Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Smile Ranch
Just wanted to give a little shout out to the Smile Ranch. I have taken Claire up to Utah twice for work on her teeth. Alan Jensen, who happens to be my daughter Emily's father-in-law has got to be one of the best orthodontists there is. Our experience there has been wonderful. It is amazing how interested he is in the well-being of his patients and even their friends and family. He really can't stand to have someone have an imperfect mouth if he feels there is something he can do about it. To all of our Utah friends and family, you should really check out the Smile Ranch. I can't believe how happy it makes Claire to know that her smile is being improved. She is so beautiful
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Glen Beck tells a story
Does it bug you that Glen Beck has been so negative about Mitt Romney? He has (if you'll pardon the expression) called him anything but a white man. He has constantly criticized his politics and called him a flip-flopper. According to Beck, Romney has not been sufficiently conservative.
Well, Beck has done a flip-flop. He has now praised Romney and compared him to George Washington. I hold an admittedly biased point of view. My dad once told me that the higher in church offices he had met men, the better they had been. That has been my observation as well. Bishops and Stake Presidents are often good and humble men. I have felt that Mitt Romney was one of those good and humble men who is also extremely smart and hard-working. Now it turns out that he has also been very generous.
Please watch the attached video:
Well, Beck has done a flip-flop. He has now praised Romney and compared him to George Washington. I hold an admittedly biased point of view. My dad once told me that the higher in church offices he had met men, the better they had been. That has been my observation as well. Bishops and Stake Presidents are often good and humble men. I have felt that Mitt Romney was one of those good and humble men who is also extremely smart and hard-working. Now it turns out that he has also been very generous.
Please watch the attached video:
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Did I Mention I was Voting for Mitt?
Lest there be any question--I will be voting for Mitt Romney for President. I encourage everyone to do the same. Let me state a few of my reasons:
From a competency standpoint, I think the comparison is almost ridiculous. In this time of economic uncertainty and depression a businessman with the turnaround experience of Governor Romney seems most practical. His ability to bring faltering companies to life, his leadership in the Olympics, and his government experience leading the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have demonstrated an unusually high level of economic competence. President Obama had no demonstrable experience in economics prior to his political life. As president he has shown a remarkable failure to lead in economics except in the direction of state control of a greater share of the economy and the willingness to spend our money and our children's money on anything but the practical. Even his so-called rescue of General Motors could be characterized as a payoff for the union while the long-term viability of GM as currently constituted remains in doubt.
The contrast between the two candidate's vision for the role of government is stark, and in the way I prefer, is highly favorable towards Governor Romney. President Obama has made it clear that he feels government should take a bigger role in our lives. We "didn't build that" he says, belittling the efforts taken by business owners and entrepreneurs to grow the economy. In all my life I have never seen Uncle Sam or his cohorts put in a day's work on one of my jobs, but we pay an ever increasing burden of taxes, nevertheless. Governor Romney's plan includes reducing the burden of government and sending the government medical plan back to the states and the people.
Respect for the constitution is a highly apparent difference between the two candidates. President Obama has demonstrated by words and actions a very casual regard for the protections from the government our forefathers provided for us in the constitution. He has also adopted an approach to the laws that is disrespectful of the voice of the people expressed through the legislature, e.g., direction to discontinue enforcing the DOMA and immigration laws. Governor Romney showed extremely careful enforcement of laws in Massachusetts, even those with which he had disagreement, while working to have the laws changed. President Obama simply bypasses those laws with which he disagrees.
The unveiling of the Democratic platform was an eye-opener for me. Their support for abortion has gone from being "pro-choice" and wanting abortions to be safe, rare; and legal, to being pro-abortion. “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay,” the platform reads. “We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” That includes parental consent for minors and abortion up to and including "partial-birth" abortion. It is heinous.
From a competency standpoint, I think the comparison is almost ridiculous. In this time of economic uncertainty and depression a businessman with the turnaround experience of Governor Romney seems most practical. His ability to bring faltering companies to life, his leadership in the Olympics, and his government experience leading the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have demonstrated an unusually high level of economic competence. President Obama had no demonstrable experience in economics prior to his political life. As president he has shown a remarkable failure to lead in economics except in the direction of state control of a greater share of the economy and the willingness to spend our money and our children's money on anything but the practical. Even his so-called rescue of General Motors could be characterized as a payoff for the union while the long-term viability of GM as currently constituted remains in doubt.
The contrast between the two candidate's vision for the role of government is stark, and in the way I prefer, is highly favorable towards Governor Romney. President Obama has made it clear that he feels government should take a bigger role in our lives. We "didn't build that" he says, belittling the efforts taken by business owners and entrepreneurs to grow the economy. In all my life I have never seen Uncle Sam or his cohorts put in a day's work on one of my jobs, but we pay an ever increasing burden of taxes, nevertheless. Governor Romney's plan includes reducing the burden of government and sending the government medical plan back to the states and the people.
Respect for the constitution is a highly apparent difference between the two candidates. President Obama has demonstrated by words and actions a very casual regard for the protections from the government our forefathers provided for us in the constitution. He has also adopted an approach to the laws that is disrespectful of the voice of the people expressed through the legislature, e.g., direction to discontinue enforcing the DOMA and immigration laws. Governor Romney showed extremely careful enforcement of laws in Massachusetts, even those with which he had disagreement, while working to have the laws changed. President Obama simply bypasses those laws with which he disagrees.
The unveiling of the Democratic platform was an eye-opener for me. Their support for abortion has gone from being "pro-choice" and wanting abortions to be safe, rare; and legal, to being pro-abortion. “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay,” the platform reads. “We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” That includes parental consent for minors and abortion up to and including "partial-birth" abortion. It is heinous.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Independence Day
Woke up early today and went surfing. No, not California (I wish), the Internet. Had such a wonderful weekend celebrating our nation's independence. Colleen and I volunteered to work at the City of Mesa "Celebration of Freedom". We manned a jump booth. We met lots of kids and had a great time. This is Jessica Allen taking a picture of her little girl.
The fireworks were outstanding.
Went to Facebook and saw David & Nancy French. That led me to last year's 4th of July video. If you don't realize it, I'm a big fan of the Frenches. They are an outstanding example of latter-day saints (especially for Presbyterians).
I was feeling inspired. When I ran across this video , I just had to share it. Everyone has seen it, but it's a great reminder that we all have great potential. We are all children of a Heavenly Father who loves us. He let us come to this earth so we could become more like him. The trials and tribulations are for our benefit, " all these things shall give theeeexperience, and shall be for thy good".
Have a great Independence Day!
The fireworks were outstanding.
Went to Facebook and saw David & Nancy French. That led me to last year's 4th of July video. If you don't realize it, I'm a big fan of the Frenches. They are an outstanding example of latter-day saints (especially for Presbyterians).
I was feeling inspired. When I ran across this video , I just had to share it. Everyone has seen it, but it's a great reminder that we all have great potential. We are all children of a Heavenly Father who loves us. He let us come to this earth so we could become more like him. The trials and tribulations are for our benefit, " all these things shall give theeeexperience, and shall be for thy good".
Have a great Independence Day!
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Rabbi Prager
I have quoted Dennis Prager before on family values, etc. in this audio clip at Article 6 blog he really demonstrates his commitment to religious tolerance and freedom as well as a defense of values as held by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as compared with theological beliefs, showing how important values are to political office and how irrelevant religious beliefs are. He also plainly demonstrates the bigotry of anti-religious commentary to politics. As Dennis often says, he is most interested in clarity. This exchange was very clear in its meaning. Dennis obviously hates bigotry. Me too.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Strength in Youth
Our young people can carry with them a great spirit. We have several non-members who attend our mutual activities and even Sunday classes. The other day we reorganized the Young Women's class presidencies and I made a comment to one of the visitors that I could see her presiding in one of these classes and that I hoped one day she could, but that she would have to be a member of the organization in order to preside. Tonight the missionaries stopped by to tell me that this young lady wanted to be baptized because she wanted to someday serve in a presidency. Being one of the Lord's followers isn't easy but it is good. I am pleased by her attitude and that His Spirit could be felt through something I said. I know he loves his children.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Mitt vs Newt
A Poygamist who doesn't polyg vs a mongamist who doesn't monag
If you follow the Republican primaries you might be familiar with the difficulty that Governor Romney has in gaining supporters in Iowa. Apparently Iowa is overrun by those with a common religious persuasion determined that Mormons are "not Christians", a "cult", untruthful, "unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God", and every other unbecoming attribute. I can't say that Mormons are without fault, in fact, we sometimes bring criticism upon our selves because we see ourselves as follows: We are "honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and .. doing good to all men; indeed, we may say -- We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things." On the other hand we see non-Mormons this way: "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof". The political question becomes "Is it possible to support one in a political office for whom one has such fundamental religious disagreements?" Latter Day Saints have been in the minority for so long in most places that we have had to accept political leaders from a variety of religious traditions. Non-Mormons have less experience in accepting a Mormon political leader.
The first Mormon Senator elected from Utah was Senator Smoot back in 1903. He was challenged by the Senate. "We’ve come a long way since 1903, when the Utah Legislature elected Reed Smoot to be the first Mormon to be seated in the Senate. But when Smoot arrived in Washington in early 1904 with every expectation that he would be sworn in, he instead spent the next four years on the sidelines while a Senate committee investigated the charges against him, prompted by a nationally organized campaign by church leaders who passionately opposed the seating of any Mormon, however deserving, in Congress." For the whole article click here.http://www.rollcall.com/news/bonker_religious_intolerance_a_political_problem_for_romney_but_a_bigger-211131-1.html. "On the last day of the Senate deliberations, Sen. Fred Dubois (R-Idaho), who led the attacks against Smoot, charged that the Mormon doctrine commanded the “Saints to take unto themselves a multiplicity of wives, limited in number only be the measures of their desires.”
That prompted Sen. Boies Penrose (R-Pa.) to respond by making the point that Smoot had always been faithfully married to the same woman; then, as he deliberately cast his eye around the Senate chamber, he commented that he was well familiar with the behavior of some of his colleagues known for philandering, concluding with this rhetorical line: “I would rather have seated beside me in this chamber a polygamist who doesn’t polyg than a monogamist who doesn’t monag!”
If you follow the Republican primaries you might be familiar with the difficulty that Governor Romney has in gaining supporters in Iowa. Apparently Iowa is overrun by those with a common religious persuasion determined that Mormons are "not Christians", a "cult", untruthful, "unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God", and every other unbecoming attribute. I can't say that Mormons are without fault, in fact, we sometimes bring criticism upon our selves because we see ourselves as follows: We are "honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and .. doing good to all men; indeed, we may say -- We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things." On the other hand we see non-Mormons this way: "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof". The political question becomes "Is it possible to support one in a political office for whom one has such fundamental religious disagreements?" Latter Day Saints have been in the minority for so long in most places that we have had to accept political leaders from a variety of religious traditions. Non-Mormons have less experience in accepting a Mormon political leader.
The first Mormon Senator elected from Utah was Senator Smoot back in 1903. He was challenged by the Senate. "We’ve come a long way since 1903, when the Utah Legislature elected Reed Smoot to be the first Mormon to be seated in the Senate. But when Smoot arrived in Washington in early 1904 with every expectation that he would be sworn in, he instead spent the next four years on the sidelines while a Senate committee investigated the charges against him, prompted by a nationally organized campaign by church leaders who passionately opposed the seating of any Mormon, however deserving, in Congress." For the whole article click here.http://www.rollcall.com/news/bonker_religious_intolerance_a_political_problem_for_romney_but_a_bigger-211131-1.html. "On the last day of the Senate deliberations, Sen. Fred Dubois (R-Idaho), who led the attacks against Smoot, charged that the Mormon doctrine commanded the “Saints to take unto themselves a multiplicity of wives, limited in number only be the measures of their desires.”
That prompted Sen. Boies Penrose (R-Pa.) to respond by making the point that Smoot had always been faithfully married to the same woman; then, as he deliberately cast his eye around the Senate chamber, he commented that he was well familiar with the behavior of some of his colleagues known for philandering, concluding with this rhetorical line: “I would rather have seated beside me in this chamber a polygamist who doesn’t polyg than a monogamist who doesn’t monag!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
