Thursday, January 28, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Remember!
Our current political climate is not new. We need to be reminded and then remember the historical outcome of this same fight regarding government and being governed:
************************************************
During the days of Israel. The people—rejecting government by judges, which God had established—clamored for Samuel to give them a king. Notwithstanding Samuel’s warning that a king would make servants of their children, lay heavy taxes and services upon their backs, and send them to war, “the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, [saying,] Nay; but we will have a king over us;
“That we also may be like all the nations.” (1 Sam. 8:19–20.) (Sound familiar? Europe anyone?!)
Samuel therefore anointed Saul to be their king. In due time, just as Samuel had predicted, heavy burdens were laid upon them, their sons and daughters were made servants of the king, and war came. The nation was divided into two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, both of which were, in their turn, carried away into captivity. Not only did they lose their political freedom, but their very political existence as nations was terminated.
We have a classic example of the loss of economic freedom by the misuse of free agency in the book of Genesis. The Egyptians, instead of exercising their agency to provide for themselves against a day of need, depended upon the government. As a result, when the famine came they were forced to purchase food from the government. First they used their money. When that was gone, they gave their livestock, then their lands; and finally they were compelled to sell themselves into slavery, that they might eat. (See Gen. 41:54–56; Gen. 47:13–26.)
-Marion G. Romney, “The Perfect Law of Liberty,” Ensign, Nov 1981, 43-
************************************************
During the days of Israel. The people—rejecting government by judges, which God had established—clamored for Samuel to give them a king. Notwithstanding Samuel’s warning that a king would make servants of their children, lay heavy taxes and services upon their backs, and send them to war, “the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, [saying,] Nay; but we will have a king over us;
“That we also may be like all the nations.” (1 Sam. 8:19–20.) (Sound familiar? Europe anyone?!)
Samuel therefore anointed Saul to be their king. In due time, just as Samuel had predicted, heavy burdens were laid upon them, their sons and daughters were made servants of the king, and war came. The nation was divided into two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, both of which were, in their turn, carried away into captivity. Not only did they lose their political freedom, but their very political existence as nations was terminated.
We have a classic example of the loss of economic freedom by the misuse of free agency in the book of Genesis. The Egyptians, instead of exercising their agency to provide for themselves against a day of need, depended upon the government. As a result, when the famine came they were forced to purchase food from the government. First they used their money. When that was gone, they gave their livestock, then their lands; and finally they were compelled to sell themselves into slavery, that they might eat. (See Gen. 41:54–56; Gen. 47:13–26.)
-Marion G. Romney, “The Perfect Law of Liberty,” Ensign, Nov 1981, 43-
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Woo Hoo!
Last night our phone rang. It was a friend of ours and all she said after we answered the phone was "Woo hoo." That's all she needed to say, because we knew exactly what she meant. She was referring to the outcome of yesterday's special election in Massachusetts, in which the long-shot underdog republican, Scott Brown, beat out the favored democrat, Martha Coakley, by a margin of 53% to 46%. The last time Massachusetts sent a republican to Congress was in the 1970's. Last week Brown was down in the polls by double digits, but by casting the majority vote in favor of Brown, the people of Massachusetts have spoken for the rest of the country. The message to the government is clear: stop cramming your very flawed healthcare bill down our throats, stop spending our money and putting this country at risk of being enslaved by other countries, and stop pushing your progressive/socialist agenda on the American people. We'll fire even more incumbents in November--we're just getting started.
What Were You Thinking?
The below article was posted by Mort Zuckerman of The Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-19/hes-done-everything-wrong/
Many of us figured out that our current president was a disaster before he became president. Had Mr. Zuckerman and other media types bothered to be non-partisan rather than left-wing supporters, perhaps everyone would have realized the truth about Obama before we had to experience his tyrannical socialism.
"Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days. He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, 'It’s the economy, stupid.' He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.
"This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.
"In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.
"Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it.
"Even that is not the worst part. He could have said, 'I know. I promised these things, but let me try to do them one at a time.' You want to deal with health care? Fine. Issue No. 1 with health care was the cost. You know I think it was 37 percent or 33 who were worried about coverage. Fine, I wrote an editorial to this effect. Focus on cost-containment first. But he’s trying to boil the ocean, trying to do too much. This is not leadership.
"Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.
"I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.
"One business leader said to me, 'In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.'
"I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.
"I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn’t do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?
"He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, 'This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bull****. We have a national emergency.' Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.
"It’s very sad. It’s really sad.
"He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. 'We are convinced,' he said, 'that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,' he said 'that he is not strong to support his friends.'
"The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.
"It’s really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don’t know what has happened to them. His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works. He better get some very talented businesspeople who know how to implement things. It’s unbelievable. Everybody says so. You can’t believe how dismayed people are. That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.
"I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic."
Mortimer B. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report and publisher of the New York Daily News. He is also the co-founder and chairman of Boston Properties Inc. He is a trustee of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, and the International Institute of Strategic Studies.
Many of us figured out that our current president was a disaster before he became president. Had Mr. Zuckerman and other media types bothered to be non-partisan rather than left-wing supporters, perhaps everyone would have realized the truth about Obama before we had to experience his tyrannical socialism.
"Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days. He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, 'It’s the economy, stupid.' He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.
"This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.
"In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.
"Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it.
"Even that is not the worst part. He could have said, 'I know. I promised these things, but let me try to do them one at a time.' You want to deal with health care? Fine. Issue No. 1 with health care was the cost. You know I think it was 37 percent or 33 who were worried about coverage. Fine, I wrote an editorial to this effect. Focus on cost-containment first. But he’s trying to boil the ocean, trying to do too much. This is not leadership.
"Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.
"I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.
"One business leader said to me, 'In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.'
"I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.
"I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn’t do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?
"He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, 'This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bull****. We have a national emergency.' Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.
"It’s very sad. It’s really sad.
"He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. 'We are convinced,' he said, 'that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,' he said 'that he is not strong to support his friends.'
"The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.
"It’s really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don’t know what has happened to them. His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works. He better get some very talented businesspeople who know how to implement things. It’s unbelievable. Everybody says so. You can’t believe how dismayed people are. That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.
"I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic."
Mortimer B. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report and publisher of the New York Daily News. He is also the co-founder and chairman of Boston Properties Inc. He is a trustee of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, and the International Institute of Strategic Studies.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Cherish Choice
"What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness. When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose these freedoms. . . .
"If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through 'a democratic process' he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take from the 'haves' and give to the 'have nots.' Both have last their freedom. Those who 'have,' lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who 'have not,' lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got 'something for nothing,' and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift.
"Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms which they have lost." (Howard W. Hunter, Speeches of the Year 1965-1966, pp. 1-11, “The Law of the Harvest.” Devotional Address, Brigham Young University, 8 March 1966.)
"If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through 'a democratic process' he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take from the 'haves' and give to the 'have nots.' Both have last their freedom. Those who 'have,' lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who 'have not,' lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got 'something for nothing,' and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift.
"Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms which they have lost." (Howard W. Hunter, Speeches of the Year 1965-1966, pp. 1-11, “The Law of the Harvest.” Devotional Address, Brigham Young University, 8 March 1966.)
Friday, January 8, 2010
Challenging the Healthcare Bill
Write Governor Gibbons and let him know that you approve of his plan to sue the federal government if the healthcare bill is passed. His contact information is here: http://gov.state.nv.us/ContactX.htm
For Immediate Release: January 7, 2010
GOVERNOR JIM GIBBONS: NEVADA WILL SUE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IF SENATOR REID’S HEALTH CARE DEBACLE BECOMES LAW
Carson City- Governor Jim Gibbons today announced that the State of Nevada intends to sue the federal government to stop Senator Harry Reid’s health care plan if it becomes law. “There is nothing healthy about Reid’s health care plan, the first thing it will do is kill Nevada’s economy,” Governor Jim Gibbons said, “and then it will crush the working families of Nevada.”
Governor Gibbons agrees with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s assessment of Reid’s health care fiasco. Governor Schwarzenegger called the legislation “health care to nowhere… that’s infected with bribes, deals and loopholes.”
Reid’s health care plan would cost Nevadans $613,000,000 in increased Medicaid costs alone. It is guaranteed to lead to higher federal and local taxes at a time when Nevadans are struggling to make ends meet.
Attorneys General in 13 States have objected to the sweetheart deal Reid made with Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson which will make the federal government (the other 49 states) pay Nebraska’s increased Medicaid costs forever.
“Senator Reid is treating the citizens of Nevada and other states unfairly,” Governor Gibbons said, “His health care bill is not only ill-conceived, but I believe it is illegal.” The United States Constitution makes numerous references to states having “equal standing”, also duties, imposts and excises are to be “uniform throughout the United States.” “After Senator Reid reads his unhealthy healthcare reform bill, he should read the United States Constitution,” Governor Gibbons said.
For Immediate Release: January 7, 2010
GOVERNOR JIM GIBBONS: NEVADA WILL SUE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IF SENATOR REID’S HEALTH CARE DEBACLE BECOMES LAW
Carson City- Governor Jim Gibbons today announced that the State of Nevada intends to sue the federal government to stop Senator Harry Reid’s health care plan if it becomes law. “There is nothing healthy about Reid’s health care plan, the first thing it will do is kill Nevada’s economy,” Governor Jim Gibbons said, “and then it will crush the working families of Nevada.”
Governor Gibbons agrees with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s assessment of Reid’s health care fiasco. Governor Schwarzenegger called the legislation “health care to nowhere… that’s infected with bribes, deals and loopholes.”
Reid’s health care plan would cost Nevadans $613,000,000 in increased Medicaid costs alone. It is guaranteed to lead to higher federal and local taxes at a time when Nevadans are struggling to make ends meet.
Attorneys General in 13 States have objected to the sweetheart deal Reid made with Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson which will make the federal government (the other 49 states) pay Nebraska’s increased Medicaid costs forever.
“Senator Reid is treating the citizens of Nevada and other states unfairly,” Governor Gibbons said, “His health care bill is not only ill-conceived, but I believe it is illegal.” The United States Constitution makes numerous references to states having “equal standing”, also duties, imposts and excises are to be “uniform throughout the United States.” “After Senator Reid reads his unhealthy healthcare reform bill, he should read the United States Constitution,” Governor Gibbons said.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Let's Party Like It's 1894
Many political analysts are suggesting that the 2010 elections will be 1994 all over again, when Republicans took back the House and Senate after decades of Democrat control. But we're hoping that it's more like 1894 when the Republicans practically annihilated the Democrat party. 
The below information is from Wikipedia:
The U.S. House election, 1894 was a realigning election—a major Republican landslide that set the stage for the decisive Election of 1896. The elections of members of the United States House of Representatives in 1894 came in the middle of President Grover Cleveland's second term. The nation was in its deepest economic depression ever following the Panic of 1893, so economic issues were at the forefront. In the spring, a major coal strike damaged the economy of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. It was accompanied by violence; the miners lost and many moved toward the Populist party. Immediately after the coal strike concluded, Eugene V. Debs led a nationwide railroad strike, called the Pullman Strike. It shut down the nation's transportation system west of Detroit for weeks, until President Cleveland's use of federal troops ended the strike. Debs went to prison (for disobeying a court order). Illinois' Governor John Peter Altgeld, a Democrat, broke bitterly with Cleveland.
The fragmented and disoriented Democratic Party was crushed everywhere outside the South, losing more than half its seats to the Republican Party. Even in the South, the Democrats lost seats to Republican-Populist electoral fusion in Alabama, Texas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. The Democrats lost 125 seats in the election while the Republicans won 130 seats. This makes the 1894 election the largest midterm election victory in the entire history of the United States.
The main issues revolved around the severe economic depression, which the Republicans blamed on the conservative Bourbon Democrats led by Cleveland. Cleveland supporters lost heavily, weakening their hold on the party and setting the stage for an 1896 takeover by the silverist wing of the party. The Populist Party ran candidates in the South and Midwest, but generally lost ground, outside Alabama, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas where state-level fusion with the Republicans was successful despite Populist and Republican antagonism at the national level. The Democrats tried to raise a religious issue, claiming the GOP was in cahoots with the American Protective Association. The allegations seem to have fallen flat as Catholics moved toward the GOP. [Jensen (1971) ch 9]. Democrat William Jennings Bryan lost the Senate race in Nebraska, but came back to win the 1896 presidential nomination.
The below information is from Wikipedia:
The U.S. House election, 1894 was a realigning election—a major Republican landslide that set the stage for the decisive Election of 1896. The elections of members of the United States House of Representatives in 1894 came in the middle of President Grover Cleveland's second term. The nation was in its deepest economic depression ever following the Panic of 1893, so economic issues were at the forefront. In the spring, a major coal strike damaged the economy of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. It was accompanied by violence; the miners lost and many moved toward the Populist party. Immediately after the coal strike concluded, Eugene V. Debs led a nationwide railroad strike, called the Pullman Strike. It shut down the nation's transportation system west of Detroit for weeks, until President Cleveland's use of federal troops ended the strike. Debs went to prison (for disobeying a court order). Illinois' Governor John Peter Altgeld, a Democrat, broke bitterly with Cleveland.
The fragmented and disoriented Democratic Party was crushed everywhere outside the South, losing more than half its seats to the Republican Party. Even in the South, the Democrats lost seats to Republican-Populist electoral fusion in Alabama, Texas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. The Democrats lost 125 seats in the election while the Republicans won 130 seats. This makes the 1894 election the largest midterm election victory in the entire history of the United States.
The main issues revolved around the severe economic depression, which the Republicans blamed on the conservative Bourbon Democrats led by Cleveland. Cleveland supporters lost heavily, weakening their hold on the party and setting the stage for an 1896 takeover by the silverist wing of the party. The Populist Party ran candidates in the South and Midwest, but generally lost ground, outside Alabama, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas where state-level fusion with the Republicans was successful despite Populist and Republican antagonism at the national level. The Democrats tried to raise a religious issue, claiming the GOP was in cahoots with the American Protective Association. The allegations seem to have fallen flat as Catholics moved toward the GOP. [Jensen (1971) ch 9]. Democrat William Jennings Bryan lost the Senate race in Nebraska, but came back to win the 1896 presidential nomination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)