Mormon On Politics

Enforce Existing Gun Laws, New Laws Are Not Required

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Tue, 07 May 2013 06:24:00 +0000

Those that favor more restrictive gun laws strongly believe that fewer guns will mean fewer crimes committed with firearms. They must believe that criminals will still commit their crimes but will use fewer guns.

The real motivation behind new gun laws is more government control. It is clear that they like new laws for political gains because they have no interest in directing the efforts at enforcing the existing laws. Consider the recent words of Wayne LaPierre:

A simple look at the law answers that question. Everything real violent criminals do to acquire a firearm is already a serious federal felony. Under federal law, lying to a licensed dealer, lying on the form 4473, and straw sales are all federal felonies that are almost never prosecuted. Holder’s Justice Department calls them “paper violations.” Yet those are the very crimes that they say demand a “universal background check”—a national registration scheme—for all of us.

He goes on to reference some existing laws that if enforced would have a greater impact on crimes committed with firearms than any new politically motivates new legislation favored by Democrats.

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(j)—for possession of a stolen firearm.

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(i)—for shipment or transport of a stolen firearm across state lines.

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(b)—for shipping, transporting or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.

• 5 to 30 years consecutive mandatory minimum sentences—18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)—for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking.

• The death penalty or up to life imprisonment—18 U.S.C. § 924(j)—for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking.

• 15 years mandatory minimum—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—for a “prohibited person” who has three prior convictions for drug offenses or violent felonies.

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(g)—for interstate travel to acquire or transfer a firearm to commit crimes.

When it comes to the latest discussion on "assault rifles" and "limiting on the size of a magazine," the assault weapons are not military weapons and no one knows what the right sized magazine is.

Rifles of any type are used in 2.5% of the murders, murders are twice as likely to be committed with bare hands.

The latest gun debate and the failure of recent Democrat-sponsored legislation is a win for Americans, which cherish their Constitutional rights.

Balanced Deficit Reduction: Code for Higher Taxes, Bigger Government

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:07:00 +0000

Like all politician and magnified by our current White House, they attempt to place a positive spin on any potentially negative news. The news of the day is that 663,000 new people bowed out of the national labor force bringing us to a total of 90 million people not working. Many of these people find it easier to try their luck in the welfare state. And the welfare state complies more than ignores.

The Obama administration talks about adding jobs, the unemployment rate going down to 7.6% from 7.7%, and blaming the Republicans and the sequester for any negatives. They then delve into their balanced deficit reduction diatribe. They talk of building roads and bridges and promoting American manufacturing. They conveniently avoid any mention the impact that the recent tax increase may have had in thwarting investment, increasing spending and creating any reason for optimistic growth behavior. Likewise, no mention is made that government employment is strong.

Balanced deficit reduction is nothing more than what the liberal Democrats have tossed around for decades: higher taxes, greater spending and more government services. Simple things like the National Head Start program continuing to get money (and hoping to get more) with no proof it is anything other than an expensive babysitting programming. If it is social, it gets funded. Never will they admit to a failed social program, rather stating it needs more money and time. They never ask the question: what empirical proof exists for continuing this program? In the business world products fail and are abandoned; not in the government.

The Obama Administration has failed America. It has created more dependents. It has discouraged entrepreneurism, business investment and higher education. (Why go into debt if the job potential return is questionable?) It has created a culture of entitlement and sloth. It has spurned the American dream of hard work and reward.

Obama and his cronies have done more damage to America than all the other prior administrations combined. They have three more years. Hard telling what additional harm they will bring.

New Pope and Meaningless Commentary

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 03:05:00 +0000

When the Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio from Argentina was elected Pope Francis this past week, it was interesting to hear both Catholic and non-Catholic comment about its "meaning."

There was hope that a new Pope would "change" some doctrine -- soften the church's stance on gays/lesbians, allow women into the Priesthood, or moderate on abortion. Others made statements as if the Pope would make life easier or better for the millions of the world's Catholics.

A Cardinal becomes Pope because he understand the doctrine and purpose of the Catholic Church. It is not primarily a social institute that will modernize because of the changing times. The leaders are not political figures that are apt to listen and respond to public sentiment.

Thankfully, it does appear that this Pope or other recent Popes have played the populists. The Catholic Church will continue to thrive is its leaders and members abide by its precepts and practice its teachings. In that sense, its leaders will make for a better global society as it emphasizes Christian principles and it members follow suit.

Immigration: The Unmentionable Issue

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:28:00 +0000

On the topic of immigration, politicians, regardless of political affiliation, spout one of two positions.

On one side, it is anything goes: free healthcare, education (even in-state tuition), police, fire, food stamps, citizenship, etc. Those that prefer this angle want all illegals to be dependent upon the state. These are liberal Democrats.

On the other side, we have the apologists that want a path to citizenship. These are RINOs.

Ever single illegal that is in the USA is a citizen of some other country. Few sneak into the USA with a goal to become an American citizen. Their main motivation of coming to America is economical.

A path to citizenship should not be the primary part of any new immigration law. It is a reward that does not need to be there. Any immigration law should not reward any illegal entrance. Green card? Sure, but not citizenship.

World Baseball Classic Is For Real

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 02:31:00 +0000

Despite the critics, I thoroughly enjoyed attending a World Baseball Classic game -- Italy vs USA -- in Phoenix on Saturday, 9 March 2013.

I arrived at Chase Field around 4:30 on Saturday afternoon after watching the Reds beat the Brewers at Goodyear Ballpark. The previous game -- Mexico v Canada -- had just ended. There were lots of Mexicans and Canadians all over the place. Country colors and flags were ion abundance. Surprising, there was no ticket line (I had not planned on attending, my scheduled changed and allowed me to be in town for the weekend. I had no idea how many people would be attending. I bought the cheapest ticket ($15).

With one game letting out, another one getting ready to start and the NBA Suns hosting the Rockets, downtown Phoenix was hoping. Restaurant waits were long. It had the slight feel of Olympics or World Cup. After eating, I went into the stadium.

Batting practice was a ball -- literally, I camped out in left field. In 45 minutes, there were 25-30 balls launched into the left field seats, half by Ryan Braun. I did not get a ball and if I did would have given it to some kid. but it was fun seeing idiots try to catch the bombs with their bare hands and others who brought their gloves make great catches.

Having lose the day before to Mexico, the USA needed to beat Italy and beat Canada the following day to make it to the second round. They did both, winning 6-2 on Saturday and 9-4 on Sunday.

The critics of the WBC are primarily MLB people who, rightly so, are fearful of injuries. It occurs in March, in the middle of Spring Training. Most players are just getting into game share. And the pitchers are further behind and may be tempted to overdo it too early. With pitch limit rules, some of that is mitigated but I think 65 pitches are still to many (I'd rather see a limit at 50 in the first round). Playing for your country in a global competition is a thrill in whatever sport (even thought only few play serious baseball).

The "world cup of baseball" seems more appealing to the Asians and Latin Americans. Americans are less sold. The stadium was half full (same on Sunday). Team USA is a great team, so are many of the other teams, especially those from Latin America. Many are MLB All-Stars. With Team USA making it into Round Two, hopefully the interest will increase. (It is doubtful as most of the country is still recovering from winter and March Madness NCAA rules the better part of March and early April.) But for us baseball fans, we love it. We get to see some of the game's best in March. USA! USA! USA!

Fear, Uncertainly & Doubt: A Political Recipe

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 04:52:00 +0000

When it comes to the solvency of America, there is almost nothing negative about the sequester. It is questionable about how the decrease the rate of growth is a bad thing.

Government and those entities that manage it always want more money and will always find ways to spend it. Most bureaucrats work for the government because they believe in its programs and feel that more of the same is better. When they fail to get the money they desire or anticipate, their response is always negative. The justification of their livelihoods is diminished. They will inform the politicians and their constituencies that bad things will result.

Put any politician in front of a camera and ask them about the ramifications of less money (more than the previous year but less than what was anticipated), and you will get a diatribe of fear, uncertainly and doubt.

We had Bush's Troubled Asset Relief Program, later perfected by Obama. Then Obama's fiscal cliff and sequester deal designed to raise the taxes in 2012 and then cut spending in 2013. Except Obama and few politicians can pull the plug on reducing spending. Their counter was more taxes.

The $44 billion in sequester cuts for this fiscal year amount to what the government borrows every two weeks. (The sequester actually requires about $85 billion in cuts this year, but about half can be rolled into subsequent years.) This is chump change that any fiscally responsible president could shake out of his back pocket.

When a politician stands up and delves into climactic lies, distortions, misinformation, and overheated rhetoric, the casual Americas (that'd be most) will react with empathy when they "hear children will not be able to go to school, seniors will go hungry, cancer screenings and immunizations will cease, criminals will be released from prison, fires will not be put out, and airport lines will be longer.

Every time a politician uses fear, uncertainly and doubt as his motivation behind his proposed action, we will always be better off long-term by doing the opposite.

Mentally Ill and Gun Ownership

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:00:00 +0000

Consider the following statement running through state and federal politician offices and hallways:

If there’s one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on, it’s that mentally ill people should not have access to firearms.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” Most states have similar statues.

But what constitutes mentally ill? It is a clear-cut thing? Is anyone that has been to professional therapy one that should be considered a mentally ill candidate? Is a soldier that has been involved in any "explosive" conflict and visits a therapist afterwards a person that should be unable to own a gun? Is a soldier suffering from PTSD or TBI one that should be flagged?

We can assume that psychology professionals have decent education and knowledge as to what constitutes mentally incompetent. Even within the mental health profession there are those individuals that fall into the grey area and might be analyzed differently by different therapists. What what happens to one that is deemed mentally incompetent but is later deemed competent?

Gun ownership should not be allowed for the truly mentally ill. However, the concern we should have with any gun restriction laws is if a mentally incompetent assessment is permanent. If not, will gun ownership laws full suite?

The Scout Law Test for Our Business and Policital Leaders

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:23:00 +0000

The Scout Law states:

A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.

How many of our business, civic and political leaders can meet this test? President Obama certainly fails.

For the most part, business and political leaders are not selected based on their characters. They are selected based on their accomplishments or perceived benefit to the constituencies they will server.

I have worked with and for many individuals over my years. Some meet the Scout Law test, most did not. Few of our elected officials stand

If we expect our young men to demonstrate these characteristics, why shouldn't this same standard apply to our leaders?

I challenge you to consider the "Scout Law Test" the next time you are asked to vote or submit you assessment of someone who will have a say over you, your community, your state or your federal politicians.

Emotional Gun Control Staring Obama and Biden

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 05:32:00 +0000

The Democrat Party leaders Barack Obama and his doltish side-kick Joe Biden are leading a dialogue on gun control that continues to sew the seeds of revolution.

We have all heard the liberal talking heads spew their anti-gun rhetoric. We are amazed at their complete lack of understanding of the Second Amendment. For example, comparing the mandates for air bags and seat belts to gun control -- people complained about required car safety measures and the resulting benefits, guns should be likewise regulated.

The right to bear arms is guaranteed by our Constitution; car safety measures are not.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

People have guns to protect themselves, their family, their property, their freedom.

Globally, millions and millions of people have been killed by tyrannical governments and rulers, even more held in stick obedience to oppressive rule. These subjects lacked the ability to defend themselves against despots. Our current leaders are despot wannabes.

The emotions tied to Columbine, Virginia Tech and Newtown are painful. But these cases should not be the catalyst for ill-conceived executive orders.

Assault weapons, high-capacity magazine clips and ammunition volume and type are not the problems. The Virginia Tech killer did not use a high-capacity magazine clip. If someone comes to take away our freedoms, we want the ability to fight back with equal weaponry.

The current government it trending toward oppression. It is using emotional parlor tricks, gimmicks and deceit to misrepresent the problems and its so-called solution.

It is my hope that America will not fall for these flim-flam artists. That it will reject this President and his misguided supporters with full fervor. Thankfully, grass root Americans are speaking up and demonstrating focused action and resolve.

Fiscal Cliff Vote -- Loss for America

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 06:01:00 +0000

Politics are about compromise. Politics are about special interest rewards. Politics are about power. The 257-167 House fiscal cliff vote was a bipartisan compromise. The praise is self-praise, Democrats and Republicans alike. This bill is a huge tax increase coupled with massive new spending, sold as a tax break for the middle class.

Most idiots will claim that the rich are greedy and can afford it. Most party hawks will claim it is better to see a small increase in the payroll tax than the big income tax that would have occurred had the bill not passed. Another fake crisis created by the very dolts we have elected.

Our elected politicians have created the mess we are in -- too much spending and too much taxation. This fiscal cliff bill is just another bump on the road to national insolvency. We have a hole bunch of other issues looming. This legislature body is unwilling to do what is required to solve our national financial disaster.

How does this Congress justify a 154-page bill that gets voted upon after being available for just 3 minutes prior? How does Congress pass a bill that is packed full of new spending, of which a large amount is pork? Why do people believe Obama's wealth redistribution plan of changing the tax code skewed in favor of the wealthy? Why do people believe he has any interest in reducing the deficit even with his so-called "balanced approach?"

This bill increase taxes for the top income earners, estates, capital gains, dividends, medical devices, payroll.

Americans now have less money to spend on whatever they want -- instead more money diverted for government pet and inefficient projects. We have less to invest in new business and growth. We have less incentive to save and invest. We continue to become less competitive.

Senators Reid and McConnell, Representatives Boehner and Pelosi, and President Obama all continue to fail America. They only care about their staying power and historical posture, little about what is in America's long-term interest. Obama and his fellow party leaders have no interest in negotiation, no interest in reducing the deficit, no interest in cutting spending, no interest in cutting tax rates.

We continue to manage failure by make-believe successes.

Fiscal Cliff Debate Is Pure Political Posturing

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:48:00 +0000

Come January 1, 2013, taxes will go up on everyone. The President wants this because he a) will have more money, as he claims, to spend on government programs, and b) can blame it on Republicans.

The President's (and the Democrat's) position cannot be clearer: more spending, stimulus, and taxes, and a permanent removal of the debt ceiling limit.

The Republicans are not much better. They are willing to concede most of these things if the tax increases can be disguised as closing deduction loopholes.

When Congress compromises and regardless of how it is spun, the result will be higher taxes for most Americans, fewer jobs, and lower growth and GDP, yielding fewer tax payers and higher debt.

The right thing to do for the country is to extend the Bush tax cuts for all and to do no stimulus spending.

The debate over who is rich and how much they should or should not pay in taxes is political posturing for idiots. The extra revenue from these higher rates will do little to address the deficit.

The fiscal cliff debate is the same old argument just with new words. The Democrats want bigger government -- more taxes and programs to enslave the masses. The Republicans are unable to build a compelling and understandable case for smaller government because they are not committed to the premise. Politicians do not get elected or re-elected, so they think, by shrinking government, rathering by showing their constituencies they did "x" and "y" for their state or district.

Obama will get his recession and he and the media will have success in blaming the Republicans for their desire to protect the most wealthy.

Few mention the elephant in the room: government is too big and individuals and corporations are taxed too high.

Gun Control Starts With Fewer Gun-Free Zones

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:50:00 +0000

Whether it is Columbine CO, Red Lake MN, Blacksburg VA, Ft. Hood TX, Tuscon AZ, or Newtown, CN (to name just a few of many since 1988), all mass shootings are tragic. The extra tragic nature of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, if that is possible, is the age of the victims.

Leftist groups and politicians across the board are quick to react. Their haste usually results in the wrong conclusions and the wrong legislation that pretends to address a problem knowing full well it will accomplish little.

In America, unlike other nations, we have a Constitution that gives us the right to bear arms. Gun control arguments about whether one really needs to carry a firearm, the merits or limitations of a conceal carry permit, the size of magazines, the calibers of firearms, and types of ammunition, and where one should or should not be allowed to carry, will go on forever. Debate is critical to our republic.

So it makes little difference what the English, Russian or Chinese think about our gun policy. Quite the contrary, whatever they say, we should do the opposite.

Certainly, only a mentally unstable human would shoot another without cause or threat. But even the most troubled mass murderer picks and chooses his victims. They know that many public places are gun-free -- schools, camps, churches, theaters, etc. Since they are predetermined to kill, they know that they will be able to inflict the most damage in places where the likelihood of an armed defense is minimized.

There are excellent examples of where the damage assailants could do was limited by armed people in the area.

Congress will try to do something -- limit the size of magazines or ban semi-automatic assault firearms -- but it will do nothing to stop mass shootings.

Thanks fully, America has an armed populace. Unless the Constitution is changed, the right to bear arms will not change.

If you want to do something about stemming the tide of mass shootings, consider reducing the number of gun-free zones and expanding and improving the conceal carry laws (inter-state transport, better shooting skills and practice, situational awareness training, etc.) The next time a person enters a school to manifest his mental disease, there should be a dozen or more of scared, all be they confident, individuals with their own firearms to minimize the damage on the innocents.

Hamas, Israel and the PR Battle

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:44:00 +0000

On the surface, you'd think that Hamas has no leg to stand on. For years now they have been launching random missiles from Gaza into southern Israel. If Israel retaliates, Hamas tries to make it appear that it is the mean bully Israel that has caused all of the despair in Gaza, if not the West Bank. The latest actions are drawing the two parties very close to a hot war.

Hamas, primarily a terrorist group, that was elected to government Gaza, is a failed government. They results after three plus years are poverty, hopelessness, and a large cache of missiles. They unify the people on a continual diatribe of anti-Israel hate.

Over the past month, Hamas has launched over 1000 rockets into Israel. They do so from civilian neighborhoods near mosques, playgrounds, civilian factories, gas stations, etc. Their hope is that an Israel retaliation will hit and kill a child. The resulting PR both within and with the international media has worked for them in the past.

When the Hamas rockets hit and kill Israelis the PR opportunity switches sides.

Every nation has the duty to retaliate for any military incursions into their land. I am shocked that Israel has waited as long as they have to respond with direct hits into Gaza. Israelis seem 100% behind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

The Israeli call-up of 30,000 reserves and the threat of a ground assault has sparked Egypt’s prime minister, Hisham Qandil (Muslim Brotherhood leader) to push for a cease fire and for a lead at the Arab League table.

We will hear about the imbalance of "war-related" deaths. Three plus years ago it was a 1000 Palestinians to 10-15 Israelis. Today it is 19 to 3

It is the same old story. Israel will forever be the enemy. The Arabs (and Persians) will never accept Israel's existence. It is tough to sympathize with the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank. Politically they cannot operate on anything other than hate. They refuse to focus on economic growth, education, healthcare, and peace. At some point, Israel will let go with a massive military assault, all but destroying the once-occupied territories of Gaza and West Bank.

Benghazi Disaster, Sex Scandal, and Same Old Obama

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:19:00 +0000

President Obama held his first press conference since March. The topics of the day -- fiscal cliff, idiotic generals, and a cover-up greater than Watergate.

How long did the FBI, the State Department and the White House know about the extra-marital sexual relationship between CIA Director Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell? The chances it was only last week are slim to none. He did break off the relationship four months ago. I wonder what spurred that action? This news coming right after the election was certainly not by chance.

The revelation of this sex scandal, which is rather minor in the big picture, did not come forth at this time by accident. It has diverted the attention of the worthless press from one of the most significant cover-ups in modern history.

The fact that on the anniversary of 9/11, terrorists killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three embassy personnel, including two former Navy SEALs working as security contractors in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama administration wants us to believe it was just a Muslim reaction to a stupid anti-Mohammad movie was and is offensive.

They picked the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, to be the fall-gal by sending her, not the Secratary of State, to speak on the Sunday morning talk shows on 9/16/12. They tasked her to spew the "insulting video" angle. How insulting.

Fast forward to today and we have made zero progress on revealing what the White House, CIA and State Department knew about the events leading up to and including the actual assault as well as the aftermath of the embassy attack and murders in Benghazi.

The Benghazi cover-up will include Petraeus, Clinton and Obama. This has the potential to being more significant than Watergate. However, it is doubtful the media has the same motivation to tear down this president like they did forty years ago with a Republican in the Oval Office.

Election Results 2012: Thoughts From A Utah Mormon

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 03:53:00 +0000

This time, I got it wrong. Based on historical evidence, given the state of the economy, I thought Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama. I felt Romney would win by a landslide in the popular vote and squeak by in the Electoral College. When Romney lost Ohio and Virginia and was behind in Florida, it was clear: America has forever changed.

We are clearly a divided country but that division will forever move left.

Republicans have lost five of the last six popular Presidential elections. This trend will unlikely change. The nation has become a statist nation, where entitlements rule. With more and more people becoming dependent on the government either through welfare programs or employment, little will change this.

Race again played a big role in this year's election. Whites have become a minority in the sense that all other races together surpass whites in numbers -- blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. Republicans have not been able to craft conservative messages that will be understood and accepted by these groups.

Statism begets more statism. Those dependent on the state know where their bread comes from -- even if they really don't -- and they will not consciously discard what they believe to be a good thing. That's why the "tax the rich" dogma appeals today and it has for centuries.

America has changed these past four plus decades, and not for the good. Wholesome values and morals are scarce. Self-responsibility and living within one's means, are diminished. Consumerism and the what's-in-it-for-me attitude are the rule.

History clearly has shown us that most great nations are destroyed from within. Obama's remarks during his victory speech may sound good but they are implausible in the country we have allowed him to devolve us into:

It moves forward because of you. It moves forward because you reaffirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war and depression, the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope, the belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people.

Tonight, in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back, and we know in our hearts that for the United States of America the best is yet to come.

As I read The Book of Mormon this year, I could not help but notice the parallels of those degenerate societies to what we have today.

The premise in Atlas Shrugged is looking rather prophetic.

Election 2012: Doubling-Down On Failed Policies or Not

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 02:02:00 +0000

Four years ago, Obama was all about hope and change. Bush's appeal was limited and his replacement wannabe McCain was a terrible alternative. Now we have four year of failed policies and a government that is so indebted we may never recover.

Obama, like most liberal Democrats, must hid who they are. They cannot run a socialistic campaign. They must use emotion and entitlement rhetoric. They must spin the record. They must lie. Obama has not run on his record, rather has ran on trying to destroy his opponent's character and fabricate his record.

Four years ago, Obama was taking about Bush's failed policies, our national debt, America's image from abroad -- a very centrist approach. Once elected, he tossed all of that out and ran a pure liberal agenda with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They focused on a tax receipts (income) redistribution, and a whole series of debt-increasing/Keynesian spending programs from Cash For Clunkers, crony stimulus programs, payback and unnecessary shovel-ready projects, TARP, bailouts and banking/financial institution restructuring often at the expense of real investors in favor of unions and other insiders, unemployment benefit extensions, massive food stamp promotion and growth, limited-appeal green industry "investment," Federal Reserve-based Quantitative Easing I, II and III, and last but not least, Obamacare (arguably the worst piece of legislation in American history).

Obama and his congressional cronies have no budgets. They just spend and spend, buying indulgences from the ignorant. Telling is how blacks plan on voting this year despite the record. Jason Riley wrote in his op-ed "For Blacks, the Pyrrhic Victory of the Obama Era":

Four years ago, 95% of black voters went for Mr. Obama, and he is likely to win something approaching that percentage in his re-election bid, notwithstanding economic data showing that blacks have lost ground on his watch. When the president assumed office, unemployment was 12.7% for blacks and 7.1% for whites. Today it is 14.3% for blacks and 7% for whites, which means that the black-white employment gap has not merely persisted under Mr. Obama but widened.

No matter. The president's approval rating among African-Americans is pushing 90%, and a Washington Post/ABC News tracking poll last week found that 97% of blacks plan to double down on him in this election.

He has never had any intent to work with Republicans. Remember the "Great Bargain" with Speaker Boehner that did not happen, the Super Committee to avoid automation cuts, his slam-the-Paul Ryan budget and the passing of the Affordable Care Act without due process?

If America re-elects Obama, America will forever be changed. It will become an even greater entitlement society, without morals and personal responsibility, financially insolvent, and ripe for complete destruction, if not anarchy, from within.

I believe the American people will not re-elect Obama. I believe that Romney will be America's next President. But even then, I doubt the founding principles of the American Republic will resonate with the masses in the future.

Superstorm Sandy, Preparation and Reaction

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 23:52:00 +0000

It is interesting watching how various people, towns, cities and states deal with natural disasters. With in-your-face TV, radio and Internet coverage, we have an encyclopedia of cause/effect. Whether it is tsunamis in Asia, tornadoes in the heartland, earthquakes along the Pacific Ring of Fire, floods in the Asian sub-continent, famines in Africa, cyclones in the Pacific, or hurricanes in the Atlantic, Mother Nature wreaks its havoc, discriminating against none.

As members of the LDS Church, we have been counciled for decades to prepare for the unexpected, which could be man-made or natural. Food, water, shelter, clothing, power and a plan are core to any emergency preparedness plan. Despite advanced warnings, some prepare, others do not; some heed the advise of the weather and government experts, others ignore it.

We have little control of what happens during a natural disaster. However, we do control what we do prior to ingress of a natural disaster and how we react afterwards. New York and New Jersey residents, for the most part, acted exemplary. Of course the media covers the exceptions.

True character comes to the surface in times like these. How we react to the loss of a home or car, the absence of power or gasoline, the lack or running water and waste disposal, is telling. Some take advantage of those in need, whether it is charging unreasonable prices, issuing blame without full knowledge, or participating in aggressive language and dialog.

In more cases than not, it is those in blue, urban areas who do the biggest complaining. It is those in red areas that realize the government is limited and that it is better to take things into your own hands.

Government has a roll but blaming it for not getting what you think you need is the entitlement mindset of those that favor more and bigger government.

On the eve of a presidential election, those that think the government is the answer to most of our problems will vote for more of the same. Those that realize that the government is not the end-all will for a change.

Sunday Store Closing: A Town's Prerogative

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:37:00 +0000

This year, Highland, UT residents have a proposition to vote on. Traditional retail commerce is not allowed on Sunday. Stores are closed. Earlier this year, the City Council passed an ordinance to allow Sunday openings. Here's how the referendum reads:

PROPOSITION NUMBER 6
A Referendum Placing Before the Voters of Highland the Issue of Whether to Approve or Reject an Ordinance Allowing Businesses to Operate Seven-Days-a-Week.

On July 17, 2012 the Highland City Council passed Ordinance 2012-12 which removed certain restrictions regarding the days of operation for businesses within Highland. The Ordinance amended the Municipal Code to allow businesses to operate seven-days-a week, except between the hours of midnight and six a.m. A voter desiring to vote in favor of the ordinance which allows businesses to operate seven days a week should mark "For." A voter desiring to vote against the ordinance should mark "Against."

[Here's is what appears on the ballot]

Proposition 6 - Sunday Closing Referendum (Vote for One)
[] For
[] Against

Those for the referendum feel that by not allowing businesses to open on Sunday it impacts their freedom to operate a business. They believe that by allowing commerce on Sunday, more businesses will open, giving residents (and others) more shopping options. They feel it will increase the tax base. They claim they do not wish to impose their values on others, that "to shop or not to shop" is an individual's prerogative, but must be allowed.

Those against the referendum prefer Highland the way it is. Highland is a religious community where the bulk of its residents are LDS. Not shopping on Sunday is integral to obeying the commandment "remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." If any resident desires to shop, they can drive 3-5 miles east, west and south and find plenty of commerce to indulge their need to buy stuff.

Communities should decide what is in their best interests -- what they want for their image and families. This referendum is about freedom -- the freedom to decide what a community wants.

One can apply the same argument for "Open on Sunday" to many other consumer options. For example, why limit it to traditional retail? If one wants to allow fast food company X to establish a presence on Sunday in the name of freedom, why not allow a business that sells alcohol or one that peddles voyeurism? The answer is that it is up to the community residents to decide its culture. They set the standard.

I have heard people laughing at those against the proposition using the "religious imposing their views on the others" argument. Mormons living their religion want to keep the Sabbath Day holy. They want their community to follow suit. They do not want their children to choose between working for a company that requires some Sunday labor and or not working. Sure the Mormons are imposing their values. They have that prerogative.

In Highland, there are a number of national chains that are open on Sunday in most places but not in Highland -- Wendys, Taco Time, Papa Murphys, Little Caesars. They made it work. Highland is perfectly fine without Sunday retail. It is one of the last bastions of religious observance one can find in a secular nation.

Rage Against America

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:43:00 +0000

Unless you are an out-of-touch, just-having-a-good-time, happy-to-get-out-of-bed, a-political American (over half of us qualify), you realize that America has taken a step down in global opinion. This is not about how nice America is, rather the position America has in the world as a global leader.

The current leadership is not one we can be proud of as representing American interest abroad. The foreign leaders that prefer the current, weaken state are our traditional "enemies" -- Russia, China, most Muslim countries, Cuba, Venezuela and other Chavenitsa regiems. A strong US president that a) looks out for American interest #1 and b) provides meaningful aid with strings attached, are typically what America has had in the oval office.

America use to be respected. It use to be feared. It has quickly morphed into a state with a leader and legislature that knows and cares little about foreign affairs. They are hesitant to act in fear that it may offend another. They put others' agendas ahead of our own.

Traditional allies, namely European states and Israel, have less confidence in American resolve to aid in time of crisis. America is not taking firm stands. And if it pretends to, most know that it is just words and little if anything will be done to back up those positions.

The latest attacks on American embassies in the Middle East should be seen as nothing more than acts of war against America. The anti-Mohammad movie is just a catalyst and rallying point. The sovereign status of embassies is ubiquitous. The governments of those nations are responsible for ensuring their safety from attack and mobs. These governments shoulder a big part of the mod-rule blame, failing to maintain civility.

America's roll in encouraging and aiding the so-called democratic process in these nations is a failed policy. The autocratic governments that have existed for decades in most of the Middle Eastern nations has served America well. We knew what we had. We could manage the risk. The proliferation of radical Islam states do not bode well for America. They oppose the freedom we enjoy, even if the results of that freedom are debauchery and paganism.

The rage against America will continue if the voters continue to favor weak, populists politicians. We are being lead by bad parents that hope to indulge their children's desires, even though those desires have negative long-term effects.

When immature leaders lead, they are exploited by other, more savvy and opportunistic nations. America needs a change. It needs to return to a time where American interest are number one, where American might has an element of fear, and where our word is gold.

Chicago Teachers, Unions and Democrat Politicians

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:12:00 +0000

As the Chicago Teachers Union continues to strike, the realization is they are arguing with like-minds. And the politicians know this.

Modern unions, any union, benefit its members. They do not benefit the other stakeholders. The Chicago teachers want more money, more guarantees for laid off workers, more benefits, better and more secure pension plans. Wouldn't we all. Though their customers are the students and their parents, the union's concern for them is minimal compared to its concern for its financial well-being.

The Chicago city politicians, all Democrats, do not have the revenue base to meet the union demands, despite one of the highest tax rates in the US. The city offered significant pay raises over the next few years, but it was not enough for the highest paid teachers in the USA. On day three of the strike, the union has only signed off on six of 49 articles within the proposed contract.

Will this go on for a few more days, a few weeks, or more than a month? Who knows. But the union officials and its members will continue to vote for Democrats. They have no choice. Locally, they will find Democrats who give them the best chance for financial gain. The Party is secure though its individual politicians may not be.

When it comes to liberal causes -- labor, environmentalism, morality/sex/marriage, gun control, anti-religion, big business, etc. -- they will only vote for Democrats. They are the bastion for socialism American style -- the great social safety net.

The opposite -- capitalism and Laissez-faire-style policies -- has all but disappeared in America. Work/reward and self-motivation are supplanted by government "help" programs. Republicans, fence-sitters for the most part, offer the only real choice. But the choice is one of major comprise for Libertarians or Constitutionalists.

In our two-party political system, the lines are very clear. Individual politicians may pay a price for a stance, but the parties never will.

Gas Pricings and Vulnerable Tourists in Orlando

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 20:24:00 +0000

The other day, while in Orlando, I needed to fill my rental car up with gas. There are a couple of gas stations on the south side of the airport on Semoran Blvd. that were charging almost twice what the normal rate was in Orlando.

The scary thing was that there were people using those pumps, filling their tanks.

When I noticed this, I could not believe it. Sure enough, right there on the pump, the price per gallon was 2x what the "normal" price should be. I said to the guy next to me, "are you sure you want to pay that price?" He did his own double-check, quickly realized what he was doing, put the pump down and drove off.

Some companies take pride in taking advantage of frazzled tourists returning home after a week of paying Disney's high prices. $6 a gallon of gas when the going rate is less than $4 is exploitative. At least you know Disney is going to take a large portion of your pay check, if not all.

PS: whenever you hear how expensive gas is in Europe, for example, realize that the price of a gallon of gas is about the same as it is everywhere else (not including those nations that subsidize it). The reason for the higher price per gallon at the pump is due to taxes. American taxes -- city, state, federal -- might add around $0.50 per gallon, these other countries add 2x - 10x that amount.

Chick-fil-A, Marriage and the Insanity

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:38:00 +0000

There is real insanity in society when a man cannot share his opinion on religion and the role and definition of marriage without a massive counterattack.

When Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy shared his views on marriage during a recent radio program, a few voices were heard: one supporting his right to speak his mind, one who agreed with his opinion, one that did not agree, and one that was just baffling. Cathy said

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.' I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is about."

If it were not for a few activist organizations, it would have gone unnoticed. These opportunists have launched an anit-Chick-fil-A campaign attempting to label them as anti-gay and intimidate other businesspeople into thinking twice before exercising their freedom of speech.

In virtually every culture, marriage is an institution involving a public commitment between a man and a woman. The complementary nature of men and women points to the unique purpose of marriage: to bear and raise children. One can recognize this fact and so conclude that "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron—without being "anti-gay."

We can agree to disagree. But the insanity is demonstrated by a few lunatic city politicians -- Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. How they can refuse building permits, operations and expansion in their cities to a company because a senior (Chick-fil-A) executive share a religious opinion is mind-numbing.

It apparently does not matter that no discrimination occurs with the people it employs or the the people it serves. Stupidity is on display in cities across the USA.

Whereas Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day this pas Wednesday was a big hit (record sales), the counter Kiss-in protest was less so. Some protests are miss-aligned. The pro-gay marriage group blew it on this one.

The LDS Chursh's position (and mine) is clear on marriage. From the The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

Same-sex attraction aside, most of the discussion around same-sex marriage is really about religion. The liberal diatribe is 100% focused against freedom of speech when that speech does not agree with theirs.

Obama vs. Entrepreneurs

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:05:00 +0000

A politician does not make a businessman. Obama was nothing prior to his speech at the 2004 Democrat Convention, merely a community activist and non-practicing lawyer. His business and economic ineptitude is well established. He added another plaque to his wall with his “You Didn’t Get There on Your Own” comments.

Assuming we give him the benefit of the doubt, his comments seemed to be along the line that someone or something helped the entrepreneur, like a road and airplane, a police office that gave him a warning instead of a ticket, a public school teacher that showed up to class most of time, a postage stamp to mail a letter of recommendation.

One does not necessarily need to be super smart to start a business, but one does need a good idea, a competitive advantage, an ability to execute on that idea, some financing, and lots of hard work and long days.

There are some things only a government can do -- military, regulate commerce with foreign nations, establish a uniform rule of naturalization, coin money and deal with counterfeiting, establish post offices, etc. The role of entrepreneur is not one of them. The President pretending he knows what it is like to be an entrepreneur is just pathetic. He is delusional to think that man needs government to succeed.

He would never even consider the fact that entrepreneurs would be even more productive, more people would attempt to start their own business, and that success would be greater if government was less intrusive in the process.

Only a demented person would talk off teleprompter on a topic he knows absolutely nothing about.

Romney Speech Highlights NAACP's True Colors

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:58:00 +0000

The media roar has mellowed after Romney's speech at the NAACP convention last week (instead it has opted to hammer him about his work in the private sector.)

The NAACP may have started out as a viable, meaningful organization, but its usefulness for those it claims to aid has all but disappeared.

Most racism in America is kept alive by organizations and leaders who benefit from racism. NAACP is no exception. Having Romney speak at its convention is a sham to begin with. Those members and participants have no intent to consider the policies he and the Republican Party espouse. Obama will still get 90% of the black vote because a) he is black and b) because he promises things they like to hear (which only benefits the black leaders and continues to enslave the black people.)

The NAACP does not represent the mindset of the average black voter. It is nothing more than a liberal entity that benefits from big government spending. It has no intent in solving America's racial inequality problems. Doing so would make them all get real jobs. It only benefits if black people are dependent on government programs.

The programs Romney and non-liberal organizations would like to implement to address healthcare, education and jobs in black communities get booed because they are the opposite of those favored by tax and spend liberal politicians and the organizations they mutually support.

It was a good speech, perhaps Romney's best. The end result was to see the NAACP's true colors as an organization that only desires continued racism, which it helps keep alive.

Unlimited Bailout Authority - Government Overstep

noreply@blogger.com (JD Hayes) — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 09:46:00 +0000

When the Senate passed its disastrous financial grab act in July 2010 known as the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, it did nothing but add massive bureaucracy and certain inefficiency that will create more harm than good.

Like all big government programs, the intent was well-intended but it overstepped the roll of the federal government and what is outlined in the Constitution for it. Consider the following three entities from Dodd-Frank:

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) -- an agency that started in July 2011, has a stated purpose of regulating consumer protection in the U.S., namely dealing with credit cards, mortgages, bank products and services, private student loans, and other consumer loan complaints. It is an independent unit located inside and funded by the Federal Reserve, with interim affiliation with the Treasury. There is no Congressional oversight. In other words, they can do what they what, when they want, and there is no real recourse.

Office of Financial Research (OFR) is part of the U.S. Treasury Department. Its intent is to improve the quality of financial data available to policymakers and facilitate more robust and sophisticated analysis of the financial system. The data it collects will be for the express benefit of the Financial Stability Oversight Council.

Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) was established to monitor and ensure the stability of our nation's financial system. The Council is charged with

identifying threats to the financial stability of the United States; promoting market discipline; and responding to emerging risks to the stability of the United States financial system. The Council consists of 10 voting members and 5 nonvoting members and brings together the expertise of federal financial regulators, state regulators, and an insurance expert appointed by the President.

This is an impossible task and bureaucracy personified. All it will do is give the federal government subjective control over whatever they want in the realm of finance and banking. Its meetings will not be open to the public because they will claim they will be discussing confidential items that will prevent destabilizing market speculation.

Every time government expands, all in the name of the public's well-being, it actually means less liberty and greater taxation. Dodd-Frank was no exception.