Yesterday marked two decades since the Berlin Wall came crashing down. As a visual representation of the larger “Iron Curtain”, Berlin’s wall served as a symbol of the separation of and forced isolation by the Eastern Bloc. In the minds of people throughout the world, its slow and eventual removal was not only a restoration of important freedoms, but a significant step in the eradication of Communism.

In this historical and monumental event we find an example of the power of symbolic representation. Many people equated (and still equate) such physical barriers with the tyrannical impositions of communist countries; since the walls are no more, then Communism must no longer be a threat, right?

Wrong.

Leaving aside the obvious examples of countries who currently have forms of government that embrace the ideology and structure of Communism (China, Cuba, etc.), we must ask: did Communism die out when the Berlin Wall fell? And are physical barriers the correct point of reference for evaluating the existence of this nefarious political philosophy?

To answer this question, it is important to understand the difference between Communism (big C) and communism (little c). A country need not have only one party, authoritarian and brutal rule, and a popularized Marxist belief system to be communist. These elements are indeed found in Communist states, but the verbal affirmation of adopting this system of government is not required (nor politically advantageous) to promote communist practices and programs within a government of some other form.

The elements of communism can be implemented by individuals living under any form of government; our own Republic has been contaminated with such a rotting disease for decades. While the heavy hand of a dictator is easily seen (and more keenly felt), the communist policies of leaders of so-called “free nations” are more difficult to detect and more subtle in their application. Consider, for reference, the words of Mr. Communist himself, Karl Marx. In his Manifesto of the Communist Party, he lists the ten planks upon which Communism must be founded:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

The astute political observer will note (hopefully, with great sadness) that several of these items have weaved themselves into our own laws, here in a country that some people still erroneously believe is a bastion of liberty for the world. The Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain are gone, thankfully, but despite these emotional experiences, the principles and policies that Communism espouses have slowly become infused in nearly every government throughout the world. Communism did not fail—it simply changed strategies, went underground, and wrapped itself in flowery, emotional language to eventually be welcomed with open arms by the very people who previously had decried its existence when presented from the other side of a wall, in a deep red color, by men with angry voices.

While we (rightly) praise the removal of these physical barriers, we are tolerating the creation of new ones all around us. Whether on social, cultural, economic, political, or intellectual subjects, elected and appointed officials alike are building, brick by brick, to slowly and surreptitiously erect new walls. These walls owe their existence to our collective refusal to recognize and reject the policies that serve as the foundation for their existence. If we, like those in Germany decades ago, wait for actual barricades to be formed before we will repudiate the elements of communism that serve as their foundation, then we, too, will find ourselves as pawns of the State—controlled, corralled, and denied the liberties we currently claim to possess and enjoy.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Bigger They Are, The Softer They Fall
• Misplaced Blame to Avoid Accountability

Along with the recent announcement of the NSA data center to be built near Lehi came numerous praises of the jobs it would bring to Utah. Governor Herbert called it a “godsend”, referencing the estimated 10,000 construction jobs it would create. Congressman Chaffetz said it would be a “benefit to our economy”.

Have we become so myopically focused that alleged job creation is the solitary metric by which we judge any action?

Those who claim to oppose big government often love to quote Benjamin Franklin, who once said that “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” And yet in a quest for safety from potential unemployment and economic hardship, principles (and liberty) are thrown to the wind for what the Governor also claimed to be a “win, win, win” situation.

Would we similarly welcome with open arms private businesses of ill repute if they likewise promised to create jobs? Would Utahns praise an industrial meth lab, prostitution ring, or child labor camp simply because they created jobs? Surely not.

Apparently, then, nobody seems to have a problem with what this data center will be doing, nor what kinds of information it will be harvesting, interpreting, and acting upon. News reports from April of this year describe the NSA’s regular interception of private, domestic communications obtained without a court order–all this in complete disregard of the fourth amendment. That we as Americans have not risen up against such Constitutional abuses is a sad statement of how we value our quickly-eroding liberties.

Few individuals, if any, have publicly challenged the creation of this data center in our backyard on principled grounds. Are we so desperate for more jobs that we are willing to put up with a “collection point for surveillance of domestic and international telecommunications”? And do we not realize that jobs created by the government do not fall from on high like the manna of Moses’ day, but that they require the taxation and confiscation of wealth from other individuals? To create new jobs for this alleged “godsend”, the government must take that money from other hard-working, private citizens. This action is hardly a “win, win, win” for those footing the bill.

Still worse is the response given to concerns over potential infringements of civil liberties. NSA officials suggested that congressional oversight would be sufficient to ensure that the government could be trusted–as if this has worked well in the past. For most, this is hardly reassuring. We are to designate as watchdogs of the NSA the individuals who have been asleep at the wheel of our Titanic-esque federal government? It seems absurd to entrust this important oversight to the people who are saddling future generations with mountains of debt, worrying about football conferences, and expanding the wars on terror, drugs, and free enterprise.

In these days of economic difficulty, government officials eager to score political points have taken up job creation and economic management as their own personal quests. Thus, hard questions are not asked, nor are apparently antiquated things like the Constitution and civil liberties even considered worth using in the conversation. All that matters to them is that magical number of jobs being created by their enacted programs and policies.

The NSA’s data center will largely be forgotten once it becomes operational. By then, the “godsend” of the 10,000 temporary construction jobs will be history. But the 1-200 individuals employed at the facility will continue their Orwellian mission of monitoring anybody they desire. Get ready, Utah: Big Brother will be camped out in your backyard.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Governor’s Jobs Claim is a Poor Start
• Job Creation Through Fiat
• The Utah Congressional Delegation: Establishment Sellouts

In over two hundred speeches given between 2002 and 2009, President Obama has referenced “special interests” 212 times. This near 1:1 ratio shows a continual concern (if only a verbalized one) for the influence of these allegedly nefarious groups of lobbyists.

Mr. Obama is not alone in his derision of the powerful influence such groups wield in government processes. Indeed, this popular campaign topic resonates with a disenfranchised electorate long since fed up with the rampant corruption in Washington. Actions speak louder than flowery rhetoric, though, and the ample record of partnership between government and lobbyists speaks for itself; most congressmen love lobbyists, despite what they claim on the campaign trail.

The influence that a few lobbyists can have on policy and programs is a visible symptom of a more disguised disease that few seem willing to address. The majority of Americans today are not advocates for more government or small government, nor are they champions of big government or small government. Rather, they are only interested in ensuring that the government is on their side. In this assessment, history (unsurprisingly) repeats itself, proving the wisdom of Frédéric Bastiat’s diagnosis some 160 years ago:

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. (Frédéric Bastiat, via Quoty)

Thus, since the federal government has become provider, protector, and caretaker of all who live under its oppressive thumb, groups of individuals with sufficient resources on hand necessarily see tactical wisdom in partaking in the spoils and diverting the loot into their own coffers. “Special interests”, then, are not the problem; government itself is the problem. A return to the proper and Constitutional size and authority of government would automatically and easily eliminate the vulture-like hovering of “special interests” over the soon-to-be-corpse of America.

Congress is a reflection of the people who install its members in office; the blame for their immorality and corruption lies with—and always has been the fault of—”We, the People”. The ability of “special interest” groups to have any audience or influence with politicians is entirely dependent upon the willingness of those individuals to be wined, dined, financially supported, and individually benefited—and our willingness to tolerate such a relationship. It goes without saying that lobbyists ignore those who refuse to help them. Their success in applying pressure on bought-and-paid-for politicians speaks far more about the politician—and his constituents—than it does the “special interest” group.

Lastly, the observant reader will note that any reference in this article to “special interests” is wrapped in quotation marks. This is because the term itself is misleading, since each and every person with any shred of concern for America’s future has an “interest” in enacting, rejecting, or preserving any given policy that he or she believes will contribute to its success.

The oft-cited problem of “special interests” is a distraction meant to shift accountability and blame for poor policies that financially benefit a limited group of people. It only exists due to a moral deficiency that leads elected officials to be wooed by men with deep pockets. Our focus should be not on these opportunistic agents of plunder, but on those we have placed in a position to hand out our money.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Political Prostitution
• Misplaced Blame to Avoid Accountability

A recent article by the Heritage Foundation provides an exhaustive and compelling list of instances in which supporters of California’s recent Proposition 8 were targeted, harassed, and violently abused by individuals in the opposing camp. While certainly not complete in its documentation of every such occurrence, it nevertheless paints a picture of the persecution suffered by many who donated and worked to support the “traditional” version of marriage.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the reactionary hostility exhibited by those who decry others for being instigators of “hate”, “fear”, and “bigotry” is hypocritical to the point of saturation. Such individuals undermine their own campaign, of course, by demonstrating themselves to be the very thing that has been suspected of them all long: liars willing to do whatever it takes to impose their will on the majority. Rather than conceding defeat and respecting the will of their peers, they spew their fomenting rage onto easily-identifiable targets, like the stealthy leopard pursuing a vulnerable gazelle in hopes of an easy feast.

Many of the individuals opposing Proposition 8 would consider these acts of protest and persecution to be the "just deserts" of their adversaries—the “price” that is theirs to pay for getting involved the way they did. This intellectual cop-out is simply an attempt to justify the opposition’s abusive and caustic retaliation towards those who voted differently.

The fact is, each person has the ability to choose how they will act and react. There is no fixed price for political involvement, nor any natural consequences to be meted out by those who did not succeed. The underlying claim of “he had it coming to him” is not only incorrect, but the complete opposite of reality. A person who votes a certain way does not do so with the understanding that a person who disagrees with him will throw a brick through his window, defecate on his doorstep, or stage a boycott protest outside his business.

The reactions to those who contributed to and voted for Proposition 8 are neither justified nor necessary. Protesters, vandals, and angry mobs were not fulfilling some cosmic destiny decreed for the donations made or votes cast. Instead, they were acting of their own accord, choosing to violently intimidate other people without any compulsion or pre-defined order of justice mandating it be done.

This “price” for voting in support of Proposition 8, then, is akin to a mechanic working on your car who rips you off and damages your vehicle because of something he disliked. When you dropped off your car to be worked on, you had no idea that the mechanic would horribly object to the radio station you chose, the drink sitting in your cup holder, and the color of the car’s interior you fell in love with at first sight. In his anger, he decided to spill your drink all over the inside of the car, draw obscenities with markers all over the seats, and cut the wires that powered the radio—and then charged you five times the previously-agreed-upon price.

The mechanic and opponents to Proposition 8 alike have chosen on their own to be instigators of violence and vandalism. The human element of this savage response and all the uncertainty it created in the political aftermath of Proposition 8 no doubt led the Heritage Foundation to include these words in its final analysis:

Indeed, no matter who is to blame for the hostility surrounding Prop 8, one lesson of Prop 8 cannot be denied: Individuals or institutions that publicly defend marriage as the union of husband and wife risk harassment, reprisal, and intimidation — at least some of it targeted and coordinated.

The risk mentioned in this quote is introduced by the unpredictability of the hostile response—based in “hate”, “fear”, and “bigotry”—launched by individuals who are hypocrites, liars, and uncivil participants in the political process. Theirs is not the path of justice being meted out as a result of a cast vote, but of a tantrum-throwing juvenile crowd who will kick and scream until they get their way. This is neither just nor American, and should be repudiated by all who esteem the ballot box as being the best method of governing ourselves and determining a proper course of action for our communities.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Breaking: New Anti-Proposition 8 Campaign to Target LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson
• Religion and Politics: The LDS Church and Proposition 8
• A Saint’s Lament: Not All Mormons Follow the Prophet

While modern civilization has made great strides in eradicating many of the scourges that have crippled and killed millions, it has overwhelmingly welcomed the latest cancer with wide open arms. Curiously, this disease is weaved into the popular culture in such a way that few see it for what it truly is. Instead, like cigarette smokers half a century ago, it is accepted by most as a healthy and/or innocent form of personal entertainment.

The plague that is pornography has devastated the lives and relationships of countless millions, infusing society with a strain of selfishness and baseness that, if unchecked, will contributed in large part to its ultimate doom. Consider a few of the alarming statistics: as of July 2003, there were 260 million pages of porn online, an increase of 1800% since 1998; more than 70% of men from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month; and over 45 million unique users visit adult websites each month in the United States alone. The data continues, each thread helping to weave part of the large and ugly picture that represents this blight on our society.

As the saying goes, sex sells. In 2006, the industry netted brought in over $97 billion—more than the revenues of Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, Apple, and Netflix combined. Obviously, there is a market for this drug, and its demand is ever-increasing.

But at what cost?

Pornography and its usage serve no beneficial purpose; its only perceived advantage is the generation of large profits for those who produce and distribute it. In this sense, it is very much a drug; its peddlers rely upon its addictive nature to secure an income stream and ensure the customer returns for more.

At its core, pornography’s popularity relies upon the dehumanization of its subject, which is almost always a woman. She is treated not as a human being with character, intellect, kindness, and personality, but as a collection of anatomical components serving to induce a physiological response. The very essence of pornography is that of a false substitute—a cheap forgery whose attempt at imitation astonishingly deceives many.

Put more succintly:

Pornography takes human sexuality, with its hope of love, fidelity, family, and fulfillment, and turns it into an empty and lifeless husk. It does this as a predator destroys its prey, by eviscerating sexuality of all its inherent grace. This transmogrification, which some mistake as emancipation, takes place through processes that are neither liberating or enriching, but depersonalizing, enslaving, self-destructive, preposterous, alienating, isolating, reductionistic.

The process can be subtle enough that, for some, it goes unnoticed. But ultimately, the difference between the reality of human sexuality and its residue in pornography is all the difference in the world. It is the difference between what “gift” means in English and what “gift” (poison) means in German. Indeed, it is the difference between hope and despair, heaven and hell.

This falsification of wholesome qualities such as love, unity, and intimacy is only one of the many deceptions inherent in the very existence of this material. Another such deception is the absolute hypocrisy involved in one’s viewing of such content. Dr. Mary Anne Layden of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Cognitive Therapy once stated:

When I ask men who are sex addicts if they would want their wife or daughter to be in porn, 100 percent say, ‘No’. They want it to be somebody else’s wife or daughter. They know this material is damaging.

This aspect, perhaps more than any other, illustrates the dehumanization of those involved in pornography. Those who choose to degrade themselves through participation in such material uphold the reverse of the golden rule, doing to others’ daughters what they would not want done to their own.

Comparing the drug of pornography to that of crack cocaine—and arguing that pornography is a harder addiction to overcome—Layden also stated that it is the “most concerning thing to psychological health that [she knows] of existing today.”

Simply put, "pornography victimizes everyone—those who are addicted to it, those who live with them, a society that fosters it, a society that is trying to oppose it, even those who create it. It contaminates everyone." Dehumanizing anybody destroys relationships and distorts behavior for all involved parties. In short, it degrades individuals, destroys families, and spoils society.

And yet, as was noted earlier, society warmly embraces this lucrative and enticing enterprise. Having become wiser, our society now sees the tobacco advertising of the mid-1900s as a deceptive, money-hungry campaign to make an unhealthy practice popular and sexy. We can only hope that some sort of catalyst will produce a similar result with pornography; our society’s successful future demands that we re-humanize the women who have become involved in this industry, and reject the fraudulent objectivization of other people’s daughters.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Pride in Practice (or, What a Few Women Think)

In August, President Obama made an appearance in Arizona to headline a rally for supporters of his Obamacare plan. Unsurprisingly, protesters swarmed the area with homemade signs to make known their outrage. Among the group was an individual carrying an AR-15 rifle slung over his shoulder, and a pistol holstered at his hip. MSNBC ran footage of this man later in the day, with one commentator expressing concern about the racial overtones evidenced by a white man bringing a gun to an appearance by the first black president.

However, this story was completely inaccurate. Not only was it factually incorrect, but the implications of MSNBC’s error sparked a conversation on a subject that otherwise would not have been a concern at all, and could have easily served as the basis for much more heated controversy regarding this element of armed racists parading around in close proximity to Obama, had the truth not come out soon afterward. The error?

The armed man was black.

(MSNBC had deceitfully edited the video so as to exclude any portions that showed the man’s bare skin.)

In a masterful video commentary produced shortly after this event, Pajamas Media writer Bill Whittle exposed the deceptive background behind MSNBC’s careful editing. His main point: an armed black man protesting against a black president did not fit a pre-conceived narrative the media outlet desired to convey.

Several books, such as Bias, have been written by insiders documenting instance after instance of this manipulation Whittle describes. The charge of engineering facts to fit an agenda is not a new accusation being made against this industry—far from it. But this instance serves as one of the latest of countless examples where an intentionally misleading story is put forward to attempt to have the public buy into the pre-approved narrative.

Another recent example has sparked a firestorm of articles and blog posts from local news reporters and commentators. Last week, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave a powerful discourse on the subject of freedom of religion, counseling students at BYU-Idaho (and the world at large) that the battle rages on and that their participation is needed to preserve our freedoms.

Just about every media outlet, except those owned by the Church itself, chose to regurgitate the Associated Press article written in preparation for the very minute at which the agreed-upon news embargo was lifted (when Elder Oaks’ devotional concluded), when they could pounce with their coverage of the talk. (It should be noted that this article contains an inaccurate statement; it claims that blacks were denied “full church membership” until 1978, when that was not the case at all. Access to the priesthood and the temple do not constitute full church membership. To claim otherwise is to suggest that women and children are not “full members”. But I digress…)

In succeeding days, most of these media outlets inflated the already-artificial reaction to a statement by Elder Oaks who, when referring to the tactics of intimidation used by proponents of proposition 8 and gay marriage to silence their Mormon political opponents, said:

These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation. (emphasis added)

Comments were sought—and all too readily obtained—from gay rights groups, disaffected members of the Church, black civil rights leaders, and other interested parties, regarding the comparison Elder Oaks made between persecuted Mormons and persecuted Southern blacks several decades ago.

The only problem is that, like MSNBC’s manipulation of the facts to support their narrative, these news agencies have published reports of and encouraged conversation regarding a comparison that was never made (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), with the widely-circulated Associated Press article leading the way with its misleading opening paragraph.

Reading the above quote again, you’ll see the words “in their effect” prominently highlighted to help indicate what Elder Oaks really said—not what his opponents are saying that he said. Taken in its true context, Elder Oaks was making a simple comparison between the end results of the persecution of both parties, namely, that both parties felt less safe and had less desire to exercise their political and civil freedoms. There was no comparison made anywhere regarding the extent of the persecution, nor the similarities of each group’s persecution, nor anything other than the fact that the effects on both parties were similar—not the same. Yet, the AP article and other content produced by the various news outlets (yes, it seems that some of them still actually write their own content—shocking, I know!) ignores this and perpetuates the myth regarding a comparison that was never used.

To be fair, the Church’s press release may have influenced some of the wording used by news agencies. It says that “…Elder Oaks likened the incidents of outrage against those who prevailed in establishing marriage between a man and a woman to the ‘widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South.’”. However, it is not naive or unrealistic to assume that good (and honest) journalists would seek context to this explanation and deeper analysis before simply fanning the flames of controversy without any substance to support the furor.

But the reality of Elder Oaks’s statement does not fit one of the prominent Utah media narratives, since that narrative is implemented by a fairly numerous group of individuals who are either former/inactive members of the LDS Church, (vehemently) ideologically opposed to its teachings and practices, or disaffected in some other way. These individuals clearly have a vested personal interest (though they may parrot their “journalistic objectivity” in protest) in seeing the image of the Church damaged in some fashion. The narrative allows them to continue to develop and distribute stories that are in reality based on misunderstandings and misleading information.

As Whittle concludes in his video, “You can’t stop the signal. The truth will get out.” It is increasingly becoming clear that there exist people who are hostile to the truth and a sincere presentation of events and facts, wrapped though they may be in the sacrosanct shroud of journalistic integrity. Those who want the undistorted truth must—and easily can, thanks to the internet—reject the media distortions and go to the source (in this case, here) themselves.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• For the Strength of Youth—Entertainment and Media

Fancy televisions. 4-wheelers. Boats. Video game systems. Fancy clothing and jewelry. These and a slew of other material objects are some of the distractions by which people refuse to prepare themselves and their families for the storms on the horizon. In our culture of consumerism, instant gratification is a given; rarely do people acquire an adequate supply of goods to see them through troubled times.

This perpetual mode of procrastination has ill effects felt not only by those making such choices, but by those around them as well. Of course, those in this narrow state of mind do not even consider the consequences of their choices, let alone how they might affect others. Their focus on the here and now blinds them of any need to reflect on the future. A constant stream of entertainment pacifies them into a brain-numbing trance where, like the drug addict looking for the next fix, their cares take no thought of distant events.

Imagine: tomorrow, the coordinated rejection of the dollar by OPEC countries sparks a precipitous decline in its value. Runs on banks happen both in the traditional sense, and facilitated by the internet, in mere seconds at the computer. The bank’s servers crash, ATMs run out of the worthless paper, and the government responds by declaring a banking holiday. Stores stop accepting dollars, and, unable to use their credit/debit cards, impatient shoppers grow violent and simply loot the stores in sheer frustration and unsympathetic greed. Commerce grinds to a halt, store shelves are emptied, gasoline quickly disappears, and for the near and uncertain future, people are left to their own devices for survival.

In light of this example—one of any number of possibilities—consider your neighbor. He has a nice home, a couple of new cars, beautiful furniture, and the best home theater on the block. He and his family go on regular vacations and seem to always be out having fun. But he only has about a week of food in the pantry, no stored water, and no fuel reserve to speak of. In a split second, his many toys and possessions have become completely worthless. What will he do when his meager supply of food is exhausted?

While this neighbor spent years vacationing abroad and partying at home, you spent what little extra money you had working on your food storage. You bought the cheap line of clothing, rarely ate at restaurants, and didn’t even have cable TV. You spent your extra funds on the basic elements of a well-rounded preparedness supply, so that come what may, you’d be ready. After several years of dedicated effort and wise fiscal management, you were able to build up a year supply of food, water, fuel, medicine, and other needed items.

Your neighbor squandered away his income, choosing to entertain himself with baseless frivolity. Now, the law of harvest demands that he reaps what he sowed. And yet this justice—needful though it may be—is tempered by the mercy of those who have lived wisely and now can act, rather then be acted upon, to help those in need.

This presents a quandary, however. This fictitious neighbor of yours is likely representative to some degree of the majority of those in your neighborhood. If general statistics hold true where you live, then very few of your neighbors will have anything close to an adequate supply of important basics. Thus, your year supply would, if shared, quickly diminish to a supply of only a few weeks.

Those who choose to procrastinate their preparedness are not only poor spouses and parents, but they will one day become a heavy burden on those around them who refused to live this way. There are many who half-jokingly suggest that in times of crisis, they will go to a certain friend’s house who has a large supply of goods. An effective response to such stupidity is: “which of my children do you want to starve so that I can feed you?” Our neighbors must be made to understand that though I am their figurative keeper, I am not their supplier, nor am I their mother.

So, neighbor: sell your fancy television, your 4-wheelers, your boat, your video game system, and your fancy clothing and jewelry. Unencumber your life by ridding yourself of such wasteful tools of instant gratification, and be a provident provider for those entrusted to your care. Be an asset to your community, rather than a potential burden.

With apologies to Alma, I end with a twist to his plea:

…as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your preparedness until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for TEOTWAWKI, behold, if we do not lay up in store while in this period of bounty, then cometh the times of famine wherein there can be no new purchases.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• A Snapshot of a Community’s Preparedness
• A Second Snapshot of a Community’s Preparedness

In various political gatherings I attend and view there are inevitably a handful of people who will vocally complain about perceived divisiveness and “in-fighting”. Their main argument is that it is counter-productive to spend our time and energy focusing on internal problems, and that our efforts would be better spent opposing the other party (whatever that means) and fighting for our common goals.

This argument has at least two problems. First, it is a smoke-screen for maintaining a status quo that the “establishment” would rather not see changed. By calling any attempt to root out corruption or improve internal processes “divisive” (simply because somebody who shares a party affiliation opposes the action), the person uses a red herring to deter anybody from changing the system they have worked hard to nurture and take advantage of. Second, any pleas for unity are disingenuous when there are strong or important disagreements between two or more people; any facade of agreement is deception at best, and a flat out lie at worst, when behind the scenes there is bickering and malcontent.

Enough with the generalizations; let’s use a specific example.

Republicans are in a bind. Having lost their foundation, their vision, and a slew of important elections, they are scrambling to “redefine” themselves, find a leader, and market themselves to attract new and energized voters. Establishment leaders within the party (at all levels) resist any notion that they themselves are the reason their voting base has all but disintegrated. Rather, their blame points to external circumstances, such as social networking, branding, and communication. These people seriously think that repackaging a bowl full of dog poop will make it more palatable. Months after both sides of the political aisle drove the “lipstick on a pig” mantra into everybody’s psyche, Republican leadership is out shopping for which shade will suit them best. (They’ve yet to realize that they, too, are nothing more than a figurative pig.)

Both mainstream political parties are taking us in the same direction, at varying speeds and paths. But the end goal—big government—is the unstated union that exists among all establishment elites. Thus, anybody who challenges this system is deemed “divisive” for refusing to participate in the tit-for-tat, let’s-fight-the-evil-Democrats false dichotomy upon which the entire fraudulent process relies.

Cries for unity are disingenuous when people refuse to allow scrutiny into their internal actions and proceedings. Until the inner vessel is cleansed, a group cannot effectively and sincerely have any real unity. When there is legitimate division, it is best to resolve the issue before jointly opposing external forces; in the mean time, those demanding that the divisiveness cease are simply opposing the cleansing process and resisting its corresponding scrutiny. Individuals with nothing to hide will not fear such a process.

Of course, this resistance is not found only among Republicans. People of all political persuasions fall prey to this tendency. If we truly desire to be united—and not just to preserve corruption and inefficiency—then we will welcome with open arms the probing process of internal improvement to ensure that we can put our best foot forward (and on sound footing) when it is appropriate and necessary to do so.

Unity is a worthy goal, and one we should all strive for. We cannot attain it, however, until we share a common foundation of principle and virtue. Those who enjoy and abuse their power and falsely masquerade as “one of us” are the very instigators of division that they complain about, and yet will use their pleas for unity to distract others from considering them as the cause of corruption. Unity will come naturally where it is invited through proper actions; it need not be forced by resisting the urge to consider improvements and changes to how we behave and what rules we follow.

Thomas Paine once wrote that “…the strength of government does not consist in anything within itself, but in the attachment of a nation, and the interest which the people feel in supporting it. When this is lost, government is but a child in power; and though… it may harass individuals for a while, it but facilitates its own fall.” Those who revere the Founders and desire to carry their standard forward are those who question the status quo continually and suggest opportunities for improvement—all this in an effort to demonstrate to others that there are valid reasons for supporting our government. If they are prevented in succeeding, then the false cries for unity will yield their natural fruits: lost interest, lost elections, and the loss of our framework of limited, constitutional government.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Inherent Injustice of Plea Deals
• FDA: Fostering a False Sense of Security
• Mediating Institutions: A Remedy to Political Indifference

At today’s committee meeting, the Central Committee of the Utah County Republican Party passed a motion affirming its opposition to the so-called (and horribly misnamed) "ethics initiative" currently being circulated for signatures and support in the state of Utah. They join a growing list of parties, organizations, and people who likewise oppose this initiative on the grounds that the “ethics reform” it would create is, well, unethical.

Among other things, this initiative would: ultimately appoint five individuals—dubbed “super czars”—to form a commission that would police the legislature; give a lifelong appointment to members of said commission; ensure that the commission members are not accountable to anybody, including any court, the Attorney General, the Governor, or the entire legislature; create a code of conduct for the legislature that is more burdensome and restrictive than fair and reasonable; allow for any three people to file an ethics complaint, thus easily embroiling any legislator into a costly battle to clear his/her name (if innocent); and require that legislators adhere to the aforementioned code of conduct, but not impose any such requirement on the “independent minded” members of the commission. The list goes on.

Much has been said from proponents of this initiative regarding its importance in ensuring our elected legislators are honest and ethical. Problem is, the arguments I’ve heard can essentially be summarized as being part of a deceptive propaganda campaign to place five people into a lifetime, powerful office without any guarantees or even convincing arguments that 1) ethics issues will be more easily and properly resolved, 2) the findings of this commission will be impartial and accurate, and 3) such a commission is needed in the first place.

To be sure, there are instances when legislators act with impropriety or outright corruption. These cases can and should be dealt with as they arise. But the responsibility for reviewing and enforcing any code of conduct is not the responsibility of a limited group of appointed, unaccountable overlords. Rather, the legislator’s (elected!) peers, along with the constituents and delegates who are represented by that legislator, are the ones who determine whether that legislator is guilty and should be punished in some fashion.

Worse still, this initiative would completely reverse a long-standing bulwark of American liberty: the notion that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Any three citizens of Utah could, under the proposal, band together and file a complaint against a legislator, and issue subpoenas as well. Upon doing so, the legislator would alone be responsible for proving his/her innocence, rather than the authors of the complaint having the burden of proof be put upon them. Clearly this is as un-American as it is foolhardy; one can easily imagine a number of parallel complaints being considered through easily-filed complaints of any person and two of his friends, with the legislators in each complaint being burdened in terms of both time and money in order to demonstrate and ultimately prove their innocence to the commission’s satisfaction.

Herein lies both the corruption and the cunning: if passed as proposed, this initiative would provide a two-edged political weapon for opponents of Utah’s conservative Republican majority to advance their agenda by subterfuge and sabotage. First, the remote likelihood that if elected, one might be the target of such an easy and costly complaint, would discourage a great number of people from running for office at all. (Proponents have often dismissed this argument but with no compelling reassurances to the contrary; it remains a very feasible possibility.) Second, sitting legislators who are the target of such complaints might be intimidated in voting a certain way if a potential complaint later filed is perceived as being retaliatory in any fashion. Given the ease by which these complaints may be filed, and the time, stress, and financial burden exacted from the legislator, one cannot simply dismiss these points by saying that it won’t happen. The opportunity is there; even if this political weapon was not crafted for this purpose, it will nevertheless be very enticing and easy to use, when convenient.

I said this in today’s committee meeting, and I’ll repeat it again here: this ethics initiative is no more about ethics than the USA PATRIOT Act is about patriotism, or the No Child Left Behind Act is about not leaving any children behind. These three measures—and countless others—are, in summary and at their core, attempts to consolidate power and centralize control. Sure, their names and talking points sound great in out-of-context theory and may sway the ignorant masses, but this campaign is not and never was about genuine ethics reform.

In Orwell’s 1984, the ruling party had as its slogan: “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength”. Should this initiative pass, we may as well follow this pattern and affirm that in Utah, “Corruption is Ethical”. At least we’d be honest.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Utah Congressional Delegation: Establishment Sellouts
• Do We Really Want an NSA Data Center in Utah?

A commonly proposed solution to reduce the amount of corruption in Washington is to impose term limits on officeholders, thereby theoretically minimizing the amount of damage one corrupt politician can cause. The argument goes that incumbents often have an unfair advantage with a large war chest, a strong network of contacts, and other advantages that create a hurdle for would-be challenges to have a legitimate shot at winning an election against them.

Frankly, I believe term limits are a major cop-out—an excuse promoted to justify a dereliction of one’s duty.

The imposition of term limits is an artificial restraint to force a continual rotation of elected officials, thus removing the need for people to be actively engaged in participating in a campaign to win on merit alone. It ignores the collateral damage of ending a true statesman’s service prematurely, and incorrectly considers all congressmen to be like cow’s milk—short shelf life, firm expiration date.

By removing the incentive of possible re-election, you also remove an unstated restraint on immoral behavior. Essentially, a congressman who knows he is being “let go” at the end of his term is much like the guy at the office who has given his two weeks’ notice. Both lack a drive to work hard and external motive to refrain from behavior or actions that they otherwise would not have indulged in.

Proponents of term limits either casually forget or conveniently ignore the fact that “We the People” are the term limits. A process is already in place for terminating a politician’s employment which has repeatedly proven effective in the past. Any initiative to supplement or supplant this electoral selection system is an affront to our method of representation which dictates that people should be able to choose whom they prefer.

Term limits are a poor prescription for the diagnosis of congressional corruption; one does not take morphine for a case of indigestion. Rather than generalizing the remedy and affecting parts of the body that are operating just fine, it is better to localize the treatment and target the offending members specifically. Those who support term limits as a means of removing from office corrupt congressmen should divert their efforts into mounting campaigns for a more worthy candidate, rather than trying to alter the system to work in their favor. The system is not broken—we are.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Treading Water—America’s Long Term Unsustainability
• Special Interests
• It’s Not a Coup: Constitutional Government in Honduras

Difficult circumstances have many results, one of which being that a person’s true character is likely to be exposed throughout the process. In times of trial, the way a person acts or reacts is a raw indication of what their true desires are. Applied in the political realm, this implies that the solutions a person supports as remedies for perceived problems demonstrates where their heart is.

In the Book of Mormon, the fledgling Jaredite nation came to a crossroads with the impeding death of their patriarchal leaders. The people were consulted as to their final wish; their request was an establishment of monarchy in their new nation. Despite a warning to the contrary, they got their wish. The rest of their history details the bloody consequences of that pivotal choice.

Few societies throughout the world’s history have chosen liberty when afforded the option to do so. To be sure, many have chosen freedom: freedom from the shackles of their current oppressive masters; freedom from the burdensome taxes they were forced to pay; freedom from the restraints felt in their individual lives. But few have chosen liberty, the political implications of which are far more preparatory and broadly applied than most understand.

Too many have fought for freedom only to further enslave themselves within a new system of government or under a newly elected leader. Numerous revolutions and elections throughout history have simply swapped one group of tyrants for another, demonstrating that a narrow definition of and support for freedom is deceptively transitory.

Liberty, as George Bernard Shaw once said, means responsibility. “That is why most men dread it,” he opined. The Jaredite’s invitation for kingly rule over them was indicative of their unwillingness to self-govern—a surrender of liberty, in effect. A similar desire is seen in countless homes across the country today, as people look to Washington for a solution to their problems. A person who has lost his job, has poor health care, or dislikes his quality of education will likely look to a single man—the President—for assistance. By extension, the few individuals working with him in the federal government are also solicited for fixing personal and local problems.

Put simply, the desire for a king does not require a monarchy. It is equally (if not more deviously) manifested in the way people clamor for change, stimuli, and subsidies from one or more people in charge of whatever form of government may exist. This desire is the antithesis of liberty, for liberty requires solving one’s own problems. It exists only when there is a general repudiation of outsourcing one’s difficulties to another person or group.

The lack of concern most people feel for liberty (to say nothing of their general ignorance regarding its meaning and implications) is illustrated well in the third installment of the recent Star Wars series, when the fictional character Padmé Amidala observed the way in which her colleagues clamored for the so-called “safety” and “security” offered by the man who hijacked the Republic and transformed it into an Empire. As the masses cheered, Padmé remarked: “So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause.”

Though the evidence all around us shows a similar pattern in our own country, we must resist the tide that is taking us in the direction of centralized tyranny. Samuel Adams warned us in this way:

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors; they purchased them for us with toil and danger and at the expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Too many Americans today surrender their birthright—liberty—for a mess of putrescent, political pottage: bondage. Liberty is hard work which cannot be delegated to another. It is rarely easy, and (sadly) seldom popular. It causes controversy and division, and is often (and erroneously) considered harsh, unjust, and inconsiderate. It does not easily appeal to base emotions, and requires an informed and intelligent people to carry its banner forward.

The American experiment was, at its outset, a firm rejection of servile dependence. The Founders asserted themselves and their countrymen as sovereign, free men. That their posterity has largely surrendered this great gift is a testament not only to our current, pathetic state, but also to our ingratitude for such a priceless treasure—one that will not easily be recovered.

***************

Last night, the Sutherland Institute held their quarterly blogger briefing. Guest panelists were representatives of the Republican and Democrat parties in Utah, and the audience was comprised of, well, bloggers. The topic, “Civility in Politics: Where Do We Draw the Line?”, keyed off of a recent survey showing that 71% of Utahns think that our political discourse has become less civil in the last five years.

I tend to agree with the commentary that Dave Hansen, Utah Republican Party Chairman, gave: it is likely technology that has created this observation of increased incivility. In reality, and especially compared with political intercourse from a couple decades or centuries ago, things are pretty calm; if an accusatory outburst during a presidential speech is to be considered the most outlandish of examples of incivility, then I’d say we’re doing fairly well. But in a world of social media and rapid-fire commentary, every foible is potentially on public display and able to be transmitted to the masses within seconds. Overall we are a civil people, even though in individual cases there are plenty of instances of one’s failure to show respect and decency.

As I’ve thought about this topic in the past few days, I think that a significant issue is being altogether ignored in this discussion. Yes, sometimes our conversations can become heated and direct—wholly uncivil, even. (Myself and commenters on this blog are no exception, especially with the issues I bring up for discussion!) But I believe that it’s also important to focus on the need to separate people from issues.

Example: Persons A and B are friends. A’s mother is on medicare and food stamps, and B opposes these and all other social welfare programs administered by the government. If B knows about A’s mother, it’s likely that he would not bring up these subjects in their conversation. After all, more often than not A will look favorably towards these programs, since his mother is benefiting from them.

Imagine, then, that A decides for whatever reason to discuss the subject of social welfare programs with B. Assuming B does not know about A’s mother, he is likely to offend his friend when discussing his desire to see such programs abolished outright. A is likely, then, to be defensive from the outset, feeling that B must be cruel and inhumane; after all, does he want A’s mother to be destitute and impoverished?

Other examples abound, all stemming from the inability we seem to have in separating an issue from a person. When people embrace an issue they hold dear, it seems that they will react poorly to any critique or objection to that issue—for them, it’s personal. Of course, some people capitalize on this emotional connection people are so prone to make, and thus further complicate the situation for those trying to articulate logical opposition to the underlying issue.

Still worse, some people become offended by any counterpoint offered to their opinion, whether or not they feel some affinity for the subject matter being discussed. Any response arguing against their ideas is considered a personal attack and unwelcome. These people might in some cases be classified as being in perpetual ignorance, the recipe for which Elbert Hubbart once wrote is to “be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.” Fewer things stifle a productive discussion more than somebody who wrongly takes offense.

Clearly, these qualifiers do not absolve us of the responsibility to convey our thoughts with respect for the other person. I believe that there are some times where circumstances might call for a prompt verbal protest (which is often interpreted as being uncivil), but this would be an exception, and not the rule. The affairs of our day certainly invite negativity, criticism, and contention; one need only read through the comments on any popular online forum where relative anonymity is allowed to see this on full and lurid display. Our obligation is to seek the higher road: to show respect, to affirm the worth of other’s opinions, to reason together, and to think of how what we will say might be received before hitting the submit button. I, as much as anybody, have room for improvement in this regard.

Like trust, respect is often and more easily received when it is first offered. Those who primarily and consistently leave negative or critical commentary are likely to be subject to the same tone they themselves are using. These individuals, of course, are the thorn in the side of all who wish to show civility. It’s easy to be nice to your friend, but few have the moral character to be nice to their enemies as well.

In a world of incivility facilitated by anonymity, our common challenge is to rise above the steady stream of squabbles and contribute to a well-meaning, productive, and civil discussion regarding the important issues of our day.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Inertia vs. Incentive—The Goverment Conundrum

A previous article I’ve written, "Prophetic Political Silence", continues to receive a steady stream of traffic to this day. I am often contacted by people expressing their gratitude for the ideas I expressed there—people who, like me, often wonder why our church leaders have largely (but not completely) grown silent in the cause of freedom.

While that article dealt more with practical particulars that might dictate why this shift has occurred, a friend of mine pointed me towards another influencing factor that has scriptural precedent. If the implications of the following examples are applicable to our day, then we are indeed facing some dark times ahead.

President Hinckley referred to the Book of Mormon in the following way, setting the stage for our analysis:

The Book of Mormon narrative is a chronicle of nations long since gone. But in its descriptions of the problems of today’s society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems.

I know of no other writing which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God. Its pages trace the stories of two distinct civilizations that flourished on the Western Hemisphere. Each began as a small nation, its people walking in the fear of the Lord. But with prosperity came growing evils. The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras.

This summary statement is as powerful as it is frightening, when we use the book as a lens through which we can view the forces behind modern affairs, both foreign and domestic. But perhaps one of the most compelling lessons to be learned from this compilation of scripture comes from Moroni, who pleads with the reader to learn from the lessons of the past. After witnessing the systematic dismantling of his own nation, and after reviewing the same occurrence among the Jaredites, Moroni summarizies:

And [secret combinations] have caused the destruction of this people of whom I am now speaking, and also the destruction of the people of Nephi. (Ether 8:21)

His plea—and God’s command—then follows:

Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up. (Ether 8:24)

After proceeding to document the implosion of the Jaredite nation (but before relating the end of their story), we are then presented with a sermon on basic gospel principles: faith, hope, and repentance. What is interesting is the correlation between this instance and the one found in the description of the Nephite society’s destruction. In his own book, Moroni almost repeats himself by inserting another sermon on faith, hope, and repentance. Whereas before it was the prophet Ether, here it is his father, Mormon. Both sermons were included after the people received their last prophetic warnings, and just before a recounting of their final destruction.

In a way, these sermons on core elements of the gospel seem almost like a calm before the storm. Whereas many Saints complain at the repetitive and elementary principles being taught over the pulpit, with this information in hand they might rethink their frustration. Perhaps the prophetic focus on faith, hope, and repentance is our calm before the storm, just as it was in the preserved record of the collapse of the Nephite and Jaredite societies. Taken as such, we would do well to heed the warnings that were previously given.

Suddenly, the bold political statements from decades gone by become not relics of the Communist-era past, but a relevant and prophetic warning voice for the future. Indeed, the very fact that these basic gospel principles are receiving such a heavy focus in recent conferences might be a warning voice in its own way, signifying that we must be spiritually preparing for what’s ahead.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Problematic Inward Vessel
• The Arrogance of Ammonihah
• NaBoMoReMo

For decades, politicians on both sides of the aisle have lampooned each others’ policies and programs while guarding their own as irreproachable. Democrats have steadily promoted the welfare state, while Republicans are most noted for their advancing of the warfare state. The truth is that each side loves both, but when a member of the opposing party is leading the cause, they often make a big fuss to placate their constituency. Democrats are anti-war when a Republican is commander-in-chief, but grow silent when one of their own takes over and expands the war; Republicans balk at the socialist agenda of a Democratic president, but are willingly complicit when their side is in charge.

The political reality of our country is that both parties support and expand the hybrid welfare/warfare state that has come to symbolize America. While once a nation of hard-working, independent providers, we have morphed into a cesspool of dole-dependent consumers. And while we as a people once understood and abided by the Just War Theory, we are now a nation of warhawks, pseudo patriots, and nation builders.

What happened to America?

The short answer is that America has transformed itself into an empire. Policing the world abroad and giving away “freebies” at home, it has injected itself into nearly every transaction in the lives of its citizens. Whether funding the troops abroad or the entitlement programs at home, the federal government has ballooned into a malevolent monstrosity unrivaled throughout history.

But this rapid growth cannot be ascribed to nothing; there is a reason why the past century has witnessed such a radical transformation in public policy and social mores. The government-expanding policies of both parties require money, and that money has to come from somewhere. In an honest government, citizens would consent to these programs in exchange for the direct taxes that they would incur. The government, in this case, would not be able to grow overly burdensome without first increasing the tax burden of each citizen. Big programs would likely not last long if Americans were having to openly pay for each program in a transparent and forthright manner.

This restraint, however, has historically been a severe thorn in the politician’s side. Eager to enact their pet projects but reluctant to turn their constituency against them, leaders have long looked for ways to circumvent this fair process. Whether shaving coins or diluting their metallic makeup, tyrants throughout history have experimented with ways to indirectly tax its citizens through a confiscation of their wealth.

The era of fiat currency rendered these counterfeiting techniques archaic and obsolete.

In 1913, America was deviously encumbered with a central banking system called the Federal Reserve. This institution is able to literally create money out of thin air. Since its inception and due to its power, it has primarily served to facilitate the desire of every big government advocate elected or appointed to office. If big government is the drug, then the Fed is the enabler; without its tempting supply of dollars, the congressional crooks in Washington would not be able to feed their addiction.

For all the fuss that is made over comparatively small acts of corruption, few realize that these and all other related acts of lawlessness would be non-existent were it not for the inflationary abilities of the Federal Reserve. Without the Fed, Congress could not pass health care, entitlement programs, economic stimuli, or housing programs. Likewise, they would not have the ability to support hundreds of thousands of troops worldwide, repair bridges we’ve just blown up, and grant no-bid contracts to arms manufacturers and mercenary contracting firms. In short, by turning off the money spigot, the flood of corruption ends.

The challenge to opposing corruption is that it works both ways, crossing partisan lines. Those who oppose social welfare programs cannot do so without giving up their support of our military adventures throughout the world. The opposite holds true as well: the anti-war crowd cannot realize their objective without also giving up their domestic spending sprees. Either faction requires a limitless supply of money to achieve its goals, and if that bottomless pit is allowed to exist, it is likewise accessible to and taken advantage of by the other party.

If we are to end the rampant corruption that has infested nearly every interaction with the federal government, we must go after the source. The Federal Reserve cannot be permitted to exist, for if it does, its easy money will saturate every transaction and attract all sorts of amoral bottom-feeders who thrive on the theft of others’ money. It is the equivalent of flooding the black market with cheap, addictive drugs and then fighting a “war on drugs” by going after one dealer at a time. Our time and resources would be better spent investigating and fighting the source of the problem, rather than slowly and individually targeting each by-product.

America has changed course because she has been seduced by free money. In reality, this money is not free, but is a hidden, indirect tax that has resulted in the destruction of 97% of the dollar’s purchasing power since the Fed took it over in 1913. In effect, Congress has been buying our support with our own money—stealing a dollar out of our left pocket and then telling us we should be pleased when it places a nickel in our right pocket. This seduction is only further solidified by widespread ignorance of this pernicious process.

If we are serious about purging America of corruption, then we must stop hacking at the branches and start striking the root. Any serious discussion of principled and effective activism requires a strategy for dismantling the nefarious enterprise that is the Federal Reserve.

End the Fed, and you then end the empire.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Guantanamo Bay: Establishment of Empire
• Selective Socialism

Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart have been focusing the nation’s attention in recent days on ACORN, and rightly so. This organization has been riddled with corruption and controversy for some time, and the recent exposés of their widespread lawlessness have only helped to fan the flames of conservative cacophony.

But in this self-congratulatory conquest of corruption and a subsequent congressional termination of funding, one must ask: is this the best we can do? Is this what we should be working on?

To be sure, I believe ACORN is corrupt to the core and should be stripped of all its government connections (grants, subsidies, etc.). But as Glenn Greenwald notes, there are much, much bigger fish to fry:

ACORN has received a grand total of $53 million in federal funds over the last 15 years — an average of $3.5 million per year. Meanwhile, not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars of public funds have been, in the last year alone, transferred to or otherwise used for the benefit of Wall Street. Billions of dollars in American taxpayer money vanished into thin air, eaten by private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, led by Halliburton subsidiary KBR. All of those corporate interests employ armies of lobbyists and bottomless donor activities that ensure they dominate our legislative and regulatory processes, and to be extra certain, the revolving door between industry and government is more prolific than ever, with key corporate officials constantly ending up occupying the government positions with the most influence over those industries.

The rest of the article is worth reading to gain further insight into the hypocrisy at play. Through steady doses of government stimuli, America has become desensitized to large numbers. While Greenwald points it out in the paragraph above, the magnitude of difference here bears repeating: ACORN has been given $53 million; private banks, insurance companies, and other corporate behemoths have been the recipients of trillions of dollars. If it needs to be further emphasized, a trillion has six more zeros than a million. Pssst: that’s a lot more money.

The hypocrisy is evident not only in the focused anger towards so paltry a sum (in the inflationary large scheme of things), but in the way so-called “conservatives” reacted to a similar ploy by President Obama. Pressured to show progress in his campaign pledge to reduce the deficit, Obama asked his cabinet to come up with $100 million in budget cuts for the ensuing 90 days. Derisive laughter ensued among his opponents, who used illustrations such as this to depict how minuscule such a budget cut really is.

And now they’re doing the same thing. With so many inviting targets worthy of our attention and ire, the conservative forces are being marshaled not to attack Goliath, but instead to throw spit wads at his water boy. Just as these sums of money are magnitudes of order in difference, so too are the results created by opposing each one. You don’t fell a tree by plucking daintily at its leaves.

It is indeed a sad day when the corrupt use of millions of dollars of taxpayer money is to be considered a small target, but our reality demands tackling the billions and trillions spewing out of the money machine. Those who disagree will suggest that “we have to start somewhere” and that they will “work their way up”. However, their efforts are like trying to stem the tide of the Mississippi River by building a dam one pebble at a time. Their attacks are being undermined faster than they can implement them.

If the small-government lobby continues to focus its attention and anger on low-hanging fruit, the tree of tyranny will soon overtake them. ACORN is corrupt, and I will not be sad to see them exposed and penniless. But the corruption in Washington is far more centralized, better connected, and involves much more money than this ragtag group of community lawbreakers (oops, I mean “organizers”). The preservation of the Republic and our savings accounts both demand that we not spend so much time on small issues and get down to real business.

That business will be the subject of my next article.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Context is King
• Governor’s Jobs Claim is a Poor Start
• Term Limits

It seems that for Utah’s governors, “fiscal conservatism” is little more than a campaign sound byte to be discarded upon assuming office. Governor Herbert, it would appear, is not off to a very good start.

During his remarks after being sworn in, Herbert affirmed that he would be a fiscal conservative. Only a few short weeks later, though, he went ahead and approved a second round of the Home Run Program, which uses federal stimulus money to incentivize people to buy new homes. So much for fiscal conservatism—distorting the market through government incentives is hardly what one does to accurately merit the label.

To make matters worse, Herbert used an economically fallacious phrase in justifying his decision. A recent Salt Lake Tribune article states that Governor Herbert is predicting that the stimulus program “could save or create 9,000 jobs in Utah”. “Save or create”? Who’s he kidding?

It just so happens that President Obama has used the same exact phrase when trying to solicit support for his “economic recovery package”. While the economic promises of President Obama and Governor Herbert are easily challenged when looking at job creation data, the data for how many jobs are being saved conveniently does not—and cannot—exist. Job creation is something that is easily quantifiable, but determining how many jobs were “saved” is a magician’s act that only sleight of hand and deceitful trickery can conjure up.

But maybe this isn’t about saving and creating jobs. Perhaps it’s about benefiting a few people at the public’s expense. (A shocking accusation when considering the combination of government and large sums of money, I know.)

The same Tribune article notes that the governor received $25,000 from the Utah Association of Realtors last month (where Herbert used to be the president), and $30,000 from the biggest construction-supply company in the state. In light of such information, it’s little surprise that Herbert has abandoned his alleged frugality with our money in favor of inflating Utah’s housing market.

The Governor may or may not be actually saving certain jobs, but if he is, he’s helping out his former colleagues and friends. I believe the governor should pay attention to a few of the valid arguments true fiscal conservatives have been making.

First, the money has to come from somewhere. Through the force of government, we are all being burdened with debt so that businesses who have the Governor’s attention can make a profit. Second, government is not and never has been a wise money manager. Helping builders clear inventory does not make for good government, to say nothing of fiscal conservatism.

Finally, the reality few will admit is that spending is what created our current problems. Contrary to popular belief, more spending is not a remedy. The inflationary policies of the federal government, enabled by the Federal Reserve, have increased America’s use of its already maxed-out credit card. Repeating the mistakes of the past will not make for a better future. Furthermore, Utah’s acceptance and use of federal funds further increases our dependency upon and regulation by the federal government.

The Home Run Program will perhaps create some jobs, and may even save a few—but at what expense? Utah’s economy would be better served by sending the federal stimulus money back to Washington, rather than into the balance sheets of a few well-connected businesses. If Governor Herbert dared to take such action (as a real fiscal conservative would), perhaps he might save his own job.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Do We Really Want an NSA Data Center in Utah?
• Job Creation Through Fiat
• State Budgets Suffering Without a Money Tree

The doctrine of preventive war implies fighting your enemy on your terms, before they (may or may not) fight you on theirs. It is an extension of the idea that “the best defense is a good offense,” and requires a massive network of surveillance and spies to supply the necessary and credible intelligence upon which such operations can be successfully based. It is the pursuit of an alleged enemy to prevent a possible (though not imminent, as is the case with pre-emptive war) future attack.

This doctrine has, in recent decades, come to replace America’s adherence to its opposite, the Just War Theory. This theory of war holds that military action must meet certain moral criteria, such as being in true defense, being initiated by and waged under the proper authority, and being used as a true last resort after all diplomatic and other efforts have failed. The aggression of initiating an attack without meeting the aforementioned criteria is rejected, even when masked in the cloak of pseudo-defense.

There are plenty of statements from modern leaders rejecting preventive war. Two examples will suffice for illustration purposes. President Dwight D. Eisenhower once remarked that he “wouldn’t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing,” also commenting that “there are all sorts of reasons, moral and political and everything else, against this theory, but it is so completely unthinkable in today’s conditions…” (source). Similarly, in a letter to the US Treasury in 1941, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wrote that “…we do not believe that aggression should be carried on in the name and under the false cloak of defense. We therefore look with sorrowing eyes at the present use to which a great part of the funds being raised by taxes and by borrowing is being put… We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without…” (via Quoty).

Recent opposition to this war theory aside, it is beneficial for truth-seekers to explore the Book of Mormon for examples and patterns that have modern-day application. After all, President Hinckley said of this book that “in its descriptions of the problems of today’s society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems” (source).

Before citing examples that have relevant application to this method of warfare, it must be noted that there are several instances of war in the book that do not have direct application to the usual circumstances of geopolitical strife and global warfare. The so-called “war chapters”, comprising the latter part of the book of Alma, are well known and document one battle after another. But as is explained in more detail here, every war it describes is one in which Nephite traitors have defected and instigated the hostilities. Far from being uninvited, these conflicts stem from division and sedition, thus creating a narrow distinction for applying such battles to modern day hostilities. We cannot so broadly use these wars to scrutinize our own unless circumstances come close to matching.

With that caveat, there are a couple notable examples in the Book of Mormon in which preventive war is discussed by itself, as a tool to vanquish the enemy to avoid the possibility of a future attack. The first such instance occurs about two decades after the Savior’s birth, when society has become infested to the foundation with Gadianton robbers. The leader of this thuggish group, Giddianhi, demands the complete surrender of the Nephite kingdom—the people, the lands, and their possessions all being offered up as recompense for their having allegedly usurped the rightful rule of the government.

The military leader of the Nephites, Gidgiddoni, was a “great prophet” who “had the spirit of revelation and also prophecy”. In light of this security threat (one might easily label the Gadiantons as “terrorists”), the people feared for their safety and begged for a preventive assault on the group:

Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands. (3 Nephi 3:20)

What Norman Vincent Peale said of Americans might equally apply to these Nephites: “[they] used to roar like lions for liberty. Now [they] bleat like sheep for security.” Writing of the previous standard of Nephite warfare, A. Brent Merrill has written:

…it was imprudent for the Nephites to initiate hostilities and to rely much on offensive operations. Instead, the Nephites became more adept at using fortifications to achieve local economy of forces and maintained a grand strategy of protecting the land north (of the narrow neck of land). Fortifications, which needed relatively few men to man, became force “multipliers,” by means of which the Nephites could extend a combat front, and served as a base of maneuver for mobile field forces. This was an effective use of one principle of war, the economy of forces. Even in situations where the Nephites may have faced an enemy of more equal numbers, they were counseled not to strike first.

Essentially, Nephite warfare fell under the Just War Theory, and offensive/aggressive war was rejected repeatedly. The situation with Gidgiddoni was no different, though he had to remind everybody of their tradition and the Lord’s preference. Being a great prophet and knowing God’s will, this general counseled his people as follows:

But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands. (3 Nephi 3:21)

Read carefully that verse, and you will see a complete rejection of preventive war by a man of God. Not only does he go so far as to say that they will not go on the offense, but he also mandates a policy of military non-interventionism (erroneously labeled isolationism all too often) by stating that their military might would be consolidated into one defensive force—not spreading them across various locations as spies, satellite operations, and clandestine subversives. Gidgiddoni’s policy is one of defense, not offense; peace, not faux prevention; and moral war, not the degenerated, aggressive type that through propaganda is passed off as being justified.

A second example comes from the namesake of the Book of Mormon, who was appointed as general of all the Nephite armies at the young age of fifteen, and who would later become a prophet. Mormon’s record documents an astounding 35 years of near-constant warfare—”one complete revolution”, as he calls it—before both sides signed a truce. Only a decade of relative peace passed before the Lamanites came down to battle again. The Nephites repelled the threat twice in legitimate defense, but after the second victory became vengeful and arrogant. They began to clamor for a complete extermination of the enemy:

And they did swear by the heavens, and also by the throne of God, that they would go up to battle against their enemies, and would cut them off from the face of the land. (Mormon 3:10)

“Going up” specifies an offensive campaign in the enemy’s territory. This is clearly a demand for preventive war, as the action is being justified through terminating a future (and in this case likely) threat in order to prevent another assault. Mormon’s reaction? He cites their “wickedness and abomination” of which their demands were a part, and “did utterly refuse from this time forth to be a commander and a leader of this people.” His refusal makes clear the depravity that is preventive war; a few verses later, the Lord confirms his reaction.

These examples make clear that ethics in war are not situational. As the Just War Theory asserts, there are certain moral underpinnings upon which the foundation of a war must be based if it is to be considered necessary and justified. The progress of time and technology do not and must not change these principles; short of an explicit commandment by God to the contrary (since it’s His law, He can change it), they remain effectual and applicable.

It is important to note that almost all Nephite battles took place within their own territory. Their military leaders were inspired men who sought the Lord’s guidance. They did not seek for power, and were quick to forgive their enemies and pursue peace. Diplomacy was always, always an option “on the table”. And the Nephites were continually reminded (when they were righteous) of the nobleness of their cause; their defensive struggles were in order to preserve their families and their entire society, both sanctioned and supported by God Himself.

The stories in these pages are included that we might learn from them. It seems, however, that we are repeating them and making them our own—consequences and all. Of this, Hugh Nibley comments:

Not many years ago all of this Book of Mormon extravaganza belonged even for Latter-day Saints to the world of pure fantasy, of things that could never happen in the modern civilized world—total extermination of a nation was utterly unthinkable in those days. But suddenly even within the past few years a very ancient order of things has emerged at the forefront of world affairs; who would have thought it—the Holy War! the ultimate showdown of the Good Guys with God on their side versus the Godless Enemy. It is the creed of the Ayatollah, the Jihad, Dar-al-Islam versus Dar-al-Harb, the Roman ager pacatus versus the ager hosticus. On the one side Deus vult, on the Bi’smi-llah; it is a replay of the twelfth century, the only way the “good people” can be free, that is, safe, is to exterminate the “bad people” or, as Mr. Lee counsels, to lock them up before they do any mischief—that alone will preserve the freedom of “us good people.” (Hugh Nibley, via Quoty)

Prior to this explanation, Nibley references the Jaredite case of Shiz and Coriantumr, “each obsessed with the necessity of ridding the world of his evil adversary.” Vengeful vanquish and preventive war alike have no place in the lives of those who have been commanded to renounce war and proclaim peace.

Contrary to some twisted interpretations, the Book of Mormon neither illustrates nor supports the position of preventive war. If we truly consider this book to be written for and applicable to our day, we would do well to heed its promptings—both personally and as a matter of foreign policy. Those who do not learn from the history of the Book of Mormon are condemned to repeat it.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Problematic Inward Vessel
• The Calm Before the Storm
• The Arrogance of Ammonihah

Few people would disagree with the assessment that the advocates of big government—a broad but loose coalition consisting of champions in both parties of welfare and warfare—have made steady and consistent political gains in the last century.

Why have they been winning?

My casual observation during the past several years leads me to a simple conclusion: one group’s arguments has strong emotional appeal, while the other largely resorts to intellectual arguments; the former group is on the offense, whereas the latter is on defense.

Under various banners (social security for the elderly, killing terrorists before they kill us, free prescription drugs for children, No Child Left Behind, and the list goes on…) individuals on either side of the political aisle have found success in achieving their political goals by lacing their objective with emotion. For the warfare camp, they use fearmongering to capitalize on people’s innate desire for security; scared of the inflated threat, the people readily surrender their liberties for whatever "homeland security" the government is willing to offer. The welfare camp profits by speaking to people’s sense of fairness and brotherhood, eliciting their support by proposing programs that help the sick and downtrodden among us, look out for the little guy, and spread the wealth around.

This coalition has succeeded time and time again precisely because the targets of their agenda have with time become ignorant, and thus impervious to the other group’s main weapon: intellectual arguments. Uninformed about history, unwilling to spend the time learning it, and preferring to utilize their free time in more entertaining and positive ventures, they become largely immune to such simple things as facts. The big government group rarely declines in membership.

Further, the small government lobby continues to diminish its strength by squabbling over minor differences. While factions within this group agree on the vast majority of issues, they spend their time and energy contesting the consequences of judicial review, the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment, and the minor nuances of the proper role of government (among a host of other subjects). To be sure, these things are important. But so long as they serve as dividing factors to waste time and lose focus on a common objective, they impede this group’s ability to rally around a single standard and mount an effective assault against their ideological opponents.

Through repeated instances of the aforementioned process occurring, the vocal minority of the emotion-based alliance becomes the majority. Their win is easily guaranteed, as they take new ground while the opposition is busy running in circles and bickering over minor issues.

Emotional arguments are compelling and seductive, though logically empty. But as long as those producing reasoned, intellectual arguments continue—like crabs in a bucket—to cut one another down, they will lose ground and forfeit strategic opportunities to strike in the future.

The masses throughout the ages have been easily enchanted by emotional appeals and irresistible flattery. If we defenders of liberty are to win, we must reject the discord that has become commonplace in our circles and rally ourselves to a single banner. The time has perhaps never been more perfect to advance our cause. Just as the tiniest drink of water can be a precious gift to a man dying of thirst, so too will the principles of liberty refresh the parched soul long subjected to tyranny—and there are countless such souls among us.

We’ve got work to do. Let’s stop wasting time and starting taking the field.

***************

At a speech at the Reichsparteitag in 1935, Adolf Hilter declared that “he alone, who owns the youth, gains the future!” This ownership he described was a reference to the use of propaganda, emotion, and allurement to captivate the minds and secure the allegiance of the growing generation. Dictators, marketing executives, and others seeking influence have all worked to capitalize upon the impressionability of the youth to realize their objectives.

Barack Obama and his team—effective marketers of their political ambitions as they are—are no different. Next week, the President will be making the next step in an effort to mesmerize the minors attending school in the government-run system. Many see this event as nothing more than an innocuous speech encouraging children to pursue a good education, but the supplemental materials being provided to the nation’s schools betray this naive assumption.

The President is elected to do a job defined by a limited set of powers. While these boundaries have been violated repeatedly, the office of President in essence is that of a servant to the public—he is our employee, on our payroll, and does what “we the people” tell him to do (in theory, anyway). And yet children across the country are being prompted to consider how they can help the President.

Last night, the materials were edited to remove a line that told teachers to ask their students to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” Only after an outcry was this suggestion changed for something more tame. And yet the fact that it existed in the first place illustrates the intentions of federal authorities in relation to our children’s education. This is an extension of John F. Kennedy’s “ask what you can do for your country” theme, focusing the attention and effort instead on one individual—the one soliciting the request.

Ignoring the excluded remark, we are still left with other suggestions telling children to consider what the President is asking them to do, and what ideas and actions the President is challenging them to think about. The simple fact that a single man is addressing himself to the nation’s children and using the network of government-funded (and regulated) teachers to instill certain thoughts in their minds should worry all parents. Those parents who themselves have fallen prey to the propaganda will, of course, see no problem with their children participating in the same.

The President of the United States was never intended to be a leader to our children, nor to speak to them directly. Only individuals looking to mold public opinion in their favor aim to do this on a large scale, and historically those individuals have had ulterior motives of ill repute. Time will tell how Mr. Obama’s intentions manifest themselves in the fertile soil of our children’s minds.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• California’s Upcoming Homosexodus
• The Obama Youth: Compulsory Service on the Horizon
• Socialization: All Your Kids Are Belong to Us

photo credit: colors_fade

A need for defending the family

In 1995, the Council on Families in America issued a report titled "Marriage in America: a report to the nation." In that paper, this diverse group of family scholars said the following:

The divorce revolution—the steady displacement of a marriage culture by a culture of divorce and unwed parenthood—has failed. It has created terrible hardships for children, incurred unsupportable social costs, and failed to deliver on its promise of greater adult happiness. The time has come to shift the focus of national attention from divorce to marriage…. To reverse the current deterioration of child and societal well-being in the United States, we must strengthen the institution of marriage…. Strengthening marriage…. must become our most important goal. For unless we reverse the decline of marriage, no other achievements—no tax cut, no new government program, no new idea—will be powerful enough to reverse the trend of declining child well-being…. We call for the nation to commit itself to this overriding goal: To increase the proportion of children who grow up with their two married parents and decrease the proportion of children who do not… Who, today, is still promoting marriage? Who is even talking about it? In place of a national debate about what has happened to marriage there has been silence—stone-cold silence. (Council on Families in America (1995), Marriage in America: A report to the nation)

The proclamation and its preface

During the same year that this challenge was issued, President Hinckley introduced a document with which we are all now very familiar: "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." Rather than focusing my remarks primarily on the various doctrines and principles it contains, I’d instead like to begin by reviewing how President Hinckley prefaced the proclamation’s introduction during its announcement in the October 1995 General Relief Society Meeting. After some remarks to the sisters, and prior to reading the proclamation in its entirety, he stated the following:

With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history.

There are several key points here that we should consider in order to understand the context in which the proclamation was given to the world. First, President Hinckley describes the environment in which we live—one of sophistry, deceit, and temptation. We often talk about these Satanic tactics in a general sense, but rarely do we take the time to truly understand how these things are implemented on a level that affects us individually, as well as our society as a whole. These are not mere words President Hinckley has thrown out, but rather a description of the world we live in—a world that surrounds us with lies, half-truths, immorality, and corruption at every turn. Rarely, though, are we truly tempted by the blatant portrayals of wickedness we see all around us. No, Satan’s best bait for Latter-day Saints is to use the "slow stain" method, whereby we suppress the voice of the Spirit and ignore its promptings little by little, until the flaxen cords of bondage are made strong and nearly unbreakable.

Having described the conditions in which we currently live, President Hinckley offers us a motive for the proclamation, saying that in light of these circumstances, he and the other prophets and apostles have "felt to warn and forewarn". In essence, he is saying that as a prophet, he prophesies; as an apostle ("messenger", in Greek) he shares with us important messages. Thus, the intention for the proclamation is not to describe some current event or expound on a doctrinal principle, but rather to prophecy and warn of a future possible condition—one which the proclamation says will entail "the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." That is, unless we collectively promote and defend these doctrines while there is still time to change course.

Finally, President Hinckley clarifies that the doctrines and ideas contained in the proclamation are not new; these standards have been "repeatedly stated throughout [the Church’s] history", and were simply compiled and "reaffirm[ed]" in the proclamation. This is important, because as then-Elder Eyring noted, repetition fulfills the law of witnesses:

In our own time we have been warned with counsel on where to find safety from sin and from sorrow. One of the keys to recognizing those warnings is that they are repeated. For instance, more than once in general conferences, you have heard our prophet say that he would quote a preceding prophet and would therefore be a second witness and sometimes even a third. Each of us old enough to listen heard President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) give counsel on the importance of a mother in the home and then heard President Ezra Taft Benson (1899–1994) quote him, and we have heard President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008) quote them both.

The Apostle Paul wrote, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (2 Corinthians 13:1). One of the ways we may know that the warning is from the Lord is that the law of witnesses, authorized witnesses, has been invoked. When the words of prophets seem repetitive, that should rivet our attention and fill our hearts with gratitude to live in such a blessed time.

Another purpose of this repetition was made clear by Elder Neal A. Maxwell who, commenting on the steady stream of telestial temptations we face, said "The ways of the world receive constant reinforcement—should not the ways of heaven?" (Not My Will, But Thine, p. 133–34) It is in that spirit of continuously asserting divine doctrine and teaching correct principles that the proclamation was given to the world fourteen years ago.

A warning of what?

President Hinckley spoke of the proclamation being given to warn God’s children, but in what ways did this collection of doctrines and principles do that? If the proclamation exists to warn us of a future time and set of circumstances, what exactly would that reality look like? And fourteen years now having passed, can we look back with hindsight and notice any change in the status of marriage and the family?

First, it is important to remember the audience of this proclamation. It was not given to Utah families with large children and stable marriages, nor to Americans, nor to Latter-day Saints. Rather, this bold statement of pure doctrine was intended for every single individual on this planet. As such, we would do well to try and take off our American Mormon goggles and understand how these truths and warnings could not only affect our culture and nation, but those of others around the world as well. Indeed, the principles taught in the proclamation are as much for the remote villagers of Africa as they are for us.

Second, we must beware of rationalization by comparison—the idea that marriage and family issues are under more attack in other countries compared to our own. This comparison invites apathy because it leads people to assume that since our community has not degenerated as much as another, we can let our guard down and focus on other activities. Perhaps an analogy will help explain why this is a bad position to take. Imagine a large group of people floating down a river, unaware that they are headed towards a large waterfall. A bystander on the shoreline realizes their danger and begins to loudly alert them all to the impending doom. Clearly, this warning is intended for everybody in the river, regardless of how close to the edge they currently are. Even those who are in the back of the group would do well to pay attention and follow the bystander’s instructions in order to avert disaster. Only the foolhardy would compare his position in the river to the people in front of the group, and assume that he still has time to enjoy the water before he swims to the shore. Regardless of what marriages and families in other areas of the world look like, we need to heed the prophet’s warnings and ensure that their sanctity is protected.

Having said all that, what exactly are we being warned against? How is marriage and family under attack? What was President Hinckley and his colleagues issuing a warning about? In a keynote address before the World Family Policy Center in 1999, Elder Dallin H. Oaks discussed a few of the key issues:

As church leaders we have observed many worldwide trends and conditions that threaten the traditional family and have a disturbing effect upon our church members. I list six of these, not necessarily in order of importance:

• As a result of increases in divorce and separation, the traditional two-parent family is decreasing as the setting within which most children are raised.
• Increasing numbers of women are working outside of the home and devoting less attention to their responsibilities as mothers.
• As more and more people travel great distances and enjoy flexibility as to where they reside, extended families are scattered and the nurturing and disciplinary roles of grandparents, aunts and uncles are felt by a smaller proportion of children.
• The network of mothers who keep an eye on one another’s children in a tight-knit community is likewise weakening.
• The competitive demands of a variety of community and school activities weaken family activities and togetherness.
• Current attempts to redefine the family by treaty or law include everyone who has keys to the same house, threatening to dilute the legal concept of family beyond the point where it merits special protection.

Given our familiarity with the doctrines contained in the proclamation, I think it then becomes necessary that we understand where they are most needed. Possessing an antidote does us little good if we don’t know what poison it counteracts. So, let’s look a little more carefully at each of these six items Elder Oaks listed, and what the proclamation has to say about each one.

Divorce and single parenting

The first item on Elder Oaks’ list mentions the rising divorce and separation rates throughout the world, and the resulting variety of non-traditional family structures. Indirectly included in this list are individuals who co-habit instead of marrying, and those who bear children without even any pretense of commitment to the child’s other parent.

The poison of broken marriages is generally well-known, with roughly half of all marriages in the United States ending in divorce. Between 1990 and 2007, the number of cohabiting individuals increased by almost 90%. And as of 2007, 40% of all births were to unmarried women. Numbers and details change from country to country, of course, but one thing is certain throughout the world: marriages are failing, and children are being denied the opportunity to be raised by both parents. This leads us to the antidote found in the proclamation, where it says that:

Marriage between man and woman is essential to [God’s] eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

While certain situations of divorce are unavoidable or the fault of one party alone, the overwhelming majority of marriages deteriorate from underlying conditions that are in opposition to the commandments of God.

Working mothers

Elder Oaks’ second item of concern is the increasing number of women who are working outside of the home and shirking their responsibilities as mothers. As of 2003 in the United States, nearly three-fourths of mothers were in the workforce. Several European countries rank even higher on the scale. And as just one of the many consequences of these choices, one-third of working mothers admitted in a recent survey to spending less than three hours per day with their children.

Speaking in terms of child development and parental bonding, this is poison. We live in a world where outsourcing is as common as breathing; our food, clothing, shelter, and other commodities are all produced by other people and handed over to us when we wave our credit card or sign on the dotted line. Worse yet is the natural consequence of a working mother: that of outsourcing the role of motherhood to a paid professional. Two-thirds of the nation’s children under five years of age are in some type of child-care arrangement every week. And worse still, the television has become a second nanny for children, with the average child watching four hours of programming every single day.

Latter-day Saints have long understood the divine role of motherhood, and yet many within our ranks oppose the responsibilities that role entails. As one recent example of this, many of you will recall a recent General Conference address by the Relief Society’s President, Sister Julie Beck. Titled "Mothers Who Know", this talk reiterated things we’ve been told for decades by prophets and apostles—namely, that righteous mothers will bear children, honor covenants, be a nurturer in the family, teach their children, and maintain an environment in the home which is productive to the development of their children and welcoming of the Spirit. And yet, this address sparked an online firestorm of controversy in the following weeks and months from Latter-day Saint bloggers and commentators who deeply disagreed with several portions of Sister Beck’s talk. It seems that even some members of the Church stand in need of the simple antidote found in the proclamation which declares that "Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." If raising children is primary, all else should naturally become secondary.

Families spread thin

Elder Oaks’ third item mentioned how modern families are scattered across long distances, thus weakening extended family bonds. In third-world nations, it is quite common to find three or more generations of family members living under one roof. Forced by economic conditions to band together and share a common home, these families enjoy a benefit long-since lost in so-called developed nations. In this environment, uncles, aunts, grandparents, and other family members all have opportunities to assist in raising the children and providing additional, trusted perspective to aid in that child’s development.

With the recent birth of our son, we welcomed our mothers with open arms during their short (and much appreciated!) stays in our home. They provided timely assistance, especially when I had to return to work and could not dedicate as much time to taking care of mom and baby. Observing what great lengths our parents had to go to in order to be with us for a few days made me think of what life would be like if we all lived more closely together. Clearly, such living arrangements can have their disadvantages as well. But by spreading ourselves thin over large geographical distances, extended family members forfeit opportunities to help nurture each new child and assist in ways that the child’s own parents cannot. The proclamation says that "Extended families should lend support when needed." But is this a convenient option if each instance of support requires purchasing a round trip airline ticket?

It takes a village…

Elder Oaks then mentioned our weakening communities and support structures which provide fewer opportunities for mothers to be a positive influence on the friends of their children in the neighborhood. One influencing factor here is the amount of women who are simply not home, as discussed earlier. But still greater is the decrease in social capital that Sister Hall discussed in her fireside a few weeks ago, where there is a general lack of trust and closeness in our neighborhoods that would facilitate children openly and securely spending time in each others’ homes.

Families that exemplify the virtues found in the proclamation should not exist in a vacuum. Their influence can and should be felt by all those around them who might be benefitted from their example, their loving care of the friends of their own children, and the protection and peace that exists in their home as a result of their efforts to welcome the Spirit.

Busy, busy, busy

Fifth on Elder Oaks’ list was the threat of family members being pulled in different directions, with various activities taking up a great deal of time and thus reducing the amount of quality time families can spend together. Studies do show that children generally excel in school when they participate in an extra-curricular activity. However, we as parents must be careful that we do not burden our children with too many scheduled activities that not only overly complicate their lives at a young age, but also reduce the amount of family time they have, to say nothing of unscheduled free time that allows for creativity and personal development.

The Church’s popular advertising campaign to promote strong families doesn’t focus on expensive vacations, or on elaborate science projects, or on successful outings to the park. Instead, the focus is one word and one word only: time. That time can involve any number of things, planned or unplanned—what’s important is that we are creating memories together and deepening our relationships. Dedicating the time to strengthen those bonds will have large dividends if and when trials come that might otherwise cause a distancing between family members.

In the past 20 years, structured sports time for children has doubled, and unstructured activities have declined by 50%. Family dinners have declined by one-third, and family vacations have decreased by nearly one-third as well. Notice the order of priorities established in the proclamation: "Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities." If this list has any sort of order to it, the fact that recreational activities comes in last place should say something about where a greater portion of our time might be spent.

Legal jujitsu

The last item on Elder Oaks’ list of threats to the family is perhaps one of the more noticeable ones. He defined this threat as "attempts to redefine the family by treaty or law [to] include everyone who has keys to the same house, threatening to dilute the legal concept of family beyond the point where it merits special protection." As a former justice on the Utah Supreme Court, Elder Oaks knows what he’s talking about.

If we were to look at the events relating to same-gender "marriage", we would easily see an example of the prophetic nature of the proclamation. Here in the United States, every action to redefine marriage has come after the proclamation was given in 1995.

Consider the case of California, where the Church has been very involved in the battle to protect marriage as being between a man and a woman. Proposition 22 passed in 2000, with Church members playing a large part in spreading the word and encouraging support for this bill which declared that California would only recognize opposite-gender marriages. When the California Supreme Court declared this law un-constitutional eight years later (which resulted in the recent Proposition 8), three of the seven judges disagreed with the ruling. One judge wrote the following in his dissent:

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference….

[The other judges voting to strike down Proposition 22 have] violated these principles. [They] simply [do] not have the right to erase, then [change], the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy [their] own contemporary notions of equality and justice.

This so-called "legal jujitsu" is what Elder Oaks was referring to when mentioning how governments around the world are diluting and distorting the concept of family. These legal battles, in contrast to the other threats previously mentioned, play themselves out in the media, in daily conversation, and in protests by angry citizens.

The proclamation makes clear our responsibility: "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." You and I must be those responsible citizens that actively promote and defend family values. A French political economist named Frédéric Bastiat once wrote that "the worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended." If you and I do not defend marriage, who will? Remember the question posed by the authors of the report I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks? They asked:

Who, today, is still promoting marriage? Who is even talking about it? In place of a national debate about what has happened to marriage there has been silence—stone-cold silence.

President Hinckley made clear our obligation when he said:

We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.

Conclusion

Two years after announcing this proclamation to the world, President Hinckley commented on its purpose and relevance:

Why do we have this proclamation on the family now? Because the family is under attack. All across the world families are falling apart. The place to begin to improve society is in the home. Children do, for the most part, what they are taught. We are trying to make the world better by making the family stronger.

This document, brothers and sisters, is far more than a mere collection of doctrines and principles. We were told specifically to whom it was given (the world), why it was given (to warn us), and what our responsibility is (promote what it says). I testify that the men we revere as prophets knew then and know now what will happen if the family unit is further weakened. It is up to you and I to first, ensure that our own families are in line with what the proclamation says; second, be an example to those around us who might benefit from what the proclamation has to say; and third, be a vocal supporter of these principles through community efforts and public policies. I testify that our Heavenly Father is anxious to bless us in this cause, and stands ready to inspire us along the way. Our goal is to form eternal families, but the work begins here and now.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• For the Strength of Youth—Family
• The Role of the Presiding Patriarch
• The Return of the FLDS Children