OCR Text |
Show The Paper That Dares To Take A Stand August 25, 1972 NOW WE KNOW WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS URGED US TO yfDook MARK E. 3 Also, we know the federal government cant do us any favors, which is the picture the propagators of the revenue sharing bill are painting one of. generous handouts and federal aid. Who supports the federal government? We, the people! The money that would support revenue sharing has no business leaving the State of Utah. The control of that money should not be relinquished to the federal government but should remain in the control of the people of Utah. If the federal government controls the money, the federal government controls the people. May we at this point in our letter quote the oath of office you swore to uphold? I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which 1 am about to enter, so help me God. We believe the Constitution is a divinely inspired document, written by men raised up by God especially for that purpose, that in and through the Constitution of the United States the inalienable rights of a human being would be identified, enumerated, preserved, and protected. We earnestly hope and pray that you will do your part to preserve the Constitution of the United States that it may remain pure and unadulterated for the protection of our posterity and the future independence of Utah and these United States. A nay vote from you, Senator Bennett, may be able to prevent the passage of the revenue sharing bill, thus preventing Communism from undermining the sacred document of the Constitution. We cannot urge you strongly enough to vote against H.R. 14370. May we hear from you soon concerning this matter. ANDERSON Candidate for United States Congress Second District, Utah - you it will reach deeper and deeper into your pockets for more and more tax money. It can pay for these enormous y programs in one of only two ways either by taking $200 or $300 or $500 more out of your paycheck, or by printing extra paper money and taking the $200 or $300 or $500 more out of the purchasing power of your paycheck. Either way it comes from you, and that is bringing the federal government very close to you.. The federal government will be close to you by opening a new field office in Cedar City, and not only in Cedar City alone, but in every community of Utah and staffed with federal regulators, inspectors and administrators (elsewhere called commissars), because through revenue we will sharing and huge federal subsidies and abandon all local independence and control. Our local governments will be federal field offices. That is bringing federal big government very close to the people, which I for one do not want. On the other hand, I shall work to keep the federal government as far away from me and you as I possibly can. The only thing I expect of the federal government is protection from foreign aggressors and domestic Bring Government Close to People? The walking candidate says that he will bring government closer to the people. When I first heard this campaign promise, I immediately wondered how a McGovern supporter, advocating a $6500 guaranteed annual income, billions for revenue sharing, billions more for federal subsidies, 150 billion more for social even programs, more federal controls, gun controls I some confiscation, and heavy deficit spending wondered how could he possibly be for local control of our community and state affairs. He cannot. That isnt what he is talking about. He doesnt mean that we will have closer control of government. Everything he advocates means that the federal government will be closer to you. The federal government will be so close to you that it. will register and take away your guns, contrary to your rights under the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. The federal government will be so close to - . On Course JOE H. FERGUSON Candidate for United States Congress First District, Utah Who Bolted the Party? Im better . , than George Washington (although perhaps not as humble). Geoige said he could not tell a lie. I'can, but I wont. Thats why, when asked whom I planned to vote for for president, I replied, John Schmitz. Its too bad my Republican opponent doesnt have more of Georges honesty. He has distorted my statement, then enlarged upon the distortions. He claimed that I have, Bolted the Party. I havent bolted the party. I am merely planning to vote for the presidential candidate who is dedicated to the principles' promised by Richard Nixon and the Republican Party to the American people in 1968. John Schmitz believes in and works for these principles, and so do I. I do not Respectfully, believe that I have to swerve off to the left and abandon Mr. & Mrs. DeVon A. Toone my principles just because President Nixon appears to have done so. If there are' in Utah who have (Editors note Senator bolted the party, as far as Republicans the Republican promises made Bennetts news release of August to the American people in 1968, it would be Senatpr 9, 1972 does not leave much hope Wallace Bennett and Sherm Lloyd. And if they or my Continued on Page 8 opponent disagree, I am willing to meet all three in a f 3 give-a-wa- Continued from Page 2 federally-sponsore- d Page SUPPORT RIGHT PRINCIPLES, NOT PARTIES. MARKS MESSAGE l&QGldlQFS The UTAH INDEPENDENT give-a-wa- ys criminals. In reference to my statement that candidate Wayne Owens is for gun controls, this assumption is derived from the fact that he is silent on the issue in a state where most voters oppose gun controls. Furthermore he is ideologically and financially committed to McGovern and Kennedy, who advocate gun controls and even some confiscation. Campaign contributions and correspondence can be sent to Citizens Committee for MarkE. Anderson, 1399 South 7th East, Suite 9, Salt Lake Gty, Utah 84105 , public debate over the issue. I have made it clear that I support Richard Nixon when he is right. And I do. My opponent doesnt even do that. He merely parrotsany thing and everything the party machinery tells him in return for their support. That, in my estimation, does not constitute support for the president. To encourage a person .to continue in his errors is not support. It is. betrayal. I not only support President Nixon when he. is right, I pray for him. I pray for him to be right more often and to repent when he isnt. I bet my opponent doesnt give the president that kind of support. Do you .know that President Nixon, has declared himself to be a Keynesian in economics? Well, he has. And how can a Keynesian in economics support the Republican platform of 1968? He cant. And he doesnt. In fact, the May 15, 1972 issue of Washington Observer, reported that, Republican Congressman Jim Collins (Texas) told a group of Texans the other day the secret that has been greatly bothering all honest GOP conservatives. The President is out to defeat every conservative Republican no matter what it costs So WHO bolted the party? Anyhow, who did George Romney vote for in 1964? He publicly stated that he would not support Barry Gold water. But Brother George seems to enjoy the favors of the hierarchy of the Republican Party nevertheless. So why is it such a big deal that I plan to vote for John Schmitz? Seems to be some inconsistency somewhere. One thing my opponent has never made clear in his braying about supporting President Nixon. Does he mean the Richard Nixon of 1968 or the Richard Nixon of 1972? There is a difference, in case he hasnt noticed. My opponent is making so much noise about the fact that I plan to vote for John Schmitz that he must consider that this is my weakest point. If it is, I consider this a great compliment. . . . |