Eric's Ego - Everyone's Got an Opinion

Tyranny vs Anarchy

2010-09-11T17:21:00.001-07:00

Fascism = Big centralized government with central planning for the perfecting of the master-race.

Marx believed in the same thing. before Marx there was Godwin who equally believed in solution based governing for the perfecting of the human race. They viewed man as a perfectible creature that is not limited by natural tendencies.

The Founders and Adam Smith believed otherwise that man has limitations and that those limitations will always be a part of us.

I can't speak for the big-government republicans but I can speak on the behalf of individualism.

The accurate paradigm that should be remembered was the paradigm of the Founders….

Tyranny vs Anarchy

Tyranny is big centralized government where individuals are ruled and do not have individual freedoms to life liberty or property.

Anarchy is the absence of government.

The founders believed being in the middle of that paradigm. Small limited central government so that individuals are not under the yoke of tyranny but big enough to have power to take care of the needs of the States.

Overtime the people and the political class have forgotten this paradigm for expediency sake. Because the natural tendency of any nation is the increase the size the government. It is not solely the fault of the progressive big government types, it is also the fault of us as citizens to keep a watch on the government. The government is our creation, thus a creature of man, man is not a creature of government.

The only good thing about the current regime being in power is that it is igniting the fire of liberty in the hearts and minds of the citizens. It is sad that we had to wake up under these circumstances, but never the less another period of Awakening is happening among liberty loving people. Time will only tell if it lasts and if we as a citizenry are serious about taking back the power from the State and returning it to the people where it rightly belongs.

Getting back to the topic at hand. Fascism, Communism or Socialism are all on the side of tyranny because those "-isms" tend to rob man of individual freedom. It is inaccurate to align libertarian type people with fascism because these types of people believe in the very opposite of what Fascism stands for.

I have a right to your magical abilites!

2010-03-18T07:01:00.000-07:00

I am sorry healthcare is a right? That's like me calling godaddy telling them that they better provide me with hosting service because I have a right to their service.

What's next, education, housing? Before you know it we will be in the alleged marxist utopian of communism.

Rights transcend time. Rights do not evolve they are constants of the human race. If healthcare is a right then that right would extend to every age of human existence.

Yes medieval doctor please bleed me because I have a right to it. Yes african witch doctor please heal me from this evil spirit possessing my body because I have a right to your magical abilities. Healthcare is not a right, it is a service provided by another individual. I do not have the right to plunder goods and services from my follow man.

Responding to a comment at Foxnews

2010-02-21T01:53:00.000-08:00

readatextbooksays:

Actually Glenn Beck lies quite often: He said that no other President had never been sworn into office without a Bible. He said he 'checked'. John Qunicy Adams used a law book. Franklin Pierce didn't even swear. He affirmed. Teddy Roosevelt used no Bible. Several Presidents kissed a Bible but did not swear on one. He knows most people don't have the time to check his "facts" so he gets away with it. I checked, He lied

Sunday, February 21, 2010 at 1:16 AM

@readatextbooksays:

That's it that's all you have to condemn Beck and his address, that he got one of his historical facts wrong. You say he lies 'often' please give me more examples of 'often' and let them be a bigger deal than if a president put his hand on the bible or not, how on earth does that derail the message of Natural Law and Personal Liberty that Beck is expressing to people. You don't seem to have a lot of content in your criticism of Beck, the only thing you have is a personal attack which shows how weak your case really is. Please confound us with some Marxist dogma and prove us wrong on those grounds, screw attacking the messenger please attack the message and do so with a little credibility

Raw Deal

2010-02-21T00:09:00.000-08:00

In 1939, ten years after the crash on Wall Street, the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. friend to FDR, told the House Ways and Means Committee:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”

NPR Follow up

2010-02-19T00:42:00.001-08:00

During tonight's drive home I heard a story about the failing schools in Los Angeles. The state is handing over districts to private sector charter schools because the state has no funds. The teachers union has their panties in a twist because they will be out of a job and the charter schools don't want the union members and all the baggage that brings.

The story it self was pretty one-sided. The bulk of the report was in favor of the teachers union as every person being interviewed were basically complaining about the students being put in the private sector. Not one time did the journalist bring up the perspective of the charter school and the potential good outcome that could happen.

Interesting trivia: Thomas Jefferson a fierce advocate for education in his day believed that education should be in the private sector as the private sector in his view manages things more efficiently than the government according to an address he sent to the congress during his presidency.

Identical Bombers

2010-02-18T20:42:00.000-08:00

An NPR Experiement

2010-02-17T22:20:00.000-08:00

I am doing an experiment. For the next few months I am going to start listening regularly to the evening edition of NPR on my drive home from work. Everyone who knows me knows that I love listening to Glenn Beck. Although I do not agree with everything that Beck supports, for instance his position on the US Military and it's presence in the world. I tend to agree with Ron Paul on that one that generally we should minimize our military presence around the globe. But that's another story.

Sometimes I listen to Rush and typically I agree with him on a lot of topics but it seems to me that he likes to bring up the Democrat vs. Republican debate a lot. So if I am bored I dial in but never really stay that long.

I never listen to Hannity. To me he is just a mini-me version of Rush. I can't stand his voice it's whiney and he in my opinion is not a very good debater. A caller called in one time and brought up a historical point of view about Alexander Hamilton which was a good point and all Hannity could muster was "that's a stupid interpretation..." I cannot listen to people who discuss topics like that, though I am sure Beck does it a lot, and usually it's sarcasm when he does it, when Hannity said that I got the feeling that he didn't know enough about the subject to come up with an articulate answer. Beck on the other hand who constantly is bloviating has a great knowledge of history which is one of the main reasons I like him, because of Beck I starting reading books about American history, I read the Constitution again, I am going through the Federalist papers, etc...

I don't like a lot of the local radio host here in the valley. In the morning I will listen to Barry Young on 550 AM. I get the feeling he is your traditional Republican Conservative. I get the feeling he is a supporter of McCain. I love his whit and humor in his show but that's about it. I don't walk away from that show a better-enlightened person.

I used to listen to JD Hayworth on 550 AM on my drive home but again a Republican hack and his voice is like nails on a chalk bored. I am sure I will probably vote for the guy just to get McCain out of office. Unless there is a great libertarian candidate that is running.

And the last resort is 92.3 FM the "republican station" as my mom calls it. Which in reality 550 AM is more of the republican station. The drive home I listen to Mac and Gados (sp?) but they are just so dimwitted that I barely stand them. They are more for entertainment and local issues in the valley.

Okay now that I got that out in the open, on to my experiment. For the next few months I will be listening to NPR for my drive home. I am really not interested in listening to out-right leftist talk shows on the dial but I will give NPR a chance, they try very hard to be objective and centrist in there reporting. I grew up listening to NPR and just couldn't listen anymore a few years back. I will report back often to give my assessment. Even if it might be a light-weight leftist station at least I can feed my brain with different types of stories.

Tonight’s topic was on the stimulus package. I did not support the so-called stimulus package just so you know. The story tried very hard to be fair about it, offering differing view points on it, but the general feeling I got from the story was that the reporter was amenable to the stimulus package. A few points I wish they had brought up. They weren't overly critical of it at all. More to come...

Progressive Imperialism

2010-02-16T22:59:00.001-08:00

Still doing my reading about the Progressive movement in America (American Progressivism), apparently all the folk out there who despise America because of it's 'imperialist' tendencies should realize it was the progressives like Woodrow Wilson who had a higher vision for America in spreading it's influence accross the globe.

In contrast it was the founders who preached and practiced nuetrality. A reading of George Washington's farewell address and the Monroe Doctrine attest to this principal. The founders view was to have friendly relations with other countries entangling alliances with none.

Yet now the progressive followers of our day criticize this country of imperilism when it was the progressives of yesteryear that started it! Its amazing what a person can learn if they just turn off the tv and read a book. More to come...

The Right vs. Left paradigm and critics who oppose it.

2010-02-13T10:36:00.000-08:00

I have oft been criticized that I am just a Republican vs. Democrat political junkie. But that description is just plain intellectually lazy. People are turned off against party politics for obvious reasons, all the name-calling and vitriol from both sides. The disillusioned detach completely from the debate and just ignore it.

I really do not like party politics at all. The problems we have as a nation are bigger than the parties. Most of the problems we face today are symptoms of a deeper cancer that has been infecting this country for over 100 years. That cancer is the Progressive movement. But that's another story.

I guess for me why I think it is important to be apart of the debate of our failed 2 party system is because despite the ridiculous arguments and fights the Dems and the GOP engage in, ultimately the decisions they make WILL affect my life and livelihood. Yeah it sucks. I just can't bury my head in the sand and ignore it them because before you know it they will pass some legislation that is going to probably hurt my family and me or inhibit my liberties.

So to be a responsible patriotic citizen it is important to be apart of the debate.

Does being apart of the debate mean to take part in the name calling and backbiting? Certainly not. Largely I think it means to be aware and be informed as to what these tyrants (both sides) are doing. Be aware of the bills being voted on; be aware of the decisions these tyrants are making. Also I think it is important to learn about these elected officials and the people they surround themselves with. What do they believe in?

A side note people who detach in my view are no better than people who choose not to vote. You hear the comment if you didn't vote then you have no room to complain. I think the same can be said of those who decide to detach from the debate. Voting is just the beginning of being a responsible citizen.

Socialist George Bernard Shaw

2010-02-01T21:32:00.001-08:00

George Bernard Shaw, famous British playwright, Fabian socialist and Eugenicist who supported Hitler.

“I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. In short- a gentlemanly gas deadly by all means, but humane, not cruel.”

10 years later this gas would be invented and used on the victims in Nazi concentration camps

It is interesting to note that George Bernard Shaw was a Eugenicist who supported Planned Parenthood Founder, and eugenicist Margaret Sanger and others in the eugenics movement.

He also said...

“I don’t want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people who I might want to kill…I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioner and say every 5 years or every 7 years…just put them there and say , ‘Sir or madam will you be kind enough to justify your existence…if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little bit more then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive. Because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.’

What a horrible person.

Marxist Apologists often say...

2010-01-24T12:01:00.000-08:00

I recently heard from someone that Karl Marx would not approve of how his vision of Communism was carried out. Stalin, Mao and others carried out Marxs' vision incorrectly. That the killing of millions was not apart of the big picture. I have recently learned that that apologist view point is absolutley wrong. Here is only one quote of Marx in his own words of what is to be done with the weaker elements of society.

"The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way… They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust"
- Karl Marx ( Marx People’s Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981 )

Communism has murdered 100 million people in the 1900s. Sounds like a plague.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

2010-01-24T10:06:00.000-08:00

G. Edward Griffin – Individualism vs Collectivism! (Part 1/3)

G. Edward Griffin – Individualism vs Collectivism! (Part 2/3)

G. Edward Griffin – Individualism vs Collectivism! (Part 3/3)

The Difference Between Marxism and Progressivism

2010-01-21T18:37:00.000-08:00

The difference between Marxism and Progressivism

Marxists believe in a violent revolution to bring about communism

Progressives believe in evolution or a slow peaceful change to communism

Both lead to the same end.

The weather underground of the 60s were Marxist revolutionaries. Collapse the system through violent revolution.

Wade Radke who founded Acorn followed The Cloward & Piven Strategy of evolution, not a violent take over of the Capitalist system. The Cloward & Piven strategy was to collapse the Capitalist system on it's self by enrolling as many people as you can into the welfare system. That would eventually lead the system to be unsustainable.

Why do you pay taxes?

2010-01-10T12:40:00.000-08:00

(from the pages of "The Creature from Jekyll Island" p. 204)

In 1946, Beardsley Ruml had become the chairman of the powerful New York branch of the Federal Reserve System - the dominant branch and, for all practical purposes, the "Fed" itself.
As the man who during World War II had personally designed the Ruml "pay-as-you-go" system of wage withholding we have today, Mr. Ruml was certainly familiar with the true nature and purpose of the federal income tax.
In an astonishing paper titled "Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete," read before the American Bar Association and published in the January 1946 issue of American Affairs, he stated that two of the purposes for the income tax were to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar and to express the public policy in the distribution of wealth and income.
In the introduction to Mr. Rumls' article, the magazine's editor offered the following summary of the Chairman's views, stating:
"His thesis is that, given control of a central banking system [such as the Federal Reserve], and an inconvertible currency [not backed by gold] a sovereign national government [such as the United States] is finally free of money worries and needs no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue.
"All taxation, therefore, should be regarded from the point of view of social and economic consequences."
Here is what Chairman Ruml revealed in his article:
"...the most important single purpose to be served by the imposition of federal taxes is the maintenance of a dollar which has stable purchasing power over the years.
"Without the use of federal taxation, all other means of stabilization [of inflation] ... are unavailing.
"The dollars the government takes by taxes cannot be spent by the people, and therefore... can no longer be used to acquire the things which are available for sale.
"Taxation is, therefore, an instrument of the first importance in the administration of any fiscal and monetary policy."
He also stated in that same article:
"The second principle purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income [dare I say Socialism?] than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income. These taxes should be defended and attacked in terms of their effect on the character of American life, not as revenue measures"

The reason we pay the federal income tax is to stabilize the buying power of the dollar, by taking the excess paper off the market which reduces hyper-inflation. Hyper-inflation was a plague in societies that had a paper money system that wasn’t backed by silver or gold.

Arrogance of man

2010-01-10T12:25:00.000-08:00

"Modern man is a self-certified genius who, having pinned the blue ribbon on his own lapel, proceeds to hand out all other awards, according as the various candidates are more or less like him."

-Hugh W Nibley

Is it Relevant?

2009-11-15T17:50:00.001-08:00

I was asked the other day if I supported the new healthcare transformation (because it isn't reform, it's a transformation). Of course I immediately said I didn't and explained that it wasn't constitutional according to how the Founders set up our country. All I got were blank faces and then an explanation of how good it is going to be. Are you kidding!?!

Of course I am baffled that people would choose subservience to the state rather than their freedom and liberty.

But what really astonished me is that when you tell some one that something is unconstitutional and that that doesn't even make them flinch, what has happened to common sense in America?

The debate that we should really be having is, is the Constitution still relevant? Do we need it anymore? Should we just chuck the system and emulate some european form.

But I hardly doubt that the leftist would want to take up that debate mainly because they don't have a logical argument for destroying personal liberties and freedoms. The platform of the marxists is emotion. What feels good. It feels good to take care of everyone even if it violates individual liberties. And fortunately over half of America still believes in our traditional American values and principles.

So instead of having an open and honest debate in the public eye, the Progressives pick away at our system one piece at a time and do it in the name of freedom and justice (social justice). Refusing to admit the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

So I challenge the Progressives to man-up, stop being deviant in your attack on freedom, at least be proud of it. Be very frank and open and call it like it is. You don't want freedom and individual liberties that our Founders set up, you want a nanny state, you want to be taken care of so you can have security in your life. You want socialism. Just come out of the closet already!

So next time some one asks me how do I feel about the new healthcare transformation, I will answer it with a question? How do you feel about the Constitution? Is it still relevant in your life?

Crunch the Numbers

2009-11-15T16:42:00.001-08:00

A Response

2009-11-14T17:16:00.000-08:00

Reading another blog where the author claimed that Jefferson was a Godless man. My response:

"I just finished up reading on Thomas Jefferson. Though he was not a traditional Christian as we understand Christianity today. But I have some information for you on this matter. According to TJ's grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph said that TJ attended the local Church regularly while living at Monticello. He read the morals of Jesus on a regular basis before going to bed. Though he said he did so as he would read any moralist. He has made religious references not just in his public writings but in his personal writings as well. It would do you some good to read them for your self before you jump to a conclusion that he was a Godless man. Before his death he left a note to his oldest surviving daughter that he awaited to se his wife and other daughter when he passes on. Also he talked about a restoration of the true Christian religion in his personal letters, and that his establishment of Virginia's policy on the Freedom of Religion would allow such a restoration. Not to mention he helped one of his slaves become baptized into the Christian religion."

My Policy

2009-11-14T08:42:00.000-08:00

I always used to believe it inappropriate to bring up religion or politics while in mixed company. As of late I have come to a greater revelation on the matter.

I still feel it appropriate to subdue any major religious discussions while amongst others because religion is a very personal thing. What my neighbor believes does not affect me one way or the other. As Jefferson has stated:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Thomas Jefferson

But with politics it does pick my pocket. By how my neighbor votes directly affects my liberties and quality of life. My neighbor will vote-in a tyrant and that tyrant will then lay a grievous tax on me and my family.

Of course there is a time and a place for political discussion and basic human kindness must always prevail in every discussion.

Healthcare Reform

2009-11-08T06:44:00.000-08:00

My thoughs on Congress passing the Healthcare Reform bill. Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin some it up best for me.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

What are you?

2009-11-08T06:42:00.000-08:00

What's on my mind? Just a thought I had the other day. Question: What is the difference between me and a progressive? Answer: I don't feel like I am entitled to your property.

(What is a progressive? Someone who loves big-government, free healthcare, entitlements from cradle to grave) What that person fails to realize is that all of this so-called free-stuff from the state isn't free. Some one has to pay for it. Or the Progressive does realize the truth of the matter but just doesn't care about plundering from their neighbor. And that's what it is. Legal plunder.

I would love to live in a society where my neighbors don't feel like they are entitled to my property. It just isn't right.

Are you serious?

2009-10-27T20:24:00.000-07:00

A reporter recently ask Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to cite Constitutional authority for the proposed health care plan. Her answer is not surprising to me, but I thought I would share it here on my blog.

I guess a discussion we should be having in America is, 'is the Constitution still relevant?' You know my answer to this so I will not go into a long diatribe about that.

But I do have one point to make. Instead of slowly changing the interpretation of the document or ignoring certain parts of it to suite our immediate needs (which has been going on in this country for over a hundred years!), lets just get it out into the open and have a public debate. Do we still want to have the system of government the founders set up or do we not?

It is kind of devious on the part of the progressives to do things so subtly. If it isn't bad to change the form of government we have, then why avoid a public debate? If we want to be like the other socialist nations of the earth, then having the discussion should be good right? When progressive politicians act so sneakily it seems like they either A. don't have enough faith in their political position or B. they know they would lose the debate. And lose they would, the American people do not want to give up their rights and national sovereignty. I know I don't.

To act or to be acted upon

2009-10-25T15:04:00.000-07:00

I was in a meeting today at church and a phrase was used in the discussion. “Act or be acted upon” It made me think of my liberties and place in this world. I asked my self, “Do I want to act or do I want to be acted upon?” To me it joins with the ideas of tyranny versus liberty. Do you want a president or legislator to rule over you in tyranny or do you want the president or legislator to work for you and be free? It is an obvious answer.

To be free and to enjoy liberty a person must act for himself. Liberty requires responsibility, foresight and preparation. When you relinquish your liberty, so you can enjoy temporary blessings from the state, you are being acted upon. You have given up a birthright. Once you give up that birthright you no longer have that liberty. You will be acted upon by the state for the rest of your life. Unfortunately by giving up your birthright to receive temporary goods and services from the state you are allowing your posterity to inherit these chains that they never asked for.

Do you want to act or to be acted upon?

Over hearing a leftist - Too funny

2009-10-24T14:18:00.000-07:00

So as most may already know about me, I am a big fan of Glenn Beck. Below is a section from his show the other day, a caller recounts a conversation she heard between two leftists while they were at the bank. Enjoy!

The Meaning of a Holiday

2008-04-22T21:09:00.000-07:00

After reading the AP story about the Ohio teacher who refused to remove a Bible from the view of the students, the following quote in the article grabbed my attention...

"Freshwater also is accused of handing out Bibles to students and teaching the meaning of Good Friday and Easter." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352207,00.html

First of all the teacher should not be handing out Bibles. I agree with that, in this day and age you just don't do that. But being criticized by teaching the meaning of a holiday, give me a break.

Teaching where a Holiday comes from and what it means to people who celebrate the holiday I would think would be very informative and progressive in our diverse society. Teaching about something and proselytizing are two very different things.

Parents must be teachers of Truth

2008-03-31T20:48:00.000-07:00

Just a few thoughts... After hearing that California recently put a stop to home schooling I was reminded of a principal taught in my Church. that Parents need to be teachers of truth.

With regard to this country and public education I am a little scared for what is on the horizon for our children. Now that I am a father I am even more disheartened.

Without getting into a long winded diatribe I am leery of public education and the modern intelligentsia of our day. You will find in most cases that the teachers who teach your children are liberal socialists to some degree or another, the same is true for our universities and community colleges.

You cannot count on the state to teach your child the truth. They will only teach the child to support the current political system and to be good consumers and taxpayers.

It is the job of you parents (if you care at all) to teach your children what is true. Teach them what the founders of this country had to say, what form of government they intended us to have. They will only get that from you.

The same is true with our pornified popular culture. If you don't want your child to become a cog on the wheel of popular culture then tell them the truth about it. Don't let them become a slave of the popular culture. (On how to do that, that is another posting at some later time but not for here)

Be leery on what daily diet your children get from Hollywood. If your child grows up taking in the daily dose of leftist ideology from Hollywood films they are bound to believe the leftist massage that is in each film. If you want to compete with the messages that are crammed down your children's throat each day, you have to step in a limit the dosage or cut it off altogether until they are old enough to understand the difference. How you do that is your business on not mine.

Parents please break the cycle and teach your children the truth. When your child comes home from school with some crazy anti-American leftist message from his history teacher, teach your child the truth. Educate your self, because unfortunately you will have to compete with the messages that the state administers to your child. But that's only if you care.

Some Quotes

2008-03-31T20:07:00.000-07:00

"To those pesky progressives... Marxism isn't progress."

"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well."
-- Booker T. Washington

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

Liberal failure

2007-08-01T05:41:00.000-07:00

Liberal talk radio hasn't succeeded because Liberals have turned their backs on middle- and working-class white men, who are the main patrons of talk radio.

Gun control controversy

2007-04-25T13:19:00.000-07:00

Political people are using the Virginia Tech shooting as a catalyst to start the the gun debate again.

I have one point. Virginia Tech has a no-weapons on campus policy, still, it did not stop that monster from doing what he did.

Criminals are going to get weapons whether they are legal or not. If a person is determined to kill people he obviously is not in a state of mind to WANT to follow the rules of institutions or laws of the land.

Go ahead ban all the weapons and leave us citizens defenseless

A quote from the web that I read

2007-02-26T10:13:00.000-08:00

Here is a quote that I read from the web. It says exactly how I feel.

["Federal agents arrested Charles Rust-Tierney, the former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, Friday in Arlington for allegedly possessing child pornography."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2900174&page=1

"Just another typical leftist. They destroy children before they are born, in the name of "rights." Then, in the name of "rights," they destroy children after they are born. Another day, another leftist, another child victim."]

"Don't Spank The Child, But It Is Okay To Kill Them"

2007-02-16T05:17:00.000-08:00

I am a little annoyed with California and their attempt to push this law that parents cannot spank their kids under a certain age. Not that I am anxious to start spanking my coming child. But I think those decisions should be the parents'.

Liberals in California have a problem with spanking their children under three, but have no problem with killing children under one.

Does this logic make sense? I didn't think so either.

Since when did Liberals start caring about little children. They seem to be more interested in themselves. THEIR free choice. THEIR body. THEIR philosophy on how to structure a family. It seems like it is all about them and not the children. That is a pretty selfish ideology. I think the children should come first. Let the unborn child have rights too, what about their choice. Let children have the benefit of having a mom and a dad. It is just common sense and how nature has dictated things.

Just some thoughts.

Mormon Apologetics Vol 3: My experience with Anti-Mormons

2006-04-22T10:24:00.000-07:00

I remember dealing with many anti-Mormons when I was on my mission in California. And typically the fruits of those encounters were bad. They had their minds made up, and we had ours made up. I would knock on the doors of people, and every once and a while we would be graciously let in. We thought to our selves, why is this person being so nice to us? Wow, that is very Christian and nice of them, but we soon realized that is was just a ploy, or a tactic to catch us off guard so they could pin us in a corner and attempt to confound us and tear down what we believed.

I remember when a Baptist Minister came to one of the Stake Centers along with a professor from BYU. There were hundreds of Christian and LDS people there. One thing that this Baptist minister said, that has stuck with me to this day is that we are to love our neighbors and not bear false witness. For many anti-Mormons would rehash the same old anti-Mormon material which has already been resolved and rebutted. Most of the traditional anti-Mormon rhetoric was based on lies to begin with. But still the same old garbage is rehearsed. The Baptist minister said it was irresponsible for Christians to do this, and by doing so it would be bearing false witness. At least that is what I got from it.

When dealing with anti-Mormons they would appear to be full of love, but their ultimate desire was to tear down our faith, how Christian is it to tear down some one else’s faith. Often times they would even lie about what we supposedly believed in order to make their points. I did not think that that was very Christian of them, if they really loved me, then why would they tell lies, and act very hostile towards me. They had a form of godliness but they denied the power thereof. I certainly did not feel very loved.

One thing I learned about anti-Mormons, is that they paint a pretty picture and try to have the best intentions that they are doing it for the Lord, but when it comes down to it, they are trying to turn people away from their beliefs and often times using what ever means to do it. There is nothing wrong with testifying to a non-believer or to do missionary work, if that is what a Christian wants to do towards the Mormons, then have at it. All I ask is that you be honorable in your approach, not to be deceptive and bringing false information, and that your love be true and not empty.

I remember a sermon or talk I heard at Church. The point of the talk was, “it does not matter if you are right, what matters most is that you show love.” An anti-Mormon might feel so justified and feel so right about what they are trying to do, but in the long run, what matters most is that you show love. And usually you can tell how spiritually mature that person is by how they show love. When I became a man I put away childish things Paul says, and the most important things to follow and strive for are Faith, Hope and Charity, the greatest of these is Charity. Christ said the greatest commandments are to Love God and love our neighbor. Every other commandment is an appendage to those two. It does not matter if you are right, what matters most is that you show love.

Faith is knowing, Hope is expecting and Charity is how you are going to get there. An anti-Mormon can go ahead and do what they think is right, so long as these three pillars faith hope and charity are their guiding light. If they are, then they wouldn’t want to use anti-Mormon rhetoric, they wouldn’t have to use false information to make their points, they would preach Jesus and the Bible and leave it at that. Not to go out of their way to tear down the LDS Church. If that Christian’s belief is sure and steadfast then all they would ever need is thier testimony and God’s Word.

In my experience as being a missionary I was never trained or instructed to tear down the beliefs of others. If a contentious situation arose then we would try and leave, if they persecute you in one town flee to another Christ says. Sometimes this was hard to do because we were trapped. In my immaturity I Bible bashed a few times, but since then I have tried to be respectful of others. Our mission was to find people who had a real desire to learn about the Gospel not to tear down the faiths of those who resisted our words.

In closing I just want to share my testimony. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth. There are many other churches in this world that have truth in them; righteous “principals” are not confined only to the LDS Church. Righteous “principals” are as eternal as math; they can be accessed by anyone.

But what this Church has that no other church has are the “ordinances”, the “ordinances” of salvation can only be accessed through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And it is because we have authority from our Eternal Father in Heaven through His Son Jesus Christ.

Quote

2006-04-20T05:45:00.000-07:00

Making reference to scholars and men and their arrogance that they think they know everything:

"Modern man is a self-certified genius who, having pinned the blue ribbon on his own lapel, proceeds to hand out all other awards, according as the various candidates are more or less like him."

-Hugh W Nibley

Church and State vol. 2: The Government and the Ten Commandments

2005-09-17T15:57:00.000-07:00

Lately there has been much buzz about the "Ten Commandments" and the government. Should the courts be allowed to display the Ten Commandments on government property or not?

Personally I am all in favor for displaying the Ten Commandments on government property. No not because I am a conservative Christian, that would be too easy. I support it on the basis of what Moses and the Tablets represent. They are not promoting any religion in particular, they are promoting an ideal. They represent the morals and laws of this land. Moses and the Ten Commandments are not exclusive to one sect, they are a symbol of what this country stands for.

God's chosen people were in bondage under a tyrannical government. They were oppressed for 400 years. Finally the Lord sent them a deliverer to free them from their oppressors. After much faith, bloodshed and affliction, they became a free people. And after they became free, their God gave them laws, laws which would keep them on a steady course of progression. These laws formed their values and government. The story of Moses and the Israelites are an appropriate symbol for this country and it's laws.

The trials and bloodshed our founders had to endure to become a free nation parallel that of the Israelites and their struggle. And after becoming free, they developed the written law, to bind down man from oppressing another and to keep this country on a steady path of progression.

Moses and the Ten Commandments are a symbol for how this country came to be. Let us all have respect and reverence for what our forefathers went through. Let's not get caught up in petty bickering over it. The aithiest and the muslim and the buddist, you are welcome in this land, this country is for all of us, but let us all have respect for what this country stands for and how it came to be. For if it were not for the faith of our founders, then we would not be here today. The Commendments are a symbol for heritage, not propaganda for proselytizing.

Mormon Apologetics vol. 2: Hurt feelings?

2005-09-11T19:54:00.000-07:00

Q: I knew a Mormon once and they weren’t very nice to me. How can you boast that your church is true if the behavior of its members don’t reflect what your church claims to teach?

A: Being a convert and having had the opportunity to serve a mission, I have run into this dilemma many times

You will find a bad apple in every barrel. I often said that to people whom had this problem. You will find that in every religion there is somebody who is going to be a jerk or someone who will rub you the wrong way. Do the actions of one or more members of a church dictate what the church teaches? Of course not. Get over it! We’re human! We’re imperfect. And no matter how hard we try; we are still going to screw things up! I have met many members of my own faith who rubbed me the wrong way, but does that keep me from believing what my Church teaches? No. I have often times opened my own big fat mouth and have hurt others. Was it because my Church told me to? Or does that mean my Church’s teachings aren’t valid. No. It just means that I am a work in progress and that I have a long way to go and I have a lot of repenting to do.

Our Church teaches us to love our Father in Heaven and also to love our neighbors, even our enemies. If I have offended anyone in the past, and I know I have, please forgive me.

In the New Testament we read of Paul the Apostle when he was speaking with Barnabas in Acts 15:36-41. Paul said unto Barnabas that they should go and visit all the cities that they preached at to "see how they do." "Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark." "But Paul thought it not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work." "And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other." Here we see that even amongst the leaders of the New Testament Church that they had "contentions." Paul, who gave us a beautiful discourse on Charity and patience in 1st Corinthians, still had "contentions" with his fellow disciples. Does that mean just because Paul could not get along with another disciple, that the New Testament and all it’s teachings are a fraud?

After my own family expressed to me that certain members of my faith offended them, I came across a talk that was given by one of my Church leaders. The title of the talk was "The Doctrine of Inclusion." The main point of the discourse was to impress upon the minds of the members that they should not exclude people because they aren’t Mormon. When an LDS family is having an activity or something to that effect, they should always be inclusive with their neighbors and not exclude them because they do not share the same beliefs. Yes there are some LDS people out there who claim to adhere to the teachings of the Church, but during the other six days of the week they act quite the opposite.

While I was serving my mission in southern California, I came across many Christians who were quite vile to me. They said and did some of the meanest things to us missionaries. But did that make all Christians bad? Certainly not. I met many Christians who were quite friendly.

People are always going to hurt each other’s feelings, this is apart of life. How we react to being offended is where we have to practice some wisdom and self-control. Some oppose the LDS Church based on bad experiences they had with its members. What is that saying about the offended person? That they probably have a little growing up to do. But for anyone else who was offended that has no ax to grind against the LDS Church I offer my apologies and ask that you be patient with us.

Therefore I argue that you should not judge the LDS Church by the actions of a select few. You will find bad apples in every barrel and if you are going out of your way to find the bad apples, you will. The Church is not a place for perfect people; it is a hospital for imperfect people. If there were perfect people here on earth then we would have no need for Church. The hand goes both ways. You need to take things with a grain of salt when it comes to being around other people, especially religious people. You know, if you actually get to know us we’re good people just like you. We have the same problems and trials that you go through, so let’s just try and get a long. A quote I often heard from Mormons, "The Church is true, but the people aren’t."