My commentary on a variety of issues that interest me including gun rights, individual liberty, illegal immigration, politics, religion, taxes, aviation, judicial activism, journalistic bias and laziness, environmental activism, education, family, health, gardening, history, Scouting, genealogy, etc.
I am a retired international airline captain. In real life, I strike fear into the US Department of Homeland Security as a right-wing extremist (in other words, I believe in God, go to church regularly, own a gun or two, oppose Al Gore and the environmentalist fraud, expect the government to aggressively enforce immigration laws, believe English should be established as the nation's official language, believe the US Constitution says what it says, seek a return to the limited federal government described in the US Constitution, and as a military veteran have sworn to support and defend the Constitution). To quote one of my heroes, Captain Moroni: "I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country." (Book of Mormon, Alma 60:36) In my spare time, I serve on the local Boy Scout District Training Committee. I coach a 4-H Shooting Sports club (see 4-H link below). I also teach the Utah Hunter Education Course, the Utah Concealed Firearm Course, and various other gun safety classes including most NRA courses (see Firearm Training link below).
Our nation's founders established a constitutionally-limited central government with the idea that the proper role of government is limited to securing or protecting our rights. They designed a constitution that left most governing to the States and to the People themselves. (Wouldn't it be nice if we, the People, would simply govern ourselves?)
Then, do-gooders expanded government to a vague "the role of government is to do for the people what they can't do for themselves".
That further evolved into the government wanting to do everything for everyone. Give a bureaucrat a job and he'll soon find a way expand and perpetuate it beyond all original intent.
Here's one more of countless examples:
The Leisure Services Department of Cedar City, Utah is hiring a tumbling instructor to go along with other taxpayer-funded leisure activities that include archery, basketball, swimming, kayaks, golf, zumba, and theater.
Every town in America has a long list of similar examples of government mission creep. C'mon! Are any of these activities really "things the people can't do for themselves" or that couldn't be satisfied through private enterprise?
How can an entrepreneur possibly expect to be successful when he must compete with the taxpayer-subsidized deep pockets of his own government?
Ya got enough government yet? Apparently, half the voters didn't think so last week -- just they haven't for decades.
Sixty-eight new regulations per day is prima facie evidence of an out-of-control federal government regardless of whether the Administration is headed by a Republican or a Democrat. It is so out-of-control that even Obama admitted that "you can't change Washington from the inside."
Only the voters -- people on the outside of Washington -- can fix Washington. We failed to do that last week, just like we fail every two years. We keep electing and reelecting congressmen and presidents who don't have the will or integrity to do what needs to be done.
That said, here are some Party-related statistics:
That attitude toward having government fix everything little thing tends to influence how a person votes.
More Party-related statistics:
Why can't Obama "change Washington from the inside?" Bureaucrats. No matter how we vote, the bureaucrats remain. (Our form of government isn't a democracy, republic, autocracy, plutocracy, theocracy, or monarchy. It's an aristocratic bureaucracy.) What does that have to do with Party-related statistics? A significantly higher portion of federal, state, and local bureaucrats are Democrats than are Republicans. As shown above, Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to want government to do more (ie make 68 new federal regulations each day). There is no better way to get that done than to be a Democrat bureaucrat -- a force not even Obama can -- or wants to -- "change...from the inside."
This isn't just a problem of out-of-control kleptocratic bureaucracy. (Most bureaucrats don't see themselves as bureaucrats but as government employees or public servants. Admit it. Those are merely different names for the same thing.)
● It is a problem of a Congress that consistently refuses to read the bills it passes.
● It is a problem of a Congress that produces such complex legislation that it cannot be comprehended or managed.
● It is the problem of a Congress that consistently delegates to the Executive Branch the authority to write the laws -- even though Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution clearly says, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"! Congress keeps shrugging the power and responsibility off to bureaucrats in the Executive Branch!
The solution is really quite simple, but painful: follow the Constitution! Conduct an audit of every federal agency, law, rule, policy, and judicial decision and purge everything that is not in full compliance with the Supreme Law of the Land -- the Constitution.
My employer has a "Director of Taxation." In filling this position, the company's goal is to identify ways to mitigate the adverse impact tax law and tax policy has on company profitability and even on company survival. Even self-employed people have a "Director of Taxation" (that'd be the entrepreneur himself). Tax law and policy have a very real and crippling impact on business plans -- including hiring.
In addition, nearly everyone working for my employer worries about compliance with tens of thousands of pages of laws and regulations in addition tax law and tax policy. Dealing with the government constitutes a very severe handicap for "free" enterprise.
A business succeeds and grows by spending its time finding ways to better serve its customers and by finding more customers to serve. Government only gets in the way of those two essential business functions.
Relatively few who work for government (that includes you who work for government schools from K through college) have any comprehension of the impact of taxes and regulations on private enterprise. Many of those in government who do understand the problem think regulations and taxes are always good or simply don't care.
Every two years, we vote to perpetuate the problem.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the central government from establishing a state religion and from interfering with the religious beliefs of anyone.
Thanks to the perverted agenda of the "progressives," that restriction has morphed into a bizarre prohibition against moral God-believing people having any influence on the character of the nation -- the opposite of what the founders intended.
That, and the failure of parents to parent, has all but destroyed the moral fabric of the United States and most, if not all, other "progressive" nations.
Except when unwisely restrained by politicians, the US Armed Forces have always had a reputation of leadership. On the other hand, although a significant portion of our servicemen are moral and decent men and women, our Armed Forces have never earned a reputation as a haven of celibacy and marital fidelity.
Recent efforts to ban God from the Armed Forces such as:
• marginalizing/reprimanding officers who profess Christianity, • indoctrinating servicemen and servicewomen to embrace politically-correct social causes and • even prohibiting Christian chaplains from preaching and praying in the name of Jesus
cannot possibly be good for the moral character of those who serve or for the nation they serve.
Look around at the depraved condition in which we live -- from graffiti so ubiquitous that we don't even notice it anymore to organized crime to school and church shootings to covetous Americans who think the government (taxpayer) should pay their bills to disgraced politicians (who get reelected) and generals (who retire).
The perpetrators didn't learn that stuff in Sunday School. It all has its roots in progressivism and its institutionalized rejection of religion in the public square.
The immoral eventually get purged from the military ranks. Rarely do the immoral in politics get purged -- if they're "progressives." That is what we vote for every two years. If that's what the voters want, how can the nation possibly become more moral?
I enjoy listening to Wallbuilders podcasts. I find them informative and uplifting. However, the November 5 edition entitled "Voting: Doing What's Right" with Pastor Robert Jeffress was troubling.
Several times during Rick Green's interview with Dr. Jeffress, the pastor alleged that we Mormons are not Christian. Mr. Green did not challenge him on the veracity of that allegation. I assume, therefore, that Mr. Green accepts this assertion.
It is true that we members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (note the wording of the correct name of our church) do not fully subscribe to the popular description of God, the Father; His Son, Jesus; and of the Holy Spirit. We take our understanding of the Nature of these individuals from the Bible and from the teachings of men we believe to be modern-day prophets.
The Nicean Creed, on the other hand was created by a committee of theologians and church bureaucrats assembled by the Pagan Emperor Constantine some 300 years after the death of Jesus. That committee was assembled to negotiate disputes already arising in the Church over the true nature of God.
There are thousands of sects professing to be Christian. They all have differing interpretations of the Scriptures, yet they all -- Mormons included -- claim Jesus as their divine savior. Mr. Green surely knows that. Dr. Jeffress surely knows that.
I believe that to claim that any Christian sect is not Christian simply because they deviate from a committee-created "politically-correct" description of God is unfair at best; bigoted and unchristian at its worst. Would I be correct to say that Dr. Jeffress, David Barton, and Rick Green are not Christians simply because Mormons might think that their understanding of God is wrong? Of course not! Well, we Mormons deserve the same respect.
Over the year leading up to this week's election, many evangelicals said they would not vote for Governor Mitt Romney because countless evangelical pastors have, like Dr. Jeffress, told their congregations that Mormons are not Christians but members of a cult. These pastors have consciously and maliciously spread ignorance and bigotry among the very people who trust them the most. This sinister and reckless influence of pastors like Dr. Jeffress may very well have turned this week's election over to Barrack Obama. That is inexcusable.
Those on the Left who are perceptive enough to see what happened surely must be laughing at the so-called "Christian" voter and his ignorance, gullibility, and consequent bigotry.
I urge Wallbuilders to take a closer look at the status of Mormons as followers of the Christ and accept us into the fold of Christianity. I also urge Wallbuilders to vigorously challenge merchants of dishonesty like Dr. Jeffress who oppose that fellowship.
I've heard plenty of voters say that the nation will be better (or okay) if Candidate A wins or if Candidate B loses -- but they haven't a clue what really makes the nation better (or okay).
Many voters say that there isn't that much difference between the candidates (as far as their superficial or slanted evaluation shows) or they're all corrupt anyway, so it doesn't really matter which one they choose.
I hear people say that it's only 2 or 4 or 6 years so it's no big deal if the vote for a candidate because of the candidate's skin color or political party affiliation.
Some voters people vote for the incumbent because experience or seniority are very important characteristics.
I hear people say that having a corrupt, dangerous or incompetent person in office isn't a big deal if he's okay on their favorite issue -- that's why we have checks and balances.
There are those whose choice is based on one or more emotions: fear, excitement, infatuation, selfishness, hate, etc.
I know people who justify lazy voting (ie don't thoroughly study the candidates and issues because God has predicted the end of days and we are there; so, since this is the end, why interfere with the inevitable or why bother?
Some voters only pray about how to vote, expecting God to reveal His will to ignorant and lazy people. They actually believe they get answers!
Many people plan to vote third-party because "voting principles" for a candidate that is guaranteed to lose is more noble than "voting for the lesser of two evils" who has a solid chance of beating the greater of two evils.
Regarding "checks and balances": Is it really wise to expect the government to check itself? Remember, the most essential check on government is a wise and informed voter -- not another government official or branch!
I believe that God will hold us accountable for how we vote by asking, "I gave you the freest nation in history; what did you do to preserve it?" Natural consequences also will always hold us and our posterity accountable for unwise voting.
Regarding any of the above voter attitudes, ask yourself one little question: What if you are wrong? What can be the consequences?
Liberty cannot tolerate voters who are wrong. Ever. You may not recognize it in its infancy, but tyranny always relies on those who are wrong.
If you're going to vote, get well educated on the principles of liberty, the character and agenda of the candidates, and any issues that are on the ballot. Then vote wisely and prayerfully. Be sure you are not wrong. If you're unwilling to do your homework before voting, you are being unfair to those of us who do.
It is extremely unfortunate that the election is rigged against third-party candidates. It is extremely unfortunate that the so-called "news" media enforces those unfair rules. It is extremely unfortunate that we even have political parties -- many of the nation's founders opposed them and they unnecessarily foment discord.
Nevertheless, those are the rules of today's politics. Face it, no matter how noble you think your protest vote is, your candidate will not win. If your favorite candidate were viable, he or she would have won the nomination in one of the two major parties and the subsequent convention. And, nobody is paying any attention whatsoever to your protest except for how it will harm the rest of us.
Deep down, you likely know that the refusal to vote for the "lesser of two evils" is a farce. Even your candidate is hardly perfect. And, even he or she would probably be the "lesser of two evils" in the view of a substantial portion of the voters. (Maybe that's why your candidate didn't win the nomination, eh?)
If the viable candidate that comes closest to your principles loses because you and people like you voted for somebody guaranteed to lose, you know whom to blame.
You have two choices: Play games or vote for the viable candidate that comes closest to your principles. Personally, I don't think voting is a proper time to play games.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. — Ronald Reagan (Address to the annual meeting of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, 30 Mar 1961)
Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again. — Ronald Reagan (California Gubernatorial Inauguration Speech 5 Jan 1967)
Freedom is not a self-preserving gift. It has to be earned, and it has to be protected. — Boyd K. Packer (Speeches of the Year, Provo: Brigham Young University, 1971, p 1-7)
Freedom is not only a gift, but a summons to personal responsibility. — Pope Benedict XVI, Apr 2008
Like many Christians, Conservatives, and Constitutionalists (CCC), I am troubled by your past on issues such as gun rights, homosexual marriage, and abortion.
Like most CCCs, I believe in repentance. I am therefore encouraged by your stated conversion on those issues. I am also encouraged by the schooling in the Constitution you received while debating Dr. Ron Paul.
However, I am still troubled by hints of your liberal past. I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, who said that you are "not Mormon enough." He went on to say, “"If his stance on life and his stance on marriage had been consistently what the stance of the Mormon church has been, he would have far less doubts among social conservatives." For example:
• You recently stated that you think the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) should accept homosexuals. I remind you that the US Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech. The BSA has a Constitutionally-protected right to define its own standards for conduct of its members. As an LDS leader, you should know that the LDS Church adopted the BSA program because, when used as intended, it is a valuable tool in achieving Church goals of preparing its young men for the Melchizedek Priesthood, missions, temple marriage, fatherhood, and leadership in the Church and in the community. I agree that homosexuals have a Constitutionally-protected right to form their own associations, including as couples. But, homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have no right to impose their will on any other group nor to expect that anyone else redefine time-proven societal structures or relationships. We CCCs expect you to leave the BSA, the churches, and other non-federal-government entities alone and to tell us that you will do so as president!
• In the past, you have openly supported homosexual marriage. New research has confirmed what a lot of us already new – homosexuality is not only harmful to the spiritual welfare of mankind and contrary to the laws of God, homosexual parenting has been shown to be harmful to children. In fact, the study shows that homosexual marriage is more damaging to children than are broken marriages! Again, I agree that homosexuals have a Constitutionally-protected right to form their own associations, including as couples. But, we CCCs need to know that you understand and agree that healthy heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society and is the best environment in which to raise children and that you will see that it is protected and encouraged.
• Instead of rolling back gun regulation in order to bring gun laws into compliance with the Constitution, you merely say that you don’t support new gun regulation. I remind you that the Second Amendment clearly directs that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What is it about "shall not be infringed" that judges and politicians like you don’t understand? We CCCs expect you, as president, to order an audit of all federal firearm laws, rules, and policies (all non-firearm-related federal laws as well) to identify and correct/rescind all laws that are not in full compliance with the Supreme law of the Land – the Constitution.
• You indicate that you would have signed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) with its anti-Constitution provisions to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or warrant. I urge you to carefully study the Fourth Amendment which clearly demands that, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I hope that you understand that you will never get the Liberal vote. But, you desperately need the CCC vote to win the 2012 presidential election. Senator McCain lost the 2008 election largely because he didn't reach out to the CCCs -- in spite of Governor Palin's efforts. Instead, he campaigned to the Moderates. I urge you to not make the same mistake. Sure, you need votes of Moderates, but failing to calm the concerns of us CCCs is what will cause you to lose the election. There are millions of us, and a lot of us will vote third-party if you don't calm our fear that you won't love and adhere to the Constitution and to God's teachings as much as we do.
As indicated in the above cartoon, at $445 million a year, Big Bird is a drop in the federal-spending bucket. But, it's a symptom of the problem. Contrary to what the cartoonist implies, Romney never said that removing unconstitutional funding of PBS/NPR would balance the budget.
Unfortunately, Romney isn't going far enough. He, like 99% of our politicians, doesn't seem willing to attack every other federal program that violates the limits the Constitution places on politicians' thirst for building federal power by liberally spending taxpayer money.
Spending is so out-of-control that nearly 40% of federal spending is done with borrowed money! If all unconstitutional federal spending were eliminated (including Big Bird), we wouldn't have a $16 trillion national debt or a $1.1 trillion budget deficit for 2012. And, you'd never have to pay a federal income tax again. That's how big the problem is.
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. — Thomas Jefferson
The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife. — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Spencer Roane, 9 Mar 1821
The primary reason for government growth (and the "incumbent advantage") is that we've yet to convince people to refuse to be bribed with their own money. — Boyd K.
Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone. — Frederic Bastiat
We don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs. The Constitution already tells us to do our jobs and to make sure the government is living within its means and making responsible choices....We don't need more studies. We don't need a balanced budget amendment. We simply need to make these tough choices. — Barrack Obama
Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it meant never having to pay the income tax again? — Harry Browne
Efforts have been underway to establish a small-arms treaty since 2003. The Bush II administration consistently opposed the treaty. The Obama administration has been participated in treaty negotiations, hoping to get it adopted. The treaty, if adopted, would severely restrict international trade of small arms (handguns, rifles, shotguns, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, etc). The supposed goal is to keep arms out of the hands of terrorists and citizens who would overthrow their governments. It would not be binding on the US unless ratified by the US Senate. (Warning: The US complies with several treaties that have been rejected by the Senate.)
The treaty allegedly would not affect the current ability to buy the types of guns we can already buy today. However, since the international trade in arms would be severely restricted, Americans probably wouldn't be able to buy foreign-made guns such as the popular Springfield XD, Berrettas, Glocks, Sakos, and many more. I suspect that anticipation of the treaty is why some foreign manufacturers (eg FNH, Walther) now have factories in the US so they can continue to sell at least a few models to Americans if the treaty passes.
The most recent UN talks on a global small-arms treaty collapsed in July, 2012 allegedly because they couldn't get a consensus. The failure to reach consensus most likely resulted from several US senators telling Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama that they would not vote to ratify the treaty. This treaty is dead -- for this year.
Obama's overall record shows he is clearly against individual gun rights. Perhaps his most favorable statement was, "As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it." He doesn't seem to understand or accept the clause, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Regardless of whether the UN Small Arms Treaty is ever adopted, Obama troubles me only a little. Stupid voters (those who vote based on political party, bigotry (religion, skin color, sexual orientation [Christians, racial minorities, and homosexuals are often bigots too]), selfishness (redistribution of the producers' earnings to the moocher class), increase in government power, and/or emotion) concern me much more -- they are the greatest threat to our liberty.
Socialism is government ownership and/or control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc. A key element of Socialism is the denial or restriction of the individual's freedom of choice.
Modern examples of Socialism in the United States: Public schools (including most colleges and universities), many hospitals, and General Motors are all government-owned. When the President of the United States gets to pick who runs a business, you know there's Socialism.
Most of private enterprise is heavily regulated although government doesn't yet play a major role telling businesses exactly what products and services they must provide and how much or how often. Nevertheless, we have gone through periods of government-imposed price controls and of rationing.
Those who say we aren't a Socialist nation should try to provide a product or service without layers of government bureaucratic permission and see what happens. Or, try to buy an incandescent light bulb or a gas-guzzling muscle car or a toilet that works or gasoline that doesn't contain corn or try to board an airliner without government photo ID and the possibility of being groped, or develop private property that is alleged to be home to an alleged endangered species.
There is no authority in the US Constitution for the central government to "control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc." Indeed, the Tenth Amendment prohibits such intervention.
Those who deny we are a socialist nation are oblivious to, or accepting of, how far in that direction we have gone since the Morrill Acts and the introduction of Progressivism the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Unions could hardly be described as supporters of Conservative politicians and ideals. Even the largest union in my labor sector -- the Airline Pilots Association -- supports leftist politicians, and it is probably the most Conservative union in the nation! The SEIU (Service Employees International Union) is arguably the most Leftist of all the unions. This article shows just how far Left the SEIU is.
The SEIU is extremely involved in politics. That union saved Harry Reid's job in his last reelection. They were and are a major force behind Barrack Obama. They played a major role in the recall election against Scott walker in Wisconsin.
Now, consider this: The SEIU primarily represents government employees! The often-SEIU-represented Left has colonized and infested the entire government -- from the staff that sets the agenda for your local city council and school board to the staff that sets the agenda for Congress and the president's Cabinet members. The proportion of Leftists in government employment is substantially out of proportion with the population it presumably serves. Because they are surrounded by a majority of fellow Leftists in the workplace, they have little contact with, and understanding of, people of a different political mindset. And they decry the lack of diversity in the rest of us!
Leftist in government employment, like most of us, have an idea where the nation needs to go, but they are not political appointees and therefore cannot be replaced when voters replace politicians. The perpetual retention of Leftists in civil service like those represented by the SEIU is why the nation, the states, and our local governments continue the relentless march away from individual liberty and individual responsibility -- no matter who is actually in elected office! The SEIU, the NEA (National Education Association), and other public-sector unions are there to protect that march. And, the Leftist and lazy mainstream "news" media is there to protect the Leftist unions by failing to cover rallies such a the one described in this story.
If you like to see your government's employees waving Communist flags, as described in the above-linked story, then you'll also like this story -- and the Leftist public-sector unions that represent them such as the SEIU and the NEA.
It gets worse. It has been reported that the TSA (Transportation Security Agency) is hiring known deviants. I must assume that the TSA does this because the agency needs screeners who don't have any compunction about groping travelers, thereby violating each traveler's Fourth Amendment rights. TSA screeners are likely to be unionized in the near future. I predict that they will be represented by SEIU -- the Marxist subject of this essay.
Over the past several weeks, friends and family have reported hostility from their friends when discussing politics. Although my political discussions with others often expose differences of opinion, I never encounter hostility. I think that this is because, in my line of work and in my leisure time, I am usually surrounded by intelligent, thinking people.
Here is the advice, somewhat amended, that I gave to one young family member on facing hostility in political debate:
Just because someone disagrees with us doesn't mean he or she is hostile toward us. Some people sense hostility or rejection only because they aren't comfortable with their own opinion or they don't feel comfortable with the fact that others might have opinions different from their own. Confidence comes from experience in debate and with fully developing one's own opinions through study, reason, and prayer -- not emotion.
I think that it is even more true that those who truly are are hostile (or defensive -- a form of hostility) in debate also generally lack confidence in their own opinion. Because they consciously or unconsciously know their argument is weak, they rely on emotion to argue their side rather than reason and facts. They generally cannot be taught or convinced. Debate with these people is not worth the bother and it only spoils friendships.
Those who base their arguments on emotion rather than legitimate statistics, facts, and logic will not be convinced by using facts or statistics until they are willing to allow facts to override their emotion. Failing that remote possibility, the only way for the facts- and logic-based party of such an argument to get out of the argument is to simply walk away.
Then, there are those who argue simply because that's what they like to do or it's all they know how to do. The result is the same: wasted effort and ruined friendships.
I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. — George Bernard Shaw
If our political opinions are well researched, based on facts (not emotion), soundly reasoned, and we can explain ourselves clearly, we're all free to have whatever political opinions we like. The reason we have the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press is not to protect pornographers, but to ensure a diversity of political opinion from which we all can learn.
Politcal debate sharpens and clarifies one's own opinions. More imporantly, we learn from each other. Discussing politics with people who agree with us on everything cannot do that. But, debate opponents must have something to add to the debate. Those who resort to hostility or emotion do so primarily because they have nothing to add.
Most importantly, never assume that a difference of political opinion is a personal attack. It's only politics. Never take offense at another person's statements -- accept them in the spirit in which they should have been said, not in the spirit in which you perceived them to have been said.
So, keep on discussing politics with well-read, thinking people. Have boring apolitical friendships with everyone else.
There are over 2.65 million federal government employees in the executive branch -- most of whom do things specifically prohibited to the central government by the US Constitution. That is over 2.3 federal bureaucrats per 100 American households!
The average federal employee compensation is $75,000 -- 45% higher than average per-household private-sector compensation (figures don't include benefits and retirement)! Some 20% of federal civil "servants" make more than $100k per year! The privilege of supporting 2.3 bureaucrats per 100 households costs each american household $1,725 per year! Then, there are over 5.6 additional federal contract and grant jobs per federal civilian employee!
Add to that the estimated cost of $1.75 trillion a year in regulatory burden imposed by and through those bureaucrats -- $15,351 per household or $660,377 per bureaucrat! The typical employer in the private sector shoulders over $10,000 in regulatory-compliance costsper employee -- a very real cause of our current high unemployment rate!
There is no doubt that federal employees think they're essential. But are they really worth that much money and is their economic impact worth it?
Then, there is the cost of all the bureaucrats and contract employees working for the local and state governments and schools. On average, state and local employees are paid about 45% more than workers in the productive sector. Many of those state and local civil "servants" exist only to ensure their agencies comply with federal bureaucratic mandates.
We no longer have, as Abraham Lincoln described it, a "government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people." Our form of government isn't a republic, a democracy, a monarchy, or a dictatorship. It is an aristocratic bureaucracy -- government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, [and] for the bureaucrats.
From time to time, I have made comments on these pages regarding homosexuality and marriage. I occasionally get comments about how intolerant I am. Please let me [hopefully] clarify my opinions on the matter.
My moral values have their roots in my religious upbringing and in the values of my parents. I am satisfied that God views sexual relations outside of marriage as sinful. I am satisfied that Biblical marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the stand that most Bible-based churches (including the LDS Church) have taken. I believe that private organizations such as churches should be free to define their own standards of conduct and membership -- even if that stand is not politically correct. My personal experiences convince me that the people chosen to lead the Church are divinely inspired. How can anyone dare challenge a church to change its divinely-guided stand on anything for their own convenience? Does not doing so defy God himself?
I accept that other people have some form of different lifestyle from mine. Their choices do not change the fact that we are all sons and daughters of God and everyone deserves love and respect at least because of that divine status. In fact, He has commanded us to "love thy neighbour as thyself." That commandment allows no exceptions for characteristics such as sexual identity, race, marital status, ethnicity, politics, economic status, etc.
The fact that a person adheres to the concepts of Biblical marriage and keeping sexual relations within the bonds of marriage should not necessarily be taken as a personal attack on those who have other values. Sadly such differences have resulted in unnecessary but serious conflict between people of differing values.
All that said, I believe that government should not interfere with consenting adults defining their own relationships, including marriage. (I must, however, draw the line at infringing the rights of others. For example, I oppose marriage between adults and children.)
I am opposed to the use of government, including public schools, to impose the will of one group of people on, or indoctrinate, others. Marriage law does exactly that.
I am opposed to governments banning businesses because politicians don't like the religious beliefs and practices of the owner or management.
I understand that some people aren't happy in the traditional man-woman form of marriage. I believe that the choice of companions, including marriage, should be what it traditionally was -- a family and religious event -- not another form of government regulation and taxation.
We all have differing opinions on everything. We all can learn from those differences, if they're not infused with emotion. I hope I can be at least as accepting of your opinions as you are of mine.
Gun buyers (and concealed firearm permit applicants) are already screened for (Source: ATF Form 4473 which must be completed by gun buyers in all 50 States -- followed by an FBI background check to verify the answers to each of these):
Age Criminal history (indictment or conviction) Misdemeanor domestic violence Outstanding warrants Drug/alcohol abuse Mental illness Restraining orders Illegal alien status Certain other non-immigrant alien status Whether the individual has renounced US citizenship (BTW, the much-maligned NRA supports and helped write the above criteria.)
What else do these people want gun buyers to be screened for?
Race? Ethnicity? Political party affiliation? Sexual identity? Marital status? Who he or she voted for in the last election? Religious affiliation? Level of education? Economic status? Occupation? Arbitrary need? Whether the applicant was a Boy Scout? Bank account balance? Whether the applicant smoked a joint or drank a beer 10 years ago? A fortune teller's prediction that the applicant might be do something naughty some day? (BTW, the much-celebrated NRA is unlikely to support any of these criteria.)
This -- and everything else that's wrong with government -- is what happens when people let emotion cloud their judgment and demand the government do something.
The honey bee plays a vital role in putting food in our grocery stores and in producing better and more vegetables and fruit in the family garden. All aware people know about the threats to the honey bee which include bee-specific diseases and parasites, large-scale migratory commercial beekeeping which move those diseases and parasites around the country, and large-scale mono-culture farming which use heavy doses of toxins and genetically-modified crops.
I am convinced that the survival of the honey bee rests on the shoulders of small-scale urban and suburban hobby beekeepers because their bees don't face the level of threat as do commercially-kept bees. But, urban and suburban bees now face a new deadly threat -- local city councils.
Even here in the "Beehive State," cities and home-owners' associations are restricting urban beekeeping. Those restrictions are based on paranoia and emotion -- both stemming from good old-fashioned ignorance. Fellow beekeepers, in some cases, were unaware of the City Council actions and let the restrictions fall in to place. In other cases, beekeepers tried, with little success, to educate their city councils.
Saratoga Springs, in Utah County, seems to be the next likely "Beehive State" county to ban bees. Their city attorney reportedly seems to believe that anything that is not excitedly allowed is by default, prohibited. He should know better. That is something I would expect a third-world dictator to say.
The way our Common-Law-based system works is that we all have a right to do anything that is not explicitly restricted or that infringes the rights of others. In our nation, law does not "allow" us to do anything. It only prohibits whatever is deemed to be bad. Our nation's founders established our government on the concept that we have a God-given ("endowed by their Creator") right to do anything that is not prohibited or which infringes the rights of others. The Saratoga Springs city attorney knows that. He just doesn't care.
Regardless of what the Saratoga Springs city attorney reportedly thinks, if beekeeping -- or any other activity -- is not specifically prohibited, it is legal by default. (A new ordinance would certainly establish that prohibition.) I don't think Saratoga Springs City Council and its attorney can effectively base their case on the current open-ended "No land shall be used or occupied except as specifically permitted in the regulations for the land use zones in which it is located." The question of raising tomatoes by one beekeeper is good example. Does their land-use law specifically allow one to have children? A wife? A car? A goldfish? How far do the dukes and duchesses of Saratoga Springs think their power over the behavior of their subjects goes?
Everyone frets about the damage Congress and the Whitehouse do to the nation. Politicians in both major political parties are culpable -- the Democrats are evil; the Republicans are stupid. It really doesn't matter which of the two parties is in control. But, most of the damage to our nation is happening right in our neighborhoods -- in our City Councils, County Commissions, and local School Boards. And that is where our future State and federal politicians get their political feet wet. That is where we must weed out the ones who threaten our freedom and pocketbooks.
Few people ever attend these local meetings -- and then only when they are specifically affected. By then, it is far too late. Your local politicians have already established substantial momentum against your pocketbook and your liberty. How many Saratoga Springs beekeepers went to a City Council meeting before this issue came up? These meetings are usually so sparsely attended that a frequent attendee really stands out -- even if he only sits and watches. If they see your face in their meetings 3 or 4 times a year, they will immediately recognize you when you eventually stand at the microphone with an opinion. You will have a lot more authority than if you only show up when they finally hit a nerve.
Your city attorney and the other unelected employees in City Hall have a lot of power over what your City Council does. They steer the agenda. They advise the Council on "facts" as they want the City Council to see them. They have a lot more control over the outcome than do even a crowd of citizens they've never seen before.
The fact that few ever attend these meetings equates to open public meetings effectively conducting secret business -- in the open! Don't ever count on your local "news" reporter to tell you everything that the City Council is doing. They won't. They will protect your local politicians in every agenda item the reporter agrees with. Go to your School Board, County Commission, and City Council Meetings even when the items on the agenda don't obviously affect you because in the end, it will -- and it now has for beekeepers.
Beekeepers and gardeners in Saratoga Springs must unite to put beekeepers (or at least people very sympathetic to beekeeping) on the City Council and in the Mayor's office. The current lot must not be allowed to remain.
Utah desperately needs the State Legislature to pass strong legislation that severely restricts the authority of local governments to regulate beekeeping. I am told that Florida has such legislation in place. My legislators here in Iron County know how I feel about this. Do yours? I believe that anyone who hasn't yet written his State Representative and State Senator on this issue is a part of the problem. If you are required to give up your bees, don't blame City Hall. Look in the mirror.
While this commentary focuses on suburban beekeeping, the principles apply to every political attack on our pocketbook and our liberty. We need smarter voters!
It's amusing to see how statistics can be used to deceive. For example:
The creator of the chart somehow wants us to believe that the wasteful and unconstitutional "Obama Stimulus" saved to global economy while the similarly wasteful and unconstitutional "Bush Stimulus" of a few months earlier had nothing to do with a recovery.
The creator also wants us to believe that George W. Bush (Bush II) caused the global financial meltdown. As we near the sunset of Barry Soetoro's first term as US President, Democrats and Soetero himself are fond of blaming everything on Bush II and the Republicans. This chart is a part of that pattern.
Sure, the current financial crisis came to a head at the close of Bush II's (Republican) administration. I agree that many Republican politicians are as stupid as many Democrat politicians are evil. Some of Bush's decisions (eg signing TARP) didn't really help the situation -- at great expense. If government would simply stay our of the way, the economy would take pretty good care of itself.
What the chart creator fails to disclose is that the current financial problem has deep roots. Start by taking a look at the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) generously given to us in 1977 during the Jimmy Carter (Democrat) presidency when Congress was also controlled by, uh, Democrats. That bill required banks issue millions of non-qualifying bad loans to individuals who had no chance of paying their bills. This fundamentally stupid law eventually led to a housing boom based on shoddy loan practices and totally unqualified buyers and to what we have today -- financial disaster.
Before this idiotic bill, there was no such thing as a "sub-prime" loan. The non-qualifying, zero down, 100% financed Adjustable-Rate Mortgages (ARM) were unheard of. These absurd instruments had to be invented by lenders as mechanisms to give deadbeat borrowers trillions in what has turned out to be the taxpayers' money.
To enforce the CRA, banks became shakedown targets of the likes of ACORN (haven of Democrats and corruption) and Jesse Jackson (Democrat), channeling billions of dollars in blackmail payoffs to those groups.
Then in the Clinton era, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got involved, buying up these bad loans from banks, and securitizing them for sale on world markets. The seeds of the global subprime meltdown were planted.
During the Clinton era the Democrat-controlled Congress made changes to the CRA under the leadership of Barney Frank (Democrat) and Chris Dodd (Democrat). With the full approval and encouragement of Frank and Dodd, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac developed more products that allowed "sub-prime" borrowers to qualify for a mortgage with a much lower down payment and interest rate. Lenders felt comfortable giving mortgage loans to these borrowers with poor credit history because the ratings agencies, Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch's gave these mortgages the same ratings as US Treasury notes, backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.
Republican attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie as early as 1999 failed due to Democrat opposition.
In 2003, Alan Greenspan (political affiliation unknown), Chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified that Fannie and Freddie's loose practices could endanger the financial system. About the same time, Bush II (Republican) warned that the housing and lending markets were about to crash. In fact, starting in 2001, Bush II asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie and Freddie because these practices were financially risky for the US economy. Barney Frank (Democrat) said these institutions were fundamentally sound and should be even more aggressive in loaning money to low-income people.
In 2005, John McCain (Republican) supported Senate Bill 109 that would have stopped Fannie Mae and Congressional Democrats from forcing banks into making even more risky loans and investing what the Conservatives knew would eventually be the taxpayer’s money into toxic loans. Chris Dodd (Democrat), the Chairman of the Senate Banking committee, acted in lock step with the other Democrats to kill the bill in committee and continued to encourage Franklin Raines (Democrat) at Fannie Mae to buy up as many of the diseased loans as possible. Barney Frank (Democrat) continued assure that everything was okay.
Pin the tail on the donkey!
The next financial crisis? Student loan defaults. Who's behind it? Yup, Democrats!
In 2008, many voters went into the voting booth armed with knowledge and sound judgement. Others, with slogans such as "hope" and "change" and even thoughts of skin color. Knowledge and sound judgement lost that election, only to get the blame for 30 years of sinister Democrat attempts at forcing the economy to work on "hope," "change," and skin color. Most of those voters will be like Barney Frank -- they will forever deny that they might have made a mistake.
This nation cannot afford voters like that. We need smarter voters!
This is what constitutes journalism today: Conjure up the most hysterical, inflammatory, and graphic wording possible and call it "unbiased news."
Here's some "unbiased news" for the writers of this piece:
1 - Automatic weapons fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger. According to your report, this shooter used a semi-auto -- not automatic -- pistol which is capable of shooting only one round per trigger-pull. Your job is to use words -- try to use them correctly!
2 - A common double-action revolver can "spray" bullets just as rapidly as can a semi-auto pistol (see video below).
3 - Mass shootings tend to occur in so-called "gun-free" zones -- not at shooting ranges or the much-maligned gun shows. Maybe you should write a story about why that is so.
Here are some questions the "reporters" should have asked:
1 - Why did the writers fail to tell us whether this Sikh temple was a so-called "gun-free" zone?
2 - If it was, indeed, off-limits to firearms, why did that status not stop a gun from crossing the threshold?
3 - Why did not the writers report on why none of the victims or their family members in that building were prepared to stop a violent attack?
4 - Why did not the writers report on whether the temple had a reasonable level of security to prevent or stop this attack? (There is absolutely no security at the church building I attend. Unless a world-level official is present, it must be treated as a so-called "gun-free" zone.)
As usual, this news report and its countless echos lacks meaningful depth. But, it does broadcast hysteria. Journalism is dead.
The problem isn't "automatic weapons." It isn't guns at all. It's people. Some people are crazy. They need to be treated. Some people are violent. They need to be locked up.
Everyone is responsible for their own health, well-being, future, past, and safety. It should be obvious that the world is a dangerous place. Take steps to protect yourself and your family at least until the police arrive.
Posts
