America and our Constitutional Crisis

Way back when the founding father decided they had to break away from England they did so because they felt they had no say in the laws, taxes and things being placed on them in the colonies.

"And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.” (1 Ne. 13:18–19.)

Thus the American colonies attained their independence and set up the government of the United States, all under the divine intervention of God in preparing this land for its divine destiny.

If They Will But Serve the God of the Land - N. Eldon Tanner April 1976

We can at times say the same thing is happening to us today.  However, they set up a divinely inspired system that includes check and balances such that we have a hard time saying that.
For those that say - I don't want those taxes or I don't believe in that war etc.   Did you vote?  Have you been involved.   When we find there is an activist judge legislating from the bench we have to decide to do something about the folks that can put someone new in his place or decide that type of person is not a suitable judge.  That is where the checks and balances comes into play.

“This is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ.” (Ether 2:12.)


Presidents and Congress have to be elected every couple of years.  They don't get the position for life.
The Supreme Court does  though that is another topic of discussion for another day.  Just think if the supreme court had to be elected every 3 years?  What kind of havoc would that create..... create a situation of campaign promises when interpreting the laws set forth by congress and ratified by the president.  I don't think that would be a very good situation.

Unfortunately, you may find that things seem to be heading into a cesspool if they have not already gotten there.  We may be dismayed by activist judges, or decisions by the Supreme Court that are so narrow they seem to be skirting the issue at hand.  You may see the president through executive order circumvent the system, or the inability of congress to agree on anything as just another sign of our demise.  Maybe so.  There is however hope.



"Unfortunately, we as a nation have apostatized in various degrees from different Constitutional principles as proclaimed by the inspired founders. We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: “Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction” (19 July 1840, as recorded by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray; ms. in Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City). " 
Our Divine Constitution Ezra Taft Benson President of the Church October 1987

"How then can we best befriend the Constitution in this critical hour and secure the blessings of liberty and ensure the protection and guidance of our Father in Heaven?

First and foremost, we must be righteous.

 

"John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31). If the Constitution is to have continuance, this American nation, and especially the Latter-day Saints, must be virtuous.

"The Book of Mormon warns us relative to our living in this free land: “Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever” (2 Ne. 1:7).

 

Second, we must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

 

"Have we read The Federalist papers? Are we reading the Constitution and pondering it? Are we aware of its principles? Are we abiding by these principles and teaching them to others? Could we defend the Constitution? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? Do we know what the prophets have said about the Constitution and the threats to it?

As Jefferson said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be” (Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, 6 Jan. 1816).

Third, we must become involved in civic affairs to see that we are properly represented.

 

"The Lord said that “he holds men accountable for their acts in relation” to governments “both in making laws and administering them” (D&C 134:1). We must follow this counsel from the Lord: “Honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil” (D&C 98:10).

Note the qualities that the Lord demands of those who are to represent us. They must be good, wise, and honest.

Fourth, we must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, our teaching, and our advice.

 

"We must become accurately informed and then let others know how we feel. The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “It is our duty to concentrate all our influence to make popular that which is sound and good, and unpopular that which is unsound. ‘Tis right, politically, for a man who has influence to use it. … From henceforth I will maintain all the influence I can get” (History of the Church, 5:286).

"I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. It will be saved by the righteous citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—among others—men and women who understand and abide the principles of the Constitution.

Our Divine Constitution Ezra Taft Benson President of the Church October 1987

As we look to the current issues surrounding immigration we can clear see that the system is broken.

In reality it appears be that those in charge are not interested in upholding the laws on the books.  This is a country of law, the rule of law so why is it so hard to uphold the law?

Same thing could be applied in many of the situations we find ourselves in.  People have decided to selectively apply the laws that benefit their angle.   Federal judges making decisions on laws passed at the state level.  Where is their jurisdiction?

There is nothing new here really.  Want the country heading in the right direction?  Start by getting involved.  Find out who the best candidates will be - good, wise, and honest.  That means going beyond the TV or radio commercials.  Then keep them to what they promised.  Let them know how you feel.   You see to many times the press blames things on the members of congress directly.  In many if not most cases they are following the will of the people they represent.  In some cases that can clearly see a moral position needs to be taken and will in the end vote their convictions even if the majority of their district or state are voicing the opposite.    They may become a one term representative but, they have done right by God.


So take heart that the "Choice Land" is not completely in the dumps.  We may have to raise up and keep things on track but, as long as we are not asleep at the wheel things can't get to bad.

So take the bull by the horns and get involved.......

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Is Government working in your BEST Interest?

I guess when we start to talk about government we need to define a few of the more common version of government.

This will work like many of the discussion I had with the Cub Scout about types of government when helping them understand what it means to "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC to which it stands".  Most did not know what a republic is.  Many adults may not know what a republic is.

So there we start.
A Republic referrers to a form of government where things are in general public.  This means offices are not inherited, and things are in general out in the open.  Viewable by the masses in one form or another.

Then you have a Monarchy.  This is a simple form that has as it's head a single person who passes their office down hierarchically.  The the person that held the position in times immortal my have gotten selected due to some act of valor, heroism, skill etc.  Over time due to it being hereditary the competence of the person may be in question.

Then you have your forms of Dictatorships.  These are situations were one or just a couple people are in charge (like a monarchy) and maintain that position by force in most cases.  The populous in no way had a say in who these people that run things are.  That is what acts of force are so commonly used.  People disappear when they appose those in charge.  Not a good system to be under.

Then there are the Theocracies.  They basically have leadership based on religious elements.  Again in this system the church and state are near identical.  What the church says the state or government promotes.  If the church says it is wrong to kiss and show signs of affection in public then the government in short order will pass a law making that illegal.  There are mixed feelings on this government style.  Some good, some bad.

Then there is Communism where the government dictates how things are to be.  They control production, schooling, recreation and the like.  They basically treat you like a child; believe you don't know what is best for you.  They also like to make thing equal for everyone. This is generally not a very good method, hard to implement.  Lots of problems arise and life is not good.

Then the granddaddy of them all Democracy.  There are various levels of democracy.  Pure democracy requires that every little change be voted on by the populous as a whole.  Can you imagine needing to get 300 million people to vote every time we decide to send aid to some foreign country or have a new ambassador to Brazil.  Nothing would get done very quickly.
That is why usually you see a representative form of democracy.  This is where the populous votes on the people that want to represent them.  Those people then become the ones that work out aid bills, ambassadors, regulation on immigration and the like.  We don't have to get bogged down in the details.  We also are not voting hundreds of time each year on every little thing.
You still have to pay attention to what the representative is doing.  If he is voting for things you don't like then you have to vote for some one else the next time you have a chance.
This is generally considered the best form of government.
It is what the United States and most Western European countries us.  Lots of central and south American countries use this as well, though it has not always been so.

Lastly, you have Anarchy where there is no form of government.  In reality this does not last long as you will find people coalescing around certain ideas of picking someone as there leader.

Each and everyone one of these forms of government has its drawbacks.  The question then become which of these will best serve your own interests?

If your the king your likely to do fine in a monarchy.  Not so well if your the little man.  Do something the local king does not like and you might just end up in prison.  Or have your head cut off.
The laws, taxes etc under this system are determined by the king.  If he decides to build some huge palace he might raise taxes.  What benefit does this have to anyone outside the person(s) that will reside in the palace?  None really so it is potentially a very selfish form of government.
Mosiah 29:16 "Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you".

Dictatorships are also selfish.  One or a couple of people decide what the heck is going on.  If they don't like what you are saying about them, or what you have been doing - you disappear.  Force and fear keeps them in control.  This is no in the interest of the people.  Select groups of people benefit, though the majority suffer.
I've never heard of a righteous dictatorship.

Communism also is a special animal.  The ideal that everyone is equal.  That everyone is part of owner of everything seems like a great idea.  If production is great all benefit, if production is bad all suffer.  However, since all is "classless" who do you blame?
This method failed over time in Russia and is not in anyway close to its pure form in China.  In reality this system of government is as much economic as political.
Not much of this is in your self interest.  Not much of this is to your benefit.  And in some respects it maybe detrimental.
One reason this system does not work so well is that force is again included.  You don't have those that are well off give freely of their goods to help the destitute.  You have no one well off technically so, wealth is automatically redistributed.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints early on had a United Order which some would claim is basically communism. it is clearly not since people freely entered the order and chose to use their wealth to benefit of all -
United Order 
An organization through which the Saints in the early days of the restored Church sought to live the law of consecration. Individuals shared property, goods, and profits, receiving these things according to their wants and needs (D&C 51:3; 78:1–15; 104).

One of the problems with communism is that eventually, little motivation exists to improve things.  Production does not meet reality and shortages, and other problems arise.

So some form of democratic government with a free market type system is the best.  Still there are flaws but, generally this will be the system that creates the greatest wealth, helps the greatest number of people and causes general prosperity.

It's now a system that takes from the rich to help the poor or the like.  It's people being able to start up companies with minimal government interferance.  It's people free do as they will.
Granted we have to have some minimum standard right?
Some would argue that we do not.  That we will self regulate if need be.... that eventually the gross polutors will go away.  Some of that may be true.  But, we always act in our own self interest.
And that is why we must ask....  Is the government working in our best interest?

It's a good question when it comes to a representative democracy.
We have people representing us but, do we have the time to find out what they are voting for?

In the end your vote may statistically mean next to nothing.  Especially, given the amount of time needed to properly understand candidates and their positions.  Being thus, we end up with a lot of poorly qualified people in all kinds of elected positions.
That goodness there are term limited.  We just keep rotating in the less then qualified.  Some times a good one come along and things get done for the betterment of all in the community.  To often it is for the good of the few.

This has been true over the years.  For some time the business/factory owners had the full support of people and government when unionizing was underway.  Then years later the tables were turned.  The workers organizing were backed.
So things do switch around.  You have person in government that may help out the farm lobby, basically causing them more wealth at the expense of someone else which in most cases are the city folks

David Freidman talking on government and economics
Buaidh - NO - Bas

New Look at some Old Ideas by Milton Friedman

I have recently been turned onto some old PBS based presentations by economist Milton Friedman.
Turns out he is one of the most respected under recognized economist of the mid to late 20th century.   His presentations on PBS aired in the early 80's.

He really advocates for a more limited government and more free market.  Especially, he argues that we need to do it and not wait or try to make the rest of the world go along.  He thinks it will benefit us more even if there is unfair competition out there in the world.


His PBS series of ten(10) video segments and debate are very provocative.  He purports to not have all the ideas but, uses examples around the world where his ideas of limited government are helping to create a better of citizenry and also sights examples where the reverse is true.  He's very good to not make it exclusively about the United States.  As we have become more global and interconnected many of his ideas and principals have become more poignant, prudent and relevant.




I'm going to include a link to all 10 episodes.  Each one is a good hour long so it is a lot of heavy viewing.  He covers topics like schools, free markets, dealing with poverty, consumer regulation, and much much more.


Free to Choose: Part 1: Power of the Market

Free to Choose: Part 2: Tyranny of Control

Free to Choose: Part 3: Anatomy of a Crisis

Free to Choose: Part 4: From Cradle to Grave

Free to Choose: Part 5: Created Equal

Free to Choose: Part 6: What's Wrong with our Schools

Free to Choose: Part 7: Who Protects the Consumer

Free to Choose: Part 8: Who Protects the Worker

Free to Choose: Part 9: How to Cure Inflation

Free to Choose: Part 10: How to Stay Free

Well you may think that some of these topics or elements of discussion are dated.  True they seem to be as things have changed.  Interstate commerce restrictions seem to have been lifted.  Some changes have been made to welfare and the FDA seems to have improved their approval process for drugs.  At least more seem to be getting out into the market though it still can take years of testing.  However, due to some of things that have been brought up in these discussions may well have help win the election.   In light of the points and topics brought up here you might want to rethink Mitt Romney's 47% comment.

He's clearly a libertarian at heart.  And a laissez-faire kind of guy.

The ever difficult task is to find that proper balance of Government intervention and the free market.   To find the proper blend of hands off economics and general protections we expect to have in society.

I'd say that Mitt Romney was more of a Friedman economics guy then Obama, and clearly we would have likely been better off if he had been elected.  Only time and hindsight will tell...........

Just as it will with the whole Gay marriage debate!






So watch the videos if you have not already and become enlightened.   It might not make you change your mind completely but it could help you to see things from more then one side.


Buaidh - NO - Bas

Review of Election 2012: A California Perspective

Well you can say that on November 6th 2012 we had another historic election.   Our first US black president was reelected.  Our first major party Mormon candidate did not win the election.

One way or the other many things occurred in the election that beg to be analysed.

Due to the fact that we have an electoral college system only about 10 states were in play.  What that means is that only these 10 states were close enough in the polling that no one could predict which way the would go there.  Places like Utah are in general so conservative that it is a foregone conclusion that the Republican candidate will win there from now till well "Hell freezes over"; basically forever.




Many people complain that the electoral system needs to be removed and that the popular vote needs to be put in place.  There are visible down falls to each of these systems.  Many complain that "safe" states are only used as piggy banks by the candidates.  While others mention that small states like New Hampshire get attention not normally given a small state due to the fact it is in play.  The reverse might occur if you have a popular vote scheme.
States like California, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, and New York could determine everything.   Places like Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia, Michigan etc with larger populations would become the second tier places to court.  You would sure have a lot more movement around the nation.  But, you can guarantee that states with small populations like Rhode Island, Maine, the Dakotas, Montana etc would be left out all together.  Why spend time going after 1 million votes when you can run some ads in Los Angeles and cover 5 million people.  Simple economics, and critical mass.
It might be better to do an electoral college based on the the popular vote in each state.  Thus Wyoming with  3 electoral votes would have handed them out as follows - 2 for Romney, 1 for Obama.  Colorado with 9 would have been as follows - 5 for Obama and 4 for Romney.  Why?  Near ties and odd numbers gives the extra to the winner.  Wisconsin with 10 would have been 6 for Obama and 4 to Romney or something along those lines.
Something to thin about.

So what are my opinions on the election.  Several of the so called swing states - Ohio for example had a vote spread of around 100,000.  That is dang close in my opinion.  If you check out the map of Ohio you see that Mitt Romney won most of the less populated counties, and Obama got just a few counties though the ones with more population.   It vary well could have gone either way.  There are about a half dozen states that the spread of fairly small.  This means that had the turn out been lower likely you'd have gotten a Republican president.  Though it all depends on where things are lower in turn out.  Sadly, this is one of the worse things about our system.
You have multiple steps to getting a vote as a presidential candidate.  First the eligible person has to register, and then they have to actually bother to vote the day of the election or send in their vote via mail if applicable.  So most people that vote are fairly informed and are making an effort.  The lazy bum, uninterested person with little or no knowledge of the facts is not likely to even go out and vote let alone register to vote.  It's the semi-informed people that get swayed by advertising and propaganda that turn into the dangerous voter.  That can swing an election and do so sometimes based on emotions, lies, and other poppycock.

The election out here in California is a classic example of the semi-informed being lead astray by lies, and the like in ever kind of perceivable of propaganda.

I'm including a link to a few of the bad ones.

So if you watched each these ads you get both sides of the picture.  Somebody has to be lying since both sides can't be right in the end, right?  That is where things get a little choppy.  You end up with so many mixed messages and poppycock.  That forces you go go and read the real language of the proposition.  Then you open your eyes.  But, mister semi-informed will not really bother to go and read the actual language.  He'll start believing the ads if he is given enough of them.  Or become a little more confused and vote no since that usually leaves things with the status quo.

it's easy to see why people get confused.  It's also does not help that the actual propositions are written in such a way as to be confusing.  I actually did some digging on Prop 37 the genetic engineered food act.  Not to clear in the language that the NO or Yes guys were right.  In those cases it is better to leave it alone.
Who knows what the semi-informed voted.  Bottom line is that the proposition did not pass.



Beyond the typical proposition with all the associated lies and distortions we had two competing tax measures.  Both were to fix the budget cuts that have been laid on the schools over the last several years as California has struggled with the effects of the recession.  One planned on boosting the sales tax 1/4 ¢ and hit up those making more them $250,000 for more income tax.  The other main claim was that the money would go more directly to the schools (K-12) and it would hit everyone with an income tax increase.
Here are the final results

Proposition 30 - Increase Education Tax

Jerry Brown's Tax Increase.

100% reporting

Option	Votes	Pct.
✓ Yes	4,967,039	53.9%
No	4,251,558	46.1%

Proposition 38 - Increase Tax K-12

Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase.

100% reporting

Option	Votes	Pct.
✘ No	6,509,127	72.3%
Yes	2,493,398	27.7%

Do you see how one went down in flames and the other passed by a small margin.  One might wonder why.  I think the analysis I heard on KFIAM640.com would sum it up best.
In essence it states - "We are willing to have someone else foot the bill but, when it comes to effecting us we say 'NO Thanks'."
People don't mind taking that guy seen as rich that lives in another city far away up north.  It's not their money so why not force that guy to pay his fair share.  The old fair share argument.

That 'Fair Share' argument has come up a lot during this election.
What is a fair share?  It likely will be different to the guy making minimum wage compared to the small business owner.




Could this visual example of "Fair Share" logic be where we are heading as a country.   We do have an exuberant number of people dependent on the government.  From Health Insurance, to social security to Food Stamps.  Likely that 47% statement by Romney is not that far from inaccurate.  However, not all those benefiting from the government vote for the party more associated with handouts.   It all depends on why your getting the benefit.

But, are we turning ourselves in to a bunch of lazy bums.  Those that feel they are entitled no matter how hard they work.  That the successful must pay their ever growing  'Fair Share'.  We have to stem this tide of thinking.  We have to rise above and make this country great once again.  Get out of this entitlement feeling and go back to the get the job done sentiment of the farming days.
We also have to find more common ground and things we can build on.  Not the stuff we can not agree upon.

I like the way the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints put it.

First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Congratulate President on Election Win

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Religious Freedom

I like to take  few moments and comment on religious freedom and the advantages that a religious society have.

Religion in society provides us with a basis or background from which we can judge our own action.  I know you will say that in as much as we have the 10 commandments many in the government doe not follow them.  Rightfully so,  you can claim that.  But, it does provide a standard by which we can judge ourselves.

There are quite a few times that we see from the Book of Mormon how the society (Nephites) here in the Americas deteriorated as the people in general dwindled in unbelief.   Their turning away from the Gospel and falling into wickedness eventually lead to their down fall.  The other part of society (i.e the enemy or Lamanites) came in and via war, bloodshed and contention wiped them out.


As the people relied on their own strength and did not recognize the hand of God in their lives they began to fail and fall.   They entered into a phase in the circular cycle.  This cycle goes from 1. humbling ones self and recognizing God in our lives, 2. being blessed and prospering, 3. becoming prideful, etc, and finally 4. being humbled by the Lord.

So can we see that as we turn away from our religious roots we begin to rely more on "the arm of the flesh" and begin to become a loathsome and abominable people.

But, what then does this have to do with religious freedom?
When we begin to persecute those of other faiths be they Christian or not we begin to suppress religion in general.  When religion in general is no longer tolerated we begin to lose our way and enter in the pride portion of the cycle.  Thus some that would say that we must be tolerant of all and thus we can not have anything that appears religious in any shape or form associated with government are actually promoting the opposite.

At that point they are basically denying the existence of a supreme being.  This is thus very dangerous.  But, at the same time we have to be careful that we are not promoting one religion over another.

I love the fact that at many town and city council meetings they have a prayer at the begin of the meeting.  Usually, a pastor or other leader of a local church is called in to over this prayer.  Every time it is rotated around to someone new.  Thus no on religion, denomination or faith is promoted over another.  But, in some instances this is being pushed aside.

We are setting aside our standards, changing our moral compass.  All in the claim that we must be more inclusive and/or tolerant of those around us.  But, in the end we are denying our maker and moving away from our foundation of faith.

Will societies ills be fixed over night as we promote religion in any of it's forms?  No, it will not but, take communities where there is lack of a family unit, morals are lacks or no existent, and honest is a thing rarely seen.  Imagine how much better this community would be if there were people striving to live a moral life, uphold the family unit, and be honest and neighborly to one another.  This surely would improve life in the neighborhood.

Sometimes they state that you can take the people out of the ghetto but, not the ghetto out of the people.   Imagine if you took the ghetto out of the people.... Religion can provide the basis for which to do this.  So we have to adamantly promote religion in all its forms.

Since it is easy to see that spiritual, no less the physical benefits of religion in our society.  So thank the next person you see for being religiously involved and for standing up for their faith and religious rights.  Let us stand bold such that our little ones will not think we are those that "Do not believe in Jesus" - or basically lack any religious orientation.

We definitely do not want to end up like Nazi Germany or the fall of the Nephite Civilization as recounted by Mormon to his son Moroni-


7 And now I write somewhat concerning the sufferings of this people. For according to the knowledge which I have received from Amoron, behold, the Lamanites have many prisoners, which they took from the tower of Sherrizah; and there were men, women, and children.

 8 And the husbands and fathers of those women and children they have slain; and they feed the women upon the ^aflesh of their husbands, and the children upon the flesh of their fathers; and no water, save a little, do they give unto them.

 9 And notwithstanding this great ^aabomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after ^bdepriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is ^cchastity and ^dvirtue—

 10 And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most ^acruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery.

 11 O my beloved son, how can a people like this, that are without civilization—

 12 (And only a few years have passed away, and they were a civil and a delightsome people)

 13 But O my son, how can a people like this, whose ^adelight is in so much abomination—

 14 How can we expect that God will ^astay his hand in judgment against us?

Moroni 9: 7-14 

Buaidh - NO - Bas