Wednesday, November 19, 2008
My favorite quote:
"...retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it."
No wonder I bought a Mazda.
Now we know. Not that we didn't before. This just proves it.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Watch this video.
If you are not fuming mad at the absolute animosity of the crowd toward this little old woman, you should be ashamed of yourself, no matter what party you are from, no matter what your religion, no matter what your situation is. If you are a human being, you should realize that this is NOT how we treat ANYONE! Especially the elderly. I have some choice words for those men yelling in her face. But I'll hold my tongue. Well, maybe I won't.
So here we are, 2008. We are told time and time again that conservatives are hateful, bigoted war-mongers that won't conform to the new society, whatever that is. But here is where it REALLY gets me mad.
Proposition 8. California.
The people voted.
The courts overturned it.
So the people voted again.
Now, instead of accepting the fact that the people have spoken, and teh democratic process worked, those that were against it are violently protesting. I can only assume that once again, they will undermine the democratic process by taking this one back to the courts.
So the left are the "tolerant" ones, accepting of people with "alternative" lifestyles. This is the image they portray. Anyone who opposes them is a racist, hate-monger, bigot.
HOW ABOUT YOU GO LOOK IN THE MIRROR! I AM FINE WITH YOU PROTESTING ACCORDING TO YOUR VIEWS - I ENCOURAGE IT BECAUSE IT IS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! BUT THE ACTIONS I SAW IN THIS VIDEO ABHOR ME. HOW DARE YOU VIOLENTLY SILENCE THE VOICE OF SOMEONE WITH AN OPPOSITE VIEWPOINT! AND AN ELDERLY WOMAN AT THAT. HOW TO YOU FEEL ABOUT YOURSELVES? PRETTY HONERABLE TO GO AFTER AN ELDERLY WOMAN IN SUCH A VIOLENT WAY, DONT YOU THINK?
This makes my blood boil! Such a double standard. The entire country needs to see what the "tolerant" left will do to anyone with an opposing viewpoint. Shame. Shame on them.
Send that video link to as many people as you can. People need to see what the "tolerant" side REALLY is.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Watch Support Enterprise MENTORS International through uPlej.com/MENTORS in How to Videos | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
Friday night my wife and I were invited to a gala dinner for a lot of very wealthy people. (We are not classified in that category, but were there with them) These people had organized this dinner to recognize a few groups and individuals, and to hob-nob with eachother. Now, at first we were kind of mocking it, feeling a bit out of place. It was at the Grand America in downtown Salt Lake City, which is a VERY nice hotel. We walked into the ballroom to take our seats, and were blown away at the tables, the centerpieces, and just the grandeur of what was there. My wife leaned over to me and said "This is how the top level lives!" We chuckled, amazed at the richness of everything around us, again, feeling totally out of place. I looked at my jacket and noticed that I still had baby spit-up remains on my shoulder. It was faint, but consider that my last daughter is now 19 months old!
So we sat down at our table, and it was amazing what was in there. We began reading the program for the night, realizing that some of the dignitaries there were L Tom Perry and Jeffrey R Holland of the Qurum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Archbishop (or something like that) of the Salt Lake Diocese (sp?), Senator Orrin Hatch, a few others, and one of the people receiving an award that night was First Lady Laura Bush. So there was quite the crowd.
What struck me, was what this event was for. It was for a foundation called Enterprise Mentors International. If you don't know anything about them, they are an organization that through donations, provides "micro-loans" to individuals in poor countries to help them out of poverty. As they call it, "give them a hand up, not a hand out." These micro loans are micro indeed: $150 usually. That is almost a month's wages for most of these people. The loans have a small amount of interest to pay for administrative tasks, and most recipients are able to pay it back relatively quickly, because it helps them build their businesses and even employ more people so that they can be more productive. There are so many great success stories.
You may thing this is a great government sponsored organization, that helps with humanitarian efforts around the globe. Yet this is even better - a private organization that is funded with donations, not government grants. They have nothing to do with the government, and that is why they are so successful.
This is a testament that people will do so much more and can help so many more people when they can use their own money. Most of the people that donate donate a LOT of their own money to this foundation. I leaned over to my brother in law and mentioned what will happen to foundations like this when Obama's tax plan goes into effect. The money that these wealthy individuals are willfully gifting to this organization will instead, be confiscated by the federal government and redistributed as a "hand-out" rather that a "hand-up". Organizations like this will suffer because those that have given in the past will not have the means to continue giving like they had previously.
Any private organization will do a better job than a government entity. This one proves it. Obama wants us to believe that the wealthy are unpatriotic and greedy, and the less fortunate have a right to that money to "level the playing field." Is that what this country was founded on? This country was founded on the belief that if you wanted to be successful, you could be as successful as you wanted, and no one could stop you. It is sad to me to think that these individuas will not be able to help as much once Obama's redistribution kicks in.
This is living proof that people who are allowed to keep their money that they work for will do so much more good with it, than any government that employs the forced redistribution of wealth can. Proof that capitalism breeds more compassion for others than socialism ever could.
For more information, please visit their website.
Enterprise Mentors International
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Let me first say that I am proud that we have elected our first Black President. I sincerely mean that. I hope that he will do a good job. But I can't help but feel that our country took a step in a new direction last night. And I wouldn't necessarily say that it was a good direction. We just chose to go down a path that countries before us have tried, only to result in miserable failure. That is the path of socialism.
50 years ago, Soviet Prime Minister Nikita Khrushchev bragged to the US Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson: "Your grandchildren will live under communism!" To which Secretary Benson enthusiastically replied: "If I have it my way, your grandchildren will live free!" Khrushchev, undeterred, fired back: "Oh you Americans! You're so gullible! We'll spoon feed you socialism until you're Communists and don't even know it. We'll never have to fire a shot!" (Listen to Ezra Taft Benson's own words of the discussion here.)
I fear for our country. I fear that my children will not enjoy the blessings of freedom that I have been able to enjoy. Some may ask, "How can you honestly believe that Obama is a socialist?" To understand this, you must first understand what government's role REALLY is. The founding fathers established the government of the United States to be LIMITED government. The government has few responsibilities. These are:
- To secure the rights of life (defend the nation), liberty (do not interfere with individual responsibility and accounability), and the pursuit of happiness (meaning the pursuit of property - the profit motive).
In short, I challenge you to look beyond the handsome man, the eloquent speaker, the charismatic leader, and look at the policies and beliefs of the man that you just elected to be your leader.
I fear that the majority of voters knew WHO they voted for, but not WHAT they voted for. Unfortunately, we have sown the seeds of our own destruction. There was a short window of opportunity to prevent it, but I truly feel that time has come and gone. The question is: Now what?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America's stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.
Barack Obama exclaims in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.
The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
- Karl Marx
Tell me how taxing the "wealthy" business owners and giving it to the "middle class" is NOT wealth redistribution, and is NOT Marxist.
I am amazed how they can blatantly tell everyone that they are going to "spread the wealth" but taxing those that make money, and give it to those that don't. People are buying it. Why are they buying it? Because we have become a lazy, materialistic society that wants everything for nothing. We want success without working for it. We want riches without earning it. We want to live a life of ease and security when we are unwilling to do what it takes to get it.
We are giving up our birthright for a mess of pottage. I hope that trend turns around.
I really feel that there is a widening divide in this country. There are those that promote individual freedom and responsibility, and there are those that advocate the welfare state, where the government is king, and the people are surfs. I fear to say that in the latter, they probably don't know that that is exactly what they are doing. Crying out for economic equality is one thing. But there is a difference between wanting to be given freedom from regulation and taxation so that you can make yourself successful, and wanting the government to guarantee you success without you having to lift a finger.
Hopefully society has not stooped so low in the US that the vast majority of the people are wanting to be taken care of, rather than taking care of themselves.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Here's the full video. Can you say "Robin Hood"? I'd have a fewer things to say to Obama than that man, so maybe it's a good thing it wasn't me. Why should those who are successful pay for those who aren't? His whole thing about "2 ways of looking at it" is a joke. I see it 2 ways: Work for what you earn, or redistribute the wealth. "I want to make sure that they [the rich] pay a higher tax to pay for the tax cut". WHAT? EXCUSE ME? Did I just hear correctly? You want to make the rich pay higer taxes, so that you can cut the taxes of the "poor". Is that right? I can't believe people are standing for this. You do not give people a motive to be successful when they know they are working to provide for those that haven't earned it. He even said that those that are wealthy can afford to pay more so that others can get a tax cut. I'm am in awe.
The question is not about who won the debate.
The question is: Which candidate will preserve freedoms and abide by the constitution. While neither candidate is perfect, McCain will do a better job at this. Obama wants to tax the “wealthy” who “got lucky” and give it to those that “need” a tax cut. This is called “wealth redistribution”. It is taking from those that have and giving it to those that have not. The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee success. It does not guarantee happiness. It guarantees the FREEDOM to achieve success if you want it. I heard it once said that the Constitution of the United States basically says “If you want it, you can go get it. You have all the freedom to go achieve success. But we don’t guarantee you success.” The American Dream is powered by the drive of the individual. There must be a motive. That motive is success. When Barack Obama says that he wants to give tax-cuts to the middle class, it means that he believes that the way to do that is to punish those that have worked for what they have, and use that money to pay for the tax cut of those that don’t have as much. I AM ONE OF THOSE THAT DOESN’T HAVE AS MUCH. To Obama, I am POOR. Hardly. I have relatives that are extremely wealthy. Why should they give me what I have not earned?
It boggles my mind that the American people are not seeing what Obama’s plan is: SOCIALISM. From the Miriam-Webster Dictionary:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
“Governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”
“Marxist theory TRANSITIONAL between capitalism and communism”
We are making that transition with Obama. That is Obama’s plan. He is not even hiding it anymore. Nationalized health care? College education for everyone? Pull the rich down to bring the poor up? He is a socialist. That’s not just my opinion, that is by definition.
If we vote for him, we vote for socialism. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers fought to avoid, and now we are willingly accepting it into our home. Shame on us, America. America stands for FREEDOM of the individual, not dependence on the state.
Monday, October 13, 2008
The principal of a state school put a father in jail for wanting parental notification regarding the teaching of homosexual acceptance...TO HIS 5 YEAR OLD! As a father, I was burning up inside watching this. HOW DARE THEY THINK THEY CAN PARENT MY CHILDREN FOR ME, AND THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT IT! I could not stand for that. It is appauling.
The ones who tell me I'm not tolerant, that I'm a hate-monger, that I'm a bigot, will PUT ME IN JAIL for disagreeing with them and asking for parental rights. The state is not my child's parent. This is in Massachusetts. If you think it won't happen in California, you are sorely mistaken. Once it happens there, it will send shockwaves throughout the nation.
Vote YES on Amendment 8!
Here is another site that can explain the entire thing:
Can you say wealth distribution?
Plumber: "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"
Obama: "It's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have a chance at success too..."
Obama: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? This guy is blatantly telling us that he is for the redistribution of wealth! What political system endorses that? SOCIALISM! That is where he wants to take us, and unfortunately, where I think we are going. Sad, sad, sad.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Senator McCain and Governor Palin:
PLEASE MAKE OBAMA TELL US WHY HE AND HIS PLANS ARE NOT SOCIALIST!! YOU WILL NOT ONLY EXPOSE HIM FOR THE SOCIALIST THAT HE IS, BUT YOU WILL TELL THE NATION WHO HE REALLY IS AND WHAT HE REALLY WILL DO TO THIS COUNTRY. YOU HAVE MISSED EVERY OPPORTUNITY SO FAR TO DO SO AND YOU BETTER DO IT NOW! Just like the man in Wisconsin, I'M MAD...I'm REALLY MAD! And it's NOT about the economy. It's because Barack Obama and his socialist agenda are going to ruin the freedoms that make us the greatest nation on earth. Universal health care. Government bailouts. Medicare, Medicade, Social Security....CRADLE TO GRAVE WELFARE PROGRAMS!! Please, I beg of you, for the future of this great country, STAND UP FOR FREEDOM. STAND UP FOR PRINCIPLES. You will win more undecideds by being straight and RIGHT, than by being vague and centrist. Don't give away your principles or compromise on your values just so that you can "work across the aisle." I don't care if you are bipartisan. If you are right, you are right. If you are wrong, you are wrong. Like Abraham Lincoln, we should not care if God is on our side. We should care and be worried if we are on GOD's (or if that's too religious for you) TRUE AND RIGHT's side. Be Strong. Stand up. You cannot expect people to vote for you if you are more concerned with bipartisanship than you are what is right and wrong. He will turn this country into a Marxist totalitarianist state if he gets his way and WE WILL NOT STAND FOR IT! Pardon me for getting Biblical, but to quote the Bible: "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Rev 3:15-16)
BE THE TRUE CONSERVATIVES THAT YOU PURPORT TO BE. IF YOU ARE TRULY THAT, YOU WILL TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE TRUTH, AND LOOK OBAMA IN THE EYE AND ASK HIM, "TELL US WHY YOUR PLATFORM IS NOT SOCIALIST!" He will squirm like a slug being sprinkled with salt because he knows he IS a socialist. You will win the hearts ad minds of the people by a landslide with this one swift gesture. EXPOSE HIM FOR WHAT HE IS!! I am tired of this game. It's do or die now. There is not another chance. Please, please, please. Listen to me. I may be one voice, but believe me, there are hundreds of thousands like me, and like the great man that stood up in Wisconsin and declared, "I'm MAD. I'm REALLY MAD."
God bless America, and preserve the freedoms that HE, I repeat: HE gave us. Not the government, but He.
I may sound like a religious zealot. But what I know is that there are certain unalterable moral truths. The most important is the freedom to choose. With Obama, that freedom will begin to be limited in all too many places.
Finally, the sensible voice of the millions of people that don't want a socialist president. If you question me how Obama could be a socialist, once again, I refer you to the following articles:
Sunday, October 5, 2008
"Rob", whoever you are, I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I would love to have a civilized conversation with you where you could articulate your thoughts in detail a little more. I encourage debate when it is civilized. Unfortunately, I don't think that would happen. I hope you rethink your methods of conversation. You'll never convert anyone to your cause by calling them what you called me.
It's so much easier to be that anonymous critic, where you can disappear into a crowd and not have to be accountable for your words, than it is to stand up for what you believe in, and be willing to defend your position. In fact, it is cowardly.
"Rob", I feel sorry for you. I deleted you comments because I feel they are vulgar and profane. They are inappropriate to the extreme. What you said is no argument, but a lack of thought. I hope that in the future, if you have a problem with what I write, that you'll take the time to think your position through, and explain your thoughts to me in your comment. Convince me that you are right. I'll give it thought, and I'll respond. I would love to hear your opinion, but only if it is more that a barrage of four-letter words and personal insults.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Why don't we let people who make incredibly bad financial decisions face the consequences? What does it teach them that every time they get into a bind, mommy (Uncle Sam) is there to save them from their stupidity? Why can't we let the market work? Yes, we will all have to deal with the consequences of what might happen, but I guarantee that the rebound will make us that much greater.
Failure is good. It teaches us what we might not have known had we never failed. It gives us experience, and helps us learn from our mistakes.
Uncle Sam has done a bang-up job with this latest coddling. I'll say it now. I can't believe how incredibly STUPID these people are.
What happened to the blame getting put on the people who took out bad loans? They are the ones that are ultimately making the decisions. Banks don't force people to buy homes they can't afford, to buy boats they shouldn't, and to refinance their houses and pull a bunch of money out. The fault lies with the people. With the government doing what it is, it's not addressing the problem - LET THE MARKET WEED OUT THOSE WHO MAKE BAD DECISIONS! It will be hard. The economy will suffer. People will run into hard times. But be assured that they brought it on themselves for the most part.
If people would be willing to work for what they receive, stop looking at the Jones' and envying all they have, then go into debt by refinancing their homes, racking up credit card debt just to be like the Jones', then banks would not have been issuing bad loans, and we would not be in this mess. Fiscal irresponsibility is what is to blame here on the part of a spoiled "I-want-everything-without-having-to-work-for-it" society.
I'm sorry to say it, but we deserve it.
This is a must read article:
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Michelle Obama in her own words "Some need to give up a piece of their pie and give it to others":
The Global Poverty Act?
Policies? Or Socialist Ideals? Taxes, Taxes, Taxes.
And for those of you who would like a much deeper discussion into Obama's policies:
If you disagree, please teach me why I am wrong.
- Obama's outright hypocrisy - Just watch this video and I'm sure that you'll undersand what I mean:
To all of you who scream out "OH Yeah, here you go with right-wing nut job FOX NEWS again!" Maybe I like to watch them because they always have pretty hard FACTS to back up their claims, unlike most of the other news agencies that I watch. Here they are showing hard numbers. It's hard to dispute the truth when it's staring at you in the face. I'm naturally a skeptic. So I don't believe anyone until they show me evidence, or give me some sort of proof. I don't even let my mother off the hook when it comes to crazy stories. I make her back it up. So when they show numbers, I'm more willing to believe it.
Here is a man that is constantly saying that it's the other guy's fault. Who's the one taking money? Who is the one getting paid off? Apparently, it's the guy pointing the finger. This is getting rediculous. Why aren't these guys exposed for what they are? And these are the people that are going to "fight for us"???? Phony. I've heard enough. I'm tired of this hypocrite and liar trying to butter us up, while he rakes in the cash. Man of the people? If being a socialist is what he means, then yes. Now, I don't use that word lightly, but I use it for Barack Obama. Yes, he is a socialist, whether you like it or not. Forced redistribution of wealth is a completely socialist idea. Tell me I am wrong if I am. Correct me if I am misguided, please. How is he implementing a "forced distribution of wealth"? State programs. State welfare programs that are not designed to help but to create dependency. "Why would the government want to create dependency?" you may ask. Hmmm, let me see. I'm a politician. I know that the indolent people of this country look up in pride, yes there can be "pride looking up", and despise and envy those who have more than they do. As a politician, I need as many people to vote for me as possible, so I can stay in power. How do I do that? By telling the lower classes that the rich are bad. That they have been taken advantage of and victimized, and that they deserve more. Those rich people don't understand their trials and hardships. They don't know what it's like to have to scrimp to pay the bills. They don't know what it's like to get laid off. They don't deserve teh riches that they have. They should share it with you so that you can have the same chance they have had. So here's what I'll do as that politician: I'll create a tax system that punishes the wealthy, and give tax breaks to the poor. Then I'll redistribute that money to the poor. IF I do that, I'll be the one paying their bills, giving them subsidized housing, paying medical insurance, and they will love me. What does this all bring us to?
Love of the people = votes
Votes = stay in office
Stay in office = more power
This is forced distribution of wealth, and if it is NOT what Obama wants to do, please show me. If it is NOT what is going on with the Democratic Party, then SHOW ME! I am so tired of people thinking that they have a right to what others have earned. Last time I checked, the Constitution of the United States guaranteed certain inalienable rights - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (property rights). It did not guarantee, however, that the government would give you a handout when things got tough. It didn't guarantee a house to every citizen, a car to every citizen, a college education to every citizen, a job to every citizen. The rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness guarantee us the ability to work for a house, to work for a car, and to work for a college education IF WE SO DESIRE! There is no guarantee of those things. We must be willing to work for those things. This brings me to my second point:
- The US government has decided to spend up to $80 per household to provide people with converter boxes for their old TV's that won't accept digital signals in Feb 2009 when all analog signals will be stopped. Excuse me? Where, pray tell, are they getting the money to do this? Once again, taxpayer money being used to guarantee privileges to society. Yes, you heard me right, I said TV is a privilege. Where is it in the Constitution that says that we are guaranteed digital entertainment? Is that the role of government? To spend MY hard earned taxes to pay for someone's tv signal? Where in the Constitution does it say that this is the role of government? TV is a choice. TV is a privilege. If you want to watch TV, you are going to have to buy one. Can't afford one? Well, better go get a job and pay for it. Say that 10 million homes decide they need to get this converter box. That's 800 MILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer money used to guarantee the ability to watch digital tv to people. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? Where is this going? It's happening because we have a society that wants everything for nothing, and they are willing to give away their freedoms to do so. We also have a power-hungry government that is all too willing to take those freedoms from us in order to consolidate power. I don't even begin to comprehend how people say that this is okay. The founding fathers aer rolling in their graves at what is happening now FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, but mainly from the left. We need LESS regulation, LESS government programs, and MORE citizen involvement. We also need a citizenry that values hard work and the rewards that come with it to a free handout. We have become a society in which we are rewarded for mediocrity, and even failure, and punished for being successful. That is NOT what the Constitution was about, and that is not what the country was originally founded on.
We, as the United States of America, cannot become the Roman Empire. We cannot be so consumed in greed and laziness that we forget what got us here. We must stand up in the world for the freedoms that guarantee us the possibility of every personal success. Where hard work, personal resopnsibility, and REAL charity reign as the ideals of our nation. Then, and only then, will we pull out of this downward spiral we are currently in.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Charity, by definition, is the "benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity". Charity is a matter of personal character, where you love your neighbor as yourself, and therefore, you want to help them. But in doing so, you do not want to do for them what they can do for themselves. You want to assist them, especially when they need the assistance. But you also want them to be self sufficient. With self sufficience comes pride in one's work, and pride in the reward of one's hard work. Self sufficience allows one to be the master of their own life, where they are free to follow their desires and dreams. On the other hand, dependence promotes laziness and mediocrity. After all, if there will always be what you need, even when you don't deserve it, why try?
We have become a welfare state in two ways. The first is the attitude of society that the government owes them something. That welfare from the government is now looked at as a right, not a privelage.
Ezra Taft Benson (Sec. of Agriculture under Eisenhower) has said: "Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We’ve done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today’s egalitarians are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a matter of right. One HEW official said, “In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something.” (The American Free Enterprise System, by President Ezra Taft Benson, Logan Utah, May 6, 1977)
At the basis of Judeo-Christian teaching are the two greatest commandments:
1. Love the Lord thy God
2. Love thy neighbor as thyself
Now, I don't mean to get deeply religious, but whatever religion you may be (or may not be), these tennants of thought are good. I spent two years with Bhuddists, and they had the same tennants. We are to love God. We do that by being obedient to his laws. As Christ said " A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." (John 13:34). Another prophet of God said that "When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God." (Mosiah 2:17, The Book of Mormon)
Charity is NOT the role of government. Charity is the duty of the people. When charity is forced, it is not charity at all. This is what one party would have us do. Their intentions are correct, yet their methods are wrong. The desire to help those that are less fortunate is a good, correct desire. But it should be of our own volition and decision that we assist others.
In Ezra Taft Benson's article, "The Proper Role of Government", he proposes a situation that best explains how it is not the government's responsibility, or right, to take from one that has, and give to another that has not:
"Suppose pioneer “A” wants another horse for his wagon, He doesn’t have the money to buy one, but since pioneer “B” has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor’s good fortune, Is he entitled to take his neighbor’s horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer “B” wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.
If “A” has no proper power to take “B’s” property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that “B” give his extra horse to “A”, they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:
“For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another.” (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)
In the next part, I will discuss the second problem - cradle-to-grave government.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Dallin H. Oaks - Provo Freedom Festival Address 1994
Just right-click on the MP3 and download it.
Some notable Quotations:
- "A democratic republic needs patriotic citizens who are fulfilling their responsibilities as well as claiming their rights.
No society is so secure that it can withstand continual demands for increases in citizen rights, without producing corresponding increases in the fulfillment of citizen responsibilities.
Responsibilities, like honesty, respect for personal and property rights, self reliance, and willingness to sacrifice for the common good, are basic to the governance and preservation of our nation."
- "We know that our national government cannot continue indefinitely to spend more than it receives.
If the citizen voters of this nation continue to demand the current level of government expenditures that produces our deficits, then our citizen taxpayers must accept the tax increase necessary to fund them.
If we won't raise taxes, we shoud accept cuts in various expenditures.
We cannot continue much longer to fund our current levels of government expenditures by increased borrowings.
This problem cannot be solved by the popular but superficial action of merely opposing all tax increases, and it cannot be solved by the phony solution of proposing spending cuts on every government program except OUR various personal favorites."
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
For a long time, I've heard people talking about all these government programs that are left over from WWII, specifically, Social Security. I have been paying Social Security since I was 14, and now I'm seeing that I will never see a dime of what I put in. What we have is a program that FORCES, yes, I said it...FORCES the redistribution of wealth. I can't get out of it.
If I had the chance to check a box that said:
"I agree to never receive any entitlements from the Social Security Program. I hereby withdraw and relinquish my right to receive entitlements from Social Security, Medicare, or MedicAid."
I would do it. Here's why:
I believe in working for what I get. I also believe in being charitable to others at my discretion, and I feel I do a pretty good job. I try to give a couple of bucks to they guy I see on the street. I also give 10% of my total income to charity. I think that's pretty substantial. I don't say that to brag. What I do say it for is to prove that I believe most people are like that - good hearted citizens that will help each other when needed. But when I work hard for what I do, and I see a LOT of my pay getting deducted from my check without my consent to go to people and programs that I have not approved, I get angry. Not because I don't think we should be charitable, but because I don't think it's the government's job to force me to be charitable. That is for me to decide. I can do a better job helping people with my money than the government can. I don't have to pay accountants to give money to people. I don't have to pay for office buildings that house employees to go through each and every welfare case. Sometimes I wonder what percentage of my "charity" actually gets to the people that need it. If it were just me, it would be 100% of my charity.
Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture under Dwight Eisenhower, said that "Charity that is forced is not charity at all." I agree with that statement.
How does this tie into Defense Spending. Well, watch these videos and you might just see that we are "barking up the wrong tree" when we think that defense spending is out of control.
Heritage In Focus: Myths About Defense Spending: Part 1
Heritage In Focus: Myths About Defense Spending: Part 2
Heritage In Focus: Myths About Defense Spending: Part 3
Heritage In Focus: Myths About Defense Spending: Part 4
And here's a great little piece of info:
Thanks to the Heritage Foundation for this information.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Listen to Obama's response. Just listen to it. He will NOT admit that he was wrong. He will not admit that he made a mistake. And I think that it is quite poor of a presidential candidate to refuse to give credit where credit is due, just to keep his stance on the war. If he is wrong, then he needs to take that, admit it, and move on. This is what kills me about politics. It's not about what is right and wrong. It's not about having integrity. It's about trying not to lose face. It's about pandering to those that will give you their vote, even if it means deceiving them. Now, I'm no McCain fan, but given the two men as candidates, I think I've made my choice. A little moral character is better than none at all.
Plus, I have to give Katie Couric props for asking the tough questions to Obama. This just shows that he doesn't have the answers. He crys "Change!" but has no plan on how to make that change. The change he wants is bigger government, less individual responsibility, more reliance on the state, and in turn, more consolidation of power.
Sounds like socialism to me.
Monday, July 21, 2008
I lived overseas for a few years, so I know a little about how other countries are, especially having lived there. When I returned home to the US, I quickly realized how blessed we are to live in the amazing country. Things that we find commonplace here are the dreams of people in other lands. We have forgotten what a blessing it is to live here.
If these people are so anti-American, and they hate this country so much, they are free to leave. Just like Rosie and Baaaahbra, I don't think they ever will. But attitudes like the ones portrayed in this video don't get us anywhere. They really end up causing more harm than good. When someone calls our soldiers "rapists", my blood boils. Now, not everyone is perfect, there will be mistakes, I will concede that. But to lump the entire military together for the actions of a few is downright cowardly. Especially when you cannot explain your stance when asked to. I hope these people realize that all they are really doing is fueling the fire for people like me who love America, and would love to see them leave this country that they hate so much and live somewhere else. After all, they are free to do so.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
A Kid's Wish... Spiderman for the Day from Knowles Video, Robert Knowles on Vimeo.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Earmarks are viewed by many as a symbol of wasteful government spending. But the House slipped $278 million worth of earmarks into the Labor/HHS appropriations bill it passed before the July 4 recess.
The group Citizens Against Government Waste says that is a 122 percent increase in the amount spent on earmarks from last year's bill. Included were $25 million for the something called the National Writing Project, for teachers.
The Education Department didn't ask for the money because $3 billion already exists to improve teachers' writing. $150,000 is designated for the American Ballet Theater in New York, which has already brought in $28 million from private fundraising. And, $100,000 will be spent on a community gardening outreach program in Toledo, Ohio.
The top three earmark requesters were Democrats Neal Abercrombie of Hawaii, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
"ANWAR does not answer the problem, but I look at it more as a principle…
I want a dog. I want one really bad. So I go out and buy one. But my lawn is so nice, my yard is immaculate, and to have the dog pooping on my lawn would ruin it. So I’m going to take him over to my neighbor’s yard and let him take care of business there. I wouldn’t want him to mess up my yard. Man, I love my dog.
If I want a dog, I must be willing to deal with the responsibilities that come with it. My neighbor doesn’t have the responsibility to provide a place for my dog to do his duty just because I wanted a dog. If I have a dog, I deal with it’s poop.
We are like that owner who keeps having his neighbors put fences up to keep the dog out. So we worry and fret where our dog is going to relieve himself. We scramble to find places for him to go. We find one neighbor that is willing to let our dog do his duty there...for a price. A price which he will set and can change at any time. So we agree. So now we have a small place for our dog. But sometimes our neighbor gives us an even smaller area. Man, our dog doesn't like that. From time to time our neighbor decides that he wants to raise the price, and there is nothing we can do about it. We spend hours and hours searching for other places that might be suitable….searching everywhere but our own back yard. We know it’s there, and there is plenty of yard for him to do his business. But we just won’t do it. We can’t! It may ruin that one square inch of grass. It may stink a little. Heaven forbid! So our dog gets an intestinal blockage and dies, even though we spent every waking moment trying to find a place for him to go…All because we didn’t want our dog to ruin our lawn.
Whether it’s the need for more oil, or the need to develop new energy solutions, we need to be able to provide for ourselves. If we want the oil, we should be willing to pay the price for it and deal with the consequences for wanting it. Maybe if we did drill on our own lands, we might start not liking it, and want to come up with other solutions. ANWAR is not the answer, it’s a principle…that’s just my opinion. I’ll stop there."
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Makers & Takers
Monday, June 16, 2008
"I would rather be right, and called names, and abused, than be- give lip service to a fraud."
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816I found this commentary on quotations from the Founding Fathers and how they apply to today. I thought it was very interesting, and I agreed with almost every bit of it.
One of My Favorites:
[A] wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
Recently, the city where I live realized that they had not been paying attention. They receive most of their revenue from property taxes on new homes. This creates a problem when new home sales slump, and house prices fall. They found themselves $1.8 Million in the hole. So what do they decide to do? THey decide on a "temporary" rise in property taxes - an average of $600/year for an average household. "We're going to look at ways we can cut spending", they say. But when it comes down to it, they are too chicken to cut all optional programs. I would rather have a city that is a lean, streamlined city, that stays within it's budget, than one that provides fun recreational activities and extra fluff to its citizens, and goes into debt for it. When wil lgovernments, no matter how small learn, that they are the stewards over money that SOMEONE ELSE has earned!? I worked hard for that money, and they spend it unwisely, then come asking for more. This makes by blood boil. I'm saddened that I had to miss the city council meeting tonight where they discussed it. Out of necessity, I am home with the kids. But maybe it's good that I'm not there.
New Wearable Feedbags Let Americans Eat More, Move Less
Sadly enough, I can totally see us coming to this.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Democrats LOVE the middle class...
Overview of America - Part 1
Overview of America - Part 2
Overview of America - Part 3
Overview of America - Part 4
Each of these videos remind us of the need for freedom it its ORIGINAL intent by the founding fathers. Unfortunately, I feel that too few people understand that we are well on our way to losing this.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Seems that once again, the alarmists on Global Warming didn't do their homework. Do I see a pattern evolving here?
Come on. People. When will we get it through our thick, highly evolved skulls that Global warming is a natural occurance? Yes, we should be better stewards of the environment...but by personal choice, not by politically driven mandates. How many of these mandates have done a bit of good in reducing global warming? None. The global temperature still rises. I think it is highly arrogant of us to believe that we have so much power that we can control the temperature of the globe. We only wish we had that amount of power. I for one am fine to be careful how much gas I use, plant trees, and recycle as much as I can. But I am not ready for the government to ruin our economy just because there are a few uneducated, or under-educated, fanatics out there whose sole purpose is to make a name for themselves, not to save the planet.
Here is a great clip from Glenn Beck. Like him or not, he tells the truth, even when it hurts either side.
Here's a great one where John Stossel talks to scientists that disagree with MANKIND'S role in global warming:
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
"THE REAL MEANING OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
I support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national religion. But I am opposed to the doctrine of separation of church and state as currently interpreted to divorce government from any formal recognition of God. The current trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of our rights, and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny. If Americans should ever come to believe that their rights and freedoms are instituted among men by politicians and bureaucrats, then they will no longer carry the proud inheritance of their forefathers, but will grovel before their masters seeking favors and dispensations—a throwback to the Feudal Systems of the Dark Ages. We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (P.P.N.S., p. 519)
Since God created men with certain unalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to the creature which he created. Man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around. Even the non-believer can appreciate the logic of this relationship."
From "The Proper Role of Government" by Ezra Taft Benson, emphasis added.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Now that I have a family, my worries have changed. My main focus is the safety and security of my own wife and children. I am concerned about things going on in the world, but I feel that I have little control or influence over that. What I do feel in urgency right now is the need to make sure that my own family is prepared and taken care of. Personal preparedness, or self-reliance is something that I have really been getting more and more involved in lately, and I think for good reason. We cannot rely on anyone anymore to take care of us. The country's welfare system is fundamentally broken because people rely on it to take care of them. We as a society have lost the drive to work and provide for ourselves. Now, there are many that are doing a good job of preparing for disasters or problems, but the vast majority aren't. I saw first hand while working with, or trying to work with, the Red Cross during the evacuation of New Orleans, that although government agencies will try to help, the greatest preparedness that we can do as a society is prepare to fend for ourselves. One of the greatest things that we can do for ourselves and our families is to become self-reliant.
My wife's parents mailed us a wonderful article reminding us that "perilous times shall come." It reminded us that we will need to be prepared for a "portent of stormy times ahead". Those times have come. It reminded me that we must take it upon ourselves to be prepared in the event of a major emergency. This article, although religious in nature, is something that everyone should read. The entire website is wonderful, but here is something that we should all read:
The blog has a lot of really good links. If you think that it is just the thoughts of a religious fanatic, consider these articles:
Why the Era of Cheap Food is Over
Ethanol Policy is Driving Up Food Prices
-This one kills me. In our blind quest to save the planet, we are killing our economy and
Google News Search - MANY good articles
The necessity of having 3 months supply of food and water, a cash reserve, and survival equipment seems more reasonable and sensible than previously thought. A perfect example of how this helped me and my family came about a few weeks ago, when we had a blinding snow storm.
I was at work in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah, 30 miles north of our house in Saratoga Springs. That morning, the news reported that we might have a few snow flurries around, so we weren't worried. Most of the time, they are wrong. By about 3pm, I was looking out my office window, watching the snow come down pretty hard. At 4pm, I called the guys in my carpool to see if they wanted to leave. So we left to go home. I called my wife and she said it was snowing quite hard at the house, but the freeway was moving. Or so I thought. We suddenly came to a stop in the blinding snow. To make it short, what usually takes us 45 minutes took us 4 hours. When we got home, we were without power, and it had been out since 4pm (Utah Power does a bang-up job of getting it back on quickly). It was now 8:30 and when I got home, my wife had cooked dinner on the camping stove, we had the propane lantern going with the window slightly open, extra blankets on the kids in bed for extra warmth, and candles going for light. We were completely self-sufficient. We needed food - couldn't go out to the store, so we went to our food storage. We were inconvenienced, but we were prepared. Since that day, I am continually thankful for the advice of wise men to be prepared for any emergency, and be self-reliant. The country could use more advice like this, rather than a government and politicians that attempt to get voted into power, and to retain power, by promising that they'll take care of you, when in reality, they know they can't and frankly, they don't care to. Hey, it got them elected.
If you would like to know more about how you and your family can be prepared for any type of emergency, please go to ProvidentLiving.org to find out how.
"Many in the church believe that those who have stored a year supply will share with those who have not. Though that is a nice thought, this is what Pres. Packer said to dispel that notion: "When people are able but unwilling to take care of themselves we are responsible to employ the dictum of the Lord that the idler shall not eat the bread of the laborer".[v] In other words, do not expect your neighbor to feed you. For if he has obeyed the counsel to store up for his family, and you have had the resources to but instead procrastinated, which one of his children should he let starve in order to feed you? If it is not a priority for you to save yourself and your family, why should another family have to take on that responsibility? The Law of Mercy and Justice also apply to food storage ... Some confuse the commandments of sharing and taking care of the poor and needy with sharing their food with the rebellious. There is a huge difference in sharing with the poor and needy and sharing with the rebellious – those who could afford to get their food storage, but don't because other things, buying big screens, vacations, the latest fashions, take precedence over obeying the commandment to store food."
Thursday, February 28, 2008
"The country itself, it's changed tremendously," he said proudly. "I don't know if I ever thought I'd see it, but I hoped that our actions here ... would allow that change to happen, and now seeing it, it's amazing."
He characterized the situation in Iraq as a rebirth of a country, comparing it to the United States.
"This is where we were 232 years ago as a new nation," he said. "Now they're starting a new nation, and that's one of my big reasons for coming back here. It wasn't for other Marines to look at me and say, 'Oh wow, you're a tough guy.'
"It's in part to show appreciation to my fallen Marines and also to tell the people of this country that ... I'm back to help you in any way I can, again."
This guy isn't whining at all. He got up and kept going. That's a hero. I look at those running for President and they have not done anything close to what he has done for the service of their country. I'd like to see Obama or Hillary get a uniform on and go back into the fire after what Spanky went through. I think all I would see would see is wet pants.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
What the Dems want to do is admirable. They want lower income people to have a greater chance in life, to be able to get out of the problems that plague them. They want the unemployed to get jobs. They wany everyone to have health care coverage. These are all great and good things, and I have no problem with WHAT they want. What I have a problem with is HOW they are going to get it. In Barack Obama's speech last night, he talked about a lot of good and great things. He spoke about his volunteer organization failing to get anyone out and wanting to quit. Then he saw some boys throwing stones at an abandoned house, and decided to motivate his fellows to keep going. There was a woman just to his right and behind him that was sobbing almost the entire time, clapping and waving her sign. She was totally enthralled and absorbed in what he was saying. The problem with this is that those people who are cheering all of his proposals don't understand that in order to do what he wants to do, he's going to get the money from them forcefully. Taxes, Taxes, Taxes.
We all talk about being charitable. We want to give to those less fortunate. Americans are charitable people. But a former Secretary of Agriculture said that forced donation is not charity. This is what the left wants to do. They want to help the poor, but they want to do it by putting a gun to the head of the rich and making them pay for it. This is redistribution of wealth, and it is socialism. Here is a small explanation from Ezra Taft Benson's speech and pamphlet - The Proper Role of Government:
"We should also remember, as Frederic Bastiat reminded us, that "Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in." (THE LAW, p. 30; P.P.N.S., p. 350) "
The Nature Of Legal Plunder
Listen to Bastiat's explanation of this "legal plunder." "When a portion of wealth is tranferred from the person who owns it - without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud - to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed!
"How is the legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime..." (THE LAW, p. 21, 26; P.P.N.S., p. 377)
As Bastiat observed, and as history has proven, each class or special interest group competes with the others to throw the lever of governmental power in their favor, or at least to immunize itself against the effects of a previous thrust. Labor gets a minimum wage, so agriculture seeks a price support. Consumers demand price controls, and industry gets protective tariffs. In the end, no one is much further ahead, and everyone sufffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and a loss of personal freedom. With each group out to get its share of the spoils, such governments historically have mushroomed into total welfare states. Once the process begins, once the principle of the protective function of government gives way to the aggressive or redistribute function, then forces are set in motion that drive the nation toward totalitarianism. "It is impossible," Bastiat correctly observed, "to introduce into society... a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." (THE LAW, p. 12)"
Now, back to my commentary. The Democrats want to do a good thing. It is the way that they do it that is wrong, and will turn this nation into a welfare state. We are already very close to it. I fear that with Clinton or Obama, we will solidify ourselves as the greatest socialist democracy in the world, and the scary part is that the population seems to want it.