FrankRep
01-06-2010, 08:44 AM
Nothing Can Replace an Informed Electorate (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5725-ceo-january-2010-informed-electorate)
Arthur R. Thompson, CEO | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
January 2010 Newsletter
The year 2010 will be an eventful year. We will not be looking for things to do. They will be all around us.
While we cannot allow ourselves to be tricked into trying to move forward with only defensive efforts, we will also be faced with the necessity for holding the general constitutionalist movement together. It is essential that we thwart the negative and counterproductive influences the Insiders have created for this movement.
Sadly, we will once again have to spend time alerting our own friends and the many natural movement constituents about a number of issues the Insiders will be attempting to promote through their control of certain conservative media, think tanks, and major party leaders. We can expect a stream of conservative rhetoric aimed at good people. But the Insiders plan to reap the action.
Happily, what needs to be done is certainly “doable.”
The issues we are concerned about will appear to the lesser informed as solutions to the major problems promoted by the socialists. We will have to show that these will never be solutions but, instead, will constitute dangerous steps toward the destruction of our liberty.
Already we are witnessing the rhetoric taking on a “Birch” hue. We are noticing that even CFR members, such as Newt Gingrich (http://bit.ly/71DlnL), are calling for more responsibility when it comes to reasons why we need to defeat the healthcare initiative. He is positioning himself as a true conservative, just as he did in the early 1990s. Others are cloaking themselves in Birch slogans about the importance of our Republic and the threat posed by the United Nations.
As we do our work educating our fellow Americans, we must continually present ourselves as The John Birch Society and use our motto, “Less Government, More Responsibility, and — with God’s Help — a Better World.” In the first part of this defining motto, we brand the name of the Society as the advocate of less, not different, government. In the second part, we take a stand away from the rest of the field with an emphasis on the moral sense.
We will thus demonstrate that we have long stood for less government as well as promoting responsibility for ourselves, our families, our organizations, our businesses, our communities, etc. And, more importantly, we demonstrate that we stand on moral grounds, not just philosophical arguments.
For we are witnessing among the newly emerging organizations, along with the problems stemming from false solutions offered by some, an unhealthy trend away from morality-based arguments. We need to inject into these organizations an appreciation for the moral base contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and how our nation cannot be separated from it without dire consequences.
While we are encouraged by the development of these new grassroots efforts, the problems we see in some new organizations are:
* There is no organization in the sense of committed members in local chapters working together in their local areas to develop personal relationships. What many do not realize is that there has to be a sense of neighborliness in all we do, establishing friendships to the point of nearly being “family” with other activists. Only in this manner can we ultimately understand, trust, and rely on those with whom we will be linking arms. Personal relationships are important for outreach and acceptance by opinion molders of basic principles and sound positions on issues. People listen to those they know and trust.
* These new organizations do most of their work in a non-outreach manner, not contacting opinion molders on a one-to-one basis to educate them, but trying to sway people by simply demonstrating their numbers with rallies and other public demonstrations.
* Most lack experience. This manifests itself in their not being able to differentiate friends from enemies and in not knowing what the proper solutions to problems are. Sometimes, no solution is the best alternative.
Frankly, there is no solution to what ails our country aside from educating the electorate. None!
Look At What’s Being Offered: Let’s take a look at some of the solutions being offered and examine them from the perspective of the need for an informed and constitutionally-minded electorate.
Political candidates or politics in general: Without an informed electorate, there may be a change from an obviously bad politician. But replaced by whom? Even if someone bad is replaced with a good alternative, the voters frequently revert to the bad in the next election simply because they lack understanding. Many voters will once again choose the candidate who offers the most government programs.
The same holds true in the arena of party politics. Without truly informed political activists guiding them, party workers who arise from the ranks of concerned citizens will be manipulated and used by the party hierarchy every time. This is particularly true when coupled with a lack of experience.
Term Limits: The solution known as term limits is again being touted as the alternative to bad politics. It is again trying to gain strength. Even if limiting terms were a solution, those behind the term-limits movement have usually segued this initiative into support for a constitutional convention (Con-Con) (http://bit.ly/86gnAu). The cry for term limits has often been a call for a Con-Con.
The idea of term limitation is not unique to the United States; it exists in many other countries. It no more helps in foreign countries that practice term limits than it will help here. Limiting terms rarely if ever changes anything because the people have not been educated. They end up swapping a veteran bad guy for a newer bad guy. Without an informed electorate, voters will continue to make the same mistakes at the polls while believing that they have solved problems.
Limiting terms was one of the reasons our Founders called a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation. It sounds like a good solution to many. But in practice, those who know they can’t be reelected become a serious problem during their final term. They frequently vote for truly outrageous measures on their way out of office. One of the over-riding influences on a politician is knowledge that he must perform responsibly so he can be reelected. Practically everything hinges on this desire. Politicians who know that the people will elect or reject them based on a particular issue will “go with the flow.” Not out of conviction, but out of a desire to be reelected.
Many who served in the Congress under the Articles of Confederation and were term-limited out became concerned only with filling their pockets by “selling” their vote. They knew they couldn’t be reelected so they did what they could for themselves before their term expired. It was one of the reasons prompting the call for amendments to the Articles that led to a whole new governmental document, the Constitution. The new Constitution then dropped the term limit provision.
Also, term limits works both ways. If the electorate begins to elect constitutionalists, shouldn’t concerned Americans want them reelected? Larry McDonald, Ron Paul, Jesse Helms, and many other good legislators would have been eliminated had term limits been in force. Limiting terms is actually a limitation on voter freedom. The better course is: If you do not like a politician, change the voters who will then change the politician.
Constitutional Convention and Amendments: Some are again calling for a Con-Con, not even bothering to disguise the call behind a resolution for an amendment because the current Constitution is not being adhered to. What makes anyone think that politicians who are not adhering to the Constitution we have, will abide by provisions contained in a new document? Or, in new amendments?
Some of the amendments being proposed may have some merit. (The best amendments would lead to repeal of several previous amendments.) The problem is that we look at the amendments and not the process being suggested to enact them. The process most often heard involves the very dangerous constitutional convention.
We have all seen the petitions. They all start with praiseworthy “Whereas” clauses containing grievances we can agree on. The list may be long or short. But it is not the “Whereas” clauses that contain the teeth. It is the “Therefore” clause at the end where the dangerous solution may lie.
Over the past 30 years, we have seen many amendments proposed: anti-abortion, balanced budget, anti-flag burning, term limits, returning power to the states, etc. These are all appealing to conservatives. But many contain a “Therefore” clause calling for a Con-Con that is not an antidote to the problem but poison to the Republic.
Again, if those in power do not now adhere to the Law (the Constitution), what makes anyone think that they will honor a new amendment or an entirely new document? In addition, who would be the delegates to a Con-Con? We no longer have Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and the other statesmen of their day. We have Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Gingrich, Graham, and others like them. These are the types the electorate chooses now. How would delegates to a Con-Con be any different? The solution again is the education of the electorate.
Civil War/Civil Disobedience: We have been seeing this as a solution being offered to frustrated people. It is even being propagated by Russians on YouTube as a predictable consequence for the future of the United States. This is not the only arena in which we have been witnessing Russians and Cubans attempting to influence the so-called Right Wing. Again, this has been occurring because of a lack of understanding and experience among our nation’s newly aroused people.
I have news for anyone considering civil disobedience: An M-16 will not stand up against an F-16. While your gun may protect you from local criminals and make some rogue think twice before breaking into your home, a government to which you willingly acquiesce has many ways to disarm the people.
How about a telephone call from your local school telling you that Johnny has been detained until you come down to the schoolhouse with your guns and turn them in? Or a requirement that you tell which of your neighbors is withholding guns from the State?
In the dead of winter, the authorities could cut off all electricity in an area until all guns are turned in. Food distribution could cease too. It doesn’t take long for the grocery stores to become empty if trucks stop rolling into town. If you stand out among your neighbors with a generator or obviously well-fed children, your own neighbors will turn on you, or turn you in for warmth and food. It’s that simple.
Civil war works only if the entire neighborhood, the city, the county, and the state populations agree to stand — which means they would have to at least understand the problem.
The same holds true for civil disobedience, the tactic of the Left. Under current laws, such action can be interpreted as acts of terrorism, and will be so labeled if engaged in by constitutionalists. The Left will get away with it. With the current state of things, some are more equal than others! And besides, the Left will be acting on the instructions of the State to support the State’s initiatives.
We can never advocate putting people into harms way. The result is never good for the individuals involved.
Again, the solution is an informed electorate. And if the people are well-informed, there is no need for civil war or civil disobedience since they will elect good people to Congress. An armed but ignorant citizenry is no guarantor of liberty.
Work Left To Be Done: So we have our work cut out for us. Not only in informing the newly awakened about false solutions and dangerous politicians, but informing the opinion molders in our communities with real outreach activities.
There is no solution that will work if we don’t create an informed electorate in our own communities. Our system of government is based upon it. An informed electorate is the ultimate solution.
This is why the Insiders have worked so hard for so many decades to capture the means of educating our youth, as well as to capture the media and many other sources of information. They want a dumbed-down population (http://www.amazon.com/deliberate-dumbing-down-america-Chronological/dp/0966707109) that is kept ignorant of the facts needed to preserve our heritage. The dumbing down of the people is even accomplished by many conservative-appearing groups.
Some have been critical of our decision to shut down the summer camps and segue into a broader education program for youth. But our program is aimed at the ultimate solution, not simply educating a very small number of students at considerable expense in money, time, and effort. This holds true for what we are doing with our websites as well. Everything we are doing in these areas is designed to enhance and accelerate the education of the electorate — not just talk to ourselves.
Let me add some comments about another subject: the threat posed by terrorism.
Some have questioned the necessity of our effort to inform people as to what is really behind the war on terror. Let me explain.
We are witnessing the growing threat of communism south of our border. A few examples of recent events:
* In Honduras, the Congress and the Supreme Court threw out the Marxist President because he was attempting to stay beyond the legally established limit for his term. He was expelled from the country, and immediately began looking for support. And he has received support from other Latin American leaders such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela who could hardly be more of a Leftist. At first, our government demanded that the Honduran leader be returned to power. Public pressure changed this over the last few months. The Hondurans then held a legal election to replace the president, and their decision to hold it was supported before the fact by only two other Latin America countries: Costa Rica and Panama.
* In Venezuela, the Russians are now building arms factories. They have already armed Chavez with jet fighters, helicopters, and other weapons. The factories would not be needed if they were only going to arm the Venezuelan army with AK47s. As bad as that would be, it could be done from the factories in Russia. The factories being constructed in Venezuela will obviously arm other Latin American armies and/or terrorist organizations.
* In Uruguay, the recent election placed a man into power who was the founder of a Marxist terrorist organization inspired by the Cuban revolution. He will continue the socialist agenda of the previous president — and then some.
While these examples may be recent, they are not the exception.
Meanwhile, our armed forces are in the Middle East fighting so-called Islamic terrorists while our borders remain wide open. The countries to our south are encouraging migration into the United States and the conditions for future trouble are being laid. Some of these people are being organized into brigades of street gangs and political rent-a-mobs.
It does not take a wild imagination to see possible trouble on the horizon at home. We may very well need our troops to take care of business at home instead of chasing ghosts on the other side of the world.
Islamic terror is communist led (http://bit.ly/4yg4xS). It is directed out of Russia for the Insiders. We will not end the threat of terror until we recognize this fact and the additional fact that it is designed as part of a master plan to subjugate the American people.
Our fighting men and women are overseas while the danger increases south of home.
Why fight terror in the Middle East while Cuban and other Russian surrogates are building terror to our south?
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5725-ceo-january-2010-informed-electorate
Join the John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/support-us/membership
Arthur R. Thompson, CEO | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
January 2010 Newsletter
The year 2010 will be an eventful year. We will not be looking for things to do. They will be all around us.
While we cannot allow ourselves to be tricked into trying to move forward with only defensive efforts, we will also be faced with the necessity for holding the general constitutionalist movement together. It is essential that we thwart the negative and counterproductive influences the Insiders have created for this movement.
Sadly, we will once again have to spend time alerting our own friends and the many natural movement constituents about a number of issues the Insiders will be attempting to promote through their control of certain conservative media, think tanks, and major party leaders. We can expect a stream of conservative rhetoric aimed at good people. But the Insiders plan to reap the action.
Happily, what needs to be done is certainly “doable.”
The issues we are concerned about will appear to the lesser informed as solutions to the major problems promoted by the socialists. We will have to show that these will never be solutions but, instead, will constitute dangerous steps toward the destruction of our liberty.
Already we are witnessing the rhetoric taking on a “Birch” hue. We are noticing that even CFR members, such as Newt Gingrich (http://bit.ly/71DlnL), are calling for more responsibility when it comes to reasons why we need to defeat the healthcare initiative. He is positioning himself as a true conservative, just as he did in the early 1990s. Others are cloaking themselves in Birch slogans about the importance of our Republic and the threat posed by the United Nations.
As we do our work educating our fellow Americans, we must continually present ourselves as The John Birch Society and use our motto, “Less Government, More Responsibility, and — with God’s Help — a Better World.” In the first part of this defining motto, we brand the name of the Society as the advocate of less, not different, government. In the second part, we take a stand away from the rest of the field with an emphasis on the moral sense.
We will thus demonstrate that we have long stood for less government as well as promoting responsibility for ourselves, our families, our organizations, our businesses, our communities, etc. And, more importantly, we demonstrate that we stand on moral grounds, not just philosophical arguments.
For we are witnessing among the newly emerging organizations, along with the problems stemming from false solutions offered by some, an unhealthy trend away from morality-based arguments. We need to inject into these organizations an appreciation for the moral base contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and how our nation cannot be separated from it without dire consequences.
While we are encouraged by the development of these new grassroots efforts, the problems we see in some new organizations are:
* There is no organization in the sense of committed members in local chapters working together in their local areas to develop personal relationships. What many do not realize is that there has to be a sense of neighborliness in all we do, establishing friendships to the point of nearly being “family” with other activists. Only in this manner can we ultimately understand, trust, and rely on those with whom we will be linking arms. Personal relationships are important for outreach and acceptance by opinion molders of basic principles and sound positions on issues. People listen to those they know and trust.
* These new organizations do most of their work in a non-outreach manner, not contacting opinion molders on a one-to-one basis to educate them, but trying to sway people by simply demonstrating their numbers with rallies and other public demonstrations.
* Most lack experience. This manifests itself in their not being able to differentiate friends from enemies and in not knowing what the proper solutions to problems are. Sometimes, no solution is the best alternative.
Frankly, there is no solution to what ails our country aside from educating the electorate. None!
Look At What’s Being Offered: Let’s take a look at some of the solutions being offered and examine them from the perspective of the need for an informed and constitutionally-minded electorate.
Political candidates or politics in general: Without an informed electorate, there may be a change from an obviously bad politician. But replaced by whom? Even if someone bad is replaced with a good alternative, the voters frequently revert to the bad in the next election simply because they lack understanding. Many voters will once again choose the candidate who offers the most government programs.
The same holds true in the arena of party politics. Without truly informed political activists guiding them, party workers who arise from the ranks of concerned citizens will be manipulated and used by the party hierarchy every time. This is particularly true when coupled with a lack of experience.
Term Limits: The solution known as term limits is again being touted as the alternative to bad politics. It is again trying to gain strength. Even if limiting terms were a solution, those behind the term-limits movement have usually segued this initiative into support for a constitutional convention (Con-Con) (http://bit.ly/86gnAu). The cry for term limits has often been a call for a Con-Con.
The idea of term limitation is not unique to the United States; it exists in many other countries. It no more helps in foreign countries that practice term limits than it will help here. Limiting terms rarely if ever changes anything because the people have not been educated. They end up swapping a veteran bad guy for a newer bad guy. Without an informed electorate, voters will continue to make the same mistakes at the polls while believing that they have solved problems.
Limiting terms was one of the reasons our Founders called a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation. It sounds like a good solution to many. But in practice, those who know they can’t be reelected become a serious problem during their final term. They frequently vote for truly outrageous measures on their way out of office. One of the over-riding influences on a politician is knowledge that he must perform responsibly so he can be reelected. Practically everything hinges on this desire. Politicians who know that the people will elect or reject them based on a particular issue will “go with the flow.” Not out of conviction, but out of a desire to be reelected.
Many who served in the Congress under the Articles of Confederation and were term-limited out became concerned only with filling their pockets by “selling” their vote. They knew they couldn’t be reelected so they did what they could for themselves before their term expired. It was one of the reasons prompting the call for amendments to the Articles that led to a whole new governmental document, the Constitution. The new Constitution then dropped the term limit provision.
Also, term limits works both ways. If the electorate begins to elect constitutionalists, shouldn’t concerned Americans want them reelected? Larry McDonald, Ron Paul, Jesse Helms, and many other good legislators would have been eliminated had term limits been in force. Limiting terms is actually a limitation on voter freedom. The better course is: If you do not like a politician, change the voters who will then change the politician.
Constitutional Convention and Amendments: Some are again calling for a Con-Con, not even bothering to disguise the call behind a resolution for an amendment because the current Constitution is not being adhered to. What makes anyone think that politicians who are not adhering to the Constitution we have, will abide by provisions contained in a new document? Or, in new amendments?
Some of the amendments being proposed may have some merit. (The best amendments would lead to repeal of several previous amendments.) The problem is that we look at the amendments and not the process being suggested to enact them. The process most often heard involves the very dangerous constitutional convention.
We have all seen the petitions. They all start with praiseworthy “Whereas” clauses containing grievances we can agree on. The list may be long or short. But it is not the “Whereas” clauses that contain the teeth. It is the “Therefore” clause at the end where the dangerous solution may lie.
Over the past 30 years, we have seen many amendments proposed: anti-abortion, balanced budget, anti-flag burning, term limits, returning power to the states, etc. These are all appealing to conservatives. But many contain a “Therefore” clause calling for a Con-Con that is not an antidote to the problem but poison to the Republic.
Again, if those in power do not now adhere to the Law (the Constitution), what makes anyone think that they will honor a new amendment or an entirely new document? In addition, who would be the delegates to a Con-Con? We no longer have Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and the other statesmen of their day. We have Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Gingrich, Graham, and others like them. These are the types the electorate chooses now. How would delegates to a Con-Con be any different? The solution again is the education of the electorate.
Civil War/Civil Disobedience: We have been seeing this as a solution being offered to frustrated people. It is even being propagated by Russians on YouTube as a predictable consequence for the future of the United States. This is not the only arena in which we have been witnessing Russians and Cubans attempting to influence the so-called Right Wing. Again, this has been occurring because of a lack of understanding and experience among our nation’s newly aroused people.
I have news for anyone considering civil disobedience: An M-16 will not stand up against an F-16. While your gun may protect you from local criminals and make some rogue think twice before breaking into your home, a government to which you willingly acquiesce has many ways to disarm the people.
How about a telephone call from your local school telling you that Johnny has been detained until you come down to the schoolhouse with your guns and turn them in? Or a requirement that you tell which of your neighbors is withholding guns from the State?
In the dead of winter, the authorities could cut off all electricity in an area until all guns are turned in. Food distribution could cease too. It doesn’t take long for the grocery stores to become empty if trucks stop rolling into town. If you stand out among your neighbors with a generator or obviously well-fed children, your own neighbors will turn on you, or turn you in for warmth and food. It’s that simple.
Civil war works only if the entire neighborhood, the city, the county, and the state populations agree to stand — which means they would have to at least understand the problem.
The same holds true for civil disobedience, the tactic of the Left. Under current laws, such action can be interpreted as acts of terrorism, and will be so labeled if engaged in by constitutionalists. The Left will get away with it. With the current state of things, some are more equal than others! And besides, the Left will be acting on the instructions of the State to support the State’s initiatives.
We can never advocate putting people into harms way. The result is never good for the individuals involved.
Again, the solution is an informed electorate. And if the people are well-informed, there is no need for civil war or civil disobedience since they will elect good people to Congress. An armed but ignorant citizenry is no guarantor of liberty.
Work Left To Be Done: So we have our work cut out for us. Not only in informing the newly awakened about false solutions and dangerous politicians, but informing the opinion molders in our communities with real outreach activities.
There is no solution that will work if we don’t create an informed electorate in our own communities. Our system of government is based upon it. An informed electorate is the ultimate solution.
This is why the Insiders have worked so hard for so many decades to capture the means of educating our youth, as well as to capture the media and many other sources of information. They want a dumbed-down population (http://www.amazon.com/deliberate-dumbing-down-america-Chronological/dp/0966707109) that is kept ignorant of the facts needed to preserve our heritage. The dumbing down of the people is even accomplished by many conservative-appearing groups.
Some have been critical of our decision to shut down the summer camps and segue into a broader education program for youth. But our program is aimed at the ultimate solution, not simply educating a very small number of students at considerable expense in money, time, and effort. This holds true for what we are doing with our websites as well. Everything we are doing in these areas is designed to enhance and accelerate the education of the electorate — not just talk to ourselves.
Let me add some comments about another subject: the threat posed by terrorism.
Some have questioned the necessity of our effort to inform people as to what is really behind the war on terror. Let me explain.
We are witnessing the growing threat of communism south of our border. A few examples of recent events:
* In Honduras, the Congress and the Supreme Court threw out the Marxist President because he was attempting to stay beyond the legally established limit for his term. He was expelled from the country, and immediately began looking for support. And he has received support from other Latin American leaders such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela who could hardly be more of a Leftist. At first, our government demanded that the Honduran leader be returned to power. Public pressure changed this over the last few months. The Hondurans then held a legal election to replace the president, and their decision to hold it was supported before the fact by only two other Latin America countries: Costa Rica and Panama.
* In Venezuela, the Russians are now building arms factories. They have already armed Chavez with jet fighters, helicopters, and other weapons. The factories would not be needed if they were only going to arm the Venezuelan army with AK47s. As bad as that would be, it could be done from the factories in Russia. The factories being constructed in Venezuela will obviously arm other Latin American armies and/or terrorist organizations.
* In Uruguay, the recent election placed a man into power who was the founder of a Marxist terrorist organization inspired by the Cuban revolution. He will continue the socialist agenda of the previous president — and then some.
While these examples may be recent, they are not the exception.
Meanwhile, our armed forces are in the Middle East fighting so-called Islamic terrorists while our borders remain wide open. The countries to our south are encouraging migration into the United States and the conditions for future trouble are being laid. Some of these people are being organized into brigades of street gangs and political rent-a-mobs.
It does not take a wild imagination to see possible trouble on the horizon at home. We may very well need our troops to take care of business at home instead of chasing ghosts on the other side of the world.
Islamic terror is communist led (http://bit.ly/4yg4xS). It is directed out of Russia for the Insiders. We will not end the threat of terror until we recognize this fact and the additional fact that it is designed as part of a master plan to subjugate the American people.
Our fighting men and women are overseas while the danger increases south of home.
Why fight terror in the Middle East while Cuban and other Russian surrogates are building terror to our south?
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5725-ceo-january-2010-informed-electorate
Join the John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/support-us/membership