Satan at the Convention

I'm a county delegate for my Republican precinct, and it's convention season--the Utah County Republican Convention is this Saturday April 28. In the mail today I got the information about the convention--when to be there, what's on the agenda, the proposed changes to the county platform, etc. Included in the envelope was a proposed resolution to be debated ("10 minutes total") and voted on at the convention. The title at the top fairly demanded that the entire resolution be read (the full text of the resolution is at the bottom of the post):

Resolution opposing Satan's plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion

Well! I'm definitely against Satan destroying the United States. (I imagine most people feel the same way.) But how is Satan scheming to invade the country?

Whereas, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” (Revelation 12:9)

Whereas, in order for Satan to establish his “New World Order” and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the Scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S. There are ways to destroy a nation other than with bombs or bullets. The mostly quiet and unspectacular invasion of illegal immigrants does not focus the attention of the nation the way open warfare does, but is all the more insidious for its stealth and innocuousness.

I don't like illegal immigration. I think it is dangerous for both the immigrants (not only the dangerous passage past our borders, but the exploitation by unscrupulous businesses, among other things) and the country (at a minimum, having an influx of people here because they broke the law is bad for the "rule of law"). I really doubt the illegal immigration problem will be helped, however, by attributing to Satan the actions of (mostly) well-meaning people looking for a better way of life.

The addition of the biblical scripture is disconcerting as well. The Book of Revelation is full of imagery, allusion, and poetic metaphor (dragons, anyone?) that I would be careful making dogmatic statements concerning it in a church class, much less a political venue.

Whereas, it is obvious that most promoters of massive immigration and open borders do not like the ideas of patriotism, national identity, sovereignty, our Christian culture and freedom. Many consider themselves cosmopolitans or world citizens. Their religion is atheistic humanism. They are found primarily among the elite of foundations, universities, big business, left-wing politicians, Hollywood, ACLU (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union), CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), the American power elite and the liberal media. They prefer a world without borders ruled by a one world tyrannical government.

I don't think that it is helpful to generalize all opponents to a tougher immigration standard to people who "do not like the ideas of patriotism, national identity," etc. Lumping those same people in with Satan and his minions is even more distasteful. Although I'm fairly right-leaning on the immigration issue, I can actually understand the perspective of those on the other side. I truly believe that most on the "amnesty, open-border" side truly want to help. We just have different ideas of what, exactly, will help the most. And, although I have to admit the "Anti-Christian Lawyers Union" jab made me chuckle, such name-calling in a public, political document to be endorsed by the delegates is inappropriate.

Now therefore, because we support the “Rule of Law,” the Constitution and the principals [sic] that made America the greatest and freest nation in history, the Utah County Republican Party supports the closing of our national borders to illegal immigration to prevent the destruction of the U.S. by stealth invasion.

Submitted by: Don Larsen, District 65 Chairman

I support better enforcement of our immigration laws. But there is no way I can vote for this resolution. I think the inflammatory language, the rhetoric, and the over-the-top discussion of the devil are, in the least, inappropriate in a political document and, at the worst, a dangerous precedent to follow in our political system.

(full text of resolution below)

Resolution opposing Satan’s plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion

Whereas, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” (Revelation 12:9)
Whereas, in order for Satan to establish his “New World Order” and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the Scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S. There are ways to destroy a nation other than with bombs or bullets. The mostly quiet and unspectacular invasion of illegal immigrants does not focus the attention of the nation the way open warfare does, but is all the more insidious for its stealth and innocuousness.
Whereas, Americans will have to make a choice: either close our borders to illegal immigration, which is now vastly greater than any time in the past, or witness the passing country [sic]. The proof of this statement is the record of history. It is a history littered with the gravestones of great nations and civilizations which allowed invaders to overrun them. If we fail to learn from the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them.
Whereas, all polls show that the American people overwhelmingly want limited immigration, reform and control of our borders as mandated by the Constitution. But many do not realize the extent of the dangers ahead because of the lack of accurate media coverage and public debate. An important reason for the lack of understanding is that the powerful commercial, political, ethnic, and the godless globalist elites who control the major media do not want the issues of illegal immigration to come to national attention.
Whereas, it is obvious that most promoters of massive immigration and open borders do not like the ideas of patriotism, national identity, sovereignty, our Christian culture and freedom. Many consider themselves cosmopolitans or world citizens. Their religion is atheistic humanism. They are found primarily among the elite of foundations, universities, big business, left-wing politicians, Hollywood, ACLU (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union [sic]), CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), the American power elite and the liberal media. They prefer a world without borders ruled by a one world tyrannical government.
Whereas, we cannot benefit the world by eliminating our borders and sovereignty as advocated by Satan’s “axis of evil”, if we do, the world will pull us down to its lowest common level and we will have committed national suicide. In that case, the U.S. will no longer be a free and prosperous land or light of liberty for all nations. Once he has destroyed the U.S., Satan will be able to establish his “Satanic New World Order” and destroy the freedom of all people.
Whereas, the national security and the future of the nation and the American people depends upon how well we do our job and defend our borders. We must control our borders to illegal immigration, have a well regulated temporary worker program, as needed, or face extinction. The destruction of the U.S. by the forces of evil is a top priority of Satan.
Now therefore, we (delegates) are obligated to support the Utah State and Utah County Republicans Platforms regarding the mandates to support the “Rule of Law” and the Constitutional mandate to protect and secure our national borders.
Now therefore, because we support the “Rule of Law,” the Constitution and the principals that made America the greatest and freest nation in history, the Utah County Republican Party supports the closing of our national borders to illegal immigration to prevent the destruction of the U.S. by stealth invasion.

Submitted by: Don Larsen, District 65 Chairman

Go Gwen!

Gwen Ifill was a guest on Meet the Press this week. The reporters' roundtable was supposed to cover three different topics, but the first topic, the Don Imus firing, occupied the entire time. As I watched the show, I could almost see the fire dancing behind Gwen's eyes, even while she maintained her graceful and professional composure.

Tim Russert was hosting the show as usual. His guests were David Brooks, Gwen Ifill, John Harwood, and Eugene Robinson.

Ifill has apparently had enough of the hypocrisy of people condemning Imus now who once appeared on his show--a show where Imus has always made the same sorts of incendiary remarks. She specifically calls out two of her fellow panelists.

There’s been radio silence from a lot of people who’ve done this program who could’ve spoken up and said, “I find this offensive” or “I didn’t know.” These people didn’t speak up.

Tim, we didn’t hear that much from you.

David, we didn’t hear from you.

What was missing in this debate was someone saying, “You know, I understand that this is offensive.” ...people will say, “I didn’t know,” or people will say, “I wasn’t listening.” A lot of people did know, and a lot of people were listening, and they just decided it was OK. They decided this culture of meanness was fine until they got caught. My concern about Mr. Imus and a lot of people and, and a lot of the debate in the society is not that people are sorry that they say these things. They’re sorry that someone catches them.

...David’s right, about the culture of meanness, about the culture of racial complaint, about the internal culture in our community, about the way we talk to one another. But this week, just this week, it was finally saying “Enough.”

Ifill is a lady in every way. No shouting or demeaning. She just pointed out that her colleagues have tried to play both sides. They appear on Imus's show and then try to distance themselves from the things that go on immediately before and immediately after their appearance.

I concur with Gwen Ifill. A heck of a lot of people had an opportunity to ignore Imus. They failed to insist on a culture of civility and kindness. They are complicit in his public offenses.

I don't endorse a culture that polices thought that speech with external forces. (I am soooooo grateful for the 1st amendment protections we enjoy in this country.) I endorse a culture that encourages self control. I hope for a culture that refuses to support hateful speech. We can allow people to saw those things, but we don't have to support or subsidize them.

"Join in the national healing"?

At the top of CNN.com this afternoon, a blue banner read: "Watch Now>>Virginia Tech convocation. Join in the national healing."

I hope I can explain why this rubbed me the wrong way without offending anyone touched by this tragedy. Make no mistake, this is a terrible tragedy. I feel shocked and sickened just thinking about it.

But my life isn't changed in any measurable way by these events. I don't think I need healing.

The "nation" certainly does need "healing". However, I'm pretty sure that healing will not be brought about by the small measure of comfort afforded by mourning with those that mourn. The healing our nation needs will come about through changes in the individual, not by passively listening in on a memorial.

In a way, it seems to me that this attitude broadens the grief surrounding the killings so much as to almost dispel it. To compare the tinge of sadness felt by Holly Housewife in Spanish Fork, Utah to the gaping hole of wrenching grief felt by those who truly NEED healing--victims, families, students, alumni--is just wrong.

Allowing the general public to watch the Virginia Tech memorial for free is a wonderful thing for CNN to have done. Calling it a "national healing", however, is a bit much.

Hatch for AG; Urquhart for Senate

There has been chatter that Orrin Hatch might be appointed to replace Gonzales as Attorney General if Gonzales resigns. While I doubt a Hatch appointment is in the offing, I can see a really cool side effect. Steve Urquhart could be appointed to fill Hatch's seat in the United States Senate. I was disappointed when Steve dropped out of the running for that seat and I ended up voting for Ashdown.

This Makes Me Want to Quit the GOP

Pete du Pont writes for OpinionJournal.com

In the Bush years, the Republican Congress has spent like liberals. Federal spending is now $23,000 per household, a $7,000 increase in the past five years. There has been an annual 7.7% increase in nondefense discretionary spending, and the number of earmarks is up 57%.

In the past two years there have been four Republican congressional scandals (DeLay, Cunningham, Ney and Foley), and only one Democratic one (William Jefferson). So by last fall the national approval rating of the Republican Congress had fallen to 30%, resulting in a loss of six Senate and 27 House seats on Election Day, costing Republicans control of both Houses of Congress.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around that 23,000 number. That doesn't leave much room for anyone to argue that the rich and businesses aren't paying their fair share, does it? There's no way my household is putting anywhere close that much into the federal government.

We need preference choice voting so that we can vote for less popular candidates that reflect our views without casting a de facto vote for the person we like the least.

Hyper-partisanship Comes Back to Bite Global Warming Alarmists

People who care about global warming should start an immediate campaign to end hyper-partisanship in national politics and encourage civil debate. A culture has been fostered that encourages the demonizing of one's political opponents. If an "evil" person makes a valid point, many are still loathe to recognize it as such for fear of granting credibility to an enemy.

If you believe that global warming is a man-made disaster that will destroy our planet and way of life, you have an obligation to cease and desist from hyper-partisanship. The old saying is true that you attract a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.

Tim Thorstenson recently commented about the problem with accepting or rejecting alleged facts about climate because they are moral or immoral. Facts, he argues, have no moral component. We use our moral lens to help us interpret and act on facts, not to determine the verity of a factual assertion.

If global warming is a problem that we have power to address (which I doubt), then we should makes laws to address the problem. If the good of arresting global warming outweighs the bad caused to people in the developing world (which I doubt), then we should act.

If you treat me as the spawn of Satan for contesting your assertions, you lose the ability to persuade me. And if you think global warming is a looming Armageddon, it is in your best interest to persuade me rather than demean me.

Ken Burns at BYU

I attended the BYU Forum address (and the following Q&A session) by famed documentarian Ken Burns yesterday. He exceeded every expectation. BYU was not, unfortunately, able to broadcast the forum because Burns showed clips from an upcoming documentary on WWII that will not be released until this fall. I'm bummed, because I was hoping to link to some video clips of the event here. Maybe in September.

He told us how he had actively resisted efforts over the years to get him to do another war documentary after the smashing success of his Civil War film. He talked to us about the emotional difficulty of spending years involved in the study of something so terrible as war. But he finally felt compelled to approach this topic because he recognized that it would be criminal to let the thousands of veterans die before their story could be told.

In the Q&A session, Burns clarified his point a bit. It wasn't that there were not enough documentaries on WWII. He seemed to indicate a distaste for the History Channel's approach to the war. Too many swastikas everywhere you turned and not enough of the human story of the war. Burns set out to make a "bottom up" documentary that focused on the lives of the people rather than the affairs of the generals and presidents.

Burns claimed that WWII was not "the good war" but "the necessary war."

This is the point that seems to escape so many people who oppose our contemporary military conflicts. They see war not as a necessary evil, but as an absolute evil. In my view, war is a yucky, horrible thing. I look forward to the reign of the Prince of Peace when all war will end. But until that time comes, it simply will not do to allow evil men to rampage unmolested simply because we demand "peace." Peace at any price is not peace, but prison.

Burns told us that there is a sizable portion of the graduating high school seniors in our country that believe that we fought in WWII alongside the Germans against the Soviets. Many people are going to see films like "Saving Private Ryan" and are feeling the powerful emotion of the event without understanding the greater significance. Why were they landing on that beach? What was the strategy? What were the goals? Did it work?

He acknowledged that it is impossible to tell a story without any bias. He hopes that as he tells a story that he paints a fair picture that conveys the emotion he feels about the subject. I can tell you that the clips of the documentary that he showed certainly conveyed powerful emotions. It will be interesting to see how he lives up to his stated goal of also placing the events in the larger picture while being true to his bottom-up approach.

One person raised the question during the Q&A session about the exclusion of Latinos in the upcoming documentary. The question was asked in respect and Burns responded in kind. He didn't duck the issue at all, but provided a very compelling answer that I probably can't do justice in summary. In essence, he explained that he was trying to tell individual stories rather than provide a "phone book" treatment of the war. They chose, essentially at random, four cities and put out the call to veterans. They didn't seek out individuals, but put out the word that they were in town and took all comers. They did hundreds of on-camera interviews, only a fraction of which could be used in the film. They obviously couldn't use footage of people who didn't show up. He pointed out that other important segments were also underrepresented in the film, like sailors, submariners, and so forth. He decided that he must be doing a good job if he can make a 14 hour movie and still get complaints it isn't long enough. :)

Interestingly, there are about 100 other documentaries in production that are meant to springboard off the release of Burns's film. They will be aired in local markets and focus on the local population of WWII veterans. In this aspect, it looks like the film will succeed in creating a lot of dialog rather than being a soliloquy. Burns also hopes these other, local films will help fill in the gaps in coverage that people have already noted about his upcoming film.

I hope that you will watch the new documentary when it comes out on PBS this fall. In the meantime, you might check out two podcasts from the San Francisco Chronicle which feature an interview with Burns. I haven't listened to them myself yet, but they are now on my list!

Leisure Redistribution?

An article by Steven E Landsburg on Slate Magazine looks at the gap in number of leisure hours between the rich and the poor. Poorly paid workers have far more leisure hours than highly paid workers. While this is an interesting concept, the final paragraph really caught my attention:

Second, a certain class of pundits and politicians are quick to see any increase in income inequality as a problem that needs fixing—usually through some form of redistributive taxation. Applying the same philosophy to leisure, you could conclude that something must be done to reverse the trends of the past 40 years—say, by rounding up all those folks with extra time on their hands and putting them to (unpaid) work in the kitchens of their "less fortunate" neighbors. If you think it's OK to redistribute income but repellent to redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what—if anything—is the fundamental difference.

Forcing people to pay more in taxes is one thing, but forcing people to work for free (slave labor?) is quite another. Or is it? By taking away a percentage of the money the marketplace is willing to pay someone for their work--higher taxes for higher salaries--aren't we essentially forcing them to work some number of hours for free? Is it really that different?

Help the Kids at Primary Children's

Yesterday and today is the KSL Radiothon to raise money for Primary Children's Medical Center. I hope that you will consider making a donation to this wonderful facility.

My little boy, now two and a half months old, was born with spina bifida. He is doing great thanks to a generous Heavenly Father and His helpers on earth: the doctors, nurses, and staff at Primary Children's Medical Center and the University of Utah Hospital. The people at both hospitals were truly wonderful to us. It is hard to imagine how difficult it must be to deal with so many people at the most distressing times of their lives. Yet they treated my boy with compassion and competence.

In our visits to the hospital, a quick survey of the waiting room makes it fairly obvious that we're not dealing with lots of affluent people. Good medical help isn't cheap. But no one is turned away. It sounds like generous contributions from the community make this possible. I hope you can join in to help those kids without the means to help themselves.

A Better Way to Vote

A post over at Utah Amicus, repeating a Trib editorial by Rep. Roz McGee, talks about her beef with the current districting process in Utah. I wrote the following comment as a follow up to that post.

I agree with the district boundary principles you have set forth here. However, if the 42% of voters who prefer Democrats were evenly distributed throughout the state, our current system of winner-take-all voting would not allow ANY seats for Democrats.

I think we should improve the process of creating voting districts. We should also look at other solutions such as instant-runoff elections that can elect multiple people in proportion to the preferences of the people. There is a site dedicated to the principle at fairvote.org.

I've written about Instant Runoff Voting before on this blog. For a succinct and convincing explanation of how IRV can eliminate the "spoiler effect" in elections and give a greater voice to third parties, check out this short animation from the folks at FairVote.org.

My Contribution to "Blog for Choice"

Let's take a small glimpse into an alternate universe.

In this place, the struggle for a balance of power between the sexes has been ongoing for a great many years. Women, who are naturally much stronger than men, have been traditionally dominant in this society--though men have historically benefited greatly from laws protecting them. However, a couple of decades ago, the balance of power shifted. A court ruled that a woman could kill her husband if he proved to be incapable of repairing large appliances.

The court ruling ignited a firestorm. The women explained what a burden it was for them to live in a home without a working refrigerator. Sure, they could try to keep their food fresh by placing it in on a coat hanger in a shady spot in the back yard or in a dark alley, but the steady stream of food poisonings was ample evidence that this strategy just wasn't working. The only solution, they passionately exclaimed, was to continue to allow them to kill their non-handy husbands, freeing them to find a better one.

Many of the men, and not a few women, argued that divorce would be a much more humane option. Wouldn't it be okay to just borrow some space in a neighbor's fridge until you could get yours repaired? Yes, it would be terribly inconvenient, but certainly preferable to killing a person, right?

Oh no, persist the women. Don't lecture us or tell us to just "bear it." You don't know what it is like. You can't judge us. This is our choice and our homes and our appliances and our husbands. Don't you know what a painful decision it is for a woman to kill her husband? Don't lecture me about pain until you've had to stay up at nights in a cold sweat thinking about the husband you had to extinguish. You have to respect our choice.

The men respond that their lives ought to count for something in this equation. Sure, if your husband is threatening your life, you could kill in self defense, they say. We don't question that. But it's barbaric to kill him just because he has become inconvenient.

A militant woman becomes bitter that anyone should question the choice she makes to kill her husband. "It wasn't an easy choice!" she screams, shouting down her opposition. "It's about trusting women."

How is this different than Jim Crow?

The Politico has an article titled "Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed". An excerpt:

As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Now that he's a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply.

(snip)

Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be "a social faux pas" after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was "critical" that the group remain "exclusively African-American."

Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay's son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.

"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."

The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership...

It's not clear to me how this is different than a "Whites Only" drinking fountain. Rep. Cohen is barred from joining this group solely on the basis of his skin color.

What is the point of the Congressional Black Caucus? To advance the causes of black people. Do you have to be black to be interested in this goal?

Apparently.

The Bloghive is Born

The word has started leaking out already, so it is time for my official announcement of the Utah Bloghive. I've been beta testing the site for a while and I think it is ready for prime time.

I'm hoping the site can become a hub for the Utah political blogging community. A place where we keep track of the things our friends our writing about and where we discover new voices. A place to keep tabs on the political issues that matter to Utahns.

You can read more about the effort on the site itself. I hope you'll find the site as useful as I already have. It is so cool to instantly see how many bloggers are talking about the State of the State address. As hot topics come up in the legislative session, I'm sure we'll see lots of headlines there too.

Perhaps one of the coolest things about the site is the Google search on the top right corner of the page. It will search only the sites that are listed in the bloghive. It makes it so much easier to find a post you read last month that you want to link in a comment or a post! Hopefully you will find it to be a great tool.

What are you waiting for? Head over to http://utahbloghive.org and start reading!

Gingrich Defends the Clinton Impeachment

Whatever you think about Newt Gingrich, you have to admit he is a powerful orator. I wish I had the ability to speak so powerfully and concisely. In his appearance on Meet the Press last week, I was impressed and persuaded by his defense of how he pursued the impeachment of Bill Clinton. You can see the full video of the program or watch the small clip below. Also included is the transcript of the question and answer.

MR. RUSSERT: But do you, do you regret pressing the impeachment of President Clinton so hard?

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: President—you know, I’m—I’ve been divorced twice.

Both times I’ve been deposed. Both times I was told, “Perjury is a felony. You should tell the truth under deposition.” President Clinton lied under oath as a lawyer in front of a sitting federal judge in a civil rights case. This was not about his personal behavior in the Oval Office. That’s a matter of judgment, and people can render judgment. The question is, do you want to go down the road of Nigeria and corruption and have a country in which, as long as he’s popular, he can break the law? And if Clinton gets to commit perjury on this topic, then what does the next president get to commit perjury on, and then what does the next president get to commit perjury on? This was entirely about something I knew personally. We have an obligation as citizens to tell the truth to a federal judge under oath. The president failed that.

It is interesting to note that in this same interview, Gingrich also talks about how the the time for super-partisanship (regardless of whether it was ever right in the past) is behind us. The country faces serious problems and we need to get together and tackle them. His call to candidates is to share a positive message rather than simply maligning your opponent.

NPR Mentions Utah Buses

While driving today, I heard a bit of a story about the ways cities are trying to get people, particularly business people, to ride the bus. They mentioned Utah and the current experiment with putting wi-fi internet access on some routes up north. You can listen to the story from this page.



I try to take the bus to work most days and it works great for me. I use it as time to read something that I normally don't get a chance to read. Not driving myself doesn't save me time, but it has definite advantages.