About Me

My photo
Lift your lamp beside the golden door, Break not the golden rule, avoid well the golden calf, know; not all that glitters is gold, and laissez faire et laissez passer [let do and let pass] but as a shining sentinel, hesitate not to ring the bell, defend the gates, and man the wall

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

The USA's Founding Documents

the Sources of their Precepts and expressions of their Concepts     
__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
 
The Republic by Plato (380 BC) [Project Gutenberg]
   
Areopagitica by John Milton (1644)
 
Code of 1650 by Roger Ludlow [Google Books]

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes (1651) [Project Gutenberg]

Two Treatises of Government by John Locke (1689)
pdf eBook via (Bristol University.uk) (Asd-Blog)

A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke (1689)
read online via (Constitution.org)
Spirit of Laws by Charles De Montesquieu (1748)  
read online via [Constitution.org] 

Common Sense by Thomas Paine (1776)
Read It Online, Free (USHistoryt.org)

The Wealth Of Nations by Adam Smith (1776)  
Read It Online @ (BiblioMania.com)

The [American] Crisis by Thomas Paine (1776)
Read Online @ (WikiSource.org)

 Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
(Constiution.org) (Asd-Blog)

The Declaration of Independence (1776)
Read About @ (Wikipedia.org) 
First Draft by Jefferson and John Adams (Wikisource.org)
Final Draft edited by Ben Franklin(Wikisource.org) (Asd -Blog)

Bill No. 82 The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom 
and 
Bill No. 84 A Bill for Punishing Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers
by Thomas Jefferson (1777) (Asd-Blog)

The Articles Of Confederation (1777-1781) 
Read Online @ (WikiSource.org) (Asd -Blog)
 
Notes on the Constitutional Convention (1787)

The Federalist Papers (1787-1788)
Read Online @(Thomas.LibraryOfCongress.gov) (Asd-Blog

The United States Constitution (1791)
Read Online @ (US Constitution.net
(Asd-Blog)

Anti-Slavery Opinions Before the Year 1800 by William Frederick Poole and George Buchanan (1799) [Project Gutenberg]

An Oration Delivered Before The Town Of Newburyport By John Quincy Adams (July 4 1837) [Archive.org]

Democracy In America by Alexis De Tocqueville (1835)
[Project Gutenberg Volume 1 and Volume 2]
   
Walden by Henry David Thoreau  (1854) [Project Gutenberg]

On Liberty by John Stuart Mills (1859) [Project Gutenberg]
  
__________________________________________________________________________________

Stand Up For Freedom by Ezra Taft Benson


Stand Up For Freedom by Ezra Taft Benson

Humbly and gratefully I stand before you – grateful for patriots such as you – humbled by the magnitude of the task before us.

I speak to you as a fellow citizen of the United States of America deeply concerned about the welfare of our beloved country.

I am not here to tickle your ears – to entertain you. I will talk to you frankly and honestly. The message I bring is not a happy one, but it is the truth, and time is always on the side of truth. As the German philosopher Goethe, said: “Truth must be repeated again and again because error is constantly being preached round about.”

I realize that the bearer of bad news is always unpopular. As a people we love sweetness and light – especially sweetness. Ralph Waldo Emerson said that every mind must make a choice between truth and repose. Those who will learn nothing from history are condemned to repeat it. This we are doing in the Americas today.

George Washington stated, “Truth will ultimately prevail where there are pains taken to bring it to light.” To bring the truth to light is our challenge – this day and everyday.
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)
Returning recently from two years abroad has caused me to reflect seriously on recent trends and present conditions in our beloved country. I am shocked and saddened at what I find. I am sorry to say that all is not well in so-called prosperous, wealthy and powerful America.

We have moved a long way – and are now moving further and more rapidly down the soul-destroying road of socialism. The evidence is clear – shockingly clear for all to see.

With our national prestige at – or near – an embarrassing all-time low, we continue to weaken our domestic economy by unsound fiscal, economic and foreign aid policies which corrupt our national currency. Ever increasing centralization of power in the federal government in Washington, D.C. is reducing our local and state governments to virtual federal field offices while weakening individual initiative, enterprise and character.
With the crass unconstitutional usurpation of powers by the Executive Branch of the federal government, anti-spiritual decisions of the Supreme Court – all apparently approved by a weakly submissive rubber-stamp congress – the days ahead are ominously frightening.

Surely – certainly – it behooves patriotic citizens – such as you – to meet together to seriously consider present conditions in our beloved nation. It is imperative that American citizens become alerted and informed regarding the threat to our welfare, happiness and freedom.

No American is worthy of citizenship in this great land who refuses to take an active interest in these important matters.

All we hold dear as a great Christian nation is at stake.
In leaving for Europe two years ago, I could not help but feel a very deep sense of anxiety for this great land of America which had just passed through a terrible crisis. To have the President of the United States suddenly torn from his high office by the violent hand of an assassin was an insidious and dastardly act which struck at the very foundation of our Republic,

All of us felt the impact of it. All of us caught the ominous spirit f tragedy and sorrow which accompanied it. Each of us sensed in a very personal way the heartbreak which had come to the Kennedy family.
But after the services and burial were over, we also realized something else. There was the cold, stark reality that the assassin’s murder of President Kennedy was just one more monstrous treachery in the ling list of crimes against humanity which have been inspired down through the years by the Godless philosophy of Communism.

It was Communism that sowed the seeds of treason in the mind of President Kennedy’s assassin. This is something which must not be forgotten.

Now two years and one month later, I am appalled at the shortness of our memories. When the events surrounding President Kennedy’s assassination were remembered last December, practically no mention was made of Oswald’s communist affiliations nor the present communist threat to our society. Have we so soon forgotten that communism sowed the seeds of hate that destroyed our President and that communism continually seeks to subvert and destroy our complete way of life.

The assassination of President Kennedy, the daily slaughter of our boys in Viet Nam, the communist control of the Berkeley riots and communist inspired demonstrations from coast to coast should serve as a shock therapy to that segment of our population who like to call themselves “liberals.” America is big enough to make room for many different kinds of thinking, but many liberals have claimed to see virtues in socialism and communism which I, for one, have not been able to find. To promote their ideas, American liberals have become a highly organized, hard-core establishment in the United States and they have been excusing their appeasement and coddling of communism on the ground that they were being “tolerant,” “broadminded,” and “working for peace.”

But the assassination of President Kennedy should have jolted them into a realization that they have been pampering, protecting and promoting the very nest of serpents which produced Lee Harvey Oswald. The diabolical spirit of murder and violence which struck down the President is that same spirit of Communist violence which has been allowed to spread its terror into the heart of every continent on the face of the earth. Perhaps those who have been apologists for this conquering Marxist Socialist-Communist movement might now agree to reconsider the fatal decision they have been following.

Two additional things happened in connection with this tragedy which are worthy of comment,
First was the speed with which the Communist leaders spread the word that the slaying of the President must have been the work of American conservatives. Moscow has conducted a five year propaganda campaign to make American conservatives look like hysterical fanatics. It has called them “rightists,” “extremists,” and even “fascists.” Within an hour after the assassination and before Oswald was captured, Moscow was assuring the world that this crime was a product of the “rightist” movement on the United States.
The second thing which happened was the amazing rapidity with which American liberals took up the Moscow line. They too were quick to fix the blame even though there hadn’t been the slightest hint as to who had committed the crime. I wonder what would have happened if Oswald had not been captured and identified as an active Communist who was in direct contact with Party headquarters in New York City? Undoubtedly the liberal element would be blaming this tragedy on conservative Americans to this day.
And even after Oswald was captured and identified as a Moscow-associated Communist there were those who insisted that any who had opposed the President during his term of high office was guilty of that same “spirit of hate” as that which led to the President’s death. This line of thinking was expressed by a number of prominent persons through the press, radio and TV. To me it was incomprehensible.

To equate Oswald’s hate and homicidal bitterness with patriotic Americans who happened to oppose some of the policies of the President’s administration was the height of distorted and fallacious thinking. The American people can respect their President, pray for their President, even have a strong affection for him, and still have an honest difference of opinion as to the merits of some of his programs.

Another recent development has been the call for national unity. I believe there needs to be a unity in our land. But it must not be blind, senseless, irresponsible unity. It should not be a unity just for the sake of unity. It needs to be a unity built on sound principles.

We Americans have strayed far from sound principles – morally, Constitutionally and historically. It has been getting us into a quagmire of trouble all over the world, and especially here at home.

Americans at the grass roots level have sensed that their way of life is being threatened. During the last several years there has been a rising tide of resistance to the prevailing political trend. Compromises with Communism abroad and flirtations with socialism at home have stirred up opposition in both political parties. If this has lead to disunity then by all means let us return to a program of sound Constitutional principles on which we can unite.

There would be no virtue in calling for unity to support certain legislation if the majority of Americans were opposed to it. And the fact that both Democrats and Republicans in congress have at times resisted certain legislation shows that the Executive branch of the government may get out of step with the people.
I believe the American people know what they want. It would appear that the people want their civil rights safeguarded but not a destruction of states’ rights.

The farmers want opportunity for reasonable income security but not agricultural “dictatorship” security.
Parents want better school for their children but not a federal subsidy leading to control of the teachings and text books as well as the ideologies of the children.

People want sound pay-as-you go spending with a balanced budget, not reckless spending and tax cuts with an unbalanced budget.

If there is a need for urban renewal, people want it under local direction, not under the red tape of Washington bureaus armed with confiscatory powers over property.

People want the development of power dams but not the strangulation of privately-owned power companies which have proven far more efficient and economical than utilities run by the government.
In other words, there are some legitimate functions and services which the Federal Government can and should provide, but those who want the federal power to exceed the authority delegated to it by the Constitution will be resisted both by Democrats and Republicans. This is what is happening in some limited areas today, may the trend increase.

And anyone who tries to equate this love of Constitutional principles as meaning hatred of our national leaders is using Goebbels-style deception. History has already demonstrated that conservative opposition to national leaders was not “hate” but an attempt to do them a favor.

Let me give you some examples:

Was it “hate” when General Albert C. Whedemeyer pleaded with general Marshal and President Truman to reverse their policy before they lost china?

Was it “hate” when Whitaker Chambers tried to warn President Roosevelt in 1939 That Alger Hiss had been giving the Soviet Union more espionage data than any other member of the Washington spy network?
Was it “hate” when J. Edgar Hoover tried to warn President Truman that Harry Dexter White was a member of the Soviet spy apparatus and was doing great danger to the nation as Assistant-Secretary of the Treasury?
Was it “hate” when I went to the Secretary of State under President Eisenhower and pleaded with him not to support the Communist, Fidel Castro?

Was it “hate” when I urged the President of the United States to go to the aid of the brave freedom fighters in Hungary?

Was it “hate” when the Democratic Senator from Connecticut, Thomas Dodd, pleaded for two years with the President not to support the United Nations blood bath against the free people of Katanga?
Is it “hate” when distinguished military leaders advise that an-all out effort could end the Viet Nam struggle almost over night?

This list of acts by well-meaning citizens who want and wanted to prevent their Presidents from making serious mistakes could be extended at length. But they would all illustrate the same point. History will show that many terrible mistakes occurred because the advice of these well informed and well-meaning citizens was not heeded.

Therefore, I repeat, this kind of resistance to a national leader is rooted in love and respect, not hate. Regardless of which political party is in power, you do not want to see your President make a serious blunder. You don’t want him to lose China. You don’t want him to allow the enemy agents to make fools of us. You don’t want him to lose Cuba. You don’t want him to suffer the humiliation of a “Bay of Pigs disaster”, or allow a Soviet Gibraltar to be built 90 miles from our shores.

Every one of these events which have been so disastrous and which have destroyed freedom for hundreds of millions of our allies, could have been prevented. And the voices of those who tried to warn Washington of what was coming cannot be attributed to hate. It has been out of a love for our country and respect for our leaders that the voice of warning has been raised.

What causes one to wonder is why these warnings were not carefully considered and acted upon. Why is it that men in high places in government, regardless of party have been deceived? I am convinced that a major part of the cause can be justly laid at the door of the Socialist-Communist Conspiracy, which is lead by masters of deceit who deceive the very elect. J. Edgar Hoover put it well when he said, “I would have no fears if more Americans possessed the zeal, the fervor, the persistence, and the industry to learn about this menace of Red fascism. I do fear for the liberal and progressive who have been hoodwinked and duped into joining with the Communists.”

Therefore, let those who call for unity and the elimination of hate be sure they are not merely trying to silence the friends of freedom. These are they who respect their leaders and resist them only when it is felt they are headed for a catastrophe. What patriotic American would wish to stand silent if he saw the President verging on a blunder because of bad advice or a mistake in judgment of the facts?

I believe one of the most serious mistakes a President could make would be to weaken the Constitution.
From the time I was a small boy, I was taught that the American Constitution is an inspired document. I was also taught that the day will come when the Constitution will be endangered and hang as it were by a single thread. I was taught that we should study the Constitution, preserve its principles and defend it against any who would destroy it. To the best of my ability I have always tried to do this. I expect to continue my efforts to help protect and safeguard our inspired Constitution.

Some two years ago, however, a critic from Washington, D.C. claimed that a person who serves in a church capacity should not comment on such matters. He charged that the separation of church and state requires that church officials restrict their attention to affairs of the Church.

I, of course, also believe that the institutions of church and state should be separated, but I also do not agree that spiritual leaders cannot comment on basic issues which involve the very foundation of American liberty.
In fact, if this were true, we would have to throw away a substantial part of the Bible. Speaking out against immoral or unjust actions of political leaders has been the burden of prophets and disciples of God from time immemorial. It was for this very reason that many of them were persecuted. Some of them were stoned, some of them were burned, many were imprisoned. Nevertheless it was their God-given task, as watchmen on the towers, to speak up.

It is certainly no different today.

To Moses God said: “….proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” (Lev. 25:10)
Why? For God knows full well that the gospel – His plan for the blessing of His children can prosper only in an atmosphere of freedom.

To modern men God has said: the Constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh.” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77)

Is the Constitution being maintained or is it in jeopardy? Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, says the American Constitution is nothing more than a product of the Eighteenth Century agrarian society. It is now obsolete he claims. Senator Joseph S. Park of Pennsylvania says the separation of powers with its checks and balances must be curtailed because they keep the President from making quick and decisive decisions. Gus Hall, head of the Communist Party U.S.A., agrees with these two Senators – yes – Gus Hall agrees with these two senators and demands that there should be a new federal charter eliminating states’ rights. America’s national sovereignty should be abandoned according to Walt Rostow, chairman of the State Department Policy Planning Board. He has boldly demanded “an end of nationhood as it has been historically defined.” (Quoted in the extension of remarks by Senator Strom Thurmond, Congressional Record, June 6, 1963, pp. A3662-3)

These are some of the same men who see great virtue in the collectivized, socialized society. They want vast powers concentrated in Washington. Samuel Addams of the founding fathers said this was the very thing Constitutional government was designed to prevent.

Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., is another powerful influence in Washington and a former Presidential adviser. He not only advocates socialism for the United States but believes that we could eventually form a permanent alliance with Communism. He says this would be achieved by having America move to the left while the Communists move to the right. We would then meet at the vital center of the socialist-left. The American Constitution, of course, would automatically be discarded. Arthur Schlesinger and his associates are also apposed to the liberation of the captive nations, even if these nations do it by themselves. These men do not look upon Communism as an enemy. They consider Communist leaders to be over-zealous allies who will mellow. Therefore, they believe in containing Communism, but otherwise supporting it, not short of thwarting it. They further recommend that wherever Communists or Socialists regimes are collapsing, we should prop them up….feed them, trade with them, grant them loans on long term credits.

From reading the daily paper, you will know that the ideas of these men have, unfortunately, already been adopted by Washington as the official policy of the United States.

Now I would say in the great free country like ours, if these men advocate these suicidal and often treasonable doctrines shouldn’t every patriotic American be free to speak out against them?
At this particular moment in history the United States Constitution is definitely threatened and every citizen should know about it. The warning of this hour should resound through the corridors of every American institution – schools, churches, the halls of Congress, press, radio and TV and so far as I am concerned and I am sure so far as you are concerned it will resound – with God’s help.
Our Republic and Constitution are being destroyed while the enemies of freedom are being aided. How? In at least ten ways:

1.       By diplomatic recognition and aid, trade and negotiations with the Communists.
2.       By disarmament of our military defenses.
3.       By destruction of our security laws and the promotion of atheism by decisions of the Supreme Court.
4.       By loss of sovereignty and solvency to international commitments and membership in world organizations.
5.       By undermining of local law enforcement agencies and Congressional investigation committees.
6.       By usurpations by the Executive and the Judicial branches of our Federal Government.
7.       By lawlessness in the name of civil rights.
8.       By staggering national debt with inflation and the corruption of the currency.
9.       By a multiplicity of executive orders and federal programs which greatly weaken local and state government.
10.   By the sacrificing of American manhood by engaging in wars we apparently have no intention of winning.

Wherever possible, I have tried to speak out. It is for this very reason that certain people in Washington have bitterly criticized me. They don’t want people to hear the message. It embarrasses them. The things which are destroying the Constitution are the things they have been voting for. They are afraid of their political careers if these facts are pointed out. They therefore try to silence any who carry the message – anyone who will stand up and be counted.

But these liberal politicians are not the only ones who are trying to silence the warning voice of American patriots. Moscow is equally alarmed.

It was in 1960 when the Communist leaders first decided to do something drastic about the rising tide of patriotism in the United States. The loss of Cuba to the Soviet Union had alerted many Americans. Citizens were holding study groups, seminars and freedom schools. The more they studied the more they realized how fast Communism was advancing on all fronts. They also learned to their amazement that most Washington politicians were doing practically nothing about it. In fact in many cases they were doing things to promote Communism. So the protests began to pour into the national capital from every state in the union. All over America there was an awakening.

The Soviet leaders knew this trend could create a crisis for Communism, not only in the United States, but elsewhere.

Therefore, they called together Communist delegates from eighty-one countries and held a meeting in Moscow.

In December, 1960, just five years ago – this Communist convention issued an edict that the rising tide of patriotism and anti-communism must be smashed. Especially in the United States. All the tricks of hate propaganda and smear tactics were to be unleashed on the heads of American patriots.
Now if the communists had been forced to do this job themselves, it would have been another failure. Americans would have simply closed ranks and united. But what mixes up so many people up is the fact that the attack on patriotism and the smear of the anti-Communist movement did not come in the name of Moscow. It came in the name of influential Americans who espoused the Socialist-Communist line.
This was a minority block of liberals, American liberals, who formed a propaganda coalition with the Communists. Their strategy was ingenious. Almost over night they drew the fire away from the Communist Conspiracy and focused the heat of attack on the patriots.

How did they do it? They did it by saying that THEY were against the Communists but ALSO against the anti-Communists. They said one was as bad as the other.

Now what kind of logic was this? What if we had taken this approach in the fight against Nazism? Informed patriots recognized it as confusion compounded by delusion. In any event, this deceptive line of propaganda had its impact. These liberal voices would denounce Communism and then turn right around and parrot the Communist line. They claimed they were anti-Communists, but spend most of their time fighting those who were really effective anti-Communists.

As I asked some of them at the time, “Are you fighting the communists or not? You claim to be fighting the fire, but you spend nearly all your time fighting the firemen!”

By 1962 these American liberals had almost completely neutralized the resurgence of American patriotism. They had frightened uninformed citizens away from study groups and patriotic rallies. They had made it popular to call patriotism a “controversial” subject which should not be discussed in school assemblies or churches.

From Washington, D.C., the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) issued an edict to radio and television stations that if they allowed the controversial subjects of “Americanism,” “anti-Communism,” or “States’ Rights” to be discussed on their stations they would be required to give equal time, free of charge, to anyone wishing to present an opposite view.

Can you imagine this happening in a free country? I said to my family, “It is fantastic that anything like this could have happened in America.”

Now we should all be opposed to Socialistic-Communism, for it is our mortal and spiritual enemy – the greatest evil in the world today. But the reason many liberals don’t want the American people to form study groups to really understand and than fight Socialistic-Communism is that once the American people get the facts they will begin to realize that much of what these liberals advocate is actually helping the enemy.
The liberals hope you’ll believe them when they tell you how anti-Communist they are. But they become alarmed if you really inform yourself on the subject of Socialistic-Communism. For after you inform yourself you might begin to study the liberal voting record. And this study would show you how much the liberals are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and how much the liberals are actually leading America towards Socialism itself.

For Communism is just another form of socialism, as is fascism. So now you can see the picture. These liberals want you to know how much they are doing for you – with your tax money of course. But they don’t want you to realize that the path they are pursuing is socialistic, and that socialism is the same as communism in its ultimate effect on our liberties. When you point this out they want to shut you up – they accuse you of maligning them, of casting aspersions, of being political. No matter whether they label their bottle as liberalism, progressivism, or social reform – I know the contents of the bottle is poison to this Republic and I’m going to call it poison.

We do not need to question the motive of these liberals. They could be most sincere. But sincerity or supposed benevolence or even cleverness is not the question.  The question is: “Are we going to save this country from the hands of the enemy and the deceived?”

As J. Edgar Hoover said, “A tragedy of the past generation in the United States is that so many persons, including high-ranking statesmen, public officials, educators, ministers of the Gospel, professional men have been duped into helping communism. Communist leaders have proclaimed that Communism must be partly built with non-Communist hands, and this, to a large extent, is true.” (Masters of Deceit, p. 93)
“We cannot defeat Communism with socialism, nor with secularism, nor with pacifism, nor with appeasement or accommodation. We can only defeat Communism with true Americanism.” (Address by J. Edgar Hoover, Oct. 9, 1962)

So from the very beginning of this Moscow campaign, to stop the anti-Communist movement in this country, it was an important part of the Communist strategy to get their liberal American friends to carry out an attack against patriotic organizations. Of course, the Communists have learned not to attack all patriotic groups at once. Their strategy is to focus on just one organization and make it so detestable and ugly in the public mind that they can hold it up as a sort of a tar baby and then use it to smear all other individuals or groups in the same category.

It was interesting to see just where the Communists would begin their dirty work; which organization would be singled out to get the tar brush treatment. It could have been the American Farm Bureau which the Communists have consistently denounced. It could have been the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the DAR, the Sons of the American Revolution. These have been favorite Communist targets in the past as had J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI.

As it turned out, it was none of these. Instead, the Communists chose to focus their attack on a fairly new organization which very few people had heard about, including myself. They decided to level practically their entire arsenal on The John Birch society. For the non-political Birch Society had within it, both the policy, the program and the personnel to help defeat the Conspiracy in this country. And the communists knew it, for they had seen its results.

On February 25, 1961 the official Communist paper in California, the PEOPLE’S WORLD, came out with the opening blast. It said there is a new secret, fascist society which is setting up “cells” all over the United States. They said it was the most serious threat to the American way of life.

That was the signal for the bloc of American liberals to pick up the torch, and they did. Overnight the patriotic campaign against Communism was almost completely forgotten as the liberal vigilantes heroically rode out in full force to save the country from the “terrible Birchers.”

Not only the ultra-liberal forces rallied to the battle, but some of the most respected conservative press took up the hue and cry, and many prominent, highly respected Americans also fell for the deceptive line.
The Communists had intended to confuse the American people and they did. The tar brush tactic smeared the
image of the new, small, but rapidly growing John Birch Society to the point where many people thought it must be a group of neo-Nazis or a revival of the Ku Klux Klan. Some prominent, highly respected men who were so deceived that they declared that the infiltration of The John Birch society was equally bad as the infiltration of the Godless Communist Conspiracy.

From the beginning of this attack The John Birch Society pleaded for some kind of official investigation so the truth about them could be given to the public. They believed this was the only way they could counteract the tidal wave of false propaganda which was being heaped upon them. But the investigation was so long in coming that the purposes of the Communist-liberal coalition were completely accomplished. It will probably be a long time before the official report on The John Birch Society gets an honest hearing. This investigation was conducted by trained investigators who were working for the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities. The investigation took two years. Sworn affidavits were obtained from scores of people. The attacks on the Society were studied. Interviews were conducted with detractors and supporters of the society. Undetected investigators attended Birch meetings. The Senate Fact-Finding report was issued in June, 1963.

But even this report was recklessly distorted by some of the liberal press stories. I therefore obtained a copy of the report myself so I could see what was in it. The report is sixty-two pages long, was signed by all members of the Committee, and was issued by the President Pro Tem of the California Senate, Senator Hugh M. Burns, a Democrat.

Here are a few quotes from the report.
“The society had been publicly charged with being a secret, fascist, subversive, Un-American, anti-Semitic organization. We have not found any of these accusations to be supported by the evidence.”
And a further quote from the report.

“We believe that the reason the John Birch Society has attracted so many members is that it simply appeared to them to be the most effective, indeed the only organization through which they could join a national movement to learn the truth about the Communist menace and than take some positive, concerted action to prevent its spread.”

This report also goes on to verify what I have already told you, namely, that the attack against The John Birch Society commenced with an article in the PEOPLE’S WORLD, California Communist paper.
Now in the light of what I have just related, you will understand my feelings when people would ask how I felt about The John Birch Society because of the amazingly effective propaganda against them, it has been very unpopular to defend this group. I can remember when it was unpopular to defend my own Church. Nevertheless, as soon as I learned what the Communists and liberals were doing to The John Birch Society, I felt a deep indignation that this should happen to any non-political, patriotic group of American citizens. I felt it was dishonest, immoral and crass hypocrisy. I still feel that way.

One liberal Congressman attacked the Society claiming it was “rotten to the core.” Other influential liberals said they objected to the Society’s “methods.” If it was rotten to the core the California Senate Fact-Finding investigators couldn’t discover it.

Some of the finest and best informed Americans I know have endorsed the Society and its program including a number of former FBI agents and officials, counterspies, intelligence and security officers, and so on. Many nationally prominent patriotic Americans serve without pay on its Council. As to its “methods” the report described the Society as a study group organization designed to “first learn the facts about Communism and than implement that knowledge with effective and responsible action.” (p. 37) Now what is wrong with such methods as these? It was Communists and American liberals who objected to these “methods” because they were effective. They turned out to be traditional American methods that I could find no fault with.

Even in my own church I found a certain amount of confusion. I heard people say that the LDS church was opposed to The John Birch Society. This may come, in part at least, as a result of a statement made by the First Presidency three years ago. However, when President McKay discovered that this statement was being misinterpreted and certain people were quoting it to try and prove the LDS Church was opposing The John Birch Society, he authorized a clarifying statement. This statement appeared in the official Church newspaper for March 16, 1963, and says “The church is not opposing The John Birch Society or any organization of like nature.” And “that members of the Church are free to join anti-Communist organizations”. The statement also says that only one man, President David O. McKay, speaks for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on matters of policy.

Just as a matter of interest you may like to know in a few words what The John Birch Society is and what it stands for so that you will have a little better idea why some of us have risen to its defense. Actually what would be better for you to do would be to read some of their literature for yourself. Everything the Birch Society publishes is available to member and non-member alike and their headquarters at Belmont Massachusetts 02178 will be happy to provide this literature including some other free introductory material.
The society takes its name from one of the greatest heroes of World War II, Captain John Birch, who was murdered by the Chinese Communists ten days after the war.

The society attempts through an educational and monthly action program to use every legal and moral means practicable to preserve our inspired Constitution. These programs have had a real impact against the Conspiracy. The various programs are purely suggestive and the members are cautioned never to do anything that goes contrary to their conscience and judgment.

The Society is not a political organization – It never endorses a candidate or contributes to candidates. It encourages its members, whether they be Democrats, Republicans or Independents to study the issues and candidates in the light of our Constitution, and the threats to it, and than govern themselves accordingly.
Among other things the Society is for a balanced budget, for the Monroe Doctrine and for letting the states solve their own problems.

It is against foreign aid to the Communists, against the Marxist graduated income tax and against the Federal Government competing with tax paying free enterprise. In a sentence, The John Birch Society believes in less centralized government, more personal responsibility and a better world.

I do not belong to The John Birch Society, but I have always defended this group, just as I do not belong to but have defended the American Farm Bureau, the DAR, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and any other patriotic group trying to alert Americans to the Socialist-Communist threat. I have also defended J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI.

When my son Reed was invited to be a state coordinator for The John Birch Society, he asked me if he should accept it. I had read the Blue Book and other basic materials of the Society. I had met Mr. Welch and other leaders and members. I had read Mr. Welch’s famous letter which has since been published in book form entitled THE POLITICIAN. I knew Reed would be enrolling in an unpopular cause. I also knew he would receive a certain amount of vilification if he took this job. Nevertheless, I told him to go ahead if he thought this was a most effective way to defend the Constitution and fight the Socialist-Communist menace. I would have given him equal encouragement if he had been considering the FBI or any of our national patriotic organizations dedicated to the fight against the Godless Conspiracy which threatens all we hold dear.
When he joined I expressed my opinion that I was convinced that The John Birch Society was the most effective non-Church organization in our fight against creeping socialism and Godless communism. I also stated that I admired Reed’s courage and applauded his decision.
Some people, I’m sure well meaning, have told me this was not good strategy, but I disagree. I feel it is always good strategy to stand up for the right, even when it is unpopular. Perhaps I should say, ESPECIALLY when it is unpopular.

I had to make this same decision all over again when President David O. McKay received an invitation from former Congressman John Rousselot, asking that I be authorized to give a patriotic speech at a testimonial dinner for Robert Welch. President McKay after careful consideration, told me I should make the talk and that I had his permission and blessing. And so the invitation was accepted.

This talk was given at the Hollywood Palladium, September 23rd, 1963. Nearly 2,000 heard my talk that night and 4,000 Kiwanians heard a similar message the following day when I spoke at their annual convention.
Both talks dealt with the preservation of the Constitution and the need to resist the Communist threat. At the Welch Testimonial dinner I commended The John Birch Society and encouraged them to protect the principles of liberty throughout the land.

Of course, as all of you know, this talk brought an immediate outcry from some liberal elements in Washington. These voices said that I, as a Church official, had no business speaking at the Robert Welch dinner. They said it was making me “controversial.” Patrick Henry and the Founding Fathers were also “controversial,” as true patriots have ever been. Perhaps they did not realize that I had fulfilled this assignment with the full approval of President McKay. And perhaps they did not realize that President David O. McKay has not hesitated to speak out for freedom even if some people have considered such patriotism as “controversial.” And neither will I hesitate. The fight to save the Constitution is not near controversy, nor the fight against Communism. In fact, it is a war with the devil – Christ verses anti-Christ – and I am willing to fight it. It is a fight against the greatest evil in this world – a ruthless, powerful, godless conspiracy.
J Edgar Hoover has warned that the cold war is a real war and that the threat is increasing. I agree, and unfortunately we are losing the war.

I think it is time for every patriotic American to join with neighbors to study the Constitution and the Conspiracy. Subscribe to several good patriotic magazines such as AMERICAN OPINION. Buy a few basic books, such as MASTERS OF DECIET and A STUDY OF COMMUNISM by J. Edgar Hoover; THE NAKED COMMUNIST by Cleon Skousen, recommended by President David O. McKay, in the General Conference of the Church, October 1959; YOU CAN TRUST THE COMMUNISTS by Dr. Fred Schwartz, and so on. And then prepare to do some independent thinking. And remember that the organized who have a plan and are dedicated though they be few, will always defeat the many who are not organized and who lack plans and dedication. The communists know this and have proven it. Isn’t it about time that most Americans realize it too?

In conclusion may I say that one of our most serious problems is the inferiority complex which people feel when they are not informed and unorganized. They dare not make a decision on these vital issues. They let other people think for them. They stumble around in the middle of the road trying to avoid being “controversial” and get hit by traffic going both ways.

To the patriots I say this: Take that long eternal look. Stand up for freedom no matter what the cost.

It can help to save your soul – and maybe your country.
This is a choice land….choice above all others. Blessed by the Almighty, our forefathers have made and kept it so. It will continue to be a land of freedom and liberty as long as we are able to advance in the light of sound and enduring principles of right. To sacrifice such principles for momentary expediency – often selfishly motivated – is to endanger our noble heritage and is unworthy of this great American people.
With all my heart I love this great nation. I have lived and traveled abroad just enough to make me appreciate rather fully what we have here. To me this is not just another nation. It is not just one of a family of nations. This is a nation with a great mission to perform for the benefit and blessing of liberty-loving people everywhere. It is my firm conviction that The Constitution of this land was established by men whom the God of heaven raised up unto that very purpose. This is part of my religious faith.

The days ahead are sobering and challenging, and will demand the faith, prayers and loyalty of every American. As the ancient apostle declared:

“The night is far spent, the day is at hand; let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” (Romans 13:12)

May God give us the wisdom to recognize the dangers of complacency, the threat to our freedom and the strength to meet this danger courageously.

Our challenge is to keep America strong and free – strong socially, strong economically, and, above all, strong spiritually, if our way of life is to endure. There is no other way. Only in this course is there safety for our nation.

In this mighty struggle each of you has a part. Every person on the earth today chose the right side during the war in heaven. Be on the right side now. Stand up and be counted. If you get discouraged remember the words of Edward Everett Hale when he said:

“I am only one, but I am one.
I can’t do everything, but I can do something.
What I can do, that I ought to do,
And what I ought to do,
By the grace of God, I shall do!”

And this is my prayer for you this day. May God bless all of you, each and every one. Thank you very much.

Speeches By Ezra Taft Benson (external LINK)

Ezra Taft Benson Bio

The Role of Proper Govt.

Our Immediate Responsibility

The Proper Role of Govt. by Ezra Taft Benson

The Proper Role of Government
by The Honorable Ezra Taft Benson
Former Secretary of Agriculture [The Eisenhower Administration - ed.] Published in 1968

Men in the public spotlight constantly are asked to express an opinion on a myriad of government proposals and projects. "What do you think of TVA?" "What is your opinion of Medicare?" How do you feel about Urban Renewal?" The list is endless. All too often, answers to these questions seem to be based, not upon any solid principle, but upon the popularity of the specific government program in question. Seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they, themselves, wish to be popular - especially if they seek public office.
Government Should Be Based Upon Sound Principles

Such an approach to vital political questions of the day can only lead to publistions of the day can only lead to public confusion and legislative chaos. Decisions of this nature should be based upon and measured against certain basic principles regarding the proper role of government. If principles are correct, then they can be applied to any specific proposal with confidence.

"Are there not, in reality, underlying, universal principles with reference to which all issues must be resolved whether the society be simple or complex in its mechanical organization? It seems to me we could relieve ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires our solution." (Albert E. Bowen, Prophets, Principles and National Survival, P. 21-22)

Unlike the political opportunist, the true statesman values principle above popularity, and works to create popularity for those political principles which are wise and just.
The Correct Role Of Government

I should like to outline in clear, concise, and straight-forward terms the political principles to which I subscribe. These are the guidelines which determine, now and in the future, my attitudes and actions toward all domestic proposals and projectsals and projects of government. These are the principles which, in my opinion, proclaim the proper role of government in the domestic affairs of the nation.

"(I) 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, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society."

"(I) believe 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..."

"(I) believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, which protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience." (D&C 134: 1-2,5)
The Most Important Function Of Government

It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. But, what are those right? And what is their source? Until these questions are answered there is little likelihood that we can correctly determine how government can best secure them. Thomas Paine, back in the days of the American Revolution, explained that:

"Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another... It is impossible t discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man." (P.P.N.S., p. 134)

The great Thomas Jefferson asked:

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" (Works 8:404; P.P.N.S., p.141)

Starting at the foundation of the pyramid, let us first consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know are human rights. There are only two possible sources. Rights are either God-given as part of the Divine Plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition and religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corolla must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that premise. As the French political economist, Frederick Bastiat, phrased it so succinctly, "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." (The Law, p.6)
The Real Meaning Of The Separation Of Church And State

I support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national religion. But I am opposed to the doctrine of separation of church and state as currently interpreted to divorce government from any formal recognition of God. The current trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of our rights, and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny. If Americans should ever come to believe that their rights and freedoms are instituted among men by politicians and bureaucrats, then they will no longer carry the proud inheritance of their forefathers, but will grovel before their masters seeking favors and dispensations - a throwback to the Feudal System of the Dark Ages. We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (P.P.N. S., p.519)

Since God created man with certain unalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to the creature which he created. Man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around. Even the non-believer can appreciate the logic of this relationship.
The Source Of Governmental Power

Leaving aside, for a moment, the question of the divine origin of rights, it is obvious that a government is nothing more or less than a relatively small group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been authorized. It stands to reason that the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything. Its only source of authority and power is from the people who have created it. This is made clear in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which reads: "WE THE PEOPLE... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The important thing to keep in mind is that the people in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government.

Of course, as James Madison, sometimes called the Father of the Constitution, said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." (The Federalist, No. 51)
Natural Rights

In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another. This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:


"Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is propAnd what is property but and extension of our faculties?" (The Law, p.6)

Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three - defending themselves, their property and their liberty - in what properly was called the "Lawless West." In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attach and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff. At this precise moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves - nothing more. Quoting again from Bastiat:


"If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right --its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right." (The Law, p. 6)

So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer "A" wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neitake his neighbor's horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer "B" wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.

If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A", they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:


"For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another." (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)
The Proper Function Of Government

This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No mted by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.

In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities, as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals.
The Powers Of A Proper Government

It also includes those powers necessarily incidental to the protective functions such as:

(1) The maintenance of courts where those charged with crimes may be tried and where disputes between citizens may be impartially settled.

(2) The establishment of a monetary system and a standard of weights and measures so that courts may render money judgments, taxing authorities may levy taxes, and citizens may have a uniform standard to use in their business dealings.

My attitude toward government is succinctly expressed by the following provision taken from the Alabama Constitution:

"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." (Art. 1, Sec. 35)

An important test I use in passing judgment upon an act of government is this: If it were up to me as an individual to punish my neighbor for violl to punish my neighbor for violating a given law, would it offend my conscience to do so? Since my conscience will never permit me to physically punish my fellow man unless he has done something evil, or unless he has failed to do something which

I have a moral right to require of him to do, I will never knowingly authorize my agent, the government to do this on my behalf. I realize that when I give my consent to the adoption of a law, I specifically instruct the police - the government - to take either the life, liberty, or property of anyone who disobeys that law. Furthermore, I tell them that if anyone resists the enforcement of the law, they are to use any means necessary - yes, even putting the lawbreaker to death or putting him in jail - to overcome such resistance. These are extreme measures but unless laws are enforced, anarchy results. As John Locke explained many years ago:

"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, 'a liberty for every man to do what he lists.' For who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within erty within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own." (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 57: P>P>N>S., p.101)

I believe we Americans should use extreme care before lending our support to any proposed government program. We should fully recognize that government is no plaything. As George Washington warned, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!" (The Red Carpet, p.142) It is an instrument of force and unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail or forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given law, we should oppose it.
The Constitution Of The United States

Another standard I use in deterring what law is good and what is bad is the Constitution of the United States. I regard this inspired document as a solemn agreement between the citizens of this nation which every officer of government is under a sacred duty to obey. As Washington stated so clearly in his immortal Farewell Address:


"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. - But the constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory udly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government." (P.P.N.S., p. 542)

I am especially mindful that the Constitution provides that the great bulk of the legitimate activities of government are to be carried out at the state or local level. This is the only way in which the principle of "self-government" can be made effective. As James Madison said before the adoption of the Constitution, " (We) rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." (Federalist, No.39; P.P.N.S., p. 128) Thomas Jefferson made this interesting observation: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." (Works 8:3; P.P.N.S., p. 128)
The Value Of Local Government

It is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly undertake the task is the one that should do so. First, the community or city. If the city cannot handle it, then the county. Next, the state; and only if no smaller unit can possible do the job should the federal government be considered. This is merely the application to the field of politics of that wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger gr a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. And so far as government is concerned the smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide it, to keep it solvent and to keep our freedom. Thomas Jefferson understood this principle very well and explained it this way:

"The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body." (Works 6:543; P.P.N.S., p. 125)

It is well to remember that the states of this republic created the Federal Government. The Federal Government did not create the states.
Things The Government Should Not Do

A category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity NOT within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.

To be sure, there are times when this principle of the proper role of government is most annoying and inconvenient. If I could only FORCE the ignorant to provided for themselves, or the selfish to be generous with their wealth! But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Beyond that point, where shall the line be drawn? Who is to say "this far, but no farther?" What clear PRINCIPLE will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and yet farther into our daily lives? We shouldn't forget the wise words of President Grover Cleveland that "... though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people." (P.P.N.S., p.345) We should also remember, as Frederic Bastiat reminded us, that "Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in." (THE LAW, p. 30; P.P.N.S., p. 350)
The Dividing Line Between Proper And Improper Government

As Bastiat pointed out over a hundred years ago, once government steps over this clear line between the protective or negative role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so-called "benefits" for some of its citizens, it then becomes a means for what he accurately described as legalized plunder. It becomes a lever of unlimited power which is the sought-after prize of unscrupulous individuals and pressure groups, each seeking to control the machine to fatten his own pockets or to benefit its favorite charities - all with the other fellow's money, of course. (THE LAW, 1850, reprinted by the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-On-Hudson, N.Y.)
The Nature Of Legal Plunder

Listen to Bastiat's explanation of this "legal plunder." "When a portion of wealth is tranferred from the person who owns it - without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud - to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed!

"How is the legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime..." (THE LAW, p. 21, 26; P.P.N.S., p. 377)

As Bastiat observed, and as history has proven, each class or special interest group competes with the others to throw the lever of governmental power in their favor, or at least to immunize itself against the effects of a previous thrust. Labor gets a minimum wage, so agriculture seeks a price support. Consumers demand price controls, and industry gets protective tariffs. In the end, no one is much further ahead, and everyone sufffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and a loss of personal freedom. With each group out to get its share of the spoils, such governments historically have mushroomed into total welfare states. Once the process begins, once the principle of the protective function of government gives way to the aggressive or redistribute function, then forces are set in motion that drive the nation toward totalitarianism. "It is impossible," Bastiat correctly observed, "to introduce into society... a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." (THE LAW, p. 12)
Governement Cannot Create Wealth

Students of history know that no governement in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth. People who work create wealth. James R. Evans, in his inspiring book, "The Glorious Quest" gives this simple illustration of legalized plunder:

"Assume, for example, that we were farmers, and that we received a letter from the government telling us that we were going to get a thousand dollars this year for plowed up acreage. But rather than the normal method of collection, we were to take this letter and collect $69.71 from Bill Brown, at such and such an address, and $82.47 from Henry Jones, $59.80 from a Bill Smith, and so on down the line; that these men would make up our farm subsidy. "Neither you nor I, nor would 99 percent of the farmers, walk up and ring a man's doorbell, hold out a hand and say, 'Give me what you've earned even though I have not.' We simply wouldn't do it because we would be facing directly the violation of a moral law, 'Thou shalt not steal.' In short, we would be held accountable for our actions."

The free creative energy of this choice nation "created more than 50% of all the world's products and possessions in the short span of 160 years. The only imperfection in the system is the imperfection in man himself." The last paragraph in this remarkable Evans book - which I commend to all - reads:

"No historian of the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of individual liberty practiced in the United States of America were a failure. He may be able to prove that we were not yet worthy of them. The choice is ours." (Charles Hallberg and Co., 116 West Grand Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60610)
The Basic Error Of Marxism

According to Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care - the same things that might be considered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibinsidered in a jail. The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and , in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. It is significant that in actuality the Russian people have few of the rights supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their constitution, while the American people have them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed. The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. Unless the people bake one loaf of bread for each citizen, the government cannot guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat. Constitutions can be written, laws can be passed and imperial decrees can be issued, but unless the bread is produced, it can never be distributed.
The Real Cause Of American Prosperity

Why, then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes and assemble more TV sets than Russians do? They do so precisely because our government does NOT guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes, controls, regulations and political manipulations that the productive genius that is America's would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the Iron Curtain. As Henry David Thoreau explained:

"This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. IT does not educate. THE CHARACTER INHERENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS DONE ALL THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; AND IT WOULD HAVE DONE SOMEWHAT MORE, IF THE GOVERNMMENT HAD NOT SOMETIMES GO IN ITS WAY. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it." (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE AMERICAN TRADITION, p. 100; P.P.S.N., p.171)

In 1801 Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, said:

"With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens - a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned." (Works 8:3)
A Formula For Prosperity

The principle behind this American philosophy can be reduced to a rather simple formula:

Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor. This is not possible without incentive.

Of all forms of incentive - the freedom to attain a reward for one's labors is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called THE PROFIT MOTIVE, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulations and taxes INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce. Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.
An Example Of The Consequences Of Disregarding These Principles

We have before us currently a sad example of what happens to a nation which ignores these principles. Former FBI agent, Dan Smoot, succinctly pointed this out on his broadcast number 649, dated January 29, 1968, as follows:

"England was killed by an idea: the idea that the weak, indolent and profligate must be supported by the strong, industrious, and frugal - to the degree that tax-consumers will have a living standard comparable to that of taxpayers; the idea that government exists for the purpose of plundering those who work to give the product of their labor to those who do not work. The economic and social cannibalism produced by this communist-socialist idea will destroy any society which adopts it and clings to it as a basic principle - ANY society."
The Power Of True Liberty From Improper Governmental Interference

Nearly two hundred years ago, Adam Smith, the Englishman, who understood these principles very well, published his great book, THE WEALTH OF NATIONS, which contains this statement:

"The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition, when suffered to exert itself with freedom and security, is so powerful a principle, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations; though the effect of these obstructions is always more or less either to encroach upon its freedom, or to diminish its security." (Vol. 2, Book 4, Chapt. 5, p. 126)
But What About The Needy?

On the surface this may sound heartless and insensitive to the needs of those less fortunate individuals who are found in any society, no matter how affluent. "What about the lame, the sick and the destitute? Is an often-voice question. Most other countries in the world have attempted to use the power of government to meet this need. Yet, in every case, the improvement has been marginal at best and has resulted in the long run creating more misery, more poverty, and certainly less freedom than when government first stepped in. As Henry Grady Weaver wrote, in his excellent book, THE MAINSPRING OF HUMAN PROGRESS:

"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own....THE HARM DONE BE ORDINARY CRIMINALS, MURDERES, GANGSTERS, AND THIEVES IS NEGLIGIBLE IN COMPARISON WITH THE AGONY INFLICTED UPON HUMAN BEINGS BY THE PROFESSIONAL 'DO-GOODERS', who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." (p. 40-1; P.P.N.S., p. 313)
The Better Way

By comparison, America traditionally has followed Jefferson's advice of relying on individual action and charity. The result is that the United States has fewer cases of genuine hardship per capita than any other country in the entire world or throughout all history. Even during the depression of the 1930's, Americans ate and lived better than most people in other countries do today.
What Is Wrong With A "Little" Socialism?

In reply to the argument that a little bit of socialism is good so long as it doesn't go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion, just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right, too! History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that this time around, the trend can be reversed. If not then we will see the inevitability of complete socialism, probably within our lifetime.
Three Reasons American Need Not Fall For Socialist Deceptions

Three factors may make a difference. First, there is sufficient historical knowledge of the failures of socialism and of the past mistakes of previous civilizations. Secondly, there are modern means of rapid communications to transmit these lessons of history to a large literate population. And thirdly, there is a growing number of dedicated men and women who, at great personal sacrifice, are actively working to promote a wider appreciation of these concepted men and women who, at great personal sacrifice, are actively working to promote a wider appreciation of these concepts. The timely joining together of these three factors may make it entirely possible for us to reverse the trend.
How Can Present Socialistic Trends Be Reversed?

This brings up the next question: How is it possible to cut out the various welfare-state features of our government which have already fastened themselves like cancer cells onto the body politic? Isn't drastic surgery already necessary, and can it be performed without endangering the patient? In answer, it is obvious that drastic measures ARE called for. No half-way or compromise actions will suffice. Like all surgery, it will not be without discomfort and perhaps even some scar tissue for a long time to come. But it must be done if the patient is to be saved, and it can be done without undue risk.

Obviously, not all welfare-state programs currently in force can be dropped simultaneously without causing tremendous economic and social upheaval. To try to do so would be like finding oneself at the controls of a hijacked airplane and attempting to return it by simply cutting off the engines in flight. It must be flown back, flown back, lowered in altitude, gradually reduced in speed and brought in for a smooth landing. Translated into practical terms, this means that the first step toward restoring the limited concept of government should be to freeze all welfare-state programs at their present level, making sure that no new ones are added. The next step would be to allow all present programs to run out their term with absolutely no renewal. The third step would involve the gradual phasing-out of those programs which are indefinite in their term. In my opinion, the bulk of the transition could be accomplished within a ten-year period and virtually completed within twenty years. Congress would serve as the initiator of this phase-out program, and the President would act as the executive in accordance with traditional constitutional procedures.
Summary Thus Far

As I summarize what I have attempted to cover, try to visualize the structural relationship between the six vital concepts that have made America the envy of the world. I have reference to the foundation of the Divine Origin of Rights; Limited Government; the pillars of economic Freedom and Personal Freedom, which result in Abundance; followed by Security and the Pursuit of Happiness.

America was built upon a firm foundation and created over many years from the bottom up. Other nations, impatient to acquire equal abundance, security and pursuit of happiness, rush headlong sh headlong into that final phase of construction without building adequate foundations or supporting pillars. Their efforts are futile. And, even in our country, there are those who think that, because we now have the good things in life, we can afford to dispense with the foundations which have made them possible. They want to remove any recognition of God from governmental institutions, They want to expand the scope and reach of government which will undermine and erode our economic and personal freedoms. The abundance which is ours, the carefree existence which we have come to accept as a matter of course, CAN BE TOPPLED BY THESE FOOLISH EXPERIMENTERS AND POWER SEEKERS. By the grace of God, and with His help, we shall fence them off from the foundations of our liberty, and then begin our task of repair and construction.

As a conclusion to this discussion, I present a declaration of principles which have recently been prepared by a few American patriots, and to which I wholeheartedly subscribe.
Fifteen Principles Which Make For Good And Proper Government

As an Independent American for constitutional government I declare that:

(1) I believe that no people can maintain freedom unless their political institutions are founded upon faith in God and belief in the existence of moral law.

(2) I believe that God has endowed men with certain unalienable rights as set forth in the Declaratioth in the Declaration of Independence and that no legislature and no majority, however great, may morally limit or destroy these; that the sole function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property and anything more than this is usurpation and oppression.

(3) I believe that the Constitution of the United States was prepared and adopted by men acting under inspiration from Almighty God; that it is a solemn compact between the peoples of the States of this nation which all officers of government are under duty to obey; that the eternal moral laws expressed therein must be adhered to or individual liberty will perish.

(4) I believe it a violation of the Constitution for government to deprive the individual of either life, liberty, or property except for these purposes:

(a) Punish crime and provide for the administration of justice;

(b) Protect the right and control of private property;

(c) Wage defensive war and provide for the nation's defense;

(d) Compel each one who enjoys the protection of government to bear his fair share of the burden of performing the above functions.

(5) I hold that the Constitution denies government the power to take from the individual either his life, liberty, or property except in accordance with moral law; that the same moral law which governs the actions of men when acting alone is also applicable when they act in concert with others; that no citizen or group of citizens has any right to direct their agent, the government to perform any act which would be evil or offensive to the conscience if that citizen were performing the act himself outside the framework of government.

(6) I am hereby resolved that under no circumstances shall the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights be infringed. In particular I am opposed to any attempt on the part of the Federal Government to deny the people their right to bear arms, to worship and pray when and where they choose, or to own and control private property.

(7) I consider ourselves at war with international Communism which is committed to the destruction of our government, our right of property, and our freedom; that it is treason as defined by the Constitution to give aid and comfort to this implacable enemy.

(8) I am unalterable opposed to Socialism, either in whole or in part, and regard it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a denial of the right of private property for government to own or operate the means of producing and distributing goods and services in competition with private enterprise, or to regiment owners in the legitimate use of private property.

(9) I maintain that every person who enjoys the protection of his life, liberty, and property should bear his fair share of the cost of government in providing that protection; that the elementary priing that protection; that the elementary principles of justice set forth in the Constitution demand that all taxes imposed be uniform and that each person's property or income be taxed at the same rate.

(10) I believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, and a circulation medium convertible into such money without loss. I regard it as a flagrant violation of the explicit provisions of the Constitution for the Federal Government to make it a criminal offense to use gold or silver coin as legal tender or to use irredeemable paper money.

(11) I believe that each State is sovereign in performing those functions reserved to it by the Constitution and it is destructive of our federal system and the right of self-government guaranteed under the Constitution for the Federal Government to regulate or control the States in performing their functions or to engage in performing such functions itself.

(12) I consider it a violation of the Constitution for the Federal Government to levy taxes for the support of state or local government; that no State or local government can accept funds from the Federal and remain independent in performing its functions, nor can the citizens exercise their rights of self-government under such conditions.

(13) I deem it a violation of the right of private property guaranteed under the Constitution for the Federal Government to forcibly deprive the citizens of this nation of their nation of their property through taxation or otherwise, and make a gift thereof to foreign governments or their citizens.

(14) I believe that no treaty or agreement with other countries should deprive our citizens of rights guaranteed them by the Constitution.

(15) I consider it a direct violation of the obligation imposed upon it by the Constitution for the Federal Government to dismantle or weaken our military establishment below that point required for the protection of the States against invasion, or to surrender or commit our men, arms, or money to the control of foreign ore world organizations of governments. These things I believe to be the proper role of government.

We have strayed far afield. We must return to basic concepts and principles - to eternal verities. There is no other way. The storm signals are up. They are clear and ominous.

As Americans - citizens of the greatest nation under Heaven - we face difficult days. Never since the days of the Civil War - 100 years ago - has this choice nation faced such a crisis.

In closing I wish to refer you to the words of the patriot Thomas Paine, whose writings helped so much to stir into a flaming spirit the smoldering embers of patriotism during the days of the American Revolution:

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the servisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; 'tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial and article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." (THE POLITICAL WORKS OF THOMAS PAINE, p.55.)

I intend to keep fighting. My personal attitude is one of resolution - not resignation.

I have faith in the American people. I pray that we will never do anything that will jeopardize in any manner our priceless heritage. If we live and work so as to enjoy the approbation of a Divine Providence, we cannot fail. Without that help we cannot long endure.
All Right-Thinking Americans Should Now Take Their Stand

So I urge all Americans to put their courage to the test. Be firm in our conviction that our cause is just. Reaffirm our faith in all things for which true Americans have always stood.

I urge all Americans to arouse themselves and stay aroused. We must not make any further concessions to communism at home or abroad. We do not need to. We should oppose communism from our position of strength for we are not weak.

There is much work to be done. The time is short. Let us begin - in earnest - now and may God bless our efforts, I humbly pray.

The End

__________________________________________________________________________
 
Speeches By Ezra Taft Benson (external LINK)

Ezra Taft Benson Bio

Stand Up For Freedom

Our Immediate Responsibility

Sociable