Two things.

Don’t let it ever be said I couldn’t find something to agree on with a socialist or as they like to call themselves these days a “progressive.” Argentine President Cristina Fernandez said while speaking at a pork industry junket “I don’t know that eating pork improved sexual activity. It is much more gratifying to eat some grilled pork than to take Viagra.”

Sure she nationalized her peoples 401K’s but she advocates pork as an all natural Viagra replacement thereby combining two of my favorite things. She did a great job of triangulation on this one because really who doesn’t like a nice side of baby back ribs followed by some long lasting sex? By her bringing these two together she is appealing to all kinds of people who may have previously been upset about her taking away their life savings. Now these pork and sex lovers can say “Well she does like pork, and sex is pretty rad as well, so I guess she’ll get my vote.
The other observation is made as a member of the church who is in favor of legalizing marijuana. The main problem with the movement to legalize reefer is that the movement itself is being run by a bunch of pot heads. In my mind there are a number of logical arguments for legalizing pot but these arguments are not put forth because your typical vocal pot head sounds like this guy quoted from feed back to this news story.

“A blessing from god... a spiritual gift.... there is a great wisdom in using ... and great foolishness from abusingGet the balance right.Legalize it coast to coast.It is much LESS damaging than alcohol.... and as Limper's story proves you can quit on a dime if you choose to.”

See the proper response to something like this is “get a job hippie” and because that’s the natural and correct reaction every other argument for and in behalf of the movement is rendered moot. The best thing for proponents of legalized marijuana to do is to shut up and let non users who are in favor of personal liberty advocate their case. Chances are that’s not going to happen, hippies and stoners have and most likely never will be able to shut up.

Would you prefer your country served with inflation or hyperinflation?

So I know I usually just get on here and rant about how stupid Libtards are and tend to refrain from giving real substance to my posts, but this one I actually did some research - (That doesn't change the fact that Libtards are indeed stupid). Anyways, I have some concerns about inflation or hyperinflation so I read up on the arguments for and against a coming situation of hyperinflation in the United States. My sources are: http://www.american.com/archive/2009/december-2009/how-likely-is-hyperinflation & http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2009/0501b.html & http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/hyper.htm.

So from what I could gather, deflation is essentially when the economy is contracting, banks are restricting credit, the people who qualify for tighter restrictions don't want or need it, and the people who do need or want don't qualify. Opposite of that is inflation which is essentially an increase in prices in relation to the increase in volume of currency which results in a lower value in currency. So a situation where the value of something stabilizes from deflation and then begins to rebound and increase in value in addition to say, the Federal Reserve continuing to issue/print money at pre-established rates would result in inflation because the money supply would be disproportionate to the value of things. Hyperinflation is just extreme inflation. Situations in the past have resulted in extreme loss of value in currency to the point of using a wheelbarrow full of money to purchase a loaf of bread for example.

So is there a threat of hyperinflation (extreme inflation) in the United States at the current time or in the near future?

American.com said, "Economic and Political Relationships, which shows that all hyperinflations were caused by huge government deficits. By analyzing many historical examples, I illustrated how hyperinflations resulted whenever 40 percent or more of government expenditures were financed by money creation. Since it is expected that about 42 percent of U.S. expenditures will be financed by credits this year, some fear the emergence of hyperinflation in the United States."

There's a lot more to this article and I recommend you read it. From what I can gather the threat of hyperinflation in the United States in the near future is very real.

The counter argument presented by financialsense.com stated that, "There has never been a period in US history when home prices have been falling and we have had real inflation. Currently, prices on everything, everywhere (almost) are falling. Even more importantly in the US home prices are still plummeting, so unless there was some sort of abrupt and magic end to this global and domestic price free fall, statistically by all historical accounts, inflation is all but impossible at the current time or in the near future."

The impression I gathered from reading the counter argument was that, as long as our economy is experiencing deflation, there's no risk. Well....no duh. But with the government increasing their influence in the economy through various controls and inputs, the free market is unable to correct itself and we are left with the ancipations of government leaders to guide the market. A command economy essentially, and we all know how Obama feels about that.

The third site I visited was a collection of examples of hyperinflation throughout history from San Jose State University. The most chilling is from the former Yugoslavia 1993-1994 - the worst case of hyperinflation in history. An exerpt, "Under Tito, Yugoslavia ran a budget deficit that was financed by printing money. This led to rates of inflation of 15 to 25 percent per year. After Tito, the Communist Party pursued progressively more irrational economic policies. These irrational policies and the breakup of Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia now consists of only Serbia and Montenegro) led to heavier reliance upon printing or otherwise creating money to finance the operation of the government and the socialist economy. This created the worst hyperinflation in history up to this time. By the early 1990s the government used up all of its own hard currency reserves and proceded to loot the hard currency savings of private citizens. It did this by imposing more and more difficult restrictions on private citizens access to their hard currency savings in government banks."

I highly encourage you to read the example from Yugoslavia, it is chilling in that it outlines precisely the problem with Communist/Socialist - Command Control economies. I'm no expert on economics, however I am aware of the illogical steps our government has been taking in "attempting to soften the blow of the financial crisis." Rather than allowing for a market to correct itself as in a free market economy, prices are controlled under a Socialist system by a man or group of men. Throughout history whenever this has been the case, the population has suffered because no one man or small group of men can anticipate and command/control economies to their maximum efficiency. Mao tried to do it and 35,000,000 Chinese men, women, and children died of starvation because of it.

What is Homo-Christianity?

Premiering at the Sundance Film Festival 2010 is a film called '8: The Mormon Proposition'. The film was given standing ovations to packed houses. The director of the film, a past Mormon now gay, is supposed to be some genius because his film concludes that the LDS Church was the driving force behind the movement to pass prop. 8 in California. Is this supposed to be ground breaking? I don't think the church meant to be silent with its involvement.







Later those that were interviewed by the media (mostly gay poeple I might add) questioned why people who claim to be Christian are so hateful. Hate only came in to the picture when these same people claiming to want tolerance became, in some cases, violently intolerant of another's opinion that differed from theirs. Rather than point out the obvious hypocrisy displayed by those opposing prop 8, I go back to the argument that somehow Mormon's aren't Christians because we don't agree with Gay marriage. In fact, I can think of nothing more Christian than to stand up against sin and to do what is in our power to not allow for sin to find an acceptable place in society. Christ was never for homosexuality - never. So at what point did allowing gay marriage become a sign of someone's christianity?

I have heard suggested that a further perversion of the laws of God that will occur in the last days will be where many will seek to call evil good and good evil. I see no better example of this than those who wish to associate Christian thinking or Christian ideology as endorsing grievous sexual sin to be something acceptable and that paint those who oppose this version of Christianity as bad and malicious people. There is no such thing as Homo-Christianity - it is an oxymoron and can never be proven to be true ideology. For Christ to teach that to even look upon a woman to lust after her is adultery, then on the other hand to be accepting if another woman lusting after another woman as being okay is in consistent.

In no way should the right to form civil unions be different than those who are considered married - but they should be civil unions, not marriage. Civil Unions are comparable offer that would satisfy the argument of equal benefits under the law. Thus, Civil Unions should be an acceptable alternative. Instead, as the issue continues to grow, and as Gay rights activists keep loosing battles all over the country with respect to gay marriage, we don't see an acceptance of a viable and legal alternative, but a continued attack on Christianity. This to me is a clear sign that the fight for gay marriage is a Satan inspired attack on the Lord's church and the holiest of covenant unions. From my observations of the LDS blogging world, Satan has been all too successful at counterfeiting the truth and calling good evil by leading people to believe that Christians should be permissive towards homosexual behavior. Many Mormons have fallen to this false claim and have sought to dismiss the truthfulness of the church due to the cunning and deceitful lies of the adversary. They have left path of the Iron Rod and followed the tempting and destructive enticements of evil. Those who claim such an argument that being against gay marriage is somehow un-Christlike have either forfeited the right to inspiration from the Holy Ghost or were never possessed of the spirit to begin with.

This is not a matter of rights because according to the constitution of the United States marriage in any form isn't even mentioned. No one lost rights because they never had them. The LDS Church's tax exempt status should not be called into question because churches have a right (and I add a responsibility) to speak out on moral issues. Let us not forget that the people of California voted for this, not just Mormons.  The fact that Mormon's took the brunt of the attack exposes the real source of inspiration in this attack on the Lord's True Church.

Entertainment NEWS!

Is it just me or does Barney Franks sound like Sylvester the cat? Bill O'reilly is an arrogant, argumentative, agitator. That said, he has a very valid point in this video. I couldn't help but laugh to see Barney Franks refuse to take responsibility for things that he said, and shuffle blame off on everyone else but himself in typical libtard fashion. Enjoy.....

What about the children?..........Or your ability to actually talk without being told what to say?

Really? You need a teleprompter to speak to children at a grade school? These two pictures speak volumes about the man's ability. You can check the link though and read a brief blurb on Yahoo about how he is speaking at a school and he used children as a back drop to announce $1.35 billion more in education spending. After all the out of this world numbers that have been through around to Obama’s friends on Wall Street and other special interests $1.35 billion just loses its punch.
So let me be the first to say “He doesn’t care about the children.” He certainly cares however that he stays on point with the message written by his handlers though. With falling popularity though its time to get back to the hope and change stuff people liked so much back in 08.

Say it isn't so Sarah.

If there was one thing that could make me register as a Republican it would be so that I could vote in the Arizona primaries. And really there are two primaries I would care to vote in, the first and most important is that of one John McCain. Anyone who try’s to convince themselves that John stands up for “conservative” principles is off their rocker and yet a good portion of the “freedom loving” people in this country seem to walk through life completely undiagnosed and in need of crazy pills. A short list of why he isn’t actually conservative. He believes in the fairytale of global warming and advocated cap and trade, he and Russ Feingold screwed free political speech with their campaign finance reform bill, and I saved the best for last. Here in Arizona we refer to him as “Mcamnesty” because he is completely beholden to the special interests in the state pushing for amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens living in the country. I could talk ad nauseum about the last one but I’ll keep it short by simply pointing out that if McCain was really for national security wouldn’t he and other politicians close up that giant whole to the south where children and old people literally walk through every day.

With all that being said I can’t wait to vote him the H%#@ out of office this year and I’m not alone. McCain is actually facing some serious contenders down here and as such has suddenly come home, found religion and is busy throwing red meat to the people with adds on the radio talking about how he is the only one that stands up to Obama and his liberal agenda. Laughable, sure he isn’t for health care reform but I get the feeling he’s not for it only because he isn’t invited to the table. McCain hasn’t turned down an opportunity to grow the government in the past and unless he has really found gospel truth this time I doubt things have changed.

Surprising news came out yesterday however that disappointed me all anew. Turns out Sarah Palin is actually coming to AZ to campaign for McCain. After reading Sarah’s book the other month I had some hope that she would actually be some one who would stand up to the establishment, sure she lacked nation experience in the last election but like many people I couldn’t help but believe that she believes what she is says. If I had voted for McCain she would have been the only reason for it. After the election McCain was more then willing to let her be thrown to the dogs in both political parties, never standing up for her in any substantive way. Like any person who has the gall to actually believe what they say in Washington they face battles from both parties. But if Republicans actually had a couple brain cells to rub together they would see the power in her convictions and the ability of these convictions to motivate the masses. If anyone needs confirmation that the left views Palin as a threat all you have to do is see the way they handle her in the media. I have always thought that your enemy has a way of telling you what their biggest threat is by focusing on it, if they didn’t see her as a threat why not just forget about her? They can’t and therefore betray themselves.

Maybe my disappointment is premature, maybe Palin has something up her sleeve that I can’t tell. Maybe I should be to give her the benefit of the doubt. Not to the point that I would be tricked into voting for McStain however, more just giving her the benefit of the doubt that she has legitimate reasons to hitching her wagon up with a big government, progressive light hack that has a history of throwing her under the bus. Can anyone offer any hope as to her motivation here?

What does this mean........?

I stumbled upon this video this morning, and I don't know what to make of it. I've watched it multiple times and I can't help gloat a little bit to see the Snob snubbed. However, I'm not only put out by Obama for the many mentioned reasons on this site over the last year, but I'm a little put out by the Russians. It's just plain bad form. Whether you like the guy or not, that's pretty blatantly disrespectful. What do you all think?

Hmmmmm it didn't appear to work. Try this one:

Fall of the Republic - Full Version

While some call it fear mongering, I call it the truth. And the only way for the United States to remain free, is to have that truth taught and adhered to. Some of the programs that this country is fostering or has fostered for generations gives a legitimate cause for concern.  Citizens of the United States should be very aware of the problems that President Barack Obama along with many others are doing and have been doing to destroy this nation. A nation that has been prophetically declared to be set up an inspired by God. For that reason I have decided to post this video, in its entirety, if not for anything else, to give voice to the evidences found in this documentary. It is long, 2 and half hours, but it is important to understand what is going wrong in this country so we can also know how to make it right.

For the same reason that we have stories of Cain, Laman, Judas, and other, is so that we have good examples of bad examples. Every generation must be exposed to that which is bad in order to know the good. So please, watch this documentary, understand what it is saying is less than doctrine, but presents an education that all Americans should be exposed to. Know that what is presented is fixable, and that America can return to the noble land that it is destined to be again.

51st state?

So I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today and he made the claim that...... "In the next two weeks some Democrat will propose to make Haiti the 51st state."

Sounds preposterous......... however, at this point in time, I just don't know anymore. It seems that some of the most outlandish things that I thought could never happen, have. So what was the rationale behind this statement by Maja Rushy?

Well, what better way to secure votes for Democrats, than to have an entire population ravaged by disaster, then saved by a Democrat President and Democrat Congress? Don't think that the Dems wouldn't stoop to this level. If anything, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Boxer, and the other lefty libs have proven, it's that there's no level too low for them to stoop to.

ABC reports it so it must be true! It certainly wouldn't be exaggerated.....

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794

There are a number of things wrong with this article, but the bone I have to pick is not with the company trijicon who inscribes their weapon sights with scripture references, but that ABC would report these references as "SECRET 'JESUS' BIBLE CODES".

One such "SECRET 'JESUS' BIBLE CODE" inscribed on a trijicon sight is JN8:12 or John 8:12 which says, "Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." A little cheesy and ironic considering Trijicon makes illuminating nightsights, but whatever..... I mean it's the perogative of the company to inscribe whatever on their sights right? Unless of course it was drafted and agreed upon within a customer/provider contract.

What is the deal with mainstream media? Why does everything have to be so sensational? Why does a simple scripture reference have to be reported as a "SECRET 'JESUS' BIBLE CODE" - It makes the news look uneducated, like they have no idea what a scriptural reference is. There's a thought...... perhaps the news is uneducated? Is it possible that these purveyors of sensational headlines could simply be attractive high school dropouts?....... I mean really, Ron Burgundy is gorgeous!

Was Martin Luther King Jr. a Socialist?

Based on this quote from Martin Luther King Jr., could one conclude that MLK jr. was a socialist?

An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.

This could be an argument used by some that Martin Luther King Jr. was a socialist or that he would at least be in favor of a national health care system.  However, to counter the surface argument that many would use, I would say that we would need to define what is the "broader concerns of all humanity?"  In addition to this question we should also ask, "What is best for humanity?"

It would seem to me that the broadest concerns of society may not be what is best for humanity. In some ways, humanity espouses the 'eat, drink, and be merry,' philosophy shared by those in the great and spacious building in Nephi and Lehi's visions (1 Nephi 8 and 11).  This way of thinking inevitably will lead society to destruction. So perhaps a more productive interpretation of the "broader concerns of all humanity", and in keeping with the spirit of what Martin Luther King Jr. personally stood for, we could say that our concerns beyond our individualist pursuits should concern for what is best for humanity.

Many assume that capitalists don't care about society or what is best for humanity. This conclusion is a false projection by those who disagree with the practices of capitalism. In fact, capitalists are very concerned with what is best for humanity as capitalism holds that what is best for each individual and their potential for success and productivity is what is best for humanity. After all, humanity is a term given to the group of individuals that populate this planet. What is best for each individuals can be what is best for humanity. So, the new technologies, the new inventions, the amount of productivity that has provided for the greatest number of people, show that the only proven way that individuals have risen above poverty for the greatest number of individuals has been through a largely capitalistic society.

In one way, what Martin Luther King Jr. is teaching is the principles of the United Order, or the law of consecration as taught in the Doctrine and Covenants which stands above both capitalism and socialism as a desirable form of society. What this quote espouses and teaches is not the method but the principle by which society could function at its highest. The freedoms and potentials of capitalism, but with the kindness and charity Dr. King spoke of. In this respect this quote should not be seen as an endorsement of national health care, or of a socialistic agenda. In fact, one could argue that history has shown that the society in which Martin Luther is describing is ONLY available through a capitalistic type society where the individual is allow to express their freedoms of religion, of conscious, and has the greatest potential to succeed. One could argue that capitalism and socialism claim the same end design, what is best for humanity, the two philosophies simple disagree with how that is to be accomplished.

Evangelist Pat Robertson condemns Haiti

With the recent natural disasters in Haiti, we have yet another tragic event that draws out human nature both in conflict and in charity. Evangelist Pat Robertson has madade the news yet again by blaming another natural disaster on the sins of the effected people. In the case of Hatians, this latest disaster is the result or punishment for the pact that they made with the Devil.

From my scripture reading I observe a Christ who when he encountered people in trouble he sought ways to help them, to heal them, to make them whole. Not because someone forced him to give, but because he wanted to. Christ is much more qualified than Pat Robertson to declare the sins of a people yet it would seem that the Christ-like action in this case is not to kick the people when they are down but to find ways to see that the work of the Lord is done. In fact, it is often during these times of greatest trial that charity is most poignant. This principle seems to be exemplified with the story in John 9: 2-3 which reads:

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

On facebook, and other methods of modern communication, there has been an outpouring of attention and a world wide response to these devastations. The church has dedicated resources to assisting those in need, and the Red Cross has figured a way for people to even text message in donations to the relief effort. It would appear that this great tragedy is being answered with kindness and generosity.

The point to be made here is that the assistance that is being offered by individuals throughout the world (minus Pat Robertson apparently) is not been the result of a tax, and people are quite willing to help out the needs of another. However, why does it need to take a great tragedy for this sort of charity to surface? Is this really charity or is this people needing to feel like they appear being charitable? In either case, the question does come back to the answered phrase in Acts 20:35:

"It is more blessed to give than to receive."

May we be found on the side of charitable giving.

Avatar, nerds, the internet and how they tick me off.

I’ll be able to kill three complaints with one post on this one article. It’s about how nerds are starting to contemplate suicide because the mythical world of Pandora in the movie Avatar is not a reality that they will ever be able to achieve. Where to start on this one………..I guess I’ll go with the movie.

Avatar sucked. Sure it’s great to look at, an accomplishment in film making; I could tell I was watching a cartoon only like 50% of the time. Once you get beyond the visual however you realize the story is complete re-hash garbage. I liked it better when it was based on earth and we called it “Dances with Wolves.” Or when it happened on earth but under water in “The Abyss.” James Cameron has insulted everyone’s intelligence with his blatant and poorly dialoged peace of visually amazing film making. If we as consumers continue to support such bad writing with our money Hollywood will keep sending it to us.

Gripe number two is with the internet. Sure it’s brought a whole bunch of cool stuff to us, communication is great, I love amazon.com but it does come with a down side and I’m not talking about porn. (On a side note I bet we will soon see Avatar porn, combining two great evils into one.) The internet has allowed nerds to congregate, it used to be that nerds where isolated in small pockets throughout the world so their crazy fantasies about being whisked away to fantasy lands could be isolated to places like the comic book shop. Now however they are getting together online and contemplating group suicide over what used to be maybe a passing thought. They can now get together on the internet and talk non stop about how never to get laid, or how to repulse good looking girls, or how to be even less interesting to the opposite sex. What’s more is that the very rare nerd girl has become a hot commodity and now they are actually meeting up with the nerd male and having little nerd children. I predate that in 100 years we will literally be inundated with nerds.

Lastly while some may want to talk these nerds off the ledge I actually say “OK, go for it.” Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want nerds to die; neither will I encourage them to go through with their attention seeking behavior. I do however think they should have the right to end their life if they choose, this doesn’t apply to nerds alone but people in general. And yes I know even self murder is a sin, but people should have the choice.

Who are we kidding though? The nerds aren’t going to do anything; they like the poor will always be with us.

Oh no he didn't!!!

Ok, now granted the stretch between Madea and MEDEA is a little bit of a long one. But Pres. Obama's MEDEA stands for Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis which was a program started under the Clinton Administration ala you guessed it, Al Gore! Obama has restarted the program which basically redirects CIA satellites from monitoring terrorist related things to other things more important like global warming. http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obama-administration-diverts-cia-resources-agw-scientists

Can the sequel to Madea goes to jail please be Obama goes to jail?

Racial Politics: Double standard or tit for tat?

Senator Harry Reid, a known Mormon and Senate Majority Leader from the Democratic Party has entered the realm of racial no-no's. A white guy saying something about a black guy. Recently, Reid is quoted in a book speaking on Obama as being, "a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." The controversy here relates back to Republican majority leader Sen. Trent Lott who had his own "white guy saying something about black people" controversy and was pressured to resign his post as a result.

Republicans want Reid to step down citing that if Lott had to step down, then the same standard applies here to Reid. While this is an obvious game of politics and an attempt to get Reid out of office, so what? Does that not change this as a valid point? One could call this a double standard, and if Lott's resignation was the right course of action, then the same should apply here. These types of accusations seem to go both ways in the realm of politics. I say this is more of a case of "tit for tat" type mentality. Don't dish it if you can't take it is what I say.

If Democrats want someone out on such a stupid standard, then they should be ready to submit to the same standard. What's sad is that what Reid said was spot on. It was not insulting, it was not anything wrong, but because Democrats played the same game it only seems fair that Republicans can ask for the same recourse.

We have a country that believes in free speech accept for our elected officials or for people that we disagree with. Why is it that the recourse for anything that is said that has a race element to it we automatically call it offensive? And even if it is true or false, so what, where there is free speech there is freedom to not agree with what is said. Don't agree with it - fine, but to keep calling for people to resign because they said something that has a race element in it, even when they are not offensive and are in fact true, is just plan ridiculous.

Frankly I agree with Obama on this one. Let's just get past this whole race thing. The only problem is even Obama saying that is a double standard. He uses race all the time whether he thinks he does or not. Without being black, he is just another Jimmy Carter who would not have been elected today had he not been black.

When Character was King

I've been doing a lot of driving lately with my new job. I drive a total of about 22 hours and some change every week, so that leaves a lot of time for reflection, frustration, and books on tape. I've been listening to When Character was King by Peggy Noonan. It's a biography of Ronald Reagan. It's everything I expected and more - what a great man!!

When he won the governorship of California he had run a campaign of lowering taxes among other conservative principles but upon winning he found the state of California in dire circumstances rivaling the bankruptcy it's in today, so what did he do? He raised taxes! Now people would accuse him of being a liar and a promise breaker, but he told the residents of California that he would lower them as soon as he was able and then he began revamping the state budget, cutting spending in every place he could. Exactly one year later the budget was balanced and state revenue had a 100 Million dollar surplus. He immediately called a press conference and told the state populace that they had a surplus and would be returning it to the taxpayers via rebate (which ticked off the legislature because they had wanted to spend it for various programs but he released it to the public before the legislature recieved word of the surplus), and then he advised that the residents only pay 90% of state taxes they owed next year until they could get the tax rates revamped and ultimately lowered. He was a man of his word.

Why all this talk about Reagan when I have a picture of Gen. Mcarthur? Because it seems that the generation two back from the current one seems to be a generation of character. It seems that the people of that era were men and women of their word, with integrity.

This morning I heard a quote on the radio of General Mcarthur at the Japanese surrender. He said:

Men since the beginning of time have sought peace.... Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural development of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.

So are Mormon Progressives going to stand up for honesty?

Funny how when Obama comes out and blatantly goes against what he said he would do none of the “The guys at SOTL are just Obama bashers” have come back to say “yeah as it turns out, your right, he is a liar and I fell for it.” That’s one of the big difference’s between those on the left and those on the right or libertarians. Libertarians and conservatives have the testicular fortitude to admit when they where wrong. Commies, socialists, progressives and the like all know their ideas have never worked but they have to keep trying to sell the same old lies in new packaging to get people to believe them all over again.
I guess I should not be surprised that “Mormon Progressives” are the same. I thought maybe that because we believe in being truthful in our shared religion, that we would be able to be honest with each other even if we disagree. Apparently I was wrong. If it helps I will admit that I regret voting for Bush, he tricked me, I thought he was for free markets and limited government when in actuality he wasn’t. I will give major kudos to the first lib to post here and admit the same thing about Obama.

Time to get the new Obama-Pez Dispenser!!!

So the debate over Nationalized Healthcare rolls on......behind closed doors that is. Nappy Pelosi, Scary Reid, and all the other Dumbocrats. I'm not suprised by this video but it is a nice reminder. Enjoy! Here's the link ala James as to why this post is relevant - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/05/c-span-challenges-congress-open-health-care-talks-tv-coverage/?test=latestnews

For those too lazy or uninterested in clicking the link here is an article pertaining: WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House was put on the defensive Wednesday after President Barack Obama pushed congressional leaders to fast-track health care legislation behind closed doors despite his campaign promises of an open process.
"The president wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said as reporters questioned him repeatedly about Obama's decision to go along with House and Senate leaders in bypassing the usual negotiations between the two chambers in the interest of speed.

The decision was made in an Oval Office meeting Tuesday evening with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his No. 2, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., joined in by phone.

They agreed that rather than setting up a formal conference committee to resolve differences between health bills passed last year by the House and Senate, the House will work off the Senate's version, amend it and send it back to the Senate for final passage, according to a House leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss the private meeting.

Obama himself will take a hands-on role, and is convening another meeting with congressional leaders at the White House on Wednesday. Pelosi and four Democratic committee leaders are expected to attend.

Gibbs told reporters Wednesday to "ask the leaders in Congress" about the fast-track approach, even though Obama was involved in making it and the closed nature of the proceedings is at odds with a promise he made while campaigning for president. In a January 2008 debate, Obama said that his approach to health care talks would involve "bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are."

Can I kick the dead horse of gay marriage a little more?

A few years ago when I actually started hearing rumblings about the upcoming gay marriage fight I came to the conclusion that I supported the right of gays to be married. For me allowing people the right to do what they want as long as it doesn’t negatively affect others seemed obvious. I don’t want people telling me who I can and can’t marry so I figured as a respecter of agency that’s the same right I should fight to keep for others. I understand now and understood then the churches definition of marriage and I believe it to be correct doctrinally. How many times after all do we have to be told in the scriptures “neither the man without the women or the women without the man” however there are many things the church doesn’t believe in that it doesn’t meddle in.

The battle over the propositions in California and the churches support of proposition 8 changed my mind on the issue, not so much because I suddenly realized that I should screw with other people’s agency but because the church had come out with a firm political stand. If the church as a doctrinal institution and as I believe represents the will of God was coming out in support of something like proposition 8 then I wanted to be behind it as well. If you want to call it blind faith fine. I’m willing to take a few steps into the dark every now and again and call it faith.

To make the change in my position I had to do some deeper thought then I had before and the answer that I came up with has surprised me because as of yet I haven’t heard or read anyone talking about it. The question at the heart of the argument is “Why is the government involved in who marries who in the first place?” A little research will show that the government got involved in the marriage market for a couple of reasons, to force a moral standard on the populace and to generate tax revenue. Imagine what would happen though if the government came out and said “OK we no longer care who you marry or what you want to call it. Have one wife or ten, marry another man or a goat, we don’t care anymore. There will be no more tax breaks, fines, or imprisonment for two or more consenting people forming any type of union they want.”

This thought cuts to the base of the argument, if government wasn’t involved in marriage as it was for the first 100 plus years of the union would we be in the tough position we are in now with defining who marries who? A discussion for a different day would be “would we as a church still be practicing polygamy if this was the case?

My position on gay marriage changed when I released that it isn’t a perfect world, the government is involved in marriage and as such there is going to be a battle to set the definition. The lords definition is clear so if it’s a fight we have to have then I will side on the lord’s definition of the relationship. While I deplore force to accomplish an end in this case there seems no other alternative then through political action affecting the agency of individuals.

I think this is a great example of how far our country has slid; we have gone so far away from the definition of liberty that no one is asking “Why the hell does the government get to define anything in my life?” We have all accepted the base of the argument that the government gets to tell people what to do in their personal lives. People should have the liberty to marry who they want, where they want, when they want and tell the government to get out of the marriage market. Period.

Such a quiet defeat for Gay Marriage - Why?

Back in the November elections the voters of Maine decided to repeal a law allowing gay marriage in the state. I reserved judgment on this issue for sometime because I wanted to see what would come of it all; in the media, in the public perception, etc. Since I have heard very little about it, I feel it is time to bring up this event and declare it a victory for democracy.

For whatever reason Gay Marriage was voted on and approved, the people made up their mind and changed the law back to the way they wanted it. The people made the decision, not some activist judge or congress, but the people. On the side of those who support gay marriage this was a significant set back considering the north-eastern part of the United States has a reputation for being a majority Liberal-Democrat. This repeal could be seen as more than just a defeat but a change of the tide.

By those who oppose gay marriage, this is more than a victory, this is proof that change towards a conservative agenda is not only possible, but that the "damage" that a liberal agenda imposes can be overturned if the people are willing to see that change come about.

While I hold no reservations in saying that government approved gay marriage is without question something that I stand opposed to as I do any government involvement in marriage, I am equally satisfied from this result because we get to see that the people of Maine have felt close enough to an issue to change what they have in their power to change. Democracy 1, Liberal Agenda, 0.

The Elusive "middle ground"

Rhetoric seems to flood the world of politics. Democrats are on the "left", and Republicans are on the "right", moderates are somewhere in between and so on. Every issue of debate in congress or even in the media seems to include those individuals who are described as "moderate" democrats, or "moderate republicans" as individuals willing to compromise what they really want for the sake of "getting along" politically speaking.

Some consider moderates as those that believe in aspects of both parties, not simply those who tow the party line. The temptation of the past has been to consider moderates as political sell outs or those who are spoken of biblically as those who are "luke warm." As with all things in life there does seem to be a need to avoid such extremes as those extremes can almost invariably blind us from the best possible solutions for a given situation.

I am currently reading Bruce C. Hafen's book "Spiritually Anchored in Unsettled Times" and have come across a section that I felt was applicable to a discussion on politics and political opinion or preference. It speaks to the idea of pessimists and optimists. While his comparison is poignant in its own context, as you read the following, try and replace pessimists and optimists with democrat and republican (not meant in any respective order) and see if the conclusion is still relevant.


"The English writer G.K. Chesterton once distinguished among optimists, pessimists, and improver...He concluded that both the optimists and the pessimists look too much at only one side of things. Neither the extreme optimists nor the extreme pessimists will ever be of much helping improving human conditions, because people can't sole problems unless they are willing to acknowledge that a problem exists while also retaining enough genuine loyalty to do something about it.


"Chesterton observed that the evil of the excessive optimists is that he will "defend the indefensible. He is the jingo of the universe; he will say "My cosmos, right or wrong.' He will be less inclined to the reform of things; more included to a sort of front-bench official answer to all attack, soothing every one with assurances. he will not wash the world, but whitewash the world."


"On the other hand, the evil of the pessimist is "not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises." In being the so-called "candid friend," said Chesterton, the pessimist is not really candid. "He is keeping something back-his own gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help... He is using the ugly knowledge which was allowed him [in order] to strengthen the army, to discourage people from joining it" (Spiritually Anchored in Unsettled Times, P. 90-91).

The text goes on to talk about "improvers" as those who fit somewhere in between pessimism and optimism. Those who are strong, loyal, and educated, but those that love, are unselfish, and who care and are passionate about an issue and about life in general. In another sense, this writer was trying to illustrate that the extremes are where the faults are developed and fostered, and that some middle ground is the answer to improving the human condition. Does this same parallel hold true in the case of politics? On the one hand we know about the evils of broadmindedness morally speaking, on the other, we know that inclusion produces a high level of productivity. So if there is a middle ground, how would one describe it? And is being in the middle ground a desirable place to be as Latter-Day Saints?