Is the right CHANGE coming?

I know there are a lot of well meaning people in America, but please know that socialism in any form is not the way.  I need to tread lightly here because even one of my dearest friends considers himself a Mormon Socialist. He knows how I feel about this topic so he's not hearing anything new from me. 

In my insignificant opinion, America needs to start owning up to its own problems.  I listened to the Presidential debate last night and got so frustrated at the bickering.  I'm sick of hearing all of the wining, blaming, crying and fussing.  This vote is coming down to who can point the finger the best.  The only finger I wanted to see was the one I saw a Utah State fan give to the BYU faithful on live TV last weekend.  

I was actually wanting to see Tom Brokaw take control and do what we do at our house.  When two of the kids are fighting, we tell both of them to sit against the wall until they're done fussing.  Would any one else have appreciated that?  Both Obama and McCain sitting against the wall on live TV until they were ready to come clean.

There's no doubt that I'll vote for McCain but not because that's how I wanted it.  Some of his personal choices really bother me.  Unfortunately, unless the change I want comes to Washington, I'm really scared that Obama's change is what I'm going to get.  See the images below.  I'll admit they seem a little drastic now but watch out for the first step of a darkened stairwell... it's a loo loo.

I probably wouldn't be so earnest about this unless I had spent time in Eastern Europe where they had seen their fair share of socialist behavior.  I love those people dearly but it was painful for me to see some of them express their gratefulness for their freedom, but then admit their regret that they still want their check from the government.   

I get even more frustrated when I hear comparisons of Socialism to the United Order.  It's definitely a topic for discussion but there are a couple of big difference that separates the two, CHARITY and LOVE.  You can't force charity on someone.  One way to define 'Charity' is that it's one person willingness to give what he has for the benefit of another.  Charity can not be forced or regulated.  In a free market, people will eventually do what they LOVE, not love what they're forced to do.

Regardless of all my negativity above, here's a positive thought.  I'm still an American.  I'm still in America, I've never wanted to be anywhere else.  I'll vacation anywhere but my roots are here.  I believe there are still good people out there.  

My hope for the next four years is that fewer people will stop blaming Bush for all their problems and look even more at their own decisions.  I even hope they won't blame Obama.  If I have the audacity to hope, I will then hope they they don't blame McCain.  I hope they'll starting owning up to their own problems and not blame the government.  The government is the people's puppet.  You can talk to Yoda all you want, but it's still Frank Oz acting it out.  They do want we tell them by how we vote.  The unfortunate thing is that the problems we have right now are because of everything we did, not them.  We the people...

Alright, I'm done ranting.

Wait... one more thing... ah nah... forget it.

Ezra Taft Benson said a lot of good things about the proper role of government... enjoy.  Go to the link and read the whole thing.  Below is just a short part of it.

http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html

The Proper Role of Government by The Honorable Ezra Taft Benson

Former Secretary of Agriculture [The Eisenhower Administration - ed.] Published in 1968

But What About The Needy?

On the surface this may sound heartless and insensitive to the needs of those less fortunate individuals who are found in any society, no matter how affluent. "What about the lame, the sick and the destitute? Is an often-voice question. Most other countries in the world have attempted to use the power of government to meet this need. Yet, in every case, the improvement has been marginal at best and has resulted in the long run creating more misery, more poverty, and certainly less freedom than when government first stepped in. As Henry Grady Weaver wrote, in his excellent book, THE MAINSPRING OF HUMAN PROGRESS:

"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own....THE HARM DONE BE ORDINARY CRIMINALS, MURDERES, GANGSTERS, AND THIEVES IS NEGLIGIBLE IN COMPARISON WITH THE AGONY INFLICTED UPON HUMAN BEINGS BY THE PROFESSIONAL 'DO-GOODERS', who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means." (p. 40-1; P.P.N.S., p. 313)

The Better Way

By comparison, America traditionally has followed Jefferson's advice of relying on individual action and charity. The result is that the United States has fewer cases of genuine hardship per capita than any other country in the entire world or throughout all history. Even during the depression of the 1930's, Americans ate and lived better than most people in other countries do today.

What Is Wrong With A "Little" Socialism?

In reply to the argument that a little bit of socialism is good so long as it doesn't go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion, just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right, too! History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that this time around, the trend can be reversed. If not then we will see the inevitability of complete socialism, probably within our lifetime.

Three Reasons Americans Need Not Fall For Socialist Deceptions

Three factors may make a difference. First, there is sufficient historical knowledge of the failures of socialism and of the past mistakes of previous civilizations. Secondly, there are modern means of rapid communications to transmit these lessons of history to a large literate population. And thirdly, there is a growing number of dedicated men and women who, at great personal sacrifice, are actively working to promote a wider appreciation of these concepted men and women who, at great personal sacrifice, are actively working to promote a wider appreciation of these concepts. The timely joining together of these three factors may make it entirely possible for us to reverse the trend.

How Can Present Socialistic Trends Be Reversed?

This brings up the next question: How is it possible to cut out the various welfare-state features of our government which have already fastened themselves like cancer cells onto the body politic? Isn't drastic surgery already necessary, and can it be performed without endangering the patient? In answer, it is obvious that drastic measures ARE called for. No half-way or compromise actions will suffice. Like all surgery, it will not be without discomfort and perhaps even some scar tissue for a long time to come. But it must be done if the patient is to be saved, and it can be done without undue risk.

Obviously, not all welfare-state programs currently in force can be dropped simultaneously without causing tremendous economic and social upheaval. To try to do so would be like finding oneself at the controls of a hijacked airplane and attempting to return it by simply cutting off the engines in flight. It must be flown back, flown back, lowered in altitude, gradually reduced in speed and brought in for a smooth landing. Translated into practical terms, this means that the first step toward restoring the limited concept of government should be to freeze all welfare-state programs at their present level, making sure that no new ones are added. The next step would be to allow all present programs to run out their term with absolutely no renewal. The third step would involve the gradual phasing-out of those programs which are indefinite in their term. In my opinion, the bulk of the transition could be accomplished within a ten-year period and virtually completed within twenty years. Congress would serve as the initiator of this phase-out program, and the President would act as the executive in accordance with traditional constitutional procedures.