In an Ensign article, President and Prophet Ezra Taft Benson quoted and supported a quote from previous President and Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith with this quote:
President Joseph Fielding Smith said that “the greatest and most
powerful fortification in America is the ‘Monroe Doctrine.’ … It was
the inspiration of the Almighty which rested upon John Quincy Adams,
Thomas Jefferson and other statesmen, and which finally found
authoritative expression in the message of James Monroe to Congress in
the year 1823” (The Progress Of Man, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., pp. 466–67).
If the Monroe Doctrine is inspired, then perhaps we should know a little something about it.... right?
For those that are unfamiliar or are looking for the text of the Monroe Doctrine click here.
The Monroe Doctrine was the brain child of John Quincy Adams, and presented by James Monroe at a State of the Union Presentation. The core idea of the Monroe Doctrine was an isolationist position on foriegn policy in that the United States told the world that we wanted them to stay out of colonizing in the western hemisphere, or into North America more specifically. In return, the US would stay out of Europe's governance. This appeared to be more than militaristically speaking, but in matters of public policy, and one could even argue economically relevant as well.
As inspired as the document was for its time, was it eternally inspired? It is not out of the realm of possibility that God inspires certain ways for certain times. A more secular question would be, is the Monroe Doctrine relevant today, or should it be relevant today?
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Airport Security, the TSA, and the 4th amendment
Full body scanning and other searches seem to be a hot topic that divides many. Some feel that security is the primary goal of airport security. Others feel that their right to privacy is being violated.
Recently someone mentioned the searches with respect to the constitution, specifically, our 4th amendment rights protecting against illegal search and seizure. The law has clearly defined this right to mean that law enforcement, as well as others in such governmentally, or secure situations that there must be probably cause for a search to be legal.
There is a sense of irony about this whole concept of security. This article in Politico reports the response of one congressional staffer that was recently "felt up" by a security officer at the airport. The quote is as follows: "One staffer who attended the House briefing this morning asked the TSA officials, essentially, why are we doing all of these intelligence operations if we are going to treat the entire traveling American public like terrorists, the staffer relayed. “Why fund this huge intelligence operation if we are going to treat everyone like terrorists?”
Excellent question? The 4th amendment is in place simply operating under the assumption that we are not all criminals. In order for the government to treat each individual as a terrorist, or a criminal, there must be probable cause.
It is clear from these practices that the government is not afraid to amend if not abolish constitutional rights. But this same government is not okay with profiling. When push comes to shove, why is the government okay with amending 4th amendment rights for every one, including an innocent 10 year old boy, but not for a very select few who fit an unfortunate profile?
We are only secure as a people when we have our privacy held secure. Without privacy, we have nothing left to protect. In the meantime, this video is a good laugh on the issue.
Recently someone mentioned the searches with respect to the constitution, specifically, our 4th amendment rights protecting against illegal search and seizure. The law has clearly defined this right to mean that law enforcement, as well as others in such governmentally, or secure situations that there must be probably cause for a search to be legal.
There is a sense of irony about this whole concept of security. This article in Politico reports the response of one congressional staffer that was recently "felt up" by a security officer at the airport. The quote is as follows: "One staffer who attended the House briefing this morning asked the TSA officials, essentially, why are we doing all of these intelligence operations if we are going to treat the entire traveling American public like terrorists, the staffer relayed. “Why fund this huge intelligence operation if we are going to treat everyone like terrorists?”
Excellent question? The 4th amendment is in place simply operating under the assumption that we are not all criminals. In order for the government to treat each individual as a terrorist, or a criminal, there must be probable cause.
It is clear from these practices that the government is not afraid to amend if not abolish constitutional rights. But this same government is not okay with profiling. When push comes to shove, why is the government okay with amending 4th amendment rights for every one, including an innocent 10 year old boy, but not for a very select few who fit an unfortunate profile?
We are only secure as a people when we have our privacy held secure. Without privacy, we have nothing left to protect. In the meantime, this video is a good laugh on the issue.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Quotes worth sharing
John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
"Fathom the odd hypocrisy that Obama wants every citizen to prove they are insured, but people don't have to prove they are citizens"....Ben Stein
“There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against their enemies.” (Ezra Taft Benson, America at the Crossroads, August 30, 1969.)
No focus, or point to these, I just felt they were valuable and worth sharing.
"Fathom the odd hypocrisy that Obama wants every citizen to prove they are insured, but people don't have to prove they are citizens"....Ben Stein
“There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against their enemies.” (Ezra Taft Benson, America at the Crossroads, August 30, 1969.)
No focus, or point to these, I just felt they were valuable and worth sharing.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Let's talk TSA
I have mixed feelings about the processes that happen at airports with the Transportation and Security Administration or TSA. I fly on average 12 times a year for business purposes. That means on average, I have 24 trips through security screenings. Each airport has different levels of security. Some airports are also more efficient than others.
Lately, story after story has hit the news regarding the privacy of security screenings. The latest having to do with x-ray screenings, and invasive pat downs. I do realize that there is value in having tight security. I am not entirely convinced that these invasive, privacy shattering efforts constitute tight security.
However, I am not sure to what extent one can truly have tight security in these situations without having to impede on some levels of personal privacy. Where is the happy medium?
Lately, story after story has hit the news regarding the privacy of security screenings. The latest having to do with x-ray screenings, and invasive pat downs. I do realize that there is value in having tight security. I am not entirely convinced that these invasive, privacy shattering efforts constitute tight security.
However, I am not sure to what extent one can truly have tight security in these situations without having to impede on some levels of personal privacy. Where is the happy medium?
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Quantitative Easing Explained - kind of
This was being shuttled around facebook and I thought I would share it around. WARNING: There are a couple swear words. The idea behind the video is almost to attempt to logically explain something that is really illogical.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Mormon Church supports Utah Compact
Many have not heard of the recent declaration between religious, civic, and law enforcement communities to come to some reasonable consensus on immigration - called the Utah Compact. I wish to share this article that states the Mormon Church's support of the principles of the Utah Compact. Yes, the Church has an opinion on political matters. Get used to it... they all do. Please read the compact when you have a moment because it represents a truly wise approach to a very real issue.
Friday, November 12, 2010
When did disagreement become intollerance?
It is no secret that people have disagreements on just about every issue. Mormons disagree with a variety of positions that some have taken. Mormons have certain standards and feel certain ways about social and moral issues. Yet, I have never heard a position that the Mormon or LDS Church took that advocated anger or hostility toward another for that position.
Specifically, and most recently, the Church's position on homosexuality has been taken under attack. This is not a new position, nor is it unique among the Christian world in that the Mormon Church considers acting on homosexuality a sin. However, it seems from much of the media reports, that the Mormon Church bears an almost singular target of persecutions and in some cases, violent protest for this position. The LDS Church stands unique amongst those who disagree with Homosexuality, in that the LDS church advocates for civil unions and for equality of the benefits under the law.
Because of this position, and a position on many other social positions, Mormons are often accused of being intolerant bigots. It would seem that the position that many have taken in defense of their retaliated disgust of their Mormons is that they are being intolerant of intolerance. The old "two wrongs somehow makes me right."
Human Beings have the right to opinion. Citizens of the United States have the right to express that opinion and even to propagate that opinion. The only limit to that freedom is if that expression results in the violation of another persons already established rights. Some have said that the acts of the Mormon Church to defend their positions and opinions on the issue of Gay Marriage has crossed that line when it came to Prop. 8 in California. Clearly there is a line, but what is crossed and by whom?
As with so many issues, the crux of both arguments goes back to the constitution. The Mormon Church hold at its defense, the 1st amendment which GUARANTEES that congress will not abridge the free exercise of their religion, or the abridging of the freedom of speach and assembly. The LDS Church's encouragement for the passage of a certain proposition is a peaceable and legal manner in which they operated. Nothing unconsitutional, nothing violent, or hostile.
On the other side, Homosexuals, the gay community, or gay sympathizers, however they are to be determined or described, have made libelous attacks, staged violent protests outside of sacred temple sites, made movies attacking the faith, includeing the descriptive attack de jour - saying that those who disagree with gay marriage are intolerant.
At what point are people not allowed to disagree without fear of insult or injury? To call someone intolerant is to effectively say that they should be denied their God given right to an opinion. To call someone intolerant is to say they are not worthy of their constitutional first amendment rights. The first amendment right is so fundamental - the right to marry is not. If there was a violation of rights with whom lies the greater fault?
Specifically, and most recently, the Church's position on homosexuality has been taken under attack. This is not a new position, nor is it unique among the Christian world in that the Mormon Church considers acting on homosexuality a sin. However, it seems from much of the media reports, that the Mormon Church bears an almost singular target of persecutions and in some cases, violent protest for this position. The LDS Church stands unique amongst those who disagree with Homosexuality, in that the LDS church advocates for civil unions and for equality of the benefits under the law.
Because of this position, and a position on many other social positions, Mormons are often accused of being intolerant bigots. It would seem that the position that many have taken in defense of their retaliated disgust of their Mormons is that they are being intolerant of intolerance. The old "two wrongs somehow makes me right."
Human Beings have the right to opinion. Citizens of the United States have the right to express that opinion and even to propagate that opinion. The only limit to that freedom is if that expression results in the violation of another persons already established rights. Some have said that the acts of the Mormon Church to defend their positions and opinions on the issue of Gay Marriage has crossed that line when it came to Prop. 8 in California. Clearly there is a line, but what is crossed and by whom?
As with so many issues, the crux of both arguments goes back to the constitution. The Mormon Church hold at its defense, the 1st amendment which GUARANTEES that congress will not abridge the free exercise of their religion, or the abridging of the freedom of speach and assembly. The LDS Church's encouragement for the passage of a certain proposition is a peaceable and legal manner in which they operated. Nothing unconsitutional, nothing violent, or hostile.
On the other side, Homosexuals, the gay community, or gay sympathizers, however they are to be determined or described, have made libelous attacks, staged violent protests outside of sacred temple sites, made movies attacking the faith, includeing the descriptive attack de jour - saying that those who disagree with gay marriage are intolerant.
At what point are people not allowed to disagree without fear of insult or injury? To call someone intolerant is to effectively say that they should be denied their God given right to an opinion. To call someone intolerant is to say they are not worthy of their constitutional first amendment rights. The first amendment right is so fundamental - the right to marry is not. If there was a violation of rights with whom lies the greater fault?
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
So the dem's don't seem to like Pelosi now either huh?
I am not able to put this all together. So to the best of what I can see, those in Pelosi's district are either completely clueless as to the amount of loss that she has brought upon her party, and this country, or they find her sexy and want to keep her in the public spotlight. Since the latter is clearly not even possible, it must be the first option. Second, the Democrats seem unwilling to even ceremonially recognize her as the speaker of the house, but they don't have the stones to run against her in the Minority leader role.
Of the two recent political results from this last election, I am not sure which is more sad; Nancy Pelosi winning re-election, or that the Democrats can't seem to put anyone else up that can even challenge her in leadership? No wonder Democrats lost deeply this time around.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Three R's of Choice
President Thomas S. Monson, Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, gave a talk at this last general conference called the "Three R's of Choice." Those three R's were right, or the right to chose, responsibility for our choices, and results of choice. In the course of this talk was given a quote from another earlier Prophet, David O. McKay who said, “Next to the bestowal of life itself, the right to direct that life is God’s greatest gift to man.”
Following this line in a more governmental secular sense, one could ask the question, "How does one reconcile these statements with the actions and stance of the church on issues like abortion and gay marriage?" Simple, we have have the right to life. Abortion is the violation of the right to life; the most supreme right we have as individual human beings, and as citizens. Abortion is the act of denying that right as a way of trying to eliminate the second "R" - responsibility for a previous choice. Of course church teachings do leave the room for the vary rare case of incest and more specifically, rape, as very slim exceptions to this rule. In the case of rape, where agency has been violated and serious harm, irreparable harm, is the only result - exceptions have rarely been made. In a largely universal sense, the right to life, the greatest gift to man, is most vigorously defended.
What then of gay marriage? If the right to direct that life is so great a gift, why keep someone from being able to direct that life without restriction? From my interpretation, I feel that this relates to the last two of the R's. Those who chose anything in this life have the responsibility for the results of our choices. Agency is not the principles of all choice and no consequence. If someone choses to disobey one or many of God's laws, that individual should expect to be responsible for the results of that choice. When someone choses to violate God's laws of chastity through homosexual acts, there are consequences. The issue of gay marriage is not about choice. The choice happened when the individual decided to be gay or rather to act upon homosexual tendencies.
Additionally, the right to direct ones life is a great gift, and "of whom much is given, much is required." Those who chose to act upon homosexual tendencies have directed their life, and that right is not lost - but their future altered as a result. What is lost are any benefits or blessings forfeit as a result of that choice. Those who commit sin seem to wish less of what is required of them, so in consequence, less is given. This includes the bond of marriage.
Life and choice are a gift. They have both been given to us. What lies before us is the chance to make the most of that life by seeking to put aside selfishness and base, physical desires, and to take upon ourselves a better life through obedience to the way of the Gospel plan - through following Christ's example. Those who are unwilling to overcome even the most powerful temptations are setting a standard far below their potential. In society today, many seek to reduce God's laws to suggestions, others call gospel teachings and principles unwise. I know that there is much I don't know - for such things I appeal to a higher, if not the highest wisdom. Seeking to follow a higher law leaders to higher and more desirable results.
Following this line in a more governmental secular sense, one could ask the question, "How does one reconcile these statements with the actions and stance of the church on issues like abortion and gay marriage?" Simple, we have have the right to life. Abortion is the violation of the right to life; the most supreme right we have as individual human beings, and as citizens. Abortion is the act of denying that right as a way of trying to eliminate the second "R" - responsibility for a previous choice. Of course church teachings do leave the room for the vary rare case of incest and more specifically, rape, as very slim exceptions to this rule. In the case of rape, where agency has been violated and serious harm, irreparable harm, is the only result - exceptions have rarely been made. In a largely universal sense, the right to life, the greatest gift to man, is most vigorously defended.
What then of gay marriage? If the right to direct that life is so great a gift, why keep someone from being able to direct that life without restriction? From my interpretation, I feel that this relates to the last two of the R's. Those who chose anything in this life have the responsibility for the results of our choices. Agency is not the principles of all choice and no consequence. If someone choses to disobey one or many of God's laws, that individual should expect to be responsible for the results of that choice. When someone choses to violate God's laws of chastity through homosexual acts, there are consequences. The issue of gay marriage is not about choice. The choice happened when the individual decided to be gay or rather to act upon homosexual tendencies.
Additionally, the right to direct ones life is a great gift, and "of whom much is given, much is required." Those who chose to act upon homosexual tendencies have directed their life, and that right is not lost - but their future altered as a result. What is lost are any benefits or blessings forfeit as a result of that choice. Those who commit sin seem to wish less of what is required of them, so in consequence, less is given. This includes the bond of marriage.
Life and choice are a gift. They have both been given to us. What lies before us is the chance to make the most of that life by seeking to put aside selfishness and base, physical desires, and to take upon ourselves a better life through obedience to the way of the Gospel plan - through following Christ's example. Those who are unwilling to overcome even the most powerful temptations are setting a standard far below their potential. In society today, many seek to reduce God's laws to suggestions, others call gospel teachings and principles unwise. I know that there is much I don't know - for such things I appeal to a higher, if not the highest wisdom. Seeking to follow a higher law leaders to higher and more desirable results.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Bernake is no banker - he's a thief
No stimulus has worked. Not a single one, no matter what the numbers have said. Employment is not what it should be, and neither is debt. Debt is the problem, and I have said it time and time again in this blog, more of a bad thing cannot make it a good thing. With Ben Bernake's recent decision to take on what amounts to 600 billion dollars in debt to this nation, I see NO wisdom in it. That is not a conclusion based simply on perception alone. The debts of this nation are a threat to national security, that means that in no misguided words, Ben Bernake is not only a thief, he is a domestic terrorist. The acts that he is about to commit on our lands is inexcusable.
If you or I were to steal from the government, we would be put in prison. But when the government steals from us, we are supposed to applaud it? The freedoms that we are supposed to enjoy include economic freedom. If we as a people are enslaved in the deep bonds of debt, we will be a nation of prisoners, a nation of debtors, a nation of weakened citizens, forced into debt servitude. What will the result be, even if this "bailout" works? What then is more economic struggles to pay off the debts. Any increase in economy that might result will be offset by the tax debt as a result.
Oddly enough, the idea behind this program is to make lending more available to the American people - the more we can lend, the more we will buy. HELLO?! Have we forgotten that we should be buying with our OWN MONEY!?! Buying on credit or debt spending is not the only way to buy things. Until our government understands that we get the services we can pay for. If we can't pay for them, then we CAN'T get them. I want a maid to come to the house and clean up after my kids. I can't afford it, so I don't get the service. Government can be that simple.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Bye, bye Mr. Olberman
Okay, perhaps I am not very concerned about the future of Mr. Olberman. Aside from his worthless political views, when anyone says to or about an apostle, namely Elder Oaks, to "shut the hell up" and calls him one of the worst people in the world, you are lower that dirt to me. I say, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. I'm not saying this is punishment from the Lord for those comments either, in case you were going that way, "haters."
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Simple Question: Should voting be mandatory?
In countries like Australia, voting is mandatory. Is that something that should be done in the United States?
What I blame "the gays" for
Thanks Javelin for a fun post idea. This is dedicated to you.
While this may come as a surprise, I don't think on gay issues very often. I know Javelin and others will be disappointed to find out I really could care less about other peoples sexual tendencies until it is forced into my life. But, as a Mexican-American that is honest enough to admit that I sometimes judge people by stereotypes, I can, when pressed, think of a few things that are the fault of "gays" as Javelin likes to call them.
1. When I go to get my hair done, I am afraid to have a straight man do my hair. Gay men have forced me to think that straight men cannot cut or style hair or even offer basic style advice as they are not in touch with their artistic side.
2. I blame gays for making the bow-tie a fashion faux-pas. Straight men are afraid to wear them because they are afraid of being called gay and gay men will not wear them because they are not as fashionable as a tie. I love the bow-tie and would love to see them outside proms and weddings once again.
3. I blame gay men for the continued popularity of platform stiletto heeled shoes. Women have fought long and hard to remove these evil shoes from the market. Cross-dressing gay men have continued to buy them with fervor and though the sizes of shoes available in this style have grown, women's ability to walk comfortably has not.
4. I blame gay people for the popularity of the comedian Jeff Dunham. He is not funny. He isn't even amusing. In fact, he isn't even so bad that you want to stay and watch the "train wreck." In the words of the teenagers I work with "He's gay!"
Sadly, for Javelin, I don't blame gay people for the immorality in the world. I don't blame them for crime. I don't blame them for the socialistic turn America is taking. I don't blame them for the hatred and discrimination in the world. I blame all those things on people who are too scared to stand up for whats right because they might offend any particular group. I blame it on those who look for hatred in others and by insults and antagonism fuel that hatred. I blame it on those who feel that by accusing another of hatred and bigotry, they are not hateful and bigoted themselves.
While this may come as a surprise, I don't think on gay issues very often. I know Javelin and others will be disappointed to find out I really could care less about other peoples sexual tendencies until it is forced into my life. But, as a Mexican-American that is honest enough to admit that I sometimes judge people by stereotypes, I can, when pressed, think of a few things that are the fault of "gays" as Javelin likes to call them.
1. When I go to get my hair done, I am afraid to have a straight man do my hair. Gay men have forced me to think that straight men cannot cut or style hair or even offer basic style advice as they are not in touch with their artistic side.
2. I blame gays for making the bow-tie a fashion faux-pas. Straight men are afraid to wear them because they are afraid of being called gay and gay men will not wear them because they are not as fashionable as a tie. I love the bow-tie and would love to see them outside proms and weddings once again.
3. I blame gay men for the continued popularity of platform stiletto heeled shoes. Women have fought long and hard to remove these evil shoes from the market. Cross-dressing gay men have continued to buy them with fervor and though the sizes of shoes available in this style have grown, women's ability to walk comfortably has not.
4. I blame gay people for the popularity of the comedian Jeff Dunham. He is not funny. He isn't even amusing. In fact, he isn't even so bad that you want to stay and watch the "train wreck." In the words of the teenagers I work with "He's gay!"
Sadly, for Javelin, I don't blame gay people for the immorality in the world. I don't blame them for crime. I don't blame them for the socialistic turn America is taking. I don't blame them for the hatred and discrimination in the world. I blame all those things on people who are too scared to stand up for whats right because they might offend any particular group. I blame it on those who look for hatred in others and by insults and antagonism fuel that hatred. I blame it on those who feel that by accusing another of hatred and bigotry, they are not hateful and bigoted themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)