網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Senator THURMOND. And your statement never did appear in the New York Times, but only a derogatory editorial about your position; is that correct?

Dr. BAILEY. As far as I know. I went down and bought copies of the New York Times for about 10 days after I knew he had received this letter or after enough time had passed, and I looked through it every page, but if it was there it was pretty well hidden.

Senator THURMOND. Well, don't be too badly disappointed. That has happened to many others.

Dr. BAILEY. Yes, sir, I know. [Laughter.]

Senator THURMOND. You also gave your position to various other news media which never did properly present your view, as I understand it, maybe some of your local papers or stations.

Dr. BAILEY. Yes.

I was asked by a North Carolina television station, for example, to prepare a brief statement. The same thing which I considered to be important, references to Republics, democracies, Vietnam war, and American aid to the enemy were left out. You can't always say these things were intentional. There could always be a shortage of time in presenting things and I can understand certainly this is the case many times. But the thing that struck me was the fact that these same things were cut wherever I gave them.

Here is a copy of that statement which has never been in print. It has many of the same things that I read to you today from this one, many of the things in this statement came from prior statements. Here is a copy of that if you would like to have it.

Here is a copy of the telegram.
Senator THURMOND. Do you want any of these put into this record ?

Dr. BAILEY. Well, yes, sir. Probably it is pertinent to this. It does emphasize the point I am trying to make about that.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent they go in if there is no objection.

Senator Bays. Without objection.
Dr. BAILEY. Here is a copy of a telegram.

Senator THURMOND. Select those you want to go in along with your statement today. They will be put in the record.

Dr. BAILEY. Thank you, sir.

OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY Here are four (4) fac simile section reproductions taken from a 156 page book officially compiled and issued by the U.S. War Department, November 30, 1928, setting forth exact and truthful definitions of a Democracy and of a Republic, explaining the difference between both. These definitions were published by the authority of the United States Government and must be accepted as authentic in any court of proper jurisdiction.

These precise and scholarly definitions of a Democracy and a Republic were carefully considered as a proper guide for U.S. soldiers and U.S. citizens by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Such definitions take precedence over any "definition” that may be found in the present commercial dictionaries which have suffered periodical “modification" to please "the powers in office."

Shortly after the "bank holiday" in the thirties, hush-hush orders from the White House suddenly demanded that all copies of this book be withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and the Army posts, to be suppressed and destroyed without explanation.

This was the beginning of the complete red control of the Government from within, not from without. (No. 1 fac simile)

TM 2000-25

1

TRAINING MANUAL NO. 2000-25

WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 30, 1928.

CITIZENSHIP
Prepared under direction of the Chief of Staff

This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training The use of the publication The Constitution of the United States," by Harry Atrood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.

The source of other references is shown in the bibliography. (No. 2 fac simile)

TM 2000-25

118-120 CITIZENSHIP Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic-negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, with. out restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

(No. 3 facsimile)
TM 2000-25
120-121

CITIZENSHIP
Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individuals rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form” of government throughout the world.

A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of (1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.-Atwood.

121. Superior to all others.--Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority cannot be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.

Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.”

(No. 4 facsimile)
[A.G. 014.33 (4-28-28).]
By order of the Secretary of War:

C. P. SUMMERALL,

Major General, Chief of Staff. Official: LUTZ WAHL, Major General, The Adjutant General.

Why DEMOCRACIES FALL A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

(Written by Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago while our thirteen original states were still colonies of Great Britain. At the time he was writing of the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic over two thousand years before.)—Reprinted from the Freeman Magazine.

Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said republic !” Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy.

It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive.

By Westbrook Pegler in the New York Journal American of January 25th and 26th, 1951, under the titles "Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy" and "Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless."

1 copy 10c, 20 copies 1.00, 50 copies 2.00 Send check or money order to:

KEY RECORDS, BOX 46128, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90046

WRAL-TV CHANNEL 5 VIEWPOINT

An Editorial Expression of the Voice of Free Enterprise in Raleigh-Durham

Jesse Helms, Executive Vice President and Vice Chairman of the Board All last year-even up until Monday of this week-the country was repeatedly beseiged with hysterical outcries that the Electoral College system was sure eventually to throw the republic into a Constitutional crisis, and that we might have to live for weeks, or even months, without knowing who the next President would be.

It was calculated nonsense, of course, but a lot of otherwise sensible citizens were taken in by it nevertheless. A lot of people believe without stopping to think about it that the Electoral College system is "outmoded” and “unfair”, because this is what they have been repeatedly told.

The truth of the matter is that, while not perfect, the Electoral College system has served and continues to serve the very purpose our Founding Fathers intended for it. It stands as a restraining wall against the easy establishment of political mob rule which, in politer terms, is referred to as an "unrestricted democracy".

It is no accident, certainly, that the fondest dream of the leftwing set in America has been for three decades or more to destroy the Electoral College system completely. The strategy has been to do it in nibbles, one proposed "reform" after another, using whatever example that may be at hand to illustrate what is advanced as a "crying need". All manner of dire consequences have been forecast-yet none has come to pass. In election after election, the Electoral College has functioned adequately. But the "reformers" press on, like Chicken Little, who was hit on the head with an acorn, and went screaming that the sky was falling. His panic has passed along to Henny Penny, Turkey Lurkey, and Ducky Lucky. There has been a great deal of fluttering in the political barnyard, but little common sense.

The Republican elector in Rocky Mount, Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey, who excercised his Constitutional option to withhold his vote from Richard Nixon, has been subjected to character assassination all the way up to the House and Senate chambers of the Congress. It is not necessary to agree with Dr. Bailey's action in order to understand that he had not only the right to do as he didbut the duty, if he held sincere doubts about Mr. Nixon's desirability. It is interesting, as Senator Sam Ervin observed last Monday during debate in the Senate, that he (Senator Ervin) had not as of that time received a single complaint about Dr. Bailey's vote.

The point is that Dr. Bailey did not alter the course of history. He did not deprive Mr. Nixon of election. He simply went on record-agree with him or not-as to what he thought best for his country. It is simply not true, contrary to any pious pretense by Senator Muskie and others, that Dr. Bailey defaulted on any "pledge" or "commitment”. As to whether Dr. Bailey failed to represent the people who selected him, it is interesting that Senator Ervin produced a telegram from the chairman of the Second Congressional District Republican executive committee which "reaffirmed” its support of Dr. Bailey "in performing his Constitutional duty ..."

The point which the leftwing set wants us to forget is that the Electoral College system supplies the people with one final safeguard-one last bite at the apple. It recognizes the fact that the average citizen has little or nothing to say about the Presidential candidate of his party, and that elections are subjected to awesome manipulations by various pressure groups and big-city bloc votes. Who can say that the average North Carolina Democrat wanted Hubert Humphrey as his Presidential candidate or, for that matter, that the average Republican wanted Mr. Nixon ? Just suppose, by a combination of manipulations, a political party should one day nominate and manage to elect at the polls-a thoroughly undesirable candidate. That's when the Electoral College could intervene and perhaps save the people from tyranny. There is the usefulness envisioned for it by the Founding Fathers.

The Electoral College, like the jury system, is not perfect. But those who clamor to abolish it should be called upon to specify wherein it has served the country badly. Chicken Little needs to be reminded that the sky is not falling.

JANUARY 21, 1969. SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate.

GENTLEMEN: I was requested to prepare a statement for you prior to the hearing which I was invited to attend. It is to me an honor to have this opportunity to present to you some thoughts which I have about the current status of the electoral college. It has been made abundantly clear to me in recent weeks that there are opposing views, but I sincerely feel that the best interest of our Republic can be served only by having reasonable men objectively consider all views which are presented with constructive intent. With the dangers which are threatening the United States today, it is impossible for me to dissociate a discussion of the electoral college from political considerations. As a newcomer on the political scene, and with no political ambitions or obligations, it is easier for me to openly discuss this than it might be for some others.

I do not hesitate to say that I approach this as one whose first interest is the preservation of our republican form of government and the unprecedented free. dom which we have enjoyed under it. It is my opinion that this precious heritage has been bestowed upon recent generations so cheaply that far too few of us appreciate it or have even thought seriously about it. The lessons of history clearly show to us that those who do not constantly defend their freedom do not long remain free. It is my intention to firmly oppose, in any honorable way available to me, all efforts or appearances of efforts to subvert our nation under a one-world government. With these introductory remarks, my position should be clear and my opinions and actions might be more easily understood.

I attended the district convention of the Republican Party of the Second North Carolina District on February 10, 1968 knowing that I would be proposed for nomination to the position of presidential elector. I did not seek this position, but I did not decline it. In fact, it was taken quite lightly with little thought that the Republican Party could win North Carolina. The Republican Party was, for the first time, becoming a factor in the Second Congressional District, and we were in the position of having to find people to fill every office in the party structure. No one else was proposed for presidential elector, so I was nominated. This was a number of months before we even knew who the presidential nominees would be. There was no discussion of party loyalty, there was no pledge and there was no commitment made to any candidate. In the ensuing campaign, I preferred Senator Thurmond or Governor Reagan to President Nixon. After the national conventions were held, I supported Governor Wallace, and I voted for him in the general election. I, along with many, was surprised that the Republican Party won in North Carolina. As an example of how lightly the position of Republican elector was taken, I had even forgotten that I was the elector until I was reminded of it by Dr. Stroud, the Second District Republican Chairman, shortly before the general election.

I did not think much more about being an elector until President Nixon began making appointments two weeks or so before the scheduled meeting of the electoral college. The names of men whose records I am familiar with began appearing in the news as appointees to high advisory positions for the executive branch of our government; that forced me to realize that we are not going to get the changes in policy which we need and which the electorate has so clearly shown that it wants. One of these men, Mr. Robert D. Murphy, was presented by the press as being one "who believes in taking a no-nonsense stand in the face of Communist threats.” The record shows that in Lebanon and in the Dominican Republic, communist regimes rose to power shortly after his presence in those countries. As President Roosevelt's personal envoy in Algeria, he told the Algerian Nationalists in 1942 that the end of colonialism was an American goal. Now, they have communism. This is not to say that he is responsible for these occurrences, but it certainly doesn't make him stand out as a successful anticommunist diplomat. Mr. Henry A. Kissinger, Mr. Paul W. McCracken, and Mr. Daniel Moynihan are other appointees who, along with Mr. Murphy, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Moynihan is even on the national board of Americans for Democratic Action and was one of the authors of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.

The Council on Foreign Relations, called the "Invisible Government" by Dan Smoot in his book by this title, is an organization which seeks to undermine our national sovereignty and merge us with other nations under a one-world government, perhaps like the United Nations. Since the 1950's, men who are members of this internationalist organization have managed to have themselves appointed to the highest policy-making positions in our government, regardless of which party was in office. The goals of the Council on Foreign Relations appear to be uncomfortably close to those of the International Communist Criminal Conspiracy. At about that time, President Nixon endorsed the Johnson no-win policy in Vietnam which includes our government supplying, directly or indirectly, about ser of the materials which the communist enemy has to use against our own men. He also asked Chief Justice Earl Warren to remain in his position until June 1969. Vo reasons whatsoever can justify imposing him upon the American people for another term of the Supreme Court. At about the same time, efforts were made in the name of the Wixon Administration to test the response of the publie to a permanent income surtax. These are the incidents which awakened me from the slumber which would have directed my vote to he cast for President Nixon.

Another fact which could not be ignored was the overwhelming victory by Gorernor Wallace in my congressional district. He polled 46.1% of the rote: Vice President Humphrey had 31.6. and President Nixon was third with 22.3%. This left no doubt about the wishes of the people in the district. Should they have been denied under a representative sostem of government?

« 上一頁繼續 »