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

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?

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!

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"!

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?

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!

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

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.

“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.

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.