Friday, February 27, 2015


You can tell a lot about a person's agenda by their words and actions.
When a person decides to support one initiative over another, we simply need to look at what they are trying to accomplish and what steps they are taking, then look at what they are NOT advocating to accomplish their goal.

Let's start with Anthropogenic Global Warming. I am not going to say that the Earth will not be getting warmer. There are numerous reasons the Earth is going to get warmer.

1. We are still coming out of an Ice Age that began millions of years ago (look up the definition of an Ice Age if you don't believe me). Any 3rd grader can tell you that when an Ice Age ends, it gets warmer and the ice melts.

2. The Earth is slowly getting closer to the sun. Every year the Earth's orbit comes a little bit closer to the's called gravity (you can look that one up too if you want).

3. The Earth has had warming and cooling cycles throughout its 4.5 billion year history, we have no reason to think these cycles have ended.

OK, so let's suspend the facts for a brief moment and assume that the Earth will be getting warmer because of man generated CO2 (please do not call it man made CO2, man did not invent CO2, every molecule of carbon & oxygen on this planet was here before man walked on two feet).

If CO2 were causing global warming (oh excuse me I mean
"climate change"....), why are the chicken littles on the left not asking for the government to plant more trees? Why are they not demanding big business to invent a machine that traps or converts CO2 back into Oxygen???

Instead they demand the 3rd world countries not use their resources to become industrialized. Instead they tell us not to drive our RVs or SUVs (while they fly private jets and ride solo in stretch limousines to accept awards for telling us what to do). Instead they try to market a new form of currency (carbon credits) which do nothing except redistribute wealth.

That my friends is EXACTLY what the Global Warming scam is all about..CONTROL! The leftists want to institute communism (for a variety of reasons I have covered before) and will attach themselves to any cause that will advance it. Global Warming, Climate Change, Hole in the Ozone Layer, Spotted Owl, whatever it is...they want to control business.

Next item: Voter ID laws....Now those on the left will tell you that by supporting Voter ID laws you are some how racist or that you don't care about the poor.
In reality, those that favor Voter ID laws only want a fair, legitimate election. So the left will fight Voter ID laws....while at the same time giving away free health care, free food, free money, hell they even give the poor and down trodden free CELL PHONES!...Why have they not advocated free Government IDs? Reasonable people know that you CANNOT engage in ANY business in this country without an ID.....hell some states even stop and ask for IDs to make sure you are not an escaped felon or illegal alien. You can't drive, you can't fly, you can't even buy a bus ticket without ID. You can't get a bank account, cash a check or apply for welfare without ID. Most importantly you cannot get a JOB! 
Of course we know the left want to increase the amount of people on the government dole....all apart of their communist agenda.

So how are these "poor" people surviving? The only people I would think that don't have an ID are those living on the street, the vast majority of those people are not in their right mind and probably shouldn't  be voting anyway (do you want want a crack addict, alcoholic or mentally deranged person choosing who will be President?) besides I doubt these people give two shits about who is in office, they just want their next hit or pint.

So the left doesn't advocate free IDs for the poor, which would be a minor cost. So what does that tell us about the their real agenda? It tells us that they would like to be able to fix elections, and one way to accomplish that is to prevent voters from having to identify who they really are.

Gun Control.....but its for the children! I have gone over this in multiple posts, but the lack of cries from the left for more prisons, more parole offices, ending parole and probation, more and better rehabilitation tells you one thing: The left is NOT concerned with crime and criminals, instead they are concerned about the rest of us being armed. Gun Control has less to do about guns and more to do about CONTROL. Like above, if they ever hope to institute communism in America, they will need to prevent those us of us who understand how communism works from stopping them.....
So to institute their will they will find ways to redistribute the wealth (global warming, taxes, welfare), take over the media (already done), take away the guns (they are working on it) and remove any obstacles to fixing the elections (Voter ID laws).

This is just a sampling of some leftist causes...I could go on all day.

So the next time a leftist opens their mouth about a subject they claim to care about....take a look at what they are not advocating will give you a clearer picture of their real agenda.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Another Shooting

Well, another one happened, this time in Seattle and in a Gun Free Zone....can you believe it? The policy, the signs.....of course it did not stop the murderous intent of a human being.

Without a doubt we will be inundated by the left with calls for gun control.

One more time for any of you leftist hopolophobes.

Remember history class? Remember reading about the know Ghengis Khan and all that.....the raping and pillaging...the wanton killing.
Remember the Egyptians...enslaving the Jews? Remember the Romans....the wars, the conquering?

Remember Hannibal conquering Italy? Remember the Vandals and Visigoths?

Vlad the impaler? You know the guy Dracula was based on....

The Crusades?

How about the hundreds of wars in Europe, How about Napoleon, How about the French monarchs...."let them eat cake and all that"

Remember the Battle of Hastings? The Feudal System?
The Spanish Inquisition?

Remember the Native Americans who warred against each other, some of them taking slaves or scalping their enemies?

Remember Triangle Trade and Slavery?

Remember the way the Colonists were treated by King George?

World War I and the Mustard Gas? The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the Soviet Union, Stalin, remember him? Remember the Great Purge??

What about Mao Tse Tung?

The Nazis and the Holocaust remember that?

How about the Killing Fields of Pol Pot in Cambodia? The Vietnam War? 

The Sandinistas in Nicaragua? Saddam Hussein and the Kurds? Rwanda?  The Bosnian Ethnic Cleansing....    Darfur? Any of this ring a bell?

My point (if you are too stupid to figure it out) is that man has been doing horrible acts of violence against their fellow man for thousands of years.....violence is in our DNA. 

We will not stop violence by taking away a person's ability to defend themselves.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Fear and Loathing in Seattle

Well they have done it! The Socialists have finally gotten a openly avowed Socialist elected to an office here in the Northwest.
Kshama Sawant squeaked out a win against a long time incumbent (also a socialist, but in Democrat's clothes) to win a seat on the Seattle City Council.
We have had devout socialists on the council before, in fact her opponent was about as far left as you could go. What bothers me about this election is that people actually voted for a person waiving the Socialist banner. 
The Red Scare in the 1950's was not about stomping out the competition. It was about stopping a menace that convinces people (wrongly) that they can have everything if they just give up capitalism. I won't go into why Socialism/Communism is bad, if you are reading this, you already know why and if you don't there is probably no hope for you anyway.
What I would like to explore is the mindset of those that believe Socialism/Communism is workable.
I believe that leftists are cowards. I believe they are lazy. They have no ambition, they do not believe they can compete, nor do they care to find out.
They have no faith in their own ability to survive.

So they seek to level the playing field, to make the outcomes equal. They force hiring quotas, they demand free lunches for the poor. They seek to increase the minimum wage so that the uneducated, unambitious can live like they are someone they are not. They seek price fixing, and controls over production.
They increase the welfare roles; which accomplishes two things, it gives free stuff to those that don't produce and make the recipients dependent on the left for continuing the flow of the freebies (this is why the National Park Service asks that you not feed animals in the wild).
You may have noticed the absence of lefties in the rural areas. You may also have noticed the abundance of leftists (along with homelessness and crime) in the concrete jungles. Why do you suppose that is? The answer is simple, in the concrete jungle there are ample ways to make money without actually having to work hard.
I don't mean to marginalize lawyers, administrators and other office workers, but ask yourself this question: If you could choose between filing papers in an air conditioned office and digging a ditch in the cold rain, which would you choose?
Communism is much the same, they seek to convince people that they can have their cake and eat it too.

This I fear may mark a turning point in American politics, the point at which America began to die.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Independence Day

This is my 1st new post in awhile, I was busy with school and then transitioned to my gunsmithing projects (see my other blog here:

Anyway, on this 4th of July I though I would like to share some personal thoughts on what the holiday means to me.

This morning I took my American made Annin flag from my coat closet and posted it in the holder on my front porch. For those that do not know, Annin is America's oldest and most famous manufacturer of Old Glory.

It was an Annin flag that draped the coffin of President Lincoln, it was an Annin flag that the Marines hoisted atop Mt Suribachi on Iwo Jima and it was an Annin flag that Neal Armstrong saluted on the moon.

That flag represents some of the feelings I have for my country. We have come a long way from those Puritans who came here to gain religious freedom. In the early 1600s we had little technology, not much more advanced than the Greeks, Romans or Egyptians had. Yet in just a short 350 years we put men on the moon, we made jets that travel faster than a bullet, we created the richest country the world has ever seen.

I believe the reasons for our success lie in three important creeds. The adherence to a free market economy in which those inclined or motivated to make their own destiny are not only free to chase those endeavors but also reap the rewards for their efforts. 

The second creed is the belief in justice, equality and respect for the rights of others. Reagan packaged this sentiment nicely when he described America's creed" ....old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order" 

That last part is important, we all know what Reagan meant by "consistent with law and order", it means that we live by a law that protects not only our rights, but those of others. We cannot hold rights for ourselves unless we preserve them for everyone.

The last creed is the belief that the government holds NO power except that which is given to them by the governed. The government derives its power by consent, not by force or threat of force.

The Declaration of Independence explained these creeds quite eloquently, many of us have forgotten those words (I remember having to memorize it in 5th grade). So I have posted the Declaration below, please read it and consider our current situation with the government that now rules the land.....

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Friday, December 28, 2012


Since the recent shootings the hoplophobes have been turning over every rock looking for a legitimate reason to remove guns from American society, one of the more recent justifications is: evolution. We know that most hoplophobes are progressives (leftist, commie) and we know that most of the progressives believe in evolution, but to claim that we have "evolved" to the point that we no longer need the means to defend our selves from other humans is ridiculous at best.
Let us first look at the statement as recently written by a hoplophobe: "haven't WE evolved to the point that we don't need guns?".
I am only guessing that by "WE" she means white anglos, That white, progressive anglos have evolved to the point in which they will no longer hate, discriminate or unjustly treat others. This is pure and simple racism.

I reject this notion, but let's break down who still needs guns.

During the reign of the communists in China, more than 60 million Chinese dissidents were killed by their own government.
During the years that followed the Bolshevik revolution, the communists in the Soviet Union killed more than 20 million people who didn't believe in Marx' idea of utopia.
Of course we cannot fail to mention the Nazi's, who gassed, shot and stabbed an estimated 6 million Jews, blacks, mentally disabled and disgruntled people during what is now called the "holocaust." 

The Ottoman Empire killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians, Greeks and Christians during the 1st World War.

How many Native Americans were killed during the various wars and skirmishes with the tribes?

Perhaps this person meant that we have evolved since the early & middle part of the 20th century? 
Well Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge killed 2 million Cambodians from 1974-1979 (Google the term "The Killing Fields"). 
Perhaps the genocide that occurred during the Chechnyan war, the Kurds that Saddam killed in Iraq, the war in the Congo, civil wars in Africa...all of these in the later part of the 20th century.

May I also remind everyone that prior to 1865, blacks were considered to be less than human and were owned as chattel in this very country.  So the answer to the question is: No, we have not "evolved" to the point in which we can trust our fellow humans to have our best interests at heart.

Guns in the hand of free people, insure that they remain free. Nothing else will provide this measure of insurance.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Gun Control? The dead have not even been buried yet...

Well, we've had another shooting, a particularly heinous one. An elementary school of all places.
Another nut job who should have been euthanized (or at least incarcerated in a padded cell) before he reached adolescence has seen fit to kill 20 kindergarten aged students along with some teachers and administrators and before the blood had dried, before we even learned the shooter's name and circumstances, the hoplophobes began beating the anti-gun drum again.
We freedom lovers of course came to the defense of the Constitution and in doing so are being told we are callous and ruthless.  We have no soul they say. 
The media immediately pounced on the opportunity to push their anti-gun agenda, and went on to accuse the pro-gun crowd of "politicizing" a tragedy! 
Those people calling for gun control to stop these attacks are the same people who were calling for gun control yesterday, the day before that and the day before that. The already have their agenda and it is not to stop these attacks, it is to remove what they feel is a blight on the Constitution: the Second Amendment.
Now, had the left asked for a meaningful conversation that included such topics as: Judicial reform, sentencing reform, incarceration reform, funding for mentally disturbed people, locking up mentally disturbed people. The pro-gun crowd would welcome the discussion, but no, that is not what they are asking for. They only want to take our guns.
So it will be up to the Right Wing to find a solution as the misguided Left continues to see the problem as misunderstood people who shouldn't have access to weapons, when instead these "misunderstood people" shouldn't have access to other people.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

We sure could use a little Reagan right now.....

With the election so close and the two parties so far apart politically, I thought it appropriate to turn to our beloved leader of American Conservatism, This speech, given by Ronald Reagan during the '64 Presidential Campaign could be used today, as not much has changed with the left. I reprint it here in its entirety.

A TIME FOR CHOOSING (The Speech – October 27, 1964)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down—[up] man's old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming—that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how—who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of it—shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now—so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things—we're never "for" anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

Now—we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due—that the cupboard isn't bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we're to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits—not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.