Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea Party

Image by ajagendorf25 via Flickr

Anyone who has followed my blog for any length of time knows that I am a Tea Party girl. However, one cannot ignore this Occupy Wall Street movement that is the Left’s equivalent of the Tea Party. When the Tea Party first started growing the Left tried their inane beverage parties as if the people joining the movement were all enamored and obsessed with tea or something. You had the Coffee Party, there was a Beer Party and I am sure if  you looked hard enough you could’ve found a Diet Fanta party for anorexic Hispanics or some other such nonsense. 
         With the failure of those parties, they finally hit upon an idea-re-create Woodstock with its sex, drugs and non-existent bathing and boom the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement was born. OWS is basically Woodstock on speed. There is a vast difference between the two movements and it can best be summed up in this “photo” I recieved in my email:

 There is a reason the two parties cannot get along besides the whole  rape thing. The reason is because the two movements fundamentally disagree on how this country should be. The tea party thinks people should be responsible for creating and carrying out their own destiny. While the OWS group thinks government should be involved every time you take a breath.  While the government does a role in the lives of its citizens it is not supposed to be a nanny. The purpose of government is to protect its citizens and provide infrastructure to society in order that its citizens can then live their lives according to their own beliefs and ideals. So long as those ideals don’t cause undue harm to others.

The only thing these two movements have in common are that they are both grassroots based. Beyond that, the movements are like night and day. The Tea Party wants to reign in the government and hold them accountable for their actions. The OWS blames Wall Street for the woes the nation is facing while they are carrying around laptops,  IPODs and wearing FUBU. It is pretty clear they have no understanding of what they are fighting, whereas the Tea Party is very clear in what it wants to see take place. Ask anyone at a Tea Party about the Constitution and they will most likely whip out their own little pocket copy. People at a Tea Party have an understanding of what the Constitution and why it should be followed. The OWS crowd seems far less educated about their own cause. Which only makes them look foolish.

What is worse is the government is actually behind this movement. You have both Obama and Nancy Pelosi encouraging and supporting the protesters. Rule number one of a protest: Never have the government back your cause! No protester worth their salt would ever have the government endorse them! I know you OWS people dropped a lot of acid during Woodstock but even with your limited brain cells left you must at least remember that from your protest days!

In closing, all I can say is if it comes down to a showdown between the Tea Party and the OWS crowd  you better hope and pray the Tea Party wins or else you won’t have a country, job or freedom left.

A Mormon Presidency

Image via Wikipedia

Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Harry Reid-what do these men have in common, they are all Mormons. However, in my opinion, they do not represent Mormons nor the American people very well, (with the exception of John Huntsman just because I don’t know his views very well) instead they seem more concerned with appeasing the Left instead of doing what is Right. To be fair, people have a right to know how one’s religion will impact the decisions a politician makes. I know I would not go out endorsing a candidate who professed to be a Satanist because those beliefs are incompatible with my notions of liberty and responsibility. [Satanists focus solely on  “freedom” and have little use for responsibility or helping those in need.] So what would a Mormon presidency (by a real Mormon and not one who sets aside their beliefs when convenient.) look like?

1. We are all about “restoring” things. We also have a profound respect for the Constitution of the United States and so would work on restoring the Constitutional republic of this land. Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve, in February of 1992 wrote about the
“Divinely Inspired Constitution.”

The success of the [Constitutional] convention was attributable in large part to the remarkable intelligence, wisdom, and unselfishness of the delegates. As James Madison wrote in the preface to his notes on the Constitutional Convention:

“There never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them.”⁴ Truly, the U.S. Constitution was established “by the hands of wise men whom [the Lord] raised up unto this very purpose.” (D&C 101:80.).

By the same token, we are not blinded by such devotion that we see the Constitution as a perfect document in need of no change whatsoever as illustrated by this quote by Reuben J. Clark, “who referred to the Constitution as “part of my religion,”⁶ also said that it was not part of his belief or the doctrine of the Church that the Constitution was a “fully grown document.” “On the contrary,” he said, “We believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.”^7.  Even when changes are clearly needed as they were in the days of slavery and Jim Crow laws one does not need to change the totality of the document or the central message of the Constitution to do so. These things can remain affixed and should be considered the starting point of which to derive more just laws.
By having a Mormon in the White House, you would have someone with a great love for the U.S. Constitution and would not seek out to destroy it. People’s liberties would be far more protected with a Mormon in the office than they have been with our current Muslim president. There would be no stomping over the rights of the people by executive order with a Mormon in office.

 2. Families would be made a priority. An important part of the Plan of Salvation involves the creation and the maintaining of families, laws that hinder that would not be allowed to stand. As we have seen through Proposition 8, Mormons are willing to stand up for traditional marriage publicly as well as privately. “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” by Gordon B. Hinckley had this to say about the importance of family, especially both mothers and fathers:

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

It is because families are eternal that we value them above all else except God. We spend our time in temples connecting family members one to another. We seek out the past with full knowledge that our salvation is very much dependent on the salvation of our ancestors. Like the Marines, we leave no man behind. With a Mormon in the office of the President, you would see the uplifting of families not the tearing down.

3. Charity. While most people associate charity with the giving of money to the poor and/or needy, ask any Mormon and they will tell you that true charity is the pure love of Christ. We believe we are to be charitable to others in order to exemplify that pure love of Christ that was freely given to all when he was on Earth. As a member of the church, we are called to be charitable and we give not only to the Church’s humanitarian aid but to other charities as well. However, anyone can give money. What is more important is giving time. If you were in the hospital and someone sent you some money while you were in there-would that do you any good? Probably not, you are confined to a hospital bed what are you going to do with money? However, if someone came in to visit you, talked to you, helped you eat if you were unable to do it yourself, wouldn’t that be far more charitable? When you left the hospital what would you remember the money you received or the visit? When people equate charity with money it totally undermines and undervalues the true meaning of charity. With a Mormon in the presidency there would be more of a focus on charity, helping those in need in order so they can become self-reliant. The Economist wrote an article dealing the LDS Welfare system, here is the link for the article, http://www.economist.com/node/988818

It concludes by saying: The Mormon welfare system shows how comprehensive church-run social services can be. Unfortunately, it does not support Mr Bush’s belief that federal tax breaks will unleash a wave of such projects. When the president announced his programme, the church authorities were polite, wished him well—and said they wanted nothing to do with it. The system runs because Mormons give up time and money. Tax breaks will make no difference to that—but they may, the church fears, enmesh the welfare system in a tangle of government restrictions.

A Mormon president would revamp the welfare system in this country and would help people become more self-reliant. A Mormon president would understand it would take more than money to solve problems  especially when it comes to those who find themselves in some serious dire straits. The mission of the LDS church is four-fold

1) Perfect the Saints 2) Redeem the Dead 3) Proclaim the Gospel and 4) Help the poor and needy. Because this is seen as our mission, a Mormon president would not shirk from it and would help devise a welfare plan in such a way that it would actually benefit those who needed it and not continue to enable their dependency.

These are just a few of the things that would take place in a Mormon presidency and from what I can see this country would be better off under a Mormon president than it has been under any other for a long while now. The only “Mormon Question” I see is, “Why wouldn’t you have a Mormon president?” And while I truly do wish to have a Mormon president, I do not believe Mitt Romney is that candidate. Personally, I think Dena Leichnitz would be a much better pick. LOL

Related articles

• The Mormon Thing (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Mitt Romney and the “Mormon Question” (themoderatevoice.com)
• Despite Divide, Evangelicals Could Support A Mormon (npr.org)