Election Week - 5 Things That Will Make A Difference

For many, this week is the week they pay attention to who represents us in government and what kind of job they are doing. The future is determined to a great extent by the decisions we make, not only at the voting booth, but if we take time to challenge, encourage and educate those representatives. Here are five things you can do now to help create a better future for our children and grandchildren.

1)     Understand the Principles. When we understand correct principles, we make good decisions. Without them we tend to do what “feels good” or we wait until we have to make decisions in an emergency, which usually leads to very bad decisions. I recommend reading the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, “The Proper Role of Government” by former secretary of agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, and a new book just out – “We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident” by Oliver Demille.

2)     Get informed about the ballot initiatives and the candidates before each election. I can guarantee you that voting for someone just because they belong to a specific party will lend your support to at least one or two people that do not support what you think they do. At the very least, go to vote.utah.gov, put in your address and look at the short statements from each candidate and the commentary on the ballot initiatives.  The arguments for and against these issues are critical in noticing unintended consequences of the legislation and in being truly informed. You should also go to http://judges.utah.gov/ to get evaluations of judges. There are only a few and you can be better informed in just a few minutes. As to candidates, please do not rely on television and radio ads for your information, either pro or con. Many of these ads are heavily slanted and sometimes outright incorrect on the facts. Viewing the debates helps some as does finding and reviewing the candidate websites. If they are incumbents (already serving and running for re-election), the best thing you can do is check their voting record. This takes a little time and effort, but yields surprising results. The http://www.freedomfirstsociety.org/home/ page links to an evaluation of all federal congress members and their votes as they pertain to sustaining the US Constitution. In my study of those votes, I found that some of our Utah congressional members vote much differently than they talk. For our state legislatures, check out http://libertasutah.org/resources/legislator-indexes/2014-index/ where they provide a similar and instructive scorecard.

3)     Vote! You will notice that this comes after #1 and #2. Voting uninformed leads us to support ideals and people that may not reflect what we believe and unnecessary or even destructive changes to our State Constitution and Tax Rules. Don’t assume anything based on party relationships. Refusing to vote is not rebellion, it is surrender. Not casting informed votes is to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. If you don’t vote, you have no right to gripe. If you don’t vote to change the course we are on, you shouldn’t complain about where we are going.

4)     Write and call your representatives. Annoy them. Teach them. Persuade them. They do listen, especially when large numbers of people contact them. It is true that often they don’t see your letter, but their staff tells them when 70% or more of the letters they get are for or against something and that matters. Concepts presented with thought and appropriate passion often find their way into campaign speeches and debates that form policies. Take the time. Make the difference.

5)     Encourage others to do all the above. Be someone that cares enough to be involved. Find candidates you can support and help them. Take flyers door to door. Contribute. Host cottage meetings in your home with candidates. Put up yard signs and stickers on your car. Listen, learn and be civil. People see and take notice. Make it acceptable to have opinions by making your opinions known. Some might disagree, but most will respect that you care. 

Don't Vote! - Unless... (Principles of Freedom)

As the election approaches, I am going to consciously offend a few of my readers. I apologize in advance for doing so, but this needs to be said. Please DON’T VOTE --- UNLESS…

Please don’t vote unless you care about the direction our country is going and you care enough to inform yourself about all sides of the issues we face.

Please don’t vote unless you take the time to research ALL the candidates and what they actually believe and stand for. In the case of those who have been in office, research what they actually voted for and against more than what they say. Sadly, the two sometimes don’t match up.

Please don’t vote unless you care about the good of the nation and the future as it pertains to our children and grand-children and not just about your own well-being and situation.

Please don’t vote a straight party ticket with no variation. It is a lazy and uninformed way to do things. Every party has people that are not worthy of your vote and most if not all have at least one candidate that is worthy of your thoughtful consideration though perhaps not your vote. Independents that choose not to be connected to any party can also have good ideas and character.

Please don’t vote for the “lesser of two evils”. Voting for any “evil” is a choice to support something or someone that is wrong. If you can’t honestly find one candidate (or more) that stands up for what you believe is good and right, with-hold your vote in that race or write in someone you do believe in. In most elections, write-ins are not counted unless they have registered with the state or local government, but they can’t throw out the rest of your votes if you choose to write in someone you wish would run but didn’t. That way, you can at least have integrity in who and what you vote “for” instead of leaving the voting booth with a bad taste in your mouth after voting “against” the worst candidate but for someone you don’t believe in.

Utah puts out a voter information packet that you can either look at online or have sent to your home. It is a starting point, but each candidate only gets 200 words to tell you what they think and will do. That is not enough. Check their websites, campaign literature and especially voting records. Check out voter pages at KUED where they have videos of each major candidate (more than 200 words, but still not enough info). Check out report card sites like www.freedomfirstsociety.org that keep track of important votes by our national congress people. That one is considered conservative and constitutionally oriented, but others track votes on the environment, social issues and special interests such as aging, health care, etc.

Informed voters can have a real impact on our government and our future. In Utah, approximately 40% of those of voting age don’t even register to vote. Of those who register, only about half vote. That means that about 30% of possible voters make the decisions that affect us all. I actually want every one of you to vote. But, I want you to care enough to be informed before you do it. If even 10% of those of voting age were well informed, they could make a difference in our future, our state, our communities and our country. 

The "Other" Gardener - Principles of Freedom

There is a story of two gardeners. Both were asked to consult for a golf resort that had a couple of problems. The grass on part of the course had turned brown and watering it more seemed to make the problem worse. There were also a number of trees that were not thriving and were in danger of dying. The two were both asked for their advice. The first said, “Well obviously, the person in charge doesn’t know what they are doing. They are applying the wrong solutions to these problems”. When told that they had replaced the greenskeeper just a few months ago, he said, “Well, he doesn’t know what he’s doing either.”

They then turned to the other gardener and asked his advice. He said, “Let me spend a day with your greenskeeper. The grass needs a little less water and some ammonium nitrate and the trees could use a bit of bug spray to get rid of the borer beetles that are afflicting them. I can show him how to take care of the problem.”

Can you see the application in our current political situation? Most of our politicians want us to believe that all the problems we face are either the fault of those who were in charge or those who are in charge. When we change politicians, the new ones continue to blame the old ones and the old ones blame the new ones. Meanwhile the problems get worse.

A very wise man when confronted with a similar argument, said, “It’s not who’s right, it is what is right!” That is what the other gardener believed and lived by. That is what we need to require of our elected officials. We need to insist that they quit blaming each other and do what is right and effective and helpful.

I happened upon a recent debate about thousands of young people coming into our country illegally. One group argued vehemently that we need to close the borders and send them all back where they came. The other group insisted that they are only children and we must in good conscience let them all come and stay here. I was asked my opinion and so I asked them the following question. “Where are their parents?” I then said, “Where their parents are, that is where they should be. If their parents are here, they should be with their parents. If their parents must go back to their home country, they should go with them. If their parents are back in their home country, that is where they should also be.”

I was surprised at the reaction. Silence. Then it was followed by mumbled agreement from both sides of the argument and the debate basically died away. When we allow politics to determine the answers instead of just looking at and solving the problems, we not only do a disservice to our nation, but we compromise our future. Please take the time, as the election approaches, to find out which type of representative you are voting for, what they stand for and if they are people of integrity and vision. And don’t just look at the two major parties. Some of the best ideas are coming from the newer parties that are not stuck in the blame game. We should all be supporting and asking for the help of “the other gardener,” whoever that is.

Why the Constitution?

September 17^th is Constitution Day. Did you know that? For most people, the anniversary of this document that changed the world forever passes unnoticed. Why is it important? Does it really matter in our modern world? Is it still relevant?

You can read the whole document in 20 minutes or less. You can understand it pretty well with maybe an hour of thought. This document has guided and shaped our nation and influenced governments and people around the world. The principles it reflects have guided great thinkers and philosophers for hundreds of years – it simply put those principles into a framework that would create the most powerful, prosperous and free people the world has ever seen.

The greatest thinkers and statesmen we have ever seen have been unanimous in their praise for this document. Daniel Webster said “I regard it as the work of the purest patriots and wisest statesmen that ever existed, aided by the smiles of a benignant (gracious) Providence…it almost appears a Divine interposition in our behalf…” He also said “It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good master, but they mean to be masters.”

In this short and clear document, basic concepts that allow good government and discourage bad government and tyranny are laid down. Just a few of these concepts allow us to see the brilliance and good will of those who crafted it.

One branch of government, the legislative, is responsible exclusively for the creation of law. The other two branches may not do this. Their duties include the enforcement of law (executive branch) and interpretation of the law and punishment of law breakers (the judicial).

The system of checks and balances provided that no one branch could overwhelm or diminish the power or effectiveness of the other two branches. They would be confined to the responsibilities granted and if one began to usurp ungranted powers, either of the other two could stop that usurpation.

Each state will have a republican form of government (not the party – the system of representation). They can make their own rules, as long as those rules do not conflict with the Constitution. They must honor the contracts made in the other states, even if their laws do not agree.

The government can raise money through taxation, import and export duties or tariffs and can print money, establish post offices and raise and support armies and navies for the general defense. Funding for the military can only be determined for up to two years at a time.

All elected (and many appointed officials) as well as all military employees must affirm by oath their support for and willingness to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is true even if they are serving on the local or state level.

There are many other great concepts presented, but the document lays out the foundation of greatness for a nation and its people. Next time we will consider how it protects our freedoms through the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights

Most people think the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) are part of the original document. They actually were added briefly after the Constitution was written and ratified by the states and after serious debate about the wording and content of each Amendment. There were originally 20 Amendments, but only 12 survived the debate in the House and Senate and were sent to the states for approval. Of those 12, only 10 were ratified by the necessary two thirds of the states. One of the remaining two was eventually ratified some 200 years later as the 27^th Amendment. Where the body of the Constitution created a framework of government responsive to the people and mostly under their control, the Bill of Rights was added to guarantee the “unalienable” rights that the government was formed to protect and defend for each citizen. Each of the items presented in this group of guarantees is worthy of an article by itself, so this article will portray the basic concepts that are addressed and how those concepts make us more free, more prosperous and a more happy people when they are protected and honored.

Protecting the freedom of thought, opinion and communication – The 1^st Amendment specifically addresses freedom of religion, speech, the press (printing or broadcasting what you think), assembly and disagreeing with the government (redress of grievances). While this covers a lot of ground, the common theme is that it is none of the governments business what you believe, think or say unless you do damage to others, and then only if that damage is based on provably false statements. Throughout this document, it becomes evident that the founders agreed with the motto, “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” They wished to grant the greatest freedom possible in keeping with the peace and well-being of the citizens.

Protecting the right to defend our selves, families and property – Specifically addressed by the 2^nd through the 8^th Amendments, we have the right to rebut accusations, not be intimidated by others or by the government, not to give testimony against ourselves or our spouses and be reasonably well treated while under accusation unless and until convicted of an offense. We are also protected from “cruel and unusual” punishment

Protecting our right of privacy and to not be put upon or abused by the government – The 4^th Amendment is the gold standard here as it states clearly that the government cannot collect, look at or use our personal information (persons, houses, papers, and effects) without warrant issued by a judge and that the warrants cannot be issued except by probably cause “supported by Oath or affirmation”. In my opinion, the current collecting and sifting of our communications and movements by the NSA is a clear violation of this right. Amendment 3 also addresses this issue.

Protecting our right to defend ourselves against accusations or charges – Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 make it clear that no punishment can be affixed to us unless the government can prove beyond reasonable doubt and without resorting to dishonest or coercive actions that we are guilty of a crime.

Protecting us from out-of-control government and tyranny – Amendments 9 and 10 make it clear that these are only a few of our unalienable rights and that it is the duty of the government to recognize all of those rights and not assume it has the right to define them to enhance their own power. All of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights address this issue, but perhaps the most critical is the 2^nd Amendment which allows citizens the right to keep and bear arms – not just to hunt and target shoot, but to defend themselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic – including their own government if, in the words of Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration, it “becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” An unarmed populace cannot defend “the security of a free state”. We need to understand and defend these freedoms as the founders did.

The “New” Amendments

The Amendments to the Constitution after the 1^st ten (the Bill of Rights) are a mixed bag of good and bad ideas, clarifications or definitions, and attempts to overcome the protections that the Constitutionoriginally guaranteed the citizens of the United States. Only two additional Amendments were ratified before the end of the Civil War in 1865 and only three more from that period until 1913 when the first of a number of questionable Amendments were created. In all during that 100 years we have created and ratified 12 more Amendments, some of which have either been bad ideas or unnecessary. I abide by and respect the law created by these 12, but disagree with and am working to rescind a few of them, just as we rescinded the 18^th when we realized it was a bad idea.

Good ideas and clarifications - #11 clarified the role of the judiciary in lawsuits, #12 defined and clarified the process of electing the president and vice president, #13 outlawed slavery, #14 clarified equal rights and protections and applied them to all citizens, defined requirements for the election of members of Congress, and identified what is and is not a valid debt of the government. #15 extended the vote to all male citizens and #19 extended it to women, while #26 extended it to all citizens over age 18. #24 restricts the government from stopping anyone from voting because of failure to pay a poll tax or any other tax.  #20, #22 and #25 identify the terms of office for elected Federal officials and the way successors to the President should be chosen in case of death or inability to continue.

As you can see, most of these amendments were designed to make the government work better, correct problems that were politically unfixable at the time the Constitution was written (slavery, etc.) or expand the number and type of people allowed to vote. In general these are all good ideas with the possible exception of allowing people to vote and decide the direction of our country that have not studied the candidates and issues and become educated as to the history, freedoms and responsibilities of an informed electorate.

Two amendments, #18 and #21, cancel each other out as we outlawed alcohol and then realized the concept was a failure and simply created a criminal element instead of stopping people from consuming it. #23 allows the people residing in the District of Columbia to have representation in Congress and in the choosing of our President, but without the full benefits or responsibilities of being a separate state. The 27^th Amendment disallows any pay increases to take effect during the current election cycle, thus decreasing the incentive for Congressmen to vote themselves pay increases. It seems to have not had the desired effect, since they are continuing to increase pay, even though they already receive much more than the normal citizens and “retirement” pay that is by far above what most of us receive.

The worst amendments are #16 and #17. They were both passed in the same year, 1913, and were part of a systematic effort to fundamentally change our system of government. In my opinion, those changes were much for the worse and have precipitated many of the problems we now face. For more info, read the book “1913” by Oliver DeMille and Orrin Woodward. #16 created the IRS and allowed for an individual income tax. Up until that point, all efforts to tax the income of individuals were struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. The government could not control or penalize your income, as long as that income was legally created. This was the basis of the success and prosperity of the citizens of the US, especially in comparison to the general citizenry of any other country. The 17^th Amendment took the rights and protections of the individual states away and gave election of Senators to the general public. This sounds like a good idea until you realize that the Senators were a check and balance on the excessive promises of the generally elected House of Representatives. With that check and balance removed we now have out of control debt and laws that pander to special interests and the “gimme” mentality instead of looking at the long term effects of spending without restraint for unnecessary or unwise programs and redundancies.

All in all, most of the Amendments are good or at least non-destructive. A few, however, have set in motion things we really don’t want and should be rescinded.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit

The Declaration of Independence is one of the greatest achievements of man in history. It is great not only because it gave birth to a nation, but because it created a framework of liberty and a clear statement as to why liberty and freedom are necessary to the greatness of humankind. It also creates an understanding of the proper role of government and lays the foundation upon which the Constitution was built.

Here are just a few of the great truths that continue to gain honor today because Thomas Jefferson and our founders were so educated, insightful, articulate and inspired.

Mankind has unalienable rights – granted by their creator and not by government. Governments do not create these rights nor do they have the right to take them away from law abiding citizens. These rights include (but are not limited to) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You may notice that happiness is not a right granted by government or God, but the ability to pursue happiness is. One other unalienable right that was mentioned in the first draft was “Property”. While Jefferson and others felt that ownership and personal control of property that had been created or legally purchased was one of these rights, it was argued that some might think that governments would need to be in the business of “providing” property to citizens which was diametrically opposed to the right they did believe in – the pursuit of happiness which included the creation, ownership and control of property without government interference as long as the rights of others are not impinged upon.

Governments receive their power to govern (just powers) from the consent of the governed. In other words, the people have the right of self-government and only the powers that they, the people, collectively agree to allow the government to exercise are permissible to that government. The government is rightly there to serve the people, not the other way around.

It is the purpose and duty of government to protect the safety and the rights of the governed.

When government becomes abusive of these rights, that government should then be changed or abolished. Abolishing or separating from a government, especially by violence, should never be done lightly or without extensive evidence of the “absolute despotism” of the offending government.

These founders (56 in all representing all the colonies) pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to these principles of freedom. It is evidenced by the mention of deity four times in this document, that these great leaders and courageous statesmen agreed in general that God is involved and properly referred to in the affairs of men and states.

These concepts are the basis upon which our understanding of the Principles of Freedom have come about and they are the basis of what we need to do today to maintain and recover those freedoms and that liberty for which they and many others in our history have paid so great a price. We should examine our own level of commitment and understanding to see if we are creating for our children and their children a world of freedom or allowing that world to slip into servitude, debt and sorrow.

Principles of Freedom – What is a Statesman?

There are actually two basic definitions of the word “statesman”. The first is descriptive of those who represent a state in a larger government. The second is a term of honor and recognition that the person is one who puts principle above politics and works for the good of the whole nation as well as caring about the considerations of those in his “state”. The term originates in the Roman republic where the Senators met to deliberate policy and actions that would serve the interests of the nation and the Roman citizens. In our own history, it applied to those who were chosen to represent the states by the legislature of each state. Because they were not elected, they did not have to face re-election, but they did have to fulfill the wishes of their state legislature or they could be recalled or replaced.

Because these people were representatives of the state governments, they were likely to take more time and effort to deliberate about laws and policy. They were a check and balance on the sometimes frivolous or ill-considered actions of the House of Representatives. This is how the second definition came about. Statesmen were those who were wiser and more concerned about the future than they were their careers and getting re-elected. Being called a statesman was a badge of honor and respect. When serious questions arose, these are the wise and thoughtful people you would ask to work on the solutions. Some senators did not fit this description, but many did and our country was better for it.

When people face re-election every two years, they tend to promise many things in order to get re-elected. The Senate countered this tendency because they normally served for six years and had to answer only to the state legislature they represented. This was one of the choices our founders made that was sheer genius. When the House voted for “a chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway” or other such giveaways, the Senate would normally say “Sorry, we can’t afford that” and they would vote it down. Since it requires the approval of both legislative bodies, proposed legislation that was wasteful or careless rarely went to the president for signature. This process kept us out of significant debt and didn’t require taxing the people, and it kept the people free, happy and prosperous most of the time.

Then came the infamous actions of 1913, when the 16^th and 17^th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act were passed. We all know that the 16^th Amendment created the IRS and the income tax (which was originally a tax of one percent of the top one percent of the people). But the other parts of the plan were to create the Federal Reserve and the 17^th Amendment. The Federal Reserve is not a part of the government but is owned by private bankers.  They print money with no backing and then loan it to us.  We are then expected to pay them both principle and interest on what they printed. The 17^th Amendment took the choosing of Senators away from the state legislatures and gave it to the voters. Sadly, this removed the last impediment to putting our country into debt and allowing the bankers to control interest rates and inflation. That is kind of like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

When we say we need statesmen instead of politicians, we are speaking of the critical need for people of vision, thoughtfulness, wisdom and foresight instead of people who serve their own interests, often at the expense of the citizens of our country. Since all of our representatives are now chosen by popular vote, we need to work harder than ever to encourage great people to run for office. Then we need to support them, vote for them and challenge them to do the right things Our current system does not often result in the election of statesmen. We, individually and collectively, need to look within ourselves to see if we are part of the solution or part of the problem. Do we actually take the time to discover what those running for office stand for or do we simply vote without thought or preparation? It’s time to think about it.

Principles of Freedom – What is a Patriot?

There has come about a change in the public perception of what a patriot is – and it is not a good change. Most of us have been fans of a certain sports team or television show or type of car. Having an opinion or valuing something we like is a good thing. However it sometimes happens that we get into the mode of thinking that our team or car or show is superior in every way to every other team or car or show. They can do no wrong and everyone that can’t see that is either stupid or misinformed.

So it is with countries, political parties or candidates. A person who says “My country, right or wrong!” or “If you don’t vote for (insert name or party here), you are stupid, incompetent or dishonest,” is not being a true patriot.

A patriot is one who understands the principles of freedom, is always learning and comparing truth and integrity with what is actually being said and done, and is always willing to confront the errors or corruption they see – even if those problems originate with the country, party or person they have been allied with. A patriot requires of themselves a personal introspection and a willingness to see the truth, even when it is uncomfortable. A patriot stands up for the principles that matter, even when it may cost them something. A patriot may be called a traitor or a coward or a criminal by those in power, if their pursuit of truth and principle takes them into conflict with the powers that be.

The greatest patriots we look to in our history are Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and others of their time. These and others, including the signers of the Declaration of Independence, were called traitors because they dared to criticize and separate themselves from the “home team” of the British Empire. Those who stood up and called slavery a plague and an abomination were ridiculed and hated by some. Winston Churchill was ostracized by many in the British government until he was proven right about the dishonesty of Hitler’s Germany. Gandhi was called a coward because he wouldn’t physically fight against the government who occupied his country. All of them stood in support of truth, principle and the good of their people and of mankind. All were true patriots. All succeeded in making the world better or stopping evil from taking or keeping power.

Patriots are not those who numbly go with the unexamined status quo. They are thinking, caring and informed. They act, speak and vote in support of the principles and people who are doing what they should. My hope is that we all are willing to take the time and effort to be true patriots and not just puppets.

Principles of Freedom – Statism vs. Liberty

This is a topic that could make an interesting book and could take hundreds of pages to explore. In the limited space we have, I will give you the basics. You may want to make a more thorough study of these ideas. A few things you may want to look into include a pamphlet by Eisenhower’s Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, called “The Proper Role of Government”, and books such as “The Law” by Bastiat, “We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident” by DeMille, “, “The Making of America” by Skousen and “The Federalist Papers”. I also strongly encourage all to read the original Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, even if you have read them before.

In essence, Statists believe that the masses (which means you and me and our friends and neighbors) are not informed or intelligent enough to make our own decisions about important things. They believe we must be “managed” or controlled for our own good and the good of society. They believe that people exist to serve society and, by extension, the bureaucracy of the state which “cares for” the members of society. If left to our own devices and decision-making, they think we will either do foolish things that hurt ourselves and others or we will act with evil intent to damage others or take things from them.

To save us from these evils, they desire to institute controls on the people. They try to force us into their concepts for education, health care, retirement, caring for the poor, management of our lands and property, safety when we drive our cars or motorcycles, the way we produce products and many other areas. They work to enforce these mandates through the imposition of fines, confiscations and incarceration. They attempt to indoctrinate our children to be docile and obedient in government schools which mandate content and curriculum requirements.

In contrast, Liber (the latin root of liberty, libertarian, and other such words) means the state of freedom to choose and act for oneself, assuming the responsibility for those actions. In essence, liberty means the individual is accountable for their choices and is willing to face the outcomes of those choices without asking others to step in or pay the price. By taking that responsibility, they remove the reason for the Statist’s “protection.”  An environment of liberty encourages productivity, industry, success, charity and good will. Statism encourages dependency, lack of productivity and reliance on others to “take care of us”. Those who honor liberty believe the government exists to protect our rights and freedoms and to serve the people, not be served by them.

In reality, we live in a constantly shifting balance between these extremes. That balance was considered by our founders but the emphasis was on personal freedom and responsibility. As we have shifted more and more to the side of control, taxation, debt and management of our affairs by the government, we have become less free, less productive, less successful and more concerned as a society with what we “get” instead of what we can “give”.  John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The decay of our society is specifically linked to our unwillingness to be personally moral and responsible. That is the great challenge of our day – to turn that tide and become again a people that chooses freedom, liberty and all that goes with it.

Principles of Freedom – What’s Right With America?

I will start by letting you know that I understand our freedoms are under attack from a number of sources. We have to actively defend our liberty if we want to keep it. That said, the United States of America is still the gold standard of the world when it comes to individual freedom, opportunity and hope for the common man.

Here we have the freedom to succeed – and to fail. Failure is one of our greatest teachers. Most people who have changed their lives for the better in stunning ways have first attended the school of hard knocks and failure. In many countries, neither is an option as your life and employment are managed to prevent failure and as a result, also preclude great success.

Here we have the freedom to associate, to believe in and worship who or what we want, to make a difference or to become different. We have the ability to teach our children our values and to try to encourage others to change or accept what we believe. We are also restricted from forcing our ideas on anyone else, even if the government agrees with us.

Here we have the freedom to affect the direction and attitude of our nation. We the people are the nation, and its elected officials serve at our pleasure. We can elect them and we can remove them. We can influence their choices in making law and policy. If they are not responsive to what a majority of those they represent feel is right, we can choose new representatives.

Here we have the understanding that many of what we consider “rights” are granted by God and not by government and, as such, are not rightly controlled or removed by government. They are unalienable rights and the government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is duty bound to protect those rights at all times. In fact, it is the purpose of government to so do.

Here we have a document that creates a series of protections of those rights and clearly spells out the proper role of government and precludes or resists actions that do not fall into that proper role. It’s called the Constitution and it deserves our respect, protection and effort to maintain and defend.

It will take constant vigilance and active defense of our liberty and freedom if we want to continue to be the best place on earth for opportunity, hope and liberty and justice for all. It will mean taking the time and effort to learn and teach each other the Principles of Freedom and it will mean actually electing people as our servant representatives that see their time in office as a stewardship and responsibility, not a career or a way to power and riches. It means not only voting, but being well informed before voting. It means challenging our representatives and being aware of what they do in our name. That is how a republic works.

Principles of Freedom – Liberty

I have pondered why the words “liberty” and “freedom” are often used in the same sentence when I used to think they meant essentially the same thing. I have come to understand that, while complementary, they are specific, separate and have definite meanings that we should consider. Likewise, the words “slavery” and “servitude” are different in scope and concept.

Most people understand freedom to mean the absence of constraint - the ability to move, think, express yourself and create without fear or coercion that we will be limited or punished for doing so. Freedom comes with the responsibility to not infringe on other people’s freedoms to do the same and to not do harm to their physical well-being or property or their emotional or spiritual life.

The term liberty is a little more esoteric. Liberty is a state of mind, one of being truly free in mind and heart. A person who is in a state of “liber” or liberty understands justice, equality, rightness, fairness and many other positive values and lives by them in their relationships with others and demands that same treatment for themselves. J.B.Books (John Wayne in the movie The Shootist) says it this way, “I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”

Liberty is living in harmony with principles of truth and having those principles as your guiding star. It is respecting the rights of others and not taking advantage, even if we have the “freedom” to do so.  To me, it is the imperative that we all need to aspire to. It is what William Wallace (Braveheart) meant when he yelled “Freedom” and his men joined in the chorus.

Slavery is a term most of us understand but have not experienced. It is the forcible extraction of labor while being compelled to stay in a location or under a situation that we have no control over. Many nations had conditions of slavery in their history and some people are still used and abused by systems that allow or encourage it. Today those conditions are maintained more often by threat of violence or forced addiction to illegal drugs than by chains, but they do exist even in our “free” country.

Servitude is again a more opaque term. Historically, it could apply to sharecroppers or others that were allowed to live on land owned by another as long as a significant portion of the production was given to the land owner as tribute or tax. This situation is created when the privileged few own most of the land or necessities of life and dole them out reluctantly to those who work to produce the wealth the few enjoy. We are moving more and more into a servitude system as the corporations control more land and wealth and the individual is minimized more and has less and thus relies more on the “generosity” of those who have much (including the government).

Because this is a gradual process, most do not see how servitude to the government and corporations is eroding our freedoms. Most do not see how much of the education our children are receiving teaches them to be good worker bees and contributors rather than creators and leaders. We individually and as families need to be more aware and educate ourselves as to how we can help reverse the trend towards servitude and create in ourselves the understanding of liberty and freedom.

Principles of Freedom – Introduction

What is Freedom? What is Liberty and how is it different from Freedom? We say we want Freedom but do we really? Are we willing to take on the responsibilities and risks that Liberty and Freedom require? What are you personally willing to give up to have someone else (such as the government) take care of you? Patrick Henry once electrified a nation when he said, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”  I am left to wonder today if many people would say instead, “Give me liberty, but not if it comes with inconvenience or responsibility – that’s just too much to ask!”

Principles are fundamental truths that serve as a foundation for our actions and which naturally lead to definite consequences and outcomes. For example, if you plant certain types of seeds in your garden, and if you care for the soil and provide consistent water and protection from bugs and animals that might destroy, you will see the desired flowers, vegetables or fruits as they mature and provide food and beauty for your family.

In the same way, our actions (or inaction) have a direct and sometimes irreversible effect on our future, our well-being and our freedom. Those we choose as our representatives in government make decisions that create the future. The analogy with a garden is instructive. To the extent that we are uninvolved and uninformed, we are personally responsible for the mess our country is in. Like the garden, if we just expect someone else to take care of it, the results are usually very poor and sometimes terrible. Government, like a garden, takes constant care. We need to remove noxious weeds on a regular basis. We need to learn what makes government work correctly now and for the future. We need to put in the effort to correct the things that are not working. This includes holding elected officials accountable for their votes and standing up and saying something when appointed officials do things that are wrong or destructive of our freedoms.

This series will address the principles of truth that both lead to freedom and exhibit the qualities of liberty and justice for all. Join us for the quest. Our future matters!

Should We Attack Iran?

A position of strength or ability to do something does not give anyone the right to do it. Whatever one does invites others to do likewise. What you send out comes back to you. These are all platitudes but they are nevertheless true principles. If we as a nation are to have moral character, we must always attempt to educate, negotiate and discourage evil actions by other nations. If those efforts fail and the nation takes an action that demands response, we should respond with full purpose and effectiveness to the extent that action demands.If we act first, regardless of the bluster or threatening of the other, we become the terrorist, the aggressor or the immoral force.

It is similar to the grouchy old man that moves into the neighborhood who says that all children should be boiled in oil and eaten for breakfast. It is appropriate to explain to him that he is causing fear and trouble and that, if something happened to a child, he is setting himself up to be the prime suspect and may be held responsible even if he didn't do it. However, burning his house down just because he is a grouchy old man makes us, not him, the evil one.

Recent comments on a facebook debate on wasting your vote.

 I believe the only wasted vote is one cast in ignorance or in the hope of electing or defeating a party rather than supporting principles of truth and people who actually stand for those principles. If you can find someone on the ballot in November from one of the major parties that actually will work to change the direction we are heading rather than just adjusting the speed at which we are going there, then vote for them by all means. I will only vote FOR someone who will actually stand up FOR truth and Constitutional principles. I refuse to vote against anyone. If no one running for an elected position meets that requirement, I will not vote for that office. I refuse to support ANY evil, even the lesser of two, with my votes. Please get informed. Read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence and The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson. All four will take you about an hour. Then vote your conscience, because that is what God will judge you on - if you followed your conscience.

Principle Based Decision Making - Health Care #2 - Some Reflections

Using and reiterating the principles from Part One of this topic to develop solutions, here are some of the things that either need to be or can be done. We will only be dealing with possible state and local solutions, since the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over health care, except for the responsibility to care for people who receive injury, physical or mental, while in and because of service to their country.

States, local governments and civic or service organizations can, if their constituents agree, provide certain types of health care to those constituents and/or others as a group by levying fees or taxes to provide that care. There should never be a mandate to participate in any state or locally sponsored healthcare program, but people who opt out may possibly be barred from the benefits of the programs provided.

If, because of a charitable mind and not because of governmental requirements, groups such as those above choose to provide additional benefits to the poor, injured or those who need long-term care, they should be given every possible consideration to make their job easier. Groups such as Primary Children's Hospital, the Shriners, the Children's Miracle Network and the various health charities for specific diseases such as cancer, diabetes, MD, MS, etc. can be of great service to those who need help and cannot afford it. These are funded by voluntary donations.

Using the individual states as an example, but not excluding other local entities, below is an example of how a group could provide a level of care to those who cannot afford to purchase it themselves. It is not provided as a solution but only as a possibility or a starting point for discussion of ways to assist those who need it. I must post the disclaimer that I personally would not vote for any government sponsored health care - even at the state level but would prefer that a prosperous and generous society (which must be restored) take care of their less fortunate members through charity and personal assistance.

• The state could choose to educate, at taxpayer expense, healthcare professionals that cannot pay for their training themselves (scholarships). They can also purchase, rent or build health care facilities (clinics, hospitals, etc. - preferably purchasing old healthcare facilities that are being abandoned) that are staffed by those who have thus been trained as well as asking specialists to provide some volunteer service. These state-trained professionals would be required to spend a certain number of years serving in these facilities as a requirement of their free training. If they choose to leave the program before their commitment is filled, they must reimburse the state for their training so others can be trained to replace them. They would be paid at a rate similar to other state employees while working under this program.
• Those who use these facilities must sign waivers excluding them from the possibility of lawsuits except in cases of gross negligence or intentional harm. They would need to clearly understand that the level of care and comfort in these charity facilities would be lower than in commercial facilities.
• States can also choose to provide nursing homes for long-term care of residents who have no other options with the same type of stipulations as those above. A number or states already have programs such as these in place or subsidize clinics to provide basic services.

These are all choices and should be made by the people who are affected by the taxes required to pay for those choices - not by any federal mandate.

Below is an article I wrote a number of years ago. As you can see, I have changed in a few particulars over those years, but the concepts and philosophy remain the same.

Defining the Problems 

A perception that people are not responsible for their own well-being. In some cases such as injuries, congenital defects etc. that may be true. Most illness and disease is created by personal choices as to diet, exercise, life-style choices, etc.

Ridiculously expensive technology used to artificially keep unhealthy people alive in a diminished capacity for years often including mental conditions that make them unaware or uncaring about that very lengthening of life.

 A Legal system that makes reasonable quality care with good intent insufficient. HC Professionals are required to do massive testing and multiple procedures that are usually unnecessary and often create their own problems for the patient so that under threat of lawsuit they can say "I did everything conceivable to create a good outcome".

 A philosophy that says, not only do we have to artificially sustain life long after it is enjoyable, but we must take extreme measures to take away any discomfort of aging and poor health habits.

The key things that need to be done here (and were not even considered in the current legislation) are tort reform and a national debate and decision on what is reasonable to expect of health care professionals and what is the responsibility of the individual. When the cost of health care is reduced massively by expecting people to live in a more healthy manner and not rewarding stupidity in their nutrition, exercise and habits, by making lawsuits only available to those who have been wronged by actual incompetence or carelessness, by capping punitive damages or removing them altogether except in cases of intent to harm or defraud, and (most controversially) deciding as a society what we, as a society are willing to pay for, we can actually create a system that is reasonable, successful and reliable without destroying the economy.

If on the other hand, we decide that the state (or nation, if you like) is going to be responsible for every illness or accident, every congenital condition and every person who intentionally does damage to their health through poor choices and that we, because of budgetary restraints can no longer pay quality health care professionals a reasonable amount for all the extra expense, time, schooling and lost sleep they sacrifice - we will lose the best and brightest from the profession and there won't be enough money to continue which will create a collapse of the system to where even basic health services will be hard to find and ineffective. These are the choices. If we choose the second option, the system will eventually fail, bankrupting the country in the process.

Secondly, we the people need to change our perception. We think that, if something isn't the way we want it, we should go to the government and they will dispense the solution. That is the essence of "state-ism". Can you imagine George Washington saying to the government, "My teeth are falling out - you (meaning we the people) should take care of me and make sure I get some nice dentures". This is the guy to wouldn't even collect his pay as commander of the armies or as President because he could get by without it and he considered it his duty to do all he could to protect and maintain the freedoms and liberty of his fellow citizens. I know it is why people think conservatives are heartless and cruel, but we need to consider what is the "proper role of government" and what is the province of the individual. When the group of individuals decide that they are willing to take on a responsibility (such as health care for the needy or providing food to the hungry) it is a choice, not a requirement, and as such provides help but does not destroy freedom. If, on the other hand, we are forced to try to "be all things to all people", we will fail and with that failure, our liberty, our prosperity and our very souls will fall into servitude.

There is a basic level of service that we as a society can afford and some of that we can ask of the professionals if and only if they are well compensated for their usual paid work. In law it is called pro-bono and most attorneys expect to give a portion of their time to it. In health care it can work the same way, but it must be limited in order to not destroy the very people providing it and their livelihood.

The debate, though uncomfortable, needs to be held and decisions made about what the public trough can provide and what we individually are responsible for.

Finally, we need to recognize that the current legislation is not a health care proposal. It is, instead, a health insurance requirement that mandates that I buy government approved health insurance and use government approved health care providers. It gives me no freedom to invest in my own type of insurance (savings), go to alternative health care providers (naturopaths, chiropractors, etc.) or to choose to live as healthy as I can and deal with problems when they arise to the best of my own ability.

We could learn alot from many of the native american cultures. Many indigenous cultures live in harmony with mother earth. They use natural herbs and medicines to improve their health, mental state and lives in general. They are peaceful with that. Could our culture accept that approach? Probably not. Should we think about it? I think we should.

The following is a face book discussion from about 2 years ago. The first poster is a young woman who was a college student at a very liberal college in Washington state. The second poster is her father, Shaun McCausland.

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

Okay. I know I may be opening a can of worms here, but I have to ask.

I've been taking a class this quarter called Disease in Modern Society. It's been a brilliant course so far and I've thoroughly enjoyed it, especially since it has had an emphasis on how various factors of society (such as inequality, marginalization, and poverty) affect the spread of disease. In order to stimulate these discussions, we've read two nonfiction books I'd like to recommend to everyone. One is "We Are All The Same" by Wooten, a story of a South African boy with AIDS... and "Mountains Beyond Mountains" by Tracy Kidder, a story about Dr. Paul Farmer, a truly Christlike man who has against huge odds created effective treatment programs in countries like Haiti, Peru, and Russia.

Reading these books, I've come to believe that access to good health care should be a basic human right, and that relieving suffering is an ideal which agrees firmly with my own moral code and the moral code of many others, especially, I would hope, my fellow Christians.

I understand that the subject of health care in our own country (the U.S.) is highly controversial right now. I'm not sure I understand all the reasons, though I have heard a little bit on both sides of the issue. There may be things I have yet to understand about why some people are so convinced that the newly proposed health care systems will actually make things worse. I understand that people are worried about freedoms being compromised, doctors doing a halfway job, taxes being raised, and having to pay someone else's doctor bills.

So what I have to ask is this.

How many people believe that we all have a responsibility to care for our fellow man? How many people believe that relieving suffering when it is within our power is not just something nice to do, but is in fact our duty? How many people truly believe that when a mother has a sick, wounded, or dying child, that she should have access to treatment for that beloved child, regardless of her income? How many people believe that Jesus really meant it when he said that sharing our substance with the poor, administering relief to the sick and the affilcted, is the true gospel?

Are we not all beggars?

So what I'm curious about is why we are afraid. I'm honestly curious. This is not a challenge or a criticism. I am ignorant about this matter, I will freely admit that. So educate me. Tell me, briefly, what is wrong with the idea of making health care available to everyone, even if the money for it does come from our pockets? Is it the fear of losing our freedoms? Is it the fear that we'll be encouraging laziness in our population? Is it a feeling of entitlement to our own hard-earned money?

Which aspect makes it the most frightening?

This is an invitation of straightforward explanation. I don't want to start an argument. I don't want any name-calling or contention. I just want to know what it is that makes such a seemingly good idea sound so bad to so many of my friends, family, and acquaintances. I want to understand so that I can make a more informed decision about where I stand.

All this is assuming that anyone actually replies to this xP

Rachel - excellent post, excellent thinking and excellent approach. If more people would start where you are starting, there would be more understanding and less of all the negative stuff. I will try to shed what light I can. To clear up all the concerns would take a book or maybe more than one book, but I will try to be brief. I do not have all the answers, but I think I do understand the questions, which is the first step.

The first and most important point you want to find clarity on is the moral and spiritual framework that we should work from when considering what to do with those who need health care. I believe that most of us who consider ourselves Christian would agree that we have a responsibility to care for one another and help when help is needed. I won't cite scriptures here, but there are many that support this. The question then becomes, who provides the help, who receives the help, what level of care should be provided, and should it be mandatory, or should people be able to choose how much they contribute to the well-being of others and how much they should be entitled to.

Health care can be divided in many ways, but in my mind there are four basic types of health care - prevention and strengthening health, basic care, emergency care and long-term management of degenerative or incurable illness or disability. The first area is fairly inexpensive and is comprised of mostly teaching, nutrition and avoiding toxins. If everyone ate an organic, raw food diet, most illness would simply disappear. That brings up the question of whether the government should regulate what we eat and mandate exercise, etc.

The second area, basic care, is treatment and support of natural processes (like birth) and simple, short term diseases. It is also fairly inexpensive, at least in comparison to the other two areas remaining.

Emergency care is about sudden, traumatic crisis management, whether for broken bones, injuries from accident or inflicted injuries or extreme for the doctors and hospitals that are astronomical which is a major part of the problem with health costs.

The final area is the most expensive by far - that of caring for those on a long term basis that are incapacitated, incurable or have debilitating weaknesses and disabilities.

I don't know the exact numbers, but if you take the exorbitant insurance rates that doctors and hospitals pay out of the equation, the first area is likely getting about 5% of the money, the second is getting about 15%, the third about 30% and the fourth the other 50%. It seems that if we would actually teach people correct principles (word of wisdom, exercise, etc.) much of that 80% part of the cost could be eliminated.

The next question is, how much of a persons health is their responsibility and how much is the community responsible for? Is it the communities responsibility to pay over a million dollars to care for and try to keep alive for 40 plus years someone who has spent their whole lives smoking, drinking, taking drugs, eating wantonly, - you get the idea. Agency dictates that we get to choose what we do, but we don't get to choose the consequences - our choices have already created them. To take this out to a logical extension - if one in twenty people choose to live this way, how can the other nineteen pay that million dollars. There are 11 people in our family, so less than two families our size would have to come up with the million dollars to pay for that one person's choices. How can that be done? If you think that amount is unlikely, check what the total bill is for a lung transplant, a heart transplant, long term care in a facility or home for even a short time, let alone 40 years or more.

Now add to that the insurance costs. Individual doctors pay from $50,000 to $200,000 per year for malpractice insurance, depending on their specialty and type of practice. They of course pass this along to their patients in higher fees. Then add to that all the extra tests, procedures, etc. that doctors do just to cover their butts in case anything goes wrong so they can stand up during a lawsuit and say, "I did everything I could - just look at all these tests", which adds countless more dollars to the bills.

I know I said this is brief and believe me, it is compared to what people really need to know.

The solutions -

1st. Increase the education of people in natural health and the toxicity of chemicals, pesticides, food additives, dyes, pollution, etc. Help them learn how to increase their health and their natural immunity. This would take much less money than any other option and would be the most effective in lowering costs.

2^nd. Tort reform. This means changing the way courts award money to people who have had bad outcomes from medical procedures. If negligence is proven, those people injured should be taken care of whether until they return to productive, normal life if possible or while they live if the damage was permanent. Punitive damages should only be awarded in cases of fraud or gross negligence or intent to harm and should be capped at $1,000,000 per person so harmed. (Some have received $50,000,000 or more for a doctor making an honest mistake in addition to compensatory damages - those requiring care, etc.) This would decrease the amount that insurance would cost both for the doctor and the patient.

3rd. Recognize that the fourth area of care is the one that is most expensive and the most preventable, that the second area of care is affordable to most people if they are not having to subsidize the doctor's insurance because of exorbitant rates. With that understood, health insurance is properly only needed by most people for the third area - that of emergency care. Costs in this area can also be reduced by tort reform, but it will still be expensive for most people. This is the area where there should be some type of insurance available to everyone.

Interestingly, it is already in place and working. If you present yourself at the hospital emergency room or call for an ambulance in an emergency, they are required by law to admit you and treat you to the best of their ability. If you can't pay, they have to work with you to allow you to pay what you can and forgive the rest. They pay for this by raising the costs for those who have insurance or can pay through their own resources. Donations are also accepted to help pay these costs. You remember how many people in our community helped us pay the costs of medical and funeral expenses when Elijah died.

Finally, we need to determine if it is appropriate for taxpayers to be forced to pay for all types of treatments or just the emergency types or none of them. We need to see if the charitable community can cover the costs for many of these situations. Historically, most people - especially children - are taken care of by organizations such as the Shriner's hospitals, Primary Children's hospital (as well as other children's hospitals all around the country) and others. These hospitals will only charge what the people can reasonably pay. The rest of their operating costs are covered by charity from people like you and me. They have succeeded doing this for many years.

The problem with the current proposal is that it is not clearly addressing the problems as they stand. It is simply creating a huge government program at an even huger expense to us, our children and our children's children. That program will be about as effective as all the other government programs and as such, will run out of money fairly quickly. Then they will have the choice of the following - 1. Raise taxes even further than they will already have to be raised to pay for the stimulus and bailout, 2. Restrict access to health care to those the government considers "worthy". 3. Force providers to charge less for services (which will cause providers to either do less for people or simply go out of business.) When the number and quality of providers is reduced sufficiently, how effective will government provided health care be? For answers, look to countries where it has been tried. England, Canada and Russia are good examples. Many people in those countries come here because they either can't get care (they are disallowed because they have some other problem or they are "too old" or some other reason) or they can get care but have to wait so long because of the lack of providers that they will die before their appointment arrives.

In our country, there are very few people who can't get care if it is urgently needed, even if they can't pay for it. I can't pay for health care or insurance. I went to the emergency room last year. I received decent care and a doctor consultation with a specialist. I was not charged because I was unable to pay. They did not raise anyones taxes. I don't believe that anyone need go without care in an emergency in this country.

RB (name withheld to avoid his embarrassment)

Shaun Shaun Shaun.... Please read the Bill. People are being turned down by insurance every day in this country. Private companies, in states that have legalized euthanasia, are already refusing to pay for terminal illness treatment and offering assisted suicide coverage. All you boogey talk is already happening. Obama is not modeling Russia, ... Canada or the UK, the bill models France's policies which are widely regarded as the best in the world the Doctors and citizens of France. Insurance companies lack the moral obligation to help people, while our goverement program will be dsigned to do so, beyond profit motive.

There will be no "Death Panels", There is no mandatory suicide clauses. We HAVE the money. Our nation HAS the resources. We, as a nation, need to do what's right and stop fretting over lies and missinformation.

If yo don't want the goverment program, you don't have to be a part of it. You have the right to keep your current care. How is that so hard to understand?

The reason people are scared is that they believe the government will waste the money taken from us to pay for this and that health care will decrease in quality and availability. A good example of this is the recent cash for clunkers deal. The report I saw noted that even though they spent 1 billion dollars for the program (soon to spend 2 billion more of our money that they take through taxes) only 120 million of it went to the people trading in their cars - the rest went to run the program and pay for implementing it. That's is why we don't trust the government to run health care. Medicare takes money from every check you receive as an employee - so does social security. If the government put that money in the bank so it would be available to you when you need it, they would have literally trillions available now. Instead they have spent all that money and are taking money from other people to pay for the benefits of those who are collecting now. That is why many of us don't think the government is qualified to run this program.

RB

Stop being a tool, Shaun.

RB

2 billion is what the Iraq war used to cost us a day.....

Shaun McCausland

RB, please keep to the intelligent dialogue we have started here instead of name-calling. If you have specific disagreements with what I have posted, bring them up and directly address them with your facts and experiences. If you can't address the specifics and be civil, please go away.

I agree that the insurance companies are turning people down. I agree that some are not doing a good job. I believe that much of that can be addressed with tort reform as noted above. I also believe that the problem you are concerned with will get worse if the government is in charge, not better. That is why I don't like this bill - and yes I have read a readers digest version of the bill, but no I haven't read all 1400 pages - have you?

RB

I've read all the "scary parts". It sounds like your arguement has been reduced to a matter of opinion:

"I also believe that the problem you are concerned with will get worse if the government is in charge, not better. That is why I don't like this bill"

I DO believe the goverement can handle this. So does Rachel, so do many more Americans. So there.

Shaun McCausland

That's fair. Can you give me examples of how the government has done well with other large projects? You pointed out well how much we wasted on the Iraq war. If they are good at this type of thing, I need some examples. (was the "so there." necessary?) I can respect you if you respect yourself enough to be civil and mature in your comments - even if we don't agree.

ER (name also withheld)

You can't base this administration's potential on the activities/failures of previous administrations, especially ones with such radically different policies... if they didn't change from president to president, we could never advance after a bad one. Germany's healthcare system is fantastic now, but just 60 years ago, it was Naziland.

Shaun McCausland

That is a fair point and I don't base anything on previous administrations. I am equally concerned by the last three administrations and how they all moved us towards centralized governmental power and away from individual and state's rights. So far, I haven't seen anything that indicates this administration is taking us in any new directions. It seems to me that we are just going faster into debt and governmental power.

RB

I do not beleive myself to be uncivil in my comments, perhaps you're a bit too sensitive.

The US government, considering the majority of other nations, actually controls very little in this country. Education, Medicare, Medicade, Military, Police and Justice.... Most Banks go, or until recently have went, mostly unregulated. Social Security has dried up as baby boomers have. This is becasue back when social security started, the average life expentancy was about 65.... It was designed so that people would die before they have to collect. Unfortuneately that's no longer the case. People don't retire becasue they're unable to work, they do it nowadays because they want to play golf, relax, and travel with the help of a goverment meal-ticket.

Perhaps the government would function better if we gave it the power it needs to function. A half-ass funded program can only perform half-assedly.

RB

Perhaps we should stop allowing perfectly fuctional people to suck the system dry simply becasue they're in thier 60s.... People live until 80 on average. I say work em dry....

Text of Speech at Constitution Party State Convention, April 7, 2012

A few days ago, I was sitting in a radio station answering questions from callers. That is always an interesting experience. A caller asked me "What have you done in the last few years to save our country?" In a few minutes, I will tell you what I would say to him today. In the meantime, think about this question. 100 Years from now, what will historians say about our time? Will they say that a segment of the population stood up and educated the people and turned the tide of public opinion away from those who were willing to destroy the republic - or will they say that too many of us fiddled while Rome was burning and that as a result, we saw the end of the greatness and goodness of the United States?

In about 7 months, I think I may be able to give you a pretty good prediction, but what we do today and in the days to come may determine to an extent what that prediction will be. To start with, listen to this statement "The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are inspired documents and the source of the solutions to our nation's current problems!" If you believe that statement, please stand up.

Don't worry about who is or isn't standing. This is not for each of us to judge someone else. It is to evaluate ourselves.

AWAKE

If you are standing, you are at least on level 1 of a 5 point scale that may determine our future. All of you who are standing are awake. You realize that our country is in trouble. You know that our freedoms are being lost. You know that government is too intrusive in our lives, too expensive for us to sustain, too arrogant to respect our freedoms, our desires and our choices. It is a government that has forgotten that it is supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for the people." Sadly, many of our elected and appointed representatives have forgotten it as well. They seem to think that it should be government of the many by the few and for the few. That is a definition of tyranny. Hopefully, on the other side of things, it seems that, across this nation and here in Utah as well, people are starting to awaken, to get involved, to stop repeatedly voting for the same people and the same failed ideas that got us into this mess.

Levels 2 and 3 on this 5 point scale are qualified by the following. Have you read those founding documents. Do you understand them? Level 2 is for those who have read the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Level 3 is for those who have taken time to understand each of those documents and the unalienable and guaranteed rights that they promise to defend. We understand that these documents and the government they created do not provide these rights, but they promise to protect them and restrict the government and its employees from actions that would infringe on those rights. If level 2 or 3 describes you, please stay standing. The rest may sit down.  No matter what level you are on, I challenge you to move up at least one level in the next couple of weeks. You on these levels are AWARE.

AWARE

If you are aware, you know what has created the debt and the erosions of our freedoms. You know which laws and executive orders and judicial pronouncements have done this and how they did it. You know if those things that have been done were legal under the Constitution. You probably know how your representatives voted on critical issues of freedom. How did they vote on the Patriot Act? How did they vote on raising the debt limit? How did they vote on the National Defense Authorization Act? There are dozens more. I hope you know how they voted. Have they spoken out against the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order? It's approximately EO# 13,600 - I'm not sure because they quit numbering them on the government website. These are edicts that carry the force of law and our current president is using them to circumvent congress - effectively legislating from the executive branch with no check and balance. That's not how it's supposed to work. Congress could challenge and stop them from taking effect. Senators can challenge them. Are they doing so? No they are not but I will! And yes, Mr. Obama, the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of laws. In fact, it is their job.

Those who are aware understand that, if a government can give you the right to do something, they can also take it away. Do you understand that unalienable rights mean that those rights exist regardless of what government is in power and that our responsibility is to see that our government fulfills its proper role? Do you understand that the proper role of government is to protect and defend those rights?

ENGAGED

OK, you can sit down now, and thank you for helping me with that. The final levels, 4 and 5 are for those who are engaged in doing something. Are you actively engaged? You are here today. That tells me that you care enough to try to do something. I honor you for showing up - for showing up at your caucus meeting or your county convention, for taking the time, effort and money it took to be here today. For showing up at the polls in November. The question that I have to ask you is this. What are you going to do tomorrow? What are you going to do next week, or next month? Are you going to speak or will you hold your tongue so that people will not be offended or disagree with you? Will they stay uninformed because you weren't willing to speak? If you are speaking up, you are on level 4.

Many of us are peacemakers by nature. We like to calm the troubled waters. We like to make everybody feel good, even when they shouldn't. Our tendency is to compromise or agree with people to whatever extent we can because we hate conflict. I often feel that way. But let me tell you what I hate more than conflict. I hate that those we have entrusted with the defense of our liberties by and large do not even know or care that our freedoms are being quietly stolen away. I hate that a government that thinks it can tell us that we must purchase health insurance will soon think it can tell us what to eat or what to drive or where we can go or who we can worship or if we can defend ourselves. Oh wait! There are those in our government that already think that. Their numbers are growing and their bureaucracies are gaining more and more power. How can we combat all of this? Is just voting individually going to do it? What percentage of people in this country do you think are even awake to the problems? How many are aware? If that number is 10%, can they elect the people who will change things? How about 15 or 20%? No? Then how are we going to save our republic?

I have some suggestions for you no matter what level you are at today.

Get a copy of the US Constitution. Read it. Write it down in your own words. Then you will understand it. My children are in a class where they are asked to do that.

Get a copy of the Declaration of Independence. Do the same thing.

Get a copy of the Bill of Rights. Follow the same process. Then you will understand them.

All of those are available on my website along with an incredibly prophetic pamphlet published clear back in 1968 by Ezra Taft Benson entitled "The Proper Role of Government". There are also a number of other good resources.

Next, find out what the government is doing. Subscribe to a good newsletter or two that focus on that topic. Choose who you listen to or read carefully. Even some so-called conservatives still think that more government is the answer to most problems. It's even good to listen to those you disagree with occasionally so you can understand how they think.

Then, tell your representatives what matters to you by any means possible. If 60% of the people think that a law is bad but only 1% say anything, there is no incentive for our representatives to listen. If 60% of the people say something, I can guarantee you they will listen. They may not choose to follow, if they are arrogant or have their own agenda, but they will hear and they will bear responsibility if they do not act.

Next, take a class on the Constitution and why it is important. Hillsdale College has a free online course that you can take or share with your neighbors, family and friends. The Leadership Education Mentoring Institute (known as LEMI) is educating hundreds, if not thousands of young people in the principles of statesmanship and Constitutional government. My wife and I teach at one of their Commonwealth schools as volunteers. It has been a great experience and these are incredible young people, some of them are already doing amazing things in carrying forth the cause of freedom. They also have a  program for adults and everyone is welcome to attend. It is called the Freedom Project. It not only helps you to understand these principles, but how to share that understanding with others.

Read! If you have read what Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and others that contributed to the creation of our nation wrote and said, you will understand how to write and say what needs to be heard today. If you read Scott Bradley's book "To Preserve the Nation", Ezra Taft Benson's pamphlet "The Proper Role of Government", Skousen's "5000 Year Leap" and even recent best-sellers like "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin, it will give you the knowledge to converse or write intelligently on topics that people really need to know about. Once you have done that, find others who have also read them and discuss what you have learned.

That is level 4. To be on level 5, you need to find a way to teach people. It is the greatest need of our republic right now. Teach your children or get them in classes where they can learn. Share your ideas with your family, your friends and your neighbors. Yes, they may disagree with you or think you are crazy in some cases. They may even call you names. Most will respect you for standing for something. You may lose influence with others. But what good is that influence if you don't use it to make a difference?

Now, I want to thank all of you for standing up for our country. I want to spend just a moment on the current election. Mr. Hatch has made it a big issue to make sure everyone knows how much power and influence he will have if re-elected. Now, I don't know if he is a good guy or not. I don't know if he believes what he says or not. I do know, that on the important issues of personal liberty, reducing the size of the Federal Government and protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States, he does not have a very good voting record. I know he has done some good things and I thank him for that. He has also done a lot of things that are not so good and it seems to me to be getting worse. It seems to me that he still thinks that government is the solution instead of the problem. Why should we believe that giving him another 6 years will make him do anything different than what he has done for the last 36 years. Do we really want someone with his voting record to have that much power? I repeat, what good is power and influence if you don't use it to uphold the truth and defend liberty?

I am doing all I can to be a level 5 defender of freedom and the Constitution. It is why I am running even though I don't have money or fame or movie star looks or Super-PACs that will attack all my opponents. I am running to be a teacher, to teach principles of truth and the connection between following the US Constitution and freedom, goodness, greatness, prosperity and a brighter future for America. I am running to be a voice, a voice for what is true and right - a voice that won't compromise on the core values that create prosperity, liberty and moral character.

I am simply asking you - each of you - to move up at least one level, make a difference, find a way to affect the process. I would love it if everyone here could be on level 5 - the informed teacher. Don't look at the people around you - look at yourself. You are the one that controls what you do. If you don't have time, give money. If you don't have money, give some time. If you don't have either - find someone who does and convince them to help. I need your help - we all need your help. It matters. You matter. The future of our country matters. Find a way to do something that will make a difference.

Remember that radio caller? My answer to him is that I have learned, I have written or called my representatives, I have written editorials and responses to editorials, I have engaged in facebook debates. I have created websites. I have taught my children and volunteered at a school where I have taught other people's children, I have challenged or taught my family and friends. I even talk politics with my customers which probably costs me occasionally. And now, I am challenging a sitting Senator that has $15 million dollars to spend on defeating me and I'm crazy enough to think I might win if enough other people stand up and teach their neighbors, family and friends what we here already understand. I want all of us here to be noticed by those historians 100 years from now. I want them to say that we made a difference. A lot of candidates finish their speeches by saying something like "I am so-and-so and I'm asking for your support." Well,  I am Shaun McCausland, and your country needs your support. Thank you.