Talent on loan from Ronald Reagan

Pull up, America! A constitutional amendment is long overdue

2010-07-26T19:48:00.018-06:00

by David Alvord

We've all seen a movie like this: The hero rushes towards a cockpit only to find that the airplane's pilots have parachuted-out minutes ago. The plane is plummeting towards the ground as the altimeter is spinning like a fan. The protagonist looks stunned as he decides what to do next. He puts his hands on the wheel while the camera zooms in on his face as beads of sweat form. "PULL UP ON THE CONTROLS" we all scream, (at least in our minds).

America is facing a similar fiscal crisis. But too few are demanding that we "pull up"... and make the needed correction.

This year, Americans will pay 2.1 trillion dollars in taxes. Yet, in spite of this gargantuan income, the federal government will spend 3.6 trillion taxpayer dollars causing the deficit to reach 1.4 trillion dollars! This is money that is going to be spent by the government in excess of the taxes collected.

Put another way, the government is spending 170% of what it is able to bring in. That is like an individual making 50K and spending 80K that same year. Obamacare has yet to be paid for, and retiring baby boomers start their entry into social security and medicare next year. We can expect federal expenses will only increase as an aging population begins to collect their entitlements.

The CBO's latest report said:

Unless policymakers restrain the growth of spending, increase revenues significantly as a share of GDP, or adopt some combination of those two approaches, growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels.

(Pull up! Pull up! Is anyone listening?)

"...a growing level of federal debt would also increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget..." (CBO 7/27/2010)

The Democrats argue that taxes must be raised, but offer little by way of spending decreases. Worse, their party seems drunk on spending at the time. And so, it begs the question: Can any amount of taxing satisfy the spending habits of Washington? Could the economy afford this added burden? Will businesses continue to hire if they are so heavily taxed? The answer is obvious: No! And there is no amount of taxing could ever cover the spend-lust of those currently in power. Besides, many economists will argue (correctly, I believe) that an increased tax burden would actually hurt the overall economy and that the IRS would, in fact, collect less money. The increase in taxation without a decrease in spending can only result in an increased deficit.

Where is the cap? Where is the limit? When do we say enough is enough?

An unknown author once noted:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result: the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

Can our democracy exist as a permanent form of government? Will we watch from afar as the fiscal solvency of the country plummets towards the ground? Are we naive enough to think that a collapse wouldn't effect us individually. Can the republic be saved?

I believe it can, if we make the necessary changes NOW. Unlike a pure democracy, we are a Constitutionally-based democratic Republic. Our constitution has the power to keep us together and to keep us fiscally sane if we will use the tool the founders left for us: the power to amend the constitution.

The solution to our fiscal problems isn't complicated. Simply put, the federal government needs to live within its means. Like any family or individual that has to prioritize its expenditures and abide by a budget, so must our government prioritize its expenditures and stay within a budget. But there must be force. The budget must have teeth.

Therefore, I propose a Fixed Budget Constitutional Amendment. This Amendment would go beyond that of a "balanced-budget amendment". The problem with a balanced-budget amendment is that if congress wants to spend more, all they have to do is raise taxes...just as long as the budget is balanced. No. We can do better than that. And frankly, we must do better than that.

The Fixed Budget Constitutional Amendment (hereafter FBCA) would mandate that congress shall not spend more than the National Fixed Budget for the year. This NFB would be figured by taking the national GDP of the previous year and then multiplying that by the percent we Americans feel should go towards federal government expenditures. I think 10% of the GDP should be more than adequate to cover what we really need our government to do for us. Maybe the actual percent could be debated and voted on. But once agreed upon, it would be the law of the land.

The FBCA could be worded as follows:

"Congress shall not authorize spending beyond that of the National Fixed Budget. The National Fixed Budget shall be no more than ten percent of the previous year's national Gross Domestic Product as certified by independent auditors. Taxes shall not be collected in excess of the National Fixed Budget."

By the way, 10% of the GDP would be 1.4 Trillion dollars. This is more than adequate to protect our nation from foreign invaders, as well as pay for infrastructure and welfare. But that is the point. Congress will have to argue and get the consent of the people about how to spend the 1.4 trillion. Maybe the people want NASA. Maybe the people want military. Maybe they want free pop vending machines. But whatever congress allocates money towards, it must keep in mind that it can spend no more than the fixed amount. As the population grows, and as the economy grows, the amount of dollars government can spend will increase, but not the percent, that remains fixed, unless another amendment comes along. If a threat to our security arises, other programs must be curtailed to pay for it. 1.4 trillion could buy a lot of bombs and F22s, even if we can't build new roads or pay for NPR for a couple of years. If we stay out of debt, we'll have the economy to support another war should our enemies dare threaten our freedom!

It is imperative that we, the people, take bold action to insure that our form of government remains. Our freedom has been a bright light and unique gift in all the history of the world. Our children deserve to receive an inheritance of freedom, not an inheritance of debt and oppression. Now is the time to "pull up on the wheel" by employing fiscal restraint and wise leadership. I believe that God has given us the Constitution for this very reason and that only a constitutional amendment has the power to enforce the fiscal sanity that Washington so dreadfully lacks.

Romneycare vs. Obamacare

2010-04-12T08:54:00.007-06:00

by David Alvord

Let's face it. Healthcare is a problem that needed to be dealt with...and still does need to be dealt with. The costs of healthcare are increasing way beyond that of inflation. Not only is Medicare going bankrupt, but there are abuses and waste that are spiraling out of control.

Romney is just the kind of guy who could take all of the data for such an important and complicated problem and make the necessary changes. That's what he did in the private sector. He and his team would look at large businesses and analyze the data to see where there was waste or duplication. He would in essence, turn them around and make them profitable. That's also what Romney did in Massachusetts, he balanced the State's budget in a time of crisis. I believe that he can do the same for America.

The irony is that Obamacare looks a lot like Romneycare.

Or does it? One of my favorite sites, Evangelicals for Mitt, names just four of the important distinctions between the two plans:

see link here

In summary the major distinctions they cite are:

1. RomneyCare was uniquely designed for Massachusetts; ObamaCare is a one-size-fits-all imposition on all states, regardless of their economic condition.

2. RomneyCare was enacted only after Mitt balanced the state budget.

3. Mitt created bipartisan consensus while Obama rammed his reform down our throats and against the majority opinion of the American people.

4. RomneyCare is constitutional; ObamaCare may very well prove to be an unconstitutional abuse of federal power.

These are important distinctions, but I feel there are two more major differences between the two plans:

5. The democrats plan is designed, in the long run, to destroy private health insurance altogether. When Romney was in office, he brought insurance companies to the table and wrote a bill that they agreed to. Romney never had designs to bring to pass Universal and government run healthcare. This is a guy who is passionate about the private sector and understands the simple truth that the private sector will always outperform the government-run. It is only years later, and in a weakened economy, that the State of Massachusetts has placed price controls and regulated the premiums that now threaten private healthcare insurance in Massachusetts. The democrats have taken over and now so-called Romneycare is morphing into Obamacare. This is a very, very important distinction.

6. Romney was not in a position to fix the major problems that exist in healthcare. If you want to understand why Romneycare and Obamacare do share some similarities, is due to the fact that as Governor, Romney had to deal with the federal mandates that already existed. Romney couldn't address Medicare or Medicaid. Those were Federally run. Romney couldn't address lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. When it came to controlling the rising costs of healthcare, Romney's hands were tied.

The President, on the other hand, had the opportunity to address rising costs by allowing competition between state lines. Obama could have included Tort reform. Obama could have reformed Medicare. Obama could have looked at Medicaid. Instead, Obama has created a trillion dollar program that does nothing to keep the prices down. If the federal government were a business, they'd be bankrupt. But the feds have the ultimate business plan: Pay up or go to jail!

I am convinced that if Romney had the mandate to make Federal Healthcare reform, the result would have been very different from the so-called Romneycare that exists in Massachusetts today.

It is disingenuous to peg the problems in Massachusetts on Mitt Romney. Each of have filed our 2009 taxes. We each have to budget within those parameters. Does that mean we are responsible for the US tax code? Does that mean we are each responsible for the deficits and national debt? Likewise, Romney had to operate in the environment imposed by the Feds. His was a State where 90% already had healthcare. There was a small percentage that were slipping through the cracks that he helped to get coverage, that's all. He wasn't "reforming healthcare". He didn't have the power. You really can't honestly compare the two.

The Republicans now need to tackle healthcare. We need to do more than to simply repeal the law. We need a better law of our own. We need to address the major sources of price inflation, namely, tort reform, entitlement spending, waste, and competition. We need to get a bill that will address Medicare and control the costs. Our country is going to go bankrupt and this new law only speeds that process along. We can't blame Obama solely for the problems in our budget, but the recently passed law has done nothing but fan the flames and add fuel to the fire. Government needs to be regulated and cut. Not the other way around. Romney understands this and I believe that it is a mistake for him to be judged unfairly.

I invite each of you to obtain a copy of Romney's book "No Apology". I have read the book, and frankly, couldn't put it down. In it, you will discover the real Mitt Romney and will, like me, eagerly anticipate his presidency.

Brown wins and healthcare fails; this is why conservatives must stay united.

2010-02-07T13:52:00.013-07:00

by David Alvord

His campaign promises were pretty simple. He said he would vote against the Democrat's healthcare bill. He said that he was upset by giving terrorists rights normally reserved for citizens of the U.S. He reminded the voters that it wasn't "Ted Kennedy's seat", but rather, the "people's seat". He ran as "one of the people" and had the slogan: "I'm Scott Brown, and I drive a truck." This infuriated the left, and so they sent the "anointed one" to turn things around. Obama poked fun at his truck, but was not able to turn the tide. So, Brown wins by a significant margin, especially significant in liberal Massachusetts.

The rest is now history. Healthcare dies, and within days, Nancy Pelosi announced that she did not have the votes to pass the Senate's bill.

Those of us who are in favor of freedom and liberty all gave a collective sigh of relief. It was a victory for the American people who wish to limit the size of government. Because of Brown, a Bill that was unpopular with the American people, did not pass.

Were Ron Paul supporters happy? Scott Brown did not mention the elimination of the Fed. Brown did not demand a return to the gold standard. He didn't run on a promise to legalize drugs, or get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Brown didn't promise to legalize prostitution. There was no mention of "empire building" or the devaluation of currency. In so many ways, according to Paul supporters, Brown simply did not "get it". Yet, his election did accomplish the defeat of a bill that would have accelerated the growth of government power and the devaluation of our currency. I would think that in spite of his weaknesses, Paul's supporters should have been very happy about his election. I am not sure that they were, but if so, I would love to read your comments.

So, what if Ron Paul had been on the ballot? What if he was there as a third-party candidate? Who would Paul supporters vote for? Keep in mind, this is liberal Massachusetts. I think Paul could have gotten no more than five to seven percent of the vote, if that. But that is a dangerous five percent because it could have meant a Coakley victory.

There are so many opinions out there. I am sure that those that voted for Brown did not agree with 100% of what he stood for. Yet, they voted for the candidate that best represented their values. They also wanted to vote "no" to the advancement of big government. The truth is, there were many Republicans who voted for him who did not agree with everything he stood for. He is a "socially liberal" Republican, after all.

I understand that Americans get tired of party politics. I wish we had a better system. I would be happy to get rid of party politics. I just ask one thing: Democrats, you go first! The left would love for us to splinter into groups and form a third or a fourth party. Then they with their big one party, swoop in and win every election.

They have managed to unite unions, educators, Hollywood, welfare recipients, pro-choicers, anti-military, socialists, communists, and so on. The democratic party has enough to get 40% of the vote, or more, in almost every State. The conservatives have no choice but to unite under one tent: the Republican party. Ronald Reagan understood this point very well.

I don't disagree with much of what Ron Paul and his supporters espouse. I welcome them to the debate in forming public opinion and educating the people. There can be debate within the party. I welcome that. It makes us better, but when it is time to vote, we need to be united. We need to remember that the left is united against us. The main problem I see is that the Ron Paul people don't vote with their party in the end. They "write in" Mr. Paul. And where is Ron Paul when the primary is over? Is his supporting the Republican nominee? No, he is silent.

This next time around, I encourage Ron Paul supporters, and all conservatives, to do all they can to give their candidate voice in the primaries. Do all you can to let his or her message be heard. But if he is not nominated to represent the party, please support the person who best represents your values and ideas of good governance. Thankfully, the people of Massachusetts did just that.

Does taxing in order to give to the poor = charity?

2009-09-23T20:02:00.007-06:00

by David Alvord

Often times during the recent healthcare debate I hear the argument that by supporting government healthcare we are being our "brother's keeper". The pitch by President Obama is that we who are more fortunate should take care of those who are less fortunate and do so in the form of giving government more of our money so that they can go ahead and give it to programs to assist the poor. I find that while the stated intentions of liberal democrats are good, they have to assume that people are not already their brother's keepers, and that they have to be made to be their brother's keepers. A cynical view indeed!

I have to ask the question: If I am interested in being my brother's keeper (I am BTW), why don't I go and help my brother personally? Where is my heart when money is taken and then given by no choice of my own?

I would like to make the case that tax-collecting and wealth redistribution does not a charity make.

First, government administering charity is less efficient than when families and individuals give to the poor.

So, let's say that my literal brother has some kind of catastrophe that disables him or sets him back and then I, as his brother, choose to be his keeper and I help support him until he gets back on his feet. Let's say that he needs $1000 to get through the next month. What would be the best way to get him that $1000? I could give it to him directly, and he gets exactly what I gave: One thousand dollars. Or, I could give $1000 to a government agency and they could hire people to: 1) take my money 2) issue a receipt 3) issue tax forms for a tax write-off 4) enforce if I don't pay them 5) interview my brother to determine his eligibility, and then finally, 6) issue a check to my brother. How much of the thousand bucks that I gave to the government would be left over to finally get to my brother? I think that it is optimistic to say that he would get even $700 of the $1000 that I gave to Uncle Sam.

What a boring job that would be to be employed at the bureaucracy that administers these kinds of programs. They are not producing anything. They are not serving anyone directly. They are like robots in some kind of weird cubicle and they are squeezing away the money that could have gone directly to the poor. I wouldn't want to work there, would you?

Second, when taxes are collected and then given to the poor, no love or bond is formed between the giver and the receiver. No love, no charity.

Who loves to pay taxes? Not even liberals love to pay their taxes. I always ask my liberal friends that if they think the Bush tax cuts were wrong, why don't they pay at the old higher rate. Why not make a donation to the US Treasury? It is safe to say that when you pay your taxes, or see your taxes withheld by your employer, no tears of joy are shed. No hearts are softened. No one runs out of their homes like Scrooge on Christmas morning shouting "Merry Christmas to all" or "God bless us every one". No miracle takes place when money is exacted from us, with the threat hanging over our heads of going to jail if we don't pay every last cent.

The giver is not truly giving, instead the money is taken.

What about those who receive money from the government? Is there a feeling of gratitude towards those who gave that money? Do they even know who gave them the money? Or is the government some gigantic unfeeling bank in the sky? Are they grateful for the support, or do they wish they could be given more? I am sure that they never complain. I am sure that they try to repay the debt incurred to society once they are back on their feet. I am sure that they pay extra taxes so that other poor people can enjoy the fruits of their labors.

When the money is disbursed by the government, is there a greater feeling of brotherhood, patriotism, and goodwill? Not likely.

Third, Government programs do not foster accountability.

Hypothetically, if my brother needed help, and I gave him $1000, then he started smoking pot and watching TV all day, I would get after him and threaten to cut off support. As his brother, I would have a pretty good fix on his abilities and if he was truly living up to his potential or not. I also give fast offerings to the Bishop of my church. He then serves, without pay, and gives 100% of the donated money to the needy. He can act as a judge and have the individuals set goals, and serve in the welfare facilities while they receive assistance. But sadly, the government gives with little accountability. Entire generations of people have been able to live off the government with no end in sight because there is no accountability.

Fourth, the dole threatens the characters of our citizens.

America proved that when money is left in the hands of the people, it fosters innovation, technology and hard work.

This story was shared by an LDS apostle, Marion G. Romney:

“In our friendly neighbor city of St. Augustine great flocks of sea gulls are starving amid plenty. Fishing is still good, but the gulls don’t know how to fish. For generations they have depended on the shrimp fleet to toss them scraps from the nets. Now the fleet has moved. …

“The shrimpers had created a Welfare State for the … sea gulls. The big birds never bothered to learn how to fish for themselves and they never taught their children to fish. Instead they led their little ones to the shrimp nets.

“Now the sea gulls, the fine free birds that almost symbolize liberty itself, are starving to death because they gave in to the ‘something for nothing’ lure! They sacrificed their independence for a handout.

“A lot of people are like that, too. They see nothing wrong in picking delectable scraps from the tax nets of the U.S. Government’s ‘shrimp fleet.’ But what will happen when the Government runs out of goods? What about our children of generations to come?

“Let’s not be gullible gulls. We … must preserve our talents of self-sufficiency, our genius for creating things for ourselves, our sense of thrift and our true love of independence.”

Fifth, too much power is trusted to the heads of State.

When a few govern the many, and have control over so much of the money, the leaders end up with too much power. A benevolent leader may be succeeded by a tyrant. Who is to stop them from abusing that power? History has proven that men are too easily corrupted when they get too much power. The pride of a leader may view competing loyalties as a threat. I can almost hear a wicked king say: "What? Your God doesn't allow you to work on Sundays? That is a threat to the productivity of the nation. Therefore, for the good of the country, I will prohibit any religion that interferes with the productivity for the rest of us." Eventually, all religion will be seen as a competing force, with competing loyalties.

Am I being paranoid? I have history as my witness that these things have happened several times throughout the ages.

Let us choose to be charitable in the truest sense of the word. Let us be our brother's keepers! But let us not surrender our liberty and self-reliance to a government hand. For we must remember that the hand that giveth, can also taketh away. I would rather put my trust in God than my trust in man. As good a guy as Obama is, I cannot trust him, or his successors as much as I can trust in my God! Our founders have made us free. They had faith that we would take care of each other, and we have created the most prosperous nation the world has ever seen! Let us remember that wonderful heritage and once again put our faith in God and in each other. Not fearing the worst in ourselves, but hoping for the best in all of our natures. We can take care of each other without a strong hand to force us to do good. We will be happier and more free because of that faith.

Huckabee, you've found your calling!

2009-08-02T23:15:00.002-06:00

by David Alvord

I have watched Huckabee's self-titled show on Fox News several times. I have to say, it is actually very heart-warming! I can't believe I am finding myself liking the man who was the hardest on my candidate, Mitt Romney. Just a few months ago, I hated this guy!

I think Huckabee has found his calling. He is a very likeable and heart-warming speaker. He has tremendous skill with timing and eye-contact. He seems so down to earth and presents conservative views with grace and a sense of peace. Contrast that to Glenn Beck's approach, "the sky is falling". I also like Glenn, but after watching him I feel scared. After watching Huck, I feel warm and fuzzy. And then he gets up and plays the bass-guitar for the grand finale! Tonight's show had a song "If ten percent is good enough for Jesus, why isn't it enough for Uncle Sam?". That's good stuff.

During the Republican primaries, Huckabee was the perfect anti-Romney. And Romney was the perfect anti-Huckabee. Where Romney lacked in personality, the Huckster was dripping with it. Where Huckabee lacked in intelligence, Romney answered with his dual-Harvard degree brains. Romney's religion was in the minority, while Huckabee's was in the majority. Huckabee had style while Romney had substance.

I give it as my opinion that those two, Romney and Huckabee, cancelled each other out and left McCain with the victory. Of course, there was Fred Thompson and Guiliani. But those guys didn't show up until after the first states had been decided. The momentum had been established. Huck stayed in the race just long enough to make sure McCain won. He was the Romney antidote and the best friend to the McCain campaign.

Then along came Obama who, as a candidate, had more style than McCain, Huckabee, and Romney combined. The cult of personality had arrived. McCain knew he needed style and so he threw a hail-mary and put in the unvetted and inexperienced Palin. The election became style vs. style...and Obama had boat-loads more of it. America confused the presidential race for "American Idol" and gave it to the ticket they liked the most and who "had the best story", instead of voting for the ticket that was most qualified. McCain had a hard time getting conservative passion...because he had been a "maverick". Well, conservatives held their noses (me included) and voted for McCain, but some stayed home. And a few wrote in Ralph Paul...I mean Ron Nader...and viola, we have President Obama.

I really think that Huck has found his calling. He is the perfect conservative/christain talk-show host. But he dosn't have the brains to pull-off being president with the current problems we face.

I give it as my opinion that if the economy isn't better in the next two years, America will choose substance over style. So PLEASE PLEASE, Huck, STAY ON FOXNEWS! I'll keep watching...

Commodity-backed currency? It's time to give Mr. Paul the old "heave-ho"!

2009-07-11T21:02:00.017-06:00

by David L. Alvord DDS

In the conservative movement, there is one small voice that is making a deafening sound. In one hand, he summons the Constitution and the founding-fathers and speaks of revolution. In the other, he accepts money for his district that is "unconstitutional" but "would be stupid not to take". Ron Paul takes conservatives, warns them of impending doom, and then converts them to a cause that is impossible to achieve politically and impractical to carry out in the real world. His followers find themselves isolated from both the Republican and the Democratic parties. The effect of this isolation is a neutralization of a portion of conservative voting power. The so called "Ron Paul Revolution" may turn out to be a revolution alright, a revolution for the opposition. In elections that are decided by only a few votes, 2-3% may be all that is needed to win.

If Ron Paul were just an idealist, a man "too conservative" for the Republican Party, I'd say: "leave him alone"..."let him speak". But in many cases Ron Paul is just dead wrong.

To name just a few:

1. Ron Paul supports the legalization of illicit drugs.

2. Ron Paul supports the legalization of prostitution.

3. Ron Paul would shrink spending on the military.

4. Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve.

5. Ron Paul demands a return to a commodity-backed currency.

When considering the above list, how many main-stream conservatives would go along with this?

I actually take issue with all five of these on the list, but let me just take issue with #5: a commodity-backed currency. I would like to make an example of #5.

Historically, coins were minted that had intrinsic worth. Gold and silver coins were used to trade with because they were made of gold and silver. People liked gold. People liked silver. That's why they were of worth, because people considered gold and silver to be valuable. They were metals that didn't rust easily, and looked pretty...you could make are cool ring out of gold, or a cool belt-buckle. So people used them to trade for other things of worth like food or labor.

But why was gold worth so much? Because people considered it valuable. There could be some aliens come down from "planet gold" and they may think gold is worthless. They could be a lot more impressed with the metal iron that "tarnishes before me very eyes". (Why aliens speak "pirate"...I am not sure).

Nowadays, gold is still valuable. I suppose we still like to make jewelry and some stuff out of gold. And it is scarce. But my point is that gold is valuable because we think it's valuable. There could be a mountain range discovered somewhere made of solid-gold. This would undoubtedly drive the price of gold down to the price of iron or nickel.

And gold also has the risk of waning in popularity with mankind. It's already not as hot as it once was. You used to say such and such is worth "it's weight in gold". Nowadays, I'd rather have something worth it's weight in microchips. Pound for pound, microchips are worth more than gold, diamonds, platinum...or anything. And microchips are made of silicon: one of the most abundant substances on earth.

As mankind advances, we are becoming less and less concerned with where a substance appears on the periodic table of the elements, and more concerned with how those atoms are organized, and what they can do for us.

Mankind's idea of value is evolving. And when it comes down to it, things only have worth because we think they do. We have faith that they have worth...and we can and will change our minds about that. Once, we thought shiny metal was worth a lot. Later, we thought green paper was worth a lot. Maybe in the future it will be numbers in a computer that have value. And maybe, just maybe, someday we'll realize that it wasn't the gold or silver or green paper that we cherish, but rather the memories we made stealing that gold, silver, and green paper...(ahh, me thinks me eyes are a tear'n up).

America once had a big vault with a bunch of gold in it. (I think it was for show). Anyway, the concept was that you could go to the vault with some dollars and say, "I'd like my gold please". It was what Ron Paul thought was so wonderful; gold-backed money. America was still stuck in pirate-mentality. "Ahoy, me hearties, shiver me timbers, avast is me pieces of eight, me treasure...so batten down the hatches ye swabs...don't try to hornswaggle me out of me booty ye landlubber".

But fear not, me hearties! You can still take money and trade it for gold! Uncle Sam doesn't run that vault...but someone will trade you dollars for gold...so what's the big deal?

Ron Paul wants a commodity-based currency. Really? What commodity would you suggest? Gold? I suppose there is still some ancestors of the pirates that still think gold is worth a lot. Okay, so for now, gold is still worth quite a bit and for now is quite scarce. So let's say that you have x amount of Gold sitting somewhere...backing our paper dollars. How much gold do you need? Well, you would need a trillion dollars worth of gold to back our trillion paper dollars that are currently in circulation. Now let me ask you a question; How much of your total money do you have in paper currency? Right now, less than 1% of my money is in paper form (greenback). The rest is "in the bank". That seems to hold true for the rest of the country. In fact, as of 2005, there is 10 trillion dollars in total circulation. If we are going to back our money, we had better back all of it. I want more than 1% of it backed by pirate-booty...I mean gold.

So just picture it: TEN TRILLION in gold sitting there collecting dust. (There's not enough gold in the WORLD...see link and then "disadvantages") Wouldn't that cost us ten trillion dollars to get all that gold? Actually it would cost us quite a bit more to mine all that gold and then melt it and store it somewhere. What would the vault cost to build? Where would we stash all that gold Ron? Couldn't a terrorist hit that vault with a nuke someday? What is RADIOACTIVE GOLD worth?

So what other commodities are there? Well, I mentioned microchips. Maybe we could back our dollars against microchips! Oh, yeah, but wait....they keep coming out with better ones... so in a few years our TEN TRILLION dollars worth of microchips would be worth TEN CENTS...not too many people still use the commadore 64.

How about wheat? Everyone's got to eat right? Okay, so 10 trillion dollars worth of wheat would be a great way to back our dollars. But what about all those weevils? They'll get in there and ruin our country. And then worse, what if some jerk bio-engineer comes out with a new stalk of wheat that has a kernel ten times the size of the old one? Wouldn't that reduce the value of our wheat by ten times?

Maybe Hashish (weed) could be the standard. But then again, if it becomes legal, it'll be worthless. DUDE!

There is no commodity that is timeless in its value. Maybe that's why Jesus said: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where theives break through and steal."

So Mr. Paul: What commodity will we base our currency on? A treasure on earth? Or perhaps it is in God in whom we can trust.

I am far more concerned that America keep the commandments of God, than whether we back our money.

This is just one example of Ron Paul, sounding constitutional, sounding founding-fatherish...but proposing something completely impractical and politically impossible.

And so, my conservative friends that support Ron Paul, will you continue to isolate yourself and your vote from the rest of the conservative movement? Will you continue to listen to the man who would have you back your currency with "pirate booty"? Or, will you unite with the rest of the conservatives? If so, it's time to give Ron Paul the old "heave-ho"!

At what point will we acknowledge that Obama's economic strategy has failed?

2009-07-02T10:26:00.006-06:00

The stimulus hasn't stimulated. Most members of congress weren't even given a chance to read the package because they were told it was so urgent. Turns out, that stimulus money won't hit the economy for several years. It was not stimulative, it just grew government. The consequences of that move have not been felt yet, but they will be negative and they will eventually be felt.

When will the country acknowledge that Obama's policies have failed to fix the economy? His folks will never admit failure, so don't wait for them to admit anything. They're stuck on blaming Bush for everything bad that has or will ever happen. I'm sure that when Obama stubs his toes at night, that it's Bush's fault for putting the bed too close to the dresser.

What will it take? When will the American people give Obama the blame for this economy? I believe that so many of the citizens of our country are so enamored by Barack's persona that they are cutting him a ton of slack. So much slack that the dow will have to hit a low of 5000 and unemployment at 15% for the majority of people to realize that they have elected the wrong guy.

Taxing energy and expanding health care will only make things worse.

My only hope is that the pain occurs before 2012 so we can get back onto the road to recovery...instead of having a wasted decade and a great depression part II.

Star Trek Opens Tonight!

2009-05-07T10:14:00.002-06:00

Romney calls Obama a Timid Advocate of Freedom

2009-04-21T15:27:00.006-06:00

A Timid Advocate of Freedom
President Obama has failed his early foreign-policy tests.

by Mitt Romney

At last week’s Summit of the Americas, President Obama acquiesced to a 50-minute attack on America as terroristic, expansionist, and interventionist from Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. His response to Ortega’s denunciation of our effort to free Cuba from Castro’s dictatorship was that he shouldn’t be blamed “for things that happened when I was three months old.” Blamed? Hundreds of men, including Americans, bravely fought and died for Cuba’s freedom, heeding the call from newly elected president John F. Kennedy. But last week, even as American soldiers sacrificed blood in Afghanistan and Iraq to defend liberty, President Obama shrank from defending liberty here in the Americas.

In his first press interview as president, he confessed to Arabic television that America had “dictated” to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has fought to free other nations from dictators. And in Strasbourg, the president further claimed that America has “showed arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” London’s Daily Telegraph observed that President Obama “went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.” Of course, it was not just the Daily Telegraph that was listening: People around the world who yearn for freedom, who count on America’s resolve and support, heard him as well. He was heard in China, in Tibet, in Sudan, in Burma, and, yes, in Cuba.

The words spoken by the leader of the free world can expand the frontiers of freedom or shrink them. When Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” a surge of confidence rose that would ultimately breach the bounds of the evil empire. It was the same confidence that had been ignited decades earlier when John F. Kennedy declared to a people surrounded by Communism that they were not alone. “We are all Berliners,” he said, because “freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s confident commitment, spoken as he led us into the war that would free millions in Europe, inspired not only Americans but freedom fighters around the globe: “The American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.” Such words of solidarity, of confidence, and of unwavering conviction that America is indeed “the last best hope on earth” are what freedom’s friends would have expected to hear from our president when our nation was slandered. Instead he offered silence, smiles, and a handshake.

Even more troubling than what he has or has not said is what he has not done. Kim Jong Il launched a long-range missile on the very day President Obama addressed the world about the peril of nuclear proliferation. As one of the world’s most oppressive and tyrannical regimes is on the brink of securing the “game changing” capability to reach American shores with a nuclear weapon, the president shrinks from action: no seizure of North Korean funds, no severance of banking access, no blockade.

Not to be outdone by Kim Jong Il, President Ahmadinejad announced that his nation has successfully mastered every step necessary to enrich uranium, violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed. So, like North Korea, Iran will have changed the world’s equation for peace and security: It will be capable of devastating Europe and America, and of annihilating Israel. And as with North Korea, the Obama administration chooses inaction — no new severe sanctions, no hint of military options. Ahmadinejad can act with confidence that the forceful options once on our proverbial table have been shelved.

Vice President Biden was right that the new president would be tested early in his administration. What the world learned was not good news for freedom and democracy. The leader of the free world has been a timid advocate of freedom at best. And bold action to blunt the advances of tyrants has been wholly lacking. We are still very early in the Obama years — the president will have ample opportunity to defend America and freedom, and to deter nuclear brinkmanship. I am hoping for change.

— Mitt Romney, formerly the governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

This article appeared in the National Review Online on April 21, 2009

Communism, Capitalism, and Consecrationism

2009-03-30T12:00:00.009-06:00

by David Alvord

There may be some reading this post who may be familiar with the first two "isms", but are unfamiliar with the term "Consecrationism". Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will readily know what this word refers to. However, since this is a public site I will briefly describe what members of our faith are referring to when we talk of "living the Law of Consecration". Some church members mistakenly confuse Consecration with Communism. It is my intent to differentiate Consecration from Communism and Socialism. I am not writing for the Church officially, and so I alone am responsible for what is written.

Twice a year, members of our faith gather to hear from our leaders in a meeting we call "General Conference". Some twenty-thousand gather to the conference center, and millions of other Church members watch at Chapels or in their homes. Carved into the wood of the pulpit can be seen a representation of beehives. These beehives are a symbolic representation of the latter-day Saint concept of consecration. To understand consecration, you must first understand how a beehive works.

My intent is not to give a rich scientific description of beehives in this article. For the curious, Wikipedia does a wonderful job of describing the behavior of honey bees.

Instead, allow me to describe the economy of the hive in simple terms. The bees freely work towards the collective good of the colony. The most common bees are the sterile worker bees. It is interesting to note that not all worker bees perform the same task. Some stay at home to maintain the temperature of the hive. Others are sent out to collect pollen that is later used to make food for the young. The rest go out and suck up nectar in their little proboscis (beak) and return to make either comb (wax) or honey.

The drones are the males who simply have a reproductive role, and when compared to the workers aren't all that productive. The drones contribute little by way of symbolism exept perhaps to give us something to warn against. In an LDS hymn, the lyrics warn: "the world has no need for a drone". Nature, of course, has a need for the drone (someone's gotta fertilize those eggs)...but isn't it interesting that the worker bees overwhelmingly outnumber the drones. Whether you think it's evolution or creation, the point is: The economy of the hive would suffer should the drones start to approach the workers in number.

At the center of all of this work is the Queen Bee and there's only one per colony. She is the mother of all of the bees in the hive. She can lay up to 2000 eggs per day! Obviously the queen makes a significant contribution: she gives all of them life.

In summary, what are the attributes of the honey beehive?

1. The bees have the attributes that enable them to work towards the good of the collective.
2. The bees are not coerced, but are free to fly out and free to return.
3. The bees bless the entire planet by pollinating plants.
4. The bees have stingers, which are only used for protection.
5. The bees create something extremely sweet and good: honey.

So, what do Church members mean when we use the word "consecrate"? Sometimes it is used to describe a sacrifice or a singular event. A returned missionary may rightly say he consecrated two years of his life to the church. Most active members consecrate ten percent of their incomes to the church according to the Biblical law of Tithing (“Tithe” means tenth).

But what of the so called "Law of Consecration" or "Consecrationism"? This ism is understood by latter-day Saints to be the ideal system of government. Is it possible that humans could achieve this ideal? Unlike the honey bee, we humans are not born with the characteristics to have a consecrated form of government. Yet, we do believe that as children of God, we have the potential to develop those characteristics. After all, anciently it was achieved by Enoch and his followers at the city known as Zion.

"Zion is Zion because of the character, attributes, and faithfulness of her citizens." (Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - link to article) The word "Consecration" has a strong connection to the word Zion in our vernacular. Zion is a city that successfully practices the law of consecration.

Think, dear reader, for a moment about the advantages of such a form of government:

1. There are none that are unemployed.
2. There are none that are poor.
3. There is no need for money, the counting of money, the taxing of money, the protection of money, or the keeping of money.
4. There is no unnecessary duplication of goods.
5. There are laws but few lawyers.
6. There is no need for enforcement of work or enforcement of conscience.
7. The people are free. Zion may have walls to keep the wicked out, but there are no walls to keep her citizens in.
8. The people enjoy extreme prosperity.

It is important to note that consecrationism or “Zionism” is a free society, and must be free, for the Doctrine and Covenants warns that… “no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.” (D&C 134:2)

Communism is a jealous form of government.

Unlike Zionism, Communism wishes to take properties that are desirable in consecration and pervert them and exploit them. Communism cares little about the character of her citizens but would rather use fear and coercion to inspire action. The citizens of Communism are not free; walls are built to keep them in. Her workers are threatened at gunpoint. Religion is outlawed. Communist leaders do not contribute to the good of the society, but rather exploit the workers and rule with an iron fist. The people under communist rule are not prepared with the attributes necessary to create the ideal society, nor are they motivated to become such a people. Since few are prepared for collectivism, the productive part of society supports the unproductive part of society.

The communist leader wishes to reap the rewards of collectivism without giving the people liberty and the free exercise of conscience. The people are not inspired to serve the cause of their country. Tyranny depresses the human spirit and can create dissensions and insurgency. Large portions of the GDP are dedicated to the enforcement of her laws and the maintenance of order. Few inventions or innovations come out of communist societies and the Tyrants lust over the wealth of their free neighbors.

The beekeeper who does not let his bees fly freely will soon find that he gets no honey.

Capitalism is the most equitable system of government in a mixed society.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary” said James Madison. To this statement I would agree, except to say that there is a system of government in heaven. Jesus refers to this fact when he says “Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven”. But I agree with Mr. Madison’s sentiment; that governments are necessary to rule when we have a mixed society. By mixed, I mean that we have a mixture of people with differing degrees of morality and differing degrees of productivity. At present in the world, and in America, some are productive while others are unproductive. Some are lawful while others are unlawful. Some are generous while others are thieves.

So to borrow again from James Madison, let me declare another statement: If all men were Saints, Consecrationism would be possible.

But, sadly, all men are not Saints. And although, it is much less efficient that a Zion society, Capitalism is the most equitable and produces the best results in a group of people as diverse as we currently are.

In a Capitalist society, you get what you work for. You can ascend to great heights or descend to great depths. Every man or woman earns the wages of the life they lead. While luck and timing play some part, most people are paid in proportion to the contributions they have made to society.

But Capitalism has waste. As much as 8% of the U.S. GDP is dedicated to the financial sector. Almost a tenth of our wealth, as a country, is used to keep money working and flowing. Individually, we each spend countless hours in paying bills, investing, banking, and paying taxes. We argue, dicker, and spend great amounts of resources in protecting our hard-earned money. I own a small business, and about a third of my resources go into making sure I am billing and collecting.

The collection of taxes is another place where waste is prevalent. Instead of the government only doing that what it is commissioned to do, by necessity, a lot of time and resources are spent in collecting taxes.

Wasted time, greed, and corruption are the side-effects of this form of government. We pay a price to have this form of government.

Another article could be written about the costs of an immoral society, but to mention a few: prisons, police, and social workers all become necessary in a society where many lack morals.

But the most redeeming feature of Capitalism is one that is shared by Zionism: her people are free! A free people have a tendency to create more, produce more, and invent more than an oppressed people. When the unproductive segment of society feels the consequences of not being productive, they more often join the ranks of the productive.

Capitalism is not the ultimate form of government, but the best form in a mixed society.

Zionism is the greatest form of government, but who can be trusted to be at the head of such power?

If the wrong leader were at the head of Zionism, the system could easily be exploited and look like Communism. There must be one who is worthy to be at the head of such an ideal organization. The leader of this form of government must be benevolent and be committed to the freedom of her citizens. The leader must be incorruptible and pure.

Such a leader does exist:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

Like the queen that has given life to all members of the hive, the one worthy to rule in this form of government is He who has given his life for all of us. By doing so, He has given each of us life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints, we are gathering together the Saints to build Zion, the New Jerusalem, in preparation for the return of the Savior.

We believe the church to be the woman spoken of in the Book of Revelations (Rev 12) that is great with child (pregnant). The child or “man child” spoken of is the political kingdom of God; the same kingdom that Christ will come to rule and reign. When at last, Jesus’ prayer that the father’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven will be answered.

Until He, whose right it is to reign, comes, we must support Freedom and the Constitution and oppose Communism or Socialism (Communism-lite).

Let there be no confusion. Zionism or Consecrationism look a lot different from Communism and Socialism. Christ would make us free, Communism would do the opposite. Capitalism and Democracy are inferior to the form of government that will be upon the shoulder of Christ, but will offer the best hope of freedom and happiness until we are prepared to receive a more excellent form of government.

Until that day, the Constitution must be supported:

And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.” (D&C 101:77–80.)

No constitution on earth has endured longer than this one. We seek, and usually find, the answers to today’s questions in this document of yesterday. It was and is a miracle. Both Washington and Madison referred to it as such. It is an inspired document written under the guidance of the Lord. James Madison, commonly called the father of the Constitution, recognized this inspiration and gave the credit to “the guardianship and guidance of the Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising republic.” (Petersen, Prologue, p. 95.)

We believe that the Constitution was brought about by God to ensure a nation where liberty could abound and where his gospel could flourish. Joseph Smith said, “The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard—it is founded in the wisdom of God—it is a heavenly banner.”
-Elder Tanner, Ensign ,1976, May (If They Will But Serve the God of the Land)

Stimulate the economy, not the government.

2009-02-06T14:11:00.005-07:00

Reasons to be optimistic as Obama builds his gigantic socialist empire!

2009-02-02T13:59:00.008-07:00

There are reasons to be optimistic, even in the face of Obama's attempt to make us more like Europe and his actions to build a Gigantic Socialist Empire.

Well, there are reasons for me to be optimistic anyway. If you are reading this, and like me, you are in your 30s and have acquired some student loan debt, you may be in luck.

First, there is the threat of inflation. This threat is very real because Washington is printing money to pay for the so-called stimulus. Inflation is not good for any country, and certainly not good for America. The results from inflation are devastating for people who have money saved, but could benefit those of us in debt. Especially those of us who are in smart debt. By "smart-debt", I mean debt that is acquired at a low interest rate...i.e. student loans and home loans. In reality, no debt is truly smart...because you are held captive by your creditors. Our current prophets have warned us about getting into debt. But, for those of us who have borrowed for our educations, and for our housing (and have acquired a fixed low interest rate...like me), inflation may be our best friend. We want money to become as cheap as possible. Our wages will rise and the debt will become relatively small. That is, assuming we keep our jobs and Obama doesn't totally wreck the economy.

My hope is that the country won't let him go too far in his socialist agenda. The fact is, if Obama acts like Jimmy Carter Part-Two (or as Rush Limbaugh now refers to Carter as "Obama-One"), then we can surely expect inflation to come in the next few years. By the way, who will be "Reagan Part-Two"? I think a nice fellow named Romney would fit the bill nicely. But back to inflation...

Take a look at the following video:

Glenn Beck predicts inflation

Second, the stock market is finally starting to be at it's actual value. Many economists have argued that the value of stocks has been inflated for years. Now, the numbers are going to become much more realistic. Companies stock will only go up in price when they show real value and post profits. How does this affect us positively? Well, again, it only helps those of us in our 20s and 30s...but at least now we can start to invest in the stock market and expect reasonable growth over the next twenty years. If we had invested in the previous years, we would have taken a bath like the rest of the people wanting to retire. Those folks who were just a bit older than the baby-boom generation got a huge gift these past few decades, especially those who sold their stock or have died by now.

So, for those of you in this tight demographic, you have reason to be optimistic. The main threats that our generation will face to our prosperity is the huge government Ponzi scheme known as Social Security and Medicare. If we face an economy where three or four workers are supporting one retired person, we will really start to look like Europe. This threat is very real and will require that those of us who are producing and working, to organize ourselves and vote in blocs. Only then will we have the ability to keep the AARP at bay. You just watch, the retired people of our parents generation are going to want every penny they think they have coming to them. The AARP will morph into a fire-breathing dragon and will consume our generation's prosperity. It will be our calling to put an end to this perpetual Ponzi-scheme once and for all! It is my opinion that the retired people of our parent's generation should get dollar for dollar exactly what they put into SS whether or not those dollars are worth much in the years they want to collect them! We simply cannot afford to pay them a dividend that adjusts for inflation and collected interest! Unless we start cranking out the baby-making, the strain will be too heavy for those of us left to work in the economy.

More on this later...I almost feel it is my calling to help the work move along to stop these out-dated government entitlements! But for now, at least there are a few reasons for our generation to be optimistic.

Closing GITMO? Where to move those inmates?

2009-01-22T15:44:00.003-07:00

Today, President Obama issued an order to close GITMO; I think this is a bad idea.

The whole idea of GITMO is that there are dangerous people i.e. war criminals who, if escaped, would run amok all over the island of Cuba instead of the US. Now, Obama thinks that if he closes a prison that the US will be forgiven for protecting Israel and not worshiping Allah. Remember, the people who hate America think we are the "Great Satan". They will not feel any better that their fellow Jihadists are in New Jersey or California. This is a flawed plan and will cost the American people money.

So, where to move these terrorists? No State in it's right mind will want the detention center. I have an idea: If Obama doesn't trust our troops with the prisoners in Cuba, lets move them to the White House. That way he can keep an eye on them himself. Only at the White House will Obama have the ability to insure that no torture is going on. Also, there is all that security at the WH ...it's perfect. Then, if a terrorist does escape, or there is an attempt to get them out by someone here in the US, Obama is only endangering his own family...not the families of the Americans whose City will be unlucky enough to get the New GITMO.

Obama's speech made me miss Clinton

2009-01-20T20:50:00.012-07:00

I actually own the book, The inaugural addresses of the Presidents. And, I must say that Obama's speech today was the worst inaugural address of them all.

Let us compare the closing line in Obama's speech to the closing line of Thomas Jefferson's second address:

TJ: I shall need, therefore, all the indulgence which I have heretofore experienced from my constituents; the want of it will certainly not lessen with increasing years. I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

vs.

BA: America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Again, I must say that we shouldn't do anything for our children's children (children should not be having sex!) Also, there is no mention of a "journey" in any of the speech until the end. So what is he talking about when he says "this journey"? He is trying to sound so transcendent that he forgets what imagery he is working with. Go ahead, read the speech! He doesn't follow a theme nor does he really seem to convey a vision of our place in history. He acknowledges our troubles, but offers little by way of encouragement. What a downer! Unlike Jefferson, he offers no hope of happiness and prosperity. The most that we can hope for (ironic isn't it?) is that maybe we can "safely deliver freedom" to a future generation. Why? He doesn't even extol the virtues of freedom in his speech. He certainly doesn't think the Iraqi's need it! He left me feeling like I had the wind knocked out of me. Where is his faith in liberal policy? The world should be sunshine and lollipops by the time he's through with it!

At least when Bill Clinton was lying to me, I felt inspired. That is, until I rubbed my eyes and saw through it all. When Clinton would speak, he would stand there grinning like only a southerner could, and make us all feel warm inside. And I admit that it was entertaining to see someone so skillfully package BS.

So, therein lies my disappointment. I expected BS, but I wanted it packaged skillfully. At least it was fun to watch.

So, I am feeling a very confusing emotion: for the first time in my life, I miss Bill Clinton!

Drive a Hummer...for your Children's Children!

2009-01-03T12:46:00.005-07:00

First of all, I don't think we should be doing anything for our children's children...because I don't think children should be having sex.

But if you don't take that statement too literally...and you are talking about the next two generations of people then I have some advice for us all.

Drive a Hummer. Well, it doesn't have to be a Hummer. It can be any inefficeint vehicle. Why? Haven't you heard the destruction the CO2 emissions are causing? Global Climate change! Greenhouse gasses!

So, here's my solution. There is only a fixed amount of oil left in the world. So, we need to burn it all up as fast as possible. Only then will alternative fuels be competative in the marketplace. Once we burn up all the fossil fuels, we will be forced to go green...and we'll have the paradise on earth that Al Gore is promising.

One of the ways we can burn all the oil up quicker is to have LOTS OF BABIES and give them all hummers to help in the cause. (when they are old enough to drive...we'll lower the driving age to 14) .Our generation may not be able to burn up all the fuel ourselves...so it is up to our children to burn up the remaining fuel so that our children's children can have a clean world to live in.

We may not be able to burn all of it up...but if we burn enough of it, it will cause whatever remains to be really expensive. It's all supply and demand economics.

But if you think about it, there's no way we're going to stop the Chinese from burning gas...or the rest of the world...so we might as well bite the bullet and try to burn it up as fast as we can.

Paradise might be closer than we think.

Compassionate Conservatism

2009-01-03T12:29:00.003-07:00

by David Alvord

In a few days we will say Goodbye to President Bush. His presidency will probably be remembered for the Iraq war. Obama's decision to extend the service of Robert Gates is encouraging to me and is a signal that America won't be rushing out of Iraq anytime soon. This must be very frustrating to the anti-war left.

When all things are considered, President Bush delivered on what he campaigned for. He promised to be a "compassionate conservative". When we conservatives first heard the word "compassionate", we worried that Bush was referring to a compassionate government. We worried because, as conservatives, the only compassion we want from the government is to be left alone. Had Bush not heard Reagan say "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"? Probably not. President Bush's low approval ratings are due to the fact that conservatives didn't like his "government compassion" and liberals didn't like the war.

Conservatism is Compassion.

I hope I speak for most conservatives when I say that we are for human compassion. We simply believe that families, churches, and communities are better at taking care of the poor than the government is. We believe that if the money is left in our hands, we will be more responsible with that money than the government will be. When a family gives financial support to one of it's own, there is accountability involved. The family knows if any individual is abusing the money and will make adjustments accordingly. The family will also encourage eventual self-reliance. Does anyone really think that a social worker knows as much (or cares as much) as the family does?

Lower taxes will put more money in the hands of the people, the churches, and the charities.

There may be some reading this who worry that there are individuals who may not belong to a family who can offer any assistance. This is where churches, charities, and communities can step in. Ironically, one of the reasons families may not be able to take care of their own is due to the high tax rate we currently have. I believe that if you let Americans keep more of their own money, families will be empowered to take care of their own. And, the American people will be much more judicious with that allocation than any government agency could ever be.

When families have the money, it encourages a society to higher moral standards.

For example, imagine a young college student who is considering experimenting with drugs and who is also considering getting body piercing, and tattoos. If Mom and Dad are paying for college, or helping etc, there will be the immediate thought that they may cut him off from that funding if he/she does not live up to the standards of the family. But if Uncle Sam/Uncle Obama is paying for school there will no immediate consequences. In fact, that college student will hit "decline"on his cell phone when Mom calls. After all, who needs Mom and Dad when the government is paying for things? What about the consequences of drugs and tattoos? Governments can run ads on TV warning of the consequences of drug abuse to a young person's body...but we are talking about people who feel pretty immortal. And the consideration of being able to earn a living? Won't those tattoos and piercings put a young person at a disadvantage? No worries...the government will be there for the young person if they hit "rock bottom". They won't have to go to Mom and Dad and hear their lectures, take out their tongue rings and get a job. No.... Pell grants, food stamps, public housing will all be there for them if they really screw up. The result? A decline in the character and morals of the society.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son.

In the Parable, a son departs from moral living and spends his birthright on riotous living. When he comes to himself, he returns to his father who compassionately receives him. One of the essential elements of the parable is that the Son hit bottom. There was no government program to bail him out. He basically had no choice but to return and repent. The prodigal had to return to moral living in his father's house. The son is better off in his father's house than if he had continued in riotous living while being supported by some unfeeling sponsor. The father had the means to kill the fatted calf and put a ring on his son's finger because he was not overtaxed. The whole story doesn't work out if we get the wealth redistribution Obama is talking about.

I heard Obama say that if one of his daughters makes a mistake (gets pregnant), he doesn't want her to be "punished" with a child...therefore abortion should be an option. First of all, children aren't a punishment. And at the heart of all of this, is the notion that there should be no punishment for wrongdoing. When you try to take away the consequences of bad behavior, you are, in turn, likely to increase the opportunity for people to behave badly.

Conservatism offers a better way. Let the people keep their money. Empower families to take care of their own. Churches and communities can assist those who are disabled, the Elderly, or those who have made poor choices. There will be accountability when help is given.Conservatism allows us to be compassionate. Our man Mitt understands this principle. It is my prayer that Obama will see it too.

Faithfulness is stronger than fear

2008-07-24T00:10:00.003-06:00

by David Alvord

I have listened to both sides of the Iraq war argument and feel that I can distill it to two approaches.

First, the Republicans are committed to winning the war in Iraq. They are exhibiting to the Iraqi people that the US will stand with the free people to the end. In essence, the Republicans are saying we will be faithful to you, no matter the cost. And, they are saying to the enemy, "we will fight you to the end".

The second approach is owned by the Democrats. They want to threaten the Iraqis. "Shape up, or we're out of here!" is basically their stance. They think that this kind of psychology will scare the leaders of Iraq to get their act together quickly. But in saying that, the Democrats are telling terrorists: "hang in there, the US will pull out if they don't get their act together soon". In fact, the terrorists are receiving the message that all they have to do is disrupt the peace and the US is out of there.

I believe that the human spirit is more motivated by faithfulness than by fear. The Iraqi people will more likely obtain freedom if they are persuaded that it is possible. These are people who have been smitten and driven for centuries. They know little else than leadership by dictators. In the past, they have seen friends and family killed and tortured for standing against political powers. It must be frightening to stand for freedom when doing so may cost you your life. So, threatening to leave may be the worst thing to do if you want to have a peaceful Iraq.

So America must stand with the Iraqi people. Those purple-fingered voters need to know that we will not forsake them. We will stand by them to the end. This course will produce an Iraq that will stand by us someday. God bless our soldiers who are making this happen.

Churchill said it well:

"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

A Baptism in Iraq

2007-10-18T18:16:00.000-06:00

So technically you aren't supposed to photograph ordinances...but this is still cool. Therese Gutosky sent these to me. Her Husband, Chris, is serving in Iraq and will be home soon. Appearantly, this soldier was converted and baptized while serving in Iraq.

The only funny thing about this is that there is an old missionary slideshow that we used to joke about the fact that the picture looked like Saddam Hussein was being baptized. Instead, here are some Mormon Elders baptizing in Saddam's backyard.

Are Mormons "Christian" or "Christlike"?

2007-08-10T21:29:00.000-06:00

By David Alvord

This morning the latter-day Saints were saddened by the news of President James E. Faust's passing. Elder Faust has touched many lives and spread the message of the Master throughout the earth. As one of His special witnesses, President Faust bore humble testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I wonder whether Elder Faust would rather have us remember him as being a "Christian" or as having been "Christlike".

While both words could be considered synonyms, I think that the latter emphasizes an attribute rather than a designation.

As the presidential election heats up, there will be some who will question whether members of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints are considered "Christian". Naturally members of the church get defensive when people say that they are not Christian. Try telling a Muslim that he is not a Muslim, or a Jew that he is not Jewish.

As Mormons, we think of ourselves as being Christian...and so it boggles our minds when we hear otherwise. Some reading this could bring up complex arguments that demonstrate doctrinal differences. I have found that those accusing the LDS people of being outside of mainstream Christianity focus narrowly on the finer points of doctrine while ignoring behavior completely.

Like the Sadducee of old, some would rather rely on doctrine or genealogy for their salvation

Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

The Savior emphasized behavior in His example, rather than a designation based on historical or other means. As latter-day Saints, let us live Christ-like lives. In the end, we want to be approved by the Savior...whether or not the current definitions call us "Christian".

Immigration

2007-05-23T19:47:00.000-06:00

Let me begin by first saying that I love the Mexican people. In fact, I love all men and women of every country. The Book of Mormon teaches that all "are alike unto God".

He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen ; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. 2nd Nephi 26:33

The United States ought to be liberal in granting citizenship for those who want to come here. The Mexican and Latino people come and they want to work hard. They do not come wanting hand-outs.

I believe that there ought not to be a long waiting period, or maximum yearly number for immigrants. Any who will meet the requirements ought to be allowed to enter our country.

There ought to be order in bringing them to our country. We are the United States of America. That means that we are United. We speak one language and have one Constitution.

I think that the following requirements would solve America's problem of illegal immigration.

To obtain citizenship a immigrant must:

1-become fluent in English
2-not be convicted of major crimes in home country or US
3-if married, bring family to US
4-not utilize any government welfare
5-obtain and maintain full-coverage health insurance
6-pay a one-time small fee $500 or so

To obtain a temporary work permit an immigrant must:

1-take English classes
2-pay higher % taxes than citizens
3-obey the laws of the United States
4-if married bring family to US
5-obtain minimal health insurance

How to enforce rules of immigration:

1-issue cards to all citizens that verify citizenship. Also issue cards for the temporary work permits. These cards would be protected by a PIN# and would be administered by VISA or other credit card company.
2-require use of the citizen card/temporary work card to purchase gas, open a bank account, get a cell phone, get a driver's license, buy a vehicle, or any other major purchase. This would be slowly fazed in...with plenty of notice in English and Spanish...but eventually the purchase of groceries would be require the showing of the card.
3-require employers to have citizen cards or temp work cards scanned before paychecks are given.
4-Temporary work cards expire every two weeks and are reactivated when they attend English classes.
5-English classes are free for first two years. Then the fees increase to $20/class.
6-Fluency tests given whenever applicant is ready. Fluency is considered a basic ability to speak at a sixth-grade level.
7-Heath Insurance must be paid for card to become activated, but fees are small.
8-Taxes are withheld from the paycheck of the temporary work permit worker.
9-Employers will incur large penalties if any employee is not a card-carrier.
10-Taxes for those who are temporary workers are on a flat rate...and will be based on the income of the worker. 10% for those who earn 10k or less a year, 20% for 20,000 ; 30% for 35,000 and 40% for those making 50,000 or above.
11-If the immigrant is married and has children in their native country, they will receive tax credit if they bring their family here.
12-Cards are issued with some kind of biological ID. Retinal scans or fingerprinting. That way, if an immigrant violates the laws of the United States, he or she will be deported with no chance of returning.

There are those who want to build a fence at the border. I think that this approach is too expensive and not necessary if the cards are issued that are required to do anything in the US. Why would people come here if they can't do anything when they get here without the card?

Another concern with immigration is the high costs of eduction and health care to the immigrants. My plan solves that problem by requiring tax payment to maintain an active card.
The revenue generated ought to cover these expenses.

There are some who want to grant amnesty to those who are already here. I think that we ought to give the advantage to those who do things according to the rules. For those who are already here, they can obtain temporary work cards. If they want citizenship, they can obtain it by fulfilling the requirements.

Why does my plan require the families to be together? First, I think that people are more likely to become good citizens when they have a family unit. People are more likely to obey the laws of the land if their wife and children are watching. Second, it keeps the money earned here in the United States. Many illegal workers send their money across the border. Some male workers get two families, one in the states, and one back home. Eventually the immigrant forgets his old family and leaves them more impoverished. The United States and the rest of the Americas will be more prosperous if families stay together...both here and abroad.

This is a work in progress. Please leave your comments as to what you view are the problems and limitations of my immigration proposal.

To sum up, my plan would make immigration open to all as long as some common sense requirements are met.

Why do many members of the LDS faith vote Republican?

2007-04-25T13:17:00.000-06:00

Not long ago, the Southern Baptists held a convention in Salt Lake City and declared that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were not "Christian". Yet, Mormons and Baptists stand together at the polls.

I served a mission in Oregon, and encountered a lot of anti-Mormon criticism from members of the Evangelical faith. Still, I voted for President Bush; an Evangelical. In fact, of all the States in the Union, President Bush enjoys his highest approval numbers in Utah!

Members of the LDS faith take a whipping from certain members of the Republican party, yet they stay on board. Why is that?

I believe that it is because of the magnanimity posessed by the Latter-day Saints, that they haven't abandoned the Republican party.

And, of course, LDS members understand that they have brought some of the persecution upon themselves.

It doesn't surprise Mormons that some Pastors don't like the fact that the Holy Ghost backs up the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon; which in turn affects the paycheck of the Pastor.

Latter-day Saints are not shocked that when Texas got a fourth Temple, Southern Baptists were not thrilled by the news.

The clergy of the competing sects feel threatened by the impressive growth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The LDS people understand this fact, and have had a couple of centuries to get used to the name calling, propaganda, and lies that are perpetuated by the enemies of Mormonism.

I have heard many times that if you want to know why things are the way they are, to just "follow the money". So, why are Mormons accused of not being Christian? When they:

1) believe in Jesus Christ
2) read the Holy Bible
3) perform acts of Christian service
4) pray in the name of Jesus Christ
5) have the name of Jesus Christ in the name of the Church
6) display pictures of Christ in their Temples
7) sing many "Christian" hymns in their congregations
8) vote like other Christians

Why? Let's just examine who is accusing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of not being a Christian religion; The PAID CLERGY of other "Christian" congregations. Just follow the money and you will find out why the charge is being laid against the LDS people.

The paid clergy will claim that LDS people are not Christian because they do not follow the Nicene Creed. But that is hardly a reason to say someone is not Christian. Jesus Christ himself had never heard of the Nicene Creed. Why not just say that LDS are not "Niceners". I am sure that LDS people would be just fine with that.

But if you think about it, the paid clergy of other denominations have reason to be petty in their definitions of who is and who isn't a "Christian"...because it affects their bottom line. They would probably call Mormons cannibals if they thought they could be taken seriously. Who knows, maybe that's next!

Talk to one of your LDS colleagues and you will find out that your friend is as Christian as you are!

So, I hope to have demonstrated why the LDS people haven't left the Republican party. But that still doesn't answer the central question: Why do LDS members vote Republican in the first place?

While there may be several reasons for LDS folks to vote Republican, I would like to point out just one reason: The Book of Mormon.

No, the Book of Mormon does not talk about abortion. And the Book doesn't get into stem cell research. But, it does mention the burden of heavy taxes. And more importantly, it speaks volumes about the secret terror organizations that we face today.

The Book of Mormon refers to these organizations as "secret combinations". Over and over, the BOM demonstrates that entire civilizations have been brought down because of these secret terror groups.

Those who read the Book of Mormon understand that: "...whoso buildeth it up (secret combinations) seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil..."(ETHER 8: 25)

Rudy Giuliani (not a member of the LDS faith) had something similar to say:

They hate us, not because of anything bad we've done. This has nothing to do with any aggression on the part of the United States of America. It has nothing to do with anything America is taking from anyone. It has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms that we have and the freedoms that we want to share with the world, because the freedoms that we have and the freedoms that we want to share with the world are in conflict with their perverted interpretation of their religion, their maniacal, violent, and perverted interpretation of their religion in which they train their young people to be suicide bombers, and they train them to hate you and despise you, and they train them to hate your religion, and to not allow you to have religion of your own, or anyone else. They hate us for the reasons that are the best about us, because we have freedom of religion, because we have freedom for women, because women are allowed to participate in society, because we have elections, because we have a free economy. Well, we're not giving that up, and you're not going to come and take it from us.

President Hinckley (President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) had this to say:

Those of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the president of our nation. The terrible forces of evil must be confronted and held accountable for their actions. This is not a matter of Christian against Muslim. I am pleased that food is being dropped to the hungry people of a targeted nation. We value our Muslim neighbors across the world and hope that those who live by the tenets of their faith will not suffer. I ask particularly that our own people do not become a party in any way to the persecution of the innocent. Rather, let us be friendly and helpful, protective and supportive. It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down.

We of this Church know something of such groups. The Book of Mormon speaks of the Gadianton robbers, a vicious, oath-bound, and secret organization bent on evil and destruction. In their day they did all in their power, by whatever means available, to bring down the Church, to woo the people with sophistry, and to take control of the society. We see the same thing in the present situation.

We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty. (link: The times in which we live, by President Hinckley)

By the way, not all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vote Republican. The Church itself expresses political neutrality. But those who read the Book of Mormon cannot escape the responsibility to vote for those leaders who will put down secret terror organizations. If members of the Democratic party will embrace the war on terror, I am sure that they will enjoy more votes from the LDS people...as long as it doesn't bother them that their votes don't come from "Niceners".

This is no game!

2007-04-14T12:18:00.000-06:00

Presidential politics is not a game! You might think this is a game, but, trust me, this is no game. This is not something where rock beats scissors or paper covers rock or rock wraps itself up in paper and gives itself as a present to scissors. This isn’t anything like that. Or where paper types something on itself and sues scissors.

This isn’t tiddlywinks, where you flip your tiddly over another player’s tiddly and an old man winks at you because he thought it was a good move. This isn’t that at all!

This is not some brightly colored, sugarcoated piece of candy that you can brush the ants off of and pop in your mouth.

This is not something where you can dress your kid up like a hobo and send him out trick-or-treating, because, first of all, your kid’s twenty-three, and, secondly, he really is a hobo.

This isn’t something where you sink a birdie or hit a badminton birdie or do anything at all with birdies. Look, just forget birdies, O.K.?

No, Presidential politics is serious business folks. If the '08 election were a game we could give it to Hillary or Obama or Sanjaya.

Once the election is over we can just sit by the fire, chew some tobacky, toast some marshmackies, and maybe strum a tune on the ole guitacky.

But until then, this is not a game!

So vote Mitt!

Global Warming...revisited

2007-04-09T20:13:00.000-06:00

My post about global warming was meant as satire. I wanted to use a little comedy to point out that the earth has only risen in temperature by 0.8 of a degree in the last century. But a recent article by an MIT professor not only agrees with my article, it also debunks the fears proposed by Al Gore.

Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology, had this to say:

"A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing."

Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited."

Check out this great article!

It just goes to show that I am smarter when I am being silly than Gore is when he is being serious!

MItt Rocks!

2007-04-01T20:58:00.000-06:00

Link to article

The Earth is too cold!

2007-03-09T13:59:00.000-07:00

The earth is too cold! Brrrrrr.

Florida and California have HUGE populations. Why? Because they are one of the few places that are warm year-round. The rest of us have to freeze for half the year. Have you ever been to Iceland? Probably not...because it just sounds too cold. Actually Greenland is colder than Iceland...but I digress. You see, there is a country that is called "Iceland". Yet, I haven't heard of a country called "boiling-water land"! Why? Because the Earth is cold. There isn't any major continent that is too hot to visit. But this frigid planet has plenty of spots that are too cold. For example: Antarctica. Antarctica is a giant continent that is made of pure ice. No one spends their vacation time in Antarctica...we all flock to the warm places. The Beach Boys sang it well: "Aruba, Jamaica ooo-I wanna take ya".

Everyone wants to live where it's warm. If you were to take the earth and divide it into thirds, you would find that 90% of the world's population live in third that is closest to the equator. It's like the world is standing around a campfire...because the rest of the planet is just too dang cold! What a waste of the other two thirds!

So the greenhouse effect? I'm all for it. Which brings up another point...why do humans even build greenhouses? It's because the air is too cold to produce desirable plants without them! So what are we worried about...that the earth will become a giant greenhouse? That suddenly we all live in Hawai'i? That tropical plants would grow in any climate? We ought to melt all that ice and start to heat things up! Think of it: A GIANT greenhouse! Wouldn't that be great?! The problems of American obesity would be solved because we could all go outside and play year-round! Our gardens would flourish, and Canadians would finally stop the sport of curling! "Bermuda, Bahama...c'mon pretty mama".

Republicans have been trying to warm the earth for years. But in spite of their best efforts, scientists have shown that the earth has only risen in temperature by 0.8 of a degree in the last century. C'mon guys, we can do better than that! Less than one crappy degree in a hundred years!?!

Top Ten Reasons to vote for Mitt Romney

2007-02-12T22:17:00.000-07:00

This list was read at our Elders Quorum date-night party on Feb. 10, 2007...and by popular demand...I have posted the following:

Top Ten reasons I hope to have a Mormon President

By David Alvord

10. So that the "National Cathedral" can be renamed the "National Tabernacle"

9. So NASA will comission a satellite to hie to Kolob

8. The Secret Service will be changed to the Sacred Service

7. All official government prayers to include the phrase: "that we all get home safely"

6. So that Napoleon Dynamite's endorsement does more that get Pedro elected

5. To have a President who can not only explain things in Layman's terms but also in Lemuel's terms

4. An exchange of presidential pardons for 100% home teaching

3. Finally a President who can not only pronounce the word "nuclear", but can also say "mahonri-moriancumr" and "maher-shalal-hash-baz"

2. At inauguration he will place his hand on the bible "as far as it is translated correctly"

1. To have a first family large enough to occupy all the rooms of the White House

Who will be held accountable?

2007-02-05T20:01:00.000-07:00

As Hillary Clinton tries to redefine herself for the 20th time...I find it necessary to strip down all the spin and packaging. At the heart of any candidate is the one quality that matters most: Character... a quality Ms. Clinton seems to carry in short supply.

One of the most important practices of a leader is to hold people accountable. A leader initiates action and expects results. Real consequences for a lack of performance are necessary for effective leadership. Without follow up, a leader becomes a talking head. While she may hold the office, she does not execute orders effectively...and is a lame duck before the term begins.

When Hillary and Bill Clinton entered into their marriage agreement there were promises made. Fidelity was foremost among them to be sure! When Bill violated the agreement, lied about it, and then violated the marriage contract again and again, Hillary did not Hold him accountable! Marriage is the most important obligation that any of us enter into, and Hillary did not hold her partner accountable when the contract was violated.

How will Hillary hold nations accountable? How will Hillary respond to a nuclear Iran? What would Hillary do in the face of a major terror attack on the United States? If the terrorists bite their lip and wave their thumbs and say "I am truly sorry". Will she be able to muster the character necessary to hold them responsible?

Recently, Hillary has said that she wants to try to "understand" Iran a little better. Has that been her strategy with Bill? Is she trying to "understand" him better? (Read about Mitt Romney's brilliant response to this)

Bill is a cheat, and Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons...it's as simple as that.

I admit that it would have taken tremendous courage for Hillary to leave Bill in the middle of his presidency.

But tremendous courage is just what America needs...

President George

2007-01-30T09:56:00.000-07:00

I think that President George had good intentions! I really do. After all, on paper, it sounded good to overthrow a Tyrant and create a democracy. It sounded like a noble war... in theory. But the reality on the ground...and the way that the war was implemented has proven to be a huge mistake! The war did cost us an initial 25,000 lives (American lives)...and then our enemies came back for vengeance and we lost an additional 20,000 Americans! But this was just the beginning of the casualties. You see, the president never resolved the ethnic problems that existed and this eventually led to a civil war that killed 625,000 AMERICANS. Perhaps we were better off with a dictator after all!

Sound familiar?

I am referring, of course, to our first "President George": George Washington. The Revolutionary War cost us 25,000. The Tyrant? The King of England. We fought the British again in the war of 1812...and lost another 20,000. The unresolved ethnic problems? No, I was not referring to the Sunni's and the Shiites...the ethnic problem that our country left unresolved was African slavery. The American civil war cost us over 625,000 souls! see war casualties

The price that was paid for freedom did not come cheap for America!

Why do we think that it should come so easily for the middle-east?

Another President George has courageously faced a growing threat. Terrorists and the states who sponsor terror needed to be answered for the atrocities committed on Sept. 11, 2001. President Bush has led our country to many victories on the war on terror.

I cringe every time I hear that Bush has been a failure in Iraq! A failure?

President Bush defeated Saddam Hussein: a brutal dictator and growing threat to Israel and the whole region: Victory #1

President Bush has successfully transformed Iraq into a democratic government: Victory #2

President Bush has opened hospitals, schools, and restored electricity and provided electricity to places that never had it before: Victory #3

President Bush will establish greater security and freedom to the Iraqis and possibly intervene before a civil war breaks out: Victory #4 (if the democrats don't sabotage it)

I think that the effort in Iraq has been a huge success! I am saddened by the loss of the 3000 Americans. But freedom has always come from sacrifice.

There may be more bloodshed in Iraq. It will eventually be up to the Iraqis to secure their own freedom. If a civil war breaks out...it may be a necessary evil to purge the Iraqis of discord and sectarian rivalry. The United States experienced a civil war...and we came out the better for it in the long run. We shouldn't expect freedom to come easily to the middle-east. Yet, in spite of the sacrifice required, freedom is always worth the cost. Is that not our American heritage?

Borg Queen Hillary may unite America around Mitt

2007-01-26T10:02:00.000-07:00

By David Alvord

Hillary Clinton has announced that she will run for president! I got chills as I watched her make the announcement on the web. But it wasn't warm fuzzy chills...it was more like the chills you get when you are tied to a chair and spiders are crawling up your legs. I remember feeling the same emotion while watching Star Trek; First Contact. In the movie, the "Borg Queen" tries to seduce Capitan Picard...and promises to share her power with him. It was a scene that must have resembled Hillary's marriage proposal to Bill. While Hillary talked about "having a conversation" with the American people, I couldn't help wondering if her next line would be "if not...you will be assimilated". And when it comes to the other democratic challengers, I hate to say it but "resistance is futile".

We all know that the Clinton's wield enormous political power...and unless the democrats can produce someone more compelling than the junior smokin' senator from Illinois, Hillary is going to get the party nomination. After all, to most democrats, it is Hillary's God-given right to be president. It's her party and she can cry if she wants to! And just like the Borg Queen...conservatives are scared to death of a Hillary presidency! The Republicans will need to nominate someone who can match Hillary's rhetorical prowess. They will need someone who has successfully sailed in liberal waters and knows the democratic play book. They will need that individual who can articulate conservative values in a persuasive and intelligent manner. I can think of no better candidate to take on Hillary than our own Mitt Romney! Hillary Clinton may be the one adversary that will be scary enough to unite all Christians. Baptists united with Catholics. Mormons united with Evangelicals. Is America ready for a Mormon president? If he can defeat Hillary, America may just have room for a Mormon after all!

Evangelicals for Mitt to be praised!

2007-01-17T11:22:00.001-07:00

By David Alvord

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

-Pastor Martin Niemöller

Although this poem was written to portray the rise of Nazi Germany, it also has application to religious bigotry.
"Bigot" is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. And "bigot" is the term I would use for anyone who would rule out a candidate based solely on his religious persuasion.

I have read several articles that proclaim Mitt Romney to be the ideal candidate with just one problem: He's a Mormon. Can this statement reveal anything other than religious discrimination? Such an attitude threatens not only a Mormon candidate, but candidates of any religious persuasion.

Joseph Smith, himself a victim of severe bigotry, said it well:

The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a "Mormon," I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.

And so in that spirit, praise be to the website Evangelicals for Mitt! The founders of that site have looked past their religious differences to add their support to Mitt Romney. I believe that good people of all religions are stronger when united...and weaker when divided. The E.F.M. have not only demonstrated their willingness to support a candidate of any religious persuasion, but they have also picked a man of integrity and one of the most promising candidates of our time.

Mitt's a fundraising maniac!

2007-01-10T13:06:00.000-07:00

Mitt has raised 6.5 million in his first day of fundraising! This represents the largest haul of any candidate since the passage of campaign finance reform!

Check out the link: Romney's big day

And just how does this compare to Rudy and McCain?

The figure dwarfed the money raised so far by two GOP stars leading the 2008 speculation, U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

McCain has raised $2 million while Giuliani has picked up $1 million. Like Romney, both have created 2008 exploratory committees. Link to article

Anyone familiar with modern presidential politics will tell you that he who raises the most money the earliest will get the national spotlight. All the more reason to be optimistic for Mitt's campaign!

Tyrants must answer to the United States

2006-12-29T15:06:00.000-07:00

Right before President Bush announced that the U.S. would be invading Iraq, I had a dream. I can't say for sure if it was an inspired dream or not, but it was a very clear dream and it felt spiritual. In the dream, I was in Baghdad talking with some Iraqi students who were discussing a new day for Iraq, and a possible overthrow of the Hussein regime. The students seemed extremely intelligent and articulate. I remember feeling like I could identify with those students and I wanted to help them to be free. During our conversation, we were spotted by a member of Saddam's royal guard and were taken by gunpoint to a room without a roof. Although I was an American, I was guilty by association and would share the fate of the students. We were told that our conversation was illegal and that we would be punished for our crimes. Saddam himself then entered the room and I was filled with enormous fear! I had never before felt such intense oppression as I did in this dream. I remember a feeling of helplessness and my heart cried out to God. I thought to myself how unjust this was...that there was no court to appeal to, no lawyer to represent me. This man, Saddam Hussein, had complete power over me...and it seemed that there was no righteous force to oppose him. The dictator would deal with us and I expected the worst. Who could save us? How can such absolute power be unchecked?
It was at this low point that I remember hearing the roar of a formation of f-16s and f-15s. At first, I was confused, but could tell that something good was happening. As bombs began to fall, Saddam and his men left the scene...and it was then that I realized that it was our guys! The United States came as a rescuer. I shouted for joy almost like at a sporting event. The precision and efficacy of the fighter pilots were impressive! I was so proud to belong to the country that not only was able to stand up against Saddam's regime, but could do so with such technology and skill.

The dream gave me a small taste of the fear and intimidation that a tyrant rules with. I am sure that the actual experience is much worse.

Who but the United States could have delivered the Iraqis? Saddam was a Hitler wanna-be. Fortunately, he was contained and then dealt with before he left an even darker legacy. But consider his past:

Hussein's regime killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and its neighbors for over two decades.

Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of Hussein's actions.

Hussein has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.

1980-88: Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.

1983-1988: Documented chemical attacks by Iraqi regime caused some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths.

1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people.

1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages.

1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis were killed in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

1991: bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings in northern and southern Iraq killed at least 30,000 to 60,000.

*Sources: Office of the White House Press Secretary: Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime; April 4, 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/iraq/20030404-1.html; "Iraq: Crimes Against Humanity," State Department, May 7, 2002, http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/crimes; "Iraq: U.S. Alleges Role in Bush Death Plot," Facts on File May 20, 1993; http: www.2facts.com; http://www.2facts.com/stories/temp/10882temp1993053677.asp)

History has had many tyrants. There have been and there will be many Hitler wanna-bes. But ever since the 18th century, the United States has taken on several of them and won! We may have to play this role in the world for decades to come. Our strength has been the strength of our religion and our values. May we continue to protect our families and strengthen our morality here at home. The Holy One of Israel has His eye on our country and if we remember Him and keep His commandments, He will continue to protect us and strengthen us. Always the defenders, never the aggressors, the United States will continue to promote freedom throughout the earth. And God willing, Tyrants will have to answer to the United States.

Hussein Obama? A Little too Ironic

2006-12-12T12:18:00.000-07:00

Let's not jinx ourselves!

I am truly sorry! We really could have forgiven the similarity of "Obama" to "Usama". And "Barack"? I don't know any Baracks...but that would have been okay too. But your middle name is HUSSEIN? Barack Hussein Obama? It's just a little too ironic!

In Alanis Morrisette's song "Isn't it Ironic", she seems to have a hard time actually citing any examples of irony. For example: "It's a black fly in your Chardonnay". That isn't actually ironic...it would have been ironic if the person with the bug in his drink was an Orkin man.

Or, "it's like rain...on your wedding day". Again, only truly ironic if the person is a weatherman and had forcast clear skies.

Yet, we forgive you Alanis! What can I say, it was a catchy song. We even forgive your weird name "Alanis". It's the lost city of Atlantis, spoken by a person with a numb tongue (trust me, I know what that sounds like).

But let me get this straight. The next president of the United States, the man who will take over as commander-in-chief for the war on terror, has a name that resembles not one...but both of the central figures of that war!

So the man who is going to get Usama is Obama?

The man who will fix the problems started by Hussein is Hussein?

The Same guy who wants to get us back on "t'rack is Barack?

There is an irony-threshold that we as Americans can handle. If that threshold was ever crossed it would unleash all kinds of chaos and conspiracy theories. Barack would be such a historical oddity that I worry that textbooks would spontaneously light on fire! If Hussein Obama actually got Usama, it would nessesitate that congress mandate a new word for irony be intoduced to represent this new super-irony. It would be so difficult to describe this second level of irony that there would have to be graduate courses devoted to it. Only Stephen Hawking could actually understand it.

So let's not jinx ourselves out of getting Usama!

"and isn't it ironic...don't ya think? A little too ironic...and yea, I really do think!"

Mitt Romney: Please just admit he has a chance!

2006-11-29T12:29:00.000-07:00

Hello my LDS friends. I have found it strange that the people who have the most pessimism about Mitt Romney's chances as a Mormon candidate are Mormons themselves! Why is that?

It may have to do with the fact that many members of the LDS faith have served missions, or are married to those who have. As missionaries we have had doors slammed in our faces, have been ridiculed, and have had to endure more rejection than acceptance. Even though many do accept our faith, most reject it. We are used to being rejected. I think that it is this psychology that could be the cause for so many of my friends and associates to have such a grim outlook...when it comes to not only Mitt, but any LDS candidate.

But to vote for a leader, one doesn't have to accept the testimony of the prophet Joseph. He doesn't have to pay 10% of his income. He doesn't have to convert to Mormonism at all.

I think that we may be mistaking religious rejection for political rejection. After all, today's highest-ranking member of the United States Senate is, well, a Mormon. Harry Reid may be a democrat, but he is also a Mormon. His kids attended BYU, and he happens to be pro-life. That is a strange selection for the top post among the democrats...a pro-life Mormon. But there he is.

It's really not all that strange. If you think about it, the LDS people are natural-born leaders. We dress up every Sunday, give talks, and attend loads of meetings. We have faced opposition and rejection throughout our lives. We don't drink, smoke, or gamble...and most of us would bleed on the flag just to make sure it's stripes stay red (MI3).

Some may cite recent polls that suggest that the majority of Americans would not vote for a Mormon. While there may be a few who would never vote for a Mormon, I think that many may have cast their opinion in ignorance. There was another survey a few years ago that asked if people would vote for a "heterosexual" for president. Surprisingly about 1/4 said No to that question. It was ignorance that caused that response...and it is probably ignorance that has caused the Mormon polls to look like they did. A person may not want a polygamist in the White House, or an Amish-type president (these are some common misconceptions of mainstream Mormonism). But they may be okay with a family-man, with one wife, from Massachusetts...who just happens to belong to the LDS church...as long as their taxes stay low, and they think that the candidate is a man of integrity.

There is no doubt that Mitt's candidacy will require educating many Americans about the LDS faith. He will need to clear up many misconceptions about the chruch. But he won't be doing it alone. The Media will churn out piles of stories about all of the candidates...and Mitt will not be an exception. In fact, there is such a fascination with Mormonism that it could turn to Mitt's advantage. Mitt may be talked about more than other candidates BECAUSE of his religion.

Some advantages that Mitt Romney has:

1) Strong support of many LDS throughout the country. Do not underestimate the influence of the members of the church...we have influenced many elections in years past. For example, we recently helped defeat a gay marriage amendment in California. We also may have given the ERA the decisive blow in the 80s.

2) Strong support in Michigan. His father was a beloved Governor and is still remembered. 17 electoral votes.

3) A very successful term as Governor in Massachusetts. He balanced the budget without raising taxes. He also provided health care to every person in the state, again without raising taxes!

4) Mitt has raised the most money. His PAC tops them all.

5) In Tennessee, a presidential straw poll put him in second place among republicans. The only person with more votes was Frist (who announced last week that he will not run for president).

6) Governor Schwarzenegger was just reelected in California. A republican in California! With a goofy name! An immigrant! He defends Bush! He was an actor! A meat-head! Despite these obstacles, the "governator" was reelected. No doubt, he is a huge star...but he also ran as a fiscal conservative and pro-environment. California will forgive a multitude of sins if you will be for the environment. If Mitt can be a pro-environment Republican...he may have a shot at those tasty 55 electoral votes in California. And guess which church is the second largest in California? Hint: it's the true one.

7) Mitt is the most conservative of the known possible '08 candidates. John McCain has ticked off too many of us...also he has that grouchy-old-man thing going. He made a fool of himself on SNL. All that McCain's opponents need to do is play those SNL tapes during the primaries. It will be "so" over! Rudy is pro-abortion. He better start whistling a new pro-life tune or he will not get the republican nomination. Period. Newt Gingrich is awesome! But I am the only one who thinks so. Whoever wins ought to consider putting Newt in some kind of advisory role. He just isn't "presidential" enough (whatever than means). Among conservatives, Mitt fits the bill almost perfectly.

8) This is America. Anything can happen here. A tall, ugly, and awkward Republican from Illinois can get elected, free the slaves, then guide us through a civil war. A divorced actor from California can lead us against a communist super-power, and win...without a shot being fired. A fellow from Virginia can lead a rag-tag army against the largest military of it's time and successfully achieve independence for our country.

I do not say that Mitt will win the presidency, but I do say that he has a chance. If you believe that our leaders can be foreordained (and I do), then we may likely see a Mormon president. We may see several of them! I don't know if Mitt will achieve the presidency or if he will pave the way for one who will.

But would you just do one thing for me?

Would you just admit that he has a chance!

By the way...there are some smart political analysts who agree:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4753190

Thanksgiving...the thanks be to God

2006-11-23T11:41:00.000-07:00

This Thanksgiving, let us remember the true meaning of the holiday by reading the words of our first president, George Washington:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor -- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be -- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks -- for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation -- for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed -- for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted -- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions -- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually -- to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed -- to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord -- To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us -- and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York
the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

George Washington

Tax cuts still grow the economy

2006-11-19T21:54:00.000-07:00

With the Democrats in power, I hope that there are lessons that they will take from "the Gipper". One such lesson is that tax cuts grow the economy.

In his article*, George Will cites some numbers that you will find interesting. He wrote:

...since the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the economy's growth rate (3.5%) has been better than the average for the 1980s (3.1) and 1990s (3.3). Today's unemployment rate (4.6 percent) is lower than the average for the 1990s (5.8) -- lower, in fact, than the average for the last 40 years (6.0).

In 2004 alone, the economy grew by 3.9 %.

So why haven't these numbers been more obvious to us? I think that it has a lot to do with the public perception that the economy is directly related to the Dow and the NASDAQ. The Dow is doing much better for the last few months...but I believe that Americans have been putting their dollars into housing instead of stocks. We have had a red-hot economy but haven't seen it reflected in the stock market.

And good heavens! A 4.6% unemployment rate?! That number is almost as staggering as the 2.5% unemployment that Utah currently enjoys. Europe would kill to even approach these numbers!

What Reagan knew, Bush knows.

When Nancy Pelosi said that she has always been in favor of cutting taxes, President Bush joked that based on her record she "must be a secret admirer". Well, Nancy, I am one who hopes that you take your secret admiration out of the closet and lead your party by making the Bush tax cuts permanent!

*Democrats suffering from economic hypochondria, George Will 2006

Mitt Romney and the LDS church

2006-11-16T12:56:00.000-07:00

So I spent a few hours over the weekend watching some YouTube videos of Mitt Romney. I have to say that I was impressed by 1)how sharp he is and 2) how conservative he is. I had the false assumption that his election in Massachusetts meant that he was a little bit liberal. Yet, I found that his comments during interviews show him to be very conservative, and that his views are perfectly in line with most latter-day saints.
My hopes for Mitt's presidential run used to be motivated by the fact that he is a Mormon. Now I have another reason to like him; he is a good conservative! If elected, he could be another Reagan. These reasons are enough for me to give my whole-hearted endorsement of Mr. Romney and my commitment to do anything I can to get him elected.

I hope you feel the same way.

But it was Mitt's handling when questioned about the church that I would like to address in this post.
During many interviews, Mitt is asked about his religion. His response has been: (and I saw him say this in several interviews) "I think that what the American people really want is a person of faith, who shares their values". And then he goes on to say: "... and that people don't really care what particular church that person belongs to".
I think that he has a good approach. By emphasizing the common values he may be able to distinguish himself from other candidates. He also implies that Americans aren't bigots...which I think will resonate with most Americans.
But I was more impressed by his handling of other harder questions. For example, one reporter directly asked him about the LDS doctrine of God having a body of flesh and bones, and Jesus Christ appearing in the U.S. His response was brilliant. He said (I am paraphrasing) "you know what one of our most amazing doctrines is? It's that a man took a boat and put into it two animals of every kind and the whole earth was flooded with water". He then went on to say how every faith has things that are amazing and that we are no different from any other faith in that respect.
His Noah example was ingenious because so many religions share that story. He had the Christians, the Jews, and possibly the Muslims covered when he reminded the reporter of that event. When compared to the flood, some LDS doctrines aren't so hard to swallow. But his answer was also smart because he called the belief of Noah's ark "an LDS doctrine". He was again able show that many of our beliefs are in line with Christianity and that we have more in common with Christians than some want to believe.

I believe Mitt should be watched and emulated when dealing with questions about the church. Mitt will probably need to address the issue head on at some point. But until then He is making some good moves and our prayers are with him.

Can the Book of Mormon tell us how to deal with terror?

2006-11-15T21:53:00.000-07:00

Okay, so let me know what you think about my idea for the terrorists in Iraq and other places.

Background: President Hinckley compared the terrorists we are fighting to the gadianton robbers spoken of in the Book of Mormon. So we all remember how the Nephites at one point dealt with those terrorists. They gathered themselves into one body which starved them out and forced them into an open confrontation which the Nephites easily won.

So we need to do the same. That is: force the terrorists into an open confrontation which we should easily win. Now, our strategy might be a bit different...because we can't just starve them out. But what I propose is that we:

1) empower the Iraqi police force: give them lots of cool weapons and technology

2) withdrawal of our physical troop presence into a central location: Kuwait or Baghdad

3) intelligence gather through spies and satellite surveillance

4) commit our support to the political parties that support democracy in Iraq

5) enforce that support through our air superiority

6) Prepare for a frontal attack

Whenever the terrorists organize themselves into a militia...or try to overtake a city...we bomb them. How can they ever get any real power? Every time they do anything to secure any real power, we can easily identify who the enemy is and send down a missile! Its like terrorism in reverse. The extreme terror organisations wouldn't be able to do anything about it but launch a frontal attack...that is, come out in open warfare against our guys who are clustered together and have superior weapons, training, and air superiority.

I admit that my idea relies a lot on the Iraqi police force. We'd have to trust that they'd stay unified and that they could maintain order in their cities. And my idea also needs some strong Iraqi leaders to stick their necks out and take leadership at their own personal risk. I think that the Iraqi president is afraid to let the US out of Iraq because he is thinking of his own personal safety...and the safety of his family. But George Washington risked his own name and fortune for our country...and we need to find the Washingtons of Iraq...maybe they are already there and we need to get out of their way!

But these Iraqi leaders will have something that Washington never had: F18s, F15s and stealth bombers ready to sweep in and hit targets as accurate as 1meter diameter...just a phone call away.

So I propose a withdrawal of our army troops...but a continued air presence. We will support democracy and freedom of religion in the country.

And if it works in Iraq, we park a few aircraft carriers near Iran and do the same...starting with their nuclear development sites.

Some thoughts on stem cell research

2006-11-15T21:06:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends,

Every month I pay a large sum of money towards my student loans. I often wonder why, as a dentist, I was required to go through "mini"-medical school. I took embryology, biochemistry, microbiology, anatomy, physiology, pathology, and cell biology...oh yeah and some classes on teeth too! Maybe the reason a dentist needs to know so much medicine is to be able to speak authoritatively on some of the moral issues of our day. (After all, people can't talk back while we are working on the mouth!)

If you have a minute, I will make the case that stem cell research is not all it's promised to be.

Stem Cell research uses human embryos. Many feel that these are human beings in their most fundelmental form...so I believe that stem cell research ought to have clear uses before making a human sacrafice (if at all).

I have taken much text from the National Institutes of Health (Bold and Italics)

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp

STEM CELLS ...WHAT THEY ARE:

From the NIH:
Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body. Serving as a sort of repair system for the body, they can theoretically divide without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person or animal is still alive. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential to either remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell.

So, we can think of stem cells as building blocks. They can become a more specialized type of cell. When our bodies were embryos we didn't have a liver, or a brain, or a pancreas...we only had cells that would later divide and become that liver, brain, or pancreas.

THE PROMISE

Again from the NIH:
Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis.

For example, it may become possible to generate healthy heart muscle cells in the laboratory and then transplant those cells into patients with chronic heart disease.

In people who suffer from type I diabetes, the cells of the pancreas that normally produce insulin are destroyed by the patient's own immune system. New studies indicate that it may be possible to direct the differentiation of human embryonic stem cells in cell culture to form insulin-producing cells that eventually could be used in transplantation therapy for diabetics.

Replacement cells. All of the fuss over making replacement cells! The problem is that we are dealing with people that have disease! Throwing cells at the site of disease isn't necessarily going to fix the problem.

As you know, I am a dentist. I deal mainly with one type of disease: tooth decay. Now, a person is born with healthy enamel, healthy dentin, etc. Then, a bacterium is introduced into the mouth: usually strep mutans. The bacteria combined with sugar produces an acid which destroys the tooth. Now imagine through a ridiculously expensive procedure I take a living embryo, harvest some stem cells, create new ameloblasts and odontoblasts (the cells that produce dentin and enamel) in a test-tube...and then through an even more expensive procedure (cha-ching) I inject those cells into the area of tooth decay. What's going to happen? The same bacteria that destroyed the mature tooth structure are going to gobble up the fresh "baby enamel" for breakfast.

Ok, so we won't try stem cell therapy in dentistry (although I must say I like the cha-ching factor). Tooth decay is a very simple and well known ailment...and I have already demonstrated that it wouldn't be useful in dentistry. For you science fiction folks, YES I have considered the prospect of growing a new tooth in some freaky petrie dish somewhere...but then there's the challenge of implantation and can you say CHA-CHING CHA-CHING CHA-CHING?!!!

Alright...so the pro-stem people don't emphasize the benefit to dentistry. Instead they have talked about much "simpler" diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and MS.

And this gets me to our biggest problem: WE DON"T KNOW THE CAUSES OF THESE DISEASES!!!

As many of you know, Michael J. Fox has Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's is caused by the cells of the substantia nigra (part of the brain) becoming destroyed (unknown cause) and as a result dopamine (an important neurotransmitter) levels drop.

So the hope is that stem cells could grow into Substantia Nigra cells and then we squirt them into MJFs brain and voila: no more Parkinson's! But Mr. Fox was born with plenty of his own cells...that were somehow destroyed...and chances are they will be destroyed again. You see, there was a reason his cells were destroyed. It could have been a blood flow problem. It could have been a virus. It could be his immune system. But it is likely that the same process that killed his original cells will kill the new ones.

We have to get at what is causing the disease first! Besides, we already have replacement cells. They can be harvested from cadavers. Go ahead and squirt some substantia nigra cells into a brain and see what happens. My guess is that they have already tried and failed.

The hope is that while doing the research on the stem cells they will be able to unlock the mysteries of the universe and become so knowledgeable that they will uncover the mysteries of all of the aforementioned diseases. But going back to my dentistry example: by studying how enamel is formed will not tell me how it decays. You have to see the bacteria in action...and the sugar...then the light turns on!

Stem cell research will focus on how things are formed...not why they go wrong. It is the wrong approach. If you have a tire that is wearing on one side...you'd be better off checking your alignment not going to the Goodyear manufacturer.

It is irresponsible to promise to find a cure to so many diseases...when most of them have an unknown cause.

Only when we discover the causes of those diseases will we be any closer to finding a cure.

Thanks for reading.

David Alvord DDS