Can One Be A Good Mormon AND a Democrat?

I recently read an interesting tidbit from a local candidate who is LDS and also Democrat, citing a statement by LDS General Authority Elder Marlin K. Jensen that said that "any notion that it is impossible to be a Democrat and a good Mormon is wrongheaded and should obliterated." While I certainly sustain the General Authorities and try to be right with the standards of the Church, I also have some concerns about this statement.

By way of preface, let me be clear that our political system works very well, overall, and we certainly do need some diversity of thought and opinion, as well as some new ideas and approaches to solving problems. However, we should also be sticking to the basic principles of the Constitution (a divinely inspired document), as well as those of the Gospel and the Plan of Salvation. Similarly, I am totally open to the possibility that any person can be a Democrat and still be a good Latter-day Saint, and that there are both good and bad people in every political party and organization. But....

When asked how he led the people of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves." It is also clear from the Plan of Salvation that freedom of conscience and liberty in action is essential to our life here on earth. Therefore, any political party or politician must place freedom and liberty first. Likewise, we as citizens must place personal responsibility first, and not be taken in by the "philosophies of men" that encourage people to depend on the government for their sustenance and allow the government to burden the people with excessive taxes in some draconian attempt to right all the world's wrongs through legislation, taxation and redistribution of wealth.

We have also been repeatedly warned about the dangers of socialism, the "evil of the dole" and the lack of personal responsibility and independence. But, the Democratic Party has repeatedly demonstrated its affinity for dependence on the dole, and extreme tolerance for irresponsibility. Its present platform and actions are nearly indistinguishable from socialism, which is no more than watered down Marxism and is clearly NOT compatible with liberty, freedom of conscience, and personal responsibility. And, the Democratic Party has historically been more racist, more intolerant, less harmonious with "correct principles" and less Christlike than any other party (if there can be any such thing as a Christlike political party).

I have a hard time trusting a Democrat in public office because of the demand of the Party for its members to vote the party line. I have a concern that a candidate may not have the moral fortitude to vote his or her conscience rather than to vote with the party line in order to minimize friction and to keep his or her position. As former BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, stated,

"You should always place principle above party and not hesitate to change your party if it departs from the standards in which you believe or nominates candidates whom you do not consider experienced or worthy of your vote. Make up your mind calmly, devoid of political emotion. There is no one quite as politically blind as one who cannot see inconsistencies in the conduct of his own party or his own candidate. Judge the issues of the day from the standpoint of what is good for your country and not what is selfishly good for you as an individual. Both parties will attempt appeals to special classes and special groups when they ought to be thinking of what is good for the country as a whole."

So, politically, I tend toward a libertarian position, but affiliate with the Republican Party. While the Republican Party sometimes fares no better than the Democratic Party, it seems to me closer to being in harmony with the principles of the Founders, the Constitution, and the Gospel, than any other party. In the early 1970s, LDS general authority Ezra Taft Benson, who later became church president, was quoted in an Associated Press interview as saying it would be difficult for a faithful member to be a liberal Democrat. I think I tend to agree more with President Benson than Elder Jensen.



President Wilkinson's address has an abundance of wisdom, both political and otherwise, so I include a portion of it here:

The President Speaks
Address given to the Brigham Young University student body
President Ernest L. Wilkinson, October 5, 1960

(Excerpt)

Politics

Because this is a year for a national political election, I desire to make a statement with respect to the attitude of the university concerning politics.

Many people get so disgusted with politics that they take no interest in the issues of the time or the persons running for office. I remember a speaker on this campus when I was here as a student saying that "Politics is the worse kind of ticks and should be shunned like poison." In my judgment, this is an entirely wrong attitude whether you be a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent. Our political life is corrupt only when the people permit it to become corrupt. Our political life is sound to the extent that the people have wisdom and participate in politics. We therefore urge all students to become active politically. And when I say active, I do not mean that you become rabidly partisan.

I remember a couple of years ago when I was still a young man, hearing the story of a politician in Missouri. He was from St. Louis and attended the state convention as a delegate. He nominated someone for governor and in order to make it plain that he was a faithful Democrat he said that he had been so faithful that he would even vote for a yellow dog if he were on the Democratic ticket. His nominee did not become the nominee of the party and he bolted the party. And he went out and campaigned in favor of someone on the other ticket. In a speech he was giving, someone heckled him and said, "I thought that at the state convention you said you would vote for a yellow dog if he were on the Democratic ticket." He answered, "That is true, but lower than that, I will not go."

Now I would like to suggest to you, contrary to this Missouri Democrat, that you should always place principle above party and not hesitate to change your party if it departs from the standards in which you believe or nominates candidates whom you do not consider experienced or worthy of your vote.

Second, I should like to suggest that in making up your political mind, you become well informed. If, because of heredity or environment, you are inclined to believe in the views of one party, I suggest you take as many occasions as you can to read or hear the speeches of those representing the other party. One does not get informed if he merely listens to the speeches of the party he already favors.

In becoming informed, please analyze critically the speeches you hear. Separate the unfounded allegations and assertions from those which are well supported and based on fact. While I do not believe as yet there has been as much exaggeration, vituperation or demagoguery in this campaign as there often is, yet I suppose we will have it before the campaign is over.

Make up your mind calmly, devoid of political emotion. There is no one quite as politically blind as one who cannot see inconsistencies in the conduct of his own party or his own candidate. Many Democrats, for instance, applaud Kennedy's criticism of the Benson farm program without recognizing that he was one of a few Democrats who voted for that program. Many Republicans applaud Nixon for pointing out that the Democrats are ignoring the principles of Jefferson whom they pretend to worship without recognizing that Nixon too departs from them.

To the end that this student body may hear both sides, over two months ago I invited both candidates, Nixon and Kennedy, to address this student body, Because of their crowded schedules, neither of them will be able to accept our offer. We are, therefore, trying to get Governor Dewey and Governor Stevenson both of whom were illustrious candidates for President of their respective parties on two occasions. I am sorry school was not in session when John Kennedy appeared in Salt Lake so you who do not live here could have heard him; I hope when Richard Nixon comes, you will all either go to hear him or listen to him on the radio. He addressed us in this Fieldhouse two years ago. The crowd of 12,000, he informed me, was the largest crowd he had at that time spoken to in the 1958 senatorial campaign.

In any event, I suggest it is your duty as college students to listen to the remaining four national debates between the candidates. That ought to be minimum preparation for you to know the issues of the day and your duty as citizens.

Finally, may I suggest that you attempt to judge the issues of the day from the standpoint of what is good for your country and not what is selfishly good for you as an individual. Both parties will attempt appeals to special classes and special groups when they ought to be thinking of what is good for the country as a whole.

What we need is a return to the belief of our Constitutional fathers that it is our duty to support the government and not the duty of the government to support us. If we become in this country mercenary to the extent that we favor men for office because they are going to favor our particular group rather than the country as a whole, we will be ready in this country to cease as a nation and to go the way that nineteen other civilizations have gone when they came to rely upon the government for their sustenance.

We have altogether too many people in both parties today who are trying to purchase your votes by promising you certain things that will be of help to you individually. In my judgment that is wrong. These appeals to minority groups have resulted in the prevailing tendency of nearly all segments of our economy to run to the government for help every time they are in need. The result has been the development of class hatred and bitterness in our public life to an extent never previously imagined. Let me read the words of former Admiral Ben Moreel:

The industrialist says the politician is venal and self-seeking; the politician paints the industrialist as a greedy monster; the teacher, the minister, the doctor, the workman-all point the finger of criticism at other elements in our body politic.

We are torn by internal dissension. Each one denounces special privilege and government largesse-for the other fellow. But when it touches his own interest, he rationalizes his special privilege as being "for the public welfare."

We businessmen look for government subsidies or loans when we are unable to obtain funds from private sources. The farmer wants a guaranteed income, subsidized electricity, irrigation and tools, The workman wants a subsidized house, food, medical care, retirement and burial. The doctor is opposed to these things but wants subsidized training, research and laboratories. The educator points out the deplorable lowering of moral standards resulting from government hand-outs-and suggests that the government subsidize his university! The scientist implores government to provide funds for research "essential to the common welfare."

The young people want government to provide them with an education, a job and a pension. The old people are content, for the moment, with generous retirement provisions.

Over all looms the confident politician who is sure that appeals to self-interest constitute the winning ticket-so much so that the Democratic national committee's booklet on the Brannan Farm Plan in 1952 was issued under the title, "What's In It For You?" Apparently with complete assurance of an eager welcome by both farmers and consumers.

If I take a man's belongings by stealth or violence, then this is called theft. And the law provides that I be punished. But by some strange reasoning we appear to have rationalized a code of ethics "whereby under the guise of taxation a person's property may be taken from him-without his consent-and used for the special benefit of ourselves or others." We then call it "promoting the general welfare," and in this guise, there is no imputation of dishonesty. In fact, our legislators who do these things are looked upon by many as public benefactors!

Now admittedly some taxes have to be exacted for the benefit of the general welfare, such as for education of our children. But both parties are now vying with each other to see who can promise the most to various segments of our economy under the false guise of promoting the general welfare. I suggest you analyze these claims very carefully and determine for yourself which party or which candidate offends most in this particular.

Now lest any of you think I am partisan in this, let me quote for the Democrats the founder of their party, Thomas Jefferson. Certain comments of his are particularly pertinent today:

I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared . . . To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt . . .

He then in prophetic language warned us of the choice which we must now make:

We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude . . . If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and our comforts, in our labors and in our amusements . . . If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.

For the Republicans, I quote from Theodore Roosevelt. With prophetic vision he said:

The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price . . . and love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life.

This philosophy of Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt transcends party lines for it is based upon the philosophy that the spirit of man is the most important thing in life and that this spirit nurtures and grows through self-development-through working out one s own economic as well as spiritual development. That is also good Christian doctrine-the doctrine of developing and being rewarded for the development of our own talents, of rendering unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's and unto God those things which are God's, but being primarily responsible for our own deeds and accomplishments.

In the words of Howard E. Kershner:

One may lose his eyes, his hearing and his voice, or all three, and still be useful and successful. One may lose his hands, his feet, or both, and still do useful work and be a credit to his family and his country. One may lose his health and suffer all his life and still be a great musician, a poet, an artist or a statesman.

No one has ever written sweeter music than Beethoven, who could not hear. No one perceived more clearly the beauties of nature than Milton who could not see. Blind men have achieved fame as lawyers, senators, educators, and ministers. One can overcome almost any handicap if he retains his spirit. If his spirit falters, even though he may have a strong and perfect body, he will accomplish nothing.

That which strengthens, emboldens and ennobles the spirit of man, improves society and carries the world forward toward its goal of better, finer and more righteous living.

Poverty is no disgrace and scarcely a handicap to the courageous of spirit. If men develop their self-reliance by meeting and solving the problems that present themselves, they achieve great strength, integrity and force of character. They demonstrate the fact that they were created in the image of God. They achieve the potential given them by the Creator.

On the other hand, when men become accustomed to living from subsidies, bounties, long-continued charity or any means of sustaining themselves by the effort of others, they lose confidence, integrity, courage, initiative and independence. The soul grows smaller and the spirit withers as one seeks more and more to cast the burden of his life upon his neighbors, the taxpayers. Herein lies the soul-destroying evil inherent in any type of collectivism, call it socialism, fascism, communism or welfare statism.

All of these ideologies teach men that they are not custodians of their own weal or woe but that they are meant to be groveling creatures forever pleading with stronger men who exercise the authority of government for bigger and better handouts of ever increasing variety.

Such men may have strong, healthy bodies, but, having lost their spirit the image of God dies within them and they become leaners and not lifters. They become a part of the problem and not a part of the answer.

That which ministers to the courage, bravery and independence of man is from God and that which teaches him to obtain as much as possible of his living from the labor of others is from Satan.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is an ideology developed by the prince of the powers of darkness for destroying the souls of men.

I, therefore, suggest that irrespective of the party to which you belong you use your influence for the preservation of freedom of action on your part with concomitant individual responsibility; preserve in your life the spirit of adventure, of free enterprise, the right to choose your own vocation based on your individual responsibility, unsupported by government subsidies. I could say more on this point, but since I have urged restraint on each of you in formulating your own political views, I shall exercise that restraint myself. I think I may be pardoned, however, since at the present time my political affiliation is known to be Republican (it has not always been that) by referring to the philosophy of two great Democratic presidents.

Grover Cleveland, when he was presented with a legislative bill providing for a very modest gift of free seeds to farmers, vetoed it on the ground that though the people should support the government, the government should never support the people.

Woodrow Wilson in his day, with deep political insight, stated that he never wanted to see the little red school house subordinated to the political thinking of Washington.

In speaking of the typical American, he said: "He does not want a group of experts sitting behind closed doors in Washington, trying to pray Providence to him."

He observed that the things that had made America great were not the things which it did under compulsion of law, but of its own volition.

Finally, he concluded that "The history of liberty is the history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it." Oh, how far our political leaders have strayed from his philosophy!

Robert Muntzel has informed us that:

Great nations rise and fall-the people go from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back again into bondage.

Nineteen recorded civilizations have gone that way.

I hope the American people by their own action, regardless of party, will awaken to the fact that if this nation itself is to survive as a nation, we must avoid the dangers inherent in giving more powers to our government. If you think that I am biased in making that statement, let me quote from the father of our country, who was the only president we have ever had who was not affiliated with a particular political party. George Washington told us, "Government is not reason, government is not eloquence, government is a force; like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

May I conclude by saying a word with respect to our honor system. You have either seen or will see placards in the classrooms of this university containing a quotation from Joseph Smith which reads, "Make honor the standard with all men." Many of you may not know that statement comes from the political platform on which Joseph Smith aspired to be President of the United States. In that platform, some sixteen years before the outbreak of the Civil War, he urged:

Petition . . . your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850 . . . Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire them to labor like other human beings; for "an hour of virtuous liberty on earth is worth a whole eternity of bondage!" Abolish the practice in the army and navy of trying men by court martial for desertion; if a soldier or marine runs away, send him his wages, with this instruction, that his country will never trust him again; he has forfeited his honor. Make HONOR the standard with all men.

We congratulate you as a student body on making Honor the standard for all students, for the honor system is a creation of the student body. It follows in this school that if a student violates his word or breaches the honor code in any way, you or we will have to say to him, "You have not been honorable with yourself, and in the interest of the honor of this institution, I will have to maintain my own honor .and see that your dishonorable conduct is made known." And in some flagrant cases the administration may have to say, as the Prophet Joseph said, "This school will never again trust you; you have forfeited your honor. You shall no longer pollute the halls of this sanctuary." The roads that lead to BYU may also transport you away from this institution.

We know that there will be some violations. If there were not-if we were all perfect-we would be lifted up to heaven like the children of Enoch.

In a student body of over 10,000, there are certain to be some who cannot measure up to our standards. The obligation for the rest of us is that we not tolerate such conduct, for it is unbecoming a student of this institution. For we know that adherence to standards of integrity and honesty for this student body is very high. As one example, I am happy to report to you that during the school year 1959-60, the students of this university found and turned into the Lost and Found Department some 6,857 articles having an estimated value of $60,859.80.

One of my predecessors, President George H. Brimhall, in an address given to an earlier student body, told of one of the greatest schools ever to be taught by mortal man. It was not a very large school; there were but thirteen students, and it was held on an island. The school building was a barn, and the laboratory was the rocks, the waves, the sands, and the washing of the sea. The great teacher was Agassiz, in whose honor academic societies have been organized all over the world. When he went to this island he took eleven males, nine of whom were gentlemen. Two ladies were also enrolled in this school. There was some objection to the ladies going, but the great teacher believed in co-education. The barn was partitioned off, one end for the ladies, the other for the men, and between was the dining room and the experiment hall. It happened one evening that two of the male members of the school-in a half-playful way, as they tried to make the indulged in some indelicacy of subject or conduct. The next morning the great teacher was grieved and grave. At the breakfast table he took a note that he had written and read it. The contents of the note were this: "At 9 o'clock this morning a boat will touch at this land. Mr. So-and-So and Mr. So-and-So will embark. They will not return." Of course it was like a thunderbolt to those two persons. They pleaded to be reinstated, but the teacher was firm and in his greatness said, "We want men, we want men; we thought we had men." They never returned. Of the eleven, the two ladies and the nine men who remained, each one has become famous. That is why it is called the greatest school in the world, because it turned out a greater percent of its students as successful graduates.

The two who were expelled from the island spent most of their time in endeavoring to belittle this great teacher and lessen the influence of his school. But the nine men and the two women who remained carried his name high on the ladder of fame and in so doing made their names great.

The Agassiz school required that the moral standard and the intellectual standard be parallel. We have the same requirement here.

The Honor Council is to be commended for its desire to have the Honor Code executed in an honorable way through honorable students. We give it our complete support. May you, through prayer, self-restraint, and will make it the best administered honor code of any university.

If you are tempted to cheat, remember the charge of Karl G. Maeser.

My young friends, I have been asked what I mean by word of honor. I will tell you. Place me behind prison walls-walls of stone ever so thick, reaching ever so far into the ground-there is a possibility that in some way or another I may be able to escape; but stand me on the floor and draw a chalk line around me and have me give my word of honor never to cross it. Can I get out of that circle? No, never! I'd die first!

In that way you will maintain the maxim of George Washington, who wrote, "I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an 'Honest Man.'"

Some Thoughts on Health Care Reform

Health Care Reform is why we need to be careful who we elect, watch them closely, and keep in touch with them. When you're in the voting booth, think FREEDOM, LIBERTY and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

We could simply defund this legislation at the federal level. And states could simply ignore the unfunded mandates--it will keep all the regulatory agencies in such a mess tripping over each other that the whole thing will collapse of its own weight and good riddance. Maybe it's time for some civil disobedience. If the entire country disobeys the law, it will just die.

Has it occurred to anyone that insurance IS the problem and getting the government involved has just made it worse? Having health insurance is no guarantee of health. And, just accept it: we die. Tragedy happens. No one gets out alive. There are much worse things than death, like living under a tyrannical government with no liberty and freedom of choice. Like being subjugated and manipulated into serving the government instead of our fellowmen.

Solutions?

1) If we must have insurance, then deregulate it. Let competition in the marketplace regulate it, across state lines and without it having to come through an employer. And make it just catastrophic coverage (for when a person gets cancer or has a serious accident), it shouldn't cover day-to-day expenses and routine visits, unless they are clearly preventative.

1a) Otherwise, reduce and simplify taxes so that people have more money in their pockets to save for health care and retirement. Stop taxing production and tax spending instead. Stop the government from meddling in and manipulating the economy and redistributing wealth. Stop promoting materialism that encourages people to live beyond their means. Phase out welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Make sure people know that it is THEIR responsibility to take care of themselves and their families.

2) Tort reform. Limit frivolous lawsuits, make the loser pay the court and attorney's fees. Limit payouts for malpractice except in cases of severe negligence.

3) Implement electronic medical records and information sharing, repeal HIPAA.

Here are some more good ideas:
http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/research/even-more-conservative-health-reform-ideas/

Latter-day Saints and the "Christian" Label

As a person who is a member of the "Mormon" or LDS Church, I am frequently frustrated at those who say that we are not Christians. The simple explanation is that the very name of Jesus Christ is in the name of our church, and by the most basic dictionary definition, we are certainly Christian.

However, the definition of "Christian" is subject to almost as many interpretations as there are so-called "Christian" religions, and each one defines it according to their doctrines, except for the Latter-Day Saints. We accept the simple dictionary definition as accurate and adequate. Any other definition is simply unfair, and cannot be justly imposed upon any other religion or person. Furthermore, we adhere to Jesus' advice in the maxim, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Any honest, objective observer of LDS people, doctrine, and actions will eventually conclude that we are Christians, meaning that we follow Jesus Christ and His teachings

But, many within the Church continue to assert some kind of equivalence to mainstream, evangelical Christianity. I think that is a losing battle that may not be the most wise course of action. There are at least two reasons for this.

First, mainstream, evangelical Christianity is not the equivalent of LDS doctrine. The honest student of LDS doctrine will realize that it is vastly different and better (more fair, just, logical, and ennobling) than evangelical Christianity. To make ourselves equivalent to such a definition of Christianity is to minimize the glorious simplicity and beautiful fairness of LDS theology.

Second, and the impetus of this article, is the attitude of Islam toward Christianity. Although some would try to convince us that Islam is a "religion of peace", the honest and objective scholar will learn that Islam has a very dim view of Christianity and Christians. Muslims are instructed to go to war to spread Islam, and to kill any nonbelievers (infidels) who do not convert to Islam. (Islam has soldiers, not missionaries.) Although, under some circumstances (particularly if it is not of immediate benefit to kill the infidels), the infidels may be allowed to live, and be subjects of the Muslims, and pay a tax instead. If we want to build and maintain good relations with Islam and Muslims, then it would be foolish to ally ourselves with the same "Christians" who fought the Crusades and who Muslims frequently revile.

Therefore, it would be to our benefit to distance ourselves from mainstream, evangelical Christianity and to promote ourselves and our religion as something different; believing in Christ, but having, teaching and living so much more.

The Only Constant is Change

I've been thinking and reading, and it has occurred to me that we are becoming an endangered species. I don't mean humans, we have plenty of those, and some people would say too many. What I mean are white, conservative, freedom-loving Americans.

Consider that the reproduction rate of European and American people is down enough that our population is not sustainable, and also that the reproduction and immigration rates of non-white and Islamic people is higher than ever, and you can see that we are becoming the minority. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrA_9SoCitk.

Also consider that the Constitution of the United States is held sacred and inviolable by fewer and fewer people, and that we are quickly being taken over, legislatively, democratically, and demographically, by those who favor socialism, or worse, Marxism, over a constitutional republic like ours.

I see a grim future ahead of us. The United States will no longer be the most powerful or most influential nation on the planet. Our future is one with less freedom, more oppression, and lots of change and violence--people don't like change and will resist.

But, I think there is hope (and not the kind of "hope" that Obummer sells, real hope). We must start NOW to become more educated and literate in our history, our Constitution, and our founding philosophy and spread the word; teach everyone we can, who will listen, about, freedom, liberty, choice, and tolerance.

So, what are your thoughts? What do you think the world will be like for our children and grandchildren? What are you going to do to make it better?

In Response To The Mess That is Propostion 8.

I wrote this in reponse to a friend's response to someone else's opposition to Prop. 8:


While I agree with the religious opposition to Prop. 8 and homosexuality, I think it's good to have a non-religous argument in support of one's positions, as well. In that vein, I think that it is naturally harmful to society to promote homosexual relationships that don't lead to the promulgation and continuation of the society, and homosexuality is incompatible with the continuation of the species. And while some might assert that homosexuality is found in nature, it is not the norm, and that some animals try it doesn't necessarily make it natural, or acceptable, and certainly not necessary.

Heterosexual, procreating relationships, in stable, committed, married families are the best for creating a good, stable and strong society. (As long as they are done properly--and living one's religion is the best way to do that.) I don't think there is any anthropological advantage to allowing, tolerating and promoting homosexual relationships.

However, it can theoretically be asserted that allowing homosexuals to marry would create more stable homosexual homes. But that ignores the fact that children learn best about gender roles and relating with others by interacting with dual-gender parents, and witnessing the interaction of those parents with each other.

In short, I think that homosexuality and the support of it is a product of ignorance--of making logical decisions with emotional arguments, rather than with logic--thinking with the heart, rather than the brain.

The Insidiousness of Pacifism by Frank Scoblete

Something to consider as we continue the "War on Terrorism on (at least) two fronts:

The Insidiousness of Pacifism by Frank Scoblete (or, How To Solve A Bully Problem)

When I was a kid there was another kid named Sullivan (I don't remember his first name -- it's over 40 years ago) who tormented me day after day. He was an ugly kid, his ugliness highlighted by an even uglier disposition, and he was big -- almost six feet. He lifted weights, too. For some reason, or due to some chemical reaction, he hated me from the day he first laid eyes on me in 9th grade.

I was not a nerd or a bookworm, although I was a decent student. I was a good athlete, on a four-year scholarship to a parochial high school. I had no other enemies. In me there were none of the obvious reasons for a bully to do his bullying. I was not a member of an outcast group, and although I only had a few close friends, I was certainly no loner. It was not racism (we were the same race); it was not my religion (we both went to Catholic school); it was not that I wore glasses (at the time I didn't); it was not that I was a wise ass and insulted him in any way (I hadn't noticed him until he noticed me). I have no idea of what the "root cause" of Sullivan's animus was -- it just was.

He'd say things to me under his breath: F**k you, Scoblete, and your mother. I'd ignore his taunts.

Once I asked him why he was always getting on me and he replied: "Cause you suck."

I turned the other cheek so many times that I, metaphorically, had a neck ache.

On the basketball court Sullivan would try to physically hurt me. But thankfully I was much faster than he and a much better player. This frustrated him no end. Although he did occasionally slam me hard, he never could get in the licks he wanted.

As my 9th grade year wore on, Sullivan's verbal assaults increased in ferocity and decibel level. Now, it wasn't just whispered "f**k you and your mother!"; it was shouted ones in the presence of others. Now, there were bumps on the lunch line, and the occasional rock thrown when we were on the field and the priests weren't looking. I often tried to avoid him, but he always seemed to find me; he always seemed to be there.

Big, ugly, powerful Sullivan was getting more and more daring; more and more assaultive. "If I ever get you alone, Scoblete, I'm gonna eat you." Finally, one day he "accidentally" knocked over my lunch tray, spilling my lunch all over me. Although I did nothing at that moment, that was the moment that I knew I had to do something drastic or Sullivan would finally get me alone and, indeed, as he was a tough kid, probably "eat me."

I actually planned what I was going to do and in front of whom. We were in the schoolyard playing a pick-up game of basketball. There were a lot of kids in the schoolyard. Sullivan came along with two of his surly friends and called "winners." That meant whichever three-man team won, Sullivan's team would take them on. My team won. Sullivan and his bunch took the court. I was warmed up and ready. Sullivan was cold, having just come from wherever he had been smoking cigarettes.

"I got you, Scoblete," Sullivan called. That meant he was guarding me. My teammate took the ball out of bounds under the basket and threw it to me past the foul line. The game was on. I didn't wait. I started backing into Sullivan. He started bumping me. I faked a jumper. Sullivan went for the fake and jumped up to block my shot. As he was almost at the height of his jump, I took my jump shot all right -- right into his face with every ounce of strength I had. His nose exploded (he had a big nose) and blood gushed everywhere. Sullivan went down on his back on the blacktop, the wind knocked out of him, his head hitting hard as well. And I came down right on his chest. I didn't care if he was conscious, semiconscious, unconscious or dead, I wailed away at him. In the space of a few seconds, I paid him back for all his torture. I was dragged off him by my friends and his friends.

I had blood all over my hands and my face and, as I recall, I was snarling like some rabid dog. At first it looked as if his friends were going to jump in, but my growling probably stopped them. They lifted Sullivan to a sitting position and he was in no position to stand. I took one last kick at his face, just grazed it, and walked slowly out of the schoolyard. Probably 40 kids saw the end of that fight. Forty witnesses to the utter destruction of big, ugly Sullivan.

Unlike today, in those days if a kid got into a fight, the parents didn't sue. Sullivan returned to school several days later. He never tormented me again. In fact, he ignored me and I ignored him.
There is no doubt in my adult mind that had I not finally launched my attack on Sullivan when I did, he would have eventually gotten me alone (with a bunch of his friends) and beaten me to a pulp. This was a kid who only understood one thing -- power -- he was more powerful than you, or you were more powerful than him. Period.

The pacifist ethic does not work with the Sullivans of the world. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Osama bin Laden are monstrous versions of Sullivan. They cannot be assuaged ("Gee, Sullivan, why do you hate me so?" "Because you suck!"); they cannot be avoided; they are either more powerful than you or you are more powerful than they. Period. Had Mahatma Gandhi been Jewish, had the fate of all Jews in the world hinged on his decisions, and had he tried to use his pacifistic philosophy on the Nazis, there would be no Jews in the world today. Had Martin Luther King used "peaceful resistance" in a society with no sense of human values -- again we can reference Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao Zedong's China, and the bin Ladens of the world -- America would now be a study in shades of white.

For pacifism to work, the society has to have some inner core of shared values with the pacifists, otherwise they are looked upon as dross to be swept away. Obviously, America has had its share of pacifists. The Quakers come to mind. They refuse to fight in any war. In truth, the Quakers survive because others have kept them safe -- died violently so they could live peacefully. Just picture an entire nation of Quakers facing the threat of an advancing Hitler. It's a bloody picture, indeed.

The great playwright, George Bernard Shaw, a pacifist, when asked what he would do if he were Prime Minister and the Nazis entered England, said: "Welcome them as tourists." Witty, funny, and dead wrong. Those "tourists" would have ravaged the country, perhaps even killing old George Bernard himself.

Today, we are seeing the beginnings of an anti-war movement in America, especially among naive college students and their cynical professors. It has been reported that students at some universities are singing the old "all we are saying is give peace a chance" chant. In an ambiguous war such as Vietnam where national interests had to be defined in broad political brush strokes, a "peace movement" could be defended. After all, no one attacked us directly. But an anti-war movement against this war, which has been etched in the brush strokes of innocent blood, cannot be defended. The ones who attacked us are not tourists, they're terrorists.

As Hitler revealed his true plans in Mein Kampf, so bin Laden and other terrorists have told us in their many unambiguous, public statements their plan as well -- they are determined to wipe our way of life off the planet. They believe America is, at heart, a land of cowards. Bin Laden cites our withdrawal from Somalia, after losing "just 18 men," as proof that America is weak. The anti-war folks merely fuel his delusion and embolden him to continue his attacks.

I do not deny that some pacifists are brave men and women. Pacifism is not necessarily a synonym for cowardice, despite the fact that the bin Ladens, Hitlers, Stalins and Zedongs (and the Sullivans) of the world think it is. Many pacifists are willing to die for their beliefs. But in the face of those with no equivalent moral compass, the deaths of brave pacifists are utterly without meaning. Such men and women are not dying so that their children might live. They are dying so that their children might die, also. Clearly, pacifism, while laudatory in some respects, is ludicrous in others. Does anyone really think it is praiseworthy to sacrifice one's life in order to facilitate the sacrifice of other lives as well?

Truly, even Christ's statement, "There is no greater love than this, that a man sacrifice his life for a friend," was never intended to have as a corollary, 'that his friend might die as well." The intent was plain -- so that "his friend might live." Pacifism in the face of monstrous, conscienceless evil is an evil itself as it allows evil to win.

Source: http://www.casinocitytimes.com/article/the-insidiousness-of-pacifism-223

Statements of LDS General Authorities on Socialism and Freedom

A few things that every American and every Latter-Day Saint should understand:

"No greater immediate responsibility rests upon members of the Church, upon all citizens of this Republic and of neighboring Republics than to protect the freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States."

David O. McKay

-----

"As important as are all other principles of the gospel, it was the freedom issue which determined whether you received a body. To have been on the wrong side of the freedom issue during the war in heaven meant eternal damnation. How then can Latter-day Saints expect to be on the wrong side in this life and escape the eternal consequences? The war in heaven is raging on earth today...

(" Ezra Taft Benson, "Not Commanded in All Things", LDS General Conference, April 1965)

-----

"The plain and simple issue now facing us in America is freedom or slavery. ...

"Our real enemies are communism and its running mate, socialism....

"And never forget for one moment that communism and socialism are state slavery....

". . . one thing seems sure, we will not get out of our present difficulties without trouble, serious trouble. Indeed, it may well be that our government and its free institutions will not be preserved except at the price of life and blood....

". . . the paths we are following, if we move forward thereon, will inevitably lead us to socialism or communism, and these two are as like as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties....

"We may first observe that communism and socialism--which we shall hereafter group together and dub Statism--cannot live with Christianity nor with any religion that postulates a Creator such as the Declaration of Independence recognizes. The slaves of Statism must know no power, no authority, no source of blessing, no God, but the State....

"This country faces ahead enough trouble to bring us to our knees in humble honest prayer to God for the help which He alone can give to save us....

"Do not think that all these usurpations, intimidations, and impositions are being done to us through inadvertency or mistake, the whole course is deliberately planned and carried out; its purpose is to destroy the Constitution and our Constitutional government....

"We have largely lost the conflict so far waged. But there is time to win the final victory, if we can sense our danger, and fight."

(President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Deseret News, "Church Section," Sept. 25, 1949, pp. 2, 15.)

-----

"Satan argued that men given their freedom would not choose correctly therefore he would compel them to do right and save us all. Today Satan argues that men given their freedom do not choose wisely; therefore a so-called brilliant, benevolent few must establish the welfare government and force us into a greater socialistic society. We are assured of being led into the promised land as long as we let them put a golden ring in our nose. In the end we lose our freedom and the promised land also. No matter what you call it--communism, socialism, or the welfare state--our freedom is sacrificed. We believe the gospel is the greatest thing in the world; why then do we not force people to join the Church if they are not smart enough to see it on their own? Because this is Satan's way not the Lord's plan. The Lord uses persuasion and love."

(Elder Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, April 1965, Afternoon Meeting 123.)

-----

"America has traditionally followed Jefferson's advice of relying on the profit motive, individual action, and charity. The United States has fewer cases of genuine hardship per capita than any other country in the world now or throughout all history. Even during the depression of the 1930's, Americans ate and lived better than most people in other countries do today.

"History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that this time around, the trend can be reversed. If not, then we will see the inevitability of complete socialism--probably within our lifetime.

"Three factors may make a difference: (1) sufficient historical knowledge of the failures of socialism in contrast to the proven success of free enterprise; (2) modern means of rapid communications to transmit this information to a large literate population; (3) a growing number of dedicated men and women actively working to promote a wider appreciation of these basic concepts. The timely joining together of these three factors may make it entirely possible for us to reverse the trend.

"How is it possible to cut out the various welfare-state features of our government that have already fastened themselves like cancer cells onto the body politic? Can drastic surgery be performed without endangering the patient? Drastic measures are called for. No compromise actions will suffice. Like all surgery, it will not be without discomfort and perhaps even some scar tissue for a long time to come. But it must be done if the patient is to be saved--and it can be done without undue risk.

"Not all welfare-state programs currently in force can be dropped simultaneously without causing tremendous economic and social upheaval. The first step toward restoring the limited concept of government should be to freeze all welfare-state programs at their present levels, making sure that no new ones are added. The next step would be to allow all present programs to run out their term with absolutely no renewal. The third step would involve the gradual phasing-out of those programs which are indefinite in their term. The bulk of the transition could be accomplished, I believe, within a ten-year period and virtually completed within 20 years."

(Elder Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, October 1968, First Day, Morning Meeting 22.)

-----

"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 lost 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."

(Speeches of the Year 1965-1966, pp. 1-11, Howard W. Hunter, "The Law of the Harvest." Devotional Address, Brigham Young University, 8 March 1966.)

-----

...the Church has not found it possible to follow along the lines of the present general tendency in the matter of property rights, taxes, the curtailment of rights and liberties of the people, nor in general the economic policies of what is termed the "New Deal"....unless the people of America forsake the sins and the errors, political and otherwise, of which they are now guilty and return to the practice of the great fundamental principles of Christianity, and of Constitutional government, there will be no exaltation for them spiritually, and politically we shall lose our liberty and free institutions....We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from the underlying spirit common to Naziism, Fascism, and Communism, namely the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution, and would set up such a reign of terror as exists now in many parts of Europe....We confess to you that it has not been possible for us to unify our own people even upon the necessity of such a turning about, and therefore we cannot unfortunately, and we say it regretfully, make any practical suggestion to you as to how the nation can be turned about.

(Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr. and David O. McKay, signed as the First Presidency, Letter to the U.S. Treasury, September 30, 1941.)

And more here: http://www.latterdayconservative.com/faq/is-socialism-wrong-and-what-is-socialism

Now, does that not give us reason to think? Does that not give us reason to change course? Think, and act.

Eight Simple Rules for Dating My Daughter

I'm not sure where this came from, but it's been on my hard drive for at least 11 years, since my daughter was born.

Eight Simple Rules for Dating My Daughter

When I was in high school I used to be terrified of my girlfriend's father, who I believe suspected me of wanting to place my hands on his daughter's chest. He would open the door and immediately affect a good-naturedly murderous expression, holding out a handshake that, when gripped, felt like it could squeeze carbon into diamonds.

Now, years later, it is my turn to be the dad. Remembering how unfairly persecuted I felt when I would pick up my dates, I do my best to make my daughter's suitors feel even worse. My motto: Wilt them in the living room and they'll stay wilted all night. "So," I'll call out jovially, "I see you have your nose pierced. Is that because you're stupid, or did you merely want to APPEAR stupid?"

As a dad, I have some basic rules, which I have carved into two stone tablets that I have on display in my living room.

Rule One: If you pull into my driveway and honk you'd better be delivering a package, because you're sure as heck not picking anything up.

Rule Two: You do not touch my daughter in front of me. You may glance at her, so long as you do not peer at anything below her neck. If you cannot keep your eyes or hands off of my daughter's body, I will remove them.

Rule Three: I am aware that it is considered fashionable for boys of your age to wear their trousers so loosely that they appear to be falling off their hips. Please don't take this as an insult, but you and all of your friends are complete idiots. Still, I want to be fair and open minded about this issue, so I propose this compromise: You may come to the door with your underwear showing and your pants ten sizes too big, and I will not object. However, in order to assure that your clothes do not, in fact, come off during the course of your date with my daughter, I will take my electric staple gun and fasten your trousers securely in place around your waist.

Rule Four: I'm sure you've been told that in today's world, sex without utilizing a "barrier method" of some kind can kill you. Let me elaborate: when it comes to sex, I am the barrier, and I WILL kill you.

Rule Five: In order for us to get to know each other, we should talk about sports, politics, and other issues of the day. Please do not do this. The only information I require from you is an indication of when you expect to have my daughter safely back at my house, and the only word I need from you on this subject is "early."

Rule Six: I have no doubt you are a popular fellow, with many opportunities to date other girls. This is fine with me as long as it is okay with my daughter. Otherwise, once you have gone out with my little girl, you will continue to date no one but her until she is finished with you. If you make her cry, I will make YOU cry.

Rule Seven: As you stand in my front hallway, waiting for my daughter to appear, and more than an hour goes by, do not sigh and fidget. If you want to be on time for the movie, you should not be dating. My daughter is putting on her makeup, a process which can take longer than painting the Golden Gate Bridge. Instead of just standing there, why don't you do something useful, like changing the oil in my car?

Rule Eight: The following places are not appropriate for a date with my daughter: Places where there are beds, sofas, or anything softer than a wooden stool. Places where there are no parents, policemen, or nuns within eyesight. Places where there is darkness. Places where there is dancing, holding hands, or happiness. Places where the ambient temperature is warm enough to induce my daughter to wear shorts, tank tops, midriffT-shirts, or anything other than overalls, a sweater, and a goose down parka zipped up to her Adam's apple. Movies with a strong romantic or sexual theme are to be avoided; movies which feature Chainsaw are okay. Hockey games are okay.

My daughter claims it embarrasses her to come downstairs and find me attempting to get her date to recite these eight simple rules from memory. I'd be embarrassed too -- there are only eight of them, for crying out loud! And, for the record, I did NOT suggest to one of these cretins that I'd have these rules tattooed on his arm if he couldn't remember them. (I checked into it and the cost is prohibitive.) I merely told him that I thought writing the rules on his arm with a ball point might be inadequate -- ink washes off--and that my wood burning set was probably a better alternative.

One time, when my wife caught me having one of my daughter's would-be suitors practice pulling into the driveway, get out of the car, and go up to knock on the front door (he had violated rule number one, so I figured he needed to run through the drill a few dozen times. She asked me why I was being so hard on the boy.

"Don't you remember being that age?" she challenged.

Of course I remember. Why do you think I came up with the eight simple rules?

Some additions:

Rule Nine: Do not lie to me. I may appear to be a slow, middle-aged, dim-witted, knuckle dragging jarhead. But on issues relating to my daughter, I am the all-knowing, merciless god of your universe. If I ask you where you are going and with whom, you have one chance to tell me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I have a rifle, an e-tool, and five acres behind the house. Do not mess with me.

Rule Ten: Be afraid. Be very afraid. It takes very little for me to mistake the sound of your car in the driveway for a chopper coming in over a hot LZ outside Khe Sanh. When my Agent Orange starts acting up, the voices in my head frequently tell me to clean my weapons as I wait for you to bring my daughter home. As soon as you pull into the driveway you should exit your car with both hands in plain sight. Speak the perimeter password, announce in a clear voice that you have brought my daughter home safely and early, then return to your car - there is no need for you to come inside. The camouflaged face at the window is mine.

The Staggering National Debt

In an article by noted historian Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton, our current national debt is outlined:

"Whether one accepts the government’s estimates of a national debt that nears $10 trillion, or whether one thinks the numbers provided by Richard Fisher of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, which includes all the “unfunded” parts of Medicare (A, B, and D) at another $85.6 trillion, for a total of $95.6 trillion, the United States faces a staggering level of debt.[i] And Fisher’s numbers do not include Social Security, which now, for the first time, has seen its out-flows exceed its income, and which adds another $10 trillion (at least) to the totals. The Medicare debt alone would stick each American family of four with a bill of $1.3 million, or about 25 times the average household’s income. Taken together, these levels of debt exceed the Gross National Product of probably half the nations in the world put together."
(Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/36680/)

Depending on how you do the math, that makes our national debt around $100 trillion. That's $100,000,000,000,000. Let's see if we can get a handle on this:

• 100 trillion is 10 to the 12th power.
• According to an article on Wikipedia, a trillion is the number of bacteria on the human body, and half the amount of ants on the earth.
• The national debt, in $100 dollar bills, would fill several hundred warehouses. Look at this page to get a better idea.
• A single trillion dollars is a stack of $1000 bills that is 67.9 miles high, according to the video on this page. Therefore, the national debt, would be a stack of $1000 bills 679 miles high! Which would go beyond the earth's atmosphere, and reach out into space. A stack that size, laid down, would reach from Dallas, TX to Louisville, CO.
• If a mile is 63,360 inches, then one trillion inches is still over 1.5 billion miles!
• One hundred trillion miles is about a million times farther than our sun is from earth.
• For more, click here.

So, $100 trillion in national debt is a staggering amount that we are leaving to future generations to pay off. The current events in Greece are what we have to look forward to, not to mention our loss of standing and power in the international community if we don't do something about it NOW!