Lessons from Noah

Lessons from the story of Noah:
God has a plan for his children
He loves his children
He will not allow the wicked to prevail
He will save the righteous. 
He is serious about his children keeping the commandments. 

First, let's review the story of Noah because it is not universally known in an age of biblical ignorance.  Noah is a prophet of God and the son of a prophet. His job is to teach people God's word.  But not many are listening. The world is full of violence. Noah tries to get everyone to repent.  We don't know how many lives he changes but overall the project is a failure.  The time has come for serious action. God instructs Noah to build an ark because He is going to flood the earth. The ark is built, food and animals are gathered and the rain begins.  Apparently this is the first time it rains on the earth. And so it rains big.  40 days and nights nonstop. Every person and animal dies. Except for the eight people on the boat and the animals in there. It takes another 150 days for the water to subside. They stay on the ark a little longer and send out birds.  One time a dove returns with a leaf. Next flight it doesn't return and we can only guess it has found a better home than the ark. They stay on the arc for a while, I guess to let some of the mud dry out. Then they all disembark and repopulate the earth. God covenants with Noah never to destroy the earth by water again and leaves a rainbow in the clouds as a sign. Noah's sons continue down to Abraham. 

The flood is the first recorded destruction in the Scriptures but not the last. Another famous one is Sodom and Gomorrah.   In that episode Abraham argued that the city be spared on account of the righteous that dwelt there. Unfortunately, there were not many. Instead Lot and family were extracted and the cities were wiped out. 

Again we see that God will spare those that follow his instructions. (Just don't look back.)  And we can't fail to notice the seriousness of obedience to the commandments of God.  If you are evil then you risk heavenly destruction. 

But why and how does that prove God's love?  All evil is not destroyed by God, or else we wouldn't have such obvious problems with evil people.  Kim Jong Un should have met a meteor by now if instant punishment was the rule. 

There comes a time when a civilization is so bad that good people can't change it or get a fair chance at exercising free will because there is only evil before them continuously. When that happens it is the love of God for children that mandates a reset. 

Suitable education

I read an opinion by the Arizona School Administrators that was shared on AZcentral.com.  They included this quote from Thomas Jefferson.  "An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. It is therefore imperative that the nation see to it that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens."

Here is my response:

If Thomas Jefferson were leading the country today, he would have many concerns.  If we put aside the obvious disasters (which is everything the progressives are doing) he might note that there are problems with education.  I won’t pretend to guess his thoughts or actions but I will agree that he was in favor of education for all.  President Jefferson might even “vocalize a call to action for the future of American public education”, whatever that means.  

Of course, how and what to teach is debatable.  I have no problem with public education.  I have a problem with government schools.  I don’t like what they teach or how they do it.  That is the cause of the blatant lack of support for public education. If you want to invoke the founding fathers, then you should ask yourself what someone like Jefferson would view as the goal of education.  What does it mean to have an “enlightened citizenry”? One that is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic?  It does not mean students that fill in bubbles on a standardized test.  It does not mean students who know how to recycle.  The government schools are a waste of time (and a ton of money) because they do not teach what they should.  

What program does your school have that is teaching everyone, not just students, to be self-governing?  The goal of government schools is to create obedient, left-leaning citizens. Workers for the machine of government.  I am interested in a true liberal education, that frees the mind and harnesses the passions.  Instead, schools these days are all about self - expression.  

Thomas Jefferson didn’t go to a public school.  He was taught the wisdom of the ancients.  He didn’t invent any of the ideas that he wrote in the Declaration of Independence.  These were principles that were taught to him by his tutors.  He read and studied and then expressed self evident truths to the world.  However, these are not principles that children study today.  They watch Al Gore movies and cut French words out of magazines.  They sit stoned in class, and the teachers don’t care.  Keeps them quiet.  

How about we teach our children what Thomas Jefferson learned?  Because that is the public education that our children should receive. We need to prepare them to be leaders in our republic.  They can learn to answer questions like: What is justice?  What is the highest good?  Those are questions they should be asking.  Instead we get Common Core.  America’s greatness did not come from beating other nations in math scores, it is based on better principles.  Most of these principles cannot be taught anymore because it would resemble religion, which is now a forbidden subject in school.  The Bible was a part of Thomas Jefferson’s education.

Meanwhile, this silly group called the Arizona School Administrators claims that shared tax money will “undermine the fabric of our democracy”.  Isn’t that a little hysterical?  These bureaucratic types will never have enough money.  There is a current reform proposal in Arizona to allow for voucher-like payments of tax money to schools of the parent’s choice, and that would include private schools.  Perhaps even schools run by a church, heaven forbid.  School Administrators are freaking out.  As if someone is trying to get a piece of their pie.  They own it, right?  They believe that all school money rightfully belongs to government educators.  I wish they could learn how to budget that pie and then maybe stop the constant requests for donations of paper for the local high school.  Money for public education comes from taxes.  From We the People.  It is my money and should be spent how I see fit.  There should be no rule that tax money never be spent on anything but government schools.  We need school choice and less money taken from us to be wasted on poor education.   

This school administrators group wants to use Thomas Jefferson’s quote as a call for support of public education.  I don’t think they understand what he was asking for.  Providing a suitable education does not mean more control, more money and a government monopoly.  They don’t get it. Read the Jefferson quote again.  I think it convicts them as failures to accomplish what he was asking for.  

Solar Power

We seem to have skipped winter here in Arizona.  I think the rest of the country must have stolen all the cold and left us with the heat.  Seems like a poor bargain as we have too much warmth already.  And they don’t seem content with their frozen loot.  It is time to prepare to switch the air conditioning back on.  No one likes doing it because it means that summer has begun, no matter what the calendar says.  And it means huge electric bills.  Whenever there is a problem as painful as paying for air conditioning, someone clever will find a way to make money off of a solution.  It is the marvelous result of having an economy driven by entrepreneurs, for which we need a new non-French word.  However, we need to make sure we are solving the correct problem.   Hint: it is not the cost of electricity. 

One of the proposed solutions that I have seen around lately is rooftop solar.  Why not use the light from the sun to reduce the heat of the sun?  Sounds very clever.  I don’t know why I don’t see that as a catch phrase on the solar company’s websites.  But does it actually do any good?  Does it reduce the huge summer electric bill?  Actually it can in a way, but it can create other problems.   

First, it is ugly.  I am a huge Star Wars fan but I don’t know why anyone wants their house to look like a TIE-fighter.  Second, it is a legal hassle.  You don’t own the solar panels, they are leased to you from a solar company.  You buy the electricity from the panels they own on your roof.  You have to claim the solar credits from the IRS on your taxes.  Their recent success has proven that the solar companies have made this whole process as painless as possible.   Congrats to them on that point.  Third is efficiency – it is impossible for a solar panel to produce very much electricity and it is far less efficient than burning fuel at the power plant.  I guess that is two things but they are related.  You need a lot of solar panels because they really don’t do much.  You need to cover a large portion of your roof just to run TV, lights, computer, refrigerator and the washer.  Forget the AC unit. Although I find it very cool that photovoltaic cells turn sunlight into electricity, solar panels can only produce a little power.  Not that they are lazy but simply that there isn’t much energy to extract.  Think about your last sunburn.  That is the energy of the sun, in all its wrath, on your unprotected skin.  Painful, but luckily, not instantly fatal, as if we were vampires.   The earth is just the right distance from the sun.  Good news for us, but bad news for solar panels.  There is a limited amount of energy for them to pick up.   And only when they are new because they wear out. Only when there are no clouds because they block all the energy (not a problem in AZ).  Only when they are clean because dust reduces their power.  Only during the day because I was just checking if you are still awake.  Only when the sun is facing the panels because even a few degrees off will show a drop in power production.  Only in the first seven years before the cells begin to degrade and only within 20 years before they are useless.   Solar panels are great to maybe recharge your cell phone when camping but not to run an AC unit.  The truth is that your local power plant is much better at this than you are.  

Why do homeowners want to get into the energy generation business?  To reduce the bill, yes I remember.  Can you really save money on this tortuous route?   Maybe but did you know that photovoltaic cells are made from plastic that, like all plastic, comes from oil?  Did you know that are made of metal that has to be mined?  Just checking in case you thought these panels saved the environment.  Did you know they are hard to make?  They will not eliminate your carbon footprint guilt.  The companies that make them are not solar powered because it takes about two years for a solar panel to produce enough energy to balance out the electricity that was required to build it.  That is why they are expensive.  Which brings me to the next point.  Why are all the solar companies installing these systems for free?   These cells aren’t cheap.  They aren’t efficient.  They are only moderately “green”.  Why is there someone in the lobby of Home Depot ready to sign me up to give me a free product?  Is he that devoted to my electric bill?  The truth is that these systems are not free.  Should a buyer be skeptical? 

The solar companies have learned the lesson of security systems and cell phones.  Give away the hardware and make money on the monthly service charge.  A proven business model.  But better yet, the solar companies have an edge.  They have politics on their side.  The religion of environmentalism is shared by most people who want to run government.  Current rules give tax advantages to ugly and inefficient ways to produce energy, aka green energy.  Because they value reduced carbon dioxide over the free market, they are willing to use the force of government to collect tax money from citizens and give it to other citizen who make “greener” choices.  I could say more about the government picking winners in the marketplace but that is another topic.  In relation to solar power I just want to point out that tax credits favor solar power and make the option more presentable in terms of money.  If the collective pays for my solar panels then I would win financially because the cost is spread over the community.  But what if everyone had solar panels?  Then we all lose money because there is no tax advantage if everyone is taking from and paying into the same pot of money.  Like a lottery where everyone wins every time.  The energy produced by solar costs more than that electricity I can buy from the power plant plus I would have to pay the manufacturers and installers.  That would mean that my monthly electric bill would have to increase.  If solar panels were the answer then why not buy them outright and forget the middleman with his leases and tax breaks?  

We must address the correct problem.  Let’s work to make electricity cheaper.  Using socialism only makes problems worse.  It only makes sense to buy solar panels to reduce my electric bill if I am willing to make my neighbors pay for it.  Current laws and taxes have made that legal but it is still immoral.  This form of socialism was given a name by Frederic Bastiat in 1830.  It is called legal plunder.  His writings on the subject in his book, The Law, are brilliant. He was French so I guess they aren’t all bad.  Solar panels might lower your electric bill but it just isn’t worth it.

DDT does not kill bald eagles

DDT does not kill bald eagles.  It does not thin their egg shells.  It is a lie.  Anyone who tells you that is either misled or a liar.

Joy

Some commandments are easier than others.  

 9 And again, ye shall not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow save it be for the sins of the world; and all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me, while the world shall stand.
 10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;

Perfection is intimidating, but joy is not.

The Boy Scouts of America recently changed their policy.  This is their statement:

 "Boy Scouts of America's National Council approved a resolution to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone. The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting."

This is one of the strongest moral statements out there so I don't understand the fuss about the change.  This new policy eliminates any questions related to homosexuals behavior related to the young men.  Kicking someone out of scouts must be awkward.
Is there a better plan?

Roof top solar is a scam

There is an argument in Arizona over solar power because the utilities are losing money due to a scam created by government subsidy on roof panels.  The latest shot fired in the new solar war is that solar power customers will be required to pay a monthly service fee.  It is currently set by regulators at $5.   This is far lower than the $50 fee the utility wanted but it is sure to cause problems because it establishes an additional fee for solar customers.   That will place a damper on the new solar panel fad.  This new action will not solve the problem, which is caused by government action in the first place.  The utility is forced to pay customers for electricity generated by their solar panels, sometimes at a rate higher than the utility supplies to the customer.  This electricity costs more than the electricity that the utility can generate on its own.  Why would the utility buy it?  They have no choice.  The utility must pay because power generated from solar is considered such a good idea that people prefer it over free market principles.  It is so preferable to some that they also offer a subsidy to have the panels installed on houses.   Where does the money come from?  From the government.  And the government has a great source of money.   All of us.   We the people pay for some select people to get a subsidized product for their personal use.  But better than that, this product generates electricity which we get to pay for because the utility passes on the cost of the specially generated, high cost electricity to all of us.  What a scam, and your friendly neighbors are not helping.  I can't blame them I guess, it is the American way to try to get a great deal.  Just remember that if solar panels were such a good idea then they wouldn't need subsidies.  People are buying them only because the government has skewed the market.  The utility is trying to fight back but they will lose because solar power is more important than principle.


Additional facts:
1. Those that buy solar panels are still dependent on the utility because the panels will not meet all of their needs.  For example, you could not run A/C and a washer and microwave at the same time off the panels.
2. Solar panels are less efficient at generating electricity than power plants.
3. Solar panels are not as "green" as you think.  While it is true that electricity is produced by photovoltaics without carbon dioxide emissions, it takes a lot of energy to create a solar panel in the first place.  This process uses fossil fuels and generates carbon dioxide (not that there is anything wrong with that).  Some estimates are that it takes 4 years in the sun for the total output to equal the energy put into making the cell.  Average cell life is 20 years.  

FDA bans trans-fats?

The FDA does not understand its purpose.  The goal of the food and drug administration was to protect consumers from fraud in terms of medications and from food-bourne illness caused by bad handling practices.  I actually disagree with that being a federal problem.  That can be handled by states and the feds have no authority there.  However, let's leave that alone for now because I want to make another point.  Again, the purpose of the FDA has gone astray.  The FDA is banning trans-fat.  Didn't New York City ban transfat?  Has anyone noticed?  Everyone is living longer, right?.

Here is the article that made the yahoo news page.  It is a stupid article that I don't really recommend reading (but I felt like providing a reference).  This is the website for the history of the FDA.  FDA has been around for a hundred years in different forms.    But notice the new motto for the FDA on their website.    "Protecting and Promoting your health."  Sound nice?  Actually I think it is really scary, especially in light of the recent obamacare nightmare.  That motto is a long way from the 1906 Pure Foods and Drug Act.  How far can this idea be stretched?  What is the limit of protecting and promoting my health?  What if I choose not to have my health protected and promoted?  Do I still have that liberty?  The treatment of smokers as criminals will show that many people think health is more important than liberty.  I disagree.

   LIBERTY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HEALTH.

You may only implement your socialist schemes for health as long as they do not infringe on my liberties.  Transfats are a good example.   The FDA could point out that doctors think they are unhealthy.  That might be helpful.  Information and education is good.  Discussion of effects and benefits is a good debate.  Banning?  When did they get the power to ban substances because they didn't like them.   Oreos are legal.  It is just a cookie.  I freely give my money to Nabisco.  I know that an orange is better for me.  Shut up.  I like to hold Oreos under the milk until the bubbles stop.  Thanks for the advice but you can pack up your nanny-state and go away.  The government has no permission to interfere in my health.  That is my choice.

10 People I want to meet

Who are the ten people I want to meet?
Not sure, there are several but I guess I should think more about what has influenced me.  Not in order

1. CS Lewis
2. Uncle Chick
3. JRR Tolkien
4. Frederic Bastiat
5. George Washington
6. Benjamin Franklin
7. Nicolai Tesla
8. Winston Churchill
9. Joshua Chamberlin
10. Paul of Tarsus

My Favorite Hymn

We had some confusion at church this morning.  Bishop was gone and so there were no speakers.  Whit called some members from the congregation to share their favorite hymn and then we sang them.  I thought of what hymns I like.   There are several I love, but here is one of them.  It represents a daily testimony and yearning for hope.

Abide With Me!, LDS hymn #166

I often think of the second verse:

2. Swift to its close ebbs out life's little day.

Earth's joys grow dim; its glories pass away.

Change and decay in all around I see;

O thou who changest not, abide with me!

I am a mechanical engineer and work mostly with mining professionally. It is a rough environment. We spend a lot of time figuring out how to make equipment survive.  Constant wear and chemical attack take their toll and shorten the life of everything.  Even non-moving parts will corrode.

At home I have five boys and they are pretty rough on things.  I've glued plates, patched walls, fixed iPods and just thrown things away that I couldn't fix.  And my knee hurts.

Everything I deal with daily tells me that the world will die and grind itself to dust.  But there is more to life than what I learned at work and college.  There is a renewing power not available to textbook physics.  I know that God lives and has a plan for his children.  He comforts me during hard times of life and we will live with Him again in joy.

Tithing

In our sunday school lesson we talked about tithing.  The teacher asked if everyone knew what tithing was.  Everyone said they understood that it was to pay 10% to the church.  Since that was covered the teacher, my friend Brian, asked what experiences people had with tithing and what stories they could share.  I normally keep my mouth shut.  But I tried to attempt to endeavor to share a story.  Not mine, but I share again without permission.  Somethings are a challenge and others are not.  I never have a hard time paying 10 percent of my money to the church.  My dad said once that he was promised that if he paid his tithing he would always be able to provide for his family.  It worked for the most part.  We never lacked for anything.  I understood from a young age that there were always people that had more money than us.  It seemed logical that I would get a fraction of what others kids did because they had a small family to buy for.  Simple math.  We moved a lot, however, and I ended up going to several different elementary schools as my dad chased work in mining.  For various reasons he had to change jobs.  During at least one period that I recall he was out of work for some time.  Things were bad enough that I noticed.  We had some food given to us.  (I was not thankful for the nasty grape juice.)  My dad earned some money and paid tithing on it which made no sense.  If we were receiving help then why pay tithing?  It didn't make sense to pass the money around and get it back.  But he said that the rule is followed regardless of the amount and circumstances.   I recall thinking he was silly, I always had the highest respect but not always understanding.  It is hard to explain what I thought and I didn't do it well in class and won't try here either.  It was a long time ago and I don't think registered in conscious thought but this is what came of it.  I wondered where he had failed to live up to the reward of providing for us. If people had to give us food then something in the promise was broken.  I don't recall my dad struggling with that dilemma, but I think I did.  Perhaps I had to see the demonstration in order to learn.  I learned that he paid tithing anyway.  I observed that he didn't lose faith in a trial.   That a promised blessing delayed or temporarily removed is not a lie but a challenge and growth opportunity.  Brian came to my rescue since I couldn't wrap up the story.  His comment was that sometimes a parent is given a challenge in order to demonstrate to the children how to overcome it.  That nailed it.  I never had a problem with tithing because I saw my dad deal with it when I was 10 years old.  It was the right thing to do and I adopted it without much thought.  I hope to receive the same promised blessings, even though I ended up in mining too.

Worth the read?

Still trying to get through Les Miserables.  I have read at least two other books since I started this.   Way more french history then I ever wanted to know.  Not a bad story but I wonder if its worth it.   This is a lot of work.  I have to read the book with my phone at hand so I can look up everything.  Any fans?  I have a lot of other books piling up with I trod slowly through this one.

Thinking about a parable

There are several obvious messages from the parable of the 10 virgins.
First off, Jesus is the bridegroom and the virgins are the members of his church. The message is that they  need to prepared for his coming at all times.

My guess is that the wedding represents heaven.  That is the goal that everyone is trying to reach.
I understand some of the basic symbolism, but not all.   The more I think about the more worried I am.   

What is the oil in the lamps?  It can seen by others but not shared. The oil in the lamps is required for entry into the wedding.  The virgins are not able to enter the wedding without it. 
The simple answer is that the oil represents faith or testimony or spiritual strength.  That analogy presents a problem for the members of the church.  Half of the virgins did not have enough oil to last the night.  They knew they needed it and half of them made sure that they had extra.  The five virgins called foolish had oil and I am sure that they intended to have enough.   They didn't head out to the wedding without a full lamp.  The problem was that the waiting was longer than they expected.  The five foolish virgins knew that oil was needed for entry to the wedding and hurried to get more when theirs was gone. 

The faith or testimony or spiritual strength was not something that could be shared.  Even as they went to get more the bridegroom arrived and it was too late. They were left out.

What is the long night?  I think it must represent the trials in our lives as we wait for the return of the Savior.  I think the endurance required will necessitate preparation.

Can faith be used up by waiting?  Certainly in terms of rescue, one's hope diminishes as time goes by.  So I wonder - how long will the night be and how much oil do I have?  Where is the sensor and gauge?  Apparently half the people think they had enough and will come up short.
The conclusion of this parable makes me wonder -
What trials do I face that burn up or use up faith? I realize intellectually that people face trials and temptation in order to grow.  People need to learn to choose.  In detail it becomes very difficult.

We are required to endure to the end.  But we never know how long that will be. 

Ridiculed when right Part II

Romney is still being ridiculed by the ignorant who are mocking his comment that "Corporations are people".  Comments on lefty blogs cheer on the lefty leaders and lefty pundits who make fun of the idiot who thinks that corporations are people. 
It is depressing to me to hear the uneducated gang up and congratulate each other on how clever they are while publicly displaying their own ignorance.  Who thinks that Mitt Romney doesn't know what he is talking about when discussing business and corporations?   That has been his whole life.   That's like mocking Chuck Norris talking about a roundhouse kick.
Let me be clear: Corporations are people.  That is the legal definition.

Maybe I will need to write a series of stupid comments that are repeated by the media rather than refuted.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Mormons at war

D&C 98:33
 33 And again, this is the ^alaw that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

According to strict reading of this we can't fight anyone unless the Lord tell us.  Listening to the prophet counts, of course.  Did President Grant give the US permission to fight in World War II?  If not we have several apostles who fought in a bad war that was not authorized. 

I believe in the principles of this section but don't take it too far.

Neo Pacificism

aka Greg is a liberal
Ron Paul and his followers are not very attractive when they sound crazy.  I agree with 90% of what Ron Paul says so I don't mean to be unfair.  My biggest gripe is their neo-pacificism.  They want to end all war and go home.   Nice - if it would really work. 

America - the World's Policeman

In many ways the US is the world's policeman.  We help provide the globe with security.  We were dragged into wars around the world to kill bad guys.  The Great War was a disaster for everyone, except the United States.  One of the smartest of men and one of my least favorite presidents got us into Europe to support our allies in the fight.  We returned to isolationism again until the Nazis could not be ignored.   We killed them to support our allies.  We teamed up with Stalin to fight the greater enemy.  We could have kept fighting against the communists after the Nazis were beat but everyone was tired of death and destruction.  We left eastern Europe to be taken over in the betrayal at Yalta and Potsdam.  We wanted to go home again but the communists wanted to take over the world.  We killed them in Korea, Vietnam, and backed them down everywhere else.  Back to cars and rock and roll?  Yeah, if only the islamists would get a life.  So we fight on. 
 Empire?
We didn't intend to get an empire but we have one.  We dominate with our language, our culture, our economy and our military.   Oddly enough, we give all the land back.   Through the last hundred years we have conquered most of the world and given it back.   But we kept a few strategic bases.  We told people how to live and once they complied we left them alone.  We have a decent track record with Germany and Japan being our greatest successes but we helped Italy, Philipines, Cuba (before it was taken over again) etc.  In Germany and Japan specifically we told them they couldn't have an army and that we would protect them.  We gave them security against all threats but mainly the Soviets.  We promised to save our friends in Taiwan from the Chinese communists.  We keep the peace throughout the world.   The US Navy is one of the best insurances for peace and the best guarantee of trade.  They keep the sea clear and deliver help where ever it is needed. 
We fight the bad guys.  We build and buy and sell.  We have the most money, the biggest armies, the free-est people.   That puts us on top.  Our enemies have failed and our allies burn themselves down with socialism.   We are the world's policeman.   (For those that want peace, there are still some neighborhoods that we don't enter.)   We bring peace and democracy. 

Bad examples?
Is the policeman always right?  No.  Should we have invaded Iraq after 9/11?  The question assumes that one is the cause of the other but we were already in Iraq before 9/11.  We were there to enforce rules imposed on Saddam because he was killing people in Iraq rebelling against him.  They saw him as weak after we kicked his can when he invaded Kuwait.  Yes, we wanted Kuwait's oil and we promised them we would help keep them safe in exchange.  We can't have our own oil because of earth worshipping environmentalists but that is another story.  Saddam has been killing his own people and invading his neighbors since he came to power.  He bragged about training terrorists to kill us so we killed him.  I hope we can enforce some laws there and give freedom a chance to grow there like in Japan and Germany but we might fail because we are too nice. 
Libya invasion is a joke and Obama offers no explanation for that one.  I don't know why Congress allows him to violate all laws to bomb people there. 

If we don't want to be the policeman then we should give some notice so our friends can get ready.  We need to give our allies time to build up their armies.  Korea will have to beef up for the coming invasion from the North.  You can kiss Taiwan good bye at the first sign of weakness.  Japan and Germany will militarize.  It might be good for France to try to figure out how to hold a rifle again.  Russia will expand.  Pakistan and India will nuke each other.  Africa and middle east will go dark.  South America will go tribal, each warlord fighting over turf.  China and Russia will have to come to a truce to kill each other later as they attempt to play cop. 

Worried about Money?  We spend far more on welfare from the federal government than we do on the military.  That is where we need to cut the federal budget.  Social Security, medicare, and all the other twisted welfare ponzi schemes.

We need to end wars and be clear about our goals over seas but there is no reason for a retreat. We certainly shouldn't leave Guam and Diego Garcia as Ron Paul suggests. We are in the position of the leviathan.  We bring peace through strength like no else can.   If the Canadians or Australians want to take over I would welcome it but I don't see any good candidates for the job of world cop.  Hopefully I made it clear that we need one.  If we don't do it - there will be chaos or a new cop.   Thinking everyone will play nice if we put down our guns and go home is silly.  There are bad people in the world and they won't play nice just because the cop retires. 
Use our military to help people, to bring order and peace.  To deliver donated food in emergencies.  To set an example of freedom.  Kill bad people when necessary.  Leave when no longer needed.  But don't quit.  Especially when no one else can do the job.  We need to fight against evil.

Pro-Choice Mormons?

Pro-Choice means pro-abortion.  Denying is just playing games with words.  I am pro-life (or anti-abortion).  One may claim they are not in favor of abortion, but rather in favor of people deciding for themselves.  This is false doctrine to support an abomination. 
I am embarassed to have association with a caller to the Dennis Prager Show who claimed to be a Mormon who was pro-choice.  What a confused soul.  He was responding to Dennis talking about Hvistendahl's book, Unnatural Selection.  Dennis was making the case that abortion is morally wrong (regardless of legality).  People need to be educated and they would make better choices.  There is a difference between morality and legality. 
There is a silly argument floating around about "not legislating morality" and letting people make moral choices.  This caller tried to make that argument.  He said that he is against abortion morally but doesn't feel it is right to enforce his decisions on others through the law.  Dennis talked with him a few minutes and I think convinced him that he needed to rethink his position.  Dennis pointed out that the argument about legality and morality was only a question of where to draw the line.   We do not legislate our religious laws about what we eat and drink but we do make laws about not stealing or killing.  Both come from God through the Bible.  Why enforce one but not the other?  Where does abortion fall on that scale?  Should it be a law or a guideline?
Can we let people choose to have abortions? 
Dennis does not debate theology so he did address the theological argument that the caller made.  I think Dennis knows enough about the Church of Jesus Christ.  He was being polite or sticking to his policy about not debating religion.  But the point needs to be made that the man believes bad doctrine.  The point was clarified about the law but not about the doctrine of choice as known to mormons.   There are many rewards, gifts and blessing in this life and in the next.  The most important to a Latter-Day Saint are eternal life (to live with God), the Atonement of Jesus, the chance to get a body in this world and finally the gift of agency which means we get to choose what we do.  The gift of choice is everything.  We choose to follow God's commandments, we chose to come to earth to get a body, we choose to follow Jesus as our Savior and accept his will.  Choice is good and important.  Despite all that abortion is wrong, and although not murder, should be illegal.

People need to make the world better by enforcing law.  Law should reflect the morality of the people.  For a christian country like ours, the strictness of their law represents their adherence to God's law and aknowledgement of His wisdom and voluntary submission to His will.   All laws are moral.  Law reflects morality.   Our society has not improved as we have loosened all social norms and made immoral behavior legal.   Many are so confused as to equate the two, saying that if something is not against the law then it is not wrong.   We should restrain ourselves and punish wicked behavior. 

Life is more important than choice.  Agency is engaged in the choice to have sex. Consequences follow.  Abortion should be illegal and any mormon that thinks otherwise is a moral idiot and I think against the doctrine of the church.

Slavery vs. Socialism

Slavery vs. Socialism
I think it is appropriate to make a comparison between the problems of solving Social Security and solving slavery.  Both are terrible but were thought to be beneficial when introduced.  Both are terribly difficult to get rid of, primarily because of the benefit provided to some.  They desire to see their benefits continue regardless of damage that might be caused to others.  Social Security, medicare and all other government entitlements do not benefit everyone.  There is a high cost in dollars and principles.  Many people become enslaved in the system, their futures determined by others. Generally by beauracracy.

Getting rid of social security will be painful.  As with slavery, many things have been tried to improve the system but the pain of reality is only delayed, with the problem actually getting worse.  Sides of the argument are chosen, with some expanding the practice while others struggle to end it.  Alternatives are offered on both sides.  Smart men with great ideas offer a multitude of suggestions which are rejected. 
Years pass with no solution.  The very passage of time makes the problem worse.  As with chattel slavery of the south, the mere passing of time guarantees that more victims are involved.  Also there is a certain legitimacy granted as the institutions age, a new generation rises that know no way to manage their affairs.   The plague becomes a part of the culture.  Soon it appears that the way things are is how it has always been and the way it will always be.  It takes less time than one might think.  The bill was passed in 1935.  And yet rebellion and revolution can also seem to occur quickly and surprise the tyrant when years of compromise and debate are disregarded. 
Slavery was considered an abomination at the time of our country's founding but even that group of gifted, inspired, brave, energetic, visionary men did not have a solution to the problem.  In what I believe to be a wise choice and an example to all, those that opposed slavery tempered their objections in favor of creating bonds that would establish a nation.  The oppression of the king was a greater evil to fight so they joined as brothers and established the greatest country the world has ever seen.   Slavery was thought to be contained and the problem was passed on to another generation.  Many of those greatest of men were also slave holders and yet remain great and we are blessed for their efforts. 
What do we do now?  Is it time to face this problem?  Is there a greater evil present that forces us to ignore the problem that massive debt, social security and other entitlements present to us?  Many focus on the frauds of global warming and second hand smoke.  Those are distractions of the bored elite.  Islamism presents a problem, along with our continual state of wasr.  I don't believe that our battle against those that wish to kill us would damaged by a struggle to restore our freedoms at home and reduce our debt.  It would help clarify our liberties and the many blessings of God on our country. 
Does the argument against Social Security need to be made again?  I am a committed abolitionist so I sometimes forget that some people actually want these entitlements.  These programs are socialism and socialism does not work.  Read Bastiat or Sowell.  How can we end socialism in the United States?  Can't make everyone move to Europe to enjoy the model they wish to impose on us.  I think education is the only answer.  There is little economic education in our schools however, and the government schools are corrupted by unions and liberals who have no interest in teaching people about the morality and superiority of capitalism over socialism.  In order to end socialism I think we need change our educational system.
Once there are enough people that understand the evils of socialism we can rely on the will of the people to end it.  Along with education, a sacrifice will be required.  It won't be easy to end social security and get people off the drug of spending other people's money.  A generation of people will need to pay into the system knowing they will receive no benefit.  Other wise it is difficult to break the cycle because every person feels entitled to receive benefits from a system that they have paid in to. 
While it would be proper, it would be cold hearted to simply stop all payments and end social secuity and all other entitlements.  The disruption would be too great.  This would be like releasing all slaves in the pre-war south.  The blacks required liberty but a workable realistic solution was necessary other wise the economy would be destroyed because the engine of labor was removed.  The south understood and feared the damage that would be caused by ending slavery and clearly expressed it.  Many ideas were debated but none was put into place.  The slaves, although free, would be in a worse position if simply cast out with no rights, no property, no income, no prospects, no education, no future.  Chaos would result.  Today we acknowledge the same sort of shock to our stability if we end social security but, like the slave holders, refuse to see the price paid for that stability and its coming doomsday. Many refuse to see the scope of the problem since it is difficult to imagine a trillion dollars.  The price paid in honor and liberty has no scale by which to measure. 
We need better education.  Retirement needs to be delayed beyond the artificial setpoint of 65 years for those that are capable. If people are living longer then they should work longer. A simple fix to the budget problems that Social Security is facing would be to raise the retirement age until income equals payments. Simply balance the budget of the systems based on the taxes collected from the workers and the payments written in checks to those that can't work. In the end this would fail also but at least it would clarify to all those involved that socialism cannot suceed in anything except destroying wealth and will end in failure sooner or later. It is doomed. 
The only way to win is to put an end to social security.  The long path will work I think.  My plan is  that no one currently under the age of 55 be allowed to draw any financial benefit from our current socialist system.  That will allow everyone within 10 years of retirement the time required to make arrangments to pay for their retirement.  Those that are eligible but do not want or need the money can opt out and thus speed the recovery and participate in the revolution. Once the current recepients have died, the tax can end, with the money saved enhacing the retirement of everyone no longer tied to a government system.   The system is a ponzi scheme with each generation pawing off the cost to the next.  Somebody has to pay the bill, in effect flushing money down the toilet so that their children can be free of chains.

ridiculed when right

From George's interview with Michelle:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/06/john-quincy-adams-a-founding-father-michele-bachmann-says-yes.html

Gerorge Stephanopoulos:

"For example, earlier this year you said that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepedence worked tirelessly to end slavery. Now with respect Congresswoman, that's just not true. "

It is true and George is wrong. Although Michele could have answered the question better.

Why was she invited on GMA? How many times have others been on?

George was wrong and yet was ridiculing Michele for her ignorance. Could he possibly have an argument with her expression "tirelessly"? Do leftists make fun of Michele because of the results achieved? Slavery was not abolished but progress was made. Good arguments laid the foundation for the end of slavery. More negotiation and debate would be needed. When debate failed to achieve the ends then battles began.

There is a benefit in this event that some people will review our history. It is sad that such things are forgotten. The founding fathers are revered for what they accomplished but also for what they set in motion. They started a country but set up a framework for the government of a people that has become the greatest that the world has ever known.

Liberty is the key to unlocking man's potential and the founders recognized it was important for all. They failed to achieve it in their lifetime.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Mason etc were all opposed to slavery as documented recently in many columns but notably by Mark Levin on his facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-levin/george-stephanopolous-flake/10150221375725946

The frustrating part is that to so many people in America Michele Bachmann has lost the argument. Ignorant George wins because no one knows any better. So the less educated wins. That disturbs me. Even if some one were to point this out to George he would never make an apology to Bachmann nor educate the public of our country's history in restitution of his error. Just look at all of the comments at the end of the transcript. So many people admitting they hate Michele and calling her stupid.

She was right.

global warming believers?

Has this hoax finally died? Does anyone really believe in global warming anymore? The scientists are all frauds. The stories in the press are lies. AlGore is in hiding. I haven't heard any good arguments lately. Plus everyone is freezing. Remember that plants eat carbon dioxide and there is only 0.03% in the atmosphere so they are eating all they can. Start your engine and save a starving plant.

What is the next scare? I think we are going to go back to the old favorite of over population. The communists and big government monsters killed so many millions (over 120 million from 1939 to 1969) that this was a hard argument to make but we have had so many years of peace that I am sure it will come back. We need a credibility check. When the next scare starts the first question should be: Did you also believe in global warming?