Thursday, February 03, 2005
The President is Supposed to be Our Executive
“There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against their enemies.” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson,
p. 614; see also pp. 682 & 704.)
“Many well-intentioned people are now convinced that we are living in a period of history which makes it both possible and necessary to abandon our national sovereignty, to merge our nation militarily, economically, and politically with other nations, and to form, at last, a world government which supposedly would put an end to war.” (Ibid., p. 695.)
This just posted by David Goodyear:
Liberty and Democracy are incompatible...
We are not and never have been a democracy. Our system of government was set up as a republic. Unfortunately it had too many democratic chromosomes to survive very long. The republic died with the civil war. Since then we have become a socialist democratic republic. The Constitution is violated on a daily basis by the very government officials sworn to protect it. And not content with demonstrating to the world again, that democracies will not protect the rights of individuals, we have undertaken to spread democracy throughout the world, thereby contaminating other cultures and economic systems with the cancerous socialism of democratic government.
Gunner sends us to this article which decribes what liberty is ( I think many of you have no clue...)
To clear the decks, let me say right off the bat, that freedom is NOT the same as democracy. In fact, democracy can be shown to be inimical to freedom.
The counting of heads, or the will of the majority, in no way protects or guarantees freedom. In fact, freedom can be utterly obliterated under democracy--as the rise of Hitler's National Socialist Workers Party did prove.
So let's forget about democracy, and concentrate on freedom.
I'm all for spreading freedom around the world--but before you can do that, you need to understand exactly what it is.
Can freedom be defined in one sentence, one phrase, or one word? Is it possible to define freedom in a way that will eliminate confusion?
I believe there is. The foundation of freedom is the principle of "self ownership." More here...And...from "Democratic Dictatorships"...
Democracy has failed as a system of government, it has failed to protect the natural rights of the individual, it has failed to maintain a free enterprise system and it has failed to provide rule of law based upon objective justice. Democratic systems have become dominated by cartels formed between political parties, corporations and special interests that corrupt the system and turn the "law" into a weapon of exploitation and petty tyranny. Because democracy always leads to mob rule, no one's rights are safe, in its purest form, direct democracy leads to the passions of the mob overwhelming the rights of minorities, while the Republican system of representative democracy results in powerful special interests seizing power and running roughshod over the rights of individuals. The most corrupting effect of this system is the institutionalization of crimes against natural human rights, a system where the "law" is used as an instrument of theft, oppression and murder against those who exercise their rights in ways counter to the interests of those in power. Under the cult of democracy, any legislation, any program, any action which has the stamp of approval from the voters is seen as sacrosanct. This leads to an almost complete suppression of any meaningful public debate that questions the foundations of the democratic system itself. The public debate then becomes, how to go about plundering the world to serve the interests of those who compete for power.
More here...
Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, stated: "One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one....An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.
“There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against their enemies.” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson,
p. 614; see also pp. 682 & 704.)
“Many well-intentioned people are now convinced that we are living in a period of history which makes it both possible and necessary to abandon our national sovereignty, to merge our nation militarily, economically, and politically with other nations, and to form, at last, a world government which supposedly would put an end to war.” (Ibid., p. 695.)
This just posted by David Goodyear:
Liberty and Democracy are incompatible...
We are not and never have been a democracy. Our system of government was set up as a republic. Unfortunately it had too many democratic chromosomes to survive very long. The republic died with the civil war. Since then we have become a socialist democratic republic. The Constitution is violated on a daily basis by the very government officials sworn to protect it. And not content with demonstrating to the world again, that democracies will not protect the rights of individuals, we have undertaken to spread democracy throughout the world, thereby contaminating other cultures and economic systems with the cancerous socialism of democratic government.
Gunner sends us to this article which decribes what liberty is ( I think many of you have no clue...)
To clear the decks, let me say right off the bat, that freedom is NOT the same as democracy. In fact, democracy can be shown to be inimical to freedom.
The counting of heads, or the will of the majority, in no way protects or guarantees freedom. In fact, freedom can be utterly obliterated under democracy--as the rise of Hitler's National Socialist Workers Party did prove.
So let's forget about democracy, and concentrate on freedom.
I'm all for spreading freedom around the world--but before you can do that, you need to understand exactly what it is.
Can freedom be defined in one sentence, one phrase, or one word? Is it possible to define freedom in a way that will eliminate confusion?
I believe there is. The foundation of freedom is the principle of "self ownership." More here...And...from "Democratic Dictatorships"...
Democracy has failed as a system of government, it has failed to protect the natural rights of the individual, it has failed to maintain a free enterprise system and it has failed to provide rule of law based upon objective justice. Democratic systems have become dominated by cartels formed between political parties, corporations and special interests that corrupt the system and turn the "law" into a weapon of exploitation and petty tyranny. Because democracy always leads to mob rule, no one's rights are safe, in its purest form, direct democracy leads to the passions of the mob overwhelming the rights of minorities, while the Republican system of representative democracy results in powerful special interests seizing power and running roughshod over the rights of individuals. The most corrupting effect of this system is the institutionalization of crimes against natural human rights, a system where the "law" is used as an instrument of theft, oppression and murder against those who exercise their rights in ways counter to the interests of those in power. Under the cult of democracy, any legislation, any program, any action which has the stamp of approval from the voters is seen as sacrosanct. This leads to an almost complete suppression of any meaningful public debate that questions the foundations of the democratic system itself. The public debate then becomes, how to go about plundering the world to serve the interests of those who compete for power.
More here...
Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, stated: "One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one....An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.
I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. It will be saved by the righteous citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—among others—men and women who understand and abide the principles of the Constitution.
--Ezra Taft Benson - Our Divine Constitution
Comments:
Post a Comment
