Freedom-Fighters Forum

The Constitutional Broadside
V2 N1 A PUBLICATION OF THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY COUNCIL
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM

Do you want the kind of freedom that is constitutional?

If this question seems a little ridiculous, let’s stop and look at it in some depth before it is too late for us to avoid enslavement of all citizens to satanic government power.

Everybody wants some kind of freedom. Americans have always glorified it even though they were not always exactly sure just what kind of freedom they really wanted.

The Declaration of Independence proclaimed to all the world that true patriots will pay any righteous price short of surrender and death to retain personal control of their own lives.

Our Founding Fathers expressed their love for the principles of freedom in these final ringing words of their glorious compact. They said:

“…For the support of this Declaration of Independence, with firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other out Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

They won their battle for liberty. It took hard work and the help of almighty God. But they gave us the greatest treasure any nation ever knew in the whole history of the world.

Because our citizens generally were God-fearing and humble, they were left free to prosper from their own personal industry. The Spirit of The Lord smiled upon them and they had the help, protection and support of the divine power of God.

Our nation had that kind of freedom for several generations. We had it and enjoyed it long enough so that we raised up anew citizenry that knew nothing else as a way of life.

But while we who are heirs of that liberty have been living blithely in the luxury which freedom gave us, we have unknowingly participated in a semantic revolution. It is robbing us of the benefits of the liberty our fathers bequeathed us. The tip of the iceberg of that revolution was expressed in the words of this historic question:

IS FREEDOM DIVISIBLE INTO KINDS?

Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke of four freedoms. In the same sentence he divided his concept of freedom into two opposite kinds, FREEDOM FROM AND FREEDOM TO.

In this way he drew attention to the semantic hair-line difference between the freedom of liberty and the freedom of slavery.

When Roosevelt called for “freedom to speak and worship”, while promising “freedom from want and fear”, he called for a restructuring of our whole nation. While seeming to promise a greater freedom he was actually calling for destruction of certain personal liberty.

With that clever gambit he reached into the heart of America and planted new seeds of satanic slavery.

This he did by imploring that the great profits which had been won by American self-reliance were in reality a relative poverty when compared to the promise of luxury that could be gained by government guarantees of “freedom from want and fear.”

FREEDOM THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

There are many things man cannot do for himself. Only God can provide the energy that shines from the sun daily to feed living things on earth. It takes divine help for man to live so as to ascend beyond death to a perfect exaltation.

But the LORD God has decreed that man must do for himself all that he can do. To this end man has been given both agency and perfect liberty. He must obey law to have responsibility.

Satan, a bright son of the morning before earth life began, fell from grace and became an outcast in the earth. His objective is, and always has been, to win people away from God’s way of life. One of his favorite methods is to convince people that they can escape the demands of personal discipline and responsibility.

The Bible says that Satan is the god of the world. He is the chief and central conspirator in the world-wide campaign to capture the souls of men. He loves to induce them to surrender control of their own lives to the powers of government which are under his own direction.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FORCE

Roosevelt’s so-called “New Deal” promised that the government would assume vast new powers to serve the individual. His doctrine alleged that citizens have a “right” to be protected and provided for by government power Truman’s “Fair Deal” echoed Roosevelt and other “Liberals” who fought for more government aid for the individual.

The notion of “government responsibility for the financial welfare of the individual” grew by leaps and bounds after it got a foot-hold in our ideological concept it continued to permeate the administrations of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. It seeped into all branches of government and spread throughout our colleges and system of public education.

A central thesis of such “liberal” thought is that government must force the citizenry to submit to its own notions of “public welfare”. Their concept is that the “able”, that is, the tax-paying “middle class” or “silent majority”, must be compelled by government to share their produce with the “poor”, They talk loudly about “soaking the rich” but the super-rich are left relatively tax free.

NATURAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Many people are confused in their understanding of natural rights as compared with privileges. It is now quite common for people to demand privileges which they have come to think of as rights.

The right to eat is an inherent and unalienable right. But too many forget that the right to eat does not provide food. But too many forget that the right to eat does not provide food. Every person has both the right to produce food and the obligation of doing so without injury to others. He has the right to own, to control, and to consume what he owns.

You have the right to live in your own home. I have no right to your property. I may not enter your house without first getting your consent. If you choose to do so you may give me the privilege of entering.

If I enter your property without your permission, I am a trespasser. If I take your food without your prior consent freely given, such conduct proves me to be a thief. The strait of right line of God’s eternal law forbids me to use any force to demand a privilege.

Rights are possessed naturally. Privileges are given.

FASCISM

In the early 1930’s, Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany had much in common with U.S. liberals and Russian communists. Strange as it may seem to many Americans, the dictators of Europe were very effective in doing what many liberals advocate for our country.

In order to gain popular support for their doctrines the Facist and Nazi “strong men” sought the help of leaders in the private segments of society. They promised whatever they had to offer to get the support of influential leaders for their dictatorial socialist programs.

Bankers were promised control of banking and money creation. Businesses were given government guarantees of monopoly profits. Farmers were promised government aid and support. Labor organizations were assured that their union members and supporters would be taken care of by special legislation that would “protect” them from employers. Professional groups such as doctors, lawyers and accountants were promised special consideration and monopoly control of their respective fields of service.

Socialist laws were passed. Government bureaus were established and given power to enforce rules of their own creation that would guarantee the promised services.

Gradually, but with accelerating whirlwind speed, group after group gained autonomy and control over their areas of service. All others who might offer competition were excluded by the force of law. Those who supported government got the backing of government in their private operations. Others were penalized for their opposition or non-support.

Before the people as a whole realized what had happened, the government agents had control of the leaders of private segments of the economy.

The government leaders, having full and final power to withhold or extend privileges, were virtual dictators over the “leaders” of various private sectors of a the economy. In return for permission to survive, persons who controlled their respective segments of the culture gave their total support to the oligarchical group at the top of the government structure.

The Facisti in Italy and favored Nazi in Germany were the “élite” who worked together and gave support to each other. As they worked in their respective fields or spheres, each of them got support and power from the leaders of the central government. These sub-czars in turn gave support and power to their subordinates down the line in the world of government or private business.

The final touch that made fascism and Nazi-ism possible in Italy, Germany, and other countries, was their semantics; the changes they made in their use of words and language.

By changing the meaning of words and language the concepts and responses of the people were altered and controlled to the liking of the dictatorial masters.

RIGHTS VS PRIVILEGES

In the United States today, as a result of the half-century slide we have made, and are making, towards fascism, socialism and communism, we as a people have become confused in our use of words and language.

Strange as it may seem, you can test and prove the truth of this statement with a very simple question. Ask it of the next ten people o\you talk to. Watch their reaction and their struggle to give you a clear answer. Just ask them to explain the difference between rights and privileges.

If you were alive 50 years ago and clearly understood the language in use in America at that time, and if you can still remember that language, you probably know the difference between rights and privileges. But don’t bet on it. Most people are confused or unclear.

The most ancient meaning of the word right was straight. They got the meaning from a fixed standard of reference. When they pulled a string tightly from one point to another, the line was straight. A tightly drawn string made a right line.

Right conduct was defined in the 1828 edition of Noah Webster’s Dictionary as conduct that was in line with the standards established and set by God’s eternal laws. If conduct was in harmony with God it was right conduct. If it was not in harmony with God it was wrong conduct.

The stronger hand (for most people) was the right hand; hence, the weaker hand was the left. Thus, there was strength in the right; weakness in the left. Right conduct, being in harmony with God, was strong. Conduct that was to the left of God’s straight line was weaker, sinister, dangerous and undesirable.

Thus, a right, as in the bill of Rights, was something that was in harmony with god’s notion or rule of right and proper.

The right to life, to keep one’s life, was just and correct in the sight of God. It was the gift from God and a man had a duty to protect it.

The right to own and control property was the straight line to survival. Such ownership was denoted as a political right. It was unalienable. It could not be denied to an individual or be taken away from him. You might kill a man but you cannot take away his right to life or the right to control himself.

SEMANTICS OF THE RIGHT vs THE LEFT

As the divine and unalienable rights of the individual were ignored and over-ridden by the power-mad monarchists, the struggle of the individual man to maintain his right to control his own life continued unabated.

For instance, England developed a Parliament. Competing political forces maneuvered for power in that legislative body. Eventually, they developed political law as a means of control to be used in place of the purely tyrannical force of the ruling aristocracy.

In both England and the European countries, legislative bodies followed a general pattern of organization. In King George’s Parliament the Monarchists, those who favored “the divine right of kings” sat together. Their supporters, those who favored receiving grants of “Royal Privilege”, also supported the “royalists”. Those who favored maintaining individual personal rights as compared with royal privileges also separated themselves in Parliament from their political enemies, the royalists.

The Prime Minister, the Chairman of the meetings of Parliament, sat in the front facing the legislators. Those who favored royal privilege and government control fo the individual sat on the right hand side of the Chairman. They thought their ideas were correct and proper. Thus, as they sat on the right side they came to think of themselves as the party of the right. They did everything they could to preserve their position. They became the conservatives of their time.

Of course, the leftists also thought of themselves as correct. They believed devoutly that only they were right. They thought of the Royalists, the party of power and force, as being wrong.

Those who differed from the entrenched majority sat on the left. They became the party of the opposition. They became known as the leftists and were thought by the rightists to be radicals and revolutionaries.

Unfortunately, they did not create new and separate words to express their ideas and policies. Instead, they used the word “right” in a dual sense.

The word, right continued to express moral correctness as opposed to the meaning of the word, wrong. It was almost as if the politicians who represented the entrenched monarchists used the word’s moral meaning of correctness to justify their use of government power for their own advantage. Thus, by calling themselves rightists they implied that anyone who disagreed with them was wrong, and hence, evil.

At the same time, the leftists could not think of themselves as wrong in either a moral or a political sense. They believed, often devoutly and patriotically, that they were politically correct. Since they thought the rightists were wrong, they, the leftists, were caught in a trap. They could not associate themselves with the political right. They could not call themselves wrongists. Thus, the leftists, while continuing their fight for the rights of the individual man, were labeled and thought of by the rightists as revolutionaries.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

The long struggle of the individual man for the right to control his own life was a revolt against those who were entrenched by power that was supported with government force.

Americans such as Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison, were men who thought straight about human rights. They understood that human rights are gifts to man from God. Those rights rest on natural laws of god and are unalienable. They cannot be taken away from the individual by any government.

Our Founding Fathers revolted against King George and his supporters of government privilege. God came to their rescue and they won liberty for the individual man on this continent.

The object of the American Revolution was to establish forever the concept of the divine right of the individual. To accomplish this glorious task they had to defeat the supporters of the concept that kings had divine right to rule without consent of the people.

They succeeded in winning the minds and support of enough people so that they gave us The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the idea of a republican form of government.

At the time these ideas and forms of American government were established under god for our nation their enemies, the rightists, called them revolutionary.

Actually, they could have been better called counter-revolutionary. This is true because, in fact, the American were simply attempting to counter, or oppose, the satanic revolution that had been waged against God’s laws and teachings by entrenched and powerful forces of ignorance and evil revolution.

Whether Washington was a rebel and revolutionary as he was accused by King George, or a true-to-God Rightist in divine sense, is a subject for an extensive study and treatment.

The vital point here is that as time went on in The United States, after “the revolutionary war”, the people of this Nation accepted the view that their noble “revolutionaries” were right.

In this way, a semantic revolution, or “switch”, took place in our country. Our beloved revolutionaries who were thought of by King George and his supporters as leftists were accepted as supporters of the right, or the correct position. In the language of the English speaking Americans, the “left” became the “right”

These revolutionary “leftists” of America took over 100 years to make the semantic switch that converted the meanings of their words. What had been accepted and expressed in their time as the revolutionary left was accepted as the right, or correct, political position. In our country, those people who believed in the freedom of the individual as opposed to domination by government power came to be known as the conservative right.

With the United States Constitution established and controlling on this continent two opposing concepts of “right government” existed. One could even say that a delayed time bomb was set to explode in the minds and language of the people.

The European governments, including England, continued to be strongly influenced, if not dominated, by the concept that the right kind of government was the kind that did two things: First, it protected those who held the doctrine of “the divine right of kings” and the notion of Royal Privileges as proper inheritances. Secondly, the notion prevailed that it was the duty and responsibility of the King and the Privileged Class to lead and serve the people. Theses notions held implicitly within them the concept that government was the center of all rights and the final dispenser of privileges.

In The United States, the concept changed, and with it, the meaning of the word right.

Here the “right” government was a republic that was carefully limited in power. The people retained both control fo and responsibility for themselves personally. The people were the sovereigns who controlled government. The citizen was responsible for the government rather than to the government. With this philosophy in full force there was not much for the government to do.

The government was to curtail evil, to prevent criminal actions of citizens and bring them to justice before the law. It was to provide for the common defense against outside force, coin money and regulate its value. The strength of the government was to be in the righteousness of its people rather than in the concentration within its structure of vast powers to regulate and control the business and affairs of the citizens.

The language was now strained. “Right” government meant entirely different things, depending on whether one was loyal to the American or the European ideal.

DELAYED TIME BOMB IN EUROPE

The “rightist” kings of privilege and responsibility retained power and control in Europe for over 200 years as the American Revolution gathered power. To them, the United States was still the enemy.

About 1850, more or less, Karl Marx of Germany went to England where he lived during the time he laid the foundation for his own special kind of revolution. Marx saw a great deal of injustice in the world. At that time the industrial revolution was getting under way in England, at least 50 years ahead of when it burst upon the Continent. The people of power and privilege were in control of industry. Whatever their motives or their philosophy, it is true that a great disparity existed between the upper privileged few and the working middle class. Beneath them were the impoverished and uneducated millions for whom there was simply not enough of the good things of life.

Marx rejected the notion of God and standards of right conduct established by God. He taught that man is no more than an animated blob of material, sans sould or eternal life. He taught that when man dies, he is dead and ended forever. With his rejection of correct principles of thought and concepts of right established by God, Marx and his followers had no standards to turn to but their own. They created their own sense of morality and their private definitions of right and wrong.

To Marx, right was a straight line to what he wanted personally, wrong was anything that stood in his way of getting what he wanted.

Marx and his followers saw that “the right” governments of Europe were providing privileges for the ruling few. Opposition to the “right” sat on the left in Parliament. Marx supported the left and moved to accelerate a total revolution designed to encompass and conquer the world.

Marx’s revolutionaries appealed to the poor and downtrodden wherever they were oppressed, or where they could be persuaded to think they were being treated unjustly by the middle classes. He promised them freedom from bondage, freedom from poverty, freedom from responsibility, and freedom from freedom.

The ideals of the “Revolutionary Left” claimed to seek privileges for the poor and down-trodden instead of privileges for the upper classes who had long controlled governmental dispensation of royal privileges.

It was well known throughout the world that in The United States the poor of the earth could find sanctuary and prosperity because they were free to produce and serve according to the full extent of their ability.

The obvious facts were that a conflict in ideology had long existed between the United States and the States of Europe. American freedom was feeding the poor and giving them promise such as they had never dreamed of before in all the world. At the same time, technological advances were moving forward in Europe in spite of old notions of Royal Privilege.

DIALECTIC MATERIALISM

Marx and Engles defined their political doctrine as Dialectic Materialism. Their semantic revolution or change of language was the means by which they proposed to bring about total political revolution. They started a revolution of language; a campaign to change the meanings of words to suit their own private and satanic purposes.

Marxists could not remove from the minds of men the deep inborn feeling that there is more to man than flesh. The concept of something beyond and more powerful than man is universal in all nations for all time. Thus man is susceptible to receiving instruction about God.

But Marxists, being deceived and let by Satan without their conscious knowledge, proceeded to substitute in their language new words for God and new concepts of god. They kept the meaning of a supreme something but discarded the word God and substituted words that meant The State or The Party.

Marxism is a religion. It teaches that there is something to worship and it teaches a very definite escapology. Its ideal is the good of man and salvation is the deliverance of each individual from the need to be personally responsible for him. Since the State in Dialectic Materialism is God, the good of God, the State, is the ultimate aim and religion of the true Marxist. Thus, it becomes a matter of religious faith for the individual to surrender control of himself to God, the State. The supreme head of the State thus becomes the spokesman for God, the State. Each person is a part of the state and less important than God. Thus personal individuality is something to lose and blend into the Nirvana that is the all-important non-personal essence that is the ultimate good or god, The State.

The worship of good, the State, and the ideals established by the spokesman for the State, the Fuhrer of Nazism, whether he might be a Mussolini or an Ehrilichtman, becomes the purpose and the ideal. It is the religion of the supporter of totalitarianism in whatever form or semantic description.

SEMANTIC CONFUSION COMPOUNDED

In such ways and for such reasons, the political right and the political left were created and grew.

While these two factions competed for position and power they laid the foundation for utter confusion in our language. That terrible semantic set of blunders continues to plague us to this day in The United States and around the western world.

The rightists and the leftists both thought of themselves as correct and proper in their views of how government should serve the people.

The European “rightists” claimed that if they were supported by the government they could best use the power of government for the benefit the nation. The American “rightists” believed that a citizenry left free of government domination and control would have greater prosperity in freedom.

The stage was set in 1776 for the introduction of utter confusion in the language of English speaking people.

THE THIRD FORCE

A third force that most people overlook has been long at work in both Europe and the United States. This is the effort of the upper elite, the supper rich in all countries, to seize and retain control of every aspect political and financial life for their own private purposes. These people attempt to ride the crest of every wave. Be it an industrial revolution as in England, a political revolution as in the United States, or a Marxist revolution on the Continent, there are those who seize the helm to steer the ship of state for their own advantage. They are pragmatists of the first order. If they must finance a Karl Marx, a Hitler, or a Republican, they will do it in any way they can to get their way. They will use their own money or they will dip into the public treasury; it makes no difference to them, so long as they retain control.

The third force seized control of Marxism. To do this a further semantic revolution was necessary. This change is illustrated by dictionary changes in the meanings of the words “right” and “left” You see these changes set forth clearly by comparison of definitions in succeeding times as reported in dictionaries of subsequent editions.

In 1828 Noah Webster defined “right” as meaning “conformity to the will of god, or to his law…When laws are definite, right and wrong are easily ascertained and understood.” In that edition “left” had no political connotation’ it meant “weak, deficient…denoting opposite to right of the body.”

In the 1956 edition of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “right” is shown as originating from Anglo Saxon, right, and it meant straight, not crooked; as “a right line”. Its political usage meant, “in some legislative bodies, (as in France) those members collectively who have seats to the right of the presiding officer; also, the conservative or monarchical groups occupying those seats; hence, political conservatives or monarchists collectively.”

In the same 1956 edition, “Left”, in its political connotation, meant, “In some legislative bodies in Europe, those members collectively who have seats to the left of the presiding officer; also, the liberal or radical groups which occupy those seats; hense, political liberals or radicals collectively.”

Now, however, in the 1971 edition of Webster’s Collegiate, “Right” has a new origin shown: True enough, it still comes from Old English “right” but it is shown akin to Latin “reger” meaning “To lead straight, direct, rule.” And in its political connotation it now includes, “Individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and sometimes advocating the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order.”

In the 1971 edition, “Left” included “Those professing views usually characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order, esp., in politics and usually advocating greater freedom or wellbeing of the common man.”

So in America, the advocate of justice and opportunity was considered for over 100 years to be a political rightist; one who favored God’s straight line of freedom and opportunity for the individual. That was thought to be the right course for our Nation as a whole.

Many now try to persuade us a believe that the Marxian Political Leftist is the only champion of the poor and downtrodden; that “Freedom from personal responsibility can be obtained best by surrender of individual rights to the government so that the bureaucrats can supervise the new “Greening of America”

REVOLUTION BY SEMANTIC TURMOIL

It is charged in The United States today by the political leftists, those who claim to be in favor of “progress” for the so-called common man, that anyone who wants to preserve our American traditional rights of personal economic freedom of the individual is an extremist of the right.

“The extreme right”, say the Liberals, “are persons who want to preserve the dictatorial power of “privileged classes.” These so-called privileged few are alleged to be “the rich and powerful” who exploit the masses for their own gain.

These modern American leftists advocate adoption of the rule of force by government to bring “progress” and change into political life. The force they advocate is the power of the State. This power is to be applied through the rule of political law. These leftists make two opposite claims at the same time.

The counter-revolutionary leftists charge that the traditional American “rightist” who has long stood for personal, private rights of individual control is an extremist. While making this charge, the leftist advocates a counter-revolution in American. He works for establishment of a supreme State with final power in the hands of administrators to use every force of government to serve the so-called “common man”.

In the United States today, the so-called “conservatives” who trace their political ideology to the Revolutionary founding Fathers are fighting a last ditch battle for freedom of the individual. They maintain that they are right; that theirs is the position of personal liberty and prosperity for the individual. They believe that theirs is the only way for our country to remain strong and prosperous. They believe that the only hope for progress of our people is for the individual to assume personal responsibility for himself.

The Leftist Liberals advocate more and more control of the individual by the all-powerful State. They believe the State has and should have final power to provide benefits for the individual.

The Third Force, those who are the super-rich elite and their supporters, are always standing “in the wings” ready to move “on stage” and take final control of total government power.

They, the third force, are the secret but mortal enemies of the prospering American Middle Class. It is they, the secret third force, who stands behind the scenes and feed the socialist fires of the liberal counter revolution that is running wild over our country today. They believe that when “the revolution is accomplished”, they will ride the crest of the wave and retain final and total control of government power.

WHO ARE THE COUNTER REVOLUTIONARIES?

With Satan’s help a behind the scenes worldwide campaign was started in Europe over 100 years ago. Those out of power, the revolutionary left, called themselves Marxists.

Their revolution began by teaching that God, the concept of God, was no more than a notion or a false concept that had been dreamed up by the rulers to keep the masses in subjection. They called for abandonment of the traditional concept of God.

Deep down inside of every person is awareness that God is real. Thus, people have a native God consciousness.

Strange as it seems, people can be deceived. This is true because, for at least one reason, the eternal God who created us refuses to force his will and ways upon us. He has given us our agency and allows us to choose for ourselves.

But not Satan. He comes a-whispering that there is no God, and no Satan. He says such clever things as this: “Good is God. Man is God. There is nothing higher than man; therefore only man can establish his own sense of ethics and values. They say no man is an island; everyone is part of the whole. What is good for the whole must be good for the individual. For this reason, the will of the individual is less important than the will of the whole. Thus, say the Marxists, the individual must be subject to the whole, the State.

The State, they say, is responsible for the individual who obtains from the State all of his rights and privileges, even the right of life itself. If the individual does not serve the State he is of no value to the State. If the State desires it, say the Marxists, the individual can, and will be liquidated at the will of the State.

The counter-revolutionaries in The United States are those people who are attempting to maintain the sovereignty of our nation. They do not want to subject us to a ruling world power. They are not the social leftists who want more and more government control of the individual for the good of the so-called common man.

The worldwide campaign of the totalitarians, the “liberal” revolution, continues in the United States today. It is a battle for men’s minds; a semantic battle of the mind.

The satanic switch in the meaning of words used in dialectic materialism is just one example. The clever change of meaning and use of the words, to, and from, is another. The attempt to transpose the meanings of the words “conservative” and liberal is still another.

Here is an example: The President of The United States calls himself a “conservative” and then explains that he is a Keynesian economist. By this statement he could well mean that he is attempting to conserve tradition of Socialists.

But he does not say whether he is attempting to preserve the liberties given to us by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution, or whether he is attempting to preserve for posterity the supremacy of government over the individual. He talks in one breath about returning power to the States and in the next demands more powers to dictate.

MODERN AMERICAN FASCISTI

What do you call the Banker who gives his total support to the government official who in turn allows the Banker a final monopoly control of the business of manufacturing money?

How about the farmer who insists that the government pay him a subsidy for either raising or not raising grain?

How about the laboring man who adopts the notion that he has a vested interest in his job and it is the responsibility of the employer to provide him not only a job but all of the comforts of security from birth to death?

Or what is the ideology of the Doctor who in his own mind says “no one who is not trained in my school of medicine can possibly know how to treat a human illness; therefore the government must guarantee that I and those of my school alone are permitted to treat the ill or injured.”

Or take the Business Executive who says, “I can’t make it in business without government backing and financial support. The country needs what my business produces, erego, the government has an obligation to its citizens to give me a special tax incentive or other “dole” so that I will not go bankrupt.”

On the other hand, look at the so-called under-privileged. They say, “We are a Christian Nation. We believe in helping the unfortunate and handicapped. I am not as able as others; that is my handicap. The government must give me a guaranteed wage or unemployment benefits if I can’t find work that is to my liking.”

Are such people fascists, or communists, or are they just plainly “totalitarians”?

What is a socialist? Isn’t he the person, whether rich or poor, who believes in social or government control of prices, quality of products or the conditions under which work is performed?

HALF SLAVE-HALF FREE

Lincoln said that our nation cannot long exist half-slave and half-free.

There are those who advocate that we must have some socialism and some freedom of private enterprise. They may be right. Perhaps only God knows what the final truth is.

But one thing is certain: Dirty dishes never wash themselves. A cigarette butt thrown on the ground is a burden to be picked up by someone else.

FREEDOM ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH

Americans, particularly those of the past century, have been lovers of freedom. But freedom to do what one wants to do is not enough.

There must be controls put on a person’s wants.

If a person’s wants are disciplined wants; that is, he wants what the moral law permits him to want without injury either himself or someone else, then it is desirable to have his wants satisfied by his own industry.

If a person’s wants are disciplined wants; that is, he wants what the moral law permits him to want without injury either to himself or some one else, then it is desirable to have his wants satisfied by his own industry.

“That is why, for this generation, it is not enough to be committed to freedom. Nearly everyone says he wants freedom. But many mean by that word today, not so much freedom from grovernment restrictions of their natural rights to earn a living and raise a family, as freedom from the imperatives of the moral law itself – freedom to lie, to covet, to steal, to dishonor father and mother, to commit adultery, sometimes even freedom to maim and kill for the sake of what the maimer and killer “sincerely” regards as a good cause.

Freedom to do what one aught to do; to restrict and restrain one’s self from greed; freedom to create; to serve and to build in the hopes and confidence of being able to profit from the service one renders is the freedom that is good and honorable and CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM.

A STATE OF EMERGENCY

Every thinking American knows that trouble stalks our Nation from border to border and from sea to shining sea.

Most people believe that the best course of safety for them is to ignore all outside or “national” issues and bury their noses in the details of their own personal business.

That action has just got to be one of the smartest things a man can do in the face of catastrophy. To mind one’s own business is to fulfill God’s commandments.

ON THE OTHER HAND:

What is the one item of business that stands highest in order of priority on the list of daily things for an American Citizen to do for himself?

Obviously trying to make more money to counter ruinous inflation is one thing to do. No doubt one of the smartest things one can do is to keep his nose down hard on his business grindstone.

One aspect of the genius of oue American Way of Life is its provision that pays well the person who concentrates his attention on his important business for his own personal profit.

THE RULES OF THE GAME

Every game that is a game has a set of rules.

In baseball, three strikes and you’re out. In chess, the Bishop moves only diagonally. In auto driving, every car stays on the right of the center.

Society can’t function without rules. Your property is not mine and you expect me to keep my cotton picken hands off of everything that is yours.

OUR NATION HAS RULES

The rules, the basic rules of our nation, are written and available for every citizen to read and to learn. Those rules are written down in a document known as The Constitution of The United States.

Underlying all rules that guide a man are the basic laws, or divine rules, that God has ordained for us to follow.

GOD’S ETERNAL GUIDELINES

We can change the rules of baseball. We can change the Constitution by vote of three quarters of the State Legislatures.

But no government and no tyrant can change or wipe out one line of the statutes of The Living God.

He said to Moses on Mount Sinai, “Thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not covet; thou shalt not steal.”

Does this mean that it is not right to steal a woman’s purse but it would be all right to send a government agent to take her money for us by means of laws and government force?

We are commanded by God to earn our daily b read by the seeat of our faces. (Genesis 3:19)

Are we not socialists in violation of the laws of God if we use social means, the powers of government, to feed us and to guarantee our personal security?

FREEDOM FROM vs. FREEDOM TO

The semantic and philosophical essence or foundation of the struggle of man for personal liberty is partially revealed in the opposing meanings of the two English words, from and to.

Freedom to choose is the absolute opposite of freedom from choice. Freedom from choice suggests freedom from responsibility.

God has given man his own personal agency. A man’s agency is his own. It is his most basic unalienable right. It allows him only the right to make choices but the ability to decide from alternatives. He can decide for himself whether to use a hammer or a saw to do a job. But more importantly, he can decide for himself whether to undertake the task at all. When he is free to profit from his choices, he is most apt to make choices.

After life itself, nothing is more important to man than the ability to perceive, to see differences, and to make choices among alternatives. This is the essence of personal liberty.

Freedom and responsibility go together. “There is no freedom without responsibility and no responsibility without freedom.”

The notion that an individual can avoid responsibility is the satanic doorway to slavery.

Once an individual adopts the concept that he can transfer to some one else, or to the government, responsibility for his personal welfare, that person has surrendered his liberty. He has attached to his own person the chains of slavery. From that point on he will be pulled, forced and driven from this or that end whether he likes it or not.

It is by exercise of freedom to do what we should do that we are freed from the penalties that follow in the wake of indolence and disobedience.

God’s eternal plan of life for man allows no exaltation to any person who demand freedom from responsibility.