Thursday, May 7, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Romney calls Obama a Timid Advocate of Freedom
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
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
Monday, March 30, 2009
Communism, Capitalism, and Consecrationism
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.
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)
Friday, February 6, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Reasons to be optimistic as Obama builds his gigantic socialist empire!
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.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Closing GITMO? Where to move those inmates?
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.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama's speech made me miss Clinton
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!
Saturday, January 3, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
