Archive for the ‘American Culture’ Category

The GOP Supported King’s Vision

January 16, 2012

This Martin Luther King day, I want to share with you, readers, the perspective of the GOP, the Republican Party, on Martin Luther King’s vision for our society.

As you have been told, the GOP is a racist and hateful party. Nothing is farther from the truth. The inception of the Republican Party was when the current group of politicians could not find the backbone to stand up for the civil rights of the black race. In response, the Republican Party was formed, the Civil War was fought, and Reconstruction, that period of time when the Republican congress mercilessly pursued state governments and officials who tried to deny the black race their civil rights was enacted.

In the 60’s, republicans were well aware of the atrocities that the Democratic Party had enacted against the black race. Things like Jim Crow laws, and “separate bu equal” were abhorrent in our party’s sight. However, since for the better part of the 20th Century the Republican Party was a minority in congress, we could do little to help except in our own communities or realms of influence.

In the 1960’s, there were enough democrats, finally, that the republicans were able to get a new Civil Rights bill passed. About this time, people started defecting from the Democratic Party, not because they wanted to join the “racist” Republican Party, but rather because it was clear to them that the Democratic Party was quickly becoming the communist party of the United States. This meant a number of politicians with a racist past joined the Republican Party. It also meant that the Republican Party began to explain to these politicians the minimum behavior we demanded, and began to convince them of the vision we had for the black race, that of complete equality under the law, which they found to be tolerable and even preferable. This generation of republicans is all but extinct, along with their foolish ideas.

Martin Luther King marched with a very large number of black people. We all know this. What people often ignore is the very large number of white republicans that marched with Martin Luther King as well. This is but one example of how the Democratic Party has tried to change history.

People forget the massive and unprecedented effort to make sure congress passed the Civil Rights legislation. The TEA Party seems like a huge thing today, but it pales in comparison with the number of republicans who were raising money, knocking on doors, and making phone calls at that time. I doubt the bill would have passed if it weren’t for countless thousands of republicans doing the back-breaking work of shifting public opinion and showing politicians that their vote would be remembered. This was when republicans realized, for the first time in a generation, that they had enough people behind them that they could win. The seeds for the ’94 Republican Revolution were sown in this event.

The sacrifice that Martin Luther King and his supporters made will forever be remembered by the Republican Party. Martin Luther King spoke for us when he dreamed of a future where skin color doesn’t matter. That was the sentiment many republicans felt back in 1860 when the party was first formed. That’s the same sentiment the vast majority of republicans feel today. That’s why we are so welcoming to black politicians who rise to the highest ranks in our political party, and why we encourage everyone to participate in our party, provided they agree with our ideals of equality under the law. I do not care who is black or who is white; that is completely irrelevant to me. I simply wish everyone to do the best with what they have, to be treated equally under the law, and to be given the respect that God demands we render each other.

Don’t let the democrats tell you that the republicans are racist. It takes 5 minutes talking with a real live republican to see that this is simply not true. It takes 5 minutes of reading history to see that this isn’t true. The true party of racism is the Democratic Party. They continue with the same tactics they have used to keep the black race subservient to their political desires today.

Do not think that the over-sized federal government and the welfare state is designed to empower the black people. It is the same policy the American government used to pacify and enslave the Indian nations and make them a shadow of what they used to be. It is the same policy we use to keep foreign powers in check and below us. After all, when one person is paying off another, who is in control of the relationship when the payee becomes dependent on the money?

The new plantations are the projects and government handouts and preferential racist policies. The new slaves are people who grow up into this system believing they cannot survive without the government. The slave masters are the greedy bastards in political office who use this to get re-elected year after year, and grow fat off of the skimmings. They think they have a pretty good system, and it would work if their assumption about the black race—that they are inferior to the white race—was correct. One day, however, the black race will realize what a tremendous con game they have been cheated with, and rise up and demand equality and justice, equality and justice the Democratic Party does not offer them.

Today, the Democratic Party is falling to pieces, literally, before our very eyes. It used to be that the unions, black population, hispanic population, pacifists, environmentalists, and marxists would happily work together. Today, under President Obama’s failed leadership, none of them are getting along at all. The only party that can hold together a solid coalition is the Republican Party, and that only because they have rallied around ideas, not demographics.

Why Memorials?

July 4, 2011

As I read about William Whipple receiving a plaque commemorating his role in the signing of the Declaration of Independence and service to our country at that critical time, I am reminded why it is so important we honor and recognize our ancestors and the work they did for us.

My older brother-in-law explained why Koreans spend so much time honoring their ancestors and parents. He framed it in this way. Suppose you want to receive honor from your sons and grandsons. You have to teach them to honor their elders. If you do not teach by example, what will they learn? Therefore, we honor our ancestors so that we are honored.

This is the Golden Rule in Confucian terms.

More importantly, I feel, is the role of remembering our history and the sacrifice that our forebears have made. By understanding the price we are not required to pay, we appreciate the price we do pay for its small measure. By understanding the price they paid, we understand the value they placed on the things they sacrificed for.

For members of the LDS church, our mausoleum of heroes extends whatever national figures our nation, wherever we reside, reveres. Added to the list of people worthy of remembrance are the Saints who persevered through persecution of the worst sort. They were chased out of their homes, churches, and temples by mobs. When we did stand up to the mobs with arms and armies, the Mormons became the target of an extermination order signed by the Missouri governor at the time. And so the Latter-day Saints packed their bags once again to build the city of Nauvoo. After the prophet Joseph Smith was martyred, once again they packed their bags and traveled to the most remote spot they could find, a land whose notable feature was a vast salt lake, and deserts with ground seemingly impossible to farm. The thousands of Saints that joined the church in England had to travel straight through from their homeland to Salt Lake City. These were not people accustomed to frontier life like the first generation of Saints were. These were people who lived in cities and towns, and were familiar with those comforts.

Along the trail, thousands of tiny graves were erected, often with nothing more than a piece of wood with a few initials. I visited the graves of some of my ancestors at the Winter Quarters temple. There was no time to make proper headstones. Oftentimes, a rock is all that marks where the body was buried.

July 24th marks Pioneer Day, the day when the Mormon Pioneers finally arrived at the place that the prophets Joseph Smith and Brigham Young saw in a vision. That’s the day when we celebrate our “Independence Day”, the independence and freedom to worship in a way that pleases us, or rather, the true and living God we worship.

What is most curious about the LDS faith is our reverence towards the same country that drove us out of our homes. We believe, as many people do, that it was not mere chance that the Founding Fathers did what they did. They were inspired by God. To me, July 4th is a religious holiday, a day when I celebrate the fact that God decided it was time to bring freedom to the world, and that he chose the group of people I call my own. I have a sacred duty as an American to protect my freedom and the freedom of my countrymen, as well as to spread that freedom as far and wide as possible.

Their ancestors, political or otherwise, were likewise inspired to do what they did. Who can say what the American revolution would have looked like without hundreds of years of English and European history, the experience of the Greeks, Romans, and others, and countless hundreds of philosophers and scientists?

Where was the roots of all of this? We can name many sources, but among all the most ancient sources, one source of our liberty shines brighter than all the others. Moses, in leading the children of Israel out of Egypt by the hand of God, is our ultimate example and inspiration.

Where does freedom come from? Can it be given, or is it earned? What are its conditions? My experience in this short mortal life is that we live each day, either increasing or decreasing our freedom. The choices we make have a profound and far-reaching effect on what freedoms we enjoy today and tomorrow. Which decisions maximize our freedoms, and which minimize it?

This is what the commandments of God are. They are yardsticks that help us measure our actions in a simple way. When God pronounces blessings for the obedient, and curses for the disobedient, he does so in the natural results of our actions. Violate His laws, and feel His wrath, whether it be by missing out on some of life’s most pleasant rewards, or altering our state and condition, both as an individual and as a society, such that we can never experience the reward.

I give as a simple example, God’s loving commandment “Thou shalt not steal.” By honoring other’s property, our property is honored. We do not have to take measures to protect our property, because our property needs no protections when no one will violate it. We are allowed to enjoy the full benefits of our property, because no one tries to limit our use of it, or claims it as their own.

Another simple example: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” If we are faithful to our spouses, our relationship can grow into the beautiful relationship that we see some older couples enjoy, where their lives have joined into one beautiful union. Our children will honor and respect us, and be more likely to follow our example and raise children of their own, so that we will have grandchildren and great grandchildren to brighten our later years. And we know from scientific studies that those who stay married see their children enter to the upper class, as they are more likely to earn more money and earn more advanced degrees.

Our freedom is predicated on our own individual willingness to obey God’s commandments. No government, no entity or individual, can force us to obey all of them. We can only build a peaceful society if we build it from within by our daily actions, and keep those forces who would destroy that society out. That is why we have government. The moment we no longer have individuals and organizations that try to interrupt our happiness is the same moment when we will no longer need a group of people to actively protect our rights.

Our Founding Fathers understood that our freedom is predicated on our personal righteousness. They knew that each generation would have to learn this for themselves. They knew that should any generation forget this, and embrace some other way besides the Laws of Nature, that we would lose our freedoms.

Today, as it has always been, our freedom is under attack. We don’t have armies of British soldiers attempting to extract taxes, interfering with our commerce if we refuse to comply. We don’t have slaveholders who eat the bread that is grown with slave hands. We don’t governments who oppress the people based on the color of their skin. We don’t face a vast international empire whose sole purpose is to impose autocratic rule in the name of Communism.

We do, however, face threats foreign and mostly domestic. Our national debt is identified by our military leaders as our biggest threat to our freedom. We have those whose lives depend on bankrupting our future set against those who want to end debt financing of our government operations altogether. We have those who believe they need government to survive, versus those who believe government should be a small fraction of what it is today. We have those who believe that they can impose immorality in the forms of abortion and homosexual marriage, and that by destroying the fabric of our culture, our religion, and family, that we will not lose our basic freedoms. And of course, we have a handful of nations who are building weapons that could do us great harm, combined with international terrorist organizations that are plotting to murder us while we live, work, and play.

I propose we do what our Founding Fathers did this July 4th. Let us reaffirm that government exists to protect our rights, not to infringe upon them. Let us reaffirm that our liberties come from God, not government, and depend on our personal righteousness. Let us reaffirm that we rely on God, and pray in faith knowing that he is merciful to those who humble themselves before him. And let us remember that the price of freedom is not cheap, but it requires sacrifice, and that whatever sacrifice we are called upon to make is a small fraction of what our ancestors made.

Woe is US

June 28, 2011

Oftentimes, certain evangelical preachers give a sermon pointing out all the flaws in our country, both as individuals and as groups of people that make up a nation.

I feel inspired to do the same, calling on reasonable morality to point out how corrupt we have become.

We have the power within our political system to fix these things. They will not be easy, and it will mean sacrifice from those who will benefit the least. But like a man who stoops to pick up litter as he walks by, we can have a better country if we are willing to sacrifice a little personal time and money for the greatest good.

Our most important moral issue is in our own hearts. Have we set our hearts on the perfect, or have we satisfied ourselves with “good enough”? Do we strive to be the best people we can be? Do we hold ourselves to impossibly high standards, and make our best effort to reach them? Or do we lower the bar, and then, stepping over it, pat ourselves on the back? I am talking about the moral responsibility we have as independent, free individuals. If we do not hold ourselves to the highest moral standards, then nothing I say after this will matter.

Discovering our weaknesses, we can hide them, or we can eliminate them. Obviously, it is better to remove our character flaws than to hide them, but it is the worst thing of all to pretend they are no flaws at all.

Yes, we are animals, but nature. But our superior minds and moral compass make us so much more than animals. The closest thing to mankind is God, or for the atheist, our concept of what God should be. We share more in common with God than any other thing in existence. To set our sights on anything lower is to admit the ultimate defeat.

After ourselves, our second moral responsibility is our family. Do we help our family, sacrificing ourselves for the good of the next generation? If not, then our priorities are all wrong. If life is the most important thing, then procreation and preparing that new life for a better future than our own is the greatest good. In order to do so, we need to build families based on love, patience, kindness, devotion, and work. We need to devote ourselves to our spouses, and then together act as parents to our children.

To a lesser degree, we need to reach out, to a lesser degree, but an important one nonetheless, to our extended families, particularly our aging elders, but our brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews, and more. If we cannot rely on our family, then what can we rely on at all? If we cannot be relied upon, then what are we?

Only after we have fixed our personal lives and family lives can we turn to our community. Within our community, our churches should be the focus of our charitable activities. Churches should organize all the relief efforts of all mankind in the community. Churches should be first to serve the poor, first to welcome the stranger, first to heal the broken hearts. Churches should be the moral center of the community, stalwart protectors of what is right and denouncers of what is wrong. At the same time, they must welcome all, from all walks of life, into the bonds of love and friendship that create our communities in the first place.

Our businesses should be places of work. Here, we should pour in our time and talents and capital, tempered only by our moral compass. The goal of business is to create wealth, which means making profits. These profits are fed back into the businesses to make even more profits. If our businesses are profiting, our fields will be full of food and our families will be well-fed. Only through profits can we create a better life for the future.

In government, the basic premise is simply this. Governments do that which only governments can do, and then only to protect or expand our rights and privileges. Governments cannot provide “things”, then can only provide the absence of interference. It is governments that ensure that the criminal elements within ourselves and our communities do not find it advantageous. It is through government that we unite to protect our own freedoms with just laws and just protection of our liberties.

Governments should not impose high taxes. What a drain this is! Except in wartime with a superior enemy, we shouldn’t be borrowing money or imposing high taxes. If government requires a lot of money to operate, then it most likely isn’t protecting our rights, but infringing upon them. That is our situation today. Who can lift a finger without asking for government’s permission first? This isn’t freedom, this is slavery. I feel like a fugitive trying to start a small business, not because I have criminal intent, but because it is impossible for me to know all the regulations that government has invented, and thus impossible to comply with even a small fraction of them. What a waste of our money—a government that tramples on our rights!

Some examples of government policies that are completely and totally immoral include:

  • Deficit spending and debt. Why are we borrowing from future generations to provide for ourselves? We have enslaved our children and grandchildren, and they cannot oppose this.
  • Transferring wealth from the workers to the elderly through Social Security and Medicare and entitlement programs. While we love our seniors, we are not their slaves.
  • Transferring to the poor and needy through welfare programs. While we love the poor and want to help, we are not their slaves either.
  • Mountains of regulations affecting every aspect of our lives: Government is not our master, it is our servant. Laws should only affect the criminally minded, not those who are simply trying to create wealth or help their neighbors and raise their families.
  • Illegal immigration not only tolerated by impossible to stop. When states write laws that allow police to determine whether a criminal is illegals in the US or not, the courts issue injunctions and stays. When President Obama waves his hand and grants amnesty above the objections of Congress, the courts applaud.
  • Injustice in the courts. When judges seek to impose their political ideology on the law as it is written, we no longer have justice, but tyranny. What is the difference between a king who does what he wishes and a judge who invents his own rulings?
  • Political corruption. When politicians seek to use their political power for personal gain, we have corruption. In order to eliminate corruption, we must drain the swamp, eliminating the connection between wealth and political power. If the federal government only spent a few millions each year, would there be an army of lobbyists petitioning for their cut of that money?
  • Money controlled by the Fed, not the people. The US Dollar is the people’s money, and should be controlled by the People’s house, which is what the constitution provides.
  • Regulation and courts in the administration. Putting regulatory power, executive power, and judicial power in the hands of one man or one group of men is too much for anyone person or group of people to handle. We might as well make these people lords and dukes and barons, and allow them to own slaves and raise armies, because that is what they are doing.
  • Foreign Policy that hurts our friends and helps our enemies. Why are we fighting a war in Libya, when the Libyan government has been cooperative, and yet we let Iran, a belligerent country, build nuclear weapons without even a word? This pattern is repeated again and again. At the very least, we should love our friends and hate our enemies, not the other way around. Of course, the American way is to encourage our enemies to be friendly with us, which I think is an even better law to live by. But we cannot, I repeat, cannot harm our friends and expect to have many friends.
  • Homosexual marriage. If marriage is so important, why can it be redefined? If marriage is so meaningless, why do we want to give it to homosexual couples? We should keep marriage the way it is, use it as a tool to build families with a loving father and mother who raise their children in love.
  • Abortion. We have murdered far more babies than Nazi Germany has Jews. There are millions and millions of people today who are not alive because of our Holocaust. We must end abortion, except in the moral dilemma where the life of the mother is at stake, rape or incest, where we are balancing lives, not convenience. We must live by the highest moral code, reserving sexual relations only for married couples, so that no child is brought into this world outside of marriage. In cases where out-of-wedlock pregnancies do occur, we must have only reasonable and simple laws that govern how those babies may be adopted to couples who wish to bring them into their families.
  • North Korea. We have lived for almost 2 generations with North Korea treating their own people worse than animals. Now that their people are starving once again, and we have plenty of surplus that can relieve all their starving, it is time we eliminated the roadblock between food and the North Korean people. I cannot live like this, knowing that we have the power to save so many people who are worse than prisoners in their own country. I don’t expect much resistance from an army who is half-starved and no longer loyal to the regime. All we have to do is stand up and move in our armies with food for the people and troops in that country, and we can overthrow that regime without firing a shot.

There are many more national issues where our government has put us on the wrong side of morality. I can only mention the few that I have.

The root problem is simply this: Our governments do too much. If they were a tiny fraction of the size they are today, we wouldn’t have a fraction of the problems we do today.

I am counting on you to rededicate yourselves to morality, and to live the moral way, rather than any other.

The Greatest Good

June 13, 2011

Socialists often talk about the “greater good”, but rarely do they mention the “greatest good”. That’s because they have a difficult time qualifying “good”, and thus, cannot reasonably determine whether one good is greater than another. So instead they resort to a rhetorical flourish designed to confuse the listener.

The greatest good is, of course…

If you can’t answer the previous question, it is because you are having your own struggle with good and evil in your own life. You cannot tell, for yourself, what is good and what is not.

If you have decided that the universe is meaningless, and we are random blips on the cosmological scale, then you are in agreement with the Christian: mankind is not the greatest good. In fact, it’s debatable whether there is any inherent good in mankind at all, in and of itself. Hence the people running around the world proclaiming that we should all just commit genocide on ourselves for the “good” of the planet.

But if you define good as something to do with life, then you understandable disagree with the whole “let’s commit genocide on ourselves” idea.

Let’s run with this idea: good has something to do with life. Therefore, more life means greater good. And the most life of all is the greatest good. Is this not agreeable?

Now, we have come to a conclusion: that which creates the most life is the greatest good.

So how do we create life? Through childbirth. But simply bringing a child into this world is not enough. It is agreed that to simply give birth to children and then to leave them to their own devices is not good. Children need a caregiver, someone who volunteers to sacrifice their life in the interests of the child. This is a good thing, because by sacrificing their own life, they give life to the next generation, and thus expand life at the maximum rate.

If this caregiver instills in the child a sense of duty to do the same to the following generations, then we have an even greater good.

Now, we know from biology that there are two genders: male and female. Which gender provides superior child care? The answer is both. Both are critical to the child-rearing process. Those children who are raised lacking one or the other grow up to be lacking. Scientific studies have proven this time and time again.

We arrive at the final point in our destination. Let us review. The greatest good is:

  • That which creates life
  • That which rears life under the optimal conditions, which is under the care provided by a loving male and female who have sacrificed their life for their child.
  • That which instills in the child a duty to do the same in the next generation.

If it isn’t obvious what the conclusion is, then let me spell it out for you. The Greatest Good is marriage, or the marriage that leads to childbirth and the rearing of children for the purpose of marriage.

We can argue from this point on whether rights supercede the Greatest Good, or whether the rights are simply a means to the Greatest Good. Let me explain.

We say, in our founding documents, that all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Why? This is not explained explicitly.

However, in that phrase, one word should stand our above the rest: “Creator”, meaning, one who creates. So, if the Creator does something, what is the purpose of the act? To create. To create what? To create men–people, you and I, us.

Why then, did the Creator give us rights? To create men, people, you and I, us.

The purpose of our rights is to prolong our lives and to establish even more life. That is, they are a means to an end. We protect our rights because by doing so, we protect life and the Greatest Good, the institution of marriage and child-rearing in families.

Why do we institute governments that execute murderers, raise armies to protect our borders, and protects the rights of the people to arm and defend themselves? To protect the institution of marriage and families.

Why do we institute governments to mandate liberty, abolish slavery, and ensure that men are free to act for themselves, for their own purposes? To protect marriage and the family.

Why do we institute governments to protect people’s properties from injustice and theft? To protect marriage and the family.

It’s really simple, really. The Greatest Good is the family and marriage and child-rearing and instilling in our children the duty to do the same. In order to maximize goodness, we have established that people have unalienable rights, so that they are free to marry and bear children and raise them in the conditions they determine to be optimal.

When we use our rights to defend anti-life behavior, we have destroyed the argument that created those very same rights in the first place. Does a man have a right to leave his family? No, he does not. Do we as a society have a right to force the father out of the family? Of course not, unless by not doing so we put members of the family in jeopardy.

I think that’s why I get so upset about the concept of homosexual marriage. It’s not because I hate gays—I don’t. I love them with the same love I try to love everyone, and ask that they repent just as I ask everyone to repent of whatever sins they have. Yes, everyone is sinful, and everyone needs to repent, even the gays.

Homosexual marriage, like no-fault divorce, out-of-wedlock childbirth, and the culture of promiscuity that besets us, will not lead to greater happiness for the individual or the society at large. It is, in short, a death-inducing poison, that which destroys life and the process whereby we create life. To adopt that into our society, and even to elevate until it is comparable to the Greatest Good is no different than drinking poison, poison which will lead to our own deaths.

If you can’t understand this, answer me this: If we build a society where sex is not confined to marriage, where homosexual people are encouraged to act on their perversions, and where family rearing is not the primary goal in everything we do, what will we end up like? The answer is simple: dead. Our society and all its institutions will disappear. If we don’t die from the invading hordes of people who don’t like us and want to kill us, we will die because we have no children and thus no future. When the last of our society’s members finally dies of old age, so will all of our institutions.

Compare that to a society that elevates marriage and child-rearing to the highest priority. Like a creature that is alive, it grows and reproduces and strengthens against all forms of disease and destruction. As long as it can continue down this road, it will continue to create lives and living and happiness and unending institutions.

My message is simple and clear: The greatest good is marriage and child-rearing in homes with a loving father and mother. Our rights and institutions we build from those rights all exist to protect and support and enhance this institution. To do anything less is to embrace death.

Our Decayed Morals

May 19, 2011

Our collective moral code is very, very different from the moral code our parents were born into.

In some ways, there has been improvements. Compared us to them, and racism isn’t really an issue anymore. We prefer, overwhelmingly, merit-based systems instead of systems based on seniority or some other pointless distinguishing factor. We are more skeptical, we tend to have a better grasp of basic scientific concepts, and we’re more tolerant.

But along the way, we’ve lost a few things.

We don’t value sexual purity anymore. Promiscuity before marriage, and infidelity in marriage seem to be the norm, if you believe popular culture. Lying, cheating, and stealing aren’t really that bad, as long as you are lying to, cheating, and stealing from people who don’t deserve it (as if we are able to judge worthiness.) Life is losing value, shown by our lack of willingness to get married, raise families, and put children above all else.

We lack humility, reverence, respect. We don’t even know what the word “meek” means anymore. We don’t focus our lives around impossible ideals. We have no God but ourselves.

Our language is coarse. Our ideas simple. Our vocabulary rapidly diminishing. Our knowledge of history and other cultures (beyond superficial facts) is all but gone.

We combine politics with religion and science, something our grandfathers knew to keep separate. Our state religion is atheism. We worship scientists and we are taught not to question expert opinion, although we question every other authority.

Of course, I am not speaking about individuals, I am talking collectively. I can’t deny that the culture I live and work in is all of the above. If you can’t detect my disapproving tone, then you aren’t paying attention.

What shall be done? Simply put, put God back in His place. You don’t have to be a genius to see why setting God, the ultimate embodiment of all that is good, just, and merciful, as the center of our lives is the most important thing we can do. Glenn Beck is absolutely right about this. It doesn’t matter what religion you belong to, if any, or even whether you actually believe such a being exists. What’s most important is we focus our individual lives around these permanent ideals.

From there, we will find it clear that things like respect for life, liberty and property is important. Without us rendering our duty to respect each other’s rights, we have no rights that will not be infringed upon.

Set life as the priority. Marry. Raise a family. Have 5 kids, or maybe 10. Stay married, don’t get divorced. Work things out with your spouse. Live and learn. Raise your children to be outstanding, honorable children.

Sexual activity—that thing which brings life into the world—should be preserved for the marital relationship. We know, scientifically, that there is a deep, emotional bond formed with sexual activity. Is it any wonder that sexual deviance from chastity leads to broken homes? We should use that deep, emotional bond to strengthen the marriage vow, and commit the loving couple into long-term, eternal fidelity. That means we begin a purge of our culture. All elements which detract from sexual chastity should be removed and erased. We shouldn’t give a dime to any author, writer, or actor who creates for us stories that exalt sexual immorality. We shouldn’t elevate them, but we should explain what they are doing by portraying sex the way they do.

Live your life with honor. Look up what “meek” means. It doesn’t mean weak. It means quiet, gentle, submissiveness. Submissive to what? Our eternal, unchanging ideals. Respect, honor, dignity are things that take hard work. We should develop these attributes, encourage the development in others, and elevate these as more important than their opposites.

Separate the political from the religious and the scientific. Politics corrupts everything it touches. Keep it isolated to those things with which it must be involved, but no more. That means we don’t use politics to further our favorite religion, whether it be Christian or Atheist. That means we don’t have political solutions to scientific problems. That really means limited government, government which is incapable of influencing in the smallest degree our religious or scientific culture.

Let’s stop stealing from each other. Using the government to take from someone else and give to yourself is wrong, and it will always be wrong. Either you render a service at market prices for which the government compensates you, or you get nothing. You have no claim to anything of anyone else’s. The rich owe you nothing.

I doubt the message will be heard. These ideas are, of course, completely contrary to everything we live in today. But our culture is really a sum of its parts. If the vast majority of the people acted with honor, refused to steal, and cherished life and virtue, then our culture would be identified with those traits.

So take these messages into your own heart, apply them to your own life, and live as an example to others. That’s all you can do, after all.

“All Men Are Created Equal”

April 28, 2011

Leftists like to use the phrase “all men are created equal” in our Declaration of Independence. When they do, they usually mean the exact opposite of what the phrase really means.

See, if you believed “all men are created equal”, then you wouldn’t have to treat any one person any different than any other, in the eyes of the law. That’s because they are not different—they are equal.

But to the leftist, they interpret this to mean, “The Creator screwed up. He meant to make all men equal, but he didn’t, so it’s our job to create a government that forces everyone to be equal.” Redistribution of wealth, common education, racial profiling, etc, are all examples of this.

I can understand why they need to twist this phrase around to mean the exact opposite. After all, if all men are created equal, then we wouldn’t have any of our socialist programs or policies, we wouldn’t treat black people different than white people at the government level, and we wouldn’t look at people’s incomes or assets before setting tax rates.

Democrats Threaten to Beat Republicans (Again)

April 14, 2011

A Democrat strategist threatens to beat Republicans with a baseball bat. The host agrees, as long as it is wooden.

We’ve been here before.

If this is the level of rhetoric the Democrats want to engage in, then perhaps we should prepare for another Civil War. Which US Fort will the democrats attack this time?

Should Irresponsible People Be Allowed to Vote?

April 12, 2011

On CNN, an opinion piece asks, “Should Ignorant People Be Allowed to Vote?

I don’t think ignorance really matters. I do, however, think responsibility does. After all, someone who is responsible for something, and interested in it being successful, will educate themselves to the point where they are not ignorant on the matter.

It used to be, a very long time ago, that only landowners could vote. The reasoning was that they were the only people interested in seeing good government, because they were the only people who could not easily flee a bad government. This seemed to work out, for the most part, fairly well, although the poorer class of people had no suffrage. However, in a way they did at least have representation. That’s because the landowners needed the poor people to work their land or pay their rent. So they benefited when the poor benefited. Landowners also like to see their property values rise, and this only happens when more money enters the land market, and the best way to see that happen is have the poor graduate to the middle class.

Then we went to universal suffrage for men, and then women, and now everyone over the age of 18 (which some still consider children.)

I think it would be nice if we could somehow measure how invested an individual is in the outcome of the election, and weigh their vote accordingly. Landowners, business owners, and other economic participants who are genuinely trying to create wealth should take precedence over those who don’t care as much. Parents should take precedence over those who don’t have children. Those who have lived here longer should have more representation than those who are just passing through. And so on, and so forth. Of course, we should add in some method of detecting those with sinister motives. These would be people like those influenced by international powers to subvert our nation, or those who want to make a buck on the backs of others.

Such a system is impossible to administer. We have to choose between a system where only specific people can vote, or where everyone votes. We prefer the latter.

Voters must realize, and should be told, that the government they have is the government they elected. After every election, we should blame those who elected the politicians more than the politicians, and explain to the voting public that if they don’t change how they vote, then things won’t change in government. Maybe we should send an automatic reminder to voters of how they voted in the last election, and whether they feel sorry for electing the person they did. This is the kind of responsibility that comes from trying to avoid blame, and is probably the best we can get.

Truth vs. Manufactured Reality

April 12, 2011

One of the most interesting features of the left today is their ability to be so sure about so many thing that are obviously wrong.

The latest example is the supreme court race in Wisconsin. Wasn’t Gov. Walker destroying the republican’s political image by taking the unions on? If you read any leftist’s writings, you’d have thought that the people had already tied him to a post and lit a nice bonfire under him. And yet, the incumbent, conservative candidate wins.

I think it takes a special kind of personality to be a leftist today. I am sure there are leftists who at least admit that reality is quite a bit different than what their people are saying reality is. Maybe there are a few who can admit that the vast majority of leftist ideas have been wholly rejected by the American voter of today. I mean, we’re talking about how deeply to cut the federal government now, and whether we should allow any deficit at all. We’re actually cutting money from welfare and entitlement programs as we speak, and there are no revolts in the street or mass uprisings against the republicans.

There was a time, and it’s probably still true today, when leftists believed they could manufacture the truth. A special combination of public relations combined with misleading reports by key government officials would be enough to completely pull the wool over the public’s eyes. Nowadays, there are too many sources of information that the American people read for anyone to hope to control the distribution of information. Propaganda must compete with propaganda, and it appears that people are more interested in finding out the truth behind things than accepting their own side’s take on the issues. I find even myself hesitant to accept anything our highest elected official in the land, Speaker Boehner, has to say. Skepticism is the rule nowadays, not blind acceptance.

I think I see a day when leftism fails altogether, and the debate in American politics is how conservative we should be. The real political debate that has any affect on future policies is the debate happening right now between the Tea Party Republicans and the Establishment Republicans in the House of Representatives. The left in this country has been completely excluded from this debate, and their mad ravings are all but completely ignored except by a few excitable people here and there who never mattered anyway.

As evidenced by Paul Ryan’s budget, the happy compromise between the two factions is a budget that grows more slowly than interest. Perhaps after 2012, the debate will shift to how small we should actually shrink government.

It’s a good time to be a conservative. The very fact that almost all of our political ideas are based on scientific observation of human nature means that our debate will always win out in the war of ideas.

In the World, not Of the World

April 6, 2011

I had the rare opportunity to visit with a family alongside the LDS missionaries serving in our area. The family was a devout Jehovah’s Witness who had clearly found Jesus and had been blessed with peace and happiness for his faith and devotion.

The missionaries encouraged him to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, to see if it was really God’s revelation through the prophet Joseph Smith or if it was not. He refused, and although he was amicable and the conversation was without any kind of contention, we could not change his mind or offer up a reason why he should change his mind. (Trust me, this has to do with politics and government. I’m getting there.)

His principle beef with the LDS church was not what typically divided the Jehovah’s Witnesses from the LDS church, but the fact that the LDS church and the members of the church were politically active. What to me was common sense, to him showed that we were firmly planted in the world and we were not building God’s kingdom here on earth.

I see this kind of sentiment among not just people of devout faith, but also among those who are very strict in their political beliefs as well. I am familiar with many people who, disagreeing with the size and scope of the federal government, believe the best course of action is to do nothing.

See, to me, if you are as extreme as an anarchist, who believes there should be no government at all, and you preferred living under no government than whatever we have now, why wouldn’t you use whatever power you had to bring us closer to your goals?

I mean, we see some violent factions of anarchism in the streets, destroying what they can to undermine the authority of the state. At the very least, they understand the simple concept: I want something, I have something, I will use what I have to get what I want, even if what we have is, in their minds, and oppressive and unjust government.

It reminds me of the sentiments of the Jewish people who long for Zion but refuse to lift a finger to see it happen. They believe that God will establish Zion with His own hands, and he doesn’t require anyone to do anything to help him. The other sect of the Jews believe that even when God sets his mind to do something, it requires the work and struggle of his people to see it happen.

In politics, everyone has an interest to participate, especially those who are dissatisfied with the way the world is. We have within ourselves, individually and collectively in whatever groups we affiliate with, some degree of political power. Having that power, is it not wise to use it to further your political goals?

For the LDS church, we have a vested interest in the family continuing as an institution with a husband and wife. To see society adopt a policy that marriage between two people of the same gender is morally equivalent and even preferable in some cases to marriage between two people of the opposite gender would, to say the least, undermine our plan for “world domination”: the linking of the entire human race into one eternal family bound to each other as spouse and children. It is also abhorrent to our belief that the genders are inherently different, and each gender must conform to basic gender roles if we intend to see any happiness on this earth.

And so the LDS church flexed its political muscles because it realized that by so doing, it would further its ends.

Should we not all do the same?

I believe a world where everyone is politically active to some degree, no matter how extreme their views, is a preferable world over one where only a few people participate. I believe that if those millions of Americans who do not exercise political power did, Washington DC, Olympia WA, and every other center of government in our nation would be dramatically different and so-called “special interests” wouldn’t dominate politics.

I also believe that, finding ourselves in this world that is hardly perfect, we do not do any good by exercising our power to see the world draw a little closer to the ideal.