OCR Text |
Show Page 2 The UTAH INDEPENDENT June 2, 1972 . WHAT ABOUT ALL Independent TrioSE Promised before he The Constitution, Liberty, Morality, and Truth WAS ms Free men can vote themselves into slavery, but slaves cannot vote themselves free' ELECTEpV HAVE BEEN CmSt L THINGS THE PRESIDENT" Dedicated To I ATE THE UHooLET ir A BE U EVE THwq Lot J ! OFMLL. J. Rmm Hunter Editors Outlook Record Is Revealing One major political race shaping up in Utah is the one between Congressman Sherman P. Lloyd and Mark E. Anderson. Mr. Lloyd has been in office long enough to have an extensive voting record. And, when voting for politicians, after all is said and done, it is what he does in office that counts. Recently, a leading member of the Communist Party of the United States was reported to have said that the important thing to him was not who was elected but what policies would be followed. He was just being realistic. Unfortunately, many Americans worry more about who is elected than what policies he will follow. We thus sometimes witness people cheering their party candidate on when, to any objective and rational observer, that very candidate will support measures inimical to the very people who are supporting him. F or example, the people of Utah are noted for their They generally abhor handouts of any kind. Yet, Congressman Lloyd recently voted for the biggest handout of all the guaranteed annual income. Even the proponents of the measure admit it will double the welfare rolls and more than double the cost of welfare in this country. And usually when the liberals are telling you the cost of one of their radical programs they are conservative in their estimates. Of course, the added cost of this horrendous program will be passed on to the taxpayers of Utah as well as those of other states. Mr. Lloyd also was telling his constituents in 1967 (April 10, 1967 Newsletter) that he didnt like firearms legislation that would sales of firearms, other than shotguns prohibit and rifles, to a person who is not a resident of the state. He said: self-relianc- e. over-the-count- er V oweu RicHaRD So restrict the use of guns in die U.S. Rep. Lloyd, with most of his constituents in Salt Lake City, has been under a little less intense g pressure than the other three, who hear constantly from Utahns in the wide open spaces, who cherish the right to shoot unimpeded by gun registration laws." gun-totin- If Sherm Lloyd believes there might be an acceptable federal action to restrict the use of guns in the U.S. as reported by Gordon Eliot White, where do we stand in relation to future gun controls if Lloyd is once again elected? There is an effort going on at this moment to destroy by piecemeal the right to own guns without infringement. Can we count on Lloyd to hold the line on further encroachment? His record does not indicate that we can. In the area of foreign aid Lloyd has consistently voted to give away our tax dollars even though he admits his constituents are against it. He previously said: and that such legislation believe the aim is would be no handicap to the criminal but would handicap a citizen. have seldom found in the 2nd Congressional District of Utah a hearty supporter of foreign aid. . . . While realizing the strong feeling against foreign aid, 1 feel I have the duty to be responsible to the point that I must also give judgment on the basis of my own feelings. (Newsletter September 1, 1963) However, in 1968 Lloyd voted for the Omnibus Crime Control bill that had that very same restriction in it. Apparently he didnt feel it would be a handicap to the citizen any longer. The Crime Control bill also had a section in it calling for the registration of ammunition. This onerous burden on the taxpaying citizens of Utah was first placed on them through passage of this On property rights, Lloyd overrode the objections of his constituents as he voted in favor of the Civil Rights Bill of 1968. Concerning this bill, Mr. Lloyd wrote a letter To the Citizens of the 2nd Congressional District which said, in part: I 1 mis-directe- d, In that same year Mr. Lloyd also voted for the Civil Rights Act which had a gun control section in it. Congressman Laurence Burton opposed the bill on the ground that it was an infringement of rights. He said: The Senate capriciously tacked on as an amendment some gun control legislation. I regard this as an abridgement of the constitutional right to bear arms and also an abridgement on the rights of millions of sportsmen and gun -- have received more than 1,200 direct messages on this issue, by wire, by letter and by telephone, the most I have received on any single issue. The great majority opposed the legislation as an invasion of personal property rights . Emphasis added Lloyd admitted in his April 10, 1968 speech on the floor of the House that: I bill. hobbyists. referred to this bill as Congressman John Rarick an upside dow'n law where under revolutionary use of words the criminal becomes the protected and the property owner the victim of intimidation. Gordon Eliot White, the Deseret News Washington Correspondent, said in the June 18, 1968 issue of that paper: . .. of the Utah delegation only Rep. Sherman Lloyd, has admitted that there might be an acceptable federal action to R-Uta- h, Independent The Utah is by the Utah Independent each Friday at 1399 South 7th East, Suite 9, Salt Lake City, Utah 84105. Yearly subscription rate is $5.00 per year by surface mail in the United States. Independent published Send change of address forms and correspondence to 2459 Major Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 ed At that time 1964, and later, I voiced my opinion that to extend this legislation to the field of housing would be an undue infringement upon the property rights of the individual. Social and economic changes in the United States since that date have brought me to an opposite conclusion. In line with his change of heart, and against the wishes of his constituency, Lloyd voted to infringe upon the property rights of individuals by voting for the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Sherm Lloyd also voted to fund the War On Poverty program. In the Salt Lake Tribune of December 12, 1967, he said: As a member of the 88th Congress I voted against giving birth to this program because I believed there were other and better methods under existing agencies to assist the poor. However, today we are working with todays realities. The facts are that at an extravagant, even profligate, expense we have at least developed tools and gained experience. So, once again, Mr. Lloyd changed his mind and voted for the War On Poverty program. All Utahns must bear in mind that it is this same program which the O.E.O. (Office of Economic Opportunity) comes under. And, it is the OEO that is funding the Planned Parenthood Association which has recently been in the' news. Bountiful Mayor Morris Swapp said that according to the information he received from proponents of the Planned Parenthood clinic, his daughter could be given contraceptive pills without her fathers consent. 14-year-- Utah's Largest and Fastest-Growin- g Subscription Weekly Continued on Page 3 Readers Outlook One Flaw It has come to my attention that the basic philosophy of those honorable and patriotic men and women who are upholding the principle of constitutional law and individual liberty, against the tyrannical law of governmental bureaucrats and edicts, has one fundamental flaw. This flaw is of such a dangerous nature that it is eroding the very foundation of liberty upon which these good patriots are making their stand. It puts them in the position of unknowingly aiding and abetting the very forces of tyranny in destroying that guarantee of life, liberty, and property that every man has an eternal right to enjoy. Now, what exactly is this flaw that the patriots of freedom are promoting to their own destruction? It is that spoken line many patriots commonly quote and have dedicated their energies toward achieving. The flaw is usually stated like this: There ought to be a law to guarantee this or that freedom!" One may ask, What is wrong with passing a law to guarantee There are many freedom? things wrong with such a concept! First it makes a government of men the originator of life, liberty, and property ; not God. if the government Secondly is the originator of freedom through law, it makes freedom a privilege dispensed by that government. It puts men in the position of worshipping the government for their bread and freedoms, not God , if government can Thirdly easily dispense any and all privileges, including freedom, then it can at any time just as - easily rescind those; privileges. But, if God is the originator of that eternal law that all men are guaranteed life, liberty, and property then no man or Continued on Page 3 |