Declaration of Independence

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

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Champion of Religious Freedom

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is that religious freedom brings diversity into the social and political picture and brings growth in various other areas. While the world was facing down North Korea and the United States endured yet another eruption of violence, a religious leader received a World Peace Prize in India.

            Elder D. Todd Christofferson was honored for his “relentless mission of love, compassion and sacrifice” (World Peace University President Vishwanath Karad). This great honor was bestowed not only upon Elder Christofferson but upon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “The world today, with all its problems, it needs you, the church you represent and your work. It needs you more than ever” (Michael Nobel, a great-grandnephew of the founder of the Nobel Peace Prize). 

            Elder Robert Kumar William, an LDS Area Seventy from Bangalore, India, said: “Elder Christofferson has personally visited and worked with church members and government, civic and religious leaders in 80 nations” since he became a general authority of the Church in 1993.

            One of the reasons for the prize is that the Church gives so much in humanitarian aid throughout the world, $1.89 billion since 1985. Nobel gave the following explanation for the prize. The prize includes approximately $8,000, which Elder Christofferson will donate to a school for the disabled in India.

Why would they deserve (the prize)? … The members of the church have shown us that it’s possible to translate into worldwide action something that lies deep in the hearts of many of us, compassion for others. … The Mormon church and its organizations richly deserve this commission for its outstanding humanitarian accomplishments.

            Elder Christofferson focused on the good that is done by religion and urged world leaders to recognize this good and support religious freedom.

Failing to appreciate the good religion does society or the nation as a whole and to accommodate religion whenever possible results in social conflict….
Government officials and policy makers, like yourselves, who seek to establish lasting peace and prosperity for people of all faiths should understand why and how….

True religion offers a stable foundation for a just and healthy society. It strengthens and ennobles nations, communities and individuals. It is my hope that we will all recognize and appreciate the great good religion does and work together – as people of diverse faiths or no faith at all – to build more peaceful nations and ultimately a more peaceful world.

            Elder Christofferson obviously deserves the title “champion of religious freedom” as stated by one presenter. He promoted religious freedom on Friday in Cambridge, England, and echoed his remarks on Saturday when he said, “Recognizing and protecting faith is the path to peace” and added that it also can lead to prosperity.

Countries with strong traditions of religious freedom tend to be not only more stable and safe, but more prosperous. A recent study reached the remarkable conclusion that the presence of religious freedom in a country is one of only three factors significantly associated with global economic growth….


            This honor could not have come to a nicer, more pleasant, or humble man than Elder Christofferson. I appreciate the numerous times that I have had the opportunity to converse with him and his wife Kathy. I am pleased with his title of “champion of religious freedom.”

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Divide and Conquer

            The clamor about the violence in Charlottesville continues. Two groups of racist thugs clashed on Saturday, and the President is being blamed for it.  Donald Trump gave a thoughtful and presidential response to the violence with the information that was available at the time.


            The President gave a unifying speech, and he condemned ALL hatred, bigotry, and violence no matter the origin. This speech was not good enough for many people, particularly the mainstream media, liberals, and even some Republicans. They claim that the President’s words were not good enough and that he did not go far enough because he did not specifically condemn violence perpetrated by white people.

            The whites involved believe that the President did not name them because he supports what they are doing. He is not, and he made this clear in another statement two days later.

            Even though the President named some of the “criminals and thugs” in his second statement, he was still denounced once again. It was “too little, too late” to satisfy his opponents. He condemned racism on Saturday, but it was not enough to satisfy. He condemned racism again on Monday, but it was considered too late. It appears that to those who oppose him, nothing the President could say would satisfy them.

            An editorial at The Patriot Post explains that Trump was not too late because he was repeating the counsel given months ago.

So, on Monday, Trump decided to respond to the growing media-created fervor. He addressed the nation once again on the Charlottesville riot. Trump reiterated, “We must love each other, show affection for each other and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that brings us together as Americans.” And this time Trump added, “Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” Of course, that message is too little, too late for the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd.

But it’s not too late at all. In his Inaugural Address, Trump said, “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice…. Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of Patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American flag.” It’s been his message all along. The media just don’t want you to know it.

            There are people and factions in our nation who wish to destroy America in order to create a “one world government.” I call them “secret combinations” because they come out of darkness to destroy. One of their main tools is division. They know that a nation that is divided cannot stand for very long. This is why people have encouraged division (Barack Obama) and paid protesters and rioters (George Soros) to cause unrest and violence.


            The problem, as I see it, is that the loud voices in the nation claim that white violence is different than black violence. There is no difference. All of it must be condemned in order for it to stop. We all know that racism divides our nation. The only way to combat this hatred and division is to follow the counsel of President Trump. We must recognize that all races bleed the same color of blood and enjoy the same freedoms in America. We must unite and become one people, and we can do it by condemning and eradicating all violence in our nation.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Hate Groups and Racism

            Hate is hate no matter what group is spewing it or their reasoning behind their hatred. I do not understand exactly why there is such clamor about the latest hate movement. It seems to me that the clashes by white nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia, are no worse than the riots caused by members of Black Lives Matter. Both groups are demonstrating hate for members of a different race and causing division in the nation.

            I suppose that one major difference is that white people are coming forward condemning the actions of the white nationalists and no blacks have ever come forward condemning the riots and other troubles caused by blacks.

            Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro has been one of the most vocal whites to condemn the white nationalists when he sent out a 12-tweet message. He says that the white nationalists or “so-called `alt-right’ movement [is] a far-right political movement that rejects conservatism and embraces white nationalism.” He also says that the “alt-right movement” is “evil” and has “nothing to do with constitutional conservatism.”

            According to Shapiro, the mainstream media is attempting to make people think that the “alt-right” movement is bigger and more influential than it actually is. He compares the “alt-right” movement to a “replay of brown shirts vs. reds in Weimar Germany. They’re even carrying the same flags.” He says that the only way to end this “alt-white” movement is for everyone, including the White House and media leadership, to condemn it.

            This makes sense to me. However, the same treatment should be applied to every hate group – white, black, Hispanic, Muslim, etc. – across the board and in a unified way.

            President Donald Trump tweeted his condemnation the violence that took place in Virginia:
We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!

            I thought that the President sent a good message. “ALL of us are responsible to end this problem!” However, he was criticized because he blamed “many sides” did not specifically condemn the white nationalists and Nazis.

            Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee explained on “Fox and Friends Weekend” that there was little more that the President could have said because there was little information available when he sent his tweet. 

I think it was smart not to jump to a conclusion. We would have condemned him for that … Look, here’s the fact. No matter what Donald Trump said, there are going to be people who condemn his every word, his every action. Nothing will ever satisfy the Trump haters. And there are a lot of Trump haters within the Republican Party who jumped on him as well.

Let me just be clear. Donald Trump is no more responsible for Charlottesville than Barak Obama was personally responsible for Baltimore and Ferguson.

            All Americans are responsible to eradicate hatred and evil from the United States. Right or left, conservatives or liberals, we must come together and make it clear that we condemn violence and racism. We must be unified as Americans.


Monday, August 14, 2017

Kim Jung-un

            The news cycles are full of information about Kim Jung-un of North Korea and his threats to nuke the United States. I have not paid too much attention to his threats, but I decided to learn a little bit more about him. 

            Kim was born on January 8, 1982-84 or July 5, 1984. There is little known for sure about this man, not even his birthday for certain. He is son and second child of Kim Jong-il (1941-2011) and his consort Ko Yong-hui. He became the leader of North Korea on December 28, 2011, after his father’s state funeral. He holds at least five titles. He also holds two degrees, one in physics and one as an Army officer.

            The first leader of North Korea born after the nation was founded, Kim seems determined to hold onto his power. He ordered the execution of his uncle Jang Song-thaek in December 2013. He is believed to be behind the assassination of his brother Kim Jong-nam in Malaysia in February 2017.

            Many people find it easy to think that Kim is a crazy lunatic for threatening to crush the United States. Andrei Lankov, a professor at Kookmin University in Seoul, South Korea, and the author of several books on North Korea, says they are mistaken. He claims that Kim is a survivor, just like his father and grandfather before him. He states that the nuclear program in North Korea is for defense and that Kim acts crazy on purpose. 

Kim Jong Un sees the nuclear program as purely defensive. Conquering the South would be nice in theory, but this task is completely beyond his reach, both due to the U.S. commitment to protecting South Korea and Seoul’s own huge advantage in economic and technological power. He knows that any unprovoked North Korean attack against South Korea or the United States will end badly, perhaps in his death, and he is certainly not suicidal. However, he also presumes that no great power would risk attacking a nuclear state or sticking a hand into its internal strife – especially if it has delivery systems and a second-strike capability….

While North Korea’s nuclear program is defensive, it still makes sense to remind the world about its existence and use what President Richard Nixon once described as “madman strategy,” that is, to appear to one’s opponents to be irrational, volatile, and willing to disregard costs. That’s why North Korean propaganda uses such fiercely colorful language. When North Korean TV promises to “make Seoul into a sea of fire,” or threatens to nuke Canberra, or shows Kim Jon Un in front of a map of the United States with cities marked as targets of nuclear strikes, they are delivering the same message: “we are here, we are volatile, and will stop at nothing if our opponents do something threatening.”

            It appears from Lankov’s article that Kim’s threats sound terrible but amount to nothing more than letting the world know that North Korea has the capability of sending nukes to other nations. He is basically saying, “Do not attack us or mess with us!”


            I thought he might be trying to provoke an attack for some crazy reason, but I can understand why he feels the need to show power. As Lankov points out, Kim saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the Taliban leaders in Afghanistan, and Muammar al-Qaddafi in Libya and wants to protect himself and his nation from a similar circumstance. This explains his desire for nuclear ability and his show of strength.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Amendment 25: Presidential Disability and Succession

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is Amendment 25 to the U.S. Constitution. The title of this Amendment is “Presidential Disability and Succession.” It was proposed on July 6, 1965, and ratified on February 10, 1967. Section 3 was used after President Ronald Reagan was shot and while he was in surgery and recovery. As Section 4 is relevant to our current day, I am including the entire amendment as follows.

1. In case of the removal of the President [Donald Trump] from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President [Mike Pence] shall become President.

2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate [Senator Orin Hatch] and the Speaker of the House of Representatives [Representative Paul Ryan] his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

            This amendment is relative to the present time because liberals want to use Section 4 to remove Donald Trump from the office of President of the United States. The President’s opponents wish to have him “declared incompetent because they say he concentrates so much on his tweets and doesn’t properly take care of his presidential duties.” 
  
            Section 4 is meant to be used in cases of injury, stroke, dementia, or other illness of the President. Liberals wish to use it to escape from dealing with Donald Trump. They wish to have the President declared crazy because he is driving them crazy – as illustrated by performances by Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, John McCain, etc.

            Numerous people are calling for this amendment to be invoked to remove Trump, including television hosts, newspaper columnist, and even members of Congress. A bill to do this already has 23 Democrat co-sponsors. Section 4 of this amendment has never been invoked and most likely will not happen now. Invoking Section 4 would require the consent of Vice President Pence and more than half of the President’s cabinet, plus the consent of the Republican-controlled Congress.

            The idea that so many people want to use Amendment 25 to remove President Trump from office is frightening. Liberals have gone crazy since Trump won the election – or Hillary Clinton lost it, whichever way you wish to think about it. His opponents cannot accept the fact that Americans chose Trump over Clinton, and they are still fighting against him.

            On the other hand, the same Americans who put Trump in office are still supporting him. He is basically the same person that Americans saw on the campaign trail and liked. Trump is not the average politician, and Americans like that he is not.


            There is a right way to remove a President from office, and there is a wrong way. The 25th Amendment was put in place for an emergency, not for political purposes. If you do not like what the President is doing, then you should speak out against him, elect other politicians who will oppose him, and vote against him if he runs for re-election in 2020. Forcing him out of office by a coup or a civil war would make the United States no better than a Third World country.

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Consecrating Our Lives

            The visiting teaching message for August is about living a consecrated life. I recently wrote notes to the sisters on my letter route, and I thought that I would share the message with my readers. I am using quotes from several members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well as one from a former Relief Society leader of the importance of consecrating our lives and how to do it. 

            Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke on this topic and gave a definition of consecration. “To consecrate is to set apart or dedicate something as sacred, devoted to holy purposes. True success in this life comes in consecrating our lives – that is, our time and choices – to God’s purposes.” (See D. Todd Christofferson, “Reflections on a Consecrated Life,” Ensign, Nov. 2010, 16.) 

            Elder Neal A. Maxwell (1926-2004) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles enlarged on this meaning when he said, “We tend to think of consecration only as yielding up, when divinely directed, our material possessions. But ultimate consecration is the yielding up of oneself to God.” (See Neal A. Maxwell, “Consecrate Thy Performance,” Ensign, May 2002, 36.) 

            We can increase our faith in Jesus Christ and in His atoning sacrifice as we consecrate ourselves to the purposes of God. We can become holy step by step as we live a consecrated life.

            Sister Carole M. Stephens, former First Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency, quoted Elder Robert D. Hales and then shared her understanding of consecration.

“When we make and keep covenants, we are coming out of the world and into the kingdom of God.”

We are changed. We look different, and we act different. The things we listen to and read and say are different, and what we wear is different because we become daughters of God bound to Him by covenant. (See Carole M. Stephens, “Wide Awake to Our Duties,” Ensign, Nov. 2012, 115-16). 

            Consecration is the covenant God makes “with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jeremiah 31:33). We can bring our lives into harmony with God’s plan for us by living a consecrated life.

            My spirit longs to have the word of God written in my hearts, but my physical tabernacle is not always willing. However, I can see myself slowly changing and becoming more like Heavenly Father would have me be. I encourage you to consecrate your life to God and reap the blessings of doing so.

Friday, August 11, 2017

What I Like Best about My Siblings

            Families are strengthened when siblings have good relationships. Parents can encourage good sibling relationships by treating their children fairly and honestly. There is much truth in the title of a hymn, “There Is Beauty All Around when there’s Love at Home.   
   
            I received a different but interesting and appropriate gift for Mother’s Day. One of my daughters gifted me with a subscription to “StoryWorth.” The idea behind the subscription is for me to write the stories of my life. Each week my daughter will select a question, and the company will email it to me. I am supposed to write the answer to the question and send it back. The company will send the answer to my daughter as well as combining the answers into a book at the end of the year. Here is another picture into who I am.

            The question for week 12: What do you like best about your siblings? This is an easy question for me to answer because I love my siblings and love to be with them. The thing that I like most about my siblings is the unconditional love that I receive from them and feel for them. I enjoy being with my siblings more than anyone else in the world other than my immediate family. I know that they accept me and love me in spite of my many weaknesses and problems. I also know that they will support me at any time in anything that I might ask of them.

            I like the way that my siblings boost my self-esteem and make me feel good about myself. I like the way that our communication with each other is always positive. I like the way that we can joke and laugh with each other about the silly things we do and not be offended. I like the way that my siblings share their talents with me, whether it is family history work, quilting, or whatever.

            The only thing that I do not like about my siblings is that we do not have regular communication with each other. We tend to stick to our own lives and never make contact with each other unless there is a problem or need. If a telephone call is made, it is usually me that makes it. Even with the email and Facebook, it is like pulling teeth to get a response out of some of them. I wish that we had more frequent communication. I envy women who have regular outings with their sisters – which would include my sisters by marriage. My dream would be to live in a community with all my siblings and see them weekly or even more often. My dream would be to live in a community with all my siblings and see them weekly or even more often.


            Even without frequent communication and visits, the unconditional love that we have for each other makes us better people. Families are strengthened when there is unconditional love in the home. When siblings truly love each other, they are happier and the family is stronger. Strong families strengthen communities and nations.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

Freedom from Pressure

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the pressure on older teens and young adults to attend college. I stand by the principle that everyone needs advanced training beyond high school, but I also realize that not everyone is capable of going the college route.

            Walter E. Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, wrote an article on this subject. He gave some statistics in his article that should be considered by prospective college students and their parents.  

More than 18 million students attend our more than 4,300 degree-granting institutions….

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, “when considering all first-time undergraduates, studies have found anywhere from 28 percent to 40 percent of students enroll in at least one remedial course. When looking at only community college students, several studies have found remediation rates surpassing 50 percent.”

Only 25 percent of students who took the ACT in 2012 met the test’s readiness benchmarks in all four subjects (English, reading, math, and science). Just 5 percent of black students and 13 percent of Hispanic students met the readiness benchmarks in all four subjects.

The National Conference of State Legislatures report says, “A U.S. Department of Education study found that 58 percent of students who do not require remediation earn a bachelor’s degree, compared to only 17 percent of students enrolled in remedial reading and 27 percent of students enrolled in remedial math.”

The fact of business is that colleges admit a far greater number of students than those who test as being college-ready.

            Williams, being the professor that he is, includes many other facts and figures in his article. I would like to know why there are so many students graduating from high school without knowing how to read, write, and do arithmetic. I would like to know why the students needing remedial college classes even want to go to college. I would also like to understand why any student is admitted to college without the capability of doing the academic work required at universities.

            The Professor says that high schools are delivering “grossly fraudulent education” when they allow a student to graduate from college when they are not capable of performing at even an eighth- or ninth-grade level.” I personally know a young man who graduated from high school without being able to read a third-grade level book. So, one reason we have students unprepared for college work is because the public school system has failed in their responsibilities to prepare them. Where are the high school counselors, and why are they failing these students?

            My next question concerned the motivation of unprepared students even wanting to go to college. If the student was not motivated enough in junior high school and high school to learn the high school subjects, why do they even apply for higher education? Are they reacting to peer pressure? Are all their friends going to college, and they feel left out? Are parents providing this pressure on their unprepared children?

            My third question is the motivation of the colleges and universities to admit students who are unprepared. Surely, the low percentage of graduation for students requiring remedial help (17 percent who needed remedial reading and 27 percent who needed remedial math) compared to the percentage of those graduating who needed no remedial assistance (58 percent) tells its own story. Williams cites a “study that more than a third of students showed no improvement in critical thinking skills after four years at a university.” In addition, many employers of those who manage to graduate from college report that their employees are not prepared to enter the work force.

            Williams suggests, and I agree, that it is a waste of time, effort, and money for some students to attend college. He says, “The bottom line is that college is not for everyone. There is absolutely no shame in a youngster’s graduating from high school and learning a trade.”


            Many people who learn a trade actually earn more money than their friends who have college degrees. I believe that everyone needs a high school diploma that shows that they completed work on a twelfth-grade level, but I do not believe that everyone can or should attend college.

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

What I Miss Most about Being a Child

            I received a different but interesting and appropriate gift for Mother’s Day. One of my daughters gifted me with a subscription to “StoryWorth.” The idea behind the subscription is for me to write the stories of my life. Each week my daughter will select a question, and the company will email it to me. I am supposed to write the answer to the question and send it back. The company will send the answer to my daughter as well as combining the answers into a book at the end of the year. Here is another picture into who I am.

            The question for week 13 is: What about being a child do you miss the most? The thing that I miss most about my childhood is the feeling of being carefree. I was reared in a home where I felt very secure. I knew that my mother and father loved each other, and I knew that they loved each of their children with all their hearts. I had no doubts that they would do anything in their power for me and my happiness, and I never worried about having a place to stay or food to eat except for one time.

            Something happened. I do not know the reason, but I decided to run away from home and even left the house. I had no plan, and I did not take any blankets, food, or extra clothing with me. I was about an eighth of a mile down the road when I considered my situation. I wondered what I would eat and where I would sleep, and I immediately turned around and went back to the house. I never ran away from home again.

            My family lived on a farm that provided much of our food and money. My father worked the graveyard shift at a gas station in town for extra income. We were poor, especially by today’s standards. We had the essentials for health and life but little more, and I understood enough to not ask for anything expensive. I wore mostly hand-me-down clothing until I was in junior high school and learned to make my own.

            I understood that my family did not have as nice of a house or the newest clothes, but I never felt poor. I did not have my own bedroom or even my own bed, but I did not think anything about it. I did have my own drawer in the dresser because Mom insisted that we each have a private space. Other than my own toys and clothes with a drawer to hold them, I did not really have much of anything that I could call my own. I remember being in about the fifth grade and receiving a briefcase-type bag to carry my papers and stuff to and from school. I was so proud of that bag!

            I did not have a bicycle. In fact, no one in the family had a bicycle. We either walked the mile or so to visit a friend, or we rode a horse. We had one old brown work horse that had the creative name of The Sorrel. He was one of a pair of horses with the other one name Blue. Guess what color he was? Blue died when I was almost too young to remember him, but The Sorrel was still living when I was a teenager. He was huge and gentle, and we rode him bareback.

            We could climb all over The Sorrel, and he would just stand there. We could put children on him from his tail to his ears, and he would carry them wherever they wanted to go. However, he sometimes got back at us in a sly way - but never when little children were on him. I remember several times when he pulled his trick while I was riding him. We would be trotting along and making good time. Then he would take a side step. I would keep going forward with the momentum and land on the ground. Then I would have to find a fence or something to stand on before I could get back on his back. I remember another time that he got back at me, but I do not think that it was intentional. I was putting a child on his back, and he stepped on my left foot. My foot hurt so badly! I thought he would smash it before I could convince him to lift his foot! He was a good horse even though he was old and fat, and I have many fond memories with him.

            I loved being outside even as a child. It could have been the small house with the large family or my need for space and privacy. I do not know the reason. I simply know that my favorite memories of living on the farm happened in the spring. I loved running through the yard and pastures with the winter snow barely melted and the March winds blowing their chill breath. I was free, and I loved it! I loved the freedom so much that even the chilly wind could not drive me back in the house. I would find a ditch or a low spot where I could hunker down to get out of the wind, and I would stay there until I was warm enough to run and play again.

            Even though I had a carefree childhood, I also had a few fears. My biggest fear was being afraid of the dark. It was not so much the dark that frightened me but what or who might be in the darkness. I was afraid to go to the outhouse any time because I thought Satan lived in the hole in the ground under the toilet. I particularly did not like going out there alone in the darkness. I did not mind walking the quarter of a mile to or from the meetinghouse in the darkness if I was with someone, but I was frightened to do it by myself. In the first place, badgers lived at “the little hill” that was about halfway between the church and the house. We knew they were there because various members of the family had seen them. So I was afraid of badgers even though I never personally saw one. I was also afraid of anything else that might lurk in the darkness.

            I still do not like the darkness. Why do I live in a place that has such long hours of darkness? I stay close to home at night, and I do not like to be home alone at night. I was okay being home with the children in the house and my husband traveling, but I feel quite different being here alone at night. Even now I calm myself by giving myself some serious counseling – “There is no one out there watching you!”
          
            My other big fear was missing the school bus. We watched for the bus every morning because we could see it coming over the hill above the farm. The call would go out, “The bus is coming!” We walked a quarter of a mile to the bus stop every morning, and the bus had one and one-half miles to travel from the time when we could first see it until it was at our bus stop. We had to do the farm chores - milk the cows and feed the animals – before we could get ready for school. If we got up late or something went wrong, we would not leave the house when we normally would. Then we would run. I remember running to catch the bus many times and the bus waiting for us. I still hate to be late, but I wonder if I developed my running speed because I had to run for the bus so many times as a child. I still have nightmares sometimes about running for the bus.


            There have been times in my adult life when I yearned to be back in my childhood years. I finally figured out that I wanted the security that I felt with my parents and siblings. When I understood my need for security, I could look at my life and figure out what I needed to do to feel more secure. Now that I am in my older years, I feel somewhat carefree again. It is good!

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Registered Voters vs. People Eligible to Vote

            There is some disagreement about who won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election. Donald Trump says that he would have won the popular vote along with the electoral vote if it were not for the illegal alien vote. Hilary Clinton claims that she won the popular vote by 2.9 million. Realty says that both of them cannot be right, but the average American voter has little power to determine the truth.

            Judicial Watch is coming to the rescue for Americans by searching for the truth. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRC) dictates that voting precincts maintain the accuracy and integrity of voter rolls. According to a new letter from Judicial Watch, some California counties have difficulties in following the mandate. It seems that there are more registered voters in nearly one dozen California counties than there are people who are eligible to vote.

            Judicial Watch is threatening to sue the State of California if they continue to refuse to comply with the NVRC. Compliance would mean removing the name of all deceased registrants or those people who no longer live in that precinct and ensuring that noncitizens do not register to vote. The conservative watchdog group put their threat in writing with an August 1, 2017, letter to Secretary of State Alex Padilla. The Judicial Watch press release gave the details. 

In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that public records obtained on the Election Assistance Commission’s 2016 Election Administration Voting Survey and through verbal accounts from various county agencies show 11 California counties have more registered voters than voting-age citizens: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (11%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).

In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that Los Angeles County officials “informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.”

            Los Angeles County is a liberal area. If the information on this county was multiplied hundreds of times by the other liberal counties, it could add up to millions of votes. We may now know why Hillary Clinton won California by more than 3.4 million votes!

            This is not the first time for Judicial Watch to threaten to sue a state for not complying with the NVRA. Their press release indicated that they sent a letter to 11 other states in April seeking compliance. Although California is liberal, the list of 11 states includes both Republican and Democrat. They are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee. In addition, a lawsuit was filed on July 18 against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections for non-compliance with NVRA.


            If Judicial Watch is able to force the states to comply, Americans may once again have assurance that the voting process is not tainted and that every American’s vote is counted.

Monday, August 7, 2017

Judge Roy Moore

            My VIP for this week is Judge Roy Moore who is campaigning to fill the Senate seat vacated when then-Senator Jeff Sessions became the Attorney General. Conservatives need the Judge to win the election because he is far from being a part of the “Establishment.” Therefore Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is supporting the Judge’s opposition.

            Bob Unruh at World Net Daily seems to totally support the Judge and gives the following glowing recommendations for him. 

So imagine adding to that mix a senator who’s been a state Supreme Court chief justice, who describes Islam as a “false religion,” who insists marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and declares America is a nation that owes its founding and survival to Almighty God.

            Unruh continues his article by further sharing his reasons why the Judge should be elected to replace Sessions.

He’s the judge who was pushed out of the state Supreme Court 15 years ago after he installed a monument to the Ten Commandments, the foundation of American law, at the state judicial building.

A decade later, voters put him back in the same job.

Then, he was removed again for defending the state’s law establishing traditional marriage, even though technically he likely didn’t do anything wrong and was the victim of a campaign by his enemies, including the Southern Poverty Law Center.

And now, despite the millions of dollars being spent by Sen. Luther Strange, a former state official appointed to replace Sessions until the election, and his own spending of a mere $100,000, he’s in a statistical dead heat.

            This writer hopes that the voters in Alabama support Judge Roy Moore and bring another conservative to the Senate. He is supported by the Alabama Republican Assembly who describes Moore as “a proven fighter, personally and politically, and will stand strong for government that abides by the Constitution.

            The election is schedule for August 15 with nine candidates. Senator Strange is now polling at 35 percent, Moore at 33 percent, Rep. Mo Brooks at 16 percent, and the others far behind. If no candidate wins 50 percent of the votes on the day of the election, there will be a run off between the top two candidates. Two-thirds of registered voters in the state are Republicans.


Sunday, August 6, 2017

Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. This topic becomes popular whenever the Senate does something stupid like not repealing Obamacare, and the call for its repeal came again after Senator John McCain (R-AZ) cast the final, deciding vote against repealing Obamacare.

            Article One of the Constitution of the United States establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, otherwise known as the U.S. Congress. Section 3 establishes the Senate. Clause 1 and 2 are as follows: 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

            The Seventeenth Amendment was established at the beginning of the Progressive era of our nation. It supersedes Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2, and changes the procedures for filling vacancies. 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies, provided that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

            This amendment was proposed by Congress in 1912 and was ratified on April 8, 1913, after it was ratified by three-fourths (36) of the state legislatures. It took effect nationwide in the November 1914 election but was used in a couple of states at earlier times.

            Two questions come to mind: (1) What was the need for the Seventeenth Amendment?
(2) Why did 36 state legislatures voluntarily give up their authority to elect Senators?

            Seth Masket https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2017/8/1/16069872/repealing-17th-amendment-bad-idea published an article with his answers to the above questions. He says that this amendment was one of four amendments (income tax, direct election of senators, Prohibition, and women’s suffrage) that were ratified in the period 1913-1920. This was the beginning of the Progressive era that ushered in a reformation of the government. This reformation apparently “in response to a great many abuses and corruption cases dating from the late 1800s. Political parties were seen as overly strong and corrupt, and as exerting undue control over governmental processes…. The direct election of senators … was seen as a possible remedy.”

            Masket claims that many legislators did not want the responsibility of picking senators. It “paralyzed legislative activity” in some states and “contributed to the polarization of the chamber.” Legislatures outsourced the election of senators to the people much like they outsourced “redistricting powers to nonpartisan commissions.” He summarizes with the following statement.

The 17th Amendment was embraced by legislators and the public as a way to both reduce corruption and take a divisive issue off legislators’ agendas. It’s not at all clear that state legislators want this task back, and there’s little evidence that the public knows or cares much about this effort.

            Masket concludes that there is little to be gained by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment and maybe more problems that it is worth.

Also, unlike many Progressive reforms, it’s hard to detect many unintended, negative consequences of the 17th Amendment. Indeed, one of the surprising things about this amendment was how little effect it had on political outcomes…. There were a few modest effects – post-amendment senators were less likely to emanate from political dynasties, and turnover was a bit higher. But it didn’t dramatically transform American politics.

            I do not know much about Seth Masket or if he can be trusted. I do trust conservative Allen West who published an opposing point of view about the Seventeenth Amendment. He thinks that it is time for us to have a national discussion about this amendment in order for the “people to understand what it is, and why we changed the original vision of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay.” West shares an important civics lesson for Americans, one that should be understood, if not appreciated.

If you haven’t been a student of civics, well, the 17th Amendment changed the way U.S. senators were elected. The Founding Fathers in their utter brilliance had varied the means by which we were entitled to elect representation in America. The House of Representatives … is based strictly on population. And if you want to be able to affect a change with the federal government, every two years you could do that by popular vote. The presidency … was determined by popular vote, but there’s an electoral college that ensures we have a representative democracy, not a pure democracy – a big difference. … [This made a big difference in the 2016 election.] … But the Founders didn’t want heavily-populated areas to decide our chief executive – and this is done every four years….

It’s with the Senate that the Founders had a different vision. It was viewed as the upper legislative chamber, and … each state would have two senators. The difference was that the Founders established that the senators were elected via state legislatures. They believed these individuals, with six-year terms, would be responsive to their states. However, a movement began around the turn of the century to allow the people to vote for senators too. This passed in 1913 during the first American progressive era. It was then believed that state legislatures were too corrupt to have that responsibility – although now many would say the same thing about our federal legislature: the “swamp.”

Imagine if those GOP senators who blocked the repeal of Obamacare could be recalled by their state legislatures, if they could be subject to a vote of “no confidence” and be removed! How differently would these senators act – or any senator? It would certainly preclude the arrogance and defiance of what has become a very lucrative club – not of citizen servants but of those who believe their political position entitles them to lord over us with no retribution, enabling them to become career politicians….

Our U.S. Senate is not a House of Lords – albeit, they tend to believe they are…. But it’s time we assess the repeal of the 17th Amendment, and give state legislatures the ability to elect, and recall, their senators. I just have to ask, if the 17th Amendment didn’t exist, would Arizona, Maine, Alaska, West Virginia, and a few others be looking to replace their current senators?

            Masket almost had me persuaded that there was no need to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. Then I studied West’s civics lesson. The Progressive movement is all about controlling the people. The income tax amendment takes money from the people. Prohibition outlawed alcohol consumption – but was repealed. I do not partake of alcoholic beverages, but I support the right of other people to drink responsibly. The Women’s Suffrage act was the only one of the four amendments to actually bestow more freedom – although I realize that some men still wish women did not vote.


            The Seventeenth Amendment took away the right of the people to recall their senators, and repealing this amendment would give this power back to the state legislatures. This idea greatly appeals to me because I have been displeased with Alaska’s Senator Lisa Murkowski for quite some time. She campaigns as a conservative, but she votes as a liberal. She is more supportive of Democrat causes than those of the Republicans. As two examples, she supports Planned Parenthood, and she voted against repealing Obamacare. Neither of her positions is conservative. Let’s do away with the Seventeenth Amendment and help to clean the swamp.