Good Ol' Pattie B. With Another Well Written Expose on America

I don't always agree with Pat Buchanan, he is close to what I hate most about the extreme right, but lately he has turned from a zealot to a real American realist. I enjoy his 'take no prisoner' mentality on what he thinks is happening to America an to those he thinks is destroying it. I know I may be stretching a bit here but I think he is as close to an Ezra Taft Benson, in terms of his politics and outlook on America, that we have in our modern day.

I love his quote most of all from this article, "However Iraq ends, the era that began with the fall of the Berlin Wall has reached its close. That place in the sun the Greatest Generation won for us, and the Cold War generation kept for us, the baby boomer generation appears to have lost. And perhaps forever. "

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48069

Romney Insulted by Damon Going to Yankees

Found this on another Romney blog.
Go BoSox!

http://cbs4boston.com/sports/local_story_355193512.html

Fiscal Insanity

I have been reading a little bit of this other blog called Talking Taxes the last few weeks. There was an interesting post today about the New CBO Report on Long-term Deficits. The CBO director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin said this: “Imagine a world in which there was no Katrina, no Rita, no costs of the Gulf Coast cleanup or annual events of that type. Imagine a world in which there was no necessity to spend funds in Iraq and Afghanistan or elsewhere in the globe, fighting a war on terrorism. Imagine a world in which it was possible to meet all our nonsecurity needs, in highways and education and welfare, without earmarks and without pork barrel and which allowed us to keep such spending flat and not go up at all. Imagine that world also included tax increases as all the laws the Congress has passed in the last several years sunset. Imagine in that world there was no economic slack– the economy always performed at absolutely top notch perfect levels.In that world, our Congress would face deficits as far as the eye could see and have enormous fiscal challenges.”
Later, a CQ reporter asks Holtz-Eakin to respond to the supply-side argument that economic growth will help keep our deficits and debt in check:
CQ: For people who think current tax cuts or future tax cuts can create more economic growth ,what level of economic growth would we need annually to grow ourselves out of this problem?Holtz-Eakin: It’s not possible. Don’t even think about it. [long pause] You can’t grow your way out of this problem, it’s just too big.
We have been talking about big government, large deficits, public debt, etc; so I thought you guys might be interested in this. I think it illustrates how big the problem is. Why don’t we hear more about this on the news media? Maybe they are talking about this, I wouldn’t know since I don’t watch. I just wonder how many Americans actually realize how deep we are in, and how much deeper we sink in every day. I really worry about it, because the politicians aren’t going to be frank about it, so the problem is never going to go away. I think they figure the less the American people actually know about government, the better, because it gives them carte blanche with no accountability. With an ignorant public, they can do whatever with no pressure. How can we get the word out? How can we educate our fellow citizens?

This is why we need Democrats

The Patriot Act will not be renewed and so now, the founders can sleep well at night... Oh, and also all those who the government was spying on. The most dangerous threats of the Sept. 11 attacks has been defeated but I doubt you will see a parade for it. I know for sure G. W. won't have a publicity stunt on an aircraft carrier to celebrate its defeat. I will however, as any freedom loving, constitutional adhering, American should.

Much like our forces in Germany, the Patriot Act will hopefully go down as a relic of the war against terrorism. Constitutional scholars will hopefully wright many books on the inherent dangers of such laws in a free society such as ours. Wiretapping of citizens, unlawful arrests of citizens without trial, as well as the right to hold you indefinitely, secret warrants on books, businesses and any other organization and many others, will hopefully go down in history like that of McCarthyism, a cruel and un-American experiment in response to unsettling times.

I'll be anxious to see what happens to this administration on the chargers of unlawful espionage that has been thrown around lately.

In simple terms, thank you Mr. Feingold, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Clinton...in short, thank you Democrats. (and a couple of right thinking Republicans)

Africa

I just read a most interesting op-ed piece written by a guy who volunteered in Africa 40 years ago. We have all seen and heard all the celebrities talk about debt relief and donations for the poor in Africa. I respect Bono very much both as a musician and humanitarian. I bought into what he said and says, concerning thier need for cash and drugs. I think debt relief is a good idea, mostly because Bono and Brad Pitt are such good salesman. This guy brings to light some things no body is saying. He brings up the point that as long as corrupt people keep rigging elections, there is no use just throwing money at the continent. How can we, the western world, help the Africans if there is corrupt leadership at the top? What is the fate of Africa? I feel awful about their situation, but what short of invading country after country and toppling the corrupt regimes can we do?

The author of this piece never develops his argument against debt relief, which I think could still be a good start in some countries over there. He also compares old Ireland with Malawi, how they were similar, and how with some education and a rational government, Ireland became what it is today. He doesn't expand on that transformation very much, and I think that could have helpful to shed light on what to do in modern-day Africa.

If we are going to focus on evil dictators, terrorism, injustice, etc. then we needn't look any further than Africa. So what are we going to do about it? How does Africa fit into our priorities? If simply throwing money at them dosen't work what will work? I like the suggestions in the article; education, and keeping the smart people there to work in there own countries would help by leaps and bounds. Also, the rest of the world would probably do well to look at what the church is doing in Africa.

Romney's Move Toward 1600 Pennsylvannia

(Moderators Comment: This posting will now be the official home to all of the latest links, news articles, reviews and criticisms of Mr. Wonderful, Mitt Romneys poltical aspirations. )

In a speech yesterday, Mitt Romney stated he would not seek re-election in the state of Mass. What does this mean?? He is testing the Presidential campaign waters. This quick blurb in the Trib lays out some of his successes while in office. An addition to his already solid resume.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512150187dec15,1,675986.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Moral Terrorism

I have a question on the addage; One persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.

How and when is it ok to use terrorism as a method to promote political change? The question was raised and I believe it deserves a debate amongst the finest and most fertile minds of the Mormon Armchair Pundits.

Here is my opinion. When we use the word terrorism it ignites fear and panic, and usually an angst feeling of being immoral. When the colonialist raided the barter ships and threw over the tea with their faces painted black and their lean loins covered in only a squirrel skin, was that not terrorism? Or when they invoked guerilla tactics to scare the British lines and instill fear. Was this terrorism? Was it justified? And if it was, is terrorism justified?

I think it was absolutely terrorism or was it freedom fighting. Can it be both?

Remember when the valiant El Capitan Moroni armed his Nephite warriors with breastplates and headplates? The Libro de Mormon stated that the Lamanites in fear fled before the Nephites because of the great slaughter that they were receiving by the hands of the Nephites. These tactics were used by Moroni and by our greatest President, George Washington, because they worked and, when fighting a war you use what works. We believed that our cause was the greater cause and despite God being on our side, we used terror tactics. Were they justified in using terror tactics?

The justification must come from the cause in which they fought. It seems however that when applying justification to a tactic, it must be true for all. Are the terrorist justified in using such tactics against us?

2nd part; Now that we live in the United States under our glorious Constitution, can we as citizens ever being justified again in using terrorism within our own country to evoke change? Would we be considered terrorists or freedom fighters?

Founders rolling in their graves...

I bought a book last year titled Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It. Pete Peterson, a life-long Republican and former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, as well as the chairman of the Blackstone group and a founding president of the Concord Coalition wrote this book. It is fascinating, eye-opening, and disgusting all at the same time. I say disgusting because I had no idea some of the stuff our “leaders” have been doing in government for all these years. The thing I really love about this book is that Mr. Peterson is not partisan; he looks at the issues from an economist’s perspective, not a partisan party-member, so he goes after everyone in government equally.

One thing I read recently that Citizen brought up in a recent post was that the “founders are rolling in their graves.” Peterson says this in his book: “America’s founding statesmen had one great aspiration and that was to establish a new nation dedicated to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Shadowing their efforts was one great fear, which was that the new American republic would go the way of so many empires past-to excess, to dissipation, and ultimately, to ruin. They were well read in classical history. Most, like John Adams, were pessimistic ruminations over the “inevitable decay” of civic virtue. Of all the great dangers they worried might pull America down before its time, two stand out as remarkably contemporary: burdensome public debt and quarreling political parties. Many felt so strongly about these dangers that they believed public debts and political parties ought to be banished altogether. Not only that, many believed these two dangers were somehow connected. They associated honest and prudent public accounting with economy. Chronic deficits spelled corrupt leadership, political decadence, and economic ruin.”

Chew on this: “If you look back at the federal budget from George Washington through Dwight Eisenhower and exclude only years of declared war or catastrophic depression, the record is remarkable: 127 years of budget surpluses and 44 years of budget deficits. Even these deficits, on average, were less than 0.5 percent of GDP. Since 1960, the scorecard changes dramatically: just 5 years of surplus and 39 years of deficits, with these post-1960 deficits averaging over 2.5 percent of GDP-a substantial slice of our net national savings. And these figures do not include the much larger liabilities racked up in recent decades, off the books, through unfunded benefit promises.”

How are we ever going to turn this around? I don’t think we can with all the people in Washington right now, with maybe a few exceptions. If only the general public were aware of the virtue and prosperity associated with smaller government. It is great that we are big and rich enough to help out those less-fortunate, but it is costing way too much. Politicians are addicted to their programs, and are unwilling to do what is right. I guess it is hard to do what is right when corporations are stuffing your pockets and flying you around on private jets to play golf; how can you say no to favors then? WAKE UP AMERICA!


Read this book guys, you can borrow it from me if you like.

English in America

I read a story tonight about a high-school student in Kansas City, KS who got suspended from school for speaking spanish in the hallway to another student. Immigration has had a huge effect on our culture, both inside and outside the church. A lot of people argue that since they are here, they need to learn english. I think that is very true, for the good of them, and us, they ought to be able to communicate at least on a basic level with us in english. If you read the article it seems that the school district went to far in suspending him because a gave a very short answer to someone who asked a question in spanish. I guess my question is, how far should we take it? I don't think any of us want to take away their cultural identity from them, but should we be getting so hostile with them when they speak spanish to each other?

Regarding the church implications; we had stake conference recently, and in the stake president's talk, he mentioned the fact that there were a very large number of latins joining the church, and that the latin population was growing very rapidly in this area of the church. He then went on to suggest that we as members learn some spanish so we can communicate with them. I talked with Keith Hepworth afterwards and we were both thinking, wait, why don't they learn some english? Maybe I took his remark out of context, and maybe he didn't mean that the latins had no responsibilty to learn english, but it is definitly a new challenge for the church. There has been a big struggle in the Kaw River ward getting the latin members and the anglo members to connect. They can't, mostly because of the latin members' unwillingness to take seriously the task of learning english.

So how do we as both Americans and Latter-day Saints deal with this problem of a growing spanish-only speaking population?

Mormon Democrats? Is this possible?

I am very interested to know what you all think about Democrats in the church.  This is something that is never talked about in Sunday school or over the pulpit, but it gets talked about between members often.  The common perception seems to be that you can’t be a good Mormon, and be a democrat.  Some have even suggested that one should have his temple recommend taken away if he is a registered dem.  Let me say, I think that belief is rubbish.  Where do you think this belief came from?  Is it because Democrats are more liberal, and therefore have more progressive beliefs, and because most are pro-choice?  How does one explain the pro-choice republicans?  Or the log cabin republicans?  In today’s political spectrum one can be anywhere on the broad range from far right to far left and anywhere in between.  This is what I think we ought to be to looking at, not merely at the particular party one belongs to.  

I came across a very interesting article from the Salt Lake Tribune from May 3, 1998.  I think a lot of people regard the SLT as a liberal paper, but none the less, this article says something of substance; mostly because they quote a General Authority. Here is a portion of it:

HEADLINE: GOP Dominance Troubles Church; It hurts Utah, says general authority, disavowing any perceived Republican-LDS Link; LDS Official Calls for More Political DiversityThe LDS Church, through a high-ranking leader, is making its strongest public statement to date about the need for political diversity among members, while expressing concerns the Republican Party is becoming the "church party.""There is sort of a division along Mormon/non-Mormon, Republican/Democratic lines," says Elder Marlin Jensen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. "We regret that more than anything -- that there would become a church party and a non-church party. That would be the last thing that we would want to have happen."Jensen said major national political parties may take stands that do not coincide with teachings of the 10 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that should not put them out of bounds for members.   A former attorney and lifelong Democrat, Jensen was careful in his comments not to suggest an official LDS preference for any political party but to maintain the church's traditional stand of partisan neutrality.  The First Quorum of the Seventy is the third tier in LDS Church leadership after the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and the governing First Presidency.  

Jensen for the past three years has been a member of the church's Public Affairs Committee. He was designated by church officials to respond to The Salt Lake Tribune's request for an interview on the topic of partisan imbalance in Utah and among LDS members.
The Tribune's inquiry came on the heels of two significant developments: Utah Democrats' unprecedented failure to field a candidate in a congressional race and a statement from the LDS First Presidency -- read over pulpits in January -- urging members to seek elective office.In an hourlong interview at the church's worldwide headquarters in downtown Salt Lake City arranged and overseen by LDS media-relations director Mike Otterson, Jensen discussed leaders' views about the seeming demise of two-party politics among members. Among the concerns he aired:-- The LDS Church's reputation as a one-party monolith is damaging in the long run because of the seesaw fortunes of the national political parties.-- The overwhelming Republican bent of LDS members in Utah and the Intermountain West undermines the checks-and-balances principle of democratic government.-- Any notion that it is impossible to be a Democrat and a good Mormon is wrongheaded and should be "obliterated."-- Faithful LDS members have a moral obligation to actively participate in politics and civic affairs, a duty many have neglected."I am in shock," Utah Democratic Party Chairwoman Meghan Zanolli Holbrook said when told of Jensen's comments. "I have never heard anything like this in the years I've been here.""That's an earthshaker," said Democrat Ted Wilson, head of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics and a longtime critic of the close connection between the Mormon Church and Republican Party."Mormon Democrats have been praying for this," said Wilson, who is LDS. "This is more than seeking -- we have beseeched the divinity over this."Utah Republican Chairman Rob Bishop's reaction was less enthusiastic. "Any time a major player in the social fabric of the state, like the church, says something, it will have an impact.""We obviously will not change," Bishop added. "If Mormons feel comfortable we welcome them. And if non-Mormons feel comfortable, we welcome them, too."Jensen, who was called as a general authority in 1989, said high church officials lament the near-extinction of the Democratic Party in Utah and the perception -- incorrect though it is -- that the GOP enjoys official sanction of the church.All five Congress members from Utah are Mormon and Republican, four of the five statewide offices are held by GOP officials and two-thirds of the state Legislature is Republican. Nearly 90 percent of state lawmakers are LDS. Democrats last held a majority in the state House in 1975, and in the Senate in 1977.

"One of the things that prompted this discussion in the first place was the regret that's felt about the decline of the Democratic Party [in Utah] and the notion that may prevail in some areas that you can't be a good Mormon and a good Democrat at the same time," Jensen said.  "There have been some awfully good men and women who have been both and are both today. So I think it would be a very healthy thing for the church -- particularly the Utah church -- if that notion could be obliterated."The idea that Mormonism and Democratic Party affiliation are incompatible traces back to the early 1970s, when LDS general authority Ezra Taft Benson, who later became church president, was quoted in an Associated Press interview as saying it would be difficult for a faithful member to be a liberal Democrat.Church officials later claimed the comment was taken out of context, although the AP stood by its account.  Jensen said concerns exist on two levels about the unofficial linkage of the Republican Party and Mormon Church.One is the fear that by being closely identified with one political party, the church's national reputation and influence is subject to the roller-coaster turns and dips of that partisan organization. Also bothersome is that the uncontested dominance of the Republican Party in Utah deprives residents of the debate and competition of ideas that underlie good government."There is a feeling that even nationally as a church, it's not in our best interest to be known as a one-party church," Jensen said. "The national fortunes of the parties ebb and flow. Whereas the Republicans may clearly have the upper hand today, in another 10 years they may not."

What does this article do to the anti-democrat Mormon’s argument that no Mormon can be a Democrat?  
I have a full copy of the long article if anyone wants to read it; email me.  I also have a copy of a story about Harry Reid that appeared in the Tribune.  He says a lot of members of the church wrote letters to him telling him what an awful person he was for being a democrat.  I think that is funny, since Reid is more conservative than a lot of republicans.

I am interested to hear your thoughts.

Supply-Siders Rejoice..Part II

All Right here is the op-ed in its entirety...
Now supply siders can rejoice

..and by the way the penguin is hands down the best dressed of all the animal kingdom, they're always wearing tuxes.

Tax-Cut Deadline Last chance for the 15% rate on cap gains and dividends.
Thursday, December 8, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

The House is scheduled to vote today on legislation that would extend a tax cut that has been crucial to the economic rebound of the past two years. The bill provides for a two-year extension of the current 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends, due to expire in 2008. Pay attention, for this may be the most important vote on the economy the House has taken all year.
What's surprising is that the vote is expected to be a cliff hanger. The Senate passed its tax bill without any capital gains and dividend provisions, so passage in the House is necessary if there is any hope of keeping the issue alive.

The very fact that it is proving so difficult to secure a mere two-year extension of President Bush's most notable first-term domestic-policy achievement underscores how far Republicans in Congress have stumbled of late. The 2003 tax cut is about as clear a policy success as has come out of Washington in many years:
• The stock market has risen by about $4 trillion in value, and an estimated 40% of that gain is directly attributable to increases in the after-tax return on equities, thanks to the tax cut. (If the tax cut expires, the market will instantly give back those gains.) Housing values have soared so rapidly that the fear is we now face a bubble. Household net wealth has climbed by $10 trillion.
• Business investment--which had sunk into the abyss during the recession, falling by 21% between 2000 and 2002--has roared back to life. Spending is up nearly 25% over the past 30 months.
• Dividend payments to shareholders have doubled in two years, according to data gathered by the American Shareholders Association. The cumulative impact of the tax cut and the higher dividend payments has put $100 billion into the pockets of America's burgeoning investor class.
• The macro-economic signs all point to a solid, sustainable expansion. Employment is up 4.4 million and real GDP growth has averaged 4%--or twice the OECD average--since 2003. Today's unemployment rate of 5% means there are now roughly one million more Americans working than were projected before the tax cut.
• Oh, and yes, there was a $120 billion reduction in the budget deficit in 2005. That's because tax receipts rose by more than in any previous year in U.S. history, even adjusting for inflation. Receipts were up by $55 billion above projections in 2004; $122 billion above projections in 2005; and are already running well ahead of projections so far in fiscal 2006 (which began in October).
• Finally, we wonder if any of the faux debt-hawks in Congress noticed that thanks to the sizzling economy, states and localities are now running hefty budget surpluses, reversing years of red ink and painful service cutbacks. Even New York City--which for years looked like the U.S. version of debt-plagued Argentina--is back in the black.

House Republicans will scrape for every last vote today to get the 218 needed to prevent the reversal of this resounding tax-policy success. They need almost every Republican vote because the Democratic Party of Howard Dean is reflexively against pro-growth tax policies--even when they raise revenues. Republicans can take a big step toward reversing their slide in the polls--and advertise themselves as the party of prosperity--by enthusiastically distancing themselves from that bankrupt economic philosophy.

Utah (and Mormons) Not Good For Business?

Interesting article on the perception of Utah to the outside world. In a 150+ years of Utah history it still seems that Utah can't overcome its perception of being unaccepting of the "gentile" world. Is this an inditement on the "Utah Mormons" or is this another attempt to paint the LDS population as unfamilar and "weird"?

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635167177,00.html

Declaration of War...

I had a friend ask me the other day if I believed Iraq was a necessary war, knowing what we know now. I fumbled around with about 5 different answers to try and look smart... I finally had to get to the point where I had to say... "I just don't have a freakin' clue."

Now that I have thought about it for a while, I would like to pose a different question that should get us to the point where we can truly understand Iraq in the proper context. Who is our enemy? No one in the mass media or political arena is answering that question. Is it Iraq? No. Is it Afghanistan? No. Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? None of these countries are our enemy. Our government has decided to call our enemy "Terror." That is gay. Every time I hear the "War on Terror" I cringe. We aren't fighting terror people.. you can't fight a VERB. We are fighting real people, with a real agenda and a real belief system. Who is our enemy? Radical Islam.

The comparisons many have made to the Nazis and to the Communists is valid. These organizations were also champions of a belief system. The only difference was that they were successful in taking over a country, and in the case of the Soviet Union, several countries. Now, if we were able to go back in time and stop these yahoos from taking over these countries.. would we? I hope that question is rhetorical. That is exactly what we are up against. Radical Islam has the same agenda that the Communists and the Nazis had... world domination. Everyone should bow down to their belief system. If they do not, they are killed. Period. Anyone who is not them, must die.

So, what are we doing in the Middle East? I believe we are stopping the spread of Radical Islam. The point is to stop them before they take over more countries. Saddam Hussein was a tool for the radical Islamic movement. He used his dictorial power to fight the common enemy of the western world. He was a threat to the spreading of Radical Islam.. our ENEMY. Now to answer my friend. Was the war necessary knowing what we know now? Yes. We must destroy the spread of radical Islam, and the rule of Saddam Hussein was a defining blow to their stranglehold on that region.

I can only pray that some of those who have a media and political voice will stand up and demand that our government declares war on our enemy. In the 1930's they would have declared war on the Nazis, not Germany. In the 1950's they would have declared war on the Communists, not Korea or North Vietnam. In the dawning of the new millennium we will declare war on Radical Islam, before they have more countries to defend.

Supply-Siders Rejoice

Just a few examples that tax cuts (for the wealthy, according to Kerry and his ilk) actually benfit the overall economy.

Supply-Siders Rejoice!!

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007650

Wes Clark's Take

I saw a link on the BYU Dem's site to an op-ed piece by Gen. Wes Clark. He is in Qatar right now. I think he is right, we cannot simply use force to win in Iraq, the more insurgents we kill, the more show up, like roaches in a New York City apartment. He doesn't simply call for a reduction in troops like most dems, he wants to keep them there but use them better. It is a good article, read it.

BYU College Democrats

I thought this was an oxymoron, but the club exists...here

Do you think they get a really hard time at school? Who has the guts to join this club at the Y? If you are a dem in provo, I thought you would have to be a closet dem; but maybe I am wrong, I don't live there, so I don't know.

Armey's Axioms on Limited Government

Limited Government, lower taxes, Individual Responsibility, all principles in the traditional text book ideal of the Republican Party, to which recently, it has strayed. Armey makes clear points as to the state of the union, as it were, of the GOP and how it may be able to get back to its core principles. His advocacy group http://www.freedomworks.org/ is dedicated to these principles. We must return to these ideals, regardless of which party is able to bring them to pass.

Thoughts...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007632

A look to the future

A look to the future on Conan O’Brien

"The federal deficit will be paid off in full by a generous grant from the Oscar Mayer Corporation. In return, the national motto will be changed from 'In God We Trust' to 'Ooh, Lord Almighty, That One Tasty Weiner.'" "After attending a Celine Dion concert, Vice President Dick Cheney will change his mind and come out against torture."

Romney to the GOP's Rescue

Editorial with a slant. Romney may just be what the GOP needs in 2008.
Talk it over...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/04/romney_to_the_rescue_of_the_gop/

Romney's Health Care Plan

For one on the cusp of running for the presidency, this plan leans toward the center, although it has critics on both sides of the aisle. It is more in line with current republican trends in government than the traditional view of smaller government. Employing government spending while adhering to market forces. It could work, or it could just be another failed government program. Time will tell.

Discuss...


http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1137628,00.html

Go For it Mitt, Just Run!

A new campaign slogan for our precious Mitt -- Just Run! -- The suspense is killing me.

Another article:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/5441748/detail.html

Mormons in the Fray and other friends of family

Take a look at these two websites. One is Mormon and one is not but both have great causes and will be getting some of my precious donation dough this year.

http://www.familyleader.net/Home/dispatch?action=home

This one in particular has peaked my attention and have already signed up with them this year.
http://www.legacyleader.com/ln/

Look at the article section and read up on the ongoing initiatives. In particular is the "The End of Marriage in Scandanavia". Europe is in a dangerous downward spiral in all things moral. At what point does the Church pull out of Europe and bring the Saints home?

In my opinion there must come a time when it is worse for the Saints to be in such a secular society and when the Church must call them to "Zion". In this age of commuincation we can be "a light set on a hill" without a physical presence in a certain area. Using the same logic we can also be "in the world" without having all the negative spiritual side effects of such an immoral society.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope that in the upcoming year we can perhaps have some contact with these folks at legacy and maybe get a couple of their contributions on our blog.

Daily Show

In case you didn't see the daily show, there is a great clip from I think last night's show. Jon Stewart is the real deal, I really enjoy seeing him go after everyone, I think he says what a lot of us are thinking.