The Republican Club of Sun City
N E W S L E T T E R
April 2016 Everett Schmidt, Editor Sun City Texas
(Club Website: rcsctx.com)
(Subjects below: Socialism/Communism, Free Exercise of Religion, Battle of San Jacnto)
EXPERT ON ISLAM TO ADDRESS CLUB
Chuck Wilson, a former CIA official who has an extensive background in Middle-East matters, including Islam, will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 20 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City. (Note: Because the ballroom was not available on a Thursday night, the usual meeting night, the meeting had to be scheduled for a Wednesday night.) His talk will center around the subject of radical Islamic fundamentalism and is appropriately titled, “Islam and Christianity – A Clash of Civilizations.” He is currently a businessman in in Waco.
Currently, American government, politicians and society in general have wildly differing views about the nature of Islam; i. e., is it a religion of peace? Is it a religion combined with ideology? Can Islam be reconciled with the U. S. Constitution? Should its tenets be a factor in determining immigration policy of potential immigrants from predominately Islamic countries? Etc.
The answers to those questions and other issues can have impact on the nation’s sovereignty, its immigration policy, its handling of potential or actual domestic threats, potential war in foreign lands, and other matters.
Because there is some urgency to these and related issues, members are especially encouraged to attend this meeting.
BEGINNING TIMES: Social Hour – 6:00 PM; Dinner – 6:30 PM; Program – 7:00 PM (approx.)
MENU: Caesar salad, corn bread stuffed chicken breasts, vegetarian stuffed portobello mushrooms, baked sweet potato with brown sugar glaze, green bears almondine, fire roasted corn with sauteed vegetables, iced tea, raspberry lemonade and coffee.
COST: Cost is $16 per person. Checks made out to “The Republican Club of Sun City” should be mailed to: The Republican Club of Sun City, 1530 Sun City Blvd., Suite 120, Box 227, Georgetown, TX 78633, or left in a special drop box located on the front porch of the home of club treasurer, Bill Harron, at 125 Stetson Trail. For information, contact Bill at 512-864-0965 or Bharron@aol.com The deadline for payment or reservations is Friday, April l5.
VISITORS ARE WELCOME! (Non-members may attend a maximum of two meetings per years – as attendees for the dinner or observers for the program – without having to pay membership dues.)
FORMER VIETNAM POW TO ADDRESS CLUB IN MAY
Club vice president (for programs) Ted Kennedy reports that Dave Carey, a former Vietnam POW who spent over 5 years in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton” will be speaker at the club’s dinner meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 18. His address will include his experience as a POW under that communist regime. Details will be provided in the May newsletter.
OTHER CLUB NEWS
The Executive Committee approved an expenditure of up to $499 to be donated to the County Party for half of the cost of a replica of an elephant, embellished with some GOP symbols, which could be displayed at public events such as parades and booths at civic gatherings where the County Party wishes to promote the GOP. The other half of the cost will be paid by the Georgetown Area Republican Women (GARW).
Former club Hospitality Chairman and loyal club member Claudia Bailey passed away on Wednesday, March 30. Currently, no services are planned. (Any news to the contrary will forwarded to the membership.)
Long-time club members Alan and Virginia Doane will be moving from Sun City on April 12. In recognition of their loyalty and service to the club for many years, the club will award them a gift of rememberance.
Club 2nd VP Membership Cathy Cody reports that the current 2016 membership stands at 333.
Club treasurer Bill Harron reports that the number of attendees present for the dinner meeting of March 10 was 131, including speakers. There was no report of observers.
SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM AND THE AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Foreword. The above is a satellite night photo taken in 2003 of the Korean Peninsula. It clearly identifies the 38th parallel which separates North and South Korea, and reveals in an instant the markedly differing characteristics of those two countries, one of which is communist/socialist.
It may be safely assumed that the lights in the south are from population centers and provide some indication of a vibrant economy and a productive citizenry as evidenced by the fact that major auto industries (Hyundai and Kia), major electronics industries (Samsung), and the world’s largest ship building industry are located in that country. And it may be safely assumed – along with verifying reports in the media – that the absence of such lights in the north indicates a sluggish economy and a citizenry living a drab existence.
The Korean peninsula was once a single nation which, as a consequence of WW II, became two nations. But why do North Korea and other socialist-communist countries seem not to prosper as does South Korea?
That is an especially relevant question today for Americans inasmuch as the acceptance of a socialist/communist form of government to replace the capitalist form of government our founders gave to us is clearly on the rise. One indication of this rise is the success an avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, has had in gaining adherents to his cause of becoming a presidential candidate. And there is another indicator from a high-level Democrat. Apparently oblivious to the slaughter of millions by the regimes of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NAZI), China’s Mau, and the Castro brothers, president Obama, during a recent meeting of young Latin American leaders, said in regard to their choice between a capitalist or a communist/socialist system, “you should . . .just choose from what works.” He thus reveals a lot about his beliefs in government.
America is well on the road toward socialism. The adoption of ObamaCare is but one indication of the drift. Other indicators are the facts that about one-half of the citizens bear the federal tax burden while about one-half receive largess.
But there has been little “pushback” from this situation, even though “truth” is on our side. The purpose of this report is to provide the reader with information so he or she can “pushback.”
Some Rudimentary Definitions. Socialism – “a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and/or controlled by the state . . .a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism . . .” Communism – “a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production . . .”
One writer contends that, although North Korea is a communist country, it is governed more like a socialist republic because its highest decisions are made by the National Defense Commission of North Korea.
While the controversy over ObamaCare has triggered some debate about socialism, it is still likely that, as author Kirby Anderson has stated, “The average American couldn’t tell you the difference between socialism and capitalism if his or her life depended on it’ – an observation even more applicable to the “low-information” voter.
America’s First Experience With Socialism. President Obama and the Democrats are clearly attempting at this time to take the nation down the pathway to socialism, and perhaps even beyond. Although not generally reported in history textbooks, America had experimented with socialism during the very earliest days of its founding. That experience can be pertinent to the present debate on socialism.
In 1620, one hundred two passengers, known as Pilgrims, left England on the ship “Mayflower” for the New World under a contract with their backers which said, in part: “That all persons as are of this colony have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock and goods . . . In addition, all the land cleared and the structures they built belonged to the community.
This arrangement smacks of socialism if not communism. And as is typical with those forms of government, the arrangement proved hugely unsuccessful. William Bradford, Governor of the colony, after a trial period, wrote that a change was needed so that the colonists “might not still languish in misery.” He said further that the arrangement “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.”
By 1625, the colonists, after their unfortunate experience, decided to put an end to this “common course.” In place of the original arrangement, every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. Bradford reported on the result: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use . . .”
The Worldview of Socialists. Generally speaking, socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned and/or controlled by the state. Socialism is simply the first stage of communism. Marxism is a subject of humanism. Each of the “isms” is related to the others, and each represents an atheistic worldview. That worldview can be illustrated by examining the following sampling from Humanist Manifesto 2000, a document which codifies to some extent the belief system of humanists and, to some extent, progressives and liberals in American. One can recognize in that document some conflicts with the tenets of our founding documents, particularly with respect to a deity, nationalism and moral values. The following excerpts from Humanist Manifesto 2000 are representative of today’s left:
Atheism. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity.
Evolution. Humanism believes that man is part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
Amorality. We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction.
Socialistic One-World Government. We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. We recommend an international system of taxation. The world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. Was is obsolete.
Socialism/Communism and Personal Character. It is interesting to note that the dangers of socialism in today’s America were recognized, believe it or not, way back in the 1830s by the remarkably prescient Alexis de Tocqueville, the French social scientist, in his classic work, Democracy in America. He warned that our democracy is vulnerable to a kind of despotism that “is directly opposed to the genius of commerce and the pursuits of industry . . .He said further that this despotism can adversely affect the very character of man: “ . . .it seeks to keep them [mankind] in perpetual childhood . . .” (emphasis added)
Black author Shelby Steele reiterates the point about “perpetual childhood” made by Tocqueville when he comments:
By accepting the idea that government is somehow going to take over the responsibility that only we can take, we relinquish authority ourselves. We become childlike, and our families began to fall to pieces.
Welfare – which promised a subsistence living for the rest of your days for doing absolutely nothing – provided a perfect incentive to not get married, yet still have babies. Then the babies will be state wards, and their babies, and so forth.
And so the goodwill of America finally did to us what slavery and segregation failed to do. It destroyed our family, destroyed our character . . .
Politically, black America is almost socialistic. There’s a feeling that the government is the vehicle that’s going to lift us to equality, and without government, we’ll never make it. Black America has suffered from this delusion since the 1960s . . .No matter who the Democratic nominee is, they get 90% of the black vote in every single election.
Elbert Guillory, the black state senator from Louisiana who switched a few months ago from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party, agrees with Steele when he (Guillory) says: “But the left [socialists] is only concerned with one thing – control. Programs such as welfare, food stamps, these programs aren’t designed to lift black Americans out of poverty, they were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control the black community . . .The idea that blacks, or anyone for that matter, need the government to get ahead in life is despicable. Our communities are just as poor as they’ve always been. Our schools continue to fail children. Our prisons are filled with young black men who should be at home being fathers. Our self-initiative and our self-reliance have been sacrificed in exchange for allegiance to our overseers who control us by making us dependent on them.”
The Dependency Problem. Through the food-stamp program and other such programs, the Obama administration has created a growing class of dependents – of all ethnic backgrounds. It’s a Democrat strategy that hasn’t changed much since Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to use the New Deal to make his party a permanent majority. But unlike to current president, FDR realized this dependence strategy should have limits. Said FDR: “The lessons of history,” he cautioned in his 1935 State of the Union speech, “confirmed by the evidence immediately before me show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.” While Democrats revere FDR as a party icon, few would say those words today.
Socialism/Communism and the Nuclear Family. By now, the reader has seen statistics ducumenting the disintegration of the family. George Will, in a recent op-ed piece, reports that today, “41% of American children are born to unmarried women, including nearly ½ of first births, 53% of Hispanic children, and 72% of African-American children.”
While the high rate of illegitimate children can be explained to a some extent as a consequence of eroded religious influence and a lowering of values, it should be noted that with both communism and socialism, there is a tenet of positive belief that the traditional family with parents responsible for raising their children should be abandoned.
In regard to communist ideology in particular, author Richard Weikert, in his essay titled, Marx, Engles, and the Abolition of the Family, contends that, “The relationships they [Marx, Engles] envisaged for a communist society would have little or no resemblance to the family as it existed in 19th century Europe or indeed anywhere else. Thus it is certainly appropriate to define their position as the abolition of the family . . .He [Marx] also proposed that children be raised communally, so society would be one, big, harmonious family . . .”
The reader will recall that Hillary Clinton, a number of years ago, when writing a book about families, used the title, “It Takes a Village,” thereby suggesting a concept similar to the one advocated by Marx. Columnist Phillis Schafley centends “’Village’ is the progressives’ metaphor for the theory that the government, speaking through judges, psychologists, school personnel and social workers, should supervise child rearing, rather than parents.”
Can the Two Americas be Reconciled? Columnist Dennis Prager believes the divisions in the nation constitute a death struggle for which there can be no reconciliation. He believed at one time that, although the left and right had serious policy differences, they each had the same vision for America. But no more. He believes that “right and left do not want the same America.” He illustrates his point by presenting the following:
- The left wants America to look as much like Western European countries as possible. The left want Europe’s quasi-pacifism, cradle-to-grave socialism, egalitarianism and secularization. The right wants none of those values.
- The left feels that if people want to be religious, they should do so at home and in their houses of prayer, but never try to inject their religious values into society. The right wants America to continue to be what it has always been – a Judeo-Christian society with a largely secular government that is not indifferent to religion.
- The left prefers to identify as citizens of the world. The left fears nationalism. The right identifies first as citizens of America.
- The left subscribes to the French Revolution whose guiding principles were “Liberty, Equality Fraternity.” The right subscribes to the American formula, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (equality is not mentioned) The right rejects the French Revolution and does not hold Western Europe as a model. The left envisions an egalitarian society. The right does not. The left values equality above other values because it yearns for an America in which all people have similar amounts of material possessions. The right values equality in opportunity and strongly believes that all people are created equal.
European Socialism. Columnist Stephen Moore states, “The remarkable thing about the rise of Bernie Sanders is that his popularity runs in the counter-direction of how socialism is actually working.” He also states:
Liberals used to point to places such as France, Italy, Greece and even Cuba as worker’s paradises that offer citizens lots of free things: child care, health care, higher education, food housing and a guaranteed income with high minimum wages. Today, these places are basket cases, and in many of these nations the government bonds are given as junk.
Greece is in defacto bankruptcy because Athens can’t cover the runaway costs of all the free things government offers. Fifty percent of young people don’t have a job, and more than half of Greeks retire before age 60. The wagon is full, and no one is left to pull it.
What is a Fair Share of Taxes? Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders each say they want the rich to pay their “fair share” of taxes, but neither will precisely state what a “fair share” is. Columnist Walter Williams provides the following information based on 2012 tax data which reveal the percent of federal taxes paid by various categories of tax payers:
- The top one percent, 1.37 million taxpayers earning $434,682 and more, paid 38% of all federal taxes.
- The top five percent, those earning $175,817 and more, paid 59%.
- The top ten percent, those earning $125,195 and up, paid 70 %.
- The bottom 50 percent, people earning $36,055 and less, paid a little less than 3%.
- The Tax Policy Center estimates slightly over 45% of households have no federal income tax liability.
THE COURTS, BUREACRATS AND THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
Foreword. The Supreme Court recently heard a case styled Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, a case that involved a Catholic organization of nuns who were resisting regulations promulgated by the Health and Human Services Department headed by Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of HHS, the other party in this lawsuit, to mandate that the insurance policy of the Little Sisters provide contraceptives and abortion inducing drugs to members, contrary to Catholic belief. A companion lawsuit, Zubick v. Burness, was also considered.
These cases, it should be noted, involve a regulation – not a law – promulgated by nameless bureaucrats not responsible to voters as provided by the ObamaCare law. Although the cases seem to primarily involve Catholics and possibly some other religious organizations, there are potentially huge ramifications for all Americans, including the following ramification suggested by the Liberty Institute: “The federal government is attempting to limit the exercise of religious beliefs to the four walls of church buildings – rather than allowing Americans ‘the free exercise’ of their faith in all areas of life.”
A purpose of this report is to alert the reader to the philosophy – one apparently oblivious to the tenets of the nation’s founding – of today’s bureaucrats, courts and politicians in regard to the free exercise of religion.
The Little Sisters of the Poor Case. According to writer Allyne Caan, “At issue is whether organizations like this humble order of Catholic nuns – whose mission is ‘to offer the neediest elderly of every race and religion a home where they will be welcomed as Christ cared for as family and accompanied with dignity until God calls them to himself’ – must comply with ObamaCare’s mandate that employer health plans cover contraceptives. Nuns who live a life of celibacy must have contraceptive coverage! The penalty if they don’t? For Little Sisters, a shocking $70 million in fines per year – about one-third of their entire operating budget. The leftists who concocted ObamaCare, however, maintain that birth control paid for by someone else is an inviolable “right,” religious beliefs be dammed.”
Exceptions. Some exceptions, made by category, to such mandates are sometimes made by statute, courts or bureaus. For example, Liberty Institute points out that the court decision on the Hobby Lobby case was “limited to the protection of for-profit businesses, leaving non-profit ministries [such as Little Sisters] – which fall neither withing the exempted church category nor the Hobby Lobby precedent – completely vulnerable to legal challenge. Already, several appeals courts have sided with the government; only the Eighth Circuit has sided with Little Sister.
And there is now concern about other categories. In the Zubick v. Burnell case, for example, Travis Weber cites “more non-profit, religiously motivated universities, dioceses, ministries, media networks, and others” can be affected.
The Legal Considerations. In general, instead of going the First Amendment, the courts look to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed by Congress in 1993. Emily Belz summarizes that Act as follows:
The RFRA legal test of the mandate has three components: whether the mandate created a substantial burden on the petitioners’ religious exercise, then whether the government has a compelling interest (i. e., a good reason) for burdening them, then whether the current “accommodation” is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the government’s objective.
The Option Offered the Little Sisters. After repeated objections by the faith-based groups, the administration announced a policy that exempted them from having to pay for coverage, but required them to sign a form signaling their objection. Once the form was signed, either the government or insurance companies stepped in to provide the coverage.
But the Little Sisters and other groups argued that the act of signing the form made them complicit in sin, particularly when it involves coverage of morning-after pills, which they equate to abortion. They said they should get the full exemption that house of worship have.
An Evaluation of the Present Situation. Edith Jones, Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, provides the following assessment in a court opinion in which she dissents:
How ironic that this most consequential class of religious free exercise, with literally millions of dollars in fines and immortal souls on the line, should be denied when nearly every other individual religious freedom claim has been upheld by this court. How tragic to see the humiliation of sincere religious practitioners, which, coming from the federal government and its courts, implicitly denigrates the orthodoxy to which their lives bear testament. And both ironic and tragic is the harm to the Judeo-Christian heritage whose practitioners brought religious toleration to full fruition in this nation. Undermine this heritage, as our founders knew, and the props of morality and civic virtue will be destroyed.
APRIL 21, 2016: THE 180TH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE BATTLE OF SAN JACINTO
On April 21, 1836 – some 180 years ago – one of the decisive battles in both Texas and American history was fought in the fields near what is now referred to as the Houston Ship Channel. Following is a brief account of some of the events leading up to that battle and the battle itself.
Texas Declaration of Independence. On March 2, 1836, Texas declared its independence from Mexico and became the Republic of Texas. The Declaration was made by 54 delegates meeting at the village of Washington-on-the Brazos.
The Battle of the Alamo. The battle of the Alamo inspired the Texians (as they were called then) to victory in the coming battle of San Jacinto. The Alamo battle began on February 23, 1836 with a 13-day siege during which around 200 Texans were pitted against a force of Mexicans estimated to number between 1,800 and 6,000 men.
During that siege, William Travis wrote a message of defiance and a plea for help:
I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna – I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man – The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken – I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls – I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, or patriotism and everything dear to the American character to come to our aid with all dispatch.
The Goliad Massacre. Less than a month after the Battle of the Alamo, a Mexican colonel ordered 342 prisoners out of the pueblo of Goliad to three roads where Mexican soldiers shot them point blank. Those who survived being shot were clubbed and knifed to death.
Simultaneously, at the Goliad Presidio, approximately 80 wounded prisoners were executed by a variety of means. Colonel James Fannin, who was there, requested that his body receive a Christian burial, that his personal belongings be sent to his wife, and that he be shot in the heart, rather than the face. Instead, the firing squad shot him in the face and spat on his body, and the soldiers rummaged through his possessions, taking some and dumping the rest. His body was burned on stacks of timbre along with the men who had been under his command.
This brutality and the defeat at the Alamo constituted the basis of battle crys for the coming Battle of San Jacinto.
The Battle of San Jacinto. General Houston, commander, ordered his troops to advance toward the Mexican camp at about 4:00 PM. They were hidden by the crest of a hill between the two camps. It took the Texians about thirty minutes to cover the distance to within 100 yards of the Mexican breastworks then the shooting began. The actual battle at San Jacinto lasted less that 18 minutes although the slaughter continued until dark.
The Texians lost nine men and the Mexican Army about 600, most after the Mexican position was overrun and the Mexicans were in retreat. Cries of “Remember the Alamo” and “Remember Goliad” indicated the revenge the unbridled Texians felt against the Mexicans.
The Significance of the Battle of San Jacinto. The commander of the Texas army, General Sam Houston, brought hostilities to an end when he had the commander of the Mexican forces, Santa Anna, sign a document recognizing the independence of Texas with its border at the Rio Grande River. The importance of the Battle of Jacinto is recorded on the San Jacinto Monument as follows:
MEASURED BY ITS RESULTS, SAN JACINTO WAS ONE OF THE DECISIVE BATTLES OF THE WORLD. THE FREEDOM OF TEXAS FROM MEXICO WON HERE LED TO ANNEXATION AND TO THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN WAR, RESULTING IN THE ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE STATES OF TEXAS, NEW MEXICO, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, UTAH AND PARTS OF COLORADO, WYOMING, KANSAS AND OKLAHOMA. ALMOST ONE-THIRD OF THE PRESENT AREA OF THE AMERICAN NATION, NEARLY A MILLION SQUARE MILES OF TERRITORY, CHANGED SOVEREIGNTY.
Leave a Reply