Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Back in February of 1966 (and later in his book, "An Enemy Hath Done This," Ezra Taft Benson talked about communism, socialism, and the future of the United States. As part of this discussion he talked about what damage communism and socialism would cause to the U.S. and what would have to take place for Americans to accept what he called "evil doctrines."
In the book, he stated, "There would be a further huge expansion of government and of its control over our economy, education, medical services, and every detail of our family and individual lives. During such a period, it is reasonable to expect -- unless sufficient brakes are put on the present stampede to the left, we will get exactly what the communist-socialist coalition is planning-- the nationalization of insurance, transportation, communications, utilities, banks, farms, housing, hospitals, and schools. To take over our schools, the educational system will first have been federalized and then prostituted entirely to serving the propaganda needs of the state planners with absolutely no regard for truth or scholarship or tradition."
Prophetic? Let's take a look:
- Expansion of government -- check
- Control over economy -- check
- Control over medical services -- check
- Nationalization of insurance -- check
- Control over transportation -- partially checked
- Control over communications -- in the works (Fairness Doctrine)
- Control over utilities -- check (no new power plants (coal, nuclear, or otherwise), no new coal/gas mining, etc.)
- Control over banks -- check (Citigroup, JP Morgan, etc.)
- Housing -- check (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac)
- Hospitals -- in the works
- Schools -- check (see National Education Association)
Ezra Taft Benson served as Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower cabinet. He later was President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Now, the question is this: Any predictions on how long before the final "partially checked" or "in the works" items get passed?
Thursday, March 25, 2010
To be clear, How is it acceptable that people vote on legislation which they themselves are exempted from?
In this one SEIU members advocating “health care reform” beat up an African American for not wanting Obama's stack of cash.
In this one an SEIU member and democratic operative knocks down a reporter two times for trying to ask questions of Senate hopeful Coakly about her stance on “health care reform”
So let’s see Tea Party violence? Nope. Left “health care reform’ violence? Yes. But suddenly progressives and Mitch are concerned about violence over health care. News flash smart guys there already was, and it came from the left. It’s almost like they are hypocritical, it’s almost like whatever they do they accuse their opponents of doing, it’s almost like they make up tears and lie. It’s just like they have no intellectual honesty. It’s just silly.
The thing those on the left in the church and out don’t understand is that we actually believe in God, we actually believe that if we pray and have faith God will fight our battles for us. We don’t have to go attack people to get our point across, we use reason, and love to prove our points and when that doesn’t work we supplicate the Lord that he will protect our freedoms from those who would take them through violence, law breaking and lies.
It seems that many members of the church on the left look to man to solve a basic problem Christ himself told us we would have, that is that the poor will always be with us. Instead of taking from another to aid the poor, those who believe in liberty will take it upon themselves to aid and comfort those with less. Those who lack faith and instead trust in man accuse lovers of liberty of being greedy and selfish, they do this because this is what is in their own hearts and because they cant conceptualize anything outside of their own needs they then suppose everyone else sees the world must be the same.
I can hear the war in heaven right now, instead of Satan talking about how wrong Christ was he was probably appealing to the sensitive types telling them “its not fair that some will come to earth and have nothing, not only will they have nothing but many of you will never even make it back. That’s not fair or loving, follow me and I’ll make sure you all get back.’ I doubt the war was as we picture it, those who followed Satan probably did so believing whole heartedly that Christ’s plan of personal agency and the resulting failures of some was the wrong way and simply cruel. Similarly today you have progresses passing sweeping controls over human agency in the name of “love.” Their love is as good as hate in the real sense of it and they will never know it until its too late.
Think about it, if Christ loves us so much why does he allow us to suffer? He has the power to save us all and keep us all from pain. And yet he doesn’t, but why doesn’t he? Because he loves us, he loves us so much that he is willing to let us work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, a work he knows to be the only way to be like him and receive what he has. This battle over health care isn’t about love for our fellow me. Its about control, its about fighting for the freedom to hold onto and use the results of your labor in the way you see fit, its what God calls agency. God and the church do not forcibly take 10% of everything I earn away from me. They ask it and I give it willingly. But those on the left would become God by taking away our efforts and our agency in the name of what they call love. Funny because true love, AKA God, doesn’t force compliance.
This battle is as old as the foundations of the galaxy its self, the terms change but the principles and the apposing philosophy is the same. Love VS oppression. Freedom VS a false hope in security. Those in favor of redistribution are opposed to the very commands of God, not only in force but in their believe that they can create a world without the poor. I’ve been sold that bill of goods before, I didn’t accept it in my first estate and I won’t accept it in my second.
Second, and probably the most asinine that I have heard: In the current legislation viagra and other drugs for erectile dysfunction are payable by the American people. I suppose that has nothing to do with drug company lobbyists, after all getting an erection is a right guaranteed by the constitution. The hard part for me (no pun intended), in addition to this ridiculousness, is that when Republicans wanted to get a resolution passed through that would exclude convicted sex offenders from being able to get these drugs with federal funds, the democrats voted against it!
According to this article the resolution was dismissed as a political stunt. The article reads, "By 57-42, Democrats rejected an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., barring federal purchases of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. Coburn said it would save millions of dollars, while Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., called it "a crass political stunt."
What an absolute joke. The problem is I am not laughing.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
For example, the goal and rhetoric of the universal health care proponents is that we bring equality of insurance to all the people. Yet, this is not fair to those already paying for health insurance because they are now, through taxation, having to pay for someone else's health care in addition to their own - thus adding to their burden - or bringing an unequal treatment to those who already have insurance. With affirmative action, the opportunities of those who earn them are lost to those who are given them for some reason other than on the basis of merit.
If the government is going to bailout one business, it needs to bailout all businesses or it is being inequitable.
True equality is where all people are treated without preferences, without prejudices, and without having the government disburse the resources of one who has earned them, to another who has not earned them.
In the gospel, fairness is that all opportunities for success are afforded to those who chose to follow God, keep his commandments, and to those make and keep righteous covenants, if we chose to accept them. We are not forced to give, we are not forced to relinquish our blessings to give to another, we are not forced to covenant - we are invited to do so. In one way, equality is only found through absolute agency. Therefore, the only way for equality, TRUE equality, to be possible is where the agency is embraced, and where the situation of each individual does not impose itself on the will of the other.
In the gospel there is no such thing as a redistribution of blessings. All men are judged and blessed according to their own sin or actions, not the actions of another. That is the only true equality.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
I lament..... there is nothing we can do, Congress doesn't listen and half the country is brain dead. We are going to pay the price as a nation. I ran the numbers and the projected bill according to MSNBC, "The compromise package would spend $940 billion to extend coverage to 32 million Americans over the next decade, leaving only about 5 percent of non-elderly citizens without coverage, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office." Now, this is a projection, along with all other governmental projections, it inevitably underestimates. Can you stupid liberals at least agree with that? That said, this projected Obamacare bill according to MSNBC comes to the grand total of $3000.00 per person per year of the 32 million Americans who are covered. That means based on what I am reading that an American population of 300 million roughly 10 percent will get coverage, at the expense of the roughly 90% paying higher taxes to subsidize the 10. Unless of course the entire system is going to be socialized which according to MSNBC will still leave 5% without coverage? I don't get it. Anything they say doesn't hold water anyway because it's being swallowed into a multi-thousand page bill with pork out the wazoo. I mean I just don't understand the intellectual dishonesty of those loyal to the democratic party. You claimed to want a transparent government something Obama campaigned on and then when he runs a system rife with corruption and backdoor dealing it "ain't no thang." My wife and I including having a child this last year with our insurance premiums do not even come close to $3000.00 for all three of us. Under Obamacare even if we qualified for coverage the grand total would be $9000.00 in coverage for us. The quality of healthcare will go down. Going to the doctor will be like going to the DMV. People will abuse the system. I want to pull my hair out sometimes because you liberals are so gosh darn stupid. Pull your head out of your butt! You are destroying this country and we all will suffer for it. Go live in your liberal utopia somewhere else, move to Cuba! Go to North Korea! Go where you think Communistic living is so great and wonderful and enjoy your socialistic system, but leave America free! If Bush had tried something this absurd there would be riots in the streets! Unfortunately, I say again unfortunately conservatives have jobs and contribute to society and are just laden with more heaped upon our backs to support the idiot lazy left in this country. It will collapse like a house of cards because I don't know about you but I'm about at my limit of carrying the weight of my liberal neighbors.
Friday, March 19, 2010
There are ways to amend the Constitution to include a right to health care but they are not following those rules laid down by our founders and believed by LDS people to be inspired by God. If this goes through in this unlawful way what’s next?
James already hinted at praying for our country and I agree we need to do that, we also have to take action, we need to be calling our representatives in Washington, we need to be giving them an ear full today and tell them that we want them to obey the law of the land.
Here are the numbers to the house switch board. The least we can do to prevent this Obamanation is take a few minutes on the phone. Here is a page where you can leave a mssg as well.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
I am not sure how often those of other religions pray for their leaders, and for their country. Perhaps latter-day saints should not leave room for doubt that we care for the land that we live in and for those whom we have elected. While this does not mean we have to agree with them but we should be willing to pray for our country and our leaders. As much as I disagree with the legislation being proposed, and the way that the voice of the majority is being disregarded by those few leaders pushing the legislation through the reconcilliation process - I would even go to say that this legislation could ruin the country as we know it - I will do my best to take the Lord's advice in Matthew 5:44, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" It will be hard, but I am willing to try.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
I ask the question: Is rushing through to pass health care legislation using reconciliation statutes to eliminate the voice of the opposition inline with someone who is seeking the opinion of the other side? If the goal of being bipartisan is to have the voice of the opposite side find place in the legislation, why not let that voice have a vote that matters?
What if being bipartisan, what if compromise, comes up with something that both sides don't like? Everybody looses because nobody wins?
It would seem to me that the argument will naturally arise from those who oppose this way of thinking towards those who have opposed the health care legislation as it sits, to say that the republicans were unwilling to be bipartisan and therefore the problem was not with being bipartisan, the problem was that people were unwilling to engage in that process. Okay, lets assume that was the case.
Is being bipartisan more important that following your principles? Is being bipartisan more important than following your constituents who oppose the legislation?
The problem with being bipartisan is that the goal is compromise, the goal is getting something done - not getting the right thing done. In my opinion, if the legislation is not good, one should not compromise on such a thing for the sake of compromise. Less crap is still crap. To paraphrase Marvin J. Ashton - If we compromise with sin we compromise our blessings. Perhaps the same can be said for our elected leaders.
Friday, March 12, 2010
I started to consider all the figures that are coming out in our nation about a declining education at a time when socialism is rising in acceptance. I wondered if their might be a correlation between the success of and acceptance of capitalism with regard to the level of education possessed by those who operate in it. In other words, as the people become less educated are they more prone to accept socialism, and as the people become more educated they tend to embrace capitalism? This is not meant as a stab at anyone, but after visiting this area I wondered if there was any merit to the idea. I saw both versions of capitalism within two city blocks of each other and the predominate factor between the businesses that ran in these two locations were very distinct and differing levels of education. I am not making any conclusions here, but the idea seemed to have some merit upon first glance.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
I like the fact that like one person is laughing and clapping in the video. It almost makes me want to see Palin win in 2012 just to spite all those inbred libs like Keith Olberman, almost.....Wouldn't mind seeing Glenn Beck as veep though. Seriously though, what is the deal with SNL? They haven't been funny since.... oh I don't know Chris Farley? It's as if they are in a quandry of what to make fun of since Bush left office. I guess the world was funnier then... Now we live in the post racial era of unicorns and rainbows, a.k.a. Obama-land (sigh).
Apparently I went too far.
By that I mean that I did not need to look any further than this side of the Atlantic.
Somehow I missed the fact that Roseanne Barr called out Marie Osmond personally and the Church collectively for causing Marie's son to commit suicide.
(Aside: Oh, wait. I know how I missed it: Roseanne is irrelevant, ill-informed, and none too intelligent. We missed it because no one with a brain really cares what Roseanne thinks about an issue.)
Yeah. I am not kidding; it is all our fault. She also jumps with both feet on the apparent fact that Marie's son was gay. (Funny, I have not seen that reported anywhere but on the Blob's Blog.) Gee, Roseanne would be exactly the person that I would want to out a relative.
marie osmonds poor gay son killed himselfWow. Talk about a life of spite. Blaming a grieving mother for the death of her son on the almost-eve of his taking his own life. Blaming the entire family, in fact, as well as their religion for the choice he made to end his life.
because he had been told how wrong and how sick he was every day of his life by his church and the people in it. Calling that "depression" is a lie!
Yet the Osmonds still talk lovingly about their church, saying nothing about its extremely anti-gay Crusade. Marie also has a gay daughter! Hey, I want her and all the gay kids in the world to know that they are just fine being gay and that they deserve love and respect instead of insults and rebuke! I have gay people in my family and my circle of friends and I am kicking bigot ass and taking names!
That is how its done in my religion---(I have my own religion that I made up for myself and it is a great religion that actually works and respects facts and not fantasy!)
Gerald Lund one of the ex church apostles has three gay kids himself.
Yet, even though the people they say they love the most in all of their public displays and speeches (THEIR KIDS AND FAMILY!!) are gay,-- their own children,for crying out loud- these people cannot find the christian decency and compassion within themselves to stop their hypocritical gay bashing!!
How sickening. I know so many mormon kids who were gay and committed suicide, and I just cannot and will not stay quiet in order to not offend bigots anymore. It is all so terribly depressing.
Marie please don't talk about how your faith in your church has helped you get through this one! Please get some integrity and tell that church of yours that you will leave it and stop giving it ten percent of your money if they don't stop trying to destroy your kids' and all gay people's civil rights and dreams and hopes!!
G-d is trying to use you for something good and this is your opportunity! Your church is wrong and on the wrong wrong wrong side of things! Get as vocal about that as you are about your diet. G-d bless you too, Marie.
Take a hard look at the facts now as you use this very sad time for introspection, healing growth and prayer, and become a strong symbol for loving mothers who make no apologies for hatred against their own kids!
(Aside: Yeah. I said "choice." At the end of the day, unless he was really under some kind of physical duress or mental disability, he still had the ability to choose; he had his agency. But I am not opening that can of worms: not here, and not in the comments. Consider yourselves forewarned.)
I suppose I should not be surprised. I have never found Roseanne funny, or even mildly humorous. I think I would be hard-pressed to find anyone in my daily list of contacts that found her funny. Crass? Yes. Filthy? Certainly. Bad-mannered? Definitely. I have always thought that she was much better at pointing the finger of blame than she ever was at accepting responsibility. I suppose, looking back, "spiteful" describes her pretty well.
"Amazingly" (at least for the month of March--I was too nauseated to go much further back in time) the majority of her blog is a tirade against the Church. She claims to have once been a member (at the age of three, by her description). Maybe she was; as we have all seen, sometimes the most virulent vomit is spewed by those who were once members
Church members will live in this wheat-and-tares situation until the Millennium. Some real tares even masquerade as wheat, including the few eager individuals who lecture the rest of us about Church doctrines in which they no longer believe. They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. Confrontive, except of themselves, of course, they leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone. Like the throng on the ramparts of the “great and spacious building,” they are intensely and busily preoccupied, pointing fingers of scorn at the steadfast iron-rodders. Considering their ceaseless preoccupation, one wonders, Is there no diversionary activity available to them, especially in such a large building—like a bowling alley? Perhaps in their mockings and beneath the stir are repressed doubts of their doubts. In any case, given the perils of popularity, Brigham Young advised that this “people must be kept where the finger of scorn can be pointed at them.”It is indeed sad, as we sit in the wheat-and-tares to look around and see what goes on all around us. I am not perfect; none of us are. That is the whole point. But we should strive for perfection--strive to be perfect in one area of our life, just for today.
--Neal A. Maxwell, “‘Becometh As a Child’,” Ensign, May 1996, 68 (citations omitted).
Being imperfect myself, I recognize that perhaps I have approached this topic with a bit of anger. I should not be angry; I should feel sorrow for those who do not know what I know, who do not share the eternal perspective and the knowledge and testimony that we have. All too often I react differently than in the manner Elder Maxwell counseled:
Therefore, brothers and sisters, quiet goodness must persevere, even when, as prophesied, a few actually rage in their anger against that which is good. Likewise, the arrogance of critics must be met by the meekness and articulateness of believers. If sometimes ringed by resentment, we must still reach out, especially for those whose hands hang down. If our shortcomings as a people are occasionally highlighted, then let us strive to do better.
--Ibid. (Citations omitted.)(Emphasis added.)
Maybe it’s because my wife and I love old homes and own one ourselves that I can’t help but think that some one built these homes to shelter their family, some one had enough trust in the local economy to put down roots. Now there’s nothing. It would break my heart to leave the neighborhood that we have struggled to reclaim behind and watch the home I have raised children in crumble like some of these.
With this in mind I keep hearing rumblings out of Detroit, one of the hardest hit cities in the nation, that the city is developing plans to tear down whole neighborhoods and replace the abandoned homes and buildings with green areas, farms so on. People who managed to hold out in the designated communities would be moved to new “better” areas for living while the once used land is returned to Mother Nature.
I have mixed feelings on this. One side of me says “well if its not being used we may as well clear it out and return it to nature.” Another side says “This is our history, should we just tear it all down?” Still another part of me says “This has to be a plan by people who own the currently used land to drive their own property values up in an economy that has done nothing but bleed value for years.” Clearly we all know that cities like Detroit have voted Democrat for the last 50 years, maybe, just maybe people would answer the clue phone and realize that maybe these people aren’t looking out for peoples best interests. My guess is that this is nothing more then yet another way for politicians to get their last few drops of blood out of an economy they have sold wholesale to the lowest bidder
All of these arguments suppose the assumption that the government has the right to “re-claim” these lands that have privet owners. I know that in many urban areas absentee landlords area dime a dozen, heck there is a vacant lot by my old urban home that is owned by a yet to be contacted owner in Mexico. But just because the person is not around does that give the local government the right to take it?
So aside from fixing the political problems that have caused the problem (A solution the people who live there seem unwilling to do I.E. see through Union and Progressive lies.) what do we do with all this unused, unwanted space? Is this a way to save a dieing city?
If you care to indulge in my brand of depression here are a couple good sites to get you going. 1 and 2
Monday, March 8, 2010
Is it just me or does John Stossel totally look like Tom Selleck?
Must be the moustache..... anyways John Stossel is great. Not just for his 'stache either. He's great because he slaps liberals in the face Magnum PI style and tells it like it is. Take for example his recent blog post on Obummer:
Obama to "Fix" Health Insurance
So many Americans hate business and remain clueless about markets that politicians thrive by pandering to their ignorance. The president is no exception in his eagerness to replace insurance with some kind of expanded welfare state. In a speech on health care last week, he vilifies insurance companies, claiming that they "freely ration health care based on ... who can pay and who can't."
Gosh, sounds so cruel and heartless.
I love GMU economics professor Don Boudreaux's reaction to the President's clever language:
Not exactly; coverage is rationed according to who PAYS and who doesn't.
... Many folks - especially young adults - have the ability to pay but choose not to do so. They get no coverage.
But further pondering of your point leads me to look beyond such nit-picking to see fascinating possibilities. Not only insurers, but all producers who greedily refuse to supply persons who don't pay should be set aright. Now I'm sure that YOU don't ration the supply of the books you write according to any criteria as sordid as requiring people actually to pay for them. But our society is full of people less enlightened than you.
For example, the typical worker rations his labor services
according to who pays and who doesn't. That must stop. Oh, and supermarkets! Every single one rations groceries according to who pays. Likewise with restaurants, clothing stores, home-builders, furniture makers, even lawyers! You name it, rationing is done according to who pays. Indeed, my own county government has been corrupted by this greedy attitude: if I don't pay my taxes, the sheriff takes my house ... Preposterous!
I look forward to your changing this selfish and unfair system of rationing that for too long now has kept Americans impoverished.
Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/03/08/obama-to-fix-health-insurance/#ixzz0hcyQT4HJ
Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/03/08/obama-to-fix-health-insurance/#ixzz0hczvN11C
Friday, March 5, 2010
Now on collage campuses around the country yesterday a few hundred progressives get together and they just can’t stop themselves from committing actual acts of violence. The progressive youth in Oakland shut down a freeway during rush hour and requiring police to arrest more the 150 people. And hey what do you know, they have red flags as well. Who saw that coming? Not me.
In Wisconsin peaceful democratic socialists threw chunks of ice at school administrators to get their point across. So let’s get this right, violence over in Iraqi bad, violence here at home good? OK, I see, as long as it’s an issue you believe in then there are no rules, but when its something you don’t believe in violence is bad.
Back in California however the cops had to use pepper spray to disperse a crowd of “students” who tried to block a free way on ramp. In that bastion of openness and love Santa Cruz the temper tantrum exercised by the spoiled progressive children resulted in breaking innocent peoples car windows causing injuries.
So here you have this democratic socialist movements sponsoring violence across the country and in Nancy’s home state but because these people represent her base she keeps the fake tears on lock down only to be used when liberty loving people get the crazy idea that they should be heard.
I know we have all heard this before, we all know there is a double standard when it comes to dealing with progressives VS. Liberty loving people, but what are we supposed to do? Just stop talking about it and hope it goes away? Do we return like for like? I think the only thing we can do is educate ourselves on who these people are and try to let everyone else know in the mean time. Thus the blog, and the endless battles with progressives we get to wage here.
According to CNN there is some merit to this defense. Certainly public sentiment is in his favor considering all the bad publicity the company has received. One could consider the fall out of what it would mean if this guy gets his conviction overturned. Think about all the speeding tickets and therefore extra money that was spent on insurance that one could lump into one giant class action suit either against Toyota. "I'm sorry officer, there was this burst of sudden acceleration that I could not control."
Without knowing all the details I actually think that this is a severe enough case that perhaps this man might be innocent - or at least not guilty - yes they are different in a legal sense. In other words, I bet there is enough evidence to show reasonable doubt with regards to his claim. The precedent this could set would be quite significant as well as the only way for his conviction to be overturned would be to also somehow open the door to civil action against toyota. Who knows? The could be made quite clearly, if this guy didn't do it, then someone had to. The reason it was overturned was that the car was at fault due to manufactures defects. So in one sense of the word, Toyota would be civilly responsible - possibly. There would have to be some serious proof on the table that this man kept his car in good order and that is was a manufacturers defect that caused it. But you never know. That might be provable.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
In my opinion the scapegoating will go on for another three years (or, heaven forbid, seven years). There are too many in Washington that cannot own their mistakes, whether they be conservative, progressive, liberal, moderate, what have you.
I believe that from so-called "Generation X" onward, this civilization suffers from the disease of "Ididnotdoititis." We could lump the entire body of GenX, GenY, and whatever else the current crop is being called, into one: the "Not Me" generation.
There I go again, lumping everyone into one basket. There are, I admit, a good number of us that are clawing our way free from the "Not Me" label. I only wish there were more of us.
Personal responsibility. My grandfather served in the Navy in WWI. My father and uncle were in the Air Force during the Cold War. I cannot imagine them ever saying, "It's not my fault" or pointing the finger to deflect attention or responsibility to another. My father lost at least one job because of his moral stance and ethics. I know two of his brothers did as well. Their generation and the ones previous knew how to stand up, own up, and pay up.
I think a lot of us have forgotten how to do that. And it could bear some remembering.
It's an important idea within the Gospel, too. Allow me to share two of my favorite quotes on the issue:
God has paid us the ultimate compliment: He holds us responsible and respects us as free, rational beings. He has given us this freedom through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The concepts of individual freedom and personal responsibility are at the very center of the Atonement....Amen.
Note this great truth: once we have accepted responsibility for our own actions, the grace of God is extended to us. For freedom implies not only accountability but also the ability to repent (see D&C 20:71), and repentance, grounded upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, brings sanctification and holiness—the ability to transcend the consequences of our actions and to be restored as children of our Father in Heaven.
~Robert S. Wood, “On the Responsible Self,” Ensign, Mar 2002, 27
I testify and declare that our Heavenly Father expects His children to exercise integrity, civility, fidelity, charity, generosity, morality, and all the “ity” virtues. May we have the humility to take the opportunity to act upon our responsibility to demonstrate our ability to do so, I pray in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.
~H. David Burton, “Let Virtue Garnish Your Thoughts,” Ensign, Nov 2009, 76–78
"I do not like to be in a position where the United States is a debtor nation to the extent that we are."
Secretary of State - Hillary Clinton
I agree. However, I worry about calling anything an issue of national security. As much as this concept might have merit, the way the current and recent past leaders have taken this national security rhetoric to be a power grab over the people. I can assure you this, the people were the ones who created this problem. This was an act of the treasury departments and other arms of the federal government. My concern is that the people are now having to pay off these debts through taxes, for starters, on top of that, this is now a national security issue scaring many into agreement to lose more freedoms.
Calling something a national security threat generally should mean a there is a clear and present danger, that we as a people have had a very specific danger to us. So my question to the secretary of state is, what threat? Is the S.O.S. willing to admit that government spending to this degree is a bad thing... in a way, she already has. This now leaves Obama the choice of what to do with such information. Does he admit that his spending is creating a national security risk, that his precious bailouts have sold out our country to China and others, that his Jobs bill may or may not provide any jobs, but it will deepen this national security risk in the process? Time will tell. For now, they are just blaming it on George W. Bush and his administration. Seriously? How much longer will we have to endure the scapegoating?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
According to the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution which reads, "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 a more principled interpretation of this, the Federal government has very clearly defined set of rules under which it was to follow or operate under - and that's it. Situations that arise that do not involve these powers are then left to each state if not the people to maintain. By the actions that have been followed in this country, especially recently with the National Health Care debate, we are starting to see a renewal of this way of thinking. The states remain sovereign and therefore have the right to reject much of what is happening with our country on a federal level so long as it does not interfere with federally prescribed duties and responsibilities.
In Utah there is a movement rising that wishes to see this concept come to light, and the tenth amendment restored to its original practice and intent. Recently a bill was presented in the Utah House of Representatives, House Bill SB11, that "exempts any guns, silencers, laser sights and magazines that are made in Utah, entirely from Utah materials and sold for use in the state, from federal firearms laws." This bill is fairly silent on the national stage and with reaction from the federal government. Why? Because it is a big giant "get off our back federal government." And you know what? Because of the tenth amendment, as a state, Utah can legally and constitutionally do this. The federal government doesn't want people to know about it because they know that there are several states that would like to start practicing other laws that essentially pull away from the strong hand that the federal government has developed over the states of this country. In a way, the United States have hardly become states anymore but rather geographic regions.
How has the federal government done this? Taxes essentially. The state of Utah gets approx. 50% of its annual budget from the Federal government. States are getting the GM and AIG treatment. "You take out money, we can tell you what to do."
Another bill that is being presented is House Bill 67 or HB67. This is a bill that is Utah's declaration that we reserve the right to opt out of federally funded programs including and specifically directed at National Health Care. Utah is putting through a bill that says, we don't want it, and we don't want to pay for it. That is quite a bold step. In fact, there are those in the state that are trying to find a way to over the next four years to limit federal funding in the state to maintain that sovereignty. This is not meant as an act of succession, but rather to help provide a check and balance on the federal government.
In comes this movement called "I, Commit" that has started in someways by someone from my old bishopric and an article he wrote. His name is Ken Ivory and he is running for Utah House of Representatives using this pamphlet as his tract (click the image to enlarge to readable text).
Case in point: Today's Daily Mail. (Incidentally, I really need to stop reading the Daily Mail. It is not good for my blood pressure.)
Here's the headline and the teaser line:
As Marie's son is found dead, has the curse of The Osmonds struck again?
They made millions from their holier than thou image - but behind the smiles lurked mental illness, bankruptcy and even sexual abuse.
This Paul Scott clown, the author of the -- dare I say it? -- hit piece, is one of those whose life and attitude I cannot understand. A brief search of the Daily Mail website for articles under his name reveal his personality fairly clearly:
- Sean Connery: The story of a brilliant but deeply flawed man
- Fallen Starr: After insulting his home town and falling out with Macca, how Ringo's comeback dreams died
- Revenge, money ... What's REALLY driving Cherie Blair
- Now even Cherie is tiring of Tony's jet-set life - and his rampaging
- Why HAS Rachel Hunter's millionaire toyboy dumped her at the altar?
- Autographs? I don't get paid for them - so I don't sign them'... The obsession with money that haunts Sean Connery
- John Cleese, his blonde lover and the truth about her claim to be only 27
- Is John Travolta cracking up? It's not just grief - and guilt - over his dead son that are tearing the actor apart
- Look away now Saint Bob: How Peaches Geldof's lingerie shots upset dad - and make her happier
- The vengeful wives who want to wipe the floor with Mr Sheen
- Is that really you, Hermione? Fears for Emma Watson as she comes of age
- His three ex-wives have cost him £42m - no wonder there's no fool like an old Phil [Collins]
Nothing but drivel, spite, arrogance, and innuendo. Wow. How could you stand living with this attitude, this perspective, day after day?
Really, now. This is news? Granted, it is labeled "entertainment news." I am not even sure it qualifies as entertainment. Unfortunately, this kind of "news" is rampant in today's society; I am convinced it is all part of the "bread and circuses" we are being fed. But that is a topic for another day.
It appears from the list that nothing and no-one is safe from Mr. Scott. The Marie Osmond hit piece was the only one of the list that I bothered to read. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have, especially after this first paragraph:
True to form, as she struggles to cope with the grief of her son's suicide at the weekend, Marie Osmond has - not for the first time - locked herself away with her famous family and with God. The shutters have come down, she has asked for privacy and is said to have joined her brother, Donny, in praying long into the night.There is a LOT of sarcasm there, isn't there? Heaven forbid Marie turn to family and/or God in her time of need. The further I read, however, the more obvious Mr. Scott's hatred and skewed perspective on life became. The vitriol simply pours out onto the page.
It was ever thus for a family that has seen the highs of international fame and fortune, but hidden the trauma of bankruptcy, mental illness, feuds and claims of sexual abuse behind the veneer of Colgate smiles and saccharine pop songs. ...His death is just the latest trauma to befall his 50-year-old mother, who admitted four years ago that she had attempted suicide after falling victim to post-natal depression, and who has confessed to suffering sexual assaults at the hands of a family member she has steadfastly refused to name.Yeah. All that non-drinking, non-smoking, non-swearing, non-shacking up really devastated them all, didn't it? THAT was the root of all their problems.
She has not been alone in having to cope with the demons that have long dogged the performing family, who famously didn't smoke, drink, swear or indulge in pre-marital sex.
That holier-than-thou lifestyle won the child stars 80 million record sales, their own TV shows and the adoration of teen fans the world over, but exacted a heavy toll.
Hey, Mr. Scott: How well did Danny Bonaduce do, eh? Or Todd Bridges?
After mocking their dangerous clean living, Mr. Scott proceeds to delve into every tragedy that the family has suffered, including brain tumors and multiple sclerosis, not to mention Marie's multiple marriages. You can sense the glee in his pen as he writes about the strict, regimental lifestyle imposed on the family by the Osmond patriarch that makes the fictionalized Captain Georg von Trapp look like a harmless fuzzball. In so doing, Mr. Scott somehow seems to tie the lifestyle, the tragedies, and even the illnesses to the Osmond's so-called "holier than thou" lifestyle and their LDS religion.
Holy crap seems to be the appropriate phrase here.
I am not defending how Mr. Osmond wanted to raise his family. However, consider the time and situation. It is not at all unlikely that Mr. Osmond and Mr. Jackson sat down and palavered a bit on how to raise a family of singing sensations and how to do it well. It still does not make it right, but I doubt it was uncommon in the music or movie world.
Meanwhile, lurking in the background was the spectre of the brothers' brutal and domineering father, George, who sacrificed his children's childhoods on the altar of fame and fortune.No neutrality there, is there? And what real relevance is there to any of this and the fact that Marie's troubled son decided to take his life. Mr. Scott apparently missed the days in Journalism School where the teacher talked about "good judgment," "relevance," "word choice," and "impartiality."
Osmond senior, a devout Mormon, had been an army sergeant during the war and went on to work as an insurance salesman.
He and his wife Olive's eldest sons, Virl and Tom, were born deaf, but the four who followed - Alan, Wayne, Merrill and Jay - began singing as a barbershop quartet to raise money for Mormon missions abroad.
Before long, George saw his chance to cash in on his sons' winsome looks and singing talent....
That's assuming that Mr. Scott is actually a journalist. From this piece he seems to be little more than a failed applicant for Entertainment Tonight. I am not even sure he could find work with the dreadful "TMZ." After all, he takes a personal tragedy for the Osmond family and turns it into an excoriating screed against the Osmonds, LDS beliefs, morality, and good dental hygiene.
I am almost tempted to wonder about his political leanings. But I digress....
Nothing warrants this kind of an attack on a grieving mother or a grieving family. Nothing except arrogance and unbridled ... what? Anger? Hatred? Envy? Spite? Tactlessness?
At the end of the day all I can say is something that, in my admitted arrogance, probably should have come from Mr. Scott with his much wider audience: God bless you, Marie, and the whole Osmond family. May you be comforted in your time of sorrow and distress. No one deserves to go through what you all are suffering right now. God bless you all and thank you for the years of happiness you brought to so many.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A seven-month-old baby girl survived three days alone with a bullet in her chest beside the bodies of her parents and toddler brother.
While this in itself is a tragic story, and sufficient cause for alarm, check out what police are saying was the motive behind the horrible attempted murder:
Argentines Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their children before killing themselves after making an apparent suicide pact over fears about global warming....Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.Excuse me?
In the words of Steve Martin (but with a different inflection)Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me?
I wonder if Al Gore will look at his Nobel Prize any differently now? I wonder if any of those scientists who hid and/or manipulated data will feel any culpability? I wonder if any of the mainstream media ([cough]NBC/G.E.[/cough]) will feel any remorse or sense of responsibility to help this poor little baby?
Or will it just be George W. Bush's fault?
Look. I agree that climate change exists. Of course it does; climate and weather are practically living creatures. The climate is a thing of chaos, an unpredictable beast. It changes all the time.
I am just not arrogant enough to believe that mankind, as insignificant as we are, really has any substantial control or influence over the beast.
After all, can a bunch of fleas really determine the temperature of the bathwater for the dog on which they reside?
(Aside: before I am flamed for comparing beings made in the image of God to mere fleas.... Yes, I understand that it is borderline blasphemous and is contrary to the teachings of the Church, but admit it: in the scientific view of the universe, mankind is pretty insignificant.)
I am old enough to remember the scares over the coming ice age in the 1970s. I remember well the concerns that all the white roofs were reflecting heat off into space. (Or is it radiating? I was never good at physics.) I remember plans to paint roofs black and even the far-fetched plans to coat the ice caps with black surfaces (was it coal dust?) so as to absorb heat and melt them.
Climate change exists, but is it really something to fear? I, for one, have a lot more in my life to worry about instead of climate change. On top of which, why should I fear? How many times have we had modern prophets counsel us against fear? President Faust taught that "fear need not control us." Elder Holland advised us to "master our fears" while Elder Ballard proclaimed that if we "will be faithful, you have nothing to fear from the journey." President Hinckley counseled, "we have nothing to fear if we stay on the Lord’s side...nothing to fear concerning our lives" as well as quoting D&C 38:30: "If ye are prepared ye shall not fear." It is not just modern prophets: Paul taught, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."
Faith in the Lord, and in Gospel principles, is what we should have. Not fear. Fear is a tool of the Adversary, just like lying, contention, immorality, doubt, and discouragement. There is no such thing, in my opinion, as righteous fear; there is no reason to fear God. The phrase "god-fearing" is offensive to me; I firmly believe that no individual who loves God will fear Him. It is a misuse of the word; rather, a use of the word that we no longer understand today. Webster's 1828 Dictionary includes as a definition of "fear" the following:
In good men, the fear of God is a holy awe or reverence of God and his laws. The worship of God. Reverence; respect; due regard.President Hinckley declared "How great and magnificent is the power of love to overcome fear and doubt, worry and discouragement." How true that is; consider the words from the First General Epistle of John: "perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment."
These parents obviously felt fear and torment. Fear and torment brought on by the false religion of man-made "global warming" and the irreversibility of the same proclaimed by the prophets of that religion. I feel sorry for the fear that this couple felt; I will not pretend to understand it or empathize with it. It is hard to criticize or judge the parents too harshly; that is for our Father to do, after considering their state of mind and an infinite number of other factors. I cannot call them Evil. But perhaps some Evil is present in the actions, motives, and deeds of some the false prophets of the Church of Catastrophic Global Warming? Perhaps, but that is for the Father to judge, not me.
I cannot truly understand the parents' fear, beyond the normal worry that I have for the Horde. However, I cannot fathom the fear and torment that their two-year-old son might have felt. The story says he was struck in the back; it makes you wonder if he was running away in fear?
Fortunately, the story says that the young boy died instantly, so he did not suffer. Even more fortunate is the fact that doctors say that the little girl is recovering in the hospital and is "out of danger."
Of course she is. Her lunatic parents are no longer a danger to her.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Unfortunately, calling yourself an American has become a dirty word. You are urged to become, and praised for your wisdom and tolerance, if you call yourself a "citizen of the world" or something similarly politically correct. If you profess to be an American, you are usually called "jingoist," "rascist," "intolerant," "war-monger," "imperalist," and any of a host of other labels.
I dislike labels. Nearly all kinds. When I walk out of a 7-11 or a Circle K with a bottle of water, the label is off before I hit the car. I peel the mailing labels off my magazine subscriptions on the way back from the mailbox.
I will admit to using labels, though. Sometimes in frustration. Sometimes it is necessary to quickly portray to another person a specific stance or outlook that you may share. Sometimes it is out of frustration, I will admit it: sometimes I am a bit of a hypocrite on the issue. But I will also admit -- and it must be acknowledged -- that not everyone shares the same view or definition of these labels. Neither is it likely that any specific label fully covers or describes any one individual.
Case in point: I consider myself to be politically conservative. Let me be clear: I am not a Republican. However, a friend of mine took me to task this weekend because I commented to him how much I appreciated a neighbor of ours being unwilling to sell a parcel adjoining the neighbor’s home to a developer who was planning on putting in an apartment building. I commented that “a little open space is nice in the area” and “do we really need more apartments in the neighborhood?” I was the immediate recipient of scorn and disbelief: “I thought you called yourself a Conservative! Any true Conservative would be in favor of allowing the landowner to do with his property whatever he wishes; and any true Capitalist, like myself, would want to see him do something productive with the land. He should have sold it for apartment buildings, because he could have gotten a lot of money for it. Either that or he should rent it out for a neighborhood gardening co-op, or maybe use it as a pumpkin patch and Christmas Tree lot in the fall and winter. He could make a load of cash from that little piece of property.”
That is when I realized: I may be a Conservative, and I call myself a Capitalist and a lover of the free-market system. I agree with my friend: the property owner should be allowed to do whatever he wishes with that property and make as much money from the land as the market will bear. But there’s a bit of the cowboy in me. That part of me loves looking out from the side of an afternoon campfire over a beautiful, undeveloped meadow filled with wild flowers, while a mountain with no man-made improvements or construction towers towers over it all as a backdrop. No sounds of aircraft or vehicular traffic. Song birds, deer, even the occasional cougar: they all pass through unmolested. Nothing but clear mountain air between me and heaven. On second thought, let me change that: This is Heaven.
I shop at Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and 7-11. I like making money and I like spending money. I like buying a new hat and new boots. But that cowboy winces every time he drives down the street and sees another piece of land -- land that was part of a family farm fifty years ago -- being developed into duplexes or apartments. Green space torn up and thrown away in the name of cookie-cutter crap-quality so-called town homes. (Glorified apartments or dorm rooms, if you ask me. They are ugly and of questionable value.)
That’s why I am re-committing myself to re-labeling myself. Or maybe you can call it “un-labeling.” I am not a Republican or Democrat. I am not a Conservative or a Liberal. I am not a Capitalist, Socialist, Marxist, or any other such label.
In my opinion, I am what we all, ideally, should be.
I am an American.
We are all Americans.
We should all start acting like it, too.
Sometimes, like today, I think that there is too much focus on politics and political views.
Last week I got into a discussion of health care with a good friend of mine, who has decidedly liberal-slanted views. He actually told me, “You are a conservative I can actually talk to, because you are reasonable and have well-thought out ideas rather than just spouting off talking points.” He then proceeded to excoriate Tea Partiers, Glenn Beck, the Drudge Report, and anyone else who dares question any piece of Obama’s policies using the same language used by Olbermann, MSNBC, the Daily Kos, Nancy Pelosi, et al.
Talking points. We are all guilty of using them from time to time. Fundamentally, it is difficult to get away from them. But maybe they should be used as a springboard to our own thoughts and positions on a given subject, rather than used verbatim. Or maybe, just maybe, we should refrain from using them at all, stop all the arguing, and just go ahead and fix what is wrong with our beloved country.
Most of the people -- the real people -- in the country agree that there are serious problems. And most of the real people agree on what needs to be done to fix the problems. It is the zombies in the country that do not understand. These are the people who change their positions with their underwear, that cater to the elite, who believe (as does Senator Hatch, for example) that their constituents are not smart enough to understand what it is they do, and that’s why they need their Senators. These are the ones that are out of touch with the real people.
They are the walking undead.
Which is, I suppose, better than being a Progresstitute.
But I am an American.
We are all Americans.
Let’s start acting like it, and let’s get our country back. The one that we’re all proud of; the one that we all remember being so great. Let’s get it done and take her back.
Oh yeah.... the cowboy in me says, “Giddy up.”
(Cross-posted at Legally Bankrupt.)