In order for a person not to have contempt prior to investigation one must know the facts.
1. I am a Republican. If you want to understand the reason why, you need to read the Republican platform, and the book "The 5000 Year Leap." You must also understand that I was raised by a father who had polio when he was a young boy, and despite his disabilities would never think of taking a cent from the government. As my dad saw it, here were the levels of responsibility for taking care of someone who was truly in need of help. The person should take care of themselves as far as possible, then the family should step in, next the church or local community should help, and if all those backups fail then State welfare should take a look. Never, never, never should the Federal government become the giver of welfare. Never. It causes dependency which the politicians can then manipulate for a vote.
2. I am a Mormon. If you want to understand the reason why, you should look into the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, read the Book of Mormon (at least some portion of it), get to know some good Mormon people, and browse around on the web site--mormon.org.
3. I am a woman. If you want to understand the reason why, I don't think you'll find an answer. But, you can get to know me and find out how I feel about being a woman and the responsibilities I've chosen to take on to try and make the world a better place.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Words of Wisdom for Today
Since listening to our politicians for the last many months, I think that most could use a few gems of wisdom from America's sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln.
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."
"I remember my mother's prayers and they have always followed me. They have clung to me all my life."
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Thanks, Honest Abe!
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."
"I remember my mother's prayers and they have always followed me. They have clung to me all my life."
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Thanks, Honest Abe!
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Education
A place where members of a republic need to be ever vigilant is in the realm of education, for what goes into the heads of our young people becomes the policy of later years. And to argue that the parents have the main sway in their children's preceptions, does not hold true into the years of high school and higher education. We know that one of the chief jobs of young people is to rebel against the "old-fashioned" teachings of Mom and Dad.
Here's an example. For several decades the concept was taught in history classes that the founding fathers of this republic were severely flawed individuals with no moral character or concern for all the people who lived or would live under the flag of the United States. I remember being taught these ideas in my high school civics and history classes. At home, I was taught that the founders were wise men of conscience who worked hard to establish a set of laws that would keep fallible leaders in check and allow for amendments which could be used to correct oversights. The battle lines were drawn, and for several years I found myself bitterly opposed to any thought my parents held about this country.
Luckily, as I matured, I learned to do my own independent reading and research, and I came to know that those who founded this country were truly remarkable individuals.
Let's not be complacent. It shouldn't matter if we have children in school or not; we should know the curriculum and what's being taught whether it be history, sex education, or science. Remember, those students will grow up to be our leaders.
Note: please study the Cultural Revolution in China, and Mao Tse-tung's thoughts on education and his use of young people as Red Guards.
Here's an example. For several decades the concept was taught in history classes that the founding fathers of this republic were severely flawed individuals with no moral character or concern for all the people who lived or would live under the flag of the United States. I remember being taught these ideas in my high school civics and history classes. At home, I was taught that the founders were wise men of conscience who worked hard to establish a set of laws that would keep fallible leaders in check and allow for amendments which could be used to correct oversights. The battle lines were drawn, and for several years I found myself bitterly opposed to any thought my parents held about this country.
Luckily, as I matured, I learned to do my own independent reading and research, and I came to know that those who founded this country were truly remarkable individuals.
Let's not be complacent. It shouldn't matter if we have children in school or not; we should know the curriculum and what's being taught whether it be history, sex education, or science. Remember, those students will grow up to be our leaders.
Note: please study the Cultural Revolution in China, and Mao Tse-tung's thoughts on education and his use of young people as Red Guards.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Good and Evil?
A government of the people, by the people, and for the people must take into account the duel inclinations of human nature. Within each person is the pull of good and evil. When enacting laws to govern a populace, these opposites of human nature must be recognized. It should also be noted that, in a Republic, since we choose men and women to represent us, we must be vigilant in assessing their leaning.
Aristotle told of this duality in the story of the white dog and the black dog.
A man came across another man walking two dogs, each on their own leash. One dog was white and the other black. Both were straining against their ropes in an attempt to be in the lead. The one man asked the dog owner, "Which one wins?" The dog owner answered, "The one I feed the most."
We should continually ask ourselves if our laws encourage the best qualities of human nature and fairly punish the meaner propensities. So too, we should be watching our elected leaders to see which dog is in the lead.
Aristotle told of this duality in the story of the white dog and the black dog.
A man came across another man walking two dogs, each on their own leash. One dog was white and the other black. Both were straining against their ropes in an attempt to be in the lead. The one man asked the dog owner, "Which one wins?" The dog owner answered, "The one I feed the most."
We should continually ask ourselves if our laws encourage the best qualities of human nature and fairly punish the meaner propensities. So too, we should be watching our elected leaders to see which dog is in the lead.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Natural Law
Within the Declaration of Independence are these words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Natural law means laws that govern men that are God given, not man given. As stated by Sir William Blackstone in his book Commentaries on the Laws of England: "And these [great natural rights] may be reduced to three principal or primary articles: the right of personal security; the right of personal liberty; and the right of private property; because as there is no other known method of compulsion, or of abridging man's natural free will, but by an infringement or diminution of one or other of these important rights, the preservation of these, inviolate, may justly be said to include the preservation of our civil immunities in their largest and most extensive sense."
In order to have a dialogue about government, and especially the government established for America, the principle of Natural Law must be acknowledged and approached in the discussion.
Natural law means laws that govern men that are God given, not man given. As stated by Sir William Blackstone in his book Commentaries on the Laws of England: "And these [great natural rights] may be reduced to three principal or primary articles: the right of personal security; the right of personal liberty; and the right of private property; because as there is no other known method of compulsion, or of abridging man's natural free will, but by an infringement or diminution of one or other of these important rights, the preservation of these, inviolate, may justly be said to include the preservation of our civil immunities in their largest and most extensive sense."
In order to have a dialogue about government, and especially the government established for America, the principle of Natural Law must be acknowledged and approached in the discussion.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Living under Tyranny
When the founders of this country were debating the principles by which we would be governed, the first premise on which they agreed was that there would be no king. They knew what it was like to live under a tyrannical monarch. They also knew from study and analysis of the ages, how Ruler's Law did not normally work out well for people in the "realm." That's the problem; the people are the property of the king and therefore have no say in their lives. They do not have inalienable rights given them from God, they only have the rights issued by the king, and what the king gives--the king can take away.
Ah, but what if the king is wise, kind, and generous? What if the monarch treats his subjects with fairness and concern? Have you ever, in studying the annuals of history, run across such a benevolent dictator?
Isn't there a saying that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?" Something about the basic human psyche makes it nearly impossible for one person to possess huge amounts of money without greed, or be given unlimited power without despotism.
The Founders did not want a king, nor did they want a government behaving like a monarch.
Ah, but what if the king is wise, kind, and generous? What if the monarch treats his subjects with fairness and concern? Have you ever, in studying the annuals of history, run across such a benevolent dictator?
Isn't there a saying that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?" Something about the basic human psyche makes it nearly impossible for one person to possess huge amounts of money without greed, or be given unlimited power without despotism.
The Founders did not want a king, nor did they want a government behaving like a monarch.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Two Extremes
There are two extremes of rule, on one side of the scale is tyranny, and on the other side, anarchy. Tyranny is when a ruler rules absolutely, and anarchy is where there is no rule.
Most people are more comfortable with a set of rules somewhere in the middle; a place where people rule with checks and balances. Enough government to protect, but not oppress.
Where would one find the most freedom?
Most people are more comfortable with a set of rules somewhere in the middle; a place where people rule with checks and balances. Enough government to protect, but not oppress.
Where would one find the most freedom?
Friday, January 27, 2012
Ground work
People want the same things: freedom, prosperity, and peace.
My husband and I traveled through China several years ago, and out side a small village near the Yangtze River was a Buddhist shrine called, The City of Ghosts. It is 800 years old and filled with amazing statuary of ghosts and demons. To cross into the city we had to walk over one of three bridges: the bridge of a long and healthy life, the bridge of wealth, or the bridge of peace. If you could cross the bridge in three long strides the gods would grant your wish.
The point being is that these have been longings of the human heart in all times, with all people, in all places.
If we can start with this premise, then we can build a structure to analyze government in its relationship with these desires, without falling into the trap of political parties, or narrow thinking. Hopefully we can have a dialogue.
My husband and I traveled through China several years ago, and out side a small village near the Yangtze River was a Buddhist shrine called, The City of Ghosts. It is 800 years old and filled with amazing statuary of ghosts and demons. To cross into the city we had to walk over one of three bridges: the bridge of a long and healthy life, the bridge of wealth, or the bridge of peace. If you could cross the bridge in three long strides the gods would grant your wish.
The point being is that these have been longings of the human heart in all times, with all people, in all places.
If we can start with this premise, then we can build a structure to analyze government in its relationship with these desires, without falling into the trap of political parties, or narrow thinking. Hopefully we can have a dialogue.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The USA in 2012
It's a new year and an election year, and although I find myself excited about the opportunity of new chances, I'm also discouraged by the battle ahead to take back the wheel of the Presidency, and steer our country in a different direction. The present President was elected on the unidentified premise of "change" with no one but his insiders really understanding what that meant.
Change?
I would ask friends and family who were supporting Obama to explain his platform and what he stood for, and they would parrot back, "Change!"
"Well, what does that mean?" I'd ask them.
"Change!" they'd insist.
"Yes, but what does that mean? Change to what...from what?"
"Change from the terrible old ways!"
"Can you be more specific? What of the old ways don't you like, and what does this presidential candidate plan to put in its place?"
Most would look at me blankly. They didn't have a clue because the plans were never clearly outlined. If Obama had come out during the campaign and stated that once in office he would bail out failing banks and companies, increase the size and scope of government, cram a universal health care plan down our throats, plunge us into inexcusable debt, and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, I doubt that he would have been elected.
But, sadly his nebulous campaign rhetoric worked on the numbers needed to place him in the highest job in the land where, within a short time, his unconstitutional vision of America sprouted. He is attempting to fundamentally change this country from a free enterprise system of production and a Representative form of government to a more Socialistic model. This is not conjecture as he has stated on several occasions that he would rather do without Congress, and has proven this by doing end runs around them with Executive Orders, thereby thumbing his nose at the idea of checks and balances so fundamental to our Republic.
During the next few months I will be setting out some basic ideas about the Constitution of the United States, and how, over-the-years, we've lost much of its original intent. I will also share my feelings about the miracle and majesty of this country.
I hope you'll join me in a discussion of these important principles.
Change?
I would ask friends and family who were supporting Obama to explain his platform and what he stood for, and they would parrot back, "Change!"
"Well, what does that mean?" I'd ask them.
"Change!" they'd insist.
"Yes, but what does that mean? Change to what...from what?"
"Change from the terrible old ways!"
"Can you be more specific? What of the old ways don't you like, and what does this presidential candidate plan to put in its place?"
Most would look at me blankly. They didn't have a clue because the plans were never clearly outlined. If Obama had come out during the campaign and stated that once in office he would bail out failing banks and companies, increase the size and scope of government, cram a universal health care plan down our throats, plunge us into inexcusable debt, and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, I doubt that he would have been elected.
But, sadly his nebulous campaign rhetoric worked on the numbers needed to place him in the highest job in the land where, within a short time, his unconstitutional vision of America sprouted. He is attempting to fundamentally change this country from a free enterprise system of production and a Representative form of government to a more Socialistic model. This is not conjecture as he has stated on several occasions that he would rather do without Congress, and has proven this by doing end runs around them with Executive Orders, thereby thumbing his nose at the idea of checks and balances so fundamental to our Republic.
During the next few months I will be setting out some basic ideas about the Constitution of the United States, and how, over-the-years, we've lost much of its original intent. I will also share my feelings about the miracle and majesty of this country.
I hope you'll join me in a discussion of these important principles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)