Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Regulate the Lobbyist More, or Less?

Yesterday's blog introduced what would amount to the deregulation of the lobbyist. What if we went the other direction, and regulated influence peddling more?

A lobbyist in Utah is defined as a person who receives money from an entity in order to persuade public officials concerning legislation. They have to file reports on how much money they spend of public officials.

Surprisingly -- to me -- the entities are also required to file financial disclosures if they spend the money on the public officials without funneling it through a lobbyist. Not knowing much, I am guessing this is not commonly done -- not commonly complied with -- and not commonly enforced.

But, what if it were enforced? What if we had a law that said anyone who has given anything to a legislator, whether it be campaign contribution or just a gift, who then seeks to influence legislation, must file a report detailing their contribution.

Of the top, I don't like this idea, simply because I tend to go against regulation and government control. But, I will think on it, and perhaps be persuaded it might be a good thing.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Why Register Lobbyists? Why Give Them Distinction?

Perhaps I will look into why we give lobbyists any more recognition than we do private citizens.

Or do we? I did call the Lieutenant Governor's Office today, as the lobbyists are registered through that office. Was told they have no better access to our government officials than what citizens have. They pay $100 to register as lobbyists and have to take an annual ethics test. Other than, that, I was told, they receive no special treatment, other than that they might be considered experts at times.

Perhaps I should look into this more. Why even have a lobbyist program? Why register them? Why treat them any different than the average person?

Monday, February 27, 2012

A First for America? Marijuana Constituency Rises

The marijuana constituency: Don't know if it has ever been a factor in past elections, but it is rapidly on the rise, and may soon swing a race -- if it already hasn't.

I was out campaigning tonight, when asked my stand on marijuana. How few of years has it been since a voter would not think to base his or her vote on whether the candidate supported legalized marijuana? Marijuana was illegal and that was understandable. So, no need to vote against someone just because that candidate opposed legalizing marijuana.

But, these days, 51 percent of Americans, I'm told, believe marijuana should be legalized. Maybe the percentage has been that high for decades. I do not know. But, I do believe the supporters have become more demanding of what they see as a constitutional right. The drug harms no one, they say, and brings happiness, so it is there right to have and enjoy it. That is not a new opinion, but it is one that is becoming more strenuent.

And, they have a candidate running for the highest office in all the land. Ron Paul supports marijuana. I don't know what percentage of his supporters support him because of his stand on marijuana, but I know a share of them do.

Has a presidential candidate of his stature ever before been flag-bearer for the cause of those who would have marijuana legalized?

Friday, February 24, 2012

One Personhood Effort Dies; Utah's Bill Remains Empty

It would seem some state should be jumping to be the first to define a fetus as a person, hoping to lead the nation back from Roe v. Wade and allow abortions to again be outlawed.

But, just Thursday, Virgina's legislature decided to carry such a bill over till 2013, killing it for this year. Utah's potential bill is an open jacket, of sorts, the bill being opened under the title Joint Resolution on Human Life, SJR 23, but no language being in it. Nor is any action expected, as the sponsor, Aaron Osmond, decided just after filing it that he was going to pursue other legislative bills. There is also another open jacket, titled Abortion Revisions, HB 468 by Stephen Sandstrom, which I mistakenly took to be the open bill on defining when life begins. Inasmuch as it is open and without language, perhaps it could be used for such a purpose.

Across the nation, there are rumblings of such bills, as the pro-life movement sees this as a means of overturning Roe v. Wade, but so far no state has stepped forth to be the first to define an unborn child as a living person.

Roe v. Wade is the famous 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. In writing the majority opinion, Justice Blackmun said the ruling was based on the assumption a fetus is not a person. With science now saying a fetus is a human, if a state were to also define life as beginning at conception, a case might again come before the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade be overturned.

Utah could potentially be that state, but I am not seeing any indication that the effort is going to be taken any further this year. Such a pity. Would that Utah's legislators would do this.

(This was updated Feb. 28.)

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Don't Teach Them about Contraceptives

Heard the governor this evening say perhaps we could teach sex eduction more than one way, allowing abstinence only to be taught, contraceptives to be part of the lesson, or whatever. Sex ed 101, 102, and 103, so to speak.

It's an idea, one that allows parents to say which way they want their children to be taught.

I'm not yet persuaded by it, though. Should parents choose to teach about contraceptives, let them. That is their parental right. I don't think that means the use of contraceptives needs to be taught in schools, though. I agree with those who believe teaching about contraceptives is teaching the kids how to get away with having premarital sex, like saying, "Here, do it this way and everything will be okay."

Nor does it matter that they are going to hear about contraceptives, anyway. That they are going to hear about it does not mean we have teach it. Teach them, instead, that wrong is wrong, that premarital sex is wrong.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Legalizing Drugs to Take Market is False Argument

There are those who argue making drugs illegal only gives criminals a market.

To get rid of the cartels, legalize drugs. Without them, the cartels collapse. Drug pushers fade away, having nothing to sell.

It is an argument that does not make it with me. By the same logic, if we legalized all crime -- murder, stealing, and mayhem, all -- we could get rid of all our criminals.

The solution to crime is not in legalizing it,

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

We are a Society that has Turned to Drugs

In our day, legalized drugs are sweeping through society. Candy nicotine products are being placed on the market. Super caffeinated drinks (aka energy drinks) are a rage.

Those are but the latest ways drugs are being tossed at us.

Other ways legalized drugs flow through society? Prescription drugs. One doesn't need to have much pain -- at times none at all -- to be prescribed a pain medication.

And, the over-the-counter medicines? We take them abundantly.

What percentage of our population drinks alcohol? I haven't heard, but it is a big portion of us.

Our day, then, is an age of drugs. There is such widespread use of illegal drugs, but if we count just the legal drugs, alone, it should give us pause as to what kind of society we have become. We are a society that has turned to drugs.

(Rewriten Feb. 22)

Monday, February 20, 2012

Rather George & Abe have Their Day

It was Presidents Day today, or was it?

Checking the list of federal holidays, I find it was George Washington's Birthday. And, checking the list of state holidays, I see it was Washington and Lincoln Day.

So, how come none of the mentions I am finding refer to this day as either George Washington's Birthday or Washington and Lincoln Day? They all call it Presidents Day.

It may be that Presidents Day is an alternate national name for the day, albeit my short seach discovers no such official name for the day.

And, I do not prefer it being known as Presidents Day. That waters it down too much. Not that honoring all our presidents is a bad thing, but I much like honoring Washington and Lincoln, specifically.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

America is about Giving Rights, Not taking Them Away

In America, we give people rights. We don't take them away.

That is one of the arguments I toss out when arguing against the proposed constitutional amendment that would take constitutional rights from corporations.

Those who favor the amendment, see themselves as doing no harm. Corporations are not people, they say. People have rights, not corporations.

I disagree. If speech is to be free, we should not limit those who can have it, not take it from anyone, not even the rich. We might make rules against their use their money in free speech, but the basic right of free speech, itself, should not be taken from anyone, nor from any group.

They argue the amendment would not at all curb a person's free speech, but only the speech of the corporation, itself. I say, Not so, for there is no speaking currently going on but what it is being uttered by people. There is a person (or persons) making every comment. There simply is no such thing as something being spoken without it being spoken by a person or a group of persons. If free speech is to be taken, it will only be taken from people. It can come from no other place.

So, I say, in America, we do not deprive people of their freedoms. We do not strip them of their rights. America is about giving people rights, not taking them away.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Corporate Personhood has its Following

I shake my head and shiver to think there is a movement afoot to take free speech away from corporations, amending the Constitution to deprive them of all their constitutional rights.

No, don't take it from anyone and don't take it from any group, I say.

And, I consider it such an outlandish movement that surely it will not gain traction.

But, am I wrong? Are people lining up in support of such an amendment?

I debate the issue on Facebook, and find myself a minority, others favoring the end of "corporate personhood."

I hear of the Los Angeles City Council having passed a resolutions calling for the constitutional amendment.

I watch a video of Bill Moyers applauding and embracing the amendment.

And, Moyers notes voters in Missoula, Mont., have called for the amendment, by a whopping 75 percent. And, voters in Boulder, Colo., by a similar majority. And, voters in two counties in Wisconsin.

Am I wrong, then, to think this thing surely could not gain widespread support?

I shake my head and shiver.

(This post rewritten Feb. 18.)

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Utah Probably Won't, but Could be First

Wish I had time to study this, but it is bedtime. With no state having yet passed legislation declaring a fetus a human being (to my knowledge), Utah could become the first, potentially, as a bill is being proposed in Utah.

Remember from Tuesday's blog the significance of legislation declaring that personhood begins at conception. In the majority ruling in the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, Justice Harry Blackmun conceded that the decision was based on the premise that a fetus was not a person. If the fetus is a human, then it is entitled to constitutional rights.

Well, scientifically (to my knowledge), it is now conceded that the fetus is a human. If laws also declare this, the Supreme Court is going to be hard pressed not to accept another case, and overturn Roe v. Wade.

Utah could, potentially, be the first state. Virginia, though, already passed a bill in its house, and could pass it in its senate any time, and their governor would then likely sign it. Utah's bill is not progressing so rapidly.

A number of states are considering "personhood" legislation. Should Utah become one of them that passes such a bill, then it is possible a case that could reach the Supreme Court could come out of Utah. That would be neat.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Missed My Chance to Protest

I missed a chance to protest tonight. Move to Amend, a group that seeks a constitutional amendment saying that corporations are not people and therefore not entitled to freedom of speech and other rights, was meeting to drum up support for their cause.

I could have went, and as a one-person protest against them, carried a sign saying, "In America, we don't take away rights, we give them out. Stop Move to Amend."

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

One of Biggest Pro-Life Wins in Years on its Way

The fight against abortion is about to score one of its more significant victories in years, perhaps decades. Tuesday, the Virginia House passed a bill declaring that the rights of persons begin the moment the sperm and egg unite.

If the bill becomes law, Virginia will become the first state in the Union with a "personhood" law, a law defining that life begins at conception.

Past efforts to pass personhood legislation have failed in Virginia, Colorado and Mississippi, but there are many states considering the legislation this year, including Utah.

Virginia's senate is projected to pass the bill, and Gov. Bob McDonnell has already said he will sign it.

While at first glance such legislation might not seem significant, proponents say Roe v. Wade, the famous Supreme Court case that legalized abortion, was based on the notion that a fetus is not a person, and that if a fetus is legally established as a person, then the Supreme Court will be obliged to hear another case on the subject and overturn Roe v. Wade.

Justice Harry Blackmun, writing the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, said, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”

Monday, February 13, 2012

To Do the Greatest Good, End Abortion

If we wanted to the greatest good, and if we were to measure that good by number of lives saved, what one thing would we do?

End abortion.

It is said that 1.2 million lives in America are cut short each year through abortions. Perhaps you are aware that heart disease takes between 600,000 and 700,000 lives each year, and as a result, heart disease is known as the No. 1 cause of death.

If we could save them all those who die of heart disease, we surely would.

So, why should abortion be different? Why shouldn't we want to save the lives being lost to abortion? Babies are wonderful, and everyone loves them, and who would ever want to harm them? Without abortion, we could have 1.2 million more of them every year.

Why, if we could, would we not do everything possible so 1.2 million more babies could be born? Why, if we could, wouldn't we look at that 1.2 million babies' lives being lost, and say, We're not going to let this happen. Why wouldn't we do everything within our power to save these lives?

End abortion.

Ending abortion is the one greatest thing we, as a society, can do, if doing good is to be measured in terms of lives being saved.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Let's Take the Robin Hood Approach in Schools

Schools, schools, schools. This, too, is becoming a scorching debate topic, for how is it that America's schools have fallen so far, and whatever can be done to return us to a higher perch?

One thought as I head to bed:

Give the money to the people who are teaching the kids, not the administrators. Place the money at the point of contact. Let's cut back on the number of administrators, and the pay given administrators, and the fancy buildings for administrators. Let's put the money in the classroom. The teachers are the ones doing the teaching, so that is the part of the system that needs excellence. Focus our money at the point of contact. I'm not fully ready to say teachers need more money -- though I am leaning that direction -- but, I do know that what money we have should be going to the teachers and to the classrooms, not to administrators. Cut out every administrative position that isn't essential and chop the pay for what administrators remain. Divert the money to the place it will do the most good.

This is kind of a Robin Hood approach, taking from the rich (the administrators) of our school systems and giving it the poor (the teachers).

Friday, February 10, 2012

Come Across and In

We drew a line
A line rising up like a wall
To say
You're not welcome here
Your kind can stay away

Would that we would draw a line
A line swinging open like a door
To say
Come, come on in
Come across this line and in

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Did Porn Play Part in What Josh Powell Became?

Swirling in the news about Josh Powell is the contention that Josh grew up in an environment of pornography and likely maintained the influence when he got older.

Significant, surely, if you do not want the children to be raised in such an environment. So it is, the state took custody of the children from him.

But, I cannot help but wonder if the environment of sex contributed to what Josh became. I cannot help but wonder but what, in the great debate about whether pornography is harmful, if this isn't worthy of being Exhibit H.

Some would dismiss it quickly, saying most all human beings view pornography, that trying to connect what Josh did with pornography is like suggesting a  tie between that behavior and how much pizza he ate.

Silly, just silly.

But, stop before you say there is no evidence of causation. Stop at least long enough to consider some points as to how deep Josh might have been mired in a world of sexual content.

In August police, found in the home a poster of a woman with a sword through her genitals.

Steve's father was arrested in September on voyeurism and child pornography charges. That's his dad, mind you, not Josh, but the two sometimes were under the same roof, and Josh reportedly said he had kept some of his dad's explicit materials on his own computer.

Also, Josh reportedly admitted he had taken pictures of women's legs without their knowledge.

Pornography was perhaps the lead cause in why his parents were divorced while he was growing up, with the father deeply into it and seeing nothing wrong with sharing it with his children.

The children were taught sex education, reportedly, by their father when they were as young as 6, and taught about the use of contraceptives as young as age 9.

Was the environment Josh was raised in a contributing factor in what he became? Why is it that few would defend the taking of his children from his home, since there appeared to be the danger of sexually explicit materials there, yet we would not look back to how Josh, himself, grew up in such an environment? If it could be harmful to the children when they are young, it could have been harmful to the father when he was young. If we worry what it could do to the children, why would we not consider it could, indeed, have done affected Josh?

The story behind the story in the Josh Powell case, then, could be the influence pornography had.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

The Independents Day that Went Unnoticed

Sometime in the last couple months, the list of unaffiliated voters in Utah reached and passed the million mark. Call it Independents Day, if you will.

It didn't go completely unnoticed, a group called Represent Me Utah! even called a press conference to announce the milestone.

But more shocking than that there are more than a million unaffiliated voters, is that there are more unaffiliated voters than there are Republicans and Democrats . . . combined!

As of today (I called and got the numbers on my lunch break), there are 695,476 Republicans and 163,112 Democrats. Unaffiliateds? 1,004,398. Other parties? Libertarians, 5,730; Constitutionalists, 3,485; and Americans Elect, 10. The Lieutenant Governor's Office did not give me numbers for other parties, but I believe there might be a few more. At any rate, depending on the day the count is done as it varies, there are more unaffiliated voters in Utah than there are voters registered in all political parties combined.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Hatred Never Ends Well

Wanted to stop the radio, ask it to back up, and find out who just gave that quote.

I was listening to news about Josh Powell, who, I would guess you've heard, murdered his two children in conjunction with committing suicide. As the KSL radio announcer was concluding, she said something to the effect, "Hatred never ends well." I snapped to attention, thinking it such a wonderful quote that I should put it on my list of 100 best quotes

I don't know how much hatred filled Josh's mind, in all these months since his wife disappeared, that he should take the lives of his own children. Nor can I but imagine what hatred might have filled the person's mind to lead them to kill Josh's wife.

But, I would like to think I do not hate Josh, though my heart is as sick as sick can be over what has happened.

And, I wonder if things might have turned out better if someone had just reached out to Josh with some love. Can you imagine living in a world that hates you. I mean, the whole world around you, not just those you know, but strangers who see you and recognize you, saying, "Ahh, that's Josh Powell, the guy in the news who probably killed his wife."

I'm sure a lot of his family remained loving, but I would imagine beyond them there was little love.

No wonder one of the last messages he left was that he was sorry, but he just couldn't go on.

As I listened to KSL, they told how he had seemed better, more friendly of late. That should have been a warning, as psychiatrists suggest people with problems often get more accepting and make you wonder if they are getting better just before they really go off.

And, did Josh ever go off.

I think of the multiple messages Josh sent out, at the end, saying goodbye to the world. I wonder if part of him wanted someone to call 911 and save him from his act. It turns out, 911 was called, but officers did not get there in time.

I wonder what if in his final days, someone had told him they loved him, just a simple, "I love you, Josh." Could some small act like that have altered what happened, saving Josh and his two sons?

Hate kills. Love saves.

I did finally find who gave the quote. It was Josh's sister, Alina Powell. The more complete quote is: "Josh and his boys spent more than two years being crushed alive by hate, harassment and abuse. None of us could have anticipated the devastating tragedy that took place Sunday, but what this unimaginable loss shows is that hate will never end well. Hate kills."

Nothing  justifies what Josh Powell did. Nothing could. Heinous it was, grevious and terrible. But, that does not mean showing love toward him would have been wrong. Loving others is right. I think of a scripture that speaks of loving all men, as in all, and that would leave no one out. I wonder at what would have happened to Josh, given love, and wonder but what I should not show more love to more of those I know.

(Updated Feb. 13)

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Citizen Romney to the Economic Rescue

I wrote a speech for Mitt Romney. Wish he, or some other candidate, would use it.

Says the little speech:

Sometimes, in our rush to be elected to public office, we provide government answers when the problems might better be solved by someone else, someone other than government. Government does not hold all the answers to all our problems. Sometimes, it is the resolve of the people, themselves, that makes the difference. I am a candidate for president, so you might expect that I should be postulating government answers to all our problems.

But, I'm also a citizen, and as such I have citizen responsibilities. As a citizen -- say nothing of being president -- I have the responsibility to better this nation, if I am to be a "good" citizen.

I would like to take up that charge now. (Pause)

It has been noted that I have created thousands of jobs as an American capitalist. I've been very successful, as a person, in making a good livelihood and, as an accompanying result, the businesses I have helped create and the businesses I have helped preserve have created thousands of jobs.

But, note this was done as a citizen. My record as governor of Massachusetts has my state but at 47th in the nation in job creation while I was there. That's been the attack on me, hasn't it?  Some have suggested this shows I can't translate my successes in private sector over to what I can do in public office.

I say, though -- I repeat what I have already said -- that government answers are not always the answer. Sometimes it is we, the people, who must make the change. I do not want another $800 billion bailout. I do not see it wise to create jobs at government's expense at a time when government is strapped for cash and growing in debt. I say that instead of asking a person who doesn't have the money -- that would be Uncle Sam -- we should ask the people who do have the money to bail us out -- and that would be me and others who are well off. Let us ask the people who have the money to offer the help. Despite our economic troubles, the rich have remained rich. It is they -- us -- who have the resources to pull us out. Why would we not turn to that segment of our society that has the tools and is best equipped to solve the problem? Isn't it the entrepreneurs who have been creating jobs all along?

So, although I am running for president, and will be able to do things to help the economy if you elect me president, on job creation, on helping the poor find jobs, perhaps it is as a private citizen that I can do the most good. I have been successful and am well off. If I believe in using what the good Lord has blessed me with to help the lives of others, perhaps now is a time I should step forward and do it, as a citizen, as one of the members of our society who is in the financial position to make a difference.

Warren Buffet, where are you? I don't see you in this crowd. I hope you are listening. You have suggested higher taxes for the very rich. I believe you are among the civic-minded, love-to-help-your-neighbor types who are part of a fabric of America that has made this nation great. I call on you, and myself, and others who have been blessed, financially, to create jobs just for the sake of creating jobs. What is to stop us from doing this? We have the money to do so. Nothing is stopping us. Many of us are considered -- what is that word? -- philanthropists. If we are wanting to help others, and are already experts in job creation, what better thing can we do than to create new businesses not for the sake of making money, but for sole purpose of providing employment? Let these new companies operate at a loss, if they must.

Let us look down the street at our poor. Let us look at each one, and why they can't work. Let's offer everyone we can a job, not a job they cannot perform, and, if we cannot find it, not even a job that helps the company make a dollar, but just a job that the person -- whatever their situation -- can perform.

What I'm calling for today is not a small thing. I'm asking us to become what might be called a right-to-work nation, meaning a nation where everybody has the right to work, has the right to a job. But, it is not government I'm saddling with this responsibility, but it is the people, themselves, I'm asking to make a difference. We, as a people, are going to take up this charge. We, as a people, are sick and tired of government bailing us out. This is our nation. We, as citizens, can solve some of our problems. We need not look to government to solve everything.

What I have proposed today will make a difference. It will put people to work. That unemployment number will come down. It has to, if we are going out and finding the people who are unemployed and placing them in jobs tailored just for them, jobs custom made after looking at the reasons they are out of work. What I have proposed is to find the people at the bottom of the economic ladder and give them each not a handout, but a hand up.

I call on everyone who is here, and those who hear my voice across the nation, to rise up, to rise up and help your neighbor, to consider your own position and consider whether you can be part not of a government answer, but of a citizen answer. Please be wise. If you do not have a surplus so that you can go out and create a business that might lose money, then don't do it. Do not overreach. Do not overstep your means. If you do, you too might go broke, and our economy will only be the worse for it. But, if you are in position to help, now is the time your nation needs you. Now is one of the darker moments in our history, economically, and you are alive at a moment you can help. You can be a patriotic American, a good neighbor, a person who cares, and someone who helps save the economy.

The hope lies in the people, not in the government this time. Our economy became great through free enterprise, not government job creation. Dance with the one who brought you, it is said. Free enterprise made us great, and free enterprise can carry us out of dark times, if we will but turn to it. We don't need another $800 billion stimulus. We need the people who have, helping the people who have not. We need a society that values it own. We need a society so strong in values that it treats the welfare of others as a market value. Supply and demand? I call on us to apply this principle to our values, and if the market needs corrected -- if there is a need for help -- the market corrects itself, and people come rushing to help their neighbors. We do not need more government forcing us to help others, but we, as citizens, need to step forward and practice the principle of valuing others. We do not need government answers to people problems, we need people helping people -- people answers. We need good citizens being good citizens by helping each other.

Let us, the people, save the poor. If this works -- and there is no reason it shouldn't -- I will be very proud to be part of it. Thank you for listening today, and God bless America, and all the poor people in it.

Friday, February 3, 2012

The Repentance and Recovery of Mitt Romney

Reach out, to the ones you've offended, Mitt. Come up with an earnest, meaningful way to help them, something that says, "I do love you guys. I do care, immensely, for the very, very poor. And, I do have a way to make things better."

Say it. Mean it. Do it.

And, it better be good. Whatever you come up with, had better be good, something that will, indeed, improve the lot of the poor.

Mitt, we've reached the point of critical mass. Your "I'm not concerned about the very poor" comment might have been taken out of context, but it falls into a now-lengthy line of happenings that have you well painted as an elite, uppity, snob-at-the-top, separated-from-the-masses rich man.

There was that offer to bet Rick Perry $10,000 on who was right about what you said about health care. Who, but the rich, has that kind of money to toss around?

There was the accusation that Bain Capital was making money while Georgetown Steel was losing money and people losing their jobs. Other similar accusation came with the Bain Capital issue, too. Didn't they.

There was the issue of your taxes. People didn't like it that you, as a rich person, paid 14 percent while they, the common folks, were paying 25 percent. Graduated income tax? For whom?

Oh, and what of the statement about liking to fire people? It, too, was taken out of context, but it didn't go away.

With all these things painting you as an out-of-touch Richie Rich, that endorsement from Donald Trump might have done as much harm as good. You needed that like a black eye needs another bleeding blood vessel.

Mitt, do something. You might survive this for the moment, but if you don't do something big, to turn your image around, it is going to haunt you. Whether it is in August against Obama, or when you get to the White House and the pundits think to remember all this, it is going to haunt you.

A little repentance is in order, even if the repentance is of no more than how much attention you are giving to the poor, how much care and how much love.

Saying you're sorry is not enough. Saying you misspoke is not enough. If you are going to shelve the rich-man-doesn't-care image, you must act decisively. Being the nation's leader requires a decisive person who recognizes moments for decisive action when they come up. This is one of those moments. Start with a speech lamenting the needs of the poor, sympathizing, and offering hope. And, build on that by offering a plan -- a real, workable plan.

Offer love. Offer hope. Say it. Mean it. Do it.

What will that plan be? More government entitlement won't work. You've already taken a stand against that.

Just to be suggesting something, I say you call for jobs for the poor. You come back tomorrow, Mitt, and I'll tell you how this suggestion works. Don't let it go unnoticed that you are also being hammered on jobs, the opposition pointing out that Massachusetts was 47th in the nation in job creation under you.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

The Brutality of Twisting Arms Off the Unborn Child

Would any of us want to twist the arms and legs off another person, as a way of killing that person?

Or, would we want to stab the wee-est of children through the heart, just so that child would not become an inconvenience to us?

I bring you, then, part of an email, forwarded to me by my sister Laura. She received it from Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of an organization called the Susan B. Anthony List.

"Overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that by 20 weeks of development in the womb, an unborn child can feel excruciating pain.

"Yet at 20 weeks and beyond, the lives of unborn babies are being destroyed in the womb through two methods:
  • "D&E (Dilation and Evacuation) Abortion, where the unborn child’s arms and legs are twisted off with brute manual force; or 
  • "The unborn child is stabbed through the heart with a giant needle." 
Should you want to go to the website of the Susan B. Anthony List, to learn what they are doing to fight abortion, it is at