Who do you trust?

I’m watching the story about the violence in Michigan unfold.

The republican legislature and governor passed a bill and signed it that granted everyone the right to work without paying union dues.

The unions responded, as could be expected from an organization that operates with violence, through violence. Steven Crowder got punched several times, and decided to stand down in fear of his life. The Americans for Prosperity tent was knocked down with people inside of it, and the tent cut up and shared among union members as some sort of souvenir reminiscent of John Kerry’s memory of Vietnam where he claimed that soldiers would take the enemy’s ears and such.

What’s fascinating is how the “other” side is responding to these events. “It’s a fake! It’s staged!” they claimed. Or they just ignore it altogether.

I often wonder why our society is so gullible. Why could anyone claim that videos showing a man being beaten down by a union member were faked, and not be laughed off the world stage?

We live in a society, today, where a significant portion of the population doesn’t care about facts or reality. The democrat political machine seems to be all about crafting a message, any message, as long as the message furthers their political goals. “Mitt Romney doesn’t care about you because he’s rich.” “Mitt Romney wants to take away your contraceptives.” “Mitt Romney is going to get rid of Medicare and Social Security.” It doesn’t matter what the truth is to them.

And we live in a society where the vast majority of the media we watch, read, or listen to, doesn’t care either. Did anyone outside of some conservative media outlets bother to report about Mitt Romney’s quiet charitable life? Did anyone bother to point out that Barack Obama is rich too? Did anyone care to show how Barack Obama’s campaign was outright lying about what Mitt Romney stands for? No.

I fear for our country. We should always fear for our country. But I don’t believe the resolution to our fears is to sit on our hands and hope the media decides to operate morally.

Instead, we can only turn to ourselves. What do we prioritize? Morals and values? Or ends despite the means? If, in our own lives, we think honesty is very important, then we will demonstrate to the people around us what that means.

I believe our answers lie in religion. We need to redirect our beliefs and thoughts and attitudes to what is really important. We need to put life in perspective, and find a place where there is no confusion or doubt.

Who do you trust? Do you trust the media? Do you trust conservatives? Can you trust in any one man or group of men? The answer is, resoundingly, NO.

We can only trust in the infinite perfection and goodness that God is.

Reflexive

One of the most curious things about trying to view the universe the way it really is, rather than the way we wish it would be, is that we have to remove ourselves, completely, from the equation.

For example, when Einstein first described the special theory of relativity, what he was really doing was trying to reconcile the laws of physics for every imaginable frame of reference. If you’ve ever done the gedankenexperiment (thought experiment) he did, you’ll see why this is important.

For instance, consider what a bystander sees when a train is passing by, and simultaneously consider what the passengers of the train see. Then think of what passengers on a train passing in the opposite direction see, as well as passengers on a spaceship traveling close to the speed of light. When you can reconcile all of these with each other, without changing the speed of light for any of them, then you understand what is really going on with our perception of time and space and speed and distance.

I won’t try to describe the truth to you. I honestly can’t. No one can. Those who refuse to perform the experiment so carefully laid out in his original paper will never really understand the special theory of relativity. They are left to beg for scraps from the table. They will be forced to accept whatever slivers of knowledge those who know are willing to share, and then left to try and interpret them into a consistent world view.

Science, knowledge, the art of knowing, not just guessing, but actually knowing what is out there, is not something you learn in a classroom. It is not found in textbooks. It is found in one-on-one interviews with the universe itself. It’s primary goal is to eliminate error from the scientists’ thinking. After all, we are all free to think what we wish, including the thought that we somehow know of ourselves something we cannot know for ourselves.

The reflexive nature of science started, I believe, with the simple twin commandments, “Love God, Love your neighbors as yourself.”This is encoded in a simple phrase, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” When we really think and ponder what that means, it leads us to the reflexive property of science. Simply put, what is true for me is true for you, and is true for all. Conversely, what is false for me is false for you and false for all. Truth and error are thus beyond the definition of humanity, but something that exists whether or not any thinking creatures existed at all.

What is the truth? When you try to find laws of nature that satisfy this reflexive requirement, you quickly discover that there are only so many possible laws just like there can only be so many knots. Most ways of combining things together are really combinations of even simpler things, just like fantastically complicated knots are really one or two knots put together in a sequence or pattern.

In economics and politics, two “sciences” which seem to be the most distantly removed from reality, despite the fact that they are so important to our well-being, the reflexive property is hard to be found. “Do as I say, not as I do” is everywhere. We detest it, innately. We label it as one of the grossest crimes any politician can commit: “Hypocrisy.”

Some of us take it a step further, and suppose it is not unlike the hypocrisy that Jesus denounced, and so it is. However, the subject that the pharisees were being hypocrites with were laws of nature, particularly nature’s God. We cannot imagine that our politicians are committing a crime so gross when they act hypocritically in their respective fields.

Another property thinking reflexively, really the point of this whole post, is when people think some people in one place are fundamentally than other people in another place. We see this in two principle divisions.

One is government vs. business. Somehow, we have allowed ourselves to believe that government magically transforms people into angels. I know why this idea exists: it certainly benefits government. A similar parallel exists within business, that you are justified in doing whatever you wish economically, as long as you make profit, since by making profit you are transformed into angels of wealth. Neither of these do justice to the fact that humans are human. Humans are one step away from the angels, but likewise one step away from the devils. I cannot trust myself, morally speaking, anymore than I can trust anyone else. I am well familiar with my failings, despite the fact that those who know me best claim that I am fundamentally good. And so I know the same is true for the people around me.

Let me put that in plainer language. People in government are only human. Just like I (and doubtless, you) feel tempted to do things that are morally wrong, and sometimes I act on those things, people in government are the same, maybe more, maybe less. People are the same everywhere, really. The reflexive property demands we understand that.

What is the best political policy then? Simply this: empower people to control their own lives. Give a tiny bit of power to your neighbors to interfere with your life when you’ve obviously gone too far. Government should always be a tiny fraction of our life, something distant, something unnecessary except for when people cross gross moral limits.

When we empower others, people who do not care for us more than we care for ourselves, we give them an awful power. They do not have to live with the consequences of their actions, and so there is no control mechanism. See, in our life, if we make a bad choice, we suffer the consequences. If we give the power to choose to someone else, and they make a bad choice, they say, “Sorry,” and move on with their life, suffering no consequence.

Two, and this is important, is our thinking that we are somehow superior to someone else. One of my brothers once said, “People are stupid.” I nodded in agreement, thinking he had lumped himself into that group. Certainly I knew I was stupid. But then he added, “We can’t let them choose for themselves.” I shuddered at that thought. What made him think his special brand of stupid was better than other people’s brands of stupid? The reflexive property demands that anyone who thinks they are more or less human, or rather, anyone who thinks anyone is more or less than human, is wrong. Yes, circumstances are different, our intellectual capacity, our education, our habits, may distinguish us. But where is there among us someone who knows enough, who is wise and mature enough, who has pure moral intentions, and who can tell us which one of us is better or superior, or worse? Nowhere.

The Reflexive Property demands that the judge of humanity must himself be non-human. If he were human, he would judge himself, and that would make him an impartial judge. We certainly can’t have that. That’s why I ascribe all powers of judgment not to men or a man, but to God. We can’t influence him one way or the other, we can’t even understand his mind, but for fragments he feels we are ready to accept. (Not unlike those who are trying to understand relativity but only feed on the scraps of knowledge that those who really know share.)

That’s why I feel all Atheists must, immediately, create a God to worship, something that is distinctly not human, something worthy of our powerful instinct to worship and revere and trust. Then we can move forward, applying the Reflexive Property between us.

 

The Pro-Gay Marriage Argument

A WSJ writer details why the polls for marriage amendments and laws always favor, by a significant degree, the anti-traditional marriage degree. In short, those arguing against traditional marriage threaten the job security and safety of those who defend traditional marriage. And so when the pollster ask the question, people are likely to lie and say they oppose traditional marriage because they know publicly defending traditional marriage means you will be tarred and feathered.

I can’t disagree. I certainly don’t go about broadcasting that I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, even though probably 60%+ of the people I work with agree with me. Why? Those who want to destroy traditional marriage are likely to do something intolerant towards me, whereas those who defend traditional marriage are confident and don’t need to lash out at those who oppose them.

Here’s a hint, folks. If your political position boils down to, “I want to hurt my political opponents,” you’re in the wrong.

Santorum is Done

Based on Santorum’s recent behavior, it’s apparent he has given up on being president, let alone nominee of the Republican Party. He’s acting in a way no president ever would. He’s acting in a way someone who wants to seize the headlines and make a career out of giving speeches (like Huckabee and Gingrich).

Paul was never a contender. It’s pathetic, really, to see the efforts of the Paul supporters wasted. It’s sad to see that look on a Ron Paul supporter’s face when they realize that they are in the minority, and the majority will not change their mind. The only good that is going to come out of the Paul campaign is that a lot more people who tend to have conservative viewpoints truly understand the work involved in politics. Perhaps they are also going to mature, politically speaking, and are no longer going to play the game of “my candidate or no one!”

With the nomination wrapped up, Romney is shifting gears. He’s been shifting gears for the past few months, if you haven’t noticed. This is the “Etch-a-Sketch” component of his campaign. What you say and do in trying to get the republican nomination is different than what you say and do to win the election. We’ve already heard most of what Romney’s core principles for the general election are, and it’s making a lot of conservatives very, very happy.

The primary process did a number of things to the American political landscape. I’ll try to name the most obvious things.

1. We are all agreed now that repeal of Obamacare is the only prudent course of action. The Republican Party has completely bought into this, from the top to the bottom, no matter what they used to think of centralized health care.
2. The Evangelical vote has successfully isolated itself from American politics. No one dares to win by courting them, because the cost is too high in terms of other groups they could court. In other words, it’s better to try and get the Mormon vote than the Evangelical vote (even though Mormons are grossly outnumbered by Evangelicals.)
3. Religion will not be an issue in this race, or any race for the foreseeable future. If you are scared of Evangelicals forcing their religion down your threat, you need not worry, because they have effectively 0 voice today.
4. However, social conservatism (opposition to abortion, support of marriage, etc…) are winning issues. There is only a handful of candidates across the political spectrum that dare say they support abortion.
5. It’s now painfully clear that Obama is a racist running to get votes from racists.
6. It’s also painfully clear that Obama is completely incompetent as he bleeds votes and voters and cash and supporters to the Romney campaign.
7. It’s also painfully clear that there is a double-standard. It’s ok to say nasty things if you are a liberal. But if you are a conservative, you dare not say the truth for fear of reprisal from the politically correct.

Romney’s Etch-a-Sketch

By now you may have heard of Etch-a-Sketch-a-gate. One of Romney’s campaign advisors, Eric Fehrnstrom, said that the Romney campaign will “reboot”, like an Etch-a-Sketch, come the Autumn, to appeal to a larger base of voters.

Your knee-jerk reaction is to say, “That’s terrible! Romney’s a flip-flopper!”

But before you do that, let me ask a question: Which presidential campaign will NOT change their message once they win the nomination?

I welcome the new-found honesty in politics that the Romney campaign brings. What other campaign would be comfortable saying the truth with such boldness and audacity?

Does anyone doubt that campaigns do change their marketing pitch when they approach election time? Is Romney going to be talking about the same things in October that he has been talking about up til now?

If you think he will, you are a fool, and you should not vote for Romney, because he would be a terrible candidate.

You have to adapt your marketing message to the crowd you are targeting. The same message that works with republicans does not work with independents or conservative democrats. The same message that works with the old does not work with the young.

As Jim Gerarghty summarized:

Indeed, what Fehrnstrom did was say explicitly what every campaign does quietly when a primary ends. The goal stops being to win a majority of support among members of the candidate’s party to winning a majority of support within the electorate at large. Very, very rarely does a campaign not have to change its sales pitch as the target audience changes.

And as John Schroeder writes:

I find this true for so many of Team Romney’s “gaffes.”  They are based not in an effort to deceive, but in an incapability to be deceptive.  They don’t want to fool or manipulate the American people.  They expect the American people to understand things and enter the discussion with frankness and a desire to resolve issues.  Conventional political wisdom is that such thought grossly overestimates the average American – perhaps.

But this I do know – you tend to get what you expect from people.  The expectation of Team Romney that people are smart and reasonable will in fact lead at least some to be smart and reasonable.  Is that a bad thing?

Romney is no politician. It’s not in his blood, and it shows. He is a businessman. In business, honesty gets you places you wouldn’t otherwise be, truth is something you’re willing to pay big bucks for, and those who make the wrong choices end up paying with their career.

If only politics and government worked the same way! If you want to get places in government, you have to be so deceptive that you appear to be honest, truth is the thing that you’re willing to pay big bucks to hide or pervert, and those who make the wrong choices get promoted.

Irrational Anger Against Romney

One of the signs I look for in politics is something I call “irrational anger”. People who suffer from this tend to go down several notches in my respect book. Some of the stuff they say is fun and interesting, and occasionally, politically useful, but in the end, they are just dogs yapping at the moon, powerless to change anything. Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit is a good example of this kind of behavior.

On the other hand, one of the things I look for is meekness and humility. This evidences itself in a number of ways. Notably, the politicians who exemplify this attribute are more than willing to take the blame for the things they did, and more than willing to share the credit. This article at American Thinker covers a lot of what I think is most important about Romney.

If you’re the type that allows yourself to be influenced to action by anger, then perhaps you are the kind of person who doesn’t make a lot of wise decisions in his life. On the other hand, if you are the type who values results over rhetoric, then you probably find it hard to get excited about politics and instead make decisions after a lot of thought and investigation.

Which type are you?

Trying Their Best

There are a few ideas that seem to be taking hold in the hearts and minds of the people of the United States. These ideas are powerful because they have the potential to completely change how our government works. Of course, the liberal elements of our society are deathly afraid of these ideas, and so they try to discredit them whenever they can. Since these ideas are based on logic and reason, their only options are to use logical fallacies to attack them.

The ideas that are creeping back into our society is that of individualism. The atomic element of our society is the individual. If the individual’s rights aren’t respected, then no one’s rights are. If the individual is not responsible, then no one is. You cannot have a free, independent, responsible society without free, independent, responsible individuals.

Evidence of this is found in our attitude towards charity. It used to be that government offered the individuals to handle charity on their behalf. The argument was basically, “We can do it better than you can alone, so let us do it in your behalf.” Today, we know what that has bought us: gross negligence, and even politicians who pretend to be noble while condemning the very people who fund their latest charitable government project. In fact, the money government has collected from us has gone toward the reelection campaigns of the politicians who promised to responsibly spend it. You don’t have to look very far for a politician who claims credit for the charity they are capable of doing because we willingly allow them to take our money.

Charity should be an individual expression of love between individuals. When a rich man stoops down to serve soup to the poor, a bond is formed. The rich man is humbled, and the poor man elevated. By creating an environment where different levels of our society interact, we bridge the social gap between rich and poor.

I have found in my own life when I give my own money to help the poor, that I am encouraged to make even more money so that I can help even more poor. I think charity is a more powerful motivator than greed. I imagine what good I could do if I could build a company that employs hundreds or thousands of people who would otherwise be unemployed, and I am much more motivated than I would be if I could afford a larger house, a faster car, or a bigger TV.

I will eagerly work for the day when every individual in our society knows that if they do not give, then it will not be given. I await for the day when people are motivated to work harder and harder, not so much to supply their own needs, but to ensure the needs of others are all met.

Another instance is the individual’s attitudes towards government insurance or pension programs, namely Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. These are programs that were and always have been, and forever will be, a Ponzi Scheme. In truth, these are programs that were used to quietly collect even more tax money from the people of America. The idea was that the people were paying into a retirement account. The truth is that they would have been better off spending the money for themselves, or saving it in a bank.

My generation’s attitude towards these programs is that they will not exist when we retire, and we’d rather not continue the fraud. At some point, these programs must be phased out. Of course, we don’t want to hurt granny, and so we are more than willing to pay for granny’s mistake in trusting these government programs, but we do not want these programs to be available for us or our children.

The biggest fraud of all is the government budget. There are countless trillions we are spending that need not be spent. I am among the conservatives who feel like our national defense budget is too large, but that everything else is extremely bloated. I believe that the American citizen is not free until the national debt is eliminated and the federal government’s budget is counted in the millions, not trillions. While I do not believe we should embrace isolationism, I don’t think that we need to be the only military power in the world. Let the peaceful countries of the world maintain a military proportional to their needs, and let us form partnerships to keep the shipping lanes open and the borders free for trade among all nations.

But the spending on things that are not explicitly listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution must end. Even if something is found in Article 1 Section 8, let us debate carefully and thoughtfully whether spending that money would be a net benefit to our society as a whole, and only spend on those things that are obviously of great benefit.

The Leftist’s arguments against these items is vacuous. They engage in all sorts of logical fallacies to try and convince you that these are not intelligent ideas. Let’s review some of them.

First, there’s the ad hominem. This is when the person making the argument becomes the object of discussion. For instance, to attack Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan because of the things he has done in the past. Whether or not Herman Cain is a womanizer has nothing to do with whether or not the 9-9-9 plan would be a good idea. It has everything to do with the fact that the leftist can’t build a sound argument against the 9-9-9 plan.

Next, we see ad populum, where the argument is that “everyone is doing it.” This is an absurd argument because, as we were lead to believe, “Everyone once thought the earth was flat.” and “Everyone thought the sun went around the earth.” There are things today that “everyone” believes that are simply not true, and no amount of appealing to popular opinion will change that.

Of course, there’s the chewbacca defense. This is an argument that is sneaky yet surprisingly effective. It comes from an old South Park episode where a lawyer tries to defend his client by talking about how absurd Chewbacca, a character from the Star Wars series, is! You can detect this argument when the leftist tries to talk about something completely unrelated. For instance, you might point out that the deficit under Obama is worse than any other president, and he leftist will come back with something about abortion rights, or Michelle Bachmann’s crazy beliefs.

These are only a few of the arguments I have seen used. You can identify many more if you pay careful attention.

Most of these arguments are easy to defeat. All you have to do is point our how you must be right, because your opponent cannot put together a reasonable argument, or how your opponent reverts to the basest of attacks when faced with a challenge.

Perry v. Romney (and others)

It’s really funny when I read about Perry calling Romney someone who’s been inside the beltway. Apart from his 4 years as governor, Romney hasn’t spent a day in any elected position in any government. Perry, on the other hand, has over twenty years experience as an elected official in one role or another.

I think that Perry’s high ratings in the polls are numbered. Romney is giving him some room to breath, a calm before the storm, so to speak. As people become familiar with who Perry really is and what is policies really were, he’ll fall in the polls leaving Romney the last man standing.

I wish this were simply speculation, but judging one what other republican insiders see, this is the likely result. If you want to run for the GOP position, you have to build up a network and name recognition well before the campaign season starts. The GOP is a huge, fragmented organization, not a top-down structure like what the democrats have. It is more difficult, I believe, to unite the GOP behind you as a presidential candidate, than to get the rest of the country to elect you.

Sarah Palin, I believe, may likely run this year. I don’t join with her critics in condemning her or her positions or her record. As far as presidential candidates go, she would make a fine president. I hope she runs. By doing so, that will mean the 2016/2020 ticket will be full of good, prepared candidates. To be honest, I believe the Romney./Palin ticket would sweep the country.

Michele Bachmann, unfortunately, is ending up as a Ron Paul, Jr. I don’t see her campaign getting put together, I don’t see her making the strategic moves, and I don’t see her effectively selling herself to the larger GOP audience. She should stick with her state politics, focus on becoming a house leader, and let that be her life’s achievement. If she keeps her nose clean, then ten, twenty years from now she can be a real contender, much more likely than Newt Gingrich. I wouldn’t say that a house-to-president run is impossible, only very unlikely, and only after you’ve been speaker of the house or some other very high ranking house member, and only if you’ve built a solid network before declaring.

Speaking of which, Ron Paul is really doing what only Ron Paul can do. I hope he takes his leadership and power and uses it to make real change. I think Paul was given a tremendous chance on fed oversight panel, and he should focus mostly on that and organizing his troops to see that we get an honest-to-gosh fiscal conservative in office, everywhere. The Paulians are really earning a name for themselves. This derogatory term will soon be a badge of honor if they continue with their ways.

I want to emphasize something here. There are several political factions, but only 2 that I know of that will actually see results. Of course, there’s the Tea Party, but more importantly, and I think, at the heart of the Tea Party, are the Paulians. They are running for office, taking seats one by one, building foundations that will give them an enormous amount of power. I know several Paulians, and to be honest, if you want to try to win the GOP without their support, you will find your victory Pyrrhic at best.

I am not a Paulian, I don’t support much of the Libertarian or Ron Paul platform, but I do agree, wholeheartedly, on cutting the federal budget, and so I find association with the Paulians to be beneficial.

Herman Cain is wholly unsuited for this vicious business. I get the sense, based on what I am seeing, that he is a good person, may make a wonderful president, but is not oriented towards the political way of doing things. Did he expect the GOP candidates and factions to treat him with kid gloves? I don’t know that he really understands the depth of corruption that politics is. I am sure he is learning, and by the end of this year, will probably be more fit to be elected than almost any other leader in the GOP.

He has two opportunities: One, he can shift the debate and focus of the presidential race. Mission accomplished, but there is more he can do. Two, he can build the foundation for partnering with existing political forces already at work. Some are saying that the Romney-Cain machine would be unstoppable. I would hope Cain effectively integrates with at least Romney, but others as well. I believe Cain as a spokesperson for the Tea Party might be an ideal role. Along with Bachmann, Palin, and Paul, these outside-the-beltway types can really stir things up.

The liberal strategy is to divide the right by religion and ad hominem. They will try to stick as many wedges as they can between the factions and leaders. I don’t think it is going to work, principally because the factions won’t let it work. Yes, the Tea Party and the Paulians and the Country-Club Republicans and the pro-lifers and the NOM and everyone is viciously focused on their goals, but they know, at the heart of the matter, the enemy #1 to their political goals is Obama and the democratic-controlled congress and state houses.

Peter King’s Hearings on Radicalization of Islam in America

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is holding hearings on the radicalization of Islam in America. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) broke down in tears describing all the wonderful things Muslims have done for America.

Now for my commentary.

If there were a radical sect of Mormonism that interpreted the Bible and Book of Mormon as justifying or even demanding the blood of all non-Mormons, how would I, a Mormon who believes such a thing is of the devil, react?

First, I would loudly and unconditionally denounce their interpretation of the scriptures and modern revelations. Even if you could justify violence in the name of our religion (you really can’t, outside of state-sanctioned violence such as war or defense of personal liberty), I would still feel it my duty, as an elder in the church, to point out to those who misinterpret the scriptures and innocent bystanders the error of their interpretation.

Second, I would cooperate, whole-heartedly, with police and other government investigations, to eliminate the threat, and expose any hidden elements among my congregation.

Third, I would take whatever opportunity I could to point out that my style of Mormonism doesn’t resemble anything like what their style of so-called Mormonism is, and that they are heretic and not entitled to even be called “Mormon” or “LDS”.

We already have this issue in the LDS faith (using this in the broadest sense possible to include all branches from Joseph Smith’s original church.) There are sects which embrace polygamy and call themselves “fundamentalist” LDS. We, as a church, and individually, loudly condemn their misintrepetation of scripture and revelation. We, as a church, cooperate with the police in finding the polygamists and bringing them to justice. (I do remember times past, in the 70′s, when polygamists would sneak into wards, get exposed, and end up in jail.) We, as a church, take whatever opportunity we have to point out how they are not LDS and they are not fundamental, and they share almost nothing in common with our beliefs and religion, and shouldn’t even be called LDS or Mormon in print.

Why is it that Islam has such a difficult time doing this? I know that there are a lot of Muslims who are doing all of the above whenever they have an opportunity to do so. But it seems to me, the group as a whole is somewhat lukewarm to denouncing the radical terrorists among them, and even, in some cases, choosing to support the radicals over the law.

Unfortunately, the self-appointed spokespeople for Muslims in America is CAIR, and unindicted co-conspirator to several terrorist organizations. Why this group still exists, and why Muslims at the national level, like Rep. Keith Ellison, have not denounced and thoroughly humiliated CAIR is beyond my understanding. CAIR makes it its business to blur the lines between radical Islam and American, peaceful Islam. They elevate people with ties to radical Islam, and coordinate with groups at home and abroad who work with radical Islam.

I am left to believe that there is a problem in the Muslim community, and that there needs to be some sort of systematic reform to correct the situation. Perhaps it is because Islam is not a religion as we know the Christian religions to be—corporations and organizations with strong, central leadership. Perhaps it is because of the heavy influence from foreign leaders who have no loyalty to America or her ideals. Regardless, something is amiss and it is up to Muslims to stand up and face the challenge of exonerating Islam while condemning radical terrorism.

A reading of LDS history will show that such a time occurred around 1890-1920 in the US. President Wilford Woodruff, the prophet, seer and revelator for the entire Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the manifesto ending the practice of polygamy among the Latter-day Saints. However, the practice, unofficially, was still present. It took many years of cooperation with the law, hearings, and testimony to completely abolish the practice in the hearts and minds of the church, and to impress upon the minds of their fellow Americans that the practice was completely extinguished. Having stood so adamantly against political persecution and in defense of the practice, this was not an easy task to reverse course. Yet it had to be done, and it was.

During the period of change, rumors abounded that the practice was still alive, and the First Presidency and other officers of the church had to spend considerable effort to validate the rumors and remove those involved. I believe a few members of the Quorum of the Twelve, the governing body second only to the First Presidency, were excommunicated. There were many more excommunications throughout the church as well.

Today is not an easy time to be Muslim, and I can’t say it’s only because of the bigots who hate everything different from themselves. The reason why it’s not easy to be Muslim is because those who should be defending you outside of your faith cannot do so, because there are elements among you that deserve condemnation. Once those elements are thoroughly purged, and you have shown them to be purged, then those elements of our society who will naturally defend you (count myself among them) will be confident in standing up to the bigots on your behalf.

Keep in mind what such a purging will look like. Your brethren who support terrorism must be expelled from your mosques, and must be publicly humiliated. CAIR must be dethroned and a different, non-terrorist affiliated group must replace it. Those people among you who have, in the past, supported terrorism but no longer do, must never be allowed to stand in any position of leadership or be allowed to represent you in any way. Foreign Muslims who do not share your love of liberty and peace cannot be allowed to preach to you or influence you in any way. Your youth who find browsing online sites encouraging terrorism must be disciplined or otherwise shamed. Your mosques must be filled with the messages of love, liberty, and prosperity for all, and peaceful, co-equal co-existence with your brothers of all faiths, or no faith at all. These kinds of reforms take years, and are painful, and not fun. But they must be done.

Rep. King’s hearings are a good opportunity to do some self-inspection, and cooperation with the hearings will show the world that you want nothing more than to be part of America. If you do as Rep. Ellison is doing, and use the hearings as a time to score political points or misrepresent the hearings as a witch-hunt against Muslims, do you think Muslim-American relations will improve?

Balanced Budget Amendment

Thomas Jefferson once stated that if he could make any change to the constitution it would be to deny congress the power to borrow money.  How much better off would we be today if Jefferson had his way?

A balanced budget amendment is not as straight forward as one would think.  We would have lost World War II without the power to borrow money.  Jefferson himself called congress into a special session when Napoleon Bonaparte offered to sell 828,800 square miles to the US for $15,000,000.  This was a good deal and Jefferson wanted to execute the purchase before France could change her mind.

Another thing to keep in mind are the shell games politicians play. When a state goes to the people to get approval for a state lottery or other revenue increasing scheme, they almost always include language stating that all the revenue raised will go to some virtuous cause, like schools or to care for the elderly.  This leads people to believe that the revenue raised will be on top of the revenue the schools (or other virtuous cause) already receives.  In fact this is never the case.  If the lottery raised $100,000,000 dollars for the schools it merely frees up $100,000,000 of education funds to go back to the general fund.  It just becomes more play money for the politicians. Any balanced budget amendment must prevent this.

One thing we do not wish to allow is perpetual debt.  We cannot allow congress to mortgage the future of unborn generations.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

1. The United States government shall have two budgets; one for national defense and one for everything else. The defense budget and the general budget shall have separate revenue streams. Revenue may be transferred from the general budget to the military budget; however, money shall be be transferred from the defense budget to the general budget.

2. Congress shall have power borrow money for national defense with a simple majority of both the house and the senate and with the signature of the President, upon the following conditions:

• Congress has declared war.
• Actually combat is taking place.
• There is a draft and the children of congressmen are being drafted.

(The war has to be real.)

3. Congress shall have power to borrow money for the purchase of new territory, up to the purchase price of said territory) with a simple majority of both the house and the senate and with the signature of the President.

4. Congress shall have the power to borrow money for any other purpose with a simply majority approval of both the house and the senate, plus two percent for each consecutive year that the United States has carried a debt.

Explanation:

If the US was debt free and congress wished to borrow money they could do so with a 50% plus one vote majority in both the house and the senate. If they wished to borrow more money the next year and they had not paid the debt from the previous year, it would require a 52% majority.  If they had carried a debt for ten years then a 70% majority would be required.  If they carried a debt for twenty five years it would require a 100% majority, plus one vote to borrow more money.  The party is over.  At this point they cannot borrow any more money until all outstanding debts are paid off (unless they chose to purchase Siberia or they needed to finance a war).

Cross posted from A2 Curriculum