Shari's Politics

Coveting the Wealth of the Wealthy

2011-10-04T13:17:00.000-07:00

What is the true definition of covet? The 10th Commandment warns us against coveting. This commandment is not necessarily warning us to avoid wanting to have nice things similar to what our neighbor may have. The most severe form of coveting is to want something that is not yours that already belongs to someone else. It is wanting something your neighbor has and wanting them to not have it at the same time. To me the perfect example of coveting (and the example that I believe is the most common occurrence of coveting) is to want the wealth of the wealthy. In order to have their wealth, they cannot have it. They must be taxed, and then this wealth must be taken away from them in order to be given to you in one of the various forms of entitlements/welfare. And then this is justified away in the thinking that the wealthy don't need it/I need it more/they have enough/they don't deserve it. I would argue that to want taxes raised so that you can benefit more financially from welfare programs is coveting. Furthermore, I believe that even to be pleased or feel justified at the "soaking of the rich" while you partake of welfare programs is coveting.

This then leads me to three questions.

1) Why do politicians want to raise taxes? Obama would like to end the Bush tax cuts, and through his poorly named jobs bill has attempted to raise taxes.

Politicians want power. They want to be able to forcibly take your money through taxes and be able to give it to who they want to. They use tax money to buy votes as they give that money to people through entitlements and welfare or other dealmaking. Now the people receiving welfare must continue to vote for the politician so they can continue to receive their free money. But now these same people are enslaved to the politicians/government. Taxpayers are enslaved as they are forced to hand over their money that they earned, but welfare recipients also become enslaved. Now their livelihood is dependent upon government. They can not receive money to live on unless it is approved by the government. And then taken from someone else. And the amount that is received is out of their control. If they can subsist upon the welfare doled out to them, they are much less likely to ever get a job or a better job and become a productive citizen/person. For a personal example, please see my post On the Dole Again. Their growth as a person will be stunted. As entitlements/welfare handouts increase, the number of people dependent on the government increases. Now as the fish gets allotted to them, they never learn how to fish, as the saying goes. How does this help them in the long run? It holds them back endlessly and thus hurts them. We can then turn our backs on the poor because we have already “helped” them through government welfare which in actuality has trapped them in a life of dependence on the government that is hard to rise from. And then isn’t this in a way the same as turning our backs on them as it says in verse 39 as follows?

Helaman 6:

38 And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up [the Gadianton robbers] and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.

39 And thus they did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God.

40 And thus we see that they were in an awful state, and ripening for an everlasting destruction.

For further explanation of the previous verses, please see my post Who Are The Modern Day Gadianton Robbers.

2) Why do the poor want to raise taxes?

They covet the wealthy's wealth. They want free money. They may even feel entitled to it and that the wealthy don't deserve it.

3) Why do the wealthy want to tax more?

This one has been the most confusing for me to understand. The answer is that they do want to help the poor but only inasmuch as everyone else has to. They want the poor to be helped, but they don't want to do more than their fair share. Instead of true charitable giving, they want to give charitably along with everyone else being forced to do the same through taxes. There have actually been studies done that show that liberals have significantly less charitable giving than conservatives, and that blue states have less charitable giving. Liberals are more likely to believe that their taxes paid is their charitable giving. Also, many wealthy people/corporations that are well connected or know how to play the system are recipients of this tax money.

General authority Marion G. Romney had this to say of the dangers of government welfare programs:

“The practice of coveting and receiving unearned benefits has now become so fixed in our society that even men of great wealth, and possessing the means to produce more wealth, are expecting the government to guarantee them a profit. Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizen.”

In Defense of Glenn Beck

2011-03-15T21:20:00.000-07:00

I first heard about Glenn Beck from my father-in-law many years ago. I did not think much about him until he launched his news program on Fox News. Even then, I only started listening to him regularly about a year ago. I was initially pulled into the idea that he advanced crazy ideas. I had my disagreements with him. But then I actually listened to him. And the more I listened, the more I realized that the ideas he was advancing were grounded in fact. It is now my belief that Beck is uncovering secret combinations and bringing their secrets to light. Beck is not simply spouting conspiracy theories, but is bringing to light the very secret combinations we have been warned about in The Book of Mormon.

“Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was the ‘keystone of our religion’ and the ‘most correct’ book on earth. This most correct book on earth states that the downfall of two great American civilizations came as a result of secret conspiracies whose desire was to overthrow the freedom of the people. ‘And they have caused the destruction of this people of whom I am now speaking,’ says Moroni, ‘and also the destruction of the people of Nephi.’ Now undoubtedly Moroni could have pointed out many factors that led to the destruction of the people, but notice how he singled out the secret combinations, just as the Church today could point out many threats to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God’s work, but it has singled out the greatest threat as the godless conspiracy. There is no conspiracy theory in the Book of Mormon — it is a conspiracy fact.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints, Ensign, p 59. July 1972.)

In the book of Alma in The Book of Mormon, Alma went to Ammonihah to preach the gospel. The people there rejected the gospel, and so Alma left the city. After he left, an angel came to Alma, and the following verses contain what the angel said to Alma:

Alma 8:16-17

16 And behold, I am sent to command thee that thou return to the city of Ammonihah, and preach again unto the people of the city; yea, preach unto them. Yea, say unto them, except they repent the Lord God will destroy them.

17 For behold, they do study at this time that they may destroy the liberty of thy people, (for thus saith the Lord) which is contrary to the statutes, and judgments, and commandments which he has given unto his people.

We must ask ourselves, why was this passage included in the Book of Mormon? What relevance does it have to our day? Back in the days of Alma, if people were studying to destroy the liberty of the people, and we believe in the Book of Mormon, and we believe the Book of Mormon was written for our day, then why is it so hard to believe that people today would be studying and actively working to destroy our liberty? Why would this be labeled a conspiracy theory today instead of truth?

“Any Christian constitutionalist who retreats from this battle jeopardizes his life here and hereafter. Seldom has so much responsibility hung on so few, so heavily; but our numbers are increasing, and we who have been warned have a responsibility to warn our neighbor.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 591.)

It is my belief that Glenn Beck is fulfilling his responsibility to warn his neighbor. Glenn Beck is constantly labeled a conspiracy theorist for the ideas that he teaches. However, this label holds no merit. This label is given to dissuade others from listening to the ideas he presents. The ideas Beck presents are grounded in fact, and these facts are not disputed by Beck’s opposition other than to say generically that they are not true.

Just as in the days of Alma of The Book of Mormon, many here on earth today are actively studying to destroy our liberty. We must not stand idly by and watch it happen. Thomas Sowell is a conservative economist whose works I have spent a lot of time studying. He went to Columbia and Harvard, and he works at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. At 80 years old, he has a lifetime of experience of studying economics and politics and writing about it. He is well respected and knows what he is talking about. Recently he was interviewed on National Review’s Uncommon Knowledge. He said that our liberty has been so destroyed that he is not optimistic about our future. If it were not for the Tea Party movement, he would say that our country is already done and over and our freedom is gone, but that maybe it is done and over already anyway. So here we have this guy who has been studying economics and politics and fighting for freedom for a lifetime, and he is almost ready to say that the fight is over and we have lost. And yet there are countless Americans who have not even joined the fight and who have not even chosen their side (moderates). I am pleading for you to join the fight and choose the side of free agency (freedom). I listen to Rush Limbaugh, and he says the fight is not over and there is still time for freedom to win. So I will continue my fight in this war of ideas; I will continue on in the side I have chosen in this War in Heaven being waged here on earth.

Fidel Castro: Community Organizer

2010-11-09T21:39:00.000-08:00

Fidel Castro launched his first attempt to gain power at the University of Havana. His goal was to become president of the studentbody and then agitate the students into a revolutionary force. His idea was to then use this force to make him the leader of Cuba. He never did become studentbody president.

Castro then agitated the Colombian people and led them in an insurrection. This also failed.

During a very vulnerable time in the history of Cuba in the 1950's, then leader Batista was preparing the country for their first free elections. He was going to step down as their dictator and help the citizens set up a free country with a leader of their choice. Batista was just waiting to step down until the people of Cuba were first prepared for this transition. It was at this point that Castro agitated the people into demanding freedom now! He was even aided by fellow agitator Ernesto "Che" Guevara. Castro and Che's efforts at agitating the Cubans into protesting for their free elections now instead of waiting were successful. The chaos that followed resulted in Castro's violent takeover of power as the new communist leader of Cuba.

In the early 1900's in Russia, the Russian people were on the edge of revolution against Tsar Nicholas II. The people did not like the policies of the tsar as their economy was not doing well. The Russian people protested for the tsar to set up a limited monarchy. They wanted to be more like England. Tsar Nicholas II finally consented to the people's demands for this limited monarchy by accepting "The October Manifesto" which outlined freedoms for the Russian people. Just right when the Russian people had freedom almost in their hands, Lenin and Trotsky agitated the people into further revolution instead of accepting their chance at freedom. This of course would end up leading the violent start to Russian communism with Lenin as their new communist dictator.

Agitating people and angering them into rising up against their government, sometimes in violent ways, has long been a useful tool of communists. The goal is to anger the people into taking action over an issue they wouldn't have taken action over on their own. The people feel like they are empowered and are working toward their own goals, but of course they are being used to work toward the goal that was actually the goal of the agitator.

Saul Alinsky wrote a book "Rules For Radicals" that outlines some ways that radicals today can harness this power of agitating people that was used by Castro, Lenin, and Guevara. There is a long list of revolutionaries from the past that have been agitators. I call them disciples of communism. Barack Obama followed this tradition during his days of agitating in Chicago. Of course, now we call it community organizing.

Tea Party Fringe

2010-10-31T07:02:00.000-07:00

Bill Maher has said that the Tea Party movement is a cult. Many others have called it a fringe group. So what does the Tea Party movement stand for? The Tea part of it stands for “taxed enough already”. It is less a party and more a sentiment; a growing sentiment that stands for less taxes and less government intrusion in our lives. The movement is against statism and stands for freedom. It is not a fringe movement by any means. 71% of Republicans now support the Tea Party movement. I am a supporter of the movement.

We mainly have two parties: Republicans and Democrats. Until recently, these two parties have both been more moderate. The Republicans, as a party, leaned right, and the Democrats leaned left, but in recent times, both parties have actually moved the country toward socialism. One of the most recent examples of Republican socialism includes the Medicare Part D that George W. Bush signed into law. Conservatives may not have liked many of the socialist policies, but they put up with it because it was gradual and it felt like they didn’t have other options. Then along came Barack Obama. He has taken the country to the extreme left with his policies that follow socialism and even Marxism. The more extreme “right” of the Tea Party movement has come along because of the more extreme “left” of the presidency of Obama. With the two extremes before us, we are increasingly coming to a point where we are being forced to choose between the two. It is becoming harder and harder to be moderate in your views. President Ezra Taft Benson had some things to say about being moderate in your beliefs.

“But our civilization and our people are seemingly afraid to be revolutionary. We are too ‘broadminded’ to challenge what we do not believe in. We are afraid of being thought intolerant, uncouth, ungentlemanly. We have become lukewarm in our beliefs. And for that we perhaps merit the bitter condemnation stated in Revelation 3:16: ‘So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.’

“This is a sad commentary on a civilization which has given to mankind the greatest achievements and progress ever known. But it is an even sadder commentary on those of us who call ourselves Christians, who thus betray the ideals given to us by the Son of God himself.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, October 1960.)

I believe that this lukewarm belief can be encapsulated by those who choose to describe themselves politically as a moderate. This is refusing to take a stand on the issues.

I must note here that people may have different ideas of what a moderate is. I am speaking of a moderate as someone who is not partisan. This would include those who have not made up their mind, do not subscribe to any ideologies, or believe in centrism and “reaching across the aisle”.

I would never vote for a moderate for political office. To me this means that the person running for office does not stand for anything except power. They simply want power and will follow which way the wind of public opinion blows issue by issue to keep power.

To consider oneself a moderate is to be a fence sitter during the War in Heaven we are still waging here on earth. To not choose a side is to by default choose the side of statism (socialism/communism). As I said earlier, the country has been moving toward socialism regardless of the political party in power. In this manner, when you don’t make a choice to stand up against statism, then you by default choose the side of statism. To buy into the notion that Tea Party candidates are all “kooky” is to vote for Obama’s agenda. Moderate politicians, even moderate Republicans, may even say they do not favor Obamacare and Obama’s agenda, but most will not act to stop it. Only a vote for the most conservative candidate will help to stop the march of socialism and communism in this country; a candidate who will openly say they will do everything in their power to stop Obama. This is why we need Tea Party candidates. We cannot get caught up in the disparaging of the Tea Party candidates that is going on by the media. We are waging the raging War in Heaven, and the time to choose a side is now. A Tea Party candidate who will actively work to repeal Obamacare and stop Obama’s agenda is the only way to save our country. Rush Limbaugh has said that if Mickey Mouse were running for office and were able to make Rush believe he would work to stop Obama, then Mickey Mouse would be the right person to vote for, no matter any other baggage Mickey Mouse would bring along with him. Because even a vote for a moderate Republican will not do what it takes to stop Obama’s agenda and to save our country. To vote for a moderate then is actually a vote for Obama. And in this manner, a vote for a moderate or to be a moderate or to not choose a side or to be a fence sitter is then actually a vote for Obama and along with it a vote for statism. If you don’t choose your side, the choice is made for you.

“This is still God's world. The forces of evil, working through some mortals, have made a mess of a good part of it. But it is still God's world. In due time, when each of us has had a chance to prove ourselves-including whether or not we are going to stand up for freedom—God will interject himself, and the final and eternal victory shall be for free agency. And then shall those complacent people on the sidelines, and those who took the wrong but temporarily popular course, lament their decisions. To the patriots I say this: Take that long eternal look. Stand up for freedom, no matter what the cost. Stand up and be counted. It can help to save your soul-and maybe your country.” (Ezra Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, p. 62.)

“The scriptures make clear that there was a great war in heaven, a struggle over the principle of freedom the right of choice. In the war in heaven, what would have been your reaction if someone had told you just to do what is right—there's no need to get involved in the fight for freedom? Of course, the war in heaven over free agency is now being waged here on earth, and there are those today who are saying ‘Look, don't get involved in the fight for freedom. Just live the gospel.’ That counsel is dangerous, self-contradictory, unsound.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, October 1966.)

We are increasingly reaching a point in time where here on earth we are being forced to choose. We must choose statism or freedom. The extreme of Obama on the one hand and the Tea Party movement on the other portray this choice. We must actively stand up and fight for and vote for freedom before it is gone.

Messiah Obama

2010-10-19T09:50:00.000-07:00

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan when speaking about Barack Obama said, “When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.” Barack Obama has been called a Messiah by many. I wanted to explore this idea.

In a recent poll it was discovered that 1 in 5 Americans think that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Only 1 in 3 believe him to be a Christian which is what he professes to be. I do not believe Obama is a Muslim, but I also do not consider him to be a Christian. I believe that his religion is that of the United Trinity Church of Christ, the church that was led by Reverend Wright that Obama attended for 20 years. This church follows black liberation theology and teaches collectivism, an idea that Obama has confirmed that he believes in multiple speeches. Collectivism is the idea that the group (world) is more important than the individual. Each individual has worth only insomuch as they help the group. This would mean that any oppressors (in America this can loosely be defined under their ideology as white people) must cease oppressing immediately (give all their wealth to) the oppressed (black people). It is not, however, as simple as black vs. white. This is an ideology of the oppressors vs. the oppressed. The father of this idea is the ideology of the haves vs. the have nots, or communism. A belief in this ideology would lead Obama to sympathy for Muslims as they are considered to be the oppressed (America is always the oppressor in this ideology).

The United Trinity Church of Christ teaches that Jesus Christ did indeed live on the earth, but He is not the Son of God. He was simply a good man and teacher (Cone). This is not Christianity.

James H. Cone, the founder of black liberation theology, has said the following. “What need have we for a white Jesus when we are not white but black? If Jesus Christ is white and not black, he is an oppressor, and we must kill him. The appearance of black theology means that the black community is now ready to do something about the white Jesus, so that he cannot get in the way of our revolution.” This is not Christianity.

Under this ideology of black liberation theology, Obama can figuratively be a Messiah for the world. He has the potential to be the man to finally restore equality between the haves and the have-nots, and as he does this, he (and not Jesus Christ) will bring collective redemption for everybody. Under this theology, there is no need for the atonement of Jesus Christ – Christ’s atonement in which individuals can be saved is meaningless when black liberation theology believes individuals can only be saved collectively with everyone else. Obama is attempting to restore the equality between the haves and the have-nots through “spreading the wealth”, or wealth redistribution. This is accomplished through “soak the rich” strategies of heavier taxes on the wealthy as well as Obamacare in the which the health care is equalized for the wealthy and the poor as the wealthy are taxed to pay for the healthcare of the poor. This is the theory behind it, but in practice in other countries it has worked more by bringing down the quality of health care for everyone.

Black liberation theology has communism at its roots. From this we can see that Obama can be considered to be a Messiah to those who do not necessarily believe in black liberation theology but are instead statists. Statists do not believe in God. (I believe that Obama does not believe in God.) They instead worship mankind as their God. They may even feel that they themselves are God.

Statist George Soros has said, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”

The communist goal is to create utopia or heaven on earth. Their plan to accomplish this is initially for the have-nots to become in charge of the haves. This involves spreading or redistributing the wealth and making all things owned in common amongst all. Although they acknowledge that this will take violence to reach this place of common ownership, their goal is that once this is achieved there will be heaven on earth, and they will be the ones to have brought this about. They do not believe in God. They are acting as God themselves. They do not necessarily believe in an after life, and so this is the life for them to grab the reins and act as the gods they believe that they are. Of course this utopia has never been achieved in the history of the world during the many times that communism has been tried. The belief is that it has never been tried correctly or by the right people. Keep in mind that the communist goal is for worldwide communism. Communists actually believe that America is the key to finally make it work correctly. If they can only turn America to communism then all of the other pieces (countries) will fall into line. In this way, if America turns to communism, then this age old dream of worldwide communist utopia will finally be realized. If Obama then is the one to finally bring communism to America, he will have finally brought to fruition the age old plan to create a heaven on earth. If Obama is the one to do this, then Obama is figuratively a Messiah for the world. There is no need for Jesus Christ’s atonement for individuals if there is no after life and if Obama can be the Messiah for the world (or the one who brought heaven to earth).

In communism (of which black liberation theology is a subset), there is no need for Jesus Christ and there is no God. You can see then how this ideology is a replacement for God and religion, and that it is very evil. Ezra Taft Benson has said that socialism is essentially and fundamentally communism. They share the same fundamentals. Any type of statism derives from communism and from Karl Marx and is designed to take away our freedom and free agency as well as our belief in God. Whether it is labeled as socialism, communism, Fabian socialism, progressivism, or the like, when it involves forced redistribution of wealth, we are on the path to supporting the Gadianton Robbers. Please keep this in mind when you must choose whether or not to vote for those who support redistributionist policies. These policies are designed to lead us to utopia, a journey that necessarily results in failure and violence and murders. Just look at Greece and Europe. They have been living with socialism for many decades. It is currently collapsing in failure and violence that can be seen by all of the street rioting by those protesting the austerity packages. As their socialism fails them, where will they turn to next? Something worse than socialism? And where will the collapse of our socialist programs here in America lead us next?

I Had A Dream

2010-10-04T07:48:00.000-07:00

I recently had a dream that I was in a big mansion. [My belief is that the mansion represented the world.] It was filled with vast rooms. In each room, there were hundreds of people. In each room, most of these people were gathered together in a huddle against one wall of the room. The people in these huddles were waiting for their government handouts; their “spoils” of the Gadianton robbers. The remainder of the people in each room was walking about throughout the rest of the room being industrious. I was running from room to room trying to get people to listen to me. No one would listen, so I began yelling, “Can’t you see that this is socialism? That this is communism?” Every once in a while someone would listen to me and leave the huddle, but for the most part no one would listen to me. [My belief is that my running around the mansion trying to warn others of socialism represented what I have been doing with my blog.] I was so upset I began crying. I decided to change my tactics. I began looking for people that I know now or have known in the past in hopes that they might take the time to at least hear me out since they knew me. [My belief is that this reflected what I have been doing through social networking sites and other means – telling people I know or have known about my blog.] The final person I approached was a friend from the past. I grabbed her by the arms and I said, “This is socialism! This is communism! Will you hear me? Will you listen to me?” It was then that I noticed that her eyes were glazed over as if she was under the influence of some sort of drug. I looked at the people huddled up waiting for their “spoils” and realized that they all had the same look in their eyes. I realized that they were intoxicated by statism and addicted to the “spoils”. After I asked my friend if she would listen to me, if she realized she was supporting and partaking in socialism, she said, “But I like it” and walked away back with the rest of the masses.

That was the end of my dream. In sharing my dream with my husband, he reminded me that it was communist Karl Marx who said that “religion is the opiate of the masses”. My dream would indicate that statism is the true opiate of the masses. This makes sense to me since statism is the opposite of religion and an alternative to religion. Statism is an opiate. You can become addicted to the government handouts. It requires little effort on your part to attain that promise that you will be taken care of. You don’t do anything for it. You stand in your huddle and wait for instruction and to be given what you need. Statism and the welfare state also numbs you to life and exalts you from having to work hard and make it on your own merit. But then it also stunts your eternal progression.

Religion, on the other hand, requires you to do something. You must search it out and learn about it. You must take an active leap of faith to believe it. You must work hard to live the commandments and to try to be Christlike.

Who Are The Modern Day Gadianton Robbers?

2010-08-22T07:13:00.000-07:00

Just like the statist Gadianton robbers infiltrated the government, today we also have the socialists/statists infiltrating our government through the Obama administration. Helaman 6 leaves us with a warning:

38 And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up [the Gadianton robbers] and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.

39 And thus they did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God.

40 And thus we see that they were in an awful state, and ripening for an everlasting destruction.

From my personal studies, I would like to share with you what I believe is the correct interpretation and application to our lives here in the latter days of these verses.

Starting with verse 38, the Gadianton robbers of today are the socialists and communists in a secret combination that have spread over the land of America today. They have filled the government through the Obama administration. Examples of this include Van Jones who was appointed “Green Jobs Czar” until it was brought to light that he was a self-described communist and revolutionary; Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, found preaching to high school children that her “favorite political philosopher” is communist leader Mao Tse Tung; and Donald Berwick who is now in charge of Obamacare supports a health care plan which will “redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer”. These are just some of the examples of those in the Obama administration who have socialist or communist leanings. Obama himself favors “spreading the wealth”.

It is powerful and devastating to learn that the more part of the righteous in the day of the Nephites had been seduced by the Gadianton robbers. While I can’t know if the more part of the righteous have been seduced today, the people that have been seduced today would include those who support and/or share in the spoils and the works of socialism. This would include people who vote for Obama and people who vote for and/or support socialist policies. These policies specifically include social security, Medicare/Medicaid, Obamacare, etc. Now of course many of these Americans do not realize they are supporting socialism. The Nephites were so seduced by the socialist policies of the Gadianton robbers that they even partook of the spoils of the Gadianton robbers. The Gadianton robbers took money from the “undeserved” (perhaps the “wealthy”) often through use of the government, and this money became their “spoils” for them to redistribute as they deemed appropriate. People today that are partaking of the spoils of the Gadianton robbers would be those partaking of the spoils of socialism. This would include those people receiving Medicare/Medicaid, social security, Obamacare, food stamps, WIC, unemployment insurance (Rush Limbaugh has explained that extending unemployment insurance to 99 weeks and beyond has turned this program into just another welfare entitlement), grants for a college education, farm subsidies, Cash for Clunkers, a mortgage relief bill that may be passed in the future to help those who are upside down on their mortgages, and any of a myriad of welfare programs. In the Nephite times, when the people were informed that their wonderful welfare programs were the desires of the Gadianton Robbers, they must have been shocked. In today’s time, many people would likewise be shocked to learn that our “benevolent” welfare programs are the brainchild of communists, and thus by extension the devil. As an example of this, “the father of the concept of national health care” (Rush) was Vladimir Lenin who said, "medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism”.

All of these programs take wealth from American citizens by the force of the government to redistribute this wealth to those the government deems more worthy of this wealth. The Lord’s way is for those with wealth to have their free agency that they may give their wealth to those in need, but they are never forced (as in the welfare program of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).

“Having been commanded by the Lord to do so, Nephi boldly told the people that they had united themselves to this band of robbers:

Yea wo be unto you because of that great abomination which has come among you; and ye have united yourselves unto it, yea to that secret band which was established by Gadianton! (Helaman 7:25)

“One can only imagine that those righteous Nephites who had been seduced into upholding, supporting, and partaking of the spoils of the Robbers were profoundly shocked when charged with having united with a criminal conspiracy. People in our nation today are ofttimes startled and angered when told that the welfare state practices they favor are the identical political programs proposed by the Communists to bring about socialism….The record is clear that the reason the conspiracy had succeeded in capturing control of the government was that the Nephites had been seduced into partaking of its spoils. (Helaman 6:38–39)” (H. Verlan Andersen, Many are Called But Few are Chosen)

Elder Bruce R. McConkie has stated as follows.

“False Christs! False Redeemers, false Saviors! Will there actually be men who will claim to fulfill the Messianic prophecies and who will step forth to offer their blood for the sins of the world? Is it possible that some will say, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life; come unto me and be ye saved’? Or that others will profess to return in glory bearing the wounds with which the true Christ was wounded in the house of his friends?

“True, there may be those deranged persons who suppose they are God, or Christ, or the Holy Ghost, or almost anything. None but the lunatic fringe among men, however, will give them a second serious thought. The promise of false Christs who will deceive, if it were possible, even the very elect, who will lead astray those who have made eternal covenant with the Lord, is a far more subtle and insidious evil.

“A false Christ is not a person. It is a false system of worship, a false church, a false cult that says: ‘Lo, here is salvation; here is the doctrine of Christ. Come and believe thus and so, and ye shall be saved.’ It is any concept or philosophy that says that redemption, salvation, sanctification, justification, and all of the promised rewards can be gained in any way except that set forth by the apostles and prophets” ( The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man [1982], 47–48).

Communism/socialism is truly a false system of worship and a false church. I must leave a more thorough explanation of this for a future post.

Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:22 . “If Possible, They Shall Deceive the Very Elect”

After quoting Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:22 , President Harold B. Lee defined the elect as “members of this Church” ( Stand Ye in Holy Places, 384). Similarly, Elder Marion G. Romney, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said: “Now, those ‘who are the elect according to the covenant’ are members of the Church, so we ourselves are on notice to beware” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1956, 70; see also D&C 29:7–9 ).

It is so important to be aware of what is going on in the world today. We must know and recognize the imposition of communist policies on our country. Even some of the very elect (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) have been deceived into unknowingly supporting communism/socialism and the plan of the devil. In the days of the Nephites, those elect that had been deceived became the majority of them.

I do not believe that those who currently receive money from welfare programs are bad people, want to follow the devil, or necessarily want socialism/communism. But this is partaking in the spoils of THE great secret combination. President Ezra Taft Benson spoke of secret combinations. Of these there are many. But he said that there is one big one that dwarfs them all. And this is socialism/communism.

"Satan argued that men given their freedom would not choose correctly; therefore he would compel them to do right and save us all. Today Satan argues that men given their freedom do not choose wisely; therefore a so-called brilliant, benevolent few must establish the welfare government and force us into a greater socialistic society." - Ezra Taft Benson, 1965, General Conference

“We must ever keep in mind that collectivized socialism is part of the communist strategy. Communism is fundamentally socialism.” (Ezra Taft Benson)

“Truly, we are surrounded by many forms of organized crime and subversion: drug rings, terrorists, the various Mafias, and disease profiteers(1)--to name a few. However, referring to our day, Moroni spoke of a ‘secret combination’--singular—‘which shall be among you....’ (Ether 8:24.) This suggests that he saw a combination of such magnificent proportions as to dwarf all others because of its broad penetration and its effectiveness in advancing evil.

Modern prophets, especially Ezra Taft Benson and David O. McKay, have spoken out clearly, fervently, and frequently concerning this secret combination prophesied to come in our day.(4) They identified it as the Communist/Socialist conspiracy. They remarked that the greatest threat came from within our very own country. They warned that this subversive movement was deceiving even the very elect.” (www.greaterthings.com)

The final part of verse 38 says the Nephites joined with the Gadianton Robbers in their secret murders and combinations. Now I can’t be sure how this would directly apply to the current latter days. But abortion is definitely secret murder (done in the secrecy of a doctor’s office). And abortion is something that communists support (communists support the decline of all family values and morals). Obama supports abortion. He even supports partial birth abortion and infanticide. Infanticide is when a baby who survived an abortion attempt is then just left to die. I believe that any person who supports abortion is supporting secret murders of the Gadianton Robbers. Even if you do not or would not have an abortion yourself, if you support it as the law of the land, you support secret murders of secret combinations. Abortion has become a power issue in that those politicians who favor abortion as a policy use this as a tool to gain power by gaining votes from voters who want abortion to remain legal. Favoring these secret murders of abortion thus can become a means to attaining and keeping power.

Supporting communism in other countries has of course led to the death of millions as in the days of Lenin and Mao. Many secret murders continue to this day in communist countries.

Please look for an explanation of verse 39 in a future post. This post is a follow-up to the post The Gadianton Robbers Were Statists.

Additional Reading

Harry Reid or Ezra Taft Benson: Choose Ye This Day

2010-08-01T13:19:00.000-07:00

Harry Reid made some comments at a speech he gave at BYU as well as a press conference following his speech. I have taken the following summary paragraphs from a Deseret News article. I have included the link so you can read the article in its entirety.

Some past prominent LDS Church leaders wrongly pressed conservatism on church members, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday during a press conference at Brigham Young University.

The Nevada senator attacked President Bush and evangelical Christians while saying members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints need to worry less about abortion and gay marriage and more about health care, global warming, education and jobs.

Reid said Ezra Taft Benson, active in very conservative politics before he became a president of the LDS Church, and Ernest L. Wilkinson, the president of BYU from 1951-71, were among past church leaders "who were very right-wing people politically." "Members of the church are obedient," Reid said, "they are followers in the truest sense of the word, and I think they've taken members of the church down a path that is the wrong path.

"I think people in the church have to understand there are issues more important than abortion and gay marriage."

Reid also told reporters the Republican Party has been driven by evangelical Christians for 20 years. "They are the most anti-Christian people I can imagine, the people from the Christian far right.

Harry Reid's Comments

Harry Reid believes in government control over health care, education, jobs, and in a climate exchange bill. Harry Reid believes in socialism which essentially is communism. He has stated that people in the church, such as Ezra Taft Benson, have led church members down the wrong path in proclaiming the evils of socialism and communism. Ezra Taft Benson was a prophet. The majority of the remarks he made pronouncing the evils of socialism and communism took place in General Conferences. The Lord has told us:

D&C 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

The following is from Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945 and was also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945 (which was the official church magazine before the Ensign).

"Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, revelators' of the church, is cultivating the spirit of apostacy. One cannot speak evil of the lord's annointed... and retain the holy spirit in his heart. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it to believing souls since Adam. He {Satan} wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking."

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God."

The following is from LDS President Marion G. Romney (of the first presidency), quoting LDS President (and prophet) Heber J. Grant "Conference Report" Oct. 1960 p. 78.

"Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don't need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray." (quotes courtesy of lds-mormon.com)

We all have our free agency, so we must choose for ourselves whom we will serve. Do we want to follow the ideas outlined by Harry Reid, U.S. Senate Majority Leader? Or would we rather follow the teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, past Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? They support conflicting ideologies. Either socialism is good, or it is the devil's plan. We must choose. I choose Ezra Taft Benson as well as our current prophet and all of our past prophets.

The Gadianton Robbers Were Statists

2010-07-13T21:47:00.000-07:00

In 3 Nephi 3:6-7, Giddianhi, the Gadianton robber leader, writes a letter to Lachoneus, governor over the free Nephites, stating:

6 Therefore I write unto you, desiring that ye would yield up unto this my people, your cities, your lands, and your possessions, rather than that they should visit you with the sword and that destruction should come upon you.

7 Or in other words, yield yourselves up unto us, and unite with us and become acquainted with our secret works, and become our brethren that ye may be like unto us—not our slaves, but our brethren and partners of all our substance.

These verses give some insight into the economic situation of the Gadianton secret combination. They are “brethren and partners of all [their] substance”. I would postulate that the Gadianton robbers practiced some type of statism. And they used deadly force to enforce it and to gain more land and riches as can be seen as it continues in verse 8:

8 And behold, I swear unto you, if ye will do this, with an oath, ye shall not be destroyed; but if ye will not do this, I swear unto you with an oath, that on the morrow month I will command that my armies shall come down against you, and they shall not stay their hand and shall spare not, but shall slay you, and shall let fall the sword upon you even until ye shall become extinct.

I believe there is some confusion among some church members concerning the Law of Consecration and how this relates to statism. Perhaps Harry Reid believes he is bringing the Law of Consecration to America as he takes us further and further down the path of statism. Following is a chart of some of the differences between the Law of Consecration and communism that was compiled on http://www.fairlds.org/. This is a foundation that researches and defends the LDS faith.

LDS Law of Consecration
1. Individual property ownership essential.
2. Right to discontinue participation.
3. Each person has his/her private stewardship, and surplus production goes into storehouses for the poor and needy.
4. Participation requires commitment to keep God's laws.
5. Voting rights to determine use of surplus in the Bishop's storehouse.
6. Right to draw upon management skill of leadership for personal training and consultation to run your private stewardship well.
7. Personal responsibility is expected.
8. Existence of God declared.
9. Organization exists for the benefit of the individual

Communism
1. Property ownership discouraged or forbidden.
2. Difficult if not impossible to not participate.
3. Most or all production controlled by state.
4. God's laws not involved at all.
5. No voting rights.
6. Leadership tells you what you have to do.
7. Decisions are determined by leadership.
8. Existence of God denied.
9. Individual exists for the benefit of the organization

The website continues, “The United Order is an LDS term sometimes used to describe cooperative economic programs of the Church during the early days of Mormonism. It perhaps is similar to what some biblical Christians practiced as stated in Acts 2:44. The term does not refer to the 'full government of God,' nor is the plan communistic at all.”

While church members are no longer asked to live the United Order, the actual Law of Consecration is something that we as church members are still asked to live. This commandment was never lifted. In communism, the state is worshipped (it is the great and abominable church), but in the Law of Consecration, God is worshipped. Our participation in the law is voluntary (free agency is always allowed – see my post entitled “Free Agency, Why Do We Need It?”). The Law of Consecration asks us to give all of our money as well as time and talents to God for His purposes. We will most likely retain ownership of our possessions for the use of our families, but we are asked to retain this stewardship wisely and help others with our surplus. The Law of Consecration is a system under God that is completely compatible with living under a capitalist government. In fact, I would argue that a capitalist government is necessary for us to live the Law of Consecration. How can we consecrate our property, wealth, time, and talents up to God via the Church if we have all of this taken from us by the state (government)?

Statism, including socialism, mimics the Law of Consecration under Satan’s plan. The subtlety of the devil! Of course it mimics it! The plan of the devil is to confuse us into following the devil without even knowing that we are. Statism, including socialism, is truly the teachings of God mixed with the teachings of man. If we are not careful, we can think that the Law of Consecration supports statism. The Gadianton Robbers lived under Satan’s plan of statism while the people of God lived God’s law or the Law of Consecration.

The Gadianton Robbers used weapons to coerce people into living under their form of statism. In our quasi-socialistic society today, people are forced into this socialism or spreading of the wealth via taxes by the threat of fines or jail time. This is a very important distinction between spreading the wealth under our quasi-socialistic society and the Law of Consecration God has asked us to live under voluntarily. God has simply not asked us to live under socialism. That is the devil’s plan. God does not force us.

As a nation, whether we are living completely under socialism or just taking large strides in that direction, the result is the same: we are not following God.

Free Agency: Why Do We Need It?

2010-05-13T06:54:00.000-07:00

Why is moral agency/free agency the big issue? The issue that the War in Heaven was fought over? Why do we need to be free to make our own decisions? Without agency, we cannot progress; we cannot be accountable. If we are not free to choose, then we do not choose, and we do not progress. It is only when we can choose right or wrong that we have consequences for our actions. If we are free to choose, and we choose the right, then we progress toward Godhood. If we are free to choose and we make the wrong choice, we are free to learn from our mistake, repent, and make the right choice the next time. If we live under a statist government, we are not free to choose and we cannot progress. This can be seen in Europe.

Mark Steyn is one of my favorite authors and pundits. He is well traveled, and his personal accounts of life in Canada and Europe are shocking. He describes walking through the London streets only to step over young British people lying in the street asking for money. They are not homeless, they just don't have jobs. A very high percentage of their society is on the dole (welfare). It is a society of dependence, bred through years of socialism.

The Brits are proud of their heritage of the arts, Mark Steyn continues. They display this in their world famous museums. They wanted to open up more time to devote to the arts and philosophies. They allowed their government, through socialism, to take care of the drudgeries of life so that they could turn to the arts. They also wanted more time to spend with their families. But the actual result is a society of delayed adolescence. They are in school until 34 and take an early retirement at 42. We need only look to Greece to see that this cannot continue forever. The government takes care of the rest of their needs, albeit poorly, and they are in turn wards of the state; perpetual children. With all of their extra time, they are not even having children of their own anymore. Once they boasted that socialism would leave them free to progress. Mark Steyn explains that there is no more new art being produced by the Brits. Children with no accountability, with nothing asked of them, cannot produce. They don't want to; they don't know how to.

On the health care bill, Nancy Pelosi has said: "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance." It is the same old tired argument from the UK: if only we allow the government to take care of us, we will be able to turn more to the arts. But we know from looking at the UK that this does not work. Just like we know from looking at the rioting in Greece that it is not sustainable.

“Give people plenty and security, and they will fall into spiritual torpor,” wrote Charles Murray in "In Our Hands". “When life becomes an extended picnic, with nothing of importance to do, ideas of greatness become an irritant. Such is the nature of the Europe syndrome.”

And thus we hit upon the greatest evil of socialism: spiritual torpor (lethargic indifference). When we are not free to choose, when we have no accountability, when we are not even responsible to provide for ourselves, the result is spiritual torpor. We do not progress spiritually. The devil's plan was to take away our agency and guarantee us spiritual security. But it never would have even worked anyway. It is not possible. Spiritual security requires spiritual progression which requires accountability and free agency. Without our free agency we could never have been guaranteed spiritual progression and godhood. We would have been ruled over by the devil forever. The devil, like our socialist leadership, was simply looking for power and would say whatever lies necessary to attain it. He is, after all, the father of all lies.

Mark Steyn's "Live Free or Die"

The War in Heaven Continues Through Socialism

2010-04-27T09:43:00.000-07:00

In a nutshell, the war in heaven was between the followers of Jesus Christ and the followers of the devil. The plan of Jesus Christ was for all people to come to Earth and have their free agency; to make their own decisions of how they would act. All glory would be God's. We would rise or fall on the basis of our own decisions. The devil's plan was to just force everyone to be good and have no choice about it. If we just gave the devil our power we would all be saved, was the devil's claim. We all chose Christ's plan, and so here we are on earth. End of story? Not exactly. If this scenario sounds familiar, we are still fighting this war in heaven here on earth. There are those who want their freedom to act and say and do as they choose (as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others). And then you have the statists on the other side (socialists and communists). This side would like to just force you to be good. Their force involves forcing you to give your money to the poor (spread the wealth) through taxes and entitlement programs such as Obamacare (do you hate poor people and old people?), make you wear your seatbelt and not eat junk food (it is for your own good!), drive tiny cars and pay carbon taxes and recycle (don't you care about the environment?), and a myriad of other regulations. They want to force businesses into regulations and taxes that they have deemed desirable even if it puts the businesses out of business. In short, they would like control over everything. This ultimately leads to you having no agency of your own. But people don't notice because it is "for your own good". At least at first. Also, you are forced into being good by a government whose definition of "being good" is fluid and flawed.

What is socialism? It is simply governmental ownership and management of the ways to produce and distribute goods; governmental ownership and management of companies. We have quasi-socialism here in America now through social security and Medicare/Medicaid and as Obama is currently in the process of attaining more control of more businesses. The current attempt at control is over banks through financial regulatory reform. As the government controls more and more businesses, our leaders in government tell us this will give us all more economic security; that they know best. If we give them our power, we will all be saved, the government says.

During the war in heaven, the devil promised us eternal security at the expense of our freedom. Here on earth, the subtle devil, through socialism, is promising us economic security at the expense of our freedom. The fight against socialism here on earth truly is a continuation of our premortal war in heaven. The sad truth is that, even as we give up our freedom, economic security is fleeting (see Greece), and we will be left with nothing.

"Satan argued that men given their freedom would not choose correctly; therefore he would compel them to do right and save us all. Today Satan argues that men given their freedom do not choose wisely; therefore a so-called brilliant, benevolent few must establish the welfare government and force us into a greater socialistic society." - Ezra Taft Benson, 1965, General Conference

"As important as are all other principles of the gospel, it was the freedom issue which determined whether you received a body. To have been on the wrong side of the freedom issue during the war in heaven meant eternal damnation. How then can Latter-day Saints expect to be on the wrong side in this life and escape the eternal consequences? The war in heaven is raging on earth today. The issues are the same: ‘Shall men be compelled to do what others claim is for their best welfare’ or will they heed the counsel of the prophet and preserve their freedom?” - Ezra Taft Benson, 1965, General Conference

* This post was inspired by my father.

Blood Runs Down The Streets

2010-04-27T09:22:00.000-07:00

Blood Runs Down The Streets. A few weeks ago, this headline caught my attention from The Drudge Report. There has been blood running down the streets in Thailand. Some people there have been unhappy with their government, and to protest this, lots of people got together to donate their own blood. They collected this blood in buckets, and then they dumped it in the street for it to flow down the streets in front of a government building they were protesting. Someone also threw some of the blood on a door to a government building.

Is it just me, or does this sound like last day prophecy stuff?

Addendum to Secret Combinations in Government

2010-04-26T09:03:00.000-07:00

I wanted to add some support for my previous post in the which I present the case that President Obama is part of a secret combination. In the event that my previous post sounds extreme to the reader, I wanted to present some scripture that has influenced me as well as some words of Ezra Taft Benson. I for myself have awakened to a sense of our awful situation.

Ether 8:16-26
16 And they were kept up by the apower of the devil to administer these oaths unto the people, to keep them in darkness, to help such as sought power to gain power, and to murder, and to plunder, and to lie, and to commit all manner of wickedness and whoredoms.
17 And it was the daughter of Jared who put it into his heart to search up these things of old; and Jared put it into the heart of Akish; wherefore, Akish administered it unto his kindred and friends, leading them away by fair promises to do whatsoever thing he desired.

18 And it came to pass that they formed a secret acombination, even as they of old; which combination is most abominable and wicked above all, in the sight of God;

19 For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man.

20 And now I, Moroni, do not write the manner of their oaths and combinations, for it hath been made known unto me that they are had among all people, and they are had among the Lamanites.

21 And they have caused the destruction of this people of whom I am now speaking, and also the destruction of the people of Nephi.

22 And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for cvengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.

23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get apower and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath chardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

26 Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved.

Words of Ezra Taft Benson

The Book of Mormon was written for us today. God is the author of the book. It is a record of a fallen people, compiled by inspired men for our blessing today. Those people never had the book—it was meant for us. Mormon, the ancient prophet after whom the book is named, abridged centuries of records. God, who knows the end from the beginning, told him what to include in his abridgment that we would need for our day. Mormon turned the records over to his son Moroni, the last recorder; and Moroni, writing over 1,500 years ago but speaking to us today, states: “Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.” (Morm. 8:35.)

The Book of Mormon brings men to Christ through two basic means. First, it tells in a plain manner of Christ and his gospel. It testifies of his divinity and of the necessity for a Redeemer and the need of our putting trust in him. It bears witness of the Fall and the Atonement and the first principles of the gospel, including our need of a broken heart and a contrite spirit and a spiritual rebirth. It proclaims we must endure to the end in righteousness and live the moral life of a Saint.

Second, the Book of Mormon exposes the enemies of Christ. It confounds false doctrines and lays down contention. (See 2 Ne. 3:12.) It fortifies the humble followers of Christ against the evil designs, strategies, and doctrines of the devil in our day. The type of apostates in the Book of Mormon are similar to the type we have today. God, with his infinite foreknowledge, so molded the Book of Mormon that we might see the error and know how to combat false educational, political, religious, and philosophical concepts of our time.

Now, we have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc. ….. And our nation will continue to degenerate unless we read and heed the words of the God of this land, Jesus Christ, and quit building up and upholding the secret combinations which the Book of Mormon tells us proved the downfall of both previous American civilizations.

I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14–16; D&C 84:49–53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world. (See Ether 8:18–25.)

I testify that the church and kingdom of God is increasing in strength. Its numbers are growing, as is the faithfulness of its faithful members. It has never been better organized or equipped to perform its divine mission.

I testify that as the forces of evil increase under Lucifer’s leadership and as the forces of good increase under the leadership of Jesus Christ, there will be growing battles between the two until the final confrontation. As the issues become clearer and more obvious, all mankind will eventually be required to align themselves either for the kingdom of God or for the kingdom of the devil. As these conflicts rage, either secretly or openly, the righteous will be tested. God’s wrath will soon shake the nations of the earth and will be poured out on the wicked without measure. (See JS—H 1:45; D&C 1:9.) But God will provide strength for the righteous and the means of escape; and eventually and finally truth will triumph. (See 1 Ne. 22:15–23.)

It is time to align ourselves for the kingdom of God.

Ezra Taft Benson's "The Book of Mormon is The Word of God"
Ezra Taft Benson's "I Testify"

Secret Combinations in Government

2010-04-16T12:43:00.000-07:00

President Obama is most definitely a statist. He believes in the state (federal government) controlling as much as possible. In his one year as president, he has taken over car companies, the student loan industry, banks, and has plans in place to take over health care. He also has a very ambitious agenda to take more control over more industries before the fall elections take away his majorities in the house and senate. Obama is a statist at best, and something much more sinister at worst. Someone asked me recently what his endgame is; what his final goals are if he were able to make it that far. Isn't that the great question. I sure wish I knew.

It looks to me like Obama is just following Saul Alinsky's book "Rules For Radicals". Following this book helped him into his presidency. He is following these rules still today. Current strategies outlined in the book include proposing that when you want to change a system, don't work with changing a broken system. You should instead tear the whole system down and start over with what you want. I could believe that Obama is attempting to tear down America to rebuild it how he wants it to be. With the stimulus, adding new unsustainable entitlements to the ones we already have, and taking over private businesses, it appears that everything Obama has on his agenda has the side effect of causing and sustaining high unemployment levels, destroying private enterprise, and hiking up taxes so much that it will put millions more Americans on the dole. It could very possibly even lead to the bankruptcy of America.

Another rule for radicals outlined by Alinsky includes the idea that instead of arguing with an opponent over the merit of their argument, you should instead ridicule them to take the focus off the actual argument. This can be seen in the way that Sarah Palin and other conservatives are labeled as "dumb", the tea party crowd is "racist", and opponents of Obamacare are "riotous and racist mobs".

These rules for radicals have really helped Obama. My brother brought up the point that we know from The Book of Mormon that the devil hands down guidelines and knowledge for secret combinations to help them in their "doings".  Helaman 6:30 "And behold, it is he who is the author of all sin. And behold, he doth carry on his works of darkness and secret murder, and doth hand down their plots, and their oaths, and their covenants, and their plans of awful wickedness, from generation to generation according as he can get hold upon the hearts of the children of men." My brother made the suggestion that Alinsky's book "Rules For Radicals" just might be some of these guidelines. After this suggestion, I did some research and have come to the conclusion that these "Rules for Radicals" are indeed handed down from the devil himself. But you don't have to take my word for it.

Rules for Radicals - Saul D. Alinsky, 1971

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do. [Secret combinations from the Book of Mormon times did their works in the dark and even lived up in the dark mountains.]

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. [Tea Partiers]

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame. [Bush/Palin/Limbaugh]

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

These tactics have been handed down from generation to generation. They are not new tactics, in fact they are ancient.  Saul Alinsky has even given a dedication and acknowledgement of help in his book Rules For Radicals "To the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."  From Alinsky himself, his book was inspired by and given to him by the devil. Obama spent 12 years teaching Alinsky's strategies at Chicago University Law School. Yes, that is correct, the president of the United States spent 12 years teaching these strategies and even more years living them. The strategies of the devil.

Another Alinsky tactic is to "accuse those of the acts that you are doing". (Breitbart) This occurs in too many ways for me to mention. I may get into it more later. However, I will just mention the recent example of those opposed to Obamacare being accused of not caring about the poor who cannot afford healthcare when in actuality Obamacare will further erode the quality of healthcare for the poor. All manner of accusations have been flying against the opposition of Obama including the common one of being called a racist.  After the War in Heaven, the devil was cast out into the earth, and in Revelations 11:10 we can read "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." (Thank you, Dad, for bringing this verse to my attention.) It can thus be seen that this method of accusation indeed has a long history and has been handed down to this very day and is being used by our enemy against us. It is the devil's way to gain ground through accusation, agitation, and goading the enemy.

The idea that there are people in our government that are part of a secret combination is not a novel or an extreme idea. Look, we know that the Book of Mormon was written for the people of the last days. We know that we are living in the last days. The Book of Mormon spends a lot of time speaking of secret combinations and how they try to infiltrate the government. It is not much of a step to realize that there are currently those in power in our government that are part of a secret combination. The Book of Mormon tells us that those in secret combinations in the government know no bounds in their desire for power. They would like, essentially, world domination. It should not come as any surprise then that Obama desires world domination - he considers himself the first post-American president. He would like to control more than just the "free" world. His speeches abroad, his love of the UN, his attempts at creating a world government with the climate summit at Copenhagen, his kowtowing and bowing to foreign dictators - it is all part of the overarching quest to create a new world order. And to reign over it.

When speaking of the new health care bill and how Congress did not have time to read it and understand it before they voted it into law, Glenn Beck made the point that they did not even have time to write the legislation. I think this is an important point, because we can see that the bulk of the bill was written in advance, possibly a long time ago. It was not written by Congress - they didn't even know what was in it. So who wrote it? And how long ago? In listening to William Duncan, he said that the anti-religion/pro-gay rights coalition is 10 steps ahead of the public in advancing their agenda. He said that their plans to chip away at religious freedom have been in the works for years and possibly decades. And so it must be with this health care bill. Socialized medicine has been being planned for decades. The time was finally right to get away with it. It was planned by members of a secret combination in an attempt to steal away our freedom and hold us hostage by our very lives, as they will soon have control over our life and death medical decisions. And the rest of us are just trying to live our lives and raise our families, and we are crept up on unawares. It is time to mount a defense and fight back "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children". (Alma 46:12)

Picture of Obama Teaching Alinsky

Are We All Statists Now?

2010-04-01T21:11:00.000-07:00

So what is so wrong with statism (socialism/communism)? Under statism, the citizenry has all of their needs met by the state. Health care (Obamacare), retirement (Social Security), education, and other needs are taken care of by the state ( federal government). As you can see, America is fairly statist (socialist) right now. So what is the problem with this? The problem with this is that the more control you give of your life over to your government, obviously the less control you have over yourself. As you give the government control, you lose your free agency, and you lose freedom. An even bigger problem is that you no longer have need for God. In the scriptures it says that "no man can serve two masters". If you look to the government to take care of all your needs, then you are not looking to God to help you. It is God's way to help you to help yourself. It is the state's way to just tell you what to do. And the state does not have your best interest in mind. The scriptures speak of the great and abominable church. This church that is being spoken of is statism.

I like to compare it to the Tower of Babel spoken of in the scriptures. These people were trying to attain heaven on earth. They decided they had no need for God, they would just get to heaven by themselves. Just like this, those in charge of our government currently are trying to create a socialist utopia; they are trying to create heaven on earth. They feel they have no need for God, they will just do it themselves. In this way, I think they even feel like God themselves and want to be in charge and tell people what to do to create and govern their socialist utopia. In my opinion, many of them do not even believe in God. John Dingell on March 23, 2010 said of Obamacare: "The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." There you have it. Our government is using Obamacare as a means to control us.

Statism is a conflicting ideology with freedom and belief in God. I would much rather have God as my master than the state. I believe my rights come from God and are not manufactured by the state (as in Obamacare being used to manufacture the right of all Americans to have health care). We must rise up together and call on God to help us help ourselves.

Communism is simply one of the many derivatives of statism. Any call to eschew communism would be a call to eschew any of the derivatives of statism. In the words of Ezra Taft Benson from 1979: "On 3 July 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members: 'Communism is not a political party nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government." We must "pray that [God] will intervene to preserve our freedom just as He intervened in our obtaining it in the first place."

Ezra Taft Benson's A Witness and a Warning

Obamacare: Heaven Help Us All

2010-03-24T21:25:00.000-07:00

So what exactly is so bad about Obamacare? There of course is the fact that its very existence is unconstitutional, the buying of votes to get it passed with taxpayer dollars, and the rise in abortions we can expect now that abortions will be paid for by taxpayers. Let's just put all that aside for a moment. What Obamacare does that is so bad is that it will put all private insurance companies out of business. If you understand economics at all, you can see that it has to. Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to anyone for any reason. If they have to take anyone and cannot charge higher premiums on anyone, then everyone who has insurance must share equally in the costs. This means that healthy people will be charged the same premiums as someone who is dying of cancer. All premiums go up. This then means that healthy people will not be able to afford insurance and will no longer have it. People will only have insurance when they get sick. And the fine they pay as punishment for not having insurance will go to the government and not to the insurance companies who will be barely alive at this point. As people will get insurance only when they need health care to be paid for, insurance companies will not have the money any longer to pay for health care (they lose money as they only receive money in premiums from people who need much more money spent on them in their health care). Insurance companies will go out of business, and the government will be "forced" to step in with a single payer system (universal or socialized health care).

This of course leads to a nationwide health care system that will mirror the current Medicare/Medicaid system. In this system, the government chooses how much to pay doctors. And they choose to pay them less than is worth it to the doctors. Therefore, doctors retire and students don't enter medical school in the first place. Then we have a shortage of doctors which leads to rationing and inferior care. The government tells pharmacies how much they can charge for drugs. It is not enough, so new drugs are not made and pharmacies go out of business. Again, the government is "forced" to take over the pharmacy business.

The citizens of the United States are dependent upon their government for their very life via health care. My husband has been through cancer. I know all too well that he was dependent upon his doctor to keep him alive. A doctor we chose. This will shift to dependence upon the government. And they may or may not choose to save you in your hour of need. But either way they will tax you into poverty for it. This is bondage. And I don't want to live in bondage.

You've Had a Good Run, Panda

2010-03-10T18:07:00.000-08:00

Panda bears sure are cute. And it is a good thing they are, because they are living on borrowed time. In the animal world of the survival of the fittest, they are simply not fit. The females can only mate during a 2-3 day window once each year and will probably only have 7 cubs at most in her lifetime. Their bamboo diet is so low in nutritional value, they are left with little energy, and it is a wonder they survive at all. Loss of their habitat to humans and the dwindling supply of bamboo are the main threats to pandas. However, they do not have the ability to adapt to these changing conditions, and pandas are quickly headed to extinction.

Pandas are the poster child (animal) for the WWF (World Wildlife Fund). Unfortunately, this also makes them the poster child for money that could be better spent. The WWF receives millions in American taxpayer money each year. And they spend millions on saving the panda. Environmentalist Christopher Packham has come out publicly stating that the efforts to save the panda are futile, as the issue of their diminishing habitat is not being adequately addressed. We are, at great cost, keeping them alive in captivity, but the efforts at keeping them alive in their natural habitat is doomed. Packham has said that the money spent on the panda would be put to much better use on other animals. He further states that the panda was not meant to survive according to Darwinian evolution and has said that: "Here is a species that, of its own accord, has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac. It's not a strong species." With so many staunch darwinists out there, I am actually surprised more people have not come out against pouring millions of dollars into saving the panda.

The WWF is a worldwide organization that America gives money to. We also have the Endangered Species Act. C.J. Carnacchio has said that this act "...represents one of the most irresponsible pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress. The law basically gives the government the authority to stop extinction in all cases, regardless of the cost, by any means necessary. Not every species can or should be protected. Do we really need to save every allegedly endangered insect out there? Many creatures on the endangered species list are not really endangered or even a scientifically defined species at all. Yet, we spend roughly $2.6 million a year for each creature on the list."

The Endangered Species Act has also been used to take property rights away from owners in order to save whichever species it wants to. As of March 10, 2010, the United States has 574 animals listed as endangered or threatened, and when you include plants, that number goes up to 1,323. Yes, you read that correctly, we are also trying to save plants. Property owners beware, your rights to use your property may at any time be subject to the rights of 1,323 different plants and animals. And the right to develop property has been taken away from owners in order to preserve the habitat for any number of even animals unknown to the average American. It is essentially a tool for those of the environmental religion to control property rights and violate the Fifth Amendment. Property has even been confiscated.

Now I do not want panda bears to die out. I think they are adorable and enjoy seeing them. I likewise do not have a death wish for any of the 574 animals listed as threatened or endangered. However, like most of my tax dollar decisions that the government makes, the panda is not something I would choose to spend my money on. As you know, I am not a conservationist, and I am not opposed to saving pandas in order to spend the money on other animals, I just use common sense to see that millions of dollars spent each year on keeping the panda alive would be better spent elsewhere.

On the Dole Again

2010-03-07T12:35:00.000-08:00

I had an acquaintance who lost her job. She was a single mother, and it was a trying time for her. She decided to go back to school. She was able to do this because the government (i.e. you, the taxpayer) paid for her tuition through a grant. She was able to still support her family through other government welfare such as food stamps. So here she is trying to improve her situation and take care of her family. Next thing she knows, her company wants to hire her back. Her company had gone through a rough patch, but things were looking up for them now. Well, if she goes back to work, she will no longer qualify for government welfare to care for her family and grants to pay for her schooling. She would make too much money, as the job was a pretty decent one. But now she had adjusted to going to school part time and then going home to spend most of her day with her children and doing what she wanted to do. She didn't want to go back to work full-time when she could make enough money on welfare.

She did decide that she wouldn't mind a little extra spending money, so she arranged with her employer to go back to work part-time. They wanted her full-time, but they, together, figured out how many hours she could work and how much she could be paid in order to still qualify for her government subsidies. She made the selfish decision, but it was a decision that was in her and her family's financial best interest. She got to go back to school and care for her family and have extra spending money, but she also got to be home more since she didn't need to work so many hours. On the taxpayers' dime. I wonder how many people have found themselves in this situation where they used to be productive, but now they will spend the rest of their lives working the system.

Our country is already quasi-socialist through welfare. And socialism doesn't work. Money is taken from the haves through taxes, making them less successful, and given to the have-nots, even if the have-nots could be haves but choose not to. It even helps the have-nots make the choice to continue to be have-nots. And thus everyone is worse off.

Those people on welfare often instead of trying to get off welfare, use their welfare income in their budget as if it was now just part of their income. And why try to make more money by doing extra work when it would just disqualify you for your welfare stipend and replace that. You are not left with more money, initially, than if you had just stayed on welfare. If you don't ever take that first harsh step off of welfare and try to make it on your own again, you will never reach independence and become productive again. It is easier to just stay on welfare.

It works the same with countries. Other countries, especially in Africa, have come to depend on foreign aid from America. It is no longer the helping hand to get them on track, but has become just part of their budgeted income. And why try harder as a country when you can instead just get your extra money from America?

When in Greece....

2010-03-01T20:41:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I wish we could just get rid of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid right now and just get it over with. Greece is currently in the process of getting rid of their entitlements. Greece is now bankrupt. Their socialist society has imploded on itself. There is no more money left to pay their bills. They have a high tax and high entitlement society, and there is not enough money to go around anymore. The government had no choice but to start cutting entitlements. They even started with small entitlement cuts. But the Greeks are not having it. There is mass rioting in the streets. 80% of the government work force is on strike. Government offices, schools and universities, and their airport are all closed. Even train, bus, and ferry services closed. They are short on gasoline, and Carter era 1970's style line-ups are taking place at the gasoline stations that still have gas. This is what happens at the point where the unsustainable socialist economy can no longer run. Is this the "socialist utopia" you are looking for Obama? This is the direction America is headed, and we will get there even faster if Obama can ram through his health care plan.

I believe the first time I really understood how Social Security works was when I entered my finance program in college. Now believe me, I know that a college degree in any field does not necessarily an expert make, but even the most preliminary investigation into Social Security reveals the frightening reality that it is a house of cards. It is a ponzi scheme as I discussed in an earlier post. They do not and never did even invest the money we put into Social Security. It is immediately spent. I knew at 20 years old that I would never be able to retire and live on Social Security and Medicare. I don't believe it will be around at all by the time I get to the age of retirement. And if it is still kicking around in its death throes, the benefits will be scaled back so much that I won't be able to do much with it.

These programs have turned our country into a socialist scheme wherein the government takes money to hand over to the elderly. But the money comes from their children and generations to come. I have had money taken out of my paycheck to pay for Social Security/Medicare since I was 16 years old. I was earning $4.25 an hour. How dare the elderly take that money from me! I was a child! And I will never see any of it back. They are taking it from me today. I have children to raise! I would rather have that money for myself right now to invest and use to raise my family, especially since I do not believe I will ever receive Social Security myself. It will be bankrupt. The projections change all the time for the insolvency of the programs. One current projection is this year (2010). But now that the baby boomers will start retiring this year, the only way to stave off the end of it all is to raise taxes and lower benefits ad nauseum until the house of cards comes crashing down notwithstanding all of these efforts. And then myself and my children will be left with nothing. But they all feel so entitled to it, even though studies show that the average elderly person uses three times more in Medicare money than they ever paid into the system.

So my question is this: Do we begin the end of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and other entitlement programs now peacefully? Or do we wait until we have no choice? And if we reach the point of no choice that Greece is at now, do we transform back to a capitalist society? And do we work together, or do we riot in the streets and shut down life as we know it?

Global Warming Meltdown

2010-02-16T13:13:00.000-08:00

"Climate-gate", in my opinion, is the biggest scandal of my lifetime. Global warming is the biggest and most costly hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. Congress had passed a measure to tax Americans and our businesses based on our carbon footprints in order to stop global warming, for crying out loud. This bill was being sent to the Senate. (See my post entitled "Carbon Footprint Free Ourselves Into Oblivion".) And now thanks to climate-gate, global warming is unraveling before our eyes. And what a sight to see!! If only you know where to look. The dinosaur media (traditional television news stations such as CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and the like) has barely been covering it.

Professor Phil Jones is the director of the research unit at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Britain. This research unit "was regarded as the leader in climate research and the fount of raw data on which the science was based. Phil Jones was regarded as an archbishop in the Church of Global Warming." (Pruden) A couple of months ago some e-mails were discovered between Jones and fellow researchers in which they all admitted to manipulating global warming data and hiding discriminatory evidence. Now that this is all coming to light, Jones has resigned and has gone on record saying that there has been no evidence of global warming in 15 years and that the earth has been warmer than now in at least two different warming cycles in the last 1,000 years. This means there is no proof for man-made warming of the atmosphere. Keep in mind this retraction on global warming was given by the leader in global warming; the scientist who was in the past "proving" global warming with what we now know is manipulated data, some of which has now been destroyed.

Plain and simple, all of this means that there is no crisis of man-made global warming. We are done with talking about it as a plausible event. It is back to being a hypothesis with as much to back it up as the older hypothesis when the scientist/politician coalition claimed we were about to enter the next ice age. The Waxman-Markey bill (cap and trade) can no longer pass based on this new evidence. This is one of the biggest stories of our day. A large group of scientists conspired to create this imaginary disaster in order to make money. In my opinion, this conspiracy extended to working with politicians as well. (I stated in an earlier post that I don't believe Al Gore actually believed in the cause.) So here you have a conspiracy to steal trillions of dollars from the American people in the name of our planet. And it has been uncovered. The question is, will we all talk about it and investigate this scandal for the big story it is, or will it simply slip away quietly in the night without much notice as the hole in the ozone crisis did. If the tree of global warming falls down in the forest and noone is there to watch it (on television news coverage), will anyone hear it? The dinosaur media is hoping you won't. I, for one, will enjoy watching it all unfold as I am sure there will be more fallout to come.

Sneaky Tax Hikes

2010-02-08T09:21:00.000-08:00

Our city is in the process of constructing a new and very large city hall. The old one was not that old, and it is certainly still in good condition. But someone wanted a larger and newer one built right next to the old one. In a recession, government, even at the local level, does not feel the need to modify their spending. Hmmm, but now how to pay for it? Tax increases in a recession for an unnecessary new city building wouldn't have garnered enough support. So they found a way to raise taxes unofficially in a way that most wouldn't notice. They kept appraised property values artificially high and thus issued a sneaky property tax increase.

Our houses here in our city were reappraised a few years ago at the height of the real estate bubble right before it popped. We saw a dramatic increase in our property taxes at this time. Although I don't agree with the property tax in principle, I couldn't protest that tax hike at that time. However, the very next year when the real estate bubble popped, property values were down and five properties on my street couldn't sell with some of them ending up later in foreclosure. At that point the increase in property taxes needed to be addressed. Well, the kind-hearted city knew this and decided to lower property values. But they still wanted a new city hall, so they dropped my property value by only 5%.

Some of my neighbors were aware that their property was still being over-valued, but they didn't know what to do, or the dispute process seemed too complicated, so they let it go. I, however, have experience working as a commercial real estate appraiser, so I knew exactly how wrong the city was and what to do about it. The process was lengthy and cumbersome, but now 3 months after my 2009 property taxes have been paid, I have won my fight against the city. In the face of overwhelming evidence, they agreed to lower my property value by an additional 10% which will save me hundreds of dollars each year over the next several years. This is by no means a small amount.

My distaste for government at the local level has increased through this process. As someone with real estate appraisal background, I knew the city had not even performed an appraisal to determine our property value. Their methods of arriving at property values and their evidence used was flawed and would never hold up in court. And yet the process to rectify this debacle involved me doing lots of legwork, the city denying my petition without even looking at my evidence, and ending up with it finally being resolved only after a court hearing. (I didn't sue; it was more of an arbitration.)

I am now more determined than ever that government must be limited. Given any kind of power, even local governments will manipulate and take advantage of the populace as needed for what they want. I stand firm, as written about in an earlier post, that I will never vote for a tax increase no matter what it is. Government is too inefficient and makes too many bad decisions without caring about what is in my best interest for me to voluntarily give them any more money to squander.

Government Causes Flu Shot Shortage

2009-12-28T15:10:00.000-08:00

Did you try to get a flu shot this year? How about the H1N1 (swine) flu shot? If you succeeded, you must have made the priority list, and you probably spent quite a bit of time waiting. I went to get my children and I flu shots. We all made the priority list. They ran out of seasonal flu shots. I found one place that had some left, but they would only give it to people over 4 years of age. Because of the shortage and all of the rules associated with receiving the flu shots, I spent 8 trips getting 3 people 2 shots each. All involved a wait time. Some involved a trip to get a ticket and a second trip to get the shot. And now on to getting a second dose of the H1N1 flu shot for my children.....

The shortage of flu shots is the direct fault of the government. They decided to only allow thimerosol free vaccines this year because someone once speculated that thimerosol causes autism. This speculation has since been debunked many times over, but the government decided to not allow thimerosol. The problem with this decision is that thimerosol allows flu vaccines to be packaged in bundles instead of in single doses. So the vaccinations this year could only be shipped in single doses. This took much more room and caused the shortage. After the government caused the shortage, to deal with the shortage they created a priority list of who could receive the small supply of vaccinations. This is called rationing. And this short supply caused the waiting and the lines requisite to receiving a vaccine even if you made the priority list. My mom gets a flu shot every year. Well, not this year. The government decided she could not have one. And she was even willing to pay for it.

Excited about the new health care reform? Think rationing won't happen? It already does. Take the shortage and waiting and rationing for this year's flu shots and extend that to all of your health care. This is our future with Obamacare. This is what happens when the government is in control of anything.

Majority Rules: Tyranny Wins and We All Lose

2009-12-18T18:48:00.000-08:00

With the election of Obama and the elected super majority of democrats in the senate, it would appear that big government is what the majority of voters want. That they would like big government to aid in wealth redistribution. And in a democracy, the majority rules. But as Walter Williams points out, "America's Founders didn't found a democracy, they founded a republic. The authors of The Federalist Papers, arguing for ratification of the Constitution, showed how pure democracy has led historically to tyranny. Instead, they set up a limited government, with checks and balances, to help ensure that the reason of the people, rather than the selfish passions of a majority, would hold sway. Unaware of the distinction between a democracy and a republic, many today believe that a majority consensus establishes morality. Nothing could be further from the truth."

Many Americans do believe we live in a democracy. But the republic we live in is the superior way. This is why our president is elected through the electoral college instead of the popular vote. We may have had a majority of people wanting big government and wealth redistribution. But a majority of people being able to vote for this, i.e. being able to vote themselves some of other "richer" people's money, is what has led to tyranny for others in the past and will lead to tyranny for America if the path of wealth redistribution is continued. People realizing they can vote themselves other people's money and then doing it eventually leads to tyranny because then the government is in control of everyone's lives. The wealthy are beholden to the government because the government takes their wealth and their productivity. Those on welfare are beholden to the government because now they depend on the government for their livelihood. Those the most dependent on welfare are the least likely to ever get off welfare and lead productive and independent lives. The end result is everyone is controlled by the government. This is tyranny.

All of the stimulus bills are putting us in loads of trouble. But government being involved in health care is the biggest and fastest way of wealth redistribution. It is the best way to take money from the wealthiest and send it straight to the poorest, whether the poorest want it or deserve it more or not. America seems to be waking up for now since the last poll I saw showed that 56% of Americans are now against the current proposed healthcare "reform". This desire of elected government officials to pass a healthcare bill no matter what is because of their desire for control. This control matters more than the details of the actual health care bill and is why the details change daily, and most of the senate members do not even know most of the details.

If you have failed to take interest in the Copenhagen summit on climate change, you may be missing the bigger picture. The point of this summit and in international climate change agreements is for poorer countries to vote themselves the wealth of richer countries (America). Yes, more wealth redistribution. It is not about saving the planet. It is about America paying money to poor countries for polluting more, i.e. being more productive, advanced, wealthier, and more free. The Copenhagen summit and others that will follow is an attempt to set up an international government more successful than the U.N. The international government would police all countries (read America), and redistribute the wealth of America. So not only do we have to worry about wealth redistribution stealing our freedom and sending us into tyranny here internally in America (and faster if health care reform passes), but we should be worried about it internationally in the name of climate change.

Murder For Hire - And It's Legal

2009-09-25T13:26:00.001-07:00

I was first introduced to the euthanasia issue in a class back in junior high. We were asked to research and support both sides of the issue. At 14 years old, my immediate reaction was of horror – of course it was not okay to help people die no matter what! Since then I have developed an appreciation for the complexities of the issue. However, I still find myself horrified to watch our culture slowly move towards an acceptance and even embracement of the euthanasia movement. I see our culture moving towards more than this even – a culture of death, or a lessening of respect for human life.

It may surprise you to know that three states have legalized assisted suicide: Oregon, Washington, and Montana. There is an actual group whose purpose of existence is to fight for the euthanasia movement. This may also surprise you. As my husband asked me, rather perplexed, “Who is it that has a dog in this fight?” He was unable to comprehend why people would make it their mission to fight for the legal right for others to be helped to kill themselves. It all goes back to my fascination with uncovering secret combinations, and finding that they are not so secret after all. We just may not be aware of them. There is a well funded group called Compassion & Choices with a budget of over $1 million per year that works towards legalized euthanasia. And they are finding success. It is now hip in Washington to support this group. Dr. Kevorkian and the horror that his name conjures is out, and the politically elite such as Senator Dianne Feinstein find themselves as the new faces of the euthanasia movement.

Assisted suicide has been legal in Oregon for several years now. There is no way to monitor how it works in Oregon. Is it abused? Are people put to death that didn’t really want to be? Nobody knows. But we do know that the reason needed to be put to death can be as trivial as depression. In fact, it has been found that most people interested in assisted suicide for themselves has to do with not wanting to be a financial and emotional burden on their families anymore. It is extremely rare to find one who wants to die for the more socially accepted reason of imminent death combined with their doctor having no way to control their pain.

So the group Compassion & Choices has a mission of legalizing euthanasia in all of the states in America. They pour millions each year into the cause. And for what? My husband told me we must follow the money. And the truth of it is very sinister. Compassion & Choices is looking to be the next Planned Parenthood. What Planned Parenthood is to abortion is what Compassion & Choices would like to become for assisted suicide. They would like to be the national premier provider of murder. For hire. And it's legal. And if it becomes legal in every state, you can be sure that taxpayer money will be given to them to accomplish their murders. Have a burdensome relative who is getting on in years? They will be there for you. This is their ultimate intent: to become a cash cow, a billion dollar industry. And the death panels of the proposed Obamacare? The bill stated that the group that would help counsel patients on their end of life decisions would be none other than Compassion & Choices. They lobbied big time for this "privelege". This group, along with their agenda, is extremely dangerous. They pose as big a threat to our society as the abortion movement. They are well funded, and their ultimate goals and even their current doings are secret. They are a secret combination.

And who is fighting against them? Do Americans even know about this fight? And if they do, do they want to join this fight? I feel like Americans actually help them with this fight. But the group is so subtle. The trickeries and deceptions of evil! Americans do not understand this fight, and I will give you the most publicized example of this.

This takes me back to the Terri Schiavo case of 2005. Terri collapsed in 1990 due to cardiac arrest. By the time any of us had heard of Terri Schiavo in 2005, her state was this: she was living as a vegetable with her guardian (the one who makes the medical decisions) being her husband Michael who at the time would not divorce Terri but was and had been living with a new girlfriend for years. The liberal viewpoint, and the viewpoint adopted by many Americans weighing in on the issue, was that Terri should have the right to die since she was living as a vegetable. Those mean conservatives, they would say, why would they make her live this way? However, the problem that Terri's parents and conservatives had with the situation is more complicated. The real problem was that Terri's guardian had a new girlfriend of many years. Instead of divorcing Terri and letting Terri's parents become her guardian, Michael had to stay married to Terri and be married to her when she died to receive all of the malpractice lawsuit money that was intended for Terri's care. Not only this, but not all of the medical tests had been run on Terri to see if she could be rehabilitated; to see if she was in a persistent vegetative state or not. Attempts at rehabilitation were not even tried. You see, if these tests were to be run or rehabilitation programs started, this would cut into Michael's stake of the malpractice money. So the real issue was not whether Terri should be able to die since she was a vegetable, it was whether those final tests should be run before Terri was allowed to die. Michael prevailed and Terri was not allowed to be tested before the plug was pulled. Count this as a major victory for the euthanasia crowd. The liberal viewpoint is the knee-jerk reaction; the obvious conclusion you reach if you have done zero research. The conservative conclusion is reached after an intellectual sifting through the full story.

Most Americans supported the right of Terri to die. But this was because they did not understand the issue. And this is the danger of the Compassion & Choices group. They fight for euthanasia and slowly win the support of Americans. But it is through deception. Americans do not realize that depression is a suitable reason for assisted suicide; that imminent death is not a requirement. I am not opposed to a truly tested person living as a vegetable to be allowed to die on their own. I am opposed to anything beyond this.

We must be on guard and aware of the euthanasia movement. We must fight against it. It is coming at us from all angles – it is the slow and subtle movement of our culture to begin to put less and less value in human life. It begins with the less subtle abortion. Health care rationing is at play, and will be even more if Obamacare passes. It ends with the “right to die with dignity” movement. And lost in the complexities of the issue are the American people. Played like pawns, we begin to support something we don’t understand. Fighting for the right of Terri and other elderly depressed patients or even terminally ill patients to die, although coming from a place of compassion and good intent, does not make it right, okay, or even less evil. We must be aware of this issue and other issues so that we can fight for life, even as millions and even billions each year are poured into secret combinations.

Health Care Change We Can Believe In

2009-09-06T10:12:00.000-07:00

Yes, us conservatives do want health care reform as well! It would just look extremely different than the current Obama/Congress plan. Obama will be addressing the nation shortly in an attempt to drum up some support for his health care proposal/fiasco. He will speak quite a bit about competition and choice. Nice buzz words, for sure, but the current proposal with a government option will do nothing but drive insurance companies out of business and leave us with only one choice - health care run by the government with no other choice and no one left to offer any competition. As Obama's plan continues to lose support, he will attempt to reframe the issue away from health care reform and toward health insurance reform. After all, those health insurance companies are the bad guys.

The best way to offer more competition and one of the current options out there to best reform health care would be to allow people to buy insurance between state lines. Currently, an individual can only purchase health insurance offered in the state that individual lives in. This leaves less "choice and competition", but the government will not currently allow interstate competition. This interstate competition is, however, allowed for car insurance. This is why car insurance is so much more competitive. If you could purchase health insurance from any state in the nation like you can with car insurance, costs would go down, choices would go up, and you would no longer see one or two health insurance companies monopolizing the business in any given state.

This proposal to allow interstate "competition and choice" among health insurance options has been voted on before in the senate. Named the Health Care Choice Act (H.R. 2355), this act was introduced and put to a senate vote back in 2006. Guess who voted against this "competition and choice"? Yep, Senator Barack Obama. Keep this in mind when Obama preaches about "competition and choice" concerning his health care proposal. He is not looking for this at all. He is looking for a government-run, single payer system that allows more control of our lives by the government. (My post entitled "4 Health Care Solutions" outlines some other free market solutions for health care that do not involve a government take-over.)

Almighty Obama, May I Live?

2009-08-22T09:56:00.000-07:00

My grandma had a stroke the summer of 2006. The only thing that could save her was brain surgery, but she had no money, and her health care plan was Medicaid. The government did everything in their power to convince my dad to just let her die since the cost of the brain surgery would be high. My dad kept deferring to my grandma's living will which said my grandma wanted to be kept alive at all costs and no matter what quality of life any medical intervention would lead to. They did the brain surgery. If there had been any wiggle room in my grandma's will such as not wanting to live as a vegetable, the surgery would not have been done. It almost wasn't done as it was. The surgery saved my grandma and restored her to her previous health and brain function. She went on to live for 2.5 more years before she passed away. Was this expensive brain surgery worth the extra 2.5 years of life for my grandma? It certainly was for her and for her loved ones. But it wasn't worth it for Medicaid.

An expansion of Medicare and Medicaid into universal health care coverage promises to lead to these end of life decisions for everyone. The "death panels" you have heard about are simply what happened to my grandma being promised on everyone. If you are old and have severe medical problems, you would have to meet with government bureaucracy to discuss whether or not the price is worth the extra year or two of life the medical intervention will buy you. And the deeper our nation gets into debt, the more likely the answer will be that the medical intervention is not worth the cost to the government. And then this determination that your life is not worth the cost may begin to extend to the disabled, the chronically ill, and who knows who is next?

Obama has said that he is "God's partner(s) in matters of life and death". Do we really wish this of our government? Do we want to pay as a nation for abortion? To promote euthanasia and to pay for it? Do we want the government to tell us that they will not pay for another pregnancy and child because we have had enough? The real solution lies in my earlier post entitled "4 Health Care Solutions". Less government regulation of the current health insurance system would lead to more flexible and inexpensive health insurance options for all. For me, I would like to leave these matters up to God and the individual and keep the government out of it.

Liberal Compassion Rains Down on College Students - Watch For Flooding

2009-08-11T14:14:00.000-07:00

Trina Thompson is suing Monroe College for the $70,000 she paid in tuition. She is suing the college because once she graduated, she was not able to find employment. Trina felt the college did not do enough to help her attain employment upon graduation. This lawsuit brings up so many problems inherent in the current higher education system.

Obama has a new goal that "By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.” His plan is to get us there through even more government funding of higher education including making it easier for people to qualify for Pell grants. The problem with Obama's desire to increase government paid tuition is that increasing government payments of tuition simply increases tuition in general. What happens is that every time the government offers more money in Pell grants or makes it easier to get student loans, colleges increase their tuition to help them capture more of the increased federal aid. Colleges are able to do this because any time people are allowed to do something for free, they do not compare costs. So now you have students who do not price comparison shop their education because the government is paying for it anyway. And now tuition goes up for every student.

Make no mistake, this increased availability of federal funding will increase the number of students in the doors of each college institution, but these students will not necessarily graduate. As it is, most institutions have less than a 60% graduation rate for their students. If you increase the number of students in attendance by adding students that would not have attended college without government interference, in general, you just mostly increase the number of students that enroll in and begin to attend college only to later drop out, having spent mostly other people's money. Each time government aid increases, the pocketbooks of universities and professors increase at the expense of the taxpayer and others who would like to attend college on their own dime. The beneficiaries end up being these college institutions that are mostly liberal, and thus, friends of Obama.

Even as Obama is touting the necessity of a college education, I am intrigued by Trina Thompson's lawsuit for helping to point out that actually attaining a college degree does not necessarily facilitate good employment. And that colleges are in business for the money and not so much to meaningfully educate and help students achieve the employment these students are interested in. Colleges have done a good job of creating enormous expectations without trying very hard to help students achieve these expected results for the less than 40% of them that eventually graduate.

John Stossel even goes so far as to call college a scam and spoke with Dr. Marty Nemko for his 20/20 special about it. "If you're in the bottom 40 percent of your high school class," Nemko says, "you have a very small chance of graduating, even if you are given eight and a half years." Stossel continues, "colleges still actively recruit those kids, and eight years later, many of those students find themselves with no degree and lots of debt. They think of themselves as failures."

Now I do have a bachelor's degree, and I do believe that higher education is very beneficial for many. There is also a difference between an undergraduate degree and a graduate degree, and the quality of the resulting employment from a college education will vary greatly depending on which major is chosen. Great thought should be put into attending college, and it should not be the immediate next step from high school for everybody. Most of all I believe that the government should stay out of it.

Medicare: You Can Thank Ponzi

2009-08-03T13:32:00.000-07:00

A Ponzi scheme (similar to a pyramid scheme) is a scheme in which new investors are used to pay back previous investors. There is no actual investment. This was named after Charles Ponzi, the first person to orchestrate such a scheme back in 1919. Many people can make lots of money in these undertakings; but, in the end, they always unravel. They are unsustainable. And so it is with Medicare. Many of the elderly today paid into Medicare for decades. And now they benefit greatly from free health care. Many elderly feel entitled to their free health care, and as much of it as they can get. They did pay for it after all, right? But the fact is that the average Medicare recipient uses 2 to 3 times more money in health care than they ever paid into the system.

When Medicare began in 1965, six workers were paying into the system for every Medicare recipient. This number is now down to four and is decreasing. This is why the system is unsustainable. The money paid into Medicare was never put into a trust fund; it was immediately spent. This is why there is currently a $34-trillion unfunded liability in Medicare. Ponzi schemes rely on an ever increasing supply of investors. With Medicare, the investors are continually decreasing. This is why today's younger workers will never see Medicare benefits. The system will collapse as do all Ponzi schemes. This deficit can be covered with increased taxes on workers and reduced benefits on recipients - but only temporarily and with an unfairness to all involved.

Ponzi schemes always ultimately end up taking money from some investors that can never be paid back. This is why they are illegal. This is why Bernie Madoff is in trouble. Only in government will you find a bigger Ponzi scheme than the one Madoff ran that is legal. You find this in Medicare. (I haven't even mentioned social security yet!) The last thing we need is our Medicare Ponzi scheme extended into universal health care coverage under Obama's plan. (John Stossel)

As a side note about Medicare that most likely applies to all government entitlement programs, Medicare spending on fraudulent claims is estimated to be anywhere from 3% to 10% of Medicare spending. This amounts to $60 to $72 billion on the low estimate. It has become a big target for organized crime. To compare this to the private sector, credit card companies (not controlled by the government) see 0.03% of their spending in fraud. (Dennis Jay)

Carbon Footprint Free Ourselves Into Oblivion

2009-07-14T20:43:00.000-07:00

I recently saw an advertisement for a company in which they proudly touted that they are “carbon footprint free”. Instantly I felt repulsion for this company. I shouldn’t have - they are just looking for more business from their “green” buyers. It is a marketing strategy born out of the spirit of competition. While I always applaud the spirit of competition, I just wish people could understand the real issues underlying the green movement. In the rush to remove our carbon footprints from this earth, we will carbon footprint free ourselves into oblivion. What this means is that each company that works to remove their carbon footprint is only hurting themselves financially in a manner that will make them lose business to foreign competitors who do not have the stiff environmental regulations of the United States

My first distaste of the environmental movement began before my interest in politics. I understood nothing of the issue, and I was enrolled in a mandatory environmental appreciation college course. In retrospect, the purpose of this course was to indoctrinate young college students like myself into the environmental religion; to scare each of us into “making a difference”. I was asked to curb my water usage, drive my car less, and other such nonsense. As I studied the graph that displayed pollution and water use data, I noticed that individual pollution, i.e. car driving, and individual water use didn’t hardly make a dent in the overall pollution/water use occurring on the planet. Where it was really being used was in business and industry. I began to question why I was being asked to ride my bike instead of drive places when it wouldn’t make much of a difference even if every single person started riding bikes instead of driving. And why was I asked to take shorter showers and water my lawn less when institutional water use was what mattered? Why were they attempting to scare me into submission to the environmental movement when the facts did not support the plea to drive less and curb my water use?

Then I began to feel angry. Angry for the distress the environmental movement had caused me in my youth. I still remember the ozone crisis in the early 1990’s. The ozone was dying because of CFCs in the air. And this was caused by us – by me. Do you remember this one? I was actually taught in school that the ozone would be completely gone by the year 2000, and I would have to don an aluminum space suit in order to go outside so that the sun would not burn my body. And this was all caused because of my refrigerator, air conditioner, and my aerosol hairspray. I was so scared! I had to get that pump hairspray instead, you know the kind where it takes 20 times as long to get the hairspray out? What a travesty that they were allowed to teach that to children. They had no idea what they were talking about. And so it is with global warming today. Did you ever wonder what happened to that ozone layer crisis?

C.J. Carnacchio wrote a column entitled “The Sky Falls on Environmental Myths”. He explains that there is no “permanent hole in the ozone layer and no ozone shortage. Ozone is constantly created and destroyed [from an] interaction of ultraviolet radiation with oxygen molecules…. The ozone hole that appeared over Antarctica and caused all the panic is a natural and annual phenomena. The hole appears at the end of the dark, cold Antarctic winter, lasts about three to five weeks, and then disappears. There is no overall or permanent depletion of the ozone layer.”

Once this science was in, I bet you never even heard that the whole CFC destroying ozone crisis was a big mistake. No apologies for scaring your children half to death; the issue just went away. They were wrong, completely wrong, and yet they continue to teach global warming in the public education system to our children. Our children are afraid of global warming, but these global warming “experts” do not know what they are talking about.

Carnacchio continues in his column. “Between the 1940s and the mid-1970s temperatures were steadily declining. This led environmentalists in the 1970s to predict global cooling and the coming of a new ice age. They blamed the same industrial economy and pollutants then for global cooling that they now blame for global warming. New ice age or melting polar ice caps, the environmentalists can't seem to make up their minds.”

In reality, the earth simply has a cyclical temperature cycle, a series of small upward and downward temperature movements. Perhaps you no longer remember the ice age scare since global warming is the hip cause right now. We used to be scared of global cooling and of a coming ice age. I think it is important to focus on these past mistakes where they got it so wrong to keep in perspective that they do not currently understand global warming. To me it is the same as the Seventh Day Adventist religion. They predicted the end of the world in 1843. Well, this did not happen. So they predicted the end of the world as October 22, 1844; then 1845, 1847, 1850, 1852, 1855, 1863, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1877, and so on. You and I would think that you would be a fool to be part of a religion that was built around false predictions. And yet the religion currently boasts around 14 million members. I don’t understand this, and I don’t understand being a faithful follower of the environmental movement that has been wrong so many times before and currently makes their biggest priority global warming, an issue on which the science to support it is at best sketchy.

This brings me to global warming. My favorite synopsis of global warming comes from Dennis Miller. "There's a lot of differing data [about global warming], but as far as I can gather, over the last hundred years the temperature on this planet has gone up 1.8 degrees. Am I the only one who finds that amazingly stable? I could go back to my hotel room tonight and futz with the thermostat for three to four hours. I could not detect that difference. It appears that the problem is over the last century the temperature of the planet has gone up 1.8 degrees. You know, maybe, maybe not. Excuse me for not trusting temperature figures from the year 1906. They’re still [beep]ing outside in the woods but I’m supposed to believe they had a stranglehold on the Fahrenheit at the Earth’s magma. I’m sure that was an accurate reading, huh? “Ezekiel! Put the candle wick down the possum hole! Let’s lay down a base line for future generations, then we’ll churn some butter and invent flight next year!”

Dennis Miller best illustrates how ridiculous I think the whole issue of global warming is. Carnacchio has more to say on the issue of global warming. “As for the claim that the carbon dioxide emission levels of industry are responsible for global warming, here are some facts. Both historic and prehistoric levels of carbon dioxide have shifted and changed without human intervention. Historic increases in carbon dioxide have occurred about the same time as temperature increases, but a careful study of the data shows the rise in temperature preceded the increase in carbon dioxide, not the reverse. In the prehistoric era, carbon dioxide levels were at times ten times what they are today, and that was during a period when life was evolving and taking shape.

Carbon dioxide is actually a minor greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide, methane, hydrocarbons, and aerosol only account for two percent of greenhouse warming. The main greenhouse gas which accounts for the other 98 percent is water vapor. So carbon dioxide's effect is ultimately insignificant, no matter how much industry has created.”

Meteorologist Paul Becker continues. “Mankind’s total contribution to all greenhouse gases — this includes cars, trucks, manufacturing plants, boats, planes and any pollution producer you can name — the total is less than 1 percent. Mother Nature provides the other 99 percent.”

I don’t have time to go into all of the research I have done leading me to the conclusion that man-made global warming is junk science. Suffice it to say that a petition has been signed by 31,000 credentialed scientists stating that the facts do not support man-made global warming. In addition to this, many of the scientists listed on the original IPCC global warming report have come out and said that they did not agree with the report and wish to have their names withdrawn. I would say that the science is in, and the debate is clearly not over.

Most of the political figures currently driving the global warming scare have surely seen some of this contrary evidence. My question has been, do they really believe in global warming? Let’s just take Al Gore, for example. Bruce Nussbaum has a lot to say about the size of Gore’s carbon footprint. “Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).” For such a promoter of global warming, he sure does not try to stop it in his personal life. I do not think that Al Gore even believes in global warming. But he does believe in political acclaim and wealth. He won an Oscar for “An Inconvenient Truth”, and he has made lots of money from donations made to the global warming cause. So that is what it is all about for Gore and others. They follow the money and what will bring them prestige.

That leads me to cap and trade. The form of cap and trade that is being debated in the Senate is the Waxman-Markey bill. Jim Manzi at National Review defines cap and trade. “In plain English cap-and-trade is simple: It is carbon rationing. Basically, the federal government would make it illegal, in most cases, to emit carbon dioxide at scale without a ration card. Government officials would decide how much carbon dioxide the U.S. would emit in a given year (that’s the “cap” part), print up only that many ration cards, auction them off, and then allow people to buy and sell them (that’s the “trade” part).” He continues that the Waxman-Markey bill would use “government fiat to demand the elimination of a majority of all energy that would otherwise be used by the economy over roughly the next 40 years. A person possessed of common sense might think that this would keep the economy from doing as well as it otherwise would. And this person would be right.”

The idea is that the elimination of energy use and carbon dioxide use by companies would help fight global warming. So basically, this bill would force industry to eliminate most of their energy use, and the government would ration which company could leave a “carbon footprint”. Companies would have to pay for any carbon dioxide use that would go over their government rationed allotment. That is if the company was allowed to buy more carbon rationing. This would hurt our economy greatly and put many companies out of business. Government would be free to ration the carbon cards to whomever they choose. They could favor companies that donate heavily to democratic causes. They could favor liberal individuals. So again, it is all about power and money, about control. And you and I are the ones that are hurt. The companies that must pay heavily in carbon taxes to stay in business would pass this cost along to the consumer. They would have to in order to stay in business. The annual cost per year to the average household as a result of cap and trade is estimated to be anywhere from $1,200 to $3,100. The result: we pay, companies fail, and as a nation we become carbon footprint free. Into oblivion.

Lessons From The Iranians (Part II)

2009-06-27T10:18:00.001-07:00

The Iranians are marching in the face of death over a meaningless election, and here in America, we do not even vote. In 2008, 57% of the voting age population turned out to vote for the president of the United States. When a presidential election is not involved, federal elections yield 37% of voters. It only gets worse as you get into local elections. So why do people not vote? Perhaps a sense that their vote does not matter or a lack of understanding or caring? I personally feel that we are accountable to God for our vote and for doing all that we can to keep our nation free. The next vote that I miss will be because I am dead. But it is more than just showing up for the vote. An ignorant vote cast is worse than not voting. I feel we are also accountable to God to cast educated votes; that we know the issue and the candidate and understand it completely when we cast our vote. Many Iranians are dying for a chance to have a vote that is counted. We must cast our vote that does count.

By not voting, voting ignorantly, or voting on purpose for socialism, our nation is on the path to losing our freedom. Our constitution is indeed hanging by a thread. Why are we voting for socialism? Because people are scared. Scared of the sour economy, scared of bad times ahead, scared of being responsible for themselves. And so our nation marches off into socialism, choosing to trade freedom for the mirage of security. However, this security will not happen. Socialism has never in the history of the world provided more than a temporary security or prosperity for a nation, and socialism will not give American citizens security or prosperity. It only has ruin to offer.

We have been told that the gospel will spread all over the world in the latter days. That the gospel will expand to countries we never thought possible. In my life, I have seen the gospel allowed in countries I never thought possible such as Russia and East Germany. President Bush brought some freedom to Iraq. With this, missionaries may one day be allowed in the Middle East. Who would have thought? President Bush enabled a little piece of freedom in the Middle East, and we must continue to support additional freedom. We must support freedom in any way we can for Iran. What if this is God’s plan? What if freedom comes to Iran, and one day missionaries are able to enter Iran? It is an exciting time, and I, for one, support this chance for political and possibly religious freedom for Iran.

President Gordon B. Hinckley of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints called on the members of the church to get involved in the political process; to write letters, make phone calls, vote, and do whatever each individual can to be involved in the political process. President Gordon B. Hinckley wanted each individual to know that we can have power to make a difference, and we must use this power. This was a call to me to become more politically involved, to do all I can to promote the cause of freedom and to support the constitution that God blessed us with. And thus, this blog was born.

Iranian Protestations

2009-06-27T10:08:00.000-07:00

The Iranians are protesting and marching in the streets over a fraudulent vote. They voted recently in an election and felt, correctly, like their vote counted for nothing. They are marching for a voice, for freedom. And for this, what do they get? They are being plowed down like animals, shot and thrown off bridges. This is happening so far away, and Iranians are so different from us. Should we care? We can learn many lessons from the Iranians.

So what was this fraudulent election all about? You need first to understand the power structure in Iran. Iran is controlled first and foremost by (supposedly) Allah (God). Under God, Iran is controlled by the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei has all of the control over everything that matters. Then there is a 12 man Guardian Council. Under this is an 88 member Assembly of Experts, and finally is the president. The president can actually do nothing and is completely subordinate to the Ayatollah. He is essentially meaningless. The Iranian people were given two choices for president hand selected by the Guardian Council (and really by the Ayatollah). So really, neither choice was a free choice or a good choice for the Iranians. However, this vote over the new president is what started all of the protests because the winner of this election was not the candidate who received the most votes.

So here we have a somewhat meaningless election that was fixed. And the Iranians revolted. They had had it. They are so hungry for freedom of any kind that they continue to fight in the face of probable death over this election. As an American with still some of my freedoms intact, I feel it is my duty to support freedom and free agency for all. I am no better than the Iranian, and I want them to live free as well.

The question remains, does Obama support freedom for all? And why did it take so long for him to say anything at all condemning the murder of the Iranians by their government? Jonah Goldberg had an excellent post in the National Review online explaining Obama’s foreign policy position. Obama would like to solve foreign problems by negotiation and “talking”, even when it comes to terrorist regimes such as Iran. Goldberg put it best when he said, “If the forces of reform and democracy win, Obama’s plan to negotiate with the regime is moot, for the regime will be gone. And if the forces of reform are crushed into submission by the regime, Obama’s plan is moot, because the regime will still be there.” So if Obama does not support the Iranian people, he has lost our best chance to overthrow this dictatorial and terrorist regime. A regime that just so happens to have the desire and may be close to the capability of destroying our own nation with their nuclear weapons. If Obama does not support the Iranian people, support freedom, then who will?

4 Health Care Solutions

2009-06-24T10:41:00.000-07:00

1) Limited Government. The government, through Medicare, currently reimburses doctors for 81% of the cost of medical treatment on Medicare patients. How do doctors make up the 19% difference? They charge more for their patients who have private insurance. So, through Medicare, the government is already a huge factor in the ever climbing costs of health care. A single payer plan, or socialized medicine, that Obama is currently proposing (he claims it is not a single payer plan, but the public option he is proposing in the end turns his proposal into that), would essentially put the whole nation on Medicare. Private insurance would go out of business. And then we are left with everyone on Medicare, and medical bills not being paid 100%. How will doctors and hospitals then make up the difference? Lower quality care. How will the government make up the difference? Rationing. So the #1 health care solution is to not implement socialized medicine. I would like to see the dissolution of Medicare altogether in favor of a program in which we could save for our future health care needs tax free in the same manner in which we save for our retirement with a 401K.

2) Health Savings Accounts. These accounts are available for those who have high deductible health insurance plans. It can be likened to an IRA, but for your health care. You store your contribution or your employer's contribution in a health savings account tax free. Whatever you do not use from this account each year rolls over to the next year. In this way, you can invest your health care dollars. You use this account to pay for your medical bills.

This is the way for the future because each individual pays themselves for their health care expenses. Your insurance only kicks in after you meet your high deductible, so ideally you do not use your insurance unless you have an unforeseen accident or disease. In this way, you continue to invest this money each year at a profit to yourself.

If individuals pay for their own health care costs, they will shop around more for better deals. They will make better decisions and not receive so many unnecessary tests and procedures. One of the highest costs to health insurance providers is when the consumer chooses a name brand drug instead of a generic one. If the consumer is paying the entire price of the drug themselves, they will be more likely to choose a generic one, and if they don't, it doesn't hurt others as their insurance provider is forced to supplement the cost of the name brand drug because they pay for it all themselves. All of these name brand drugs and unnecessary tests and procedures are a leading cause of skyrocketing health care costs that will be eliminated when the issue of cost is introduced into the health care decisions of consumers. This will increase competition among doctors and cause prices to begin to be reduced as doctors fight for patients and do not want to lose them to a lower priced doctor. Also, your health insurance premiums are significantly reduced when you take upon yourself more of the costs of your care.

3) Tort Reform. According to Bloomberg, 10% of the current cost of healthcare is due to malpractice lawsuits. The amount awarded to those filing malpractice lawsuits is arbitrarily decided upon by juries. Punitive amounts and awards for pain and suffering are subjective, and juries tend to award these in an excessively high amount. Although no one wants doctors to be unchecked regarding malpractice, runaway lawsuit costs jack up the price of malpractice insurance greatly. This in turn leads to a higher cost of medical care for everyone as some of the cost is passed on to the patient's insurance provider. Tort reform is needed to cap punitive damages that can be awarded in lawsuits.

Malpractice insurance costs have led to the shortage of ob/gyn doctors in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Washington D.C. In 2004 in Florida, the average malpractice insurance premium was $195,000. In Dade County, Florida it was $277,000. The more malpractice lawsuits filed in a given area, the higher the likelihood becomes that ob/gyn doctors will just relocate rather than pay these premiums. My own ob/gyn just left private practice due to the exorbitant cost of malpractice insurance. Although he has not been involved in malpractice lawsuits, he can no longer afford to pay for the insurance and remain in private practice.

The high incidence of malpractice lawsuits also causes doctors to prescribe unnecessary tests and procedures to protect themselves in the event of a lawsuit. This increases the cost of health care for everyone.

4) Emergency Room Visits (Illegal Immigrants). In the past six years, nine people from Austin, Texas accounted for 2,678 emergency room visits costing hospitals, taxpayers and others $3 million. Illegal immigrants use the emergency room for all of their health care since they can not be turned away and do not have to pay for their care.

A couple of years ago I was in the emergency room with my husband for some cancer complications. Our doctor kept having to leave periodically as he was dividing his time between my husband and another patient. He was so apologetic and so mad because the other patient eating up his time was an illegal immigrant who was in for a toothache. The illegal immigrant did not have dental insurance or the money to pay for a dentist visit, so he was trying to get the ER doctor to fix his tooth. The doctor said it was very hard to even help him since he had not studied dentistry. So not only was taxpayer money spent on this illegal immigrant's toothache, but patients like my husband who are in for an emergency cancer complication have their care compromised to make room for these ridiculous and costly non-emergencies racked up by non-Americans.

The estimated cost of illegal immigrant health care in just California is $1.4 billion per year. This is paid for by taxpayers. Hospitals also lose money on this as well. At least one hospital in Arizona has filed for bankruptcy and may close because of money lost on illegal immigrants. Reform needs to make it harder to visit the ER without being able to pay for it, and the United States needs to put a complete stop to the free health care being offered to illegal immigrants.

Secret Combination: Planned Parenthood

2009-06-13T14:26:00.000-07:00

Jon Voight has recently called Obama a false prophet. I completely agree with this assessment. This led me to ponder secret combinations and what combinations Obama has taken the reigns over. I do not think secret combinations are all that mysterious. We know from the Book of Mormon that they are among us now. But are they secret from us? Some, perhaps, but I think that some of them are very prominent organizations, they just have an agenda they would like to keep secret or day-to-day operations that are secret. Their organization may have a public and stated agenda, but what their actual goals are are far more sinister and hidden. I thought about which secret combinations receive support from their false prophet Obama.

The first secret combination I have chosen to highlight is Planned Parenthood. Publicly, their stated agenda is family planning; to provide knowledge to women on how to avoid pregnancy and disease or how to nurture a fetus once pregnant. This sounds like a worthy cause. However, they are, of course, the largest abortion provider in the nation, aborting 200,000 fetuses each year. In 2007, they provided one adoption referral for every 62 abortions they performed and provided prenatal care to one woman for every 27 who received an abortion. It is obvious that their main priority in "family planning" is family reduction via abortion. These statistics do not lead to the conclusion that they are trying to offer women choices once pregnant.

Planned Parenthood receives $50 million each year in taxpayer money through the Title X program, $50 million each year through Medicare, and additional money through other various government funding for a total of $254.4 million each year in taxpayer dollars. So, yes, you all currently fund abortion through your tax dollars. Planned Parenthood also receives an exorbitant amount of private donations from some very large corporations you most likely do business with, and an especially large amount from Warren Buffett.

Planned Parenthood was founded in large part by Margaret Sanger. As proud as Planned Parenthood is of Margaret Sanger, they would like to hide some of her history. A supporter of negative eugenics back when Nazi Germany was on the rise, Sanger believed birth control would be the best way to prevent an expanding population of handicapped, minorities, indigenous, and other groups deemed undesirable. Sanger has said, "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." She thought of blacks, immigrants and indigents as "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."

On the extermination of blacks: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

In Sanger's quest to exterminate blacks, she was somewhat successful as black women are three times more likely than white women to have an abortion.

On marital sex:"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God's view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)

These quotes were compiled by Diane Dew.

As you can see from some of the views of the founder, Planned Parenthood is a family planning agency that began with not a very family friendly founder. The views of the founder, as well as the views of those currently running the organization are not views I agree with. And yet I am forced to help pay for their operating costs through taxes. The secret agenda of Planned Parenthood is population reduction, sexual liberation for women, and money making through federal money through abortion. Indeed, the biggest secret of this secret combination is that it works toward the breakdown of the family.

Planned Parenthood does everything possible to avoid telling parents of minors about abortions, and has even sued for the right to not tell parents in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Several undercover operations have been done with Planned Parenthood including one by the Students for Life of America. It has been determined from these that Planned Parenthood regularly does not report sexual abuse cases between older men and underage girls. Instead of reporting these cases, they will simply help the underage girl get birth control or an abortion.

They obviously care nothing for the women they are "helping". They are an organization with a political agenda.

Will You Break The Law To Save Your Life?

2009-06-08T17:54:00.000-07:00

Will you break the law to save your life? This choice may be coming soon to you, courtesy of Obama and socialized health care.

Virginia Postrel tells of her battle with breast cancer in the article "My Drug Problem" in The Atlantic magazine. With the traditional ways of fighting breast cancer, Postrel was faced with a 50% odds of recovery. However, the drug Herceptin would give her a 95% chance of recovery. She has achieved full recovery thanks to Herceptin, but the drug cost her insurers $60,000. Postrel details how in New Zealand, Herceptin was not allowed for early stage breast cancer by their socialized health care. It was simply too expensive. That is how socialized health care works. It is advertised as free and comprehensive health care, but there is simply no way, with a taxpayer system, to pay for every drug and treatment. In New Zealand, if you wanted to use Herceptin to fight cancer, you had to pay for it on your own.

Most countries that have socialized health care work much the same. You have your "free" and socialized health care for your basic health needs. Don't get me wrong, your quality will still be less than that of the "broken" current health care system here in the U.S., but you will have your basic health care. However, the only way to keep the system functioning, monetarily, is through rationing. As soon as you get cancer, if you want the comprehensive cancer care you can currently get in the U.S., you must pay for it with your own money.

In the United Kingdom, there are several treatments and drugs that are not allowed by their socialized health care. For example, if you get kidney cancer, there are four new therapies to treat the disease, none of which are allowed in the United Kingdom's health care. If you want to survive the cancer, you must pay for the therapy yourself. They have looked for ways to prevent cancer patients from being able to get these therapies and drugs with their own money, for this is not equal treatment. Some would like it to be against the law. After all, this is what socialized health care is all about - equal health care for all. They would rather everyone just die if the treatment is not approved by the government. However, it has turned into only the rich survive, because the poor don't have access to these same treatments.

What really blows me away is that a two-tiered medicine has become the norm for countries like the UK and France. You have socialized health care for your basic needs, and then you have a private health insurance for your superior health care you need in addition to your basic needs, such as if you get cancer or some other disease that requires more comprehensive and expensive treatment. So these countries with socialized health care also have private insurance! So then you still have the "problem" of the uninsured who can't afford private insurance for when they REALLY need health care, and all of the problems with socialized health care such as deteriorating quality and rationing.

Canada is infested with private clinics that you must go to for cancer drugs. But the government won't pay for these. We are constantly touted the success of these countries with socialized medicine, but we never get the real story. In fact, in Canada in 2007, there was a Canadian woman who lived in Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets. Calgary did not have the room or quality of care for her to deliver her babies there. She had four neonatal intensive care babies that simply could not be accommodated anywhere in Canada. So she left the big city of Calgary and traveled to Great Falls, Montana to give birth to her babies there. Our health care has problems, but is socialization our solution? And if we move to socialized health care and it destroys our health care to this point, what country will we travel to if we need more specialized care?

Health Care For All...Hip, Hip, Hooray?

2009-06-04T09:27:00.000-07:00

Politics were not widely discussed in my home growing up. I knew my parents voted Republican, but I did not know much about any of the issues. When I was 15 years old, I was assigned in my debate class to learn and be able to debate both sides of the issue on socialized health care. Going into my research, I had no biases, opinions, or previous knowledge about the issue. Given the best arguments for each side of the issue by my teacher, I very quickly came to the conclusion that socialized health care is very bad for citizens. At 15 years old, I knew it would never be a good thing. The more I have learned and researched the issue since this, the more resolute I am in this conviction.

Obama and the democrats are trying to bring socialized health care to the United States. They are trying to get this legislation passed before the end of the year. They know the longer it takes, the more opposition they will see as people realize how bad this will be for them. They are essentially trying to quietly sneak it through before anyone realizes what is happening.

The plan is simply to start by taxing the employer provided health care plans of those who currently have health care and take this tax money to pay for health care for those who are not currently insured. This will facilitate a move into complete government controlled health care. This plan has no methods to control health care costs, so costs will continue to rise. It does nothing to fix any of the problems health care currently has, it will just make it more expensive. And then, later on when everyone's health care will be controlled by the government, there will be extra taxes for risky behavior, since this risky behavior could possibly affect your health. Would you like to pay an extra tax to eat an unhealthy meal, play in the sun, drive your car, and etc.? The list could go on and on. It is all about control. If the government can control your health care, they can control your health behavior, and the goal of this is to have total control over you. The goal of many government programs ultimately is about control and power. Socialism brings much power and control to politicians.

Many doctors currently will not accept Medicare and Medicaid patients since the government sets prices for these patients. These patients are simply not profitable for the doctors. Universal health care will run much the same. As the government sets health care prices, it will no longer be profitable to become a doctor, what with all the financial and time risk involved in becoming a doctor. We will not have quality doctors in the future for our children. It will no longer be profitable to find new drugs and new cures for diseases if the government can put a ceiling on how much a company can charge for a given drug. With no way to recoup the cost of creating a drug and getting it to market, companies will no longer find these new drugs and cures.

Obama Schools Hugo Chavez

2009-06-03T19:07:00.000-07:00

Hugo Chavez has referenced Obama's nationalizing of General Motors and said that if he isn't careful, Obama will become more socialist, more left than Chavez. Chavez believes himself to be more conservative than Obama.

Obama is a socialist. He genuinely believes that the rich people in this world got that way through taking advantage of the poor. He does not see the struggle and time put into achieving this wealth, he only sees the plight of the poor, whether they got that way through laziness and bad decisions or not.

I have a relative who went through years and years of medical school and all of the training that comes after this. These were years of financial struggle and financial risk, as well as years of time given up for training. He related the story of an encounter with an old acquaintance who, upon discovering my relative was on the path to becoming a doctor, told my relative that he must really love school and that the old acquaintance could never become a doctor since he didn't love studying. To this my relative replied that he did not love the financial and time sacrifice of becoming a doctor, but he did it for financial stability in the future. What does this struggle represent to Obama? Absolutely nothing except a doctor who rode on the coattails of the poor that did not choose to go to school. It makes no sense to me, but to a socialist, it is only fair to spread this wealth around to all. To take from my relative and give to the poor, even if they are a drug addict, is ideologically the morally correct thing to do for Obama.

Obama is not trying to destroy America, he is simply a socialist. However, we know socialism does not work. This has been proven time and time again. Obama is not trying to destroy America, but it is happening before our eyes notwithstanding.

I do believe that Obama wants to level the playing field at all costs. He does know the financial devastation this will cause to the majority of Americans, but to him the end justifies the means. He knows that most Americans will be hurt dramatically by the ailing economy and emptied 401K retirement plans. It is just better to him that everyone is equal with the poor, even the struggling middle class. Obama also wants us more equal to the rest of the world. If that means the end of United States superiority, then so be it, and perhaps all the better for it.

Capitalism and American freedom began with the shot heard around the world. It is going, going, about to be "gone with [but] a whimper" (Pravda). I am not even sure American citizens know it is happening. California fell based upon the voters voting in the wrong politicians time and time again. Is it too late for our nation? Definitely not. But we for sure voted for the wrong person in Obama. It is not too late. It is time to fight for our freedom. It is imperative to make informed voting decisions in 2010 and 2012.

Obama Drives General Motors Off into the Sunset

2009-06-03T12:19:00.000-07:00

When companies are no longer financially sustainable, they are able to enter into bankruptcy. Sometimes they don't emerge from bankruptcy; but, sometimes bankruptcy law allows these companies to restructure and renegotiate contracts. These companies reemerge a stronger and more competitive company.

General Motors was at the verge of bankruptcy. This was the obvious solution for them. Their main goal in bankruptcy should have been to rid themselves of unsustainable legacy costs by renegotiating their contracts with the UAW (United Auto Workers union). Legacy costs are health care and pensions that are promised to workers at the auto plants after they retire - even long after they retire. Many of these workers receive health care and pension money for more years in retirement than they actually worked. Because of these legacy costs, GM spends $1,525 per vehicle in the U.S. on health care, compared with $300 per vehicle at Toyota (Drezner).

This would have been the solution and perhaps only possible salvation for GM. However, Obama stepped in with taxpayer money and then took a 60% stake in GM. Instead of allowing the company to move through a beneficial bankruptcy process, Obama has taken charge of the company and will put it through a political bankruptcy in which GM will be transformed in the way that Obama thinks is right instead of what would actually save the company. Obama is relieving the company of none of these legacy costs. These costs which have made the company unable to compete will still bog it down. Obama's answer has been to cut advertising, cut many divisions (selling Hummer to a foreign nation so we may never be able to buy it here again, and divesting Saturn, Saab, and Pontiac), and by closing down hundreds and maybe thousands of dealerships. These are individually owned dealerships, some of which are being given 3 weeks to close. These are U.S. citizens, private business owners, being told to take a hike by the government as their businesses are taken from them. Something like this should be taken care of by the free market and not by government intervention.

This is socialism, pure and simple. The government (Obama) has taken taxpayer money and taken the majority stake in a company. This move was not agreed to by the American people. In fact, most Americans do not approve of this happening. So not only does the government now own GM, but Obama is calling the shots. Obama, who has no experience running a company, not even a taco stand, is telling GM to divest some profitable lines of cars, to shut down hundreds of dealerships, and to cut advertising budgets. Obama has appointed 31 year old Deese to dismantle GM. Deese is attending Yale Law School and has not graduated yet. Deese has no experience with the automobile industry. Not only this, but the government has set up outrageous CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. This means that of all the vehicles sold by a dealership, the average of all these vehicles must run at 27.5 miles per gallon. These standards hold some of the responsibility for the financial problems that drove GM to this precarious situation. This makes it so that a dealership must keep a large inventory of small, fuel efficient cars on the lot to make up for the less fuel efficient SUVs on the lot. The smaller cars do not sell as well and lose profitability for the dealership. Obama is attempting to raise the CAFE standard which would make it very difficult for any dealership to sell any SUVs. Indeed, Obama is attempting to legislate away the very existence of SUVs. Rush Limbaugh even makes the very credible claim that, kept on this path, you may no longer be able to purchase an SUV of any kind of the United States by the year 2016.

Obama has purchased GM and is currently running it. He is forcing hundreds of dealerships out of business, and, through CAFE standards, is attempting to manipulate other car companies as well. This is pure socialism. The ease with which this all has taken place is very scary. Obama has also purchased many major banks. These banks that have taken or been forced to take federal bailout money are so handicapped by the federal restrictions that go with this money, that many are trying to find a way to give this bailout money back. Obama says he wants to sell his share of GM as soon as possible; but, as we see with the bank situation, even if GM is sold to a private buyer, the taxpayer bailout money that has already been given to GM and Chrysler will keep them at the beck and call of Obama. This destructive meddling by the government spells out the end for GM. As Obama drives GM off into the sunset, he takes with him the livelihood of thousands of Americans.

Aborting Away Our Future

2009-06-01T11:32:00.000-07:00

I spent a summer in the Middle East some years ago. On one of these days, I found myself in a beautiful, tree-enclosed clearing up at the top of a hill. Early history of this clearing reveals a sordid past. It was a "sacred" clearing, one in which the people of the nearby land would gather at twilight to dance and worship some idols placed on the side of the clearing. They would burn some sacrifices to their idols each night. The sacrificial lambs? The newborn babies that were born, but were not wanted. These sacred rituals allowed the people to celebrate their promiscuity and to continue their numerous sexual encounters without the burden of the undesirable side effect of creation of human life.

I was so completely shocked that this was the history of this beautiful clearing. My innocent upbringing would not allow me to fully come to terms with this horror at this time. My thoughts were that if our society ever got to this point where we did this kind of thing, we should all tremble before God for what repercussions would befall us.

Some months went by before I realized that our society does have a ritual of this sort in abortion. It is an answer to many for irresponsibility. Fiercely protected by liberals, it has become a defining issue of our day. If myself and many other Americans were to choose just one issue we could vote on, this would be it. This is the supreme issue of our day. When Roe v. Wade made abortion legal back in 1973, I believe it was easier for people back then to attempt to justify abortion, to pretend that the fetus was not real. Technology was not as good back then. However, now with ultrasound being used regularly early in pregnancy, it can easily be seen that a 9 week old fetus has a heartbeat, a head, limbs, and can move. Now that it can't be disputed that there is life inside the womb before its movement can even be felt, it is harder to support abortion. I believe this is why the pro-life movement currently has its most supporters and continues to add to the ranks.

In conversing with several pro-choice acquaintances, I have noticed a similarity. These pro-choicers have told me that they would never have an abortion themselves, but they support the right to choose for other women. When pressed as to why they would not have an abortion themselves, I have been told that they believe it is wrong to have an abortion. Why would it be wrong to have an abortion? Because they are allowing for the possibility that it is murder of the fetus. But if it might be murder, and they would not do it, why would they support it for others? It makes no sense to me. Would they support murder of adults for others but not for themselves? And would they support the murder of an unwanted baby that had been born minutes ago like they did in the ancient Middle East clearing I visited so many years ago? Where do you draw the line? In partial birth abortions, the infant has essentially been born. Do you draw the line at a live baby that is not yet 24 hours old? Has not been taken home from the hospital yet? Whose head has not come out of the birth canal yet? 24 weeks in the womb? 12 weeks? 9 weeks?

Back in college, I had a professor who taught a business course, but was fond of philosophizing. She spoke of different attitudes of different times. She told us that we could not judge actions of others in times past because we can not say with surety that we would have done the "right" thing when the "wrong" thing was accepted and prevalent at the time. I believe some of the issues discussed were stoning, slavery, and a variety of other issues. I do not agree with this reasoning. Abortion for me is that issue. Legal and fairly widely accepted today, I am a staunch advocate for life, opposed to any type of abortion.

Some abortion facts from The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform: 42 million abortions per year, 1.37 million in the U.S. in the year 1996, 52% of abortions are women younger than 25 years old, black women are 3 times as likely as a white woman to have an abortion, and hispanic women are 2 times as likely, 64% of abortions are performed on women who have never been married, 93% of abortion are performed because the child is not wanted, and only 52% of abortion occur before 9 weeks of pregnancy.

An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.

48% of all abortion facilities provide services after the 12th week of pregnancy. 9 in 10 managed care plans routinely cover abortion or provide limited coverage. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 16 states (CA, CT, HI, ED, IL, MA , MD, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) pay for abortions for some poor women.

If universal health care comes to the United States, I can guarantee you that all abortions will be paid for with taxpayer money. Partial birth abortions are performed from weeks 24-36 of pregnancy. In this method, the viable baby is actually delivered except for the head which is stabbed so the brain can be sucked out. All abortion is murder. Partial birth abortion is an especially brutal murder. Our current president supports this.

Pirates of the Caribbean...or Somalia

2009-05-29T10:06:00.000-07:00

I watched an investigative news program on 20/20 delving into the modern rise of piracy. As the program progressed, several different first-hand accounts of piracy were detailed. Four of the stories began and ended the same way: commercial vessels were approached by weapon wielding pirates. The people aboard these vessels were terrorized, ran into hiding, and called the land dwelling owners of the vessels for help. In all of these cases, neither the captains of the ships nor any of the crew/passengers had any weapons of their own. The ships were held hostage for hours until the ransom of millions of dollars was paid by the owners to the pirates. The ships were then released.

One of the stories featured on the program; however, ended differently. This story featured two elderly couples who were aboard their ships. These couples were just trying to have an enjoyable vacation voyage. As they were approached by the weapon wielding pirates, these couples decided to fight back. They had one pistol. They rammed their ships into the pirate ships and began shooting at them with their one pistol. The pirates withdrew and let them go. No millions of dollars were paid. No lives were lost. What is the difference? Well, of course, it was the pistol!

The people from the vessels featured on this program that paid ransom and did not have weapons were interviewed. They all agreed that weapons should not be used to fight the pirates. This would be too dangerous, they said. It is better to simply pay the ransom. But I always learned the #1 rule for ransom is that you don't pay it, because if you do, it brings more of the hostage taking behavior. That is what is happening now - pirates take hostages, collect ransom with no fight put up, no risk to their personal safety, and piracy grows by leaps and bounds. Minimal risk and huge rewards!

This is the perfect allegory for the entire gun control debate. By taking guns away from law abiding civilians, you invite crime from criminals who get their guns illegally anyway. There is no stopping these criminals because they have no fear. It's not like their weaponless victims can harm them!

The Mass Transit Racket

2009-05-27T09:51:00.000-07:00

The population is exploding, congestion is growing, there seems to be no end in sight. What is the solution? For some it is population control, i.e. don't have any more kids, and for some it is ride your bicycle to work. But the current hip money-making scheme for politicians is mass transit. Because who doesn't know someone who is dying to sell their car if only a train passed by somewhere within the 20-mile radius of their home. The idea of mass transit is popular with the masses, at least based on voter preference, which baffles me, seeing as the masses do not utilize it.

Patrick Bedard contributes to the magazine "Car and Driver". You can find his columns under the features section of caranddriver.com. He has two excellent columns posted entitled "Mass Transit Gets Its Big Chance" and "Take the Car or Hop a Choo-Choo". In the following, I will post some of his key points.

A traffic study by the Reason Foundation has found that "in highly decentralized Los Angeles, where just 4.8 percent of people use transit to commute, over half of the long-range-plan money, $66.9 billion, is being spent on transit." Bedard continues, "that $66.9 billion, if shifted from transit, which commuters shun, to highways, where they swarm, would almost cover the entire $67.7 billion needed to relieve L.A.'s severe congestion. "

"The economic value that society places on light-rail transit is reflected, in part, by people's willingness to pay for it," says a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. "Fare revenue covers only 28.2 percent of operating costs in St. Louis, 19.4 percent in Baltimore, and 21.4 percent in Buffalo." The taxpayers carry the rest of the load, after they've coughed up the full price of building the systems in the first place.

The New York subway system, popularly called the “electric sewer” in my 19 years as a Manhattan cliff dweller, hauls the masses and is arguably the most cost-efficient transit system in the country. Passengers pay 68 percent of operating costs. The numbers drop from there, as does ridership. Around the country, San Francisco is next best at 57 percent, then Washington, D.C., at 48 percent, followed by Boston riders who pay 41 percent, 36 percent in Chicago, 31 percent in Atlanta, 28 percent in Los Angeles, and 20 percent in Denver.

The Cato Institute’s Randal O’Toole points to commuter rail as the big hole in the fiscal bucket. He cites General Accounting Office figures, saying the cost to build a rail line can be 50 times that of starting a bus service with comparable frequency and capacity. While buses run on streets already in place, light rail has to construct the track system before the first train can enter the station. Cheapie layouts that run on a level grade—that means the trains will stop traffic as they cut across streets—cost $25 million to $50 million a mile.

So rail systems run on borrowed money, and bondholders must be paid, mostly from sales-tax revenues.

The riders never value the service enough to pay its full cost. O’Toole, in this 2006 study, quotes 2003 numbers showing that subsidies for transit beyond the expense covered by fares amounted to $31 billion. That same year, subsidies to highways less user fees paid by motorists that were diverted to nonhighway uses such as mass transit came out to $15 billion. “Yet highways account for about 100 times as many passenger-miles and infinitely more freight movement than transit.”

These paragraphs from Patrick Bedard cited some specific cities, but the general idea is applicable to all cities with mass transit systems. It is always a racket.

Utah currently has a commuter light rail in place with plans of expansions being constructed through 2015. This is the big plan to ease congestion. With round-trip TRAX fare at $4.50, it would often be less expensive to drive your own car on any given trip. Now this varies depending on how far you are going, how much gas costs at a given time, and the gas mileage of your vehicle. However, TRAX does increase its fares if the cost of gas goes up to a certain amount. If you have more than one person in the car, TRAX becomes an even more expensive alternative. All of this does not even include the taxes that are spent on TRAX. $312 million was spent for the initial TRAX construction. This does not incude all of the extensions. $290 million has recently been pledged just for the airport extension. There is also always the inconvenience factor. You probably need to drive to get to a TRAX station. If you are already driving there, it would be much faster to just continue driving to your final destination. TRAX is a wonderful alternative for those who do not own a vehicle. But then, to me, this just becomes another welfare program.

I do not understand the positive mass transit opinion of an average taxpayer. Your average taxpayer will not use TRAX, and for sure will not use it regularly. My husband's car was in the shop at a point in which we lived in an apartment building with a bus stop right in front of it. There was also a bus stop a block from his place of employment. So he rode the bus to work. And then he made me drive him to work for the rest of the week because even though the bus stops were right next to his home and work, it just took too long to get there!

Hundreds of millions have been spent constructing the TRAX tracks here in Utah. More will be spent through 2015 with expansions in place or planned through to Layton, Draper, the University of Utah, and the Salt Lake City International Airport. Taxpayer money will continue to be spent each year to supplement the operating costs. If we could just stop building and paying for TRAX, we could get the congestion on I-15 settled once and for all.

Buying California

2009-05-21T12:32:00.001-07:00

California is insolvent, on the verge of bankruptcy. Beloved California, home of celebrities, creativity, beautiful weather . . . champion of political ideas and policies I despise. California was pushed to insolvency by numerous bad economic decisions. $3 billion was handed over for embryonic stem cell research in 2004. Home to sanctuary cities; paying for the education, health care, and incarceration of illegal immigrants in the state accounts for $10.5 billion per year (Rush Limbaugh). Placing moratoriums on new homes in order to save open space caused home prices to artificially skyrocket, leading to massive devaluation in the current housing slump. Banning the clearing of underbrush in the forest areas of California has contributed to the increase of forest fires, along with the increase of damage caused and money spent in fighting these fires. Refusing to allow new electric power plants causes loss of electric power for citizens every summer. Some of the highest taxes in the nation are required to feed this massive welfare state. All of these problems, added to a "soak the rich" tax structure and an unfriendly business environment, has sent the "rich" out of the state, thus decreasing the income for the state. And now you and I will pay for the failure of all of these policies and ideas imposed by politicians we did not vote for.

Rush Limbaugh has an excellent article out. It is well worth reading; but, because it is so long, I will summarize some of the key points. To emphasize: I highly recommend reading the entire transcript.

Summary of Transcript: Tuesday night, California voters voted no to five different ballot initiatives asking for more taxes. They voted yes to putting a freeze on state legislators' salaries. Immense excitement ensued for conservatives nationwide pleased that Californians are finally telling Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger no to more taxes and a poorly run state. The problem, Limbaugh points out, is that the next likely step is for Obama to step in and "bail out" the state. That would lead to the billions worth of debt being absorbed by the rest of the nation in the form of higher federal income taxes. So the Californian voters voted no to an increase in their state taxes, but will most likely end up paying higher federal taxes along with the rest of the states. Limbaugh points out the states of New York and New Jersey are currently in almost as precarious a situation. If California is "bought" by the federal government, then New York and New Jersey are sure to follow in these footsteps.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052009/content/01125106.guest.html

If the federal government is to "bail out" the state of California, what does this mean for state's rights? If the federal government owns 3 or 4 states, what are the rights of these states, and what does that mean for the rights of the remaining states? Is it the end of federalism (state's rights and a decentralized government)? Do we no longer even have states? This would definitely ease Obama nicely into further socialism. Would Obama be in charge of California? And if the rest of the nation is footing the bill for California, then would we all get to vote in all future Californian elections? I would sure like a vote in some of their decisions. I would love to get a chance to vote for their next governor, if they were to get another one. I closely followed the 2003 election in which Schwarzenegger became the governor. He was definitely not the candidate I would have voted for. But now I must pay for his decisions.

The fate of California must be watched closely, for it may hold dire consequences for our entire nation.

Gay Marriage: The Death of Religious Freedom

2009-05-16T09:01:00.001-07:00

Nothing better illustrates the war that is being waged upon religion than the venom spewed toward Miss California Carrie Prejean.

Everyone who want homosexuals to just be left alone and have the same rights as everyone else is completely and absolutely missing what this war is actually about. Make no mistake, this war comes down to freedom of religion and is being waged by a Gadianton coalition with a premeditated agenda that has been being planned for years. Unfortunately, the other side, for the most part, is an uninformed citizenry of church-goers that would like to be open minded and loving, and for this are not understanding what they are or are not fighting for.

I do not wish to meddle with homosexuals. I wish them no harm. But the idea of letting them live their private life and leaving them alone is not a valid argument when their fight for gay marriage infringes upon my right of freedom of religion.

The California supreme court admitted that the state's domestic-partnership law gives gay couples "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law." Marriage would add no new rights. So why did they continue the fight for actual marriage? Why not be happy with civil unions? The answer is they (the inter-connected groups pushing these laws) are not looking for marriage and the rights that come with it. They are looking to punish and stop the "bigotry" of those who believe homosexuality is a sin. Thus, religion has become the main target. They will do this through legal action. “The basic argument is: Once the state recognizes us as married, no private group outside of the sanctuary of the church is entitled to treat us otherwise, and various civil-rights laws banning discrimination over sexual orientation ought to take priority over religious liberty in every case,” says Marc D. Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress and a contributor to the forthcoming book Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty. The way this works can be demonstrated by the following cases that have already occurred inside the United States:

* In 2006, Vanessa Willcock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission against a company called Elane Photography for refusing to photograph her gay commitment ceremony. The business is owned by a husband and wife — evangelical Christians who have made a decision not to photograph ceremonies related to gay unions. In April, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found against Elane Photography and ordered it to pay $6,637 for Willcock’s legal fees in bringing the complaint. The decision has been appealed. Of course, Elane Photography is hardly alone. There’s been an effort in the courts not just to legalize gay marriage but to force acceptance of it as a matter of conscience and religious practice.

* In Ocean Grove, N.J., a lesbian couple brought a complaint to the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights against a Methodist church for not allowing them to use a pavilion on the church’s beach-front property for their civil-union ceremony. The church had offered the couple use of its property and boardwalk for the ceremony, just not use of places the church considered “worship spaces.” In January, an administrative judge with the Division of Civil Rights found against the church and stripped the pavilion area of its tax-exempt status for the church’s refusal to comply with the state’s sweeping anti-discrimination law. This will reportedly cost the church some $20,000 a year. Notably, the tax exemption was tied to the church’s making its property publicly accessible, rather than to any religious criterion — but the Department of Environmental Protection managed to lift the Methodists’ exemption within one week of the complaint’s filing, even though it isn’t the agency in charge of lifting tax exemptions. The church is appealing the decision.

* In California, the state supreme court is hearing a case against San Diego fertility doctors who are being sued because religious objections led them to refuse in vitro fertilization to a lesbian couple. Legal observers noted that the court — the same one that just legalized same-sex marriage — seemed hostile to the doctors’ defense during oral arguments in May. In 2006, Catholic Charities in Boston stopped providing adoption services since state law would have compelled them to facilitate adoptions by same-sex couples. The archdiocese was prepared to provide referrals for same-sex couples looking to adopt, but that wasn’t acceptable to the state.

These cases have been documented by Mark Hemingway, contributor of The National Review.

The legalization of gay marriage is already causing problems with religious freedoms for religious individuals and groups outside of a church. However, other countries are further along in their acceptance of and legalization of gay marriage. They can provide some of the future we are in store for further down the line. The more credence given to the idea that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, the more our religious freedoms are chipped away at. Gay marriage is the biggest threat to our religious freedoms we have ever seen.

"In England, a Catholic school has been prohibited from firing an openly gay headmaster, and parochial schools there are forbidden by law to teach that homosexuality is a sin. In Canada, the Alberta Human Rights Commission recently took the draconian step of issuing a ruling forbidding a Christian pastor to make “disparaging” remarks about homosexuality — or even to repeat Biblical condemnations — for the rest of his life. And in 2005, the Knights of Columbus were fined by the British Columbia Human Rights Commission for refusing to rent their hall for a lesbian wedding." - National Review

As you can see, the legalization of gay marriage around the country will eventually lead to religions being controlled and being told what they can and cannot teach. Can you imagine if your church were outlawed from preaching traditional marriage? Do not think it cannot happen here.

Marriage Seminar - Sutherland Institute

2009-05-15T19:51:00.000-07:00

We attended a marriage seminar sponsored by The Sutherland Institute in the fall of 2008. I wanted to share some of what I learned from this.

Speaker: William Duncan
The drive to make gay marriage legal is coming from a highly organized coalition of powerful people who have a definite plan and an agenda. Certain states have been targeted to get legislation passed to make gay marriage legal. These states are CA, NY, NJ, CT, MA, and RI. These states were specifically chosen because of three factors: demographics (the majority of voters are democrats), the supreme court judges of these states have a majority of activist judges (judges willing to make laws against the will of the people), and they are states in which it is hard to amend the state constitution (it is hard for the people to start a vote to amend the constitution to make marriage only between a man and a woman).

When gay marriage becomes legal for a state, it becomes the state's policy to promote gay marriage over the will of parents in schools. This means that teachers would be required to teach this new definition of marriage.

Utah currently has state protection that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The next step for the gay marriage coalition is to try to get the federal government to tell all states that they must make gay marriage legal.

Speaker: LaVar Christensen
He is the author of Amendment 3 which makes marriage in Utah between a man and a woman. No elected Utah democrat supported Amendment 3. He started work on Amendment 3 back in 1995 when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints issued The Proclamation to the Family. When he read this proclamation, he knew it was time to start fighting gay marriage.

All legal benefits are already available to gay partners. Marriage adds no legal benefits to them. The California supreme court judges said they made gay marriage legal because they "just felt the time had come".

Our Socialist Future/The Death of Freedom

2009-05-15T10:12:00.000-07:00

Quasi-socialism has been here in America for decades now. We have free government provided health care for the children, the elderly, and the poor (CHIP, Medicare, and Medicaid). We also have social security. All of these programs are unfunded Ponzi schemes that will bankrupt our country at some point. And now we have a socialist president. The road to extended socialism is scary, and we are on it. The government now has ownership in many of our major banks and companies. The government is not stopping there and is currently pushing for universal health care which would add government health care to those who are not children, elderly, or poor.

So what is wrong with this and why should we care? Mark Steyn has an article entitled "Live Free or Die!" that has been published in Imprimis. This is a monthly publication that you can sign up to receive for free. Steyn, a Canadian, begs us to avoid Canada's fate. His article explores the effects of extended socialism in Canada and Europe. The picture is not pretty. It details how socialism, or the government taking care of all your needs, leads to "spiritual torpor". Steyn powerfully explains as well that socialism is unsustainable and leads to loss of all individual freedoms. This is our future if our path is not altered!

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=04
Go to the above link to read the article and to sign up for your own free subscription!

Socialism vs. Communism - Significant Difference?

2009-05-11T14:05:00.000-07:00

The short answer is no - not to me. I am continually baffled by those I have personally come in contact with who openly condemn communism and embrace socialism. I have come to the conclusion that these people are uninformed. From http://www.dictionary.com/, you can read that the definition of socialism includes the following: (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. By Marx' definition, socialism is a temporary state, the goal of which should be to move to a perfected communist state. I have come to believe that the informed will either embrace both or condemn both.

As far as those who will cite the "Law of Consecration" as evidence that God finds a state of socialism to be the preferred state for America, I believe that socialism will never happen in America except by force. I also believe that the right of free agency trumps any misguided attempt at the law of consecration. I would call these "attempts" because the true law of consecration will never happen in this imperfect world.

President Ezra Taft Benson left us with a warning about communism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ7LcplfkgY

President Ezra Taft Benson also gave a very powerful talk about the harm of communism. One paragraph of it says, “We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America” (signed: Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, The First Presidency, in Deseret News, 3 July 1936; italics added).
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3d7f615b01a6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

The call to eschew communism is a call to eschew anything resembling communism which I interpret to include socialism. With all of the bailouts and proposals for government take-over of health care, the environment, and further businesses, we are definitely witnessing a sharp rise of socialism in America. And this road can only lead us to communism. We must awaken!

Local Media Bias/You Vote Your Own Tax Increases

2009-05-07T10:45:00.000-07:00

In the summer of 2007, I was walking into my local library when I was stopped by a reporter for the local newspaper. He wanted to put my picture and opinion in his opinion section. He wanted my picture first. He told me he was really excited to get the picture of a young and very pregnant lady for his section. I started taking off my sunglasses. He asked me to leave them on because it would be more of the look he wanted. At this point, I became wary of the whole thing. I told him we should get to the question before we did the picture.

He wanted to know if I would be voting in favor of the local tax increase for a new park somewhere. But he presented the question as this, "There will be a vote on whether we can have a new park here in the area for our children to enjoy. Of course these kind of things really benefit our community and our children. So of course you will be voting for this, right?"

I declined being presented in this kind of biased "opinion" section. But I wish I had been a part of it afterall. I should have said, "I have never voted for a tax increase for myself and I never will."

The secret is, for the most part, we vote ourselves these local tax increases. So why do we do it? Do they really need one more park? It wouldn't benefit most of the residents, but most of them voted for it. We need to really look at these tax increases we are voting for ourselves and really think about whether we would like to add this tax to ourselves or not. I always vote against each tax increase. The perfect example is how myself and my neighbors must pay an annual tax to support a recreation center that is about 15 minutes away. But most of my neighbors never use this facility because they belong to the swim club that is just up the street.

My annual property tax is almost $3,000! When will people stop voting to increase this?! I never hear anything but grumbling about how much taxes people pay, so why do they continue to vote for increases?

The State Stole My Baby's DNA!

2009-05-06T19:04:00.001-07:00

I first learned of this issue from The Glenn Beck Show on Fox News. When you have a baby and you are still at the hospital, someone comes in to take some blood from your baby's heel. This blood is sent in for testing for diseases. What I didn't know is that this testing is not done by the hospital, but it is done by the government. In 10 states, the government then stores this blood indefinitely in a baby blood bank of DNA for research and testing for their own use. In many states, this DNA is kept for a very long period of time. This is done without your consent, and in most cases, without even your knowledge.

This could be so bad for so many reasons. Something to think about: The democrats are currently trying to get the state to be your insurance and your health care provider. If they succeed at this, they will also have a store of your baby's DNA. Think "Gattaca" or "Minority Report". With this DNA, they could perform testing for your child's predisposition toward certain disease or social behavior (violence), and then descriminate based upon this. People would be up in arms if their current health care provider were storing this DNA. It is more scary to me to have it in the hands of the government.

I can't think of any reason why I would want the state to store my child's DNA.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518127,00.html