Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives




Bringing LIBERTY to Capitol Hill -- 2008
Saturday Morning, October 20, 2007, 10:30am

A Discussion of The President's Saturday Morning Radio Address

Click here to listen to a replay of the October 20, 2007 Ozarks Virtual Town Hall

Notes and Summary of the President's Address -- "Cooperative Conservation"

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This weekend, I will join millions of Americans in one of our favorite national pastimes: fishing. I'm going to be on the Chesapeake Bay.
My Administration is committed to protecting the environment that our sportsmen depend on. We believe that to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century, we must bring together conservationists, fishermen, sportsmen, local leaders, and Federal, State, and tribal officials in a spirit of cooperation. I call this "cooperative conservation."

How the President Differs from the American vision of "Liberty Under God":

  1. The Constitution gives the President no authority to "help the environment."
  2. Our environment has been helped more by capitalism than by socialism; socialism devastates the environment.
  3. Private ownership of property is the key to resource conservation and a healthy environment.
  4. "Environmentalism" is a false religion.
  5. "Secularism" (atheism) cannot provide the foundation for effective conservation.
    • It will either collapse into socialism, which destroys man's environment, or
    • It will be unable to defend us against the false religion of environmentalism, which believes that human beings are a "cancer" or a "virus" and should be exterminated for the benefit of a "wild" and "natural" environment.
  6. Bush is committed to a "secular" government
  7. Bush is committed to the idea that the God of the Bible is the same as the god of other religions.
  8. Bush's logic leads inevitably to Global Government.

President's Radio Address Liberty Under God

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This weekend, I will join millions of Americans in one of our favorite national pastimes: fishing. I'm going to be on the Chesapeake Bay. For those who love fishing, the most important thing is not the size of your catch but the enjoyment of the great outdoors. Every year, millions of Americans grab their tackle boxes and head out to their favorite fishing holes. No matter where they drop their lines, they build memories that last a lifetime. And in the process, they contribute billions of dollars to our economy.

Three hundred years ago, before the Industrial Revolution, 99.9% of all human beings could not take the time to travel hundreds of miles to go "fishing" as a "national pastime." Fishing was a way of avoiding starvation. Nearly all human beings lived in a state that we today would call "poverty." Why is it that 99.9% of all Americans today can go on a fishing vacation if they want to? The answer is:


Socialism keeps human beings in poverty, enslaved to the Communist Party or "the People's Government." It is tyranny. America's Founding Fathers would recognize Bush's proposals as "tyranny."

My Administration is committed to protecting the environment that our sportsmen depend on. We believe that to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century, we must bring together conservationists, fishermen, sportsmen, local leaders, and Federal, State, and tribal officials in a spirit of cooperation. I call this "cooperative conservation." Instead of the old environmental debates that pit one group against another, we're moving our country toward a system where citizens and government can come together to achieve meaningful results for our environment.


In what way do we deal with the government in a "spirit of cooperation?" George Washington is reported to have said,

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. . . .

The "environmental debate" is inescapably one group (human beings who want to improve their environment) against another group (advocates of human genocide). Government is not "neutral." It imposes the interests of one group onto other groups. It is coercion and compulsion based on threats of violence.

One way we are practicing cooperative conservation is through our efforts to preserve our fisheries. Almost three years ago, I announced an ocean action plan to promote an ethic of responsible stewardship that will make our waterways cleaner, healthier, and more productive. Last year, I was proud to establish a marine conservation area in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. This is the single largest conservation area in the history of our Nation -- and the largest protected marine area in the world. We're also working to clean up marine debris and to address harmful fishing practices in international waters that destroy corals and other vital habitats. Earlier this year, I signed a law that will help end overfishing and create market-based regulations to replenish our fish stocks so we can keep them strong for generations to come.

 What should the government to do preserve chickens on farms, cattle on ranches, and fruit in orchards? Perhaps you say "nothing." But aren't these part of our "environment?"
Why is it that capitalism has increased the amount of chickens, cattle, and fruit we have over the generations?

Do capitalists prefer dirty, toxic, and unproductive resources? No, and if they owned these resources, they would take care of them to make sure they remain profitable.

Why are chickens, cattle, and apples not "overfished?" Answer: because they are privately owned, and private owners have an incentive not to "overfish" and to keep their resources productive.

Prior to my fishing trip I am signing an Executive Order that will preserve two of our Nation's most popular recreational fish -- striped bass and red drum. These two species were once abundant in American waters, but their stocks have been overfished. The Executive Order I sign will protect striped bass and red drum caught in Federal waters by moving to prohibit their commercial sale. It will promote more accurate scientific records about fish population levels. And it will help the Federal Government work with State and local officials to find innovative ways to ensure these two species are conserved for future generations. Private Ownership is the central issue. "Sportsmen" have no incentive not to get as many fish as they can, because it's free and nobody owns the property.


The Marine Stewardship Council, is a private environmentalist organization that certifies the sustainability of fisheries. Consumers can patronize producers that meet these criteria. No government force is appropriate.

As we work to protect our Nation's fisheries, we're also working to help migratory birds thrive. Each year, more than 800 species of birds make their way south for the winter, and then return home to their breeding grounds the following spring. Their ability to survive these long journeys depends on stopover habitat. Unfortunately, some of the areas where birds once stopped and rested on their great migrations have been lost to development. So we're working to protect these species by restoring or replacing their stopover habitats. According to the Constitution, this is an issue left to the states, not the federal government. If the states are supposed to be inadequate to deal with this, then why is the federal government adequate. Doesn't this logically require Global Government?

It doesn't require government at all. It does not require abolishing the United States.

Constitutional issue: Is Bush keeping his oath?

One key way we're doing this is by expanding our National Wildlife Refuges, creating new ones, and restoring and improving hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat for migratory birds. At the same time, we're bringing together Federal, State, and tribal agencies to work with private groups and corporations to improve habitat on private lands. The Department of the Interior is also working with cities across our Nation to build stopover habitats in urban areas. And this weekend I'm announcing new policies -- including new efforts with Mexico to foster greater habitat conservation for the migratory birds. Resolving the Tragedy of the Commons by Creating Private Property Rights in Wildlife
America's national parks also play a vital role in our conservation efforts. Earlier this week, Laura spoke at the first-ever Leadership Summit of the National Park Foundation. She discussed the National Parks Centennial Initiative -- a public-private partnership to raise funds for the park system's 100th anniversary in 2016. This initiative will support many vital projects to improve habitats for local wildlife -- including some that will directly benefit birds. Creationism in national parks?

Who gets to decide? It's always "private" interests. Special interests. One interest obtains the power of the State to impose its will on other interests. Private ownership must submit to market forces. This is "economic democracy."

As Americans, we've been given a beautiful country to live in, and we have an obligation to be good stewards of the environment. With the cooperative conservation policies we have put in place, we show our commitment to preserving our Nation's heritage. By making responsible choices today, we will ensure that our children and grandchildren will enjoy a cleaner and more vibrant environment. "Steward" means working on someone else's behalf. Environmental stewardship means taking care of the Creator's creation. Who is this god?

The "environment" of human beings in a state of poverty is dirty, filthy, unhygienic, and disease-ridden. Capitalism has improved man's environment; socialism has destroyed man's environment.

Thank you for listening.  

Additional Resources:

"Environmentalism" is a false religion that worships the creation more than the creator, and seeks a planet where non-human forces have dominion over human forces. Vital reading in this area is George Reisman's essay, The Toxicity of Environmentalism. Reisman documents the pathological hatred of Man which environmentalists have had since the very beginnings of the movement.

Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!
John Muir, Founder of the Sierra Club, Benediction to Alligators

The Democrat Party Radio Address:

March of Dimes President Jennifer Howse, delivers this week's Democratic Radio Address.

Once again, the subject is SCHIP, the State Child Health Insurance Program.

Libertarian Response to Democrats:

  • Click here to go to a replay of the September 22, 2007 Ozarks Virtual Town Hall
  • Click here to go to a replay of the October 6, 2007 Ozarks Virtual Town Hall
  • See the September 22, 2007 Ozarks Virtual Town Hall.
  • "Private lobbying groups" often lobby Congress for government takeover of their industries - if it brings them profits or "security."
  • Bush wants to expand the SCHIP program, not cut it. He just doesn't want to expand it as much as the Democrats do. There's no evidence that this child would have been denied coverage under the White House expansion.
  • Expanding this government program is wrong. It is sinful and immoral to take money from Jones under threats of violence to give to "the poor children."
  • It is unconstitutional for the federal government to to this, even if it were moral.
  • Capitalism, not socialism, will ensure the greatest amount of the highest quality health care to every child in this country. The medical care available to this child would not have been available to him if he lived in the Soviet Union a few decades ago.
  • Democrats and Republicans are quibbling over ten or fifteen billion tax dollars. True leadership would inspire and orchestrate voluntary giving from those who can afford to do so.
  • Book Review: The Scandal Of The Evangelical Conscience - Acton Institute PowerBlog
    “If American Christians simply gave a tithe rather than the current one-quarter of a tithe, there would be enough private Christian dollars to provide basic health care and education to all the poor of the earth. And we would still have an extra $60-70 billion left over for evangelism around the world.”

Listeners' Questions

Two weeks ago a listener submitted this question:

I thought the Preamble for the Constitution said the purpose of that document was "to provide for the common weal. . ." How can that be done without education? Without public safety? Without regulation of industries that would otherwise rob the public and spoil the environment?

The preamble states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Probably our listener was referring to the highlighted phrase.

What are "the blessings of liberty?" How are they "secured" by the government? The blessings include automobiles, computers, antibiotics, and thousands of groceries at the local market. How are these blessings "secured" by the government? By nationalizing the automobile industry, as in the Soviet Union? No, simply by protecting the nation from foreign invasion and eliminating trade barriers between the several States. What about punishing fraud and crime? Though considered to be a function of government, it was not considered to be a function of the federal government. Punishing crime remained with the states and local governments.

The question posed during the Constitutional Convention and during the ratification process was "What form of government best secures the Blessings of Liberty and promotes the general Welfare?" The answer given was not "a huge centralized federal government with unlimited powers," but rather a limited federal government that has only a few powers enumerated in the constitution, with the rest of government remaining with the states. The Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights summarizes the philosophy of the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In Federalist 45, Madison described the relationship between the federal government and the states in these famous words:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. [emphasis added]

And nobody believed that the state governments had the authority to nationalize production of computers, automobiles, and groceries. Government on all levels was tightly limited, and liberty extended to The People and their businesses.

This is the theory of constitutionally-enumerated powers. Only powers enumerated in the Constitution are possessed by the federal government.

But doesn't the "promote the general welfare" clause indicate that the federal government has vast, sweeping powers to whatever is necessary to "promote the general welfare?"

In testimony before Congress, CATO Institute scholar Jerry Taylor explained how the architects of the Constitution understood the "general Welfare" phrase:

In Federalist No. 41, Madison summarizes the relationship of the general preface language including the "welfare" language, to the subsequent more detailed enumeration of specific powers, as follows. 

"Some who have denied the necessity of the power of taxation [to the Federal government] have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language on which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed that the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction." (emphasis added) 

Thus, Madison, who like Story after him sought to defend federal power, treats with derision the claim of opponents of federal powers the claim that the "welfare clause" is a general grant of power. Madison continues Federalist No 41 in this language of angry paradox: 

"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural or more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify by an enumeration of the particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity ... what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions and disregarding the specifications which limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the general welfare?" (emphasis added)

More information on the "general Welfare" clause can be found on our Constitution page, and this page.

Our listener mentions three functions which are necessary to secure "the Blessings of Liberty":

The first question to be asked is, must education etc. be provided by the government, or can it be provided by the Free Market: voluntary associations, businesses, and "We the People" networking together to assure that children are educated. In other words, which political theory is true: capitalism or socialism?

If socialism is true, we might still ask, should state and local governments decide how children will be educated, or should that be done by the federal government? In other words if only government can provide these elements of an orderly and prosperous society, which level of government?

The Constitutional answer precludes the federal government from involving itself in these areas. It would not have been ratified by states jealous to protect their own powers, or The People jealous to protect their liberties, if it gave to the federal government such sweeping powers.

Click here for a replay of this edition of the Ozarks Virtual Town Hall