What Would George Washington Think of Today's Libertarianism?

   What would George Washington think of today's libertarianism, which holds that government should not restrict prostitution, pornography or drug usage? I do not know, but I found three quotes that make me wonder:
   "Discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness."
   "Licentiousness may not be substituted for liberty."
   "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."
   Licentiousness is unrestrained immorality and the ignoring of legal restraints. Washington often wrote about the need to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, which was an uprising against an alcohol tax. When he used the word "licentiousness," did he view the uprising, itself and alone, as licentiousness? Or do the above quotes refer to unrestrained immorality as we think of it today, applying to such things as prostitution, etc.?

You Cannot Vote for Just Anyone You Want

   You cannot vote for just anyone you like in Utah. Nope, can't do it. Your vote won't count.
   You can only vote for candidates registered with the state. If you write in someone's name, your vote will be trashed. It won't count unless that person is registered as a write-in candidate.
   Are we to be told who we can and cannot vote for? Are we to cast our vote only from a state-approved list of candidates?
   I guess I do think this is wrong. A small thing, in ways, but in principle, it is a big deal. Isn't voting for whomever we choose a basic American right? Somehow, I assumed we've had this privilege ever since Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and a few others sat down and drafted the documents making this the free-est nation on earth.
   I say, change the law. This is America. We deserve not only the right to vote, but the right to vote for anyone we choose.

I'll Cast My Own Vote, Thank You

   The caucus system is a great idea in that it involves the citizenry in the political process. Keep it, then, but change it, because it has one very big flaw: What do we do when we get to the caucus meeting? We turn our right to vote over to someone else. Is that such a good thing? We elect someone to do our future electing, sending them off to convention to select the slate of candidates for us.
   It doesn't make sense, to me, to get all dressed up and go to a meeting in the name of being involved just to cough that right to be involved up to someone else. What makes the thought even less palatable is who we are coughing up our future participation to: political activists.
  Why not use the caucus to pare down the number of candidates, and to come up with proposals for party platforms, but invite the whole bunch -- everyone -- to come along to the next step, the convention itself? (We could teleconference our conventions to combine different venues, making room for everybody.)
   Government of the people, by the people, and for the people doesn't mean surrendering your right to vote to political activists. It means keeping that right for yourself. So, if you don't mind, I'll cast my own vote. If the caucus meetings are such a good idea because they involve the people, then having the people along at the next step, the convention, is also a good thing. A good patriot doesn't surrender his rights, he exercises them.

Am I Passing on Opportunity to Speak Up Against Abortion?

Maybe instead of seeking their vote, I should seek to change their minds -- not about who to vote for, but about abortion.

I pass out 7-8 flyers, alternating them as I go door to door  . . .  and one of them is against abortion. Time after time, today, I came to a door and thought, "This is probably someone who favors abortion. And instead of giving them the abortion flyer which was at the top of the pile, I reached in and got a different one.

Which makes sense if I want their vote. But, I'll be lucky to get 5 percent of the vote. I'm not going to win. Maybe a better use of my time would be to try to change people's mind about abortion. I have a rare opportunity. A person cannot normally walk up to someone's door and try to persuade them to change their stand on abortion. "Oh, I'm just out trying to change everyone's mind on this. Hope you're not offended."

But, if the person out knocking doors is running for office on an anti-abortion platform, he has a reason to discuss the topic. It's an opportunity to persuade that rarely comes along.

In a way, trying to persuade them to change their minds is like crying repentance unto them, as a good portion of those who favor abortion are also those who have had one. (Some say 40 percent of all women will have an abortion at some point in their lives.) I do not say they have sinned. God be the judge of that. Those who have abortions have them for good reasons, and only God knows their heart, to judge them. But, I do know abortion is wrong, and I do know it would be good to persuade them against it, in hopes of reducing it.

Follow Script Supreme Court Set Forth, and Abortion Might Have an End

   Forty years have swept away. Fifty-four million lives have been lost. Still, no state steps forward to save the unborn, simply by following the formula provided by none other than the Supreme Court justices, themselves.

   Simply pass a statute saying a fetus is a human. 

   How long after the Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade would it be before a state stepped forward to define the unborn as human? One year? Two? Surely with so much of the population being against abortion, somewhere a state would quickly pass such a law, reaching out to the unborn and claiming them as humans.

   We now approach 40 years. Still, no "personhood" statute. Jan. 22, 2013, will mark the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.  Even if you grant that not all pro-lifers believe a personhood statute is the answer, why would we not pass such a law? What harm would it do to define a fetus as human? Science says the fetus is human. Can a law be wrong for simply stating what science is now acknowledging? 

   Perhaps in this election, a voters initiative in some state, somewhere, will be passed. Those words from the Court justices back in the Roe v. Wade deliberations portend that such a state statute will come. Justice Potter Stewart looked at the plaintiff's attorney and asked, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the 14th Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?" 

   "I would have a very difficult case,"  came the reply. 

   Chief Justice Warren E. Burger asked, "Could Texas constitutionally, in your view, declare that by statute that a fetus is a person for all constitutional purposes?"

  "The state could obviously adopt that kind of statute, and then the question would have to be adjudicated," Roe's attorney replied.

   So, why has it taken 40 years? And, still no such state law? Where is Utah and why doesn't Utah pass such a law? As Roe's lawyer said, a state could obviously adopt this kind of statute, and then it would have to be adjudicated. It is very possible it would be adjudicated all the way back to the Supreme Court.

   And Roe v. Wade would be overturned.
   Why are we not doing this thing? Why are we not passing such a law?

More Lives Lost to Abortion than to Leading Cause of Death

   If we wanted to the greatest good, and were to measure it by number of lives saved, what one thing would we do?

   End abortion.
   More lives are lost to abortion than to the leading cause of death, maybe by twice, in fact. In 2009, only 599, 413 deaths were attributed to heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the United States. Compare that to abortion. It is said 1.2 million lives are lost each year to abortions. Abortion takes a life about every 30 seconds. 

1 in 5 of Us Do Not Make It Out Alive

   What if 41 percent of us didn't make it out alive? In New York City, it can be argued, 41 percent do not make it out alive.

   Out of their mother's womb, that is, not out of New York City. (Although some are going to suggest I would be quite right to say out of NYC.) Forty-one percent of all pregnancies in NYC end in abortion, if statistics are accurate. Nationwide, I believe, the mortality rate is about 20 percent. So, 20 percent nationwide "don't make it out alive."

Different messages are on the back of these flyers. If the one you receive either  resonates or upsets, and you want to discuss it, call 801-566-4023. Leave a message, as the ringer is off, and I will call back.

John Jackson for House District 44

You've heard more from my opponents, Tim Cosgrove and Christy Achziger, but I beg your vote, as well, and suggest you might like me more than either of them if you are not against significant, beneficial change. Now, electing an independent would be significant, of itself. Although more Utahns register as independents than as Republicans and Democrats combined, never has an independent been elected to the Utah Legislature. If you should like, change that, make history. The father of your country warned against parties, anyway. Second, it would be significant to elect someone who is not accepting campaign contributions. I just don't think it good that sometimes the very people who contribute are waiting in line after the election, wanting legislation that will favor them. I won't take their money. If I don't take the money now, I won't have to worry then whether I am being influenced by a desire to return a favor. We have campaign disclosure laws because we can see this danger. If such a practice (taking money from those who want influence) is wrong, then elect someone who won't take the money. You will get just as much of a prudent, thoughtful, reasonable and well-reasoning public official in me as you will in the other candidates. So, why not vote for me? Do it, and feel good about this being the reason you picked me to vote for. It can be argued by other candidates that they are not going to be influenced by any of their contributors, or that while they take contributions, they are not going to take it from any who would harmfully influence them. I can only say that even the most benevolent of causes should be supported without the influence of money. Now, not taking money leaves me the poorest of candidates by far, but perhaps I would not have received many contributions anyway, as many contribute solely based on whether you are Democrat or Republican. At any rate, please vote for me despite the lack yard signs and mailers.


Changes? Would it be significant if we changed it so you could vote for anyone you want in Utah? Surprise, surprise, you can't do that, right now. If you write in a vote, it has to be for a write-in candidate registered with the state. Otherwise, your vote will be trashed.  I will work to change that.

Changes? I don't know how the other candidates stand on abortion. I would only be guessing they are against it. I can only say, you can elect someone who opposes it, but who might not be planning to do anything about it, or you can elect someone who will, and perhaps in a very meaningful way. 

Changes? Would it be significant to overhaul the prison system? Significant changes should be made, big enough changes that I don't know whether I would muster the votes to bring them about. Still, I will try, and if the bill does pass, Utah will be the better for it. I believe every prisoner should work, should have a support system providing love, and should be retrained in life skills and good behavior.

More Lives are Lost to Abortion than to the Leading Cause of Death

If we wanted to the greatest good, and were to measure it by number of lives saved, what one thing would we do?

End abortion.

More lives are lost to abortion than to the leading cause of death, maybe by twice, in fact. In 2009, only 599, 413 deaths were attributed to heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the United States. 

Compare that to abortion. It is said 1.2 million lives are lost each year to abortions. Abortion takes a life about every 30 seconds. 

Define the Unborn as Living, and See What Happens

Define the unborn as a living human by law, and see what happens. They call such efforts "personhood" bills and no state has yet adopted one. Am I amazed? Yes! There is enough opposition to abortion, nationwide, that some state will surely step forth and pass such a bill. Perhaps a referendum somewhere will win in this very election.

Why would it be so significant? As the Supreme Court weighed on what to do in Roe v. Wade, Justice Potter Stewart turned to the Roe's lawyer and asked, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the 14th Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?" 

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wondered out loud that a state might declare by statute that a fetus is a person.

The court handed down Roe v. Wade Jan. 22, 1973, so 2013 will mark the 40th anniversary. It would be wonderful to mark the year with a personhood bill.

1 in 5 of Us Do Not Make It Out Alive

What if 41 percent of us didn't make it out alive? In New York City, it can be argued, 41 percent of everyone doesn't make it out alive.

Out of their mother's womb, that is, not out of New York City. (Although some are going to suggest I would be quite right to say out of NYC.) Forty-one percent of all pregnancies in NYC end in abortion, if statistics are accurate. That's means that out of all their babies, they trash almost half.

Nationwide, I believe, the mortality rate is about 20 percent. So, 20 percent nationwide "don't make it out alive."

Today, we conduct a little test. On the back of these flyers, I'll have different political writings, offering thoughts on things I think could be changed in the world around us. You be so kind, if you will, to call me up and say which flyer you got and whether it helped persuade you to vote for me. I won't answer, so it will go through to my voice mail and you won't have to say who you are. My number is 801-566-4023.

John Jackson for House District 44

You've heard more from my opponents, Tim Cosgrove and Christy Achziger, but I beg your vote, as well, and suggest you might like me more than either of them if you are not against significant change. Electing an independent would be significant, of itself. Although more Utah voters register as independents than as Republicans and Democrats combined, never has an independent been elected to the Utah Legislature. Never. If you should like, change that, make history. The father of your country warned you against parties, anyway, so why not occasionally elect an independent? Second, it would be significant to elect someone who is not accepting campaign contributions. I just don't think it the best thing that sometimes the very people who contribute are there after the election, wanting legislation. I won't take their money. If I don't take the money now, I won't have to worry then whether in the back of my mind a desire to return a favor is coloring my voting on legislation. After all these elections, year in and year out, for once, elect someone who refuses to take that money. It leaves me the poorest of candidates by far, but perhaps I would not have received many contributions anyway, as many contribute solely based on whether you are Democrat or Republican.

At any rate, take this piece of paper, read it, and vote for me. I haven't money for fancy mailers. I haven't money for the lawn signs. For once, vote for someone who is the best candidate on the ballot, but cannot win your vote by spending money. He doesn't have it. (Truth be told, I might could spend a little more than I have, but I like the notion of being elected without money.)

What you'll get:

Would it be significant if we changed it so you could vote for anyone you want in Utah? Surprise, surprise, you can't do that, right now. If you write in a vote, it has to be for a write-in candidate registered with the state. Otherwise, your vote will be trashed.  I will work to change that.

I don't know how the other candidates stand on abortion. I would guess they are against it. I can only say, you can elect someone who opposes it, but doesn't plan on doing anything about it, or you can elect someone who will, and perhaps in a very meaningful way. Way back when the Supreme Court was considering Roe v. Wade, Justice Potter Stewart said the attorney bringing the abortion cause before them would have an almost impossible case if it were established that the unborn fetus were a person. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wondered out loud what would happen if the State of Texas (Roe v. Wade came out of Texas) adopted a statue saying a fetus is a person. So, pass such legislation, and hope it leads to a case going right back up the ladder and overturning Roe v. Wade.

Would it be significant to overhaul the prison system? Significant changes should be made, big enough changes that I don't know whether I would muster the votes to bring them about. Still, I will try, and if the bill does pass, Utah will be the better for it. I believe every prisoner should work, should have a support system providing love, and should be retrained in life skills and good behavior.