My World View - Amended

This has been a memorable few weeks. It has been filled with events of deep significance for us, beginning with the Christmas holidays when we spent a lot of time together with our family.

We had a special treat the first Saturday in January. Patsy had always longed for a sleigh ride with all the kids here at the Ranch, so I connected with Kim Richins out of Coalville, and he brought a matched team of black Percherons and hitched them to his twenty-passenger sleigh for two hours of fun. It was so great! Andrew and Jessica were taking some holiday time off from the rigors of medical school, and their visit was the catalyst for getting everyone here.

Next up was three weeks of business-related travel for Packsize that took us out to the Eastern Caribbean for the annual sales meeting aboard the Carnival Freedom cruise ship. Our ports of call included San Juan in Puerto Rico, Antigua, St. Thomas, Nassau in the Bahamas, then on to Germany for a week of training with the sales team in the the European Business Unit at Herford. What a cultural feast this past month has been!

The day after our return last week, Jake and Heidi were blessed with yet another miracle baby, Vivienne, who was born three months early, weighing in at 2 lb. 6 oz. at a length of 13 inches! Mother and baby are doing well. You can read all about her and their journey through the vicissitudes of infertility and anencephaly by clicking the link to their blog.

When you travel, if you are like me, you spend a few hours in various ports of call and you come away with distinct impressions that last a lifetime. This last month for me was particularly meaningful because I got to return to ground I had not seen for 46 years!

My parents came to England in 1969 to pick me up from my mission. They had not seen Europe, and thought it would be a memorable time to make that trip, even though it was winter in early February. Our itinerary included England, Holland, Poland, Germany, Switzerland, France, Spain and Portugal. High on their list of things to do was to visit historical sights, including museums, cathedrals, and even a night at the ballet in Paris for me and Mom. Dad wasn't interested in ballet.

My purpose in recalling that memory has everything to do with my week in Germany last week. I had a chance to return to Berlin.

When I was there in 1969, Berlin was a divided city, and Germany had been partitioned after World War II. It was divided among the Allies who defeated Hitler to assure that Germany never repeated that debacle. The Berlin Wall was the iconic symbol representing the worst features of the Cold War raging between America and the USSR. We had just come from Amsterdam and Poland where we reviewed the history of the rise and the fall of the Third Reich, and it was a chilling and sobering chapter. We rode trains from Amsterdam to Poland, where the highlights included visits to Anne Frank's home and Auschwitz. We then went to Dusseldorf and Berlin on trains.

Checkpoint Charlie, Berlin

My youthful mind was filled with those images and, frankly, Germany scared me. As the miles on the crowded trains flew by with my parents I wondered if we would somehow get trapped behind enemy lines and never return to America. Remember, it's 1969, and nothing's really going on in Europe except the Cold War and there's a war in far-off Vietnam nobody cares anything about. I knew as I prepared to return home I would have to go into the Army, but I wasn't nearly as concerned about that as I was about getting out of Germany that day.

The memories of that visit to Berlin in 1969 persisted into my adult life. We went through the Berlin Wall into East Germany on a two-hour visit permit. The warning posted at the checkpoint, "YOU ARE NOW LEAVING THE AMERICAN SECTOR," did nothing but chill me to the bone. On the other side of the Wall, it was so disheartening to observe firsthand the effects of Communism on the buildings, the people and the cold winter scenes we witnessed. People in the streets were huddled around barrels burning whatever they could find to stay warm and scrounging for food. Our guide drove slowly and ignored the pleas for help. "If you help one, you have to help them all," he informed us. Everything was old and dilapidated. There had been little progress under Communist rule since the War had ended. The oppression, the fear and the menacing overhang of soldiers everywhere was foreboding to me. The concrete tenement buildings for the workers were drab and uninviting. Today some of those tenements have been reclaimed and updated as upscale and pricey condominiums, but you get off the main thoroughfares and our tour guide talked about "open ownership" to properties that no one has claimed and they remain as dilapidated as they were in 1969 when I was there last. I couldn't wait to get back out of there. Freedom had never been so precious to me.

Brandenburg Gate today

Fast forward to last week. We picked up a tour bus on a Saturday morning. It was almost the same time of year, once again only two weeks different than my experience in 1969. It was still winter, and Berlin that Saturday morning was very cold with light snow in the air. But this time the difference was there were no soldiers, only their ghosts and my distant memories. We breezed through the streets of the old East Berlin with ease on the tour bus. Because we took that portion of the tour first, our guide let us stop and spend time wherever we chose to do, and we enjoyed that leisurely approach very much.

There are still stretches of the old Berlin Wall left. The tour guide spoke frequently of the "GDR" days and the days since under reunification that began when the Wall finally figuratively disintegrated overnight in 1989. In evidence everywhere is the slow but steady progress that has occurred since my first visit in 1969. However, my colleague in Packsize, Jan Spiekermann, who is a German citizen, informed me last week there is still a deduction from every one of his paychecks for the rebuilding effort that will be ongoing for many years to come.

The train travel has advanced dramatically. We were speeding along in ICE trains at about 125 mph during this visit, a stark contrast to the crowded and slower trains I remembered from my youth.

Victory Column, Berlin

A total of two days in a lifetime spent in Berlin does not an expert make. Let me make that declaration here and now. But the differences in what I observed then and now cannot be denied. These are the reasons I have lamented with amazement so frequently on these pages that America would intentionally embrace socialism and a socialist POTUS in recent years when they could have had Mitt Romney. Didn't we all learn the lesson that Communism was a dismal failure? Did we need any other reminder that socialism, as practiced in Berlin and the GDR in post-World War II years produced nothing but depression and dismal economic failure? Can't we all agree that politicians espousing such economic policies should be ignored and shunned at the ballot box? God help us all that when Barack Obama's term comes to a merciful end in November, 2016, that we never sign up for a repeat of THAT ever again in America.

If you believe there is merit in socialism in the least of its shades and hues to any degree, I'd suggest you study history, then make a visit to Berlin sometime. I think you'll come away from that exercise convinced that socialism offers nothing to those who love freedom. The promise of a better life to the masses by taking from the rich is a lie. It was then, it still is today.

Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church

Today in Berlin there are reminders everywhere of the horrors of war. I thought it was no more clearly illustrated than a visit to the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church. Its bombed-out skeletal remains stand next to the modern rebuilt sanctuary as a reminder that war destroys. Those modern memorials also remind Germans that, after all, Hitler was an Austrian in Germany only long enough to claim citizenship that enabled him to stay there legally. He has been totally disavowed by modern-day Berliners. Our past as nations and individuals can define and advise our future in very significant ways to find a more productive and prosperous way forward if we choose it.

Holocaust museums and memorials are abundant there. Germany continues to prosper under the democracy in place there as the anchor to the European Union. These facts alone should be ample evidence, sufficient to tamp down any thoughts of returning to socialism in any way. But government solutions tend to pop up everywhere despite the lessons of history. That reality dismays me, though I can do little but comment about it. I believe, however, the power of ideas related to freedom ultimately appeal to our Father in Heaven's children wherever they live on this earth.

Holocaust Memorial, Berlin

Sadly, however, mankind seems almost incapable of remembering and taking a different course. Conflicts around the globe today persist. We don't call them wars these days, and the current administration in Washington seems reluctant to admit we are in a war with a radical strain of Islam. Make no mistake, however, there are still people out there who would kill Americans if they could. The enemies of freedom will persist because Satan inspires some to think they can conquer and subdue the human spirit by compelling them into bondage that takes many forms. We may not think we are at war with them, but they have no other desire than to topple America and the freedoms she stands for around the world. The ancient and ever-present war between good and evil will always be with us.

It was my children in 1989, who informed me upon returning from school one November day that "some wall in Europe came down today." I said, "You mean the Berlin Wall?" "Yeah, that's it," was their answer. I was stunned. Overnight a miracle had happened, and just that fast the end of the Cold War came without a single shot being fired. The total collapse of the Soviet empire had come to an unbelievable, swift and merciful end.

Ronald Reagan, 1987

Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II had been right to confront the evil of their day. Reagan's bold demand at the Brandenburg Gate to Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," had been miraculously fulfilled. It was shocking. Berliners on both sides of the wall took to the streets in celebration. Freedom at last!

So based upon their tortured past with major wars in nearly every century of their history, let's take a lesson from the Germans - recovering from the effects of wars takes many more years than we can imagine, and the drain on productivity and progress is almost impossible to calculate.

What Were You Thinking? You Elected Obama!

Let me say it one more time. My basic inclination is to maintain a positive outlook on life. I resist any and all attempts by others to paint me into the corner of "victimhood." However, after the results of this last presidential election I feel like I was violated. I've never been mugged on Mean Street, USA, but this came awfully close when I imagine what it might feel like.

I feel like my generation owes an apology to my children and grandchildren and generations of my progeny not yet born. Even though it will do little to change the outcome, I offer my apology for what it's worth. I didn't donate much money to anyone in this election cycle, but my preferences are well-known on these pages and easily discerned. My preferred candidate, Mitt Romney, lost, but America lost more. We will never know what might have been by walking past Romney, perhaps the best qualified candidate for president we will ever see in America.

President Barack Obama

The electorate, however, has spoken. I know the majority picked Barack Hussein Obama. I also realize I no longer can be considered part of the majority. I didn't get what I wanted in this election (that happens routinely now). But to you who voted for Obama, I wonder if you only got what you THOUGHT you wanted.

By voting for Obama there is an increasing chance you have helped to destroy this nation. Layoffs are mounting in just the last week. The cruel realities of the excessive taxation associated with Obamacare have now begun to take their toll. Just today we learned three Hostess plants that make Twinkies were forced to close. The unions, warned of what would happen, went out on strike. Over 600 jobs were lost. The list of closures will continue. We've also heard from Papa John's and others, and there will be more. They will cut back on the hours worked by their remaining employees in order to avoid having to insure them under Obamacare. Elections DO have consequences.

Let me explain further about what happened during Obama's first four years to help you understand what you've done by re-electing him. During his first four years, Obama effectively nationalized the housing industry and slowed recovery by intervening. Then he gobbled up the automobile industry and crowned the unions while eliminating secured creditors. Next was the medical industry, almost 20 percent of our economy, by enacting Obamacare. You can label all this any way you choose, but the most accurate label I can put on it is socialism. If his first term is the preamble, his second term will accelerate the nationalism of the airlines, oil and gas and power. Already, we have seen the impact of Obama's policies on the coal industry. By taxing the end users to generate electricity, he's killed their markets and coal miners are losing their jobs. It would be safe to assume we will see more borrowed and tax money "invested" by our government into untested and unproven “green” industries.

The exit polling reveals that single women voted overwhelmingly for Obama. I confess I was baffled by the birth control question that arose during the primary debates. I couldn't imagine where that came from. In the general election we learned the strategy. Obama targeted women to garner votes solely based upon free government access to reproductive decisions by mandating that health care providers (then later the insurance companies) give out free birth control pills and provide abortions no matter where women and their infants were in their gestation development. It was all couched in "freedom of choice" language, or a woman's "right to choose."

That's such a compelling benefit - birth control on the front end (have sex indiscriminately) and abortion on demand (kill that growing fetus if you choose not to give birth). It's a failsafe world for women now - freedom to avoid pregnancy and freedom to terminate it when they ignore the first choice. Note the abuse of the words "free" and "freedom." Do you know, or have you ever spoken to someone who had an abortion, regardless of the cause of the pregnancy? Lost in all the discussion about "choice" and "freedom" is this: abortion is "akin" if not "equated" to murder.

Let's talk about immigration next. You may not know it, but by voting for Obama, you have virtually assured an ever-expanding definition of amnesty. Why? To further strengthen the voter base among Hispanics. Along with it will come legitimacy to those who entered America illegally.

Here's the rest of the story on what your federal government will be doing. It will assure huge payments for housing, subsistence, medical care, and free secondary education at the public expense. The reasoning is flawed, but it's simple - by handing out all those government sponsored goodies illegals will be embraced and will vote for the socialist regime that dispenses them.

What about drug laws? One would expect another four-year Obama term to further relax enforcement on drug laws with lighter penalties, while increasing regulations on legitimate businesses. Sixty new regulations have been put into place in the last thirty days. Expect significantly more relaxed drug laws and far less severe punishments for drug use. In the aftermath, watch for a huge expenditure on government drug treatment centers and increasing costs to feed and house the rapidly growing numbers of non-productive citizens.

Is that really what YOU voted for? My guess is you didn't really care much because if you don't pay taxes why would you be worried about how taxes are spent?

Don't be too surprised if God continues to disappear from our public expression and our devalued currency and coin. If you don't care about or believe in God, you won't be too concerned. The concept of separation of church and state (NOT Constitutional) will be cemented into our national fabric if it isn't already. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion by the state, not the free and open dialogue and expression of religion in the public square. We've seen the secularists raising objections to our use of the name Jesus Christ associated with Christmas. What will another four or eight or twelve years bring in the way of "progress" on this front?

How about foreign policy? There's already a creeping suspicion about Obama's ethnic origins and hence his loyalties. He's bowed before the Saudi princes, the Japanese hierarchy and others in the Muslim world. His tendency is to ignore the global reality of radical Islamic terrorists. He would like us to believe that silliness all ended with the assassination of Osama bin Laden. One could easily envision increasing accommodation of radical Islam with ongoing disregard for Christianity. Did anyone sense how evident that was during the last four years? What will another four produce? Is that what you wanted by voting for Obama?

Here's what your vote for Obama really means, and the one most troubling to me. My guess is that at least two, perhaps three, Supreme Court Justices will retire during the next four years. If you wanted a more "progressive" interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, then your vote for Obama all but assures it. Many lower court judges will also be replaced with more and more liberal progressive confirmations than ever before. My suspicion is that that morality will no longer be the ideal, rather the baseline will be the socialist ideals.

I read only this morning that forty states, powered by Tea Party activists, are mounting petition drives to secede from the Union.

Here's what your vote also signals - a severe dilution through taxation of the Second Amendment. Since you probably don't know what it is, it covers the right to bear arms. All that is required is taxation on ammunition to kill the marketplace. In the last week, it's the fear of that reality prompting a surge among our fellow citizens to buy up guns and ammunition while they still can at a reasonable price.

Do you believe Obama's tendency to either ignore or bypass the Constitution will be accelerated in his second term? Bet on it. His use of executive orders to enforce his policies rather than taking them to Congress to enact legislation will increase because he has a divided Congress.

There are also troubling signs the U.N. will exert more control over our sovereign rights as Americans. There may be arms reduction treaties and Internet taxes designed to be enforced by the U.N. The discussions are already underway. Does it concern you that Obama picked up endorsements for his second term from Putin, Castro, Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? What does that mean to you if you voted for Obama? Is that really the America you envisioned with your vote?

I wonder if we are not now fully enslaved by socialism. Have we reached the tipping point? Can we never again muster enough votes to turn back the surging tide? Since we are now north of $16 Trillion in debt as a nation, rather than firing up the cylinders of the American economic engine, we have fouled the pistons perhaps beyond repair. I would have favored a "mechanic" like Mitt Romney to look under the hood, rather than a guy who confessed he never got past seventh-grade math. He said on Letterman, "I don't really keep track of what the national debt is." This from the one president in our history who added more debt in four years than all the presidents in our history for a similar period.  Ignorance is no excuse, Mr. President.

I've said it before, but if you CONFISCATED all the total private wealth in America it would not begin to reduce the national debt. I nursed the notion throughout this election cycle that with Romney and Ryan on the job we could extend the time before our financial collapse as a nation.

Now all bets are off. Is that too pessimistic? I'm sorry about that too.

My hope now resides in unforeseen EVENTS I cannot predict. Historically, presidential second terms have been unsuccessful, typically because the truth about what has been concealed in the first term has a tendency to rise and administrations become embroiled in them to a point they are not sustainable. Beware of the Benghazi debacle - the worst of it is yet to come. The resignation of David Petraeus as CIA Chief is only the tip of that iceberg.

This will go down as the most expensive presidential campaign in history. What was accomplished by the combined expenditure of over $6 Billion? We bought ourselves the status quo - gridlock in Washington.

We've been here before, and we'll likely be here again. Wait for the pendulum to swing back again. It will.

Ahhh, Ronald Reagan, timely and timeless

Ronald Reagan

"I don't have to think of an answer as to what I think their intentions are; they have repeated it….they hold their determination that their goal must be the promotion of world revolution and a one-world Socialist or Communist state, whichever word you want to use.

"Now, …they….have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain that, and that is moral, not immoral, and we operate on a different set of standards. I think when you do business with them…..you keep that in mind."

-- President Ronald Reagan on dealing with the Communist Soviet Union, January 29, 1981

I have only one comment to add: The more things change the more they remain the same. . .

For Every Rational Intelligent Voter To Digest

Today, I come to you as the bearer of really bad news if you consider yourselves rational, intelligent voters. Consider spending seven minutes to watch the most disturbing video testimony I think I have seen in recent years. For everyone of you who casts an informed vote, this is what you are up against in the welfare society that has been created by the liberal left.

As soon as I wrote those lines, I found renewed hope. Maybe he's so dumb he won't be able to make his way to the voting booth in November. . . at least we can always hope. . .

Time to Gore the Sacred Cows

In the financial world of Medicare and Social Security, things just got worse. There's plenty of denial to go around, and no one is willing, it seems, to step up and admit the obvious. There was a report released yesterday by the trustees, heightening the necessity for Congress to rejigger the massive entitlement programs.

The future, long deferred by lawmakers, has apparently arrived at the doorstep. The problems are us -- the baby-boomers. We're all retiring and the taxes collected to support the programs are in a prolonged pattern of weakness -- call it life support if you wish. The bad news couldn't come at a better time for serious reformers, and a worse time for the kick-the-can-down-the-road crowd.

The trustees of Medicare now project it will run out of money in 2024. That's been accelerated by five years earlier than last year's estimate. Social Security trust funds will be drained in 2036, one year earlier than the last estimate. Trust funds? More accurately IOUs to the Treasury, since there are no fungible assets left in the trust fund. The reality? When the trust fund balances finally reach zero, there's only one solution -- collect enough money in current payroll taxes to pay only partial benefits, the report said. Not a rosy future. Of course, not many of us are concerned today because we won't live that long. It's our children and grandchildren who will suffer.

I say "suffer" advisedly, since perhaps the alternative view is they will finally be freed from the obligation of funding entitlements in the welfare state.

Here's the projection in the report for next year: After going two years with no cost-of-living increase in Social Security payments, the trustees are projecting a 0.7 percent increase for next year. Big WHOOP. That will get nullified by higher Medicare Part B premiums.

Here's a comment from Captain Obvious: "There can no longer be any doubt or denial: Our nation's Medicare and Social Security programs are unsustainable and will run out of money sooner than expected," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. These guys are the geniuses who have supervised the debacle. McConnell is an echo chamber for Americans, who said when recently polled that 47 percent were opposed to raising the debt ceiling. Can he be trusted to lead the Senate in executing on the will of  the people? I have much more confidence in Speaker John Boehner on the House side if his rhetoric can be matched with deeds. Said Boehner: “I’ve talked to the President all year, privately-- about the fact that we were not going to increase the debt limit without serious changes. I mean, this conversation has been going on for quite a while. I’ve offered to the President, I’ve said, ‘Mr. President, come on, you and I, let’s lock arms and we’ll jump out of the boat together.’ I’m serious about dealing with this, and I hope he’s just as serious. No gimmicks. No automatic claw backs. I’ve had it with all of that. We know what needs to be done. Let’s just do it.” Even Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chair is sounding realistic: "Both parties messed this up. This is not a Republican-created problem or a Democrat-related problem. It's both parties and we've got to face up to that if we're going to get this situation under control." Now you're talking like men rather than boys. Keep it up, please.

The backdrop to this latest disclosure yesterday is the negotiation, more aptly, the political theater being played out between Congress and the Obama administration. They are "negotiating" proposals to change Medicare and other benefit programs as the looming request by the administration for an increase in the debt ceiling grows more urgent. That ceiling will be bumped up against sometime Monday. We're at $14.3 trillion in debt right now, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is claiming the sky is falling on the government's ability to service the debt on outstanding bonds.

Poppycock. The Treasury takes in 10 times what it needs to service the interest payments. Holders of the low-interest rate bonds for the moment still believe they will be paid. That could change if Congress doesn't begin acting like it is serious in cutting spending. It's a matter of prioritizing the spending, meaning making deep cutting decisions the lawmakers are so reluctant to do.

There may be time to put off sweeping changes in how we fund Social Security going forward, but Medicare seems for the moment to be in the cross hairs for reformers.

Here's the deal: If Congress continues to wait and debate, the expiring clock forces America into higher taxes. The other choice is deep cuts to benefits, according to the report. Making critical decisions today on smaller baby steps to get the needed changes made today, gives a longer ramp to run on for future retirees in the next generation.

Who are these "trustees" you ask? Charles P. Blahous III and Robert D. Reischauer. No one you know, but they signed the report with this warning: "The financial shortfalls confronting both Social Security and Medicare are substantial and -- absent legislation to correct them -- quite certain. Elected officials will best serve the interests of the public if financial corrections are enacted at the earliest practicable time."

The only question remaining is this one: Are lawmakers inclined to act on these predictions, or blandly go about the people's business as usual as though there is no impending urgency? The weakened economy with more people out of work for a sustained period of time has added to the problem significantly. With fewer working bees in the hive, paying fewer payroll taxes to support the programs in the short term, the trustees warn the trajectory is quickly turning negative. Medicare is more critical because tax revenues continue to fall in the face of rising health care costs.

Here's their projected fix: Two choices, neither of which is attractive. To put Social Security on a sustainable path for the next 75 years, the trustees recommend an increase in the payroll tax of 2.15 percentage points, OR an immediate and permanent 14 percent cut in benefits. Even more stark are the projections needed to fix the Medicare hospital fund -- an increase in the payroll tax of nearly 1 percentage point, OR a 17 percent cut in benefits. These are not hard math problems. What is needed is the political will to act and act now.

We have a socialist welfare state in America today. The debate should end here and now about whether or not we do. Creeping socialism has nearly engulfed and strangled our national government and what used to be considered a free-market economy. Nearly 55 million retirees, disabled people and children who have lost parents receive Social Security benefits, which average $1,077 monthly. More than 46 million people are covered by Medicare. Just do the simple math. Who says we don't already have a "nanny state?" Both parties have contributed to his current state of affairs because of their willingness to compromise with each other over the years.

Compromise is what got us here. Now we need patriots who will stand on their correct principles of freedom and liberty to lead us out of the wilderness in which we have wandered aimlessly and recklessly in our generation.

The cost of medicine continues to escalate. Medicare has allowed physicians and hospitals to experiment endlessly without restriction on high-tech solutions. People are living longer, and receiving once-complicated procedures such as heart bypass surgery and hip replacements later in life. Those treatments are now routine. Three cheers for life-elongating medicine. But how do we pay for all that charity care? Higher taxes.

The political class has usurped their power and authority from the citizenry. In exchange for all the socialist goodies they have doled out, the electorate perpetuates their longevity in office and rewards them for their largess. Most conservative realists, however, argue the Social Security Trust Fund is nothing more than political myth.

"It is important to note that the actual future costs for Medicare are likely to exceed those shown by the current-law projections in this report," the trustees added. So much for the claims that Obamacare reduces medical costs. Can you say accounting hocus pocus?

Six trustees oversee Social Security and Medicare, in case you wondered. Besides Geithner, Blahous and Reischauer, the others are Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue.

Question: Are the trustees trustworthy?

Bigger Question: Are the elected representatives of the people awake and on task in overseeing the trustees?

Socialism and The Book of Mormon

A writer in The Salt Lake Tribune the other day asserted a link between The Book of Mormon and socialism. His premise -- at their very worst the people portrayed in the record were greedy capitalists, and at their best they were socialists.

I suspect there are few things that get my blood boiling more than someone who asserts the law of consecration resembles socialism in any way imaginable.

President Marion G. Romney

I have written extensively in the past about the law of consecration. This is one example. Here's another, where I wrote the definitive book about the establishment of Zion in the latter-days based upon the scriptures and the statements of the living prophets who succeeded Joseph Smith. I even cited President Marion G. Romney (a registered Democrat) who has written and spoken persuasively against this misinformed position.

Harry Reid (D-NV), a Mormon and the Senate majority leader, embodies this flawed and misguided political philosophy better than anyone I could suggest. When political rhetoric reaches its extreme in Utah we get articles like this one appearing in the "rival" newspaper. It is tempting to reach for alternative explanations anchored in the core beliefs of the predominant point of view here in Utah. This present attempt, however, is pathetic and misrepresented the truth (I didn't call him a bad name).

The writer asserts: 

"My reading of the Book of Mormon is not idiosyncratic. As a missionary in England I met many Mormon socialists with testimonies of the scriptural admonition for equality. They saw in their sacred texts a spiritual rationale to support their own government programs, including their prized National Health Service.

"They actually believe the admonition of Jesus, 'Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.' Matthew 25:40."

The leap in logic here is breathtaking, and the premise is simply mangled beyond recognition and reclamation. Were the writer actually informed by his reading and study as a member of the Church, he would conclude the federal, state and local governments should have NO role in administering relief to the poor and the afflicted.

Why? Because government mandates participation through taxation. There is nothing voluntary about a tax code being imposed upon the citizenry. There is nothing voluntary about how those tax revenues are spent in a representative republic like America's. There is nothing voluntary in socialism.

However, if we discuss the law of consecration, EVERYTHING about it is voluntary, a sacred private covenant between the individual and God. Until there is a proper and perfect theocracy in place when the Savior comes again, it seems we are stuck with "collective salvation" as a false doctrine. The idea one cannot be saved without saving everyone is at the core of the doctrine of the atonement, and that is the exclusive domain of the Savior of the world, NOT governments and elected leaders who would assume that role for themselves.

You can call it "anti-Christ" and you would not be far off the mark.

One may reach for a "scriptural admonition" if one wishes for equality mandated by government solutions, but the operative word here is "reach." The law of consecration is something quite different, foreign, even alien to a government mandating socialism through the redistribution of wealth by taxing the haves in the name of religion, then helping the poor in whatever way "they" determine.

Zion will not come about because we will all become the willing minions of a man-managed government. The principles of the Constitution, while God-given, are drifting further and further from the mooring. And anything More or Less than what God gave is devilish by definition.

And that includes trying to equate socialism with the pure religion of The Book of Mormon!

Political Quote of the Day

George F. Will

I stumbled over this magnificent summary of where we were at America's exceptional founding, where we are today at the commencement of the 112th Congress, and where we are headed in the future.  It comes from George Will, and you can read the whole article here:

The American Revolution was a political, not a social revolution; it was about emancipating individuals for the pursuit of happiness, not about the state allocating wealth and opportunity. Hence our exceptional Constitution, which says not what government must do for Americans but what it cannot do to them.

Americans are exceptionally committed to limited government because they are exceptionally confident of social mobility through personal striving. And they are exceptionally immune to a distinctively modern pessimism: It holds that individuals are powerless to assert their autonomy against society's vast impersonal forces, so people must become wards of government, which supposedly is the locus and engine of society's creativity.

Two years into Barack Obama's presidency, we now know what he meant about "hope" and "change" — he and other progressives hope to change our national character. Three weeks into his presidency, Newsweek, unhinged by adoration of him, and allowing its wishes to father its thoughts, announced that "we are all socialists now" and that America "is moving toward a modern European state." The electorate emphatically disagreed, and created the 112th Congress, with its exceptionally important agenda.

* * *

As I read Will's article this morning, I was reminded of a particularly tense moment in my personal history.  We were a group of bold entrepreneurs attempting the impossible -- lobbying Congress for an important piece of a financial puzzle for the benefit of charities.  We had been gathered in an anteroom next to the hearing room normally occupied by the Senate Finance Committee in the Senate Office Building in Washington D.C.  

We had been in a session with representatives from the Congressional Budget Office and staff members of two senators on the Senate Finance Committee.  It had not gone well.  It was obvious there was opposition from the other senator's chief of staff, who had apparently urged the CBO not to cooperate.  Whatever the explanation, clearly no one was acting in good faith.  As we left without the needed resolution in hand, we were beaten down, abjectly defeated and without hope.  

We returned to our hotel, gathered our luggage and left in dismay for the airport to return to our various destinations.  We felt as though our project had failed, the limo ride to the airport uncharacteristically silent and the mood morose.  

One phone call changed everything.  "Turn around and come back to my condo, cancel your flights and be prepared to stay another day.  We have a solution."  

As we gathered again early that evening we learned the senator who had been championing our cause had instructed his chief of staff to "fix it" when he heard about our rejection by the CBO.  

We learned there is a devise often used between senators called a colloquy that could be inserted into the Senate record, summarizing our position with the negotiated acquiescence of the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.  A colloquy is a summary of a "conversation" that never really happens but it is put into the record as though it did.  The details are hammered out by staff, an agreement over language is secured by the two senators, and it becomes part of the official record as though the conversation had actually occurred.

We labored over the language that evening together, spelling out in detail what we needed as an exception in the pending adverse legislation, negotiating as we went between the two staffs of the opposing senators (even though they were both Republicans).  

Finally, late that night we reached agreement on the needed language for the colloquy and one of our group uttered this memorable phrase I have never forgotten:  "A spontaneous display of morale suddenly broke out."   

Our senator personally walked the colloquy onto the Senate floor at 1:00 a.m. in the morning to give it to the clerk so it could be inserted into the Senate record.  We had come back from the brink of a seemingly impossible precipice moment to final achievement of our goal.  We had won the battle and we had won the war, but it didn't happen until the last extremity had been visited.  (I suppose to be brutally honest, we lost the "war" when the financial markets melted down and our project cratered, but we sure won a lot of improbable battles like this one along the way).

I wonder if that isn't analogous to where we are today in America.  The 112th Congress, as they commence their path back from the brink of the legislative devastation of the last two years has all our hopes for the future of America in their hands.

Sorry if that sounds too melodramatic.  To those who insist the last two years have been a legislative "triumph" for social re-engineering, you have valid point.  The sheer weight of the paper alone is prodigious and without precedent. But I would ask, "At what cost?"

Men and women of goodwill from both parties serving in this 112th Congress must (and I believe WILL) find critical solutions to America's most pressing problem -- reducing spending, debt and deficits. Polling data among Americans suggests they still have a long way to go before they are pleasing their boss.  Once that is achieved, let's reduce government and make it truly "limited." In a crisis, America has always risen to the occasion.  Freedom depends upon it.

Watch for new leadership and morale to break out.

Marion G. Romney on Socialism

Because of the out-of-control rhetoric, all the charges and counter-charges about socialism being unleashed in these modern times, I thought it wise to reprint a talk given by President Marion G. Romney (former counselor in the First Presidency).  The subtleties between the Lord's way and Satan's way today seem to be so nuanced and blurry it may be useful to re-examine President Romney's clearcut distinctions when things were more easily viewed in black and white 44 years ago.

With pinpoint accuracy, President Romney describes exactly what is being implemented today in America.  The unthinkable seems to have overtaken us, the very conditions President Romney warned about.  By understanding the comparisons between freedom and tyranny in all their carefully shaded hues, one can discern why taking steps to reclaim the government "for the people, by the people and of the people" this November is job one in America.

He compares and contrasts the Lord's way with Satan's way in this compelling exegesis on the topic.  The talk, hopefully, will be useful to all, even if you weren't at BYU on the day he gave it.  I was one year out of high school, and had no appreciation for what he said then.  I certainly do today. 

Like all the prophets before and since, you can judge this prophetic insight by how much has happened exactly as he warned it might if left unchecked.  America in 2010, I believe, is finally awakening to an understanding of what has happened and why its reversal is paramount to our survival as a free nation under God.  Enjoy.

* * *

SOCIALISM AND THE UNITED ORDER COMPARED

An address delivered to Brigham Young University student body March 1, 1966.
President Marion G. Romney

I have been asked to direct these remarks to the question: Is socialism the United Order?

SOCIALISM DEFINED

Perhaps an appropriate first step in comparing socialism and the United Order would be to define the terms.

Webster defines socialism as:

A political and economic theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods; also, a policy or practice based on this theory (Webster's New International Dictionary, 2d ed., unabridged, 1951).

George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, says that

socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1943 ed., 295).

George Douglas Howard Cole, M.A., noted author and university reader in economics at Oxford, who treats socialism for the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that because of the shifting sense in which the word has been used,

a short and comprehensive definition is . . . impossible. We can only say [he concludes] that Socialism is essentially a doctrine and a movement aiming at the collective organization of the community in the interest of the mass of people by means of the common ownership and collective control of the means of production and exchange (Encyclopedia Britanica, vol. 20).

Socialism arose "out of the economic division in society." During the nineteenth century its growth was accelerated as a protest against "the appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories and the unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system."

The "communist manifesto" drafted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, for the Communist League . . . in . . . 1848 is generally regarded as the starting point of modern socialism (Ibid.).

DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

The distinction between Socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labour Parties of Europe and the new world, and Communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy rather than of objective. Communism is indeed only Socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith. Communists, like other Socialists, (1) believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production, and (2) seek to achieve, through state action the co-ordinated control of the economic forces of society. They differ from other Socialists in believing that this control can be secured, and its use in the interests of the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change (Ibid.).

MAJOR FORMS OF SOCIALISM

A major rift between so-called orthodox socialism and communist socialism occurred in 1875 when the German Social Democratic Party set forth its objective of winning power by taking over control of the bourgeois state, rather than by overthrowing it. In effect, the German Social Democratic Party became a parliamentary party, aiming at the assumption of political power by constitutional means.

In the 1880's a small group of intellectuals set up in England the Fabian Society, which has had a major influence on the development of modern orthodox socialism. Fabianism stands "for the evolutionary conception of socialism . . . endeavoring by progressive reforms and the nationalization of industries, to turn the existing state into a `welfare state.'" Somewhat on the order of the German Social Democrats, Fabians aim "at permeating the existing parties with socialistic ideas [rather] than at creating a definitely socialistic party." They appeal "to the electorate not as revolutionaries, but as constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful transformation of the system" (Ibid.).

The differences in forms and policies of socialism occur principally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories.

They all advocate:

1. That private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished and that all such property "pass under some form of co-ordinated public control."

2. That the power of the state be used to achieve their aims.

3. That with a change in the control of industry will go a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system.

So much now for the definition of socialism.

UNITED ORDER DEFINED

The United Order, the Lord's program for eliminating the inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly possessions as stewards accountable to God.

On January 2, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Church was under obligation to care for the poor (see D&C 38). Later he said,

I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth,. . . and all things therein are mine.
And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
But it must needs be done in mine own way (D&C 104:14-16).

THE LORD'S WAY

On February 9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what His way was (see D&C 42). In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2) stewardship.

To enter the United Order, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a "covenant and deed which" could "not be broken." That is, he completely divested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church.

Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his original consecration, the object being to make "every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3).

RIGHT TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP PRESERVED

This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs.

The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse, from which stewardships were given to others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.

THE UNITED ORDER AND SOCIALISM COMPARED

These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying hallmarks of socialism reveal similarities and basic differences.

The following are similarities: Both (1) deal with production and distribution of goods, (2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities, and (3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system.

Now the differences:

1. The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order. 

Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men, and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.

2. The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.

Socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

3. As to property, the Church believes "that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life" (D&C 134:2).

In harmony with this doctrine, the United Order preserves the rights of private ownership and individual management of property.

Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.

4. The United Order is non-political.

Socialism is political, both in theory and in practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption which plagues and finally destroys all political governments which undertake to abridge man's agency.

5. A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.

Socialism argues that it, as a system, will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.

SOCIALISM IS NOT THE UNITED ORDER

The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint, but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as "the pure love of Christ" (Moroni 7:47).

No, socialism is not the United Order. Distinguishing between these two systems need be no more difficult than solving the problem of the farmer who could not tell one of his horses from the other. They weighed the same, pulled the same load, ran at the same speed; from the looks of their teeth they were the same age. Finally, as a last resort, he measured them, and, sure enough, the white horse was six hands higher than the black one.

SOCIALISM WAVE OF THE PRESENT AND FUTURE

Notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.

At the end of the year [1965] parties affiliated with the [Socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxemborg, and Switzerland; constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 Book of the Year, 736).

THE UNITED STATES CONVERTING TO SOCIAL WELFARE STATE

We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice, according to the words of the president [Lyndon B. Johnson], that we are going much farther, for he is quoted as saying:

"We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the 'haves' and give it to the 'have nots.'" (Congressional Record, March 24, 1964).

That is the spirit of socialism: "We're going to take." It isn't the spirit of "We're going to give."

AMERICAN FREE AGENCY ABRIDGED

We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans has been greatly abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery.

THE FRUITS OF SOCIALISM

As to the fruits of socialism, we all have our own opinions. I myself have watched its growth in our own country and observed it in operation in many other lands. But I have yet to see or hear of its freeing the hearts of men of selfishness and greed or of its bringing peace, plenty, or freedom. These things it will never bring, nor will it do away with idleness and promote "industry, thrift, and self-respect," for it is founded in theory and in practice on the principles of the evil one.

THE FRUITS OF THE UNITED ORDER

As to the fruits of the United Order, I suggest you read Moses 7:16-18 and 4 Nephi 2, 3, 15, 16. If we had time, we could review the history (what little we know) of Zion in the days of Enoch and about what happened among the Nephites under those principles of the United Order in the first two centuries following the time of the Savior.

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?

Now what can we do about it?

As I recently reminded my wife of the moratorium on the United Order — that socialism is taking over in the nations and that its expressed aims will surely fail — she spiritedly put to me the question: "Well, then, what would you suggest? That we just sit on our hands in despair and do nothing?" Perhaps similar questions have occurred to you. The answer is, "No. By no means!" We have much to do, and the Lord has definitely prescribed the course we should follow with respect to socialism and the United Order.

THE LORD'S PRESCRIBED COURSE

He has told us that in preparation for the restoration of the gospel, he himself established the Constitution of the United States that there might be a government which "according to just and holy principles" would preserve to men their God-given agency. This he did because the whole gospel of Jesus Christ presupposes man's untrammeled exercise of free agency. Man is on the earth to be tested. The issue as to whether he succeeds or fails will be determined by how he uses this agency. His whole future, through all eternity, is at stake. Abridge man's agency, and the whole purpose of his mortality is thwarted. Without it, the Lord says, there is no existence (see D&C 93:30). The Lord so valued our agency that he designed and dictated "the laws and constitution" required to guarantee it. This he explained in the revelation in which he instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith to appeal for help:

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, 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. . . .
And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose (D&C 101:77, 78, 80).

Previously he had said:

And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
Therefore, I, the Lord justify you, and your brethren of my Church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law [that is, constitutional law] also maketh you free.
Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil (D&C 98:4-10).

THE CONSTITUTION — A DIVINE DOCUMENT

These scriptures reveal the fact that the Constitution is a divine document. They tell us that "according to just and holy principles" the Constitution and "the law of the land which supports the principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before" God; that, "as pertaining to the law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." They remind us that the Lord has made us free, and that laws which are constitutional will also make us free.

A WARNING

Right at this point, almost as if he were warning us against what is happening today, the Lord said: "Nevertheless, when the wicked rule, the people mourn." Then, that we might know with certainty what we should do about it, he concluded: "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold."

SEEK TO SUPPORT WISE MEN IN GOVERNMENT

In its context, this instruction can only mean that we should seek diligently for and support men to represent us in government who are "wise" enough to understand freedom — as provided for in the Constitution and as implemented in the United Order — and who are honest enough and good enough to fight to preserve it.

"Under no other government in the world could the Church have been established," said President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and he continued:

"If we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshiping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees." (Conference Report, October 1942, 59).

WHAT WE SHOULD DO ABOUT THE UNITED ORDER

Now, not forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support the just and holy principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord, I shall conclude these remarks with a few comments concerning what we should do about the United Order.

The final words of the Lord in suspending the order were: "And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption" (D&C 105:34).

Further implementation of the order must therefore await the redemption of Zion. Here Zion means Jackson County, Missouri. When Zion is redeemed, as it most certainly shall be, it will be redeemed under a government and by a people strictly observing those "just and holy principles" of the Constitution which accord to men their God-given moral agency, including the right to private property. If, in the meantime, socialism takes over in America, it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or "the welfare state" for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are in opposition.

FAST OFFERING, TITHING, WELFARE ACTIVITIES

In the meantime, while we await the redemption of Zion and the earth and the establishment of the United Order, we as Latter-day Saints should live strictly by the principles of the United Order insofar as they are embodied in present Church practices, such as fast offering, tithing, and welfare activities. Through these practices we could as individuals, if we were of a mind to, implement in our own lives all the basic principles of the United Order.

Let me give you some examples. You remember the principles underlying the United Order are consecration and stewardships and then the contribution of surpluses into the bishop's storehouse. When the law of tithing was instituted four years after the United Order experiment was suspended, the Lord required the people to put "all their surplus property . . . into the hands of the bishop" (D&C 119:1) thereafter they were to "pay one-tenth of their interest annually" (D&C 119:4). This law, still in force, implements to a degree at least the United Order principle of stewardships, for it leaves in the hands of each person the ownership and management of the property from which he produces the needs of himself and family. Furthermore, to use again the words of President Clark:

"In lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the United Order, we today, have our fast offerings, our welfare donations, and our tithing, all of which may be devoted to care of the poor, as well as the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church.

"Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop's storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop's storehouse under the welfare plan, used for the same purpose.

"We have now under the welfare plan all over the Church, . . . land projects . . . farmed for the benefit of the poor.

"Thus . . . in many of its great essentials, we have [in] the welfare plan . . . the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time . . . to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund (Conference Report, October 1942, 57-58).

It is thus apparent that when the principles of tithing and the fast are properly observed and the welfare plan gets fully developed and wholly into operation, we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order. The only limitation on you and me is within ourselves.

And now in line with these remarks, for three things I pray:

1. That the Lord will somehow quicken our understanding of the differences between socialism and the United Order and give us a vivid awareness of the awful portent of those differences.

2. That we will develop the understanding, the desire, and the courage, born of the Spirit, to eschew socialism and support and sustain, in the manner revealed and as interpreted by the Lord, those just and holy principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States for the protection of all flesh in the exercise of their God-given agency.

3. That through faithful observance of the principles of tithing, the fast, and the welfare program, we will prepare ourselves to redeem Zion and ultimately live the United Order.

In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

* * *

President Barack Obama has warned in recent weeks (really, ever since he took office) that stripping him of his Democrat majority in both Houses of Congress would ensure a return to the "failed policies" of George W. Bush.  Well, let me say this about that:  No one is advocating a return to the profligate spending habits of Congress under George W. Bush's administration, and I have certainly taken the position on these pages that TARP was a mistake of disastrous proportions under George W. Bush. 

I don't care what party prevails in November.  Instead, I want independent thinking patriots who will stop the spending madness in the name of socialism, even if it means the systematic dismantling of now the "Big Four" entitlements:  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare. 

I could care less whether the patriots we elect are Democrats or Republicans.


P.S.  President Marion G. Romney was a registered Democrat.

The pendulum swings right and then left. . .

The struggle between political philosophies has been raging since our founding as a nation.  Thomas Jefferson and John Adams started tangling soon after the Constitution was signed over something so simple as how the new country would address President George Washington. 

Jefferson as Secretary of State favored no titles, and Adams as Vice-President (and President of the Senate) made a fool of himself trying to come up with high-sounding titles nobody liked. 

That's how we ended up with "Mr. President" as the appropriate title. 

Adams was at the head of the "Monarchists," with Jefferson heading up the "Federalists" (convenient labels, but meaningless) in that debate, and in spite of it all they began and ended as tried and true friends.  Adams became the second, then Jefferson the third president of the United States.  The political divide has always been part of our American fabric.

This one has made the rounds before. It's a classic political cartoon from a 1934 edition of the Chicago Tribune (in case you missed it) -- "PLANNED ECONOMY OR PLANNED DESTRUCTION?"

The caption on the sign in the bottom left reads: 

Plan of Action for U.S.

Spend! Spend! Spend

under the guise of

recovery -- bust the

government -- blame

the captialists for

the failure --

junk the Constitution

and declare

a

dictatorship.

The more things change, the more they tend to remain the same!  Keep smilin' . . .