Reason #35,658,854 to get new legislators

Things that make you go hmmmm.....

Some of the current members of congress were opposed to a proposal to take congress into recess in the operations of the nation so that the politicians can go out campaigning and saving their careers instead of saving our country. However, one very significant individual voted in favor or the recess, Nancy Pelosi. Arguably the worst Speaker of the House in this nation's history was the deciding vote to abandon their jobs in order to try and save their jobs. So, let me get this straight, these bright minds feel that the best way to show that they are the right people for the job, was to vote to stop doing their jobs..... hmmmm.

Another sad bit of irony to come out of the Democrats this week, Obama, in proposing a longer school year as a way to increase the educational system of this nation. Fine, but the second part of his proposal was that poorly performing teachers should be removed from their jobs....hmmmm....

Should our teachers be held to this standard but not our political leaders? So, reason #35,658,854 to get new legislators: Current leadership is either oblivious to their poor performance, or they don't care.

Year of the DC rallies

From the churches website, Here is the official stance on its relationship to politics:

"Political Neutrality
The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.

The Church does not:

•Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
•Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
•Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
•Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

The Church does:

•Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.
•Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
•Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.
•Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.
In the United States, where nearly half of the world’s Latter-day Saints live, it is customary for the Church at each national election to issue a letter to be read to all congregations encouraging its members to vote, but emphasizing the Church’s neutrality in partisan political matters.

Relationships With Government

Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent.

Modern scriptural references to the role of government: Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134"

Essentially the Church will advocate for causes but not endorse specific parties or candidiates. Most of us understand this and the ethic is fairly engrained into us. That is why the following story contains stances from churches that would seem align to our understanding of the relationship a church ought to have with partisan affairs:

(click post title for link to this article)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obamas-ofa-churches-join-democratic-socialists-for-saturday-march-in-washington/

I think this story is interesting from LDS perspective for at least a few reasons:

1. What do you think would be the attitude in the media if the LDS church was to be a major sponsor of an RNC or local republican convention or rally?

2. Since we have goodwill toward other churches but also maintain they they are remnanats of a general falling away from the gospel, hence the need for the Restoration, does this witnes to us of the reality that these other churches are without firm anchor inthe world? Apparently the have allowed themselves to become tethered in message to the Communist Party USA, Socialist Democrats of America, Abortion & Homosexuality advocacy groups as well as the official organizating arm of the DNC (OFA). My point is not to point fingers. Like I said, there is an imperative of goodwill between churches on the levels of agreement they have so that we can build together a better society - Zion. That being said, these things do stand as a witness of the importance of continuing revelation to a Church.

3. Whether or not one agrees with Glenn Beck politically, it is a fact that he making huge waves in the political world right now as evidenced by these copycat rallies. Since his Restoring Honor rally last month there have been the following imitation rallies held or planned: Al Sharpton rally he hurriedly planned for the same day, the Comedy Central joke rally, The Ed Shultz rally to spew his hate and now this one arranged by the DNC and Presidents "Organizing for America" arm, with fellow guests already mentioned. All these groups would not be imitating the Beck rally if he were not making a huge difference with his tactics. There would be no point, and none of these rallies were held for over a year until the RH rally and all of a sudden they all need to get one in.

Here is the point in all this: There has been outcry that Beck was mixing too much of religion with politics in his rally. That being said, he stuck to religious principles and did not endorse any one particular denomination. Why then is most of the press giving a free pass to denominations aligning with a specific parties rally, especially when combined with communists, socialists and advocacy groups who want things anathema to the Gospel? I think the answer should be obvious: most of the US press is in bed with leftist politics and they are not about bringing us the facts.

Your thoughts on the link?

Mormons and the "F"-bomb

Besides caffeine, I think swearing is one of the most oft rationalized habits of the Latter-Day Saint, or Mormon. Statements have been made to the effect that constant or repeated exposure to something may desensitize one to that thing. In order for that "thing" to have any effect the use of it or the exposure to it must be increased. This could be said of drug use as well as pornography use. But in what way does this apply to swearing?

The more we are exposed to swearing or the more we swear ourselves, do we find that the pollution of language more acceptable? In other words, is the "F" word an "F"-bomb or is it a "f"irecracker?

Under this same principle, is the more we expose ourselves to the gospel of Jesus Christ the more we need it to have any effect in our life? Or does this principle not work in its opposite?

As the world combines against Isreal...

I assume everybody who watches any amount of news has seen this or at least heard about it, unless you get your news primarily from Democracy Now or something like that, but I am curious to know the thoughts about this video from Latter-day Saints and non alike.





Is it relevant that her student group recieves funding from an international socialist organization?

How do we engage in peaceful dialogue with folks who sponsor an "annual Hitler Youth week" and agree with hunting down Jews in the homes and killing them?

As LDS folks we view ourselves as literal recipients of the blessings of the House of Isreal. Does this type of behavior make us think twice about being public with that belief or not, for concern over our own safety?

One of the bedrocks of LDS thought is freedom of concience in religious matters, ala the Articles of Faith. So how do we rectify that with such belief as this?

The "tolerant" leftists

So much for the left here in the PACNW claiming they are "tolerant" and they defend "civil liberties".

Why Objectivity is of no value

Some find fault with media outlets and news organizations for not being objective is their presentation of the news. In my recent past i wrote an article wishing that the media could be at a higher level of objectivity because biases and being interpreted as news and therefore as truth. Because of this I feel the desire to clarify my position on the issue.

Objectivity is an impossible position to achieve by human experience alone. Deciding which news to share and what news to repress is a subjective decision. How the news is presented is subject to both the views of the presenter and the subjective filters of the audience. Even scientists are objectively impaired by the limited understanding and reference of the individual whim is conducting scientific practices.

So why does it seem like a rational standard to keep the media to if such is impossible to achieve? As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we are invited to seek out intelligence and to find truth in the "best books." However, this pursuit of truth is not an objective one. As truth is understood and embraced, that truth influences our subjective paradigm. We shift towards true Christianity. We obtain truth, and in the process of learning truth we also learn untruth. Until an individual possesses all truth and by consequence all untruth, one cannot be objective. However it is at this point that objectivity is of no value.

With all this being considered, perhaps the pursuits of the media is truth, not objectivity.

Top Economic advisor to leave White House? Ahhhh.... too bad.

The news of Obama's top economic advisor leaving the White House should either exude a collective burst of cheering, or a sarcastically laden "ahhh that's too bad." Somehow we have been in an economic recovery for a while now, yet unemployment is still high, foreclosures are happening all over the place, and inflation still continues to keep people in debt even if they are not spending money.

The old saying, "You can't deal with reality if you have a false perception of it" comes into play with how Lawrence Summers will be defined during his service in the White House. Perhaps his suggestion for the stimulus program came without the knowledge that we as a nation are in crippling debt. Or maybe he decided to do a bank overhaul legislation when it was the top 20 banks in the nation that caused the problems, not all the small banks that do things the way they should....

....Or he is crook, or he is an idiot.... either way, it is probably a good thing he is leaving.

It's just so hard to be a mormon

This last weekend I spent working at a convention in New York. Sitting at the hotel bar eating my dinner, I found myself next to an individual who started his evening with a tall col beer and a shot of hard liquor. The "bar talk" started off with the usual openers and then we went into a brief but reflective conversation:

Bar guy - "Where are you from?"


Me - "Utah"


Bar guy - "Are you Mormon?"


Me - "I am"


Bar guy - "Oh yeah, congratulations!"


Me - "Congratulations? I didn't know that was an accomplishment?"

We chuckled and he went back to his beer and I went to my room for the night. The response to me being Mormon was interesting to me. Congratulations? Did I win something?

But the real question in my mind ended up being, "Does the world look at being a Mormon as a difficult thing? Do Mormons view being a Mormon as a hard thing worthy of congratulations?

Vote for the Dem's: They think they are the best of the worst

I saw the title of this article and I couldn't believe my eyes. "You may hate us, but the GOP is worse." That has to be the saddest campaign in the history of elections. To a modern translation, "We the democrats are flushing this country down the drain, but the republicans have a powerflush 5000."

If the Democrats recognize that they are doing such a terrible job, then why not get out of the way and let someone else have a go? I don't necessarily mean the GOP either. There are other options in this country. In 2008, the Democrats were given a chance from the voters to fix things - to take the country in what was being sold as a better direction. Just about two years have past and in many ways the Democrats have made it worse. (insert your objections here)

While the argument is made by Democrats that the Republicans have blocked the way to many pieces of legislation I say, "okay, which one?" Name something that Obama has not had passed? Bank reform, health care reform, unrestrained public spending, shall I go on? Everything that the Dem's want, the dems get. The current GOP is a neutered elephant being carried away by a donkey, no wonder nothing is moving forward.

In the end I suppose this desperate plea from the Democrats for voters to essentially throw in the towel and assume that the country is going to suck either way is a pathetic surrender by the current establishment politicians. They should absolutely be ashamed of themselves for even thinking this campaign has value for themselves or this country.

Should the "press" be held to a higher standard?

Freedom of the press is one of the most fundamental and foundational rights that the United States enjoys. However, freedom of the press is not free to defame, and or tell lies. Lies are different than opinion of course which means that technically the news can offer opinion and does so routinely. The top cable "news" stations in this nation have become a hot bed of blatant opinion giving rather than news. Many, like Glenn Beck, and John Stewart are up front in saying that they are NOT news shows, they are entertainers. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your view of it, many in the American viewing audience takes these individuals opinion as gospel, or as real news. I don't blame those who think this way because these shows are sold along side the news, or are on news stations; as well, the news is becoming more and more like these shows. The line between news and opinion is completely blurred or obliterated in America today.

I suppose my opinion on this will sound like I don't have much faith in the American viewing public to know the difference between opinion and news. But I would like to see the actual news be held to a higher standard, and that in order to be called news, a certain degree of objectivity needs to be met. If it is not, then it shouldn't be called news. This is not to limit free speech - I repeat this is not a limitation of free speech! I still very much believe that people are entitled to have and share their opinions. But we do need to examine the current condition of the news and ask, can we "call a spade a spade." Are we watching the news or are we no longer watching what we can call "news"?

Blogging has taken a huge share of time from the American reader. In many ways, blogging, the freedom to share one's opinions with the world, is an expression of our first amendment rights to freedom of expression. But I certainly don't feel that a blog is "the press", or represents news in its truest form. Blogging is a commentary on the news, or on current events, or on what is the best way to make Top Ramen. There is no real responsibility to blogging as it is all opinion. The news should have a higher standard or duty to facts that I feel is widely lost in today's major "news" outlets.

Blame God

A few of my facebook friends are athiest. Some were active Mormons and are not anymore. Recently I have seen a rash of attacks on God mainly from these folk. When bad things happen the question is commonly asked, "Why would God allow this to happen?" Ironically, these are the same individuals that, when things are going well, do not also "blame God" for that which is good. In the book of Omni 1:25 comes this quote, "there is nothing which is good save it comes from the Lord; and that which is evil cometh from the devil."

Why not blame the devil when things go bad? It would seem that those who believe in God would also need to acknowledge His opposite equally. As American's, if it is "In God We Trust," then it must also be that in the "Devil we Distrust." Perhaps we as a nation would not only do well to remember God, but to also be more aware of the influence the adversary has in the world today. There is much that is good in the world that has gone without recognition to the God who is the source of all that is good.

What if it was the Book of Mormon being burned?

9/11 has come and gone and there was no organized Quran burning. But, American flags were being burned all over by the Muslim world.  Why? Did American's actually do something wrong? The 50 or so nut jobs in Florida hardly share the opinion of an entire nation. On top of that, they did not actually do the book burning. So why burn the American Flag as if the entire nation was acting unified? It would seem to me that the the flag burning protests around the world might be more justified had anything actually taken place. These individuals called for the hanging of Pastor John if he burned the books. Is that a rational reaction to something that hasn't even happened yet? From my perspective, those who took the time to hold protests by burning the flag of my nation as an "answer" to the burning of the book of their nation is hypocritical at best. Why should Muslims in other nations be legally or socially allowed to burn my nation's flag and yet a few inconsequential nut jobs in Florida are not "allowed" to burn the Quran? While I am not endorsing book burning of any kind, I hardly consider the Muslim response to be fair or civilized.

Then I started to think, "What would have happened if the Muslim world wanted to burn the Book of Mormon over the war in Afghanistan or for some other reason?"  I wondered if anyone in the world burned a Book of Mormon that Mormon's would burn the flags of that nation or people? Would there be threats of violence at all? I would be very surprised if there was such a reaction. Why the difference?

The Book of Mormon is the Keystone of our religion. LDS Prophets since the Book of Mormon was translated and printed by Joseph Smith have taught of the book's eternal importance in our lives, and in many ways can  be viewed as the Quran of the Mormon faith. The Book of Mormon is of great value to members of the LDS faith. Mormons have had their books burned and presses destroyed in the past without similar reaction. Why such a different reaction than that shown by Muslims around the world?

One answer could be, "Mormon's aren't terrorists." I believe that carries an oversimplified judgement on all muslims. Then again, the reaction of the Muslim world to an event that didn't even take place does not show them as the passive peaceful people as many have perceived Islam to be. Mormon's don't function on fear and terror or under threats of violence as Jesus Christ, our God, did not preach such behavior. If Islam is a peaceful religion, then to what rationale can such hatred be justified?

Christ taught to turn the other check, to love our enemies and bless them that curse us. This is the work of the Lord and no amount of Books of Mormon being burned will stop the Church from moving forward. I would like to think that a truly peaceful religion would embrace a similar approach; even the Muslim religion who claims to treat Jesus Christ as a prophet. Perhaps Muslims are not terrorists, perhaps they are a peaceful people; but it would seem to me that more effort should be made by those who really are peaceful Muslims to solidify that image and to distance themselves from those who appear to be equally as Crazy as Pastor John and his anti-muslim church in Florida.

All up in your face.

So at what point does defending your family from gang members become criminal? This guy up in New York got arrested this weekend for firing his AK-47 into the ground four times in front of a crowed of gang members who had surrounded his front yard yelling that they where going to kill him and his family.

Allegedly the gang was the notorious MS13 bad boys that according to media sources are sweeping the nation. So when confronted with superior numbers this guy does the smart thing and results to superior fire power, which has the intended result by dispersing the crowd and getting the cops there faster.

In my mind this person is in no way out of line with his actions, in fact assuming that it is an ethnic neighbor hood (the guy is black and the gang Hispanic) cops have notoriously slower reaction times to emergency calls. Knowing this I think it makes even more sense for the individual citizen who has lawfully obtained a fire arm (which he had) to use it to defend himself and his family in this way. Sure an AK is over kill, but that’s the point. When confronted with a violent situation the only way to win is to react with a higher level of violence, or in this case the threat of violence.

Most importantly I’m glad this guy was African American, if he was white we would be writing about a white raciest Tea Party, Religious Zealot, Hate Mongering, Anti Obama, Gun nut, oppressing Hispanic minorities.

Who’s up for some religious intolerance?

There are three things I find disturbing/rad about this story. Turns out some red neck preacher is having a “Burn the Quran Day” this September the 11th. A reasonable way to celebrate I guess but the points I find most interesting in order of importance to me. #1 I want my Bishop to have a mustache like this guys, how cool would it be if Sam Elliot was your Priesthood leader? Answer, pretty freaking cool. #2 The preacher’s church is called “Dove World Outreach” Seems Pastor Jones missed the part in bible collage where they clarified that you don’t reach out to the world with the middle finger. #3 And this one has a couple sub points. The White House felt that this one rubes ranting warranted a comment saying it would endangers troops overseas. A) Wouldn’t commenting on it make it more obvious to those who are inflamed with us? B) Isn’t the point of having troops overseas for them to be in harms way so we don’t have to be?

If we have learned anything over the last few years it’s that the irrational members of the religion of peace don’t really need ay extra fodder for their hatred. Mostly I think it has nothing to do with religion but rather they are acting out of their frustration that our women are like 100 times hotter then any of their lady’s. This theory isn’t fully laid out yet but have you seen those women over there? Your right, no you haven’t, and neither have they, hence the frustration.

But I digress, why cant we just let this loon do what he wants to do and just pretend that he isn’t really there thus depriving him on the attention he so clearly craves? That’s what we do in a free society, we respect the crazy people’s right to be crazy but as long as it doesn’t affect us or others freedoms we don’t get involved.

What should we feed the homeless?

I have supported a few different programs that are designed to feed the homeless. One in particular that will remain nameless feeds sloppy joe's to the homeless. Another here in salt lake was shown on the news feeding hot dogs to the homeless on labor day. Seeing this junk food trend, I paused to think if there are things we should not be feeding homeless people?

Of course something is better than nothing, but many would consider it inhumane if we saved food scraps from our tables and gave that to the homeless as if they were pets. On the other hand it would seem impractical to offer 5 course 5 stat meals too. I suppose another question to be asked is, are we feeding the homeless with good food? Are we offering something of value? Or are we offering something that will form a rock in their colon or the opposite, give them diarrhea?

It would seem to me that we should give our best. Not slop, not ballpark food, but something to nourish those in need. Homeless are not second rate humans. If we are to make the effort to be charitable, should we not consider something better?

Third time has no charm.

At some point I have to think that this whole spending money when we don't have it thing will kick in with someone at the White House. To celebrate Labor Day, a day this year that see's a hovering 10% unemployment rate, Obama thinks that we need to spend more money. Does he not understand that the government cannot sustain the jobs in this country? A third stimulus is not all that charming to the American people (not that Obama cares about the American people.)

Playing the usual political blame game, Obama claims that the republicans are at fault for blocking his efforts for economic recovery. I have two things wrong with this: First, Republicans are always pegged as the money people, the pro-business people, yet somehow it is their fault that the economic recovery hasn't happened? Hmm...connect those dots for me.

Second, don't the democrats currently have the majority? They passed health care without the republicans, they passed the economic stimulus, they passed their banking and lending overhaul bill without the republicans, so how is it that the republicans have blocked anything? One could make the argument that the republicans have been an impotent force in the last two years because of the democratic majority. So how is this all their fault? Obama has gotten his way....

Instead of realizing that after Bush's stimulus didn't work, and Obama's even bigger stimulus didn't work, how is this third time supposed to be a charm? The problem now is that Obama has been on his own long enough that his usual  blame game has lost weight. Spending money is not working and people know that, especially the unemployed ones.

The good part about all this, illegal immigration is down. Not so much because of increased border security or because of Arizona's law, per se, but because those things have made it not worth it all. The economy sucks so bad in the US that the illegal aliens would rather be in Mexico....

Mr. Obama, when we said do something about the illegal immigration problem, I would have to say, please don't fix the problem by ruining our country. There has to be a better way.

It's official: I'm a libertarian!

Share |

After a wonderful day of traveling through the net of government bureaucracy with courts, and the department of public safety: drivers license division, among others, I was given the chance to register to vote/change my political party, so I did. What a better experience to have confirmed in my head that libertarianism embraces many solutions that I feel our nation NEEDS at this time.

It is not that I hate government, it's that I hate big government, or at least the effects that big government tends to have on the people of a nation. I tend to think that many people follow the adage, "rules are made to be broken." Rather than keep a low appraisal of human beings, I choose to embrace a paradigm that trusts the people of this nation. A system that does not regulate or punish certain behaviors, but one that reduces the barriers to productivity to reward virtue. A system that considers man to be capable of great things so long as the opportunities of a free economy are open to them.