The Republican Club of Sun city

N E W S L E T T E R

October 2015 Everett Schmidt, Editor Sun City Texas

(Subjects of Reports in This Issue: Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage, The NEA, Margin of Error, Carson on Islam)

PANEL OF SIX JUDGES TO ADDRESS CLUB

A panel of six judges from three different types of courts in Williamson County will address the club during it dinner meeting scheduled for Sunday, October 11 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City. (Because of scheduling problems, the October meeting could not be scheduled on the usual Thursday night.)

The panelists and the type court each of the judges represents are:

District Court: Judge Donna King (26th dist. ct.), Judge Stacey Matthews (277th dist.ct.), Judge Betsy Lambeth (395th dist. ct.)

County Court at Law: Judge Doug Arnold (County Ct. at Law #3), Judge John McMaster (County Ct. at Law #4)

Justice of the Peace. Judge Bill Gravell (Justice of the Peace, Precinct #3)

Judge Matthews will provide opening remarks. Judge Lambeth will serve as moderator.

They will discuss the requirements and the responsibilities of their judgeships. One writer, in discussing those matters about judges in general, observed:

They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented, and control how hearings and trials unfold in their

courtrooms. Most important of all, judges are impartial decision-makers in the pursuit of justice. We have what is known

as an adversarial system of justice – legal cases are contests between opposing sides, which ensures that evidence and

legal arguments will be fully and forcefully presented. The judge, however, remains above the fray, providing an

independent and impartial assessment of the facts and how the law applies to those facts.

Given the reality that litigation is playing an ever-increasing role in our lives, the club is fortunate in having these six judges donate their time and talents to explain the judicial process (a subject of which many of us will know little) in Williamson County, and to give attendees opportunity to hear them in person and perhaps to meet them.

BEGINNNG TIMES: Social Hour – 6:00 PM; Dinner – 6:30 PM; Program – 7:00 PM (approx.)

MENU: Ceasar salad, assorted dinner rolls, meatballs in mushroom sauce, king ranch chicken, ultimate green bean casserole, classic potatoes au gratin, wild rice pilaf. Dessert: cheesecake with toppings.

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. The deadline for payment or reservations is Monday, October 5. (Note the deadline is earlier than the usual Friday.)

Bill Harron, treasurer, has set up a special collection box on his front porch at 125 Stetson Trail for individuals wishing to hand-deliver payments. For information about reservations, contact Bill at 512-864-0965 or Bharron@aol.com

VISITORS ARE WELCOME! (Non-members may attend a maximum of two meetings per year – as attendees for the dinner or as observers – without having paid membership dues.)

MEMBERSHIP DRIVE FOR 2016 NOW UNDERWAY

Dues for 2016 Are Payable in October

Both residents and non-residents of Sun City who “believe in the philosophy of the Republican Party” may join the club for the year 2016 upon payment of the $15 per person membership fee payable at club meetings beginning October 11. Payments may also be made by mail sent to the address shown above for “costs.” (Memberships for the year 2015 are closed.)

According to club bylaws, the purposes of the club are (1) to promote an informed electorate, (2) to foster loyalty to the Republican Party, (3) to promote its principles, and (4) to work for the election of Republican Party nominees.

Benefits to individual members include (1) increased knowledge of the state of politics as a result of the newsletter, other club communications, programs at meetings and informal contacts with other Republicans, (2) the opportunity to visit with or hear elected officials or candidates running for office, and (3) the camaraderie which comes about when individuals have contacts with other “kindred spirits.”

Benefits to the club come about because (1) communications to all Republicans in Sun City are enhanced, (2) organizational efforts can be promoted, and (3) the greater the membership, the greater the stature and the “clout” of the club and the County Party.

The Renewal Process for Current Members. The renewal process for current members has been made simpler inasmuch as current members who have no changes in contact information as shown on the 2015 club roster may renew for 2016 by simply remitting the $15 membership fee – without having to submit another Application. If there has been a change in contact information, an Application (showing updated information) must also be submitted. (Applications are available at club meetings and at the club website, rcsctx.com

Special Incentive for Current Members. Any current member who brings a guest to the October, November or January dinner meeting will, provided the guest joins the club for 2016 that night, receive a free dinner during one of the three cited meetings. (This means a married couple may invite a prospective couple to a meeting and, provided the prospective couple joins the club, receive two free dinners.)

In connection with the effort to invite prospective members to a meeting, current members may find it advantageous to forward a copy of the newsletter – along with a personal message – when they offer invitations.

Prospective New Members. A current non-member wishing to join the club for 2016 may submit an Application (available at club meetings and at the club website) along with a membership fee of $15 per person to the address shown above in the “Cost” section or during club meetings.

OTHER CLUB NEWS

Club to Vote on Bylaw Changes. The club’s Executive Committee has submitted a number of proposed changes in the club bylaws which will be voted on by the membership during the club’s October 11 meeting. Copies of the proposed changes were widely distributed to the membership. Anyone in need of a copy of the proposed changes should contact the club president, Robert Fears, at 512-868-9306 or iwriteag@gmail.com

Nominating Committee to Announce Officer Recommendations. The Nominating Committee – consisting of Robert Fears, John Congdon, Meredith Chiles and Alan Doane – will announce its recommended slate of officers for the year 2016 at the October 11 meeting. Election of next year’s officers will take place during the club’s November 19 meeting when the club will vote on the submitted nominees which, if the proposed bylaw changes are approved, will include the added positions of Hospitality/Social Director and Publicity Manager. Nominations may also be made from the floor, provided they are submitted in accordance with Article VIII of the bylaws.

Club Makes Donations. The Executive Committee authorized a donation of $250 to the GARW-PAC for application to the program it sponsored on September 24: 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. The program was on the subject of the violence which took place at and around the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, but which has yet to be adequately covered by the news media.

In addition, the club donated $500 to the Williamson County Republican Party for application toward the expenses of the GOP picnic recently held.

Statistics. Club vice president John Congdon reports that 2015 club membership stands at 291.

Club treasurer Bill Harron reports that there were 115 attendees for the September 2 dinner meeting with an additional 10-12 attending as observers.

CHANGES IN SUN CITY PRECINCT CHAIRMAN POSITIONS ANNOUNCED

There have been changes in the chairmanships of two of the three precincts in Sun City. (The 3 precincts are 381, 394 and 396) Meredith Chiles has resigned from the chairmanship of precinct 394 and, by action of the County Party Executive Committee, has been replaced for the remainder of her term, which expires in June of 2016, by Cathy Cody. Everett Schmidt has resigned as chairman of precinct 396. A replacement for his unexpired term (also ending next June) is pending action by the County Party Executive Committee.

Anyone interested in applying to fill his unexpired term should contact the county party chairman Bill Fairbrother at 512-577-1620 or bill.fairbrother@gopusa.com as soon as possible.

Anyone interest in filing for the full two-year term beginning in June of 2016 of a precinct chairman position should note these deadlines: The filing period is September 15 through December 14, 2015; election is held during the primary election, March 1, 2016; and duties begin in June of 2016. This is a separate procedure from that involving unexpired terms. Interested parties should contact Bill Fairbrother about filing procedures at his number shown above.

Interested parties should be aware that the legislature passed legislation governing attendance of precinct chairman at county party meetings.

THE STATE OF THE NATION IN THE WAKE OF THE

SUPREME COURT DECISION ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

The Brutally Honest Opinions of Four of the Nation’s Independent Thinkers Are Stated

Foreword. A recent Gallop poll revealed that most Americans believe that the LGBT population constitutes around 23 percent of the total population; however, that estimate is wildly high. A recent study found – as have other studies – that that population is less than 3 percent. Ironically, that small percentage has nevertheless triggered huge changes in the nation, only some of which are now beginning to surface.

But there is even more irony in regard to same-sex marriage which the general public probably believes involves a lasting relationship – at least in the main – of two people. But some statistics reported in the Point of View publication, Outlook, are consisted with other such reports and are stunning in contrast:

The Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census of nearly eight thousand homosexuals found that only 15 percent

described their “current relationship” lasting twelve years or longer. A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands

found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years. A study of male homosexuality by Pollak found that

few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”

A national survey found that 77 percent percent of traditionally married men and 88 percent of traditionally married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.

By contrast, homosexuals were much less monogamous and much more promiscuous.

In the classic study by Bell and Weinberg, they found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or

more partners . . .And a Dutch study of partnered homosexuals found that men with a steady partner nevertheless had

an average of eight sexual partners per year.

While much of the following report is based on the Supreme Court case styled Obergefell v. Hodges and the legal issues framed therein, there may be other factors as play, given the above statistics. Some possibilities: the short-term relationship of married homosexuals as reported above suggests the possibility that the main driving force was an effort to bring about acceptance – if not acclamation – of their life style. The lawsuit comes about in the midst of a huge clash of worldviews –

sometimes described as a “death struggle” – between anti-religious factions and religious – primarily Christian – factions. Much of the support for the LGBT agenda may have come about because it provides a means of rebelling against religious mores – particularly sexual mores – affecting individual life styles. The public support of media and educational establishments for the LGBT agenda can be an intimidating factor for opponents.

These (and possibly other factors) should be kept in mind as this report continues.

The Obergefell v. Hodges Case. Michael Paulsen, law professor, writing in First Things, notes how legal issues other than the central issue of that case (whether same-sex marriage should be legalized) have surfaced and are continuing to surface:

The decision will frame for the indefinite future the national debate not just over marriage but over law – the

rule of law, the role of courts, the freedom to dissent. Obergefell figures to become the paradigm case of our age, framing

the debate over one of the most divisive social issues in generations, over judicial power, and over religious freedom.

Obergefell was more than the case of the year. It may be the case of the next several decades.

Paulsen contends the four dissents in the 5-4 ruling go beyond refuting the majority opinion; using surprisingly strong language, they condemn it as “illegitimate.” Paulsen goes on to say, “The dissenters appear to go so far as to urge political and public resistance to the majority’s decision.” In support of his surprising contention, Paulsen cites the following language from Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent which, while not openly advocating disobedience, suggests that outcome may come about in reaction to a flawed decision:

With each decision of our Court that takes from the People a question properly left to them – with each decision unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of the this Court – we move one step

closer to being reminded of our impotence.

Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent contains similar suggestive language: “If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate.”

The comments of the dissenters are a far cry from the admonitions to respect the “law of the land” given by supporters of the decision to those resisting acceptance of the ruling.

Scalia points out a problem based on the composition of the Court, a problem which cannot be attributed to Court action, but one which nevertheless undermines Court decisions: “These were hardly a representative body – [they were] “tall-building lawyers,” who studied at “Harvard or Yale Law School,” all of them from the coasts, save one (Roberts, who grew up in Indiana), and not one of whom was an evangelical Christian or a Protestant of any denomination. (The Court now comprises six Catholics and three Jews.)

While not mentioned in the opinion of the Court, the fact that two of the Justices conducted same-sex marriages prior to the Court hearing – thereby losing appearance of objectivity – but not recusing themselves constitutes another flaw in the composition of the Court, at least in regard to Obergefell.

(A discussion of civil disobedience is found in the June 2015 newsletter available at rcsctx.com)

Opinions of Independent Thinkers. Following are excerpts from the views of four conservative writers who may be in a better position to be objective and brutally honest about the Obergefell decision, its ancillary issues, and their aftermath than are today’s media personalities, elected officials, and candidates for office who may feel a need to demonstrate some optimism – even feigned optimism – for their own reasons.

In any case, there views are presented here on grounds that they may help the reader to analyze the current precarious state of the nation and then determine his or her own course of action in the future.

Joseph Farrah, publisher of Whistleblower and founder of WorldNetDaily.

The U. S. system of government has run its course – not because of any shortcomings in the vision of the

founders but because of shortcomings of the citizenry. Nothing short of a miracle of God can save it.

For example, let’s take the Supreme Court . Today it wields immense power, doing things even Congress was

prohibited from doing. It can force sovereign states to do things against their will. It can remove from sovereign citizens

“unalienable” rights. It can make sweeping rulings affecting every man, woman and child in the land at the will of nine

life-time-appointed jurists unaccountable to anyone or anything other than their own worldview and conscience.

That’s not what the founders intended. It’s not what the Constitution requires. But the people accept this

tyranny. And that’s the problem.

If the founders knew it would be like this, they probably wouldn’t have risked their lives, their fortunes and

their sacred honor fighting for independence and sovereignty from the British monarchy.

It’s too bad today’s citizenry doesn’t have such a rebellious and liberty-loving spirit.

Dennis Prager, columnist (often quoted in this newsletter), author and talk-show host.

The U. S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the redefinition of marriage seals the end of America as the Founders

envisioned it.

From well before 1776 until the second half of the 20th century, the moral values of the United States were rooted

in the Bible and its God. The American Founders were Christians – either theologically or culturally – but they were

rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures. . . Americans, from the Founders on, understood that without God, there is no moral

truth, only moral opinion. . .

Beginning with the Supreme Court’s ban on nondenominational school prayer in 1962, the same-sex marriage

decision has essentially completed the state’s secularization of American society.

Pat Buchanan, columnist, author, guest on TV shows.

Even in this world, it is hard to recall a civilization that rejected its God, repudiated the faith and morality by

which it grew great, embraced what was previously regarded as decadence, and survived.

Yet, America has never been more disunited and divided – on politics and policy, religion and morality. We no

longer even agree on good and evil, right and wrong.

Are we really still “one nation under God, indivisible?”

David Limbaugh, columnist, author, guest on TV shows.

When Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention, a lady

asked him what kind of government had been formed. Franklin reportedly responded, “a republic, if you can keep it.”

No matter how ingeniously designed, the Constitution and laws are not immune from fascists who, under color

of law, ignore their plain meaning. Checks and balances ultimately break down if those wielding power twist, pervert,

ignore, selectively enforce and flout the law. That is why charactger matters so much; that is why morality is foundational

to government.

Leftists are not about live and let live. They are about wholesale control. There is no live and let live in their

bones.

In view of all this, it is amazing that so many conservatives, traditionalists and Christians are blind to the

hostile, aggressive and unquenchable appetite of the leftist movement. It is chilling to me that they don’t realize this trend

is going to continue until there is either a cultural or legal confrontation or the left stamps out all dissent.

Is our side asleep? Have they given up? Are they numb? Do they care? Are they cowards? My suspicion is that

it’s more a reflection of the bullying and propaganda than a societal change of heart.

But I haven’t given up hope. We can’t give up on America. I don’t believe American conservatism and

traditional values are dead, but they are very, very sick.

THE N. E. A. CONTINUES ITS DRIFT TO THE LEFT

AND ITS EFFORTS TO INDOCTRINATE CHILDREN

The National Education Association (NEA) is the nation’s largest union, having about 3 million members including most of the public school teaches. It has a budget of half-billion dollars which come from mandatory union dues. For several decades, the NEA has been ever-increasingly drifting to the left, and, instead of promoting education of the young, has become active in promoting the leftist agenda at the national level.

But columnist/author Phyllis Schlafley notes there was a time when publications of NEA indicated a support for traditional American values. For example, from a NEA handbook of 1951, she provides the following statement and explanation of the philosophy of the NEA of that time: “It is important that people who are to live and work together shall have a common mind – a like heritage of purpose, religious ideals, love of country, beauty, and wisdom to guide and inspire them.” Schlafley reports this message was fortified by selections suitable from memorization, such as Old and New Testament passages, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Boy Scout oath, and patriotic songs. It is this philosophy which motivated many young people to go into teaching – not to make money, but to do some good for the world as “good” was then defined.

But for well over a decade that philosophy and purpose – which may now appear quaint – have “morphed” into something entirely different as evidenced by resolutions passed at NEA conventions. Typically, convention resolutions have included the by-now familiar buzzwords such as diversity, sexual orientation, racism, sexism, multiculturalism and the like. However, at this year’s convention, several terms appeared for the first time – marriage equality, gender identity and institutional racism – thus indicating an even further drift to the left.

Following is a sampling from a Schlafley publication of resolutions passed at the July 2015 convention of the NEA. They can reveal the kind of indoctrination the NEA seeks to promote in the public schools. These samplings can also show a need for parental school choice, particularly for those parents who wish to avoid the leftist indoctrination of children, who wish to have their children inculcated with traditional values, and who have a concern for the souls of their children.

• NBIA. The NEA will develop educational materials for its state affiliates and members about the potential dangers of so-called ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Acts’ or RFRAs, which may license individuals and corporations to discriminate on the theory that that their religious beliefs require such actions.

• In NBI30, the NEA says schools must provide “transgender students and staff access to facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the employee’s or pupil’s records.

• NBIB declares that “we acknowledge the existence in our country of institutional racism” which “manifests itself in our schools.”

• According to the NEAs NBI 45 and 74, schools must allow students to dress in the gender of their choice, and should not require students to “obtain a court-ordered name and/or gender change as a prerequisite of being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their gender identity.”

• NBI42. NEA will post a link to a guide on the NEA website for educators to use called “Know Your Right! A Guide For LGBT High School Students on lamdagal.org,” by the American Civil Liberties Union on aclu.org, that clearly states how to protect LGBTG students.

• NBIB. The NEA supports appropriate and inclusive educational programs that address the unique needs and concerns of LGBT students. Specific programs should provide (1) Acknowledgment of the significant contributions of diverse LGBTQ persons in American history and culture, and (2) Involvement of educators knowledgeable in LGBTQ issues in the development of educational materials (as textbooks) . . .

• B1. The NEA supports early childhood education programs in the public schools for children from birth through age eight. These programs must be available to all children on an equal basis and should include mandatory kindergarten with compulsory attendance.

• B-83. Home Schooling. Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used.

• I-58. The NEA believes that efforts to legislate English as the official language disregard cultural pluralism; deprive those in need of education, social services, and employment; and must be challenged.

REACTION TO CARSON’S COMMENTS ABOUT ISLAM

A Dangerous Perception of Islam Surfaces

What triggered much comment in the media, especially by the left, was Dr. Ben Carson’s comment made during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” describing Islamic faith as inconsistent with the Constitution. “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of the nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” He made a distinction between someone having executive authority – like a

president – from others not having such authority. (It should be noted as a sidebar that Congress already has two Muslim members: Democrat Representatives Keith Ellison of Minnesota, and Andrew Carson of Indiana.)

The Ensuing Push Back. Almost immediately, there was push back from the left; however, that push back was without any noted mention – and probably without understanding – of some of the conflicts of Shariah law (which springs from the Koran) and the U. S. Constitution. A spokesman for the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relation (CAIR), said: “To me, this really means he (Carson) is not qualified to be president of the United States. You cannot hold these kinds of views and at the same time say you will represent all Americans, of all faiths and backgrounds.” Other leftist made similar claims. An op-ed piece appearing in the Austin American-Statesman written by someone who identified himself as editor of Rare Politics noted that many Muslims had served loyally in the armed services, then inferred Republicans were racist, and concluded: “It’s hard to tell what’s more offensive sometimes – the racism or the stupidity of these spectacles.” These are typical reactions from the left.

And there was some non-support if not push back from some on the right. Republican candidates for president Gov. John Kasich and Sen. Lindsey Graham found no problem with a Muslim being president.

Some Obvious Conflicts With the Constitution. An e-mail from Red State provides the following listing of conflicts of Shariah law and the U. S. Constitution:

EQUAL RIGHTS. The Constitution guarantees equal rights for all Americans, but Sharia Law denies equal rights

for women or non-Muslims.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but Sharia Law does not accept the

right of other religions to practice their beliefs.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but Sharia Law limits free of speech

and no one can say or write anything negative about the prophet, Mohammed or the Quran.

Pamela Geller, President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, sponsor of the recent cartoon contest – which erupted in violence – on Muhammed held at Garland, Texas recently, and a person under death threat by a Muslim faction for her anti-Muslim attacks offers the the following observations:

• We [Carson and she] are not talking about the religious component of Islam. Islam is not just a religion. It is a comprehensive system which deals with all aspects of human life and behavior; legal, religious, dietary, political, et al. It is political Islam that poses a threat to our national security.

• Right now, nothing is being done to stop jihad recruiting in U. S. mosques, even as several hundred young Muslims from the U. S. have gone to wage war for the Islamic State.

(A report on the violence at Garland is found in the July 2016 newsletter; comprehensive reports on Islam are provided in the Oct. 2014 and the Feb. 2015 newsletters. Newsletters are available at rcsctx.com)

Islamic Violence Not a Recent Event. Former Mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani, who was mayor during the 9/11 attack, chronicles the attacks in the past by Islamic extremists. He notes, for example, that the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993; in the late 1990s the bombings of the U. S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the attack on the USS Cole took place; more recently were the murders which took place at Ft. Hood, at Boston (during the Marathon), and elsewhere in the US and in Europe.

Preferences of US Muslims. Leo Hohman, writing in the WND website, reports: “A poll commissioned in May 2015 by the Center for Security Policy showed that 51 percent of American Muslims preferred that they should have their own Shariah courts outside of the legal system ruled by the U. S. Constitution. And nearly a quarter believed the use of violent jihad was justified in establishing Shariah.”

Does the Following Statement by Carson Now Seem Justified?

“We don’t put people at the head of our country whose faith might interfere with them carrying out the duties of the

Constitution. If you’re a Christian and you’re running for president and you want to make this country into a theocracy,

I’m not going to support you. I’m not going to advocate you being the president.”

“Now, if someone has a Muslim background, and they’re willing to reject those tenets [of Sharia Law] and then accept

the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then of course they will

be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them.”

WHAT IS A “MARGIN OF ERROR”?

When reporting the results of a poll or survey, reporters will, almost invariably, say something like, “This survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.” But unless the reader has some background or training in statistics, that phrase will have little, if any, meaning to him or her.

This report, which consists of excerpts from the book, Statistics for Dummies by Deborah Rumsey, PhD, is to provide at least a conceptual understanding of that term.

The margin of error doesn’t mean someone made a mistake; all it means is that you didn’t get to sample everybody in

the population, so you expect your sample results to be “off” by a certain amount. In other words, you acknowledge

that your results could change with subsequent samples, and are only accurate to within a certain range, which is

the margin of error.

Consider one example of the type of survey conducted by some of the leading polling organizations, such as The

Gallup Organization. Suppose its latest poll sampled 1,000 people , and the results show that 520 people (52%) think

the president is doing a good job, compared to 48% who don’t think so. Suppose Gallup reports that this survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3%. Now, you know that the majority of the people in this sample approve of the president, but can you say that the majority of all Americans approve of the president? In this case, you can’t. Why not?

If 52% of those sampled approve ot the president, you can expect that the percent of the population of all Americans who

approve of the president will be 52%, plus or minus 3%. So you can say that somewhere between 49% and 55% of all

Americans approve of the president. That’s as close as you can get with your sample of 1,000. But notice that 49%, the

lower end of this range, represents a minority, because it’s less than 50%. So you really can’t say that a majority of the

American people support the president, based on this sample. You can only say that between 49% and 55% of all

Americans support the president, which may or may not be a majority.

QUOTATION OF THE MONTH

The quotation below of Thomas Jefferson was first published in a club newsletter of the mid-2000s as a result of comments made then by now-retiring Judge of District 395, Michael Jergins, made in an e-mail dated May 16, 2003 and addressed to the editor. In explaining why the quotation is “one of my personal favorite writings of a great man,” Jergins states, “I get chills reading these words. Of all Jefferson’s genius, ability and foresight, his ability to say so much with few words has, to me, been his greatest gift. ‘Be just. Be true.’ So simple but profoundly deep and complex.”

Having presided many years in a court dealing primarily with family law matters, Jergins is in the position of having gained unique insights into words and phrases that have value and meaning – particularly for the young.

Jefferson’s quote – which can grow in stature with repeated readings – follows. It was written especially for a very young son of a friend, and was to be read after the son reached an age to appreciate it. That age, Jefferson acknowledged, would come after Jefferson’s death – a fact that will explain what would otherwise be puzzling statements in the first two sentences.

This letter will, to you, be as one from the dead. The writer will be in the grave before you can weigh its counsels. Your affectionate and excellent father has requested that I would address to you something which might possibly have a favorable influence on the course of life you have to run; and I too, as a namesake, feel an interest in that course. Few words will be necessary, with good dispositions on your part.

Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence. So shall the life into which you have entered, be the portal to one of eternal and ineffable bliss.

And if to the dead it is permitted to care for the things of this world, every action of your life will be under my regard. Farewell.

Thomas Jefferson