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

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

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

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

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"?

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

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?

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!

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

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!

Link to article