...on being hung separately

I was irked that I even felt I needed to go to the Washington State caucus today.  The Republicans inexplicably have failed to unify around the only--and obviously only--candidate that has a chance to beat Obama in November.  They've wrung their hands and hopped form one not-Romney option to another, putting their bigotry on display while dragging the contest out, weakening Romney and forcing him to spend heavily and unnecessarily to eek out victories in states that he should take easily.

So Saturday morning I went to caucus with my precinct. Arrived and was told that the online info was wrong and I'd have to go to another location across town.  Got there and the one person volunteer staff was totally overwhelmed and unorganized.  It took an hour just to get started.  Meanwhile, a lively discussion had started among some of the caucus goers as to how Obama was obviously not an American citizen and his birth certificate was a sham.  Yep, Ron Paul T-shirts.  Not surprising.  Finally somebody had enough sense to interject that that argument was done.  Had failed.  Was actually hurting the cause.  Oh no, it's a new election, came the retort, time to march it out again.  At this point I just wanted a private place to puke and then get out of there.

Those for Paul were deep into their fantasy, insisting that polls clearly showed he could beat Obama, that all other candidates wanted to destroy the constitution and that the rest of American would embrace Paul if not for the media conspiracy to black ball him.  The Santorum supporters marched out the usual garbage about Romney--the same stuff they marched out when they were Bachman supporters, then Cain supporters, then Perry supporters, then Gingrich supporters, then...good gravy, is Santorum still in the race?  Well then he's our man!!!  Woo-hoo!  Santorum in 2012!  Go anti-birth control guy!

Finally the Romney supporters got a chance to speak in our caucus, and most endorsed their choice by saying that they didn't like him but thought that he had the best chance to win.  The caucus chairperson got up and said that she likes Paul, but was going with Romney and that we should do the same and set aside the distasteful fact that he's a Mormon.  Well, bigotry aside, at least somebody is serious about winning.

What a truly pathetic display.  After nearly three hours (it should have taken 10 minutes) I was glad to get out of there and firmly convinced of a few things:

First, Republicans truly and richly deserve to have Barack Obama as their president for another four years.

Second, when Obama is re-elected (and he will be) they'll blame Romney (yes, he will be the nominee), but it will absolutely be their own fault.  They wouldn't hang together, so they'll be hung separately. Show me a Ron Paul supporter, and I'll show you somebody who doesn't want to win badly enough.

Third, there is no ideological purity in the Republican party.  They're hypocrites!  I had them pegged as the party of Sharron Angle--willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory rather than abandoning principle.  But when I saw them trample principle and ethics in their headlong rush to embrace Newt "the man whore" Gingrich in South Carolin, I knew the truth.  Of course they abandoned him a month later in favor of Santorum, but not because of his adultery or say-anything lobbyist work.

Fourth, Republicans say they want liberals to change their minds about things like abortion.  But when somebody like Romney does change his mind, they reject it as a lie.

Finally, I have no interest in becoming a registered republican.  I could go for the idealogically pure party or the winning party, but the Republicans are the opposite in both counts.  Their ideals are a  matter of convenience AND they excel at losing.

...on being a churchgoing zombie (part 1)

"The Lord could get along very well without me and He lost nothing by my falling out of the ranks; But O what have I lost?!"  -Thomas B. Marsh

I was deeply saddened yesterday when my wife told me that some friends from our time in Texas had just announced via Facebook that they have left the church. This is a tragedy (in the most Greek sense of the word) involving families and children, so it's not something that I take lightly or wish to mock. This then will be less of a rant than an opportunity for me to express my thoughts and make my case for what some few at least must perceive as my poorly thought-out membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Any time someone you know leaves the church, it's jarring. I get a sick feeling inside and can't stop thinking about it (thus this post). But announcing your exit in a ubber-public forum like Facebook is problematic. In this case, our disaffected friends offered to answer any questions that others might have, then posted a link to an article that they said fairly captured their reasons for leaving.

But to my friends in Texas, I would say, what questions can I really ask? If I disapprove and ask challenging questions, I not only force you to defend your position (thus becoming further entrenched in it) but provide you the opportunity to publicly (if unintentionally) proselytize against the church.

I read through the article you had linked to and it was the standard roll call of complaints against the church by the disaffected: The church is not progressive, too secretive, down on women, down on gays, down on dissenting opinion, anti-science, anti-social, etc. Not a single nuanced argument, which truly surprised me. I thought, Seriously? You left the church because of that? No, you're not the only ones, but that's a lemming argument. 

As I think about it, I wonder what you must think of me. You must think that I'm an auto pilot member of the church, a creature of habit, attending church without thinking too deeply about it, animated solely by "the traditions of [my] fathers," largely unaware of the bigger picture, having never grappled with the substantial issues with which you've grappled. You must, in short, think that I'm a churchgoing zombie. Or just not very smart. I couldn't have seriously and intelligently thought about the things you've thought about. Couldn't have truly and fairly considered them. Couldn't have ask the tough questions. Because if I had, I must have arrived at the same inescapable, painful conclusions as you.

Or perhaps you think that I have a higher threshold than you for what you perceive to be the obvious problems in the church--that I'm a bottom feeder, willing and able to sit in the dirty bathwater of Mormonism while you take the high road of principal?

Oh no, you say, you don't think that! You certainly don't think I'm stupid, and if the church works for me then that's great. For me. Except that it's not. It can't be. Because if an intelligent, principled adult has diligently considered the same evidence and arrived at a completely different conclusion and subsequent course of action, then your departure is, at best, premature.

For your decision to be right, I don't have to be a bad person. Nor do I have to be mentally deficient or even delusional. But is sure would help your cause if I were wrong.  For whatever reason. We can't both be right; and if I'm right, then there is a way forward for you in the church.

In my experience, people who leave the church do so because they've taken offense with other people in the church. They seldom see it that way. They maintain that they disagree on principal with a doctrine, policy or program.  But in reality they disagree with one or more of the people in the church who are attempting to interpret a doctrine, implement a policy or teach a principal.  Ironically, this is at its heart the same flawed but superficially effective method employed by the anti-religion, atheist movement: They take what they perceive as God's standard, measure it against the actions of religious mortals, then present the delta as proof of everything from hypocrisy to intentional malfeasance. Mere mortals always falls short of God's standard.  Case closed.

Or is it?  So my BYU professor tells me to stop reading scientific journals. So what? Am I seriously willing to abandon my testimony and membership in the church for him? What if he told me that science was awesome and I should learn more about it? Would I build my testimony on that?  Of course not.  When I was a teenager, my Stake President told us (from the podium) that the second coming would happen between 1996 and 2004.  Well, he was wrong.  And my testimony is just fine.  And so is his.  

The point I'm trying to make is that we're drawing the proverbial battle lines far from the true battle front here. Activity in the church is not a matter of perception, or your pain threshold vs. mine, or what this leader said, or how that program appears to exclude a group of people, or how a certain policy is behind the times.

The true measure and foundation of membership is testimony through revelation--everything else assumes a subsequent position of relevancy.

Is the Book of Mormon true? How do you know? Do you know because your mother or your bishop told you? No, you know the Book of Mormon is true because, like me, you read it, thought carefully about it, believed it, then prayed sincerely and asked God if it was true. And, like me, you received an answer. That happened. You can choose to deny that it happened, or rationalize why it wasn't really an answer from God, but that is a completely and remotely different issue than the church's position on marriage or whether your Sunday school teacher believes that the earth is six thousand years old.

It is both possible and of paramount importance to gain a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel. That simple testimony becomes the foundation and context through which all other issues are viewed. You may not know all the answers--I certainly don't--but you know that the church is fundamentally true. And you proceed from there.

...on being in a state of emergency

As it does once every few years, it's snowing in Seattle, which can only mean one thing: The end of the world in a most violent and cruel fashion!!!  Has the mayor resigned yet?  No, but today, a day after being overwhelmed with a whopping two inches of snow in Seattle and Bellevue--two inches I say!!!--Gov. Chris Gregoire issued a State of Emergency. 

They got 4.3 inches at SeaTac, enough to close all three runways. Do you know what they call a day in January where you get 4.3 inches of snow in Idaho, where I'm from? Tuesday. Unless it happens on another day of the week.

The governor's declaration means she may mobilize the National Guard, and I for one hope she does.  After all, as King5 Weather reports in a large, bold headline, we're experienceing "Sub-Freezing Temperatures!"  That means below 32 degrees, for those of you keeping score.  They say temps may dip into the teens!  Holy taco!  The teens, people!  The TEENS!!!  Do you know what they call a day in January with temperatures in the teens in Idaho?  Tuesday.  Wednesday.  Thursday.  Friday.  Saturday.  Sunday.  Oh, and Monday.

The local media has hyped this storm as the worst since the 1930s--12 inches of white death!  And by 12 inches they mean two.  So yesterday was D-day and my drive into work was awesome--no cars. And I had the office to myself. Alfred Hitchcock was a visionary when he said, "There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it."

We got stuck beind another driver on the only road out of our community yesterday.  He was stuck on a short incline that leads to the main road.  About half way up, he gunned the engine and spun his tires.  That didn't get him anywhere, so he gunned the engine and spun his tires again.  Nothing.  OK, so he gunned the engine and spun his tires.  Still nothing.  So he gunned his engine and spun his tires.  Nada.  Arighty, so he gunned his engine and spun his tires.  Well, this went on for ten minutes until there was obviously only one thing for him to do.  So he gunned his engine and spun his tires.  Finally, he stepped out of his car with a stunned look on his face, seemingly shocked that doing the same thing over and over again had produced the same result over an over again.  He looked at the ground in front of his car (yes, that white stuff...that's snow).  He was a grown adult, capable of higher reason.  He studied the situation, then got back in his car and...well, you know what he did.  Thankfully, he finally slid off to the side and stopped long enough for us to drive around him (in our Mazda5 filled with kids) to the top of the incline and be on our way.

So the truth of the matter is that the snow is not the problem.  Nor is the temperature or the hills or any of the other tempting and convienient excuses that Seattlites like to use in apocalyptic times like these.  And I would argue that its not even a matter of snow driving skill.  Those can be learned quickly enough by anybody who's observant and calm enlough to learn.  The real enemy, as they say, is us.  At least those of us whose brains shut down and go into panic mode at the first mention of snow in the forecast.

...on being groped with politically correct sensativity

The Transportation Safety Administration's (TSA) decision to step-up airport screening measures has ignited the short fuse of public discontent and outrage. Many find the choice between a see-through scan or having their privates groped by a TSA agent unsavory and unsatisfactory. Stories and video footage are all over the web, the flames being fanned ever higher by the likes of Matt Drudge. People are being arrested for refusing to be aggressively patted down, children are be strip searched, and TSA agents are being paid to do things that would otherwise land them in jail for sexual assault. And no surprise, the law suites are already being filed.

If this were the only or best way to ensure the safety of American citizens from possible terrorist attacks, I'd say go ahead and grope me. Scan me. Do what you need to do for the greater good. But the sad fact of the matter is that groping and scanning are not the only or best option. Profiling is (and everybody knows it).

Until now, the question was whether we were going to profile or opt for a little less security. We chose the latter in the name of sensitivity and political correctness. Fine. I disagree, but I get it. But now the government has decided that having TSA agents grope citizens (and arrest them if they refuse the groping!) and take naked pictures of them is better than profiling? Are you kidding me? When did politic correctness become so overtly incorrect? Is there an ACLU wing-nut out there who thinks that what is going on at our nation's airports is still better than profiling?

The notion that we shouldn't profile is just absurd and stupid. The equation is simple: Not profiling = random. And we're not at war with random people. We're not at war with every tenth passenger getting on a plane. We're at war with radical islamists! It's so dirt simple a five year old could see it and yet we refuse to make intelligent decisions based on a clear historic pattern. And why? It used to be because we didn't want to offend or appear to be insensitive. Safe to say, that's clearly not the reason anymore!

But at least we're being insensitive and offensive to everybody, right? No discrimination here.

We need to discriminate. I know that's inconvenient right now if you're a young Muslim man with ties to a country on a terror watch list, but I'd like to think that the average Muslim's top priority when they get on an airplane is the same as mine--to live through the flight. Look, if there were a clear recent history of white, American, Mormon men blowing up planes, I'd not only tolerate the TSA profiling me, I'd expect it. In fact, I'd demand it!

At the end of the day, I guess I prefer sane, rational inconvenience to blind stupidity.

...on being non-confrontational

"If you are planning on loading up the station wagon and taking the kids to Disneyland, the federal government doesn't advise going through Arizona - it's too dangerous and they can't protect you. These signs say to American citizens, the federal government has ceded this area to the drug cartels. Don't come here; we can't protect you."
- Texas Representative Ted Poe

The BLM no doubt had good intentions when they posted signs along a major interstate in Arizona, more than 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The signs warn travelers the area is unsafe because of "armed criminals" and "drug and human" smugglers moving through the area.

I suppose warnings are appreciated, but they beg several questions. First and foremost, why are there armed foreign criminals and smugglers roaming around in the United States? And what is the government going to do about the problem besides put up a bunch of signs? Don't we have federal immigration laws that address this very problem and which the president and federal government are legally and constitutionally bound to enforce?

These are all good questions that deserve and urgently need answers. There's another, though, that illuminates the real intent of the federal government when it comes to enforcing federal immigration laws (not to mention myriad criminal laws) in places like Arizona. I'll preface it by pointing out that the BLM signs instruct citizens not to "confront" any foreign criminals, traffickers and smugglers they encounter, but to call 911. Sounds sensible, right? Let the professionals take care of the situation.

But where does your call go when you dial 911? Does it go to the White House? To Secretary Napolitano's cell phone? To the FBI? Of course not--it goes to local law enforcement. That makes sense, except for the fact that the Obama administration just sued the State of Arizona for trying have state and local police enforce federal immigration laws.

Now to be fair, if a Mexican drug runner is brazenly chasing you down the highway, state and local police officers will be able to help you and apprehend the bad guys. But in most cases the rules of the game go something like this: If you encounter drug or human smugglers in Arizona do not confront them. Instead, call 911 for local police who cannot confront them because they're legally prohibited from doing so by the federal government who will not confront them.

Do Not, Cannot and Will Not. Sounds like a Jim Carey movie. Maybe the BLM had better order some more of those signs. And maybe a few white flags while their at it.

...on being guilty by association

Standards are good. Or at least common. Even the claim that, "I have no standards" is a standard. We call them rules, laws, codes, ethics, and many other names, but standards are as ubiquitous as man. They're also, by their very nature, exclusive and divisive.

Setting a standard is analogous to drawing a line in the sand. No problem, unless the obvious majority of people on the far side of that line are from a single group that's different than the people on the near side of the line. When standards come in conflict with homogeneity, however innocently, there will be fireworks.

Take immigration for example. The United States, Canada and Mexico all have challenges related foreign nationals illegally entering their country. But generally only in the U.S. has the idea of opposing illegal immigration become associated with racism. The explanation is simple: In Mexico, it's Hispanics crossing into another Hispanic country. In Canada, it's a heterogeneous collection of people from around the world entering. But in the U.S., it's primarily Hispanics entering a country of WASPs--the division falls along racial lines. A Mexican, a Canadian and an American may each oppose illegal immigration for purely principled reasons, but only the American can and will be labeled a racist.

Gay marriage provides another example. From the Judeo-Christian perspective, marriage is ordained of God and is a covenant between a man, a woman and their God. Generally speaking, there was never any visible person or group to exclude. But with the rise in visibility and social acceptance of homosexuality, that has changed. Now there is a homogeneous group being excluded by the age-old standard. And since the line in the sand divides according to sexual orientation, 'bigot' and 'homophobe' are the natural labels of choice for the disenfranchised. Can one oppose broadening the definition and scope of marriage on purely principled grounds because they believe there is a sacred standard? Technically yes, but in reality proponents of legislation seeking to uphold traditional marriage are aggressively labeled as backward, bigoted homophobes.

In these and other cases, it's guilt by association. Are some of those associated also guilty? Certainly, there are racists, homophobes and haters of all stripes in this world. But there are also many good, principled individuals to whom things like sexual preference and race are coincidental to the point.

But no matter. If the standard that you keep happens to exclude a homogeneous group that is in some way different than you, then principles are not up for discussion. Whether you ever intended to engage in conflict is irrelevant--the war will be taken to you. And in truly ironic fashion, you will be attacked and labeled by righteously indignant victims of labeling and attacks.

...on being discriminatory

Discrimination has a bad connotation these days, but I think it's fair to say that, admit it or not, we all discriminate in one way or another. So, since abstinence from discrimination isn't a realistic expectation, here are some guidelines for safe discrimination in modern-day America.

When it comes to immigration, discrimination, no matter how principled, is very bad and basically makes you a racist. Legal vs. illegal immigration is irrelevant, as are federal immigration laws.

When it comes to affirmative action, discrimination is both good and proper. Race, ethnicity and gender must be considered. State police officers may not be able to ask certain questions based on skin tone, but the departments for which they work hire and promote based on this very criteria.

When it comes to marriage, discrimination is bad. One must not discriminate based on sexual preference because that's bigotry.

On the other hand, when it comes to judicial appointments, discrimination is highly desirable. So adding your voice to the throng of people outraged that we have no openly gay justice on the supreme court would be politically correct.

When it comes to airport security, discrimination is bad. Statistics be damned, profiling is not what this country is about!

Unless you're talking about our progressive tax code, in which case discrimination is a legislative mandate. The rich must be identified and made to pay a disproportionate share of their earnings. To do otherwise would be discriminating against the poor.

...on being a constituent

“If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side.” -Orson Scott Card

Much has been made in recent days of the attempt in the senate to block a further extension of unemployment benefits (it finally passed today BTW). Obama, of course, has demonized the republicans and pitted them against the unemployed who "just want a job."

The president claims the unemployed need this extension, but he and his party need it far worse. Obama's interests, and the interests of the democrats, lie in getting the maximum number of people onto the government dole prior to the upcoming elections...and keeping them there for as long as possible.

The idea is simple: You don't bite the hand that feeds you. To the contrary, you vote for it.

Ideally, you get people to vote for you by fixing problems like sky-high unemployment. But if you suck at fixing problems (the unemployment rate is still above 9.5% and the real unemployment rate is much higher) and your interests lie elsewhere, then your best bet is to give out free money--to literally buy votes--and create an ongoing dependency on the government. The Obama administration is doing just that, basically saying, "Don't worry about a job--you don't need one. You need us! We'll give you money. You don't even have to work for it--it's free! We'll be your daddy and take care of you. Now, get out there and vote for your daddy."

That sounds cynical and harsh, but it's not blindly cynical and harsh. In late 2008, when my former company cut its staff by 50%, I found myself unemployed and was grateful to have unemployment insurance for the few months it took me to find a new job. Back then (in the heart of the recession) you were eligible for 6 months of unemployment benefits, which was generous but not too generous. The looming cut-off certainly helped focus and intensify my job search. Then benefits were extended. Then extended again. And again. They're up to two years now (do you really need two years to find a job?) and the president wants more.

Imagine being the hand that feeds 9.5% of the voting population! Imagine being the person who gives them their money every month--who pays for their mortgage and car! Think of it: A constituency of the unemployed! And the worse you do your job, the bigger this constituency gets. Genius!

And government handouts aren't limited to unemployment benefits. Since Obama took office, the percentage of Americans who don't pay taxes has gone from 40% to 49%. And analysts predict it could go as high as 60%. Forget the fact that half of all Americans currently bear the entire, sky-rocketing tax burden and think of the political ramifications of having 60% of voting Americans not having to pay taxes. That's not just a constituency, it's a guaranteed election-winning super majority.

It's going to cost money, of course. Lots of money! And for a nation who's already $13 trillion in debt, it's money we simply don't have and can't afford. But massive deficit spending has yet to phase the Obama administration--after all, this just might be the best political strategy tax revenues and borrowed Chinese money can buy. And besides, it's Bush's fault that Obama has to dig out of this mess by passing a trillion dollar universal health care...I mean...um...er...

...on being disingenuous

This week renowned dimwit and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder filed suite against the state of Arizona for crafting a state immigration law that seeks to enforce federal immigration law (mind you, Arizona has yet to implement the new law over which they are being sued). The Arizona law, he says, "crossed a constitutional line" by "hampering the authority of the administration of President Barack Obama to enforce national immigration policy."

Two comments:

First, when did Eric flippin' Holder become a constitutionalist? Holder, his party, the President who appointed him and the justices they nominate view the constitution as an antiquated stumbling block to progressive government...until it suites their needs, I guess.

Second, why on earth would a man and an administration that overtly refuses to "enforce national immigration policy" care about its authority to do so? Authority is meaningless without action (or the will/intent to act). The Arizona law is nothing less than a product of federal immigration law perpetually unenforced. If federal immigration law were enforced in any meaningful way, the Arizona law would not exist. Period. It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with a complete and willful dereliction of constitutional duties on the part of this and previous administrations in order to curry the favor of latino voters.

"Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility," Holder recently opined in defense of his law suite. Indeed, Mr. Attorney General, indeed. But then so is enforcing immigration law. What gives you the right to set laws but not enforce them? Is the constitution nothing more than a buffet to you? Let me know when you or anybody else in Washington conjures-up the will to enforce immigration policy--to do your job--and I'll consider giving a rat's patooty about your hampered authority.

In the meantime, chew on this: According to recent opinion surveys, 60% of Americans, and over 70% of Arizonans, support the new Arizona immigration law. Seems like doing your job would not only be constitutional but very popular. But what do I know? I'm just one of the 60% of "misguided" Americans who'll be voting your party out of office in a few months.

...on being too big to succeed

"Obama's philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America--confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable." -Peggy Noonan

It's common knowledge, and no doubt in school text books by now, that the government's inept response to hurricane Katrina was Bush's fault. But now, just a few years later, the coast of Louisiana is being hammered again, this time with oil spilling from an undersea well. Thank goodness we've got a competent, compassionate president at the wheel this time around, right? Because that's all we need. Right? The problem last time was the president and we fixed that problem.

And yet after 40 days oil is still spewing into the Gulf of Mexico at an alarming rate. Granted, not all 40 of those days were spent trying to fix the problem. In fact, the first few weeks were dedicated to distancing the current administration from BP and the spill. But with political pressure (the only kind that really counts) mounting, the President is finally addressing the spill and--if it doesn't interfere too much with his upcoming second vacation since the oil spill--will actually go visit the coast of Louisiana and inspect the damage. Unfortunately, the government which Mr. Obama heads is not capable of fixing the problem--they'll have to continue to rely on BP for that.

But rather than dwell on President Obama's inexplicably poor handling of this environmental disaster (which has been nothing if not on par with Bush's handling of Katrina) let's focus on the true lesson here: The government can't take care of us. And the bigger the government get's the less capable it becomes of taking care of anything or anybody.

Those who favor big government (and big taxes to pay for it) do so because they believe that the government can and will take care of them fairly and effectively. But that premise is misguided and incorrect on two levels. First, the government can't physically do the job. The bigger and more bureaucratic it gets, the more layers you place in the already inefficient bureaucracy, the harder it falls. Today, 40 days into an environmental catastrophe, the U.S. government will watch from the side lines as a London-based oil company attempts to plug the underwater oil leak with tires and golf balls. Um...wow..need I say more?

Second, the government only acts in the best interest of its citizens when the best interest of its citizens aligns with the political interests of those in the government. In other words, until we the people get righteously pissed-off and threaten their political futures, politicians are going to continue serving the interests of the special interest groups who give them money.

This isn't a partisan rant. To the contrary, it's a rant against all those who believe that governmental incompetence and gross inefficiency are a product of party. It's a rant against big, expensive, inefficient and increasingly ineffective government. And it's a rant against anybody who believes that it's a good idea to spend trillions of dollars that we don't have to put the government--the one that's on board with the plan to pour golf balls and old tires onto an 40 day old, underwater oil leak because that's the best plan they've got--in charge of health care, the environment, banking, business, etc.

...on being profiled

"There has to be reasonable suspicion and probable cause. It's very clear. It's federal law that if you're an immigrant here you carry your documentation with you. And if you don't have it and you are arrested, then you will have to prove that you are here legally. And if you're not, then you will be deported." -Jen Brewer, Governor of Arizona

In the last week, there has been an uproar over a tough illegal immigration law passed in Arizona. Protest and rallies are in the works and will no doubt be enormous and well covered by the media.

There has been no uproar and scant media attention for the broken U.S. border with Mexico, the mass illegal immigration or the associated violence. Presidents past and present have the clear-cut legal obligation to secure the border and have failed to do so. Politicians running for federal office always give immigration reform lip service on the campaign trail, but none of them do anything about it once they get into office. So, ignored for decades by both parties, Arizona took it upon themselves to address their problem.

The wave of criticism and accusations of racial profiling seem to be centered on a portion of the Arizona legislation that allows law enforcement officers to ask for documentation. Critics envision police officers approaching people on street corners and, based solely on their skin color, demanding that they show identification to prove their legality. Supporters of the legislation say it's clear that racial profiling is illegal and it won't happen as a result of this legislation--that the governor has issued an executive order to ensure that it does not.

Naturally, I have a few observations on the matter:

First, it seems that the vast majority of the critics live in the peanut gallery rather than along the border.

Second, a federal law was just passed requiring U.S. citizens to show proof of health insurance to the IRS (now that Obamacare is law). I also have to fill-out information for the U.S. Census this year--if I don't answer all of the questions I will be subject to a stiff fine and possible prosecution. So, a foreign national in the United States illegally can't be asked for identification while being arrested, but as a U.S. citizen, having committed no crime whatsoever, I have to prove that I'm insured and answer questions relative to my identity? Or face prosecution? Is that how our country works now?

The next thing you know, they'll be requiring me to prove that I have a right to drive a car! That's right, the burden will be on me! Any time I break a traffic law in my car, law enforcement officers will be able to pull me over and demand that I produce a drivers license. Outrageous!

Third, if the current administration (or any politician for that matter) seriously believes that Arizona's new immigration law is "misguided", they are more than welcome to SECURE THE BORDERS and ENFORCE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS so that states don't have to take matters into their own hands. And if they don't like federal immigration laws, they're welcome to change those laws and enforce the new ones.

But I have absolutely no time for people in far-removed ivory towers who deride as racist those on the front lines of the immigration problem. No time for people who's constitutional mandate it is to secure our borders and protect our citizenry, who not only don't do their job, but take it upon themselves to criticize those who step up and do the job for them. No time for hypocrites who champion the law when it suites their fancy (civil rights laws) and ignore the law when it does not (federal immigration law). No time for progressive thinkers who would heap countless laws and regulations on U.S. citizens, but who become outraged at the very suggestion that existing laws be applied to illegal immigrants. And no time for people who pontificate on ethics and civil rights for the sole purpose of political gain.

...on being moral

In the Fall 2009 General Conference, Elder D. Todd Christofferson said this about moral discipline, societal decay and the rule of law:

"The societies in which many of us live have for more than a generation failed to foster moral discipline. They have taught that truth is relative and that everyone decides for himself or herself what is right. Concepts such as sin and wrong have been condemned as 'value judgments.' As the Lord describes it, 'Every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god' (D&C 1:16).

"As a consequence, self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments. One columnist observed that 'gentlemanly behavior [for example, once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior...Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.'

"In most of the world, we have been experiencing an extended and devastating economic recession. It was brought on by multiple causes, but one of the major causes was widespread dishonest and unethical conduct, particularly in the U.S. housing and financial markets. Reactions have focused on enacting more and stronger regulation. Perhaps that may dissuade some from unprincipled conduct, but others will simply get more creative in their circumvention. There could never be enough rules so finely crafted as to anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, enforcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone. In the memorable phrase of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, 'We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar.'

"In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay. Societies will struggle in vain to establish the common good until sin is denounced as sin and moral discipline takes its place in the pantheon of civic virtues."

...on being able to imagine

When it comes to the national debt, the numbers are so big that it's hard to imagine. We know that we're adding about 1.5 trillion dollars to the national debt each year. But what does that mean? How big is a trillion dollars?

Here's a new way to think of it:

"A million seconds takes about 12 days to elapse; a trillion seconds takes over 31,000 years." -Rick Berman, Executive Director, Defeat The Debt

...on being ignored

Political ineptitude is expected, but it's rare that a politician, much less a party of them, knowingly and purposely defies the will of an angry electorate who will almost certainly vote them out of office for doing so. And yet we now have Obamacare.

Here are a few thoughts on this topic.

It is good to make health care available to every citizen who wants and needs it, but now you have to pay for it. And if anybody thinks that the Democrats are really going to cut that $500,000,000,000 from Medicare, you need to put down the joint and pick-up a history book. It's not going to happen. They'll back down and end up throwing that half Trillion dollars onto the already mammoth national debt.

How about we get the economy going again first? How about you listen to the people screaming, "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!!!" How about you consider the 10% unemployment rate before you jack-up taxes to pay for this new, colossal entitlement?

It is good to make health care available to every citizen who wants and needs it. It's another thing entirely to force everybody--especially those who neither need nor want it--to buy health care. Ah, you say, but you never know when you'll need it, accidents happen. What if something happened to Mr. Healthy Uninsured guy?

Oh please! Don't feign concern for the young, healthy and uninsured. It's not their well being that you and the government are after, it's their money. Plain and simple. Statistically nothing will happen to Mr. Healthy Uninsured guy. That's how Obamacare works--the healthy people pay for unhealthy ones. The whole ponzie scheme is based on this statistic holding true. Why else would they insist that everybody buy?

The massive loop-hole in all this--the one that was somehow missed in 2,000 pages of legislation--is this: I'm not going to buy health insurance. What? You'll fine me? Great, I'll pay the fine because THE FINE IS LESS THAN THE INSURANCE. And if I do get into an accident or discover I have cancer I'll get insurance after the fact because insurance companies can no longer deny me for pre-existing conditions. Thanks Obama!



So Obama is going to begin taxing people now (2010) to pay for his plan through 2020. But the entitlement/benefits part won't kick in until 2014. So we're going to be taxed for ten years to pay for six years. OK, but if it takes ten years of taxes to pay for six years of entitlements, how do we pay for the next ten years? This is a ponzie scheme--if you or I tried it we'd be thrown in jail along side Bernie Madoff. But the government legislates this crap and it's not only OK, it's celebrated in the national media.

It's a mess. And epic mess. Obama, Pelosi and Reid bought what they couldn't afford and threw it on the national charge card, despite the fact that the clear majority of Americans were opposed. But what's done is done. And when what's done is a government-run entitlement, there is no going back. It's done.

Still, I can't even tell you how much I'm looking forward to voting in November. I can hardly wait!

...on being capable

Of the many topics on which I disagree with the current administration, none is so mystifying as Attorney General Eric Holder's insistence that the 9/11 mastermind and several other terrorists (formerly held at Guantanamo Bay) be tried in U.S. civilian court.

His justification for this seemingly toxic political maneuver is elusive. He has repeatedly asserted that he is, "quite confident that we're going to be successful in the prosecution efforts.” His Democrat backers make the same assertion. Senator Russ Feingold applauded Holder's decision, claiming, "Our system of justice is more than capable of securely, fairly, and effectively prosecuting alleged terrorists." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy echoed this sentiment, saying, "I have always believed that the nation’s federal courts are capable of trying high-profile terrorism and national security cases."

To those who claim that our criminal justice system is "capable" of successfully prosecuting terrorists, I would simply agree. It is capable. We could do it. We could also eliminate Iran as a nuclear threat by bombing them off the face of the earth and return to the moon and set up an cheese processing plant. But does being capable of doing something mean that we should do it? Is capability a justification?

Can does not equal should. Any grade schooler can tell you that. The fact that we are capable of forking out the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars it would take to try these terrorists in a civilian courtroom, does not mean that we should. The fact that we can grant these terrorists the same legal rights accorded to U.S. citizens does not mean that we should. The fact that we can remove officials from office who willfully use tax payer money to defend foreign terrorists rather than defeat them, does not mean that.....well actually, that one we probably should do.