A Letter to the RNC

I recently got a request for money from the Republican leadership in Washington. Here is my reply (and yes, I have actually sent it to them).

October 8, 2009


To the National Republican Leadership;

I would be glad to send a donation, if I had some extra money. With the economy and the employment situation the way it is, I, and many other like-minded people, have no money to spare.

I see the problem this way: Our current economic climate was created by government interference in the free market. Then, in order to “solve” the problem, the government has interfered with the free market even more. My advice is to just leave it alone, reduce taxes, and let the free market work. This solution always produces more prosperity, more jobs, more income and more tax revenue for the government–which helps with our next big problem: the huge national debt.

So far, the Republican leadership has done very little to solve these problems and return the country to its former glory and to preserve the freedom and liberty of its people. We have moved too near the middle-of-the-road. I recommend a strong and principled return to the ideals of Reagan conservatism, where “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” This means less government, more freedom, and lower taxes and more income.

The spineless actions of the Republican leadership in recent years has led to a lot of disappointment with the Party and an exodus to the Libertarian Party or to some form of political independence. It’s time to have some guts, be strong, and stand up for Constitutional principles or freedom and righteousness.

"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." BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, October 5, 1960

The other problem I see with these surveys is that they are full of leading questions: questions that evoke a certain response or lead up to a previously determined conclusion. This is not only insulting to the constituents, it is also misleading and dishonest. And it makes it pretty clear that what you really want is just the money, but only a fool would give it to you.

Sincerely,

Richard A Smith
Orem, Utah

Health care shortage, anyone?

A new poll by Investor's Business Daily of more than 1,300 physicians finds that nearly two-thirds (65%) oppose ObamaCare and nearly half (45%) would consider quitting if the liberal health care plan passes.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199

Does He Lie?

Everyone (every Democrat, at least) is up in arms about Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst of, "You lie!" during President Obama's speech to Congress on Wed (09/09/09). I have heard about how it's rude, disrespectful, undignified, bad manners, etc, etc, Ad Nauseam. I personally, don't see how it's any different from Bush being booed and hissed during his speeches (just Google: "bush booed" "state of the union"). And Clinton was booed before him, as, I'm sure, have been many before him.

So, I don't see what all the offense and hoopla is about. There is more than enough bad manners and blame to go around, and no single party can claim a majority of it. Politics is just an exercise in bad manners.

Perhaps the real concern would be with the truth of the statement. Does Obama lie? Of course he does, he got elected didn't he? And don't take that as just cynical hyperbole. He certainly said untrue things during the campaign about John McCain, the country and the intentions of himself and the Democrats. Furthermore, there are certain things that he has not answered to, and he was very quiet about what, exactly, he was going to do once he took office. To me, silence when one should speak out is just as dishonest as saying something untrue.

Going further, heckling is just another form of dissent, and there's nothing wrong with it, as long as it's valid. (Libel and slander are a different discussion.) And Democrats and Republicans alike have defended dissent and heckling as being "part of the democratic process". To me, that's just calling 'em as you see 'em.

Wilson quickly apologized for his outburst, but I don't think an apology was necessary. Maybe for interrupting his speech, but no man should apologize for speaking his mind, or telling the truth.

Post Script:
And there's this, too:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=677700

I Figured It Out

Maybe I'm slow, but this morning in that dreamy state between sleep and waking, I had a epiphany: I realized why Obama won, besides the weak showing by the GOP, Libertarian Party, and everyone else.

First, a few background quotes:

"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." Robert Muntzel

"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.'" Admiral Ben Moreel

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

So, people have gotten lazy, greedy and selfish. They no longer value freedom over money and leisure. They ignore our history, and reject God. Because of this, they vote for the guy who promises them what they want, money for nothing. Thus our country has been taken over by the uneducated, godless and selfish. If this continues, we are doomed.

The Value of Books

Today's lengthy quote:

It has often been said that we have but one life to live; that is nonsense. If one reads fiction he or she can live a thousand lives, in many parts of the world or in outer space. One can cross a desert, climb the Himalayas, or experience the agony of defeat, the triumph of victory, the pangs of starvation, or the choking thirst of the desert, all while safely at home.

The book has been man's greatest triumph, his most profound success. Seated in my library I live in a Time Machine. In an instant I can be transmitted to any era of history, any part of the world, even to outer space. Often I am asked in what period of history I would have preferred to live, and I wonder that they do not see, for I have lived in them all. I have listened to Buddha speak, I have marched with Alexander, sailed with the Vikings, or in their double canoes with the Polynesians. I have been at the courts of Queen Elizabeth and Louis the XIV; I have explored the West with Jedediah Smith and Jim Bridger; I have been a friend to Captain Nemo and have sailed with Captain Bligh on the Bounty. I have walked in the agora with Socrates and Plato, and listened to Jesus deliver the Sermon on the Mount.

Above all, and the most remarkable thing, I can do it all again, at any moment. The books are there. I have only to reach up on the shelves and take them down and live over again the moments I have loved. Surely, we live today in the greatest moment of history, for at no other time have books been so readily available, in the book stores, in the public libraries, and in the home.

- Louis L'Amour, The Sackett Companion, p.262,

Make Honor the Standard

I recently encountered a speech given many years ago by BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson. In it , he discusses politics and how we should conduct ourselves. With an upcoming minor election, I think he makes some very good points that would would do well to remember, hopefully until the next major election.


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.

(An excerpt of an address given to the Brigham Young University student body by President Ernest L. Wilkinson on October 5, 1960.)

A Lesson On Socialism

I recently got this in an e-mail. It's just urban legend, but I would do this in an instant if my students pressed the issue.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Why bother to study?
An economics professor stated he had never failed a single student before, but he recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, after the Great Equalizer plan was complete. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, and to their great surprise, the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.

New Joker Poster

We have likely all heard about or seen the Obama Joker posters that are being placed all over the country, the ones with a picture of Obama made up as Heath Ledger's Joker character from the Dark Knight Batman movie. What has amazed me about those is that nobody has really taken offense to them. Obama doesn't speak out about them, he has never denied being a socialist, and nobody seems to have a problem with socialism.

The reason for that is because they have nothing to deny, and Democrats are really just socialists in disguise, and the Republicans are heading there. But their secret is out. As Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948 said:

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

I think we've reached that point, and we don't even realize it. Now, Obama and the DNC are going for a Marxist, communist America, with it's accompanying totalitarian political correctness. Glenn Beck says the American Marxist Revolution has begun. I say let the Counter-Revolution begin.

Therefore, I propose a NEW Obama protest poster: the one that tells the REAL truth: Obama as Marxist!

I bet they don't even bat an eyelash.
: D

Rules of Computing

Things to remember if you use a computer. (And if you're reading this, you very likely do.)

1. Computers are stupid. They do only what they’re told, nothing more, nothing less, even if it’s the wrong thing to do.

Therefore:

2. Save often! Especially before printing. Because if you forget to save your work every 5 minutes, the computer will crash after you've been working for 5 hours. (See Murphy’s Law.)

Therefore:

3. Always keep back up! More than one! (Because Murphy was an optimist, and hard drives will fail. It's not a question of if, but when.)

4. Artificial Intelligence is no match for the real thing. Most people really are smarter than computers. Especially if they try to be. Put some effort in to it.

5. You can't break it. Under normal circumstances, doing normal stuff, you can't break your computer just by working on it. So, make sure your data is backed up, and then go explore, play, learn, and take notes so you can get back to where you started. But, worst case scenario, if you really mess up something, you can wipe the hard drive, reinstall the operating system and you apps, restore your data from your backup and go on with life.

Those are the most important ones. Here are a few more:

A working program is one that has only unobserved bugs.

No matter how many resources you have, it is never enough.

Any cool program always requires more memory than you have.

When you finally buy enough memory, you will not have enough disk space.

Disks are always full. It is futile to try to get more disk space. Data expands to fill any void.

If a program actually fits in memory and has enough disk space, it is guaranteed to crash.

If such a program has not crashed yet, it is waiting for a critical moment before it crashes.

No matter how good of a deal you get on computer components, the price will always drop immediately after the purchase.

All components become obsolete.

The speed with which components become obsolete is directly proportional to the price of the component.

The hard drive on your computer will only crash when it contains vital information that has not been backed up.

Profanity is one language all computer users know.

A patch is a piece of software which replaces old bugs with new bugs.

The only program that runs perfectly every time is a virus

The likelihood of problems occurring is inversely proportional to the amount of time remaining before the deadline.

The smaller the size of your email account, the more junk mail you will get.

Antivirus systems only effectively work on a virus after given virus has passed its prime.

Proof-read all e-mails three or four times before sending it. All errors are detected immediately after being sent.

Can you suggest any others?
_

Obamacare = Post Office

That title is important. Remember folks: Government health care = Post Office.

Here are a few links that are as fun as they are informative:

Obama's Post Office health care disaster

Explaining why he believes a public option would not crowd out and ultimately eliminate private insurance, Obama said, "My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining--then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

Ummm... Okay... (It was a non-teleprompter moment.)

Obamacare: The "Post Office" of Health Care Plans

But the most important question is this: if you have an urgent piece of mail you need delivered, life or death, who are you going to call? Everyone saying the government--please raise your hands. (crickets)

LOL!

Obama's Post Office Gaffe: More True that You Can Imagine

A couple years back, libertarian writer Wilton Alston contemplated a world in which the Post Office had genuine competition. He concluded that we would most likely have more services, lower rates, shorter lines, greater quality of service (no damaged, late, or lost packages), and easier access. But the worst thing is, we can’t know, because we’re not allowed to test it. The government forbids it, which governments always do once they’ve secured control.

And the best part, from the American Vision article:

At the end of last year [2006], the Post Office did some research and was surprised to find that customers at the nation’s 37,000 post offices were not happy about wait times in line. In response, the Post Office came up with a brilliant idea, something that could probably only come from the federal government. They removed the clocks from all 37,000 post offices. Stephen Seewoester, a Postal Service spokesman said, apparently with a straight face, "We want people to focus on postal service and not the clock."

Imagine such a solution in a government-run clinic. "We want you to focus on health care services, not the fact that you’ve waited nine hours and not seen anyone yet."

Precious. I don't make this stuff up, folks.

Questions That Need Answers

I have recently been researching the national health care plan, and it seems that everybody, from the kooks in the White House to the kooks in the backwoods, has a different answer for all of the questions below. It also seems that there are scaremongers on both sides of the aisle, and up every tree. All I really want are straight answers, without any scare tactics, political patronization or double-talk.

However, I highly suspect that no one has any straight answers to these questions because nobody really knows, nobody has really read the whole bill, nobody really knows what Obama, Reid and Pelosi have up their sleeves and nobody trusts anybody with the truth.

So, I've posted some of what I feel are the most important questions here and I invite you to post your as well, and invite your friends to do so, as well. Then, after the August recess is over, I'll compile them into a strongly worded letter and send them off to Washington. We'll see what happens, but I don't expect much.

From The Heritage Foundation:

• Can you promise me that I will not lose my current plan and doctor?
• Can you promise that you and your family will enroll in the public plan?
• Can you promise that Obamacare will not lead to higher deficits in the long term?
• Can you promise that government bureaucrats will not ration health care for patients on the public plan?
• Can you promise me that my tax dollars will not fund abortions?

From TCSDaily.com:

• What will we do about the large projected deficit in Medicare?
• What can we do to reduce government subsidies for extravagant use of medical procedures with high costs and low benefits?
• What should we do about the health care needs of the very poor?
• What should we do about the health care needs of the very sick?
• What should we do about a scenario in which both income inequality and the share of average income devoted to health care rise sharply?

And a few of my own:

• What proof do we have, and can the government truthfully promise us, that the government can manage health care better (i.e.: more efficiently, with more savings of time, money and life, and with more satisfied customers) than private entities?
• How can we pay for health care, economic stimuli, bailouts, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and all the other entitlements, without the country going deeper into debt?
• At his point, is there any way at all that the country can get out of debt in my lifetime, so that this burden is not left to my children, grandchildren, and their posterity, or are we destined for bankruptcy?
• What if I don't want health insurance? What if I want to be self-insured?
  
• Is freedom more important than health, economics or political gain?

I'm anxious to see what you think about it.

Ten Axioms to Guide Your Life

I just ran across these and thought it would be good to share them. The original article is here.

By Elder Robert D. Hales
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Axiom 1
It’s not the obstacle that counts, but how you overcome it.

Axiom 2
Pursue your goals with all your heart, might, mind, and strength. You are doomed to failure if you pursue them in a vacillating manner.

Axiom 3
From a tiny spark can come a large fire.

Axiom 4
Our greatest strengths can become our greatest weaknesses.

Axiom 5
Failure is one of the greatest teachers if we have the faith to learn from it.

Axiom 6
It is not how you start the race or where you are during the race. It is how you cross the finish line that matters.

Axiom 7
"If you wish to get rich, save what you get. A fool can earn money; but
it takes a wise man to save and dispose of it to his own advantage." (Brigham Young)

Axiom 8
You cannot learn the Lord’s will without exercising your agency and
becoming accountable for your decisions.

Axiom 9
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Axiom 10
The temple of God is the greatest university.

Interesting Photos

I got a couple of pictures from a friend of mine that everyone should see.

One of them is of President Obama after his meeting with Officer Crowley and Professor Gates:

I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing.

Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

In my own dealings with the wealthy and powerful, I have always found that the way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. Do they understand that the others are also human beings with feelings? Especially when they think nobody is looking.

I think this photo constitutes another major Obama blunder.

As some commentators point out, this picture becomes a metaphor for ObamaCare. The elderly are left in the back, with only the kindness of the Crowleys of the world, the stand up guys, to depend on. The government has other priorities.

At every stage of the entire Gates affair, Obama has provided a revealing tell. The "acted stupidly" blunder revealed that he automatically blames the police and thinks they really are stupid to begin with. It didn't trigger a single alarm bell in his mind as he figured out what to say.

Then, the non-apology apology revealed an arrogant man who cannot do what honest people do: admit it when they make a mistake.

Now at stage three, the beer photo op looked OK. It didn't turn into a disaster.

But then in a small moment that nobody in the White House had the brains to understand, Obama goes and send a body language message like this.

I think he is going to get deeper and deeper into trouble. He is no longer repeating the familiar scripts dreamed up for the campaign. He was a master performer.

But when he goes improv, as a president must do, he lets his true character show. This helps widen the level of doubt that Obama is the same guy a majority voted for. Those doubts can only grow.

However, there are two points that I disagree with here: First, I don't think the White House Staff are too stupid to see this, I think that they are too proud, and arrogant to see it. I don't think that the people will see this the same way, the people who voted for him are likely also too proud and arrogant to see it, but are also looking at what they can get from Obama and his hand-out government, or, they're the stupid ones.

The other photo is of President Bush with elderly Senator Robert Byrd, and creates a stark contrast.

Why People Vote Democrat

Posted recently at the 912 Project Web Site. It would be funny, if it wasn't so true.

I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my horse.

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they’re doing because they now think we’re good people.

I voted Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

I voted Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite The Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass that it is unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

Why I Oppose Nationalized Health Care

I friend of mine asked me why I am opposed to "ObamaCare". Here it is:

The biggest problem that I have with nationalized health care is the lack of choice, the government will control our health care choices. I think that insurance companies and HMOs already have too much control of our health care choices. Those who are too young or too old and in need of more expensive care could be denied. We have seen by sad experience that government-run agencies are far less efficient and result in much worse customer service than private business. When we're talking about human life and quality of life, we must have and be the best.

I am opposed to the attitude of entitlement and seeking help and handouts from the government. People are most productive and happy when they are enabled to do and achieve for themselves, whether it's the day-to-day running of a household or business, making a million dollars, or overcoming great opposition or difficulties. But, certainly, there are some who need help, and that is best done by private or religious organizations.

Another problem I have with it is that it's so expensive, and that will drive up taxes, which are already a heavy burden on the average citizen. In the Middle Ages, peasants were required to pay their landlords one-third of their income, and they were considered to be in servitude. What are we when we pay taxes as high as twice that?

Finally, I am opposed to the enlargement of government bureaucracy that will result in greater government control and power. As Thomas Paine said,"That government is best which governs least."

Here are some other recommended articles about it (if you don't have time for all of them, read the last one):

From The Wall Street Journal: Canada's ObamaCare Precedent: Governments always ration care by making you wait. That can be deadly.

From The Washington Post: CBO Chief Says Democrats' Proposals Lack Necessary Controls on Spending

From Matters of Truth: Obamacare facing physician opposition from the AMA

From Political Crunch: Liberal lies and why Americans oppose Obama style health care reform

From The Spectator: Obamacare Could Kill You

From Town Hall: 10 Questions for Supporters of 'ObamaCare'

And, finally, the REALLY SCARY STUFF, from Family Security Matters: Look Here to See What’s in the Health Care Bill: CHILLING!

It almost leaves me speechless...

(And here is the actual bill.)

Health Care Fiasco in Progress

Democrats refuse to allow Republicans to mail information on the Obama health care plan to their constituents.

See the bureaucratic mess which Obama is pushing by clicking the link to the PDF file:

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_12/news/37125-1.html?type=printer_friendly

This is very scary! What a crazy mess!

A Long Recession: On Purpose?

"Many Americans have felt the pain of recession -- and have pay cuts or fruitless job searches to prove it. Evidence of the recovery, unfortunately, likely won’t be as tangible."

Why You Won't Like the Recovery

Obama has said that the recovery will be long in coming. The recession was caused by government activity, and recovery is being delayed by government activity Does anybody else see some odd, behind-the-scenes, cause-and-effect going on here? I mean, the best solution to the recession would be for the government to step back and let the market go, but they keep meddling.

If I were in a controlling position, I could see this set of circumstances as a perfect way of depressing and controlling the power and activity of the United States on the world stage. There is, of course, no proof of what I'm saying here, and I'm only going on intuitive supposition, but it looks really suspicious to me. Or maybe I'm crazy...

My Senator On Global Warming

After the passing vote in the House on the cap and trade bill, I sent a note to my Senators voicing my concerns. What follows is My Senator's astute reply.

Thank you for your letter expressing opposition to cap and trade legislation as it pertains to energy policy in the United States. I share your concerns with the cap and trade proposals being considered, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

On May 15, 2009, Congressmen Henry Waxman and Edward Markey introduced, H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act which would establish a cap and trade program to control human activities resulting in carbon dioxide emissions. As you may know, on June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives narrowly passed this legislation with a 219-212 vote. Over the next several weeks, the Senate is expected to hold several hearings on climate change legislation and a full Senate vote is expected no earlier than September of this year.

Let me be clear, I have serious concerns with any legislation that proposes a cap and trade system to reduce human carbon emissions. I believe such proposals are not the most effective approach to reducing carbon emissions (CO2), and I question whether controlling human activity can have any influence on the climate. I believe it is important to look at the scientific basis for climate change legislation and to weigh the cost and benefits of such legislation.

Though it is not widely covered in the media, there is considerable debate within the scientific community regarding the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The United Nations Panel on Intergovernmental Climate Change (IPCC) bases its theory of AGW on a number of assumptions. The validity of these assumptions continues to be the basis for the debate surrounding global warming. If the assumptions are wrong, the theory is faulty.

The most obvious assumption is that a causal relationship exists between human carbon emissions and observed warming. If most of the global warming has resulted from human CO2 emissions, then real-world observations of these two variables should demonstrate a correlation. This assumption is not supported by one of the most comprehensive and widely accepted data sets available to climate science: the Vostok ice cores taken in Antarctica.

We now have 600,000 years of ice core data showing a very strong correlation between changes in temperature and carbon levels in the atmosphere. The most recent analysis of the data shows clearly that changes in atmospheric carbon follow changes in temperature with a lag of between 800 and one thousand years. In short, more than one half of a million years of observed data fail to support the very central IPCC assumption that CO2 is a primary driver of the climate. Instead, the data supports the possibility that the opposite relationship exists. Furthermore, climate models failed to predict the climate trends that scientists have observed over the past decade. Actual observations show that the Earth's climates has cooled since 1998.

Moreover, a simple cost-benefit analysis shows that if all provisions of the cap and trade program were implemented global temperatures would only decrease by nine-hundredths of a degree Fahrenheit. This means that for every dollar we spent to combat global warming through carbon emissions, we do far less than a dollar of good.

Proponents ignore the cost-benefit analysis by claiming the program would generate more than $1.6 trillion in revenues. What they do not tell you is who would pay for it. The fact of the matter is, Utahns and all American families across the country will pay for it. A study done by the Rural Electric Cooperative Association concluded that a carbon cap-and-trade program could result in a 70 percent increase in the average Utah family's electric bill, making it the highest increase in the nation. Additionally, as manufacturers struggle to meet expensive mandates, high prices will be passed onto the consumer. Given the current state of our economy, we can ill afford to overburden taxpayers for a program which provides minimal benefits and threatens our global competitiveness.

We should make sure we are not disadvantaging ourselves among our international competitors. As we seek to become more energy independent, this legislation will in fact result in an annual $120 billion reduction in our economy, while ensuring our competitors such as China, gain a distinct advantage over us in the worldwide marketplace. It will send more than a million of our manufacturing jobs to countries with less-stringent environmental standards resulting in a net increase of global CO2 emissions. Unless we require the same standards of our international competitors, it would certainly reduce U.S. jobs while increasing global CO2 emissions.

Rather than looking at ways to artificially control society through the creation of a false market, we should be tapping into the free market to reduce CO2. False markets simply redistribute wealth to preselected winners and losers, the winners here would be the select few who control carbon credits and the rest of us would be the losers. Such an outcome is the natural result of mandatory cap-and-trade rules, for if you control carbon, you control life.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

Orrin G. Hatch

United States Senator

A Little Bit About Wireless Peripherals

Just a note about wireless peripherals: I've been looking around the web researching some problems with my wireless keyboard and mouse and have noticed that many people complain about connection issues with these products.

Keep in mind that RF wireless peripherals, WiFi (wireless networks), and some wireless telephones use the same radio frequencies (in the 2.4 GHz range). Anything using the same frequency is going to create interference, and, therefore, have connection problems. The stronger signal (usually WiFi or phone) will win out, resulting in a loss of connectivity for the wireless peripherals.

I don't know that there is a foolproof solution, but it would help to make sure that the peripherals have direct line-of-site to their wireless receiver, and it might also help to place something between the wireless receiver and your WiFi antenna, to induce interference there. You could also try changing the channel that your WiFi router is using.

Also, get rid of your cheap 2.4GHz wireless phone, and get something better in the 5.8 GHz range. Yes, it's more expensive, but also better quality, better sound and no interference with your wireless network or peripherals. I know that from experience.

I've done all of the above and now have very few issues with wireless interference and I enjoy my wireless mouse and keyboard very much.

Global Warming Burns Me Up!

The cap and tax bill in Congress right now is the biggest tax increase in history. One that will increase the prices of everything, from toys to houses. All of this in reaction to the climate change boogey man. It's like a kid setting fire to his closet to kill the monster that he thinks is going to get him in the middle of the night. This has nothing to do with protecting the environment, or helping people, it's about controlling people--less about electrical power, more about political power.

Ever wonder why energy companies are in favor of cap and trade? Because they stand to make a LOT of money from it!

We need to do something. It's in the Senate now. Call, write, fax, take a flight to D.C. and knock on his door, do something to let your senators know that this will be a disaster and can't be allowed to pass.