Showing posts with label politicos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politicos. Show all posts
Friday, November 07, 2008
Fascinating
Perhaps I was interested in this because they talk about the KGB (when is that NOT fascinating???) more likely it is the AWESOME 80's suits and ties (fascination CITY!!!!).
This video describes the tactics of the enemies of freedom and how schools are used to destroy entire societies. It's an interview with a Russian defector about the Soviet Union's deliberate indoctrination of America to accept socialism. This will not be the end. This interview was done in 1985. We are far past what he was saying here.
Education is a key to saving the constitution. We have got to educate ourselves, our families & our communities about what the proper role of government is & why it is important, why socialism is not good & how reestablishing the constitutional principles will be hard but the best thing for us & our country.
This link has an edited 17 minutes. If you google Yuri's name you will find someone has taken the full video and broken it up into nine segments on youtube.
One of MANY favorite quotes (This one referencing one of the motives of the communist movement):
"To change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country."
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
An LDS persepctive on socialism
Just a little quote I found from President Hunter in reference to socialism. Anyone who knows me, knows that I am not a fan of socialism. For many reasons which I will not go into in THIS post. ;) This quote outlined one of the central arguments to why I am fundamentally opposed to socialism--it takes away freedoms. I agree with his analysis that personal unrighteousness has led toward the trend of socialism. Unfortunately, attempting to correct this personal unrighteousness by taking away freedom is all too familiar a plan. It started with the war in heaven...and it was NOT Heavenly Father's plan....
This quote is taken from over 40 years ago. Still, I find it particularly pertinent during a time where we have a divisive presidential election with two candidates without a whole lot to offer. With one candidate promoting entirely socialist ideals, I will be voting for the strongest opponent to that platform. Many people have mocked my choice to vote for a candidate that I am not thrilled with, as opposed to say, writing myself in, or voting for a third party candidate. But that is what makes a two-party system so great! It gives clear opposition to one platform or "side". There must be opposition in all things and a two party system gives clear opposition to one platform or "side". (P.S. Don't even get me STARTED on the abortion issue...especially after the last Ensign article on this.)
No matter what happens this election, at least I will never be denied my agency!
Enjoy!
Quote: What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness. When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose these freedoms. . . .
This quote is taken from over 40 years ago. Still, I find it particularly pertinent during a time where we have a divisive presidential election with two candidates without a whole lot to offer. With one candidate promoting entirely socialist ideals, I will be voting for the strongest opponent to that platform. Many people have mocked my choice to vote for a candidate that I am not thrilled with, as opposed to say, writing myself in, or voting for a third party candidate. But that is what makes a two-party system so great! It gives clear opposition to one platform or "side". There must be opposition in all things and a two party system gives clear opposition to one platform or "side". (P.S. Don't even get me STARTED on the abortion issue...especially after the last Ensign article on this.)
No matter what happens this election, at least I will never be denied my agency!
Enjoy!
Quote: What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness. When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose these freedoms. . . .
If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through "a democratic process" he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots." Both have lost their freedom. Those who "have," lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who "have not," lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got "something for nothing," and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift.
Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms which they have lost. (Howard W. Hunter. Speeches of the Year 1965-1966, pp. 1-11, "The Law of the Harvest." Devotional Address, Brigham Young University, 8 March 1966.)
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Hmmm.. it's been a while....
For the last month or two, the topic that pops in to my head every time I think about blog writing, is politics. I hate writing about politics. But it's such an important part of life. Especially in a democracy! ....and it takes up a large portion of my thoughts these days. So in an effort to keep my mind clear, I will be posting various comments and reactions to the myriad of political media that has been flooding through my mind these days. I will also try to share the media directly on this blog when at all feasible. Hang tight!
oh, and to start things off, I thought I'd share a video that gives a glimpse of what's happening to "Yes on 8" supporters here in the lovely state of California.
I experienced a first hand encounter with "no on 8" intolerance when standing at a corner with a "yes on 8" sign just yesterday. Some friendly folks drove by and shouted obscenities while holding out a "no on 8" sign and throwing pens, trash and junk at us as they drove by. A large dry erase marker even made it into the chucking. Luckily, no one was hurt. But honestly, it really had an impact on my respect for the opposition. (In case you were wondering, it went down.) ;)
This is a hot topic. It touches the core of my deeply held morals and convictions just as much as it touches the core of the opponents deeply held convictions. I get it. I get that this means a lot to you. But you know what? It means just as much to me!!! There is no getting around the fact that there are passionate claims and strongly held opinions on both sides of this debate.
NOTHING in the Yes on 8 campaign promotes bigotry, hate speech, discrimination, intolerance or restriction of RIGHTS against others. We wish to define marriage as being between a man and woman. PERIOD.
So when I am practicing my right to free speech and standing on a public corner holding signs along with others who share my opinion, don't honk. Don't wave. Shake your head in disagreement or whatever it is you want to do to show disapproval. Flip the bird and I'll even flash you a peace sign in return. (Which was my response each time it happened on that corner.) Take it a step further, and get on your own corner and hold up your own sign. Or share a corner and hold up your sign.
But please, can you stop the hate.
Oh yah, and about this video: Post your signs all over the same plot of land that you see my signs posted on. Post your signs on additional plots of land. Spread your message. You're entitled. As am I. Please, leave MY signs alone!
oh, and to start things off, I thought I'd share a video that gives a glimpse of what's happening to "Yes on 8" supporters here in the lovely state of California.
I experienced a first hand encounter with "no on 8" intolerance when standing at a corner with a "yes on 8" sign just yesterday. Some friendly folks drove by and shouted obscenities while holding out a "no on 8" sign and throwing pens, trash and junk at us as they drove by. A large dry erase marker even made it into the chucking. Luckily, no one was hurt. But honestly, it really had an impact on my respect for the opposition. (In case you were wondering, it went down.) ;)
This is a hot topic. It touches the core of my deeply held morals and convictions just as much as it touches the core of the opponents deeply held convictions. I get it. I get that this means a lot to you. But you know what? It means just as much to me!!! There is no getting around the fact that there are passionate claims and strongly held opinions on both sides of this debate.
NOTHING in the Yes on 8 campaign promotes bigotry, hate speech, discrimination, intolerance or restriction of RIGHTS against others. We wish to define marriage as being between a man and woman. PERIOD.
So when I am practicing my right to free speech and standing on a public corner holding signs along with others who share my opinion, don't honk. Don't wave. Shake your head in disagreement or whatever it is you want to do to show disapproval. Flip the bird and I'll even flash you a peace sign in return. (Which was my response each time it happened on that corner.) Take it a step further, and get on your own corner and hold up your own sign. Or share a corner and hold up your sign.
But please, can you stop the hate.
Oh yah, and about this video: Post your signs all over the same plot of land that you see my signs posted on. Post your signs on additional plots of land. Spread your message. You're entitled. As am I. Please, leave MY signs alone!
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama... um, this made me laugh!!
Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama
Credit goes to Jeff Emanuel, (original author) at Redstate.com for this work.
Sarah Palin
| Barack Obama
| |
| Office being sought | Vice President | President of the United States and Leader of the Free World |
| Full name | Sarah Louise Heath Palin | Barack Hussein Obama II |
| Nickname | Sarah Barracuda | Barry Obama; “The One” |
| Public opinion | Smoking hot in a “naughty librarian” sort of way | May be The Messiah |
| Age | 44 | 48 |
| Children | 5: two sons, three daughters | 2: two daughters |
| Religion/Church attendance | Evangelical Christian;attends Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau and grew up attending Wasilla Assembly of God | Attended Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, a “black liberation theology” church formerly led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright and governed according to the Black Value System |
| Current Job | Governor of Alaska | Junior Senator from Illinois |
| Previous Public Jobs | Mayor of Wasilla, AK (1996-2002); President of Alaska Conference of Mayors;City Council member (1992-1996) | State Senator (1997-2004);Community Organizer |
| Executive Experience | Governor for 2 years;Mayor for 10 years | None |
| Foreign Relations experience | Governor of state that borders two foreign countries (Canada and Russia) | Chaired Senate subcommittee on Europe but never called it into session;once gave a speech to 200,000 screaming Germans |
| Military Affairs experience | Commander in Chief of Alaska National Guard;Son is enlisted Infantryman in U.S. Army | None |
| Private Sector Experience | Sports reporter;Salmon fisherman | Associate at civil rights law firm |
| Speaking ability | Beautifully executed initial stump speech in Dayton, OH hockey arena without a teleprompter | An enter…wait–did you say without a teleprompter?? |
| Spouse’s name | Todd Mitchell Palin | Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama |
| Spouse’s occupation | Salmon fisherman;Former North Slope production supervisor for BP Oil | Vice President for Community and External Affairs at University of Chicago Hospitals;former Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago;former Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies; former Assistant to the Mayor of Chicago; former associate at Sidley Austin law firm |
| Reaction to spouse’s political success | Quit 17-year BP oil job when BP became involved in natural gas pipeline negotiations with wife’s administration | Promoted and given 160% pay raise by UofC hospitals within months of husband’s election to U.S. Senate;Employer received $1,000,000.00 federal earmark, requested by husband, after her promotion |
| Coolest thing about Spouse | Tesoro Iron Dog Snowmobile race champion (longest snowmobile race in the world);In 2008, while defending his championship, was injured when he was thrown 70 feet from his machine. He was sent to the hospital but still finished in fourth place | Sister of Oregon State University head basketball coach Craig Robinson |
| Most Courageous Moment in Public Service | Resigned in protest from position of Ethics Commissioner of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in order to expose legal violations and conflicts of interest of Alaska Republican leaders, including the former state Attorney General and the State GOP Chairman (who was also an Oil & Gas Commissioner), who was doing work for the party on public time and supplying a lobbyist with a sensitive e-mail. | Gave an anti-Iraq war speech to a crowd of anti-Iraq war demonstrators in Hyde Park in 2002 |
| In Current Office Because… | Upset sitting Governor in GOP primary due to public support for her efforts to clean up corrupt government establishment | Republican opponent, who was leading in the polls, was forced to leave race after unsealing of divorce records exposed a sex scandal |
| Theme: | Change and Clean Government | Hope and Change;”Bringing Change from Outside Washington” |
| What they’ve done to live that theme: | Replaced entire Board of Agriculture and Conservation because of conflict of interest;Resigned from position of Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in order to expose corruption among members of own party | Selected 36-year incumbent Senator as running mate |
| Family Affairs | May have removed State Public Safety Commissioner as part of effort to protect sister in messy divorce and child custody battle | Often says, “I am my brother’s keeper”;Brother lives in a hut in Nairobi on $12 per year |
| Union affiliation | Union member, married to Union member | Endorsed by a union |
| Iraq and Troop Support | Formerly (pre-surge) critical of apparent lack of long-term strategy for Iraq;Visited wounded U.S. soldiers in Germany;visited AK National Guard soldiers deployed to Kuwait; Son deploying to Iraq on 9/11/08 as Army infantryman | Gave an anti-Iraq war speech to a crowd of anti-Iraq war demonstrators;almost visited wounded troops in Germany, but decided to go shopping in Berlin instead |
| Bipartisan/”maverick” credentials | Married to a non-Republican;Exposed corruption within own party;Campaigned for Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell against corrupt GOP congressman Don Young; Called out Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK) to “come clean” about financial dealings that are under fed investigation | Talks about bipartisanship |
| Legislative Record | Passed a landmark ethics reform bill;Used veto to cut budgetary spending;Prevented “bridge to nowhere” that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars. | Voted “present” over 100 times as IL state senator |
| How they dealt with corrupt individuals in home city/state | Exposed legal violations and conflicts of interest of Alaska Republican leaders;Campaigned against corrupt GOP Representative;Ran against and defeated corrupt incumbent governor in GOP primary | Launched political career in home of unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers (and still refers to him as a part of “mainstream Democratic Chicago”;Purchased home with help of convicted felon Tony Rezko |
| Guns | Lifetime member of NRA and avid hunter;video can be found on YouTube of Palin firing an M4 at a military firing range | Worked to pass legislation in Illinois that would prevent all law-abiding citizens from owning firearms |
| Earmarks | Opposed “Bridge to Nowhere” project;Said Alaska should avoid relying on federal money for projects;Campaigned against porker Don Young (R-AK) in 2008 primary | Secured federal earmarks for wife’s employer and for campaign bundlers |
| Abortion | Pro life;gave birth to 5th child knowing that he would have Down’s syndrome | Pro-choice;only IL state sen. to speak against the Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act, which required medical care to be given to live infants who survived abortions |
| Energy | Believes energy independence is a matter of national security;For drilling in ANWR, which is in her state | Says Americans should “get tune-ups” and “check tire pressure”;Says “we can’t expect the world to be okay with” our use of heating and air conditioning |
| Environment | Chair of Alaska Conservation Commission (2003-4);Announced plans to create sub-cabinet group of advisors to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in AK | Talks about the environment a lot |
| Athletic prowess | Runs marathons | Has reporters tailing him to the gym |
* *
Monday, August 18, 2008
Obama's Abortion Stance-- Yes, it scares me.
We're not talking "A woman's right to choose" here, people. This is an extremist point of view.
Obama was the ONLY Il state senator to speak against the BAIP Act
You all know his voting record on partial-birth and born alive abortions I'm assuming? (Got to go through my bookmarks and find the link on this, if you do not already have this info. In the meantime, here is the book reference.)
Update 9/3/08: SO the sites have mysteriously vanished. The links are all invalid. I guess second hand info will have to do.
For those interested in a full history of the subject, including the ACTUAL bill and comparisons to the one Obama campaign declared "different" last month, click HERE.
I like how he refers to infants taken by abortion as "previable infants" because they are not "a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term."
Is this the same person who claimed, "I don't presume to know the answer to that question"... when asked when life begins? He can predict whether an infant would have survived outside the womb but not when it's life began? What???? I'm confused.
Of ALL the issues he had the chance to vote on, he votes AGAINST the BAIP Act. ?!?!?!?! ... I mean the guy has an unbelievable record of voting "present". We're not talking poorly written bills here and there. He votes "present" on EVERYTHING but takes a stand on THIS???
And what else has he taken a stand on??? Honestly? He takes a stand for intangible "change" that no one can put their finger on. He blabbers on about "change" from old politics, while his actions portray the very essence of "old style politics" at their very best (worst?!).
This just happens to be one issue that is heavily documented. ONE issue that has been twisted and sidestepped and reworded. How is that, "change"? That is old style politics at its best. He's got the charisma...but not the "change".
Obama was the ONLY Il state senator to speak against the BAIP Act
You all know his voting record on partial-birth and born alive abortions I'm assuming? (Got to go through my bookmarks and find the link on this, if you do not already have this info. In the meantime, here is the book reference.)
Update 9/3/08: SO the sites have mysteriously vanished. The links are all invalid. I guess second hand info will have to do.
For those interested in a full history of the subject, including the ACTUAL bill and comparisons to the one Obama campaign declared "different" last month, click HERE.
I like how he refers to infants taken by abortion as "previable infants" because they are not "a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term."
Is this the same person who claimed, "I don't presume to know the answer to that question"... when asked when life begins? He can predict whether an infant would have survived outside the womb but not when it's life began? What???? I'm confused.
Of ALL the issues he had the chance to vote on, he votes AGAINST the BAIP Act. ?!?!?!?! ... I mean the guy has an unbelievable record of voting "present". We're not talking poorly written bills here and there. He votes "present" on EVERYTHING but takes a stand on THIS???
And what else has he taken a stand on??? Honestly? He takes a stand for intangible "change" that no one can put their finger on. He blabbers on about "change" from old politics, while his actions portray the very essence of "old style politics" at their very best (worst?!).
This just happens to be one issue that is heavily documented. ONE issue that has been twisted and sidestepped and reworded. How is that, "change"? That is old style politics at its best. He's got the charisma...but not the "change".
The Case Against Barack Obama
I know some of my pro Obama friends will be rolling their eyes. I don't care. I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as they are. If you want to know WHY I hold this opinion... I will be posting more links to the information and stories that have led me to the position which I hold at this time: "No More B.O.!"
Here is an excerpt from the intriguing interview of The Case Against Barack Obama author, David Freddoso.
..."This is the way Chicago politics works and Sen. Obama can’t do or say anything to change it because Sen. Obama’s allies, the people who got him where he is today and the people who are going to help him become president of the United States -- they all started the problems.
He can’t speak out against the problems because his friends are the problem.
MO: Lets talk Tony Rezko. Not everyone knows the details of the Rezko-Obama connection. They know it has to do with a land deal and that’s about it…
DF: The problem with it is everyone is focused on this land deal but they haven’t focused on the really big question -- which is why would Sen. Barack Obama end up in a situation where he engaged in any sort of deal like this with a guy who’s entire career has consisted of legally or illegal sponging off of tax payers and corrupting public officials --officials like Barack Obama?
When Tony Rezko wanted something done legally -- say grants from the state and subsidies and cheap loans and that sort of thing -- he knew he could always count on Barack Obama to support those things -- to support legislation that would increase demand for subsidized housing in the Chicago area. Legislation that would make his costs lower, giving him tax breaks and tax breaks for stuff that he was already doing already.
So, their 17 year friendship goes a long way back and it was working relationship where Obama did a lot of stuff in Springfield to help Tony Rezko. And that’s why the two could be close enough friends that they would dine together and spend weekends together at Rezko’s vacation home and why they would happen to buy properties right next door to each other.
Very few people who have been looking at this angle and that’s the real issue with the Tony Rezko business -- what did Obama do for him? Obama said “I did him no favors” but he did do favors for Tony Rezko. In fact, in 1998 -- I believe it’s in Chapter 11 of the book -- in 1998 Senator Obama wrote a couple of letters on Senate letter head specifically asking that the state give grants to Tony Rezko and another developer he is very close with, his former law firm boss. That’s a favor."....
Here is an excerpt from the intriguing interview of The Case Against Barack Obama author, David Freddoso.
..."This is the way Chicago politics works and Sen. Obama can’t do or say anything to change it because Sen. Obama’s allies, the people who got him where he is today and the people who are going to help him become president of the United States -- they all started the problems.
He can’t speak out against the problems because his friends are the problem.
MO: Lets talk Tony Rezko. Not everyone knows the details of the Rezko-Obama connection. They know it has to do with a land deal and that’s about it…
DF: The problem with it is everyone is focused on this land deal but they haven’t focused on the really big question -- which is why would Sen. Barack Obama end up in a situation where he engaged in any sort of deal like this with a guy who’s entire career has consisted of legally or illegal sponging off of tax payers and corrupting public officials --officials like Barack Obama?
When Tony Rezko wanted something done legally -- say grants from the state and subsidies and cheap loans and that sort of thing -- he knew he could always count on Barack Obama to support those things -- to support legislation that would increase demand for subsidized housing in the Chicago area. Legislation that would make his costs lower, giving him tax breaks and tax breaks for stuff that he was already doing already.
So, their 17 year friendship goes a long way back and it was working relationship where Obama did a lot of stuff in Springfield to help Tony Rezko. And that’s why the two could be close enough friends that they would dine together and spend weekends together at Rezko’s vacation home and why they would happen to buy properties right next door to each other.
Very few people who have been looking at this angle and that’s the real issue with the Tony Rezko business -- what did Obama do for him? Obama said “I did him no favors” but he did do favors for Tony Rezko. In fact, in 1998 -- I believe it’s in Chapter 11 of the book -- in 1998 Senator Obama wrote a couple of letters on Senate letter head specifically asking that the state give grants to Tony Rezko and another developer he is very close with, his former law firm boss. That’s a favor."....
Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three Part Act
This is an NPR story chronicling some of the many sticky issues arising from same-sex marriage and civil union rights. If you are unfamiliar with the issues this article is a great place to start. You will start to see some of the many legal issues at hand.
Religious views aside, the legal/political issues involved are completely out of hand!!! For a group of people to have rights that can bulldoze the rights of others is diplorable. This is far beyond "fair treatment".
This is an NPR story chronicling some of the many sticky issues arising from same-sex marriage and civil union rights. If you are unfamiliar with the issues this article is a great place to start. You will start to see some of the many legal issues at hand.
Religious views aside, the legal/political issues involved are completely out of hand!!! For a group of people to have rights that can bulldoze the rights of others is diplorable. This is far beyond "fair treatment".
Saturday, May 31, 2008
..."and ROOT BEER in all the drinking fountains!!!!"
You know how every family has "family legends"? At least that's what I like to call them. The stories from your life that are shared to teach your kids lessons? Sometimes they start out as just a funny story. Such as this one:
When my dad was in grade school he ran for... I believe it was class president. He was a generally likable kid. Probably not the most popular. Didn't have any particularly great plans for the office of class president. But he ran a campaign that made him a practical shoe-in. He won. (Oh yes, he won.)
Let me share with you his campaign strategy. This campaign strategy has taught me more about politics than I have ever needed to know.
Campaign Strategy #1: Make a great poster. (i.e. Get some sort of hip slogan and media out there to promote yourself)
I remember first hearing this story when asking my dad about what he was like in grade school. I thought it was pretty funny at the time. As I grew older and talked about the story with my dad and pondered it myself it took on a whole new meaning. It pretty much defines politics for me. At every level.
These days, when I hear a politician making grand promises for such vague declarations of "change" and "hope", I think to myself, "....and root beer in ALL of the drinking fountains!!!!"
When my dad was in grade school he ran for... I believe it was class president. He was a generally likable kid. Probably not the most popular. Didn't have any particularly great plans for the office of class president. But he ran a campaign that made him a practical shoe-in. He won. (Oh yes, he won.)
Let me share with you his campaign strategy. This campaign strategy has taught me more about politics than I have ever needed to know.
Campaign Strategy #1: Make a great poster. (i.e. Get some sort of hip slogan and media out there to promote yourself)
Dad had an older bro who was in high school. So, cool, art-talented, older bro makes Dad's ratfink-like posters, which include the great slogan, " " (shoot.. the slogan is not coming to me right now. Someone help me on this!!)
Campaign Strategy #2: Promise the kids root beer. Lot's of root beer. (i.e. Tell the people whatever it is they want to hear. You can promise lot's of good things without having any real strategy or plan on implementing them. Just promise the good things-- people are gullible.)
Dad promised the kids root beer. In ALL of the drinking fountains. What's not to love about that???? I believe he promised some other great things that sounded wonderful. Things like less homework, longer recess. You know. He had all of the answers to every kids most pressing issues with school politics.
Did he want root beer in all of the drinking fountains? Sure! Did he have any way of seeing this promise come to fruition? Golly, no! Did anyone care? No one seemed to think of that!
Campagin Strategy #3: Speeches: Make them laugh. (i.e. Just make the people feel good. Again, promise whatever the heck you want. Also, use distraction.)
The last day of the campaign each of the candidates was to give a speech in the school auditorium. I'm unclear on the details here (someone, please email me with these fill in the blanks so I can update this post!) but SOMEONE received a pie in the face at the end of Dads speech.
Really? Did they even need to "vote" at this point?????
Did he want root beer in all of the drinking fountains? Sure! Did he have any way of seeing this promise come to fruition? Golly, no! Did anyone care? No one seemed to think of that!
Campagin Strategy #3: Speeches: Make them laugh. (i.e. Just make the people feel good. Again, promise whatever the heck you want. Also, use distraction.)
The last day of the campaign each of the candidates was to give a speech in the school auditorium. I'm unclear on the details here (someone, please email me with these fill in the blanks so I can update this post!) but SOMEONE received a pie in the face at the end of Dads speech.Really? Did they even need to "vote" at this point?????
These days, when I hear a politician making grand promises for such vague declarations of "change" and "hope", I think to myself, "....and root beer in ALL of the drinking fountains!!!!"
Saturday, February 09, 2008
And Then There Were....?
Farewell, Mitt!
I know, I know.... a little late in the game here. ( Remember this post? I was done with the topic by the time I sat down at the computer on Thursday night. But I wanted to say goodbye and there is still more on my mind.)
The bold, political chess move made by Romney this week has left me in a dither. I mean, I know the guy has character and all. "But why, Mitt, why?? Why are you putting me in this awkward position? It's as if we've been dating for a while and I thought we really had something. We talked about our future together. We hesitantly mentioned our non-future-together. Then you go and dump me! From out of the blue! I mean, I know things haven't been perfect, but...."
"Le sigh." (I sigh in French these days.)
What complicates things even more was how he broke the news to me. I can't even hate him for breaking my heart this way!!! In fact, his brilliantly inspiring, valiant farewell speech left me more enamored than ever. So much so, that I almost regret saying, "I wouldn't vote for McCain if my life depended on it." Because, after all, I was with Mitt because of what he believes in. And if this is what he believes in.....perhaps I do, as well?
Extra long "le sigh".
And so, the ruminating begins.
Should I make like Dinesh (I really idolize that brainy guy!!!) and get in line come November '08? Or "vote my conscience" and write in the candidate I feel best qualified for the position? Nominated or not?
Because Obamary are out of the question. Having charisma or being a woman are not what get my vote. Neither one comes close to being in line with my primary issues. Huckabutt should have stepped down looooong ago. Plus he's nominated himself as veep. Paul? Nope. In theory he seems to have it going on. Then you dig a little deeper and realize he's actually just a LITTLE too crazy for position of President.
No matter what happens this election season, thank heaven for term limits and balance that is provided through the separation of powers.
To Mitt, I say, "Well, I guess it just wasn't the right time. See you at the White House in 2012."
Friday, February 01, 2008
Obamary '08
Head over here for some great discussion.
There is obviously so much more to be said about this.
One thing that makes me laugh are the comments from people like Matthew who seem hung up on this idea that (and I'm paraphrasing here, but the message was clear) if a Mormon votes republican they are just sheep, following tradition. I wanted to respond to many of these issues but realized I did not want to start an attack or argue back and forth with any of these commenters. I merely wanted to express some feelings on these issues to get them off of my chest. So, here goes....
I think it's a foolish judgment to label republican Mormons as "uninformed". There are PLENTY of WELL-INFORMED, intelligent individuals on BOTH sides of the platform who are active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Just because YOU grew up "completely uninformed" does not mean the rest of the church did. (No matter WHERE they live.)
"But, concentrated groups of Mormons(i.e. Utah, Arizona, Idaho, California), have a tendency to feel righteous security in following their peers, politically, without thoroughly researching what they believe, politically, for themselves. This certainly applies to Dem AND Repub voters, ALL over the nation.
I grew up in an EXTREMELY liberal college town in the outskirts of LA county. Believe you me, I've known MANY groups of US citizens who felt "righteous security" in following their liberal peers. Maybe that's hard to believe if you happened to grow up in a conservative town?
Yes! There is plenty of diversity in the world, and (gasp) even in the church!!!
I found this quote to be absolutely LUDICROUS: "Hence I declare, don't hate me, good Christians and citizens of the world are..... secretly...... Democrats, if they really incorporate their core value system into civic life."
Ummm no... We have great Mormon leaders on BOTH sides of the platform. They are good Christians who really incorporate their core value system into civic life. Lets keep it that way. I find it disgusting when fellow church members try and pit themselves against their brothers and sisters based on what political party they affiliate themselves with. To declare that only Democrats incorporate their core value system into civic life is just inane. There are too many flaws in that ideology. You could debate back and forth on several issues. Each party supporting or coming in conflict with different core values that we share as church members.
I think Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, a nonvoting member of Congress from American Samoa, sums it up best in this quote: "I believe the LDS Church needs representation in both the Democratic and Republican parties. For too long there has been a misconception that LDS Democrats and Republicans do not share the same values. But this is not true. Our values are the same, but our political philosophies are different."
I ALMOST have nothing more to say on that. But then there is this little run down that had me, literally, laughing out loud.
"Christ's teachings parallel so many of our most pertinent issues we face today:
1. treating all people with equal respect and love(civil/gay rights)
2. peace before violence(world diplomacy)
3. loving thy neighbor as thyself (immigration, welfare, taxation)
4. humility(world involvement, not dominance) 5. feeding the poor(proportionate taxation) These are all Democratic ideals.
Ok, honestly? "Democratic ideals"??? Because someone who votes Republican does not have those ideals? Again, we have the same values, folks. It's HOW WE GET there that we differ in.
The Republicans lean in the opposite direction of the same Christian teachings:
1. treating all people with equal respect and love (denial of certain rights for certain citizens)
2. peace before violence(war without true cause, besides money and power)
3. loving thy neighbor as thyself (deportation of hopeful immigrants)
4. humility(strong handed dominance and superiority in the world community)
5. feeding the poor(economic tax system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer) "
This sort of "democrats are more 'Christ-like' and Republicans are more 'evil' game is dangerous water to tread . ANYONE can skew politics to paint a picture in either direction.
Because treating all people with equal respect and love(civil/gay rights) equals making marriage for all people a constitutional 'right'? Since when is marriage a civil right?? You can have civil rights for ALL people without demanding recognition of gay marriage. Also, you can certainly treat all people with equal respect and love without promoting "gay rights".
I just had to chuckle at the people who commented with reasons why gay couples MUST have marriage rights to be fully protected under the law and have full civil rights. This is just not true. Any sob story that is told about great aunt so and so who could have lost their adopted child and blah, blah, blah is complete drivel. I don't mean to sound callous. The reason it is drivel is that there ARE ways for these adoptions and legal rights, etc., etc., etc., to be fully protected. They might have to be done in a different way. But you know what? That's what life is about. We are all different. "Equal" DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN "the same."
peace before violence(world diplomacy) Republicans are not peaceful people, they are always resolving things through violence. MMMmmmmhmmmm.. Don't EVEN get me started on the hate crimes my family endured for having a political sign in their yard that was in favor of a bill that would protect a value that we all share as Mormons. Heinous. Violent. There are SO many more accounts of these situations. On a personal level AND a worldwide level. 'Member Bosnia? People were being killed there... we used "violence" to help end that. What about the holocaust? I think about Mormon. Captain Moroni. Nephi. What do you do when others are being wronged and massacred? Hold hands and pray for peace? Or might it be possible that we occasionally have to FIGHT for peace as well?
Loving thy neighbor as thyself (immigration, welfare, taxation) Again, the assumption that "loving they neighbor" means that you must support the Democrat party? I have much more to say on this (scroll down if you wish to jump to that part)
4. humility(world involvement, not dominance) puh-hah! This makes me chuckle. Too short-sighted a comparison to even elaborate on. Christ taught humility, meaning we should not ever take an active stance to protect freedom around the world? wuh??? Freedom is GOOD. Why would we not help promote that for our brothers and sisters throughout the world????!
5. feeding the poor Do you HONESTLY believe that Democrats feed the poor and Republicans don't? I have a used car I'd like to sell you..... Also, see number 3.
The comment made by Nathan stressing that "Christ COMMANDED us to give", therefore, we must vote for a party that makes it the responsibility of government to do this?? The commandment is for US (the PEOPLE!) to do this. Dems and Repubs can keep this commandment and not share the view that it's the governments job to do it. Plus, they can both be temple worthy!!!!! Scary, isn't it? (snicker)
The basic difference between Democrats and Republicans is the issue of big government or small government. Generally speaking, democrats believe it is the governments job to take care of everyones social/welfare needs. This requires bigger government (which requires bigger taxes to pay the bigger government) to handle all of the things it "needs" to take care of. Republicans believe these issues are not the responsibility of the federal government. (Heartless, huh?) Keep the taxes lower, the government smaller. Private citizens are still free to reach out and care for social/welfare needs of those around them. Either individually, or by forming organizations, etc.
Again, you can paint a political picture to glorify either side. Paint with me now:
What about Satan's idea on how the plan of salvation should be carried out?? He had good intentions right? Following Satan would ensure that everyone would make it back. Oh, and all the glory to him, too.
So if you think that the government should be in charge of forcing everyone to give, then you are like Satan!!! We share the same plan of giving and caring for poor and needy. But Dems will make sure that EVERYONE gives and cares through their system. That way, everyone will be taken care of (and the Democrat party can also take the credit for it!).
Repubs believe that people need to use their own agency to follow the commandments of giving/caring for the poor and needy. Private citizens, organizations and religious bodies are allowed to continue these much more effective ways of caring for the poor and needy. We can use our agency to freely bless those around us who are in need. We are free to support churches and organizations who care for the poor and needy. We are free to get off our butts and care for the poor and needy ourselves, with God's help! We don't have to have our charitable good works orchestrated by the government!!!!
Dems equals satans plan.... Rebups equal plan of salvation!!!
See how I just did that??? I can spin the "democratic ideals" to compare them to SATAN! duh-duh-duh
(YES- the paragraphs above are SARCASM. Please don't bore me with ignorant comments trying to debate this ridiculous paragraph!!!)
My other favorite spin is when I'm told that the Democrat ideology is akin to the law of consecration. Uh, no, folks. Put simply, when MEN are carrying out a plan like this, it ends in tyranny and socialism run a muck. When the Lord is at the head it works. Never, in history, has a plan like that worked when run by men. If the prophet of the Lord is running the country (again, folks, Mitt does not count) then this works. However, he does not. Men run this country. There will always be corruption. No matter what party controls the executive office, the government is susceptible to corruption. Let's keep as much control out of the governments hands as possible. Let the people govern themselves and be judged accordingly!
If there is a debate to be had it should be on political ideology... not what party is more "righteous". I found the comments made by people who were annoyed by the "righteous republic" to be completely hypocritical in thinking that their political ideology is somehow more godlike than another!!
My point being, again, " Our values are the same, but our political philosophies are different."
and GOD BLESS MY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA!
There is obviously so much more to be said about this.
One thing that makes me laugh are the comments from people like Matthew who seem hung up on this idea that (and I'm paraphrasing here, but the message was clear) if a Mormon votes republican they are just sheep, following tradition. I wanted to respond to many of these issues but realized I did not want to start an attack or argue back and forth with any of these commenters. I merely wanted to express some feelings on these issues to get them off of my chest. So, here goes....
I think it's a foolish judgment to label republican Mormons as "uninformed". There are PLENTY of WELL-INFORMED, intelligent individuals on BOTH sides of the platform who are active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Just because YOU grew up "completely uninformed" does not mean the rest of the church did. (No matter WHERE they live.)
"But, concentrated groups of Mormons(i.e. Utah, Arizona, Idaho, California), have a tendency to feel righteous security in following their peers, politically, without thoroughly researching what they believe, politically, for themselves. This certainly applies to Dem AND Repub voters, ALL over the nation.
I grew up in an EXTREMELY liberal college town in the outskirts of LA county. Believe you me, I've known MANY groups of US citizens who felt "righteous security" in following their liberal peers. Maybe that's hard to believe if you happened to grow up in a conservative town?
Yes! There is plenty of diversity in the world, and (gasp) even in the church!!!
I found this quote to be absolutely LUDICROUS: "Hence I declare, don't hate me, good Christians and citizens of the world are..... secretly...... Democrats, if they really incorporate their core value system into civic life."
Ummm no... We have great Mormon leaders on BOTH sides of the platform. They are good Christians who really incorporate their core value system into civic life. Lets keep it that way. I find it disgusting when fellow church members try and pit themselves against their brothers and sisters based on what political party they affiliate themselves with. To declare that only Democrats incorporate their core value system into civic life is just inane. There are too many flaws in that ideology. You could debate back and forth on several issues. Each party supporting or coming in conflict with different core values that we share as church members.
I think Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, a nonvoting member of Congress from American Samoa, sums it up best in this quote: "I believe the LDS Church needs representation in both the Democratic and Republican parties. For too long there has been a misconception that LDS Democrats and Republicans do not share the same values. But this is not true. Our values are the same, but our political philosophies are different."
I ALMOST have nothing more to say on that. But then there is this little run down that had me, literally, laughing out loud.
"Christ's teachings parallel so many of our most pertinent issues we face today:
1. treating all people with equal respect and love(civil/gay rights)
2. peace before violence(world diplomacy)
3. loving thy neighbor as thyself (immigration, welfare, taxation)
4. humility(world involvement, not dominance) 5. feeding the poor(proportionate taxation) These are all Democratic ideals.
Ok, honestly? "Democratic ideals"??? Because someone who votes Republican does not have those ideals? Again, we have the same values, folks. It's HOW WE GET there that we differ in.
The Republicans lean in the opposite direction of the same Christian teachings:
1. treating all people with equal respect and love (denial of certain rights for certain citizens)
2. peace before violence(war without true cause, besides money and power)
3. loving thy neighbor as thyself (deportation of hopeful immigrants)
4. humility(strong handed dominance and superiority in the world community)
5. feeding the poor(economic tax system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer) "
This sort of "democrats are more 'Christ-like' and Republicans are more 'evil' game is dangerous water to tread . ANYONE can skew politics to paint a picture in either direction.
Because treating all people with equal respect and love(civil/gay rights) equals making marriage for all people a constitutional 'right'? Since when is marriage a civil right?? You can have civil rights for ALL people without demanding recognition of gay marriage. Also, you can certainly treat all people with equal respect and love without promoting "gay rights".
I just had to chuckle at the people who commented with reasons why gay couples MUST have marriage rights to be fully protected under the law and have full civil rights. This is just not true. Any sob story that is told about great aunt so and so who could have lost their adopted child and blah, blah, blah is complete drivel. I don't mean to sound callous. The reason it is drivel is that there ARE ways for these adoptions and legal rights, etc., etc., etc., to be fully protected. They might have to be done in a different way. But you know what? That's what life is about. We are all different. "Equal" DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN "the same."
peace before violence(world diplomacy) Republicans are not peaceful people, they are always resolving things through violence. MMMmmmmhmmmm.. Don't EVEN get me started on the hate crimes my family endured for having a political sign in their yard that was in favor of a bill that would protect a value that we all share as Mormons. Heinous. Violent. There are SO many more accounts of these situations. On a personal level AND a worldwide level. 'Member Bosnia? People were being killed there... we used "violence" to help end that. What about the holocaust? I think about Mormon. Captain Moroni. Nephi. What do you do when others are being wronged and massacred? Hold hands and pray for peace? Or might it be possible that we occasionally have to FIGHT for peace as well?
Loving thy neighbor as thyself (immigration, welfare, taxation) Again, the assumption that "loving they neighbor" means that you must support the Democrat party? I have much more to say on this (scroll down if you wish to jump to that part)
4. humility(world involvement, not dominance) puh-hah! This makes me chuckle. Too short-sighted a comparison to even elaborate on. Christ taught humility, meaning we should not ever take an active stance to protect freedom around the world? wuh??? Freedom is GOOD. Why would we not help promote that for our brothers and sisters throughout the world????!
5. feeding the poor Do you HONESTLY believe that Democrats feed the poor and Republicans don't? I have a used car I'd like to sell you..... Also, see number 3.
The comment made by Nathan stressing that "Christ COMMANDED us to give", therefore, we must vote for a party that makes it the responsibility of government to do this?? The commandment is for US (the PEOPLE!) to do this. Dems and Repubs can keep this commandment and not share the view that it's the governments job to do it. Plus, they can both be temple worthy!!!!! Scary, isn't it? (snicker)
The basic difference between Democrats and Republicans is the issue of big government or small government. Generally speaking, democrats believe it is the governments job to take care of everyones social/welfare needs. This requires bigger government (which requires bigger taxes to pay the bigger government) to handle all of the things it "needs" to take care of. Republicans believe these issues are not the responsibility of the federal government. (Heartless, huh?) Keep the taxes lower, the government smaller. Private citizens are still free to reach out and care for social/welfare needs of those around them. Either individually, or by forming organizations, etc.
Again, you can paint a political picture to glorify either side. Paint with me now:
What about Satan's idea on how the plan of salvation should be carried out?? He had good intentions right? Following Satan would ensure that everyone would make it back. Oh, and all the glory to him, too.
So if you think that the government should be in charge of forcing everyone to give, then you are like Satan!!! We share the same plan of giving and caring for poor and needy. But Dems will make sure that EVERYONE gives and cares through their system. That way, everyone will be taken care of (and the Democrat party can also take the credit for it!).
Repubs believe that people need to use their own agency to follow the commandments of giving/caring for the poor and needy. Private citizens, organizations and religious bodies are allowed to continue these much more effective ways of caring for the poor and needy. We can use our agency to freely bless those around us who are in need. We are free to support churches and organizations who care for the poor and needy. We are free to get off our butts and care for the poor and needy ourselves, with God's help! We don't have to have our charitable good works orchestrated by the government!!!!
Dems equals satans plan.... Rebups equal plan of salvation!!!
See how I just did that??? I can spin the "democratic ideals" to compare them to SATAN! duh-duh-duh
(YES- the paragraphs above are SARCASM. Please don't bore me with ignorant comments trying to debate this ridiculous paragraph!!!)
My other favorite spin is when I'm told that the Democrat ideology is akin to the law of consecration. Uh, no, folks. Put simply, when MEN are carrying out a plan like this, it ends in tyranny and socialism run a muck. When the Lord is at the head it works. Never, in history, has a plan like that worked when run by men. If the prophet of the Lord is running the country (again, folks, Mitt does not count) then this works. However, he does not. Men run this country. There will always be corruption. No matter what party controls the executive office, the government is susceptible to corruption. Let's keep as much control out of the governments hands as possible. Let the people govern themselves and be judged accordingly!
If there is a debate to be had it should be on political ideology... not what party is more "righteous". I found the comments made by people who were annoyed by the "righteous republic" to be completely hypocritical in thinking that their political ideology is somehow more godlike than another!!
My point being, again, " Our values are the same, but our political philosophies are different."
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
and GOD BLESS MY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
