Found this website that keeps it real. http://patdollard.com If you don't like swearing, don't go to it. This man, a Hollywood talent agent, multi-millionaire, left it all behind to go to Iraq to film what was really happening. He was blown up in a HumVee by an IED and wounded. He now has a blog that shows his vidoes and messages from his time in Iraq and continues with current affairs. If you want the real story, the story the MSM is not going to EVER show you, visit his site and look around. While you're there check out the prediction of food riots in the USA by 2012 by Trend Forecasters, the same group who predicted correctly the market crash of '87 among other things. Here's a blogcast about BO's birth issue. (BTW, isn't BO holding the phone upside down? Brilliant)
And, when I talk about hitting the turkey I don't mean literally hitting your turkey. PETA has a new video out showing how turkeys are being abused at the turkey farms. Look, there are idiots all over this world. Unfortunately some of them work around other humans, some of the work with animals, hell, some of them even operate heavy machinery or airplanes that you fly in every day.
Here's a funny interview with Palin. The background just adds so much to her interview doesn't it?
I'm mean, come on MSNBC, how do you think turkeys are supposed to be slaughtered? A tree stump and hatchet?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
State of Fear
I finished reading the State of Fear by Michael Crichton last week. A very well written, intense fictional book that debunks the global warming theory and outrage we have to endure thanks to these kind of hippies.
I wonder if they are using pencils, paper, toilet paper, homes that use wood, etc. Their mere presence in the woods with their wailing, screaming, and crying probably killed more trees than anything else. Undoubtedly the poor trees died in horror from their torturous cries. These are the same type of people who don't understand what the real reports out there show about the state of fear we are kept in so the gov't keeps control. Read the book. It is well worth it!
I wonder if they are using pencils, paper, toilet paper, homes that use wood, etc. Their mere presence in the woods with their wailing, screaming, and crying probably killed more trees than anything else. Undoubtedly the poor trees died in horror from their torturous cries. These are the same type of people who don't understand what the real reports out there show about the state of fear we are kept in so the gov't keeps control. Read the book. It is well worth it!
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Twilight the Movie
So I'm not really sure what I thought about this movie. I love the books. I know, I know. Mushy teen romance stuff, but the book Edward is pretty dreamy. The movie Edward? Not so much. Don't get me wrong. Robert Pattinson is a good looking guy. But, #1: he's too old looking to play the role of Edward. #2: He has to fight his British accent the entire movie and sounds absolutely funny sometimes. #3: He's just an average actor. #4: He doesn't come across as vicious enough in any of the scenes that he needs to be frightening in. I would definitely say that I like my inside my own mind Edward better.
My impression of the rest of the movie: still undecided. I think this is one of those flicks that you either love or it has to grow on you. Once it is out on video and I can watch it again I'll have a better opinion. It was obviously not something that I have to pay to go see again.
ON THE OTHER HAND THE TRAILER FOR HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE ROCKED!!!!! I WAS SO DISAPPOINTED THAT THEY MOVED BACK THE RELEASE DATE TO JUNE '09 INSTEAD OF THIS DEC SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPETE WITH TWILIGHT. SMART ON THEIR PART, BUT SOOOOO LONG TO WAIT!!!
My impression of the rest of the movie: still undecided. I think this is one of those flicks that you either love or it has to grow on you. Once it is out on video and I can watch it again I'll have a better opinion. It was obviously not something that I have to pay to go see again.
ON THE OTHER HAND THE TRAILER FOR HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE ROCKED!!!!! I WAS SO DISAPPOINTED THAT THEY MOVED BACK THE RELEASE DATE TO JUNE '09 INSTEAD OF THIS DEC SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO COMPETE WITH TWILIGHT. SMART ON THEIR PART, BUT SOOOOO LONG TO WAIT!!!
Friday, November 21, 2008
More of those Crazy @$$ Floridians
Wow. This story just stinks. Literally. I can understand being ticked off by some kids who continually uses flatulence as a way to bug the hell out of everyone, but having him arrested? Come on!!! What happened to suspending him or making him sit in the principal's office for the day?
from the smoking gun
Florida Boy Arrested For Gas Attack
12-year-old charged after deliberately "breaking wind" in class
NOVEMBER 21--A 12-year-old Florida student was arrested earlier this month after he "deliberately passed gas to disrupt the class," according to police. The child, who was also accused of shutting off the computers of classmates at Stuart's Spectrum Jr./Sr. High School, was busted November 4 for disruption of a school function. A Martin County Sheriff's Office report, a copy of which you'll find below, notes that the 4' 11" offender admitted that he "continually disrupted his classroom environment by breaking wind and shutting off several computers." The boy, whose name was redacted from the police report released today, was turned over to his mother following the arrest. The young perp turned 13 on November 15. (2 pages)
This next story is just plain sad. How someone gets to the point of taking their own life without getting help from anyone is hard to imagine. You would think there would be warning signs, and maybe sometimes there are none. I feel for his family, and am furious that there are people in this world who would sit and watch someone die, live, while doing nothing. Cyber voyeurism at it's worst. I never could understand how anyone could watch the posted video of Nicholes Berg being decapitated either.
Florida teen commits suicide in front of webcam
Email this Story
Nov 21, 4:18 PM (ET)
By RASHA MADKOUR
MIAMI (AP) - A South Florida college student killed himself by overdosing on drugs in front of a live online audience as some computer users egged him on, some debated his method, and others tried to talk him out of it.
Abraham Biggs, 19, of Pembroke Pines, died Wednesday at his home from a toxic combination of opiates and benzodiazepine, a drug used to treat insomnia and depression, said Wendy Crane, an investigator with the Broward County medical examiner's office.
Authorities say the Broward Community College student is not the first person to commit suicide with a webcam rolling.
It's unclear how many people were watching through the Web site bodybuilding.com. Someone finally notified a site moderator, who pinpointed Biggs' location and called police, but they arrived too late to save him, Crane said.
Biggs, who used the screen name "CandyJunkie" on the bodybuilding Web site, started blogging about plans to kill himself 12 hours before he was found lying dead on his bed. He posted a link from bodybuilding.com to Justin.tv, a site that allows users to broadcast live videos from their webcams.
Some users who read the blog told investigators they did not take him seriously because he had threatened suicide on the site before.
But Biggs' family was infuriated that neither viewers nor the site acted sooner to save him.
"When (police) came in, the webfeed stopped. So that's 12 hours of watching," said his sister, Rosalind Biggs, who said her brother struggled with bipolar disorder. "They got hits, they got viewers, nothing happened for hours."
Rosalind Biggs described her brother as a friendly, social, outgoing person who struck up conversations with Starbucks baristas and enjoyed taking his young nieces to Chuck E. Cheese.
"It boggles the mind," she said. "We don't understand."
Authorities could not immediately verify the authenticity of a video posted online that shows a gun-wielding officer entering a bedroom where a man is lying on a bed, facing away from the camera. The officer peers over to look at the man, then begins to examine him as the camera lens is covered. The video matches Crane's description of events.
Condolences poured in to Biggs' MySpace page, where the mostly unsmiling teen is seen posing in a series of pictures with various young women. On justin.tv, his alias was "feels_like_ecstacy."
In a statement, Justin.tv CEO Michael Seibel said: "We regret that this has occurred and want to respect the privacy of the broadcaster and his family during this time."
The Web site declined to release information on how many people were watching the broadcast. The entire site had 672,000 unique visitors in October.
Messages left with the bodybuilding Web site were not immediately returned Friday.
A spokesman for the Pembroke Pines police said they were investigating but declined further comment.
Crane said she knows of at least one other case in which a South Florida man shot himself in the head in front of an online audience, although she didn't know how much viewers saw. In Britain last year, a man hanged himself while chatting online.
from the smoking gun
Florida Boy Arrested For Gas Attack
12-year-old charged after deliberately "breaking wind" in class
NOVEMBER 21--A 12-year-old Florida student was arrested earlier this month after he "deliberately passed gas to disrupt the class," according to police. The child, who was also accused of shutting off the computers of classmates at Stuart's Spectrum Jr./Sr. High School, was busted November 4 for disruption of a school function. A Martin County Sheriff's Office report, a copy of which you'll find below, notes that the 4' 11" offender admitted that he "continually disrupted his classroom environment by breaking wind and shutting off several computers." The boy, whose name was redacted from the police report released today, was turned over to his mother following the arrest. The young perp turned 13 on November 15. (2 pages)
This next story is just plain sad. How someone gets to the point of taking their own life without getting help from anyone is hard to imagine. You would think there would be warning signs, and maybe sometimes there are none. I feel for his family, and am furious that there are people in this world who would sit and watch someone die, live, while doing nothing. Cyber voyeurism at it's worst. I never could understand how anyone could watch the posted video of Nicholes Berg being decapitated either.
Florida teen commits suicide in front of webcam
Email this Story
Nov 21, 4:18 PM (ET)
By RASHA MADKOUR
MIAMI (AP) - A South Florida college student killed himself by overdosing on drugs in front of a live online audience as some computer users egged him on, some debated his method, and others tried to talk him out of it.
Abraham Biggs, 19, of Pembroke Pines, died Wednesday at his home from a toxic combination of opiates and benzodiazepine, a drug used to treat insomnia and depression, said Wendy Crane, an investigator with the Broward County medical examiner's office.
Authorities say the Broward Community College student is not the first person to commit suicide with a webcam rolling.
It's unclear how many people were watching through the Web site bodybuilding.com. Someone finally notified a site moderator, who pinpointed Biggs' location and called police, but they arrived too late to save him, Crane said.
Biggs, who used the screen name "CandyJunkie" on the bodybuilding Web site, started blogging about plans to kill himself 12 hours before he was found lying dead on his bed. He posted a link from bodybuilding.com to Justin.tv, a site that allows users to broadcast live videos from their webcams.
Some users who read the blog told investigators they did not take him seriously because he had threatened suicide on the site before.
But Biggs' family was infuriated that neither viewers nor the site acted sooner to save him.
"When (police) came in, the webfeed stopped. So that's 12 hours of watching," said his sister, Rosalind Biggs, who said her brother struggled with bipolar disorder. "They got hits, they got viewers, nothing happened for hours."
Rosalind Biggs described her brother as a friendly, social, outgoing person who struck up conversations with Starbucks baristas and enjoyed taking his young nieces to Chuck E. Cheese.
"It boggles the mind," she said. "We don't understand."
Authorities could not immediately verify the authenticity of a video posted online that shows a gun-wielding officer entering a bedroom where a man is lying on a bed, facing away from the camera. The officer peers over to look at the man, then begins to examine him as the camera lens is covered. The video matches Crane's description of events.
Condolences poured in to Biggs' MySpace page, where the mostly unsmiling teen is seen posing in a series of pictures with various young women. On justin.tv, his alias was "feels_like_ecstacy."
In a statement, Justin.tv CEO Michael Seibel said: "We regret that this has occurred and want to respect the privacy of the broadcaster and his family during this time."
The Web site declined to release information on how many people were watching the broadcast. The entire site had 672,000 unique visitors in October.
Messages left with the bodybuilding Web site were not immediately returned Friday.
A spokesman for the Pembroke Pines police said they were investigating but declined further comment.
Crane said she knows of at least one other case in which a South Florida man shot himself in the head in front of an online audience, although she didn't know how much viewers saw. In Britain last year, a man hanged himself while chatting online.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Is a General Mobilization Really Occuring?
Found this on the www.rightsoup.com website. Sometimes things make me really nervous. This is one of them. Wonder if it is correct? Will follow the story and let you know what I hear.
Right Soup is hearing that a General Mobilization of ALL former military officers is underway. We caution that the talk we are hearing is conflicting, and that no concrete evidence has been uncovered yet. Still, reports from some who would be affected say that letters began going out on November 17th to all Non Commissioned Officers to recall them to service. Letters to Warrant Officers and Sergeants will go out this coming week. Reportedly some retired military have already gotten their letters. Right Soup is actively searching for scans of said letters, and for confirmation of this news.
A General Mobilization is VERY serious, about as serious as it gets. The Posse Comitatus of 1878 , which limits the use of the military for law enforcement is possibly being cast aside, if the rumored mobilization is for domestic enforcement. The Act can be set aside Executive Order of the President. Bottom line is, something big has to be imminent for this to be happening.
All sectors of society would be affected by this recall; there are doctors, lawyers, policemen, accountants, mechanics etc…it would be a huge disruption of society. For this to be happening would mean the “threat” is something which would occur within the next 3 months. A mobilization of this magnitude would be impossible to hide, so there would be a public pretext issued soon.
American Electric Power, one of the nation’s largest electricity providers, has reportedly moved 45-50 housing trailers to it’s Gavin power plant in Ohio. These trailers are equipped with beds and MREs, and reportedly many power facilities are doing the same thing AEP is doing. There is also chatter about some of our battleships mobilizing to the Persian Gulf. Could something be happening with Iran? Or could our military be preparing for a domestic problem?
Right Soup is investigating this information right now. We will be reporting back with more on this possibly blockbuster happening, and are actively seeking concrete evidence.
Right Soup is hearing that a General Mobilization of ALL former military officers is underway. We caution that the talk we are hearing is conflicting, and that no concrete evidence has been uncovered yet. Still, reports from some who would be affected say that letters began going out on November 17th to all Non Commissioned Officers to recall them to service. Letters to Warrant Officers and Sergeants will go out this coming week. Reportedly some retired military have already gotten their letters. Right Soup is actively searching for scans of said letters, and for confirmation of this news.
A General Mobilization is VERY serious, about as serious as it gets. The Posse Comitatus of 1878 , which limits the use of the military for law enforcement is possibly being cast aside, if the rumored mobilization is for domestic enforcement. The Act can be set aside Executive Order of the President. Bottom line is, something big has to be imminent for this to be happening.
All sectors of society would be affected by this recall; there are doctors, lawyers, policemen, accountants, mechanics etc…it would be a huge disruption of society. For this to be happening would mean the “threat” is something which would occur within the next 3 months. A mobilization of this magnitude would be impossible to hide, so there would be a public pretext issued soon.
American Electric Power, one of the nation’s largest electricity providers, has reportedly moved 45-50 housing trailers to it’s Gavin power plant in Ohio. These trailers are equipped with beds and MREs, and reportedly many power facilities are doing the same thing AEP is doing. There is also chatter about some of our battleships mobilizing to the Persian Gulf. Could something be happening with Iran? Or could our military be preparing for a domestic problem?
Right Soup is investigating this information right now. We will be reporting back with more on this possibly blockbuster happening, and are actively seeking concrete evidence.
Ain't What They Used to Be
Have you been following the Somalian pirates? They have now captured their 9th vessel in 12 days and have apparently transformed a number of villages into boomtowns. Some of them also died, pretty much instantly, when they opened cargo on an Iranian ship that they had hijacked. Know why? Because the cargo was radio-active. Hmmm. Wonder what that could've been. And from Iran. Well, anyhow. They have made a real nuisance of themselves. But for some reason they sure don't look like the pirates that I have come to love thanks to Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom. And in reality I doubt not that there were few pirates of the Caribbean who looked like those two anyways. Sigh
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
All I Can Say Is...This Just Makes Me Sick
I really feel physically ill after watching this brief clip of the forthcoming movie "Media Malpractice". Watch it for yourself at http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
The apparent lack of wanting to educate oneself about whom they are voting for is appalling. How can people not know this stuff? I could've answered every question 100% correctly. I think all of my kids but my 3 year old could've answered most of those questions correctly. Of course, I am indoctrinating them every day by making them listen to Rush and Hannity every chance I get.
Here's an even scarier thought. These are the same people that sit on your jury deciding your fate. Shudder!!!!
The apparent lack of wanting to educate oneself about whom they are voting for is appalling. How can people not know this stuff? I could've answered every question 100% correctly. I think all of my kids but my 3 year old could've answered most of those questions correctly. Of course, I am indoctrinating them every day by making them listen to Rush and Hannity every chance I get.
Here's an even scarier thought. These are the same people that sit on your jury deciding your fate. Shudder!!!!
Kyrie the Driving Teen
Remember Toonces, the cat that could drive? Well, this was my first experience with letting Kyrie drive us all home. I think I will enroll her in driving lessons before doing it again.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Pray that this Will Be Heard by Justice Thomas
As of 2:15 PM, Nov. 18, the US Supreme Court docket has been updated and the renewed application for an emergency stay of the 2008 national election is apparently now before The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.
If you feel so inclined, I urge you to include a request for heavenly help in this petition to the court.
If you feel so inclined, I urge you to include a request for heavenly help in this petition to the court.
Monday, November 17, 2008
USAWAKEUP.ORG
Do you live in a safe place...safe as in being safe from radical islamic terrorists who have infiltrated the USofA? Here is a map identifying known cells. Pretty eye opening.
DEYO NOTE: Terrorists are a very real and growing threat in America and to American interests around the world. It should be assumed these are not the only cell locations within the US and that they are subject to change.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Quantum of Solace Rocked....However: People Kill People, Not Guns
Quantum was good. Bond is taking a turn to the dark side as the writers move the series down a path similar to what has happened with Batman. This suits me just fine. Assassins should have a dark side, otherwise how could they be great at what they do? Now, don't get me wrong, nobody and I mean NOBODY, could be Sean Connery. He was a glib Bond with no penchant for the dark side, except for maybe his ability to womanize. If you don't know what I mean about assassins and the dark side, you really should start reading the Vince Flynn novels starring Mitch Rapp. He is way too amazing for someone who kills others so easily!! Mitch Rapp is my Edward (if you don't know what I'm talking about ask a teenage girl who Edward is) I digress. Quantum was good, but after hearing about Daniel Craig's anti-gun comments I don't know how he can in good conscious take the role of Bond. James Bond.
" Whooda thunk that Bond... James Bond... would be shaken and stirred when it comes to wielding a gun? “I hate handguns,” said Daniel Craig, Agent.007 in the latest movie based on Ian Fleming’s hero. “Handguns are used to shoot people and as long as they are around, people will shoot each other. That’s a simple fact.” Craig went on (and on), “I’ve seen a bullet wound and it was a mess... [I]t scared me. Bullets have a nasty habit of finding their target and that’s what’s scary about them.” Uh, that’s why they work, Danny Boy, and why citizens use handguns to thwart crimes 1.5 million times, by conservative estimates, each year. Indeed, Craig will take millions for playacting a gunslinger, but in real life he’s a hypocritical wuss. Perhaps he simply got cast in the wrong production—instead of Bond, he should’ve been Barney.1
A "hypocritical wuss" indeed." (http://take-aim-fire.blogspot.com/2005/10/daniel-craig-is-007-and-anti-gun.html)
If someone really wants to kill someone else and a handgun isn't available, they will simply find another method. At least guns are quicker and maybe even less painful in the long run. Okay, yes, that was in poor taste and I'm sure I would never say that if I actually knew someone who had been personally shot. However, my point is that it is people that kill people, not guns.
" Whooda thunk that Bond... James Bond... would be shaken and stirred when it comes to wielding a gun? “I hate handguns,” said Daniel Craig, Agent.007 in the latest movie based on Ian Fleming’s hero. “Handguns are used to shoot people and as long as they are around, people will shoot each other. That’s a simple fact.” Craig went on (and on), “I’ve seen a bullet wound and it was a mess... [I]t scared me. Bullets have a nasty habit of finding their target and that’s what’s scary about them.” Uh, that’s why they work, Danny Boy, and why citizens use handguns to thwart crimes 1.5 million times, by conservative estimates, each year. Indeed, Craig will take millions for playacting a gunslinger, but in real life he’s a hypocritical wuss. Perhaps he simply got cast in the wrong production—instead of Bond, he should’ve been Barney.1
A "hypocritical wuss" indeed." (http://take-aim-fire.blogspot.com/2005/10/daniel-craig-is-007-and-anti-gun.html)
If someone really wants to kill someone else and a handgun isn't available, they will simply find another method. At least guns are quicker and maybe even less painful in the long run. Okay, yes, that was in poor taste and I'm sure I would never say that if I actually knew someone who had been personally shot. However, my point is that it is people that kill people, not guns.
More of those Crazy @$$ Floridians
Cougar mauls 16-year-old girl
A teen was attacked by a cougar when she and her boyfriend illegally entered a wildlife collector's home.
BY JOSE PAGLIERY, JENNIFER LEBOVICH AND KIRSTEN MAGUIRE
jpagliery@MiamiHerald.com
A young man's irresponsible bravado nearly cost a young girl her life Saturday afternoon.
The 16-year-old girl was mauled by a cougar and rushed to the hospital after she and 21-year-old Anthony Zitnick illegally entered a wildlife collector's home about 1:30 p.m. Neighbors believe Zitnick was trying to impress the younger girl.
Alan Rigerman, who legally keeps two cougars and several snakes, tortoises and alligators at his North Miami-Dade home, was out for the weekend at a reptile show in Central Florida.
Wildlife officials said the retired Miami-Dade school science teacher had permits for the animals.
Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Lt. Eddy Ballester said the girl sustained some significant wounds that warranted taking her to a local hospital.
Miami-Dade police arrested Zitnick for his unauthorized entry into the Rigerman's home. Neighbors said paramedics also treated Zitnick, who was in shock after Chaos, a 150-pound male cougar, attacked the girl he brought inside the home.
Dried blood covered Rigerman's concrete floor at the spot where the 4-year-old cougar pounced on the girl and clenched his jaws around her head.
Richard Miralles, a neighbor familiar with Rigerman's large cats, heard the girl's piercing scream from next door.
'I heard her scream, `I'm gonna die, I'm gonna die,' '' he said, hours after paramedics had left.
Miralles said he immediately dropped what he was doing, jumped his six-foot fence, and barged into Rigerman's back room -- only to find the girl pinned beneath Chaos, her head in his mouth and his large declawed paw on her face. Zitnick was standing nearby in shock, Miralles said.
At first, Miralles said, he tried to push Chaos off, but he wouldn't budge. He then resorted to punching and kicking the cougar, who quickly balled up in a corner, he said.
Miralles then picked up the girl, who was bleeding profusely from her head and thigh, and ran outside to wait for an ambulance.
Rigerman left the area Friday and put his neighbor, Jason Medina, in charge of feeding the animals while he was away at Repticon, a two-day international reptile show in the Tampa Bay area.
The retired Hialeah-Miami Lakes High teacher said he was shocked to hear that ''A.J.'' Zitnick, whom he said was his young friend, had entered his home without permission. Rigerman said Zitnick entered with a key he'd given him soon after Hurricane Wilma in 2005, when the teenager did yard work for the older man.
''And he helped me with my cats under my supervision,'' he said. ``But never, never, never alone.''
Zitnick's family could not be reached for comment.
Rigerman said he's worried for the young girl and is sorry that Zitnick got arrested, adding, ``they had no right to be in my home.''
''I'm worried about my absolutely spotless reputation with what I do with these animals,'' he said.
Neighbors said Zitnick most likely entered the home simply to show the girl the cougars.
''He took it upon himself to bring his girlfriend here,'' Miralles said.
''And show off,'' Medina added.
According to Rigerman, his place was last inspected by wildlife officials on Thursday -- he passed with flying colors, he said. He owns a captive-wildlife permit that allows him to keep the animals at his home.
Hours after the incident, Chaos and his cougar mother, Chantelle, lay quietly on the concrete floor of their large indoor cages. Chaos seemed calm, his breathing steady. His eyes were focused and narrow, and his muscles flexed beneath his skin.
''Honestly, he's like a kid,'' Medina said, sighing. ``He likes to play.''
Chaos is still at the house -- in a cage -- and that's where he'll stay for now, said Jorge Pino, spokesman for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
My question: Why is a 16 year old girl dating a 21 year old man? She would probably be a candidate for the "safe child disposal" going on in Nebraska.
A teen was attacked by a cougar when she and her boyfriend illegally entered a wildlife collector's home.
BY JOSE PAGLIERY, JENNIFER LEBOVICH AND KIRSTEN MAGUIRE
jpagliery@MiamiHerald.com
A young man's irresponsible bravado nearly cost a young girl her life Saturday afternoon.
The 16-year-old girl was mauled by a cougar and rushed to the hospital after she and 21-year-old Anthony Zitnick illegally entered a wildlife collector's home about 1:30 p.m. Neighbors believe Zitnick was trying to impress the younger girl.
Alan Rigerman, who legally keeps two cougars and several snakes, tortoises and alligators at his North Miami-Dade home, was out for the weekend at a reptile show in Central Florida.
Wildlife officials said the retired Miami-Dade school science teacher had permits for the animals.
Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Lt. Eddy Ballester said the girl sustained some significant wounds that warranted taking her to a local hospital.
Miami-Dade police arrested Zitnick for his unauthorized entry into the Rigerman's home. Neighbors said paramedics also treated Zitnick, who was in shock after Chaos, a 150-pound male cougar, attacked the girl he brought inside the home.
Dried blood covered Rigerman's concrete floor at the spot where the 4-year-old cougar pounced on the girl and clenched his jaws around her head.
Richard Miralles, a neighbor familiar with Rigerman's large cats, heard the girl's piercing scream from next door.
'I heard her scream, `I'm gonna die, I'm gonna die,' '' he said, hours after paramedics had left.
Miralles said he immediately dropped what he was doing, jumped his six-foot fence, and barged into Rigerman's back room -- only to find the girl pinned beneath Chaos, her head in his mouth and his large declawed paw on her face. Zitnick was standing nearby in shock, Miralles said.
At first, Miralles said, he tried to push Chaos off, but he wouldn't budge. He then resorted to punching and kicking the cougar, who quickly balled up in a corner, he said.
Miralles then picked up the girl, who was bleeding profusely from her head and thigh, and ran outside to wait for an ambulance.
Rigerman left the area Friday and put his neighbor, Jason Medina, in charge of feeding the animals while he was away at Repticon, a two-day international reptile show in the Tampa Bay area.
The retired Hialeah-Miami Lakes High teacher said he was shocked to hear that ''A.J.'' Zitnick, whom he said was his young friend, had entered his home without permission. Rigerman said Zitnick entered with a key he'd given him soon after Hurricane Wilma in 2005, when the teenager did yard work for the older man.
''And he helped me with my cats under my supervision,'' he said. ``But never, never, never alone.''
Zitnick's family could not be reached for comment.
Rigerman said he's worried for the young girl and is sorry that Zitnick got arrested, adding, ``they had no right to be in my home.''
''I'm worried about my absolutely spotless reputation with what I do with these animals,'' he said.
Neighbors said Zitnick most likely entered the home simply to show the girl the cougars.
''He took it upon himself to bring his girlfriend here,'' Miralles said.
''And show off,'' Medina added.
According to Rigerman, his place was last inspected by wildlife officials on Thursday -- he passed with flying colors, he said. He owns a captive-wildlife permit that allows him to keep the animals at his home.
Hours after the incident, Chaos and his cougar mother, Chantelle, lay quietly on the concrete floor of their large indoor cages. Chaos seemed calm, his breathing steady. His eyes were focused and narrow, and his muscles flexed beneath his skin.
''Honestly, he's like a kid,'' Medina said, sighing. ``He likes to play.''
Chaos is still at the house -- in a cage -- and that's where he'll stay for now, said Jorge Pino, spokesman for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
My question: Why is a 16 year old girl dating a 21 year old man? She would probably be a candidate for the "safe child disposal" going on in Nebraska.
First Hand Account of Protests at the LA Temple
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html
I haven't been able to talk with any of my friends from WWII (that's short for WestWood II ward, not World War II) who may have been involved with any of these actions. The few friends I have spoken with were all out of town that weekend.
I haven't been able to talk with any of my friends from WWII (that's short for WestWood II ward, not World War II) who may have been involved with any of these actions. The few friends I have spoken with were all out of town that weekend.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Have You Done Your Part?
Today I will mail out letters to some of the electors of the Florida college encouraging them to look at the evidence of BO's eligibility to be POTUS and to consider, before casting their vote, that he has not provided credible evidence. I have joined a few web sites that are starting grass roots movements hoping to defend our constitution and liberties.
I am also disgusted at a web site blacklisting supporters of Prop 8 in California. This site has listed supporters names, businesses, and the amount of money donated to the cause asking people to boycott them and their businesses. I will be creating a web site that whitelists and supports these people and encourages others to start a letter writing campaign letting them know they are appreciated and their businesses will be patronized by said letter writer when possible. Businesses across California are being picketed daily by opponents of Prop 8 calling the supporters gay bashers, homophobes, etc. The LDS church has been egregiously targeted. Two temples have even received fake anthrax scare letters. If we don't stand up for what we believe in we will allow our freedoms and liberties to be taken away.
Join in the efforts. So I ask, What have you done?
I am also disgusted at a web site blacklisting supporters of Prop 8 in California. This site has listed supporters names, businesses, and the amount of money donated to the cause asking people to boycott them and their businesses. I will be creating a web site that whitelists and supports these people and encourages others to start a letter writing campaign letting them know they are appreciated and their businesses will be patronized by said letter writer when possible. Businesses across California are being picketed daily by opponents of Prop 8 calling the supporters gay bashers, homophobes, etc. The LDS church has been egregiously targeted. Two temples have even received fake anthrax scare letters. If we don't stand up for what we believe in we will allow our freedoms and liberties to be taken away.
Join in the efforts. So I ask, What have you done?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
A Very Sad Commentary on the Family
Every time I would hear or read about one of these abandonments, my heart would hurt. How desperate as a parent or guardian do you have to be to completely abandon your teenager to the state? Why is it so difficult to be a good parent in today's society? And if Obama gets his way, will it become even harder?
Neb. parents rush to leave kids before law changes
LINCOLN, Neb. – The mother was running out of more than patience when she abandoned her 18-year-old daughter at a hospital over the weekend under Nebraska's safe-haven law. She was also running out of time: She knew that state lawmakers would soon meet in a special session to amend the ill-fated law so that it would apply to newborns only.
"Where am I going to get help if they change the law?" said the mother, who lives in Lincoln and asked to not be identified by name to protect her adopted child.
To the state's surprise and embarrassment, more than half of the 33 children legally abandoned under the safe-haven law since it took effect in mid-July have been teenagers.
But state officials may have inadvertently made things worse with their hesitant response to the problem: The number of drop-offs has almost tripled to about three a week since Gov. Dave Heineman announced on Oct. 29 that lawmakers would rewrite the law.
With legislators set to convene on Friday, weary parents like the Lincoln mother have been racing to drop off their children while they still can.
On Thursday, authorities searched for a 17-year-old girl who fled an Omaha hospital as her mother tried to abandon her. Her 14-year-old brother was taken into state custody, health officials said.
Child welfare experts said the late deluge of drop-offs was probably inevitable. After all, they said, some date had to be picked to begin changing the law.
But some of them said lawmakers and the governor missed chances to change the law early because they underestimated the number of desperate families looking for help. Heineman called the special session only after a spate of five drop-offs in eight days.
Reluctance to pull senators away from their jobs and election campaigns, along with the estimated $70,000 to $80,000 cost of a special session, were among the reasons Heineman's office cited in holding off on calling a special session sooner.
"I think there was a fair amount of denial on the part of legislators that it would snowball," said Karen Authier, executive director of the Nebraska Children's Home Society.
The safe-haven law was intended to save "Dumpster babies" by allowing desperate young mothers to abandon their newborns at a hospital without fear of prosecution. But lawmakers could not agree on an age limit, and the law as passed uses only the word "child."
All states have safe-haven laws, but in every state but Nebraska, the law applies to infants only.
Authier said her group and others had warned senators after the law passed early this year that there could be problems, but the lawmakers did not believe it.
"It wasn't like talking to a stone wall," Authier said. "It was just that people who aren't in the business of dealing with families, they aren't aware how desperate some of these families are."
Sure enough, 20 teenagers — six 17-year-olds, two 16-year-olds, six 15-year-olds, three 14-year-olds, three 13-year-olds — have been abandoned, along with eight children who were 11 or 12. Five of the children dropped off have been from out of state.
The Lincoln mother who dropped off her 18-year-old daughter said she was repeatedly turned down when she sought help from police, state social services authorities and the girl's school. The woman said her daughter had been diagnosed with a mental illness when she was 12 and had deep psychological scars from childhood abuse and from being left alone with her dead biological mother for a week.
The woman said she felt she had no choice but to leave her daughter at the hospital after a recent flurry of assault, stealing, sleeping around and cutting school.
"I thought she would get help" through the safe-haven law, the mother said.
However, state authorities refused to take the young woman into custody, saying Nebraska law regarding juveniles does not let authorities take in anyone older than 17. The woman left with her daughter.
Fourteen children in all have been left at three hospitals operated by Alegent Health in the Omaha area.
"These are largely families at a point of incredible desperation," said Wayne Sensor, chief executive of Alegent Health. "They aren't bad parents or bad kids. They simply don't know what services are available out there."
UPDATE
35th 'safe haven' child dropped off
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU
LINCOLN -- A 5-year-old boy from Sarpy County was left last night at Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha -- the 35th under Nebraska's safe-haven law.
The boy was left at the hospital by his mother around 9 p.m., says Todd Landry, director of children and family services for the Department of Health and Human Services.
HHS staff is gathering additional information today. he said.
The Legislature opens a special session this afternoon to work on changing the law so it applies only to infants.
Neb. parents rush to leave kids before law changes
LINCOLN, Neb. – The mother was running out of more than patience when she abandoned her 18-year-old daughter at a hospital over the weekend under Nebraska's safe-haven law. She was also running out of time: She knew that state lawmakers would soon meet in a special session to amend the ill-fated law so that it would apply to newborns only.
"Where am I going to get help if they change the law?" said the mother, who lives in Lincoln and asked to not be identified by name to protect her adopted child.
To the state's surprise and embarrassment, more than half of the 33 children legally abandoned under the safe-haven law since it took effect in mid-July have been teenagers.
But state officials may have inadvertently made things worse with their hesitant response to the problem: The number of drop-offs has almost tripled to about three a week since Gov. Dave Heineman announced on Oct. 29 that lawmakers would rewrite the law.
With legislators set to convene on Friday, weary parents like the Lincoln mother have been racing to drop off their children while they still can.
On Thursday, authorities searched for a 17-year-old girl who fled an Omaha hospital as her mother tried to abandon her. Her 14-year-old brother was taken into state custody, health officials said.
Child welfare experts said the late deluge of drop-offs was probably inevitable. After all, they said, some date had to be picked to begin changing the law.
But some of them said lawmakers and the governor missed chances to change the law early because they underestimated the number of desperate families looking for help. Heineman called the special session only after a spate of five drop-offs in eight days.
Reluctance to pull senators away from their jobs and election campaigns, along with the estimated $70,000 to $80,000 cost of a special session, were among the reasons Heineman's office cited in holding off on calling a special session sooner.
"I think there was a fair amount of denial on the part of legislators that it would snowball," said Karen Authier, executive director of the Nebraska Children's Home Society.
The safe-haven law was intended to save "Dumpster babies" by allowing desperate young mothers to abandon their newborns at a hospital without fear of prosecution. But lawmakers could not agree on an age limit, and the law as passed uses only the word "child."
All states have safe-haven laws, but in every state but Nebraska, the law applies to infants only.
Authier said her group and others had warned senators after the law passed early this year that there could be problems, but the lawmakers did not believe it.
"It wasn't like talking to a stone wall," Authier said. "It was just that people who aren't in the business of dealing with families, they aren't aware how desperate some of these families are."
Sure enough, 20 teenagers — six 17-year-olds, two 16-year-olds, six 15-year-olds, three 14-year-olds, three 13-year-olds — have been abandoned, along with eight children who were 11 or 12. Five of the children dropped off have been from out of state.
The Lincoln mother who dropped off her 18-year-old daughter said she was repeatedly turned down when she sought help from police, state social services authorities and the girl's school. The woman said her daughter had been diagnosed with a mental illness when she was 12 and had deep psychological scars from childhood abuse and from being left alone with her dead biological mother for a week.
The woman said she felt she had no choice but to leave her daughter at the hospital after a recent flurry of assault, stealing, sleeping around and cutting school.
"I thought she would get help" through the safe-haven law, the mother said.
However, state authorities refused to take the young woman into custody, saying Nebraska law regarding juveniles does not let authorities take in anyone older than 17. The woman left with her daughter.
Fourteen children in all have been left at three hospitals operated by Alegent Health in the Omaha area.
"These are largely families at a point of incredible desperation," said Wayne Sensor, chief executive of Alegent Health. "They aren't bad parents or bad kids. They simply don't know what services are available out there."
UPDATE
35th 'safe haven' child dropped off
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU
LINCOLN -- A 5-year-old boy from Sarpy County was left last night at Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha -- the 35th under Nebraska's safe-haven law.
The boy was left at the hospital by his mother around 9 p.m., says Todd Landry, director of children and family services for the Department of Health and Human Services.
HHS staff is gathering additional information today. he said.
The Legislature opens a special session this afternoon to work on changing the law so it applies only to infants.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
This Takes the Cake, and they Eat it Too
fromhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/12/earlyshow/main4595179.shtml
It's no secret that investment bankers are well-compensated, mostly through year-end bonuses, especially during bull markets.
But can they still count on those big bonuses this year, in the midst of the financial crisis and market freefall?
CBS News correspondent Priya David spoke with several compensation consultants who said that, even in this economy, firms are worried that, if they don't pay out the bonuses, they'll lose their top talent -- people they want to keep around for when pastures turn green again.
On The Early Show Wednesday, David reported that lawmakers and taxpayers alike are concerned about where the money for those bonuses will come from.
For Wall Street workers still employed, there could be a hefty bonus in their checks next month.
According to a report from financial news agency Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs, for example, has set aside $6.8 billion for bonuses, and Morgan Stanley, $6.4 billion.
And the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, isn't happy. "These are people who lost enormous amounts of money," Frank observes. "How do you give a bonus to someone for having failed so badly as many of these people did?"
What's got many on Main Street and Capitol Hill angry, David says, is the possibility that some of the $700 billion government bailout package could go into the pockets of Wall Streeters to pay their bonuses.
"All of the money is to go into new loans," Frank points out. "None of it is to go into compensation of any kind for the employees."
New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has opened an investigation into the Wall Street bonuses. He sent a letter to nine financial institutions, demanding "a detailed accounting regarding your expected payments to top management in the upcoming bonus season."
Did Barney Frank really have the nerve to say that? This man is such a retarded imbecile. The guy who was key in creating the whole mess with his liberal lending policies has the nerve to call the kettle black. Well, pot (I mean you Barney), here's a whole big steaming hot pile of Ship High In Transit to fill yourself with, because while you are correct on theory, your practice makes me want to vomit out of both ends.
Then there is Senator Dodd, who received personal “VIP” loans from Countrywide Financial, a predatory lender he was supposed to be regulating as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. And he helped craft a $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill designed to spur new small-business and homeowner lending — but which turns out to be designed instead to enable banks to buy other banks. He was asked some tough question by Tom Scott, one of Connecticut’s leading conservative voices of the past three decades. He was the last local on-air voice at WELI-AM, once a fully-staffed Greater New Haven news station turned into a right-wing talk radio syndication outlet by owner Clear Channel Communications. The interview never aired. Well, you can hear it here:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/upload/2008/11/102808_edited_Dodd.mp3
It's no secret that investment bankers are well-compensated, mostly through year-end bonuses, especially during bull markets.
But can they still count on those big bonuses this year, in the midst of the financial crisis and market freefall?
CBS News correspondent Priya David spoke with several compensation consultants who said that, even in this economy, firms are worried that, if they don't pay out the bonuses, they'll lose their top talent -- people they want to keep around for when pastures turn green again.
On The Early Show Wednesday, David reported that lawmakers and taxpayers alike are concerned about where the money for those bonuses will come from.
For Wall Street workers still employed, there could be a hefty bonus in their checks next month.
According to a report from financial news agency Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs, for example, has set aside $6.8 billion for bonuses, and Morgan Stanley, $6.4 billion.
And the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, isn't happy. "These are people who lost enormous amounts of money," Frank observes. "How do you give a bonus to someone for having failed so badly as many of these people did?"
What's got many on Main Street and Capitol Hill angry, David says, is the possibility that some of the $700 billion government bailout package could go into the pockets of Wall Streeters to pay their bonuses.
"All of the money is to go into new loans," Frank points out. "None of it is to go into compensation of any kind for the employees."
New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has opened an investigation into the Wall Street bonuses. He sent a letter to nine financial institutions, demanding "a detailed accounting regarding your expected payments to top management in the upcoming bonus season."
Did Barney Frank really have the nerve to say that? This man is such a retarded imbecile. The guy who was key in creating the whole mess with his liberal lending policies has the nerve to call the kettle black. Well, pot (I mean you Barney), here's a whole big steaming hot pile of Ship High In Transit to fill yourself with, because while you are correct on theory, your practice makes me want to vomit out of both ends.
Then there is Senator Dodd, who received personal “VIP” loans from Countrywide Financial, a predatory lender he was supposed to be regulating as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. And he helped craft a $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill designed to spur new small-business and homeowner lending — but which turns out to be designed instead to enable banks to buy other banks. He was asked some tough question by Tom Scott, one of Connecticut’s leading conservative voices of the past three decades. He was the last local on-air voice at WELI-AM, once a fully-staffed Greater New Haven news station turned into a right-wing talk radio syndication outlet by owner Clear Channel Communications. The interview never aired. Well, you can hear it here:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/upload/2008/11/102808_edited_Dodd.mp3
Conversations With the Kids
Instead of titling these post "kids say the darndest things" they will now be "Conversations with the kids."
Danny will be 3 in less than a week. (Wow, where does the time go?) Yes, I nursed him way too long, but if you know our living circumstances from hell in Beverly Hills, you know why it took longer than I planned. Regardless, he was weaned in May and every once in awhile will ask about "his numm numms." Two nights ago was one such time.
Dan, "I love my numms. I miss them."
Mommy, "Where did they go?"
Dan, "They're right there."
Mommy, "No. They're gone remember?"
Dan sadly and sighing, "Yeah. They went to jail."
Mommy surprised, "To Jail? Who put them in jail?"
Dan, "Daddy did!! He's mean."
Mom laughing her head off, "Why did daddy put them in jail?"
Dan, "Because he took them away!"
Dan also informed me that he loved his numms and they were so good. I asked him what they tasted like and he said, "CHOCOLATE!!" Not too surprising as that is his favorite food group.
Danny will be 3 in less than a week. (Wow, where does the time go?) Yes, I nursed him way too long, but if you know our living circumstances from hell in Beverly Hills, you know why it took longer than I planned. Regardless, he was weaned in May and every once in awhile will ask about "his numm numms." Two nights ago was one such time.
Dan, "I love my numms. I miss them."
Mommy, "Where did they go?"
Dan, "They're right there."
Mommy, "No. They're gone remember?"
Dan sadly and sighing, "Yeah. They went to jail."
Mommy surprised, "To Jail? Who put them in jail?"
Dan, "Daddy did!! He's mean."
Mom laughing her head off, "Why did daddy put them in jail?"
Dan, "Because he took them away!"
Dan also informed me that he loved his numms and they were so good. I asked him what they tasted like and he said, "CHOCOLATE!!" Not too surprising as that is his favorite food group.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Thank You Veterans....Thank You
THE THINGS THAT MAKE A SOLDIER GREAT
Edgar Guest
PDF File Worksheet
The things that make a soldier great and send him out to die,
To face the flaming cannon's mouth nor ever question why,
Are lilacs by a little porch, the row of tulips red,
The peonies and pansies, too, the old petunia bed,
The grass plot where his children play, the roses on the wall:
'Tis these that make a soldier great.
He's fighting for them all.
'Tis not the pomp and pride of kings that make a soldier brave;
'Tis not allegiance to the flag that over him may wave;
For soldiers never fight so well on land or on the foam
As when behind the cause they see the little place called home.
Endanger but that humble street whereon his children run,
You make a soldier of the man who never bore a gun.
What is it through the battle smoke the valiant soldier sees?
The little garden far away, the budding apple trees,
The little patch of ground back there, the children at their play,
Perhaps a tiny mound behind the simple church of gray.
The golden thread of courage isn't linked to castle dome
But to the spot, where'er it be — the humblest spot called home.
And now the lilacs bud again and all is lovely there
And homesick soldiers far away know spring is in the air;
The tulips come to bloom again, the grass once more is green,
And every man can see the spot where all his joys have been.
He sees his children smile at him, he hears the bugle call,
And only death can stop him now — he's fighting for them all.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Some Times You Feel Like a Nut, Some Times You Don't
Almond Joy has nuts, Mounds Don't because.....
This is what I'm talking about. This kind of ideology really worries me. You, John and maybe others, can think I'm being a bit nutty. I prefer to say I'm seeing the writing on the wall and it ain't pretty
http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArticle/CBUS/nbusinessNews_uUSTRE4A900K20081110?src=RSS-BUS
In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown -- who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions -- will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.
"The alliance between Britain and the U.S. -- and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. -- can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order," an excerpt from the speech says.
"My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society."
Brown and other leaders meet in Washington next weekend to discuss longer term solutions for dealing with economic issues following a series of coordinated moves on interest rates and to recapitalize banks in the wake of the financial crisis.
"Uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism with which we faced the storm, endured it and prevailed," Brown will say in his speech on Monday evening.
This is what I'm talking about. This kind of ideology really worries me. You, John and maybe others, can think I'm being a bit nutty. I prefer to say I'm seeing the writing on the wall and it ain't pretty
http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArticle/CBUS/nbusinessNews_uUSTRE4A900K20081110?src=RSS-BUS
In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown -- who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions -- will say Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order.
"The alliance between Britain and the U.S. -- and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. -- can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order," an excerpt from the speech says.
"My message is that we must be: internationalist not protectionist; interventionist not neutral; progressive not reactive; and forward looking not frozen by events. We can seize the moment and in doing so build a truly global society."
Brown and other leaders meet in Washington next weekend to discuss longer term solutions for dealing with economic issues following a series of coordinated moves on interest rates and to recapitalize banks in the wake of the financial crisis.
"Uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism with which we faced the storm, endured it and prevailed," Brown will say in his speech on Monday evening.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Oh This Just Gotta Be Good
Thanks to Jeff Schreiber at America's Right for this info. I had no idea. This just gotta be good....
"Obama's Pick for Chief of Staff Tops Recipients of Wall Street Money
(FROM: OpenSecrets) So, we already learned on Friday from ABC News that Rahm Emanuel sat on the board of directors of Freddie Mac during the beginnings of the scandal, and was complicit in the board's failure to recognize "red flags" in accounting and lending practices, and that he accepted more than $50,000 in contributions from the organization. Now, we're learning that Emanuel was, just this year, the top House recipient of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry, and that he has received more money from individuals and political action committees in the securities and investment business than from any other industry since being elected to Congress in 2002 after a previous job as an investment banker. Barack Obama tapping this gentleman to assist him in fixing the American economy is kind of like asking me to teach a class on writing concisely, or Rosie O'Donnell to manage a Weight Watchers franchise."
Jeff goes on to point out that Emanuel also co-authored a book in which he proposes mandating military service for all citizens ages 18-25. Don't believe me? Well, surprisingly (NOT), the web-pages he linked to the story are currently unavailable. Once again BO's goons are quickly shutting down your first amendment rights. There is still one link that works, so before it disappears to I will copy and paste the article here for you. All I can think is "Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid."
CHANGING OF THE GUARD
Web faux pas: Plan leaked for 'civilian security force'?
Before blogs caught it, Obama site told of requiring students to serve
Posted: November 08, 2008
3:36 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.
Originally, under the tab "America Serves" Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.
The language of requiring students to serve and the creation of a "Classroom Corps" sparked a surge of criticism from bloggers for bringing back memories of the much-publicized video of marching Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which the candidate said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.
Gateway Pundit called Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"
Following the furor raised by bloggers, however, the website's wording was changed.
The word "require" was stricken from the website yesterday, replaced with the phrase "setting a goal" and now also listing tax credits toward college tuition.
**It should be noted that the article has captured the web pages and shows the difference between the two here is the link http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80539 **
The new wording is consistent with Obama's campaign website, which also described the college tuition tax credit and detailed "enabling" Americans to serve, rather than "requiring" them to serve.
Elsewhere on the Change.gov site, however, it still describes the plan under the heading, "Require 100 hours of service in college."
J.D. Tuccille of the Civil Liberties Examiner also points out, "Most public schools depend on federal dollars. As Obama elaborated in a speech last December, 'At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities'
"So, it won't be the nasty federal government forcing your kids to donate their time to government-approved service, it'll be the local schools – but that requirement will be among the strings attached to federal money," Tuccille writes.
Obama's selection of an advocate for mandatory civil service, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff has further worried bloggers that Obama's plans may be more "requirement" than "encouragement."
In his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," Emanuel writes: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
**My Note**
This is very troubling to me as a member of the LDS faith. I doubt BO and his goons would allow our youth to take a leave to serve their missions. It wreaks of one more way satan will work to stop the rolling forth of the gospel. This is really bothering me!!! I know I'm jumping the gun here as they want only 3 months of service. What is troubling is that doesn't make any logistical sense. You cannot keep a civilian corp trained by giving them only 3 months of it. It requires yearly upkeep. Even in Switzerland, all citizens who serve go to yearly training. "Every soldier keeps his military outfit, his weapon, and war ammunition
at home at all times. The ammunition is sealed. The weapon can be used
for compulsory and voluntary shooting exercises, which are quite
popular (also drawing large female participation). The ammunition shall
only be opened in case of war.
After a basic (Academy) training of 100 days at about age 20, active
service requires 3 weeks long training courses approximately every
other year (or two weeks per year, depending on the affiliation) until
the soldier has served a total of 300 days. In addition, every
soldier must complete yearly shooting exercises, usually done in local
shooting ranges." http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/swiss-switzerland/3-2-1-Switzerland-Military-service.html**
Tuccille comments, "Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist 'this is not a draft,' but go on to write of young men and women, 'the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service.' They also warn, 'Some Republicans will squeal about individual freedom,' ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service."
Obama has also yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs, in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."
Obama spokesmen have declined to return WND calls requesting an explanation of what this security force would be or whether this force would be "required" or "encouraged."
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.
His call generated intense Internet discussions.
The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"
Michael Kinsley also commented generally on plans for enlisting America's youth in voluntary versus required volunteerism on Time's website: "Problem number one with grand schemes for universal voluntary public service is that they can't be both universal and voluntary. If everybody has to do it, then it's not voluntary, is it? And if it's truly up to the individual, then it won't be universal."
"Obama's Pick for Chief of Staff Tops Recipients of Wall Street Money
(FROM: OpenSecrets) So, we already learned on Friday from ABC News that Rahm Emanuel sat on the board of directors of Freddie Mac during the beginnings of the scandal, and was complicit in the board's failure to recognize "red flags" in accounting and lending practices, and that he accepted more than $50,000 in contributions from the organization. Now, we're learning that Emanuel was, just this year, the top House recipient of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry, and that he has received more money from individuals and political action committees in the securities and investment business than from any other industry since being elected to Congress in 2002 after a previous job as an investment banker. Barack Obama tapping this gentleman to assist him in fixing the American economy is kind of like asking me to teach a class on writing concisely, or Rosie O'Donnell to manage a Weight Watchers franchise."
Jeff goes on to point out that Emanuel also co-authored a book in which he proposes mandating military service for all citizens ages 18-25. Don't believe me? Well, surprisingly (NOT), the web-pages he linked to the story are currently unavailable. Once again BO's goons are quickly shutting down your first amendment rights. There is still one link that works, so before it disappears to I will copy and paste the article here for you. All I can think is "Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid."
CHANGING OF THE GUARD
Web faux pas: Plan leaked for 'civilian security force'?
Before blogs caught it, Obama site told of requiring students to serve
Posted: November 08, 2008
3:36 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.
Originally, under the tab "America Serves" Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.
The language of requiring students to serve and the creation of a "Classroom Corps" sparked a surge of criticism from bloggers for bringing back memories of the much-publicized video of marching Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which the candidate said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military.
Gateway Pundit called Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"
Following the furor raised by bloggers, however, the website's wording was changed.
The word "require" was stricken from the website yesterday, replaced with the phrase "setting a goal" and now also listing tax credits toward college tuition.
**It should be noted that the article has captured the web pages and shows the difference between the two here is the link http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80539 **
The new wording is consistent with Obama's campaign website, which also described the college tuition tax credit and detailed "enabling" Americans to serve, rather than "requiring" them to serve.
Elsewhere on the Change.gov site, however, it still describes the plan under the heading, "Require 100 hours of service in college."
J.D. Tuccille of the Civil Liberties Examiner also points out, "Most public schools depend on federal dollars. As Obama elaborated in a speech last December, 'At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities'
"So, it won't be the nasty federal government forcing your kids to donate their time to government-approved service, it'll be the local schools – but that requirement will be among the strings attached to federal money," Tuccille writes.
Obama's selection of an advocate for mandatory civil service, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff has further worried bloggers that Obama's plans may be more "requirement" than "encouragement."
In his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," Emanuel writes: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
**My Note**
This is very troubling to me as a member of the LDS faith. I doubt BO and his goons would allow our youth to take a leave to serve their missions. It wreaks of one more way satan will work to stop the rolling forth of the gospel. This is really bothering me!!! I know I'm jumping the gun here as they want only 3 months of service. What is troubling is that doesn't make any logistical sense. You cannot keep a civilian corp trained by giving them only 3 months of it. It requires yearly upkeep. Even in Switzerland, all citizens who serve go to yearly training. "Every soldier keeps his military outfit, his weapon, and war ammunition
at home at all times. The ammunition is sealed. The weapon can be used
for compulsory and voluntary shooting exercises, which are quite
popular (also drawing large female participation). The ammunition shall
only be opened in case of war.
After a basic (Academy) training of 100 days at about age 20, active
service requires 3 weeks long training courses approximately every
other year (or two weeks per year, depending on the affiliation) until
the soldier has served a total of 300 days. In addition, every
soldier must complete yearly shooting exercises, usually done in local
shooting ranges." http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/swiss-switzerland/3-2-1-Switzerland-Military-service.html**
Tuccille comments, "Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist 'this is not a draft,' but go on to write of young men and women, 'the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service.' They also warn, 'Some Republicans will squeal about individual freedom,' ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service."
Obama has also yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs, in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."
Obama spokesmen have declined to return WND calls requesting an explanation of what this security force would be or whether this force would be "required" or "encouraged."
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.
His call generated intense Internet discussions.
The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"
Michael Kinsley also commented generally on plans for enlisting America's youth in voluntary versus required volunteerism on Time's website: "Problem number one with grand schemes for universal voluntary public service is that they can't be both universal and voluntary. If everybody has to do it, then it's not voluntary, is it? And if it's truly up to the individual, then it won't be universal."
New Two Story Outhouse
My MIL sent this to me. I tried putting it in as a widget, but you couldn't see the whole picture. Thought it was worth posting in it's full glory.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Isn't That Precious?
photo by Kevork Djansezian / AP
These signs actually crack me up. Let me tell you how glad I am that I don't live in west LA anymore. These whack-a-doodles are standing right in front of my last ward building and temple. At least they had eggs thrown at them from some apartments. Take that you protesters!! Imagine if those of us who oppose an BO presidency marched in protest. I don't think it would be just eggs being thrown at us.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion by Ezra Taft Benson
A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion
EZRA TAFT BENSON
Ezra Taft Benson was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this devotional
address was given at�Brigham Young University on 12 April 1977.
© Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.
My beloved brethren and sisters, humbly and gratefully I stand before you this morning and seek an interest in your faith and prayers that the message that I have may be accompanied by the Spirit. It is a wonderful sight that I view here this morning. It is good to be with you, my beloved young friends, distinguished members of the faculty, and special guests.
My wife and I have just returned from a glorious weekend at St. George, where I had the privilege of addressing three overflow audiences, two in the largest auditorium they have at Dixie College and made up largely of young people, and one on the fourth floor of the temple in a Solemn Assembly. We were honoring the centennial of the dedication of the St. George Temple, the first one to be erected in the western part of the country. We are still basking in the aftermath of another great general conference of the Church. Never in my memory have we had more explicit warnings from prophets of God; and nowhere in the world are there men better prepared or more obligated to issue such warnings.
The Celestial Kingdom
Today I want to discuss some principles and laws of the celestial kingdom, and some of the fallacies of their perverted counterfeits in the world. I share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. The celestial kingdom, residence of God, our Eternal Father, is comprised of men and women who have complied with divine law and who were not deceived by the craftiness of men or the doctrines of devils. They are just men made perfect through the mediation and atonement of Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:69). They are obedient to celestial law; for, as the Lord has said, he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory (D&C 88:22).
Celestial laws, embodied in certain ordinances belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, are complied with by voluntary covenants. The laws are spiritual. Thus, our Father in Heaven has ordained certain holy sanctuaries, called temples, in which these laws may be fully explained, the laws include the law of obedience and sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, and the law of consecration.
I want to speak more particularly this morning about this one law--the law of consecration. It is that one's time, talents, strength, property, and money are given up to the Lord for the express purpose of building up the kingdom of God and establishing Zion on the earth. Or, as we read in Doctrine and Covenants 105:5, "Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom."
Much has been written about this law and its attempted implementations in the early history of the Church; and much deception has taken root, even among some of our members, because of misinformed opinion or misguided interpretations. Some view it as merely an economic alternative to capitalism or the free enterprise system, others as an outgrowth of early communal experiments in America. Such a view is not only shortsighted but tends to diminish in importance a binding requirement for entrance into the celestial kingdom. The law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment.
The vehicle for implementing the law of consecration is the united order. The basic principle underlying the united order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; and, therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of our property, because it belongs to him. The united order was entered by "a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken" (D&C 42:30), according to the scriptures. In other words, an individual conveys his titles to all his property to the Church through the bishop. The property becomes the property of the Church. You read about this in the forty-second section of the Doctrine and Covenants.
The bishop then deeds back to the consecrator by legal instrument the amount of personal property required by the individual for the support of himself and his family, as the Lord declares, "according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3). This becomes the private, personal property of the individual to develop as he sees fit. It is his stewardship. When an individual produces a profit or surplus more than is needful for the support of himself and his family, the surplus is then placed in the bishops storehouse to administer to the poor and the needy. Under the united order, idleness has no place, and greed, selfishness, and covetousness are condemned. The united order may therefore operate with only a righteous people.
It has been erroneously concluded by some that the united order is both communal and communistic in theory and practice because the revelations speak of equality. Equality under the united order is not economic and social leveling as advocated by some today. Equality, as described by the Lord, is "equal[ity] according to [a man's] family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3).
Is the united order a communal system? Emphatically not. It never has been and never will be. It is "intensely individualistic." Does the united order eliminate private ownership of property? No. "The fundamental principle of this system [is] the private ownership of property" (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, October 1942, p. 57).
Two separate groups of saints have fully implemented this divine law. The first was the united order under Enoch, wherein the Lord designated this people Zion, "because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." We read of this in the seventh chapter, eighteenth verse, of Moses, in the Pearl of Great Price. A second instance was the Nephite civilization following the visit of the Savior to the Western Hemisphere after his resurrection. This is recorded in 4 Nephi, the third verse particularly. The failure of the early Saints in this dispensation to live according to the fulness of the law is explained by the Lord in revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections 101 and 105.
I repeat and emphasize that the law of consecration is a law for an inheritance in the celestial kingdom. God, the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and all holy beings abide by this law. It is an eternal law. It is a revelation by God to his Church in this dispensation. Though not in full operation today, it will be mandatory for all Saints to live the law in its fulness to receive celestial inheritance. You young people today abide a portion of this higher law as you tithe, pay a generous fast offering, go on missions, and make other contributions of money, service, and time.
Satan's Counterfeit System
But whenever the God of heaven establishes by revelation his design, Satan always comes among men to pervert the doctrine, saying, "Believe it not." He often establishes a counterfeit system, designed to deceive the children of men. His aim, as it was before the foundation of this earth was laid, is to thwart the agency of man and to subjugate him. Throughout all ages of mankind, the adversary has used human agents and despotic governments to establish his purpose. Satan is determined to destroy all that is dear, all that will ennoble and exalt man to a celestial kingdom.
Isaiah foresaw the time when a marvelous work and a wonder would come forth among men (see Isaiah 29:14). Isaiah also predicted that there would be those that "seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they [shall] say, Who seeth us?" (Isaiah 29:15). He saw the time when the work, man, shall say of him that made him, "He made me not," denying his creation (see Isaiah 29:16). It is well to ask what self-proclaimed atheists came on the human scene following the restoration of the gospel, who established secret works of darkness to overthrow nations by violent revolution and who blasphemously proclaimed the atheistic doctrine that God made us not. Yes, Satan works through human agents. We need only look to some of the ignoble figures in human history who were contemporary to the restoration of the gospel to discover fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. I refer to the infamous founders of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Today, if we are alert, we can see further fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies.
Communism--a System Antithetical to the Gospel of Christ
Through the instigation of Marx and Engels, a most successful counterfeit to the united order was introduced into the world. The declaration of principles found in their Manifesto to the World advocated the overthrow of capitalism and free enterprise, the abolition of private property, the elimination of the family as a social unit, the abolition of all classes, the overthrow of all governments, and the establishment of communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society. All this was to be accomplished by revolution.
On July 3, 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members. I quote it in part; I hope you will get a copy of the full statement for your files. In part, the statement reads:
. . . Communism is not a political party, nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government. . . .
Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism.
To our Church members we say, Communism is not the United Order, and bears only the most superficial resemblance thereto. Communism is based upon intolerance and force, the United Order upon love and freedom of conscience and action. . . .
Communists cannot establish the United Order, nor will Communism bring it about. . . .
Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a Communist.
We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [and shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America.
Signed,
President Heber J. Grant
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay
The First Presidency
You students have only to read some of the speeches and writings of the exiled Russian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to appreciate this farsighted warning of the First Presidency.
I have been on both sides of the Iron Curtain several times. I have talked to these godless leaders face to face. I say to you with all the sincerity of my soul that since 1933 this godless counterfeit to the gospel has made tremendous progress towards its objective of world domination, for over one-third of the human family are now under totalitarian subjugation.
Today we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of men. It is a battle between two opposite systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. The struggle today is more momentous than a decade ago, yet today the conventional wisdom, so called, is that we have got to learn to live with communism, to give up our ideas about national sovereignty. You hear that repeated today. Tell that to the millions--yes, the scores of millions--who have met death or imprisonment under the tyranny of communism. Learn to live with communism? Such would be the death knell of freedom and all we hold dear.
The gospel of Jesus Christ can prosper only in an atmosphere of freedom. As members of his Church, we have a major responsibility to do all in our power to see that freedom is preserved and safeguarded. I pray that God will bless you to see communism for what it really is: the greatest system of human slavery that the world has ever known. May you not be deceived into believing that the communists have moderated their goal toward world domination. I say to you that so-called detente is a fraud. Time will prove it to be such.
There is no excuse for any BYU instructor to grant a forum to an avowed communist for the purpose of teaching communism on this campus. It may be done on other campuses in the United States, but it will not be done here.
Socialism--a Philosophy Incompatible with Man's Liberty
Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord's plan is collectivized socialism. Socialism derives its philosophy from the founders of communism, Marx and Engels. Communism in practice is socialism. Its purpose is world socialism, which the communists seek to achieve by revolution, and which the socialists seek to achieve by evolution. Both communism and socialism have the same effect upon the individual--a loss of personal liberty. As was said so well by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "The two are as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties."
Why is socialism incompatible with man's liberty? Socialism cannot work except through an all-powerful state. The state has to be supreme in everything. When individuals begin to exert their God-given rights, the state has to suppress that freedom. So belief in God must be suppressed, and with that gone freedom of conscience and religion must also go. Those are the first of our liberties mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: "I said I did not believe the doctrine" (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33).
Socialism Disguised under Welfare State Measures
As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today's total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.
This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. I have recounted here before what took place in the St. George Temple when the Founding Fathers of this nation visited President Wilford Woodruff, who was then a member of the Twelve and not president of the Church. The republic which was established was the most nearly perfect system which could have been devised to lead men toward celestial principles. We may liken our system to the law of Moses which leads men to the higher law of Christ.
Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. [quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342]
That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!
Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right. One HEW official said recently, "In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something" (U.S. News and World Report, April 21, 1975, p. 49). President Grover Cleveland said--and we believe as a people--that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.
The chief weapon used by the federal government to achieve this "equality" is the system of transfer payments. This means that the federal governments collects from one income group and transfer payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of social security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and food stamps, to name a few. Today the cost of such programs has been going in the hole at the rate of 12 billion dollars a year; and, with increased benefits and greater numbers of recipients, even though the tax base has been increased we will have larger deficits in the future.
Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program--a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government--precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency.
Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced--that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest.
Are we part of the problem or part of the solution?
Recently a letter came to my office, accompanied by an article from your Daily Universe, on the matter of BYU students taking food stamps. The query of the letter was: "What is the attitude of the Church on taking food stamps?" The Church's view on this is well known. We stand for independence, thrift, and abolition of the dole. This was emphasized in the Saturday morning welfare meeting of general conference. "The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership" (Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3).
When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers' money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them. You did not come to this University to become a welfare recipient. You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society--to save society and to help to save this nation, the Lord's base of operations in these latter days, to ameliorate man's social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for "something for nothing" may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency.
Society may rationalize immorality, but God cannot condone it. Society sponsors Sabbathbreaking, but the Church counsels otherwise. Society profanes the name of Deity, but Latter-day Saints cannot countenance it. Because society condones a dole, which demoralizes man and weakens his God-given initiative and character, can we?
I know what it is, as many of your faculty members do, to work my way through school, taking classes only during winter quarters. If you don't have the finances to complete your education, drop out a semester and go to work and save. You'll be a better man or woman for so doing. You will have preserved your self-respect and initiative. Wisdom comes with experience and struggle, not just with going through a university matriculation. I hope you will not be deceived by current philosophies which will rob you of your godly dignity, self-respect, and initiative, those attributes that make a celestial inheritance possible. It is in that interest, and that only, that I have spoken so plainly to you.
My Hope for You, the Youth of Zion
In opening my remarks to you, beloved youth of the Church, I attempted to share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. In closing my remarks, I share with you my hope for you:
I hope that you learn through your struggles the joy of achievement.
I hope that you recognize in the gospel of Jesus Christ a solution to our problems, temporal and spiritual.
I hope that you marry well, live together in love, rear a family in righteousness, and have joy and rejoicing in your posterity.
I hope that you follow the example and counsel of him whom the Lord has appointed as prophet, seer, and revelator.
I hope that you learn the joy of work, the ability to postpone wants, and the economic independence not to be a slave to any man.
I hope that you keep yourselves clean morally and spiritually, that your confidence will wax strong in the presence of God, as the scriptures say, and the Holy Ghost will be your constant companion (see D&C 121:45–46).
I hope that you will be united in philosophy, purpose, and action to the laws of the celestial kingdom.
I pray God's choicest blessings on you, my beloved brethren and sisters. May I say to you that there isn't anything in this world that's right that the leadership of this Church wouldn't do for the youth of the Church; and so I hope and pray that you realize the hope of those who love you and serve you and the possibilities of your potential as sons and daughters of God. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
EZRA TAFT BENSON
Ezra Taft Benson was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this devotional
address was given at�Brigham Young University on 12 April 1977.
© Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.
My beloved brethren and sisters, humbly and gratefully I stand before you this morning and seek an interest in your faith and prayers that the message that I have may be accompanied by the Spirit. It is a wonderful sight that I view here this morning. It is good to be with you, my beloved young friends, distinguished members of the faculty, and special guests.
My wife and I have just returned from a glorious weekend at St. George, where I had the privilege of addressing three overflow audiences, two in the largest auditorium they have at Dixie College and made up largely of young people, and one on the fourth floor of the temple in a Solemn Assembly. We were honoring the centennial of the dedication of the St. George Temple, the first one to be erected in the western part of the country. We are still basking in the aftermath of another great general conference of the Church. Never in my memory have we had more explicit warnings from prophets of God; and nowhere in the world are there men better prepared or more obligated to issue such warnings.
The Celestial Kingdom
Today I want to discuss some principles and laws of the celestial kingdom, and some of the fallacies of their perverted counterfeits in the world. I share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. The celestial kingdom, residence of God, our Eternal Father, is comprised of men and women who have complied with divine law and who were not deceived by the craftiness of men or the doctrines of devils. They are just men made perfect through the mediation and atonement of Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:69). They are obedient to celestial law; for, as the Lord has said, he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory (D&C 88:22).
Celestial laws, embodied in certain ordinances belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ, are complied with by voluntary covenants. The laws are spiritual. Thus, our Father in Heaven has ordained certain holy sanctuaries, called temples, in which these laws may be fully explained, the laws include the law of obedience and sacrifice, the law of the gospel, the law of chastity, and the law of consecration.
I want to speak more particularly this morning about this one law--the law of consecration. It is that one's time, talents, strength, property, and money are given up to the Lord for the express purpose of building up the kingdom of God and establishing Zion on the earth. Or, as we read in Doctrine and Covenants 105:5, "Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom."
Much has been written about this law and its attempted implementations in the early history of the Church; and much deception has taken root, even among some of our members, because of misinformed opinion or misguided interpretations. Some view it as merely an economic alternative to capitalism or the free enterprise system, others as an outgrowth of early communal experiments in America. Such a view is not only shortsighted but tends to diminish in importance a binding requirement for entrance into the celestial kingdom. The law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment.
The vehicle for implementing the law of consecration is the united order. The basic principle underlying the united order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; and, therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of our property, because it belongs to him. The united order was entered by "a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken" (D&C 42:30), according to the scriptures. In other words, an individual conveys his titles to all his property to the Church through the bishop. The property becomes the property of the Church. You read about this in the forty-second section of the Doctrine and Covenants.
The bishop then deeds back to the consecrator by legal instrument the amount of personal property required by the individual for the support of himself and his family, as the Lord declares, "according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3). This becomes the private, personal property of the individual to develop as he sees fit. It is his stewardship. When an individual produces a profit or surplus more than is needful for the support of himself and his family, the surplus is then placed in the bishops storehouse to administer to the poor and the needy. Under the united order, idleness has no place, and greed, selfishness, and covetousness are condemned. The united order may therefore operate with only a righteous people.
It has been erroneously concluded by some that the united order is both communal and communistic in theory and practice because the revelations speak of equality. Equality under the united order is not economic and social leveling as advocated by some today. Equality, as described by the Lord, is "equal[ity] according to [a man's] family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3).
Is the united order a communal system? Emphatically not. It never has been and never will be. It is "intensely individualistic." Does the united order eliminate private ownership of property? No. "The fundamental principle of this system [is] the private ownership of property" (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, October 1942, p. 57).
Two separate groups of saints have fully implemented this divine law. The first was the united order under Enoch, wherein the Lord designated this people Zion, "because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." We read of this in the seventh chapter, eighteenth verse, of Moses, in the Pearl of Great Price. A second instance was the Nephite civilization following the visit of the Savior to the Western Hemisphere after his resurrection. This is recorded in 4 Nephi, the third verse particularly. The failure of the early Saints in this dispensation to live according to the fulness of the law is explained by the Lord in revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections 101 and 105.
I repeat and emphasize that the law of consecration is a law for an inheritance in the celestial kingdom. God, the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and all holy beings abide by this law. It is an eternal law. It is a revelation by God to his Church in this dispensation. Though not in full operation today, it will be mandatory for all Saints to live the law in its fulness to receive celestial inheritance. You young people today abide a portion of this higher law as you tithe, pay a generous fast offering, go on missions, and make other contributions of money, service, and time.
Satan's Counterfeit System
But whenever the God of heaven establishes by revelation his design, Satan always comes among men to pervert the doctrine, saying, "Believe it not." He often establishes a counterfeit system, designed to deceive the children of men. His aim, as it was before the foundation of this earth was laid, is to thwart the agency of man and to subjugate him. Throughout all ages of mankind, the adversary has used human agents and despotic governments to establish his purpose. Satan is determined to destroy all that is dear, all that will ennoble and exalt man to a celestial kingdom.
Isaiah foresaw the time when a marvelous work and a wonder would come forth among men (see Isaiah 29:14). Isaiah also predicted that there would be those that "seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they [shall] say, Who seeth us?" (Isaiah 29:15). He saw the time when the work, man, shall say of him that made him, "He made me not," denying his creation (see Isaiah 29:16). It is well to ask what self-proclaimed atheists came on the human scene following the restoration of the gospel, who established secret works of darkness to overthrow nations by violent revolution and who blasphemously proclaimed the atheistic doctrine that God made us not. Yes, Satan works through human agents. We need only look to some of the ignoble figures in human history who were contemporary to the restoration of the gospel to discover fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. I refer to the infamous founders of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Today, if we are alert, we can see further fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecies.
Communism--a System Antithetical to the Gospel of Christ
Through the instigation of Marx and Engels, a most successful counterfeit to the united order was introduced into the world. The declaration of principles found in their Manifesto to the World advocated the overthrow of capitalism and free enterprise, the abolition of private property, the elimination of the family as a social unit, the abolition of all classes, the overthrow of all governments, and the establishment of communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society. All this was to be accomplished by revolution.
On July 3, 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members. I quote it in part; I hope you will get a copy of the full statement for your files. In part, the statement reads:
. . . Communism is not a political party, nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government. . . .
Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism.
To our Church members we say, Communism is not the United Order, and bears only the most superficial resemblance thereto. Communism is based upon intolerance and force, the United Order upon love and freedom of conscience and action. . . .
Communists cannot establish the United Order, nor will Communism bring it about. . . .
Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a Communist.
We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [and shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America.
Signed,
President Heber J. Grant
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay
The First Presidency
You students have only to read some of the speeches and writings of the exiled Russian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to appreciate this farsighted warning of the First Presidency.
I have been on both sides of the Iron Curtain several times. I have talked to these godless leaders face to face. I say to you with all the sincerity of my soul that since 1933 this godless counterfeit to the gospel has made tremendous progress towards its objective of world domination, for over one-third of the human family are now under totalitarian subjugation.
Today we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of men. It is a battle between two opposite systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. The struggle today is more momentous than a decade ago, yet today the conventional wisdom, so called, is that we have got to learn to live with communism, to give up our ideas about national sovereignty. You hear that repeated today. Tell that to the millions--yes, the scores of millions--who have met death or imprisonment under the tyranny of communism. Learn to live with communism? Such would be the death knell of freedom and all we hold dear.
The gospel of Jesus Christ can prosper only in an atmosphere of freedom. As members of his Church, we have a major responsibility to do all in our power to see that freedom is preserved and safeguarded. I pray that God will bless you to see communism for what it really is: the greatest system of human slavery that the world has ever known. May you not be deceived into believing that the communists have moderated their goal toward world domination. I say to you that so-called detente is a fraud. Time will prove it to be such.
There is no excuse for any BYU instructor to grant a forum to an avowed communist for the purpose of teaching communism on this campus. It may be done on other campuses in the United States, but it will not be done here.
Socialism--a Philosophy Incompatible with Man's Liberty
Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord's plan is collectivized socialism. Socialism derives its philosophy from the founders of communism, Marx and Engels. Communism in practice is socialism. Its purpose is world socialism, which the communists seek to achieve by revolution, and which the socialists seek to achieve by evolution. Both communism and socialism have the same effect upon the individual--a loss of personal liberty. As was said so well by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "The two are as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties."
Why is socialism incompatible with man's liberty? Socialism cannot work except through an all-powerful state. The state has to be supreme in everything. When individuals begin to exert their God-given rights, the state has to suppress that freedom. So belief in God must be suppressed, and with that gone freedom of conscience and religion must also go. Those are the first of our liberties mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: "I said I did not believe the doctrine" (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33).
Socialism Disguised under Welfare State Measures
As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today's total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.
This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. I have recounted here before what took place in the St. George Temple when the Founding Fathers of this nation visited President Wilford Woodruff, who was then a member of the Twelve and not president of the Church. The republic which was established was the most nearly perfect system which could have been devised to lead men toward celestial principles. We may liken our system to the law of Moses which leads men to the higher law of Christ.
Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. [quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342]
That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!
Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right. One HEW official said recently, "In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something" (U.S. News and World Report, April 21, 1975, p. 49). President Grover Cleveland said--and we believe as a people--that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.
The chief weapon used by the federal government to achieve this "equality" is the system of transfer payments. This means that the federal governments collects from one income group and transfer payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of social security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and food stamps, to name a few. Today the cost of such programs has been going in the hole at the rate of 12 billion dollars a year; and, with increased benefits and greater numbers of recipients, even though the tax base has been increased we will have larger deficits in the future.
Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program--a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government--precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency.
Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced--that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest.
Are we part of the problem or part of the solution?
Recently a letter came to my office, accompanied by an article from your Daily Universe, on the matter of BYU students taking food stamps. The query of the letter was: "What is the attitude of the Church on taking food stamps?" The Church's view on this is well known. We stand for independence, thrift, and abolition of the dole. This was emphasized in the Saturday morning welfare meeting of general conference. "The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership" (Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3).
When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers' money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them. You did not come to this University to become a welfare recipient. You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society--to save society and to help to save this nation, the Lord's base of operations in these latter days, to ameliorate man's social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for "something for nothing" may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency.
Society may rationalize immorality, but God cannot condone it. Society sponsors Sabbathbreaking, but the Church counsels otherwise. Society profanes the name of Deity, but Latter-day Saints cannot countenance it. Because society condones a dole, which demoralizes man and weakens his God-given initiative and character, can we?
I know what it is, as many of your faculty members do, to work my way through school, taking classes only during winter quarters. If you don't have the finances to complete your education, drop out a semester and go to work and save. You'll be a better man or woman for so doing. You will have preserved your self-respect and initiative. Wisdom comes with experience and struggle, not just with going through a university matriculation. I hope you will not be deceived by current philosophies which will rob you of your godly dignity, self-respect, and initiative, those attributes that make a celestial inheritance possible. It is in that interest, and that only, that I have spoken so plainly to you.
My Hope for You, the Youth of Zion
In opening my remarks to you, beloved youth of the Church, I attempted to share with you a vision of your eternal possibilities. In closing my remarks, I share with you my hope for you:
I hope that you learn through your struggles the joy of achievement.
I hope that you recognize in the gospel of Jesus Christ a solution to our problems, temporal and spiritual.
I hope that you marry well, live together in love, rear a family in righteousness, and have joy and rejoicing in your posterity.
I hope that you follow the example and counsel of him whom the Lord has appointed as prophet, seer, and revelator.
I hope that you learn the joy of work, the ability to postpone wants, and the economic independence not to be a slave to any man.
I hope that you keep yourselves clean morally and spiritually, that your confidence will wax strong in the presence of God, as the scriptures say, and the Holy Ghost will be your constant companion (see D&C 121:45–46).
I hope that you will be united in philosophy, purpose, and action to the laws of the celestial kingdom.
I pray God's choicest blessings on you, my beloved brethren and sisters. May I say to you that there isn't anything in this world that's right that the leadership of this Church wouldn't do for the youth of the Church; and so I hope and pray that you realize the hope of those who love you and serve you and the possibilities of your potential as sons and daughters of God. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Change of a Global Nature is Surely Coming
Let me set the record straight for any of you wondering. I do not believe in global, conglomerate governments. I do not think the US should concede any of her liberties, freedoms, or rights to a global courts system, government, or organization. I do not care what other countries think about my country. I think the EU was a horrible choice for Europe and applaud Switzerland's continued isolationist stand.***see footnote*** I have lived there. They are self contained, peaceful, and take care of their own (yes, they are socialized, that is for another essay). While living there in 1991 Swiss citizens celebrated their country's 700th anniversary. It was a huge celebration and rightfully so. They have survived two world wars by remaining neutral. They had, until recently, an unsurpassed banking system that guaranteed your privacy, and they live the boy scout motto:
Be Prepared. (ie their military and fortifications)
Don't get me wrong. I don't think the US could be neutral, or completely isolationist like Switzerland, who has made some concessionary agreements with the EU which I think have come about mostly out of necessity. However, the minute we give up our rights to a global court or organization like the UN, we are in for a giant, stinking heap load of Ship High In Transit. Before looking at Obama's plans for change on the global level let's review some of the current policy and suggestions.
From the Citizens for Global Solutions website:
Our Vision:
Citizens for Global Solutions envisions a future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms, and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone. This vision requires effective democratic global institutions that will apply the rule of law while respecting the diversity and autonomy of national and local communities.
Our Mission:
We are a membership organization working to build political will in the United States to achieve our vision. We do this by educating Americans about our global interdependence, communicating global concerns to public officials, and developing proposals to create, reform, and strengthen international institutions such as the United Nations.
Sounds good right? Ideologically, who could argue with this position? The problem is completely wrapped up in what Thomas Jefferson stated so many years ago: "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. " The fear that the ICC would have an anti-American prosecutor who would miss no opportunity to prosecute and find guilty any American citizen while traveling abroad of committing crimes of various nature, is not misguided.
"The International Criminal Court represents even greater threats to American sovereignty and Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. Unlike the American system of justice, the ICC would not perform trials by juries of peers; would not guarantee bail; and would not grant prisoners the right to face their accusers. The United States judicial system would not be permitted to intervene on behalf of American citizens.
More frightening is the manner in which the UN will choose the eighteen judges who will each serve for nine year terms. They will be elected by a two-thirds vote of the nations which ratify the court. This was the same process used to oust the United States last Spring from its long-held seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. The United States would hold one vote against the likes of Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, the very nations which now protect and even foster terrorists. Will the court elect a judge from Red China, where American rights aren’t just foreign, but represent the enemy? It doesn’t take a genius to see the direction the UN’s court will take when American soldiers stand on trial.
There is one more important point that must not be overlooked concerning the overwhelming power that the ICC will hold. The Court can prosecute anyone who violates UN treaties, including environmental agreements like the Biodiversity Treaty and those covering World Heritage Sites. This one provision makes the ICC a direct threat to ALL American citizens. Case in point was the Crown Butte Gold Mine that was shut down by UN intervention in 1997. Crown Butte was located on private property, miles from Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone was designated by the UN to be a World Heritage Site. The UN determined that the mine was a direct threat to Yellowstone and declared it the first ever "endangered" World Heritage Site. Had there been an International Criminal Court in place, there is little doubt that the Crown Butte owners would have been put on trial for violating a UN treaty." (http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/uncriminalcourt.htm)
History has shown the UN to be corruptible. Look at the oil for food program that helped Sadaam Hussein continue his regime. Many leaders of the UN have proven themselves to be corrupt and dishonest individuals. "The members of the U.N. staff administering the program [Food for Oil] have been accused of gross incompetence, mismanagement, and possible complicity with the Iraqi regime in perpetrating the biggest scandal in U.N. history." (http://www.heritage.org/research/Internationalorganizations/bg1748.cfm)
A new task force to ferret out corruption in the UN was supposed to deliver it's report last week to the General Assembly. In it "the report said that 22 vendors had been sanctioned by the United Nations during its years in operation and that it had identified more than 20 fraud and corruption schemes involved in about $630 million in contracts." (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/22/america/nations.php)
What does this have to do with our President Elect, Barack Obama you ask? Here ladies and gentlemen, is part of Barack Obama's vision for the US's role in the UN and a one world global government. Bill S.2433. "Obama's bill S2433 would require the U.S. to initially direct .7 percent of our GNP into the United Nations coffers for distribution as they see fit, for 'food' to third world nations. Under earlier agreements this would evolve into a national tax on the U.S. with the UN attempting to levy this on all first world nations.
The U.N. would have the power to increase this rate of taxation.
The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to 'banning small arms and light weapons' but also to adhere to the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol."
Furthermore, "In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child.
Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims." (http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/united_nations/news.php?q=1210170368)
If you haven't heard about the UN's Convention on the Rights of a Child, you really should look into it. "It's purpose was to craft a new system to resolve relationship and children's disputes.
The impact of the CONVENTION is particularly ominous in light of the fact that the United States Constitution declares treaties to be the law of the land. Under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause of Article VI, all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
The CONVENTION would give children the "right" to disregard parental authority. Although several of the treaty's provisions offer generally positive, non-offensive platitudes, a substantial portion of this charter undermines parental rights. The U.N. CONVENTION would: (1) transfer parental rights and responsibilities to the state. (SB 1051-B passed by the 1993 Oregon legislature), (2) undermine the family by vesting children with various fundamental rights which advance notions of the child's autonomy and freedom from parental guidance; and (3) establish bureaucracies and institutions of a national and international nature designed to promote “the ideas proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations and to investigate and prosecute parents who violate their children's rights. The state will determine the child's "best interest" (SB 1051-B from the 1993 Oregon legislature and SB 689 from the 1997 Oregon legislature).
All children must be immediately registered after birth. Severe limitations will be placed on the parent's right to direct and train their children. Section 1 of Article 13 declares a child's right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." Article 14 says children have a legal right to object to all religious training. Alternatively, children may assert their right against parental objections to participation's in other religions.
Parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with people deemed to be objectionable companions, i.e. gangs, cults, racist organizations, etc.
Article 18 says the state must assist parents in the raising of children (SB 1051 and SB 689). It calls on the State to co-parent by rendering "appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children", i.e. Parent training, Family Resource Centers, etc. Corporal punishment is prohibited. Article 43 says international experts will parent our children (SB 689)." (http://www.comeandtakeit.com/unchild.html#RITEOKID)
So far, we have avoided ratifying this convention due to legal arguments over sovereignty and federalism. You can thank President George W. Bush for protecting your right's as a parent. His administration has opposed this measure. What will Obama do? During the Walden University Presidential Debate, both candidates were asked specifically about this convention. Obama's broad answer was, "It is important that the US return to its position as a respectable leader and promoter of Human Rights. As President I will review this and other treaties and assure the US assumes it’s global leadership of human rights." However, it is clear in his bill S.2433 he wants the US to completely ratify this convention as it currently is written.
Michael Ferris, a writter for Christian News Wire believes, "Obama's wants to turn every family and every state legislature over to the supervision of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. They will condescendingly tell us why our traditional desires for our children are not acceptable in this day and age. They will explain us to ourselves and to others while usurping control of our family and utterly destroying the principle of American self-government."
To further this point take into account what Austin Ruse, president of the New York and Washington DC-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) has said.
"There is growing pressure both internationally and domestically for the United States to get with the new international program. The charge that America is isolationist rests largely on our refusal to ratify these treaties. Ignoring them is now seen as a remnant of the discredited Bush days.
Obama has endorsed CEDAW as has his vice presidential running mate Joe Biden. Both are in favor of the ICC, too. It is likely that, with a larger and more left-leaning Senate, a whole slew of left-leaning treaties will be ratified.
Besides existing treaties there is also the threat that an Obama administration will rejuvenate what has been a fairly sleepy United Nations. In the Clinton years, there were repeated global conferences on social policy. That died out in the Bush years. There is a lot of pent-up energy that will explode if Obama takes the oath of office.
But there are even larger issues than these particular treaties or new UN conferences. There is larger mischief afoot. It is called global governance.
The traditional understanding of international relations and international law is that they regulate behavior among and between sovereign states. By contrast, global governance holds that international relations and international law should have more to do with regulating the behavior of individual citizens within each state and that these decisions should not be left to sovereign states, but to international bodies like the United Nations and its various commissions and committees."
I fear that change is surely coming. Not just an increase in our taxes and our big brother government that will take care of you by spreading the wealth, but change that will strip us all of the rights our fore fathers fought so long and hard to ensure that we had. Our very constitution, which Obama has already stated is fundamentally flawed, will be under attack. I call for an uprising of voices, ideas, and grass root movements that will uphold the founding principals of our great country. We need to stand united against the tyranny that may well be coming our way. Will you join me? Where do we start? Share your ideas and let's get rolling before it is too late.
***It should be noted that Switzerland had applied for membership to the EU, but that was halted due to their referendum on the EEA. Also of note, they have made some bi-lateral agreements with the EU, but still remain their own independent country
Be Prepared. (ie their military and fortifications)
Don't get me wrong. I don't think the US could be neutral, or completely isolationist like Switzerland, who has made some concessionary agreements with the EU which I think have come about mostly out of necessity. However, the minute we give up our rights to a global court or organization like the UN, we are in for a giant, stinking heap load of Ship High In Transit. Before looking at Obama's plans for change on the global level let's review some of the current policy and suggestions.
From the Citizens for Global Solutions website:
Our Vision:
Citizens for Global Solutions envisions a future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms, and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone. This vision requires effective democratic global institutions that will apply the rule of law while respecting the diversity and autonomy of national and local communities.
Our Mission:
We are a membership organization working to build political will in the United States to achieve our vision. We do this by educating Americans about our global interdependence, communicating global concerns to public officials, and developing proposals to create, reform, and strengthen international institutions such as the United Nations.
Sounds good right? Ideologically, who could argue with this position? The problem is completely wrapped up in what Thomas Jefferson stated so many years ago: "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. " The fear that the ICC would have an anti-American prosecutor who would miss no opportunity to prosecute and find guilty any American citizen while traveling abroad of committing crimes of various nature, is not misguided.
"The International Criminal Court represents even greater threats to American sovereignty and Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. Unlike the American system of justice, the ICC would not perform trials by juries of peers; would not guarantee bail; and would not grant prisoners the right to face their accusers. The United States judicial system would not be permitted to intervene on behalf of American citizens.
More frightening is the manner in which the UN will choose the eighteen judges who will each serve for nine year terms. They will be elected by a two-thirds vote of the nations which ratify the court. This was the same process used to oust the United States last Spring from its long-held seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. The United States would hold one vote against the likes of Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, the very nations which now protect and even foster terrorists. Will the court elect a judge from Red China, where American rights aren’t just foreign, but represent the enemy? It doesn’t take a genius to see the direction the UN’s court will take when American soldiers stand on trial.
There is one more important point that must not be overlooked concerning the overwhelming power that the ICC will hold. The Court can prosecute anyone who violates UN treaties, including environmental agreements like the Biodiversity Treaty and those covering World Heritage Sites. This one provision makes the ICC a direct threat to ALL American citizens. Case in point was the Crown Butte Gold Mine that was shut down by UN intervention in 1997. Crown Butte was located on private property, miles from Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone was designated by the UN to be a World Heritage Site. The UN determined that the mine was a direct threat to Yellowstone and declared it the first ever "endangered" World Heritage Site. Had there been an International Criminal Court in place, there is little doubt that the Crown Butte owners would have been put on trial for violating a UN treaty." (http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/uncriminalcourt.htm)
History has shown the UN to be corruptible. Look at the oil for food program that helped Sadaam Hussein continue his regime. Many leaders of the UN have proven themselves to be corrupt and dishonest individuals. "The members of the U.N. staff administering the program [Food for Oil] have been accused of gross incompetence, mismanagement, and possible complicity with the Iraqi regime in perpetrating the biggest scandal in U.N. history." (http://www.heritage.org/research/Internationalorganizations/bg1748.cfm)
A new task force to ferret out corruption in the UN was supposed to deliver it's report last week to the General Assembly. In it "the report said that 22 vendors had been sanctioned by the United Nations during its years in operation and that it had identified more than 20 fraud and corruption schemes involved in about $630 million in contracts." (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/22/america/nations.php)
What does this have to do with our President Elect, Barack Obama you ask? Here ladies and gentlemen, is part of Barack Obama's vision for the US's role in the UN and a one world global government. Bill S.2433. "Obama's bill S2433 would require the U.S. to initially direct .7 percent of our GNP into the United Nations coffers for distribution as they see fit, for 'food' to third world nations. Under earlier agreements this would evolve into a national tax on the U.S. with the UN attempting to levy this on all first world nations.
The U.N. would have the power to increase this rate of taxation.
The U.S. would be required to surrender some of its sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to 'banning small arms and light weapons' but also to adhere to the International Criminal Court Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol."
Furthermore, "In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child.
Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims." (http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/united_nations/news.php?q=1210170368)
If you haven't heard about the UN's Convention on the Rights of a Child, you really should look into it. "It's purpose was to craft a new system to resolve relationship and children's disputes.
The impact of the CONVENTION is particularly ominous in light of the fact that the United States Constitution declares treaties to be the law of the land. Under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause of Article VI, all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution of laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
The CONVENTION would give children the "right" to disregard parental authority. Although several of the treaty's provisions offer generally positive, non-offensive platitudes, a substantial portion of this charter undermines parental rights. The U.N. CONVENTION would: (1) transfer parental rights and responsibilities to the state. (SB 1051-B passed by the 1993 Oregon legislature), (2) undermine the family by vesting children with various fundamental rights which advance notions of the child's autonomy and freedom from parental guidance; and (3) establish bureaucracies and institutions of a national and international nature designed to promote “the ideas proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations and to investigate and prosecute parents who violate their children's rights. The state will determine the child's "best interest" (SB 1051-B from the 1993 Oregon legislature and SB 689 from the 1997 Oregon legislature).
All children must be immediately registered after birth. Severe limitations will be placed on the parent's right to direct and train their children. Section 1 of Article 13 declares a child's right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice." Article 14 says children have a legal right to object to all religious training. Alternatively, children may assert their right against parental objections to participation's in other religions.
Parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with people deemed to be objectionable companions, i.e. gangs, cults, racist organizations, etc.
Article 18 says the state must assist parents in the raising of children (SB 1051 and SB 689). It calls on the State to co-parent by rendering "appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children", i.e. Parent training, Family Resource Centers, etc. Corporal punishment is prohibited. Article 43 says international experts will parent our children (SB 689)." (http://www.comeandtakeit.com/unchild.html#RITEOKID)
So far, we have avoided ratifying this convention due to legal arguments over sovereignty and federalism. You can thank President George W. Bush for protecting your right's as a parent. His administration has opposed this measure. What will Obama do? During the Walden University Presidential Debate, both candidates were asked specifically about this convention. Obama's broad answer was, "It is important that the US return to its position as a respectable leader and promoter of Human Rights. As President I will review this and other treaties and assure the US assumes it’s global leadership of human rights." However, it is clear in his bill S.2433 he wants the US to completely ratify this convention as it currently is written.
Michael Ferris, a writter for Christian News Wire believes, "Obama's wants to turn every family and every state legislature over to the supervision of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. They will condescendingly tell us why our traditional desires for our children are not acceptable in this day and age. They will explain us to ourselves and to others while usurping control of our family and utterly destroying the principle of American self-government."
To further this point take into account what Austin Ruse, president of the New York and Washington DC-based Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) has said.
"There is growing pressure both internationally and domestically for the United States to get with the new international program. The charge that America is isolationist rests largely on our refusal to ratify these treaties. Ignoring them is now seen as a remnant of the discredited Bush days.
Obama has endorsed CEDAW as has his vice presidential running mate Joe Biden. Both are in favor of the ICC, too. It is likely that, with a larger and more left-leaning Senate, a whole slew of left-leaning treaties will be ratified.
Besides existing treaties there is also the threat that an Obama administration will rejuvenate what has been a fairly sleepy United Nations. In the Clinton years, there were repeated global conferences on social policy. That died out in the Bush years. There is a lot of pent-up energy that will explode if Obama takes the oath of office.
But there are even larger issues than these particular treaties or new UN conferences. There is larger mischief afoot. It is called global governance.
The traditional understanding of international relations and international law is that they regulate behavior among and between sovereign states. By contrast, global governance holds that international relations and international law should have more to do with regulating the behavior of individual citizens within each state and that these decisions should not be left to sovereign states, but to international bodies like the United Nations and its various commissions and committees."
I fear that change is surely coming. Not just an increase in our taxes and our big brother government that will take care of you by spreading the wealth, but change that will strip us all of the rights our fore fathers fought so long and hard to ensure that we had. Our very constitution, which Obama has already stated is fundamentally flawed, will be under attack. I call for an uprising of voices, ideas, and grass root movements that will uphold the founding principals of our great country. We need to stand united against the tyranny that may well be coming our way. Will you join me? Where do we start? Share your ideas and let's get rolling before it is too late.
***It should be noted that Switzerland had applied for membership to the EU, but that was halted due to their referendum on the EEA. Also of note, they have made some bi-lateral agreements with the EU, but still remain their own independent country
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
My Point of View
Jeff Scrieber at America's Right posted an excellent essay that really sums up my feelings very well. Since I am tired and need to hit the gym to burn off some of this pent up frustration, I will post his words. You can echo them as mine. Chin up. It's not bad yet.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The 44th President of the United States
For two hours now, I have been trying to put words on paper. It hasn't been easy.
As a man who believes in the virtue of fundamental fairness, I am delighted that the United States of America will, come January, see its first African-American president. I was oddly moved by seeing Jesse Jackson's tears in the Grant Park audience tonight. As much as I may dislike the man, as awful as he may be on so many levels, it must have been an incredible experience for him and seeing him overcome by emotion without a camera directly in his face weighed heavily on me. It was not so long ago, after all, that black men were denied the right to vote and, tonight, one was elected president of the United States. That alone is a testament to the freedoms and opportunity afforded by the United States of America and everything for which She stands.
As an American, however, I wish that president could have been someone else. My God, we elected a socialist tonight. My God, we elected a man who has done nothing to show that he actually likes this country, nonetheless has its best interests at heart.
Still strugging for words, looking to connect my head with my fingers, I find myself disheartened because, if tonight is an indication of the near future, my daughter will not grow up in the same America I did. I find myself disappointed that my fellow Americans were not able to see past the rhetoric, past the spin, past the cloud of Bush Derangement Syndrome enough to do the right thing yesterday. I find myself angry knowing that more could have been done to prevail, that it was a better-run campaign and not a better candidate which won this race. I'm embarrassed that the electorate freely elected a man who, even in his victory speech, said that American "cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers" and somehow managed to speak of humility while delivering a speech before more than a million people. Humility, as Charles Krauthammer later said, is not one of Obama's strong points.
Yet, oddly, I find myself optimistic. Sure, I know full well that this loss will be blamed on Sarah Palin and the conservative movement as a whole, that news cycles for the next few days will focus on how the GOP needs to transmogrify itself into more of a big-tent party, that it was the religious right which lost this election for John McCain, ever concerned about their petty values and driven by their mindless faith in God. I also know, however, that this past evening's loss in reality falls squarely on the shoulders of a party and campaign mechanism that was, just like we saw party-wide in 2006, somehow hesitant and afraid to fight hard from its own traditional principled foundation.
We can Monday-morning quarterback as much as we want. We can talk about the inevitable, below-the-fold piece in the New York Times commending John McCain for his "respectful" campaign, and how the very presence of that piece will run to the heart of what is wrong with the Republican party and what needs to be done to retake the Senate, the House, and the residence and offices at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Strangely enough, it is that inevitable battle within the party which has be so optimisic. The GOP has some 'splainin to do, a real knock-down, drag out fight. The debate will be between (1) those who believe that moving the party to the center, that expanding the pie and building a bigger tent is the answer to the question posed tonight when America willingly elected a radical socialist to the presidency, and (2) those who believe firmly that America is a right-of-center nation and pandering to the center and left through La Raza events and cap-and-trade programs and the socialization of economic losses does nothing to benefit the GOP or the country as a whole.
I'm confident that the latter faction will prevail, that actual conservatives like Bobby Jindal and Mike Pence and Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin and Eric Cantor and Jim DeMint will be able to guide the conservative movement to, once again, the forefront of American politics by aggresively stressing and eloquently articulating the merits of fiscal conservatism, of smaller government, of free market principles, of a strong national defense and solid family values. Aided by the disastrous effects Obama's policies are sure to have on the economy, on our security and more, the process may not take as long as originally thought.
Six years, a good friend of mine said tonight, until we retake Congress. I think it will be less.
As corny as it may sound, it IS always darkest before the dawn. From Harry Truman came Dwight Eisenhower, from Jimmy Carter came Ronald Reagan. Tomorrow and the next day, the news cycles will surely not be easy and the pundits will be nothing short of ruthless -- but rest assured that news of the death of conservatism has been greatly exaggerated.
What these pundits, critics and know-it-all types fail to understand is that conservatism is bigger than John McCain, bigger than Grant Park, bigger than 2008. Conservatism wasn't invented by Reagan, by Barry Goldwater, Theodore Roosevelt or anyone else. Conservatism is not a trend, not a fashion or a theory designed for fleeting consideration before fading into fodder for books forever doomed to collect dust on the shelves of the elites. Yes, it will be written off tomorrow as out-of-touch, as antiquated, as too rooted in religion and the free market, but conservatism has been written off before -- it was written off in 1976 after the disappointment of Gerald Ford and Bob Dole; it was written off in 1992 after Democrats obtained control of the House, Senate and the White House; it was written off again in 1996 after Bob Dole's anticlimactic presidential run.
Barack Obama's victory a few hours ago was a turning point, a sea change pending for the Republican party as a direct result of the so-called "Big Tent" approach to party politics, a widely-inclusive but short-sighted approach which blurred the lines of the basic tenets of conservatism -- strong national defense and foreign policy, responsible and pro-growth fiscal policy, rich and grounded family and moral values. The more people, the more factions and more groups the GOP tried to cram into the left side of the Big Tent, the more those on the right side, the ones that had been there from the start and the ones who can deliver America to prosperity and keep Her there, were pushed out into a deluge of apathy and spite.
In these upcoming news cycles, the debate among those on the political left and right will surely include analysis of the relevance of conservatives and conservatism. If conservatives are so plentiful and so powerful, they'll ask, why wasn't it Barack Obama who was delivering the concession speech, why isn't it Cindy McCain measuring the drapes and preparing for her White House Christmas Special? Over the next few months, the pundits and pinheads will put forth the proposition that the country as a whole is moving to the left at a rapid pace. Look at the turnout numbers in the primaries, they'll say, pointing to the popular vote count discrepancy between democrats and republicans. Look at the general election, they'll maintain, pointing to numbers which show that Obama won by a larger margin than any democrat since Lyndon Johnson.
Don't believe what you hear. Don't let the same bitterness seen in so many liberals, that nasty venom and vitriol so artfully concealed behind empty smiles and yoga pants and gritty spirulina smoothies, don't let it seep into your daily lives. Don't allow it to happen. The core principles of conservatism--starting with a limited central government--are the very principles on which America was founded and, so long as we survive the next four years, those principles will be the reason that the party, and America as a whole, emerge stronger than ever.
Remember that the movement transcends the candidate. Remember that the principles transcend the election.
Keep your chin up, America -- Bobby Jindal is headed to Iowa next month.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The 44th President of the United States
For two hours now, I have been trying to put words on paper. It hasn't been easy.
As a man who believes in the virtue of fundamental fairness, I am delighted that the United States of America will, come January, see its first African-American president. I was oddly moved by seeing Jesse Jackson's tears in the Grant Park audience tonight. As much as I may dislike the man, as awful as he may be on so many levels, it must have been an incredible experience for him and seeing him overcome by emotion without a camera directly in his face weighed heavily on me. It was not so long ago, after all, that black men were denied the right to vote and, tonight, one was elected president of the United States. That alone is a testament to the freedoms and opportunity afforded by the United States of America and everything for which She stands.
As an American, however, I wish that president could have been someone else. My God, we elected a socialist tonight. My God, we elected a man who has done nothing to show that he actually likes this country, nonetheless has its best interests at heart.
Still strugging for words, looking to connect my head with my fingers, I find myself disheartened because, if tonight is an indication of the near future, my daughter will not grow up in the same America I did. I find myself disappointed that my fellow Americans were not able to see past the rhetoric, past the spin, past the cloud of Bush Derangement Syndrome enough to do the right thing yesterday. I find myself angry knowing that more could have been done to prevail, that it was a better-run campaign and not a better candidate which won this race. I'm embarrassed that the electorate freely elected a man who, even in his victory speech, said that American "cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers" and somehow managed to speak of humility while delivering a speech before more than a million people. Humility, as Charles Krauthammer later said, is not one of Obama's strong points.
Yet, oddly, I find myself optimistic. Sure, I know full well that this loss will be blamed on Sarah Palin and the conservative movement as a whole, that news cycles for the next few days will focus on how the GOP needs to transmogrify itself into more of a big-tent party, that it was the religious right which lost this election for John McCain, ever concerned about their petty values and driven by their mindless faith in God. I also know, however, that this past evening's loss in reality falls squarely on the shoulders of a party and campaign mechanism that was, just like we saw party-wide in 2006, somehow hesitant and afraid to fight hard from its own traditional principled foundation.
We can Monday-morning quarterback as much as we want. We can talk about the inevitable, below-the-fold piece in the New York Times commending John McCain for his "respectful" campaign, and how the very presence of that piece will run to the heart of what is wrong with the Republican party and what needs to be done to retake the Senate, the House, and the residence and offices at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Strangely enough, it is that inevitable battle within the party which has be so optimisic. The GOP has some 'splainin to do, a real knock-down, drag out fight. The debate will be between (1) those who believe that moving the party to the center, that expanding the pie and building a bigger tent is the answer to the question posed tonight when America willingly elected a radical socialist to the presidency, and (2) those who believe firmly that America is a right-of-center nation and pandering to the center and left through La Raza events and cap-and-trade programs and the socialization of economic losses does nothing to benefit the GOP or the country as a whole.
I'm confident that the latter faction will prevail, that actual conservatives like Bobby Jindal and Mike Pence and Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin and Eric Cantor and Jim DeMint will be able to guide the conservative movement to, once again, the forefront of American politics by aggresively stressing and eloquently articulating the merits of fiscal conservatism, of smaller government, of free market principles, of a strong national defense and solid family values. Aided by the disastrous effects Obama's policies are sure to have on the economy, on our security and more, the process may not take as long as originally thought.
Six years, a good friend of mine said tonight, until we retake Congress. I think it will be less.
As corny as it may sound, it IS always darkest before the dawn. From Harry Truman came Dwight Eisenhower, from Jimmy Carter came Ronald Reagan. Tomorrow and the next day, the news cycles will surely not be easy and the pundits will be nothing short of ruthless -- but rest assured that news of the death of conservatism has been greatly exaggerated.
What these pundits, critics and know-it-all types fail to understand is that conservatism is bigger than John McCain, bigger than Grant Park, bigger than 2008. Conservatism wasn't invented by Reagan, by Barry Goldwater, Theodore Roosevelt or anyone else. Conservatism is not a trend, not a fashion or a theory designed for fleeting consideration before fading into fodder for books forever doomed to collect dust on the shelves of the elites. Yes, it will be written off tomorrow as out-of-touch, as antiquated, as too rooted in religion and the free market, but conservatism has been written off before -- it was written off in 1976 after the disappointment of Gerald Ford and Bob Dole; it was written off in 1992 after Democrats obtained control of the House, Senate and the White House; it was written off again in 1996 after Bob Dole's anticlimactic presidential run.
Barack Obama's victory a few hours ago was a turning point, a sea change pending for the Republican party as a direct result of the so-called "Big Tent" approach to party politics, a widely-inclusive but short-sighted approach which blurred the lines of the basic tenets of conservatism -- strong national defense and foreign policy, responsible and pro-growth fiscal policy, rich and grounded family and moral values. The more people, the more factions and more groups the GOP tried to cram into the left side of the Big Tent, the more those on the right side, the ones that had been there from the start and the ones who can deliver America to prosperity and keep Her there, were pushed out into a deluge of apathy and spite.
In these upcoming news cycles, the debate among those on the political left and right will surely include analysis of the relevance of conservatives and conservatism. If conservatives are so plentiful and so powerful, they'll ask, why wasn't it Barack Obama who was delivering the concession speech, why isn't it Cindy McCain measuring the drapes and preparing for her White House Christmas Special? Over the next few months, the pundits and pinheads will put forth the proposition that the country as a whole is moving to the left at a rapid pace. Look at the turnout numbers in the primaries, they'll say, pointing to the popular vote count discrepancy between democrats and republicans. Look at the general election, they'll maintain, pointing to numbers which show that Obama won by a larger margin than any democrat since Lyndon Johnson.
Don't believe what you hear. Don't let the same bitterness seen in so many liberals, that nasty venom and vitriol so artfully concealed behind empty smiles and yoga pants and gritty spirulina smoothies, don't let it seep into your daily lives. Don't allow it to happen. The core principles of conservatism--starting with a limited central government--are the very principles on which America was founded and, so long as we survive the next four years, those principles will be the reason that the party, and America as a whole, emerge stronger than ever.
Remember that the movement transcends the candidate. Remember that the principles transcend the election.
Keep your chin up, America -- Bobby Jindal is headed to Iowa next month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)