Monday, July 15, 2013

George Zimmerman Wasn't Guilty

The recent outcry over George Zimmerman's "not guilty" verdict is stunning.  As a neighborhood watch person, Zimmerman was justifiably suspicious of someone he didn't recognize walking through an area that had been victimized by burglaries.  He may not have done everything perfectly, but justice was for the most part served the night he defended his life with the pull of a trigger, which immediately solved the problem of having a thug attempt to end his life.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Obama, Vick, and a New Low for the United States of America

I noticed an article today on Yahoo's home page that caught my attention: "Obama calls Eagles about Michael Vick."

Obama? Barack Obama? The knucklehead who's supposed to be running the country?

I clicked through to read the article. It turns out that indeed it was "President Obama" making sure to give a shout out to those responsible for giving Michael Vick a second chance.

The newest headline reminded me of one I saw just a few days ago: "Obama Calls UConn Coach After Record-Setting Win."

Now, don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against people who watch sports, especially during the holiday season. This is what I do have a major problem with: Obama's stint in his White House crib is becoming a rapper chillin' with his homies, all the while patting himself on the back for gutting our society of honor and virtue

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Obama on the American Flag?

Apparently Barack Hussein Obama is still the Messiah for some people. A story I read recently on Fox News discussed the display by the Lake County, Florida Democratic Party of an offensive version of the American flag. What's worse than the fact that someone has the irreverence and disregard for our country's flag to create something like this is the idea that someone would actually publicly display it.

Well, if the Democrats or anyone else wants to display a fla
g with Barack Obama's picture on it, I've come up with a couple of editions they can use that will allow them to reverence their fearless leader without insulting those who have and are still fighting for freedom and conscience in the United States.

Here you go guys:

This flag can be used for those who'd like to celebrate Obama's contributions and concessions to Iran.

This version is for those who want to celebrate the endearing friendship of Obama with Hugo Chavez.

Other versions will be made available by request.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Obama's and Biden's Tax Returns Say It All

It would be more than interesting to peel back the curtains to really see what motivates those who lead us. Tax day earlier this week gave us that opportunity with two of the most powerful people in our nation, Barach Obama and Joe Biden. From the information contained on their tax returns, it's easy to see where their hearts and commitments are. Both of those men are technically Christian, but apparently only in word.

True Christians who adhere to the Bible pay a tithe, 10% of their income to God, usually through their church. Obama's tax returns show that he paid less than 6% of his income to any kind of charity. Biden's tax returns show that he paid less than half a percent of his earnings for charity (a measly $4,820 of a $330,000 salary). What do these numbers say about these men? To me it shouts that they are hypocrites. They are bent on making US citizens pay more towards "charity" in their names, but they are not willing to open their own pocketbooks even to the level expected of an average Christian.

Monday, October 5, 2009

David Letterman Shows (Again) What's Wrong With Contemporary Society

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that only a few months after David Letterman made the news for his perverted comments about Sarah Palin's daugher, he has a new announcement: I've been sleeping around with people who work for me. Is anyone surprised? I definitely wasn't. Obviously his audience, who enthusiastically applauded his announcement of the affairs, wasn't taken too off guard. The part of the story that still puzzles me (maybe it shouldn't at this point), is the framework of false emotions and misplaced priorities built up around his story.

David Letterman is a career sexual deviant. There have been times when I've attempted to watch his show. Every time I gave Mr. Letterman another chance, I was disappointed at his use of sexual perversion to sell comedy. Admitted, in this day and age, his brand of comedy is not unique. Just the opposite. Unless you're a pervert, you can't be a comedian in today's world. Brian Regan and Frank Caliendo are the only exceptions I know of.

So now we get to see all over news reports about how David Letterman is the victim of an extortion attempt, and that Letterman is advertising to the public his supposed sorrow for the environment he created for his staff and for his family. Let's look at some background on this to see what he's really trying to accomplish.

Per Letterman, he had sex with more than one woman who staffs or has staffed his show. It's clear that his obligation, whatever commitment he's made to his wife and family was conveniently set aside on repeated occasions as he found ways to indulge his immorality using his influence as a boss. Apparently, after none of these episodes did he rush home to apologize to his wife that she just wasn't cutting it for him. Instead, it's not until things blow up on him and public humiliation is imminent that he finally decides that what he's been doing is wrong. How many times have we seen this kind of behavior exhibited by public figures (John Edwards, Bill Clinton, to name just a couple)?

If I were a gambler, I'd be willing to bet a big chunk of money that David Letterman is steeped in pornography. Maybe his wife knows it, and like too many women in this world, she accepts it as simply a normal part of modern society. If David Letterman's wife truly is hurt by his new "surprise", how do you explain this: They have a five-year-old together, but they only got married in March? Huh. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I'd be interested in having someone explain why it's unexpected that a fornicator would later become an serial adulterer.

The point that David Letterman helps me to make about the deterioration of our society is that somehow we're collectively becoming crazy. If we saw someone walking into a fire, we'd be likely to at least reason to ourselves that the person is going to get burned. Calling on our better selves, we'd probably do something to warn the person about the danger. How is it that we are so oblivious when it comes to the moral crisis our society is facing?

Mr. Letterman, you mentioned that it's your responsibility to fix the problem you caused because of your wanton infidelity. I have a recommendation for you. If there is any depth to your forced attempt at coming clean, which appears to anyone with a moral compass to be an insincere admission of guilt and responsibility, you can spend the rest of your days repairing the damage you've done to the concept of a family in America. For some reason, I doubt that's in your plans. Wouldn't it be a nice break from entertainment norm if you proved my doubts wrong?

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Democrats and the Devil

Harry Reid came to BYU in 2007 to enlighten the conservative body on the Provo, Utah campus on the virtues of the Democrat Party. During his trip to Provo, he also criticized President Ezra Taft Benson, saying that the LDS prophet and staunch constitutionalist had led people down the wrong path. Apparently Reid, one of the most liberal people influencing our country's direction, felt the need to assert that his understanding of proper Christianity is superior to that of someone we regard as Christ's spokesman. If that mentality seems at all strange to anyone, you're not alone.

I have had many political conversations with Mormons in which Harry Reid's name comes up. For the most part, members of the church I've talked to are embarrassed that Reid shares membership with them in an organization whose priorities are in direct contrast to what Reid and his party espouse. Foremost among the religious principles contradicted by Harry Reid and the Democrat Party is that of the agency of mankind.

The Battle Over Agency
For those who are not member of my church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), I'll explain the Latter-day Saint perspective on freedom and agency. Our understanding of the battle between good and evil begins well before the earth was created. Humans existed with the Father of their spirits (Elohim) in heaven. A plan was presented to them in which each of those spirits would be given a necessary chance to experience mortality on this earth. The plan would allow them to use their freedom of choice and accountability (aided by the intercession of Jesus Christ to overcome their shortcomings) to develop into beings equal in knowledge, power, and authority to their Father. In addition to God's plan, which was righteously supported by Jesus Christ, a spirit named Lucifer presented an evil alternative. His plan mocked freedom, engendered slavery, and attempted to destroy agency by removing it from the equation. People would be forced to do "good". They would not have a choice. Lucifer, whose actions led him to become the Devil or Satan, attempted to sugar coat his plan by claiming that it would work perfectly, saving each and every one of God's offspring. The purpose for the devil's aggressive push to remove agency is clear. He wanted power. He wanted glory. He wanted to control.

Oddly enough, in many ways, the devil's plan has some appeal. Creating a system in which everyone becomes perfect seems enticing. However, coercion of the human soul, even forcing obedience to what is considered good, goes against eternal principles. It is evil.

If you read the preceding explanation with modern day politics in mind, it is little wonder that the LDS church membership strongly favors the Republican party and opposes Democrats. Although the Republican party is a long way from having perfect ideals,
it doesn't directly oppose the principles of agency and accountability as does the Democrat party.

Democrats, including Harry Reid whose religion attempts to teach him a better way, have an agenda that closely parallels that put forth by Satan prior to this world's founding. They pretend to have the best interests of their country at heart, yet their policies and programs have been demonstrated to create dependence on the government and destroy the self-sufficiency that comes when a person uses his God-given ability to make choices for himself and his family.

But what about charity and providing for the less fortunate? Another interesting twist in this discussion arises when we consider that the Christian religion teaches its adherents to be charitable, to help the less fortunate, and to contribute their means for that purpose. What's wrong with the Democrat position of taxing, taxing, and more taxing in order for the government to decide who gets what? The immorality of this stance is based on the fact that it subverts the personal choice of American citizens to provide for the less fortunate voluntarily, without being forced. Like the devil, Democrats want power. They want glory. They want to control the lives of each and every citizen in this country by expanding their government and redistributing what is not theirs. Despite the historical evidence that this approach makes everyone poorer and removes fulfillment from their lives, Democrats still want to be praised for creating such an environment.

A point that needs to be made here involves the voluntary giving habits of conservatives versus those of liberals. Studies repeatedly show that Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats. The latest formal study of this subject (a book by Arthur Brooks called "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism - Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters) would be a rebuke of Democrats, except that it's been universally understood for a long time that liberals, who would without reservation open up someone else's wallet to source contributions for their "philanthropic" projects, hold tightly to their own.

I've wondered how someone like Harry Reid can be so confused about the principles taught by his religion. If he attends the same kinds of meetings as I do, and if his brain works correctly; if he valued the essence of what he learns in church above rivaling political aspirations, he certainly wouldn't be who he is. Either Mr. Reid has problems understanding some pretty basic concepts, as demonstrated in his widely circulated interview with Jan Helfeld, or there is more to his political maneuvering than simple sincerity. During the interview, Reid attempts to explain that Americans are not forced to pay taxes. The interview may give us insight into how Satan himself might have attempted to portray the details of his plan as not necessarily being compulsory.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Some Ins and Outs of Our Society

I recently had a conversation with a workout buddy of mine about the relationship between exercise, diet, and overall health. It set my mind in motion about a couple of issues for which an understanding of what's coming in and what's going out is extremely important.

Especially with all the talk about healthcare reform, it is obvious that one of the best ways every person in this country could contribute to lowering the nation's cost of healthcare is by exercising discipline with 1) how much food they eat - the ins; and 2) how much of that food they burn off - the outs. With the prevalence of diet and weight loss fads that often guarantee that you'll "take it off and keep it off", it might cause a person to wonder what's so complicated about "it". Are there millions of deviant microscopic organisms that sneak up and attach themselves to people's stomachs, bums and thighs if they don't take a particular pill or subscribe to the latest weight loss program? Nope. There's a a simple formula for the vast majority of us. If more is coming in than is going out, a person gets fatter. If the amount that is going in equals what's going out, the person stays the same. If more is going out than is coming in, the person loses weight. There's no real secret there.

Now let's consider debt, savings, and general personal finance. I remember hearing on news radio nearly six years ago a report that found Americans had spent $1.27 in 2002 for every dollar they'd earned. I distinctly remember thinking to myself, "That can't last very long." If the scenario represented the flow of calories on a fat person, our country would have made some progress over that period and since then. Instead, we now find ourselves in a major recession. To make things worse, the irresponsibility of Americans over the past six years (and further back) has led to a situation in which we have a power-thirsty group of politicians (I know, "power-thirsty" and "politicians" is redundant, but this is an extreme case, so it fits) trying to stuff down the throats of Americans a socialist combo of government run heathcare and a fraudulent "economic stimulus". We can learn another lesson from our misery in this case: saving - the ins, has to outweigh spending - the outs.

There is obviously nothing new or relevatory in this discussion of ins and outs as they relate to the flow of calories and dollars. There's obviously other things affecting each person's ins and outs. However, it seems like too many members of our society have so quickly abandoned common sense principles in search of a way to kill accountability and live off of entitlement that a good slap in the face is needed.

Some Context for What You Read Here

Whenever someone shares opinions, especially about important topics for which there are deeply contrasting views in society, it's important to know the foundation of that person's perspectives. For that reason, I have provided a category on this blog called Premises. Listed under Premises are some explanations of my background, including my religion, which forms the foundation of my moral and political principles.