I ESTABLISHED 1936 1
EDWARD A. YUZIUK - EDITOR & PUBLEHER |
CAROLYN R. YUZIUK - ASSOCIATE EDITOR
MBS PATSY BRIGGS - OFFICE MANAGER
PUBLEHED EVERY THURSDAY BY I
YANCEY PUBLISHING COMPANY I
SECOND CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT BURNSVILIE,N.C. |
THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1970 NUMBER TWENTY-EIGHT I
SUBSCRIPTION RATES $3.00/YEAR I
OUT OF COUNTY $5.00/YEAR |
SENATOR k
SAM ERVIN
WASHINGTON After a seven-week debate onU. S.
Southeast Asia policies, the Senate has passed far - reaching
amendments to the Foreign Military Sales Act. Thee amend
ments include the repeal of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolu
tion and the adoption of the Cooper-Church Amendment.
While the Senate actions on this bill are still subject to
House approval, if that approval occurs it could present us
with a constitutional quandary which is without precedent in
our nation's history. I say this because it was a most surpris
ing development that the President sought to defeat the
Cooper-Church Amendment which merely undertakes to put
limits upon his power to wage war in Cambodia and
then later appeared to sanction the proposal to repeal the Gulf
of Tonkin Resolution which would not only take away his
power to act in Cambodia aad Laos, but also take away his
power to act in South Vietnam.
For the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gives the President the
authority to act as Commander in Chief in Southeast Asia
with the power cf commanding American forces these, in nay
judgment, the United States has no power apart from the
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to be engaged in armed aggressive
attacks in Southeast Asia. When the Gulf of Tonkin Resolu
tion was passed, it was, as I contended on the floor of the
Senate some time ago, tantamount to a declaration of war.
That resolution expressly states that the President may use
the Armed Forces of the United States to resist aggression
from North Vietnam. It was under that power that the SEATO
Treaty obligation was accepted by the United States. It was
under that power that the United States undertook to wage
war in Southeast Asia. It was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
which gave the President the power as Commander in Chief
to invade the sanctuaries in Cambodia.
I do not know what the position of our boys in South east
Asia will be if we repeal the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, be
cause the President of the United States has no power whatso
ever to act as Commander^-in-Chief in that part of the world
with the exception of withdrawing the troops if this repeal
carries. I therefore opposed repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution at this time because I believe such action would
make obscure the powers of the President as Commander -in
Chief in Southeast Asia and his powers as such to protect the
lives of our men in South Vietnam. I see no good in making
these powers obscure.
Moreover, I vpted against the Cooper-Church
because I think it would be tragic for our boys in South Viet
nam to be informed that it is the sense of the Senate that the
enemy can occupy sanctuaries in Cambodia and issue forth
horn the sanctuaries into South Vietnam to kill and maim
them, and that they cannot enter those sanctuaries even to
save themselves from destruction unless Congress passes ano
ther law on the subject.
There can be no doubt of the fact that our involvement in
Vietnam is one of the most tragic experiences that this coun
try has ever had. But unfortunately, the Senate's effort to
repeal the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and its subsequent adop
tion of the Cooper-Church Amendment only gives assuran c e
to our enemies that it is not necessary for them to attempt to
negotiate a settlement because we will abandon the field to
them very soon.
I have favored the President's program that we should try
to negotiate a settlement at Paris, or on failure thereof that
we should train the South Vietnamese so that they candefeni
their own land or have a reasonable hope of doing so while
we gradually withdraw our forces from South Vietnam. But,
in my judgment, Congressional adoption of the amendmerts
mentioned above would cast a cloud of doubt about the auth
ority of the President to take appropriate steps to secure an
honorable end to our involvement in Southeast Asia.
* ' * «ft * ' f . v j
By Tom Anderson M.
WE BECOME WHAT WE CONDONE
More appalling today than the noise of the
brd people is the silence of the good people.
We become part of what we condone.
The God-killers are also killing our country.
The morals of our leaders are low because the
morals of our people are low. The graveyards
of history prove that nations get what they
deserve. Few, if any, nations have ever been
conquered from without unless they were rot
ten within. Our nation was founded by men
who believed fn God, in individual freedom,
in high moral values and in personal respon
sibility. Whether wc survive as free men or
slaves depends upon whether we can resurrect
our moral and spiritual strength.
The time could be approaching when the
question will be not whether America can be
saved but whether America is worth saving.
Sodom and Gomorrah were not. Only the
moral deserve to be free. The Apostle Paul
said: “Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is
Liberty.” (II Cor. 3:17)
We cannot oppose evil by compromising
with evil. We cannot go forth into all the
world and spread the gospel of Jesus Christ if
we deny Jesus Christ in the United Nations,
in our schools and in our daily lives.
Jesus Christ was not “a moderate.” He was
an “extremist.” The “modernists” amongst us
today proclaim that there is no black and
white; that sin is imaginary, non-existent; that
we are to be “moderate” and “tolerant” in all
things, including evil.
An agnostic is a moderate. Moderation is
not a virtue when one ft moderately wrong or
moderately sinful. Christ had this to say about
moderates —a religious type He denounced in
VIEWPOINT
By Jesse Helms
MRS. MITCHELL AND THE ''LIBERAL" ESTABLISHMENT
The leftwing set has been having a field
day portraying Mrs. Martha Mitchell, wife of
the U. S. Attorney General, as a fool—which
she assuredly is not. She is a lady concerned
about her country, who has the courage of her
convictions. And though she may sometimes
aek expert.se in polishing her phrases, she has
not been perceptibly off course in her funda
mental appraisals of what is wrong and who
is responsible.
So the “liberal” press, television and radio
have piiloried Mrs. Mitchell. She is not, of
course, the real target. The target is Mrs.
Mitche I s husband— or! more specifically, what
Attorney General Mitchell stands for in terms
of cracking down on the elements in America
who have been tearing the country to shreds.
Mrs. Mitchell has committed at least two
deadly sins in the “liberal” lexicon. First,
she expressed frank apprehension that many of
the protest movements plaguing the country
have been engineered by communists. Well,
the lady was on sound ground; there is solid
evidence that she was right.
Then when Senator Fuibright, the darling
of the leftwing set, voted against Carswell,
Mrs. Mitchell—like Fuibright, a native of
Arkansas—telephoned a protest to an Arkan
sas newspaper which devotedly supports Fui
bright. An. adroit politician—which Mrs
Mitchell docs not pretend to be—would have
been more selective, but Mrs. Mitchell thought
the argument should be taken where it ought
to be: with the folks who disagreed with her.
That seems to us to .peak well for the lady’s
forthrightness.
The treatment she has since received brings
up the question of “tolerance” for other
views—a subject which “liberals” pretend is
extreme terms: “I know thy works, that thou
art neither cold nor hot. I would thou were
cold or hot. So because thou art neither cold
nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.”
The Bible is not tolerant, it’s “narrow
minded.” And so is the compass, radar, the
multiplication table, the boiling -nd freezing
points of water, nature, and the Kingdom
of Heaven. The gates of Hell are broad
minded. God, the Bible, sin, and Jesus Christ'
are unchanging. Hebrews 13:8 says: “Jesus
Christ, the same yesterday, today and tomor
row.” The Ten Comandments are forever the
same. A true Christian has an unchanging
standard.
The “modernist” preachers h? e decreed
that God is dead; that Christianity .:as failed;
that they will create a new religion “suitable to
our complex times.” God is eternal, of course.
Christianity has not failed—it hasn’t been
tried.
One of these young “modernist” preachers
accepted a call to a little country church in
Alabama. After a few Sundays he announced
that henceforth the members would refrain
from such out-moded behaviour as saying
“Amen!” and “hallelujah!” during the sermon.
The very next Sunday a little old lady got
carried away and loudly exclaimed “Amen!
Praise the Lord!”
Two ushers hastened down the aisle, lifted
her gently but firmly out of heCseat and half
carried her down the center aisle.
She waved her handkerchief to the congre
gation all the way, crying: “Jesus rode one
into Jerusalem and it takes two to carry me
out!”—American Way Features
dear to their hearts. Contrast, if you will, th
scorn heaped upon Mrs. Mitchell with the
tender treatment given, for example, the wife
ol liberal Senator Hart of Michigan, who was
arrested for deliberately defying the law with
her protest activities.
Or, for another example, the torment heaped
upon Haynsworth and Carswell by the “liber
als ironically at the very instant they were
defending Supreme Court Justice Douglas.
Still another example: Governor Kirk of
Florida, right or wrong, saw it as his duty to
try to protect the rights of the citizens of his
state who, in the vast majority, have made
clear their opposition to forced bussing of
their children. Pious condemnations from the
Liberal Establishment poured upon Governor
Kirk; he has been described across the lanu
as an evil man—when all Governor Kirk asked
was a hearing by the U. S. Supreme Court.
Which was denied.
Yet Martin Luther King, who preached civil
disobedience from one end of the country to
the other, was praised for his “courage” by the
same voices which now condemn Governor
Kirk.
To cite such contrasts is not meant to imply
approval of civil disobedience by any citizen
at any time. The point is supply that the left
wing set—including the politicians, press,
television and radio—these people make their
ru.es as they go along. Anything their side
chooses to do in advancement of their cause
is—to hear them tell it—courageous and
proper and justified. But let the other side
try it and a chorus of pious lamentations
rises from coast to coast.
Just keep an eye on the situation, and see
lor yourself.—American Way Features