Dear Liberty Letters readers. We've moved, nearly two months ago, to libertyletters.wordpress.com. Sorry for the delay in letting you know.

We've now got a rich array of daily content not only at Liberty Letters, but a full network of websites I've created

OutoftheBestBooks.wordpress.com (daily readings from the Harvard Classics/Great Books of Western Civilization/and other classics.

LibertyLetters.wordpress.com (daily legislative updates from an array of trusted organizations, Liberty Letters quote of the day (from the Founders with brief commentary), and American Minute with Bill Federer.

CenterForMoralLiberalism.wordpress.com (think tank dedicated to defending and promoting the Judeo-Christian ethic, limited government, and the American Way … from the perspective of the doctrines and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). The full title of the organization is The Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism.

cmlblog.wordpress.com (the official blog for the Latter-day Center of Moral Liberalism

PreachMyGospel.wordpress.com (daily quotes from the Preach My Gospel manual of the LDS Church)

StiffRightJab.wordpress.com. This is my political website in the group where you'll find I have selected a staff (and we are adding more writers weekly) to fulfill our mission statement: Independent and intelligent, punchy and precise news and commentary that stands up for faith, family, and freedom - and stiff right jabs humanism, socialism, and internationalism.

All of these websites offer daily material that you'll love! And it keeps getting better daily.

So please come and join us.

Warning: we are soon to change all of these to .coms or .orgs etc - and MND will actually be the service provider and tech for the site. So hold on to your hats! We'll keep you posted.

If you are interested in writing or serving as a volunteer, drop me an email.

Steve Farrell, president, Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Regarding the new Bush Administration tax cutting stimulus package, professor George Reisman warns,

Today, we have a credit crisis emanating from the collapse of the real estate bubble that the Fed launched in order to cope with the effects of the collapse of the stock market bubble that it had launched only a few years earlier. Now, in order to cope with the effects of the collapse of the real estate bubble, the government and the Fed are looking for yet another program of monetary "stimulus." This time it's to be in the form of cutting taxes while financing an undiminished, indeed, an increased amount of government spending by means of the creation of still more new and additional money.

Little surprise right? This is Compassionate Conservatism at its best: compassionately cut taxes to ease the very economic crisis their Keynesian tricks caused, only to increase the national debt, raising the inflation rate (by printing and circulating these unbacked - by gold - dollars), and ultimately crushing us with the debt, but more especially with the interest, both of which ultimately must be paid back.

When in doubt about all this, remember what J. Reuben Clark Jr., warned years ago: "interest never sleeps."

Read: A Creditors' Protection Bill - Mises Institute

The Liberty Letters are a project of the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Liberty Counsel. Long Beach, CA – The Long Beach District School Board has approved a
settlement agreement with Christopher Rand, a high school student who
was denied credit for community service hours he completed at his
church. Chris has now received full credit for the hours. The district
administration also rewrote its community service learning policy to
allow students to complete mandatory community service hours at either
secular or religious organizations, including churches, on the same
terms.

In October 2007, Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit against the
district because Chris’s school refused to grant credit for more than
70 hours of community service, solely because it was performed at Long
Beach Alliance Church. He interacted with the children in the church’s
programs, answered questions, assisted with crafts and art projects,
supervised activity time to help ensure safety, and performed other
duties.

After Chris submitted the required documentation regarding his
volunteer service, he was denied credit because the district’s prior
community service learning policy stated, “Service to your religious
community does not count.” If Christopher had given the same service in
a secular school or in a nonreligious childcare program, his service
would have been credited. Shortly after Liberty Counsel filed suit, the
district agreed to award Chris credit for the full 72.5 hours that had
previously been rejected.

In addition to giving Chris credit for his community service, the
district accepted input from Liberty Counsel in revising its policy to
comply with the First Amendment. Under the new policy, religious
organizations will receive the same treatment as other nonprofit
organizations in terms of the types of community service work that is
permitted. Students are expressly allowed to supervise and assist with
leading organized children’s activities, such as those performed by
Chris. The district also agreed to pay attorney’s fees and costs to
Liberty Counsel.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty
University School of Law, commented: “When community service is a
graduation requirement, schools cannot limit service to secular venues.
Discrimination against performing community service for religious
organizations violates the First Amendment and offends the rich
religious heritage that made this country great.”

Used with permission of Liberty Counsel

The Liberty Letters are a project of the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

My friends - No one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when, or whether ever, I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. With the assistance of that Divine Being, who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail. Trusting in Him, who can go with me, and remain with you and be ever where for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell. - President Elect Lincoln's Farewell Address at Springfield, Illinois, February 11, 1861

Gratitude, grief, humility, faith, trust, interdependence, love. It is all there. A sublime and inspiring bit of prose, from the President Elect of the United States. The sort of mastery of words and humility before a Higher power that guided our nation through civil war, inspiring us then and now to carry on, and do what needs to be done, regardless of the test, trial, or tribulation..

The Liberty Letters are written by NewsMax.com pundit Steve Farrell, and are a project of the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism. Please help support both of thee worthy projects by getting your copy of Steve's highly praised inspirational novel, "Dark Rose." Click here to read the reviews.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Ron Paul received a sympathetic ear on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

Leno told Paul on Monday night’s show: “I’m trying to figure out why Fox News chose not to put you on.”

“You know, we tried to find that out,” Paul replied. “But they didn’t return our call."

And you know, we at Liberty Letters can't help but notice that Ron Paul received ten percent of the vote in Iowa, broke all records for fund raising in one quarter ($20 million this past quarter) - which shows a huge swell of support; and by contrast establishment guy, Rudy Giuliani, gets 4 percent in Iowa, and is included.

And so we really want to know, does Fox News really believe in the democratic process? Should any conservative still tune in to a network that pretends to appeal to their values? Is Fox going to re-think its position, and perhaps follow Mitt Romney's example of humility and say, flat out, "I was wrong," before it's too late?

We're all waiting to see. It's only their continued legitimacy and financial well being that is on the line … oh yeah, and our rights and freedoms to elect the candidates of our choice after hearing all of their positions and arguments.

Will Fox News return America's call?
The Liberty Letters are written by NewsMax.com pundit Steve Farrell, and are a project of the Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism.

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Definitions can be important. An important technique of the socialist revolution against religion, morality, and true liberty has been to hijack words and reinvent their definitions to their exact opposites.One example is the word liberalism. In the founding era, liberalism, or as we call it today, classical liberalism, was an outlook on  political science that believed in limited government (thus maximum liberty) on the one hand, tempered by an educated and moral people on the other hand (which can also imply liberality, or fairness, or loving one's neighbor as himself), which hopefully translates into "ordered liberty," or "freedom to do what is right."

And again, freedom to do what is right means the state will stay out of your way in things like your career choices, or how you run your business, or what how you exercise your religion, so long as you don't hurt anyone, or deprive them of their sacred rights in the process. But if you do, then the state has a legitimate interest in looking into the matter, and restraining or punishing you if necessary.

Others would add to this definition by stating, as Joseph Smith did, that "to every kingdom there is a law, and to every law there are certain bounds and conditions."

I like that. For true liberty can only exist where there are certain basic laws in place (with some logical and fair-minded flexibility), otherwise there is anarchy, followed by the rule of the jungle, and after that, complete tyranny as a police state steps in (at the invitation of the victims) to restore order.

Freedom to exist, must have a reasonable set of limits. But beyond these, we are very liberal with man's freedom of choice. That was liberalism. Minimum government, with a few good moral and eternal laws keeping freedom within reasonable bounds, and of course, an educated and moral populace so that those limits will be, for the most part, respected.

Liberalism today, to illustrate my point, is the precise opposite of the original and true definition; that is, maximum government and control on the one hand, and yet absolute freedom in the morality department to do whatever one pleases, that is, as Karl Marx taught, there is no morality, there are no eternal truths, there is no reason or legitimacy in a few fixed laws and bounds, it's all relative, relative to empowering the state. Why? Because what we have is the pincer strategy - pressure from above, and pressure from below. Pressure for centralize power mixed, as government is the answer for everything; and pressure from below because without moral limits cries comes every sort of crime, in ever increasing numbers, which cries for ever increasing intervention from the state. Or as someone once said, "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."

And yes, here's the kicker, it all backfires on the politically correct immorality grouping of the day, who will with ever centralizing power have their "freedoms" taken by and by with everyone else's. Welcome to Reality 101.

The hijacking, and redefinition of the word "gay" by the left, is another obvious example … and thus what was once a pathology, homosexuality, is now redefined as "normal, happy, healthy," everyone smile … even though the suicide rate among gays is exorbitantly high. It just isn't a happy lifestyle. Never has been.
Another word re-invented by the left to its opposite is discussed in today's National Review Online, by Rich Lowry; it is fascism. Fascism, as this editor has long taught (but which has not been taught in the schools or the media), is but a form of socialism. Indeed, Lenin's NEP was fundamentally a fascist model, as was Gorbachev's Peretroika. That is, by way of one example, complete state ownership of the major industries, highly regulated status of the other industries and businesses, and free enterprise for Mama and Papa businesses.

On another level, there was private ownership in those regulated and Mama and Papa industries, but it had aggressive, freedom destroying limits. Publishers could freely compete, but not with a variety of political views (they had to pull the party line), but they could only compete for audiences; e.g. the senior audience, or the youth, or, let's say, manufacturers.

Thus, they had the economic benefits of private ownership and competition, but not freedom of speech as we understand it. Similar examples abound.

Lowry reviews a book by Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism," that exposes the fraud of the conservative right and Christians as fascists. Fascism and communism are sisters of the left. Both are highly centralized liberty destroying variations of the same idea.

Definitions are important.

Read the review: Rich Lowry on Liberal Fascism on National Review Online

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

A registrar in England is refusing to perform gay weddings because they violate her conscience and deeply held religious convictions. She is taking her local council to court over the matter. The secular approach is a very invasive one which insists that simply being “offended” is grounds for all kinds of lawsuits. And while we at Liberty Letters find the secular legal outlook that protects the favored minority of the moment from being "offended" by another man's views, a dangerous assault on freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion. Yet, we wonder why it is that these freedom loving individuals won't extend the same protections against "being offended" to Christians around the world? Can't they see that this movement they've attached themselves to is not about freedom, but statist control? Not about protecting private moral decisions, but vigorously assaulting that moral order, the Judeo-Christian ethic, that stands in the way of political revolution?

Read the story in the UK's Daily Mail.

The Liberty Letters are written by NewsMax pundit Steve Farrell and friends; and are a project of The Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism.

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

A Liberty Letters wacko environmentalism moment courtesy of IVA:

Ø Unfortunately for environmental alarmists, there has been no global warming now for almost a full decade, even though carbon dioxide concentrations are up about 4% since 1998. In fact, the southern hemisphere last year experienced one of its coldest winters on record, with record low temperatures and widespread frost and snow. It snowed in Buenos Aires for the first time in 89 years, and in Johannesburg for the first time in 25 years, while Chile suffered losses of $200 million in agriculture because of the tough winter. Even New Hampshire set a record for December snowfall, breaking a mark that had stood since 1876. (Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? - The Boston Globe)

Ø As you have been warned in this space, environmental authorities
in Britain are now calling for the evacuation of any room in which a compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) breaks, because of its mercury content. The UK Environment Agency insists that debris not be removed
with a vacuum cleaner, but rather must be handled with rubber gloves, sealed in a plastic bag, and taken to official recycling sites. Good luck with that. (WorldNetDaily: Warning: Vacate room when CFL bulb breaks)

A Liberty Letters PS.: The environmental movement is not about protecting the environment, but about promoting the state, especially a future socialist state under the United Nations where your views about the environment, if you have any, will be relegated to "Who cares!" The best check on pollution is free enterprise coupled with the old legal approach of only going to the law, and that the traditional court system, when your back yard, your water supply, your whatever has been tainted by negligence or design. This with a removal of case law, making each issue to be handled by a case by case basis; and add to this, environmental law drafted, legislated, controlled and thus accountable to local voices, is the better, more inspired policy. There may be occasional exceptions to such an approach; but under the Jeffersonian approach to such exceptions, they must always and forever be treated as exceptions, with the general law still in force.

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

When it comes to "limited government" as defined by the Founding Fathers, Liberty Letters sides with the inspired electoral college process created in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one which rather than making for a pure democracy (or something like unto it) gave us representative government - but more than that: mixed forms for representation coupled with a variety of checks and balances that prevented power from concentrating, as well as providing a check on passionate and frequent overthrows of the law. Change was not to be impossible when desirable, but only after a deliberate process of debate, reasoning, and separation of time from any supposed crisis (outside of war). The Electoral College system set up for electing Presidents of the United States is part of that inspiration.

The Idaho Values Alliance, the Idaho Affiliate of American Family Association notes today:

Not too many people are happy with the current proess of selecting presidential nominees – too long, too expensive, too confusing. The simplest solution would be to go back to the system envisioned by the Founders and enshrined in the Constitution. According to the Founders, what this season should be about is not electing a president but electing the people who will elect a president.

 

 

As Article II of the Constitution says, Election Day is not the day to choose a president but rather the “Time of chusing (sic) the Electors.” This is a reflection of the often-forgotten historical truth that the Founders created a republic, not a democracy, when they established the government of the United States.

 

 

The Electoral College was designed by the Founders to consist of those people that the voters of each state have chosen, on the first Tuesday in November, to actually select the next president of the United States.

 

 

We should not, at this stage of the process, be hearing from presidential candidates but rather from candidates for the position of Elector.

 

We should be hearing from Idahoans seeking to convince us, by the criteria they will use in casting their votes, that they can be trusted to pick a president on our behalf.

 

 

The system is designed to work in such a way, according to Article II and the 12th Amendment, that we would not know who our next president is until the sealed Certificates listing the votes of every Elector from every state are opened by the President of the Senate in the presence of a joint session of Congress in Washington, D.C.

 

 

Then, if no one candidate received a majority of the votes, the House of Representatives would choose the next president from the top five vote getters in the Electoral College.

 

Bottom line: if we’re disenchanted with the current process, there’s no reason not to go back to the Constitution and do it the way we’re supposed to.

We agree, but add: An additional step to true election reform would be to repeal the 17th Amendment of the Constitution, which amendment called for the direct election of U.S. Senators by the people, rather than by the Founder's method, which was the election of Senators by their state legislatures - a radical departure. The Founder's formula sought to provide a vital check against the concentration of power on the national level, provide a balance of power between the states as well (by giving every state, large or small, two Senators directly responsible to their respective state governments and interests), and also a check against socialistic schemes for the forced redistribution of the wealth which they were sure would arise in the more democratic house (and thus this was a check on the dangers of pure democracy). And to coincide with these, election of Senators by their state legislatures was supposed to provide for more statesmanship, more independent thought, more sense of history, more sense of moral maturity, for the thought was that by in large these Senators - thus elected - would be the tried and tested senior statesmen from each state.

When one really considers what the Founder's did, and what later generations undid with the 17th Amendment, we are also led to exclaim, "If only we were to repeal and return, here would be true campaign-finance reform!" For it would mean, in large part, an end to millions of dollars from corporations and other private interest groups flowing into election campaign coffers for senatorial and presidential elections. Only in the House would the problem continue to be the problem we have today …  just as the Founders predicted and wanted. It was the House that represented directly the passions, whims, and or legitimate concerns of the people, and yes, groups of people (associations). There they would be aired in either their glory or shame … but they would be aired … and then hopefully, even if some of the more shameful measures made it through, then in the Senate, a more mature legislative body, representing a different constituency would provide the balance, checking the bad, and only concurring with the good.

Powered by ScribeFire. Quotation used with the permission of our friends at the Idaho Values Alliance

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

It doesn't get worse than this - the grassroots candidate that raised $20 million this quarter, more than the next closet Republican in the field by $9 million, has been snubbed from their debates this upcoming weekend.

Liberty Letters suggests that you email Fox News and respectfully voice your disappointment, even outrage. Tell them that you believe in free elections, free speech, and the democratic process, and that you thought they did too.

Just what are they afraid of when it comes to Ron Paul? Read the story here: Newsmax.com - Ron Paul Furious over Fox Debate Snub

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

I do not know if all Americans have faith in their religion - for who can read to the bottom of hearts? - but I am sure that they believe it necessary to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion does not belong only to one class of citizens or to one party, but to the entire nation; one finds it in all ranks. - Alexis de Tocqueville, as quoted in "American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation,"  Jon Meacham

The Liberty Letters are a project of The Latter-day Center for Moral Liberalism

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

"We have explored the Temple of Royalty and found that the idol we have bowed down to has eyes which see not, ears that hear not our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone. We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and with a propitious eye beholds His subjects assuming that freedom and thought and dignity of self-direction which He bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting of the sun, may His Kingdom come." - Samuel Adams, Address to the Third Continental Congress

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

WorldNetDaily.com reports:

In addition to raising auto fuel efficiency standards 40 percent, an energy bill passed by Congress yesterday bans the incandescent light bulb by 2014.

President Bush signed the 822-page measure into law today after it was sent up Pennsylvania Avenue in a Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle. The House passed the bill by a 314-100 vote after approval by the Senate last week.

Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the legislation will boost the energy efficiency of "almost every significant product and tool and appliance that we use, from light bulbs to light trucks."

The phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt.

All light bulbs must use 25 percent to 30 percent less 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70 percent more efficient than they are today.

Australia was the first country to announce an outright ban by 2010.

Critics of Thomas Edison's invention argue it uses more energy to produce light than the compact fluorescent, or CFL, bulb.

While standard light bulbs cost about 50 cents, the spiral CFL sells for about $3. Advocates argue, however, the CFL lasts five years longer and uses about 75 percent less energy.

But as WND reported, the presence of small amounts of highly toxic mercury in CFLs poses problems for consumers when breakage occurs and for disposal when bulbs eventually burn out. The potential environmental hazard created by the mass introduction of billions of CFLs with few disposal sites and a public unfamiliar with the risks is great.

Liberty Letters Comment: Not only is this a unnecessary and unwise intrusion into the free market, this editor is one among many citizens out there who just happens to be allergic, in fact, extremely allergic to florescent light. Any time I'm in a room with only florescent light (no natural light to counteract it) it is only a matter of a couple of hours before I begin to get extremely ill. Will our current presidential candidates promise to undue this socialist wrong? Meanwhile, President Bush, again shows that he radical environmentalism means more to him than freedom. Further, as to supposedly saving energy, statistical studies, demonstrate that wherever energy costs are saved consumers use those savings to consume ever more energy, proving you can't force a
man to be economical. Nevertheless, socialists keep trying, and in the process, making life more miserable and expensive for us all. Write your congressmen. Protest this law. Ask them to introduce counter legislation.

WorldNetDaily: Congress bans incandescent bulbs

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Southwestern Oklahoma State University recently prohibited its employees from using the word "Christmas" in emails and voicemails - meaning no employee is allowed to wish anyone a "Merry Christmas" - and the school's Director of Human Resources actually visited various campus departments and ordered that the words "Christ" and "Christmas" be covered up in decorations.

The IT department was ordered to change the introduction page of the university's data base to remove a statement that said: "Have a very Happy Holiday . Merry Christmas . Happy New Year."

If you'd like to politely protest this latest expression of the Secular Inquisition, you may call the university's president John Hays at (580) 774-3766 or email him at president@swosu.edu and request that he reverse the ban on "Christmas." (Note: you will probably be told erroneously that there is nothing to the story; leave your message anyway.)

Liberty Counsel: Southwestern Oklahoma State University Bans The Word "Christmas"

Liberty Letters response to President Hays

Dear President Hays:

I know, at least I'm almost sure, that of all places where freedom of religion, speech, and the press ought to be protected under the first amendment charge that "Congress (and I would hope every other law-making or rule making body is included under the spirit of this clause) shall make NO LAW … prohibiting the free exercise thereof" that you would see the wisdom in not proscribing the free religious speech of your employees.

I urge you to reconsider your black listing of permissible speech - anything secular apparently - but nothing religious, you know, nothing that really defines who a person is and how he feels about life, his neighbor, and the holiday in question - and which instead leaves but a void to be filled and thus a prejudice in favor of, every other philosophy on life … some of them not so good.

Bah Humbug to your policy! And instead, Merry Christmas to you and your fellow collegians!

Liberty Letters source: Our friends at the Idaho Values Alliance. Used with permission.

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Why are questions about Communist China asked only in the Democratic
presidential debates? We want to know what the Republican candidates
plan to do about China sending us poisoned foods and toys.

All presidential candidates should be asked what they plan to do
about the fact that free trade with China means acquiescing in gross
discrimination against U.S. products and jobs. The Chinese avoid a
level trading field by artificially undervaluing their currency up to
40 percent, subsidizing their products, and imposing import duties
against U.S. products that are ten times higher than tariffs on their
products in U.S. stores.

Our free-trade negotiators routinely accept trade agreements
that give other countries the right to charge higher tariffs than we
charge for similar products. For example, the Chinese Chery car will
face a 2.5 percent tariff when sold in the U.S., but U.S. autos
entering China will be taxed at 25 percent.

Foreign countries get by with this discrimination by calling
it a Value Added Tax (VAT) instead of a tariff, but it amounts to just
as high a barrier against free trade. The result is that millions of
American jobs have moved overseas.

All presidential candidates ought to be asked what they plan
to do about China's organized theft of our intellectual property and
counterfeiting of our products. Communist China is the world's top
producer of illegal copies of music, movies, software, designer
clothes, and medicines.

All candidates should be asked what they plan to do about
China putting its billion dollars of profits from U.S. trade into
military weaponry to threaten, not only Taiwan, but the United States,
especially our communication satellites.

The toy advertised by Wal-Mart as the top toy of the season
had to be recalled after it was discovered that children in Texas,
Delaware, New Hampshire, Illinois and Utah fell sick and were
hospitalized because of swallowing the toy's bead-like parts. After 4.2
million were recalled, China finally admitted that the beads in this
toy, called Aqua Dots, contained a substance that can turn into the
"date-rape" drug after children swallow them.

That drug, gamma-hydroxy butyrate, causes breathing problems,
loss of consciousness, seizures, drowsiness, coma, and death. Aqua Dots
were supposed to have been coated with a nontoxic chemical, but that
chemical costs three or four times the price of the poisonous compound,
so the Chinese manufacturer couldn't resist using the cheaper product.

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission's website,
26 million toys and other products made in China have been recalled by
U.S. companies since August. Even the Boy Scouts of America had to
recall a million Chinese-made plastic badges that contained unsafe
amounts of lead.

Chinese products for children found to contain unacceptable
levels of lead include vinyl baby bibs, Thomas the Tank Engine sets,
Baby Einstein Discover & Play Color Blocks, Pirates of the
Caribbean medallion squeeze lights, Totally Me! Funky Room Decor Sets,
Hannah Montana handbags, and Barbie doll accessories.

Australia recalled hundreds of blankets imported from China in
October because they contained formaldehyde up to ten times the level
permissible under international standards. The World Heath Organization
has classified formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen.

Seafood from China is a potentially more dangerous import.
About 80 percent of seafood consumed by Americans is imported, and the
Food and Drug Administration inspects and tests only one percent.

Lab tests show that China uses antibiotics to treat fish
raised in filthy waters where bacteria, viruses and parasites breed.
Lab testers say that when seafood is rejected for an illegal chemical,
the Chinese simply switch to another harmful chemical.

Often found in imported fish is a fungicide called malachite
green, which is illegal to use in food in the U.S. because studies show
it can cause cancer and birth defects.

Alabama has its own tests and rejects 50 to 60 percent of all
fish imports. Alabama Commissioner of Agriculture Ron Sparks personally
visited Asia to witness seafood farmed in sewage.

Chinese products are so cheap because the workers in
Guangdong, where most of the Chinese toys are made, are primarily
females age 17 to 25 who work an average of 16 hours a day, 6 or 7 days
a week, for about $50 per month. They live in unhealthy, overcrowded
dormitories, where a bed is all they have of their own.

With the 2008 Olympic games coming soon, Communist China is
stepping up its censorship under the official slogan "constructing a
harmonious society." Visitors who click on China's largest Internet
site, called Sina.com, are greeted by two cute cartoon police figures,
one male and one female, who pop up on their screens every 30 minutes.

These images link to the Communist internet police in order
to report any information the government might deem illegal. It's
important for Americans to realize that China is still a very Communist
and anti-American country.

Used with permission.

Liberty Letters Comments: I know, I know, there is an economic "miracle" going on on Red China - that's what the media left and right keep telling us. Freedom is on the way, and well, this is the early stages of Capitalism; you can't really expect these guys to play by 21st Century rules, can you? Hmmm … let's see, we send over our dollars, our industry, our technology, our private industries hard earned patents, give them absolute veto power in the U.N. Security Council, turn a blind eye to their true involvement with terrorist groups and North Korea, and they hate us - but we need to make special rules for them so that they can have the money, technology, military might, and political control to bury us. Makes perfect sense to me.

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Lew Rockwell makes the argument that Ron Paul is the candidate for a return to honest money under the gold standard.

Easy Money, Easy Lies - Mises Institute

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Here's a look into some of the gimmicktry being used by interventionists and social planners. Thanks to Lew Rockwell.

The Mirage of the Mortgage Fix - Mises Institute

Powered by ScribeFire.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Radical environmentalism, just keeps getting sillier. Britain's, The Telegraph reports:

Pubs are likely to pump hundreds of thousands of tons of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a result of the smoking ban.

Policy advisers predict that emissions from patio heaters in pubs and restaurants will increase from 22,200 tons of greenhouse gases a year to up to 282,000 tons - the equivalent of flying a jumbo jet 171 times around the Earth.

Heaters will be used for more than 237 days a year, when outdoor temperatures are lower than 15C, says the report, from Market Transformation. A further 80,000 tons of carbon dioxide will be produced next year by patio heaters in private gardens, according to an earlier study by the Energy Saving Trust.

Environmentalists say the heaters must now be banned if Britain is to meet carbon dioxide emission targets.

Tony Juniper, of Friends of the Earth, said: "The impacts of the smoking ban are positive, but this should not cause more problems for the environment. Either smokers will have to give up smoking or simply put on a jumper."

Liberty Letters Comment: Silly or revealing? Is there really concern for the environment, or just animosity toward the free world, and human progress?

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

The forces of rabid, fundamentalist secular liberalism reach even into tiny communities that you might be inclined to think are still safe harbors from political correctness.

Monument, Colorado is such a place. Class valedictorian Erica Corder had the effrontery to mention Jesus Christ in her graduation speech, following the example set by presidents from George Washington to George Bush, all of whom have mentioned Christ and Christianity in public speeches.

However, she was ordered to issue an apology for her "immature" comments and told that if she did not, she would not receive her graduation diploma.

Afraid that her college career could be placed in jeopardy, Miss Corder was blackmailed into issuing an apology for her remarks.

And so the thought police have now extended their reach into the high school level, and the new McCarthyites are now more than willing to punish those who deviate from secular orthodoxy by terminating their academic careers. You may be excused for thinking this has the ring of fascism.

Liberty Counsel is now representing her in a freedom of speech lawsuit against the school, and Miss Corder is pursuing the suit not just for herself but for "students in the future. I want to make sure they aren't afraid of saying what they believe, and I want the school district to know what they did was wrong."

The school is digging in its heels, and will "vigorously defend" its Inquisition-like punishment of Miss Corder and her exercise of freedom of speech and religion.

The lawsuit was filed after the family spent a year trying to persuade the district to clarify its policy with regard to graduation speeches.

Liberty Letters' Source: Idaho Values Alliance. Used with permission.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

… the advent of Jesus Christ upon earth was required to teach that all the members of the human race are by nature equal and alike. - Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy In America," 1835.

Liberty Letters Comment: Alexis de Tocqueville, who with a philosopher's and sometimes a prophet's pen understood so much about America and her destiny … understood this above all other realities: that the American miracle in liberty was the by-product of the best in Christianity … of men inspired to live, govern, learn, and prosper under the sway of the Higher Laws and perfect moral code of Jesus the Christ. And as to the equality of men before the judgment bar of God, did not Christ teach such things when he held up as examples to the Jews - the Good Samaritan, the Women at the Well, a Roman Centurion, and others outside of the House of Israel; as well as the poorest of widows, the repentant adulteress, and the boy born blind? And was this not his message when he rebuked those in Israel for failing to realize that "where much is given, much is required," nor to understand that their father was not Abraham (for they did not the works of Abraham), but the devil?  Indeed, it was Christ who taught us, and still teaches us to judge a person, or a group, by his fruits, not his genealogical line, nor the color of his skin, nor his sex. Alexis de Tocqueville knew this. Every early American school child knew this. But do we today?

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.8
AT different periods dogmatical belief is more or less abundant. It arises in different ways, and it may change its object or its form; but under no circumstances will dogmatical belief cease to exist, or, in other words, men will never cease to entertain some implicit opinions without trying them by actual discussion. If everyone undertook to form his own opinions and to seek for truth by isolated paths struck out by himself alone, it is not to be supposed that any considerable number of men would ever unite in any common belief. But obviously without such common belief no society can prosper—say rather no society can subsist; for without ideas held in common, there is no common action, and without common action, there may still be men, but there is no social body. In order that society should exist, and, a fortiori, that a society should prosper, it is required that all the minds of the citizens should be rallied and held together by certain predominant ideas; and this cannot be the case, unless each of them sometimes draws his opinions from the common source, and consents to accept certain matters of belief at the hands of the community.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.9 - p.10
If I now consider man in his isolated capacity, I find that dogmatical belief is not less indispensable to him in order to live alone, than it is to enable him to co-operate with his fellow-creatures. If man were forced to demonstrate to himself all the truths of which he makes daily use, his task would never end. He would exhaust his strength in preparatory exercises, without advancing beyond them. As, from the shortness of his life, he has not the time, nor, from the limits of his intelligence, the capacity, to accomplish this, he is reduced to take upon trust a number of facts and opinions which he has not had either the time or the power to verify himself, but which men of greater ability have sought out, or which the world adopts. On this groundwork he raises for himself the structure of his own thoughts; nor is he led to proceed in this manner by choice so much as he is constrained by the inflexible law of his condition. There is no philosopher of such great parts in the world, but that he believes a million of things on the faith of other people, and supposes a great many more truths than he demonstrates. This is not only necessary but desirable. A man who should undertake to inquire into everything for himself, could devote to each thing but little time and attention. His task would keep his mind in perpetual unrest, which would prevent him from penetrating to the depth of any truth, or of grappling his mind indissolubly to any conviction. His intellect would be at once independent and powerless. He must therefore make his choice from amongst the various objects of human belief, and he must adopt many opinions without discussion, in order to search the better into that smaller number which he sets apart for investigation. It is true that whoever receives an opinion on the word of another, does so far enslave his mind; but it is a salutary servitude which allows him to make a good use of freedom.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.10
A principle of authority must then always occur, under all circumstances, in some part or other of the moral and intellectual world. Its place is variable, but a place it necessarily has. The independence of individual minds may be greater, or it may be less: unbounded it cannot be. Thus the question is, not to know whether any intellectual authority exists in the ages of democracy, but simply where it resides and by what standard it is to be measured.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.10 - p.11
I have shown in the preceding chapter how the equality of conditions leads men to entertain a sort of instinctive incredulity of the supernatural, and a very lofty and often exaggerated opinion of the human understanding. The men who live at a period of social equality are not therefore easily led to place that intellectual authority to which they bow either beyond or above humanity. They commonly seek for the sources of truth in themselves, or in those who are like themselves. This would be enough to prove that at such periods no new religion could be established, and that all schemes for such a purpose would be not only impious but absurd and irrational. It may be foreseen that a democratic people will not easily give credence to divine missions; that they will turn modern prophets to a ready jest; and they that will seek to discover the chief arbiter of their belief within, and not beyond, the limits of their kind.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.11
When the ranks of society are unequal, and men unlike each other in condition, there are some individuals invested with all the power of superior intelligence, learning, and enlightenment, whilst the multitude is sunk in ignorance and prejudice. Men living at these aristocratic periods are therefore naturally induced to shape their opinions by the superior standard of a person or a class of persons, whilst they are averse to recognize the infallibility of the mass of the people.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.11
The contrary takes place in ages of equality. The nearer the citizens are drawn to the common level of an equal and similar condition, the less prone does each man become to place implicit faith in a certain man or a certain class of men. But his readiness to believe the multitude increases, and opinion is more than ever mistress of the world. Not only is common opinion the only guide which private judgment retains amongst a democratic people, but amongst such a people it possesses a power infinitely beyond what it has elsewhere. At periods of equality men have no faith in one another, by reason of their common resemblance; but this very resemblance gives them almost unbounded confidence in the judgment of the public; for it would not seem probable, as they are all endowed with equal means of judging, but that the greater truth should go with the greater number.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.11
When the inhabitant of a democratic country compares himself individually with all those about him, he feels with pride that he is the equal of any one of them; but when he comes to survey the totality of his fellows, and to place himself in contrast to so huge a body, he is instantly overwhelmed by the sense of his own insignificance and weakness. The same equality which renders him independent of each of his fellow-citizens taken severally, exposes him alone and unprotected to the influence of the greater number. The public has therefore among a democratic people a singular power, of which aristocratic nations could never so much as conceive an idea; for it does not persuade to certain opinions, but it enforces them, and infuses them into the faculties by a sort of enormous pressure of the minds of all upon the reason of each.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.12
In the United States the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own. Everybody there adopts great numbers of theories, on philosophy, morals, and politics, without inquiry, upon public trust; and if we look to it very narrowly, it will be perceived that religion herself holds her sway there, much less as a doctrine of revelation than as a commonly received opinion. The fact that the political laws of the Americans are such that the majority rules the community with sovereign sway, materially increases the power which that majority naturally exercises over the mind. For nothing is more customary in man than to recognize superior wisdom in the person of his oppressor. This political omnipotence of the majority in the United States doubtless augments the influence which public opinion would obtain without it over the mind of each member of the community; but the foundations of that influence do not rest upon it. They must be sought for in the principle of equality itself, not in the more or less popular institutions which men living under that condition may give themselves. The intellectual dominion of the greater number would probably be less absolute amongst a democratic people governed by a king than in the sphere of a pure democracy, but it will always be extremely absolute; and by whatever political laws men are governed in the ages of equality, it may be foreseen that faith in public opinion will become a species of religion there, and the majority its ministering prophet.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.12 - p.13
Thus intellectual authority will be different, but it will not be diminished; and far from thinking that it will disappear, I augur that it may readily acquire too much preponderance, and confine the action of private judgment within narrower limits than are suited either to the greatness or the happiness of the human race. In the principle of equality I very clearly discern two tendencies; the one leading the mind of every man to untried thoughts, the other inclined to prohibit him from thinking at all. And I perceive how, under the dominion of certain laws, democracy would extinguish that liberty of the mind to which a democratic social condition is favorable; so that, after having broken all the bondage once imposed on it by ranks or by men, the human mind would be closely fettered to the general will of the greatest number.

Democracy in America, vol.2, p.13
If the absolute power of the majority were to be substituted by democratic nations, for all the different powers which checked or retarded overmuch the energy of individual minds, the evil would only have changed its symptoms. Men would not have found the means of independent life; they would simply have invented (no easy task) a new dress for servitude. There is—and I cannot repeat it too often—there is in this matter for profound reflection for those who look on freedom as a holy thing, and who hate not only the despot, but despotism. For myself, when I feel the hand of power lie heavy on my brow, I care but little to know who oppresses me; and I am not the more disposed to pass beneath the yoke, because it is held out to me by the arms of a million of men. - Alexis de Toqueville

Liberty Letters Comment: Extremes in Democracy and Equality and Libertarianism bring about the danger de Toqueville prophetically warns about, that there is a dark side to some approaches to freedom. On the one hand, were we to not rely upon commonly held ideas taught and accepted in the public sphere, we would all be starting over anew … constantly - a fools errand. On the other hand, over-reliance and belief in the democratic principle as a religion of sorts, creates a crushing reliance upon "the majority" view of things (or in our day, perhaps the media orchestrated majority view, which may in fact not be the majority view) that becomes both unwritten and legislated law. One thinks of political correctness, academic accreditation, fierce intolerance in various "science" journals for opposing point of view. Thus, controls of the majority become oppressive, and thus in the information age looms the danger and reality of a nation of students and citizens who no longer know how to think, to reason, to judge, for lack of training, opportunity, and for fear.

 Print This Post | Other posts by Steve Farrell

Men will not accept truth at the hands of their enemies, and truth is seldom offered to them by their friends: for this reason I have spoken it. I was persuaded that many would take upon themselves to announce the new blessings which the principle of equality promises to mankind, but that few would dare to point out from afar the dangers with which it threatens them. To those perils therefore I have turned my chief attention, and believing that I had discovered them clearly, I have not had the cowardice to leave them untold.

I trust that my readers will find in this Second Part that impartiality which seems to have been remarked in the former work. Placed as I am in the midst of the conflicting opinions between which we are divided, I have endeavored to suppress within me for a time the favorable sympathies or the adverse emotions with which each of them inspires me. If those who read this book can find a single sentence intended to flatter any of the great parties which have agitated my country, or any of those petty factions which now harass and weaken it, let such readers raise their voices to accuse me. - Alexis de Toqueville, "Democracy In America, Volume II."

Liberty Letters Comment: Which are we? The party coward focused on the blessings of being a Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian, or that statesmen who searches out and stands by right and wrong, good and better, and has vision enough to be more concerned with the long view than expediency and the "crisis" of the moment?