Cheers for Elton!!!

Just saw this headline and at first I was a little thrown off..... A celebrity, no less a gay one, that actually has their head screwed on straight?

http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=512954>1=28102

The headline reads: Elton John rips Arizona boycotters.

Please read the article, it's great, I particularly like the libtarded statement - "the musician unleashed a profanity laden diatribe against fellow artists who refuse to play shows in az due to the states new immigration law." (that was part of the blurb leading to the article on MSN. So what..... we lost out on Kanye West, Rage Against the Machine, and Maroon 5.... but we gained a performance from Elton John?! Sounds like a win-win!!! And really, "Unleashing a profanity laden diatribe...." sounds..... like a libtard typed that. Ha! Anyways, Cheers Elton! May the residents of Arizona and in particular the LDS members cheer you on that while you don't have any rights in California as a gay man, and while I don't think that being gay is a characteristic that deserves special rights, I do think you're a fantastic musician, and I respect the fact that you're not libtarded.

Ogling can be exercise?

Share |

One has to wonder the motivations behind a study that concludes that looking at women's breasts can increase life span. While many credible studies have been done showing that a sexually active lifestyle can have some health benefits, it is important to note, that the study is missing one thing... proof. The study only took 5 years and only 500 men were studied from one culture. So before you decide to go out and catch an episode of ghost whisperer, understand that science once prescribed cigarettes for asthma treatment.

I thought it was pretty funny so I thought I would share. According to this article, ten minutes of breast staring equals thirty minutes of exercise. Funny, with internet pornography on the rise in America, I would think that the 1000's of hours of "exercise" American men are getting, that would seem to contradict the idea that American's have an increase in heart disease issues and with heart disease being the current #1 killer in America. These two studies seem to contradict each other somehow.

Should we be afraid of the law?

Share |

As part of the world we live in, we will and should experience fear. Fear can be healthy, fear can be manipulative. The following video clip demonstrates both emotions simultaneously. This CNN report starts out as a ridiculously biased piece on a county in Virginia's immigration law. Then it ends with a plea for pitty that is repulsive and infuriatingly ignorant and misleading. This law has gone from controversial to rediculously over played and over exaggerated. The story is true in saying that the law in Virginia was put in place 3 years ago and uses similar language to the proposed law in Arizona. If you are arrested, THEN a police officer can ask for that individual's immigration status. Think about that for a second. Once arrested for a crime, then they can ask if you are a legal citizen. This DOES NOT give the authority to arrest someone who looks mexican - contrary to what the fear stories are preaching.


The individual in this clip (who is admittedly undocumented) says she is scared and that many in the latino community are also scared because of this law.... why? There is no rational reason why this is the case unless you are breaking the law in the first place! In which case I scream, "you're losing my sympathy." That means you are knowingly breaking the law and knowingly disregarding it. That is not a behavior I endorse, am empathetic towards, or find honorable.

One business owner claims that his business has gone down because some of the illegal immigrants are scared to show up due to rumors that I.C.E. surveys the place. Even if they are, so what? If they can't ask your status until you commit a crime, then show up, keep the peace, buy your food and then leave on your way. No one will know you are illegal unless you commit a crime. It makes me wonder what was going on in the first place. I.C.E. is too busy with more severe cases to worry about busting someone at a grocery store for buying banana's.

One interesting note, is that even though the hispanic store owner felt some pains from the change, he did admit, even though the editor cut away from this point as quick as possible, that he is in a safer community as a result! The hispanic grocery store owner says that this law has made the community safer! There you have it! Why hide it CNN?

Why move on so quickly past this side of the story? The man barely even finished the words before they cut him off. What an irrational pile of propaganda to think this law that simply allows for an officer to find out information about a person who has already committed a crime about their citizenship status as crushing the lives of these people. Racial profiling?? Really? How so? Does it say, "Officers can, without reason or probable cause, ask anyone with brown skin or looks like they are from mexico if they are a citizen?" Lets say that is the case (which it is not), if you are a citizen, then show them that you are a citizen and go on your way. No harm, no foul. This hypothetical is not even the case and even if it were, people that are legal should have no reason to fear. If you are illegal, then you should fear the laws you are breaking. If you don't fear the laws in this case, then they are of no value.

Is it illegal for the officer to ask for proof of insurance when they pull you over? Of course not? Why not? It is just as illegal to drive in most states without liability insurance as it is to be in the country/state illegally, so what is the difference?

In any case, I find it ridiculous for a news agency to defend individuals who knowingly break the law. At the end of the video this illegal immigrant invites us to feel what she is feeling.... I don't want to! Isn't that the idea? We should not have to feel the fear of breaking the law. I don't want to be in her shoes, nor experience her punishment, whether psychological or literal justice. Some might argue that the illegal immigrants in Arizona and the drug trafficking that they are bringing to the community is causing fear among people that AREN'T breaking the law. How is that just? Isn't it better that law abiding citizens feel a sense of security then illegal immigrants feel a sense of fear?

Vote for the program - not the politicians

Share |

I have been spending sometime thinking about real concerete solutions to the problems facing our country today. In order to best do this I have made effort to be open to ideas wherever and from whomever they may come.

From the Wizard of Oz comes the phrase, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any path will take you there.” When we consider the paths that we all are taking in life, do we all know where that path is taking us? When I see some of the people who have made the most notable achievements in this world, they seem to be those with a clear idea of what they want to accomplish and posses a strong desire to accomplish it.

I have heard it said that no one will make it to heaven on accident. I don’t believe that Walt Disney stumbled upon Disneyland, or that any major achievement of success happens without a plan or path in place to take us there - plan first, act second.

Businesses make business plans, strategic plans, marketing plans and financial plans to achieve the goals desired. Under this philosophy sometimes I wonder if we should be voting for people to run for office? Should we rather vote for the programs we want to have enacted THEN pick the most efficient candidates for the selected public policy. Should we not be the one’s voting for certain bills to be passed, not voting for people to do who knows what in office?  When we vote for elected officials it is if we don't know where were going as a people. Voting becomes a form of legalized gambling. Should our country be more focused on a "business" plan and less about who to put in office? Success comes first from vision, and second from accomplishing that vision. This seems to be true both personally and in business, why not in government too?

In someways I feel that voting people in and waiting to see what happens next opens a window for a power grabs by the few over the many. This is not a movie, this is government, this is our lives. We should not find out "what happens next" and just keep watching like a passive brainless audience.

Politicians lie, politicians are power hungry, and politicians can make "deals" that favor themselves over country. Programs don't - at least not without the people's consent. What if a program was outlined and was presented to the people for their vote. Say that program was to run a government program under "xyz" conditions. After these conditions are established and agreed upon, our elected officials are simply there to effectively carry out the plan of the people. Elected officials then become managers of the people's affairs, not the unrestricted leaders of our affairs and designers of our future. Crazy concept, I know.

Currently, we can vote an individual into office that may or may not do what they campaign on, and they may, as our president has done, wield entirely too much power over the lives of the citizens. If a national health care plan is to be put in place, it should be one that the people first know about, and second, vote on. To be forced to take whatever one president pushes on us is unconstitutional at a minimum. Our senators and representatives vote on bills they cannot possibly read let alone ponder and comprehend. If programs were well though out, and the people were given sufficient time to read them, much like propositions in an elective process, we would have far fewer programs in place that waste money, increase the size of government, without the voice of the people putting such things in place.

Tyranny

Check out this link before they shut it down:

http://apathetic-usa.com/EndOfAmerica_Secure.swf

Why is it that hit pigeons always flutter?

Share |

Since the Rev. Wright issue arose from our last post on racism, I feel it is important to bring out something of note. Joseph Smith used the phrase in speaking of William Law, a member of the First Presidency of the Church, and one of the most guilty individuals with blood on his hands for the murder of Joseph Smith back in 1844. Joseph said of William Law, "Why is it that hit pigeons always flutter?" In more modern terms, guilty people always seem to make such a big deal when they know just how guilty they are.

Well, if those in the liberal media were proud of Rev. Wright and his words, why shelter Obama away from him? Why mount such a tremendous effort to run away from Rev. Wright if he was doing nothing wrong?

Was Rev. Wright good and clean and an upstanding individual until Obama was running for president? Not hardly! Are we to believe that Rev. Wright turned anti-white like a switch when Obama started to run? Obama listened to his poison for years. That means, of all the preachers in the world, let alone in Chicago, Obama chosen this individual to patron.

In my mind, people who are racist are bad. But those who acknowledge racist behavior, especially liberals who claim to be open-minded, and then cover it up thus giving a back handed endorsement of the behavior is even worse. If a white republican candidate had been a patron at a KKK based church his image and reputation would be irreparably damaged. And in most cases, just like with Senators who sleep with men in bathrooms, the republicans would have asked for his removal. They would not have sought a cover up like the liberal reporters have with Jeremiah Wright.

Liberals should be ashamed of Rev. Wright yet they seek to hide him like the Catholic Church does with Child Molesting priests. Rev. Wright is sad, anyone who defends him is worse than the racist pig they seek to protect... that includes Mr. Obama who does not disown Wright until it hurts his image. Not because he disagrees with him.

I didn't vote for Obama, so wait - I'm the racist?!............

Just logged in to the internet and saw this headline plastered on MSN. Black USDA official resigns after saying she only 'did enough' for white farmer

I'm just confused. I heard recently that the NAACP accused the "Tea Party" of being a racist organization.... Well first of all it's a movement not an organization, and second of all, remind me what the "Tea Partiers" have done to deserve that statement from an organization inherently racist per it's name - The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. So wait.... does that mean that I can't recieve assistance to advance my life because I don't happen to fall into the category of "colored" people because I don't have enough "color" pigmentation in my skin? Hmmmm sounds racist.

So yeah, that combined with this.... just makes me wonder - has the world gone mad since electing the first black man to the office of the presidency? I mean are the true colors starting to shine and show for what it is? That the real racism is the bitter feelings of blacks toward whites and not the other way around? I grew up under the golden rule philosophy - and I try to live by it - Treat others how you want to be treated regardless of race, religion, sex, or any other characteristic which differentiates us from one another.

Here's a link to the article if you want to read it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001

Who more than self their country loved.

Share |

In gospel doctrine class on Sunday we learned about King Solomon. The lesson was titled, King Solomon: Man of Wisdom, Man of foolishness. The lesson taught about some of the good and bad examples that Solomon left behind as his legacy and some of the principles we could draw from as a result.

It was in these verses of this lesson that I realized yet another one of the parts of "life's instruction manual" (1 Kings 3: 9-13)

9 Give therefore thy servant an aunderstanding bheart to judge thy people, that I may cdiscern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people?

10 And the speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing.

11 And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked ariches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine benemies; but hast asked for thyself cunderstanding to discern judgment;

12 Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have agiven thee a bwise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.

13 And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both ariches, and honour: so that there shall not be any among the kings like unto thee all thy days.

The type of leadership that God is satisfied with is leadership that accepts its role and position, but is done so without self serving motivations, and where that leaders serves the people in justice and freedom.

The thought reminded me of the verses of America, the Beautiful. In the 3rd verse is declared the nobility of those who fought and established this country on selfless on selfless principles. "Who more than self their country loved" is a declaration that greatness was not necessarily in their death, but what they died for. A country where our heros, our leaders and founders, did not become president for gain, for power, or for any material wealth. They did so because their country and their fellow man were of greater value than anything they could obtain in the processes and tenure of office.

These considerations made me wonder if our elected officials are paid too much, if honor is not in how much money they bring to the states they represent, but what we have been able to accomplish for the benefit of the country and as sovereign states. Not all successes in the governing of our nation should focus on money. Perhaps Solomon showed how much changes in our leaders as they begin to experiences the financial gains of office for themselves. 1 Kings 11 speaks of Solomon's legacy as one who turned his heart away from the earlier, more pleasing qualities of leadership. Solomon dies separated from his potential and the legacy of being a great leader.

Campaign Finances = Enron Accounting Practices = Joe Biden

Share |

So the latest is that Joe Biden did some shady book keeping back when running for president in 2008 before becoming Obama's vice presidential running mate. What disturbs me about this linked article, aside from the surface subject of Biden's objectionable accounting, there is commentary to suggest that Biden's campaign accounting flaws are common practice. Therefore audits are regularly performed and  campaigns are often fined and assessed certain penalties for favors either not accounted for initially, or obvious miscalculations. In other words, hiding campaign money or doing Enron style accounting in presidential campaigns is common place and therefore acceptable.

I am not willing to sit back and accept the idea that we should allow for illegal practices to be the methods by which our nations highest leaders become elected. Some make the claim that corporations are the corrupt and dishonest people, but the reality is that they are just taking their cues from the elected leaders of our country. Our government "watchdogs" and citizen protection vehicle are the very people facilitating the corruption in the first place. Perhaps this is a bit of the chicken and the egg, but would businesses act more ethical if they felt that they didn't have unethical precedent in viewing the successes laid out by corrupt and dishonest elected officials?

To your average citizen, if a law is broken or if common deceptive practices are used to sell a product, or service, that individual, upon due process of law, is required to pay restitution or punitive damages for the actions they have caused. Some go to jail. Others forfeit ALL PROFITS and all circumstances that the lie and deception created for themselves. In the state of Utah there is a statue that allows the division of real estate to sue an individual who earned money from fraudulent real estate practices for every penny they made from the fraud and then some. If this were the case with our elected officials, if there wasn't a double standard, Joe Bidden would not be our Vice President. He would have to return all his campaign money to those who donated it, and then serve time along with forfeit his position. I for one would think the country would be better off. But according to this article, the commonality with which these types of "errors" are committed happens to with such accepted reality that such enforcement would have yielded different presidents, senators, and so on for several years previous.

For now, a slap on the wrist is offered, taken, and forgotten. Till next election when fines and these sorts of penalties are assessed to the "winners" who most assuredly took such fines and penalty figures into the equation as a cost of doing business. This seems like the metaphor of the leaky roof. Why stick a bucket under the leaky roof and keep switching buckets as they become full.... heaven forbid actually fix the leak in the first place. One can only keep repenting for the problem for so long before their sincerity and sorrow for the "sin" are called into question.

The illegal immigrant list: Utah

Share |

I am going to leave this subject up to the jury. But I wonder why this has not hit the national news like the arizona law issue. Please watch the videos and let me know what you think. There are quite a few issues involved here and a lot of room for questions.
     
Was the work of this anonymous group a good thing or a bad thing?

Government spending = BP oil spill

Share |

How does the BP oil leak in the gulf relate to government spending? Well, if you ask the White House they don't. However, after reading this article the Federal Government is currently stopping a possible solution that would cap the oil leak due to fears that the solution could make the problem worse. Meaning, that if this new cap is placed on the leak and closed off, the pressure that is caused by the new cap could cause another, more hard to contain leak.

This sounds familiar. Back when the financial problems started to happen in this country, the solution was not to cut back on spending (like all America had to do), the federal government said, "No, lets not stop the bleeding of tax money because if we stop spending that might make the problem worse." So they spent more money, tons of money. On the one hand the government claims to want the leak to stop, and yet after days of maneuvering the new cap in place, nothing is said until they are ready to close it off - then the government has concerns. The oil is leaking like crazy, efforts to stop the leak should not be hindered by politicians who know nothing about oil wells or oil containment.

Similarly, if the government wants to fix our financial problems, get out the way, stop the spending and then spend the next few years cleaning up the mess. If BP never caps the well, the oil will continue to leak. If the government doesn't stop spending then the financial problems will only get worse. In both cases the governments wants to the problem to continue to bleed. Maybe you can tell me why that might be?

Can we cut up Barack Obama's credit card?

Share |

Sure we can go on and on about government spending but sometimes it helps to have milestones or markers of achievement to know just how bad things have become. Obama is a spending giant. George W. Bush was no shinning example of conservative ideology either. In fact, one could make the argument that for someone who ran on the Anti-George Bush ticket in 2008, Obama has become more and more like George W. Bush than most realize.


Aside from the comparisons that could be made, one thing is quite clear: Under Barack Obama, three of the highest increases in daily government spending have occurred under his watch.


To blame this on the war in Iraq or Afghanistan one would have to go to his soon-to-be broken promise to end occupation in Iraq by August 2010. He has shown signs that he is going to be continuing these wars for sometime. Okay, then lets move on to the economy.


This idea of lets spend our way into a better economy has done what? Nothing good. To add insult to injury, Obama care has been thrown into the mix to somehow rescue a broken political record. Only, it would seem that even Obama doesn't want people to know just how bad an idea that really can be for our already struggling economy.


In consideration of all these elements being brought to bear currently, do we as the American people have the authority to cut up the presidents credit card? Can we place a spending freeze on new government programs till the other messes are taken care of? Sure I realize that sacrifices will have to be made, and some people will suffer as a result. But as it currently is, the entire nation suffers. As the Book of Mormon teaches, it is better for one man to die than a nation to suffer as a result of that mans actions.

Perhaps the credit addiction that our countries leaders seem to be suffering would be benefited by the advice of Nancy Reagan, "Just say no!"

EZ Smoker: Mormon Cigarettes?

Share |

I think that the world is a crazy place. One new reason for this being true is the new EZ Smoker product that is being advertised lately. It is a well established tenant of the Mormon faith that smoking is against the faith. Many others would argue that even though EZ Smoker is an electric smokeless cigarette that really doesn't resemble a real cigarette (no matter the advertisements say), that avoiding the appearance of evil would disqualify the EZ Smoker as a Mormon friendly product. However, if you see the commercials pushing what this product, I have a hard time thinking that the EZ Smoker is something that ANYONE, especially smokers, would want to buy - let alone become a club member of.

There is no tobacco, no nicotine, no ash, no flame - the thing is battery powered and has a light on the end that is supposed to look like a lit cigarette. One can't say that this they would like to "smoke" these things to look cool because you would be far from "cool" with putting a battery operated fog machine in your face.

Perhaps I don't get this whole thing because I don't or have ever smoked in my life. And yes I think that one could try and make the argument that this is a great way to get people off of cigarettes, except I am not that stupid. I know this would not work, plus this is not a benefit that the product is being sold under. This is trying to find more ways for people who smoke to feel like they are smoking in more places without breaking laws. While I don't see these as being any direct violation to the word of wisdom, I can't see any valid reason why anyone Mormon, let alone any smoker would buy this asinine product. But in the meantime, it has given us the most entertaining made for TV product infomercials since the Amish fireplaces.

Should lobbying be illegal?

Share |

Many people have a bad taste in their mouth with the whole lobbyist idea. Considering this article from Time I don't image that public opinion will increase with the concept of lobbyists and lobbying. We have spoken in the past a little on the Lobby School where people can go to school and learn how to rip off the American people. Regardless of how unlikely it would be to get lobbyists and lobbying illegal, is that a good idea?

Lobby's do some good in this country. But it is not a secret that the voice of the people are only heard through their votes, not with the everyday type of issues that face our nation day to day because lobby's have choked out the voice of the american voter. I tend to think that lobbying should be made illegal. Mainly because there is no benefit that they provide that is not capable to be found in other approaches, and the fact that lobbyists have hijacked tax dollars for ridiculous pork projects, it would seem that the most good comes without lobbying in Washington DC.

Perhaps making lobbying illegal at the federal level only. On a state by state basis lobbying might be able to remain localized and therefore minimal. But I would be interested to see if lobbying were to be made illegal what would change?

Can you have faith in government?

Share |

I realize that a battle will probably always be fought over the role of religion in politics. The lines between what is moral vs. what is legal, seperation of church and state, etc., are constantly shifting or being blurred. For that reason I don't ask the question, "Can you have faith in government?" on the basis of the role religion in government, rather. can we exercise the principle of faith in government? Can we have a level of trust that would allow for us to feel a sense of reliance that government will do as charged, or as they have promised?

Using the biblical definition of faith from Hebrews 11 we come to understand that faith is the substance or assurance that God will be able to accomplish what is hoped for. What assurances do we have as people of the United States in or political leaders/government?

When a president takes office they swear an oath wit their hand on a bible that they will protect and uphold the constitution of the United States. Our most recent presidents showing that the opposite is the motivation behind their actions, we certainly can see that faith in one man is a highly unwise if not a bad idea altogether. But what about the government as a whole? Can we trust it?

In a poll taken back in Sept. 2009 (before Obama's numbers started really tanking) are the following numbers:

The numbers show that more people carried a trusted view government under George W. Bush than they do under Obama. But if you notice, the numbers of trust were decreasing some, while the number of people in the trusted "not very much" category practically doubled. Without turning this into an Obama bash as that is not what these figures strictly apply to, this is showing a trend in government of growing distrust.


Is faith in government even possible though? When the small few on the far left of this chart express a great deal of confidence and trust in their government, how can they get to that phase? What about the government is helping to impart that trust to these individuals? More importantly, how can we all increase our trust in our government.... or should we?


Does keeping our government in check show a lack of faith, or a desire to keep the faith?