Kelly is the mother of 5 adorable kids--4 boys and a girl. The girl came in a package with a boy (twins).
Kelly is married to a charming young man who lives and breathes computers. They are also guardians for three nieces and a nephew.
She is active in the community having served as PTA President of a local elementary school,
on the board of the Salt Lake Mothers of Twins, as a district round-table trainer with the Cub Scouts, as a volunteer for Sidelines (a support network for Women on bed rest during pregnancy) and she and her husband are active in the LDS Church.
Salt Lake LDS Temple Centennial with a full 3D model of the building in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah.
This Single Image Stereogram was done at the 100 year anniversary of the building's completion.
"And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer,
who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea,
his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to
drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation,
a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall."
The following was previously posted on a facebook page by John Killough Wangel of Texas.
2000-2001: One-loss teams Miami and Washington are left out of the championship game while one-loss Florida State goes on to lose undefeated Oklahoma. Victims of the BCS: Oklahoma, Miami, and Washington.
2001-2002: Despite being blown out by Colorado (who also won the Big 12 Championship) 62-36, Nebraska goes on to get routed by Miami in the national championship while the human poll favorite Oregon and field proven Buffaloes watch. Victims of the BCS: Miami, Colorado, and Oregon.
2003-2004: LSU, USC, and Oklahoma finish the season with one loss resulting in USC being named AP National Champion and LSU being named the Coaches poll champion. Victims of the BCS: USC and LSU.
2004-2005: Oklahoma goes on to get destroyed by USC 55-19, while three undefeated teams (Utah, Boise State, and Auburn) played in less significant games. Auburn, who convincingly won their bowl game and the SEC that year, along with Utah finished the season undefeated with no championship. Victims of the BCS: USC, Auburn, and Utah.
2005-2006: The only year the stars aligned for a perfect BCS championship, undefeated USC and Texas played for the National Championship. Victims of the BCS: None (surprisingly)
2006-2007: Undefeated Ohio State is automatically in the championship game while undefeated Boise State along with 4 one loss teams (Louisville, Wisconsin, Florida, and Michigan) all bid for the one remaining spot. Florida goes on to beat Ohio State for the championship title while Louisville and Boise State also win their games. Boise State finishes their second undefeated season in three years with no title. Victims of the BCS: Florida, Boise State, and Louisville.
2007-2008: LSU jumps three teams in the final week for a spot in the Championship game against one Ohio State, despite having two losses. One loss Kansas and undefeated Hawaii, along with six other legitimate two loss teams are left out of the championship picture. Victims of the BCS: Kansas, Hawaii, Virginia Tech, Georgia, USC, Oklahoma, Arizona State, West Virginia, and Missouri.
2008-2009: In the closing weeks of the season, OU jumps the team they lost to (Texas) by beating a team they (Texas) had already beaten. This led to a Big 12 title and national championship game for OU while Texas was left out of the national championship picture. Other teams, such as UNDEFEATED Boise State and one-loss Texas Tech have two great seasons and are left out of the BCS bowl games because Cincinnati and Virginia Tech get automatic bids despite having multiple losses.
ONCE AGAIN, the BCS proves it doesn't like settling matters on the field. Texas beat one of the teams head to head who is in the national championship game. Texas Tech beat Texas head to head and isn't in a BCS bowl game. BOISE STATE WAS UNDEFEATED AND DIDN'T GET A SNIFF
You may have noticed that I mentioned the Champion as a victim in some years. In each of these years, the question of "What if..?" will always remain and could tarnish their championship.
This is not just about UTAH. The argument that the BSC plays harder or more difficult schedules just doesn't hold water. They are afraid to play the other teams for fear that they will get kicked out of their own game.
Paperclippings is branching out. I have joined forces with Phelonius to produce Res Civitatis. With so much to talk about in the political arena it was only a matter time before that subject should get its own forum. Res Civitatis is a place where we can discuss our shared Conservative values and yet still keep our respective blogs for what we had originally intended them for...more trivial matters.
We promise not to eat you for dinner...unless you are a troll, mmmmm, trolls are yummy.
The following is from a blog I frequently read. It is from one of those listed in my favorites. I originally came across this blog while looking for blogs that hail from southwest Virginia/West Virginia as have lived in that area.
As I read today I was reminded why I have a link to it.
The answer comes from the ever-sententious Charleston Gazette:
Why did Democrat-dominated West Virginia remain a Republican "red state" for the third straight presidential election? Marshall University professor Marybeth Beller told West Virginia Public Radio it might be because less-educated, white, blue-collar families in southern coal counties were leery of the unfamiliar "otherness" of Barack Obama, a mixed-race intellectual raised unusually in Hawaii, Indonesia and elsewhere. She noted that better-educated, more cosmopolitan voters in Morgantown and the Eastern Panhandle gave higher support to Obama.
So why did every Democrat in West Virginia who was running for statewide and congressional office win last Tuesday?
It must be because less-educated, white, blue-collar families in southern coal counties were leery of the unfamiliar "otherness" of Republicans, a group from mixed-socio-economic circumstances, most of whom were rumored to be native West Virginians, and that better-educated, more cosmopolitan voters in Morgantown and the Eastern Panhandle were just as wise the people of West Virginia are really smart.
California Mormons had every right to fight for Prop 8
The LDS Church asked its members in California to support prop 8. They had the choice to support the LDS leadership in this or to ignore that request. It did not ask Utah Mormons to contribute in anyway to this cause. The leadership of the LDS Church, itself, did not contribute in time or money except to fly one or two of their leaders to California to talk to the members there. Yet it is Utah that the pro gay marriage supporters are asking to boycott.
Do they not realize that nearly 800,000 Mormons live in California? That is almost as many as live in Utah.
The Mormon (LDS) citizens of California had every right to fight for Prop 8 by donating time and money. But they were not the only ones in the fight for Prop 8. If all of the California Mormons had voted for the Proposition and no others had voted for it, Prop 8 would have failed miserably. But not everyone in California sees the gay marriage issue the same way as San Fransisco or Hollywood.
Former head of Salt Lake Diocese comes to defense of LDS Church
Bishop William Weigand, who is now head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento, issued the statement in response to recent attacks on the LDS Church.
In part, the statement reads: "Catholics stand in solidarity with our Mormon brothers and sisters in support of traditional marriage - the union of one man and one woman - that has been the major building block of Western Civilization for millennia.
The ProtectMarriage coalition, which led the successful campaign to pass Proposition 8, was an historic alliance of people from every faith and ethnicity. LDS were included--but so were Catholics and Jews, Evangelicals and Orthodox, African-Americans and Latinos, Asians and Anglos.
…Bigoted attacks on Mormons for the part they played in our coalition are shameful and ignore the reality that Mormon voters were only a small part of the groundswell that supported Proposition 8."
On the side: If Robert Redford's Sundance pulls out of Utah, as boycott proponents hope, it will hurt one of the most liberal counties in Utah. Go figure!
My wonderful better half just brought this website to my attention. It is from Obama's (Office of the President-elect) website http://change.gov/americaserves/. This is not heresay, my friends.
"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream."
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
What does this mean? My fellow conservatives, this means that our students who are already taxed with homework and jobs will now be required, yes REQUIRED, to serve in some community service or other.
As a parent of middle school, high school and college students I dislike this program immensely. I know that community service is a good thing. I have boys who have been through or are going through the Boys Scouts program. I know all about having kids serve in this capacity. But what Obama is asking here is government slave labor. They want our youth to serve the government. My husband adds, "No mention of armbands or uniforms."
Can you see our freedoms slip away?? One by one...
This was written by one of my sisters. I post it here with permission.
According to Karl Marx, socialism will be achieved through a class struggle and a “Proletarian revolution.” This revolution is the stepping-stone to socialism.
A Proletarian revolution is defined by Wikipedia.com as a “social and/or political revolution in which the working class attempts to overthrow the bourgeoisie.” Proletarian revolutions are generally advocated by socialists.”
“In Marxism, the need for a proletarian revolution is a cornerstone and the first step towards dismantling the exploitations brought about by capitalism. Marxists believe that the workers of the world must unite and free themselves from capitalist oppression to create a world run by and for the working class. In the Marxist view, proletarian revolutions will inevitably happen in all capitalist countries.”
“The Leninist branch of Marxism argues that a proletarian revolution must be led by a vanguard of ‘professional revolutionaries’ [read: Obama, as a ‘community organizer’]’- that is, men and women who are fully dedicated to the communist revolutionary movement. This van guard is meant to provide leadership and organization to the rest of the working class before and during the revolution, so as the prevent the all-too- common situation in which the government defeats the revolution thanks to the superior discipline and organization of its police and army.”
There are other Marxists who believe that the vanguard is not necessary and insist that the entire working class, or a large part of it must be committed and very involved in its movement in order for the proletarian revolution to be successful. The goal of these Marxists is to organize and fund massive working class movements with very large numbers.
Mikki
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. "
For those who are LDS this picture will be somewhat familiar. Someone sent me this picture of Captain Moroni and his Title of Liberty with a current day twist.
Whether you believe in the Book of Mormon or not...these words are fitting.
Alma 46:10-13
10 Yea, we see that Amalickiah, because he was a man of cunning device and a man of many flattering words, that he led away the hearts of many people to do wickedly; yea, and to seek to destroy the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them, or which blessing God had sent upon the face of the land for the righteous’ sake. 11 And now it came to pass that when Moroni, who was the chief commander of the armies of theNephites, had heard of these dissensions, he was angry with Amalickiah. 12 And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole. 13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land—
Portions of an article by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe as posted in the comments section by Mike in Mike's America blog "Mike's America Homepage 10.29.08 - 2:01 pm # ":
If opinion polls are right, Barack Obama is cruising to victory. As president, would he show the same forbearance as Bush in allowing his opponents to have their say, unmolested? Or would he attempt to suppress the free speech of those whose views he detested? It is disturbing to contemplate some of the Obama campaign's recent efforts to stifle criticism.
When the National Rifle Association produced a radio ad last month about Obama's shifting position on gun control, the campaign's lawyers sent letters to radio stations in Ohio and Pennsylvania, urging them not to run it - and warning of trouble with the Federal Communications Commission if they did. "This advertisement knowingly misleads your viewing audience," Obama's general counsel Bob Bauer wrote. "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."
Similar lawyer letters went out in August when the American Issues Project produced a TV spot exploring Obama's strong ties to former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Station managers were warned that running the anti-Obama ad would be a violation of their legal obligation to serve the "public interest." And in case that wasn't menacing enough, the Obama campaign also urged the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation.
In Missouri, an Obama "truth squad" of prosecutors and other law-enforcement officials vowed to take action against anyone making "character attacks" on the Democratic candidate - a threat, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt later remarked, that had about it the "stench of police state tactics."
All these examples are forming a pattern. This is how Obama would govern."
Reasons LDS Church is supporting California Prop 8
From the LDS Church Newsroom:
"At the request of the Protect Marriage Coalition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is making arrangements for them to call friends, family and fellow citizens in California to urge support of the effort to defend traditional marriage. The coalition has asked members of the many participating churches and organizations to contribute in whatever way they can to the effort to pass Proposition 8."
See video snippet for the reasons we back this proposition.
The following came to me via an email group of LDS moms. Permission was given to share this. This issue is not merely a change in who can or cannot be married.
Read on. Mr. King says it better than I can.
I know this list is mostly for Moms, but I'm an attorney Dad who needs to weigh in on this issue, particularly for those not in CA who might not be well informed, or those in CA who feel 'the [LDS] Church has over-stepped its bounds.' It has not.
Far more is at stake than whether same-sex couples can formalize their relationships - the absolute fact is that they can under California law, whether or not Prop 8 passes. The Family Code says there shall be no difference in the rights of registered domestic partners under California Law - so they already have every right California can give them. The only thing Prop 8 denies them is the term MARRIAGE.
The underlying goal of those same-sex marriage is not supporting those relationships, it is totally about undermining established religion and those who espouse moral standards. The goal is to make California a hostile environment for those of faith, as San Francisco attempts to be. As I recall one City Councilman put it [paraphrased, and I wish I could now find the story I read so long ago]: 'Established religion and those who belong to it have no place in San Francisco and should go elsewhere.'
Note the Church that lost its tax-exempt status because it would not perform gay marriages. Note the doctor who was sued [despite referring to another doctor who performed the procedure] over refusal to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple and was then told by the Judge 'find another line of work.' Note that the Catholic Church can no longer arrange adoptions in Massachusetts since they will not do so for same-sex couples. Note that marriages of all kinds have declined catastrophically in foreign countries that have allowed same-sex marriage for years.
Know that there are couples waiting until after the election to approach the LDS Church to be married there, but have already drafted the legal complaint in order to attack the Church in Court for a refusal to perform the ceremony. Know that California law requires that same-sex marriage be taught to children in school on the same basis as heterosexual marriage.
This video was brought to my attention by fellow members of my faith. We may not always see eye to eye with those of the Catholic faith but this video is something I feel strongly about passing along. To those who agree with this....please get out and vote this November.
I grabbed this from Patrick at Born again Redneck. He often gets right to the point on his blog. So, rather than reinventing the wheel. I will just give him credit and post it as it is.
"And ponder SCOTUS' recent Gitmo decision. Three of the five Justices who voted to give foreign prisoners of war access to our civil courts may die, retire or become disabled within the next four years. There is no assurance that McCain will appoint decent judges (and there's no guarantee how they will turn out even if they appear to be conservative at first) but it's a sure thing that Obama will appoint more Ginsbergs.
[Disclaimer: this interview does not constitute an endorsement of this candidate.]
I have here my good friend, James Baird, who is currently running as the Libertarian Candidate for the Texas House District 105. Upon learning that he was running I asked if I could interview him for my blog. He graciously accepted my request.
Kelly:James, tell my readers a little about yourself and how you got involved in the Libertarian Party in Texas.
James: I am a stay-at-home father with two sons. One is 16 and the other is 20 years of age. I currently home school my youngest. I have been a professional for most of my life, however, with 15 plus years experience working in college admissions, and much more than that working in databases and in the computing field. I am married to a wonderful lady who is also a professional, and we make a great team as well as being a great couple.
My first exposure to a serious Libertarian occurred while I was working at the University. I had long been dissatisfied with the Republican party of the 90's since they had dropped most of what Reagan had built while at the same time calling themselves conservatives.
This gentleman was, himself, not a contributing member of the LP at the time, but he talked a great game for what the LP stood for and how they were actually a serious party. I did more research, and I discovered that I identified with a great deal of the National LP Platform. I have been a contributing member of the party for many years now in both the National LP and the Texas LP.
Kelly: What do Libertarians stand for? What is their platform?
James: The LP stands for freedom. It stands by the by-line that it is the party of principle, and indeed it is. The LP believes that the role of the federal government is carefully described in the Constitution, and that it therefore has no role in monitoring and controlling our private lives. I cannot go into every detail of the platform here, but anyone that is interested can go to http://www.lp.org/ for a more involved reading. Let me start here, though.
The preamble of the LP platform states:
"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
Economically, the LP believes in free trade and the removal of government restrictions on free trade. It is not through the might of the military that freedom gains ground, it is through allowing open markets that oppressed peoples learn about freedom, and open markets are the tool that raises the standard of living. Tariffs and high taxes are currently hindering our own economy, and those things only serve to increase the power of the federal government and nothing for the average business that desires to increase demand for its goods or services. The current trend of the government spending your dollars to bail out those that have made bad decisions can sound like a good thing until you really look at it.
I hate it that people make stupid decisions, but at the same time, the money that my wife and I have earned through the sweat of our brow is ours, and it belongs to nobody else. If your neighbor makes a bad decision in the stock market, or he buys a car that does not run, or she makes an investment in property that resides in a flood plain, why should my money go to that end when we have been careful to avoid bad decisions ourselves? We are not a collective.
What we are is a society of free people that can make decisions for good or for ill. I do not want to live in a country where I have a Big Brother breathing over my shoulder to make sure that I do not make a bad decision. By nature that means that I have a more limited set of decisions that I can make as a free person.
The platform states:
"Individuals must be free to be aggressive competitors and form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association in the market place, and must enjoy no state-sponsored advantage. Those who best supply a good or service in the market will enjoy natural dominance only as long as they continue to benefit consumers. Subsidies and government-granted monopolies protect the non-competitive from market forces."
Along those same lines, the LP believes that we are a free people and have the right to live as we desire. The platform [further] states:
"Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. We must accept the right of others to choose for themselves if we are to have the same right. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. We believe people must accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions."
As a result, the LP strongly opposes the federal government controlling intoxicating substances, as long as those are not used to the detriment of one's neighbors or the harming of any other individual. We oppose the use of "sin taxes" for those that wish to consume alcohol or tobacco, for example. We oppose the prohibition of marijuana, also, as it has filled our prisons to the breaking point with non-violent offenders, and has promoted a multi-billion dollar industry in the US of incarcerating people. We now have more prisoners than Communist China, and lead the world in per-capita incarceration. Yet the demand has only grown, and street crime and organized crime have grown to epic proportions.
The question frequently arises that if the federal government will not take care of the indigent and the impaired, then who will take care of them? *I would point out that those that are taken care of by private charities and by relatives fare much better than those that are dependent on government establishments There are children that I know of personally that are being cared for in a loving environment in a much better way than they could hope for in a government institution. We as a free people have to be ready to assume the responsibilities of being free people.
There are other issues that the LP feels strongly about, but these serve to illustrate the general principles of the LP.
Kelly:How do you feel about those who do not take personal responsibility for their actions?
James: Freedom is a precious commodity, and at the same time, it is a dangerous commodity. Benjamin Franklin once observed that "those that would surrender their freedom for security deserve neither." Those that do not take personal responsibility to the extent that they violate the rights of others are breaking the law, and that is the territory of the police and the courts.
Those that otherwise harm no one else have the ability to choose how to live. If they live recklessly, then they have chaotic and uncomfortable results. If, on the other hand, they choose to live wisely and take care of themselves and their families, then they will have better lives.
For example, do I really need the government to tell me that I must wear a seat-belt? I do that on my own, but I know the consequences if I get into an accident and I do not have mine on. Similarly, do we really need the government to tell local businesses who can have a smoking establishment and who cannot? Interfering with the free market disallows businesses and individuals to make personal choices that otherwise harm nobody.
Kelly:Now, for the easy ones....
James: heh
Kelly:A few months ago you were asked to represent the TX LP party as one of their candidates. What went through your mind when the idea was presented to you?
James: That was a funny thing. We had company that night, and I received a phone call from the chairman of the Texas LP asking me to run. I thought to myself "why not?" MY Uncle thought it was a great idea as "long as they could still speak to me after my head grew three hat sizes." In all actuality, I took it very seriously, and it is a daunting task. However, having the opportunity to talk to people about the LP and tell what it really stands for is a great opportunity. The two major parties have painted us as "kooks and weirdoes" at every opportunity. In reality we are calling a type of government that made this country grow into the greatest country that has ever been.
Kelly:Did you have any reservations about running?
James: I had several, of course, and not the least of which is that I do not have a big money-machine party supporting my candidacy. The LP has a weakness in that we have not been around long enough that we monetarily support candidates. I am not a rich man, after all. Another consideration is that you open yourself to personal attacks, and you have to be willing to take those. I have no problems with that. I can fight with the best of them, but I do not want my family to be unjustly scrutinized. Thirdly, the Republican incumbent is well entrenched here, and that is going to be an up-hill battle even if I had a huge war-chest.
Kelly:What does one have to do to run for office?
James: In the LP you have to first file with the State of Texas, and you have to fill out a form that examines your finances for possible conflicts of interest. That was, naturally, not a problem for me, as our finances are very pedestrian. The next step is that you have to go through a "vetting" process at the County LP Convention. That was actually a lot of fun. As you can tell from this interview, I do not mind talking. The Convention either then votes you in as an official candidate, or it does not. In my case I received a 'unanimous' positive vote. The next step is to talk to as many people as possible. I am building a web site for this and I plan on getting some flyers out and do some door-to-door advertising.
Kelly:What was it like going to the LP convention as a candidate? Were you nervous?
James: I was nervous, of course, because I knew I was going to have to go up before a camera and answer some tough questions. But I have a lot of experience as a teacher and as a college recruiter in talking in front of people. I was at ease once I got the microphone, though, and could have talked longer if we had had the time.
Kelly: How supportive has your family been?
James: My family, my friends, and business acquaintances have all been very supporting. My oldest son has been out talking to all of his friends of voting age to get out there and vote for the LP. It amazes me still how many young people are not just dumb participants. Many of them are distrustful of the government and they see through the lies and misinformation put out there by mainstream media and the main political parties. It has been this show of support that has made me believe that the LP has a great future ahead of it.
Kelly: Why do you think someone in your area ought to vote for you?
James: Let me put it this way: if you are satisfied with the way that the Texas legislature has handled issues like education, taxation, the Trans-Corridor Highway, and the prison system, then you should most definitely NOT vote for me. If you would like a change that is real and has substance, then you should not only vote for me, but you should also support and vote for the Libertarian Party.
Kelly:Is there anything else you would like to add?
James: Well, first let me thank you for giving me an opportunity to present the LP in my own words. There are a great many people that are becoming disenfranchised with both major political parties. The Republicans have done everything besides control spending and reduce the size of the federal government. We also have a Democratic Party that desires to create what would be a socialist state. The LP is fiscally conservative, and it is socially liberal. The old meaning of liberal was one of a person that believed in the rights of the individual to worship in freedom, to conduct business in freedom, and to live without the fear of government intrusion into their bedrooms, their living rooms, into their businesses and finances, into their children's education, and most importantly into the very thoughts that we are allowed to express. The LP is a call to return to a better, and more humane, government. Vote LP!
Kelly:James, thank you for the interview. It has been a pleasure to have you here today. Good luck on the campaign trail.
James: I am more than happy.
* Correction (previously said, "I would point out that those that are taken care of by government agencies and those that are taken care of by relatives and charitable organizations fare much better than those that are ‘incarcerated’ in government establishments.")
I must thank Patrick at Born again Redneck for bringing this to my attention.
ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on District of Columbia v. Heller:
"Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark case for all Americans who believe as I do that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. I am proud to have joined in an amicus brief to the Court calling for a ruling in keeping with the clear intent of our Founding Fathers, which ensures the Second Amendment rights of the residents of District of Columbia are reaffirmed."
I had read about this case last evening. As a long avid supporter of the Second Amendment, I find McCain's statement as yet another reason for giving my support to him.
Liberty is not 'given' by the rulers of the people, but protected by the people. If the people are not able to protect themselves...there is NO ONE to give them liberty.
I will be the first to admit that I do not like McCain. I am not happy with yesterday's turn of events. Nonetheless, I give you one reason to vote for McCain. It's called the war, baby, the war!
In yesterday's speech to the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) Mitt Romney let us all know that he was bowing out of the race.
""If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the crowd."This is not an easy decision for me," Romney continued. "I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters ... many of you right here in this room ... have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming president. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country."
At first I was doubtful that McCain would be supportive of our efforts in the war. Then I read what Patrick said over at Born again Redneck. He quoted McCain:
"Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue. I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen."
I especially liked what Patrick said of this, "Of course I know that McCain is a double-dealing two-faced lying politician but he's OUR double-dealing two-faced lying politician and maybe - just a small maybe - us Republicans can hold his feet to the fire. " Emphasis added by me. We cannot do that with the Democrats.
Hillary or Obama will have us out of that war faster than you can blink an eye and you think things are bad now. McCain is right on this one....so is Mitt.
For the last several months I have had two candidates in the top slot for my vote for the Republican Presidential candidate. I liked both of them. They were Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. Initially I had been solely in favor of Mitt.
Mitt Romney had been a favorite of mine after he rescued the scandal ridden Salt Lake 2002 Olympics from financial ruin to become one of the best Winter Olympics ever. But as I learned more about Fred I realized he had a lot going for him as far as I was concerned. At this point I had the two in a tie for my endorsement.
While I am sad to see Thompson drop from the race I am heartened to know that Romney is still in the fight. My sentiments are echoed by many others across the blogosphere.
I was an ardent supporter of Fred Thompson until he unfortunately quit. He represented everything that I believe in politically. Romney does not stand 100% for my most cherished beliefs - maybe 90% but that's good enough for me.However, in the bigger scheme of things, Romney is our best bet. Thompson spoke the language of an America which has long since disappeared but for which I still pine. Romney speaks the language of the global market; of a world much bigger than our fifty states.
Jennifer at Now for Something Different posts: My Endorsement
Anyway, if my vote did count I would go out and vote for Mitt Romney. Governor Romney is the only candidate on the Republican side that is prepared and has the stamina to go against the Clinton attack machine.
You kept the faith Jennifer and now Romney may emerge as the antidote to McCain/Huckabee idiocy... Mike's America
Mike also posted the entry: MITT WINS MICHIGAN That was all that was said. That was all that needed to be said.
Gayle at My Republican Blog posts a big picture of Romney "ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT" on her side bar.
The 2008 election is for president, not pastor. We want a president who shares our political and moral values and priorities, can win in 2008, and can govern effectively thereafter by articulating and implementing a values-based governing strategy. This is just what Mitt Romney did as governor and will do as president.
This is just a sample of the blogs or bloggers that I have come across who are in support or leaning in the direction of Romney.
For as long as I have known of Senator Harry Reid I have been on the opposite side of political issues. But, as the highest ranking Mormon elected in the United States, I had some respect for him. I say, "HAD" because I no longer have any respect for him WHATSOEVER!
On October 10, this year, Harry gave a speech at Brigham Young University. The next day I read some of the quotes that came from that speech. I was troubled by what I read. This is a guy, as I said, who is a member of my Faith. Yet, he had the audacity to tell the students, in attendance, that their leaders were leading them down the wrong path--AT the Church's own university.
“People in the (Mormon) church have to understand there are issues more important than abortion and gay marriage.” Said Reid.
“These people [Church leaders] have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path.” Reid also said.
Then I saw this column (forwarded by my mother) on the subject. This is when I learned of some of the rest of what he said.
The columnist said, "On the campus of the Mormon university, the most senior elected Mormon in the country called evangelicals “anti-Christian.”
Does that mean he believes that they are collectively the anti-Christ? Is he completely ignorant of the biblical import of that word? Is he so politically and religiously intolerant that he would pass such condemning judgment on an entire class of people?"
My deepest apologies to my fellow Christians (from whatever denomination they come from) for Mr. Reid's remarks.
During an Interfaith Conference on War and Peace in Salt Lake City the idea was presented that Mormons (members of the LDS Church), who are deeply patriotic, won't protest the war in Iraq because it would be unpatriotic to speak out against the Bush administration about the war.
It is true that members of the LDS faith tend to be patriotic. One of the Articles of Faith, written by Joseph Smith, states, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." Members of the faith also believe that this land was set aside as a land of promise.
But, for the most part, they do not blindly follow the POTUS simply because he is the leader of this country.
Case in point 1: Harry Reid. Reid, a Democratic Senator from Nevada, is a member of the LDS faith and a PROMINANT opponent of said war.
Case in point 2: Since most of the LDS membership tend to be conservative they were not likely to be very supportive of a POTUS like Bill Clinton.
Case in point 3: In Utah, where the majority of residents are LDS, Bush's "No Child Left Behind" law has been highly disliked.
The Conference does point out:
"The LDS Church has taken no official position on the war in Iraq, Birch said, leaving its members to make up their own minds regarding the justification of the war. The invasion and occupation of Iraq has been renounced by nearly all major Christian denominations, he said, with the exception of the LDS Church and the Southern Baptist Convention.
That leaves people to speculate as to the reasons for the LDS Church's silence. The practice of church leadership has been to not make a statement on a particular topic unless there is unanimity among the church's First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Birch said."
The LDS Church usually takes a neutral stand in regards to politics unless it involves an issue that will directly affect the Church and its values.
Brian Birch, an associate professor of philosophy and director of the religious studies program at Utah Valley State College, added.
"In a democracy, we can renounce war and proclaim peace," President Hinckley said. "There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally.
"However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation."
President Hinckley later added, "It is clear ... that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty and against tyranny, threat and oppression."
But that doesn't mean people who oppose the war aren't faithful members of the LDS Church, Birch said.
As a member of the LDS Church it is my decision to either support or protest the war. I base that decision on my own personal view of the issue.
I found out today that I am a spammer. I kid you not.
Here's what happened. I have been a member of a yahoo group for a little over two years now. The group was set up to allow a group of friends who like to play online games together to keep up on when they were going to be on and share and share alike. It has since turned into the email that keeps this group of friends in contact with one another.
Well, two weeks ago, I sent an email like I have for months and months. But this time it never got through. After a couple more emails I realized that there was a problem. I could get messsages from the group but I could not send to the group unless I went directly through the web interface.
!!!!
After two weeks of doing things the hard way I decided to do some trouble shooting. I even deleted my membership and asked to be reinstated to see if that would fix the problem. NADA!!
So, finally, I pinged the owner. After about 5-10 minutes he found the problem. I was being caught by its spam filters. SPAM!!! Me??? A spammer??? Okay, so maybe I like to talk/write/chat...A LOT, but spam??? I hadn't even emailed that group as often as some of the others. But alas...
My friend, the owner, approved my emails. I sent a new one and still I couldn't get through.
Back to the trouble shooting blackboard! AGAIN!
Final NOTE: the spam filter has been deleted and I am back among the friends and muchas gracias to my friend who took time out of his work day to help fix the problem.
For those who are LDS this picture will be somewhat familiar. Someone sent me this picture of Captain Moroni and his Title of Liberty with a current day twist.
