Friendly Musings of my Mind

Obama May Use Executive Power to Grant Amnesty

2010-06-28T14:59:00.004-06:00

It has been a LONG time since my last post but I am back and really want to provide value to you as a reader by presenting information about the most pressing issues in regards to keeping our nation directed towards Constitutional limits.

We are now facing an immediate crises in regards to illegal immigration which should get everyone immediately calling the white house and demanding that the President does not encourage or try to pass amnesty! Here is the number to the White House so you can get on the phone now: 202-456-1111 and you can contact them by email by clicking HERE.

Here is the article about how the President is now considering using an executive order to pass amnesty to illegal immigrants:
Click HERE for the full article.

Amnesty is Unconstitutional! Click HERE for a great article that explains in layman's terms how and why amnesty is unconstitutional and why a vote for "amnesty" regarding illegal aliens is, according to current law, technically an act that would require the office removal of anyone who voted in the affirmative in either the House or Senate.

I would love to hear your comments regarding the current immigration problem we have in the United States and what you think would be a good solution to this problem. Thanks for sharing!

Universal Heathcare anyone?

2009-04-17T14:07:00.002-06:00

THIS NOTE WAS POSTED BY MY GOOD FRIEND CANDACE SALIMA. I STARTED LEAVING A COMMENT AT THE END OF THE NOTE AND IT GOT TOO LONG FOR A COMMENT AND SO I AM POSTING MY RESPONSE HERE IN MY BLOG... PLEASE READ THE STORY/COMMENT BELOW AND THEN MY RESPONSE....

The note just before this one was written by mother and her experience with Universal Healthcare in the military. I also posted it on my personal blog (http://candacesalima.blogspot.com). A comment was posted there that is astounding and I wanted to share it with my friends:

Keeley has left a new comment on your post "America's Viewpoint: Universal Healthcare, Huh?":

Yep, that about sums it up.

My family live in England under their national health care and thus:

My Nana has cancer and is not being treated - because she's elderly and this is her second bout. She will die. The end. She is not worth the resources.

My Aunt was diagnosed with breast cancer...and had to wait about six weeks for the operation to remove the lump. So she waited. And stressed. And cried. And worried.

My father had rotator cuff surgery. He was sent home that day and was in out-of-his-mind couldn't-sleep- sheer agony for a week. He sat upright in a chair for a week because to do anything else was too painful.

My Mother had pneumonia several years ago. Not the walking pneumonia, but the hospitalized-she-might-die kind of pneumonia. Took her about five years to fully recover. While she was in the hospital there was a nurse who was absolutely brutal. She would throw the patients (elderly women) around. Threw one woman around so badly she was terribly bruised up the side of her leg from her ankle to her hip. Nothing was done to discipline this nurse, and no doubt her reign of terror continues.

My sister has epilepsy. Her doctor prescribed the wrong dosage, causing my sister to have fit after fit after fit until she could be hospitalized and her medication sorted out.

When I went into hospital, the ring I bought with my own money when I was six was stolen off my finger while I was unconscious. I know it's silly, but I loved that ring! I saved and saved and saved for it. And now it's gone. I had my initials engraved on it - how much worth could that tiny little thing be to someone else?

MY COMMENT:

Wow! A testimony that I hope will wake people up to what Universal healthcare REALLY is and not what it professes to be...you know one day I was watching Oprah (since I watched this show, I no longer watch) and she did a special on universal healthcare and tried to portray it as this benevolent and charitable system of healthcare...I remember one question she posed that was particularly disturbing. The question was asked, "Universal heathcare comes down to this question, do you believe a janitor's son has the same right to healthcare that a CEO's son does?"

I was sickened because these are the kinds of questions that get socialistic policies popular because it sounds like you are an evil, selfish person if you do not answer yes to the question! When really, the question should be asked this way, 'Do you believe it is morally right and acceptable to hold a gun to the CEO's head and steal his money that he rightfully earned and then give it to the janitor?'

You see the first question in evaluating any social system cannot be: What happens to those who are helpless and incapable of supporting themselves? Such people, by definition, are dependent for their survival on others—on those who are capable of working and who can produce wealth.

Thus, the first question must be: What happens to the thinkers and producers? What conditions make it possible for them to think and produce? The fundamental answer to that question is: FREEDOM—the freedom to direct their own actions and to keep the property they have produced.

Thus, to advocate for a system that puts taxes and regulations on the producers in the name of helping the disabled is a hopeless contradiction—it means helping the non-producers by throttling the producers on whom they depend.

So why is it that people advocating socialistic government make it look like we owe something to the janitor who clearly (in the socialist's mind) was born without the wealth and opportunities of the CEO?

Without a socialistic society the rich just get richer and the poor get poorer, right?

Quite the opposite.

Capitalism is the only system that leaves everyone free to rise by his/her own efforts. The history of capitalism provides countless instances of people who improved their lives through work and ability. There are the millions of immigrants who came to America and worked their way up to the middle class—or higher. One of the great historical examples was Andrew Carnegie, who rose from a penniless sweeper at a steel mill to revolutionize the steel industry and make one of the largest fortunes of his day. It is no coincidence that 19th century America—the most purely capitalist era in the nation's history—brought us the phrase "from rags to riches."

The reason why capitalism allows people to rise by their own efforts is that capitalism is driven by only one fundamental consideration: profit. But profit can only be earned through an increase in the production of wealth: profit comes from inventing a new product, producing a good more efficiently, promoting it to a wider market, etc. It comes from doing things better, faster, and smarter than before. This means that capitalism offers an open field to anyone who works hard to improve his skills—and it offers riches to anyone who thinks hard and comes up with new and better ideas. It is under capitalism, for example, that a company like Microsoft creates scores of millionaires out of individuals whose qualification is not inherited wealth or social connections, but only the ability to create and sell computer programs.

The rule under government regulation, by contrast, is very different. It is a common error today to talk about "crony capitalism." Cronyism is in fact a hallmark of state-run economies. When politicians and bureaucrats hold power over the economy, the only hope for success comes from currying their favor. Thus the competition for wealth becomes a competition, not over who can produce the most, but over who can make the most bribes or call in the most favors. It is under these systems that established wealth, family connections, and the "Old Boy's Network" become the determinants of success, rather than individual ability. But that is a problem created and perpetuated by statism, not capitalism.

But the advocates of socialism and universal healthcare cry out, how can you justify the huge disproportionate salary and rewards given to CEO's over what a lowly janitor makes?

A recent study claimed that corporate CEOs make, on average, 400 times as much as the company's lowest-paid employee. Let us assume that this figure is correct. Is that really "disproportionate"?

Let us concretize the question. What kind of work is performed by the lowest paid worker in a company? This worker might be, for example, a janitor. His work consists of performing routine, pre-established tasks, requiring little thought and only moderate physical effort. If he performs his work well, there is a moderate benefit: a clean workplace is more productive than a dirty one. But if he performs his work poorly, the consequences are minor—and the worker can easily be replaced by a better janitor; since the skills required are not complex, almost anyone can perform the job properly.

In the case of a CEO, by contrast, his work consists primarily in making decisions—decisions about what products the company should produce, how much it should invest in improvement of its equipment, whether it should raise money through stocks, bonds, venture capital, etc.

Bear in mind that wealth is not produced by blind, uncoordinated action. The best employees in the world working the longest hours are useless unless they are making a useful product backed by adequate funding and good marketing.

But ensuring that a company's resources and personnel are being used productively is the job of the CEO.

In justice—if justice means rewarding merit—an employee ought to be paid in proportion to the value he brings to the company. By that criterion, is there anything "disproportionate" about paying the CEO an enormous salary? If there is, the disparity is in the other direction. A good CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company is not worth so little as 400 employees, much less 400 janitors; he is worth as much as thousands of employees. Their work is profitable only as long as he makes the right decisions.

Of course, a bad CEO—one who makes poor decisions and wastes a company's resources—can wipe out the work of thousands of employees. But that is precisely why companies offer their CEOs such enormous financial rewards, rewards that are often dependent on the company's performance. For such a crucial position, nothing less will attract and motivate the best minds.

I am so sick and tired of the collectivist thinking that has and continues to poison our minds!

Who will speak up for the rights of the CEO?

Today, even the lowest specimen of humanity—especially the lowest specimen of humanity—can count on support from numerous sources. A homeless drug addict has a dozen different organizations, agencies, shelters, rehab programs, and the like devoted to his aid. A Nazi who burns a cross on his front lawn knows he can call the ACLU to protect his rights. But what if a peaceful, responsible, productive CEO or businessman—even a hero of American business—finds himself under attack?
Who can he call?

The Moral Basis of Capitalism

2009-03-23T22:31:00.002-06:00

Capitalism is the only moral social system because it is the only system that respects the freedom of the producers to think and the right of the individual to set his own goals and pursue his own happiness.

I loved this article by Robert W. Tracinski and hope you will take the time to read it and then post your questions about its premise after reading.

"With the fall of communism and the alleged end of the "era of big government," many commentators and politicians grudgingly acknowledge the practical value of capitalism. The free market, they concede, is the best system for producing wealth and promoting prosperity; the private economy, in Bill Clinton's words, is the "primary engine of growth."

But this has not led to the triumph of capitalism. Quite the opposite: Federal taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product are at their highest rate since the Second World War; antitrust assaults on the market's winners are growing; the regulations on the federal register continue to expand by 60,000 pages per year; even the Republicans' recent tax cut proposal would only mandate a minor decrease in the projected growth of government revenues. By practically every measure, government interference in the free market is growing.

If capitalism is recognized as the only practical economic system—then why is it losing out to state control? The reason is that no one, neither on the left nor the right, is willing to defend capitalism as moral. Thus, both sides agree, whatever the practical value of capitalism, morality requires that the free market be reigned in by government regulations. The only disagreement between the two sides is over the number of regulations and the rate of their growth.

What no one has grasped yet is that capitalism is not just practical but also moral. Capitalism is the only system that fully allows and encourages the virtues necessary for human life. It is the only system that safeguards the freedom of the independent mind and recognizes the sanctity of the individual.

Every product that sustains and improves human life is made possible by the thinking of the world's creators and producers. We enjoy an abundance of food because scientists have discovered more efficient methods of agriculture, such as fertilization and crop rotation. We enjoy a lifespan double that of the pre-industrial era thanks to advances in medical technology, from antibiotics to X-rays to biotechnology, discovered by doctors and medical researchers. We enjoy the comfort of air conditioning, the speed of airline transportation, the easy access to information made possible by the World Wide Web—because scientists and inventors have made the crucial mental connections necessary to create these products.

Most people recognize the right of scientists and engineers to be free to ask questions, to pursue new ideas, and to create new innovations. But at the same time, most people ignore the third man who is essential to human progress: the businessman. The businessman is the one who takes the achievements of the scientists and engineers out of the realm of theory and turns them into reality; he takes their ideas off the chalkboards and out of the laboratories and puts them onto the store shelves.

Behind the activities of the businessman there is a process of rational inquiry every bit as important as that of the scientist or inventor. The businessman has to figure out how to find and train workers who will produce a quality product; he has to discover how to cut costs to make the product affordable; he has to determine how best to market and distribute his product so that it reaches its potential buyers; and he has to figure out how to finance his venture in a way that will best feed future growth. All of these issues—and many others—depend on the mind of the businessman. If he is not left free to think, the venture loses money and its product goes out of existence.

The businessman has to have an unwavering dedication to thinking, not only in solving these problems, but also in dealing with others. He has to use reason to persuade investors, employees, and suppliers that his venture is a profitable one. If he cannot, the investors take their money elsewhere, the best employees leave for better opportunities, and the suppliers will give preference to more credit-worthy customers.

The businessman's dedication to thought, persuasion, and reason is a virtue—a virtue that our lives and prosperity depend on. The only way to respect this virtue is to leave the businessman free to act on his own judgment. That is precisely what capitalism does. The essence of capitalism is that it bans the use of physical force and fraud in men's economic relationships. All decisions are to be left to the "free market"—that is, to the un-coerced decisions of buyers and sellers, manufacturers and distributors, employers and employees. The first rule of capitalism is that everyone has a right to dispose of his own life and property according to his own judgment.

Government regulation, by contrast, operates by thwarting the businessman's thinking, subordinating his judgment to the decrees of government officials. These officials do not have to consider the long-term results—only what is politically expedient. They do not have to back their decisions with their own money or effort—they dispose of the lives and property of others. And most important, they do not have to persuade their victims—they impose their will, not by reason, but by physical force.

The government regulator does not merely show contempt for the minds of his victims; he also shows contempt for their personal goals and values.

In a free-market economy, everyone is driven by his own ambitions for wealth and success. That's what "free trade" means: that no one may demand the work, effort, or money of another without offering to trade something of value in return. If both partners to the trade don't expect to gain, they are free to go elsewhere. In Adam Smith's famous formulation, the rule of capitalism is that every trade occurs "by mutual consent and to mutual advantage."

It is common to condemn this approach as selfish—yet to say that people are acting selfishly is to say that they take their own lives seriously, that they are exercising their right to pursue their own happiness. By contrast, project what it would mean to exterminate self-interest and force everyone to work for goals mandated by the state. It would mean, for example, that a young student's goal to have a career as a neurosurgeon must be sacrificed because some bureaucrat decrees that there are "too many" specialists in that field. Such a system is based on the premise that no one owns his own life, that the individual is merely a tool to be exploited for the ends of "society." And since "society" consists of nothing more than a group of individuals, this means that some men are to be sacrificed for the sake of others—those who claim to be "society's" representatives. For examples, see the history of the Soviet Union.

A system that sacrifices the self to "society" is a system of slavery—and a system that sacrifices thinking to coercion is a system of brutality. This is the essence of any anti-capitalist system, whether communist or fascist. And "mixed" systems, such as today's regulatory and welfare state, merely unleash the same evils on a smaller scale.

Only capitalism renounces these evils entirely. Only capitalism is fully true to the moral ideal stated in the Declaration of Independence: the individual's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Only capitalism protects the individual's freedom of thought and his right to his own life.

Only when these ideals are once again taken seriously will we be able to recognize capitalism, not as a "necessary evil," but as a moral ideal."

Good Idea by Beck!

2009-03-17T23:29:00.006-06:00

Do you watch the direction that America is being taken in and feel powerless to stop it?

Do you believe that your voice isn’t loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?

Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone?

If so, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.

We surround them.

So, how do we show America what’s really behind the curtain? Below are nine simple principles. If you believe in at least seven of them, then we have something in common. I urge you to read the instructions at the end for how to help make your voice heard.

The Nine Principles

1. America is good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

12 Values

* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude

You Are Not Alone

For more information and to join the online community please join me on http://www.the912project.com/

Thoughts on the Election

2008-11-05T16:22:00.002-07:00

Last night's presidential election was seen as a great victory for many people across the United States and a sound of warning to others. Last night was hard to swallow for me. I had a hunch that Obama would win the presidency and that the Democrats would win more power in the Senate and the house but I guess I just was not as emotionally prepared for it as I had thought. My husband did not have any desire to watch the election coverage after Obama had secured his victory. I have to admit that I would have liked to watch more just so that the reality of the awful situation we are in would have sunk deeper into my brain.

Wednesday morning I woke up and spoke with my Mom about the election and she mentioned something about how she just hoped that Obama was not the anti-christ. Then about an hour later I had a text from one of my young women, Stephanie. It was a message that said something about the anti-christ prophesy in Revelations and how Obama met the description in the prophecy. I decided then to do some research into what and who the anti-christ is and found a few interesting pieces of information in my research.

First, I found a great talk by President Marion G Romney titled, 'America's Promise'. In this talk he states:
“Just as Jesus Christ has piloted to this land of America the vanguard of each succeeding civilization which has dwelt upon it, so has he made known to them his everlasting decree “that whoso should possess [it] should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off … when they are ripened in iniquity” (Ether 2:8–9).

Our present civilization is no exception. We who live in America are under this everlasting decree. And the Lord has said, “My word shall be verified at this time as it hath hitherto been verified” (D&C 5:20). Jesus Christ, the God of this land, led Columbus to it. He led the Pilgrims to Plymouth. He sustained and gave victory to the colonists. He established the Constitution of the United States (see D&C 101:80). Over a period of some twenty-six centuries he directed the writing of the Book of Mormon, which contains the record of the former inhabitants of this land. At his command, Moroni finished the record and hid it up in the Hill Cumorah, where, under his surveillance, it was safely preserved for some fourteen hundred years.

By the power of Jesus Christ, the God of this land, the record was brought forth, translated, and in 1830 published. For nearly 150 years now it has been bearing its message to all who will receive it.

After setting forth the everlasting decree concerning this land and reviewing the destruction of two civilizations, Moroni, seeing the present inhabitants of America, and knowing by the power of God that we would have the record, penned this message directly to those who inhabit this land:
“And this cometh unto you … that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done” (Ether 2:11).
Now why do I emphasize this theme? I do so as a warning against the ongoing anti-Christ trend in America today.

In distinguishing communism from the United Order, President David O. McKay said that communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the gospel plan, and that it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. Communism is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land.”

I fear for I believe we now have elected a President that ascribes to communistic philosophies and who I would call a communist. (Here is an article I found interesting to prove this statement to be truth: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/)

Now even if Obama is not the anti-christ, I know that socialistic philosophies have become popular in our country and can be found everywhere in our government. Socialism leads to communism and my opinion is that we are not far from getting there. There are many warnings from prophets about this. I found a talk on this subject by President Benson that was of particular interest to me because it contains things that we can and must do now to be able to stand against these philosophies and views. I believe his words are most relevant to us all now and must be taken seriously.

Here is what President Benson has said; “Said President George Albert Smith, “I am saying to you that to me the Constitution of the United States of America is just as much from my Heavenly Father as the Ten Commandments. When that is my feeling I am not going to go very far away from the Constitution and I am going to try to keep it where the Lord started it, and not let anti-Christ come into this country.” (Conference Report, April 1948, p. 182.)
And speaking of anti-Christ, if you want to get some idea of how we are flaunting the Constitution, see how the Constitution defines treason. Then observe what we are doing to build up the enemy, this totally anti-Christ conspiracy. If we continue on this tragic course of aid and trade to the enemy, the Lord has warned us of the consequences that will follow in chapter 8 of Ether in the Book of Mormon. [Ether 8]

Thank God for the Constitution that made it possible for the Lord to establish his church and base of operations here in the United States for these last days. And may God bless the elders of Israel that when, as President John Taylor said, “the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States, the Elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of earth and proclaiming liberty.” (Journal of Discourses, 21:8.)

The elders of this church have a prophetic mission yet to perform so far as the Constitution is concerned. In a discourse by Joseph Smith on July 19, 1840, he said:
“Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction.” (M8d 155, Bx4, Joseph Smith, Church Historian’s Library.)

Now, how are the elders going to prepare for that mission? How are they going to know what the Constitution is so they will know when it is on the brink of ruin? In many of the law schools of today you will hear that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. Could it be that the Supreme Court, which President McKay said is leading this nation down the road to atheism, is the agency to tell us what this divine document is? Can we learn best how to preserve it by studying what it is at the hands of some of those who are seeking to destroy it?
But President McKay had a better approach when he encouraged us to support good and conscientious candidates who are truly dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our founding fathers. Ah … there it is … the Constitution in the tradition of our founding fathers. They are the ones the Lord referred to as wise men. It is to them, the Lord, and his prophets that we should go to determine what the Constitution is. There must have been a tradition of our founding fathers or President McKay would not have referred to it.

One of the best books on this subject was written by Clarence Carson and is entitled The American Tradition; it is distributed by the Foundation for Economic Education at Irvington-on-Hudson, New York. President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., served on their board of trustees for some time. I now have the honor of so serving.

To the Lord, his prophets, and the founding fathers we must go to learn of this divine document so our efforts will be to preserve and not destroy the Constitution.
The Prophet Joseph Smith said in a great discourse in Nauvoo on February 7, 1844, “Were I the President of the United States … I would honor the old paths of the venerated fathers of freedom; I would walk in the tracks of the illustrious patriots who carried the ark of the government upon their shoulders with an eye single to the glory of the people. …” (HC, 6:208.)

As I see it we have a great work before us in not only educating ourselves but also the next generation and teaching them true principles espoused in the constitution so they will be prepared to also stand against the adversary and all of those that have been and will be deceived by him. There will be many that have been and will be deceived. Evidence of this is everywhere. The adversary has done a great job of making socialistic programs look benevolent, compassionate and just plain good and right. It is hard to answer questions like this, 'don't you believe that a gas station attendant's son has the same right to health care than a ceo's son does? The misconceptions and deceit that are behind these ways of thinking will continue to lead many to believe and follow these teachings. I believe we must prepare now for a great battle to come in which each of us will be faced with a choice. A line is being drawn. There is going to come a time when you must stand on one side or the other. I believe the time is fast approaching. What side will you choose?

A friendly exchange

2008-09-04T19:12:00.003-06:00

I have been having a friendly exchange with an old friend from Kentucky. The exchange took place via Facebook ( love that site). That is where we became "friends" again. I noticed that he had on his profile that he chooses to call himself a Democrat. I took notice to a few of his postings to his profile and thought I would ask him about his political affiliation and why he professed to be such a staunch democrat. He then stated that he had been waiting for me to ask him that question ... (I think that he had been doing a little research on my profile which told him that he may have found a political rival which got him a little excited)

I would like to share our exchange thus far for the pure fact that I love to debate and even more than that...I love to win a good debate! You be the judges and let me know who you think is going to win this one.

Side note---(I have to warn you though that my beginning arguments were not well thought out...they just spewed out and I kind of regret the way I began the exchange, but oh well, you live and you learn!...I will also not be using his name...just 'friend' out of respect for privacy)

Friend: Hey Heather,

Where do I begin? I fully believe that the Democratic Party is the party of the people. The Democratic Party gave us the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Great Society. I believe in a social safety net. I believe that health care is a right of every human being. The environment and energy independence is vital for our future.

I believe in progressive taxes. "Too whom much is given, much is required."

What can I say? I'm a true liberal.

Heather (me): Thank you for answering my question.
The party of "the people", so do you ascribe to the Marxist philosophy of govt?
You are a socialist... I see that.
Really, health care is a right of every human being? I am not sure where that was stated in the Constitution?

I do believe that the environment and energy independence is vital to our future but I believe that we are probably at odds with how to go about solving this...you see I am a radical capitalist and believe in the free market system and believe that if it were left to the free market system with the govt out of the picture, a lot more would be accomplished.

I also believe in the original way that our govt was founded in that there should be no taxation without representation.

Let me ask you this, I know someone who is suffering greatly because they are not able to afford food for whatever the reason. You do not know this person. I come to your home and take a portion of what you have earned to give to this person because I feel that they need it more than you do because you are not starving. What you are telling me is that you would be perfectly ok with this?

I think the scripture you quoted is an excellent one but think you have twisted its intent. "Where much is given (knowledge, truth, principles), much is required (our right to choose implies that we have a stewardship over the blessings we have been given)

I think the founders had it right and that people have every right to choose to do good for their fellow men. I have faith in principles. They are what this great nation was founded upon and the more we stray from them, the more we will find ourselves greater in bondage. What can I say, I love my freedom and will not see it taken from me by anyone! Thanks for allowing this exchange of ideas to take place. Talk to you soon,
Heather

Friend:
Of course I would reply. I don't consider myself a Marxist. In my view Marxism is anti-family, anti-religion and I don't feel comfortable with that.

And yes, I believe health care is a human right. You are correct. It isn't a right in the Constitution. But we, through our elected representatives can establish health care for all. By the way, universal health care doesn't have to look like it does in Europe or Canada. We can make it however we want. I don't favor government run health. I simply believe that the Government can pay the insurance premium. The people can then choose their doctor.

I do not believe that the market should be left to do as it will. Do you think that we should remove all regulations? If not then why would you keep some.

In regards to the Scripture I quoted I don't disagree with the principles it includes. I don't think I quite twisted it.

In regards to the environment your correct. I do believe the Government should be a MAJOR investor. For one example, lets say we
make a goal of 15% of our energy coming from Wind. The government will need engineers to design it. High paying jobs there. We then need to build the wind turbines. More high paying jobs there. We then install the turbines. More high paying jobs.

This would be good for our country. People working. Taxes being paid.
We need a Manhattan project for this!!

Talk to you later Heather. Hope your well.

Heather (me):
So where do you stem your philosophical beliefs from if not from the Marxist philosophy?

On to health care declared by you to be a human right. Firstly, health care is difficult to define. It clearly encompasses preventive care (for example, immunization), public health measures, health promotion, and medical and surgical treatment of established illness. Is the so called " human right to health care" a right to basic provision of clean water and adequate food, or does everyone in the world have a right to organ transplantation, cosmetic surgery, infertility treatment, and the most expensive medicine? For something to count as a human right the minimum requirement should surely be that the right in question is capable of definition.

Secondly, all rights possessed by an individual imply a duty on the part of others. Thus the right to a fair trial imposes a duty on the prosecuting authority to be fair. On whom does the duty to provide health care to all the world’s citizens fall? Is it a duty on individual doctors, or hospital authorities, or governments, or only rich governments? It is difficult to see how any provision of benefits can be termed a human right (as opposed to a legal entitlement) when to meet such a requirement would impose an intolerable burden on others.

Along the lines of this and some of your other points you have made, I ask you to keep in mind that we, the people who have created our government can give to our government only such powers as we, ourselves have in the first place. Obviously we cannot give what we do not possess. So, the question boils down to this, what powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, but it is a question I bring up to gain a better understanding of what I believe to be the principles which underlie the proper function of government.

The proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.

I use this simple test to see if the government should be responsible for something...I ask myself, do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.

To be sure, there are times when this principle is really annoying and inconvenient. Sometimes I think, if I could only FORCE the stupid, lazy ignorant people to get off their butts and get a job and provide for themselves and other times I wish I could FORCE my mom and Dad (who make a generous living) to share the love and help my needy family out once in a while... But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Beyond that point, where should the line be drawn? Who is to say "this far but no farther!" What clear PRINCIPLE will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and yet farther into our daily lives?

O.k. on to the environment thing...first, anyone who has studied history knows that no government in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth. People who work create wealth. See, the reason I thought you were a Marxist (and I still think you are to a degree) is that according to Marxist doctrine and if I am understanding you correctly you also believe that a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, a person's well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet's previous constitution reflected this philosophy in its emphasis on security; food, clothing, housing, HEALTH CARE....

The basic concept is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and, in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. In all actuality the Russian people had very few of the rights supposedly "guaranteed" to them in their previous constitution while the American people have always had them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed.

The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. To sum it all up, America has been prosperous and despite the fact that socialism has creeped into our system of govt, still is prosperous is due to this formula...
1. Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance
2. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production
3. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor.
4. This is not possible without incentive
5. Of all forms of incentive-the freedom to attain a reward for one's labor is the most sustaining for most people..sometimes called the profit motive, it is the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
6. This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulates and taxes INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce
7. Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INVERVENTION to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.

I am unalterably opposed to Socialism, either in whole or in part, and regard it as an unconstitutional usurpation of power and a denial of the right to private property for government to OWN or OPERATE the means of producing and distributing goods and services in competition with private enterprise. This includes of course, energy production and all other means of protecting and strengthening our environment.

And yes, I do think you misrepresented that scripture...God does not believe in the redistribution of wealth and you can quote me on that!

Thanks again for the exchange!
Friends,
Heather

I am picking this one up tomorrow....

2008-09-04T01:14:00.002-06:00

I came across a book review of David Freddoso's book, "The Case Against Barack Obama" which I thought brought up some brain-on points as to why electing Obama may be a poor choice in the upcoming elections.

"David Freddoso's "The Case Against Barack Obama" is a well-researched 240 pages which lays out the case that Barack Obama is anything but the agent of "change" and "reform" which he wants voters to "hope" he is.

Freddoso shows that almost every time Obama was in a position to support reform or a reformer, he has instead sided with the corrupt political machine (he did come out of Chicago politics, after all) which promoted his future.

Through a combination of ruthless (but legal) action to eliminate competitors from the ballot and blind good luck (two opponents whose messy divorces give him an open path to election), Obama has gotten to be a US Senator without winning any seriously contested election.

He has no experience in any area of government which might qualify him to be President of the United States. He makes errors in statement and judgment, but has positioned himself in such a way that any criticism must make the critic a racist. He wants to raise every tax he has heard of, including saying in a debate that he'd raise capital gains tax rates even if it meant the government took in less revenue (in the interest of "fairness")!

The American people are catching on, and Freddoso's book should help. In a year that has so much going for Democrats, the fact that Obama and McCain are virtually tied says volumes. It's not just Obama's obstinacy in support of policies which create high energy prices. It's also that his utter lack of qualification is starting to show through the shiny rhetoric.

The book also goes into great detail about Obama's past "radical influences", not just the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (whom we've all heard too much about), but several others, showing that there's a clear trend in Obama's best-known friends and influences: They hate(d) their nation and people who aren't black.

Freddoso makes it clear that he doesn't believe Obama is a Communist or a terrorist or even a racist even though so many of his close associates are. But these associations cast serious doubt on Obama's judgment and on his likely tendencies in situations where an answer requires a true and fair understanding of this nation.

As someone who lived in Chicago for a long time, I can say I have never heard of a clean Chicago politician...and that includes Obama. His too-close relationship with slum lords including Tony Rezko shows him to be all too willing to funnel taxpayer money to his campaign contributors, regardless of the evil they perpetrated with that money.

Freddoso spends a bit of time on the issues of taxes and ethanol, but heaps his greatest (and well-deserved) scorn on Obama's opposition to a bill which would guarantee that babies born alive be given the same protection of rule and law that any other humans receive. The issue came up after a nurse at a hospital was handed a very premature baby who was born alive after an abortion failed to kill it. The hospital, at the aborting mother's instruction, refused to offer medical care to the baby. The nurse held it for the 45 minutes until it died.

Keep in mind as I write this that I am pro-choice....

Obama's position was a reprehensible and erroneous grasp at using
Roe v. Wade as an excuse to block a bill simply saying that a baby already born can't be left to die. The measure had no implications for abortion law, and when a similar bill came to the US Senate the same year, it passed unanimously, including with the votes of the most pro-choice Senators. Yet Obama opposed more "born alive" legislation the following year.

[If you don't believe me that this bill had nothing to do with the legality of abortion, you can read the bill's full text HERE and see for yourself. You can see Obama's gutless "present" vote, which has the same effect as a "no" vote, HERE. And you can see Obama's truly stupid "constitutional muster" argument on page 86 of THIS document.]

There is no way to view Obama's position other than as truly reprehensible, and I believe this is an issue which should be spoken of far more in public.

Obama's lead among women, which he must have to win in November, is shrinking and is now less than other Democratic candidates had at similar points during recent presidential campaigns. If Obama's support for infanticide becomes as public as it should, it would do tremendous damage to him...especially given the knife-edge that his support among women already rests on due to his having beaten Hillary.

"The Case Against Barack Obama" is a quick read that's well worth the time of anyone who wants to understand what we may really be subjecting ourselves too if American voters don't follow Obama's own words to look at deeds rather than words when examining his history, as well as his own words, spoken in 2004, that there's no way he could be ready to be President in 2008."

A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for KFC...

2008-09-04T01:09:00.001-06:00

I once heard the joke, a taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for KFC. In all seriousness, this joke is not too far off base!

Michael Tanner with the libertarian CATO Institute, has recently analyzed the costs of Sen. Barack Obama’s social programs if he is elected President in November.

According to Tanner, “Sen. Obama represents less hope and change than a wish list for every conceivable liberal special interest group.”

Obama has proposed at least $287 billion per year in new government spending if elected. This was before he unveiled his $150 billion “green energy plan” earlier in February. In addition, he has recently proposed at least $858 billion to fight “global poverty” over the next five years.
His new spending programs would cost at the minimum, $800 billion a year.

On taxes, he has proposed a $1.3 trillion tax hike over the next five years. He would increase taxes on business, investment and job creation. His proposals would nearly double taxes on capital gains.

On health care: “A President Obama would take America down the road to a government-run health care system. … The government would determine what types of benefits you would be required to purchase and how much insurers could charge.” He would mandate that all employers provide health insurance for their employees.

On a “living wage,” Obama would force businesses to pay employees an undefined “living wage,” which would include paid family and medical leave.

According to Tanner, “A President Obama would mean a much bigger, more intrusive, and costlier government.”

Why America is NOT a democracy

2008-09-04T01:03:00.002-06:00

I thought this video did a great job explaining this misconception...
http://www.new.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1045409133868

Let us be United!

2008-08-21T15:47:00.000-06:00

I was reading a few talks by President Ezra Taft Benson, who was the thirteenth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and was United States Secretary of Agriculture for both of the administrations of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower. President Benson brought a renewed emphasis to being a true American and becoming educated and taking a stand for the principles upon which this nation was founded. Here are a few of my favorite quotes which has given me a great deal to ponder...

"In this great struggle for free agency, think what a power for good we could be in this world if we were united. God will hold us responsible. Let us not be deceived in the sifting days ahead. Let us rally together on principle behind the prophet as guided by the promptings of the Spirit. We should continue to speak out for freedom and against socialism and communism. We should continue to come to the aid of patriots, programs, and organizations that are trying to save our Constitution through every legal and moral means possible. God has not left us in darkness regarding these matters. We have the scriptures ancient and modern. We have a living prophet, and we may obtain the Spirit. The time is fast approaching when it will require great courage for Latter-day Saints to stand up for their peculiar standards and doctrine–ALL their doctrine, including the more weighty principles such as the principle of freedom...The longer we wait, the heavier the chains, the deeper the blood, the more the persecution, and the less we can carry our God-given mandate and worldwide mission. The war fought in heaven still rages on earth today."

This quote was given years ago. Do you think it may be still relevant today? My belief is that it may be even more relevant today than it was years ago. I have heard many say, 'well I will wait for the prophet or general authorities of the church to tell me what I must do and what organizations I must join and how to go about standing up for what is right, I just do not think it is right (other than promote these teachings in my own home) to do anything other than this.' To these people I again quote from the words of President Benson who left no question as to what our responsibility is in regards to this type of thinking...

"And now as the last neutralizer that the devil used most effectively – it is simply this: Don’t do anything in the fight for freedom until the Church sets up its own specific program to save the Constitution. This brings us right back to the scripture of those slothful servants who will not do anything until they are “compelled in all things”. Maybe the Lord will never set up a specific Church program for the purpose of saving the Constitution. Perhaps if he set up one at this time it might split the Church asunder, and perhaps he does not want that to happen yet, for not all the wheat and tares are fully ripe. The Prophet Joseph Smith declared it will be the elders of Israel who will step forward to help save the Constitution, not the Church..... "We had better take our small pain now than our greater loss later. There were souls who wished afterwards that they had stood and fought with Washington and the founding fathers, but they waited too long - they passed up eternal glory. There has never been a greater time than now to stand up against entrenched evil. And while the gentiles established the Constitution, we have a divine mandate to preserve it! But, unfortunately, today in this freedom struggle, many gentiles are showing greater wisdom in their generation than the children of light. (Pres Ezra Taft Benson)

And in conclusion, these final thoughts;

"The fight for freedom is God’s fight. No matter what the temporary outcome, the Lord has endowed this matter of freedom with such everlasting repercussions that it sifted the spirits of men before this world in the Great War in heaven. And, it seems today, to be the central issue that is sifting those who are left in the world. No one can delegate his duty to preserve his freedom, for the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. You cannot effectively fight for freedom and not be attacked. We also should not expect the Lord to do for us what we can do for ourselves.

The basic purpose of life is to prove ourselves – not to be with the majority when it is wrong. Proving ourselves means showing whether or not we are going to stand up for freedom. Less spiritually advanced people have to be commanded in all things. Those who are spiritually alert look at the objectives, check the guidelines laid down by the Lord, and then prayerfully act without having to be commanded.

This attitude prepares men for godhood. Sometimes the Lord waits on his children to act on their own, and when they do not, they loose the greater prize. The more He has to spell it out, the smaller is our reward....

To be on the wrong side of the freedom issue in heaven meant eternal damnation. How then can Latter-day Saints expect to be on the wrong side in this life and escape eternal consequences? Will they heed the counsel of the prophet and preserve their freedom? Those who want to lead the quiet, retiring life but still expect to do their full duty can’t have it both ways. This fight for freedom might never become popular in our day, and if you wait until everybody agrees in this Church, you will be waiting through the second coming! The Lord will not protect us unless we do our part." (President Ezra T. Benson)

Let us all remember these words, ponder them and then act on them. The first step is to become educated. We must know what principles we are to fight for and against and be able to clearly articulate what our position is. We must be prayerful and have the spirit of discernment with us as we look for others and join with other organizations who are fighting for freedom. The price to pay is worth the reward. Our eternal salvation may be at stake. My prayer is that each of us, as individuals, may have the courage and the wisdom to fulfill our duty in this great battle. Let us unite!

Letter to the Founders from the American People

2008-08-01T00:23:00.000-06:00

So I got an email from a group called the "Cause of Liberty". They send out a newsletter called 'The Sentinel' about once a month. I was intrigued by this month's edition so much that I decided to post it here in my blog. And since last month's posting was so intellectually stimulating, I thought I ought to post something a bit satirical to give some of your brains a break. Here it is:

Dear Founders,

Forgive us if this is short—we have just a few minutes between "American Idol" and "Desperate Housewives" to write.

Since, according to a few paragraphs we’ve read in our school textbooks, you seemed to have played a mildly important role in our nation (although your contribution is a bit overrated if you ask us), we thought you might appreciate a quick update on how everything has turned out.

You’ve undoubtedly heard about the Civil War. Sure, it was tough and bloody, but thankfully we were able to make the federal government a lot stronger and give it a lot more power as a result. What a mistake it was to give the states that much power. Don’t worry—we don’t fully blame you, for how could you have known how everything would turn out? I mean, it’s not like you studied history or anything, right?

Everything went pretty good after that, until we realized how undemocratic our government was. That one document we’ve heard about—you know, the one with all the rules for the government—was okay, but it had a bunch of big words and complicated concepts and we thought it best to simplify the whole thing and give more power to the People.

Honestly, couldn’t you have made it just a bit easier to understand? And what was the deal with that whole republic thing? Don’t you think that was a little old-fashioned?

We’re sure you had good intentions, but we quickly figured out that democracy is where it’s at. That’s what all the cool nations have, and we’re certain that you wouldn’t want us to be uncool. It didn’t take much for us to fix some major problems with your document—just a couple amendments was all—and we were back in the game.

Of course, we had a big depression soon after that, but once again we realized that it was the product of one of your quaint but outdated ideas—the free market. Luckily, a few really smart bankers and really nice politicians had set up a great monetary system that helped us to create more money, just to make sure that we wouldn’t run out.

And we don’t know what we would have done without our benevolent Leader who quickly set things right and started giving us the benefits that we have always deserved. You could have saved us all the trouble from the beginning, but hey, you live and learn, right?

Oh, and we were also able to get past all your petty hang-ups about so-called “entangling alliances” and we formed the United Nations. That was really cute of you to be worried about international affairs, but we think it’s much nicer to cooperate with others, instead of playing that obsolete “sovereignty” game.

Things were great for awhile, aside from a short eight years where one of our presidents tried to reverse all of the good we had done. Then, of course, September 11th changed everything.

We weren’t really sure what to do, since none of our TV shows or public education had prepared us (you can’t expect us to know everything, can you?), but we were fairly certain that if we imposed our awesome form of government—democracy—in the Middle East that things would settle down.

We quickly realized that principles are highly overrated when it comes to political expediency, so we told our leaders to do whatever they wanted, just as long as we could stay comfortable in our massive homes and watch sports on our big screen TVs.

We even deployed over 369,000 troops in more than 150 countries. It’s weird—we know—but none of this has seemed to make much of a difference on terrorism. It probably because we don’t have yet enough military might spread across the globe, so we’re going to keep it up.

$12 billion per month really isn’t that much—we are, after all, the strongest and best country in the world and we always seem to find the money from somewhere. That’s the government’s problem anyway; we’ve got our own money issues to deal with.

We’re probably not supposed to admit this, but right now things seem to be a bit shaky and we’re getting kind of worried. We’re sure having a hard time making ends meet personally, but our leaders undoubtedly know more than us, and they’re telling us that we’re just in a temporary slow-down. We’re not sure why our dollars buy us less and less, but who has time for economic theory and monetary policy?

Besides, that stuff is for nerds, and we’re too cool for that. Who wants to study government and economics when we’re anxiously awaiting the latest iPod? That’s so boring compared to keeping up with the latest gossip on Brad and Angelina. John Locke and Montesquieu don’t have anything to tell us that we can’t learn from People magazine.

Furthermore, we suspect that our current struggles have something to do with your naïve mistakes, as we’ve seen throughout our development. And since we’ve done a great job of fixing your mistakes so far, we’re confident that if we keep innovating that we’ll get it right.

As you well know, massive change doesn’t happen overnight, so we’ll just keep chipping away at your flawed foundations. Persistence is the mark of a great nation, we always say, although complacence is just as good as long as the government takes care of everything.

You’ll be please to know that we have a couple of great candidates to choose from in this upcoming presidential election. It probably won’t matter much either way, but that McCain fellow seems kind of stuffy and we really like the fun slogan of the other guy.

Change—now that’s something that we can all believe in, especially since we’ve figured out that you guys didn’t get much right. What kind of change, you ask? We’re not entirely sure—but c’mon, doesn’t your heart just swell with patriotic pride every time you hear that special word?

Well, whatever, we’ve got TV shows to get to and bills to pay. Thanks for all the good things you probably did (heaven knows it wasn’t establishing good government), and we probably won’t be in touch. So much entertainment, so little time! Can you blame us?

Sincerely,
The American People, 2008

Individualism-What is it?

2008-06-19T19:02:00.000-06:00

I once heard someone describe them self as a rugged individualist. I remember thinking among other things, what the heck does that mean? So, I decided to do a little research and found that I agree with the principle of individualism and thought I would post my findings on my blog.

So what is this thing called individualism? First, as an individualist I believe that reality is absolute. This means that reality is that which exists, and that it is absolute. It is the standard of the true, the false, and the arbitrary. Things are what they are...independent of our or anyone else's feelings, ideas, wishes, desires, and emotions. Or, in the immortal words of Aristotle: A is A; to be is to be something, finite, limited and non-contradictory.

Second, I believe that reason is a person's means of survival. Reason is a person's only means of knowing reality, upon which their survival in reality depends. Whether the person is alone on a desert island, wandering around with a pack of savages, or living in a city of billions; people must think and then act on their thinking if life is their goal.

I also believe the individual is sovereign. That every person is a rational animal and reality dictates that to survive a person must be rational by choice. A person is a being of FREE WILL. A person can choose to think, drift, or evade but choose they must. Their thoughts determine: their character, their values, their emotions, and their actions, and so their thoughts determine their destiny. As reason is solely the attribute of an individual and a person's thinking determines their choices and actions, then each person is the master of their own destiny. The individual is sovereign. (sovereign=one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere)

Next, every person is an end in themself and not a slave to the ends of society. A person can gain immense value from living with other people in society-mainly knowledge and trade-if it is a human society. A human society is one in which each person holds as an absolute: that every person is an end in himself, and that other people are not his pawns, nor they theirs. Or, in the words of John Galt (from Atlas Shrugged), "I swear, by my life and by my love of it-that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Individualism is not opposed to people living in society. Individualism is opposed to people living in society as a slave.

To live in society, a person needs rights. To live rationally in society I believe that a person requires only one thing from other people and that is freedom of action. Freedom of action does not mean freedom to act by permission, which could be taken away by a dictator or a democratic mob's whim, but the freedom to act as an absolute...by right. A person requires rights to those actions to support their own life which is the the most fundamental right, the right to life, from which all other rights (including the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness) derive. What are rights? Rights are moral principles defining a person's freedom of action in a social context. Rights are inalienable -- they may not be morally infringed upon, i.e., a thief may rob you, but morally that person is in the wrong, and you are in the right. Rights are not guarantees to things, but only guarantees to freedom of action (right to liberty)...and a guarantee to the results of those actions (right to property). The only obligation one's rights impose on others is for them to leave you alone, i.e. free to act within your sphere of rights.

In a political context, freedom only has one meaning...freedom from the initiation of force by other people. Only by the initiation of force can a person be prohibited from speaking, or be robbed of their possessions or murdered. Only by initiation of force can a person's rights be violated. Only the initiation of force against a person can stop their mind, thus rendering it useless as a means of survival. It is for this reason that force renders a person's mind useless. Every person has the right to self-defense, the right to use force to retaliate against those who first start the use of force, but never may one morally initiate it. The use of force, in and of itself, is not evil; but to initiate force is evil. To use force in retaliation or in self-defense against those who initiate it, is not a moral option, but a moral requirement. A moral person has nothing to gain when someone tries to kill them, but they have much to lose if they do not defend themselves.

Government's job is to protect rights. A person's state in nature, where all people are allowed complete discretion in the use of force, according to the laws of the jungle, is nothing more than a state of anarchy...perpetual civil war and gang warfare. To place the retaliatory use of force under objective legal control, under clearly defined laws that are logically based on the principle of rights, a society of people delegate to government, their right to retaliate against those who initiate force. Government is an agency which has a monopoly on the use of physical force. This legal power, to use physical force, only may be used for one purpose; to retaliate against those who initiate force, according to objectively defined laws. Never is this power to be used to initiate force, but government is only permitted to retaliate and defend against those who initiate force.

The powers of the state shall never be used to initiate force. As no individual in their private capacity as a citizen may morally initiate force against others, neither may they in their public capacity, as a state official, initiate force either. Morally, no one may initiate force for any reason whatsoever, even if that reason claims to be for the "public good". (For is not the individual, whose rights are being violated for the "public good", a member of the "public" also?)

What then does a proper government consist of? In order to protect rights, a government requires three things: an army to protect against foreign invaders, a police force to protect against domestic criminals, and a court system to settle honest disputes that arise, enforce contracts, and to punish criminals, according to objectively predefined laws.

To ensure that no ruler with absolute power, whether it be a single dictator, a political organization, or a "democratic" majority of the moment, may usurp (seize and hold the power and/or rights of another by force and without legal authority) the powers of government, and turn its power upon any of its citizens, each and every aspect of government action is codified, and carried out according to objectively defined laws. In a free society each and every person lives under a rule of law, as opposed to a rule of men. The rule of law has only one proper purpose: to protect the rights of the smallest minority that has ever existed...the individual. Such a body of integrated, codified, and non-contradictory laws form objective legislation, which hold a person innocent until they can be proven guilty, as opposed to a library of irrational regulations which hold a person guilty until he can somehow prove himself innocent, to the gratification of someone who thinks people are incapable of trust. The supreme legal document of a proper society is the constitution... a person's protection against both private criminals and public officials who seek to imitate the criminal's methods. The purpose of the constitution is not to grant unlimited power to government, or to limit the rights of an individual, but to limit the power of government to its only valid purpose: the protection of individual rights. In other words, a citizen is free to do whatever they are not explicitly forbidden (under a proper legal system the only act forbidden is the violation of the rights); whereas, a state official is only allowed to carry out what is explicitly permitted.

Can you imagine what would be the result of a society where the initiation of force is banned from all relationships?

It would not make every person a moral person, nor would it prevent every injustice. But, think what it could do?

It would result in: a society of good will and benevolence, where each person sees his neighbor not as part of a gang ready to rob them, but as a potential trader, from which they can gain immense values.

A society where each person is prepared to judge and be judged -- not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

A society of free-thinking and free-acting individuals, and not a society of the collective, ruled by a tyrant who has monopolized the title of the "voice of the people."

A society where each person is free to pursue their own happiness, wherever it may take them.

That's what I believe in....what about you?

The Utah County & State Republican Conventions

2008-05-15T10:58:00.000-06:00

I had the recent opportunity to attend the Republican county convention held at Orem High school on April 26th and the state convention held last Saturday, May 10th in Orem utah on the UVU campus. Hayden and I attended the county convention. We arrived early and got our credentials ( a nametag and a folder with information regarding the schedule of events and where different districts meet and when). We attended our Senate caucus for district 13 in which we were able to listen to Mark Madsen, the incumbent and Lane Henderson who is campaigning against him. We did not get to vote for one or the other and I was glad because I had not heard anything about either of them. I still don't know when that race will be decided on... Next we attended our Legislative caucuses. We are in house district 67. We listened and asked questions to our representative, Patrick Painter. The guy new a lot about water...what else did he know anything about?....water! When asked what he was doing to ensure that the federal government stay as much out of state government as possible what issue did he talk about?....water! The guy was purely policy based and had a hard time basing his answers on principles. By the end of this meeting, Hayden was thinking about running for his seat! After this, all delegated were seated together for the convention. The whole convention was incredibly educational.

Hayden and I both wanted to attend the state convention and we decided that whoever got up early would be able to go ( I am pretty sure he thought there was no way in heck that I would be up at 6:30am!) Well, I arrived at the state convention at 6:45am. I was not elected as a state delegate and decided to attend the convention purely as an educational experience. I met up with some friends of mine, Brad Green and Jewel Kimber, both state delegates. After handing out some FreeCapitalist Primers we headed into the main seating area. It was great to see how many were in attendance. I am pretty sure it was announced that there was 95% attendance. Out of all of the state delegates elected, 300 of them were FreeCapitalist members. It was great meeting up with several of them during the convention. I was able to sit through a very long day of politics in action.

After three rounds of voting in district 3 and some very controversial events (some were calling "dirty politics"), Chris Cannon and Jason Chaffetz will now be going to a primary. I will be attending meetings to hear from both of them as I am unsure of who will get my vote in the primary. This means that voters will be able to decide which candidate will be on the ballot against the democratic candidate in November.

So besides this, what did I learn? What is the point?

I learned that I know very, very little about the politcal process. I learned that I am probably not alone in this! In fact, after the convention, I have been thinking seriously about writing a book about how disillusioned we are when it comes to OUR government and how we elect our representatives. The whole process sounds so simple and yet see if you can answer these questions (without looking them up of course!);

What is a precinct? What precinct are you in?

What is a caucus meeting? When are caucus meeting and where are they held?

What does it mean to be precinct chair? What responsibilities are there with being the precinct chair?

How do you get elected to become a delegate? How many people are elected as delegates in your precinct?

Is their a difference between a county delegate and a state delegate and what are they?

As a delegate, what are your responsibilities?

What is a convention? What is the difference between a county convention and a state

convention?

What district are you in? What is a district? Who are the representatives in your district? What house district are you in? What congressional district are you in? What is the difference between a house district, a congressional district and a senate district?

What is parliamentary procedure? What are Robert's Rules of Order? What do these have to do with anything?

Who are your federal elected officials? How often do we elect each one?

Who are your state elected officials and how often do we elect each one?

Who are your county elected officials and how often do they get elected?

Why is knowing any of this important??

The first person who can correctly answer all of these questions will get a prize (something good, I promise)

I am excited to post the answers soon and discuss further why knowing this information is important and why. I look forward to hearing from you...

self-reliance and the economic stimulus check

2008-03-11T21:29:00.000-06:00

I was reading a talk by Boyd K. Packer on self-reliance and found myself getting upset by how many people I know that choose to "take advantage" of the system of government we have and choose not to be self-reliant. Here is a quote which I share to provide a context for discussion: "The welfare handbook instructs, “(We must) earnestly teach and urge members to be self-sustaining to the fullest extent of their power. No Latter-day Saint will … voluntarily shift from himself the burden of his own support. So long as he can, under the inspiration of the Almighty and with his own labors, he will supply himself with the necessities of life.” (1952, p. 2.)
We have succeeded fairly well in establishing in the minds of Latter-day Saints that they should take care of their own material needs and then contribute to the welfare of those who cannot provide the necessities of life. If a member is unable to sustain himself, then he is to call upon his own family, and then upon the Church, in that order, and not upon the government at all."

I have not called upon the government for help but in May I will be receiving what the federal government has called "an economic stimulus" check in the mail. I think I may even receive close to $2000. For what, I ask? I don't pay taxes. I actually get paid a nice sum of money to have the children I have and for Hayden to have the job he has. Granted, he does pay into social security and medicaid....but that is another issue....we don't pay income tax. So, what should I do with this money? What is the moral or ethical thing for me to do with the money? Should I spend it because it is free money and after all it will help the economy, right? Should I give it to someone else like my brother-in-law who won't see a check because he is a dirty capitalist and has been really successful in his business ventures? Should I do something good with it like buy more food storage...because that is something 'worthy' to spend it on? I am really asking anyone reading this right now to post a comment and let me know what their thoughts are on this.
So my next question is do we even know where the money the government is sending is coming from? Not from any surplus, that's for sure. The money that is being distributed is hot off the presses and came from THIN AIR! So hurray for the government for giving us money to quickly go out and spend...but wait....how come milk is so expensive these days? ...and how come my paycheck doesn't seem to buy as much anymore?
As the government prints more money, the dollars we already have are worth LESS than they were before. It's an invisible tax equally distributed on everyone with a dollar. That's because the dollar is backed by NOTHING but confidence that it's actually worth something. The dollar today is worth about 4 cents in 1913 money (before the Fed came in to save us all). That's some kind of inflation rate, wouldn't you say?
Look at it this way...if you have a ton of debt, the value of that debt is actually going down. However, if you've got anything in savings, well you're losing your shorts...sorry.
So, if you're really fast I bet you can spend that government check before the prices go up. But ya really gotta be quick about it!
All this thinking and questioning has caused me undue stress and so screw it....I am taking the money and going on vacation....anyone want to join me?

Why I became a blogger..

2008-03-09T23:10:00.000-06:00

I always used think that blogging was sort of useless and I never considered there to be any value in "blogging" and thought it to be a waste of time... UNTIL I remembered the principle that exchange creates wealth. I believe that through the exchange of thoughts, we truly become wealthy with knowledge and wisdom.

There is a great passage which can be found in a book written by a man I consider to be a great friend and mentor. It begins, "Deep within the souls of all men stirs one eternal question. How each of us individually answers this question determines everything. It is in fact the question of life. It is not complex, sophisticated, or difficult to understand; yet, it is not often discovered by the conscious mind. In its most abbreviated form, the question of life is simply 'Will I choose to be free?' For millenia before the foundations of the world and continuing still today, the battle for the 'Eternal Cause of Liberty' has been waging between those who answer this one question in the affirmative and those who do not. The power of a man's mind allows him to penetrate the obscurity of ignorance and question the state of the world in which he finds himself. Darkness, doubt, fear, and despair-though the common experience for billions who have lived and are now living on the earth- are not the necessary or natural conditions of man. These are instead the result of choice, and the result of man's choice either tends toward devastating slumber or awakening greatness-toward captivity and death or liberty and life."
"Each of us chooses the perspective with which we approach the struggle for liberty and freedom. Those who choose to do so from a paradigm of scarcity become like 'starving dogs fighting over meatless bones' while those who choose the paradigm of abundance throw off the victim language and the helpless thoughts of the prisoner and begin seeing the end from the beginning. Those who see in abundance know that life is more than the false constructs and fake allurments of dialectical materialism. Those who choose to see in abundance throw off the habit of living constantly with a 'fear of loss' and instead make a deliberate and concentrated effort to develop a faith in true principles."
I believe I am a woman with the ability to live a life worth loving, to live a life of principle full of abundance and prosperity. There is no justification for living a life of quiet desperation. I write the story of my life each day through action and deed, and I choose to be a hero and not a victim in the story I write each day. I have decided to begin each day with this proclamation...I am the woman who loves her life!
"

A true American...

2008-03-09T22:51:00.000-06:00

There is a talk given by President Ezra Taft Benson entitled, 'The American Heritage-A Plan of God'. In this talk, I found some great words of wisdom and a call to action, coming from who I believe to be a prophet of God. In this talk President Benson states, "No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or communist or support programs leading in that direction." This quote was pretty significant for me because I not only consider myself a true Latter-day saint but I also consider myself a true American. I love my country and from travels to impoverished cities like Tijuana Mexico at a young age, have a sincere appreciation for the freedoms and abundance I have been blessed with. Isn't that what a true American is? I am grateful for the freedoms I enjoy, I support the troops, I vote, I don't break the law and I pay my taxes. So am I a true American? Do I support socialism or programs leading in that direction? Do I even know what Socialism is? The answer to that question was found in the same talk. Socialism "is simply governmental ownership and management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods." So what does that mean for me and what should I do to ensure that I am not supporting this philosphy? What can I do to make sure I am being a true American and a true Latter-day saint? Again, my questions were answered in this talk. Pres. Benson states, "first, we should become informed about communism, about socialism, and about Americanism...we should know enough about American free enterprise to be able to defend it. We should know what makes it possible for six percent of humanity-living under our free economy-to produce about one-half of the earth's developed wealth each year. We should know why paternalism (which means: a system under which an authority undertakes to supply needs or regulate conduct of those under its control in matters affecting them as individuals as well as in their relations to authority and to each other), collectivism (Ayn Rand did a great job of explaining this philosophy but this means: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution), or unnecessary federal supervision will hold our standard of living down and reduce productivity just as it has in every other country where it has been tried. We should also know why communist leaders consider socialism the highroad to communism." He then goes on to say, "we should resist the influence and policies of the socialistic communist conspiracy wherever they are found- in schools, in churches, in government, in unions, in business, in agriculture. We should help those who have been deceived or who are misinformed to find the truth. And here is the call to action: "Unless each person who knows the truth will 'stand up and speak up' it is difficult for the deceived or confused citizen to find his way back. We should use our "influence in the community to resist the erosion which is taking place in our political and economic life...use the political party of his choice to express his evaluation of important issues. He should see that his party is working to preserve freedom, not destroy it. He should join the responsible local groups interested in promoting freedom and free competitive enterprise, in studying political issues, appraising the voting records and proposed programs, and writing to members of congress, promoting good men (and women, I might add) in public office, and scrutinizing local, state, and federal agencies to see that the will of the people is being carried out." I now have a clear idea of what it is I can do and may I also suggest what we all have a great opportunity to do. The local neighborhood caucuses are coming up at the end of this month, March 25th and I have decided that I am going to run to be a state and county delegate in my precinct. I know this is one way that I can get involved at the grassroots level of government and one very important way my voice will be able to "speak up" against socialistic policies. I am amazed at how much the Lord loves me and grateful that he has given me the opportunity to live in this great nation. I now have a responsibility and a calling to act upon the things that I know to be true. I want to be a true American....what about you?