a sin to violate the law of chastity.

“We follow Jesus Christ by adhering to God’s law of marriage, which is marriage between one man and one woman. This commandment has been in place from the very beginning.”[xvi]

We will continue to teach what our Heavenly Father has commanded us to teach, and trust that the precious free exercise of religion remains strong enough to guarantee our right to exercise this most basic freedom.

Fourth, as advocates of the obvious truth that persons with religious positions or motivations have the right to express their religious views in public, we must nevertheless be wise in our political participation. Preachers have been prime movers in the civil rights movement from the earliest advocates of abolition, but even the civil rights of religionists must be exercised legally and wisely.

As Latter-day Saints, we should never be reticent to declare and act upon the sure foundations of our faith. The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society.[xvii]

Fifth and finally, Latter-day Saints must be careful never to support or act upon the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for a public office. The framers of our constitution included a provision that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (Article VI). That constitutional principle forbids a religious test as a legal requirement, but it of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose. But wise religious leaders and members will never advocate religious tests for public office.

Fragile freedoms are best preserved when not employed beyond their intended purpose. If a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation, especially when this reason for rejection has been advocated by other religionists. Such advocacy suggests that if religionists prevail in electing their preferred candidate this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices. The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign.


It was the Christian principles of human worth and dignity that made possible the formation of the United States Constitution over 200 years ago, and only those principles in the hearts of a majority of our diverse population can sustain that constitution today. Our constitution’s revolutionary concepts of sovereignty in the people and significant guarantees of personal rights were, as John A. Howard has written,

“generated by a people for whom Christianity had been for a century and a half the compelling feature of their lives. It was Jesus who first stated that all men are created equal [and] that every person . . . is valued and loved by God.”[xviii]

Professor Dinesh D’Souza reminds us:
“The attempt to ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its spread. It is folly to believe that it could survive without the continuing aid of religious belief.”[xix]

Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our “First Freedom,” the free exercise of religion.


[i] Robert Debs Heinl Jr., Dictionary of Military and Naval Quotations (U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1978), 141.

[ii] Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad to the Secretary of State and to the President of the United States, 17 May 1999, 6–7, 30–65. The International Religious Freedom Act, adopted in 1998, 22 USC 6401 et seq., established an office of international religious affairs in the U.S. State Department headed by an Ambassador at Large and the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom. Both of these bodies submit annual reports that assess the status of religious freedom under international standards worldwide and help encourage better implementation of commitments countries around the world have made to respect this fundamental right.

[iii] The information about events in Mongolia was obtained from correspondence with President Odgerel and from Mary N. Cook, former senior missionary and wife of Richard E. Cook, the first mission president in Mongolia.

[iv] Final Report of the Advisory Committee, 6.

[v] 22 USC 6401(a).

[vi] Michael Spencer, “The Coming Evangelical Collapse,” The Christian Science Monitor, 10 Mar. 2009.

[vii] E.g., John A. Howard, “Liberty: America’s Creative Power,” Howard Center, 22 June 2009, 6.

[viii] “In God’s Name: A Special Report on Religion and Public Life,” The Economist, 3 Nov. 2007, 10.

[ix] E.g., The Six Ways of Atheism, which was advertised “to absolutely disprove the existence of God, logically and simply,” was sent free to leading universities and public libraries in all major English-speaking countries in the world. Press release, 26 May 2009.

[x] Howard, “Liberty: America’s Creative Power,” 6.

[xi] Hugh Hewitt, A Mormon in the White House? (Washington DC: Regnery, 2007), 242–43.

[xii] Karl Vick, “Gay Groups Targeting Mormons,” Salt Lake Tribune, 30 May 2009, A8 (Washington Post story).

[xiii] “A New Order of Religious Freedom,” First Things, Feb. 1992, 2; also see Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983).

[xiv] The Yogyakarta Principles, Principle 21 (Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2006).

[xv] “No Mob Veto,” New York Times, 5 Dec. 2008.

[xvi] M. Russell Ballard, “Engaging Without Being Defensive,” BYU Commencement Address, 13 August 2009.

[xvii] Among the advocates of this position are Kevin Seamus Hasson, The Right to be Wrong (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2005); Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello Jr. and Robin Fretwell Wilson, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts (Rowman and Littlefield, 2008); and Michael J. Perry, “Liberal Democracy and Religious Morality,” 48 DePaul Law Rev. 1, 20–41 (1998). For examples of this kind of advocacy, see What’s the Harm? ed. Lynn D. Wardle (University Press of America, 2008); and Monte Neil Stewart, “Marriage Facts,” 31 Harv. J. of Law & Pub. Policy 313 (2008).

[xviii] John A. Howard, Christianity: Lifeblood of America’s Free Society (1620–1945) (Monitou Springs, Ohio: Summit Press, 2008), 57.

[xix] “How Christianity Shaped the West,” Hillsdale College, Nov. 2008, Vol. 37, No. 11, p. 5.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Peace or Appeasement?

As it stands now, even those dwelling in the slums of Calcutta are aware that Barak Hussein Obama won the Nobel Prize for Peace. Are they aware however, that he has not earned the honor?

By Obama’s own admission, he has not earned this award, so why did they give it to him?

It is unclear to me what exactly the committee was thinking. Obama has been in office less than a year, was nominated for the prize only TWELVE DAYS after taking the oath for the office of president and is involved in prosecuting war in Afghanistan and Iraq. He may not have been president when the wars were initiated, but he is the president now.

The only thing I can think is that the Peace Prize committee is trying to influence American policies abroad; to, in effect “neuter”, as Rush Limbaugh put it, the president’s ability to act in the best interests of the United States of America; staging a silent coup over American policies, hoping to halt the military might of the greatest nation on earth.

The Nobel Prize was established in 1895 from the estate of Alfred Nobel, inventor of dynamite; awarded for accomplishments in physics, chemistry, literature and medicine; peace was added in 1901, and economics in 1968.

What it’s become is a joke.

In 1994, the prize was awarded to Yasser Arafat-PLO Terrorist; 1988 to the U.N. Peacekeeping Force-plagued by scandals of sexual abuse for decades.

Of the three sitting U.S. presidents who have won the award, all have been Progressives, cutting away at the fabric of our Republic-Wilson, Roosevelt and Obama.

Obama said he viewed the decision less as a recognition of his own accomplishments and more as "a call to action."

To what action I ask? Obama has so far made us less safe: destabilization of the dollar, takeovers of major industries and banking caving to Russian pressure, has dropped the European missile defense system and told Israel to give in to terror. Not only is America less safe with Obama at the helm, but the entire world is also at risk. So I ask again, what action does he now feel called to? How much further does he believe this “call to action” will call him to go in the name of peace?

The committee claims the impetus for the honor was his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

As Obama goes about apologizing for America, I can see where their criterion comes into play. He has bent over backwards trying to be “diplomatic” and get everyone to like us; he’s apologized to the U.N. for America “acting alone” and for the world’s “opposition to specific policies”; claiming America was “selective” in promoting democracy around the world. He’s bowed to a Saudi king, and wants to sit down for a chat with a madman and he’s shaken the hand of an evil dictator. Gee, *I* feel safe, how about any of you?

The list could go on, but I think you get the picture.

Sadly, the Nobel Prize has lost its luster and distinction over the years and Obama winning is the icing on the cake.

I’m thinking Mr. Nobel might have a use for the dynamite were he here today.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Worship of the One

Now, you could *maybe* get away with saying that O didn't know this was going on, and you'd probably be correct. But...if you couple this with the shocking video of children being taught to sing praises to O in school-to the tunes of hymns and carols, it seems to all add up to the "culture of personality" that permeates our society.

O should distance himself from such messianic praises, and quickly.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Make up Your Mind

I tend to use the labels Fascism, Marxism, Socialism, Totalitarianism and Communism interchangable, and I think I've confused a few people. I thought I'd take a few minutes to actually define them, and then explain myself.
We'll go in alphabetical order, because I love words, and it would drive me batty to see them out of order :D

Communism (N):
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Fascism (N):
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.

3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Marxism (N):
the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society
Socialism (N):
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Totalitarianism (N):
1. the practices and principles of a totalitarian regime.

2. absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution.

3. the character or quality of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, group, or government: the totalitarianism of the father.

So, as you can see, there isn't really a whole lot of difference in each of the "ism's", aside from totalitarianism, which would be a dictatorship-think Iran, Venezuela, Cuba...
I've chosen to use them interchangeably, because I don't see much difference between them, and I think our current administration is exhibiting aspects of all of them:
(C) Obama and his flunkies have gotten their hands in a variety of industries; bailed out, TARPed and variously regulated things the government has NO Constitutional authority to tinker with.
'...single self perpetuating political party.' Just look to the hypocrisy taking place in MA this week for evidence.
Don't forget the looming health care exravaganza, the take over of 1/6th of our economy.
(F) 'forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.'
They may not be forcing the suppression of opposition just yet, but it's coming. The Fairness Doctrine, which is a violation of our freedom of speech, will be attempted through back door dealings; the Internet grab "in an emergency"; calling those who disagree with their policies radicals, and people who need to be silenced, crying racism as a way to distract from the real issues; regimenting industry in the name of the climate hoax; it's all there.
Don't forget campaign finance reform that takes away your First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, this goes back farther than Obama, and is wrong regardless of whose watch it is.
(M) Class struggles, and pitting classes against each other. Vilifying those who are successful; when small businesses are taxed ruthlessly; when "wealthy Americans" are taxed at a higher rate, thereby punishing the successful; redistributing income to make things "fair". This is Marxism, and it's rampant in the left-wing.
(S) 'system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.'
This one is a little trickier. "We the People" now own GM, and some banks, and pretty soon some newspapers (won't that be nice, when we can more fully trust the news coming from THOSE sources?). However, we'll never get a dime in dividends, or reimbursements, and I'd bet a milkshake, those various companies never get out of the deal they made with the devil. So, we can't say it's true Socialism I suppose, but I don't think the people of the USSR got so much out of their collective ownership either, and it was still Socialism.

(T) As the government continues to take over industry after industry, we may just see a dictator arise. They already revere Obama as a sort of messiah, and this kind of messiah is one step away from a dictator. We don't have "absolute" control by the state yet,  but if we don't make some noise, and make sure our representatives know we are unhappy, it WILL come to that, the groundwork is being laid now.
The Constitution is hanging by a thread, it is being trampled on by people of all persuasions, all races, all religions, both parties.  These "ism's" are all parts of Obama's agenda, he's exhibiting traits from each definition, so when I use them interchangeably, you'll know why; each one cuts a little deeper into the fabric of the Constitution, cuts a little deeper into the "American Way." It's no accident that I rarely use the same one twice in any sentence. I encourage you to use these words often and vociferously in your conversations.
If we don't, we'll get all of them, in one neat, tidy, well-spoken man.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Believe All Things

For those of you who are, like me, LDS; worried about the fascists in charge; the totalitarian direction that our country is headed, I found a blog that you might like...or more accurately, it found me.
I'm posting a link to the article that was posted in the comment section yesterday. He's got some wonderful quotes from former prophets and apostles. Take a look.
We're all in this together, and if we build a strong enough web across our communities, and across the WWW, we CAN combat the creeping darkness. There will be too many of us to lock up and throw away.

Article on U.S. Constitution at Believe All Things .

Speak out. Speak up. Be a voice of Reason, but be a voice.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Natural Law Provides the Answers

You REALLY need to read this article. I've posted it on Facebook tonight, but it really needs a wider audience. I hadn't thought about things from this perspective, but the author is spot on.

The Natural Law Provides the Answers

National Debt Road Trip

This is a really great graphic. It shows just how badly Obama  has outspent ALL of his predecessors.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Dr. Ism's Formula

I posted this on Facebook the other day, A friend had discovered it. Please pass it on, it needs to be seen. It's an easily understood progression of the "ism's"

Whining and Running Scared

By now you've probably heard that the Campaigner in Chief hit all the Sunday News programs.
Not so fast. He hit all the loser stations
Take a look at these charts for some recent ratings:

By The Numbers

Hot Air Pundit

So he has insulted over half of America by this little act. Choosing little watched stations, inhabited by racist, communistic, windbags who can't tell a Democrocy from a Republic.Apparently he doesn't REALLY want to talk to Americans, he wants to talk to only those who agree with him.
Fine. Let him talk to all the wrong people, let him dig his hole that much deeper. It's all good.

I would like to point out some things he's said, from some of the transcripts; it's enlightening.

First, the FoxNews headline says "Obama has taken the media to task."
No, Just Kidding! He has only taken CONSERVATIVE media outlets to task. If you want to bash Bush, Cheney, Sarah Palin, who, while not IN the media, are extra worthy of bashing, or if you want to bash any number of "right wing"  political commentators, you are especially free to do so. Don't hold back.
But, if you protest socialized medicine, TARP, auto bailouts, or any number of the horrific things this president wants to do and is doing to our country, then NO WAY, the deal is off.
Here are just a couple of the comments that have stirred my ire this afternoon:

"The easiest way to get on television right now is to be really rude. If you're just being sensible and giving people the benefit of the doubt, and you're making your arguments, you don't get time on the nightly news," Obama said on ABC's "This Week."
Now for the record, I didn't hear Obama or anyone else tell Janine Garafolo or Bill Maher to be nice; I didn't hear him tell Keith Olbermann to be nice. Yet, if you are a dissenter from Obamas not so stealthy move to remake America, you are "racist","out of touch", "extreme", "rude", etc.
ALL I hear from the MSM is the fawning, syrupy praise for the Snake Oil Salesman in Chief, and snide, RUDE comments about Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham and others.

Here is the second quote:
"The easiest way to get 15 minutes on the news or your 15 minutes of fame is to be rude. ... That's something that I think needs to change," Obama said, lamenting the habit of "plucking out a sentence here or a comment there."
Do you see what I see? I'll tell you: "...I think that needs to change." NOT "I wish they wouldn't do that", or "I'd be happy to sit down with them", no, it's "...I think that needs to change."
This is a scary phrase guys.  Obama wants to change what you and I can say in regards to him and his policies/agenda, and he thinks it needs to change. The thought police will be part of Obamas "Civilian Security Force that's just as strong, just as well funded as the military."
It may not come tomorrow or next week, but it will come. There is already a back door plan to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine", which we all know is anything BUT fair. The rest of us won't be far behind; McCain-Feingold has already set the ball in motion.

Now something I agree with O on:
"The media loves to have a conversation about race...this is catnip to the media because it is a running thread in American history that is very powerful and it evokes some very strong emotion."
Well yes they do, and they are fueled by racists in the black community who somehow want to be portrayed as  having an IOU in hand from every non-black in America, and Mr. O is right there with them (remember the(white) police "acted stupidly" fiasco?).

Now here, it sounds to me that if we all play nice, we might just get to redistribute some more of our own wealth:
"I think it's important for the media -- you know, not to do any media-bashing here -- to recognize that right now, in this 24-hour news cycle, the easiest way to get on CNN or FOX or any of the other stations -- MSNBC -- is to just say something rude and outrageous," Obama said. "And, you know, part of what I'd like to see is all of us reward decency and civility in our political discourse. That doesn't mean you can't be passionate, and that doesn't mean that you can't speak your mind. But I think we can all sort of take a step back here and remind ourselves who we are as a people."

Reminder to self:
I am an American, I've pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. I have not pledged to be a servant to Barak Obama, nor to his minions. I pledge to be passionate in this pledge.
Somehow I doubt this is what he means when he says we need to remind ourselves who we are, but it is what *I* mean.
We are not wrong when we disagree with our president, our government, our senators, our congressmen(you may be wrong if you disagree with  your mother however, and I can't be held responsible for helping you out of that pickle ;) )

We have the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Tea Parties, Townhall questioners, Rally goers; all expressions of free speech, all expressions of angst.

Take heart. The left really IS the minority position in America. Polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans are God-fearing, socially and fiscally conservative people. We don't all agree on what those definitions mean, but we are all on the same page.

Now that the sleeping giant has awakened (and make no mistake, if you are reading this, you are most likely part of that group), now that we are awake, we cannot afford to go back to sleep. We cannot afford to shrug our shoulders and look the other way any longer.
So go, exercise your freedom to speak, and make some noise. Be peaceful, be respectful, and don't let the Whiner in Chief bully you into silence.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Constitution Day!

In 1787, a group of men came together, initially to revise the Articles of Confederation which were barely holding the newly independent nation together. When it became apparent that this would not be sufficient, they began the awesome task of hammering out a Constitution, establishing a fundamental system of government heretofore unknown in the world.

What they did was remarkable on many counts, not the least of which was the fact that they had vast disagreements on what exactly should be included. (Patrick Henry, remember him? Mr. "Give me Liberty or give me death"? He opposed the ratification because it gave the Federal government too much power-I wonder what he's thinking about it NOW?! He also refused to sign it.)*

These Founding Fathers as they are affectionately known, were diverse in their backgrounds, occupations and temprements. It proved to be an interesting mix.

Fifty-five men met together to establish this, our beloved Republic.  The day, May 14th, that the Convention was to begin, only 8 delegates were present. It would be 11 more days before the Convention started in earnest; on the 25th of May, George Washington was elected president of the proceedings, and things got underway.

The debate raged for four long months, through the heat of a Philadelphia summer. Would we have a strong central government or would we have a limited government? Would the central government run the show, or would "we the people"?
Each article, each section was debated, and voted on; piece by piece the Constitution took shape.

In the end, 222 years ago today, the Constitution of the United States of America-a title not in use until this day, was ratified and signed by 39 of the delegates. A new nation was born, "concieved in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" as Abraham Lincoln would later remind us.

As I ponder the incredible responsiblity we all have to uphold the Constitution, I am awed by what has transpired to bring freedom to this land. The intricate weaving of lives that were knit together by "divine Providence"
The Book of Mormon talks about this land as the Promised Land, and I know with all my heart that this is true.
In a prophecy to Joseph Smith, the Lord tells us that he raised up good men to establish this Constitution for us, His children.

These fifty-five men, raised up and inspired, created a nation that would change the political landscape forever. The question remains as to whether we can keep the gift they bequeathed to our care.

*Late Edit:
Patrick Henry didn't actually attend the Convention, he was an ardent states rights fan, and, while asked to be a delegate, refused.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009


What do you consider "racism"?

When I was a little girl, a friend of mine was over for the day. When my dad drove him home, I asked why the windows of Safeway were covered over with paper. The friend said "to keep the niggers from breaking in." I didn't know what "nigger" was, and the boy explained it was the blacks. My dad spoke up, and in a forcefully gentle tone explained that you didn't have to be black to be a "nigger"; bad people came in all colors and a "nigger" was someone of any color who wanted to do bad things.
That has stuck with me my whole life.

Fast forward to September of 2009. Socialized medicine is being debated now, and Congressman Joe Wilson yells out "You Lie" during the presidents speech to a rare joint session of congress; a week later, the man is branded a racist. The worst president EVER has branded Joe Wilson a racist for daring to 1.)disagree with the president, and 2.) to say so loud and clear.

I'm not here to debate the appropriateness of Mr. Wilson's remarks, that is an individual decision, based on our reaction to the event.

No, I want to address the lunacy of the race card.
Mr. Carter would have us believe that Joe (we) can't handle a black man as our president, so he (we) is (are) disagreeing with him-yelling "You Lie." We are marching on D.C., attending Townhall meetings, writing our representatives and whatever else we are doing, in protest of the systematic dismantling of our Republic , NOT because Barak Obama is a black man. This is the most insane thing I have ever heard.

Those who cry racism, are in fact the racists. When Jimmy Carter calls Joe a racist, it reveals Jimmy Carter as the racist. Joe yells "You Lie", Carter cries racism, so it can be inferred that Carter believes black men lie. How else can this be interpreted?
Janine Garafalo is another one: All "Tea Party" goers are rednecks, retards and racists who hate the black president.

So many people have worked hard over the last 40 or so years to wipe out racism, to get us to look beyond skin color; yet the left can't do it themselves! They can't believe that we would actually want our government to work like it's supposed to. They can't make a cogent argument to support their side, so they have to pull the race card, trying to make us feel guilty for something we have not done; to get us distracted by our guilt so that the shredding of the Constitution can continue. In fairness, the race card really is all they have.

Here's a clue. I am NOT RACIST. If I am afraid for my country,if I disagree with socialized medicine, if I disagree with TARP, the GM bailout, or any of the other illegal things our government is proposing, it's because a COMMUNIST is at the helm with a bunch of COMMUNISTS as advisors, NOT because they are black.
I don't look at skin color. Isn't that what we have been teaching children in America for generations? That's how it should be!
I know only ONE man out of all of my acquaintances who is a racist. I know of several in the public spectrum who are racist-Carter and Garafalo; Obama and Jones; Jackson and Sharpton; I'm sure you could name a few that I've missed.

The point is that America is NOT a racist country. Most of us do not look at skin color to determine someone's worth, yet the left keeps wanting to play the race card, and it's disgusting.

Note: It is not WRONG to disgree with your government, with your elected officials. They seem to forget, they work for you, and they work for me, and it is their OBLIGATION to listen to us, and to do as WE the People want.

We can disagree six ways to Sunday and we are still NOT racists for it. It may not make us Patriots either, but it most assuredly is not racism.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Calling all heroes

On this the 8th anniversary of 9/11, I've been pondering what to say. I found this article literally in the 11th hour, and I'd like you to read it. It is almost exactly what I'm feeling right now.
As we go forward, let's not be Democrats and Republicans, let's be Americans. Let's join our voices to stamp out the radicals on both sides of the aisle; let's begin now to stand for the Constitution, not a party; for freedom, not tyranny.
Our children are depending on us.

Calling all heroes

Shared via AddThis

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Article 1, Section 8

Please watch this video. It's a fabulous "in a nutshell" kind of thing that explains the role of congress as spelled out in the Constitution in Article 1, section 8.

Friday, September 4, 2009

I Pledge, Amended

I wrote the previous pledge in a hurry after watching the nuts in Hollywood make theirs. I was on my way out the door, and have had time to ponder. Here's my amended pledge;

"I Pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. I Pledge to hold my elected officials responsible to the same. I Pledge to speak out against socialism in all of it's ugly forms. I Pledge to teach my children to respect the Inspired document that sets America apart and makes her great. I pledge to fight for free markets, and to end government intrusion into our lives.
I pledge to hold God as my Sovereign, to serve my fellow man, but to be a servant only unto Him."

THAT is my Pledge. What's yours?

I Pledge!

The messiah complex continues:

"To be a servant of our president..."??? Do these people even have the intelligence to understand the basic concepts of Liberty and Freedom???? I seriously doubt it.

Here's one:
"I Pledge to uphold the Constituiton of the United States of America. To hold my elected officials responsible. I pledge to speak out against socia...lism in all of it's ugly forms. I pledge to teach my children to respect the inspired document that sets America apart and makes her great. I pledge to fight for free market, and to end government intrusion into our lives."
That's my pledge. What's yours?

Saturday, August 29, 2009

"Who Can Tax the Sunrise..."

This is pretty funny; too bad it's so sadly real.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Ted Kennedy Passes

Ted Kennedy passed on Tuesday. Whatever you felt about the man, now is not the time to bring it up and bash it about. I couldn't stand him, and had a special mocking name for when he came on the TV.
I am grateful right now that I don't have TV, as I'm sure there will be plenty of gushing ad nauseum in the MSM.
Say a prayer for the family; we would want others to do the same for our guy (or gal).

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Atlas Shrugged

I have not read this book yet, but it's next in my queue after "The Real George Washington", which is next.

That being said, a lovely lady on my Classical Homeschooling list posted this excerpt; her feeling was that not everyone will want to pick up a nearly 1000 page book, but that this excerpt was important. I agree, so I'm posting it here.

If anyone is interested in reading along with me, let me know, and we can pick a start date, I'm sure George won't mind waiting :)

Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who made
some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know, money is
the root of all evil—and he's the typical product of money."

Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw
Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia.
"Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange,
which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce
them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal
with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not
the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the
looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the
men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the
conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of
others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not
an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces
of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow.
Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor—
your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your
statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who
will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this
what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric
generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort
of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left
to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your
food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you'll learn that man's
mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has
ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak?
What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth
is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who
invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made
by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense
of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is
MADE—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest
man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that
he can't consume more than he has produced.

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests
on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money
allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the
voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in
return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which
they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals
except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders.
Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own
benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss—the
recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of
your misery—that you must offer them values, not wounds—that the common bond
among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of GOODS. Money
demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent
to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but
the best your money can find. And when men live by trade—with reason, not
force, as their final arbiter—it is the best product that wins, the best
performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability—and the degree of
a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of
existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will
not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the
satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires.
Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of
causality—the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of
the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he
wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the
knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if
he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for
the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The
man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with
his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his
inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds
come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no
man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who
would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal
to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and
you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do
not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done
no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among
you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring
back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that
dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it.
Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the
source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If
the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your
money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering
to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By
lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn?
If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of
joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a
reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream
that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your
self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is
this the root of your hatred of money?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause.
Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will
not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in
matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Or did you say it's the LOVE of money that's the root of all evil? To love
a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love
the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your
passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the
person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in
proclaiming his hatred of money—and he has good reason to hate it. The
lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to
deserve it."

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns
money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That
sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live
together on earth and need means to deal with one another—their only
substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to
keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no
moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it
as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich—will not remain
rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay
under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man
who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to
relieve him of the guilt—and of his life, as he deserves.

"Then you will see the rise of the double standard—the men who live by
force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their
looted money—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society,
these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against
them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and
looters-by-law—men who use force to seize the wealth of DISARMED
victims—then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it
safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But
their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as
they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to
those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer
wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of
ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the
barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by
consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need
to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is
flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men
get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect
you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being
rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your
society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with
guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country
to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for
money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers
seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills
all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an
arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of
wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed
by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check
drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue
of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain
good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose
of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when
production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying
the world?' You are.

"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest
productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while
your damning its life-blood—money. You look upon money as the savages did
before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of
your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of
one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by
force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor.
That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous
recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of
slaves—slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by some body's mind
and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force,
and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet
through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the
looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as
aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as
traders, as shopkeepers—as industrialists.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history,
a COUNTRY OF MONEY—and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to
America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production,
achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and
there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead
of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the
greatest worker, the highest type of human being—the self-made man—the
American industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would
choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people
who created the phrase 'to MAKE money.' No other language or nation had ever
used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static
quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a
favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.
The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted
cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you
to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity
as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your
magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the
labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who
simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the
power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-as, I
think, he will.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask
for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal
with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns—or
dollars. Take your choice—there is no other—and your time is running out."

by Ayn Rand