PREDICTIONS OF CIVIL WAR HITTING THE MAINSTREAM PRESS

I can argue with nothing in the this article:

FOX NEWS CIVIL WAR PREDICTION

THE INDOLENT AND IDLER SHALL NOT EAT THE BREAD

Maybe its getting a little too close to tax day - and I am fed up with the moral decline of our country where people feel perfectly happy to live off of others' hard work.

Here is something my good wife found - a guy who really knows what is what when it comes to socialism and its ever-creeping tentacles:



‎

23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

26 Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved.

Can't wait for the Millennium when all the "something for nothing" socialist trash gets taken to the curb.... The idler will not have a place at the table - simple as that. Its not in God's economy - not in the least. You simply work by the sweat of your brow for what you have - or you suffer. Its nature's law - and an eternal principle. The parasitic drag we have on our country's resources - and on those who choose to work for what they have - is stupendous. Right now, those who parasitically rely on others' hard work and get a paycheck while watching Jerry Springer all day, far outnumber those who believe its their God-given mandate to support themselves and their families, if they have them. We are in trouble at the most fundamental level of society's fabric. The only way to fix it is to trash it and start completely over. You cannot put old wine into new bottles - when the earthenware bottles have been dry for too long.... Keep the powder dry - it will be a contest between the idlers who choose by Executive Order and legislative decree to force the rest of the working class into de-facto slavery to live off the fruits of their labors and those who have prepared to say "Enough is enough". The Nephites faced the same problem with the Lamanites of the day who chose to inhabit their cities, raid their crops, rape their women, and otherwise be indolent and lazy towards their own responsibilities of self-sustenance. The thing that makes it worse today is, at least the Lamanites/Gads had to fight and die trying to steal from those who were productive. Today, they just march, rally, coerce, legislate and legally take it by force. And that stinks - if you like to be productive and set your own course and determine your own destiny....

Phew - that was a great rant. Must be a little touchy as April 15th approaches.....

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNITED ORDER AND SOCIALISM

There are alot of people within the Church that confuse the two lines of thinking - and its a dangerous trend:

Elder Marion G. Romney, “ Socialism and The United Order”
(Elder Marion G. Romney, March 1, 1966, BYU Speeches of the Year, 1966, p.1-12)
President Wilkinson, faculty members, students, brothers and sisters all. First I want to thank that choir. I am not sure it isn't a body of angels-I can't see behind this screen. That was a marvelous rendition. This last song (O My Father) is my favorite hymn.
I have been asked to talk this morning about socialism and the United Order. I assure you that I approach this discussion with a great deal of trepidation.
***
Socialism Defined
Perhaps an appropriate first step in comparing socialism and the United Order would be to define the terms. Webster defines socialism as: A political and economic theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods; also, a policy or practice based on this theory. (Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd Ed., unabridged, 1951.) George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, says that: Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1943 Ed., p.295.)

George Douglas Howard Cole, M.A., noted author and university reader in economics at Oxford, who treats socialism for the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that because of the shifting sense in which the word has been used, . . . a short and comprehensive definition is . . . impossible. We can only say [he concludes] that Socialism is essentially a doctrine and a movement aiming at the collective organization of the community in the interest of the mass of the people by means of the common ownership and collective control of the means of production and exchange. (The quotations on pages 2, 3, and 4, unless otherwise indicated, are from George Douglas Howard Cole, M.A., and are found in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 20.)

Socialism arose "out of the economic division in society." During the nineteenth century its growth was accelerated as a protest against "the appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories and the unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system." The "communist manifesto" drafted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, for the Communist League . . . in . . . 1848 is generally regarded as the starting point of modern socialism. (Ibid.)

Distinction Between Socialism and Communism
The distinction between Socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labour Parties of Europe and the new world, and Communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy rather than of objective.

Communism is indeed only Socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith. Communists, like other Socialists, (1) believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production, and (2) seek to achieve, through state action the co-ordinated control of the economic forces of society. They differ from other Socialists in believing that this control can be secured, and its use in the interests of the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change. (Ibid.)

Major Forms of Socialism
A major rift between so-called orthodox socialism and communist socialism occurred in 1875 when the German Social Democratic Party set forth its objective of winning power by taking over control of the bourgeois state, rather than by overthrowing it. In effect, the German Social Democratic Party became a parliamentary party, aiming at the assumption of political power by constitutional means. In the 1880's a small group of intellectuals set up in England the Fabian Society, which has had a major influence on the development of modern orthodox socialism.

Fabianism stands "for the evolutionary conception of socialism . . . endeavoring by progressive reforms and the nationalization of industries, to turn the existing state into a 'welfare state.'" Somewhat on the order of the German Social Democrats, Fabians aim "at permeating the existing parties with socialistic ideas [rather] than at creating a definitely socialistic party." They appeal "to the electorate not as revolutionaries, but as constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful transformation of the system."

The differences in forms and policies of socialism occur principally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories. They all advocate: (1) That private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished and that all such property "pass under some form of co-ordinated public control." (2) That the power of the state be used to achieve their aims. (3) "That with a change in the control of industry will go a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system . . ." So much now for the definition of socialism.

The United Order Defined
The United Order, the Lord's program for eliminating the inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord, and that men hold earthly Possessions as stewards accountable to God.

On January 2, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Church was under obligation to care for the poor. (See D&C 38.) Later He said, I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, . . . and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine. But it must needs be done in mine own way. (D&C 104:14-16.)

The Lord ' s Way
On February 9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what His way was. (See D&C 42.) In His way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration, and (2) stewardship. To enter the United Order one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a "covenant and deed which" could "not be broken." That is, he completely divested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church. Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his original consecration the object being to make "every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs." (D&C 51:3.)

Right to Private Ownership Preserved
This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs. The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the Order he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse, from which stewardships were given to others, and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.

The United Order and Socialism Compared
These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying hallmarks of socialism reveal similarities and basic differences. The following are similarities: Both (1) deal with production and distribution of goods; (2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities; (3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system.

Now the differences: (1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of Him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order. Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men, and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish His righteousness. (2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God. Socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state. (3) As to property, in harmony with Church belief, as set forth in the D&C, "that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property" (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management. Socialism is operated on the principle of collective or governmental ownership and management. Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it. (4) The United Order is non-political. Socialism is political, both in theory and in practice. It is thus exposed to, and fiddled by, the corruption which plagues and finally destroys all political governments which undertake to abridge man's agency. (5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order. Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.

Socialism Is Not the United Order
The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint, but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellow men characterized by Mormon as "the pure love of Christ." (Moro. 7:47.)

No, students, socialism is not the United Order. Distinguishing between these two systems need be no more difficult than solving the problem of the farmer who couldn't tell one of his horses from the other. They weighed the same, pulled the same load, ran at the same speed; from the looks of their teeth they were the same age. Finally, as a last resort, he measured them, and, sure enough, the white horse was six hands higher than the black one.
Socialism Wave of the Present and Future
Notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations. At the end of the year [1965] parties affiliated with the [Socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland; constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 Book of the Year, pp. 736.)

The United States Converting to Social Welfare State
We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice, according to the words of the President, that we are going much farther, for he is quoted as saying: We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the "haves" and give it to the "have nots." (Congressional Record, 1964, p. 6142-White House Speech, March 24, 1964.) That is the spirit of socialism: "We're going to take." It isn't the spirit of "We're going to give."

American Free Agency Abridged
We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans has been greatly abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery.

As to the fruits of socialism, we all have our own opinions. I myself have watched its growth in our own country and observed it in operation in many other lands. But I have yet to see or hear of its freeing the hearts of men of selfishness and greed or of its bringing peace, plenty or freedom. These things it will never bring, nor will it do away with idleness and promote "industry, thrift and self-respect," for it is founded, in theory and in practice, on the principles of the evil one.

The Fruits of the United Order
As to the fruits of the United Order, I suggest you read Moses 7:16-18 and Four - 1 Ne. 2, 3, 15, 16. If we had time we could review the history, what little we know, of Zion in the days of Enoch and about what happened among the Nephites under those principles of the United Order in the first two centuries following the time of the Savior.

What We Can Do About It
Now what can we do about it? As I recently reminded my wife of the moratorium on the United Order, that socialism is taking over in the nations, and that its expressed aims will surely fail, she spiritedly put to me the question: "Well, then, what would you suggest, that we just sit on our hands in despair and do nothing?" Perhaps similar questions have occurred to you. The answer is, "No, by no means!" We have much to do, and the Lord has definitely prescribed the course we should follow, with respect to socialism and the United Order.

The Lord's Prescribed Course He has told us that in preparation for the restoration of the gospel, He himself established the Constitution of the United States that there might be a government which "according to just and holy principles" would preserve to men their God-given agency. This He did because the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ presupposes man's untrammeled exercise of free agency. Man is in the earth to be tested. The issue as to whether he succeeds or fails will be determined by how he uses this agency. His whole future, through all eternity, is at stake. Abridge man's agency and the whole purpose of his mortality is thwarted. Without it, the Lord says, there is no existence. (See D&C 93:30.)

This He explained in the revelation in which He instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith to appeal for help: According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose (D&C 101:77-78, 80.)
Previously He had said: And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law [that is, constitutional law] also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. (D&C 98:4-10.)

The Constitution a Divine Document
These scriptures reveal the fact that the Constitution is a divine document. They tell us that "according to just and holy principles" "the constitution" and "the law of the land which supports the principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before" God; that, "as pertaining to the law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." They remind us that the Lord has made us free, and that laws which are constitutional will also make us free.

A Warning
Right at this point, almost as if He were warning us against what is happening today, the Lord said: "Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn." Then, that we might know with certainty what we should do about it, He concluded: "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold."

Seek to Support Wise Men in Government
In its context this instruction can only mean that we should seek diligently for and support men to represent us in government who are "wise" enough to understand freedom-as provided for in the Constitution and as is implemented in the United Order-and who are honest enough and good enough to fight to preserve it. ."Under no other government in the world could the church have been established," said President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and he continued: . . . If we are to live as a church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees. (Conference Report, October 1942, p.59.)

What We Should Do About the United Order
Now, not forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support the just and holy principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord, I shall conclude these remarks with a few comments concerning what we should do about the United Order. The final words of the Lord in suspending the Order were: And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption. (D&C 105:34.) Further implementation of the Order must therefore await the redemption of Zion.

Here Zion means Jackson County, Missouri. When Zion is redeemed, as it most certainly shall be, it will be redeemed under a government, and by a people, strictly observing those "just and holy principles" of the Constitution which accord to men their God-given moral agency, including the right to private property. If, in the meantime, socialism takes over in America, it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or "the welfare state," for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical.

INTERESTING WORDS ON OUR CONSTITUTION

I really love President Benson. Here are some classic quotes that sum up what he was about.



God bless our country when we try to do what is right.

THE EVILS OF SOCIALISM

In my attempts not to turn this into a political blog (but I do love politics dearly), I point out that this abhorring of socialism (something for nothing) has far more to do with the abhorrence of satan's plan (of taking something by force) than it ever had to do with politics. Secondly, what can I say - I am a rabid frothing at the mouth lover of anything President Benson. He was one of the Big Five "dream team" sent in the 1980's to help abolish the world blight of the USSR (the big five are Benson, Reagan, PJ Paul, Margaret Thatcher and Lech Walesa - each with a unique role to play).

Anyway, the following is what makes me such a great fan of President Ezra Taft Benson:

BENSON CLEARLY SAW THIS BACK IN 1966. LOOK WHERE WE ARE AT 45 YEARS LATER; TODAY!

Stand Up For Freedom
By Ezra Taft Benson

[Editor's Note: Excerpted from an hour-long address given in 1966. Ezra Taft Benson was a true patriot and a prophet in Israel.]

Humbly and gratefully I stand before you - grateful for patriots such as you - humbled by the magnitude of the task before us.
I speak to you as a fellow citizen of the United States of America deeply concerned about the welfare of our beloved country.
I am not here to tickle your ears - to entertain you. I will talk to you frankly and honestly. The message I bring is not a happy one, but it is the truth, and time is always on the side of truth. As the German philosopher Goethe, said: "Truth must be repeated again and again because error is constantly being preached round about."
I realize that the bearer of bad news is always unpopular. As a people we love sweetness and light - especially sweetness. Ralph Waldo Emerson said that every mind must make a choice between truth and repose. Those who will learn nothing from history are condemned to repeat it. This we are doing in the Americas today. ...
Returning recently from two years abroad has caused me to reflect seriously on recent trends and present conditions in our beloved country. I am shocked and saddened at what I find. I am sorry to say that all is not well in so-called prosperous, wealthy and powerful America.
We have moved a long way - and are now moving further and more rapidly down the soul-destroying road of socialism. The evidence is clear - shockingly clear for all to see.
With our national prestige at - or near - an embarrassing all-time low, we continue to weaken our domestic economy by unsound fiscal, economic and foreign aid policies which corrupt our national currency. Ever increasing centralization of power in the federal government in Washington, D.C. is reducing our local and state governments to virtual federal field offices while weakening individual initiative, enterprise and character.
With the crass unconstitutional usurpation of powers by the Executive Branch of the federal government, anti-spiritual decisions of the Supreme Court - all apparently approved by a weakly submissive rubber-stamp congress - the days ahead are ominously frightening.
Surely - certainly - it behooves patriotic citizens - such as you - to meet together to seriously consider present conditions in our beloved nation. It is imperative that American citizens become alerted and informed regarding the threat to our welfare, happiness and freedom.
No American is worthy of citizenship in this great land who refuses to take an active interest in these important matters.

All we hold dear as a great Christian nation is at stake. ...
We Americans have strayed far from sound principles - morally, Constitutionally and historically. It has been getting us into a quagmire of trouble all over the world, and especially here at home.
Americans at the grass roots level have sensed that their way of life is being threatened....
... There are some legitimate functions and services which the Federal Government can and should provide, but those who want the federal power to exceed the authority delegated to it by the Constitution will be resisted both by Democrats and Republicans. This is what is happening in some limited areas today. May the trend increase.
And anyone who tries to equate this love of Constitutional principles as meaning hatred of our national leaders is using Goebbels-style deception. History has already demonstrated that conservative opposition to national leaders was not "hate" but an attempt to do them a favor. ...
Therefore, I repeat, this kind of resistance to a national leader is rooted in love and respect, not hate. Regardless of which political party is in power, you do not want to see your President make a serious blunder. ...
What causes one to wonder is why these warnings were not carefully considered and acted upon. Why is it that men in high places in government, regardless of party have been deceived? I am convinced that a major part of the cause can be justly laid at the door of the Socialist-Communist Conspiracy, which is lead by masters of deceit who deceive the very elect. J. Edgar Hoover put it well when he said, "I would have no fears if more Americans possessed the zeal, the fervor, the persistence, and the industry to learn about this menace of Red fascism. I do fear for the liberal and progressive who have been hoodwinked and duped into joining with the Communists."
Therefore, let those who call for unity and the elimination of hate be sure they are not merely trying to silence the friends of freedom. These are they who respect their leaders and resist them only when it is felt they are headed for a catastrophe. What patriotic American would wish to stand silent if he saw the President verging on a blunder because of bad advice or a mistake in judgment of the facts?

I believe one of the most serious mistakes a President could make would be to weaken the Constitution.
From the time I was a small boy, I was taught that the American Constitution is an inspired document. I was also taught that the day will come when the Constitution will be endangered and hang as it were by a single thread. I was taught that we should study the Constitution, preserve its principles and defend it against any who would destroy it. To the best of my ability I have always tried to do this. I expect to continue my efforts to help protect and safeguard our inspired Constitution.
Some two years ago, however, a critic from Washington, D.C. claimed that a person who serves in a church capacity should not comment on such matters. He charged that the separation of church and state requires that church officials restrict their attention to affairs of the Church.
I, of course, also believe that the institutions of church and state should be separated, but I also do not agree that spiritual leaders cannot comment on basic issues which involve the very foundation of American liberty.
In fact, if this were true, we would have to throw away a substantial part of the Bible. Speaking out against immoral or unjust actions of political leaders has been the burden of prophets and disciples of God from time immemorial. It was for this very reason that many of them were persecuted. Some of them were stoned, some of them were burned, many were imprisoned. Nevertheless it was their God-given task, as watchmen on the towers, to speak up.
It is certainly no different today.
To Moses God said: "....proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." (Lev. 25:10)
Why? For God knows full well that the gospel - His plan for the blessing of His children can prosper only in an atmosphere of freedom.
To modern men God has said: the Constitution "should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh." (Doctrine and Covenants 101:77) ...

At this particular moment in history the United States Constitution is definitely threatened and every citizen should know about it. The warning of this hour should resound through the corridors of every American institution....
Our Republic and Constitution are being destroyed while the enemies of freedom are being aided. How? In at least ten ways:
1. By diplomatic recognition and aid, trade and negotiations with the Communists.
2. By disarmament of our military defenses.
3. By destruction of our security laws and the promotion of atheism by decisions of the Supreme Court.
4. By loss of sovereignty and solvency to international commitments and membership in world organizations.
5. By undermining of local law enforcement agencies and Congressional investigation committees.
6. By usurpations by the Executive and the Judicial branches of our Federal Government.
7. By lawlessness in the name of civil rights.
8. By staggering national debt with inflation and the corruption of the currency.
9. By a multiplicity of executive orders and federal programs which greatly weaken local and state government.
10. By the sacrificing of American manhood by engaging in wars we apparently have no intention of winning.

Wherever possible, I have tried to speak out. It is for this very reason that certain people in Washington have bitterly criticized me. They don't want people to hear the message. It embarrasses them. The things which are destroying the Constitution are the things they have been voting for. They are afraid of their political careers if these facts are pointed out. They therefore try to silence any who carry the message - anyone who will stand up and be counted. ...

Now we should all be opposed to Socialistic-Communism, for it is our mortal and spiritual enemy - the greatest evil in the world today. But the reason many liberals don't want the American people to form study groups to really understand and then fight Socialistic-Communism is that once the American people get the facts they will begin to realize that much of what these liberals advocate is actually helping the enemy.
The liberals hope you'll believe them when they tell you how anti-Communist they are. But they become alarmed if you really inform yourself on the subject of Socialistic-Communism. For after you inform yourself you might begin to study the liberal voting record. And this study would show you how much the liberals are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and how much the liberals are actually leading America towards Socialism itself.
For Communism is just another form of socialism, as is fascism. So now you can see the picture. These liberals want you to know how much they are doing for you - with your tax money of course. But they don't want you to realize that the path they are pursuing is socialistic, and that socialism is the same as communism in its ultimate effect on our liberties. When you point this out they want to shut you up - they accuse you of maligning them, of casting aspersions, of being political. No matter whether they label their bottle as liberalism, progressivism, or social reform - I know the contents of the bottle is poison to this Republic and I'm going to call it poison.
We do not need to question the motive of these liberals. They could be most sincere. But sincerity or supposed benevolence or even cleverness is not the question. The question is: "Are we going to save this country from the hands of the enemy and the deceived?" ...
So from the very beginning of this Moscow campaign, to stop the anti-Communist movement in this country, it was an important part of the Communist strategy to get their liberal American friends to carry out an attack against patriotic organizations. Of course, the Communists have learned not to attack all patriotic groups at once. Their strategy is to focus on just one organization and make it so detestable and ugly in the public mind that they can hold it up as a sort of a tar baby and then use it to smear all other individuals or groups in the same category. ...

I feel it is always good strategy to stand up for the right, even when it is unpopular. Perhaps I should say, ESPECIALLY when it is unpopular.
I had to make this same decision all over again when President David O. McKay received an invitation from former Congressman John Rousselot, asking that I be authorized to give a patriotic speech.... President McKay after careful consideration, told me I should make the talk and that I had his permission and blessing....
This talk was given to [nearly 6,000 people at two events]....
Both talks dealt with the preservation of the Constitution and the need to resist the Communist threat....
Of course, ... this talk brought an immediate outcry from some liberal elements in Washington. These voices said that I, as a Church official, had no business speaking [at a political event]. They said it was making me "controversial." Patrick Henry and the Founding Fathers were also "controversial." True patriots have ever been. Perhaps they did not realize that I had fulfilled this assignment with the full approval of President McKay.... The fight to save the Constitution is not near controversy, nor the fight against Communism. In fact, it is a war with the devil - Christ verses anti-Christ - and I am willing to fight it. It is a fight against the greatest evil in this world - a ruthless, powerful, godless conspiracy.
J Edgar Hoover has warned that the cold war is a real war and that the threat is increasing. I agree, and unfortunately we are losing the war.

I think it is time for every patriotic American to join with neighbors to study the Constitution and the Conspiracy. Subscribe to several good patriotic magazines.... Buy a few basic books, such as Masters Of Deceit and A Study Of Communism by J. Edgar Hoover; The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen, recommended by President David O. McKay, in the General Conference of the Church, October 1959; You Can Trust The Communists by Dr. Fred Schwartz, and so on.[Editor's note: These books are all available used at Amazon.com. More current publications include Awakening to Our Awful Situation, Jack Monnett; The End of America and Give me Liberty by Naomi Wolf; and Glenn Beck's Common Sense.] And then prepare to do some independent thinking. And remember that the organized who have a plan and are dedicated, though they be few, will always defeat the many who are not organized and who lack plans and dedication. The communists know this and have proven it. Isn't it about time that most Americans realize it too?

In conclusion may I say that one of our most serious problems is the inferiority complex which people feel when they are not informed and organized. They dare not make a decision on these vital issues. They let other people think for them. They stumble around in the middle of the road trying to avoid being "controversial" and get hit by traffic going both ways.
To the patriots I say this: Take the long eternal look. Stand up for freedom no matter what the cost.
It can help to save your soul - and maybe your country.
This is a choice land, choice above all others. Blessed by the Almighty, our forefathers have made and kept it so. It will continue to be a land of freedom and liberty as long as we are able to advance in the light of sound and enduring principles of right. To sacrifice such principles for momentary expediency - often selfishly motivated - is to endanger our noble heritage and is unworthy of this great American people.
With all my heart I love this great nation. ... This is a nation with a great mission to perform for the benefit of liberty-loving people everywhere. It is my firm conviction that The Constitution of this land was established by men whom the God of heaven raised up unto that very purpose. This is part of my religious faith.
The days ahead are sobering and challenging, and will demand the faith, prayers and loyalty of every American. As the ancient apostle declared:
"The night is far spent, the day is at hand; let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." (Romans 13:12)
May God give us the wisdom to recognize the dangers of complacency, the threat to our freedom and the strength to meet this danger courageously. ...
In this mighty struggle each of you has a part. Every person on the earth today chose the right side during the war in heaven. Be on the right side now. Stand up and be counted. If you get discouraged remember the words of Edward Everett Hale when he said:
"I am only one, but I am one.
I can't do everything, but I can do something.
What I can do, that I ought to do,
And what I ought to do,
By the grace of God, I shall do!"
And this is my prayer for you this day. May God bless all of you, each and every one....

(Ezra Taft Benson. Stand Up For Freedom. Assembly Hall at Temple Square, Feb 11, 1966. Given to The Utah Forum for the American Idea)

Full Text:
http://michael-bonham.com/wordpress/...or-freedom.htm
Full Audio:
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/downloads

SOCIALISM AND THE UNITED ORDER - TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AT LOGGERHEADS

HATE TO JUST DUMP A TALK HERE - BUT YOU CANNOT TOP THIS WITH ANY KIND OF COMMENTARY:

Is Socialism the United Order?

by Elder Marion G. Romney. General Conference. April 1966. Address on Socialism.

Socialism and the United Order (11.0 MiB, 116 hits)

What I am going to give you now is a statement I have prepared in answer to the question, “Is Socialism the United Order?” Some of you may have already heard it. This is the first time I have ever attempted to give a talk a second time. My excuse is that the Brethren have asked me to give this talk here tonight.

I suppose the best way to start a comparison of socialism and the United Order is with a definition of the terms. Webster defines socialism as:
Socialism defined

“A political and economic theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods; also, a policy or practice based on this theory.” (Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2nd ed. unabridged, 1951.)

George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that:

“Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, p. 895.)

George Douglas Howard Cole, M.A. noted author and university reader in economics at Oxford, who treats socialism for the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that because of the shifting sense in which the word has been used, “a short and comprehensive definition is impossible. We can only say,” he concludes, “that Socialism is essentially a doctrine and a movement aiming at the collective organization of the community in the interest of the mass of the people by means of the common ownership and collective control of the means of production and exchange.” (Ibid., p. 888.)

Socialism arose “out of the economic division in society.” During the nineteenth century its growth was accelerated as a protest against “the appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories and the unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system.”
Communism, starting point

The “Communist Manifesto” drafted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for the Communist League in 1848 is generally regarded as the starting point of modern socialism. (Ibid., p. 890.)

The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labour parties of Europe and the New World, and Communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy rather than of objective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith. Communists like other socialists, (1) believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production and (2) seek to achieve through state action the coordinated control of the economic forces of society. They (the Communists) differ from other socialists in believing that this control can be secured, and its use in the interests of the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change. (Ibid.)
German Socialism

A major rift between so-called orthodox socialism and communist socialism occurred in 1875 when the German Social Democratic party set forth its objective of winning power by taking over control of the bourgeois state, rather than by overthrowing it. In effect, the German Social Democratic party became a parliamentary party, aiming at the assumption of political power by constitutional means.
Fabian Society

In the 1880’s a small group of intellectuals set up in England the Fabian Society, which has had a major influence on the development of modern orthodox socialism. Fabianism stands “for the evolutionary conception of socialism . . . endeavoring by progressive reforms and the nationalization of industries, to turn the existing state into a ‘welfare state.’” Somewhat on the order of the German Social Democrats Fabians aim “at permeating the existing parties with socialistic ideas [rather] than at creating a definitely socialistic party.” They appeal “to the electorate not as revolutionaries but as constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful transformation of the system.” (Ibid.)
Forms and policies of socialism

The differences in forms and policies of socialism occur principally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories.

They all advocate:

(1) That private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished and that all such property “pass under some form of coordinated public control.”

(2) That the power of the state be used to achieve their aims.

(3) “That with a change in the control of industry will go a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system. . . .” (Ibid.)

So much now for the definition of socialism. I have given you these statements in the words of socialists and scholars, not my words, so they have had their hearing.
The United Order

Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of the Lord and not my words. The United Order the Lord’s program for eliminating the inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly possessions as stewards accountable to God.

On January 2, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Church was under obligation to care for the poor. (See D&C 38.) Later he said:

“I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, . . .and all things therein are mine.

“And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.

“But it must needs be done in mine own way. . . .” (D&C 104:14-16.)
Consecration and stewardship

On February 9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what his way was. (See D&C 42.) In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2) stewardship.

To enter the United Order, when it was being tried, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a “covenant and a deed which” could not “be broken.” (D&C 42:30.) That is, he completely divested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church.

Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his original consecration, the object being to make “every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” (D&C 51:3.)

This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs.

The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse from which stewardships were given to others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.

These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying principles of socialism reveal similarities and basic differences.
Comparisons and contrasts: Similarities

The following are similarities: Both

(1) deal with production and distribution of goods;

(2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities;

(3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system.
Differences

Now the differences:

(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.

Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.

(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.

One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, “You don’t need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn’t come into the United Order.” (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 412-13.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

(3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, “that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property” (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.
God-given agency preserved in United Order

Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.

(4) The United Order is non-political.

Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency.

(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.

Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.

The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as “the pure love of Christ.” (Moro. 7:47.)
Socialism not United Order

No, brethren, socialism is not the United Order. However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.

“At the end of the year [1964] parties affiliated with the [Socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 Book of the Year, p. 736.)
United States has adopted much socialism

We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice according to the words of the President, that we are going much further, for he is quoted as saying:

“We’re going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the ‘haves’ and give it to the ‘have nots.’” (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)
Socialism takes: United Order gives

That is the spirit of socialism: We’re going to take. The spirit of the United Order is: We’re going to give.

We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans has been greatly abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery.

As to the fruits of socialism, we all have our own opinions. I myself have watched its growth in our own country and observed it in operation in many other lands. But I have yet to see or hear of its freeing the hearts of men of selfishness and greed or of its bringing peace, plenty, or freedom. These things it will never bring, nor will it do away with idleness and promote “industry, thrift and self-respect,” for it is founded, in theory and in practice, on force, the principle of the evil one.

As to the fruits of the United Order I suggest you read Moses 7:16-18 and 4 Nephi 2:-3, 15-16. If we had time we could review the history, what little we know, of Zion in the days of Enoch and about what happened among the Nephites under those principles of the United Order in the first two centuries following the time of the Savior.

What can we do?

Now what can we do about it?

As I recently reminded my wife of the moratorium on the United Order, which the Lord placed in 1834 (D&C 105:34), that socialism is taking over in the nations and that its expressed aims will surely fail, she spiritedly put to me the question: “Well, then, what would you suggest, that we just sit on our hands in despair and do nothing?” Perhaps similar questions have occurred to you. The answer is, “No, by no means!” We have much to do, and fortunately for us the Lord has definitely prescribed the course we should follow with respect to socialism and the United Order.
Constitution God-inspired

He has told us that in preparation for the restoration of the gospel, he himself established the Constitution of the United States, and he has plainly told us why he established it. I hope I can get this point over to you. He said he established the Constitution to preserve to men their free agency, because the whole gospel of Jesus Christ presupposes man’s untrammeled exercise of free agency. Man is in the earth to be tested. The issue as to whether he succeeds or fails will be determined by how he uses his agency. His whole future, through all eternity, is at stake. Abridge man’s agency, and the whole purpose of his mortality is thwarted. Without it, the Lord says, there is no existence. (See D&C 93:30.) The Lord so valued our agency that he designed and dictated “the laws and constitution” required to guarantee it. This he explained in the revelation in which he instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith to appeal for help,
Just and holy principles

“According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

“That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose. . . .” (D&C 101:77-78, 80.)
Sustain Constitutional law

Previously he had said:

“And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

“And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind and is justifiable before me.

“Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land [the test of its constitutionality in the words of the Lord here is whether it preserves man's agency];

“And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil.

“I, the Lord God, make you free therefore ye are free indeed; and the law [that is, constitutional law] also maketh you free.

“Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

“Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.” (D&C 98:4-10.)

These scriptures declare the Constitution to be a divine document. They tell us that “according to just and holy principles,” the Constitution and the law of the land which supports the “principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before” God; that, “as pertaining to [the] law of man whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” They remind us that the Lord has made us free and that laws that are constitutional will also make us free.
“When the wicked rule, the people mourn”

Right at this point, almost as if he were warning us against what is happening today, the Lord said: “Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.” Then, that we might know with certainty what we should do about it, he concluded: “Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold. . . .”

In its context this instruction, according to my interpretation, can only mean that we should seek diligently for and support men to represent us in government who are “wise” enough to understand freedom—as provided for in the Constitution and as implemented in the United Order—and who are honest enough and good enough to fight to preserve it.

“. . . under no other government in the world could the Church have been established,” said President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and he continued:

“. . . if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees.” (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 58-59.)

Now, not forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support the just and holy principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord, I shall conclude these remarks with a few comments concerning what we should do about the United Order.
What to do about United Order

The final words of the Lord in suspending the order were: “And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption.” (D&C 105:34.)

Further implementation of the order must therefore await the redemption of Zion. Here Zion means Jackson County, Missouri. When Zion is redeemed, as it most certainly shall be, it will be redeemed under a government and by a people strictly observing those “just and holy principles” of the Constitution that accord to men their God-given moral agency, including the right to private property. If, in the meantime, socialism takes over in America, it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or “the welfare state,” for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical.

In the meantime, while we await the redemption of Zion and the earth and the establishment of the United Order, we as bearers of the priesthood should live strictly by the principles of the United Order insofar as they are embodied in present church practices, such as the fast offering, tithing, and the welfare activities. Through these practices we could as individuals, if we were of a mind to do so, implement in our own lives all the basic principles of the United Order.

As you will recall, the principles underlying the United Order are consecration and stewardships and then the contribution of surpluses into the bishop’s storehouse. When the law of tithing was instituted four years after the United Order experiment was suspended, the Lord required the people to put “all their surplus property . . . into the hands of the bishop” (D&C 119:1); thereafter they were to “pay one-tenth of all their interest annually. . . .” (D&C 119:4.) This law, still in force, implements to a degree at least the United Order principle of stewardships, for it leaves in the hands of each person the ownership and management of the property from which he produces the needs of himself and family. Furthermore to use again the words of President Clark:

“. . . in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church.”

What prohibits us from giving as much in fast offerings as we would have given in surpluses under the United Order? Nothing but our own limitations.

Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop’s storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop’s storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose. . . .

“We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, . . . land projects . . . farmed for the benefit of the poor. . . .

“Thus . . . in many of its great essentials, we have, [in] the Welfare Plan . . . the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time . . . to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund.”

It is thus apparent that when the principles of tithing and the fast are properly observed and the Welfare Plan gets fully developed and wholly into operation, “we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order.” (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 51-58.)

The only limitation on you and me is within ourselves.
A Prayer:

And now in line with these remarks for three things I pray:

(1) That the Lord will somehow quicken our understanding of the differences between socialism and the United Order and give us a vivid awareness of the awful portent of those differences.

(2) That we will develop the understanding, the desire, and the courage born of the Spirit, to eschew socialism and to support and sustain, in the manner revealed and as interpreted by the Lord, those just and holy principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States for the protection of all flesh, in the exercise of their God-given agency.

(3) That through faithful observance of the principles of tithing, the fast, and the welfare program, we will prepare ourselves to redeem Zion and ultimately live the United Order, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

IF THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO CONVINCE YOU, HERE IS A GREAT REFERENCE TO A SITE THAT COVERS MOST OF THE SAME TOPICS AS THIS BLOG, BUT MAKES THIS OPERATION LOOK LIKE A DOG AND PONY SHOW. I HAVE NO ENVY - JUST ADMIRATION FOR SOME GREAT WORK:

JOSEPH SMITH QUOTE ON THE FALLACY OF SOCIALISM.....

PATRIOT WOMAN - WARNING FROM A FORMER COMMIE

IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE. SHE SAW ALL OF THE WANT AND OPPRESSION AS A CITIZEN OF THE FORMER SOVIET BLOC. SHE SAYS SHE SEES THE EXACT SAME STUFF GOING ON HERE. SHOULD WE NOT HEED THIS VOICE?? WE HAVE A MARXIST IN THE PRESIDENCY AND STOOGES ON THE BENCH THAT DO A SOCIALISTS BIDDING BY ACTIVISM AND LOOKING THE OTHER WAY. THIS COUNTRY IS PRETTY MUCH DOOMED. ITS JUST A MATTER OF TIME.

WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?
Meet fierce blonde behind Obama eligibility lawsuits
Soviet Union survivor: President spits in face of every U.S. citizen
Posted: April 12, 2009
7:05 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Dr. Orly Taitz (WND photo / Chelsea Schilling)

MISSION VIEJO, Calif. – She's the fierce blond attorney behind Obama eligibility lawsuits, a successful dentist with two offices, a second-degree black belt and a mother of three boys who speaks five languages.

Dr. Orly Taitz, a woman with a vibrant smile and an ebullient personality, has not always enjoyed an independent life filled with promise and ambition. She was born and raised in Kishinev (also spelled Chisinau), the capital of the Republic of Moldova, a country in Eastern Europe that was formerly part of the Soviet Union.

Drawing on her experiences under a communist regime, she told WND she is determined to do her part to stop America from following in the all-too-familiar footsteps of her former homeland.

Life under communism

She described her life in a communist nation: Markets were bare, people had no desire to work and the government forced young children into slave labor.

"We'd stop at the store, and the food stores were empty," she said. "I remember we had to stand in lines for hours in the cold. We were in a bus, going home and suddenly we'd see a line. We wouldn't even know what they were selling, but we knew something would be there – some food. We'd stand for two hours to buy maybe a pound of salami or a half a pound of butter."

As a young child, Taitz asked her father why the market shelves were empty.

"In America, they have everything," he would tell her. "The stores are full."

Her father explained that Americans were interested in working and received paychecks based on their productivity. However, in the Soviet Union, farmers were part of a socialist system of collective farming and were compensated equally – regardless of output.

He told her, "If a farmer is bright and hard working, at the end of the month, he will get 100 rubles. And if the farmer is a lazy bum and he does nothing, he gets the same 100 rubles."

Taitz told WND, "People had absolutely no incentive to do anything. They had no incentive to work. The best doctors were getting maybe 150 rubles. That's why the standards for medicine were so low."

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 350,000 others and sign up now!

Youth camps and slave labor


Republic of Moldova

She said that, much like President Obama's proposed brigade of youth organizers, the Soviet Union used children for slave labor.

"They would put us on trucks, and we would go to the countryside," she said. "We were told to go and pick tomatoes."

Parents were not allowed to homeschool their children. They were forced to enroll them in government schools. From the age of 6, all children were required to become young communists.

"You had to send your child to school, and your child had to be a member of the young communists," Taitz said. "There were no children who were not members. You had to do it. If you were one of the best, you become a member of the Communist Party. It was constant brainwashing."

She continued, "There was no choice, and people resented that. They were scared to speak up."

Most children were sent to communist youth camps, but Taitz' parents wouldn't allow her to go. Instead, they gave her stacks of math, physics and chemistry textbooks to study while her friends were away at camps.

"My parents didn't want me to be in those camps and be subjected to communist brainwashing," she said. "They wanted me to think for myself. I learned to read by myself, and my parents sent me to competitions in math, physics, chemistry and biology. I would sit and work with pages of problems, and I loved to compete."

An empty existence


Taitz as a baby with her mother in Kishinev

Practice of religion was restricted in the Soviet Union. Churches were closed and repurposed as museums of art.

"You had to be an atheist," Taitz said. "No one could go and pray. You weren't allowed to mention any religion. A lot of priests, ministers and rabbis were sent to Siberia, so people were scared. They didn't celebrate any religious holidays; they just didn't exist."

She said alcohol abuse was rampant and caused the destruction of many lives.

"One of the reasons they had such a serious problem with alcoholism was because there was nothing in people's lives. There was no God, no religion, no choice. You had to conform and comply."

During her years living in the Soviet Union, Taitz said friends would constantly talk about finding ways to break away from the system.

"They would tell me, 'This person was very inventive and built a hot-air balloon to get out from East Germany to West Germany, or somebody was able to swim across the border,'" she said. "There were always stories about how people escaped the regime."

With only one TV station in Kishinev, Taitz said reporters spewed communist propaganda.

(Story continues below)




Escaping a totalitarian regime


Orly Taitz at 20

In 1981, when she was 21, her uncle managed to escape to Israel. He sent her family papers that allowed them to join him there due to their familial relationship.

When Taitz arrived in Israel, she was stunned to discover a free-market society with full stores. In the Soviet Union, there were no fruits or vegetables in the winter. Her family survived on canned foods, bread and pierogis, or dumplings stuffed with various ingredients such as cheese and potatoes.

"I remember when a lady who came to Israel from the Soviet Union went to the store and asked, 'When will we have tomatoes?' She was thinking, maybe March or April," Taitz said.

"The clerk looked at her and said, 'Probably in an hour.'"

For a woman who had lived under a communist regime her whole life, freedom was a new concept she had only imagined after listening to her father's stories.

"It was a completely different feeling, a free feeling," she said. "There were political parties, and you got to choose whichever one you wanted. In the Soviet Union, there was only one."

She lived in Israel for several years and attended the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Taitz met her future husband, a man living in California who visited his family while she was a practicing dentist in Israel in 1987. Only a couple of months after their introduction, he proposed marriage, and she accepted. Her father was reluctant to let his daughter go, but he eventually relented.

"I was scared. Coming to the U.S. was a big step," she said. "I went to a new country and married a person I hardly knew. I was very scared. So, I came, and right away we drove to Las Vegas."

Still jet lagged from her flight, Taitz was nearly falling asleep as she arrived at a chapel in the center of the Las Vegas strip.

"We paid to have a limo driver act as our witness, and the minister married us," she said. "We got some pictures and sent them to my parents to let them know I wasn't living in sin."


One location of Taitz' dental practice in Southern California (WND photo / Chelsea Schilling)

Dentist, lawyer, broker and mother

Because Taitz had foreign dental training, she was required to take dental board exams to practice in the United States. When she took one of her last tests, she was pregnant with her first son.

"I was seven months pregnant with a big belly," she said. "It was pretty tough."

Taitz passed the dental boards, and her practice grew substantially. She now has two separate dental offices in Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif. Two dentists work in Taitz' offices each week to assist patients.


Taitz at her dental office (WND photo / Chelsea Schilling)

With a successful practice and a growing family, Taitz decided to enroll in law school at William Howard Taft University. She took distance courses and studied from home in the evenings.

"I just got books and tapes and studied until I passed the exams," she said. "I passed the California bar, and it is said to be one of the more difficult ones in the nation. When I passed, there was only a 50 percent passing rate."

With three young sons, Taitz volunteered at her children's school every Tuesday for 10 years and reserved evenings and weekends for her family.

When her sons enrolled in Taekwondo classes, she eagerly joined them – earning her own second-degree black belt.

With a strong desire to see the world, Taitz has traveled to 40 countries. In addition to English, she speaks Russian, Romanian, Hebrew and Spanish and has a strong understanding of German because her grandparents spoke the language.

When she sold her California home, Taitz also earned her real estate broker's license to save on commission from the sale. She said she plans to renew it when the eligibility lawsuits have been resolved.

Obama eligibility lawsuits


California Secretary of State Debra Bowen

During the recent election campaigns, Taitz paid close attention and grew concerned when stories about President Obama's birth simply didn't add up. She followed Philip Berg's eligibility lawsuit and several other similar complaints across the nation.

On Oct 25, 2008, she sent an e-mail to Debra Bowen, secretary of state of California, urging her to verify Obama's citizenship status before the elections.

"I wrote, 'I'm an attorney in Southern California, and I am greatly concerned about Barack Obama's eligibility,'" she said.

Taitz told Bowen she believed Obama did not have a legitimate, long-form birth certificate proving that he was born in Hawaii. She argued that if a candidate lacked proper documentation of meeting the natural-born citizen requirement, that candidate should be declared ineligible to run.

"She wrote back that there was no requirement for her to check eligibility," Taitz said. "I asked for a hearing, and I received a letter from her attorney that we would have one. But they lied and never scheduled one. It was appalling that the secretary of state was negligent, reckless, and didn't check eligibility."

Frustrated with the response she received from Bowen's office, Taitz began writing letters to every newspaper she could find. In her letters, she explained why she believed Obama was not eligible and described flaws in the vetting process.

"I wrote that Obama is not eligible to be president and that next time around, we can have Osama bin Laden on our ballots if the only thing one needs to do is write, 'I am eligible,'" she said.

After she wrote the letters, a woman contacted her at her dental office and invited her to a meeting of 200 people in Garden Grove, Calif., to discuss illegal immigration and various political issues. She attended the meeting and met Pastor Wiley Drake, radio host of "Wiley Drake in Buena Park" and vice presidential candidate for America's Independent Party.


Dr. Alan Keyes

Drake complimented Taitz on her speech and asked her to join him on his radio show. When she agreed, he asked how he could help her pursue the eligibility case.

"I said, 'From what I understand, Berg's case was not heard on the merits because they stated that he doesn't have good standing as an ordinary citizen. You are a vice presidential candidate for America's Independent Party. If you agree to be a plaintiff, we will do well."

He said, "Let's do it."

Alan Keyes, the party's nominee for president, agreed to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff. Chairman Markham Robinson added his name and brought another attorney, Gary Kreep, on board. They filed a writ of mandamus in Sacramento on behalf of Keyes, Robinson and Drake and requested that California's electors be barred from signing the Certificate of Vote until documentary proof of Obama's citizenship was produced.

As WND reported, the California court ruled that Bowen "has no 'ministerial duty' to demand detailed proof of citizenship from presidential candidates."

"I decided I couldn't change the pleadings in Alan Keyes' case, but I could file another lawsuit," she said. "So, I got seven plaintiffs and I drove to Los Angeles and filed a case there. By that time, I had a lot of supporters. A lot of people were writing to me, but I asked them to write the Supreme Court of California."

Taking her case to Supreme Court

She said with no explanation, the court denied her lawsuit.

"I could not understand why in the world they denied it," she said. "So I decided to go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Dec. 11, I flew to Washington and filed the case the next day – the last working day before the meeting of the Electoral College."

Originally, she filed with Justice Anthony Kennedy, and he denied it. She resubmitted it to Chief Justice John Roberts, and he distributed it for conference.

"On the Jan. 20, the case was on the docket, and everybody could see it," Taitz said. "Then, right after the inauguration, on Jan. 21, it disappeared. It was as if somebody was trying to please Obama by erasing the docket."

Taitz has stepped up her fight, approaching Justice Antonin Scalia during his appearance in Los Angeles and hand- delivering documents to Chief Justice John Roberts at his appearance at the University of Idaho. She also presented Roberts with the WND petition, consisting of 3,300 pages of names – more than 325,000 at the time – of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the Obama eligibility case.

Taitz' latest challenge to Obama's eligibility is a Quo Warranto case submitted to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, a legal standard that essentially allows citizens to demand on what grounds someone in authority exercises power.

She has 10 state representatives and about 130 members of the U.S. military signed on as plaintiffs in the action.

Reliving communism


Orly Taitz (WND photo / Chelsea Schilling)

"It is interesting that when we go to court challenging Obama's eligibility, I experience such a déjà vu, like I am in the communist Soviet Union again," Taitz said. "I feel, my God, I am back in a totalitarian regime. I'm shocked by the total and complete idiocy of those judges who come up with such idiotic excuses about why they refuse to sign a subpoena – something so basic to their jobs – to get his records."

Asked what motivates her continue fighting the eligibility battle, Taitz replied, "I feel that this man is arrogantly spitting in the face of each and every American citizen. I feel like he has just spit in my face. I take it personally that he is trampling on our Constitution and on our laws."

She continued, "Having the experience that I had in the Soviet Union – seeing lack of freedom, lack of a system of justice, lack of judicial integrity, lack of press with integrity, an economic system in shambles – when I saw all that, I began fighting."

Taitz said mainstream media in the United States are becoming much like the Soviet Union press, because they do not provide truthful information about Obama and have pushed for his socialist society. She offered a suggestion for dealing with "detached" and "ignorant" reporters who advocate such a system.

"I would put all of them in one airplane – Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Anderson Cooper, Katie Couric, Charles Gibson, all of them. I would load a plane with 500 reporters and send them to some village in Siberia or some village in China or Mongolia or Korea or Cuba, and tell them, 'Why don't you survive there for a year,'" she said.

"I guarantee you, after a year they will come here and they'll be to the right of Rush Limbaugh. They'll think Rush Limbaugh is a communist."

Taking a stand

Taitz said if Obama is found to be ineligible, he must be unseated and tried for crimes he committed against citizens of the United States.

"The whole election would be annulled, and all of the laws signed by Obama would be null and void," she said with conviction. "In that case, somebody like Vice President Joe Biden must become president pro tempore for two or three months until we are able to organize a new election."

In Hebrew, "Orly" means "light" – and that's just what Taitz hopes to be for others who are willing to demand proof of Obama's eligibility and take a stand against his socialist plans for the nation.

Drawing on her early life experiences, Taitz issued a word of warning for Americans:

"The worst thing you can ever do is be scared in the face of evil," she said. "Never be too scared to stand tall and speak up."

Editor's note: Dr. Orly Taitz is experiencing difficulties at her Defend Our Freedoms blog and has launched a replacement website. She asks that readers and donors contact her directly by e-mail or by writing to 26302 La Paz Ste. 211, Mission Viejo, Ca. 92691

CATCHING WILD PIGS - A LESSON ON SOCIALISM

GOT THIS FROM LDS FREEDOM FORUMS - VERY GOOD STUFF:

Catching Wild Pigs

A student discussing Communism with his professor looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground.. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam the gate on America .

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have" Thomas Jefferson

CIVIL WAR STARTING IN CHICAGO - WE JUST GOT THE NEW ROBERT E. LEE

CHECK THIS LINK OUT:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

HERE IS THE ORIGINAL PROPHECY:

This was a letter from Nephi Packard to A. Milton Musser on July 24, 1896:

"... My brother, Noah Packard, says that he heard the Prophet Joseph say that the next great (U.S. civil) war after the war of the rebellion (the Civil War of the 1860's between the North and the South) would commence in a little town now called Chicago but at that time it would have grown to be a very large city. And another brother told me that the Prophet said that the cause of the next great trouble of the United States would be the depreciation of the currency of the United States. I believe I have given you all the facts in as short and concise manner as possible."

Another quote regarding the Civil War itself comes from an interview by Dr. Poulson with David Whitmer, printed in the Deseret News on Friday, August 16, 1878:

Question: When will the temple be built in Independence?

Answer: Right after the great tribulation is over

Question: What do you mean by that?

Answer: A civil war more bloody and cruel than the rebellion. It will be the smashing up of this nation, about which time the second great work has to be done, a work like Joseph did, and the translation of the sealed plates and peace all over.


AND HERE IS THE FUEL THAT THEY ARE THROWING ON THE FIRE - INCOME TAXES INCREASING BY HALF. THAT IS RICH. INSTEAD OF CUTTING SERVICES BY 1/3, THESE JOKERS ARE GOING TO TAX PEOPLE INTO THE GROUND. WHAT A JOKE!!!! WE ARE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR THE PERFECT STORM OF RIOTING AND GENERAL DISCONTENT THAT LEADS TO SOCIAL CHAOS.

Illinois Income Tax May Jump 50 Percent
Report: Gov. Pat Quinn Wants Tax Hike To Fight Deficit Reporting
Joanie Lum CHICAGO (CBS) ―
Click to enlarge
CBS


(3/10/2009)
State Faces Bigger Budget Crisis Than Realized (2/4/2009)
Income taxes in Illinois could soon be going up by as much as 50 percent to combat deficits in a difficult state budget.

As CBS 2's Joanie Lum reports, Gov. Pat Quinn is reportedly considering raising taxes to deal with a growing budget deficit.

Quinn has been hinting about the problems in the state budget this year for some time. He gives his first address on the subject next Wednesday, and there is word that income taxes will go up as 50 percent.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Quinn wants to raise the state income tax to 4.5 percent from 3 percent.

Illinoisans have had a lower income tax rate than other states for some time. This would be the first increase in 20 years.

In addition, some business tax breaks would be eliminated, and Quinn promises to tighten state government spending.

Quinn will balance the increase by raising the standard tax exemption up to $6,000 per person from $2,000, to help low- and middle-income families.

The income tax increase could bring in nearly $4 billion. The budget deficit is expected to be more than $9 billion by the summer of 2010.

Taxpayers in Chicago weren't surprised, but many said the timing is poor.

"We already can't afford to pay the taxes – people who have homes and what have you now, so it's going to be really rough," said Nadeja Borras.

"Already, the taxes are pretty high, so it could be a disadvantage for the State of Illinois," said Sara Mirarefi.

But some Chicagoans thought a tax increase might be necessary.

"I think it's about time somebody's got the guts to go in there and say, 'Hey, we have to increase taxes,'" said Jim Kauss. "We have to pay for this. it's not free."


State lawmakers are also talking about raising gasoline taxes to pay for road and bridge construction. Fees on driver's licenses and license plate stickers may also go up.

CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery is talking one-on-one with Gov. Quinn later in the day.
(© MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

AND THERE IS MORE. INSTEAD OF CUTTING BACK, THE SOCIALIST PIGS ARE RATCHETING UP THE COST OF LIVING THERE WHILE THE ABILITY TO PAY IS GREATLY REDUCED. VERY SMART....
ONCE MORE THAN 50% OF THE PIGS ARE FEEDING AT THE TROUGH, THEY WILL KEEP VOTING IN MORE SLOP FOR THEMSELVES AND THEN IT NOSE-DIVES IN. HERE IS THE LATEST REBELLION:

Parking Meter Revolt: Frustration Over High Costs Reporting
Jay Levine CHICAGO (CBS) ―
Click to enlarge
Chicagoans are so frustrated with broken parking meters and high costs, some are vandalizing the meters.
CBS


They are taking more of your quarters every day. And Chicagoans are in revolt. While some are saying enough by avoiding them, others are taking out their frustrations on the parking meters - literally! CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine reports with the anger behind the new meter rate increases.

You think eight is enough? How about 12? That's how many quarters buy an hour of parking time in some places now. And its why some people have had enough.

Near Broadway and Addison, meter after meter are broken.

"I called the company and I said I don't want a ticket," one woman said.

LAZ is a Chicago company which collects the money for the New York owner which paid the city $1.2 billion to lease the city's 36,000 meters for 75 years. They've pasted new stickers on them, doubled the rates to as much as a quarter for five minutes in the Loop. That's $3 an hour to $2 an hour in many other neighborhoods. People are angry.

"People come into this neighborhood for entertainment reasons, and you can't anymore because meters are so expensive," said Joe DiSalvo.

And people are frustrated.

"It's jammed," a woman said.

CBS 2 called the company, too; twice to New York, another to Chicago. They didn't call back. We also called the city. They called back but basically said, 'not our meters anymore, not our problem anymore.'

Enter a guy who calls himself 'Mike The Parking Ticket Geek.' He contacted us via Twitter and showed us his website, theexpiredmeter.com, which he used to give people advice on how to beat parking tickets. The site has become a lightning rod for peoples' complaints about the new rates and operators.

Mike says the people who are writing to him have a sense of "anger, frustration, rage in some cases."

To the point where some, it appears, are vandalizing the meters. Pictures on Mike's website show meters deliberately smashed, taken apart, spray-painted, or deliberately jammed.

"People suggest taking a quarter, putting some super glue on it, and putting it in the coin slot," Mike said.

That jams the meter and everyone parks for free. Or not at all.

All over the city, we saw stretches of meters empty in places where people had been fighting for spots. Having to put in 12 quarters an hour was either too inconvenient or too expensive.

The credit card meters, promised for the entire city within six months, are still rare. And peoples' patience is wearing thin.

"Some people write me and say, 'this is the last straw, my condo is for sale, sales tax, red light cameras.' It's just too much for some people,'" Mike said.

The meter people have said they hope to get things straightened out by April 10th. Some have suggested a moratorium on tickets until they do. But with the city having given up the proceeds from the meters but still getting the revenue for the tickets, the meter revolt may fall on deaf ears.
(© MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

COMMUNISM VS SOCIALISM - THE BLIGHT OF SOCIETY

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

- From "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons"


"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the 'vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say 'more honest,' not better - because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government - and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects."

QUOTE FROM Ayn Rand



THE FOLLY OF MARXISM:

Marxian Exploitation
by Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1974), pp. 253-262

Why is it that some unions or groups of workers don't start their own business? What an easy way to give workers access to the means of production: buy machinery and rent space, and so forth, just as a private entrepreneur does. It is illuminating to consider why unions don't start new businesses, and why workers don't pool their resources to do so.

This question is of importance for what remains of Marxist economic theory. With the crumbling of the labor theory of value, the underpinning of its particular theory of exploitation dissolves. And the charm and simplicity of this theory's definition of exploitation is lost when it is realized that according to the definition there will be exploitation in any society in which investment takes place for a greater future product (perhaps because of population growth); and in any society in which those unable to work, or to work productively, are subsidized by the labor of others. But at bottom, Marxist theory explains the phenomenon of exploitation by reference to the workers not having access to the means of production. The workers have to sell their labor (labor power) to the capitalists, for they must use the means of production to produce, and cannot produce alone. A worker, or groups of them, cannot hire means of production and wait to sell the product some months later; they lack the cash reserves to obtain access to machinery or wait until later when revenue will be received from the future sale of the product now being worked on. For workers must eat in the meantime.[1] Hence (the story goes) the worker is forced to deal with the capitalist. (And the reserve army of unemployed labor makes unnecessary the capitalists' competing for workers and bidding up the price of labor.)

Note than once the rest of the theory, properly, is dropped, and it is this crucial fact of nonaccess to the means of production that underlies exploitation, it follows that in a society in which the workers are not forced to deal with the capitalist, exploitation of laborers will be absent. (We pass over the question of whether workers are forced to deal with some other, less decentralized group.) So, if there is a sector of publicly owned and controlled (what you will) means of production that is expandable so that all who wish to may work in it, then this is sufficient to eliminate the exploitation of laborers. And in particular, if in addition to this public sector there is a sector of privately owned means of production that employs wage laborers who choose to work in this sector, then these workers are not being exploited. (Perhaps they choose to work there, despite attempts to convince them to do otherwise, because they get higher wages or returns in this sector.) For they are not forced to deal with the private owners of means of production.

Let us linger for a moment upon this case. Suppose that the private sector were to expand, and the public sector became weaker and weaker. More and more workers, let us suppose, choose to work in the private sector. Wages in the private sector are greater than in the public sector, and are rising continually. Now imagine that after a period of time this weak public sector becomes completely insignificant; perhaps it disappears altogether. Will there be any concomitant change in the private sector? (Since the public sector was already small, by hypothesis, the new workers who come to the private sector will not affect wages much.) The theory of exploitation seems committed to saying that there would be some important change; which statement is very implausible. (There's no good theoretical argument for it.) If there would not be a change in the level or the upward movement of wages in the private sector, are workers in the private sector, heretofore unexploited, now being exploited? Though they don't even know that the public sector is gone, having paid scant attention to it, are they now forced to work in the private sector and to go to the private capitalist for work, and hence are they ipso facto exploited? So the theory would seem to be committed to maintaining.

Whatever may have been the truth of the nonaccess view at one time, in our society large sections of the working force now have cash reserves in personal property, and there are also large cash reserves in union pension funds. These workers can wait, and they can invest. This raises the question of why this money isn't used to establish worker-controlled factories. Why haven't radicals and social democrats urged this?

The workers may lack the entrepreneurial ability to identify promising opportunities for profitable activity, and to organize firms to respond to these opportunities. In this case, the workers can try to hire entrepreneurs and managers to start a firm for them and then turn the authority functions over to the workers (who are the owners) after one year. (Though, as Kirzner emphasizes, entrepreneurial alertness would also be needed in deciding whom to hire.) Different groups of workers would compete for entrepreneurial talent, bidding up the price for such services, while entrepreneurs with capital attempted to hire workers under traditional ownership arrangements. Let us ignore the question of what the equilibrium in this market would look like to ask why groups of workers aren't doing this now.

It's risky starting a new firm. One can't identify easily new entrepreneurial talent, and much depends on estimates of future demand and of availability of resources, on unforeseen obstacles, on chance, and so forth. Specialized investment institutions and sources of venture capital develop to run just these risks. Some persons don't want to run these risks of investing or backing new ventures, or starting ventures themselves. Capitalist society allows the separation of the bearing of these risks from other activities. The workers in the Edsel branch of the Ford Motor Company did not bear the risks of the venture, and when it lost money they did not pay back a portion of their salary. In a socialist society, either one must share in the risks of the enterprise one works in, or everybody shares in the risks of investment decisions of the central investment managers. There is no way to divest oneself of these risks or to choose to carry some such risks but not others (acquiring specialized knowledge in some areas), as one can do in a capitalist society.

Often people who do not wish to bear risks feel entitled to rewards from those who do and win; yet these same people do not feel obligated to help out by sharing the losses of those who bear risks and lose. For example, croupiers at gambling casinos expect to be well-tipped by big winners, but they do not expect to be asked to help bear some of the losses of the losers. The case for such asymmetrical sharing is even weaker for businesses where success is not a random matter. Why do some feel they may stand back to see whose ventures turn out well (by hindsight determine who has survived the risks and run profitably) and then claim a share of the success; though they do not feel they must bear the losses if things turn out poorly, or feel that if they wish to share in the profits or the control of the enterprise, they should invest and run the risks also?

To compare how Marxist theory treats such risks, we must take a brief excursion through the theory. Marx's theory is one form of the productive resources theory of value. Such a theory holds that the value V of a thing X equals the sum total of society's productive resources embodied in X. Put in a more useful form, the ratio of the value of two things V(X)/V(Y) is equal to the ratio of the amount of productive resources embodied in them, M (resources in X)/M (resources in Y), where M is a measure of the amount. Such a theory requires a measure M whose values are determined independently of the V ratios to be explained. If we conjoin to the productive resources theory of value, the labor theory of productive resources, which holds that labor is the only productive resource, we obtain the labor theory of value. Many of the objections which have been directed toward the labor theory of value apply to any productive resources theory.

An alternative to the productive resources theory of value might say that the value of productive resources is determined by the value of the final products that arise from them (can be made from them), where the value of the final product is determined in some way other than by the value of the resources used in it. If one machine can be used to make X (and nothing else) and another can be used to make Y, then the first machine is more valuable than the second, even if each machine contains the same raw materials and took the same amount of time to make. The first machine, having a more valuable final product, will command a higher price than the second. This may give rise to the illusion that its products are more valuable because it is more valuable. But this gets things backwards. It is more valuable because its products are.

But the productive resources theory of value doesn't talk about the value of the productive resources, only about their amounts. If there were only one factor of production, and it were homogeneous, the productive resources theory at least could be noncircularly stated. But with more than one factor, or one factor of different kinds, there is a problem in setting up the measure M to get the theory stated in a noncircular way. For it must be determined how much of one productive factor is to count as equivalent to a given amount of another. One procedure would be to set up the measure by reference to the values of the final products, solving the ratio equations. But this procedure would define the measure on the basis of information about final values, and so could not be used to explain final values on the basis of information about the amount of inputs.[2] An alternative procedure would be to find some common thing that can be produced by X, and Y, in different quantities, and to use the ratio of the quantities of final product to determine the quantities of input. This avoids the circularity of looking at final values first; one begins by looking at final quantities of something, and then uses this information to determine quantities of input (to define the measure M). But even if there is a common product, it may not be what the different factors are best suited for making; and so using it to compare them may give a misleading ratio. One has to compare different factors at their individual best functions. Also, if two different things can be made by each resource, and the ratios of the amounts differ, there is the problem of which ratio is to be picked to provide the constant of proportionality between the resources.

We can illustrate these difficulties by considering Paul Sweezy's exposition of the concept of simple, undifferentiated labor time.[3] Sweezy considers how skilled and unskilled labor are to be equated and agrees that it would be circular to do so on the basis of the value of the final product, since that's what's to be explained. Sweezy then says that skill depends on two things: training and natural differences. Sweezy equates training with the number of hours spent in training, without looking to the skill of the teacher, even as crudely measured by how many hours the teacher spent in training (and how many hours his teacher did?). Sweezy suggests getting at natural differences by having two persons make the same thing, and seeing how the quantities differ, thus finding the ratio to equate them. But if skilled labor of some sort is not best viewed as a faster way of producing the same product that unskilled labor produces, but rather as a way of producing a better product, then this method of defining the measure M won't work. (In comparing Rembrandt's skill with mine, the crucial fact is not that he paints pictures faster than I do.) It would be tedious to rehearse the standard counterexamples to the labor theory of value: found natural objects (valued above the labor necessary to get them); rare goods (letters from Napoleon) that cannot be reproduced in unlimited quantities; differences in value between identical objects at different places; differences skilled labor makes; changes caused by fluctuations in supply and demand; aged objects whose producing requires much time to pass (old wines), and so on.[4]

The issues thus far mentioned concern the nature of simple undifferentiated labor time, which is to provide the unit against which all else is to be measured. We now must introduce an additional complication. For Marxist theory does not hold that the value of an object is proportional to the number of simple undifferentiated labor hours that went into its production; rather, the theory holds that the value of an object is proportional to the number of simple undifferentiated socially necessary labor hours that went into its production.[5] Why the additional requirement that the labor hours be socially necessary? Let us proceed slowly.

The requirement that an object have utility is a necessary component of the labor theory of value, if it is to avoid certain objections. Suppose a person works on something absolutely useless that no one wants. For example, he spends his hours efficiently making a big knot; no one else can do it more quickly. Will this object be that many hours valuable? A theory should not have this consequence. Marx avoids it as follows: "Nothing can have value without being an object of utility. If a thing is useless so is the labor contained in it; the labor does not count as labor, and therefore creates no value."[6] Isn't this an ad hoc restriction? Given the rest of the theory, why does it apply? Why doesn't all efficiently done labor create value? If one has to bring in the fact that it's of use to people and actually wanted (suppose it were of use, but no one wanted it), then perhaps by looking only at wants, which have to be brought in anyway, one can get a complete theory of value.

Even with the ad hoc constraint that the object must be of some use, there remain problems. For, suppose someone works for 563 hours on something of some very slight utility. Is its value now determined by the amount of labor, yielding the consequence that it is incredibly valuable? No. "For the labor spent on them (commodities) counts effectively only insofar as it is spent in a form that is useful to others."[7] Marx goes on to say: "Whether that labor is useful for others, and its product consequently capable of satisfying the wants of others, can be proved only by the act of exchange." If we interpret Marx as saying, not that utility is a necessary condition and that (once satisfied) the amount of labor determines value, but rather that the degree of utility will determine how much (useful) labor has been expended on the object, then we have a theory very different from a labor theory of value.

We can approach this issue from another direction. Suppose that useful things are produced as efficiently as they can be, but that too many of them are produced to sell at a certain price. The price that clears the market is lower than the apparent labor values of the objects; a greater number of efficient hours went into producing them than people are willing to pay for (at a certain price per hour). Does this show that the number of average hours devoted to making an object of significant utility doesn't determine its value? Marx's reply is that if there is such overproduction so that the market doesn't clear at a particular price, then the labor was inefficiently used (less of the thing should have been made), even thought the labor itself wasn't inefficient. Hence not all of those labor hours constituted socially necessary labor time. The object does not have a value less than the socially necessary number of labor hours expended upon it, for there were fewer socially necessary labor hours expended upon it than meet the eye.

Suppose that every piece of linen in the market contains no more labor-time than is socially necessary. In spite of this, all the pieces taken as a whole may have had superfluous labor time spent upon them. If the market cannot stomach the whole quantity at the normal price of 2 shillings a yard, this proves that too great a portion of the total labor of the community has been expended in the form of weaving. The effect is the same as if each weaver had expended more labor-time upon his particular product than is socially necessary.[8]

Thus Marx holds that thus labor isn't all socially necessary. What is socially necessary, and how much of it is, will be determined by what happens on the market!![9] There is no longer any labor theory of value; the central notion of socially necessary labor time is itself defined in terms of the processes and exchange ratios of a competitive market![10]

We have returned to our earlier topic, the risks of investment and production, which we see transforms the labor theory of value into one defined in terms of the results of competitive markets. Consider now a system of payment in accordance with simple, undifferentiated, socially necessary labor hours worked. Under this system, the risks associated with a process of production are borne by each worker participating in the process. However many hours he works at whatever degree of efficiency, he will not know how many socially necessary labor hours he has worked until it is seen how many people are willing to buy the products at what price. A system of payment in accordance with the number of socially necessary labor hours worked therefore would pay some hard-working laborers almost not at all (those who worked for hula hoop manufacturers after the fad had passed, or those who worked in the Edsel plant of the Ford Motor Company), and would pay others very little. (Given the great and nonaccidental incompetence of the investment and production decisions in a socialist society, it would be very surprising if the rulers of such a society dared to pay workers explicitly in accordance with the number of "socially necessary" labor hours they work!) Such a system would compel each individual to attempt to predict the duture market for the product he works on; this would be quite inefficient and would induce those who are dubious about the future success of a product to forgo a job they can do well, even though others are confident enough of its success to risk much on it. Clearly there are advantages to a system which allows persons to shift risks they do not themselves wish to bear, and allows them to be paid a fixed amount, whatever the outcome of the risky process.[11] There are great advantages to allowing opportunities for such specialization in risk-bearing; these opportunities lead to the typical gamut of capitalist institutions.

Marx attempts to answer the following Kantian-type question: how are profits possible?[12] How can there be profits if everything gets its full value, if no cheating goes on? The answer for Marx lies in the unique character of labor power; its value is the cost of producing it (the labor that goes into it), yet it itself is capable of producing more value than it has. (This is true of machines as well.) Putting a certain amount of labor L into making a human organism produces something capable of expending an amount of labor greater than L. Because individuals lack the resources to wait for the return from the sale of the products of their labor (see above), they cannot gather these benefits of their own capacities and are forced to deal with the capitalists. In view of these difficulties with Marxist economic theory, one would expect Marxists to study carefully alternative theories of the existence of profit, including those formulated by "bourgeois" economists. Though I have concentrated here on issues about risk and uncertainty, I should also mention innovation (Schumpeter) and, very importantly, the alertness to and search for new opportunities for arbitrage (broadly conceived) which others have not yet noticed.[13] An alternative explanatory theory, if adequate, presumably would remove much of the scientific motivation underlying Marxist economic theory; one might be left with the view that Marxian exploitation is the exploitation of people's lack of understanding of economics.

Notes

1. Where did the means of production come from? Who earlier forwent current consumption then in order to gain or produce them? Who now forgoes current consumption in paying wages and factor prices and thus gets returns only after the finished product is sold? Whose enterpreneurial alertness operated throughout?

2. However if given the values of some final products (with great latitude about which ones would serve) the ratio equations could be used to specify the measure M and that could be used to yield the values for the other final products, then the theory would have some content.

3. The Theory of Capitalist Development (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1956). See also R. L. Meek, Studies in the Labour Theory of Value (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1958), pp. 168-173.

4. See Eugene von Böhm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest, vol. 1 (South Holland, Ill.: Libertarian Press, 1959, chap. 12; and his Karl Marx and the Close of His System (Clifton, N.J.: Augustus M. Kelley, 1949).

5. "The labor time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity of labor prevalent at the time in a given society." Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1 (New York; Modern Library, n.d.), p. 46. Note that we also want to explain why normal conditions of production are as they are, and why a particular skill and intensity of labor is used on that particular product. For it is not the average degree of skill prevalent in a society that is relevant. Most persons may be more skilled at making the product yet might have something even more important to do, leaving only those of less than average skill at work on i. What is relevant would have to be the skill of those who actually work at making the product. One wants a theory also to explain what determines which persons of varying skills work at making a particular product. I mention these questions, of course, because they can be answered by an alternative theory.

6. Capital, Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 1, page 48.

7. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 2, pp. 97-98.

8. Marx, Capital, p. 120.. Why "stomach"?

9. Compare Ernest Mandel, Marxist Economic Theory, vol. 1 (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969), p. 161. "It is precisely through competition that it is discovered whether the amount of labor embodied in a commodity constitutes a socially necessary amount or not… When the supply of a certain commodity exceeds the demand for it, that means that more human labor has been spent altogether on producing this commodity than was socially necessary at the given period… When, however, supply is less than demand, that means that less human labor has been expended on producing the commodity in question than was socially necessary."

10. Compare the discussion of this issue in Meek, Studies in the Labor Theory of Value, pp. 178-179.

11. Such risks could not be insured against for every project. There will be different estimates of these risks; and once having insured against them there will be less incentive to act fully to bring about the favorable alternative. So an insurer would have to watch over or monitor one's activities to avoid what is termed the "moral hazard." See Kenneth Arrow, Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing (Chicago: Markham, 1971). Alchian and Demsetz, American Economic Review (1972), pp. 777-795, discuss monitoring activities; they arrive

PUTIN MAKES THE PREDICTION AND WARNING THAT OUR ECONOMY IS BECOMING SOCIALIST:

Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”[Snip.]

Sounding more like Barry Goldwater than the former head of the KGB, Putin said, “Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors, and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.”

Putin also echoed the words of conservative maverick Ron Paul when he said, “we must assess the real situation and write off all hopeless debts and ‘bad’ assets. True, this will be an extremely painful and unpleasant process. Far from everyone can accept such measures, fearing for their capitalization, bonuses, or reputation. However, we would ‘conserve’ and prolong the crisis, unless we clean up our balance sheets.”