GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has endorsed a form of amnesty for illegal aliens that apparently has the following features:
1) The illegal must have longevity. Newt mentioned an example of 25 years in the United States.
2) He must have family roots here.
3) He must already have a job.
4) He must not have a criminal record.
5) He will not be offered citizenship.
From what I can see, he's not offering much. In 2001, the Bush administration was comfortable with the figure of 3 million illegal aliens, far less than the 12 million here now. So, what's he offering? Maybe 500,000 green cards?
As for taking citizenship off the table, that means nothing to the illegal aliens. Here's a chart showing the percentage of the 1986 amnesty group who later became citizens.
This illustrates the falsehood of declaring that illegal aliens want the American Dream. They don't. They want to work here and take advantage of our standard of living, but they really don't buy into our Constitutional Laws and our free market economy.
They are perfectly willing to live three of four families to a home and send $300 a month back home. Our main source of all immigrants is Mexico, and their naturalization rates are pathetically low. Only about 25% of eligible Mexicans bother to naturalize, despite campaigns like fee discounts, free classes and even programs to get them on the voter rolls, such as the Al Gore "Citizenship USA" program in 1995.
It appears that Gingrich is offering a plum to attract brown voters without really doing much. Such a move is smart, but oh so dumb. Any form of amnesty is just plain wrong for America and sends the wrong message. To reward bad behavior is never a good idea. And any amnesty really fails to address the litany of local problems caused by black market immigration.
If we don't control entry, we lose everything afterwards. Who are they? Why are they coming? Will they become a public charge? Are they capable of self-insurance? Will they need subsidies for food and housing? Do we have the capacity to educate them?Are they healthy? Do they have criminal intentions? Are they terrorists?
They have bypassed the very reasons we have immigration laws in the first place.
And Newt is spitting in the face of our own unemployed as well as those who are waiting to come here legally.
Perhaps most important is the push back required to hold the line against the 165 million people in the third world who have an eye on the United States as their new home.
What do you do with the 12 million? You enforce the law and they will self-deport. Mandatory E-Verify and a review of the existing workforce will put pressure on those who have false documents and, more importantly, leave unscrupulous employers without excuse. Prosecute the business owners and you will see a vast improvement in compliance.
Deporting people who are here illegally (rather than apologize for them) will send a message that it is no longer safe to live here without papers. They WILL go home once they know we are serious about enforcing our laws.
Gingrich is dead wrong on this one.
Source link on chart: http://cis.org/irca-amnesty
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Free Baba Suwe!
How embarrassing! After 25 days, they've got nothing for the evidence room.
"Leading Nigerian comic actor Babatunde Omidina, known by the stage name as Baba Suwe, raises his hands after being freed on bail for peddling on hard drugs by the Lagos High Court. Omidina was arrested last month at Lagos international airport on suspicion of ingesting drugs to smuggling to Europe but after 25 closely monitored bowel movements produced nothing suspicious"
Follow the link for a photo (of Baba, not the bowel movement):
http://www.breitbart.com/image.php?id=iafpCNG.a42eb30e1d738ea517deb3f5d4cb67e4.a1p0&show_article=1&article_id=CNG.a42eb30e1d738ea517deb3f5d4cb67e4.a1
"Leading Nigerian comic actor Babatunde Omidina, known by the stage name as Baba Suwe, raises his hands after being freed on bail for peddling on hard drugs by the Lagos High Court. Omidina was arrested last month at Lagos international airport on suspicion of ingesting drugs to smuggling to Europe but after 25 closely monitored bowel movements produced nothing suspicious"
Follow the link for a photo (of Baba, not the bowel movement):
http://www.breitbart.com/image.php?id=iafpCNG.a42eb30e1d738ea517deb3f5d4cb67e4.a1p0&show_article=1&article_id=CNG.a42eb30e1d738ea517deb3f5d4cb67e4.a1
Friday, November 4, 2011
2012 - Year of the Illegal Alien
The presidential race is bound to be far different than 2008 when it comes to the subject of illegal aliens.
Rick Perry is proposing a guest worker program that will allow illegal aliens to get work permits, but not citizenship. (The sleight-of-hand here is that only about 22% of Mexican immigrants actually want to become U S citizens. They want the jobs and the freebies, but they don’t really care about naturalization.)
And, like George W. Bush, he demands that we don’t call it amnesty. (That joke is no funnier this time around, Rick.)
I praise Perry for putting this on the table, because it smokes out the positions of the other candidates in the process. Four years ago we didn’t really have that catalyst. The strategy then was to avoid talking about it. But the GOP debates have given an airing of the issue. And that is likely to continue.
Chalk it up to the economy or the Tea Party or New Media, but the candidates can no longer hide from the immigration issue.
And the race card has been played so much that it no longer gets the attention of any but the most ardent Obama supporters. You won’t change their minds no matter what you do.
Obama has made his bed and can only continue to preach legalization. He’s got the party platform requiring it. He’s got the unions demanding it. He’s got the Latino activists crying for it. He’s got an unkept promise hanging over his head. The man has nowhere to run.
And his previous trick of isolating the message with Univision and Telemundo no longer works. The information is out there to the general public as soon as he utters the words, and it only makes him look sly for trying.
And so, cracking down on illegal aliens sells well for the GOP.
1) Conservatives like it
2) The economy calls for it
3) It separates them from the message on the left
4) It speaks to the rule of law
5) There are abundant examples to make the point
Still we must guard against proposals that appear to be fixing the problem, but really do not. Perry’s guest worker permit is one of them. It is very popular these days. Utah has a bill in the works and even Obama is pushing for it. It is nothing more than 245i on steroids.
Another cop-out is the old “Build the dang fence,” message. Border security IS important, but inadequate by itself. Candidates need to talk about E-Verify, visa control, interior enforcement, detention beds, fed-local cooperation, making unlawful presence a felony, tightening up ID theft punishment, worksite raids…
There are large numbers of people watching for the message, and far more outlets for reliable media information. Candidates can no longer control the message by controlling the old media. And conservatives are tied together with e-mail, newsletters, blogs, websites, Facebook, Twitter…the narrative is wide open this time around.
Link to Perry’s amnesty program:
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Whose money is it anyway?
Remember the Drew Carey improv show, "Whose line is it anyway?"
Well, thanks to Tyler Hensley, a young man from Napa, we have the political equivalent of that question.
On September 12, 2011, Tyler asked the GOP Presidential candidates:
"Out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?"
Mormon apostle Dallin Oaks made a similar point regarding tax deductions at a recent Senate hearing on charitable donations, He said, “Some economists and other scholars contend that this is, in effect, a tax expenditure because tax revenues are reduced by the benefit granted. In other words, because the government could have denied the charitable deduction there is a government expenditure in its granting the deduction and forgoing the revenue. By that reasoning the personal income we think is ours is really the government’s because of its choice not to take it away by taxation. That is surely an attitude not shared by most Americans.” (October 18, 2011 Senate Finance Committee Hearing)
Here is a transcript of the answers given to Tyler's question at the debate:
QUESTION: Hi. My name is Tyler Hensley (ph). I'm from Napa, California. My -- well, first of all, thank you guys for coming out tonight. My question is, out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, (R-MN.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Oh, I love that question. I love that question.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Governor Huntsman?
FORMER GOV. JON HUNTSMAN, (R-UT.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I've come out with a tax program that basically simplifies, lowers, flattens the rate, why? Because I did it as governor in the state of Utah; I believe that that experience means something.
And I look at people who are earning, you in the workplace, trying to make ends meet. You ought to be given a competitive tax code. We need to clear out the cobwebs. We need to clear out the deductions, the loopholes, the corporate welfare, and all the subsidies. And for you, you know, we leave it at 8 percent, 14 percent, 24 percent. Those are the three rates that I think would work on the individual income side.
On the corporate side, I think we recognize the reality that a whole lot of companies can afford to have lobbyists and lawyers on Capitol Hill working their magic. Let's recognize the reality that they're all paying 35 percent. We need to lower that to 25 percent. So let's phase out the corporate subsidies and clean out the cobwebs and leave it more competitive for the 21st century.
I can tell you, by doing that with our tax code -- and I know, because we did it in a state that took us to the number-one job creator in this country -- it will leave you and your generation a whole lot better off.
But the thing that you all need to be worried about is the debt that is coming your way, because we have a cancer that is eating away at the core of this country called debt. And it's going to eat -- eat -- eat alive this country until your generation gets active in the 2012 election cycle and finds a leader who can address debt and growth.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.
Speaker Gingrich, some of the biggest companies in the United States, the oil companies, they got -- I guess some would call government handouts in the form of tax breaks, tax exemptions, loopholes. They're making billions and billions of dollars. Is that fair?
FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH, (R-GA.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, I thought for a second, you were going to refer to General Electric, which has paid no taxes.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, I -- I was -- I was astonished the other night to have the president there in the joint session with the head of G.E. sitting up there and the president talking about taking care of loopholes. And I thought to myself, doesn't he realize that every green tax credit is a loophole...
(APPLAUSE)
... that everything he wants -- everything General Electric is doing is a loophole? Now, why did we get to breaks for ethanol, breaks for oil and gas, et cetera? We got to them because of this idea, which the young man just represented. If we make you -- if we make it possible for you to keep more of your own money, you will do more of it.
We have a simple choice. We can depend on Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, or we can encourage development in the United States of manufacturing, as Rick said. We can encourage development of oil and gas. We can do it by saying we're going to let you keep more of your money if you create more of what we want. I'm for an energy- independent America, and that means I favor people who create energy.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: But I just want to follow up, Mr. Speaker. If you eliminate some of those loopholes, those exemptions, whether for ExxonMobil or G.E. or some other companies, there are those who argue that is, in effect, a tax increase and it would violate a pledge that so many Republicans have made not to raise taxes.
GINGRICH: Yes, a lot of people argue that. They're -- they're technically right, which is why I'm -- look, I'm cheerfully opposed to raising taxes. This government -- we have a problem of overspending. We don't have a problem of undertaxing.
And I think that it would be good for us to say, we're not going to raise any -- which is why I'm also in favor of keeping the current tax cut for people who are working on Social Security and Medicare. I think trying to raise the tax on working Americans in the middle of the Obama depression is a destructive policy. So I don't want to have any tax increase at any level for anyone. I want to shrink government to fit income, not raise income to try to catch up with government.
So, I guess none of the candidates had an answer for him. Too bad, because the foundation of policy is ideology, and none of the candidates did very well, did they?
Well, thanks to Tyler Hensley, a young man from Napa, we have the political equivalent of that question.
On September 12, 2011, Tyler asked the GOP Presidential candidates:
"Out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?"
Mormon apostle Dallin Oaks made a similar point regarding tax deductions at a recent Senate hearing on charitable donations, He said, “Some economists and other scholars contend that this is, in effect, a tax expenditure because tax revenues are reduced by the benefit granted. In other words, because the government could have denied the charitable deduction there is a government expenditure in its granting the deduction and forgoing the revenue. By that reasoning the personal income we think is ours is really the government’s because of its choice not to take it away by taxation. That is surely an attitude not shared by most Americans.” (October 18, 2011 Senate Finance Committee Hearing)
Here is a transcript of the answers given to Tyler's question at the debate:
QUESTION: Hi. My name is Tyler Hensley (ph). I'm from Napa, California. My -- well, first of all, thank you guys for coming out tonight. My question is, out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, (R-MN.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Oh, I love that question. I love that question.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Governor Huntsman?
FORMER GOV. JON HUNTSMAN, (R-UT.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I've come out with a tax program that basically simplifies, lowers, flattens the rate, why? Because I did it as governor in the state of Utah; I believe that that experience means something.
And I look at people who are earning, you in the workplace, trying to make ends meet. You ought to be given a competitive tax code. We need to clear out the cobwebs. We need to clear out the deductions, the loopholes, the corporate welfare, and all the subsidies. And for you, you know, we leave it at 8 percent, 14 percent, 24 percent. Those are the three rates that I think would work on the individual income side.
On the corporate side, I think we recognize the reality that a whole lot of companies can afford to have lobbyists and lawyers on Capitol Hill working their magic. Let's recognize the reality that they're all paying 35 percent. We need to lower that to 25 percent. So let's phase out the corporate subsidies and clean out the cobwebs and leave it more competitive for the 21st century.
I can tell you, by doing that with our tax code -- and I know, because we did it in a state that took us to the number-one job creator in this country -- it will leave you and your generation a whole lot better off.
But the thing that you all need to be worried about is the debt that is coming your way, because we have a cancer that is eating away at the core of this country called debt. And it's going to eat -- eat -- eat alive this country until your generation gets active in the 2012 election cycle and finds a leader who can address debt and growth.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.
Speaker Gingrich, some of the biggest companies in the United States, the oil companies, they got -- I guess some would call government handouts in the form of tax breaks, tax exemptions, loopholes. They're making billions and billions of dollars. Is that fair?
FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH, (R-GA.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, I thought for a second, you were going to refer to General Electric, which has paid no taxes.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, I -- I was -- I was astonished the other night to have the president there in the joint session with the head of G.E. sitting up there and the president talking about taking care of loopholes. And I thought to myself, doesn't he realize that every green tax credit is a loophole...
(APPLAUSE)
... that everything he wants -- everything General Electric is doing is a loophole? Now, why did we get to breaks for ethanol, breaks for oil and gas, et cetera? We got to them because of this idea, which the young man just represented. If we make you -- if we make it possible for you to keep more of your own money, you will do more of it.
We have a simple choice. We can depend on Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, or we can encourage development in the United States of manufacturing, as Rick said. We can encourage development of oil and gas. We can do it by saying we're going to let you keep more of your money if you create more of what we want. I'm for an energy- independent America, and that means I favor people who create energy.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: But I just want to follow up, Mr. Speaker. If you eliminate some of those loopholes, those exemptions, whether for ExxonMobil or G.E. or some other companies, there are those who argue that is, in effect, a tax increase and it would violate a pledge that so many Republicans have made not to raise taxes.
GINGRICH: Yes, a lot of people argue that. They're -- they're technically right, which is why I'm -- look, I'm cheerfully opposed to raising taxes. This government -- we have a problem of overspending. We don't have a problem of undertaxing.
And I think that it would be good for us to say, we're not going to raise any -- which is why I'm also in favor of keeping the current tax cut for people who are working on Social Security and Medicare. I think trying to raise the tax on working Americans in the middle of the Obama depression is a destructive policy. So I don't want to have any tax increase at any level for anyone. I want to shrink government to fit income, not raise income to try to catch up with government.
So, I guess none of the candidates had an answer for him. Too bad, because the foundation of policy is ideology, and none of the candidates did very well, did they?
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The GOP in Vegas
Last night was the GOP presidential debate in Las Vegas, broadcast by CNN.
More than ever the candidates talked about immigration reform. The fence was the first topic and a couple of people suggested all 2,100 miles of it.
That may be overkill, but others talked about strategic placement, drone monitoring and a rapid response by BP agents. That's more like it. Our problem in the past is that executive control of enforcement on the border amounted to enforcing to the desired number.
For example, if you want to "prove" that fewer people are trying to cross, you either TBS (meaning that when you catch someone, instead of doing the paperwork you simply tell them to turn around) or you sit on an "X" (meaning that the BP agents position themselves in one spot, allowing illegals to avoid arrest by using another path). There are ways to make the numbers say anything you want.
Some candidates talked about military presence ("boots on the ground") to stop the flow. The obvious follow-up question involves the rules of engagement. Will they patrol the border? Will they carry weapons? We learned that when they "call out the guard," all they are doing is acting as construction workers to put up light poles and build fences. A few sit in buildings and monitor screens for movement.
Real military presence would mean true force-multipliers for the BP. And when you do that, expect backlash from Mexico. Are these candidates willing to stand tall against Calderon? That seems like a stupid question, but this president and the last one have been cowards when it comes to Mexican diplomacy.
Some of the GOP candidates were bold enough to talk about mandatory E-Verify.
None talked about deportation, detention beds, withholding benefits and local cooperation programs.
I'm glad they are talking about enforcement, and glad they are talking tough. But there is still much that is left unsaid.
More than ever the candidates talked about immigration reform. The fence was the first topic and a couple of people suggested all 2,100 miles of it.
That may be overkill, but others talked about strategic placement, drone monitoring and a rapid response by BP agents. That's more like it. Our problem in the past is that executive control of enforcement on the border amounted to enforcing to the desired number.
For example, if you want to "prove" that fewer people are trying to cross, you either TBS (meaning that when you catch someone, instead of doing the paperwork you simply tell them to turn around) or you sit on an "X" (meaning that the BP agents position themselves in one spot, allowing illegals to avoid arrest by using another path). There are ways to make the numbers say anything you want.
Some candidates talked about military presence ("boots on the ground") to stop the flow. The obvious follow-up question involves the rules of engagement. Will they patrol the border? Will they carry weapons? We learned that when they "call out the guard," all they are doing is acting as construction workers to put up light poles and build fences. A few sit in buildings and monitor screens for movement.
Real military presence would mean true force-multipliers for the BP. And when you do that, expect backlash from Mexico. Are these candidates willing to stand tall against Calderon? That seems like a stupid question, but this president and the last one have been cowards when it comes to Mexican diplomacy.
Some of the GOP candidates were bold enough to talk about mandatory E-Verify.
None talked about deportation, detention beds, withholding benefits and local cooperation programs.
I'm glad they are talking about enforcement, and glad they are talking tough. But there is still much that is left unsaid.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
AWOL Senators
Perhaps Washington is too busy. Perhaps they have too many meetings.
But one thing is certain: They do a lousy job of representing us.
A case in point is a Senate Finance Committee hearing held today (October 18, 2011)
Keep in mind that this committee consists of 24 members, about half from each party.
The topic was tax deductions for charitable giving.
Now, some photos of the proceedings:
This screen shot shows Max Baucus as Chairman. He will open the meeting and stay for 20 minutes of the two hour hearing.
Grassley makes an appearance and makes a statement, then leaves. He shows no interest in what the presenters have to say.
Cardin, Carper and Thune also attended parts of the hearing. And they had questions for the panel of five.
At one point, about 75 minutes in, Hatch excuses himself, leaving the meeting without a chairman.
At the end, he was alone to swing the gavel.
How in the world do our leaders expect to lead when they don't even attend the meetings?
Here's a nugget of truth from one of the presenters at the hearing:
For the record, here is a list of all the Senate Finance Committee members.
But one thing is certain: They do a lousy job of representing us.
A case in point is a Senate Finance Committee hearing held today (October 18, 2011)
Keep in mind that this committee consists of 24 members, about half from each party.
The topic was tax deductions for charitable giving.
Now, some photos of the proceedings:
This screen shot shows Max Baucus as Chairman. He will open the meeting and stay for 20 minutes of the two hour hearing.
Grassley makes an appearance and makes a statement, then leaves. He shows no interest in what the presenters have to say.
Cardin, Carper and Thune also attended parts of the hearing. And they had questions for the panel of five.
At one point, about 75 minutes in, Hatch excuses himself, leaving the meeting without a chairman.At the end, he was alone to swing the gavel.
How in the world do our leaders expect to lead when they don't even attend the meetings?
Here's a nugget of truth from one of the presenters at the hearing:
“Some economists and other scholars contend that this is, in effect, a tax expenditure because tax revenues are reduced by the benefit granted. In other words, because the government could have denied the charitable deduction there is a government expenditure in its granting the deduction and forgoing the revenue. By that reasoning the personal income we think is ours is really the government’s because of its choice not to take it away by taxation. That is surely an attitude not shared by most Americans.”
Elder Dallin H Oaks, Senate Hearing on Charitable Giving, October 18, 2011
For the record, here is a list of all the Senate Finance Committee members.
Chairman: Max Baucus, Democrat MT
Ranking member: Orrin Hatch, Republican UT
Democrats
John D. Rockefeller IV WV
Kent Conrad ND
Jeff Bingaman NM
John F. Kerry MA
Ron Wyden OR
Charles E. Schumer NY
Debbie Stabenow MI
Maria Cantwell WA
Bill Nelson FL
Robert Menendez NJ
Thomas R. Carper DE
Benjamin L. Cardin MD
Republicans
Chuck Grassley IA
Olympia J. Snowe ME
Jon Kyl AZ
Mike Crapo ID
Pat Roberts KS
Michael B. Enzi WY
John Cornyn TX
Tom Coburn OK
John Thune SD
Richard Burr NC
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
A 46-year-old time capsule
this is now.
I take you back to the year 1965. It was a time of unrest in America. Students were burning everything from bras to draft cards, with a few American flags and effigies of Presidents thrown in for good measure.
A prophetic voice sounded in the form of Gordon B. Hinckley, then an apostle of the LDS Church. (We would do well to note that Mitt Romney’s father was probably in attendance at the meeting. It is clear that he raised his children according to the principles outlined by Hinckley. Obama was probably never taught anything of the sort, since his mother was one of the protesters of the day. Just sayin’.)
Hinckley opened the Saturday morning session of the LDS General Conference on October 2, 1965. His sermon was titled, “A Charter for Youth.”
Below are excerpts from his remarks:
It is a four-point charter. It is a bill of entitlement, setting forth briefly some of those priceless values we owe every young American, and the youth of the world. They are—
1. A home to grow in.
I mention first a home to grow in. I recently read an article written by a young man who roamed the Berkeley campus and its environs. His descriptions were clever, but his illustrations were tragic. He told of a girl, a student from an affluent home. Her father was a man of means, an executive of a large corporation, loyal to the company, loyal to his club, loyal to his party, but unwittingly a traitor to his family. Her mother had saved the civic opera, but had lost her children. The daughter, a child of promise, had become entangled in a student revolt, and without an anchor, had quit school, and had drifted to the beatnik crowd, her will-o'-the-wisp satisfactions coming only from nights of reveling and days of rebellion.
Of course, her father mourned and her mother wept. They blamed her, evidently unaware of their own miserable example of parenthood which had done much to bring her to the tragic circumstances in which she found herself.
As I read that account there passed through my mind the classic statement uttered at this pulpit by President McKay—"No other success can compensate for failure in the home."
It is the rightful heritage of every child to be part of a home in which to grow—to grow in love in the family relationship, to grow in appreciation one for another, to grow in understanding of the things of the world, to grow in knowledge of the things of God.
I was recently handed these statistics taken from the county records of one of our Southwest communities. In 1964 in this county of which I speak, there were 5807 marriages and 5419 divorces, almost one divorce for every marriage. Can we expect stability out of instability? Is it any wonder that many of our youth wander in rebellion when they come from homes where there is no evidence of love, where there is a lack of respect one for another, where there is no expression of faith? We hear much these days of the Great Society, and I do not disparage the motives of those who espouse it, but we shall have a great society only as we develop good people, and the source of good people is good homes.
It was said of old, "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it" ( Ps. 127:1).
2. An Education Worth Striving For
I move to the second premise of this charter for youth—an education worth striving for. Time will permit little more than a brief mention of a few observations.
Education has become our largest business. On the basis of economics alone, it is larger than steel, or automobiles, or chemicals. On the basis of its influence upon our society, its impact is incalculable. Its very size, particularly in our universities, has brought into relief its most serious problem—a lack of communication between teacher and student, and a consequent lack of motivation of those who come to be taught.
A recent article in one of our national magazines contained this statement from a college teacher: ". . . there has hardly been a time, in my experience, when students needed more attention and patient listening to by experienced professors than today. The pity is that so many of us retreat into research, government contracts, and sabbatical travel, leaving counsel and instruction to junior colleagues and graduate assistants . . . What is needed are fewer books and articles by college professors and more cooperative search by teacher and taught for an authority upon which to base freedom and individuality." (J. Glenn Gray, Harper's Magazine, May 1965; p. 59.)
The great thoughts, the great expressions, the great acts of all time deserve more than cursory criticism. They deserve a sympathetic and an enthusiastic presentation to youth, who in their hearts hunger for ideals and long to look at the stars. Nor is it our responsibility as teachers to destroy the faith of those who come to us, it is our opportunity to recognize and build on that faith. If God be the author of all truth, as we believe, then there can be no conflict between true science, true philosophy, and true religion.
3. A Land To Be Proud of
I move to the next—a land to be proud of. Congress recently passed a law inflicting heavy penalties for the willful destruction of draft cards. That destruction was essentially an act of defiance, but it was most serious as a symptom of a malady that is not likely to be cured by legislation. Patriotism evidently is gone from the hearts of many of our youth.
Perhaps this condition comes of lack of knowledge, a provincialism that knows nothing else and scoffs at what little it knows. Perhaps it comes of ingratitude. This attitude is not new. Joshua, speaking for the Lord, doubtless had in mind this same indifference when he said to a new generation that had not known the trials of the old: ". . . I have given you a land for which ye did not labour, and cities which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyards and oliveyards which ye planted not do ye eat" ( Josh. 24:13).
We shall not build love of country by taking away from our youth the principles which made us strong—thrift, initiative, self-reliance, and an overriding sense of duty to God and to man.
A terrible price has been paid by those who have gone before us, this that we might have the blessings of liberty and peace. I stood not long ago at Valley Forge, where George Washington and his ragged army spent the winter of 1776. As I did so, I thought of a scene from Maxwell Anderson's play in which Washington looks on a little group of his soldiers, shoveling the cold earth over a dead comrade, and says grimly, "This liberty will look easy by and by when nobody dies to get it."
How we need to kindle in the hearts of youth an old-fashioned love of country and a reverence for the land of their birth. But we shall not do it with tawdry political maneuvering and enormous handouts for which nothing is given in return.
Love of country is born of nobler stuff—of the challenge of struggle that makes precious the prize that's earned.
This is a good land, declared by the Lord in the scripture in which we believe to be ". . . a land . . . choice above all other lands" ( 1 Ne. 2:20), governed under a constitution framed under the inspiration of the Almighty.
4. A Faith To Live By
And now the fourth premise of my charter—a faith to live by.
It was said of old that "where there is no vision, the people perish" ( Prov. 29:18). Vision of what? Vision concerning the things of God, and a stem and unbending adherence to divinely pronounced standards. There is evidence aplenty that young people will respond to the clear call of divine truth, but they are quick to detect and abandon that which has only a form of godliness but denies the power thereof ( 2 Tim. 3:5), "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" ( Matt. 15:9; see JS—H 1:19).
I have sincere respect for my brethren of other faiths, and I know that they are aware of the great problem they face in a dilution of their teachings as some try to make their doctrine more generally acceptable. Dr. Robert McAffee Brown, professor of religion at Stanford, was recently quoted as saying:
"Much of what is going on at present on the Protestant scene gives the impression of being willing to jettison whatever is necessary in order to appeal to the modern mentality . . .
"It is not the task of Christians to whittle away their heritage until it is finally palatable to all." (The Daily Herald, [Provo, Utah], August 12, 1965, p. 13-A.)
To this we might add that what is palatable to all is not likely to be satisfying to any, and particularly to a generation of searching, questioning, seeking, probing young men and women.
In all the change about them, they need a constancy of faith in unchanging verities. They need the testimony of their parents and their teachers, of their preachers and their leaders that God our Eternal Father lives and rules over the universe; that Jesus is the Christ, his Only Begotten in the flesh, the Savior of the world, that the heavens are not sealed; that revelation comes to those appointed of God to receive it; that divine authority is upon the earth.
Source link:
http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1430
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





