Welcome to the list. I hope you'll enjoy your stay.
Let me clarify my points for you and everyone else on the list. The
Democratic party has evolved tremendously since the days of Thomas
Jefferson. He saw a great need for a limited government, in order to keep
the federal government from becoming tyrannical. He had reason, as we can
see with John Adams' Sedition Acts (actually, they were Alexander
Hamilton's). These national laws placed many people in jail, or stole
their personal property for speaking out against the government.
Jefferson's first act as president was to pardon all people in prison
under this act.

I'm not saying that the federal government doesn't have a responsibility
and a role. The actions taken 40 years ago to sustain and defend the
Constitution and its Amendments from corrupted local officials (I've
lived in Alabama for 16 years now, so I know George Wallace), was a
correct action to take. It ensured the rights of Americans.

However, what if a national law was passed that required all people to be
right-handed? What would left-handed people do? They couldn't easily move
away, as the entire nation is forced to follow the rule.  They would be
placed in an unfortunate situation they couldn't get away from.  This
happens today. I don't want to pay for certain things the federal
government occasionally demands payment for (drug needles for addicts,
women reproductive issues - I can't use the real term because it is
against charter, spending millions to save the snail darter, etc). If
these things are done on the state level, then I can either put up with
it, or leave the state.

During the Jim Crow era, blacks did have the choice to move elsewhere to
other states. Many did and had a better life for it. What would have
happened if the feds, instead of sustaining all black people's rights,
were to have said that the Jim Crow laws were constitutional and were to
be established on a nation-wide basis? Where would black people have run?
We would have essentially placed them back into slavery-perish the
thought!  But with men like George Wallace, LBJ, Senator Gore,  and many
others in the South (and elsewhere), it was a distinct possibility that
this could have happened.

Jefferson understood that tyranny happens, but the worst tyranny happens
on the absolute level. No one can escape it, and it is almost impossible
to stop it, as it has no opposition on a level large enough to end it.

Now, for the Democratic party: there are some awesome people in it. I
really like Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, for example. There are some
liberals that I respect, whose desire is to help the downtrodden and
average American. My parents voted for Hubert Humphrey, whom I also
admire. But there are many socialists who are seeking to control the
party. This is very clear as you study how the Democratic party has
evolved over the past 50 years. JFK asked for tax cuts. Jimmy Carter
wanted a responsible government (unfortunately, he wasn't decisive
enough, and his wishy washiness hurt the nation). LBJ, however, began a
new part of the party in order to socialize it. JFK didn't like LBJ, and
didn't trust his motives. 

The difference is, a liberal wants to use the government  in order to
improve the lives of people. They don't seek a total governmental force,
like one sees in very socialistic nations. Instead, they want their taxes
to work wisely, and to only tax what is necessary to make the system
work, whether it is 10% or 80% tax.

A socialist wants to put everything under the government. They aren't as
much interested in helping the people as they are in having a big
experimental program they can play with, because they think they are
smarter than everyone else. Look at the current government education
system. It spends an average of 5-6 thousand dollars per year per
student. However, the education most kids get is abysmal. We cannot
compete with most other industrial nations, and are last in math and
science. Johnny can't read, even though most kids learned to read 50
years ago (and that during a time when schools were segregated-even
blacks were learning to read with that "poorer" school system and no
lunch program). Instead of using engineering techniques to find effective
teaching processes, they've gotten lost in socialistic programs, pushing
all kinds of "feel good" education that will not prepare children for the
adult life. Sex education has not succeeded in getting kids to use
condoms, but has achieved a higher sex lifestyle among teens, for
example. Rather than admitting that their program isn't working, they
fight harder against efforts that do work (like abstinence training). 
Why? Because socialists know that if you do not teach people to think for
themselves, but only give them enough smarts to get a job, then go home
and entertain themselves, then the socialists have a pacified society
that will blithely follow them anywhere. This same technique is used in
socialist countries: Vietnam, Cuba, China, etc.

A true liberal sees that there is validity in fixing programs that do not
work, or getting rid of them. A liberal also sees the validity in keeping
programs on the lowest level possible, so the individual doesn't get lost
in the red tape. A liberal wants to fix the current school system, and
won't let the American Education Association's socialist agenda stop them
from saving the kids. A liberal might even approve of vouchers as a
temporary solution until something can be resolved in the long term, in
order to help the downtrodden and illiterate. I think there is a
Democratic Senator from Connecticutt who actually agrees with me on this

The party has been controlled by people like Tom Daschle, who have fought
moving the nation, not for the sake of liberal issues, but for party
politics (this is not to say that Republicans don't also do party
politics. I'm not a big Trent Lott fan). After their big defeat in this
election, they are now going to have to get a new Minority Whip for the
House to replace Gephardt. Rather than get someone who is a true liberal,
it looks like they are picking someone who is even more socialistic from
San Francisco to replace him. They are definitely controlled by

A strong federal government can be a blessing OR a great curse. Would you
want to live under a Stalin, Hitler, or Mao? Yet that is what one gets
when a federal government becomes very powerful, then lets a corrupt
person into power. We can't read the hearts of men, so one never knows
just what one will get in a leader. Hitler was extremely convincing to
those who listened to him. They didn't see him as a monster, at least not
until he was in power. Then, it was too late to stop him.

I would much rather have a tyrant in one or two states, where the people
can flee to other states if necessary, than to have all 275 million of us
trapped under a dictator, and a dictator who happens to have nuclear

K'aya K'ama,
Gerald/gary  Smith    gszion1    http://www
"No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free."  -
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Hello, my name is Irwin Delay. I recently joined the list. Although I am
a Latter-day Saint, I have been reading LDS literature for the past three
years. Also, I am engaged to a Latter-day Saint.
I must respond to the statements of Gerald Smith. Let me first say I am
unapologetic, flaming liberal. I do not think the Democratic party is
controlled by the socialist. Also, the problem I have with the idea of
states' rights is the fact of what happened to African Americans forty
ago. Were blacks in the south expected to migrate en masse to the north
escape segregation? A strong federal government is a must in order to
protect the rights of the minority.

Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to