Posts
This is just about as surreal as you could imagine...
On Monday (I think) KUTV has this news article,
"Bad Economy And Holiday Could Increase Utah Bank Robberies"
And like a bad dream, one day later, KSL reports,
"Police searching for credit union robber"
Then, because we are buying less (fewer taxes collected) and working less (higher unemployment, etc) The Government is faced with Cutbacks...I could tell you where they could make these cutbacks, but that is a discussion for later...and one of the first things to go is protection...
"Utah County Sheriff's Office Will Be Downsized Because Of Budget Cuts "
What does this mean for you and me?
Well, see, I have always believed that MY Safety and MY Security are MY Responsibility. So, for me, this only means that I need to buy some more ammo, and practice more at the range.
However, I am going to suggest to you , any one of you, that you go out to the local Gun Store, or Gun Show, buy a nice handgun, and find out about training classes AND when the next Concealed Carry class is.
Then, start to carry your legally owned, lawfully concealed weapon. Now, if anything happens while you are home, or in the bank, or on the street...instead of becoming a VICTIM of a crime, you may now defend yourself.
I know, normally you would capitulate and let the bad guy have whatever he wants...however, that is no guarantee that you wouldn't end up dead...and if he takes your purse or wallet, he now has your money, your identity, and your address - in fact, it isn't uncommon for a person to be victimized multiple times from one encounter with a Bad Guy...identity theft, home break-ins, etc...just because they now have a way to your house, and a new name to ruin...
Ok, so maybe you would call the police? Well, as you see above, there won't be as many around to protect you (not that there ever was enough)...I figured it out once...it would take ONE police officer for every FOUR people to ensure your safety in society...
In 2006 the population of Utah was 2,550,063. This means that we would have to have about 630,000 officers. The entry level officer will make about $50,000 - that is a total budget of $31,500,000,000 for law enforcement...but the total Utah State Budget is $12,022,169,299...that is almost 3 times what we spend now, for everything...
It cannot be done. And with the cut backs, it isn't likely that a police officer will be able to protect you...he will, however, when he gets around to it...investigate your crime.
Besides, it isn't the government's responsibility to protect you...According to law suits filed by victims of crimes, the police are under no obligation to protect the INDIVIDUAL, only SOCIETY in general...(see a book called "Dial 911 and Die")
SO, face it...you are on your own. But, that is OK...if you want something done right, do it yourself! That was never so true as it is today....
Go out and buy a gun, learn to use it, and get legal to carry it.
With headlines like this,
"Utah Crime on the Rise"
You, someone you know, or someone you love will thank you for it.
Other Stories:
Armed robber gets away on bicycle
December 1st, 2008 @ 8:48pm
Woman Raped In Dowtown Salt Lake In Broad Daylight
11/06 8:43 pm
Police Looking For Attempted Abduction Suspect In Box Elder County
9/11 10:22 am
Police Investigate Attempted Abduction In Provo
9/02 11:21 pm
Teen Girl Escapes Attempted Kidnapping In Holladay
4/18 12:23 pm
One wounded in shooting inside Philadelphia Kmart
12/2 9:04 am
Armed robbers break into Salt Lake home
December 2nd, 2008 @ 6:56am
Neighbors frustrated with crime after latest break-in
December 2nd, 2008 @ 12:08pm
Man Suspected Of Attacking Woman With Sword In Salt Lake City
December 10, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Teen's 911 call gets intruder arrested
December 5th, 2008 @ 10:00pm
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Big Brother and Auto Makers
For a long time, people have been accusing "Big Brother" of all kinds of things...most seem improbable, and many are just too complicated for someone on government pay...but there are those time when people just might have the right idea, and at those times, we need to stand up and say, "Say What?"...
When the Government decided it would be a good idea to put RFID chips in a passport...Say What?
When the Government decided to put video surveillance all over town, just on the off chance a criminal might be dumb enough to get caught on camera...Say What?
When the Government wanted to track cell phone signals to monitor traffic...Say What?
Or
When the Government wanted to monitor all cellphone, land lines, emails, and other communication, just because "someone might do something illegal"...Say What?
Well, here is a new one...
New program could eliminate need for emissions testing
Now, before you all go off thinking I am paranoid...well...I am, and that doesn't mean they aren't out to get me...
If emissions were really a concern, the auto makers would have sensors that would track the average emissions, and over time, warn you when those numbers fall out of the acceptable "norm". These "norms" would be adjustable year by year, so you would never be "out of date".
Then, when you have fallen out of compliance, it warns you to get it fixed. If you are out of compliance long enough, it would simply fail to start one morning, and you would not be able to drive it until it was fixed. The cost of towing should be enough of a deterrent to get it fixed when it tells you to.
No need to broadcast anything, no need to go in for a yearly check-up, no need for any of that. It tells you to get it fixed, or you loose the ability to drive it, till it is fixed.
But see, this would require some thought...and Detroit hasn't had a good thought about cars in far too long. We end up in a gas crunch and SUVs fall out of favor...why were we producing SUVs in the first place...and with all the advancements in engine technology, why are cars no more efficient NOW than they were in the 1930s?
Another question to ask auto makers is, since we have all known the oil is a dwindling product, why have they waited until now to do something about it? And why is Honda (a non US vehicle manufacturer) the only one making a production CNG car?
Why are we not building more of the "really efficient" serial-hybrid-electrics that get 60mpg or greater? Why are we only producing the hybrid-electrics that get 30-40 mpg?
How is it that VW has a car that WILL be available in the US in 2010, that gets 280mpg...but US auto makers cannot seem to get better than 45mpg?
How does VW get a standard Diesel to get 50+ mpg? But Detroit gets 20s or 30s from theirs?
The Auto Makers of the US DO NOT CARE about the environment, and maybe they should go out of business. You will notice that Honda, Nissan, VW, Mercedes, and others ARE NOT going out of business...only Ford, Dodge, and Chevy...isn't this ODD?
It has, however, been convenient for the Oil Companies, and our Government...
When the Government decided it would be a good idea to put RFID chips in a passport...Say What?
When the Government decided to put video surveillance all over town, just on the off chance a criminal might be dumb enough to get caught on camera...Say What?
When the Government wanted to track cell phone signals to monitor traffic...Say What?
Or
When the Government wanted to monitor all cellphone, land lines, emails, and other communication, just because "someone might do something illegal"...Say What?
Well, here is a new one...
New program could eliminate need for emissions testing
Now, before you all go off thinking I am paranoid...well...I am, and that doesn't mean they aren't out to get me...
"The county's proposal involves a computer chip about the size of a mini Post-it note. Technicians would plug it into your car, and it would transmit emissions information about your car to receivers set up throughout the county. If something is wrong, you'll get a letter in the mail; if not, you'll never have to bring your car in to get tested."
If emissions were really a concern, the auto makers would have sensors that would track the average emissions, and over time, warn you when those numbers fall out of the acceptable "norm". These "norms" would be adjustable year by year, so you would never be "out of date".
Then, when you have fallen out of compliance, it warns you to get it fixed. If you are out of compliance long enough, it would simply fail to start one morning, and you would not be able to drive it until it was fixed. The cost of towing should be enough of a deterrent to get it fixed when it tells you to.
No need to broadcast anything, no need to go in for a yearly check-up, no need for any of that. It tells you to get it fixed, or you loose the ability to drive it, till it is fixed.
But see, this would require some thought...and Detroit hasn't had a good thought about cars in far too long. We end up in a gas crunch and SUVs fall out of favor...why were we producing SUVs in the first place...and with all the advancements in engine technology, why are cars no more efficient NOW than they were in the 1930s?
Another question to ask auto makers is, since we have all known the oil is a dwindling product, why have they waited until now to do something about it? And why is Honda (a non US vehicle manufacturer) the only one making a production CNG car?
Why are we not building more of the "really efficient" serial-hybrid-electrics that get 60mpg or greater? Why are we only producing the hybrid-electrics that get 30-40 mpg?
How is it that VW has a car that WILL be available in the US in 2010, that gets 280mpg...but US auto makers cannot seem to get better than 45mpg?
How does VW get a standard Diesel to get 50+ mpg? But Detroit gets 20s or 30s from theirs?
The Auto Makers of the US DO NOT CARE about the environment, and maybe they should go out of business. You will notice that Honda, Nissan, VW, Mercedes, and others ARE NOT going out of business...only Ford, Dodge, and Chevy...isn't this ODD?
It has, however, been convenient for the Oil Companies, and our Government...
Monday, November 24, 2008
Global Warming?
I think there is something missing in the whole debate about Global Warming...there are some things that seem logical and tend to support a conclusion, and other things that look like they are being ignored, fabricated, or blown out of proportion.
One might ask, why ignore/fabricate anything when it comes to science? Well, it might not fit in the current political climate, or it isn't popular among those with power at the moment. Science changes over time, and in some cases it isn't because things have actually changed, or things are true today but weren't true yesterday...
Ok, so what am I getting at?
It is generally agreed that the climate of our little blue ball is changing. They experts, however, are now moving away from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change". Which makes sense, but what is this change, and how did it happen, and is it detrimental?
Well, the answer to that is different depending on who you are talking to...Greenhouse Gases (CO2, H2O, etc), solar activity, natural cycle, and people are some of the causes given.
Hmmm...
I recently came across an article (that, strangely, isn't there any more) that claimed that the vegetation biomass on earth is growing, not shrinking.
I would like to point out that plants like CO2, warmth, and water. With all these things "more abundant" now than before, it isn't a real shock to me that there would be more plants.
Now, if we have more plants, we have more O2 because the plants convert CO2 to O2, which also means less CO2. This cycle should continue until a peak at some point, where the balance is tipped the other way, and the plant's need for CO2 has grown greater than the CO2 production... the CO2 levels will decline...and we go back down the other direction on this cycle, and in this debate.
Now here is the funny part...
Once we start the decline of CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet will cool off a bit, just natural, right?
Then a bunch of people will jump out of the woodwork and proclaim "Global Cooling" and they will warn of the imminent ice age...
Only, you will never hear anything about how we (people) actually affect the whole scheme of things...instead, the governments will draft plans and spend money to fight something that will fix itself, given time.
I am not saying that we shouldn't recycle, reduce CO2 emissions, or any other good thing...this is, after all, our home. What I am saying is that we can do all these good things without creating mass panic and hysteria and lauding the "worst case scenarios" ... But then, what else would MSNBC have to cry about?
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586&p=1
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/06/biomass_boosting.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
One might ask, why ignore/fabricate anything when it comes to science? Well, it might not fit in the current political climate, or it isn't popular among those with power at the moment. Science changes over time, and in some cases it isn't because things have actually changed, or things are true today but weren't true yesterday...
Ok, so what am I getting at?
It is generally agreed that the climate of our little blue ball is changing. They experts, however, are now moving away from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change". Which makes sense, but what is this change, and how did it happen, and is it detrimental?
Well, the answer to that is different depending on who you are talking to...Greenhouse Gases (CO2, H2O, etc), solar activity, natural cycle, and people are some of the causes given.
Hmmm...
I recently came across an article (that, strangely, isn't there any more) that claimed that the vegetation biomass on earth is growing, not shrinking.
I would like to point out that plants like CO2, warmth, and water. With all these things "more abundant" now than before, it isn't a real shock to me that there would be more plants.
Now, if we have more plants, we have more O2 because the plants convert CO2 to O2, which also means less CO2. This cycle should continue until a peak at some point, where the balance is tipped the other way, and the plant's need for CO2 has grown greater than the CO2 production... the CO2 levels will decline...and we go back down the other direction on this cycle, and in this debate.
Now here is the funny part...
Once we start the decline of CO2 in the atmosphere, the planet will cool off a bit, just natural, right?
Then a bunch of people will jump out of the woodwork and proclaim "Global Cooling" and they will warn of the imminent ice age...
Only, you will never hear anything about how we (people) actually affect the whole scheme of things...instead, the governments will draft plans and spend money to fight something that will fix itself, given time.
I am not saying that we shouldn't recycle, reduce CO2 emissions, or any other good thing...this is, after all, our home. What I am saying is that we can do all these good things without creating mass panic and hysteria and lauding the "worst case scenarios" ... But then, what else would MSNBC have to cry about?
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586&p=1
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/06/biomass_boosting.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Cost of Living
Back in the 70s, my dad was making good money.
Population: 204,879,000
Unemployed in 1970: 4,088,000 (1.9%)
National Debt: $382 billion
Average salary: $7,564
Food prices: milk, 1.34 cents a gal.; bread, 24 cents a loaf; round steak, $1.30 a pound
Gallon of Gas: $0.30
BBL of oil: $3.30
Today, I think I make OK money.
Population: 305,697,052
Unemployment in 2008: 13,144,973 (4.6%)
National Debt.: $10.7 Trillion
Average salary: $77,634
Food Prices: milk, $3.66; bread, $1.40; Steak, $4.37
Gallon of Gas: $4.76
BBL of oil: $149
So, it turns out, my dad was making (in equivalent dollars) about $98,000 a year...
Turns out, I would be doing better if my salary kept up with the increase in things...
I would have been making $5972 in 1970...not so good...
It takes about $13 today to equal what $1 was in 1970
Why is it we seem to be getting the short end of the stick?
I haven't had a "cost of living" increase in about 6 years. The cost of living is currently about 5.8%, about equivalent to what it was in the 1970s. But, as I mentioned, I haven't received an increase in 6 years or more. I do get a small raise every year; about 2-3% of my salary...which should be added ON TOP OF my cost of living increase...
So, to make matters worse...
Electricity has gone up about 6% per year. In 1970 the cost was $0.02 per kwh, to today at about $0.24.
Natural Gas has also gone up...
Taxes have gone up...
Education costs have gone up...
Medical expenses have gone up...
And INTEREST RATES have gone up...
Then we get taken advantage of by every business and every organization that things we won't notice..."Fuel Surcharge" came into being in 2008, from Traffic Tickets to the price to ride the UTA system...
Now fuel has gone down, and is currently at $1.80...but NONE of the other prices have gone down.
I don't see any relief. My only hope is to wait until my youngest is in School, and my wife can get a job during the day...this will provide extra money to stay caught up...
Why is this such a sticky point? CEOs and Major Corporations making RECORD PROFITS, while their employees become "working poor"...
The economic revolution is on the way...just wait and watch...
Population: 204,879,000
Unemployed in 1970: 4,088,000 (1.9%)
National Debt: $382 billion
Average salary: $7,564
Food prices: milk, 1.34 cents a gal.; bread, 24 cents a loaf; round steak, $1.30 a pound
Gallon of Gas: $0.30
BBL of oil: $3.30
Today, I think I make OK money.
Population: 305,697,052
Unemployment in 2008: 13,144,973 (4.6%)
National Debt.: $10.7 Trillion
Average salary: $77,634
Food Prices: milk, $3.66; bread, $1.40; Steak, $4.37
Gallon of Gas: $4.76
BBL of oil: $149
So, it turns out, my dad was making (in equivalent dollars) about $98,000 a year...
Turns out, I would be doing better if my salary kept up with the increase in things...
I would have been making $5972 in 1970...not so good...
It takes about $13 today to equal what $1 was in 1970
Why is it we seem to be getting the short end of the stick?
I haven't had a "cost of living" increase in about 6 years. The cost of living is currently about 5.8%, about equivalent to what it was in the 1970s. But, as I mentioned, I haven't received an increase in 6 years or more. I do get a small raise every year; about 2-3% of my salary...which should be added ON TOP OF my cost of living increase...
So, to make matters worse...
Electricity has gone up about 6% per year. In 1970 the cost was $0.02 per kwh, to today at about $0.24.
Natural Gas has also gone up...
Taxes have gone up...
Education costs have gone up...
Medical expenses have gone up...
And INTEREST RATES have gone up...
Then we get taken advantage of by every business and every organization that things we won't notice..."Fuel Surcharge" came into being in 2008, from Traffic Tickets to the price to ride the UTA system...
Now fuel has gone down, and is currently at $1.80...but NONE of the other prices have gone down.
I don't see any relief. My only hope is to wait until my youngest is in School, and my wife can get a job during the day...this will provide extra money to stay caught up...
Why is this such a sticky point? CEOs and Major Corporations making RECORD PROFITS, while their employees become "working poor"...
The economic revolution is on the way...just wait and watch...
Kids Today...
I am using this phrase in a good way. I think it is interesting that a 12 year-old (Jaden Brophy of Syracuse, UT) has noticed something that many adults have not noticed.
What he noticed is the double-standard, or the dichotomy, of the individuals and organizations opposed to the Church's (or anyone's) support of Prop. 8.
They want Separation of Church and State (one of the most misunderstood phrases in our country), yet they will attack Utah, its government and its businesses, to "punish" the Church.
After reading his thoughts, I found other dichotomies...
For instance, they describe the supporters of Prop. 8 as bigots and hate mongers. Yet, they attack LDS Churches with vandalism. They boycott business of people that supported Prop. 8. They have absolutely nothing good to say about anyone who supported Prop. 8. They even want to limit the rights of the Church and anyone who supported Prop. 8, even though they decry what they view as a limiting of their rights.
Hmmmm...
Maybe Jaden was right, their beliefs are only ONE-WAY...
I propose EQUALITY for all. Allow everyone to have and act on their opinions and respect their opinion. You don't have to agree with it, and you can speak out against it, or talk about , or try and persuade someone to change their opinion, but violence, hate, destruction of property...NONE of these things has place in politics...we are, after all, an advanced, civilized society. And as such, we advocate equality and tolerance.
There are a couple facts that I believe people have yet to come to terms with:
1) It was NOT the LDS Church alone, but a conglomeration of Churches and other organizations that advocate "Traditional Family" and "Traditional Values"
2) It was NOT the LDS Church that voted Prop. 8 into law, it was the people of California State
3) There aren't enough LDS Church Members in all of California to constitute a Majority to pass any legislation.
4) Vandalism, hate speech, demonstrations against a Church or Individual, and boycotting are all forms of hate and bigotry.
What he noticed is the double-standard, or the dichotomy, of the individuals and organizations opposed to the Church's (or anyone's) support of Prop. 8.
They want Separation of Church and State (one of the most misunderstood phrases in our country), yet they will attack Utah, its government and its businesses, to "punish" the Church.
After reading his thoughts, I found other dichotomies...
For instance, they describe the supporters of Prop. 8 as bigots and hate mongers. Yet, they attack LDS Churches with vandalism. They boycott business of people that supported Prop. 8. They have absolutely nothing good to say about anyone who supported Prop. 8. They even want to limit the rights of the Church and anyone who supported Prop. 8, even though they decry what they view as a limiting of their rights.
Hmmmm...
Maybe Jaden was right, their beliefs are only ONE-WAY...
I propose EQUALITY for all. Allow everyone to have and act on their opinions and respect their opinion. You don't have to agree with it, and you can speak out against it, or talk about , or try and persuade someone to change their opinion, but violence, hate, destruction of property...NONE of these things has place in politics...we are, after all, an advanced, civilized society. And as such, we advocate equality and tolerance.
There are a couple facts that I believe people have yet to come to terms with:
1) It was NOT the LDS Church alone, but a conglomeration of Churches and other organizations that advocate "Traditional Family" and "Traditional Values"
2) It was NOT the LDS Church that voted Prop. 8 into law, it was the people of California State
3) There aren't enough LDS Church Members in all of California to constitute a Majority to pass any legislation.
4) Vandalism, hate speech, demonstrations against a Church or Individual, and boycotting are all forms of hate and bigotry.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
The Madness of King *AA
How is it, in this country, that we have become so litigious?
First off, the RIAA and MPAA have somehow gotten specialized legislation that makes it a crime to broadcast your own art/work/music in any way shape or form without paying them some kind of royalty.
Now, wait a minute...
If I write the original music, if I write the original vocals, if I play that music on an instrument that I developed myself, and if I build my own computer, and set up my own equipment to broadcast on any frequency or over any wire...I have somehow committed a crime?
So, the RIAA and MPAA have found ways to get people for "doing nothing" and they have somhow found a way to sue "John/Jane Doe" because they don't have any real proof of a crime or any infringement.
This would be like me filing a lawsuit for thousands of dollars agains "someone" for doing "something"...
HUH?
They have been using the law to force innocent people into paying a type of extortion. Including, at one point, a woman who doesn't even own and has never used a computer.
HUH?
Someone tell me this madness will end...
I only went back about a year, but these started showing up all the way back to before 1999. This has been going on for 10 years? When will the madness stop?
Anyway, here is the last year's info, basically, where we are today with this madness...(beware, the list is long...both the "good news" and the "bad news")
THE GOOD NEWS
Duke Demands Proof of Infringement From RIAA
Friday November 14, @10:01PM
RIAA Litigation May Be Unconstitutional
Wed Oct 29, 2008 05:05 PM
RIAA Loses $222K Verdict
Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:10 AM
RIAA Pays Tanya Andersen $107,951
Fri Aug 15, 2008 07:33 AM
RIAA Foiled By "Innocent Infringement" Defense
Sat Aug 09, 2008 04:09 PM
Tenise Barker Takes On RIAA Damages Theory
Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:17 PM
NC Judge Takes "A Fresh Look" At RIAA Subpoenas
Fri Jul 04, 2008 04:56 PM
Law Profs File Friend-of-Court Brief Against RIAA
Sat Jun 21, 2008 07:19 AM
RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship
Fri May 09, 2008 06:22 PM
NewYorkCountryLawyer Debates RIAA VP
Sat May 03, 2008 01:21 AM
Class Action Complaint Against RIAA Now Online
Sat Mar 15, 2008 04:35 PM
RIAA Will Finally Face the Music In Court
Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:29 AM
University of San Francisco Law Clinic Joins Fight Against RIAA
Fri Feb 29, 2008 05:22 AM
RIAA Expert Witness Called "Borderline Incompetent"
Tue Feb 26, 2008 05:18 PM
Judge Rejects RIAA 'Making Available' Theory
Mon Feb 25, 2008 05:26 PM
RIAA's Attack On NewYorkCountryLawyer Fails
Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:02 AM
White Paper Decries RIAA Attempts To Raise Infringement Payouts
Wed Feb 06, 2008 03:02 PM
RIAA Drops Case, Should Have Sued Someone Else
Wed Jan 30, 2008 01:02 PM
Magistrate Suggests Fining RIAA Lawyers
Tue Jan 29, 2008 06:48 PM
MIT Student Plans to Take on RIAA
Wed Jan 23, 2008 05:04 PM
EFF Takes On RIAA "Making Available" Theory
Sat Jan 12, 2008 05:21 PM
RIAA's 'Misspeaking' May Have Affected Verdict
Sat Jan 05, 2008 06:30 PM
RIAA-fighting Maine Law Professor Speaks Out
Fri Dec 28, 2007 08:29 PM
EMI May Cut Funding To RIAA, IFPI
Thu Nov 29, 2007 09:10 AM
RIAA Must Divulge Expenses-Per-Download
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:34 AM
RIAA Afraid of Harvard
Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:23 PM
FSF Reaches Out to RIAA Victims
Mon Nov 19, 2007 04:20 PM
Judge Orders RIAA to Show Cause in DC Case
Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:29 AM
RIAA College Litigations Getting A Bumpy Ride
Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:42 PM
U.of Oregon Says No to RIAA
Fri Nov 02, 2007 08:56 AM
Rochester Judge Holds RIAA Evidence Insufficient
Sun Oct 28, 2007 04:06 AM
New Attorneys Fee Decision Against RIAA
Sun Sep 23, 2007 03:20 AM
THE BAD NEWS
RIAA and MPAA Developing Domain-Based DRM
Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:06 AM
A Look At ACTA Wish Lists For RIAA, BSA, Others
Sat Jul 19, 2008 07:17 AM
Inside the RIAA and MediaSentry
Tue Jun 10, 2008 07:20 AM
Massive Increase in RIAA Copyright Notices
Fri May 02, 2008 07:18 AM
Why the RIAA Really Hates Downloads
Mon Mar 31, 2008 01:20 AM
Comparing the RIAA To "The Sopranos"
Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:40 AM
Leaked RIAA Training Video
Wed Feb 20, 2008 09:05 PM
University Bows to RIAAs Demands for Student Names
Thu Feb 14, 2008 07:50 AM
RIAA Wants $1.5 Million Per CD Copied
Wed Jan 30, 2008 05:04 PM
What the MPAA Still Isn't Telling Us
Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:02 AM
RIAA Protests Oregon AG Discovery Request
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:36 PM
DoJ Sides With RIAA On Damages
Tue Dec 04, 2007 04:23 PM
LimeWire Antitrust Claims Against RIAA Dismissed
Tue Dec 04, 2007 08:48 AM
BSA Software Piracy Fight Smacks of RIAA Crackdown
Mon Nov 26, 2007 04:25 AM
Juror From RIAA Trial Speaks
Tue Oct 09, 2007 08:41 PM
RIAA Conceals Overturned Case
Sat Oct 06, 2007 05:43 PM
Verdict Reached In RIAA Trial
Thu Oct 04, 2007 07:14 PM
First off, the RIAA and MPAA have somehow gotten specialized legislation that makes it a crime to broadcast your own art/work/music in any way shape or form without paying them some kind of royalty.
Now, wait a minute...
If I write the original music, if I write the original vocals, if I play that music on an instrument that I developed myself, and if I build my own computer, and set up my own equipment to broadcast on any frequency or over any wire...I have somehow committed a crime?
So, the RIAA and MPAA have found ways to get people for "doing nothing" and they have somhow found a way to sue "John/Jane Doe" because they don't have any real proof of a crime or any infringement.
This would be like me filing a lawsuit for thousands of dollars agains "someone" for doing "something"...
HUH?
They have been using the law to force innocent people into paying a type of extortion. Including, at one point, a woman who doesn't even own and has never used a computer.
HUH?
Someone tell me this madness will end...
I only went back about a year, but these started showing up all the way back to before 1999. This has been going on for 10 years? When will the madness stop?
Anyway, here is the last year's info, basically, where we are today with this madness...(beware, the list is long...both the "good news" and the "bad news")
THE GOOD NEWS
Duke Demands Proof of Infringement From RIAA
Friday November 14, @10:01PM
RIAA Litigation May Be Unconstitutional
Wed Oct 29, 2008 05:05 PM
RIAA Loses $222K Verdict
Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:10 AM
RIAA Pays Tanya Andersen $107,951
Fri Aug 15, 2008 07:33 AM
RIAA Foiled By "Innocent Infringement" Defense
Sat Aug 09, 2008 04:09 PM
Tenise Barker Takes On RIAA Damages Theory
Mon Jul 28, 2008 12:17 PM
NC Judge Takes "A Fresh Look" At RIAA Subpoenas
Fri Jul 04, 2008 04:56 PM
Law Profs File Friend-of-Court Brief Against RIAA
Sat Jun 21, 2008 07:19 AM
RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship
Fri May 09, 2008 06:22 PM
NewYorkCountryLawyer Debates RIAA VP
Sat May 03, 2008 01:21 AM
Class Action Complaint Against RIAA Now Online
Sat Mar 15, 2008 04:35 PM
RIAA Will Finally Face the Music In Court
Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:29 AM
University of San Francisco Law Clinic Joins Fight Against RIAA
Fri Feb 29, 2008 05:22 AM
RIAA Expert Witness Called "Borderline Incompetent"
Tue Feb 26, 2008 05:18 PM
Judge Rejects RIAA 'Making Available' Theory
Mon Feb 25, 2008 05:26 PM
RIAA's Attack On NewYorkCountryLawyer Fails
Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:02 AM
White Paper Decries RIAA Attempts To Raise Infringement Payouts
Wed Feb 06, 2008 03:02 PM
RIAA Drops Case, Should Have Sued Someone Else
Wed Jan 30, 2008 01:02 PM
Magistrate Suggests Fining RIAA Lawyers
Tue Jan 29, 2008 06:48 PM
MIT Student Plans to Take on RIAA
Wed Jan 23, 2008 05:04 PM
EFF Takes On RIAA "Making Available" Theory
Sat Jan 12, 2008 05:21 PM
RIAA's 'Misspeaking' May Have Affected Verdict
Sat Jan 05, 2008 06:30 PM
RIAA-fighting Maine Law Professor Speaks Out
Fri Dec 28, 2007 08:29 PM
EMI May Cut Funding To RIAA, IFPI
Thu Nov 29, 2007 09:10 AM
RIAA Must Divulge Expenses-Per-Download
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:34 AM
RIAA Afraid of Harvard
Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:23 PM
FSF Reaches Out to RIAA Victims
Mon Nov 19, 2007 04:20 PM
Judge Orders RIAA to Show Cause in DC Case
Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:29 AM
RIAA College Litigations Getting A Bumpy Ride
Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:42 PM
U.of Oregon Says No to RIAA
Fri Nov 02, 2007 08:56 AM
Rochester Judge Holds RIAA Evidence Insufficient
Sun Oct 28, 2007 04:06 AM
New Attorneys Fee Decision Against RIAA
Sun Sep 23, 2007 03:20 AM
THE BAD NEWS
RIAA and MPAA Developing Domain-Based DRM
Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:06 AM
A Look At ACTA Wish Lists For RIAA, BSA, Others
Sat Jul 19, 2008 07:17 AM
Inside the RIAA and MediaSentry
Tue Jun 10, 2008 07:20 AM
Massive Increase in RIAA Copyright Notices
Fri May 02, 2008 07:18 AM
Why the RIAA Really Hates Downloads
Mon Mar 31, 2008 01:20 AM
Comparing the RIAA To "The Sopranos"
Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:40 AM
Leaked RIAA Training Video
Wed Feb 20, 2008 09:05 PM
University Bows to RIAAs Demands for Student Names
Thu Feb 14, 2008 07:50 AM
RIAA Wants $1.5 Million Per CD Copied
Wed Jan 30, 2008 05:04 PM
What the MPAA Still Isn't Telling Us
Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:02 AM
RIAA Protests Oregon AG Discovery Request
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:36 PM
DoJ Sides With RIAA On Damages
Tue Dec 04, 2007 04:23 PM
LimeWire Antitrust Claims Against RIAA Dismissed
Tue Dec 04, 2007 08:48 AM
BSA Software Piracy Fight Smacks of RIAA Crackdown
Mon Nov 26, 2007 04:25 AM
Juror From RIAA Trial Speaks
Tue Oct 09, 2007 08:41 PM
RIAA Conceals Overturned Case
Sat Oct 06, 2007 05:43 PM
Verdict Reached In RIAA Trial
Thu Oct 04, 2007 07:14 PM
Please tell me people aren't this stupid...
Ok, so the Governments are having a hard time banning firearms, what with the Heller decision on Washington, D.C.
So to try something new, they are trying to make owning anything but their approved and registered ammo a crime. So far, we have been lucky, and avoided this round of mass stupidity, but it won't be long before they somehow convince enough people to agree that ammo isn't firearms (even though one isn't good without the other.)
Here is a little from the NRA about this issue:
So to try something new, they are trying to make owning anything but their approved and registered ammo a crime. So far, we have been lucky, and avoided this round of mass stupidity, but it won't be long before they somehow convince enough people to agree that ammo isn't firearms (even though one isn't good without the other.)
Here is a little from the NRA about this issue:
Gay Rights? Or a Civil Dispute?
"Gay Rights"... somehow this seems to fall in the same category as other "Rights" issues. Only, I don't think this has anything to do with "Gays" or "Rights"... All we end up doing is giving Rights to people/minorities that the rest of the people don't have. Think back to "affirmative action" and how it was recently struck down as unconstitutional...
See, I think people have gotten hung up in the "entitlement" mentality for so long that we don't know up from down or a right from a privilege. You have the right to health care. This doesn't mean that you have the right to insurance to help pay for that health care. Insurance companies (auto, home, health, life, etc) all have criteria on what they will and will not cover based on a variety of factors (risk, age, past incidents, etc). We have been feeling the pinch for our government's involvement in the housing and lending industry; allowing higher risk mortgages for one thing, and none of us like what has happened to the economy. Are we now suggesting it is a good idea to allow the government to get involved in allowing insurance companies to take on higher risk policies? Or having the Government go into direct competition with insurance companies, using our tax dollars? When did we become a socialist country?
We do have the right to health care, but we also have the right to pay for it. If we can get insurance to help pay for it, all the better, but that is a separate issue, and one that should be between the insurance company and you.
The real issue, as I see it, when it comes to "Gay Rights" isn't an issue of "Rights" at all. It is an issue of corporations, employers, insurance companies (the way they do business) and legal contracts, and the recognition of something other than a "traditional family"; it is a CIVIL ISSUE.
Currently, to get insurance, you have to purchase an individual or a family plan. Some of these are provided by the insurance company to an individual/family directly (the individual/family pays the full amount) or to an employer for their employees (the employer may subsidizes some of the premiums). You still have the two types of plans, individual and family, and it is the definition of "family" that has people so "up in arms".
The minority, homosexuals, are demanding that their "family units" be recognized as normal family units. And I use the term "normal family units" specifically, here. A family unit in science, biology, history, and religion is described as "a male/female union that produces children", it is a biological process. Even in psychology, a science that can claim a family unit to be just about anything, defines a difference between a traditional family unit (mother(female), father(male), and children(non-adults)) and a non-traditional family unit (someone acting in the role of father(male or female), mother(male or female) and children(adult or not)) Male/Male and Female/Female unions cannot produce children, so these relationships fall outside of what is considered a "traditional family unit", so they currently don't qualify for some of these legal protections provided a traditional family. So, what are they to do?
Well, it isn't a question of "gay rights" it is a question of civil law, how insurance companies do business, and how employers treat their employees. Instead of insurance companies providing only for individual plans and family plans, maybe they should provide for individual plans, family plans and/or "group" plans (while the insurance thing is more complex than I describe here, I am trying to keep this simple).
The "group" in this new insurance "group plan" would be defined as necessary. For instance, if I wanted to add my brother or sister to my "group plan", or my father or mother, then I would pay a higher premium, the same way that I pay a higher premium for adding children to my family plan now. So my group could be defined to include, brothers, sisters, parents, or even perfect strangers, if I wanted to pay the increase in premiums.
The next thing would be to get employers to recognize this ability to add individuals that aren't "family" and to offer the subsidy they provide for traditional family and individual plans to the new group plans. Although this is still up to the company, because they don't have to subsidize anything and at best all you could hope for is getting the "bulk rate" that is offered to employers by the insurance companies. These bulk rates would have to include, not just the individual and traditional family plans, but the "group" plans as well.
Now, the insurance issue has become a civil one, not one of legislation. No need to create new laws, no need to lobby congress, no need to get the government involved (so they cannot screw things up for the rest of us)...just lobby the insurance industry, or sue them in civil court to get what you want. The same would hold true to get companies to recognize this new type of group plan.
Now, in legal matters, we still aren't talking about "family", we are talking about contract and biological law. The marriage of a man and a woman is nothing more than a contract in the law and at court. Marriage is something that happens in a church or in religion, and is also a "legal contract" or "civil union". This does not mean that a "marriage contract" or "civil union" is a Marriage in a religious way. Legal rights concerning property, money, and children are defined by a marriage contract. The only item in this list that could be in dispute is the parental legal rights concerning children.
There are the two parts to a marriage/family contract...the property side and the biological side. The property side is easy as anyone can enter into a legal contract with anyone else over property. This has been changed and amended over the years to include (in some cases) prenuptial agreements (among other types of agreements) that define property rights before a marriage contract, and hold throughout the marriage time frame. This isn't the issue. Any same-sex couple could enter into property contract (even if not recognized as a "marriage" or even if there is no civil union), and acquire legal rights equal to having been married.
The hard part of this issue is the biological side. Since a same-sex couple cannot produce children, we must use other laws governing children that are brought into a same-sex union. In a female/female union, for instance, if one person gets pregnant the legal rights belong to that person and the "biological father". The adoption laws would have to cover the other female in this situation, if the father is unknown, deceased, or has legally given up his rights to the child, There is no need to create a whole host of new laws here, it is pretty well covered.
For male/male unions, both "parents" would have to be covered by the adoption laws. This is similar to "traditional" families where the current father in the current family unit may not be the biological father of the/some children in the family. The step-father's rights do not extend to any but his own biological children, unless an adoption occurs. This would be the same for step-mothers, and others involved in the traditional or non-traditional family units.
The biggest hurdle here is getting approval from the adoption agencies to allow same-sex couples to adopt. But now, this situation has been removed from the legislative arena to the civil arena. Sue the adoption agencies to get recognition.
Now, what were once such huge and daunting tasks have become small and manageable. What used to be considered a matter for legislation is now only a matter of a civil dispute.
There are some big HOWEVERs that are attached to all this.
HOWEVER: None of this is to preclude the rights of a religion to have their opinion, membership criteria, or to even support (so far as the law will allow) issues they believe in. None of this can be used to force a Religion to recognize a civil union as a Marriage, so long as the Religion supports, believes in, and teaches Traditional Family, and Traditional Family Values.
Religions are like private clubs, private businesses, and government agencies. They can have criteria for membership/employment. For instance, a Police Department can claim to be an equal opportunity employer even if they will not or can not hire a convicted felon. This is still discrimination. In the same way, a Religion can deny membership to anyone they view as "living in sin". Just because someone has the "right" to engage in behavior does not mean we all have to like or agree with it. That doesn't mean we are bigots, it simply means we have the right to not do or like something, we have the right to believe in what we believe in.
HOWEVER: If we open the law and open the corporate, employment, and insurance arenas to accepting "non-traditional" families...besides accepting same-sex couples, we would have to accept polygamous families (this includes bigamy (being married to more than one person), polyandry (being married to more than one man), and polygyny (being married to more than one woman)), and this could become even more complex if these "non-traditional", same-sex families become polygamous.
Where do we draw the line, who do we exclude? Or do we just accept it, and force the courts to deal with impossibly complex issues such as; are biological rights greater than adoptive rights when dealing with 5 female "parents" where one has biological rights and the other 4 have equal adoptive rights? In this situation, how do you deal with the rights of the child over the rights of the parents? What is truly best for the child? Being left with the biological parent (even if she is a drug addict/alcoholic/mentally incompetent, abusive and negligent individual?) Or one of the other parents, and how do you choose one over the other? And what is more important for the child, the stability of a cohesive family unit, or being passed around to 4 or 5 individuals over a space of time to not have lasting, deep, or bonding relationship with any individual? What is the psychological impact of such relationships on children? What are the long term effects? How about the effects (short and long term) on society?
HOWEVER: Traditional Families may not have been completely successful, they are a known quantity and teh statistics give us a good idea of what we are looking at. Single-Parent families aren't a good as Traditional Families. Same-Sex Families have more problems than Traditional Families.
HOWEVER: Biology dictates that children must be born, or the race goes extinct. This is why homosexuality in animals is rare, compared to the human race. Homosexuality is a drive to extinction. There is a good argument, legally, for disallowing homosexuality, and that is to protect the society, the human race, from going extinct.
Populations must have a positive birth rate to keep the genetic pool alive and active. Populations that fall into stagnation will soon find inbreeding a problem. Societies with a negative birth rate will soon become extinct. It would not even take a majority of a population to practice homosexuality for a negative birthrate to occur. In fact, the Global Birth Rate is in decline, and has been since 1972. Some estimates are that by 2070 the world population will peak, and then decline. That is only just over 30 years from now.
So, how do we balance the rights of an entire population, an entire species, over the rights of a minority?
See, I think people have gotten hung up in the "entitlement" mentality for so long that we don't know up from down or a right from a privilege. You have the right to health care. This doesn't mean that you have the right to insurance to help pay for that health care. Insurance companies (auto, home, health, life, etc) all have criteria on what they will and will not cover based on a variety of factors (risk, age, past incidents, etc). We have been feeling the pinch for our government's involvement in the housing and lending industry; allowing higher risk mortgages for one thing, and none of us like what has happened to the economy. Are we now suggesting it is a good idea to allow the government to get involved in allowing insurance companies to take on higher risk policies? Or having the Government go into direct competition with insurance companies, using our tax dollars? When did we become a socialist country?
We do have the right to health care, but we also have the right to pay for it. If we can get insurance to help pay for it, all the better, but that is a separate issue, and one that should be between the insurance company and you.
The real issue, as I see it, when it comes to "Gay Rights" isn't an issue of "Rights" at all. It is an issue of corporations, employers, insurance companies (the way they do business) and legal contracts, and the recognition of something other than a "traditional family"; it is a CIVIL ISSUE.
Currently, to get insurance, you have to purchase an individual or a family plan. Some of these are provided by the insurance company to an individual/family directly (the individual/family pays the full amount) or to an employer for their employees (the employer may subsidizes some of the premiums). You still have the two types of plans, individual and family, and it is the definition of "family" that has people so "up in arms".
The minority, homosexuals, are demanding that their "family units" be recognized as normal family units. And I use the term "normal family units" specifically, here. A family unit in science, biology, history, and religion is described as "a male/female union that produces children", it is a biological process. Even in psychology, a science that can claim a family unit to be just about anything, defines a difference between a traditional family unit (mother(female), father(male), and children(non-adults)) and a non-traditional family unit (someone acting in the role of father(male or female), mother(male or female) and children(adult or not)) Male/Male and Female/Female unions cannot produce children, so these relationships fall outside of what is considered a "traditional family unit", so they currently don't qualify for some of these legal protections provided a traditional family. So, what are they to do?
Well, it isn't a question of "gay rights" it is a question of civil law, how insurance companies do business, and how employers treat their employees. Instead of insurance companies providing only for individual plans and family plans, maybe they should provide for individual plans, family plans and/or "group" plans (while the insurance thing is more complex than I describe here, I am trying to keep this simple).
The "group" in this new insurance "group plan" would be defined as necessary. For instance, if I wanted to add my brother or sister to my "group plan", or my father or mother, then I would pay a higher premium, the same way that I pay a higher premium for adding children to my family plan now. So my group could be defined to include, brothers, sisters, parents, or even perfect strangers, if I wanted to pay the increase in premiums.
The next thing would be to get employers to recognize this ability to add individuals that aren't "family" and to offer the subsidy they provide for traditional family and individual plans to the new group plans. Although this is still up to the company, because they don't have to subsidize anything and at best all you could hope for is getting the "bulk rate" that is offered to employers by the insurance companies. These bulk rates would have to include, not just the individual and traditional family plans, but the "group" plans as well.
Now, the insurance issue has become a civil one, not one of legislation. No need to create new laws, no need to lobby congress, no need to get the government involved (so they cannot screw things up for the rest of us)...just lobby the insurance industry, or sue them in civil court to get what you want. The same would hold true to get companies to recognize this new type of group plan.
Now, in legal matters, we still aren't talking about "family", we are talking about contract and biological law. The marriage of a man and a woman is nothing more than a contract in the law and at court. Marriage is something that happens in a church or in religion, and is also a "legal contract" or "civil union". This does not mean that a "marriage contract" or "civil union" is a Marriage in a religious way. Legal rights concerning property, money, and children are defined by a marriage contract. The only item in this list that could be in dispute is the parental legal rights concerning children.
There are the two parts to a marriage/family contract...the property side and the biological side. The property side is easy as anyone can enter into a legal contract with anyone else over property. This has been changed and amended over the years to include (in some cases) prenuptial agreements (among other types of agreements) that define property rights before a marriage contract, and hold throughout the marriage time frame. This isn't the issue. Any same-sex couple could enter into property contract (even if not recognized as a "marriage" or even if there is no civil union), and acquire legal rights equal to having been married.
The hard part of this issue is the biological side. Since a same-sex couple cannot produce children, we must use other laws governing children that are brought into a same-sex union. In a female/female union, for instance, if one person gets pregnant the legal rights belong to that person and the "biological father". The adoption laws would have to cover the other female in this situation, if the father is unknown, deceased, or has legally given up his rights to the child, There is no need to create a whole host of new laws here, it is pretty well covered.
For male/male unions, both "parents" would have to be covered by the adoption laws. This is similar to "traditional" families where the current father in the current family unit may not be the biological father of the/some children in the family. The step-father's rights do not extend to any but his own biological children, unless an adoption occurs. This would be the same for step-mothers, and others involved in the traditional or non-traditional family units.
The biggest hurdle here is getting approval from the adoption agencies to allow same-sex couples to adopt. But now, this situation has been removed from the legislative arena to the civil arena. Sue the adoption agencies to get recognition.
Now, what were once such huge and daunting tasks have become small and manageable. What used to be considered a matter for legislation is now only a matter of a civil dispute.
There are some big HOWEVERs that are attached to all this.
HOWEVER: None of this is to preclude the rights of a religion to have their opinion, membership criteria, or to even support (so far as the law will allow) issues they believe in. None of this can be used to force a Religion to recognize a civil union as a Marriage, so long as the Religion supports, believes in, and teaches Traditional Family, and Traditional Family Values.
Religions are like private clubs, private businesses, and government agencies. They can have criteria for membership/employment. For instance, a Police Department can claim to be an equal opportunity employer even if they will not or can not hire a convicted felon. This is still discrimination. In the same way, a Religion can deny membership to anyone they view as "living in sin". Just because someone has the "right" to engage in behavior does not mean we all have to like or agree with it. That doesn't mean we are bigots, it simply means we have the right to not do or like something, we have the right to believe in what we believe in.
HOWEVER: If we open the law and open the corporate, employment, and insurance arenas to accepting "non-traditional" families...besides accepting same-sex couples, we would have to accept polygamous families (this includes bigamy (being married to more than one person), polyandry (being married to more than one man), and polygyny (being married to more than one woman)), and this could become even more complex if these "non-traditional", same-sex families become polygamous.
Where do we draw the line, who do we exclude? Or do we just accept it, and force the courts to deal with impossibly complex issues such as; are biological rights greater than adoptive rights when dealing with 5 female "parents" where one has biological rights and the other 4 have equal adoptive rights? In this situation, how do you deal with the rights of the child over the rights of the parents? What is truly best for the child? Being left with the biological parent (even if she is a drug addict/alcoholic/mentally incompetent, abusive and negligent individual?) Or one of the other parents, and how do you choose one over the other? And what is more important for the child, the stability of a cohesive family unit, or being passed around to 4 or 5 individuals over a space of time to not have lasting, deep, or bonding relationship with any individual? What is the psychological impact of such relationships on children? What are the long term effects? How about the effects (short and long term) on society?
HOWEVER: Traditional Families may not have been completely successful, they are a known quantity and teh statistics give us a good idea of what we are looking at. Single-Parent families aren't a good as Traditional Families. Same-Sex Families have more problems than Traditional Families.
HOWEVER: Biology dictates that children must be born, or the race goes extinct. This is why homosexuality in animals is rare, compared to the human race. Homosexuality is a drive to extinction. There is a good argument, legally, for disallowing homosexuality, and that is to protect the society, the human race, from going extinct.
Populations must have a positive birth rate to keep the genetic pool alive and active. Populations that fall into stagnation will soon find inbreeding a problem. Societies with a negative birth rate will soon become extinct. It would not even take a majority of a population to practice homosexuality for a negative birthrate to occur. In fact, the Global Birth Rate is in decline, and has been since 1972. Some estimates are that by 2070 the world population will peak, and then decline. That is only just over 30 years from now.
So, how do we balance the rights of an entire population, an entire species, over the rights of a minority?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Country's reaction to Obama's Election
Before NOVEMBER, I predicted that if we elect Obama into office, within 8 months of him being president, we will regret it...the people will change their opinion of Obama, and he will loose popularity...we will see through the rhetoric and start to seek the truth...
What I didn't realize, we might not have to wait that long...
The first several just about say it all...
We realized what is about to happen, and regret it...
Keep in mind, the last links talk about more bail-out money...
No matter HOW you slice it, Bush is Republican, but the Congress is Democrat Controlled, and it is Congress passing the Bail-Out programs, giving money to the failing businesses...businesses that have a history of making bad financial choices...
Now, we will have a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress...if you think federal spending is bad right now, you ain't seen nothing yet...and THAT is what the Stocks are reacting to...
Stocks plunge anew as recession worries resurface
11/05 2:30 pm
Stocks tumble
11/06 2:26 pm
Obama win triggers run on guns in many stores
Sat Nov 8, 2008 8:15am EST
Election Results Prompt Run on Guns
10:43 PM Nov 8, 2008
Wall Street falls, unable to shake economic woes
11/10 2:14 pm
Jobless claims jump unexpectedly to seven-year high
11/13 7:01 am
Foreclosure rates up 25 percent year-over-year
11/13 5:15 am
Congress may require more lending for bailout help
11/13 9:37 am
Democrats at work to tap bailout for automakers
11/13 11:54 am
Stocks tumble as investors refocus on economy
11/14 3:49 pm
More Tennesseans Apply For Gun Permits
Nov 14, 2008 06:14 PM
Group: More Utah children lack health insurance
Nov 19. 2008 3:20 pm
Dow falls below 8,000
Nov 19, 2008 2:12 pm
October existing home sales fall by 3.1 percent
Nov. 24, 2008 8:32 am
Down we go again: Fourth-worst drop ever for Dow
December 1st, 2008 @ 4:04pm
Intermountain Healthcare suspends employer-match benefit
December 1st, 2008 @ 6:00pm
Unincorporated Utah County to see tax increase
December 2nd, 2008 @ 8:11am
Layoffs expected today at West Jordan plant
December 2nd, 2008 @ 6:32am
What I didn't realize, we might not have to wait that long...
The first several just about say it all...
We realized what is about to happen, and regret it...
Keep in mind, the last links talk about more bail-out money...
No matter HOW you slice it, Bush is Republican, but the Congress is Democrat Controlled, and it is Congress passing the Bail-Out programs, giving money to the failing businesses...businesses that have a history of making bad financial choices...
Now, we will have a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress...if you think federal spending is bad right now, you ain't seen nothing yet...and THAT is what the Stocks are reacting to...
Stocks plunge anew as recession worries resurface
11/05 2:30 pm
Stocks tumble
11/06 2:26 pm
Obama win triggers run on guns in many stores
Sat Nov 8, 2008 8:15am EST
Election Results Prompt Run on Guns
10:43 PM Nov 8, 2008
Wall Street falls, unable to shake economic woes
11/10 2:14 pm
Jobless claims jump unexpectedly to seven-year high
11/13 7:01 am
Foreclosure rates up 25 percent year-over-year
11/13 5:15 am
Congress may require more lending for bailout help
11/13 9:37 am
Democrats at work to tap bailout for automakers
11/13 11:54 am
Stocks tumble as investors refocus on economy
11/14 3:49 pm
More Tennesseans Apply For Gun Permits
Nov 14, 2008 06:14 PM
Group: More Utah children lack health insurance
Nov 19. 2008 3:20 pm
Dow falls below 8,000
Nov 19, 2008 2:12 pm
October existing home sales fall by 3.1 percent
Nov. 24, 2008 8:32 am
Down we go again: Fourth-worst drop ever for Dow
December 1st, 2008 @ 4:04pm
Intermountain Healthcare suspends employer-match benefit
December 1st, 2008 @ 6:00pm
Unincorporated Utah County to see tax increase
December 2nd, 2008 @ 8:11am
Layoffs expected today at West Jordan plant
December 2nd, 2008 @ 6:32am
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Links that might be of interest...
This is a list of websites about Freedoms, Guns, and Government...y'all might find something interesting in here...
http://bruce.bolingbroke.com/node
http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/2008_11_09_archive.html#5796309297489669302
http://www.barackobamatest.com/
http://www.constitutionalconservative.com/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/home
http://www.rlc.org/
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/
http://www.ldsfreedomportal.net/
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/
http://personal.palouse.net/joeh/pages/facts.htm
http://www.constitutionparty.org/
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/policestate.htm
http://papersplease.org/wp/
http://www.bordc.org/
http://www.ccrkba.org/
http://www.cdt.org/
http://www.fija.org/
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/?q=ARTICLE5/
http://ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/two-more-us-military-units-assigned-for-homeland-security/
http://www.fair.org/index.php
http://guncontrolpolicy.com/
http://www.guncite.com/
http://www.goutahorg.org/
http://www.gunowners.com/
http://gilc.org/
http://www.saveourguns.com/LethalLaws.htm
http://www.pazooter.com/truth/gaftir20.htm
http://www.getusout.net/
http://www.firearmslaw.com/
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/
http://www.flexyourrights.org/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
http://www.saveourguns.com/
http://www.gunfacts.info/
http://www.eff.org/
http://www.heritage.org/
http://www.i2i.org/main/page.php?page_id=1
http://epic.org/
http://www.xmission.com/~ranthon/america.htm
http://www.opencongress.org/
http://opencarry.org/
http://www.nonationalid.com/
http://www.policestate21.com/
http://www.ncac.org/home.cfm
http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
http://www.saf.org/
http://www.reason.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://patriotpost.us/
http://www.libertyamendment.com/
http://www.thegunzone.com/
http://www.americanrevolution.com/
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.givemeliberty.org/
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html
http://www.trtnational.com/
http://www.truthattack.org/
http://www.truthaboutwar.org/home.shtml
http://www.downsizedc.org/
http://change-congress.org/
http://utahminuteman.org/
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35finalpartone.htm
http://www.davekopel.com/
http://bruce.bolingbroke.com/node
http://claytoncramer.com/weblog/2008_11_09_archive.html#5796309297489669302
http://www.barackobamatest.com/
http://www.constitutionalconservative.com/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/home
http://www.rlc.org/
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/
http://www.ldsfreedomportal.net/
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/
http://personal.palouse.net/joeh/pages/facts.htm
http://www.constitutionparty.org/
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/policestate.htm
http://papersplease.org/wp/
http://www.bordc.org/
http://www.ccrkba.org/
http://www.cdt.org/
http://www.fija.org/
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE5/?q=ARTICLE5/
http://ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/two-more-us-military-units-assigned-for-homeland-security/
http://www.fair.org/index.php
http://guncontrolpolicy.com/
http://www.guncite.com/
http://www.goutahorg.org/
http://www.gunowners.com/
http://gilc.org/
http://www.saveourguns.com/LethalLaws.htm
http://www.pazooter.com/truth/gaftir20.htm
http://www.getusout.net/
http://www.firearmslaw.com/
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/
http://www.flexyourrights.org/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
http://www.saveourguns.com/
http://www.gunfacts.info/
http://www.eff.org/
http://www.heritage.org/
http://www.i2i.org/main/page.php?page_id=1
http://epic.org/
http://www.xmission.com/~ranthon/america.htm
http://www.opencongress.org/
http://opencarry.org/
http://www.nonationalid.com/
http://www.policestate21.com/
http://www.ncac.org/home.cfm
http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
http://www.saf.org/
http://www.reason.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://patriotpost.us/
http://www.libertyamendment.com/
http://www.thegunzone.com/
http://www.americanrevolution.com/
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.givemeliberty.org/
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html
http://www.trtnational.com/
http://www.truthattack.org/
http://www.truthaboutwar.org/home.shtml
http://www.downsizedc.org/
http://change-congress.org/
http://utahminuteman.org/
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35finalpartone.htm
http://www.davekopel.com/
Gotta Love Obama - Right on Target
I pulled this information from another blog,
I may not believe these things completely, but there is a ring of truth to some of them...
I thought it might be interesting to discuss these...
Here are Obama's Priorities:
1- a plan to place a 75% excise tax on the sale of firearms
2- legislation that would overturn concealed carry handgun laws in 40 states
3- legislation that would overturn abortion restrictions, such as parental notification, gender 4- selection abortions and requiring doctors to have local hospital certificates when performing abortions
5- legislation that currently prevents non-government organizations, which receive federal funding, from providing abortions in other nations, such as China where coercive abortions are performed based on the gender of the fetus
6- a tax plan that would raise the top tax rate on individuals to 56% when social security taxes are included
7- a tax plan that would increase the percentage of people who pay no taxes from 32% to 44%
8- bill to outlaw workers' rights to a secret ballot in union elections
9- cut defense spending by 25%
10- redistribution of wealth, taxing wealthier Americans in order to give money back to low-income Americans
11- the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, it also permits common-sense gun control, like gun registration, licensing and local gun bans
12- signing the Freedom of Choice Act one of his very first acts in office. The Freedom of Choice Act would nullify every legal limit on abortion, federal, state or otherwise
13- a law that takes away your right to use a firearm in the defense of your home
14- a law to make a gun owner or manufacturer guilty of a criminal offense if their gun is lost or stolen and used in the commission of a crime
15- legislation that would have banned almost all ammunition used for deer hunting
16- a ban on all semi-automatic firearms
17- a proposal that would have banned single shot and double barreled shotguns
18- government should be allowed to censor radio programs
19- In the model for the new renovations, they have taken out "In God We Trust."
I am currently pulling my hair out...
another site that looks interesting...
I may not believe these things completely, but there is a ring of truth to some of them...
I thought it might be interesting to discuss these...
Here are Obama's Priorities:
1- a plan to place a 75% excise tax on the sale of firearms
2- legislation that would overturn concealed carry handgun laws in 40 states
3- legislation that would overturn abortion restrictions, such as parental notification, gender 4- selection abortions and requiring doctors to have local hospital certificates when performing abortions
5- legislation that currently prevents non-government organizations, which receive federal funding, from providing abortions in other nations, such as China where coercive abortions are performed based on the gender of the fetus
6- a tax plan that would raise the top tax rate on individuals to 56% when social security taxes are included
7- a tax plan that would increase the percentage of people who pay no taxes from 32% to 44%
8- bill to outlaw workers' rights to a secret ballot in union elections
9- cut defense spending by 25%
10- redistribution of wealth, taxing wealthier Americans in order to give money back to low-income Americans
11- the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, it also permits common-sense gun control, like gun registration, licensing and local gun bans
12- signing the Freedom of Choice Act one of his very first acts in office. The Freedom of Choice Act would nullify every legal limit on abortion, federal, state or otherwise
13- a law that takes away your right to use a firearm in the defense of your home
14- a law to make a gun owner or manufacturer guilty of a criminal offense if their gun is lost or stolen and used in the commission of a crime
15- legislation that would have banned almost all ammunition used for deer hunting
16- a ban on all semi-automatic firearms
17- a proposal that would have banned single shot and double barreled shotguns
18- government should be allowed to censor radio programs
19- In the model for the new renovations, they have taken out "In God We Trust."
I am currently pulling my hair out...
another site that looks interesting...
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Conspiracy? Or Master Plan...?
Many people like to delve into Conspiracies; I don't...too many of them seem like the same hokus pokus that the Greeks came up with to explain things like Thunder, Lightning, Earthquakes, Floods, and other natural disasters...There are some things that I might not be able to explain, but that doesn't mean that Zeus is responsible...
I also don't believe in coincidences.
Also, I am LDS and being LDS, maybe I read a little too much into the whole Gadianton thing...what with secret combinations and all...it isn't like we don't see them today or anything...
The following is a work in progress...but I thought it was worth trying to get an opinion or two on it...
The following are some thoughts that I really would like to share and hear some comments on, They are interesting observations, and I would like to see if my point of view is valid or if I have missed something or if I have been just a little too eager to see something that isn't there...
How would you take over a government?, or maybe I should phrase it more accurately, How would you take control of a government?
Think about it from a "puppet master" point of view. Everything we see, we are supposed to see - it is what is happening behind the scenes that scares me.
After all, it would be foolish to attack the government straight on, roll tanks up to the capital building, let the entire world know that the US Government has fallen into the control of "someone else". There are too many people that are still loyal to the idea of "America" and too many countries that are still reliant on us for our money to allow another power to take over (other than the one we believe we elect into office). So it would have to be done another way, while keeping up the appearance that we still have something to do with controlling our government.
9/11, I think, should have been a wake-up call to us. For some, it was, for others, it was another "conspiracy" to expose, and still others bought the party line. I am still unsure about the whole origins of the attacks on the World Trade Center (both attacks) and the Oklahoma Federal Building. There is just too much that doesn't seem to add up, and still too many questions unanswered.
I don't think it was a conspiracy from within the government...but I don't know for sure. If it was, it would mean that high ranking (presidential level, etc) politicians from both the Democrat and Republican parties had been planning 9/11 from about the same time Kennedy was assassinated. With the Internet and related "free" information sources, and the accompanying "leaks", I doubt any organization could have kept something like that quiet for so long. So I still have questions on the whole thing...
I do believe, however, that the organization or the individuals "behind" the government used these events to their full advantage. The government's reaction to these events is what I find most intriguing, and those events are what scare me.
After the first WTC Attack, during the Clinton administration, the Omnibus Crime Control Act was passed. This looks very similar to the Patriot Act, so similar it has been called the "baby patriot act" and even more people believe it was the "first draft" of the patriot act, something to test the waters. It was also Clinton that started the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act (which limits the use of Federal Troops on American soil), and Bush finished it off with another executive order. Both presidents past more executive orders for more various and sundry items than any other president ever. Executive orders are just a way to circumvent the established process of law, and when abused can give the executive branch too much power. We are all familiar with the Patriot Act's passage...which was forced down our throats right after 9/11. Has anyone wondered how they managed to have that much legislation READY TO GO so quickly after 9/11? It must have been ready to be introduced PRIOR to the WTC attack. It has been modified a few times, to correct some of the glaring violations of our rights, but it still controls way too much and gives to much power and authority to the Federal and State governments and their law enforcement agencies. This kind of legislation could NEVER have been passed if 9/11 hadn't happened, too many people would have complained about it and its violations. This is why the Omnibus Crime Control Act passed, it was a very mild version of the Patriot Act, and again, it was passed in response to the first WTC attack.
This gives a little background of the laws and "power and authority" issues that we have faced during the past several administrations. The over-all policy in this regard has been "unanimous" or "bi-partisan" between the Democrats (Clinton) and the Republicans (Bush)...interesting that the same kinds of policy, the very same types of legislation (Omnibus Crime Control Act and the Patriot Act) can be brought to the table by two different (and supposedly opposite) forces.
Our country is currently facing a financial crisis which could ruin our quality of life. Money might not buy happiness, but it does make the world go around. During the Clinton administration a "false economy" was built up in technology. We now call it the "bubble". That bubble burst right after Bush came into office. Naturally, everyone blamed Bush...but it really doesn't matter. Believe it or not, a lot of the pain we are feeling in the financial sector right now, is a direct result of a lot of the other financial hocus pocus during the Clinton administration. The changes that were made to the mortgage lending laws, changes in the financial rules and regulations, many of the changes to the investment markets, the unchecked ability to build up a false economy, and the underhanded accounting practices of major corporations; these all add up to disaster...
Not to mention that American corporations (especially their CEOs) have a pay scale that is 12 times higher than that of their European counterparts. It gets even worse when you consider that the financial crunch is exacerbated by the energy crunch...oil and gasoline prices being at record highs. The costs of every good and service going up astronomically to cover the added fuel costs. Companies going out of business and people being left unemployed.
Everything ads up. When you talk financial markets and money, you cannot separate it all out. Unemployment causes foreclosure, foreclosure causes a surplus in un-purchased homes, banks have property they cannot liquidate, interest rates go down, banks close, financial crisis.
I am sure that most are aware that we wouldn't really have to ever fight a war if we were a little more smart about how we do things. If we stopped giving "foreign aid" to other countries (these foreign aid packages are actually loans: loans that are never paid back by the countries we give the money to). If we took the time to use American resources to manufacture American goods. If we built up a solid economy on Research and Development of new technologies...we could become the world leader in new technology. If we would build up our economy by INVESTING in other countries, just like individuals when they invest in new technologies, or in markets...if we would bring our jobs back to American soil, if we would enact TRULY fair trade (we sell and purchase about the same dollar amount of goods from other countries), we could have a very strong dollar.
A strong dollar is leverage, leverage we can use to get what we want. We wouldn't need to send troops, we could send aid packages (these packages could include food or money)...if they aren't "playing ball" we withhold the aid packages...and I am not talking a loan that would never be paid, but a purchase of goods are more than market price, or as a way to get military strongholds in certain territories, or some other concession...nothing is "free" and anything is better than NOT getting repayment on the loans we give.
No one dies when you use $money as ammo, and the financial markets as troops.
We also need to stop the farm subsidies. I understand it is to control a "run-away" market (farmers cannot make a living if the price of grain is too low) but we can use the excess grain (etc.) to help fund alternative fuel sources, or as good-will for starving people in OUR own country (and other countries as needed - part of the foreign aid)...
Instead of making money on what is happening around the world, we are spending money faster than ever in the history of this country. The dollar has fallen, the financial markets are over stretched, and the government is looking at a $700 BILLION bail-out package. What does the government get for the $700 billion? They get part ownership or a majority stake in the financial companies they bail out. They gain control of the financial standing (more than just the Federal Reserve and interest rate settings) of our country. It would no longer be in the hands of the private sector.
If so much good and bad can be done with money, if money can control the rise and fall of nations, if the ebb and flow of life can be controlled by the almighty dollar, we have now given that control to the Federal government.
Social services come in all shapes and sizes. from Federal highways, freeways, roads, and federally controlled and regulated "state" lands, to food stamps and medical care. These are all controlled by the various Local, State and Federal governments. Once the Federal government gets involved, the states loose their freedom to act independently. Ask Montana. Montana moved their Freeway speeds to "reasonable and prudent" which generally meant "anything under 100 mph was acceptable for most vehicles. The Federal government told them to re-enact a standard 75 mph limit, or they would loose federal funding. Wouldn't they call this extortion if a private individual or company tried something similar?
The ever increasing control of how the states run their social services (no child left behind) and the increasing reliance on federal funding put us at the mercy of the Federal government.
Back in the time of Joseph Smith, education was provided by the community. The people with children in school paid for the teacher and the supplies needed. Going to school was a privilege...Today, children MUST get education or they or their parents could face criminal charges. "No child left behind" is just ensuring that all children march to the slowest drummer, so they are all being left behind.
Other social services were handled by the Churches. Not just the LDS Church, but all other churches too. They had their requirements, and their expectations for how you received help; how much for how long, but it was wasn't controlled by the Government, and it wasn't a "free ride".
While it would be nice to be able to provide for everyone, we aren't a socialist country. Our whole philosophy is free market/capitalism. You didn't just receive something for nothing.
Illegal immigrants coming into this country are taking jobs and money. The money they get is usually paid without being taxed, and then the bulk of it is shipped out of the country back to Mexico (or another country). By not taking this seriously, or by trying to find a way to excuse or enable this illegal immigration, we are starting a path to bankruptcy. We give free medical care to illegal immigrants, but not to our own "working poor". We give free education to illegal immigrants, but not to our poor. We have all kinds of housing subsidies, grants, and other moneys that can be provided to illegal immigrants, but not to United States Citizens, if they are "working poor", homeless, or otherwise bad off.
The government also needs to be held accountable. They are paid higher salaries than the average American. They have tons of "perks" like a special retirement plan, NOT social security. They take money from special interest groups and lobbyists. They get kick-backs for pork programs. They aren't accountable to the people for their actions. If they were, the Clintons would have been prosecuted and jailed for their role in the S&L and housing scams. And what happened to all our social security money any way? Why aren't we holding the government accountable? We hold Enron accountable...we bail out AIG and Mac/Fae...(or try to) all because they mismanaged money...why isn't the government being held to the same standard?
Earlier, I stated that I do not believe in coincidence. I really don't. What I see is a trail; the Clinton era "set-up" and the Bush era "spending spree". What I see are two events that created the situation where the Federal Government could take control of the financial markets, and our privacy and personal freedoms.
As the Omnibus Crime Control Act lead to the Patriot Act (which has eroded our rights and freedoms), the poor financial planning, management, and policy have lead to the take-over of our financial institutions (money is power), and the increasing reliance on social services because of the widening gab between the "rich" and the "poor", all point to something that really disturbs me.
So, if someone or some organization really wanted to take over the government, they would only have to do a few things:
Most of the individuals in the high government are rich. This makes us a "Plutocracy" not a "Democracy" (Representative Republic, actually). Supplying money to these individuals ensures their loyalty. Money is power.
Control rights and freedoms in an ambiguous way, so the law can be taken, twisted, and misinterpreted to the benefit of those in power. Once the rights are taken away from the people, there is no freedom. When rights are "controlled" they are no longer rights, but privileges. Privileges are granted by those in power.
Control the money. The ability to give money or take it away to obtain a desired behavior, creates financial oppression. We become a country of "rich" and "poor", and as a plutocracy, the Rich become the "ruling class" over everyone else.
Increase the reliance on federal (and state) social services (mortgage bail-outs, unemployment, disability, etc) gives the Government control on where you live, what you can buy, and how much you can do.
This is happening as I write. The process in the Congress is again being circumvented. The House drafts and then defeats the "bail-out" so the Senate is now doing it on their own. Why not skip all the show, and just enact an executive order to bail-out the companies?
Every problem is a situation waiting for a solution. So, to that end, here are some things that I believe would improve the situation - solutions:
We need to work with all countries that have and are receiving any form of foreign aid to work out a repayment program. Grain, oil, iron, or other products, commodities, services, etc. If we get involved in other countries' wars, they should pay for our services. Iraq, for instance, could pay for 2/3rds of the cost of the war (right now) in OIL. They could repay the other 1/3 later, after the war, or in other "goods or services".
We need to work to better understand the Constitution. People need to know how legislation like the Patriot Act affects their freedoms. The courts need to hear more cases and rule on more constitutional issues. We need clarification, support, and enforcement of the basic principals of the constitution. Not only that, but the constitution lays out the blueprint for the Federal Government's role in the American union of the states. Part of education should be constitutional and governmental classes (just like the "Boy's and Girl's State" programs).
Education should be paid by the people using the service. This would ensure a better education for our children (if you pay for it out of your pocket, not in taxes, you will make sure your child gets the full benefit).
We need to apply the law to individuals and organizations. If you do business outside of the USA, and you import your goods, then you pay the same taxes and tariffs that everyone else pays. Trade agreements should be equal. We should export and import about the same amount of stuff, and all imports must be held to the minimum standard of any product manufactured in the US. This would effectively end our trade with China, as they import about 1/100th from us as we import from them. And it would be an incentive for companies to come back to the USA with their manufacturing.
We should reduce reliance on social services. Let the churches take back control of things like food stamps, unemployment, and other "temporary" services. Let them set the rules and regulations governing "how much" and for "how long" people can receive help. Let the people invest their money instead of a mandated "social security" (which doesn't get used for what it was intended, anyway), my 401K has a higher return rate than social security...
Let education be provided by those using the service. Let the states collect and regulate their taxes for roads, etc. The Federal Government's revenue should come from tariffs and the State's revenue from taxes (sales tax). When the people have more money (pay no income taxes) they buy more goods (with a sales tax system, this means that more taxes are being paid and not just by individuals, but at the same rate by businesses).
Limit the power and authority of the Governments to what is outlined in the Constitution (state and federal) and let the people hold the politicians accountable. Treat politicians as public servants, not aristocracy. Because most of them are "rich" they don't have need of a $100,000 a year salary with all the "perks". As public servants, they should get a small stipend for their service. They should have their food, health care, housing, and transportation paid WHILE THEY ARE WORKING. We should also enact term limits for all elected government positions.
Illegal immigration should be stopped. People that are in this country illegally should not receive any free rides. They should pay taxes. If someone is hiring illegal immigrants and not paying the taxes on the money, they go to jail, have their assets seized and sold at auction. Illegal immigrants, when found, should be immediately deported. No special services offered to them that aren't also offered to our poor, and I would say, if they are here illegally, then NO services provided (a hospital would be required to render aid, and then report the illegal immigrant, who would then be deported).
People need to take a more active role in their government, the government needs to take a less active role in the people.
Bring the US companies back to the US. Or make them pay tariffs just like everyone else, and "foreign taxes" lust like everyone else. Made In America should be the normal, not Made in China...
I know I ask a lot, but with the way things are going, I fear for the future of my children. Is it too much to ask that people educate themselves about their government, their constitutions(s), and their politics? Is it too much to ask that people get involved in the process and help regulate their government? After all, it is supposed to be a government Of the People, By the People, and For the People...shouldn't we treat it as such? Shouldn't we be more "self reliant", and exercise "personal responsibility"?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-much-does-iraq-war-cost-per-month.html
I also don't believe in coincidences.
Also, I am LDS and being LDS, maybe I read a little too much into the whole Gadianton thing...what with secret combinations and all...it isn't like we don't see them today or anything...
The following is a work in progress...but I thought it was worth trying to get an opinion or two on it...
The following are some thoughts that I really would like to share and hear some comments on, They are interesting observations, and I would like to see if my point of view is valid or if I have missed something or if I have been just a little too eager to see something that isn't there...
How would you take over a government?, or maybe I should phrase it more accurately, How would you take control of a government?
Think about it from a "puppet master" point of view. Everything we see, we are supposed to see - it is what is happening behind the scenes that scares me.
After all, it would be foolish to attack the government straight on, roll tanks up to the capital building, let the entire world know that the US Government has fallen into the control of "someone else". There are too many people that are still loyal to the idea of "America" and too many countries that are still reliant on us for our money to allow another power to take over (other than the one we believe we elect into office). So it would have to be done another way, while keeping up the appearance that we still have something to do with controlling our government.
9/11, I think, should have been a wake-up call to us. For some, it was, for others, it was another "conspiracy" to expose, and still others bought the party line. I am still unsure about the whole origins of the attacks on the World Trade Center (both attacks) and the Oklahoma Federal Building. There is just too much that doesn't seem to add up, and still too many questions unanswered.
I don't think it was a conspiracy from within the government...but I don't know for sure. If it was, it would mean that high ranking (presidential level, etc) politicians from both the Democrat and Republican parties had been planning 9/11 from about the same time Kennedy was assassinated. With the Internet and related "free" information sources, and the accompanying "leaks", I doubt any organization could have kept something like that quiet for so long. So I still have questions on the whole thing...
I do believe, however, that the organization or the individuals "behind" the government used these events to their full advantage. The government's reaction to these events is what I find most intriguing, and those events are what scare me.
After the first WTC Attack, during the Clinton administration, the Omnibus Crime Control Act was passed. This looks very similar to the Patriot Act, so similar it has been called the "baby patriot act" and even more people believe it was the "first draft" of the patriot act, something to test the waters. It was also Clinton that started the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act (which limits the use of Federal Troops on American soil), and Bush finished it off with another executive order. Both presidents past more executive orders for more various and sundry items than any other president ever. Executive orders are just a way to circumvent the established process of law, and when abused can give the executive branch too much power. We are all familiar with the Patriot Act's passage...which was forced down our throats right after 9/11. Has anyone wondered how they managed to have that much legislation READY TO GO so quickly after 9/11? It must have been ready to be introduced PRIOR to the WTC attack. It has been modified a few times, to correct some of the glaring violations of our rights, but it still controls way too much and gives to much power and authority to the Federal and State governments and their law enforcement agencies. This kind of legislation could NEVER have been passed if 9/11 hadn't happened, too many people would have complained about it and its violations. This is why the Omnibus Crime Control Act passed, it was a very mild version of the Patriot Act, and again, it was passed in response to the first WTC attack.
This gives a little background of the laws and "power and authority" issues that we have faced during the past several administrations. The over-all policy in this regard has been "unanimous" or "bi-partisan" between the Democrats (Clinton) and the Republicans (Bush)...interesting that the same kinds of policy, the very same types of legislation (Omnibus Crime Control Act and the Patriot Act) can be brought to the table by two different (and supposedly opposite) forces.
Our country is currently facing a financial crisis which could ruin our quality of life. Money might not buy happiness, but it does make the world go around. During the Clinton administration a "false economy" was built up in technology. We now call it the "bubble". That bubble burst right after Bush came into office. Naturally, everyone blamed Bush...but it really doesn't matter. Believe it or not, a lot of the pain we are feeling in the financial sector right now, is a direct result of a lot of the other financial hocus pocus during the Clinton administration. The changes that were made to the mortgage lending laws, changes in the financial rules and regulations, many of the changes to the investment markets, the unchecked ability to build up a false economy, and the underhanded accounting practices of major corporations; these all add up to disaster...
Not to mention that American corporations (especially their CEOs) have a pay scale that is 12 times higher than that of their European counterparts. It gets even worse when you consider that the financial crunch is exacerbated by the energy crunch...oil and gasoline prices being at record highs. The costs of every good and service going up astronomically to cover the added fuel costs. Companies going out of business and people being left unemployed.
Everything ads up. When you talk financial markets and money, you cannot separate it all out. Unemployment causes foreclosure, foreclosure causes a surplus in un-purchased homes, banks have property they cannot liquidate, interest rates go down, banks close, financial crisis.
I am sure that most are aware that we wouldn't really have to ever fight a war if we were a little more smart about how we do things. If we stopped giving "foreign aid" to other countries (these foreign aid packages are actually loans: loans that are never paid back by the countries we give the money to). If we took the time to use American resources to manufacture American goods. If we built up a solid economy on Research and Development of new technologies...we could become the world leader in new technology. If we would build up our economy by INVESTING in other countries, just like individuals when they invest in new technologies, or in markets...if we would bring our jobs back to American soil, if we would enact TRULY fair trade (we sell and purchase about the same dollar amount of goods from other countries), we could have a very strong dollar.
A strong dollar is leverage, leverage we can use to get what we want. We wouldn't need to send troops, we could send aid packages (these packages could include food or money)...if they aren't "playing ball" we withhold the aid packages...and I am not talking a loan that would never be paid, but a purchase of goods are more than market price, or as a way to get military strongholds in certain territories, or some other concession...nothing is "free" and anything is better than NOT getting repayment on the loans we give.
No one dies when you use $money as ammo, and the financial markets as troops.
We also need to stop the farm subsidies. I understand it is to control a "run-away" market (farmers cannot make a living if the price of grain is too low) but we can use the excess grain (etc.) to help fund alternative fuel sources, or as good-will for starving people in OUR own country (and other countries as needed - part of the foreign aid)...
Instead of making money on what is happening around the world, we are spending money faster than ever in the history of this country. The dollar has fallen, the financial markets are over stretched, and the government is looking at a $700 BILLION bail-out package. What does the government get for the $700 billion? They get part ownership or a majority stake in the financial companies they bail out. They gain control of the financial standing (more than just the Federal Reserve and interest rate settings) of our country. It would no longer be in the hands of the private sector.
If so much good and bad can be done with money, if money can control the rise and fall of nations, if the ebb and flow of life can be controlled by the almighty dollar, we have now given that control to the Federal government.
Social services come in all shapes and sizes. from Federal highways, freeways, roads, and federally controlled and regulated "state" lands, to food stamps and medical care. These are all controlled by the various Local, State and Federal governments. Once the Federal government gets involved, the states loose their freedom to act independently. Ask Montana. Montana moved their Freeway speeds to "reasonable and prudent" which generally meant "anything under 100 mph was acceptable for most vehicles. The Federal government told them to re-enact a standard 75 mph limit, or they would loose federal funding. Wouldn't they call this extortion if a private individual or company tried something similar?
The ever increasing control of how the states run their social services (no child left behind) and the increasing reliance on federal funding put us at the mercy of the Federal government.
Back in the time of Joseph Smith, education was provided by the community. The people with children in school paid for the teacher and the supplies needed. Going to school was a privilege...Today, children MUST get education or they or their parents could face criminal charges. "No child left behind" is just ensuring that all children march to the slowest drummer, so they are all being left behind.
Other social services were handled by the Churches. Not just the LDS Church, but all other churches too. They had their requirements, and their expectations for how you received help; how much for how long, but it was wasn't controlled by the Government, and it wasn't a "free ride".
While it would be nice to be able to provide for everyone, we aren't a socialist country. Our whole philosophy is free market/capitalism. You didn't just receive something for nothing.
Illegal immigrants coming into this country are taking jobs and money. The money they get is usually paid without being taxed, and then the bulk of it is shipped out of the country back to Mexico (or another country). By not taking this seriously, or by trying to find a way to excuse or enable this illegal immigration, we are starting a path to bankruptcy. We give free medical care to illegal immigrants, but not to our own "working poor". We give free education to illegal immigrants, but not to our poor. We have all kinds of housing subsidies, grants, and other moneys that can be provided to illegal immigrants, but not to United States Citizens, if they are "working poor", homeless, or otherwise bad off.
The government also needs to be held accountable. They are paid higher salaries than the average American. They have tons of "perks" like a special retirement plan, NOT social security. They take money from special interest groups and lobbyists. They get kick-backs for pork programs. They aren't accountable to the people for their actions. If they were, the Clintons would have been prosecuted and jailed for their role in the S&L and housing scams. And what happened to all our social security money any way? Why aren't we holding the government accountable? We hold Enron accountable...we bail out AIG and Mac/Fae...(or try to) all because they mismanaged money...why isn't the government being held to the same standard?
Earlier, I stated that I do not believe in coincidence. I really don't. What I see is a trail; the Clinton era "set-up" and the Bush era "spending spree". What I see are two events that created the situation where the Federal Government could take control of the financial markets, and our privacy and personal freedoms.
As the Omnibus Crime Control Act lead to the Patriot Act (which has eroded our rights and freedoms), the poor financial planning, management, and policy have lead to the take-over of our financial institutions (money is power), and the increasing reliance on social services because of the widening gab between the "rich" and the "poor", all point to something that really disturbs me.
So, if someone or some organization really wanted to take over the government, they would only have to do a few things:
Most of the individuals in the high government are rich. This makes us a "Plutocracy" not a "Democracy" (Representative Republic, actually). Supplying money to these individuals ensures their loyalty. Money is power.
Control rights and freedoms in an ambiguous way, so the law can be taken, twisted, and misinterpreted to the benefit of those in power. Once the rights are taken away from the people, there is no freedom. When rights are "controlled" they are no longer rights, but privileges. Privileges are granted by those in power.
Control the money. The ability to give money or take it away to obtain a desired behavior, creates financial oppression. We become a country of "rich" and "poor", and as a plutocracy, the Rich become the "ruling class" over everyone else.
Increase the reliance on federal (and state) social services (mortgage bail-outs, unemployment, disability, etc) gives the Government control on where you live, what you can buy, and how much you can do.
This is happening as I write. The process in the Congress is again being circumvented. The House drafts and then defeats the "bail-out" so the Senate is now doing it on their own. Why not skip all the show, and just enact an executive order to bail-out the companies?
Every problem is a situation waiting for a solution. So, to that end, here are some things that I believe would improve the situation - solutions:
We need to work with all countries that have and are receiving any form of foreign aid to work out a repayment program. Grain, oil, iron, or other products, commodities, services, etc. If we get involved in other countries' wars, they should pay for our services. Iraq, for instance, could pay for 2/3rds of the cost of the war (right now) in OIL. They could repay the other 1/3 later, after the war, or in other "goods or services".
We need to work to better understand the Constitution. People need to know how legislation like the Patriot Act affects their freedoms. The courts need to hear more cases and rule on more constitutional issues. We need clarification, support, and enforcement of the basic principals of the constitution. Not only that, but the constitution lays out the blueprint for the Federal Government's role in the American union of the states. Part of education should be constitutional and governmental classes (just like the "Boy's and Girl's State" programs).
Education should be paid by the people using the service. This would ensure a better education for our children (if you pay for it out of your pocket, not in taxes, you will make sure your child gets the full benefit).
We need to apply the law to individuals and organizations. If you do business outside of the USA, and you import your goods, then you pay the same taxes and tariffs that everyone else pays. Trade agreements should be equal. We should export and import about the same amount of stuff, and all imports must be held to the minimum standard of any product manufactured in the US. This would effectively end our trade with China, as they import about 1/100th from us as we import from them. And it would be an incentive for companies to come back to the USA with their manufacturing.
We should reduce reliance on social services. Let the churches take back control of things like food stamps, unemployment, and other "temporary" services. Let them set the rules and regulations governing "how much" and for "how long" people can receive help. Let the people invest their money instead of a mandated "social security" (which doesn't get used for what it was intended, anyway), my 401K has a higher return rate than social security...
Let education be provided by those using the service. Let the states collect and regulate their taxes for roads, etc. The Federal Government's revenue should come from tariffs and the State's revenue from taxes (sales tax). When the people have more money (pay no income taxes) they buy more goods (with a sales tax system, this means that more taxes are being paid and not just by individuals, but at the same rate by businesses).
Limit the power and authority of the Governments to what is outlined in the Constitution (state and federal) and let the people hold the politicians accountable. Treat politicians as public servants, not aristocracy. Because most of them are "rich" they don't have need of a $100,000 a year salary with all the "perks". As public servants, they should get a small stipend for their service. They should have their food, health care, housing, and transportation paid WHILE THEY ARE WORKING. We should also enact term limits for all elected government positions.
Illegal immigration should be stopped. People that are in this country illegally should not receive any free rides. They should pay taxes. If someone is hiring illegal immigrants and not paying the taxes on the money, they go to jail, have their assets seized and sold at auction. Illegal immigrants, when found, should be immediately deported. No special services offered to them that aren't also offered to our poor, and I would say, if they are here illegally, then NO services provided (a hospital would be required to render aid, and then report the illegal immigrant, who would then be deported).
People need to take a more active role in their government, the government needs to take a less active role in the people.
Bring the US companies back to the US. Or make them pay tariffs just like everyone else, and "foreign taxes" lust like everyone else. Made In America should be the normal, not Made in China...
I know I ask a lot, but with the way things are going, I fear for the future of my children. Is it too much to ask that people educate themselves about their government, their constitutions(s), and their politics? Is it too much to ask that people get involved in the process and help regulate their government? After all, it is supposed to be a government Of the People, By the People, and For the People...shouldn't we treat it as such? Shouldn't we be more "self reliant", and exercise "personal responsibility"?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-much-does-iraq-war-cost-per-month.html
Monday, November 10, 2008
EXPOSED: Anti-Prop. 8 Hatred against the Mormons
I read an article on KUTV that mentioned a group or a web site that states "Mormons Stole Our Rights".
I read with dismay just how much hate these "anti-prop 8" people have...and it is directed at what is considered "a small part" of the "pro-prop 8" movement.
After reading the web site, I wrote a letter to the owners it is as follows:
I am afraid that your site is very hypocritical. You claim a desire to "stop the hate" when your site is all about hate. Not to mention you have so many facts wrong that I really don't know where to start.
HOWEVER, I am ready to stop the hate, are you?
First, I would like to say that I was against my Church's involvement in the Prop. 8 push. I believe getting the Government involved in religion in any way is a horrible risk to our Religious Freedoms. That said, there aren't enough Mormons in California to get this legislation passed, so your attack of the LDS Church is unfounded, or at the very least, misplaced.
So, are you going to give equal time to push for the revocation of the tax status of each of the ProtectMarriage Coalition's members? Or are you going to stop the hate against a single member of that coalition?
Now, for some factual errors:
Your web site asks, "Why did this proposition pass?" The answer is not "The Mormon Church" as your site claims, but it is "The People of California VOTED this Amendment in by a MAJORITY". This means that your finger pointing needs to point at the right individuals.
Are you ready to stop the hate?
There are organizations with the desire to teach homosexuality in public schools. Heterosexuality is not taught in schools, so why should homosexuality?
I find it interesting that you state, "They told us churches would lose the right to free speech" and declare this to be "Lies". yet here you are, denying the Church has the right to speak for or against items like Prop. 8. So, is it "Lies" or is it "the Truth"...it can only be one or the other.
Churches, as well as Corporations, enjoy the same rights as individuals. They have the right to Free Speech and Expression. To bar any religion from speaking out for or against legislation is to remove their rights to free speech.
Are you ready to stop the hate?
I agree with Brigham Young, with one change to his words...Marriage is ALSO a civil contract. Meaning that Marriage is a RELIGIOUS binding of individuals, with a "Civil Union" clause (for legal purposes). I believe that any time you allow a Government to dictate Religious Policy (how many wifes or husbands an individual can have, etc) you open the door for that Government to legislate other aspects of the religion, like who can be baptized (membership criteria) and what constitutes a sin...
I know Churches, including the Methodist Church in New Jersey, are afraid that if Homosexuals are able to legally marry, they will be able to force Churches to accept them as members and as married couples. Soon, the Churches have lost their ability to teach or exercise their religion, but are bound by law to bend to the will of the people. This is the very thing the First Amendment is supposed to prevent.
Your site then claims, "Mormons have powerful representation in the Senate, and ran a nationally viable candidate for the United States Presidency in 2008." This is kind of a stretch, isn't it?
Are you ready to stop the hate?
Mormons, per se, do not have "powerful representation in the senate", although there are Mormons that are serving in the senate. There are also many Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Agnostics in the senate (among other political seats) throughout the country. This has nothing to do with "the Church" and everything to do with people's free agency to open to whatever religion they choose.
The Mormon Church did not run a political candidate for President. Mitt Romney ran for president, and he also happens to be Mormon. See my above statement.
On the other hand, if you are suggesting that we would be better off voting in Athiests, maybe you should consider that atheism is an "anti-god" religion, but a religion none the less. (or they wouldn't persue it with such viggor and religious zeal)
I mean, really, if we take your logic, we should start "mass panic" by declaring that the Mormons have "powerful influence in the military"...
The Boy Scouts of America? Really? Shouldn't we be trying to protect our children. The LDS Church, among others, are having troubles enough with Gay leadership abusing children. The Boy Scouts are also supposed to teach Traditional Values, the same values that your organization is speaking against. So the same rules apply, don't they?
Your site then goes on to say, "Some Mormons send their own gay teenage children to "conversion camps," where these children are forced to endure shock therapy and given psychotropic drugs" and then you claim, "The Mormon Church has yet to repudiate these activities."
I am trying to see how "some Mormons" equals "the Mormon Church", anothe misleading tactic?
Are you ready to stop the hate?
While I am not "The Mormon Church" and have no authority to speak for "The Church", I can repudiate the activities you mention, "shock therapy" and that kids are "given psychotropic drugs" to change their sexual orientation. These activities are not part of any "conversion" therapy practiced at Evergreen International (the only Mormon related group in your Wiki page)... Your attempt to lump all similar organizations to the Mormon Church is a little dishonest, don't you think?
Stop the hate? Are YOU ready to stop the hate yet? Your A) Lies or B) Misinformation or C) Disinformation or D) Dishonesty are just as bad as you claim the "lies" about Homosexuality are. Hypocrisy is "the act of pretending to oppose a belief or behavior while holding the same beliefs or behaviors at the same time."
Are you ready to stop the hate?
The Mormons didn't amend the Constitution of California. The PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, the bulk of which ARE NOT Mormons, voted and passed Prop. 8 which Amended the Constitution of California.
The Majority of Californians voted this Proposition in. For you or the Court to affirm that the Rights of the Minority (apparently Homosexuals and their supporters) are greater than the Rights of the Majority defies the Democratic and Republic Principals that this Country and YOUR STATE are founded upon. 150 years of allowing the people to choose what they want, and YOU are calling for that process to change? All dictators are bent on the agenda of a Minority.
This situation is nearly identical to the 2000 election, when the Democratic Process was nearly subverted by using the Courts. However, in the case with Prop. 8, there aren't any electors casting the vote, it was a popular vote, by the People of California, by some 52.4%. The real interesting numbers are how many African-American and Hispanic voters voted FOR the passage of Prop. 8; some 70% and 53% respectively.
Is it ok to protest or speak out against the LDS Church? (yes?) Is it ok to protest or speak out against African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans? (no?) Because why? If you speak out against Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans, you are a racist... so what are you when you speak out against the LDS or the Catholics? The very same as a racist...they call it BIGOTRY...you are a Bigot.
Are you ready to stop the hate?
Take away the Tax Status of the Church? For exercising its right to free speech?
Your first IRS Link takes me to a bulletin about "Indian tribal government". Please, I BEG YOU, please do a little more research... I know how people hate Wikipedia, but Wikipedia has a great section on 501(c)(3) status, which states, in part,
"Political activity
Organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office. Public charities are permitted to conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that 'no substantial part' of a public charity's activities may be devoted to lobbying, charities with very large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the 'expenditure' test) or more (under the 'substantial part' test) per year on lobbying. [7]
All 501(c)(3) organizations are also permitted to educate individuals about issues, or fund research that supports their political position without overtly advocating for a position on a specific bill. Think tanks such as the Cato Institute, Center for American Progress, and Heritage Foundation and other 501(c)(3) organizations produce reports and recommendations on policy proposals that do not count as lobbying under the tax code. Another example is the The American Foreign Policy Council is a lobbyist organization operating under this code."
As you can see, your viewpoint about lobbying or other activities to influence elections only counts with PUBLIC OFFICE, not LEGISLATION. Your whole premise for your web site is FLAWED. As far as I can tell, the LDS Church passes the test on this law.
Your site alleges, "the Mormon Church made this a far more substantial part of its [the ProtectMarriage coalition's] activities than any other [Church]"...isn't this what you said?
However, "William Weigand, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento" says, "Mormon voters were only a small part of the groundswell that supported Proposition 8."
So, according to the other members of the Coalition, the Mormons were a "small part" to your "substantial part"...which is it? It cannot be both. So either you are misleading your readers, or everyone else is.
Are you ready to stop the hate?
And one lats item:
"The United Kingdom has taken preliminary steps to strip the church of its tax-exempt status." This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject at hand. NOTHING.
The whole purpose of your twisting this article to mean anything other than what it says is dishonesty.
The Church is NOT loosing tax-exempt status in England...it is loosing tax-exempt status for its temples because they are not "public places of worship".
ARE YOU READY TO STOP THE HATE?
The reamedy?
1) Fix your web site to tell the truth about the above informations
2) Attack each member of the ProtectMarriage coalition equally and go after the larger percentage supporters in the African-American and Hispanic-American communities EQUALLY
3) Accept the will of the Majority of the people of California
4) All of the above
Oh, and I would be very careful from here. Your push against the LDS and the LDS Church is very close to the border of encroaching on the Hate Crime legislation at the State and Federal levels. Your website is only fueling the Hate, and here is proof... "Vandals attack 3 LDS churches in Layton"
UPDATE --> I guess they weren't ready to stop the hate yet...
"6 LDS churches vandalized"
UPDATE --> I guess they weren't ready to stop the hate yet...
"Number of LDS churches vandalized increases to 7"
"Churches Vandalized Over Prop 8"
UPDATE --> I guess they weren't ready to stop the hate yet...
"Gays Bashing Mormons Over Prop 8 Nationwide"
"FBI, USPS to investigate suspicious envelope at Temple Square"
"White powder discovered at 2nd LDS temple"
"Complaint Filed Over Mormon Aid To Prop 8"
(Does anyone actually think that the LDS Church failed to file the proper papers? With as many lawyers as the church employs and the number of lawyers in the 12 and other leadership positions...could that actually happen?)
UPDATE -->:
"LDS Church Releases Statement Again About Public Targeting After Prop 8 Vote"
"Proposition 8 protests continue"
"Gay rights rallies held nationwide to protest Calif. ban"
UPDATE --> I guess they weren't ready to stop the hate yet...
"Breaking News - White Substance Found In Syracuse Jr. High LDS Seminary"
UPDATE --> I guess they weren't ready to stop the hate yet...
"LDS Church Targeting Continues In Wake Of Prop. 8 "
UPDATE --> Challenging the Will of the People
"Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban "
UPDATE --> It looks like they might be ready to start the "stop the hate" phase <-- ETADPU "Gay-rights advocates lay out legislative action"
12/15/08 8:45 am
I read with dismay just how much hate these "anti-prop 8" people have...and it is directed at what is considered "a small part" of the "pro-prop 8" movement.
After reading the web site, I wrote a letter to the owners it is as follows:
I am afraid that your site is very hypocritical. You claim a desire to "stop the hate" when your site is all about hate. Not to mention you have so many facts wrong that I really don't know where to start.
HOWEVER, I am ready to stop the hate, are you?
First, I would like to say that I was against my Church's involvement in the Prop. 8 push. I believe getting the Government involved in religion in any way is a horrible risk to our Religious Freedoms. That said, there aren't enough Mormons in California to get this legislation passed, so your attack of the LDS Church is unfounded, or at the very least, misplaced.
So, are you going to give equal time to push for the revocation of the tax status of each of the ProtectMarriage Coalition's members? Or are you going to stop the hate against a single member of that coalition?
Now, for some factual errors:
Your web site asks, "Why did this proposition pass?" The answer is not "The Mormon Church" as your site claims, but it is "The People of California VOTED this Amendment in by a MAJORITY". This means that your finger pointing needs to point at the right individuals.
Are you ready to stop the hate?
There are organizations with the desire to teach homosexuality in public schools. Heterosexuality is not taught in schools, so why should homosexuality?
I find it interesting that you state, "They told us churches would lose the right to free speech" and declare this to be "Lies". yet here you are, denying the Church has the right to speak for or against items like Prop. 8. So, is it "Lies" or is it "the Truth"...it can only be one or the other.
Churches, as well as Corporations, enjoy the same rights as individuals. They have the right to Free Speech and Expression. To bar any religion from speaking out for or against legislation is to remove their rights to free speech.
Are you ready to stop the hate?
I agree with Brigham Young, with one change to his words...Marriage is ALSO a civil contract. Meaning that Marriage is a RELIGIOUS binding of individuals, with a "Civil Union" clause (for legal purposes). I believe that any time you allow a Government to dictate Religious Policy (how many wifes or husbands an individual can have, etc) you open the door for that Government to legislate other aspects of the religion, like who can be baptized (membership criteria) and what constitutes a sin...
I know Churches, including the Methodist Church in New Jersey, are afraid that if Homosexuals are able to legally marry, they will be able to force Churches to accept them as members and as married couples. Soon, the Churches have lost their ability to teach or exercise their religion, but are bound by law to bend to the will of the people. This is the very thing the First Amendment is supposed to prevent.
Your site then claims, "Mormons have powerful representation in the Senate, and ran a nationally viable candidate for the United States Presidency in 2008." This is kind of a stretch, isn't it?
Are you ready to stop the hate?
Mormons, per se, do not have "powerful representation in the senate", although there are Mormons that are serving in the senate. There are also many Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Agnostics in the senate (among other political seats) throughout the country. This has nothing to do with "the Church" and everything to do with people's free agency to open to whatever religion they choose.
The Mormon Church did not run a political candidate for President. Mitt Romney ran for president, and he also happens to be Mormon. See my above statement.
On the other hand, if you are suggesting that we would be better off voting in Athiests, maybe you should consider that atheism is an "anti-god" religion, but a religion none the less. (or they wouldn't persue it with such viggor and religious zeal)
I mean, really, if we take your logic, we should start "mass panic" by declaring that the Mormons have "powerful influence in the military"...
The Boy Scouts of America? Really? Shouldn't we be trying to protect our children. The LDS Church, among others, are having troubles enough with Gay leadership abusing children. The Boy Scouts are also supposed to teach Traditional Values, the same values that your organization is speaking against. So the same rules apply, don't they?
Your site then goes on to say, "Some Mormons send their own gay teenage children to "conversion camps," where these children are forced to endure shock therapy and given psychotropic drugs" and then you claim, "The Mormon Church has yet to repudiate these activities."
I am trying to see how "some Mormons" equals "the Mormon Church", anothe misleading tactic?
Are you ready to stop the hate?
While I am not "The Mormon Church" and have no authority to speak for "The Church", I can repudiate the activities you mention, "shock therapy" and that kids are "given psychotropic drugs" to change their sexual orientation. These activities are not part of any "conversion" therapy practiced at Evergreen International (the only Mormon related group in your Wiki page)... Your attempt to lump all similar organizations to the Mormon Church is a little dishonest, don't you think?
Stop the hate? Are YOU ready to stop the hate yet? Your A) Lies or B) Misinformation or C) Disinformation or D) Dishonesty are just as bad as you claim the "lies" about Homosexuality are. Hypocrisy is "the act of pretending to oppose a belief or behavior while holding the same beliefs or behaviors at the same time."
Are you ready to stop the hate?
The Mormons didn't amend the Constitution of California. The PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, the bulk of which ARE NOT Mormons, voted and passed Prop. 8 which Amended the Constitution of California.
The Majority of Californians voted this Proposition in. For you or the Court to affirm that the Rights of the Minority (apparently Homosexuals and their supporters) are greater than the Rights of the Majority defies the Democratic and Republic Principals that this Country and YOUR STATE are founded upon. 150 years of allowing the people to choose what they want, and YOU are calling for that process to change? All dictators are bent on the agenda of a Minority.
This situation is nearly identical to the 2000 election, when the Democratic Process was nearly subverted by using the Courts. However, in the case with Prop. 8, there aren't any electors casting the vote, it was a popular vote, by the People of California, by some 52.4%. The real interesting numbers are how many African-American and Hispanic voters voted FOR the passage of Prop. 8; some 70% and 53% respectively.
Is it ok to protest or speak out against the LDS Church? (yes?) Is it ok to protest or speak out against African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans? (no?) Because why? If you speak out against Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans, you are a racist... so what are you when you speak out against the LDS or the Catholics? The very same as a racist...they call it BIGOTRY...you are a Bigot.
Are you ready to stop the hate?
Take away the Tax Status of the Church? For exercising its right to free speech?
Your first IRS Link takes me to a bulletin about "Indian tribal government". Please, I BEG YOU, please do a little more research... I know how people hate Wikipedia, but Wikipedia has a great section on 501(c)(3) status, which states, in part,
"Political activity
Organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office. Public charities are permitted to conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that 'no substantial part' of a public charity's activities may be devoted to lobbying, charities with very large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the 'expenditure' test) or more (under the 'substantial part' test) per year on lobbying. [7]
All 501(c)(3) organizations are also permitted to educate individuals about issues, or fund research that supports their political position without overtly advocating for a position on a specific bill. Think tanks such as the Cato Institute, Center for American Progress, and Heritage Foundation and other 501(c)(3) organizations produce reports and recommendations on policy proposals that do not count as lobbying under the tax code. Another example is the The American Foreign Policy Council is a lobbyist organization operating under this code."
As you can see, your viewpoint about lobbying or other activities to influence elections only counts with PUBLIC OFFICE, not LEGISLATION. Your whole premise for your web site is FLAWED. As far as I can tell, the LDS Church passes the test on this law.
Your site alleges, "the Mormon Church made this a far more substantial part of its [the ProtectMarriage coalition's] activities than any other [Church]"...isn't this what you said?
However, "William Weigand, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento" says, "Mormon voters were only a small part of the groundswell that supported Proposition 8."
So, according to the other members of the Coalition, the Mormons were a "small part" to your "substantial part"...which is it? It cannot be both. So either you are misleading your readers, or everyone else is.
Are you ready to stop the hate?
And one lats item:
"The United Kingdom has taken preliminary steps to strip the church of its tax-exempt status." This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject at hand. NOTHING.
The whole purpose of your twisting this article to mean anything other than what it says is dishonesty.
The Church is NOT loosing tax-exempt status in England...it is loosing tax-exempt status for its temples because they are not "public places of worship".
ARE YOU READY TO STOP THE HATE?
The reamedy?
1) Fix your web site to tell the truth about the above informations
2) Attack each member of the ProtectMarriage coalition equally and go after the larger percentage supporters in the African-American and Hispanic-American communities EQUALLY
3) Accept the will of the Majority of the people of California
4) All of the above
Oh, and I would be very careful from here. Your push against the LDS and the LDS Church is very close to the border of encroaching on the Hate Crime legislation at the State and Federal levels. Your website is only fueling the Hate, and here is proof... "Vandals attack 3 LDS churches in Layton"
UPDATE --> I guess they weren't ready to stop the hate yet...
"6 LDS churches vandalized"
UPDATE --> I guess they weren't ready to stop the hate yet...
"Number of LDS churches vandalized increases to 7"
"Churches Vandalized Over Prop 8"
UPDATE --> I guess they weren't ready to stop the hate yet...
"Gays Bashing Mormons Over Prop 8 Nationwide"
"FBI, USPS to investigate suspicious envelope at Temple Square"
"White powder discovered at 2nd LDS temple"
"Complaint Filed Over Mormon Aid To Prop 8"
(Does anyone actually think that the LDS Church failed to file the proper papers? With as many lawyers as the church employs and the number of lawyers in the 12 and other leadership positions...could that actually happen?)
UPDATE -->:
"LDS Church Releases Statement Again About Public Targeting After Prop 8 Vote"
"Proposition 8 protests continue"
"Gay rights rallies held nationwide to protest Calif. ban"
UPDATE --> I guess they weren't ready to stop the hate yet...
"Breaking News - White Substance Found In Syracuse Jr. High LDS Seminary"
UPDATE --> I guess they weren't ready to stop the hate yet...
"LDS Church Targeting Continues In Wake Of Prop. 8 "
UPDATE --> Challenging the Will of the People
"Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban "
UPDATE --> It looks like they might be ready to start the "stop the hate" phase <-- ETADPU "Gay-rights advocates lay out legislative action"
12/15/08 8:45 am
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)