Another unnecessary mass shooting

The Washington Post reported on yesterday's mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. The alleged journalists wrote that the now-dead gunman "...sprayed automatic-weapon fire..."

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.

Not carrying a gun is selfish

Not carrying a gun for self-protection is selfish because:

▪ You think the police should drop whatever other case (or donut) they're dealing with and save you instantly
▪ You don't mind depriving your family of your lost income
▪ You don't mind depriving your family of your love
▪ You don't mind depriving your family of your experience
▪ You don't mind depriving your community of your leadership and charity
▪ You don't think your family members are worth defending
▪ You don't mind witnessing the murder or rape of your wife, daughter, sister, or mother
▪ You don't mind witnessing the murder or torture of your husband, son, brother, father
▪ You don't mind your children or spouse witnessing your own rape or murder
▪ You don't mind your family having to pay your hospital bills
▪ You don't mind your family having to pay for your burial
▪ You don't mind inconveniencing all your relatives and friends when they have to rearrange their schedule to attend your funeral
▪ You don't mind society having to feed, clothe, and house your murderer for the rest of his life

All that seems kinda selfish to me.

The opposite of love isn't hate; it's selfishness. See what Packing Pretty has to say about why you should carry a gun. It isn't about selfishness!

If you're a responsible adult, get a gun, learn how to use it, learn the law, get a permit where required, then carry -- everywhere and anytime you're allowed!

If you deal with a business that doesn't think your life is worth defending or doesn't trust you with a gun, stop it -- and tell 'em why!

If your local or state government doesn't think your life is worth defending or doesn't trust you with a gun, elect a better government!

I'm Mormon, and I endorse this message

We desperately need voters who vote based on wholesome values and time-tested principles -- not party affiliation or skin pigment.

Chick-Fil-A vs the government

Chick-Fil-A, a fried chicken restaurant chain, is in the news because the boss supports traditional marriage (one man and one woman). Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy has been taking heat from the Left for some comments he made presumably about homosexual marriage. The odd part is, he didn't actually say anything about homosexual marriage. The comment in question came during a Father's Day interview wherein the emphasis was on fathers. Cathy only stated his beliefs about traditional family and marriage and the growing problem of fatherlessness in our society today -- a very real problem.

Leave it to the "news" media to try to make a story out of nothing.

Chick-fil-A is not being accused of discrimination, either in hiring or in service. The franchise is being targeted by the Left merely to punish the company's owner for his religious and social beliefs. It seems that, in the minds of Liberals (AKA Progressives), the ideal of "diversity and tollerance" means Liberals may believe and do anything they please and throw it in everyone's face while Conservatives are out of bounds if they have differing opinions.

However, the bigger part of this little brouhaha is liberal elected government officials (eg Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and others) deciding what personal opinions a business owner must have on controversial issues -- even when those opinions do not adversely affect his employees or customers! This a government attack on religious beliefs that are incompatible with the Leftist agenda!

Even the ACLU (defender of Liberal extremism) stepped up to tell Chicago to back off. Adam Schwartz, ACLU senior attorney, said, "The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words."

Now, if a consumer doesn't want to do business with Ben & Jerry's because of their pro-homosexual-marriage stand or with Chick-Fil-A because of their pro-traditional-family stand, that is the right of that consumer.

But, do we really want government to ban, censor, or otherwise regulate a legitimate business because the personal opinions of the owners and management have not been politically cleansed?

Government should never be in the business of defining or validating values and conscience. That is the role of family and religion.

This isn't about homosexual or traditional marriage. It's about government control. Just how much power do you want government to have over what you think and do?

But, it's more than that. It's a battle between good and evil. It is some of the nation's most morally bankrupt politicians and their childish followers (see images below) attacking one of my Christian brothers because of his religious beliefs. Why is it that those who clamor the loudest for diversity seem to believe that diversity does not include straight white Christians?

Once again, this case shows that Liberal politicians rely on constituencies that are generally illiterate when it comes to civics and real news. How else can these politicians get away with what they say and do? Only through misinformed and uninformed constituencies can Leftist politicians attain and retain public office. We need smarter voters.






I have written in the past that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business. Throughout almost all of human history, marriage was a family and/or religious event.

Relatively recently, government interjected itself -- initially to regulate interracial marriages. That government intrusion has only harmed marriage and family and fomented an ugly rift between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Government introduction of no-fault divorce has been disastrous for children.

As far as the government should be concerned, a marriage should be viewed as nothing more than a legally-binding private contract made between consenting adults -- not to regulate who people can marry or to give benefits to one marital status over another. The only role government should have is to provide a mechanism whereby the marriage contract can be enforced and to protect the rights of the persons involved (ie property rights and especially the rights of children).

As long as government interjects itself into defining marriage, I defend the right of individuals (ie restaurant owners, you, and me) and organizations such as churches (eg California's Prop 8) and civil rights groups to voice their opinions on that definition. Ultimately, politicians and judges need to learn to respect the voice of the voters and the rights of people.

Marriage has never been the rightful role of government. The same can be said of most of what we demand of government -- even when government officials want to censor a person's religious beliefs as is the case with Chick-Fil-A.

When we all start voting for a lot less government, we'll all be a lot happier.

A walk for the president

What's wrong in America

When I first heard the news of last week's Aurora theater shooting, my first thought was that someone in his circle should have seen warning signs. A promising young man, as he was, simply doesn't drop out of a PhD program after letting his grades drop unless there is something spiritually or emotionally wrong. Nobody saw that? C'mon!

When one looks back at the history of this kind of violence, every case had warning flags that were ignored. Every case!

In the news today, come reports that the Aurora shooter sent at least one message that should have been considered a frightened plea for help and a huge red flag that trouble was brewing. The package sat unopened in a mail room until the tragedy was executed -- over a week! It was addressed to a psychiatrist -- a person trained to help such people in need of help. A grand failure in the helping professions!

His reported demeanor during his first court appearance tells me that he could have been helped -- and stopped -- and he wanted that. Everyone around him let him down. And, today, those people know it.

James Holmes legally bought guns and ammo because his nationally-manded FBI background check revealed no criminal record, drug addiction, history of mental illness, and other prohibiting characteristics. That background check can only look into a buyer's documented past. It cannot read the mind of the buyer nor the minds of those who should know that the buyer is potentially dangerous.

We certainly don't want to live in a society where everyone is chronically suspicious of each other's mental fitness and reporting insignificant things to the authorities. But, if a friend or a professor -- especially the professor to whom he sent his plea for help -- had simply said something like, "Hey, Jim, you seem troubled. Wanna talk about it?", life in Aurora could very well be happier today.

The bottom line is, if you see a coworker, a family member, a friend, or a neighbor having a bad spell. Do or say something! These events are predictable and preventable!

And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? -- Genesis 4:9.

What we're doing isn't working!

As is typical of him, Dr. Sowell has hit the nail squarely on the head. We'd be far better off if either he or Dr. Walter Williams were elected as our first Black president.

Why would any one listen to racist opportunists like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpto when we have a genius with incredible common sense like Dr. Thomas Sowell?

Much of the nation's problems and those of the world's, can be resolved or mitigated by returning to absolute truth (time-tested truth as taught in the Scriptures).

We, as a society, have pushed aside the Word of God in favor of "relative truth" -- what's true for you isn't necessarily true for the other guy. Everyone is making up their own rules as to what is right and wrong. This movement serves to assuage the feelings of guilt of those who refuse to comply with God's absolute truth.

‎For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (Bible, 2 Timothy 4:3, 4)

Many of us also suppress their natural God-given sense of right and wrong through alcohol and drugs (recreational and prescribed), psychological "therapy", and association with others who will tolerate, support, or reinforce their divergence from absolute truth.

We have pushed Mom out of the home and into the workplace while dumping our children off at day-care centers where our children call someone else "Mom." When the kids are home, they spend countless hours with electronic babysitters: TV and video games.

Through taxpayer-funded subsidies, we encourage fatherless families. Far too often, not only does a child not know his father, Mom isn't sure who the father is! Divorce is an expected and seemingly natural part of our enlightened disposable society.

We have shoved God out of the public square and out of our schools. Our children are fed anti-God scientific theory as if it were proven absolute truth. Any teachings remotely resembling anything one might hear in church is forbidden. School children who wear clothing emblazoned with a US flag or a verse fro the Bible is routinely ejected from class. Teachers get fired for simply having a Bible on their desks.

Few graduates of our government schools have read classic literature. Instead, their teachers assign semi-pornographic and anti-morality readings. When churches stand up against such government-recognition/imposition of immorality, they are condemned, picketed, and vandalized.

Christian military chaplains are forbidden the use of the name Jesus!

We kill millions of un-born children every year -- mostly for convenience. Then we wonder why our surviving children grow up to disrespect the life of others.

We perpetually elect and reelect politicians who legalize and even subsidize (with our neighbor's money) all the above relative truth. Then, we call for term limits -- on the other guy's elected representatives who seek a return to absolute truth.

After all of this, we are shocked that all of this rejection of God-given truth results in tragedies such as mass shootings in malls, businesses, schools, churches, theaters, and even military bases. We refuse to blame our personal and societal rejection of God. Instead, we blame an inanimate object or we claim that we don't yet have enough laws or a government that is powerful enough.

Can anyone see that none of this is working for society?

[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. — Samuel Adams (essay in The Public Advertiser, Circa 1749)

This is why we desperately need smarter voters – voters with a moral compass. We need to repent! We must turn away from big government, narcissism, and secularism and return to God and to the traditional family.

Who is Willard Mitt Romney?

Get to know the candidates before you vote!

His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney.

• He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old.
• His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan.
• He was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
• He is Married to Ann Romney since 1969; they five children.
• Education: B.A. from Brigham Young University, J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University.
• Religion: Mormon - The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints.

Working Background:

• After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary.
• After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar exam, but never worked as an attorney.
• In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States .
• In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy.
• He was President and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
• In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he eliminated a $1.5 billion deficit.

Some Interesting Facts about Romney:

• Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in Massachusetts, turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people.
• Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, and many others.
• He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign 1 year.
• He was an unpaid intern in his dad's governor's office for eight years.
• He was an unpaid bishop and stake president of his church for ten years.
• He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years.
• He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years.
• He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity.
• Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most men.
• And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income. Just for comparison purposes, millionaire Joe Biden gave $5,540 or 1.5%.

Mitt Romney is Trustworthy:

• He is unafraid to show us his real birth certificate.
• He is unafraid to show us his high school and college transcripts.
• He is unafraid to show us his social security card.
• He is unafraid to show us his law degree.
• He is unafraid to show us his draft notice.
• He is unafraid to show us his medical records.
• He is unafraid to show us his income tax records.
• He is unafraid to show us he has nothing to hide.

Mitt Romney's background, experience and trustworthiness show him to be a great leader and an excellent citizen for President of the United States.

You may think that Romney may not be the best representative the Republicans could have selected. At least I know what religion he is, and that he won't desecrate the flag, bow down to foreign powers, or practice fiscal irresponsibility. I know he has the ability to turn this financial debacle that the current regime has gotten us into. We won't like all the things necessary to recover from this debt, but someone with Romney's background can do it. But, on the minus side, He never was a "Community Organizer", never took drugs or smoked pot, never got drunk, did not associate with communists or terrorists, nor did he attend a church whose pastor called for God to damn the US.

Note: I verified the above at left-leaning Snopes.

I confess that Romney doesn't elicit the emotional attachment that Obama does. But, are you going to vote based on emotion or reality? I know he's not a minority. But, are you going to vote based on the candidate's character, as suggested by Martin Luther King, Jr., or based on the color of his skin?

I am troubled by some of this past actions on key issues (abortion, homosexual marriage, and gun rights). But, he says he's changes his views on those issues. It's clear that his opponent is still on what i consider to be the wrong side of those issues.

So, Romney is far from my ideal presidential candidate. But, he's the only candidate with a chance to replace one of the only anti-American president we've ever had. Romney will get my lesser-of-two-evils vote. Regardless, we voters must do better pre-vote homework than this:

Happy 4th of July vs Happy Independence Day

Does anyone say, "Merry 25th of December"? No, we say, "Merry Christmas!"

Then, why say "Happy 4th of July" when the name of the holiday is Independence Day?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.... -- Declaration of Independence

Today is an excellent day to read the Declaration of Independence. Then, ask yourself, how many of the grievances against King George III listed therein apply today under our current governments? You'll be surprised.

We need to start asking ourselves some fundamental questions:
1 - Is it time to "alter or abolish" our present form of "government?"
2 - Does it still serve the ends defined in the Declaration of Independence?
3 - Or has it become the enemy of our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

We have an opportunity to "alter or abolish" the central, State, and local governments in November. The nation's founders wisely gave us the opportunity to replace approximately one third of the Senate, the entire House of Representatives, and the entire Administration this year. Similar opportunities abound at the State and local levels.

That's called a revolution -- just what we celebrate our founders did in 1776.

Sadly, history shows we won't take full and appropriate advantage of this opportunity to revolt against our oppressive governments and replace them with better representation.

Doing this will require a mental revolution: A casting off of old prejudices, assumptions, manipulations, and mythologies. Each of us must do the work of causing this revolution in our own minds. Then we must proclaim it to the politicians, the media, our friends, our families, and our neighbors. -- Perry Willis and James Wilson, 4 Jul 2012

The same voters who call for term limits will reelect the same old batch of self-serving statist political elites (thugs). We need smarter voters.

The lesser of two evils

In his blog, a fellow lover of liberty, Jeremy Ashton, argued against voting for "the lesser of two evils" (eg Mitt Romney). I hear that a lot from libertarians.

It's all very nice to be pure in one's political principles. Indeed, I fight for the same principles as does the young and idealistic Ashton. I agree with him that Romney does not measure up in many ways. I doubt Romney even understands the Constitution with any meaningful depth, let alone endorse its underlying principles.

But, I refuse to allow myself to be deluded into believing that if I am politically pure in the polling booth, that somehow the desired outcome will come to pass.

That sort of delusional thinking gave us Bill Clinton -- twice (and anti-Constitution Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg). Purists thought that somehow their candidate, Ross Perot, could win. (Not that Clinton was worse than George Bush #1 or Bob Dole -- I honestly never saw much difference other than in Bush's choice of cabinet nominees and his gift to the nation in the person of Clarence Thomas.) Think about what happened in those two elections: Perot took a few votes from Clinton, but lots of votes from Bush and Dole. Without Perot, we wouldn't be burdened with Breyer and Ginsburg.

Show me a presidential candidate who has a reasonable chance of beating Barrack Obamao and Romney and I will eagerly vote for that person. No, Dr. Ron Paul does not have even a remote chance. The "news" media has, and will, see to that -- and all reasonable people recognize that simple reality. (But, I will say one very significant thing that Dr. Paul accomplished during his 2012 run for the presidency: He taught the Constitution to the other Republican candidates -- including Romney -- and to those of us who tuned into the debates.)

Some Ron-Paul apologists say that if Obama stays in the White House, many on the right will remain energized to keep up the fight. But, the GOP is still likely to be festered with RINOs. Many in the GOP leadership clearly do not represent the GOP mainstream or grassroots; they are statists just like the Democrats. We even put RINOs in office right here in southwestern Utah while solid people on the Right don't always fare as well as they should. (Merely voting for Reagan does not make one a true Republican -- living the Constitution and the Party Platform does. I've always categorized Romney as a RINO at best.)

So, I think Paulbots counting on true Conservatives to "remain energized" to win future elections isn't enough. To win, the Right will also need every RINO plus a meaningful portion of those who voted for obama to realize they made a serious mistake and that free stuff and big government isn't nearly as important as liberty. Having a small, but desperately-needed group refuse to vote for the GOP nominee, such as Dr. Paul and his followers, makes it extremely difficult to steer the nation back toward what they themselves want most.

Ideally, the purpose of the primary election is to select the best possible candidate -- one who is a solid constitutionalist. Pragmatically, it's purpose is also to select the most electable candidate (Bob Dole?!?). This year, the GOP primaries showed that Dr. Paul was not electable. The person deemed most electable was Romney. Considering the alternative -- Obama, we all must be behind Romney, although having a small portion of people voting third-party-for-principle in safe states like Utah might be excused.

Principles are essential. Everyone should have them and prayerfully test them against God's truth. Here, Ron Paul and his followers shine. But sometimes, principles cannot be attained without a little pragmatism. Those who insist on a man who isn't heard for their spokesman (eg Ron Paul), will not be heard.

I agree with Ashton that the voting-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils "logic doesn't even make sense to me as I will not be casting my vote for Obama." But, unless a third-party candidate can pull enough votes away from both major-party candidates to win, Obama (the worst of two evils) will, indeed, win. Like Perot, the perfect candidate Ashton favors will take few votes from Obamao, but take a huge bite out of Romney's tally. (Thanks to Eric Holder, voter fraud will only add to Obamao's tally.)

The stakes are too high to base one's vote on idealism. There is a good possibility of the Republicans holding a majority in at the House. Assuming the Republicans live up to the Republican Party Platform and the Constitution, good things can happen. For example, a substantial portion of Republicans promise a repeal of ObamaCare. Romney has vowed to sign a repeal. What are the chances of Obamao signing such a bill or anything else that restores liberty?

It is very likely that four Supreme Court Justices will die or retire before the end of a second Obamao term. This nation is finished if Obamao gets to nominate their replacements. It will be beyond recovery -- no matter how pure Ashton's political wishes are in the polling booth. Romney may not be perfect, but he's the only person who has a shot of pushing Obamao out and giving the Republic a few more years of life. With Romney in the Whitehouse, we have more time to get Ashton's purist in office -- perhaps Romney's VP (if he measures up).

I'd truly like to see the Republican Party put up candidates who truly embody the Republican Party Platform and the Constitution. But, the world of politics is not as perfect as Ashton seems to wish it to be. We never get a perfect candidate or even one who comes close. So, if we can't have perfection, at least we need to be practical (Merriam-Webster: "Of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something. Likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible.") about the election process. Nothing else works -- not even libertarian wishes.

Legalize small honey producers!

Back in the early '60s a childhood friend and I joined a 4-H beekeeping club in Box Elder County, Utah. Under the guidance of the club advisor, who was an experienced beekeeper, several of us youth in the area learned to care for honey bees and to harvest and sell honey.

At some point, I recall having to get a state beekeeper's license but I don't remember having any other required licensing or regulation to harvest, package, and sell my honey.

A typical bee hive will produce 40-100 pounds of honey above what the bees need for their own needs – far more than a beekeeper and his family can use. Therefore, even a small-scale hobbyist beekeeper must sell, give away, or discard much of that honey. The income from that hobby helped put me through college. I stayed with it until I graduated from college and began a career as an Air Force officer in 1974.

A few months ago, I volunteered to start a 4-H beekeeping club here in Iron County, Utah. In order to give the county's youth the best possible beekeeping experience, I set about gathering the necessary resources and studying all that has changed in beekeeping over the past 40-50 years.

Some of what I have learned is troubling. I've learned about new pests, diseases, pesticides, and genetically-modified (GMO) crops which appear to threaten the survival of the honey bee.

Pollination by the honey bee reportedly is responsible for one-third of the nation's food production. Even urban and suburban homeowners rely on unknown and unseen hobbyist beekeepers in their neighborhoods for pollination of their garden vegetables and fruits. Without honey bee pollination, California's almond crop would be cut by 90%. It is therefore essential that the honey bee be protected.

I am convinced that the backyard hobby beekeeper will be the salvation of the honey bee because large commercial beekeepers must place their hives where they face the intense use of pesticides and GMOs on large mono-culture farms. Certain commercial beekeeping practices necessary for pollination are extremely stressful for the bees. Backyard hives generally don't face that level of danger. Therefore, the hobbyist beekeeper must be protected.

That leads to what I find to be most troubling: The heavy-handed government control over a successful beekeeping hobbyist.

Current law requires each of my 4-H beekeeping youth to have a state Beekeeper's License ($10 for up to 10 hives). If he or she is to sell any of his honey, he or she must also train for, and possess, a Food Handler Permit ($21 here in Iron County) and a state Cottage Food Producer License ($30). Add to that business licenses and business registration with various local and state government entities and a young 4-H beekeeper faces substantial bureaucratic obstacles to a small hobby that will likely result in a small amount of sales. The law even requires a bureaucrat's approval of the label on the bottle! The heavy level of licensing and regulation required of even a non-4-H hobbyist beekeeper who sells part of his harvest is daunting.

I have been advised by an employee of the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food that, "typically, when dealing with an organization like [a 4-H club], where the purpose is more educational and charity based than commercial, we would not require you to be officially registered. Charity bake sales don't register, for example." That statement is comforting, but also troubling. There does not appear to be any statutory or regulatory exemption for "educational and charity based" sale of food products such as honey or even cookies and cupcakes. All we have to go on is a statement by a government employee that the law isn't "typically" enforced in such cases. Does the above statement mean that all sales must be through the club, even though each member is keeping his own hive(s) and processing his own honey? Or, is he or she free to do everything on his own, from tending the hive through selling honey? Additionally, at what volume of sales would a 4-H youth attract the attention of the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food or other regulatory agency and face enforcement action? There is a dangerous level of vagueness that can easily entrap a 9-year-old novice beekeeper and her 63-year-old 4-H adviser. There is no such "we won’t enforce the law" protection for a small-scale non-4-H hobbyist beekeeper who wants to sell a few bottles of surplus honey.

To resolve this dilemma, I urge that, at a minimum, Utah Codes 4-5-9.5 and 4-11 and R70-560 be amended to clearly establish the beekeeper's license as including the privileges and rights of a Cottage Food Producer, Food Handler, and small business as well as the sole license necessary at all state and local levels for the hobbyist production and sale of honey for persons possessing or managing 10 hives or less. To ensure the safety of the product, I also suggest a restriction that juveniles should be monitored by a responsible adult while processing and packaging honey for sale.

This regulatory and licensing relief is essential to make it easy for new beekeepers to get into the hobby and to avoid pushing existing hobbyist beekeepers into a honey black market. It's one of countless areas in which government needs to be pushed back to the limited role that a free and prosperous people needs.

They all add up!

I have never met anyone who doesn't agree that government size and government spending are out of control. Yet, it seems that everyone has a pet government program that they think is an exception to government waste and excess.

Examples of government (yes, even your local government) going beyond it's proper role include:

Art museums
Attracting new businesses with tax breaks funded involuntarily by existing businesses and homeowners
Business loans
Business parks
City beautification projects
Convention centers
Dog parks
Electric service
Equestrian trails
Farmers markets
Farm subsidies
Food subsidies
Food "stamps"
"Free" government schools
Head Start
Health clinics
Homeless shelters and kitchens
Home loans
Hospitals
Hotels
Industrial parks
Internet service
Karate and other martial arts schools
Mass transit
Medicaid
Medicare
Museums
Parks
Phone service
Public radio
Recreation centers
Shopping centers
Social Security
Sports and other recreational programs
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Stadiums for professional sports teams
Student loans
Subsidies for "green" energy
Swimming pools
Theaters
Trash pickup
WIC
Zoos

Am I the only taxpayer who has noticed that the cost of all these pet government projects add up?

Am I the only taxpayer who has noticed that politicians never really disclose the operating and maintenance costs of new facilities such as swimming pools and how those costs typically exceed projected revenues?

Am I the only taxpayer who has noticed that private enterprise simply cannot compete with the deep pockets of a government that has chosen to take over a private-sector function?

Am I the only taxpayer who has noticed that small businesses go away when government establishes or subsidizes competition to those small businesses?

Am I the only taxpayer who has noticed that every one of these pet government projects can be better served by charity and/or by private enterprise in a free market and that when government get involved, costs soar while quality goes down?

Before you ask your local, state, or federal government to establish any of the things listed above or anything else that is not specifically mentioned in the applicable constitution or charter, ask yourself,

Why has not private enterprise filled that need?"

A careful evaluation will show that smart businessmen probably have already done a few things:

1 - They've done a market study and found that the revenue from a $12 million art museum would be a huge money hole or that nobody will buy a car that costs a quarter of a million dollars and will only travel 50 miles without recharging.
2 - They've learned that government is likely to jump in with a taxpayer-subsidized or government-owned competition.
3 - They've considered all the regulations, fees, permits, and taxes involved.

Voters need to start asking themselves, "What is the proper role of government?" The answer is best given in the Declaration of Independence: To secure (protect) our God-given rights. Government's role is not to entertain us nor coddle us. When government goes beyond its proper role, it actually infringes on the rights of the people by taking their property (money) to fund somebody's pet project.

Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it meant never having to pay the income tax again? — Harry Browne

We need smarter voters -- voters who can add up the costs of government!

Who needs a college education?

I have a Master's Degree. Absolutely nothing in my six-year college schooling gave me the skills needed in my chosen careers: military officer and airline pilot. In fact, most college graduates use very little of their college schooling in their post-college occupations. In almost all cases, the graduate's employer teaches its new employees all the skills they need.

Why, then do employers seek people with college degrees? Simply because we're all over-schooled and it's assumed that a person who isn't over-schooled is somehow defective. The possession of a degree is simply used as a discriminator to sort job applicants. Another way to look at it is as education inflation -- because everyone is over-schooled, the value of the schooling has fallen.

Purportedly to protect the public, some occupations require certification of specific skills. Such occupations include educators, engineers, attorneys, and medical personnel. These days, a college education is generally the only path to attain that certification. But, realistically, anyone with reasonable intelligence could be trained to fill any of these occupations through OJT. Yes, even a surgeon or an architect. (One of my great-grandfathers was an attorney -- he passed the bar exam by self-study in 1874.) All college schooling does is establish some standardization and documentation of the training and certification process.

If a college degree signifies anything meaningful, it is to identify persons with at least average intelligence who can set a goal and stick with it. Thus, it is a very expensive new-hire screening tool which saddles the graduate with debt comparable to a home mortgage. Surely there is a screening process that costs less than $100k.

Perhaps the most significant impact government schools from K through graduate school has on their students is more appropriately called indoctrination -- not education. We borrow $100k to pay for that? And, don't get me started on the popular pity-me degrees (eg women's studies, black studies, etc.) that have absolutely no value whatsoever in the real world other than to sow and feed feelings of hate and bitterness in the minds of students who have never learned to reason.

Instead of setting college degrees as a way to identify a person's value in society and the workplace, how about restoring the quality of education we had in grades 1 through 9 100 years ago before the "progressives" took over education? I have a copy of a letter written in 1925 by my paternal grandfather to my grandmother. I think he only had a sixth or seventh grade education. Yet, very few of today's college graduates have the writing skills, including grammar, spelling, and penmanship that Grandpa had. And Grandpa didn't have to borrow $100k to learn those skills.

There is no doubt that everyone needs a good education in order to be a productive citizen. That education must include reading, writing, mathmatics, science, history, civics, economics, and logic. With those skills, people are prepared to teach themselves virtually anything that interests them. In preparation for most occupations, a very good education can be accomplished in less than 9 years in schools patterned after a pre-1900 school. In most cases, everything else in todays schools (including at the college level) is fluff.

All that said, get the training you needs for the field of employment that best fits your interests and abilities and avoid debt in attaining that training. If college doesn't fit that end, avoid it. If one needs a college education because it's the only path to one's chosen career, by all means, do it, but avoid taking on debt to accomplish that goal. Otherwise, we all need to abandon the ideas that a college degree is useful or necessary for most occupations and that a person without a degree is defective or inferior.

"My grandmother wanted me to have an education so she kept me out of school." — Margaret Mead

"I've never let my school interfere with my education." — Mark Twain

The perfect political candidate is a fiction

As mentioned many times in my blog, I measure political candidates against the Constitution and the principles of liberty expressed in our founding documents. I've been voting since 1968 and in all those years, can't think of a single candidate who measured up. But it is always fairly easy to determine which candidate is worse then the other. Some say one should always vote only for the perfect candidate. The perfect candidate is extremely rare. When he runs, he is more rarely in a position to win. So, I've cast many votes where I had to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two (or more) evils. (Why is it that the Left never seems to have to choose between the lesser of two evils?)

Back in 2007-8, I compared all the aspirants to the US presidency against the US Constitution. I found most to be lacking -- some more than others. Near the bottom of my list were Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Somewhere in the middle were Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Barr, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani. My top choices, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, dropped out early in the race.

Unlike millions of American voters. I never cast my vote based on political party affiliation, religion, or race. Like Martin Luther King, Jr. I believe that one should "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." In making my choices, I seek more reliable sources of news and information than labor unions (I am a 25-year union member), Hollywood, Bill Maher or David Letterman monologues, and mainstream "news."

One such source is a radio program by Tom Gresham called GunTalk. The main focus is fairly obvious: guns and gun rights. Its topics often address the Constitution and liberty in general. A recent caller to his show lamented the fact that his preferred candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, is not the Republican front-runner. The caller said he'll sit out this election because his perfect candidate won't be on the ballot. Tom tried to convince the caller that not voting is akin to a vote for the candidate he least likes (in this case, Obama).

Today, I read an article which seems tailor-made for such persons who pout or who consider themselves too pure to vote for the "lesser of two evils."

In part, the article says,

"The Obama campaign knows that one of the reasons President Obama won in 2008 was that from 2004 to 2008 between 3 million and 4 million Republicans decided to stay home and did not vote. As Obama won several states by razor-thin margins and as his campaign knows he is suffering from an "enthusiasm gap" from some of his previous supporters, they are going to need to suppress the Romney vote in 2012."

In 2008, there were several candidates I would have preferred over John McCain. But, McCain was the only person in position to beat Obama. I held my nose and voted for McCain. Millions who should have voted, stayed home or voted for a non-viable candidate from a fringe political party. Those people gave us Obama. They could have overridden the votes of those who voted solely based on skin pigmentation.

This year, we have exactly the same scenario: Although I am Mormon, Mitt Romney, the apparent winner of the GOP presidential race, is far down my list of presidential candidates because of some of his past decisions which are inconsistent with my Mormon faith and my liberty. I will [shudder] hold my nose when I vote for him. Why? Because Romney is the only candidate with a chance of beating Obama and he respects the Constitution much more than does Obama. Romney needs the vote and enthusiastic support of every American who loves liberty. And, we who love liberty need Romney to win. The alternative is far worse and will adversely affect us for decades -- perhaps forever. Obama, his political appointees, and his judicial nominees are accelerating the damage done to the Constitution and to liberty by the misnamed progressive movement (found in varying degrees in both major political parties) over the past 100+ years. That damage must be reversed! Will Romney make that reversal? I don't feel particularly confident. But, I do believe that he will at least slow that damage. He may be, in my opinion, the lesser of two evils; but he is not the worst of two evils.

Another reason informed voters must not stay home: Congress. Those who would vote against Obama would likely also vote against other anti-liberty politicians who are up for reelection this year. The nation needs a pro-Constitution, pro-liberty Congress to hold Romney to his Conservative promises.

The Left (Ecclesiastes 10:2) is counting on the rest of us to stay home and pout as in 2008. The Left also is counting on its constituency to vote based on the same criteria as in 2008 -- anti-Republican comedy skits, race, and party affiliation -- not an understanding of facts. We must disappoint the Left!

Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan

Several months after dropping out of the 2012 presidential race, Herman Cain is still pushing his 9-9-9 tax plan. His plan would eliminate the current individual income tax, corporate income tax, payroll tax, and estate and gift tax and substitute three taxes imposed at a 9 percent rate:

A 9 percent national sales tax,
A 9 percent business flat tax, and
A 9 percent individual flat tax.

Like the so-called "Fair Tax" and the "Flat Tax," Cain's 9-9-9 plan is based on the false premise that we need any individual or business tax at all. Back in 1913, the central government only consumed 2-3% of GDP -- a tiny fraction of what it takes now. The tax code filled 400 pages. (Today, it's 82,000 pages!) The central government got by just fine without any individual tax whatsoever before the 16th Amendment in 1913. Why not now?

‎Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it meant never having to pay the income tax again? — Harry Browne

If we rid ourselves of all the unconstitutional agencies, programs, laws, rules, policies, and judicial rulings, there'd be no need for any individual tax whatsoever -- not even Cain's 9-9-9!

Cain is far too generous with the taxpayer's money!

Term limits

A contender for one of Utah's seats in the US Senate is among those having interest in imposing term limits. I assume that an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary.

Unfortunately, such a limit would eliminate the statesmen that our nation desperately needs. More unfortunately, I can't think of more than a handful of Constitution-respecting statesmen currently in political office. So, I have reluctantly come to believe that term limits are necessary to save the nation and its Constitution. I also suggest a couple of alternatives that might achieve the same objective:

1 - None of the above -- The ballot would list the candidates according to current practice plus a line for "None of the above." If 60% of voters select "None of the Above," all congressmen who have served more than two terms would be removed from office and would be forever banned from serving in local, state, or national political, appointed, or judicial office. A new election would be scheduled to replace those removed from office.

2 - National vote -- Senators and representatives are elected to represent their constituents. But, their actions affect the rights of everyone in the nation -- even the entire world. In far too many cases, voters place more emphasis on the seniority and power of their congressmen than on their character, agenda, and adherence to the Constitution. Long-serving congressmen are virtually unbeatable because they have overwhelming financial backing to win elections. Because powerful congressmen can affect the rights of people who are not their constituents, I propose that congressmen who have served longer than 15 years be placed on a national ballot. A negative vote of 60% of voters nationwide would override the vote of the congressman's constituents and he would be removed from office and would be forever banned from serving in local, state, or national political, appointed, or judicial office.

Of course, I also believe it is imperative that the 17th Amendment be repealed immediately. When most people talk of the checks and balances of the central government, they think about the balance of power between the three branches of the government. The founders also built into the Constitution other checks on government power -- the power of the separate, sovereign States. The 17th Amendment emasculated the founder-intended power of the States to protect individual rights from a tyrannical central government. That power must be restored by rescinding the 17th Amendment.

Senator Orrin Hatch and the Second Amendment

I am a life-long Republican because its party platform matches my values and because that platform is a perfect fit with the US Constitution and the principles and liberties it protects. But, I don't always vote for Republican candidates. Instead, I vote for the candidate most faithful to the US Constitution. I expect all politicians, judges, bureaucrats, and voters to do likewise. I now discuss one of several categories of reasons why I cannot support a particular Republican politician from Utah:

My senior US senator, Orrin Hatch, a Republican, talks the talk when it comes to the Second Amendment. Sometimes, he is good on gun rights. However, I also find that his actions often fall short -- even hostile to gun rights. This inconsistent fidelity to the Constitution makes him unsuitable to serve any longer in the US Senate.

● During negotiations over the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Firearms Owners Protection Act -- designed to protect gun owners from abuses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms -- Hatch sat at the negotiating table next to officials of the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) and argued against the pro-gun positions of Senator Jim McClure.

● Hatch voted in favor of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 -- an unconstitutional law which has caused millions of responsible gun owners to unwittingly violate federal law while doing nothing to stop anyone from shooting up schools.

● Hatch initially supported and voted for the 1994 Clinton Semi-Auto Ban. In 1993, he voted for this bill containing a ban on semi-automatic firearms. That ban, introduced by anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), covered more than 180 types of firearms and any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. To be fair, after heavy pressure from constituents, he voted against the same crime bill only a month later.

● He voted for the unconstitutional 1996 Lautenberg Amendment to impose a lifetime gun ban on people guilty of "domestic misdemeanors" – a term so vague that it could apply to spanking your kid or engaging in a verbal argument. This lifetime ban, in certain cases can even be imposed without a trial by jury. Ex post facto (retroactive) laws such as the Lautenberg amendment are clearly and specifically prohibited by the Constitution -- a fact that does not seem to matter to Hatch. Because of this law -- that Hatch voted for -- a woman who slapped her abusive husband 40 years ago, and who subsequently pled guilty to a misdemeanor under pressure from her husband, is now permanently and automatically prohibited from even touching a firearm even to protect herself from that same abusive husband! This law has unfairly and adversely affected untold numbers police officers and military servicemen and women. If someone commits a crime that is serious enough to justify depriving him or her of a right specifically listed in the US and Utah Constitutions, it surely is serious enough to warrant a felony conviction – not a mere misdemeanor!

● Hatch played a key role in putting anti-gun Clinton judge Margaret Marrow on the federal bench in 1998. Hatch has repeatedly stated that the President should have whomever he wants -- rejecting the Founders' intent that the Constitution requires Senate confirmation of political appointees -- including federal judges -- to protect the Constitution from anti-liberty presidents, judges, and other appointees.

● In 1998, he introduced S.10, one of the most dangerous gun control bills in a generation. This bill would have treated gun owners like organized crime figures, increasing existing penalties for unintentional technical violations of federal gun laws. Originally, S.10 would have punished gun dealers with 20 years in prison for committing just two paperwork "mistakes" such as misspelling or abbreviating a word! (The ATF implemented that concept through bureaucratic policy.) Horrified dealers admitted this provision alone would preemptively force them out of business. Fortunately, the bill died.

● In the wake of the 1999 Columbine shooting, Hatch voted for unconstitutional amendments which would have effectively banned gun shows, made it more difficult to keep a loaded gun in the home for self-defense, and codified the unconstitutional Bush-era semi-auto import ban.

● In 1999, Hatch was the author of the juvenile crime bill passed by the US Senate. Among other things, it requires trigger locks on all new handguns, unnecessarily driving up costs for gun owners who already have safe means of storing firearms. That law imposed unnecessarily tougher restrictions on sales at gun shows. It banned the import of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

● In 1999, Hatch said, "I support extending the Youth Handgun Safety Act to semi-automatic rifles." His Young Adult Gun Ban would have punish young adults for the mere possession of so-called semi-automatic "assault weapons" or magazines holding over 10 rounds. The provision would, under most circumstances, even punish law-abiding youth who are simply target shooting with their parents!

● Hatch not only voted to confirm many anti-gun, anti-Constitution justices to the US Supreme Court and other federal courts, he even recommended anti-gun Ruth Bader Ginsburg to President Clinton in 2003!

● In 2004, Hatch voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. To be fair, in 2005, he voted in favor of The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act -- after heavy pressure from his constituents.

● In 2007, Hatch supported the Veterans Disarmament Act (AKA NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007) which strips the Second Amendment rights of honorably discharged veterans who seek professional counseling following traumatic wartime experiences.

● While pro-gun Senators worked to repeal the unconstitutional gun ban in national parks, Hatch voted against repeal before voting for it in 2009 -- after heavy constituent pressure.

● In 2009, Hatch voted in favor of anti-Constitution regulatory "czar" Cass Sunstein, who favors a ban on hunting and who would grant animals legal protections in court.

● Despite my repeated pleas and those of many other Utahns, Hatch voted in 2009 to confirm anti-Constitution Eric Holder as Attorney General. Holder was the Assistant Attorney General under the also notoriously anti-gun Attorney General Janet Reno, who presided over the Ruby Ridge and Waco debacles. In addition to being mired in the Fast and Furious (Gun Walker) scandal, Holder was the point man on gun control for President Bill Clinton and is a vocal supporter of banning many semiautomatic firearms.

● In 2011, Hatch opposed an amendment offered by Senator Rand Paul to exempt gun buyer information from the Obama administration’s virtually unlimited ability to seize "business records" under the reauthorization of post-9/11 legislation.

● I have repeatedly urged Hatch to introduce legislation to rescind laws which unconstitutionally establish gun-free zones such as schools zones, federal buildings, and postal property where little or no security is provided to compensate for the disarmament of responsible citizens. To date, he has failed to lead in restoring any constitutionally-protected gun right which has been infringed by to legislation, regulation, policy, or judicial decision.

Senator Hatch spent far too much time as best buddies forever with Senator Ted Kennedy. It is far past time for him to retire.

In the past, I have written to the NRA (National Rifle Association), NRA-ILA (NRA Institute for Legislative Action), and NRA-PVF (NRA Political Victory Fund) to protest NRA support of anti-Constitution and inconsistent gun-rights politicians such as Senator Harry Reid.

I urge the NRA, NRA-ILA, and NRA-PVF to reject any and all thought of supporting Senator Orrin Hatch for reelection in any manner whatsoever -- including endorsements or campaign contributions.

Thankfully, Orrin Hatch is facing a serious challenge in this year’s election. Former Utah State Senator Dan Liljenquist is a stalwart pro-gun constitutionalist who understands the dangers of compromising with the likes of President Obama. Liljenquist needs and deserves the full support of the NRA.

Join the National Rifle Association!

Whose turn is it?

"It's Mitt’s time," says Ann Romney. "It's our turn now."

Wrong! It's nobody's turn!

The Whitehouse, Congress, or the federal judiciary do not belong to Republicans or Democrats, to Gun Owners or Hoplophobes, to Whites or Blacks, to Men or Women, to Rich or Poor, to Unions or Capitalists, to Liberals or Conservatives, to Evangelists or Mormons, to Earthlings or Martians. So, it's not about whose turn it is!

All that matters is that we voters elect competent and honest representative leaders who follow the Constitution -- leaders of whom even people who voted for the other guy can be proud. We voters haven't done a very good job of that for a very long time. Instead, we persist in electing politicians who are bitterly partisan of whom nobody can be proud.

We need smarter voters -- and many of the voters reading this are a part of the problem because they think its all about whose turn it is. That's why they vote primarily based on the "D" or the "R" next to the candidate's name or, worse, vote base on the pigment in the candidate's skin instead of his character, ability, and agenda!

Instead, let's all vote for leadership, character, morality, liberty, and limited government as prescribed in the Constitution!

Protect the right of Americans to travel with a gun

When Congress passed the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) in 1986, one of the key provisions of the bill was intended to protect the rights of gun owners to legally transport their firearms between locations where they are legally allowed to possess them. This law is found at 18 USC § 926A.

Unfortunately, some local jurisdictions have chosen to ignore federal law and the courts have upheld these infringements on Second Amendment rights. Gun owners have had serious problems lawfully travelling with their firearms in two states in particular: New York (especially New York City) and New Jersey. Rather than recognize the intention of Congress to protect the rights of Americans travelling with legally owned firearms, these jurisdictions have used overly restrictive state licensing laws to harass and prosecute travelers. These anti-gun laws and policies do nothing to curb real crime. Instead, they criminalize normal behavior which is inherently not threatening or dangerous.

The refusal of the authorities in some jurisdictions to recognize federal law and the failure of the courts to enforce the provisions of FOPA, makes additional legislation necessary. HR.4269 would amend this provision to ensure it has the effect Congress intended.

HR.4269 would:
▪ Expand the protections afforded travelers to include "staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment, and any other activity incidental" to the trip.
▪ Put the burden of proof clearly on the state to show that a traveler did not meet the requirements of the law, rather than allow travelers to be arrested and forced to raise the law as an affirmative defense.
▪ Make clear that transportation of both firearms and ammunition is federally protected.
▪ Make clear that the right to transport firearms is judicially enforceable as a federal civil right, with attorney's fees available to victorious plaintiffs in civil suits, as well as to defendants who prevail in criminal cases.

Congress is currently working on a national Right-to-Carry Reciprocity bill which will achieve goals entirely different from HR.4269. HR4269 is intended only to provide real legal protection for people transporting cased and unloaded guns while travelling.

I urge Congress and the President to implement HR.4269 immediately.

Join the National Rifle Association!

Understanding those whose opinions differ from yours

First, take time to read this good article.

I'm already familiar with the Haidt study which found that "liberals just aren't as good as conservatives and libertarians at understanding how their opponents think."

I find that the hardest part of discussing politics or religion with liberals is that they generally can't or won't use reason or facts. Their arguments are rarely based on sound science or history. Instead, they're ruled by feelings and their concept that truth is relative -- not absolute. Conservatives (and moderates to a lesser extent), on the other hand, are better rooted in time-tested traditional attitudes and values and are cautious about change -- especially change for the mere sake of feeling good.

Because conservatives and moderates also have feelings, they can, as the Haidt study shows, understand and even be moved by the liberal perspective. But, because liberals generally are based primarily in feelings, they generally can't fathom the fact-based reasoning of conservatives.