Natural Family Blog

« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »

March 31, 2008

Clarence Thomas: My Grandfather's Son Favorite Quotes

I picked up My Grandfather's Son by Clarence Thomas at the local library the other day. It was a quick read, and a spiritual experience to spend two days revisiting the life of a great man.

From the chapter titled Approaching the Bench

“The fourteen members of the judiciary committee seated together in a long row at the front of the room, loomed larger than life, dwarfing the small table and single chair that had been set up for me. Jamal, my mother, and my sister were seated near the front of the room. Virginia joined them, and Senator Danforth and my other advisers took seats immediately behind me. My old friend Harry Singleton stood next to a pillar, looking like a sentry. (He would stand there throughout the hearings, as though he was guarding my back.) I greeted the senators and went to my chair, drawing momentary comfort from the sight of my wife, family, and friends. Then I turned my back on them and sat down to face the unknown.

The morning was taken up by the committee members’ lengthy opening statements, more than a few of which were so blatantly hostile as to border on the comical. I endured them as I had endured the slights and slurs I had heard all my life, but I found it offensive that this particular group of people was talking about my in such terms. What gave these rich white men the right to question my commitment to racial justice? Was there no limit to their shamelessness? Not until three in the afternoon was I allowed to speak.

Vernon Jordon had suggested that I express my appreciation of the civil rights pioneers who had done so much to change America for the better, but I needed no prodding from him to do so, just as nobody had to remind me to tell the senators where I came from and what I believed: “A judge must get the decision right because when all is said and done, the little guy, the average person, the people of Pinpoint, the real people of America will be affected not only by what we as judges do, but by the way we do our jobs.”

Senator Biden was the first questioner. Instead of the softball questions he’d promised to ask, he threw a beanball straight at my head, quoting from a speech that I’d given four years earlier at the Pacific Legal Foundation and challenging me to defend what I’d said: “I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo, who defend an activist Supreme Court that would…strike down laws restricting property rights.” That caught me off guard, and I had no recollection of making so atypical a statement, which shook me up even more. “Now it would seem to me what you were talking about,” Senator Biden went on to say, “is you find attractive the fact that they are activists and they would like to strike down existing laws that impact on restricting the use of property rights, because you know, that is what they write about.”

Since I didn’t remember making the statement in the first place, I didn’t know how to respond to it. All I could say in reply was that “It has been quite some time since I have Professor Macedo…But I don’t believe that in my writings I have indicated that we should have an activist Supreme Court.” It was, I knew, a weak answer.

Fortunately, though, the young lawyers who had helped prepare me for the hearings had loaded all of my speeches into a computer, and at the first break in the proceedings they looked this one up. The senator, they found, had wrenched my words out of context. I looked at the text of my speech and saw that the passage he’d read out loud had been immediately followed by two other sentences: “But the libertarian argument overlooks the place of the Supreme Court in a scheme of separation of powers. One does not strengthen self government and the rule of law by having the non-democratic branch of the government make policy.” The point I’d been making was the opposite of the one that Senator Biden claimed I had made.

Throughout my life I’ve often found truth embedded in the lyrics of my favorite records. At Yale, for example, I’d listened often to “smiling faces sometimes,” a song by the Undisputed Truth that warns of the dangers of trusting the hypocrites who “pretend to be your friend” while secretly planning to do you wrong. Now I knew I’d met one of them: Senator Biden’s smooth, insincere promises that he would treat me fairly were nothing but talk. Instead of relaxing I’d have to keep my guard up.

Democratic senators spent the next few days pummeling me with loaded questions. Many were halfhearted retreads from my last confirmation hearing, but no sooner was the subject of abortion broached than the room heated up considerably. Patrick Leahy quizzed me aggressively about whether I’d discussed Roe with anyone. “Have you ever had discussion of Roe V. Wade other than in this room?” he asked sarcastically. “In the seventeen or eighteen years it’s been there?”

I explained that while I might have mentioned it in passing, it wasn’t a case about which I’d thought deeply or whose merits I’d had occasion to consider. It was obvious that the senator didn’t believe me. Apparently few people in Washington thought it was possible to live and breathe without debating Roe and forming a considered opinion on it. But that was what I’d done, so I didn’t give in to Senator Leahy’s bullying. All I could do was keep on telling the truth, just as I had told it to my questioners at the murder boards.

Each day I left the Caucus Room tired, tormented, and anxious, and each day Virginia and I bathed ourselves in God’s unwavering love. I knew that my team was doing all they could for me, but the long months of preparation had worn me down to a shadow of myself, and I knew that no human hand could sustain me in my time of trial. After years of rejecting God, I’d slowly eased into a state of quiet ambivalence toward Him, but that wasn’t good enough anymore: I had to go the whole way. I recalled one of Daddy’s sayings, “Hard times make monkey eat cayenne pepper,” Now, with Virginia at my side, I ate the pepper of faith—and found it sweet.

Psalm 57 showed me the way:

I will take refuge in the shadow of your wings
Until the disaster has passed…
I am in the midst of lions;
I lie among ravenous beasts—
Men whose teeth are spears and arrows,
Whose tongues are sharp swords,
They spread a net for my feet—
I was bowed down in distress.
They dug a pit in my path—
But they have fallen into it themselves.

Between sessions Mike Luttig and I went over various subjects that were proving problematic. My opponents were armed with longs lists of trick questions prepared by law professors and activists. I, on the other hand, had spent most of the preceding decade running a federal agency instead of studying two centuries worth of Supreme Court decisions, and Roe V. Wade wasn’t the only area of constitutional law about which I’d yet to think deeply.

Trying to review so many cases in the space of three months was like trying to cram for a final exam while being shoved around by an angry mob. It wasn’t that I doubted my ability to master the material. I already understood the key cases and the legal concepts behind them perfectly well.

But it’s one thing to know a precedent and another one to think it through methodically, then apply it to specific cases. Until he’s gone through that deliberative process on a case-by-case basis, an open minded judge can’t predict how he will rule in any given situation. As for the matter of my judicial philosophy, I didn’t have one—and didn’t want one. A philosophy that is imposed from without instead of arising organically from day-to-day engagement with the law isn’t worth having. Such a philosophy runs the risk of becoming an ideology, and I’d spent much of my adult life shying away from abstract ideological theories that served only to obscure the reality of life as It’s lived.

On the other hand, I now saw that there was no reason for me to worry about my ability to discuss such broad-brush questions with the easy fluency of a Robert Bork. Most of my opponents on the Judiciary Committee cared about only one thing: how would I rule on abortion rights?

I knew it was irresponsible for them to expect me to prejudge a complex area of law without having decided a single case on the subject, but I also knew that it had never occurred to any of them that my personal view about the morality of abortion would have nothing to do with my view of Roe v. Wade. I wasn’t that kind of judge—or that kind of person.

I had sworn to administer justice “faithfully and impartially.” To do otherwise would be to violate my oath. That meant I had no business imposing my personal views on the country. Nor did I have the slightest intention of doing so. From the start of my tenure on the court of appeals, I’d taken Larry Silberman’s advice to heart: in every case that came before me, I considered what my role was as a judge. But my enemies weren’t looking for open minded justices. All they cared about was keeping anyone off the Supreme Court who might possibley vote to reverse Roe or water it down. As far as they were concerned, my open mindedness was a disadvantage, not a qualificiation.” P. 234 – 239

Here is the Sixty Minutes Interview with Clarence Thomas (Part one)

Here is the web site that was published to round up the various reviews of the book. My favorite features were the various video stories that were published, especially Armstrong Williams party which was covered by C-Span.

Jenny Hatch

Ellis Washington also wrote about Clarence Thomas in his weekly column. Go Here to read it!

So much has been said about this remarkable biography, that is feels a little presumptious to share my take on it.

But share I will, because the quotes from the book that touched my heart the most were largely overlooked by most of the reviewers whom I have read. I want to quote these passages (any typos are mine) and share the impact the story had on my life this past week.

Every person who has a desire to understand Black Politics of the past forty years should read this book. I am always the most inspired by any story of somone standing up to seemingly impossible odds and winning by mustering Faith in Jesus Christ. I was thrilled to read this story of yet another disciple of Christ standing in truth, battling the spiritual demons in our American Society and overcoming fear. It is a tremendous witness of Faith in Jesus Christ and I share with you now the passages that had the most impact on me as I read.

Sixty Minutes interview Part 2

From the chapter titled The Golden Handcuffs

“I’d learned the hard way that a law degree from Yale meant one thing for white graduates and another for blacks, no matter how much anyone denied it; I couldn’t do anything about that now, but I had a feeling that winning real cases in court would be a better demonstration of what I could do than a law school transcript.

As a symbol of my disillusionment, I peeled a fifteen cent price sticker off a package of cigars and stuck it on the frame of my law degree to remind myself of the mistake I’d made by going to Yale. I never did change my mind about its value. Instead of hanging it on the wall of my Supreme Court office, I stored it in the basement of my Virginia home—with the sticker still on the frame.” P. 99-100

From the chapter titled The Golden Handcuffs

“I turned to the article, which was by Michael Novak, a man whose name I didn’t know. He was writing about a book by Thomas Sowell called Race and Economics. His very first words took my breath away; “Honest on questions of race is rare in the United States. So many and unrecognized have been the injustices committed against blacks that no one wishes to be unkind, or subject himself to intimidating charges. Hence even the simple truths are commonly evaded.” It was as though he were talking directly to me. At the end he quoted from the last paragraph of Sowell’s book’

“Perhaps the greatest dilemma in the attempts to raise ethnic minority income is that those methods which have historically proved successful – self reliance, work skills, education, business experience—are all slow developing, while those methods which are more direct and immediate—job quotas, charity, subsidies, preferential treatment—tend to undermine self reliance and pride of achievement in the long run. If the history of American ethnic groups shows anything, it is how large a role has been played by attitudes of self reliance”

I felt like a thirsty man gulping down a glass of cool water. Here was a black man who was saying what I thought—and not behind closed doors either, but in the pages of a book that had just been reviewed in a national newspaper.

Never before had I seen my views stated with such crisp, unapologetic clarity; the problems faced by blacks in America would take quite some time to solve, and the responsibility for solving them would fall largely on black people themselves.

It was far more common in the seventies to argue that whites, having caused our problems, should be responsible for solving them instantly, but while that approach was good for building political coalitions and soothing guilty white consciences, it hadn’t done much to improve the daily lives of blacks. Sowell’s perspective, by contrast seemed old fashioned, outdated, even mundane—but realistic.

It reminded me of the mantra of the Black Muslims I had met at college: Do for self, brother. Now, I began to see more clearly why they had impressed me. Though their religion was starkly different from the Catholicism of my youth, their unswerving belief in self-reliance wasn’t so far removed from Daddy’s way, and you didn’t have to go along with their racial separatism—I didn’t, then or later—to know that blacks could never hope to improve their lives until they took responsibility for them.” P 105 - 107

From the chapter titled A Question of Will

“A young black reporter from the Washington Post, Juan Williams, was seated next to me, and we struck up a conversation. I had no idea that what I said might find its way into the Post—I wasn’t used to talking to reporters—and I spoke to Williams in a straightforward, unguarded way, explaining that I was opposed to welfare because I had seen its destructive effects up close in Savannah.

Most of the older people among whome I had grown up, I told him, felt as I did, sharing Daddy’s belief that it would be the “ruination” of blacks, undermining their desire to work and provide for themselves. I added that my own sister was a victim of the system, which had created a sense of entitlement that had trapped her and her children. I went on to say that I opposed busing, preferring to give school vouchers to poor children trapped in dysfunctional schools. We shook hands and parted and I thought no more about it.

All I’d done was speak my mind. What could be wrong with that?

I flew back to Washington full of excitement. Then I read the newspaper coverage of the conference, most of which appeared to dismiss our motives as self-serving. One reporter referred to me in passing as “black conservative.” I’d never been mentioned in a newspaper, nor had anyone ever called me a conservative.

“I’ve been called a lot of things in my life,” I later told Professor Sowell, “but never that.” He laughed. “At least it’s better than being called a transvestite,” he replied dryly. A bigger surprise was on the way: Janet Brown, Senator Danforth’s press secretary, called to tell me that a Washington Post photographer was coming by the office to take my picture for a column by Juan Williams that would run in the paper the next day. I almost fainted. I had no idea what the column would say, but I expected the worst.

After a sleepless night, I got up first thing in the morning to buy a copy of the Post. I can still remember the date: December 16, 1980. I turned to the opinion section, saw my smiling face, and knew that my life would never be the same. It wasn’t that Juan Williams had misquoted or misrepresented me. He presented my opinions accurately and fairly.

But I’d gone against the liberal consensus on race, something that blacks weren’t supposed to do—and in the Post, no less! For the next few days, strangers on the street glared disapprovingly at me as I walked by. Senator Danforth had no problem with the piece—he’d heard me say such things many times before—but I took plenty of heat from some of my fellow black staffers on the Hill, who made it clear that there could be no real debate on these matters. I could only choose between being an outcast and being dishonest. I also received a piece of anonymous hate mail claiming that I wore a “watermelon-eating grin” in the picture the Post ran alongside the story.

That was bad enough, but what really hurt was the criticism I received for having mentioned my sister and her children. I didn’t blame Juan Williams—it was my fault for not knowing the rules of Washington Journalism—but I wouldn’t have said anything of the kind had I known he was going to print it. The only reason I’d brought the subject up in the first place was to make clear to him that I knew what I was talking about. What I found inexplicable was that so many of the people who went out of their way to tell me how strongly they disapproved of my views seemed to think that the mere act of pointing out the human damage caused by welfare politicies was wrong in and of itself. Would they have felt the same way if I’d said that I was opposed to drunk driving because my sister and her children had been hit by a drunk driver? I doubted it.”
P. 132 – 133

From the chapter titled Approaching the Bench

“…The trouble was that I didn’t know what else to do. I’d gotten plenty of offers since going to EEOC, but none had excited me. In 1986, as my first term was winding up, I was sounded out by several headhunters, one of whom wanted to know whether I’d consider becoming president of one of baseballs major leagues. “Would I have to go to the games?” I asked. He said it was part of the deal, to which I replied that no amount of money could possibly make me sit through that many baseball games.” P. 194

From the chapter titled Approaching the Bench

“I thoroughly enjoyed my visit with Pat Moynihan, for example, whose work on the black family I had long appreciated and defended—but then, Senator Moynihan was a bona fide intellectual who took ideas seriously, unlike some of his colleagues who saw them as nothing more than blunt instruments to be used on their enemies.

Howard Metzenbaum was the other kind of senator, and I already knew how he felt about me. It would have been charitable to call him unlikable, though he went through the motions of civility during my visit.

At one point he actually tried to lure me into a discussion of natural law, but I knew that he was no philosopher, just another cynical politician looking for a chink in my armor, so all I did was ask him if he would consider having a human-being sandwich for lunch instead of, say, a turkey sandwich. That’s Natural Law 101: all law is based on some sense of moral principles inherent in the nature of human beings, which explains why cannibalism, even without a written law to proscribe it, strikes every civilized person as naturally wrong. Any well read college student would have gotten my point, but Senator Metzenbaum just stared at me awkwardly and changed the subject as fast as he could.” P 221 – 222

From the chapter titled Approaching the Bench

“I learned another lesson from studying Judge Bork’s confirmation hearings that the smear campaign mounted by his opponents was intended to make him look so bad in the public eye that southern senators could vote against him without running the risk of antagonizing their conservative supporters. My opponents hoped to do the same thing by charging that I was unqualified to sit on the Court—and by making discreet, strategically placed mentions of the fact that my wife was white. It was a subtle way of tapping into old racial prejudices, and I suspected that it might work.

I learned other lessons from the Bork Debacle. One of them was that there was nothing to be gained from engaging in extended debates with the members of the Judiciary Committee. A confirmation hearing, Mike counseled me, is an ordeal to be endured, not an opportunity to engage in thoughtful public discussion. Judge Bork had made the mistake of patiently trying to explain the nuances of constitutional law to his questioners, despite the fact that most of them didn’t know or care what he was talking about. The paradox was that my comparative inexperience might make it easier for me to stay out of that swamp. I wasn’t a theorist of constitutional law, meaning that I couldn’t have emulated Judge Bork even if I’d wanted to do so. Instead I planned to say as little as possible about such matters. To do more would be to run the risk of giving my enemies more ammunition to fire at me—which was, of course, the whole point of their questioning.

All these things were running through my mind on the morning of Septermber 10,1991. Senator Danforth would be escorting me to the Caucus Room, and Virginia and I went to his office early. He and his wife Sally, were already there. True to his word, the senator had stood by me all summer long, talking to his fellow senators and campaigning vigorously for my nomination.

Now he asked Virginia and me to follow him into the small private bathroom in his office. “You’ll probably think I’m strange to ask you to do this” he said kiddingly, but by then I wasn’t able to see the humor in much of anything.

As soon as the four of us had crowded into the bathroom, he pulled out a portable tape recorder and played us a recording of “Onward Christian Soldiers” by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. The look on his face told me that this was no joke. Virginia and I listened intently to the hymn’s long familiar words:

Onward Christian Soldiers,
marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His Banners Go!

Then Senator Danforth prayed that the day would go well, told me to go forth in the name of Christ, and implored me to let the Holy Ghost speak through me. I knew he was an Episcopal minister—it was no secret—but this was the first time I’d seen him in that capacity, and I felt blessed. In the dark days to come, he would be everything I needed: friend, counselor, senator, lobbyist, and priest.” P. 232- 234

From the chapter titled Approaching the Bench

“The fourteen members of the judiciary committee seated together in a long row at the front of the room, loomed larger than life, dwarfing the small table and single chair that had been set up for me. Jamal, my mother, and my sister were seated near the front of the room. Virginia joined them, and Senator Danforth and my other advisers took seats immediately behind me. My old friend Harry Singleton stood next to a pillar, looking like a sentry. (He would stand there throughout the hearings, as though he was guarding my back.) I greeted the senators and went to my chair, drawing momentary comfort from the sight of my wife, family, and friends. Then I turned my back on them and sat down to face the unknown.

The morning was taken up by the committee members’ lengthy opening statements, more than a few of which were so blatantly hostile as to border on the comical. I endured them as I had endured the slights and slurs I had heard all my life, but I found it offensive that this particular group of people was talking about my in such terms. What gave these rich white men the right to question my commitment to racial justice? Was there no limit to their shamelessness? Not until three in the afternoon was I allowed to speak.

Vernon Jordon had suggested that I express my appreciation of the civil rights pioneers who had done so much to change America for the better, but I needed no prodding from him to do so, just as nobody had to remind me to tell the senators where I came from and what I believed: “A judge must get the decision right because when all is said and done, the little guy, the average person, the people of Pinpoint, the real people of America will be affected not only by what we as judges do, but by the way we do our jobs.”

Senator Biden was the first questioner. Instead of the softball questions he’d promised to ask, he threw a beanball straight at my head, quoting from a speech that I’d given four years earlier at the Pacific Legal Foundation and challenging me to defend what I’d said: “I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo, who defend an activist Supreme Court that would…strike down laws restricting property rights.” That caught me off guard, and I had no recollection of making so atypical a statement, which shook me up even more. “Now it would seem to me what you were talking about,” Senator Biden went on to say, “is you find attractive the fact that they are activists and they would like to strike down existing laws that impact on restricting the use of property rights, because you know, that is what they write about.”

Since I didn’t remember making the statement in the first place, I didn’t know how to respond to it. All I could say in reply was that “It has been quite some time since I have Professor Macedo…But I don’t believe that in my writings I have indicated that we should have an activist Supreme Court.” It was, I knew, a weak answer.

Fortunately, though, the young lawyers who had helped prepare me for the hearings had loaded all of my speeches into a computer, and at the first break in the proceedings they looked this one up. The senator, they found, had wrenched my words out of context. I looked at the text of my speech and saw that the passage he’d read out loud had been immediately followed by two other sentences: “But the libertarian argument overlooks the place of the Supreme Court in a scheme of separation of powers. One does not strengthen self government and the rule of law by having the non-democratic branch of the government make policy.” The point I’d been making was the opposite of the one that Senator Biden claimed I had made.

Throughout my life I’ve often found truth embedded in the lyrics of my favorite records. At Yale, for example, I’d listened often to “smiling faces sometimes,” a song by the Undisputed Truth that warns of the dangers of trusting the hypocrites who “pretend to be your friend” while secretly planning to do you wrong. Now I knew I’d met one of them: Senator Biden’s smooth, insincere promises that he would treat me fairly were nothing but talk. Instead of relaxing I’d have to keep my guard up.

Democratic senators spent the next few days pummeling me with loaded questions. Many were halfhearted retreads from my last confirmation hearing, but no sooner was the subject of abortion broached than the room heated up considerably. Patrick Leahy quizzed me aggressively about whether I’d discussed Roe with anyone. “Have you ever had discussion of Roe V. Wade other than in this room?” he asked sarcastically. “In the seventeen or eighteen years it’s been there?”

I explained that while I might have mentioned it in passing, it wasn’t a case about which I’d thought deeply or whose merits I’d had occasion to consider. It was obvious that the senator didn’t believe me. Apparently few people in Washington thought it was possible to live and breathe without debating Roe and forming a considered opinion on it. But that was what I’d done, so I didn’t give in to Senator Leahy’s bullying. All I could do was keep on telling the truth, just as I had told it to my questioners at the murder boards.

Each day I left the Caucus Room tired, tormented, and anxious, and each day Virginia and I bathed ourselves in God’s unwavering love. I knew that my team was doing all they could for me, but the long months of preparation had worn me down to a shadow of myself, and I knew that no human hand could sustain me in my time of trial. After years of rejecting God, I’d slowly eased into a state of quiet ambivalence toward Him, but that wasn’t good enough anymore: I had to go the whole way. I recalled one of Daddy’s sayings, “Hard times make monkey eat cayenne pepper,” Now, with Virginia at my side, I ate the pepper of faith—and found it sweet.

Psalm 57 showed me the way:

I will take refuge in the shadow of your wings
Until the disaster has passed…
I am in the midst of lions;
I lie among ravenous beasts—
Men whose teeth are spears and arrows,
Whose tongues are sharp swords,
They spread a net for my feet—
I was bowed down in distress.
They dug a pit in my path—
But they have fallen into it themselves.

Between sessions Mike Luttig and I went over various subjects that were proving problematic. My opponents were armed with longs lists of trick questions prepared by law professors and activists. I, on the other hand, had spent most of the preceding decade running a federal agency instead of studying two centuries worth of Supreme Court decisions, and Roe V. Wade wasn’t the only area of constitutional law about which I’d yet to think deeply.

Trying to review so many cases in the space of three months was like trying to cram for a final exam while being shoved around by an angry mob. It wasn’t that I doubted my ability to master the material. I already understood the key cases and the legal concepts behind them perfectly well.

But it’s one thing to know a precedent and another one to think it through methodically, then apply it to specific cases. Until he’s gone through that deliberative process on a case-by-case basis, an open minded judge can’t predict how he will rule in any given situation. As for the matter of my judicial philosophy, I didn’t have one—and didn’t want one. A philosophy that is imposed from without instead of arising organically from day-to-day engagement with the law isn’t worth having. Such a philosophy runs the risk of becoming an ideology, and I’d spent much of my adult life shying away from abstract ideological theories that served only to obscure the reality of life as It’s lived.

On the other hand, I now saw that there was no reason for me to worry about my ability to discuss such broad-brush questions with the easy fluency of a Robert Bork. Most of my opponents on the Judiciary Committee cared about only one thing: how would I rule on abortion rights?

I knew it was irresponsible for them to expect me to prejudge a complex area of law without having decided a single case on the subject, but I also knew that it had never occurred to any of them that my personal view about the morality of abortion would have nothing to do with my view of Roe v. Wade. I wasn’t that kind of judge—or that kind of person.

I had sworn to administer justice “faithfully and impartially.” To do otherwise would be to violate my oath. That meant I had no business imposing my personal views on the country. Nor did I have the slightest intention of doing so. From the start of my tenure on the court of appeals, I’d taken Larry Silberman’s advice to heart: in every case that came before me, I considered what my role was as a judge. But my enemies weren’t looking for open minded justices. All they cared about was keeping anyone off the Supreme Court who might possibley vote to reverse Roe or water it down. As far as they were concerned, my open mindedness was a disadvantage, not a qualificiation.” P. 234 – 239

From the chapter titled Approaching the Bench

“As bad as I felt, though, my mother felt even worse. Between the day President Bush announced his intention of nominating me to the end of my testimony, she lost more than thirty pounds as a result of stress and worry. A lifelong Democrat who had always admired the Kennedys, she grew increasingly furious with the Democratic senators who were trying to sabotage my nomination, thought the unceasing attacks on me had already taken their toll on her by the time the hearings started.

I’d told her to be careful about talking to reporters, but that hadn’t stopped her from granting countless interviews, since she was sure that it couldn’t hurt to tell our story. Within a few weeks, she knew better. One reporter actually had the nerve to argue with her about how many children she had, insisting that there were only two of us.

Leola and I had never before discussed political matters. Daddy had once asked me why I’d become a Republican, to which I replied that the Democrats no longer represented the things he’d taught me.

But I never asked my mother how she voted, nor did she ask me why I’d chosen to ally myself with a party that so many blacks regarded as racist and evil. Now she could see for herself. Patrick Leahy, Howard Metzenbaum, Joe Biden, Paul Simon, even Teddy Kennedy: all of them were arrayed against me.

How dare they treat her son that way. Never before had I seen her as angry as she was in the fall of 1991. All her life she’d assumed that Democrats in Washington were sensible leaders—but now she saw these men as single issue zealots who were unwilling to treat her son fairly. “I ain’t never votin’ fo’ another Democrat long as I can draw breath,” she told me as we walked out of the Senate building on what should have been my final day of testimony. “I’d vote for a dog first.” P. 239 – 240

From the chapter titled Invitation to a Lynching

“Virginia and I went home to Alexandria to find our answering machine full of reassuring messages. We spent the evening praying, reading the Bible together, and listening to religious music. Before going to bed, we asked four of our friends Elizabeth and Steven Law and Kay and Charles James, to come over the next morning and join us in prayer.

They showed up bright and early, carrying bags of doughnuts and bagels past the reporters camped outside the house. The six of us chatted for a little while, then sat in a circle, held hands, and asked for the Lord for help. Both couples came back each day until the battle was over, and their company was a priceless gift. “Where tow or three are gathered in my name, “ Jesus said, “I am there among them.” He was among us now.

It has long since become clear to me that this battle was at bottom spiritual, not political, and so my attention shifted from politics to the inward reality of my spiritual life. I had been proud of my work at EEOC and the Department of Education, and no less proud that I’d spent nearly a decade in the public eye without being touched by personal scandal.

Might I have been too proud? It occurred to me for the first time that I had cherished my good name in the same way that a wealthy man cherishes his money. I remembered how Jesus had told the rich man to give away his fortune and “come and follow me.” Perhaps I would have to renounce my pride to endure this trial, even as Cardinal Merry del Val had prayed for deliverance in his Litany of Humility:

Deliver me, O Jesus,
from the fear of being humiliated…
from the fear of being despised…
from the fear of suffering rebukes…
from the fear of being calumniated.

In addition to suspecting that I had committed the sin of pride, I saw that I was resisting what God had put before me. “Father, let this cup pass from me,” Jesus had prayed in the garden of Gethsemane. “But thy will, not mine be done.” The second half of His prayer is the harder part. Until then I’d been concentrating on wanting the confirmation debate to come to an end, drawing back from total submission to God’s will.

Now I had no choice but to submit completely. I could do nothing to push the cup away. The time had come to attend to His will, not mine. I could not know whether doing so would make the experience less difficult, but I had faith that His transcendent purpose would sustain me to the end of it—and beyond. He had never failed me. Even in my darkest hours, even when I openly rejected Him. His forgiving and sustaining Grace had always been there.

I knew that it would give me the glimmer of hope I needed now more than ever. It was in the consoling words of the prophet Isaiah that I found my own watchword:

“But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength,
they shall mount up with wings as eagles:
they shall run, and not be weary;
and they shall walk, and not faint.”

Senator Danforth drove out to the house later that morning to talk with Virginia and me. “I don’t know how this is going to turn out Clarence,” he said. “But don’t forget, you never wanted to be on the Court.” I agreed. I was ready to do my best—I owed it to the president, to my supporters, and to everyone else who had been similarly mistreated in the past, starting with Judge Bork—but the court itself I could take or leave. It was in God’s hands now.

The senator drove us into Washington and dropped us off at the White House. A press car followed us all the way there. Virginia and I went to the Oval Office and met with President Bush, after which she and Mrs. Bush went off by themselves while the president and I went for a walk on the South Lawn. He said he was sorry for having gotten me into so dirty a fight. I said that I didn’t blame him in the slightest. He made it clear that he wouldn’t abandon me, and I knew he meant it. “I’ll do my best to stick it out,” I said. “I promised I would,” Later I learned that President Bush’s team had begun to fracture. Marlin Fitzwater was among the White House staffers who talked of pulling the plug on my nomination, but Boyden Gray—as well as the president himself—refused to panic.

From there I went to the courthouse, where I took calls from several of my colleagues, all of whom expressed their outrage at the way I was being treated. Judge Aubrey Robinson was particularly angry with my persecutors. “I would just tell them all to go to hell.” He said. Larry Silberman gave me a more practical piece of advice, get a lawyer. Until that moment, it hadn’t crossed my mind that I might need one.

None of my advisers I realized, was a trial lawyer. Larry gave me some names, but as much as I trusted his judgment, I also knew that what I really needed was a good friend who knew his way around a courtroom, so I called Larry Thompson that evening. Larry had done well for himself since we’d worked together at Monsanto, serving as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia during the Reagan Administration, then becoming a partner at King and Spalding, a prestigious Atlana Law firm with a thriving White Collar criminal practice. Since the judiciary Committee was treating me like a common criminal, he was just the lawyer I needed.

“Larry, I need your help,” I said.
“I’ll be there on Monday.”
“It’ll be all over by then.”
“Then I’ll be there in the morning.” And that was that.

The hearings would be reopened on Friday. That gave Larry a day to think things through. He didn’t need to do much thinking, though, for Anita’s public statements, as Lee Liberman had hinted when she’d first called me from the White House, were full of holes. She’d claimed at her press conference to have been too afraid of me to complain about my alleged misconduct—yet she’d lobbied aggressively to follow me from the Department of Education to EEOC. She said she’d never called me—but the telephone logs of my secretaries at EEOC and the court of appeals proved that she’d done so repeatedly.

She claimed that other members of my staff could corroborate her story—but they denied it. In the end only three EEOC employees would support he version of what supposedly happened between us—but all of them had either been fired or worked there at the same time as Anita. Having spent years at EEOC reviewing such claims, I was sure that this one would have been thrown out of court in an instant. But did any of these things matter? Not in the least. The mob was howling, and it wouldn’t be satisfied until it had tasted my blood.

The more I reflected on what was happening, the more it astonished me. As a child in the deep south, I’d grown up fearing the lynch mobs of the Ku Klux Klan; as an adult, I was starting to wonder if I’d been afraid of the wrong white people all along. My worst fears had come to pass not in Georgia but in Washington, D. C., where I was being pursued not by bigots in white robes but by left-wing zealots draped in flowing sanctimony.

For all the fear I’d known as a boy in Savannah, this was the first time I’d found myself at the mercy of people who would do whatever they could to hurt me—and institutions that had once prided themselves on bringing segregation and its abuses to an end were aiding and abetting in the assault. Hypersensitive civil-rights leaders who saw racism around every corner fell silent when my liberal enemies sneered that I was unqualified to sit on the court; editors and reporters who claimed to be objective substituted a pretense of balance for true fairness, presenting outrageous, wholly unsupported allegations side by side with sputtering denials. The implausible was now being treated more favorably than the obvious.

As for the Senate, it had abandoned all semblance of decorum to consider a set of trumped-up charges better suited to the tabloids than the Congressional Record. I knew of at least one senator sitting in judgment of me against whom accusations of sexual improprieties had been leveled that made Anita’s charges look mild. I wondered how many others had been trapped by their own failings into ignoring the obvious weaknesses of her claims. I was as sickened by their hypocrisy as I was mystified by the sequence of events that had set this hideous farce in motion. P. 254 – 258

From the chapter titled Invitation to a Lynching

“Honey? Honey? I heard a soft voice calling me from out of the breeze. “Honey, it’s after midnight. You have to get up and write your statement.” It was Virginia. I’d dozed off for a few minutes, but now I had to get up and face the horrible nightmare that my life had become. I fought my way back to consciousness, then went back downstairs to the kitchen and sat at the table, which was covered with papers.

I stared at the clutter, unable to summon the energy to do anything. “Clarence, you have to get started,” Virginia said gently. “Here are some suggestions from Nancy Altman.” Nancy was an old friend with whom I’d worked in Senator Danforth’s office and at the Department of Education. Like so many of the other people I knew, she’d offered her help as soon as the story broke. Now Virginia handed me a piece of paper on which she had scribbled down some of Nancy’s ideas.

“I’m confused, Virginia,” I said helplessly. “All these papers on the table have me confused.” She swept them all away and placed a legal pad in front of me. Lord, Give me the wisdom to know what to write and the courage to write it, I prayed. Then I picked up my pen, and all at once the words began to pour out of me. I wrote for four straight hours. Virginia took each handwritten page upstairs and typed it into the computer, editing as she went. Then she printed out a complete draft and we edited it together, finishing around five in the morning. By then we were both punch-drunk with exhaustion—emotional, mental, and physical. We decided to lie down until six, then call Senator Danforth.

I spent the hour tossing, turning, and thinking, and the more I thought, the angrier I got. As a child I’d labored in the South Georgia heat because, Daddy said, it was out lot to work from sun to sun. I’d lived by the rules of society that had treated blacks shabbily and held them back at every turn. I’d plugged away, deferred gratification, eschewed leisure.

Now, in one climactic swipe of calumny, America’s elites were arrogantly wreaking havoc on everything my grandparents had worked for and all I’d accomplished in forty-three years of struggle. Should I have seen it coming? Even as Daddy had been teaching me that hard work would always see me through, my friends in Savannah told me to let go of my foolish dreams. “The man ain’t goin’ let you do nothin’ they had said over and over. “Why you even tryin’?” Now I knew who “the man” was. He’d come at last to kill me, and I had looked upon his hateful, leering face as he slipped his noose of lies around my neck.

Twenty years earlier I’d prayed to God to purge my heart of anger, and since then I had managed to hold the beast of rage at bay. Now it had slipped its leash—but for a very different reason. I didn’t care whether I ever sat on the Supreme Court, but I wasn’t going to let what little my family and I had cobbled together be so wantonly smashed. My enemies wanted nothing more than for me to go quietly. I, on the other hand, owed it to my family and the memory of my grandparents and forebears not to self-destruct but to confront them with the truth.

At six o’clock Virginia and I got out of bed. The flame of anger burning inside me had done its work. I called Senator Danforth and read him my statement. He made only two suggestions, both of which I accepted: I cut out the usual expressions of gratitude with which witnesses at Senate hearings open their statements, and deleted a reference to the conversation in which Joe Biden had assured me that he’d be my “biggest defender” if Anita Hills charges became public. That, Senator Danforth said, would be counterproductive. Virginia printed out the final draft of the statement, and we dressed, prayed, and left for Capitol Hill. The man was waiting for me there—and this time, with God’s help, I would be ready for him. P. 259-260

From the chapter titled Going to meet the Man

“A little later the White House operator patched through a call from Jehan Sedat, Anwar Sadat’s widow. We had never met, and I was touched that she took the trouble to call me, though what she said touched me even more: “Judge Thomas, they are just talking about words. They are laughing at the United States around the world.” I reminded her that I hadn’t really said any of the things Anita had accused me of saying, “It does not matter,” she repeated. “They are just words. Women around the world are suffering real oppression. This is nothing in comparison. The whole thing is silly.” And so it was—except, of course, that this silliness had done great harm to my family and me. It buoyed me up to know that someone of her stature, who had devoted much of her life to women’s issues around the world, understood what was really happening in Washington. I wasn’t crazy after all. P. 276

From the chapter titled Going to meet the Man

“What was supposed to have been a brief courtesy call on Justice Marshall ballooned into a two and a half hour visit, and I loved every minute of it. He regaled me with tales of his long, remarkable career as a civil rights lawyer. “I would have been shoulder to shoulder with you back then—if I’d had the courage,” I said.

“I did in my time what I had to do,” Justice Marshall replied. “You have to do in your time what you have to do.” Those words have stayed with me, too.” P. 286

From the chapter titled Going to meet the Man

“The ceremony itself was simple. Virginia and I were photographed for the Court’s records. Then I was seated in the “John Marshall chair” located just in front of and to the right of the long Court Bench, named in honor of the longest serving Chief Justice in the history of the Supreme Court. The courtroom was packed with friends, family, Court officials, and members of the Supreme Court Bar. Acting Attorney General William P. Barr moved that the Clerk of the Court read the presidential commission issued to me as an associate justice Chief Justice Rehnquist granted the motion and the clerk read:

Know ye; That reposing special trust and confidence in the Wisdom, Uprightness, and Learning of Clarence Thomas, of Georgia, I have nominated, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, do appoint him as Associate Justice of The United States and do authorize and empower him to execute and fulfill the duties of that Office according to the Constitution and the Laws of the said United States…

I heard the words, but the man who was reading them was a million miles away. Without warning, memories of home, my grandparents, and the accumulated toil of the last four decades swirled through my mind, numbing me to the proceedings. I thought I was going to collapse as pent-up emotions erupted within me.

I looked at Virginia, always loving but hurt by the confirmation process and anxious about the future. I looked at Leola, stripped of thirty pounds by worry and stress. Above all I thought of my grandparents, wishing more than anything else that they could be with me. They had believed, worked, and sacrificed, not knowing where their labors would lead but trusting that their boys would do well. They could not possibly have dreamed of this moment—yet it was theirs.

I heard the distant, authoritative voice of the Chief Justice of the United States of America: “I now ask the chief deputy clerk of the Court to escort Justice Thomas to the bench.” I walked with suddenly stiff legs to the steps of the raised bench and saw the seven men and one woman with whom I would now sit. They looked at me, imposing but pleasant. My mouth went dry and my tongue grew thick.

“Justice Thomas, are you prepared to take the oath?”
“I am.”
“Then repeat after me: I, Clarence Thomas, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to person, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all of the duties incumbent upon me as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Struggling to control my surging emotions, I repeated the oath, thinking as I did so of how Daddy and Aunt Tina had raised me to fulfill it. Any job worth doing, they had told me, is worth doing right. This, I knew, was a job worth doing right.” P. 286 - 287

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 8:42 AM

March 29, 2008

Freebirth: A Message to Obstetricians from Jenny Hatch, "Physician Heal THYSELF!!"

This video is hosted on My Share Page at One True Media

In the past few months four obstetrics societies have made public statements about Unassisted Childbirth.

The Canadian Doctors (SOGC):

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC)

The Australian and New Zealand Doctors:

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

The Royal College (RCOG) in the UK:

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG)

And in a recent article in the Denver Westword Newspaper (I was interviewed for this story)
A Spokesperson for ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) claimed freebirth was "dangerous".

Baby's Day Out

Childbirth goes solo.
By Jared Jacang Maher

Published: May 10, 2007

"According to the guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the organization "strongly opposes" any birth not performed inside a hospital. A spokesman for the ACOG has a one-word assessment of freebirth: "dangerous."

I have just one message for these doctors, and it is this:

Physician, heal thyself

"The moral of the proverb is counsel to prove your trustworthiness with your own affairs before attempting to tell others what they should do."

Break out of the Matrix!

When the various obstetrics societies PROVE that they have the will to reform themselves internally by setting up standards of care that are more about the mother and the baby than they are about the doctor and staff at the hospital, then I will feel more open about listening to any edicts they have about my lifestyle.

Hey Doctors: why don't you set some goals....

1. No inductions before 41 weeks

2. 10% C-section rate

3. No elective C-sections

4. Full acceptance of Lay and Nurse Midwifery both in the home and at the hospital

5. A Complete and total acceptance of VBAC (Vaginal Birth after Cesarean)

6. A willingness to embrace proper prenatal nutrition as the foundation for a healthy pregnancy as outlined by the Brewer Pregnancy Diet

When society stops locking up our midwives for bogus reasons, embrace and promote natural mothering as the IDEAL for a new baby (Natural Childbirth, Attachment Parenting, and Long Term Ecological Breastfeeding), then I will believe you have found your soul as doctors.

Until then? Well, I am going to continue promoting freebirth and encouraging families to break away from your way of giving birth, because frankly, the way you do it stinks.

Jenny Hatch

Lamaze International has a white paper on Elective cesarean Vs. Vaginal Birth (PDF)

American College of Nurse Midwives:
RISKS OF CESAREAN DELIVERY ARE UNDERREPORTED,
BENEFITS OVERSTATED

Media Briefing Highlights Concerns In Advance of NIH Conference

QUOTE:

"Only women themselves can tell us if they are actually demanding cesarean section surgery. With what we are learning from Childbirth Connection today, we now know that women VERY rarely schedule first cesareans by choice without a medical reason," says Susan Hodges, president of Citizens for Midwifery. "Only women can tell us what kind of informed consent process was provided to them. Citizens for Midwifery believes that women are not being given adequate and unbiased information about all the risks and benefits of cesarean sections. Research is needed to understand who and what are now influencing decisions to perform major abdominal surgery 'for no medical reason' despite substantial evidence that all cesareans increase harmful risks for mothers and babies."

The dirty little secret about elective surgeries is that many of them are in fact coerced by doctors.

Free yourself from the Matrix~!

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 2:35 PM

Spring Break 2008

Spring Break is winding down. We did not do anything and it felt so great! We stayed home and watched movies and went to the park. Paul took monday and friday off work. We flew kites at Chatauqua and Scott Carpenter park, and went to pearl street mall to get ice cream.

It was a nice relaxing week.

Tonight is the General Womans Conference of the church. The girls and I plan to attend. We also have fast sunday tomorow. Here is the link to my lesson for Sunday School tomorow.

Faith in Jesus Christ I just spent so much time on that Benson talk, I don't have time to blog it this morning.

And below are some pictures from our outing to Chatauqua Park in Boulder. We played soccer and baseball and had a nice picnic, a little cold, but still fun.

Jenny Hatch

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 8:02 AM

A Vision and a Hope For the Youth of Zion Ezra T. Benson

I watched this BYU Devotional from 1977 the other day on BYU Television. I have read many of President Bensons books, talks, and watched him speak in General Conference all through my teens, but I never watched this talk. It was powerful to see it and hear his voice.

So I captured the Mp3 and put part of it in this montage. Here is the You Tube Link.

If you would like to listen to the whole Mp3 or download it yourself Go Here.

The page where the talk is hosted on BYU television is located here.

And the complete text is below:

Jenny Hatch

A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion
EZRA TAFT BENSON

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ezra Taft Benson was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this devotional
address was given at Brigham Young University on 12 April 1977.

© Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.

Complete volumes of Speeches are available wherever LDS books are sold.

For further information contact:
Speeches, 218 University Press Building, Provo, Utah 84602.
(801) 422-2299 / E-mail: speeches@byu.edu / Speeches Home Page

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My beloved brethren and sisters, humbly and gratefully I stand before you this morning and seek an interest in your faith and prayers that the message that I have may be accompanied by the Spirit. It is a wonderful sight that I view here this morning. It is good to be with you, my beloved young friends, distinguished members of the faculty, and special guests.

My wife and I have just returned from a glorious weekend at St. George, where I had the privilege of addressing three overflow audiences, two in the largest auditorium they have at Dixie College and made up largely of young people, and one on the fourth floor of the temple in a Solemn Assembly. We were honoring the centennial of the dedication of the St. George Temple, the first one to be erected in the western part of the country. We are still basking in the aftermath of another great general conference of the Church. Never in my memory have we had more explicit warnings from prophets of God; and nowhere in the world are there men better prepared or more obligated to issue such warnings.

The Celestial Kingdom

Today I want to discuss some principles and laws of the celestial kingdom, and some of the fallacies of their perverted counterfeits in the world. I share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. The celestial kingdom, residence of God, our Eternal Father, is comprised of men and women who have complied with divine law and who were not deceived by the craftiness of men or the doctrines of devils. They are just men made perfect through the mediation and atonement of Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:69). They are obedient to celestial law; for, as the Lord has said, he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory (D&C 88:22).

Celestial laws, embodied in certain ordinances belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, are complied with by voluntary covenants. The laws are spiritual. Thus, our Father in Heaven has ordained certain holy sanctuaries, called temples, in which these laws may be fully explained, the laws include the law of obedience and sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, and the law of consecration.

I want to speak more particularly this morning about this one law--the law of consecration. It is that one's time, talents, strength, property, and money are given up to the Lord for the express purpose of building up the kingdom of God and establishing Zion on the earth. Or, as we read in Doctrine and Covenants 105:5, "Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom."

Much has been written about this law and its attempted implementations in the early history of the Church; and much deception has taken root, even among some of our members, because of misinformed opinion or misguided interpretations.

Some view it as merely an economic alternative to capitalism or the free enterprise system, others as an outgrowth of early communal experiments in America. Such a view is not only shortsighted but tends to diminish in importance a binding requirement for entrance into the celestial kingdom. The law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment.

The vehicle for implementing the law of consecration is the united order. The basic principle underlying the united order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; and, therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of our property, because it belongs to him. The united order was entered by "a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken" (D&C 42:30), according to the scriptures. In other words, an individual conveys his titles to all his property to the Church through the bishop. The property becomes the property of the Church. You read about this in the forty-second section of the Doctrine and Covenants.

The bishop then deeds back to the consecrator by legal instrument the amount of personal property required by the individual for the support of himself and his family, as the Lord declares, "according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3). This becomes the private, personal property of the individual to develop as he sees fit. It is his stewardship. When an individual produces a profit or surplus more than is needful for the support of himself and his family, the surplus is then placed in the bishops storehouse to administer to the poor and the needy. Under the united order, idleness has no place, and greed, selfishness, and covetousness are condemned. The united order may therefore operate with only a righteous people.

It has been erroneously concluded by some that the united order is both communal and communistic in theory and practice because the revelations speak of equality. Equality under the united order is not economic and social leveling as advocated by some today. Equality, as described by the Lord, is "equal[ity] according to [a man's] family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3).

Is the united order a communal system? Emphatically not. It never has been and never will be. It is "intensely individualistic." Does the united order eliminate private ownership of property? No. "The fundamental principle of this system [is] the private ownership of property" (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, October 1942, p. 57).

Two separate groups of saints have fully implemented this divine law. The first was the united order under Enoch, wherein the Lord designated this people Zion, "because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." We read of this in the seventh chapter, eighteenth verse, of Moses, in the Pearl of Great Price.

A second instance was the Nephite civilization following the visit of the Savior to the Western Hemisphere after his resurrection. This is recorded in 4 Nephi, the third verse particularly. The failure of the early Saints in this dispensation to live according to the fulness of the law is explained by the Lord in revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections 101 and 105.

I repeat and emphasize that the law of consecration is a law for an inheritance in the celestial kingdom. God, the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and all holy beings abide by this law. It is an eternal law. It is a revelation by God to his Church in this dispensation. Though not in full operation today, it will be mandatory for all Saints to live the law in its fulness to receive celestial inheritance. You young people today abide a portion of this higher law as you tithe, pay a generous fast offering, go on missions, and make other contributions of money, service, and time.

Satan's Counterfeit System

But whenever the God of heaven establishes by revelation his design, Satan always comes among men to pervert the doctrine, saying, "Believe it not." He often establishes a counterfeit system, designed to deceive the children of men. His aim, as it was before the foundation of this earth was laid, is to thwart the agency of man and to subjugate him. Throughout all ages of mankind, the adversary has used human agents and despotic governments to establish his purpose. Satan is determined to destroy all that is dear, all that will ennoble and exalt man to a celestial kingdom.

Isaiah foresaw the time when a marvelous work and a wonder would come forth among men (see Isaiah 29:14). Isaiah also predicted that there would be those that "seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they [shall] say, Who seeth us?" (Isaiah 29:15).

He saw the time when the work, man, shall say of him that made him, "He made me not," denying his creation (see Isaiah 29:16).

It is well to ask what self-proclaimed atheists came on the human scene following the restoration of the gospel, who established secret works of darkness to overthrow nations by violent revolution and who blasphemously proclaimed the atheistic doctrine that God made us not.

Yes, Satan works through human agents. We need only look to some of the ignoble figures in human history who were contemporary to the restoration of the gospel to discover fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. I refer to the infamous founders of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Today, if we are alert, we can see further fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies.

Communism--a System Antithetical to the Gospel of Christ

Through the instigation of Marx and Engels, a most successful counterfeit to the united order was introduced into the world. The declaration of principles found in their Manifesto to the World advocated the overthrow of capitalism and free enterprise, the abolition of private property, the elimination of the family as a social unit, the abolition of all classes, the overthrow of all governments, and the establishment of communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society. All this was to be accomplished by revolution.

On July 3, 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members. I quote it in part; I hope you will get a copy of the full statement for your files. In part, the statement reads:

. . . Communism is not a political party, nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government. . . .

Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism.

To our Church members we say, Communism is not the United Order, and bears only the most superficial resemblance thereto. Communism is based upon intolerance and force, the United Order upon love and freedom of conscience and action. . . .

Communists cannot establish the United Order, nor will Communism bring it about. . . .

Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a Communist.

We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [and shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America.

Signed,

President Heber J. Grant

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

David O. McKay

The First Presidency

You students have only to read some of the speeches and writings of the exiled Russian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to appreciate this farsighted warning of the First Presidency.

I have been on both sides of the Iron Curtain several times. I have talked to these godless leaders face to face. I say to you with all the sincerity of my soul that since 1933 this godless counterfeit to the gospel has made tremendous progress towards its objective of world domination, for over one-third of the human family are now under totalitarian subjugation.

Today we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of men. It is a battle between two opposite systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. The struggle today is more momentous than a decade ago, yet today the conventional wisdom, so called, is that we have got to learn to live with communism, to give up our ideas about national sovereignty. You hear that repeated today. Tell that to the millions--yes, the scores of millions--who have met death or imprisonment under the tyranny of communism. Learn to live with communism? Such would be the death knell of freedom and all we hold dear.

The gospel of Jesus Christ can prosper only in an atmosphere of freedom. As members of his Church, we have a major responsibility to do all in our power to see that freedom is preserved and safeguarded. I pray that God will bless you to see communism for what it really is: the greatest system of human slavery that the world has ever known. May you not be deceived into believing that the communists have moderated their goal toward world domination. I say to you that so-called detente is a fraud. Time will prove it to be such.

There is no excuse for any BYU instructor to grant a forum to an avowed communist for the purpose of teaching communism on this campus. It may be done on other campuses in the United States, but it will not be done here.

Socialism--a Philosophy Incompatible with Man's Liberty

Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord's plan is collectivized socialism. Socialism derives its philosophy from the founders of communism, Marx and Engels. Communism in practice is socialism. Its purpose is world socialism, which the communists seek to achieve by revolution, and which the socialists seek to achieve by evolution. Both communism and socialism have the same effect upon the individual--a loss of personal liberty. As was said so well by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "The two are as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties."

Why is socialism incompatible with man's liberty? Socialism cannot work except through an all-powerful state. The state has to be supreme in everything. When individuals begin to exert their God-given rights, the state has to suppress that freedom. So belief in God must be suppressed, and with that gone freedom of conscience and religion must also go. Those are the first of our liberties mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: "I said I did not believe the doctrine" (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33).

Socialism Disguised under Welfare State Measures

As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today's total national income.

If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.

This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. I have recounted here before what took place in the St. George Temple when the Founding Fathers of this nation visited President Wilford Woodruff, who was then a member of the Twelve and not president of the Church. The republic which was established was the most nearly perfect system which could have been devised to lead men toward celestial principles. We may liken our system to the law of Moses which leads men to the higher law of Christ.

Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

[quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342]

That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!

Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity.

Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right. One HEW official said recently, "In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something" (U.S. News and World Report, April 21, 1975, p. 49). President Grover Cleveland said--and we believe as a people--that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.

The chief weapon used by the federal government to achieve this "equality" is the system of transfer payments. This means that the federal governments collects from one income group and transfer payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of social security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and food stamps, to name a few. Today the cost of such programs has been going in the hole at the rate of 12 billion dollars a year; and, with increased benefits and greater numbers of recipients, even though the tax base has been increased we will have larger deficits in the future.

Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program--a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government--precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency.

Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,

"A perfect equality will indeed be produced--that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest."

Are we part of the problem or part of the solution?

Recently a letter came to my office, accompanied by an article from your Daily Universe, on the matter of BYU students taking food stamps. The query of the letter was: "What is the attitude of the Church on taking food stamps?" The Church's view on this is well known. We stand for independence, thrift, and abolition of the dole. This was emphasized in the Saturday morning welfare meeting of general conference. "The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership"

(Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3).

When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers' money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them.

You did not come to this University to become a welfare recipient. You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society--to save society and to help to save this nation, the Lord's base of operations in these latter days, to ameliorate man's social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for "something for nothing" may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency.

Society may rationalize immorality, but God cannot condone it. Society sponsors Sabbathbreaking, but the Church counsels otherwise. Society profanes the name of Deity, but Latter-day Saints cannot countenance it. Because society condones a dole, which demoralizes man and weakens his God-given initiative and character, can we?

I know what it is, as many of your faculty members do, to work my way through school, taking classes only during winter quarters. If you don't have the finances to complete your education, drop out a semester and go to work and save. You'll be a better man or woman for so doing. You will have preserved your self-respect and initiative. Wisdom comes with experience and struggle, not just with going through a university matriculation. I hope you will not be deceived by current philosophies which will rob you of your godly dignity, self-respect, and initiative, those attributes that make a celestial inheritance possible. It is in that interest, and that only, that I have spoken so plainly to you.

My Hope for You, the Youth of Zion

In opening my remarks to you, beloved youth of the Church, I attempted to share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. In closing my remarks, I share with you my hope for you:

I hope that you learn through your struggles the joy of achievement.

I hope that you recognize in the gospel of Jesus Christ a solution to our problems, temporal and spiritual.

I hope that you marry well, live together in love, rear a family in righteousness, and have joy and rejoicing in your posterity.

I hope that you follow the example and counsel of him whom the Lord has appointed as prophet, seer, and revelator.

I hope that you learn the joy of work, the ability to postpone wants, and the economic independence not to be a slave to any man.

I hope that you keep yourselves clean morally and spiritually, that your confidence will wax strong in the presence of God, as the scriptures say, and the Holy Ghost will be your constant companion (see D&C 121:45–46).

I hope that you will be united in philosophy, purpose, and action to the laws of the celestial kingdom.

I pray God's choicest blessings on you, my beloved brethren and sisters. May I say to you that there isn't anything in this world that's right that the leadership of this Church wouldn't do for the youth of the Church; and so I hope and pray that you realize the hope of those who love you and serve you and the possibilities of your potential as sons and daughters of God.

In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 6:46 AM

Ellis Washington: D-Day for Kwame (six years late)

Mr. Washington parses the Detroit Mayors scandal:

QUOTE:

"

Worthy brought a 12-count criminal indictment – 15 felony charges in all (eight against Mayor Kilpatrick; seven against his former chief of staff and concubine, Christine Beatty) – including: perjury, obstruction of justice, misconduct in office, perjury in a court proceeding, perjury other than a court proceeding and conspiracy.

Let us remember that Worthy only took up this case under tremendous public pressure once some of the text messages between Kilpatrick and Beatty were published from a Freedom of Information Act request, not by the good prosecutor's office, but by the Detroit Free Press and only after years of legal wrangling with the mayor and his legion of taxpayer-paid attorneys.

Prosecutor Worthy had the nerve to lecture the American people about the rudiments of our constitutional republic and what the symbols of Lady Justice mean, but she forgot one aspect implicit in the balance scales she holds aloft: time – tick-tock-tick-tock.

It didn't take Worthy 59 days to bring felony charges against the mayor, it took her over six years!"

"...Monday's press conference was a big charade. Worthy staged the entire event as she and she alone has flown in with her cape and her boots and will get us (Detroiters) justice. Balderdash!

Worthy, like so many of our craven pols on both sides of the aisle all over America, has built her career on lies, racial pandering, opportunism, shameless ambition and Sistergirl demagoguery. She knows that the eyes of the world are on Detroit, and she is going through all the motions to bamboozle the blacks of Wayne County who will next year no doubt re-elect this opportunist once again, regardless of whether or not she and her legal "dream team" even have the ability to put this delusional, narcissistic, psychopathic "leader" in prison.

Black people of Detroit have made themselves the laughingstock of the world because of their irrational 75-year love affair with liberalism and the Democrat Party, which forbids ideological or public policy competition. Moreover, Detroit has made every closet racist self-righteously say inwardly, "See, I told you Negroes can't govern themselves!" This state of affairs vexes me to no end, for I was born and raised in Detroit. I was educated here, and my family and I presently worship in this city.

D-Day for KK? We shall see, but don't hold your breath. After all, we are talking about Detroit, which Forbes Magazine awarded the villainous designation "America's most miserable city."

My husband and I had the chance to raise our family in Detroit, which is my hometown, but made the decision to move when the opportunity presented after the first year of our marriage. Paul hated commuting from the burbs downtown to the Argonaut Building where he was working when we met.

I have so many fond memories of Detroit and great friends and family in Michigan. It is difficult to watch what is happening to my home state, which has suffered with such bad political leadership at both the local and state level.

It makes me think of a line from the Doctrine and Covenants 98:9, which states "Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn."

And in Proverbs it says:

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."

I pray that the local citizens of Detroit can use New Media and the Rule of Law to hold the current nasty crop of politicians accountable for their crimes, which include murder, and find some moral people to run for office. It would be such a blessing to the city and state to have politicians who honor their oaths of office.

Jenny Hatch

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 6:22 AM

March 27, 2008

Schubert Ave Maria

My bad. I discovered yesterday that I am singing the Latin Schubert Ave Maria tomorow, not the Gounod. So I've been rehearsing all day to get it ready. The Pavarotti Version is above...enjoy!

Jenny Hatch

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 10:35 AM

Freebirth in the News - Australia

Aussie Free Birth story on the Today Show. (With Video)

"Many women are reverting back to nature when it comes to giving birth.

The trend follows decisions by State and Territory governments to close smaller maternity units in an attempt to centralise birth in large hospitals.

Dr Ric Gordon joins the show to explain how the process works and why many women may not be aware of the hidden dangers.

Unassisted childbirth, also know as free-birth or unhindered birth occurs without the assistance of a medical or professional birth attendant or drugs.

"The reasons for choosing to give birth unassisted range greatly from mother to mother but a few key factors are common to most," he explains.

"There is the conviction that birth is a normal function of the female body and therefore not a medical emergency," he says. "This argument is correct that women are able to conceive and carry a child, giving correct reason to believe they can give birth naturally."

Many also believe that most interventions commonly used by the medical profession during birth cause more harm than good in a normal birth, he says.

"There are however, risks involved with giving birth naturally," he says. "It means a woman increases the natural risks of birth, these natural risks are what hospitals and assisted births try to avoid. Hospitals and maternity wards are there so the level of natural risk can be minimised and if it does occur women and their babies can be helped during the birth process."

"When choosing to have an unassisted birth, parents must look at the risks," he warns.

"If there is history of complications with previous births then you may have a higher risk of something going wrong," says Dr Gordon.

"It is extremely important to make sure that you have another person with you as back up should something go wrong," he warns. "It is also wise to have contacts for people handy should you need help."

Dr Gordon suggests that being a close distance to a doctor or hospital is a good idea.

"Parents who choose this style should try and educate them selves as much as they can on what could happen during the birth," he suggests.

"There is also the issue of obtaining a birth certificate for a child born at home unassisted," he says. "Parents will need to register the birth within 60 days of the child being born. If you do not, there will be fees for late registration, and you could get fined."

This story included a clip from the AP wire service Unassisted Childbirth clip filmed this past summer and now available all over the world.

Jenny Hatch

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 10:23 AM

March 25, 2008

"But it was a very busy time for me, what with having that knife-fight with Kim Jong-Il and all."

Ouch!

Hillary Says she Misspoke

Andy Borowitz at Huffington Post

"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has been accused in recent days of padding her foreign policy resume while First Lady, admitted today that she may have exaggerated about an encounter she said she had with al-Qaeda terror mastermind Osama bin Laden in 1998.

In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, Sen. Clinton told host Tim Russert, "I wrestled bin Laden in his cave in 1998 and had him pinned to the ground before the b****ard got away."

"....I may have misspoke about what went on that particular day," Sen. Clinton said today. "But it was a very busy time for me, what with having that knife-fight with Kim Jong-Il and all."

"....Everything Hillary Clinton says is true," said her new spokesman, the author James Frey."

Hillary Clinton a LIAR???? Nawwwww.....

Jenny Hatch

C-BS

Does Hillary Clinton have a reputation as a tough babe???

Ask Vince.....

Jenny Hatch

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 8:56 AM

Another UC Birth Story

How Unassisted Birth Impacted my life

"I am certain it has impacted my husband, though only he could tell you exactly how. He has expressed to me that catching his own baby, being the first to touch him, makes him feel more deeply bonded with him. It also seems to have strengthened his confidence in himself as a father and husband.

Perhaps it put him deeper in touch with his paternal instincts. He views birth differently now, less like a medical emergency and more like a simple, normal, natural life event. The man who was once hesitant about having a homebirth now recommends homebirth, even freebirth, to all. His military colleagues think it's extraordinary that he "delivered" his son, though we've tried to explain to them that it's as simple as playing catch! One thing I know for certain is that it has brought my husband and me closer together. It is a testament that together we can do anything."

Jenny Hatch

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 7:51 AM

Ave Maria

On sunday A friend at church who is a convert to Mormonism asked me to sing Ave Maria at her Fathers funeral this friday. I told her I would be honored. I have been working on the Latin Gounod version, trying to have it memorized by Friday.

Here is Kathleen Battle and Christopher Parkening Performing Bach / Gounod's Ave Maria Live at the 1987 Grammy Awards.

I hope to invite the spirit of the Lord with my version of this wonderful hymn.

Jenny Hatch

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 7:51 AM

I can do it myself

Sometimes I wonder if Paul and I emphasize self reliance too much with our children.....

Ben gave himself a haircut this week.....

Jenny Hatch

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 7:35 AM

Another great spiritual post at Susanas Blog, Spirit Led Birth

Go Here

Jenny Hatch

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 7:29 AM

Ellis Washington, A Great Writer!

Recently I discovered a new author, new to me anyway.

Ellis Washington has been a columnist at World Net Daily for about a year. I don't read that site every day, but I read this Editorial by Mr. Washington, who is also a Detroit Native, and was really touched by his words.

QUOTE:

"Nevertheless, the heroic and transcendent ideas and ideals of conservatism and the Constitution's Framers mean infinitely more to me, to my worldview and to my life as a Christian, as a black man struggling to support his family in America than all the power, position and privilege of mere men.

And that's why I became a conservative."

His Piece, A Giant in a Wheelchair, brought tears to my eyes.

All you have to do is read through Mr. Washingtons Archives at World Net Daily and see the editorial titles to know this writer has a complete grasp on the fundamentals of Freedom. I look forward to reading his thoughts weekly, and have added him to my "must read" folder.

Jenny Hatch

His recent words to the Republican Party stand as a powerful challenge to the status quo:

"Twenty years of offering my intellectual, strategic and tactical abilities in vain to the Republican Party to utilize my skills to build new and more substantive coalitions, has not dimmed my resolve nor provoked me to lash out in anger at their missed opportunity. Nevertheless, I do hope that readers of this column will circulate this article to the Republican National Committee and to GOP branches in all 50 states as a urgent plea for genuine coalition building.

The RNC must ask itself why my fellow black Americans would sign up to join a party that has long ago forsaken the conservatism of Ronald Reagan and seems more interested in mimicking slogans of Obama – "consensus," "change," "bringing America together." Ignore the black vote at your own doom. Remember the last couple of elections have been virtually 50/50.

What attractiveness to black people is there to a political party dominated by legions of gray-haired white men in dark suits who seem more interested in securing a better tee time at their local country club than in doing the down and dirty work of substantive coalition building? I cannot answer these questions, but be answered they must!"

Please, take a minute to pass this column along to your local state GOP representatives with a demand that they dump the RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) from positions of political leadership and power!

Here is the link:

http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/washington3-22-08.html

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 6:55 AM

Unassisted Childbirth in the Media: Blog Talk Radio

Lynn Griesemer on the radio AGAIN!

Go Lynn Go!

Jenny Hatch

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 6:38 AM

March 22, 2008

Happy Easter 2008: This is the Christ

(This video is also hosted at My Share Page at One True Media.)

Paul and I are singing in a quartet for Easter Tomorow. Our friends Dave and Karen invited us to prepare this hymn with them for Sacrament Meeting. Here is a montage of our rehearsal this morning. I am hoping to get a better version tomorow when we run through it again before the meeting, but just in case that does not work out, you can get the spirit of the song from this run through. Our friend Lynn was the accompanist.

Ensign Article that includes the text and music of this song by the Late James E. Faust, apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ

1. They heard His voice, a voice so mild.
It pierced them through and made their souls to quake.
They saw Him come, a man in white,
The Savior, who had suffered for their sake.
They felt the wounds in hands and side,
And each could testify:

Chorus:
This is the Christ.
This is the Christ, the holy Son of God,
Our Savior, Lord, Redeemer of mankind.
This is the Christ, the Healer of our souls,
Who ransomed us with love divine.

2. I read His words, the words He prayed
While bearing sorrow in Gethsemane.
I feel His love, the price He paid.
How many drops of blood were spilled for me?
With Saints of old in joyful cry
I too can testify:

Words: James E. Faust, b. 1920, and Jan Pinborough, b. 1954
Music: Michael Finlinson Moody, b. 1941
© 1995 James E. Faust, Jan Pinborough, and Michael Finlinson Moody.
This song may be copied for incidental, noncommercial church or home use.

3 Nephi 11:3–17
Luke 22:42, 44

Jenny Hatch

Here is another beautiful version:

Lyrics:
This is the Christ...
Lyrics written by President James E. Faust.

They heard His voice, a voice so mild;

It pierced them through and made their

souls to quake;

They saw Him come, a man in white,

The Savior who had suffered for their sake.

They felt the wounds in hands and side,

And each could testify; This is the Christ;

This is the Christ, the holy Son of God,

Our Savior, Lord, Redeemer of mankind.

This is the Christ, the healer of our souls

Who ransomed us with love divine.

I read His words, the words He prayed

While bearing sorrow in Gethsemane;

I feel His love, the price He paid.

How many drops of blood were spilled for me?

With saints of old in joyful cry

I too can testify; This is the Christ;

This is the Christ, the holy Son of God,

Our Savior, Lord, Redeemer of mankind.

This is the Christ, the healer of our souls

Who ransomed us with love divine

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 1:18 PM

Sunday School Lessons nine: The Power of Personal Prayer

Here is the link to my sunday school lesson from last week. I had one of the young men in the class teach while his father supervised. I was ill and stayed home from church.

I will be teaching Lesson Ten: Fasting, Hungry or Full on Easter Sunday.

The complete lesson is below.

Jenny Hatch

Note to the teacher
Rather than being spiritually uplifted through fasting, many people merely experience hunger. Help class members see that we can become spiritually “full” by preparing, praying, and fasting with a purpose. When we abstain from food and take spiritual nourishment during the fast, the Lord blesses us with his Spirit.

Suggested Lesson Development
Fasting Is More than Not Eating
Discussion
Ask class members to imagine themselves in the following situation:

You are about to prepare your breakfast one Sunday morning when your mother (or father) comes in and reminds you that it is fast Sunday.

• What are your first thoughts? Are you happy that it is fast Sunday?

Point out that many people think of fasting as just not eating. The only feeling they experience while fasting is hunger. But with proper preparation and observance of the fast, fasting can be a joyful and spiritually uplifting experience.

When and Why We Fast
Scripture activity
Remind class members that one Sunday a month we go without food and drink for two consecutive meals. We also attend fast and testimony meeting, and we (or our parents) make a donation called a fast offering to the bishop to help care for those in need. In addition to the regular fast Sunday, we can also fast any time we feel the need for extra spiritual help, although we do not need to make a fast offering on those occasions.

• Why do we fast?

Have a class member take a piece of paper from the bowl and write on the chalkboard the scripture reference given on the paper. Have all class members find the indicated passage in their scriptures. Then have the class member who chose the paper read the scripture passage aloud and tell what reason it gives for fasting. List the reason on the chalkboard next to the reference. Repeat, giving other class members an opportunity to choose a paper, until all the papers have been used.

Your completed list may look like this:

WHY DO WE FAST?
Doctrine and Covenants 88:76—To obey God’s commandment.
Luke 2:37—To serve God.
Alma 45:1—To worship God and show gratitude to him.
Mosiah 27:22–23—To receive special blessings, such as healing.
Alma 5:46—To gain a testimony.
Alma 17:3—To gain the spirit of prophecy and revelation and the ability to teach.
Alma 6:6—For the conversion of people who are not yet members of the Church.
Isaiah 58:6–7—To feed the hungry and clothe the naked.
Joel 2:12—To draw closer to God.

Discussion
Discuss briefly how fasting can help us do each of these things.

Proper Observance of the Fast
Scripture discussion
Have class members read and mark Doctrine and Covenants 59:13–14.

• What do these verses compare fasting to? Do you ever feel joyful when you are fasting?

• What can we do to make fasting joyful?

Accept class members’ answers, then continue the discussion on the following two ways to make fasting joyful: preparation and prayer.

Discussion
Preparation
Write Preparation on the chalkboard. Explain that we must plan ahead and look forward to a fast to be able to enjoy it to the fullest.

• What can we do to prepare to fast?

Answers may include praying before beginning our fast, settling our other concerns so we can concentrate on our fast, and deciding to make the fast a meaningful spiritual experience.

Explain that one of the most important ways of preparing to fast is choosing a purpose for fasting.

• What difference can it make when we fast with a purpose? (Having a purpose can make fasting more personal and meaningful. We may find it easier to fast when we are fasting for a specific reason.)

Point out that class members have already discussed some purposes for fasting, and briefly review the list on the chalkboard. Help class members understand that they can fast whenever they need spiritual strength or special blessings for themselves or others. For example, they can fast when they are taking on a new responsibility, such as a Church calling, or when a family member or friend is sick.

Invite class members to tell about purposes for which they have fasted.

Prayer
Write Prayer on the chalkboard. Have class members turn again to the scriptures they used to discover reasons for fasting.

• Which of these scriptures include prayer with fasting?

• Why is it important that we pray when we fast?

Explain that some purposes for which we may want to pray as we fast include to ask for strength in fasting, to discuss our purpose for fasting with Heavenly Father, and to thank Heavenly Father for the opportunity to fast and receive the spiritual growth that can come with it.

Invite class members to share experiences they have had with fasting and prayer.

Note to the teacher
Help class members form a positive attitude toward fasting and prayer. Fasting and prayer can become two of the most valuable spiritual tools they will ever acquire. Your testimony and your positive attitude will be two of the most important gifts you give class members this year. (See Teaching—No Greater Call, 171.)

Spiritual Fulfillment through Fasting
Discussion and quotation
Point out that because we are going without food, we may feel physically weak when we fast. However, in other ways fasting can make us stronger.

• What kind of strength do we receive from fasting?

Read or have a class member read the following statement made by Bishop John H. Vandenberg when he was Presiding Bishop:

“Fasting and prayer equip a person with a much greater degree of strength and power than would otherwise be his if he were left to his own devices. Fasting and prayer can bring an individual to a point of humility and faith where the Lord can give him the extra strength and power needed to complete a task or to solve a problem” (“The Presiding Bishop Talks to Youth About: Fasting,” Improvement Era, Feb. 1969, 71).

Testimony
Bear testimony of the spiritual strength and blessings that can be received through fasting and prayer.

Encourage class members to remember preparation and prayer next time they fast, so that they can receive spiritual fulfillment and not just go hungry.

Posted by Jenny Hatch at 4:17 AM

Winter Soldier 2 - Illigitimate Farce of a Marxist Fracas

This past week I read quite a bit about the recent Winter Soldier 2 inquisition. These people made Raoul Demming quite prophetic when he predicted that a campaign against our soldiers was revving up to pain them as the latest generation of American Military Baby Killers.

Here is Raouls Speech at the Gathering of Eagles III last fall when he predicted this event.

And here are several links which will help educate you about the current farce being waged.

Free Republic Thread with video links.

EAGLES UP WINTER SOLDIER II Live Video, March 14,2008

FYI, the whole reason that Free Republic was started was to defend the honor of our military. The men who set up the site were those who were betrayed by traitors like John Kerry during the Viet Nam war. They decided that they were not going to let that same betrayal happen to the current generation of soldiers, and so they set up a forum for those seeking the truth on the web. I have found my friends at Free Republic to be some of the most wonderful people I have ever known, and the various events that we have attended together to stand up for the troops have created some of my fondest and most terrifying memories.

This thread at Gathering of Eagles discusses the expulsion of a viet nam vet from the proceedings...I suppose only Anti American Vets are allowed to attend these types of events.

QUOTE:

"This morning Vietnam Veteran activist Jerry Kiley was jumped from behind and assaulted during the so-called Iraq Winter Soldier hearings currently in progress. Jerry, a long time POW/MIA activist and co-founder of Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry, stood up during the meeting and told the gathering of so-called peace activists that Kerry was a traitor that caused “good men” to die and that they were also traitors if they continued to lie about our Iraq War veterans..

Without warning, a “very large” man jumped Jerry, 61, from behind and lifted him enough to drag him into the lobby toward some concrete steps. When Jerry asked the man to let go, telling him he was a veteran, the man said “I don’t give a F--k and tried to flip Jerry down the steps.