Political

Just got done watching the final presidential debate. I have been fairly non-political in past years because of disillusionment in the government. However, as a democratic republic, we, as citizens have the responsibility to be involved in our own governance. So here I go.

Barack Obama creeps me out. Watching him tonight I thought of my ex-husband, who studies communication tactics and carefully shapes his image. He had the same bird-like tilt to his head with excessive eye blinking and measured responses that I have come to associate with a dishonesty so deep that the individual doing it believes the lies himself. Your assent to his duplicity is presumed and no defense is needed. Call it charisma if you like; I call it manipulation.

People who are chronically dishonest know how to mince words and shade terms to subvert truth without being able to be caught in an outright lie; the masters of truth by technicality. It is this technical approach to truth that allows them to accept their own dishonesty. Enough about my ex, let's get back to the debate.

Obama appeals incessantly to the middle class, which he defines as people making up to $250K (per anum, I presume--wouldn't that be nice). It's all about what he is going to do for us. We have the highest number of votes, after all. 5% of the population makes 95% of the money, so although the 5% has the power of money, we the 95% have the power of politics. Is it moral for the majority vote to exercise power over the economic majority and require that their economy trickle down to us?

It could be argued that the rich have become such because of the labor and spending of us, the middle class--one big Wal-Mart, millions of itty-bitty us 88 cents at a time. Shouldn't there be a success tax where they give us regular bonuses and kickbacks for helping them become what they are?

Maybe we shop there because the lower cost is our kickback. But that comes at the price of putting the neighborhood country mart out of business so we don't get as many choices as we might like. That is the model of the free market economy. Obama doesn't like the free market. He wants to impose order to it.

The BIG problem with social justice is that it is conceived and administered by government. The redistribution of wealth, known as socialism, though noble as an ideal, has been proven century after century as unadministerable. Why? Because of human greed and government corruption. We complain again and again about corruption in government. We see the "public servants" taking entitlements and self-aggrandizing as a rule rather than an exception, and we expect them to take the money we, the middle class, "deserve" and use it wisely for our benefit? PU! LEEEEASE!!

Pause here and come back later if you need to.

I am a republican because, as a rule, the party leans toward limiting government programs, supporting private initiative for social improvement, and advocating the rights of the local governments and businesses to determine how best to govern themselves.

My party preference is also because I wholeheartedly believe that government CAN legislate morality and has for years (as in Thou shalt not kill translates into a prison or death sentance for those who do). Amorality is lawlessness. Without conservative values the fabric of society decays, crime increases, and our personal security is lost. The good of society must be balanced with the good of the individual. The individual may not want to deliver an unplanned baby, but if society condones foeticide then life itself loses value and killing becomes rational, if only by a small degree.

As far as the redistribution of wealth, God has clearly revealed in the scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that all flesh is equal and that Zion is where there are no poor because everyone is to give all that they have, and then receive back what they need. The distribution is administered by the bishops of the church (who are not elected or appointed, but called of God). This has been successfully executed for brief periods of time in scripture, but has ultimately failed because of greed and pride among the members. The only way for it to succeed is to have God himself preside over it with his incorruptible justice, mercy, and love. This will happen when He reigns on earth for a thousand years of peace. God will not demand contribution or seize assets by legislation or force. He requires the heart and a willing mind. Those who are allowed to live on the earth during his reign will be those who love their neighbor as themselves; who are not willing to live in comfort when another struggles for survival.

Redistribution of wealth can only be done on a voluntary, individual basis when overseen by God. It is absolutely impossible to do otherwise. Those socialists who have no faith in God must be commended for acknowledging the need for human equality and for hoping for an ideal, but there will always be the one leader who wants power and wealth for himself who will destroy the hope of the many and subject them to his will. God must be the moral compass and giver of inalienable human rights or man will always be subject to the injustice of man.

Thank you for getting this far (even if you did mindlessly skim a bit).