John Winthrop

                John Winthrop was born on January 12, 1587, in Edwardstone, Suffolk, England, and his birth was recorded in the parish register at Groton.  He was born into a wealthy landowning and merchant family to Adam and Ann Browne Winthrop.  His father’s family ran a successful textile business, and his father was a lawyer and prosperous landowner with several properties in Suffolk.  His mother also came from a well-to-do family with properties in Suffolk and Essex.  When Winthrop was young, his father was a director at Trinity College.  His family moved to Groton Manor when Winthrop’s uncle John (Adam’s brother) immigrated to Ireland.

                Winthrop was first tutored at home and then most likely went to grammar school.  He came to an early and deep understanding of divinity due to being exposed to discussions between his father and clergymen.  He was admitted to Trinity College in December 1602, where he studied law and matriculated a few months later.  At Trinity he interacted with “John Cotton and John Wheelwright, two men who would also have important roles in New England.”

                John Winthrop might have left school early and married at a young age because of a “need to control his baser impulses.”  In 1604 Winthrop and a friend traveled to Great Stambridge in Essex where they stayed with a family friend.  Winthrop was impressed with their daughter, Mary Forth, and married her on April 16, 1605, at Great Stambridge.  The couple had five children but only three survived to adulthood.  John Winthrop, the Younger, was their oldest child, and he became a governor and magistrate of Connecticut.  Their last two children were girls who died shortly after birth, and Mary died in 1615 from complications of the last birth.  The family lived on the Forth estate at Great Stambridge until “1613 when Adam Winthrop transferred the family holdings in Groton to Winthrop, who then became Lord of the Manor at Groton.  Winthrop married Margaret Tyndall (married 1618-1647) and had one son, Henry Winthrop with her.  He was also married to Thomasine Clopton and Martha Rainsborough but no other details were given for these marriages.

                Winthrop was not involved 1628 when the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the first major settlement in New England after the establishment of Plymouth Colony; however, the anti-Puritan King Charles began a crackdown on Nonconformist religious thought in 1629 and Winthrop became involved.  In 1629 he was elected governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  In April 1630 he led the first large wave of migrants from England for the year to the New World and founded a number of communities on the shores of Massachusetts Bay and the Charles River.  Between 1629 and his death in 1649, he served as governor for 12 of the colony’s first 20 years of existence.  “His writings and vision of the colony as a Puritan `city upon a hill’ dominated New England colonial development, influencing the government and religion of neighboring colonies.”  President Ronald Reagan might have been thinking of him when he spoke of a “shining city upon a hill.”

                As governor, Winthrop was “a force of comparative moderation in the religiously conservative colony” and clashed with “the more conservative Thomas Dudley and the more liberal Roger Williams and Henry Vane.  Winthrop was a “respected political figure” but “his attitude toward governance was somewhat authoritarian:  he resisted attempts to widen voting and other civil rights beyond a narrow class of religiously approved individuals, opposed attempts to codify a body of laws that the colonial magistrates would be bound by, and also opposed unconstrained democracy, calling it `the meanest and worst of all forms of government.’  The authoritarian and religiously conservative nature of Massachusetts rule was influential in the formation of neighboring colonies, which were in some instances formed by individuals and groups opposed to the rule of the Massachusetts elders.”

                When his son John became one of the founders of the Connecticut Colony, Winthrop “wrote one of the leading historical accounts of the early colonial period. 

                John Winthrop died at age 61 on March 26, 1649, in Boston, Massachusetts Bay Colony.  His descendants number in the thousands today, and his long list of descendants includes famous Americans.  In addition to his son John, who was the first governor of the Saybrook Colony, “later generations of his family continued to play an active role in New England politics well into the 19^th century.  Twentieth century descendants include former Massachusetts Senator and current Secretary of State, John Kerry and educator Charles William Eliot.”  Winthrop’s writings continue to be an influence on politicians today.  The towns of Winthrop, Massachusetts, and Winthrop, Maine, are named in his honor.  Winthrop House at Harvard University and Winthrop Hall at Bowdoin College were named jointly for him and his descendant John Winthrop, who served briefly as President of Harvard.  The Winthrop Building on Water Street in Boston, one of the city’s first skyscrapers, was built on the site of one of his homes.

Oaths to Support

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday comes from Article VI, Section 3:  “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution….”  This provision is known as the Oaths Clause and gives Americans the right to have leaders who support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

                “At the time the Constitution was adopted there were many Americans who had a much stronger sense of loyalty toward their own states than toward the Union.  In their minds the national government was not yet the `supreme’ government of the land.  This provision was designed to remind all officials, both state and federal, that their first loyalty was to the federal Constitution.

                “The presidential oath is set forth in the Constitution as follows:

                “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

                “It is interesting, as we have mentioned earlier, that when Washington was asked to take the oath at the time of his inauguration on April 30, 1789, he did so, and then added the words, `So help me God!’  This was not an official part of the oath, but every newly elected President thereafter did the same.  In the midst of the war between the states, Congress decided to make this an official part of the oath.  Therefore, on July 2, 1862, the official oath had the words added at the end, `So help me God.’

                “All United States officers lower in rank than the President take oaths similar to the presidential oath….

                “The military oath is somewhat more detailed and elaborate than the presidential oath….

                “The best known oath is the judicial oath required of all who testify in the American courts….”  (See W. Cleon Skousen, “The Making of America – The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution. pp. 663-664.)

                Matthew Spalding of The Heritage Foundation explained the Oaths Clause:  “Although the practical application of the Constitution is largely in the hands of state judges, the primacy of the Constitution ultimately depends on officers of the law – in particular, officers of each branch of government – being equally bound to its support.  In this sense, the Oaths Clause is the completion of the Supremacy Clause.

                “In England, subjects were required to swear loyalty to the reigning monarch; many early American documents included oaths of allegiance to the British king.  During the American Revolution, General George Washington required all officers to subscribe to an oath renouncing any allegiance to King George III and pledging their fidelity to the United States.  Most of the new state constitutions included elaborate oaths that tied allegiance to and provided a summary of the basic constitutional principles animating American constitutionalism.  There was no oath in the Articles of Confederation.”  (See “Oaths Clause,” The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, pp. 294-295.)

True Knowledge of God

                Joseph Smith, the first prophet of our dispensation, restored the true knowledge of God.  When the fourteen-year-old Joseph Smith went into a grove of trees to pray in the spring of 1820, he went in response to scripture.  He was one of many people who were searching for the true church, but he could not decide which church to join.  One day he was reading in the New Testament and came to James 1:5:  “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” 

                Joseph decided to follow the counsel of James and went into a nearby grove of trees to pray vocally for his very first time.  He went to ask God a question and was surprised with how his answer came.  “After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God….

                “… I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

                “… When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air.  One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other – This is My Beloved Son.  Hear Him!” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith – History 1:15-17).

                In that instant Joseph knew more about God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ than anyone else on earth at the time.  Even though all the ancient prophets, the apostles of Jesus Christ, and the people of His church knew the true doctrine concerning God, this simple truth had been lost to the world.  For the first time in nearly 1800 years the knowledge was restored that the Father and the Son are two separate personages.

                President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, “It should be remembered that the entire Christian world in 1820 had lost the true doctrine concerning God.  The simple truth which was understood so clearly by the apostles and saints of old had been lost in the mysteries of an apostate world.  All the ancient prophets and the apostles of Jesus Christ had a clear understanding that the Father and the Son were separate personages, as our scriptures so clearly teach.  Through apostasy this knowledge was lost….  God had become a mystery, and both Father and Son were considered to be one unknowable effusion of spirit, without body, parts, or passions. The coming of the Father and the Son placed on the earth a divine witness who was able by knowledge to restore to the world the true nature of God.”

                President Smith also said, “The [first] vision of Joseph Smith made it clear that the Father and the Son are separate personages, having bodies as tangible as the body of man.  It was further revealed to him that the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit, distinct and separate from the personalities of the Father and the Son [see Doctrine and Covenants 130:22].  This all-important truth staggered the world; yet, when we consider the clear expressions of holy writ, it is a most astounding and wonderful fact that man could have gone so far astray.   The Savior said, `My Father is greater than I;’ [John 14:28] and he invited his disciples, after his resurrection, to handle him and see that it was he, for, said he, `A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.’  [Luke 24:39.]  The apostles clearly understood the distinct entities of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to which they constantly refer in their epistles; and Paul informed the Corinthians of the fact that when all things are subject to the Father, `then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.’ [1 Corinthians 15:28.]”  (See Teachings of Presidents of the Church – Joseph Fielding Smith, pp. 37-38.)

                We have the personal testimony of Joseph Smith that He saw two Personages – the Father and the Son; he knew what he saw and he shared this information with the world.  The world in general could not or would not accept his testimony, and Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his blood.

                I have a painting of the First Vision hanging in a prominent spot in my home because I too have a testimony that the Father and the Son are two separate and glorified Personages with bodies of flesh and bone.    I know there is a God in heaven who loves you and me.  I know that He lives, and I know that His Son, even Jesus Christ, lives.  I know that the Father and the Son hear and answer prayers and want us to be happy.  I am grateful for the opportunity to have this knowledge and wish to share it with you.

Obtaining Goals

                Families, communities, and nations are strengthened when we teach the rising generation how to set and obtain good goals.  We can strengthen children and youth by teaching the whys of setting goals, and we can do this by precept and example. 

                We are now more than two weeks into 2014.  Did you make any New Year resolutions or set goals to work towards in 2014?  Are you still working towards your goals, or have you already given up on them?  Many people are good at making resolutions but fail to follow through on their goals. 

                Andy Proctor wrote an interesting article entitled “7 Enemies to Reaching Your Potential.” “Why do great people change the world?  Why do some people succeed and others just float along in life?  Why are some people rich and most people not?  I don’t know.  BUT, most people who make an impact in this world have a grasp on their enemies and their obstacles.  Specifically those which held them back from reaching their potential.  Here is a list of enemies that you will want to eliminate this year.  You are an amazing person with incredible potential.  You have the potential to become great.  It is already in you.  So get ahold of yourself, buckle down, and make this the best year of your life!”     

     

                Proctor’s list of seven enemies which stop us from reaching our potential are: 1) Lack of vision, 2) Lack of knowledge, 3) Lack of work, 4) Lack of approval, 5) Lack of courage, 6) Lack of interest, and 7) Lack of commitment.  I inserted my own words for his in order to be more descriptive.  Each of these “enemies” could be the topic of a talk or lesson, and Proctor does an excellent job of tying them all together as enemies to success.  I suggest that you read the entire article because it has many good points.

                I wrote a post in December 2011 entitled “Setting Goals” and included the following paragraph:  “I remember well an object lesson from a meeting many years ago.  The teacher had a canning jar, some stones, some gravel, and some sand.  She tried several different ways to put all the items into the jar, but she was able to fit them all into the container only by putting the stones in first, then the gravel, and then the sand.  With the stones in place first, the gravel and then the sand filtered between and around the stones, filling every little spot.  The object of the lesson was about putting proper priority on the people and things in our lives that demand our time, our efforts, and our money.  The most important goals need to have top priority with the less important goals filling in around them.”

                Even though my methods of organization change from time to time, I have remembered this object lesson and plan my schedule by inserting the most important events or items first.  A few weeks ago I was in another Relief Society meeting when one of the sisters in the class made a comment that will change my life if I continue to follow her advice.  She was a visitor in our ward that day and said that her stake president had counseled the members of that stake to “Give God:  1) the first hour of every day, 2) the first day of every week, 3) the first ten percent of income, 4) the first consideration in every plan, and 5) the first place in your heart.”

                This counsel means to spend the first hour of each day in prayer, scripture study, meditation, etc.  It means to spend the first day of each week (Sunday) in church meetings and doing good.  It means to pay tithing before spending any money.  It means to consider what God would want you to do before committing yourself.  It means to love God more than anyone or anything else.

                This means that the first “stones” in our “container” would represent God and our relationship with Him.  When we plan our days, we should include time in the scriptures and prayer.  When we plan our weeks and months, we should include church and temple attendance.  Two of the first stones should be family prayer and family home evening.

                When making our resolutions or setting our goals, we should set long term goals, intermediate goals, and short term goals.  My long term goal is to return to the presence of my Heavenly Father and to be worthy to dwell in His presence with Him and His Son, Jesus Christ, for all eternity.  All of my intermediate and short term goals should help me move toward that long term goal.  One intermediate goal is to stay worthy of temple attendance and to keep my temple recommend current.   Another intermediate goal is to keep my tithing payments current.  A short term goal would be to attend the temple this week or to study the scriptures today.

                I keep a daily schedule of all the things I want to accomplish and usually write more items on my list than I can possibly accomplish.  I also keep a weekly “project” list or list of things that I need or want to do but do not need to be completed on a particular day.  I literally love “checking off” the tasks I accomplish and sometimes write something on my list just for the joy of checking it off!

                I know that we can reach our eternal potential by defeating Proctor’s seven enemies of potential.  One sure way of defeating them is to set goals – long term, intermediate, and short term – and completing as many of them as possible.  I know we can strengthen families, communities, and nations by teaching the rising generation how to set and reach good goals by defeating the enemies of their potential.

Economic Freedom

                The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal released their 2014 Index of Economic Freedom on Tuesday, January 14, 2014.  Terry Miller reported that this is the 20^th year this index has measured “a nation’s commitment to free enterprise on a scale of 0 to 100 by evaluating 10 categories, including fiscal soundness, government size and property rights.  These commitments have powerful effects:  Countries achieving higher levels of economic freedom consistently and measurably outperform others in economic growth, long-term prosperity and social progress.

                “Those losing freedom, on the other hand, risk economic stagnation, high unemployment and deteriorating social conditions.  For instance, heavy-handed government intervention in Brazil’s economy continues to limit mobility and fuel a sense of injustice.”

                The ranking of the United States has declined for seven straight years; this year the U.S. dropped completely out of the top 10 most economically free countries.  According to the chart provided here, the United States is now #12, meaning that eleven other nations have more economic freedom than Americans have.  Those eleven nations are:  1) Hong Kong, 2) Singapore, 3) Australia, 4) Switzerland, 5) New Zealand, 6) Canada, 7) Chile, 8) Mauritius, 9) Ireland, 10) Denmark, and 11) Estonia.

                Miller’s report continued:  “It’s not hard to see why the U.S. is losing ground.  Even marginal tax rates exceeding 43% cannot finance runaway government spending, which has caused the national debt to skyrocket.  The Obama administration continues to shackle entire sectors of the economy with regulation, including health care, finance and energy.  The intervention impedes both personal freedom and national prosperity.

                “But as the U.S. economy languishes, many countries are leaping ahead, thanks to policies that enhance economic freedom – the same ones that made the U.S. economy the most powerful in the world.  Governments in 114 countries have taken steps in the past year to increase the economic freedom of their citizens.  Forty-three countries, from every part of the world, have now reached their highest economic freedom ranking in the index’s history.”

                Here is proof that we have not been imagining the deteriorating economy is our nation.  Mr. Obama and his cohorts are destroying our nation in front of our eyes.  We must do something in 2014 to stop them or we will lose our country.

Oil Production

                Barack Obama and his administration have attacked the oil and gas industry on several different occasions while at the same time ensuring the free flow of energy from the Middle East.  When Mr. Obama addressed the United Nations, he stated, “We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world….  Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends on the region’s energy supply, and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.”

                The irony of this statement is that Mr. Obama promises to stabilize world oil markets while he discourages oil and gas production on federal lands.  In fact, the production of oil and gas on federal lands has steadily declined under his administration while production on state and private lands continues to skyrocket. 

                “Federal lands produced 31 percent less oil in 2012 than they did in 2011, reports the Energy Information Administration, while oil production on state and private lands increased by 15 percent.  Natural gas production on federal lands has also fallen dramatically over the years – falling by 33 percent since 2007.  Natural gas production on federal lands now only makes up 15.5 percent of total U.S. production – down from 24.9 percent in 2009.”  

                Of course, Mr. Obama claims credit for the increase of oil and gas production – even though it takes place on state and private lands and not on lands he controls!

                The United States is producing so much oil and gas now that Saudi Arabia has taken notice.  Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal is a nephew of Saudi King Abdullah and a billionaire businessman.  He recently said that new oil discoveries in the United States and other countries “are threats to any oil-producing country in the world” and that the issue has become a “matter of survival” for Saudi Arabia.

                Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has called for a review of the country’s effective ban on exporting crude oil.  This ban was put in place during the oil crisis of 1973 in an effort to curb price spikes in the United States.  Since U.S. oil production is at a record level, Senator Murkowski “believes that the ban is no longer necessary and only serves to disrupt supply and slow U.S. production.”  She of course has the support of the oil industry’s leading trade group.

                So what happened between the oil crisis of 1973 and the record level of oil in 2013?  Fracking happened.  Fracking is the commonly used name for hydraulic fracturing or fracturing rock by pressurized liquid.  “Some hydraulic fractures form naturally – certain veins or dikes are examples.  Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydro fracturing, commonly known as fracking, is a technique in which typically water is mixed with sand and chemicals, and the mixture is injected at high pressure into a wellbore to create small fractures (typically less than 1mm), along which fluids such as gas, petroleum, uranium-bearing solution, and brine water may migrate to the well.  Hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, then small grains of proppant (sand or aluminum oxide) hold these fractures open once the rock achieves equilibrium.  The technique is very common in wells for shale gas, tight gas, tight oil, and coal seam gas and hard rock wells.  This well stimulation is usually conducted once in the life of the well and greatly enhances fluid removal and well productivity, but there has been an increasing trend towards multiple hydraulic fracturing as production declines….”

                Even though the oil and gas industry began experiment use with hydraulic fracturing in 1947 and commercial applications in 1949, fracking became more popular in recent years.  George P. Mitchell successfully applied the method to the Barnett Shale in the 1990s and is now considered to be the modern “father of fracking.” 

                “As of 2010, it was estimated that 60% of all new oil and gas wells worldwide were being hydraulically fractured.  As of 2012, 2.5 million hydraulic fracturing jobs have been performed on oil and gas wells worldwide, more than one million of them in the United States.”

                Fracking brought the increasing production of oil and gas and can make the United States oil independent.  Proponents of the method point at the economic benefits; opponents point to potential environmental effects.  Fracking will most likely continue to be a controversy.

                I have known about fracking for a number of years and have even discussed it with numerous people who work in the industry, but I have never been concerned enough about it to study it in depth.  When I read that Saudi Arabia is against it, I became a believer in it. 

                Saudi Arabia uses its vast wealth from oil production to support its brand of Islam throughout the world.  I believe that the United States should be oil independent.  I am firmly for this principle.  I am also for doing everything we can do to slow the spread of Islam.  For me, this is a wonderful reason to support continued fracking!

War on Poverty

                During his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced legislation that came to be known as the War on Poverty.  He proposed this legislation as his response to a national poverty rate of 19 percent.  Following President Johnson’s speech, the Congress passed the Economic Opportunity Act.  This law “established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administer the local application of federal funds targeted against poverty.”

                President Johnson ushered in his Great Society and believed that poverty could be reduced by “expanding the government’s role in education and health care.”  The Great Society was basically a continuation of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal (1933-1935) and his Four Freedoms (1941).  The major initiatives of the War on Poverty included 1) Social Security Act 1965 (Created Medicare and Medicaid – July 19, 1965), 2) Food Stamp Act of 1964 (August 31, 1964), 3) The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 was the centerpiece of the War on Poverty (Created the Community Action Program, Job Corps, and Volunteers in Service to America [VISTA] – August 20, 1964), and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (April 11, 1965).

                Some economists argued that the policies of the War on Poverty actually increased poverty and suggested that the best way to fight poverty was through economic growth.  Milton Friedman, in an interview on PBS, noted “the government sets out to eliminate poverty, it has a war on poverty, so-called `poverty’ increases.  It has a welfare program, and the welfare program leads to an expansion of problems.  A general attitude develops that government isn’t a very efficient way of doing things.”

                James, a conservative Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, wrote that “the war on poverty was a costly, tragic mistake [because] … abolishing poverty did not seem far-fetched to the activists… [and] it was a perspective that led to intolerance….  The simple economic theory of poverty led to a single underlying principle for welfare programs….  In adopting the handout approach for their programs, the war-on-poverty activists failed to notice – or failed to care – that they were ignoring over a century of theory and experience in the social welfare field….  The war-on-poverty activists not only ignored the lessons of the past on the subject of handouts; they also ignored their own experience with the poor.” 

                The War on Poverty was popular for a few years – until people realized that the policies did not work.  The policies did not work because people took advantage of the fact that they no longer needed to work for what they received or take personal responsibility for themselves and their families.  In the 1980s and 1990s there was growing criticism of the welfare state and deregulation; there was also “an ideological shift” in how to help poor people.  The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWORA) was signed into law by President Bill Clinton who campaigned on “ending welfare as we know it.”

                The PRWORA was a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor because it encouraged employment among the poor rather than simply giving money to the poor.  The major requirements and effects of this bill included:  1) Ending welfare as an entitlement program, 2) Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits, 3) placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds, 4) aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births, 5) enhancing enforcement of child support, and 6) requiring state professional and occupational licenses be withheld from illegal immigrants.

                “Welfare and poverty rates both declined during the late 1990s, leading many commentators to declare that the legislation was a success.  An editorial in The New Republic opined, `A broad consensus now holds that welfare reform was certainly not a disaster – and that it may, in fact, have worked much as its designers had hoped.’”

                The welfare reform worked so well that welfare rolls were reduced by approximately 50 percent as PRWORA ended generation-after-generation-after generation on welfare.  Liberals and progressives could not stand to have people get off welfare and become independent because they need people to be dependent on government in order to have enough votes to win offices.  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a memo in July 2012 that notified “states that they are able to apply for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program, but only if states were also able to find credible ways to increase employment by 20%.  The waiver would allow states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program, which currently states that 50 percent of a state’s TANF caseload must meet work requirements.  The Obama administration stated that the change was made in order to allow more flexibility in how individual states operate their welfare programs….”

                Fifty years have passed since President Johnson launched the War on Poverty and pledged “not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.”  Jennifer Marshall of The Heritage Foundation commented, “Sadly, the half-century legacy of Johnson’s Great Society has not lived up to that noble goal.  The War on Poverty has not done justice to the poor.  Our responsibility to our neighbors in need demands more:  A redirection of public policy and a commitment from each of us to do what we can in our own communities.”

                “Despite spending nearly $20 trillion since the War on Poverty began, the poverty rate remains nearly as high today as it was in the mid-1960s.  Today, government spends nearly $1 trillion annually on 80 federal means-tested programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services for poor and low-income Americans.  Clearly, policymakers can’t hide behind reams of programs and billions in spending and declare they’ve done their duty to the poor.  Good intentions aren’t enough.

                “We need to change the character of public assistance.  That means redirecting incentives in federal welfare programs….

                “After the 1996 welfare reform began to require recipients to work or prepare for work, welfare rolls fell by more than half, and poverty rates among single mothers and black children fell to historic lows.  But that reform redirected the incentives of only one program among more than 80 federal welfare programs.”

                Marshall suggests that we use two conservative principles to actually win the War on Poverty.  The first thing we should do is promote work, and the second is to restore “marriage, America’s most important inoculation against child poverty.  Children born and raised outside of marriage are more than five times more likely to experience poverty than their peers raised in intact families.

                “When the War on Poverty began, 8 percent of all children in America were born outside marriage.  Since the mid-‘60s, unwed childbearing has skyrocketed to more than 40 percent of all births, and from 25 percent to about 73 percent among black children.

                “Rebuilding a culture of marriage calls for policy reform to reduce marriage penalties in welfare programs.  It also requires the kind of relational restoration that must happen on a personal level, through the work of churches and community initiatives….  These and other efforts to overcome poverty should engage us personally in the effort to help restore lives, families, and communities.”

                Heritage Senior Research Fellow Robert Rector agreed with Marshall as he wrote in an article for Wall Street Journal, that promoting work and restoring marriage “would be a better battle plan for eradicating poverty in America than spending more money on failed programs.”

                Jesus Christ taught said that we “have the poor with you always…” (Mark 14:7), but we do not have to encourage poverty.  Nor do we need to subsidize it.  Benjamin Franklin was a wise man in many areas and left counsel in dealing with the poor.  “I am for doing good to the poor, but … I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.  I observed … that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer.  And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

                Jesus Christ taught that we should help people who are less fortunate, and I believe we should be obedient to His commandment to care for each other.  I also believe there are a variety of ways to help the poor out of poverty – poor, good, better, and best.  I believe the evidence shows that LBJ’s approach was a poor one because we have been fighting this war for more than fifty years and have gained nothing.  I assume that almost anything different would be better, but I agree with The Heritage Foundation that promoting work and restoring marriage is the very best way to move people out of poverty.  We should never make it “easy” for people to remain dependent because we are not doing them any favor.  We can give them a “hand up” without giving them a “hand out.”  I know we can win the War on Poverty if we use conservative principles to fight it!

                Bruce Walker has an interesting take on the War on Poverty that took place fifty years before LBJ announced his war on it and that took place in the private sector.  This war was a success while LBJ’s has failed miserably.