Cap and Trade and the Spanish

I really enjoyed this interview. If any of you are interested in finding out more about cap and trade and looking at how it will affect our economy, the Spanish can give you first-hand advice.

The words of people much smarter than me: The Constitution

"In other words, the most desirable condition for the effective exercise of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and responsibility."

Today's article is Dallin H. Oaks on the constitution. It's very long, but awesome; so, read it if you have time.


Not long after I began to teach law, an older professor asked me a challenging question about Latter-day Saints’ belief in the United States Constitution. Earlier in his career he had taught at the University of Utah College of Law. There he met many Latter-day Saint law students. “They all seemed to believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired,” he said, “but none of them could ever tell me what this meant or how it affected their interpretation of the Constitution.” I took that challenge personally, and I have pondered it for many years.

I hope I will not be thought immodest if I claim a special interest in the Constitution. As a lawyer and law professor for more than twenty years, I have studied the United States Constitution. As legal counsel, I helped draft the bill of rights for the Illinois constitutional convention of 1970. And for three and one-half years as a justice of the Utah Supreme Court I had the sworn duty to uphold and interpret the constitutions of the state of Utah and the United States. My conclusions draw upon those experiences and upon a lifetime of studying the scriptures and the teachings of the living prophets. My opinions on this subject are personal and do not represent a statement in behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Creation and Ratification

The United States Constitution was the first written constitution in the world. It has served Americans well, enhancing freedom and prosperity during the changed conditions of more than two hundred years. Frequently copied, it has become the United States’ most important export. After two centuries, every nation in the world except six have adopted written constitutions, and the U.S. Constitution was a model for all of them. No wonder modern revelation says that God established the U.S. Constitution and that it “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.”

George Washington was perhaps the first to use the word miracle in describing the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. In a 1788 letter to Lafayette, he said:

“It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the delegates from so many different states (which states you know are also different from each other in their manners, circumstances, and prejudices) should unite in forming a system of national Government, so little liable to well-founded objections.”

It was a miracle. Consider the setting.

The thirteen colonies and three and one-half million Americans who had won independence from the British crown a few years earlier were badly divided on many fundamental issues. Some thought the colonies should reaffiliate with the British crown. Among the majority who favored continued independence, the most divisive issue was whether the United States should have a strong central government to replace the weak “league of friendship” established by the Articles of Confederation. Under the Confederation of 1781, there was no executive or judicial authority, and the national Congress had no power to tax or to regulate commerce. The thirteen states retained all their sovereignty, and the national government could do nothing without their approval. The Articles of Confederation could not be amended without the unanimous approval of all the states, and every effort to strengthen this loose confederation had failed.

Congress could not even protect itself. In July 1783, an armed mob of former Revolutionary War soldiers seeking back wages threatened to take Congress hostage at its meeting in Philadelphia. When Pennsylvania declined to provide militia to protect them, the congressmen fled. Thereafter Congress was a laughingstock, wandering from city to city.

Unless America could adopt a central government with sufficient authority to function as a nation, the thirteen states would remain a group of insignificant, feuding little nations united by nothing more than geography and forever vulnerable to the impositions of aggressive foreign powers. No wonder the first purpose stated in the preamble of the new United States Constitution was “to form a more perfect union.”

The Constitution had its origin in a resolution by which the relatively powerless Congress called delegates to a convention to discuss amendments to the Articles of Confederation. This convention was promoted by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, two farsighted young statesmen still in their thirties, who favored a strong national government. They persuaded a reluctant George Washington to attend and then used his influence in a letter-writing campaign to encourage participation by all the states. The convention was held in Philadelphia, whose population of a little over 40,000 made it the largest city in the thirteen states.

As the delegates assembled, there were ominous signs of disunity. It was not until eleven days after the scheduled beginning of the convention that enough states were represented to form a quorum. New Hampshire’s delegation arrived more than two months late because the state had not provided them travel money. No delegates ever came from Rhode Island.

Economically and politically, the country was alarmingly weak. The states were in a paralyzing depression. Everyone was in debt. The national treasury was empty. Inflation was rampant. The various currencies were nearly worthless. The trade deficit was staggering. Rebelling against their inclusion in New York State, prominent citizens of Vermont had already entered into negotiations to rejoin the British crown. In the western territory, Kentucky leaders were speaking openly about turning from the union and forming alliances with the Old World.

Instead of reacting timidly because of disunity and weakness, the delegates boldly ignored the terms of their invitation to amend the Articles of Confederation and instead set out to write an entirely new constitution. They were conscious of their place in history. For millennia the world’s people had been ruled by kings or tyrants. Now a group of colonies had won independence from a king and their representatives had the unique opportunity of establishing a constitutional government Abraham Lincoln would later describe as “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

The delegates faced staggering obstacles. The leaders in the thirteen states were deeply divided on the extent to which the states would cede any power to a national government. If there was to be a strong central government, there were seemingly irresolvable differences on how to allocate the ingredients of national power between large and small states. As to the nature of the national executive, some wanted to copy the British parliamentary system. At least one delegate even favored the adoption of a monarchy. Divisions over slavery could well have prevented any agreement on other issues. There were 600,000 black slaves in the thirteen states, and slavery was essential in the view of some delegates and repulsive to many others.

Deeming secrecy essential to the success of their venture, the delegates spent over three months in secret sessions, faithfully observing their agreement that no one would speak outside the meeting room on the progress of their work. They were fearful that if their debates were reported to the people before the entire document was ready for submission, the opposition would unite to kill the effort before it was born. This type of proceeding would obviously be impossible today. There is irony in the fact that a constitution which protects the people’s “right to know” was written under a set of ground rules that its present beneficiaries would not tolerate.

It took the delegates seven weeks of debate to resolve the question of how the large and small states would be represented in the national congress. The Great Compromise provided a senate with equal representation for each state, and a lower house in which representation was apportioned according to the whole population of free persons in the state, plus three-fifths of the slaves. The vote on this pivotal issue was five states in favor and four against; other states did not vote, either because no delegates were present or because their delegation was divided.

Upon that fragile base, the delegates went forward to consider other issues, including the nature of the executive and judicial branches, and whether the document should include a bill of rights.
It is remarkable that the delegates were able to put aside their narrow sectional loyalties to agree on a strong central government. Timely events were persuasive of the need: the delegates’ memories of the national humiliation when Congress was chased out of Philadelphia by a mob, the recent challenge of Shay’s rebellion against Massachusetts farm foreclosures, and the frightening prospect that northern and western areas would be drawn back into the orbit of European power.

The success of the convention was attributable in large part to the remarkable intelligence, wisdom, and unselfishness of the delegates. As James Madison wrote in the preface to his notes on the Constitutional Convention:

“There never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them.” Truly, the U.S. Constitution was established “by the hands of wise men whom [the Lord] raised up unto this very purpose.”

The drafting of the Constitution was only the beginning. By its terms it would not go into effect until ratified by conventions in nine states. But if the nation was to be united and strong, the new Constitution had to be ratified by the key states of Virginia and New York, where the opposition was particularly strong. The extent of opposition coming out of the convention is suggested by the fact that of seventy-four appointed delegates, only fifty-five participated in the convention, and only thirty-nine of these signed the completed document.

It was nine months before nine states had ratified, and the last of the key states was not included until a month later, when the New York convention ratified by a vote of thirty to twenty-seven. To the “miracle of Philadelphia” one must therefore add “the miracle of ratification.”

Ratification probably could not have been secured without a commitment to add a written bill of rights. The first ten amendments, which included the Bill of Rights, were ratified a little over three years after the Constitution itself.

That the Constitution was ratified is largely attributable to the fact that the principal leaders in the states were willing to vote for a document that failed to embody every one of their preferences. For example, influential Thomas Jefferson, who was in Paris negotiating a treaty and therefore did not serve as a delegate, felt strongly that a bill of rights should have been included in the original Constitution. But Jefferson still supported the Constitution because he felt it was the best available. Benjamin Franklin stated that view in these words:

“When you assemble a number of men to have the advantage over their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does. … The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good.”

In other words, one should not expect perfection—one certainly should not expect all of his personal preferences—in a document that must represent a consensus. One should not sulk over a representative body’s failure to attain perfection. Americans are well advised to support the best that can be obtained in the circumstances that prevail. That is sound advice not only for the drafting of a constitution but also for the adoption and administration of laws under it.

Inspiration

It was a miracle that the Constitution could be drafted and ratified. But what is there in the text of the Constitution that is divinely inspired?

Reverence for the United States Constitution is so great that sometimes individuals speak as if its every word and phrase had the same standing as scripture. Personally, I have never considered it necessary to defend every line of the Constitution as scriptural. For example, I find nothing scriptural in the compromise on slavery or the minimum age or years of citizenship for congressmen, senators, or the president. President J. Reuben Clark, who referred to the Constitution as “part of my religion,” also said that it was not part of his belief or the doctrine of the Church that the Constitution was a “fully grown document.” “On the contrary,” he said, “We believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.”

That was also the attitude of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He faulted the Constitution for not being “broad enough to cover the whole ground.” In an obvious reference to the national government’s lack of power to intervene when the state of Missouri used its militia to expel the Latter-day Saints from their lands, Joseph Smith said,“Its sentiments are good, but it provides no means of enforcing them. … Under its provision, a man or a people who are able to protect themselves can get along well enough; but those who have the misfortune to be weak or unpopular are left to the merciless rage of popular fury.” This omission of national power to protect citizens against state action to deprive them of constitutional rights was remedied in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted just after the Civil War.

I see divine inspiration in what President J. Reuben Clark called the “great fundamentals” of the Constitution. In his many talks on the Constitution, he always praised three fundamentals: (a) the separation of powers into three independent branches of government in a federal system; (b) the essential freedoms of speech, press, and religion embodied in the Bill of Rights; and (c) the equality of all men before the law. I concur in these three, but I add two more. On my list there are five great fundamentals.

1. Separation of powers. The idea of separation of powers was at least a century old. The English Parliament achieved an initial separation of legislative and executive authority when they wrested certain powers from the king in the revolution of 1688. The concept of separation of powers became well established in the American colonies. State constitutions adopted during the Revolution distinguished between the executive, legislative, and judicial functions. Thus, a document commenting on the proposed Massachusetts Constitution of 1778, speaks familiarly of the principle “that the legislative, judicial, and executive powers are to be lodged in different hands, that each branch is to be independent, and further, to be so balanced, and be able to exert such checks upon the others, as will preserve it from dependence on, or a union with them.”

Thus, we see that the inspiration on the idea of separation of powers came long before the U.S. Constitutional Convention. The inspiration in the convention was in its original and remarkably successful adaptation of the idea of separation of powers to the practical needs of a national government. The delegates found just the right combination to assure the integrity of each branch, appropriately checked and balanced with the others. As President Clark said:

“It is this union of independence and dependence of these branches—legislative, executive and judicial—and of the governmental functions possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvelous genius of this unrivalled document. … As I see it, it was here that the divine inspiration came. It was truly a miracle.”

2. A written bill of rights. This second great fundamental came by amendment, but I think Americans all look upon the Bill of Rights as part of the inspired work of the Founding Fathers. The idea of a bill of rights was not new. Once again, the inspiration was in the brilliant, practical implementation of preexisting principles. Almost six hundred years earlier, King John had subscribed the Magna Charta, which contained a written guarantee of some rights for certain of his subjects. The English Parliament had guaranteed individual rights against royal power in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Even more recently, some of the charters used in the establishment of the American colonies had written guarantees of liberties and privileges, with which the delegates were familiar.

I have always felt that the United States Constitution’s closest approach to scriptural stature is in the phrasing of our Bill of Rights. Without the free exercise of religion, America could not have served as the host nation for the restoration of the gospel, which began just three decades after the Bill of Rights was ratified. I also see scriptural stature in the concept and wording of the freedoms of speech and press, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, the requirements that there must be probable cause for an arrest and that accused persons must have a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, and the guarantee that a person will not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. President Ezra Taft Benson has said, “Reason, necessity, tradition, and religious conviction all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights.”

The Declaration of Independence had posited these truths to be “self-evident,” that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights,” and that governments are instituted “to secure these Rights.” This inspired Constitution was established to provide a practical guarantee of these God-given rights, and the language implementing that godly objective is scriptural to me.

3. Division of powers. Another inspired fundamental of the U.S. Constitution is its federal system, which divides government powers between the nation and the various states. Unlike the inspired adaptations mentioned earlier, this division of sovereignty was unprecedented in theory or practice. In a day when it is fashionable to assume that the government has the power and means to right every wrong, we should remember that the U.S. Constitution limits the national government to the exercise of powers expressly granted to it. The Tenth Amendment provides:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.”

This principle of limited national powers, with all residuary powers reserved to the people or to the state and local governments, which are most responsive to the people, is one of the great fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution.

The particular powers that are reserved to the states are part of the inspiration. For example, the power to make laws on personal relationships is reserved to the states. Thus, laws of marriage and family rights and duties are state laws. This would have been changed by the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (E.R.A.). When the First Presidency opposed the E.R.A., they cited the way it would have changed various legal rules having to do with the family, a result they characterized as “a moral rather than a legal issue.” I would add my belief that the most fundamental legal and political objection to the proposed E.R.A. was that it would effect a significant reallocation of law-making power from the states to the federal government.

4. Popular sovereignty. Perhaps the most important of the great fundamentals of the inspired Constitution is the principle of popular sovereignty: The people are the source of government power. Along with many religious people, Latter-day Saints affirm that God gave the power to the people, and the people consented to a constitution that delegated certain powers to the government. Sovereignty is not inherent in a state or nation just because it has the power that comes from force of arms. Sovereignty does not come from the divine right of a king, who grants his subjects such power as he pleases or is forced to concede, as in Magna Charta. The sovereign power is in the people. I believe this is one of the great meanings in the revelation which tells us that God established the Constitution of the United States,

“That every man may act … according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

“Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land.”

In other words, the most desirable condition for the effective exercise of God-given moral agency is a condition of maximum freedom and responsibility. In this condition men are accountable for their own sins and cannot blame their political conditions on their bondage to a king or a tyrant. This condition is achieved when the people are sovereign, as they are under the Constitution God established in the United States. From this it follows that the most important words in the United States Constitution are the words in the preamble: “We, the people of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

President Ezra Taft Benson expressed the fundamental principle of popular sovereignty when he said, “We [the people] are superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around.” The Book of Mormon explains that principle in these words:

“An unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness. …

“Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws. …

“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.”

Popular sovereignty necessarily implies popular responsibility. Instead of blaming their troubles on a king or other sovereign, all citizens must share the burdens and responsibilities of governing. As the Book of Mormon teaches, “The burden should come upon all the people, that every man might bear his part.”

President Clark’s third great fundamental was the equality of all men before the law. I believe that to be a corollary of popular sovereignty. When power comes from the people, there is no legitimacy in legal castes or classes or in failing to provide all citizens the equal protection of the laws.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not originate the idea of popular sovereignty, since they lived in a century when many philosophers had argued that political power originated in a social contract. But the United States Constitution provided the first implementation of this principle. After two centuries in which Americans may have taken popular sovereignty for granted, it is helpful to be reminded of the difficulties in that pioneering effort.

To begin with, a direct democracy was impractical for a country of four million people and about a half million square miles. As a result, the delegates had to design the structure of a constitutional, representative democracy, what they called “a Republican Form of Government.”
The delegates also had to resolve whether a constitution adopted by popular sovereignty could be amended, and if so, how.

Finally, the delegates had to decide how minority rights could be protected when the government was, by definition, controlled by the majority of the sovereign people.

A government based on popular sovereignty must be responsive to the people, but it must also be stable or it cannot govern. A constitution must therefore give government the power to withstand the cries of a majority of the people in the short run, though it must obviously be subject to their direction in the long run.

Without some government stability against an outraged majority, government could not protect minority rights. As President Clark declared:

“The Constitution was framed in order to protect minorities. That is the purpose of written constitutions. In order that the minorities might be protected in the matter of amendments under our Constitution, the Lord required that the amendments should be made only through the operation of very large majorities—two-thirds for action in the Senate, and three-fourths as among the states. This is the inspired, prescribed order.”

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention achieved the required balance between popular sovereignty and stability through a power of amendment that was ultimately available but deliberately slow. Only in this way could the government have the certainty of stability, the protection of minority rights, and the potential of change, all at the same time.

To summarize, I see divine inspiration in these four great fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution:

• the separation of powers in the three branches of government;
• the Bill of Rights;
• the division of powers between the states and the federal government; and
• the application of popular sovereignty.

5. The rule of law and not of men. Further, there is divine inspiration in the fundamental underlying premise of this whole constitutional order. All the blessings enjoyed under the United States Constitution are dependent upon the rule of law. That is why President J. Reuben Clark said, “Our allegiance run[s] to the Constitution and to the principles which it embodies, and not to individuals.” 16 The rule of law is the basis of liberty.

As the Lord declared in modern revelation, constitutional laws are justifiable before him, “and the law also maketh you free.” The self-control by which citizens subject themselves to law strengthens the freedom of all citizens and honors the divinely inspired Constitution.
Citizen Responsibilities

U.S. citizens have an inspired Constitution, and therefore, what? Does the belief that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired affect citizens’ behavior toward law and government? It should and it does.

U.S. citizens should follow the First Presidency’s counsel to study the Constitution. They should be familiar with its great fundamentals: the separation of powers, the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the structure of federalism, the sovereignty of the people, and the principles of the rule of the law. They should oppose any infringement of these inspired fundamentals.
They should be law-abiding citizens, supportive of national, state, and local governments. The twelfth Article of Faith declares:

“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

The Church’s official declaration of belief states:
“We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them. …

“We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside.”

Those who enjoy the blessings of liberty under a divinely inspired constitution should promote morality, and they should practice what the Founding Fathers called “civic virtue.” In his address on the U.S. Constitution, President Ezra Taft Benson quoted this important observation by John Adams, the second president of the United States:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Similarly, James Madison, who is known as the “Father of the Constitution,” stated his assumption that there had to be “sufficient virtue among men for self-government.” He argued in the Federalist Papers that “republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.”

It is part of our civic duty to be moral in our conduct toward all people. There is no place in responsible citizenship for dishonesty or deceit or for willful law breaking of any kind. We believe with the author of Proverbs that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” The personal righteousness of citizens will strengthen a nation more than the force of its arms.

Citizens should also be practitioners of civic virtue in their conduct toward government. They should be ever willing to fulfill the duties of citizenship. This includes compulsory duties like military service and the numerous voluntary actions they must take if they are to preserve the principle of limited government through citizen self-reliance. For example, since U.S. citizens value the right of trial by jury, they must be willing to serve on juries, even those involving unsavory subject matter. Citizens who favor morality cannot leave the enforcement of moral laws to jurors who oppose them.

The single word that best describes a fulfillment of the duties of civic virtue is patriotism. Citizens should be patriotic. My favorite prescription for patriotism is that of Adlai Stevenson:
“What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? … A patriotism that puts country ahead of self; a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”

I close with a poetic prayer. It is familiar to everyone in the United States, because U.S. citizens sing it in one of their loveliest hymns. It expresses gratitude to God for liberty, and it voices a prayer that he will continue to bless them with the holy light of freedom:

Our fathers’ God, to thee,
Author of liberty,
To thee we sing;
Long may our land be bright
With freedom’s holy light.
Protect us by thy might,
Great God, our King!

Why we don't want to pay for more government

The Bright Light and the Black Hole

Basically, there are two sectors of the economy. One is productive. It is industry. People invest their money to make more money. This part of society creates jobs which create profit. Then, there is the unproductive sector of the economy. This is the government. It's like an empty pit. You throw money into it and nothing is produced. If it creates a few jobs, these jobs do not create products or profit. Because of this, the jobs necessarily continue to suck away money.

Picture these two sectors of the economy as a bright light and a black hole. They are necessarily at odds with one another. As the black hole of government grows, it devours the light of industry. It sucks in more money that could have been used to create more productive jobs. It sucks in the money that the good people of the country would have donated to charities. The sad thing is that as the people okay these sacrifices, they vote away their freedoms. The cause of the financial crisis is the black hole, not the bright light.

What's the point of this analogy? The point is that this black hole is self-perpetuating. Last year General Motors spent 13.1 million dollars on Washington lobbyists. You see, instead of investing their money into industry and production, they are pouring it into the black hole. They had a great return on their investment. They received a huge chunk of tax-payer dollars in exchange for their lobbying efforts. There's only one problem. The light cannot hold out against the black hole. The tax payer dollars come from those who produce. How long until they can produce no longer? And once the light goes out, who will sustain that black hole?

What is the only certainty in this situation? A whole chunk of bail out money (your money!) will be poured right back into Washington Lobbyist's pockets. It's too bad we can't eat or wear what lobbyists produce. They might be the only job left soon. I suppose we could eat politicians if we are starving. I bet they are terribly greasy.

Partison Politics and Beautiful Music

Politics are probably the most divisive thing on Earth. You have a whole group of people who love to tell you that it doesn’t have to be that way. Almost daily, we have calls for “bipartisanship,” This, of course, means the person who is not preaching bipartisanship is unreasonable and needs to change his/her perspective to match that of the person who wants cooperation.

I am someone who does not like conflict at all. When I have to fight with a credit card company, I end up lying awake at night with a sick feeling in my stomach, trying not to think about the disagreement. So, there are days when reading the news is tantamount to self-inflicted torture. I get discouraged with all the hatred that is being spewed out of the mouths of those who disagree with me. I get heartsick when I hear the same coming from those who share my views.

Unfortunately, much of modern society believes that the cause of freedom is heartless. This means that I am often called bigoted, judgmental, and ignorant. It’s just the opposite. True conservatives are the only ones that embrace the trite sayings like “reach for the stars,” “be all you can be,” and “live your dreams.” Whether or not you believe that these ideas can exist in the practical world, they are the essence of what I believe and the inspiration for my actions.

I believe that anyone can accomplish anything if they are taught their own worth. I believe that the world is what we make it and our success or failure is dependent on our own choices. I believe that love is best displayed through teaching the value of hard work, because that will bring happiness. I believe in freedom, in all its forms, for all people. And most importantly, I believe that charity is an act of love, and never an act of pity.

Sacrificing these beliefs in the name of bipartisanship will never produce the happiness that is used as a justification while arguing for this sacrifice. Very often, it’s far superior to have disagreement than to have submission. We don’t disagree to disagree, we disagree because we know what’s right.

Because we can't completely avoid the negativity and because we don't want to remain discouraged, I am sharing a video today that was sent to me by a friend. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion. But! It's beautiful. It can help wipe away the sadness that sometimes comes along with our battle. The next time life gets to you, take a break, close your eyes and listen to this:

Change You Can Believe In

Perhaps this is what President Obama meant by his campaign promises. I wonder what the bank fees are like?

Our Comrade

Members of congress went on a visit to a neighboring head of state this week. As you might expect, for visiting dignitaries, they were treated well. And what did the congressmen/women have to say about their host? Here’s a sample of their high praise:

“It was almost like listening to an old friend.”
“In my household I told (him) he is known as the ultimate survivor.”

- Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il)

So who is this wonderful man who so charmed our leaders? I’m not going to tell you. Instead, let’s play a game. I’ll give you some clues and you see how fast you can guess.

1. In New York on April 25 he said, “I don't agree with communism. We are democracy. We are against all kinds of dictators.... That is why we oppose communism.”

Got it yet? Here’s another clue:

2. On May 1, 1960, he declared his country a socialist state and officially abolished elections. Critics noted that he feared elections would eject him from power.

Okay, that was a give away. But here are some more fun facts:

3. He nationalized some $850 million worth of U.S. property and businesses.

4. He closed down all opposition newspapers and placed all radio and television stations under state control.

5. In any given year, he arranged for about 20,000 dissents to be held and tortured under inhuman prison conditions.

6. He locked homosexuals in concentration camps.

7. In a personal letter to Khrushchev dated October 27, 1962, he urged him to launch a nuclear first strike against the United States.

Yup, I’m talking about Fidel Castro. He sounds like a nice guy. I’m proud to have congressmen and women who are willing to go visit him, extol his virtues on television and then boldly declare as CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Ca.) did that “The bottom line is that we believe its time to open dialogue with Cuba.”

Seventy-Three percent of statistics are made up

The rest of them are just distorted to fit an agenda. It was only last month that I read an article claiming that the United States was to blame for the Mexican drug wars because we provided the guns. It was last week that I watched an interview with the mayor of El Paso asking for military help in searching vehicles headed to Mexico to prevent illegal smuggling of guns.

I laughed this week when my husband started defending our country to the group of computer programmers he works with on his spare-time volunteer programing project. I asked why he was talking politics with them and he explained, "They're all from Europe and think America is full of nothing but gun-toting, cowboy-hat wearing hicks."

I was heart-broken over the story of Spc. Richard Raymond Medina Torres, an American solider, who accidentally drove over the border bridge from El Paso to Ciudad Juarez with weapons in his car. He subsequently spent five weeks in a Mexican prison. But when he was finally released, he came home with "no hard feelings." He understood that the Mexican people have the right to enforce their own laws and they have a legitimate desire to keep American-made weapons out of the hands of the drug lords. After all, 90 percent of the guns used in crime in Mexico come from America, right?

Wrong. This article from Fox News is one of the best I've read. Check it out here. You'll be shocked by how easy it was for politicians to use incorrect statistics to push their own agendas.

A Victim of Victimhood

This may not seem like a funny post, but those of you who know me have learned to cope with my sense of humor. Yesterday, the President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said, “This crisis was caused by the irrational behavior of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis, appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing.” He continued, “I do not know any black or indigenous bankers so I can only say [it is wrong] that this part of mankind which is victimized more than any other should pay for the crisis.” Excuse me while I pause to wipe the tears of hilarity from my eyes.

As a resident white person with blue eyes, let me be the first to apologize.

Dear President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva:

I wish to tell you, from the bottom of my heart, how deeply sorry I am for the current financial crisis. But I don’t believe the apology should stop there. I am much sorrier for the soft, politically correct racism that allows you to assume that there is one color of people who requires setting apart for special treatment. I am sorry for anyone who allows a child of one race to believe that they cannot become a doctor, scientist or banker. I am sorry for whatever made you think your insinuation that color is equivalent to job prestige is okay. I am sorry for subsidies, special programs, and any other unearned benefits to one race over another that taught children they are not good enough without the charity of others. I am especially sorry for the soft racism of low expectations that necessarily put you in charge of a country. I am sure there is an indigenous leader who could have done better, if people like you had not convinced him he was less than and dependent on you. On behalf of the white people, we are so, so sorry that we allowed you to be racist. But this apology isn’t for you. It’s for those people you pretend to be speaking for while you continue to condemn them to a life of believing themselves incapable victims of circumstance.

Sincerely,

Just another person who doesn’t care about color

Let’s take a quick skip down memory lane…Do you remember in May of 2005 when President Vicente Fox of Mexico said, “There is no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work, are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States.”

I honestly do not know what makes such disgusting racism acceptable, especially from people leading large countries. But I do know this: it’s time to start teaching the same curriculum to all children. It’s about choice and accountability. You reap the rewards of the actions you sow. Kids truly do have the opportunity to achieve anything they want to. The only think holding them back is leaders who teach racism and hopelessness as a matter of course.

A Brilliant Speech

This was directed toward the British Prime Minister. It's a message we all need to hear.

What is a Spawn of Ignorance?

This website was not planned. It was born out of a desire to speak my frustrations the day after the most recent presidential election. I was frustrated by the outcome and also by the people who seemed to be losing hope because of the direction of the country. Because it all came together willy nilly, I recently realized that I have never taken the time to define it. I’m certain that my ideas come through in my writing, but today I want to tell you exactly what the thesis of this blog is.

The title of my blog is a quote by William Lloyd Garrison. In case you’re unfamiliar with him, he was a prominent abolitionist and advocate of women’s suffrage. While many notable abolitionists of the day were arguing for a gradual transition from slavery to freedom for Blacks, Mr. Garrison called for, “"immediate and complete emancipation of all slaves". This is also the goal of my blog.

You see, we’re no longer talking about an enemy as clearly visible as chains and forced labor. That makes it all the more dangerous. We’re talking about the soft, whispered slavery that is politically correct and willingly submitted to. Obviously, I address political issues here. So many people think its okay to vote away their freedoms in exchange for “being taken care of.” But, the quote states that “Tyrant’s are but the spawn of ignorance, begotten by the slaves they trample on,” and I interpret that in a much broader sense. I am opposed to all tyrants, be they politicians, disease, drugs, misinformation, misunderstanding, addiction or cruelty. I often talk about the growth of government, but I also oppose the tyrants that come from our own choices.

There is one more aspect to my writing. I believe, firmly, that the greatest tyrant of all is helplessness. I know so many who have said, “Look, I agree with you, but there is nothing I can do.” I have said this blog will always be positive. Maybe I worded that wrong. This blog will always be empowering. The only way to defeat helplessness is to speak up and continue acting honorably. Too many people think that there is nothing they can do.

I believe in people, not in institutions, government, or protectors. I believe that free agency was a gift from God and should not be surrendered in exchange for any perceived benefit. So, the goal of my writing is the same as the goal of Mr. Garrison’s. I state, as he did in the first issue of his newspaper, “I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; – but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.”

Big Government is Making You Fat

That’s good news isn’t it? We all wanted someone to blame! Well, that’s not the reason I’m posting this on by blog. I’m doing it because no one seems to understand what a free market is. There is an entire camp out there, including Nancy Pelosi, who blame the current market situation on the free market. The Speaker of the House specifically said, “It’s really an anything-goes mentality. No regulation, no supervision, no discipline.” Well, let’s talk about that "anything goes" situation a little.

Some people have found it strange how the tables have turned recently as far as wealth and nutrition are concerned. Once upon a time, it was fashionable to be very large because that meant that you were wealthy. Now, medical research has made it clear that the current profile of an obese person usually includes poverty. It has been established that foods which contain little nutritional value are the cheapest foods. If you don’t put too much thought into it, it’s easy to think that makes sense. Shouldn’t healthy foods be more expensive? But consider the processing that goes into creating junk food vs what it takes to grow an apple. Why in the world would highly processed foods be cheaper?

Government Regulation

According to Wikipedia, the U.S. Farm Bill is, “the primary agricultural and food policy tool of the Federal government of the United States. The comprehensive omnibus bill is passed every several years by the United States Congress and deals with both agriculture and all other affairs under the purview of the United States Department of Agriculture.” It includes a host of government subsidies which, in effect, make it cheaper to produce unhealthy food. The one food that the farm bill supports more than any other is corn. This makes it very cheap to produce corn syrup, even the high fructose kind we’ve all been warned against. Basically, the U.S. Government is paying farmers to produce high carbohydrate foods.

According to the New York Times, “A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent.” If you can, you should really read this entire article. You can find it here. It explains how these policies have also had a negative impact on other countries and our over-all economy.

So, what’s the good news here? It’s that the left’s constant attempts to tell us that “willy nilly free market policies” have caused the economic problems is just a scare tactic. How in the world can they argue that when we have not had any political leaders willing to stand up for freedom in years? Take a look at history. Take a look at what government intervention has done and ask yourself if laissez faire wouldn’t be better. You certainly can’t argue that it hasn't worked in the past, because it’s never been tried. Politicians have always been too tempted by the power that comes with control, even though they deny the responsibility.

Is Racism Dead?

Some have suggested that I probably put too much pressure on my kindergartener if he was so stressed about a school election. Let me explain what happened the day before. I have also been blessed with an energetic four-year-old. On Monday, before the election, he came home from pre-school very excited because he had the opportunity to vote in school. He smiled proudly as he told me how he had voted for Barak Obama. I only began talking to my small children about politics because it was clear that someone else was already doing so.

What’s really interesting about the whole situation is the method they used at both my sons’ schools. The children were shown pictures of the candidates and asked to point to the one they chose. We live in an area of the country where my blonde-hair, blue eyed children are a clear minority. My kindergartener is the only white child in his class. I chose the school for the programs it offered, but passed up another school which was closer to my home and offered similar programs because I was told it had some tension between different ethnic groups. That school had many more white children than the one I chose. My reasoning was simple: he could not be part of a faction if he was an anomaly. I do not want my children to even notice skin color, let alone be influenced by it. I found it interesting that my son looked at the pictures and did not pick the one that looked like him and his family. Whatever his reasons for choosing Barak Obama, race was not in it. This, I believe, is what it means to not be racist.

Many do not share my definition. In both the concession speech by John McCain and the victory speech by the president elect, a main theme was the gigantic step this country has taken by electing a black man president. This bothered me. In my mind, it is racism of another kind. Shouldn’t the main theme of an election victory be the victory of the politics represented by the candidate? Shouldn’t we care less about the color of a man’s skin and much more about what he believes is best for our country? I suppose it is more than can be hoped for during an election where we were out to prove that we weren’t racist. But someone who is truly colorblind doesn’t have to prove it.

The librarian who conducted the election at my kindergartener’s school noted that one child when shown the pictures of the candidates and asked to choose, looked a little confused and then asked, “Which one is the black one?” Perhaps the parent who told him to “vote for the black one” only meant it as a description so the child would know the candidate with the better vision for America. Perhaps. But the child was clean of the bias that plagues so many in the world and only saw two men in the pictures, not grouping them into racial categories.

During this election we saw black panthers intimidating voters. We saw a white McCain worker make up a story of being assaulted by a large black man supporting the Obama. We had a candidate who attends a church that proudly defines itself as only for people of a particular race. Further, as always, we had polls that grouped voters on categories according to their race and ethnicity, as if they all should vote the same. And we had a victory that was considered more important in terms of civil rights than politics which could change the face of this country for our children.

What is my point? Am I arguing that progress hasn’t been made? Of course not. The world we live in today is much better than the one plagued by segregation and open hostility. My point is that progress cannot be legislated. If we truly want racial equality, it comes with freedom. Each time the government attempts to dictate equality, another type of discrimination is born. People resent being told what to do and others resent being forced to accept help from a government for something they can do themselves. Have hope in the people of this amazing nation. Most of us want racial equality. Most of us teach our children what is right and wrong. Let those who insist on being racist make fools of themselves until they get tired of looking idiotic. Nobody should have to prove they're not racist by endorsing reverse racism. I look forward hopefully to the day when the little boy who asked which candidate was the “black man” will look at a spectrum of politicians in every color and gender and ask, “Which one is best for America?”

Racism will only truly die when we stop trying to make it a martyr.