Independence Day 2015-Why We Are Celebrating Today

British colonies had been established on the North American continent for well over a hundred years. The French and Indian war had shortly been brought to peace just a decade earlier. For about two decades however, legislation had been passed with continued hostility toward the American colonies, without any representation. The intolerable acts drove the colonies to act. With the Boston Tea Party coupled with the battles of Lexington and Concord and Bunker Hill, the colonies had entered into pure state of rebellion. By summer it became clear that the crown was sending an expeditionary force to enforce it's will upon the colonies, and that this force would include foreign mercenaries known for their ruthlessness.

Congress had been meeting for months on the matter of independence. On June 11th it was decided that a committee to draft a resolution to declare independence should be formed. This committee was made up of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston and a young Virginian named Thomas Jefferson. It was decided that Jefferson(the only member from the southern states) would be the member to write the initial draft. After revisions by the committee and by congress as a whole, the final document was voted on and accepted on July 2nd. Final approval came two days latter on July 4th, or the day we now refer to as Independence day. I wish now to quote from that document :

"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, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

With those words on that day our founders staked our claim as a nation to independence. However, it was not ours to be had by merely laying claim to it. Our independence was not easily won. Many men gave their lives for the hope of a future nation, and for the hope that with such a nation our natural rights would be ours to be had for us and for generations to come. For 238 years now we have looked back to that founding, as our assertion that there are certain rights that no government should usurp without due process of law. This declaration established our reasons for breaking allegiance to our mother country, and firmly rooted within our culture the ideas of freedom from oppression and liberty of thought action. We as Americans have held their sacrifice as sacred within our hearts and we have honored them through the past two centuries.

Independence was won eventually, but it was not until another document was also written that our nation was on placed on a firm foundation. Our constitution was enacted  to ensure that these rights and privileges would continue to be protected. It established law and justice in our country as well as ways for individual citizens to address their grievances through a representative republic.

 This document established our country on a firm foundation of law and justice that has governed us well for over 200 years. Our path as a nation has not been the easiest, we have had times of prosperity and peace, and we have had times of depression and war. Overall though, we have shown that as we work together, not always agreeing but finding ways to compromise that we can accomplish great things. I do not believe that the days of our great accomplishments are past, and I still see America as a shining beacon on a hill, standing as an example that democracy can work.

As we celebrate our nation this Independence day let us not forget those who have sacrificed all to protect our nation and our freedoms. Let us remember them and honor them for their heroic sacrifice. Let us remember our founders and their great work. And let us look to the future with hope that the future years will bring hope and prosperity to our nation once again.

We are celebrating today because we have a great nation established on freedom and justice. Many have paid with their lives so that we may live in peace. So wave a flag, sing our national anthem, grill some hot dogs and watch some fireworks, but please remember what we are celebrating.

Let's Get to work on Immigration Reform

I am a conservative and I support immigration reform. In fact I also support a form of amnesty for a good number of illegal immigrants that our currently in our country. Our country has been facing a long standing question on immigration reform, which is: What should we do about the 11 million undocumented illegal immigrants who are living in our country? Should we deport them all to their country of origin, grant them amnesty and let them stay with a path to citizenship or just continue to ignore the problem and hope that it just gets taken care of on its own.

Now let me make this clear I do support all current laws on the books and I think that Obama's actions of giving amnesty without legal backing is unconstitutional. It is his duty to execute the law as dictated by congress; he does not have the authority to pick and choose which laws to execute.

Being a firm believer that presidential authority has surpassed constitutional limits through  decades of overreach, I  firmly believe that the president's authority should be scaled back significantly. The easier it is for the president to act without restraints and checks, the easier it will be for an evil man as president to bring upon mankind tyranny and injustice.

As a full supporter of the law, I support congressional authority on this issue, as it is a national issue, which affects the entire country in trade, security, education, and health care.

Considering the events of the last few weeks, securing our border has never been more important. Before addressing the topic of what is being considered I want to first discuss where I have come from so maybe you will see how I have come to my point of view on the issue.

There was a point several years ago where I was all for kicking out every illegal immigrant from our country. They broke our laws, came here illegally and had to be punished for that no matter what. This lasted for a quite a while.

One day I shared these opinions with my mom and she responded by asking me "what about your Aunt?" I have an Aunt who had recently married my Uncle, a paranoid schizophrenic. She came here legally but lost legal status and just stayed here and has since struggled to work toward legal status. I thought about this for a little while.

Before this point I hadn't known anyone who was in the U.S. illegally. I was still stuck in my thoughts and opinions, but it started me thinking. If she were to be deported, what would be the impact on my uncle? He would probably have another episode or possibly something worse.

 While in college I talked to several people including a friend who was working on his path to citizenship. He was born in Canada, but moved to the U.S. around age 3. It took him over 18 years to be able to get citizenship. Even for those who marry citizens the path is not always clear or easy. It can be a long, laborious process that takes many years.

There was a time that we welcomed everyone to come to America. I’m not suggesting that we encourage everyone to come here, but by far we seem to believe that only a few people should come - that they should be similar to who we already are and should speak English perfectly. We used to be a melting pot of countries, ideas and immigrants, but now we are becoming more intolerant and ignorant of other cultures and beliefs.

 In 2007 I was in Las Vegas, and I saw many people whom I was familiar with take to the streets to rally for immigration reform that had been supported by President George W. Bush. This attempt at reform was struck down by congressional Republicans. A few years passed, and our country dipped into what is now being referred to as the Great Recession. I talked with friends of mine from Vegas who mentioned that many illegal immigrants were returning back to their countries due to lack of work. I wondered if this would continue. If so we would not have a problem anymore. The issue with that idea is that many of these people grew up in the U.S, and to them this is their country and many of them don't even speak the home language of their country of birth.

While interning in the Senate I had a long discussion once about my views on immigration with a fellow intern, during which we did some what-ifs. What if someone was brought here as a 2 year old and they are now 23, have never known the country they were born in, and only know this country as their home? How then do you justify punishing a 2 year old for the actions of their parents? I still remained pretty stiff in my response. I looked at what I felt is the burden of illegal immigration. If somehow we got rid of 11 million immigrants then maybe the 14 million people who are out of work would have enough jobs available for them. Maybe our school system would get better, maybe our country wouldn't have as much debt.

 I even thoroughly liked Mitt Romney's idea of self deportation by discouraging illegal immigrants through e-verify and similar methods. The change had started though, as I realized how my ancestors had come to this nation at a time when this land was a shining beacon to all who wanted a new life. We didn't tell others that they couldn't come to our nation because they were poor, or because they couldn't speak the language.

Instead we inscribed on the Statue of Liberty the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."  

Now that I've addressed some whys of immigration reform, let's think about the what. What is being considered? The current senate bill that was passed last year included a long list of ideas including securing the borders, a path to citizenship for illegal's and changing and modernizing the rules for legal immigration to prevent such a backlog and some of the other issues occurring due to the current system.

A simple breakdown of the bill can be found here. I will not go into detail as you can find all of that information for yourself about some of the benefits here, here and here. I would also suggest taking a look at both the Heritage Foundation's opinion and the Cato Institute's opinion on the issues.  I will say a few words however. The bill calls for significant increases to border security through drones and electronic surveillance equipment in addition to the security increase we have seen in the last decade. It would establish a board made up of state leaders to determine when securing the border is complete, which would be made in a final decision by the Director of Homeland Security. Also it calls for an effective plan to enforce employers using documented legal employees which would most likely be through the e-verify system.

This bill may not be perfect, but so far it is the best plan that I have seen. We need our legislators to get to work on this issue now, and stop kicking it down the road for the next Congress to deal with.

Part of the bill also lays out a plan for dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants, giving preferred green cards for those who obtain advanced degrees in areas such as science, math, and engineering. In dealing with the 11 million illegal immigrants the plan calls for increased background checks for immigrants and increased cooperation between government organizations in order to respond to issues that come up. It would create a tracking system to make sure that those who come legally continue to abide here legally.

Those who are currently here illegally could apply for legal status if they pay a fine, pay back taxes, and if they pass a background check. They would then be on probationary legal status. However, for full legal status and a green card they would still have to get to the back of the line and wait for all security measures to be put in place. The earliest that any of them could become citizens is in the late 2020's. They also would not get access to public benefits, such as welfare, until granted full citizenship.

So what has been the response to this plan? Some republicans continue to raise the issue that amnesty supports tearing down our current system of laws and encouraging people to break them in the future, although the party seems split on the issue. Earlier this week there was some suggestion that maybe we should rethink pushing immigration reform right now coming from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), but this was shot down by several republican members of congress including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Also, with this has come the issue of whether to pass a comprehensive bill or to go through the process of passing some of the bills piecemeal. Some members suggested that attaching amnesty would surely doom the bill.  The House is set to consider several portions of the bill in small pieces including security and legal immigration changes.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has lead the front to support the bill from the republican side. He recently went to the senate floor to support reform at this time saying, “Here’s my encouragement to my colleagues who don’t agree with the bill that we’ve crafted – change it. Let’s work on changing it. If you believe that what we have today is broken, if you believe that the status quo on immigration is chaos and a disaster...If you believe our laws are not being enforced and we need to pass laws that force the administration – this one and a future one – to enforce our laws, let’s change it. I’m all ears." Surely none of us is opposed to enforcing our proper laws and having a president that supports and upholds the laws of the land are we? However the current system does not do that: it encourages the president to act on his own and not have to take responsibility for his actions.

He continued by saying, "But let’s not leave it the way it is, because the way it is chaos. It’s bad for our country. What we have today is not good for the United States. And our job as policy-makers is not just to come here and criticize. Our job is to come here and to make a difference. .. And what we have now just doesn’t work, it’s not good for our country. We can’t leave it this way. And we have a chance now to, I think, truly improve it. This is not an effort to force anything down anyone’s throat. This bill that we’ve worked on is a starting point. It’s not a take it or leave it proposition. It never has been....Let’s work together. Let’s come up with a solution that modernizes our legal immigration system so it’s good for our economy, that once and for all forces the administration – this one and future ones – to enforce our immigration laws, and that once and for all deals with the 11 million people that are here illegally in a way that’s fair and compassionate. But also fair to the people that did it right, and also a way that ensures that this never ever happens again.”

So what are my views on this issue? Greatly changed: partly due to an increased compassion for other people who I have met and who I have not; partly due to politics and seeing that real change could be made here and now and that we need more compromise; and partly because I understand that there are millions of people that are affected by living here illegally that could be productive members of our society if we allow them.

This plan is fair and fairly straightforward. It does bring about a consequence for those who have committed the crime of coming here illegally through fines, back taxes, a waiting period, and through back of the line status. It also upholds our laws by helping us to have 11 million immigrants become legal. I wonder sometimes how many crimes are not reported because someone is afraid to call the police out of fear that they or their parents might get deported over it. It would lay out a pretty clear plan that would have to be followed with the opportunities for our border to be secured and for people to be able to come to the U.S. legally in the future.

It also allows for the great American Dream to spread further to these people who have come here for a new life, one which they hoped would be better than the one that they left. There was a time when America was a shining beacon to the world of freedom for the oppressed peoples of the world. We even inscribed on the Statue of Liberty the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Those who would benefit from this bill are for the most part looking for hope and freedom, much like most of our ancestors when they came here. This plan gives them that hope. This hope and freedom was what we were founded upon. Let us not fail again to be the hope of a brighter day to the world by oppressing those within our country who wish to partake of the American dream.

NSA PRISM How Far is Too Far?

By Tim Newton
The Guardian reports that the NSA has gone further in it's collection of private data in wide spread gathering, using a program called "PRISM" to collect private data from several top internet companies including Facebook, Yahoo, and Google.  To quote from their article:

 "The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers."
All of the companies involved claim that they have not willingly participated in this program, and have denied all knowledge of said program. This program again falls under the reauthorized Patriot Act provisions, which allow for this and similar types of monitoring as we saw with the collection of data from Verizon subscribers. 

President Obama today responded to these actions by saying “They make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity,” Obama said. He added that the programs are “under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and they do not involve listening to people’s phone calls, do not involve reading the e-mails of U.S. citizens and U.S. residents.” He also said “You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” Obama said. “We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”

The question each of us must be asking is was I part of this, and if so why was I included? A CNN poll taken shortly after the Boston Marathon Bombing shows that 49% of Americans are not willing to give up their civil liberties to fight terrorism, with 40% saying they would. Since the beginning of the institutions of governments by mankind we have had a constant struggle with balancing the rights of the individual and the protection of many. With the increasingly difficult blurry line in the global war on terror, including domestic terrorism it becomes difficult to see where our government won't go to "protect" us. I am not saying that we will soon see anything like "1984," or "V for Vendetta." I am however realistic in my view of government. It also begs the question is it necessary? Are acts of terrorism preventable by such means, and if so where is the line and who is watching the line of how far is too far? 

In 2007 a popular senator heavily criticized the same tactics employed today. "That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing but protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient." Yes, that would be our current President who said that. Watch the full speech below.
 


Our country was founded, when men seeing that their rights were being abridged in the name of protection, became fed up with those actions and pulled away from their national government. In the Declaration of Independence it says:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

Now mind you Jefferson did not specify all unalienable rights that we have inherently been endowed with, but he makes it clear that if a Government becomes destructive of the rights of man we must alter it in one form or another. I think the first step is to increase congressional oversight and accountability. Congress was trusted by the founders with more powers precisely because it takes longer for it to act, and by the slow movement through compromise the rights of individuals have a greater tendency to remain protected. Even our current president, when a member of congress could easily see that this was an overreach of power. Something within his greed and ambition seems to have blinded him from the fact that these actions are clearly overstepping his constitutional bounds, as he himself said then:

"To target and gather such data and expect the American people to just trust that the data will be kept and protected from abuses would mean we would basically have to forget about all of human history, which has shown that eventually when people are given power they will seek to abuse it. When first enacted, there was heavy concern by individuals in the nation that social security numbers would become a way of identifying and singling out individuals, so there was a guarantee that social security numbers would never be used as an identification method. Just one example how about the IRS targeting that we continue to learn more about? At hearing after hearing Lois Lerner and Steve Miller denied that such targeting was occurring, even as they new it was occurring. 

Again I'm not saying that government serves no purpose, but that government should be constrained and not left to roam free. We have an established constitution, which should be followed."



It seems after each of these questions people have asked so what should be done? My answer to that so what is this, let's focus on reigning in presidential power again, increase our checks and balances, and make sure that the government is held accountable by the people for actions that are violating our rights. Several of our founders thought that a bill of rights would be unnecessary because they never thought that such basic freedoms would be infringed upon because they had not granted power to the government to infringe upon them. It seems more important than ever for us to reestablish these rights as unacceptable to be infringed upon, and make sure that the government is aware of it. We need to speak out and make our voice heard. America is not the land of big brother government, but the land of the free and home of the brave, we will not be bullied by big government bureaucrats, and we will not be silenced. 

NSA and FBI Compel Verizon to Hand Over Phone Records How Much is Too Much?

By Tim Newton
Last night the Guardian reported that the FBI and NSA obtained a search warrant to obtain all telephone records of individuals in its systems on an ongoing daily basis. As you may know Verizon is a significant provider within the U.S. of phone service. This order was provided by the  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) and was authorized on April 25th for a three month period until the end of July

Over the last few weeks I have not minced my words about government overreach. After trying to plow over the first and second amendments to the constitution, the Obama administration has set it's eyes on a new one: the fourth. It reads;  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 

Now we do know that the Patriot act allows for both wiretapping and seizing of said records. This law was of course in reaction to the 9/11 terror attack. I understand why it was passed, but it has long been a great concern for many Americans, because we know that great power is often abused.

 The response from the White House was that laws governing such orders "are something that have been in place for a number of years now" and that they are vital to national security. I don't understand though, how my phone records are so vital to national security. The concerns of course come from how this information is used. Even  former vice-president Al Gore called the "secret blanket surveillance" as "obscenely outrageous".

In response to this news, Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) said "Of course, keeping American citizens safe is one of government’s most important responsibilities, but there is a fine line between protecting our nation and protecting our Fourth Amendment rights. Our government continues to come close to that line and in some areas may have even crossed it. It is exactly these types of concerning reports that spotlight the need for transparency and access to information that I have fought for in Congress and will continue to work towards.”

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) also spoke out on this issue, he said "The Bill of Rights was designed to protect us from evil, too, particularly that which always correlates with concentrated government power, and particularly Executive power. If the President and Congress would obey the Fourth Amendment we all swore to uphold, this new shocking revelation that the government is now spying on citizens' phone data en masse would never have happened."

There is always in government a concern to balance the defense of the nation while maintaining the rights of the individual. I do understand that there is a concern for national security, something which we know is of continuing concern to many of us. After the Boston Bombing attack we all must have wondered if there were warning signs that might have been seen. I do not think however that millions should have their privacy eliminated by the actions of a few. Specifically where there is no just cause to do so. It not only sets up for possible abuse of power, but it also leads to continuing increased lack of privacy and more intrusion by government in the future, if they can seize your phone records, why not your email?Why not your facebook account? Why not all of your banking records? There was a reason we instituted the fourth amendment, so that government stays within the bounds of a set of laws, and does not exceed those bounds and infringe upon the rights of the citizens of our nation. 
 

IRS Scandal Ways and Means Second Hearing Thoughts

By Tim Newton
So I've been hearing from a few critics lately about the IRS Scandal. They say  "why should we subsidize these groups that are clearly political in nature?" I have also heard the statement "shouldn't they expect to be investigated further if their group seems political in nature?"
I refer those who ask these questions to two videos, one which details this argument more fully, the second answers these questions. No representative that I have heard from has disagreed on the fact that these groups were targeted and that there was harassment that occurred, and that it was definitely inappropriate on all counts. No one is doubting that, the question remains to be answered is who directed this. From what we learned from Rep. Issa this weekend, he believes and seems to have evidence that it went deeper than just a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati.


Rep Jim Mcdermott (D-WA)




Rep Aaron Schock (R-IL)



Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI)
(his time starts a minute and a half in)



We must consider several ideas here, the first of which is this, if political groups need additional scrutiny, was it done equally? The answer is a resounding no. Out of the 300 groups singled out in Cincinnati 75 were conservative, and 3 were liberal. From what we can tell there is no evidence of any kind that liberal groups were given the same scrutiny and harassment or asked similar questions.

Next we must consider the question: Was the type of scrutiny appropriate and even handed, and were records obtained handled fairly? Again a resounding no, as evidenced during Rep. Ryan's questioning, it is evident that much of the handling was inappropriate and at times excessive, at times even illegal actions were made by the IRS. Asking for donors lists, requesting not to have them protest, detailing every speech made by a speaker, who made it and their credentials? Not only are these things excessive, but definitely overreach and out of control is what it seems. 

Now, whenever you have a group that is receiving status for educating and promoting the well being of citizens, there will be innately an ideology involved of some sort. These groups are not big money funneling groups, but groups seeking to promote what they deem is in the public benefit of the U.S. Over the course of our history our country has had a healthy and constant discussion of the rights of the people and the role of government, which is one of the most polarizing questions of our time. 

The next question we need to consider is this: What form of subsidization is occurring here, and why do we have the designation for these groups for individuals to donate their funds to them? Now when we talk of tax exemptions here it is referring to exemptions for individuals donating to these groups. This does not mean that the individual group is receiving any money from the government. Similarly if you are asking that question are you as concerned about a liberal group as you are a conservative group? 

What is to be done about the issue? The first I would say is that the truth in it's entirety needs to come forth, and be examined. Next we need to consider the proper course of action, such as additional transparency and accountability for actions of individuals within the IRS and other possible entities outside. If it does come out that it is individuals lower down then maybe their authority needs to be limited further, and greater accountability measures need to be put into place on these matters.

Americans: Independent Investigator Needed

By Tim Newton
Most Americans believe that we have come to the point with the IRS that a special prosecutor is needed to investigate and uncover the full truth of the targeting and harassment of conservative groups by the IRS according to a new poll. the Quinnipiac University national poll stated that 76% of those who were interviewed said they believed it was necessary.


Much has been happening in the IRS scandal, and we know this for sure from hearings in the house and senate continuing the investigation beyond the report from the IRS. We know that the criteria used to sort through non profit groups for extra scrutiny did include ones with the names "Tea Party," "Patriots," and those seeking to teach about the constitution. Overall from what we have learned, nearly 500 conservative groups were targeted, including 5 pro-Israel groups, groups promoting the constitution,groups that criticized Obama administration, at least two pro-life groups a Texas voting-rights group and several conservative activists and businesses were targeted for additional scrutiny from the IRS after requesting to receive non profit status. It seems that the right to freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly can be added to the list of the Obama administration's attack on the first amendment, adding to it's previous attacks on the press and religious freedom of the people. It seems that the very cornerstones of our free society are edging away as the administration continues to make their attacks on one provision of the Bill of Rights after another.

The scandal has continued and the cover-up is being unraveled. Consequences are coming and coming fast. We recently learned that Lois Lerner has been placed on administrative leave, and is receiving increased heat from republicans for pleading the fifth after reading a written statement and making a claim that she was innocent. It is not a surprise she is pleading the fifth, since last year she was asked to testify about whether the standards had changed for determining which groups would receive extra scrutiny and she said the standards had not changed. We do know now that the standards had changed before, and once the investigation began they changed again. There are also some barely legal things that were done like attempting to impose a gift tax on individuals who made donations to conservative groups.

Also we have learned that the wife of  previous IRS head Douglas Shulman is  an executive for a liberal group whose primary aim is to remove private interest groups from having political influence in government, while also being heavily funded by labor groups.

With an independent investigator more ability to be free of the administration's control would give an opportunity to not only investigate the targeting of individuals but the continued harassment of these groups that applied for tax exempt status.Hopefully with such an investigation this targeting and harassment will stop.

Some have asked well shouldn't we give political groups more scrutiny anyways? My answer is this, the point of tax exempt status is not to have the government or the people pay for a groups existence by not taxing them, but to recognize that they are not out to make a profit, and therefore the moneys they bring in are not in the same category as a business. If you are going to however say we need more scrutiny for political groups, then apply it equally, and don't single out conservative groups alone, many liberal groups were asking for the same status and very very few were given the same scrutiny.

 On the other hand, the bigger issue to me is the continued harassment, some groups being told they couldn't picket planned parenthood, some groups being told they needed to detail the content of prayers that might be prayed at group meetings, some of the questions singled out specific individuals without explanation for why, even when that individual was not a politician, and had no reason why they were involved in the questioning. They were also asked to detail all of their donors and the amount of donation, which is illegal. When that wasn't enough, some of these groups members were also audited, as were their businesses and families, and they had had not previous contact or issues with the IRS before starting these groups.
 Check out our previous posts on this issue:
IRS Scandal: Why does it matter? Read more here

IRS Scandal goes deeper: Read more here

Watch several videos from the Ways and Means Committee Meeting on the IRS Scandal here

A week of scandals, overview of IRS, AP and more. Read more here

The RNC Benghazi Attack Campaign Ad That Never Ran.

By Tim Newton This ad was one which the RNC created but never ran during the campaign.
Why did the RNC decide not to run this ad focused on Benghazi, which could have put further heat on a president who was nowhere to be found in the aftermath of a deadly terrorist attack on a Libyan mission?



The ad states:"It's 3am and your children are safe asleep but there's a phone in the white house that's ringing, something's happened in the world." It then says: “The Call Came … On September 12, 2012.”  After the screen goes black, the words continue: “Security Requests Denied. Four Americans Dead. And an Administration whose story is still changing. The Call Came.”

ABC News reported:”A source familiar with the creation of the ad says the RNC leadership approved the ad but it was scrapped at the last minute because of objections from the Romney campaign, which was concerned the ad would distract from Romney’s efforts to focus on the economy.”


Upcoming soon, one of our authors will cover the Benghazi story in depth, giving us some understanding of what happened, who's to blame and why it still matters now. But I leave you with one question: Should the RNC and Romney Campaign run this ad? Tell us what you think below.

Mitt Romney, CNN and Religious Fanaticism

Earlier yesterday I posted about civility in political discourse. On April 27th Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts and former GOP Presidential Nominee spoke at a commencement for a small college in south western Virginia called Southern Virginia University. The University has 725 students enrolled, and a graduating class of 125 students. Afterward, CNN had this to say:



A few points I would like to make about the speech itself before I begin discussing CNN's commentary on the issue. While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints(LDS Church) does not own SVU, the University is over 90% LDS presided over by a former general authority of the LDS church. His speech was centered around religious thought it is true, as he was speaking to a religious audience.  The portion of the speech that CNN used was quoting from a verse from Psalms 127:3-5: 

"Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate."

What was Romney advocating? He was advocating for good people to get married and have kids, something he has experience in, and has found joy in. Later in his speech Romney also said “I don’t think God cares whether you get rich…life on this Earth is about learning to live and work in a place where God does not make everything work out for good people,” he said. “The best advice I know is to give those worldly things your best but never your all.”

To paraphrase his speech his message was that as graduates-men and women we need to launch out into the deep, and that by launching deep we are challenged greatly and have the possibility, if we persevere, to have extremely rewarding experiences. He stated that being a husband and a father have been the most challenging and rewarding parts of his life. That by facing these challenges we would grow like no other opportunity would allow us.

It is interesting that CNN was so quick to call this religious fanaticism. That encouraging getting married and having children is now considered to mean a person is a fanatic. Let's do a little symantic study into the idea of what the word fanatic means: "A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause." What they are implying is "this is extreme religious thought that Romney is advocating, and that this is why he lost the election." 

I do agree with them on one point though-this is the real Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is a man that is dedicated to his family, supporting and loving his wife, his 5 sons and his many grandchildren. He spent many years as a lay clergyman serving others. His religion is part of who he is and he has never denied that. 

If I get this right; if I speak from my heart on matters of both home and religion in to a religious audience, that now labels me as a religious fanatic? Such extremism and absolutism seems to me a bit extreme myself.

My point is mostly this: I feel that there has been an unusually high bias against religious thought in popular culture and that any appeal to the bible or religious doctrine to support good policy is somehow "radical" or "fanatical" thought. Romney was not suggesting we get married at 16 or that we marry goats which would be extreme. He was talking to college graduates and those who would be finishing in the next few years and telling them that they should get married and have kids because that is what he did and that it has made his own life better.

On a personal note, my own marriage has been the best thing in my life and I haven't regretted it once. It has been challenging and has driven me to be better, and the rewards have been enormous for me. For most of the general population this is true. The benefits of marriage for the general public have been studied at length and are far reaching from health to wealth. 

Some of these benefits include:

1. Increasing Your Pay
A Virginia Commonwealth University study found that married men earn 22 percent more than their similarly experienced but single colleagues.

2. Speed Up Your Next Promotion
Married men receive higher performance ratings and faster promotions than bachelors, a 2005 study of U.S. Navy officers reported.

3. Keep You Out of Trouble
According to a recent U.S. Department of Justice report, male victims of violent crime are nearly four times more likely to be single than married. You may remember this as Mitt Romney mentioned that one way we could decrease crime is to have two parents and for men to marry.

4. Help You Beat Cancer
In a Norwegian study, divorced and never-married male cancer patients had 11 and 16 percent higher mortality rates, respectively, than their married counterparts.

5. Help You Live Longer
A UCLA study found that people were 88 percent more likely to die over the 8-year study period than if they were single.  To quote from the study:
"Virtually every study of mortality and marital status shows the unmarried of both sexes have higher death rates, whether by accident, disease, or self-inflicted wounds, and this is found in every country that maintains accurate health statistics.”

6. It is Likely to Help You Remain Sane and Happier 
Several studies have shown that men who are married have lower instance of mental health issues than the general public and generally remain happier throughout their life



Not all of popular media took the same view as CNN though, an article from the Atlantic said this about Romney's speech:
 "In this passage, Romney articulates the so-called "cornerstone" theory of marriage: that marriage is an institution worth building life on, not something to enter into once you're already established in life. This vision of marriage is countercultural at the moment, of course: As the National Marriage Project's "Knot Yet" report shows, people are getting married later and later, and more and more people are seeing marriage as a "capstone" to life's achievements rather than a foundation for those achievements (and inevitable disappointments)."
The article continues:

"More remarkable, in my view, is how he holds in tension two ideas that often drown each other out in discussions of marriage: that marriage is both 'tremendously challenging' and 'enormously rewarding.' As I've written about before, people today tend to have an unrealistically rosy view of marriage—that it'll be an endlessly fun, sex-filled slumber party—or an unnecessarily negative one—that the institution is so broken it's not worth entering into. Both of those perceptions of marriage are too extreme. Marriage is good, but hard. Marriage is hard, but good."

I am glad that one organization was willing to view what Romney had said and look for the positive in it rather than belittling and condescending the man. I am glad they analyzed it and adapted it to their own perspective, and then reported what they learned, rather than attack the man without considering what he was saying. 

To CNN and the other news outlets that had negative things to say about Romney I ask this: So if it is counterculture to tell men and women to get married is this really a bad thing? Mitt Romney was not glorifying marriage as the end-all be-all of life or this blissful happily ever after thing. He said that it is "tremendously challenging" and "enormously rewarding." He said that by doing so you would be stretching and learning and that you would find great rewards from doing so based upon his own familial and religious experience.

I find it a little disturbing CNN's coverage had no defense for Romney's speech, not one person stood up for his point of view, and said "hey this guy was really saying..." but instead they shrunk to hitting a man for his religious beliefs. This kind of incivility in the media is both shameful and saddening to me. I hope that in the future we can learn to disagree with a person's beliefs without shrinking to attacks on their person. 

To watch his full speech see the video below.

Political Discussions: The Ground Rules

There was a time when all scientific thought centered around the idea that the earth was the center of the universe. As time increased we realized that the earth rotated around the sun, and that our planetary system was part of a galaxy and we were very much not the center of it. We know now that there are 200 to 400 billion stars in our galaxy, and the wonders of the universe continue to humble and astound us. We need to remember that each of our realities have been arranged based on observations that we have made, some of which may be very similar to primitive man thinking the sun rotates around the earth. These observations often come with assumptions and we only grow in our understanding by reaching outside of our comfort zone and taking in more truth into our reality.

As members of the American community we often make assumptions that we are the greatest country in the world, and that we are always right. Our ways of doing things are right even if they are frustratingly difficult to use versus something that makes complete sense (I.E. Metric System). We are therefore often labeled as arrogant and intolerant. That can be difficult to hear, which often makes us turn a deaf ear to anything that they are saying.

I believe that true tolerance comes from having a greater understanding of others, if we are to grow as Americans we must reach outwards to learn more and to try to understand truth to the best of our capabilities. 

This is not just arrogance and intolerance is not solely an American trait, but all of humanity has a tendency to find and stick to our point of view adamantly without consideration for another person's opinion. We need to change in order to grow. Politics can often be difficult and cause conflict, but there are good ground rules that can be used to make sure that we retain civility within discourse. I write this with the assumption that most people when arguing wish to alter another's opinion on an issue rather than just hear their own voice. I recently came across a blog post which referred to some ground rules for civil dialogue when discussing difficult issues which might result in conflict. 

Those rules are: 

"1)    Assume that the person with whom you are speaking is a person of intelligence and good will.

2)    Candidly disclose your motives for engaging in dialogue (both to others and to yourself) and be honest in raising points of sincere disagreement.

3)    Share the time equally."

I would hope as we continue to discuss important issues that we might come to realize the benefit of these common ground rules. Each of these allows for mutually consenting open communication to occur, something that is often lacking in media reporting today. I also would add some specifics to this that may help people to discuss without becoming completely closed off:  Please remember to abstain from using profane language. It is offensive and does not add value to your argument.

We also discourage the use of name calling of individuals on the site or politicians. Name calling reduces the value of your discussion as well, because you have now minimalized the ability of your message to reach the other person and add to their reality. Remember that even if you are using the name correctly, it diminishes the effectiveness of keeping open discourse by closing off the individual.


I can easily admit that I have been found to be argumentative and frustratingly opinionated and at times even closed-minded. My hope is that as we continue to discuss issues that are important to our country and world that we will do so more civilly, and I will do my best to do so as well.

I ask as you continue to read the blog to please feel free to comment, ask questions and we as writers will attempt to answer them and consider them in our own ideology.  This does not mean you have to agree with me at all. In fact we encourage you to contribute to the discussion by leaving your thoughts on our posts that agree or disagree.

Bottom line: feel free to disagree, but please do so civilly. 

Why I wish Ronald Reagan were alive today

By Tim Newton
The following is a speech that we should all take a look at. This was given by Ronald Reagan in 1964, though much of what he said is happening today. Our nation faces no less of  a perilous time than we were back then, where the idea of a welfare state within our nation was just beginning, when the idea that government is what drives initiative and innovation found their root in America. It is sad to say that today we face the furtherance of government intrusion on our lives, and that we are slowly turning from one nation under God to one nation gone under. I truly believe as Reagan did that America is a shining beacon to the world.

We are a nation built upon the idea of a Republic where individuals elect officials to represent them. The idea that the people, not the masses of mindless individuals driven back and forth by wind of doctrine to oppression and tyranny as was true with most democracies before, but a new type of government one where the powers were balanced between executive, legislature and judiciary, one that had checks and balances to protect both minority from majority and majority from minority. It was built to be driven by debate and compromise, to find middle ground solutions that work best for America. This concept as enacted had not been tried in any other part of the world, and was a grand experiment in its day.

It began to be enacted by a president who had no desire for the job, and even tried resigning after his first term, who was repeatedly attacked in the press for wanting an aristocracy because he enacted measures to expand his power. We now have a president with more power than any king who has been on the earth at any time (speaking of capacity, not autonomy), and if we start to speak against him we are "racist." If we speak against the national debt we are the 1%. If we are against welfare programs we have no heart, and if we want to stand up for protecting our 2nd amendment rights we are "right wing extremists" who only want to hold on to our guns and religion.

Now let me be clear as we have established rights by constitutional law, there are those and God Given rights such as life, liberty and pursuit of happiness among others. Rule of law has enacted other rights and protected them, such as speech, free press, religion, and bearing arms. Each of these that were enacted early on were for the protection of those basic rights, and that in order to protect the people these were established in some ways as a prerequisite to the constitution passing. These rights should be protected at all costs, and while men may abuse these rights, that does not mean they should be removed from citizens who use them properly.

20 years ago we had a president who actually believed and supported these beliefs, and understood much of what our founding fathers intended.
I now encourage you to read the following:

 

 

A TIME FOR CHOOSING (The Speech – October 27, 1964)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down—[up] man's old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming—that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how—who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of it—shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now—so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things—we're never "for" anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

Now—we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due—that the cupboard isn't bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we're to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits—not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.