New Government For Australia

[onyx]

Hello to everyone around the globe.

Our Federal election has taken place.

The previous Liberal goverment has been replaced.

We now have a new leader here in Australia - Kevin Rudd.

For anyone who is interested in Australian current events, check out these hyperlinks:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22813...ml?from=mostpop

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22816926-29277,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22817...5012863,00.html

http://www.alp.org.au/

Onyx

[Palerider]

I hope as a country all of you are very happy with your choice..... :)

[Elphaba]

Hello to everyone around the globe.

Our Federal election has taken place.

The previous Liberal goverment has been replaced.

We now have a new leader here in Australia - Kevin Rudd.

For anyone who is interested in Australian current events, check out these hyperlinks:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22813...ml?from=mostpop

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22816926-29277,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22817...5012863,00.html

http://www.alp.org.au/

Hi Onyx,

It's my understanding that the "Liberal" party is actually the equipvalent of our "Conservative" party. In other words, Howard was a conservative, and Rudd is what we in America would actually call a liberal. Is that true?

Also, I understand Rudd promises to remove most of the Australian troops from Iraq, and to sign the Kyoto Treaty. Can you confirm that as well? Or am I totally misunderstanding your politics?

Thanks,

Elphaba

[onyx]

Correct Elphaba:

Quote:

“Rudd's left-of-centre Labour Party has pledged to withdraw Australia's combat troops from Iraq and sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Rudd has promised to personally represent Australia at a UN climate change meeting of environment ministers next month in Bali to discuss the how to tackle climate change after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. On Iraq, Labour will withdraw Australia's small but politically significant contingent of 550 combat troops.

But the drawdown will be gradual and conducted in consultation with the Americans, in a manner designed to cause President George W Bush the least embarrassment.

Another 1000 military personnel, including navy warships in the Persian Gulf and a diplomatic protection contingent in Baghdad, would remain.

The man likely to become Labour's foreign minister offered words of assurance to Washington. "Labour is not calling for a precipitous overnight withdrawal, and we are certainly not going to leave our American mates in the lurch," said Robert McClelland.

Further softening the blow for the Americans is Rudd's commitment to maintain Australia's troops in Afghanistan, and perhaps even to increase the numbers.”

http://www.sundayherald.com/international/...1857686.0.0.php

As for the comparison between the Australian Labour party and the American Liberal party, I cannot comment Elphie because I do not know the platform, intricacies and workings of your Liberal Party.

Best I can do is refer you to the ALP website and you can draw your own conclusions:

http://www.alp.org.au/

Onyx

[Palerider]

Liberals here.....raise taxes........LOL!!!!!

[Josie]

I hope things go well with your new government leadership, Onyx. Wish you nothing but the best.

[onyx]

I hope things go well with your new government leadership, Onyx. Wish you nothing but the best.

Hey thanks Josie!

There are certainly some changes looming.

Onyx

[Acez]

Kevin Rudd may finally realize that making Australia a state of New Zealand would be the best

[Palerider]

Kevin Rudd may finally realize that making Australia a state of New Zealand would be the best

[Moksha]

Will we eventually be the only country stuck in Iraq without the sense to leave?

[AnthonyB]

Labor's election had very little to do with foreign policy. The US alliance was started by John Curtin (Australia's WW2 prime minister) who is revered by most in the Labor party. You'll probably find that the combat troops will slowly be pulled out of Iraq but around the same time our troop levels in Afghanistan will rise an almost equal amount. (So as to free US troops to be moved to Iraq to replace our ones.)

As for Kyoto, we will ratify, but it won't mean much cause we got a really "cushie" deal in the first place. It wouldn't take a lot for us to make the Kyoto agreed levels because we weren't asked to do much anyway.

I've had the impression that most LDS are slightly right leaning. But to the rest of the world the US in general is slightly right leaning. Are LDS generally more right leaning then the US in general?

The Aussie Liberal party introduced tough gun restrictions, supported a universal public health system, universal national pharmecutical benefits scheme for perscriptions, no interest in reintroducing death penalty.

The Aussie Labor party is committed to maintaining federal funding of private schools, the US alliance and the war on terror (just not in Iraq), actually began the internment of unauthorized refugees, and has promised not to sign a replacement to Kyoto unless the developing countries are included somehow.

As for Australia becoming part of NZ, given the current and increasing imbalance, I think the figure last year was around 40K Kiwi's crossed the Tasman, and that nearly 10% of population are already living here, I think the reverse is more likely.

As the saying goes...

God loves NZ he gave us boiling mud,

God loves NZ he put Australia close,

Cause you can't live in boiling mud.

BTW Go the Opals!!!!

Anyhow do LDS in australia support look favourably on any of the Christian parties?? (For PC the AOG's here even have their own party called "Family First")

[Brother Dorsey]

Liberals here.....raise taxes........LOL!!!!!

Yeah and Hillary's idea of getting a hold of unemployment is creating alot of government jobs...ALOT of government jobs to the point of everyone having a government job...and therefore everyone having government sponsored health care and education and pensions etc.....under Hillary's leadership we might even change our countries name to the Union of American Socialists Republic! Har Har.

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

Liberals here.....raise taxes........LOL!!!!!

Yeah and Hillary's idea of getting a hold of unemployment is creating alot of government jobs...ALOT of government jobs to the point of everyone having a government job...and therefore everyone having government sponsored health care and education and pensions etc.....under Hillary's leadership we might even change our countries name to the Union of American Socialists Republic! Har Har.

you mean she revealed a Plan????.....I have yet to hear her give any sort of a plan or answer any questions.........

[sgallan]

FWIW Onyx.... the last election in the United States had a similar sort of change. It is looking like that change may be solidified and perhaps even include the Presidency (though that one is a tougher to call). I think it is one of those things where one party has the power for any amount of time, they tend to lose themselves in that power, and the voters tend to tire of them, and change direction.

[prisonchaplain]

For the non-US folk, we have only two major parties in the United States. Typically, the Republicans have curried favor with the Religious Right--opposing legalized abortion, pornography, homosexual marriage, etc. The Religious Left has favored Democrats--social programs for the poor, favors for ethnic minorities, environmental concerns, etc.

While there are miniscule third parties, most interest-groups, including religious ones, must lobby the major parties and politicians to address their concerns.

Religious parties may work in multi-party political systems, but I would not be favorable to a specifically Christian party in the U.S. Power does corrupt, and it's too easy for non-Christians to conflate our politics with our gospel message.

[Acez]

As for Australia becoming part of NZ, given the current and increasing imbalance, I think the figure last year was around 40K Kiwi's crossed the Tasman, and that nearly 10% of population are already living here, I think the reverse is more likely.

Maybe Maybe.... but the real reason why we go to Australia is best given by the 1980's Prime Minister of New Zealand Robert Muldoon. When asked about the Exodus of New Zealander's going to Australia, he replied " that by doing so, they were raising the average IQ of both countries."

Acez

[AnthonyB]

<div class='quotemain'>

As for Australia becoming part of NZ, given the current and increasing imbalance, I think the figure last year was around 40K Kiwi's crossed the Tasman, and that nearly 10% of population are already living here, I think the reverse is more likely.

Maybe Maybe.... but the real reason why we go to Australia is best given by the 1980's Prime Minister of New Zealand Robert Muldoon. When asked about the Exodus of New Zealander's going to Australia, he replied " that by doing so, they were raising the average IQ of both countries."

Acez

Be re-assured as an original member of the "coalition of the willing", when we invade it will be a "preemptive strike" to ensure Fiji doesn't invade you first. I'm sure your hidding WMD in Rotarua, just no one can smell them!

Have you seen the Chappell/Hadlee trophy, have they used the image of Trevor and his unique bowling style.

[Ray A]

Give Rudd time and he'll destroy the economy like all Labor politicians before him have done. They left a $96 billion budget deficit in 1996, which the Liberals turned into a surplus. Now watch us go back to more debt. Aboriginal compensation is on the way, to kick the ball rolling.

[a-train]

Nice Australia! Now YOU have a George Bush in the White House too!

It is a shame that socialism is taking over everywhere. You can expect more government intervention in Australia as Rudd supports his country following suit with the whole world marching into globalization. He is critical of free markets and wants to hand Australian foreign policy directly over to the UN and the U.S. He wants to bring combat troops out of Iraq and replace them with border patrol troops (Wow huge difference, they're totally going to be safer as border gaurds. Breathe easy Australia, your boys are fine.).

The only nations left on earth that are strong nationalists are called 'rogue states', 'an axis of evil', 'sponsors of terrorism', etc.

This is the path to one world government and so few seem to notice.

-a-train

[a-train]

I've had the impression that most LDS are slightly right leaning. But to the rest of the world the US in general is slightly right leaning. Are LDS generally more right leaning then the US in general?

For those unaquanted with this chart, the lower one goes, the bigger government gets until the very bottom which would be absolute totalitarianism in all things. The very top point would actually be no government. Hitler would stand in the right of the lower Statist field while Stalin would almost touch the zero. Ralph Nader is deep into the left if I understand his policies, Bill Clinton is far left Centrist.

I think most of America stands in that Centrist square. Most U.S. Mormons are somewhere on the right of the Centrist square, perhaps almost the North East corner. Bush is about touching the South East corner of the Centrist square. The Mormons were originally up north in the Libertarian field. But today, most Mormons in the U.S. are relatively unaware of that. I think most Mormons today think Joseph Smith would be standing next to Bush on this chart. The reality is that Joseph Smith stood deep into libertarian territory. In fact America as a whole started out up there and has ever drifted toward bigger government.

What is funny is that libertarian Mormons are accused by their fellow Mormons as being both left-wing and right-wing at the same time. I think many Mormons (and Americans) see a political spectrum that only moves right and left, not a field that also moves up and down.

I think most of the world is more south than the average U.S. person. I think the U.S. government is more south than the average U.S. person. I think almost all Americans want to see our government spending go down and the scope and bureaucracy of our government reduced along with its control over our lives. That would be a move toward libertarianism.

Unfortunately, strong and fast moves toward totalitarianism is what we are seeing all over the world and in the U.S.. Both the Republican and Democrat parties in the U.S. are proposing increases in taxes, government programs, and controls. I personally am somewhere close to that dot, deep in libertarian territory.

-a-train

[Ray A]

I think most of the world is more south than the average U.S. person. I think the U.S. government is more south than the average U.S. person. I think almost all Americans want to see our government spending go down and the scope and bureaucracy of our government reduced along with its control over our lives. That would be a move toward libertarianism.

Unfortunately, strong and fast moves toward totalitarianism is what we are seeing all over the world and in the U.S.. Both the Republican and Democrat parties in the U.S. are proposing increases in taxes, government programs, and controls. I personally am somewhere close to that dot, deep in libertarian territory.

-a-train

The beliefs of the Liberal Party of Australia are outlined as follows:

We believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative.

We believe in government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor's corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.

We believe in those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy - the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.

We believe in a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained.

We believe in equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.

We believe that, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals - not government - are the true creators of wealth and employment.

We believe in preserving Australia's natural beauty and the environment for future generations.

We believe that our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations.

The problem with Left or Left-leaning governments is that they seek to control thought, and freedoms, in the name of the "common good". "WE shall decide what's best for society, and WE shall enforce it". Punitive actions apply to the resistants.

Labor gives preferences to the Greens over the Liberals, and if the Greens ever got into power, fishing would be outlawed, and beaches would be preserved as "pristine sanctuaries". You would only be allowed to sell and buy recycled toilet paper.

[a-train]

The problem with Left or Left-leaning governments is that they seek to control thought, and freedoms, in the name of the "common good". "WE shall decide what's best for society, and WE shall enforce it". Punitive actions apply to the resistants.

Labor gives preferences to the Greens over the Liberals, and if the Greens ever got into power, fishing would be outlawed, and beaches would be preserved as "pristine sanctuaries". You would only be allowed to sell and buy recycled toilet paper.

The trouble is that left vs. right really doesn't matter as much as up vs. down. We could trade government control over marriage on the right for government control over healthcare on the left. We could trade government control over what one can say on television on the right for government gontrol over fishing on the left.

What is even worse is when there isn't even a trade, but we get government control over all of it. That would be a movement to the center and down. That is the direction that the whole planet is going. We are bouncing like a ping-pong ball from side to side as we get closer and closer to the bottom. And what is at that point at the bottom? The United Nations.

The U.N. wants to tell every last person on this planet what they can and cannot do, believe, say, buy, sell, produce, read, write, etc., etc., etc. Why do they want that? Because they think that if they control everything, that they can secure peace, prosperity, health, and happiness for all.

This is why libertarians are misunderstood by those who cannot see the up-down movement. A libertarian who does not support government control of healthcare is viewed as being right-wing and called a hater of the uninsured. The same libertarian who doesn't want to see government control of marriage is considered left wing and a hater of the family. People do not see the up and down, the movement from liberty to statism or globalism.

I think if the average Joe was brought to really understand the up and down and to see the powers working to take us into globalism we would see a great libertarian revival. People seem to take liberty for granted until it is being lost or it is already gone.

'We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.' (D&C 121:39)

It has always been the tendency of governors, of rulers, and kings, no matter 'left' or 'right', to preserve authority and control, and this tendency begets the desire to increase that dominion until it becomes totalitarian. Ultimately they will take on so much responsibility that it will become impossible for them to meet the task, it is at such time that either reform or failure arrives.

Those that have held on at all cost to that authority have historically paid for it with their entire kingdom. History chronicles the rise and fall of one great civilization after another. In every case it is the same. The prideful notion that leadership can fix everything is destroyed with the kingdom.

Mormons who study our history should look closely and remember the combative efforts brought against the Church as an institution and her members. Not only in this dispensation, but in every dispensation.

Many assume that all that is over and the Church is now out of the woods once and for all. They assume that in 'free countries' state, local, and even federal governmental efforts to restrict, control, and even destroy the Church and her members are a thing of the past. This is simply not true. Governors, state officials, corporate leaders, and people of all ranks and positions of authority the world over are combining to take us into global statism (if you will), or 'globalism'.

Promising peace, economic prosperity, physical health, and environmental sustainability, the globalists are asking us to give up our liberties to their cause. Some of them are on the 'right', others are on the 'left', but they all want more power and the loss of man's liberty. As these losses grow, they will continue, as they have for centuries now, to make it more and more difficult for God's children to come out of Babylon and build Zion.

Babylon, like all vices, is easy to enter but difficult to leave. Once we have lost our control or our liberty, it is difficult to regain it. Like the enticing drugs we have on the street today, they promise happiness, but only provide slavery.

So what are we to do in fighting off these efforts to ruin our liberty? Are we to seek to destroy those who promote the destruction of liberty? No. We know by both the word of the LORD and the voice of history that these aspirations will fail horribly and these plans to bring the world into peace and prosperity by the philosophies of man without regard to the Prince of Peace or our True Provider will result in nothing but disappointment and failure. Babylon will fall without a shot and great shall be the fall thereof.

So what do we do? We come out of Babylon. We stop building it. How? We start building Zion. How? Live a modest, humble, godly, lifestyle. Be a steward of your property for the LORD, not a consumer. Babylon wants to eat all the food, drink all the wine, burn all the fuel, buy, buy, buy and sell, sell, sell. She cares not for the Provider of these things, she only loves the mammon itself. Party, party, party! That's what she wants.

Look to Matthew 21:33-34. Babylon reverences not the Master nor His Son. Babylon only seeks the inheritance of the Heir and the fruit of the vineyard and she is willing to kill to take it.

What do the Babylonians say to the servants of the Master? They say the same thing their father, the devil says to the LORD's anointed: 'You have seen my kingdom and have come to take the whole of it.'

The statists, globalists, totalitarians, and despots of the world all sing that same song. Babylon thinks this is her earth, her people, her kingdom. She believes the order of the LORD is chaos, and that she can bring true order. She sees Liberty as a thief.

She is therefore an enemy to the liberty given by God and an enemy to God Himself. What must we do to defeat her? How can we escape?

We call upon our beloved fellows to come out of Babylon and partake with us the fruit of the tree of life, for the fruit of this world is all dross and the treasures corruptible.

Our weapon against the harlot is powerful and terrible. It is the greatest weapon on earth in the hands of man and the most feared and unspeakable horror hidden deep in the mind of Babylon. She does all she can to supress its proliferation, to build protective barriers against it, to vaccinate her subjects from it, to hide as deep in the rocks as possible from it. It is the spirit of the LORD, it is the word of God, it is the TRUTH.

And what shall this weapon do? If we continue in the word of the LORD and are his disciples we shall know the truth, and what will the truth do? Make us free. Truth and her child Liberty are the great and terrible fear of every despot. They were the nightmare of Hitler, the monster under Stalin's bed, and the worst enemy of the Gadiantons.

Liberty, the child of Truth, is the child the devil attempted to abort before she was born. It was the title of Liberty around which Captain Moroni's people gathered to protect their homes, their property, their people, and their religion. It is this title that we are called upon to uphold. We need not fear our enemy nor their fingers of scorn. Babylon is a house of cards and the emperor has no clothes.

We need not share the fear of Truth and Liberty that binds the subjects of Babylon. 'For God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.' (2 Tim. 1:7) It is the fear of Liberty that prevents men from leaving Babylon.

The statists claim that liberty is anarchy and the cause of war and horror. They see God's order, which he gave this earth, as chaos and dismay. They, like the angels who fell with the devil, are afraid to let men live in that order, the order of liberty, the realm of agency.

The battle between Babylon and Zion is not a battle between the 'left' and the 'right', but between the 'bottom' and the 'top'. The one city is a place of bondage and injustice, the other is a place of liberty and justice.

We Mormons need not be concerned with the phony battle between the 'left' and the 'right'. That kingdom divided against itself is not Zion.

Let us not think that Zion and her LORD is on the right fighting the left, nor on the left fighting the right. Zion is at the top, with her hands stretched heavenward, and her eye single to the glory of God. She upholds Truth and that blessed child of truth: Liberty for all.

Let us not believe that left or right governments of men can prevent the trials they falsely attribute to freedom. Our LORD has no crime prevention plan, let us not think that a government of men on either the right or left can do what not even God attempts.

Both the left and right seek to control us. Let us not be deceived. Liberty stands with none of those who attempt to control us nor should we.

-a-train

[Ray A]

The trouble is that left vs. right really doesn't matter as much as up vs. down. We could trade government control over marriage on the right for government control over healthcare on the left. We could trade government control over what one can say on television on the right for government gontrol over fishing on the left.

What is even worse is when there isn't even a trade, but we get government control over all of it. That would be a movement to the center and down. That is the direction that the whole planet is going. We are bouncing like a ping-pong ball from side to side as we get closer and closer to the bottom. And what is at that point at the bottom? The United Nations.

It then may be of interest that the Howard government often defied the UN. The Left usually don't! This is why it's practical, and important, to choose a government. Make to yourselves "friends of Mammon", and all that. Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.... We have to be intersted in what governments do, and vote in, or vote out, those we don't like.

The U.N. wants to tell every last person on this planet what they can and cannot do, believe, say, buy, sell, produce, read, write, etc., etc., etc. Why do they want that? Because they think that if they control everything, that they can secure peace, prosperity, health, and happiness for all.

Agreed.

This is why libertarians are misunderstood by those who cannot see the up-down movement. A libertarian who does not support government control of healthcare is viewed as being right-wing and called a hater of the uninsured. The same libertarian who doesn't want to see government control of marriage is considered left wing and a hater of the family. People do not see the up and down, the movement from liberty to statism or globalism.

I support universal healthcare. I don't like supporting "dole bludgers".

I think if the average Joe was brought to really understand the up and down and to see the powers working to take us into globalism we would see a great libertarian revival. People seem to take liberty for granted until it is being lost or it is already gone.

It has always been the tendency of governors, of rulers, and kings, no matter 'left' or 'right', to preserve authority and control, and this tendency begets the desire to increase that dominion until it becomes totalitarian. Ultimately they will take on so much responsibility that it will become impossible for them to meet the task, it is at such time that either reform or failure arrives.

Better the devil you know. We have to vote someone in.

Mormons who study our history should look closely and remember the combative efforts brought against the Church as an institution and her members. Not only in this dispensation, but in every dispensation.

Many assume that all that is over and the Church is now out of the woods once and for all. They assume that in 'free countries' state, local, and even federal governmental efforts to restrict, control, and even destroy the Church and her members are a thing of the past. This is simply not true. Governors, state officials, corporate leaders, and people of all ranks and positions of authority the world over are combining to take us into global statism (if you will), or 'globalism'.

I don't assume it's over. The antagonism to the Church is obvious to me, and its most bitter persecutors are those who once called themselves "members".

So what are we to do in fighting off these efforts to ruin our liberty? Are we to seek to destroy those who promote the destruction of liberty? No. We know by both the word of the LORD and the voice of history that these aspirations will fail horribly and these plans to bring the world into peace and prosperity by the philosophies of man without regard to the Prince of Peace or our True Provider will result in nothing but disappointment and failure. Babylon will fall without a shot and great shall be the fall thereof.

That's pretty obvious, already. It's called "shooting yourself in the foot".

We Mormons need not be concerned with the phony battle between the 'left' and the 'right'. That kingdom divided against itself is not Zion.

I have to be practical. Left and Right do concern me.

Let us not believe that left or right governments of men can prevent the trials they falsely attribute to freedom. Our LORD has no crime prevention plan, let us not think that a government of men on either the right or left can do what not even God attempts.

I think he does:

Section 134:

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.....

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men show respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy....

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.....

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded......

Not every one who stands for right is going to be a Mormon. Not everyone who espouses good societal laws, justice and freedom, is going to be a Mormon, nor do they need to belong to the Church in order to do so. Who do you think is going to protect freedom of religion? The Greens?

[a-train]

Perhaps you thought I was advocating some idea that we should not vote, the opposite is true.

'Universal healthcare' is a very ambiguous term to me. What exactly do you support?

We do have to vote, but we don't have to vote the devil in.

I can see nothing in D&C 134 that advocates preemptive war, or any measure by government, or anyone else for that matter, to take away liberty in the name of crime prevention. And I certainly see nothing there to the intent that God prevents unrighteousness. God has given man his agency, He has allowed even the most atrocious crimes imaginable in the mind of man to be committed. He will deal out justice on that great and terrible day at the judgment bar, but until then He intends to allow all men to choose their actions. We too can provide courts of justice and offer good judgment, but not before agency has been exercised.

Yes, government is to pass laws that make illegal the violation of individual rights. Yes, government is to arrange penalties for the violation of such laws. But NO, government is NOT empowered to predict crime and make arrests, convictions, and execute penalties before efforts or plans to commit crime have been made whether made by the citizens of the country or by the governors or citizens of foreign lands.

Further, government not only does not possess sufficient foreknowledge to prevent crime through legislation that outlaws the materials it sees as necessary to commit crime, but it also has proven itself powerless to control the trade of many of such materials and enforce their ban. Indeed, it has proven difficult, if not impossible, to prevent men from obtaining the materials of the earth which God has given us.

This is especially problematic when government seeks to enforce such a ban within a foreign country through sanctions or even military action. This foreign policy, which truthfully is an intervention in foreign internal affairs, is far from constitutional or diplomatic.

For example, bombing foreign nations simply because of their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is ridiculous. This is akin to murdering a man who attempts to build a gun. But that is not a good analogy, because that is not what is happening.

The truth is even worse. We are, by the very murderous means to which we pretend to object, forbidding a nation's self-sufficience by the production of its own nuclear power on the premise of an accusation of ulterior motive. So a better analogy is bombing a farmer's barn because it contains fertilizer and diesel fuel which can be used to produce an explosive device. Then, after we do so, we wish to sell him wheat.

In the case of Iran, the murderous dictator, who the U.S. and the U.K. supported in the overthrow of what little democracy existed, was not only given approval, but help in establishing a nuclear powered Iran. After years of dominant oppresion and horrible violations against human rights, the U.S. backed tyrant was overthrown by his own people (again). Then the new more democratic Iran faced sanctions from the west and an invasion from Iraq (backed by the U.S. and the U.K.). To this day they are forbidden by foreign powers the same renewable energy source the west sought to give them through their tyrannical muderous dictator.

And today, while our government and media cannot cease the preaching of fear of Iran and the demonization of her leaders, the energy trouble of Iran is well on its way to an energy crisis. While a U.S. presidential candidate rewords the famous Beach Boys song and sings 'Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran' to the laughter of his constituency while internationally visible on the internet, our fellow beings in Iran live with the fear of an invasion from western military forces as they go to work and take their children to school while facing the effects of sanctions against their nation and the possibility of a coming catastrophic energy crisis.

The idealogical flaw in this preemptive foreign policy is either the notion that we have the capability to read minds, or the notion that through the aggressive taking away of the sovereignty of a nation we can prevent them from commiting acts of aggression themselves. This course of preemption is not only unattempted by God, but is indeed impossible for man. All creatures bring forth offspring only of their own kind and war can only beget war. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Can our government hold in contempt the right to property and the right to life in foreign lands and exist in peace according to verse 2?

Can it fail to honor the leaders in a foreign country and seek their destruction through covert or military means in order to bring about internal actions within that nation it finds financially beneficial to it's citizens, it's nation, or it's nation's businesses and somehow follow the direction of verse 6?

Can it deny a foreign land the protections spoken of in verse 11?

Preemptive policy does none of these things. The preemptive foreign policy disallows the right to property in foreign lands with the penalty of death. It fails to allow foreign leaders the right to defend their people and secure peace. It is a policy of fear. Are we so faithless, so fearful, that we will commit bloodshed to prevent a nation from even gaining the materials necessary for the production of weapons, albeit those same materials can provide them self-sufficient energy?

It is indeed a fact that the Mormons need to look to non-Mormon friends for the support of liberty and truth. Perhaps our current election would be going differently had so many Mormons had not looked to Mitt Romney simply because of his Mormonism although he openly advocates violation of the constitution, preemptive foreign policy, and the demonization of muslims and the islamic world.

Certainly many Greens are acdovates of further government growth, control, and expense. In that regard I don't support them. But the same can be said of many Republicans and many Democrats. There are, however, individuals seeking public office who seek to decrease the scope of government control and expense and increase liberty. I personally am not concerned with what party they may or may not be associated with. I merely wish to support them in their efforts to protect and restore liberty.

Not every Republican wants to see liberties decreased and government control increased. The same can be said for Democrats and independents. We need to educate ourselves and one another in identifying these and support them.

-a-train

[Ray A]

'Universal healthcare' is a very ambiguous term to me. What exactly do you support?

Been busy with work, so haven't had a chance to reply.

I support the system we have in Oz, which is about 1.5% universally deducted for medicare. It really is small bickies for peace of mind. Sure, some abuse the system, but by and large the majority use health care appropriately. Last time I saw a doctor was nearly 18 months ago. It is wrong, IMO, that anyone should be barred from essential health care because they can't afford it. Wasn't this a remnant of the idea Joseph Smith originally had, with the United Order? No reason why it should only apply to United Orders.

We do have to vote, but we don't have to vote the devil in.

I understand you don't have compulsory voting in America, but that's beside the point.

I can see nothing in D&C 134 that advocates preemptive war, or any measure by government, or anyone else for that matter, to take away liberty in the name of crime prevention. And I certainly see nothing there to the intent that God prevents unrighteousness. God has given man his agency, He has allowed even the most atrocious crimes imaginable in the mind of man to be committed. He will deal out justice on that great and terrible day at the judgment bar, but until then He intends to allow all men to choose their actions. We too can provide courts of justice and offer good judgment, but not before agency has been exercised.

Even when a dictator has killed 2 million people? And threatened to nuke Israel? Israeli fighter jets eradicated Saddam's nuclear facility in the early '80s, and through the '90s he defied more than a dozen UN resolutions to cease trying to build nuclear weapons. The gassing of 5,000 kurds doesn't matter? Mass graves don't matter? Children of parents suspected of "treason", or simply refusing military service, hung on telegraph poles in the street isn't aggression? I suppose I could take the cynical view that only when America is attacked it should respond, like Pearl Harbor. But admittedly, it's a mess in Iraq. Maybe America should not have gotten involved. They didn't attack Russia, or Germany, and some progress was made there. The Berlin wall came down in 1989 without military intervention. But whether this hindsight is wise is quite complex, as I will show.

Yes, government is to pass laws that make illegal the violation of individual rights. Yes, government is to arrange penalties for the violation of such laws. But NO, government is NOT empowered to predict crime and make arrests, convictions, and execute penalties before efforts or plans to commit crime have been made whether made by the citizens of the country or by the governors or citizens of foreign lands.

Actually crime prevention does extend to covert surveillance, and a person suspect of about to commit a crime can be arrested. The government is empowered to take whatever measures are required to prevent crime. Surveillance of radical Islamic websites, and shutting them down, is crime prevention. Overt and proactive crime prevention is sometimes necesary. The police drug squad don't wait for illegal drugs to reach the streets, they tear down crops grown for such purposes. Whether this is successful is debatable, but the point is that crime prevention is a reality.

Further, government not only does not possess sufficient foreknowledge to prevent crime through legislation that outlaws the materials it sees as necessary to commit crime, but it also has proven itself powerless to control the trade of many of such materials and enforce their ban. Indeed, it has proven difficult, if not impossible, to prevent men from obtaining the materials of the earth which God has given us.

See above.

This is especially problematic when government seeks to enforce such a ban within a foreign country through sanctions or even military action. This foreign policy, which truthfully is an intervention in foreign internal affairs, is far from constitutional or diplomatic.

For example, bombing foreign nations simply because of their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is ridiculous. This is akin to murdering a man who attempts to build a gun. But that is not a good analogy, because that is not what is happening.

Not if that nation has threatened, for example, to nuke another. If you hold a gun in your hand, or say "I'm going to get a gun and kill you", do you think the police will wait until the murder has occurred? The very threat is a crime.

The truth is even worse. We are, by the very murderous means to which we pretend to object, forbidding a nation's self-sufficience by the production of its own nuclear power on the premise of an accusation of ulterior motive. So a better analogy is bombing a farmer's barn because it contains fertilizer and diesel fuel which can be used to produce an explosive device. Then, after we do so, we wish to sell him wheat.

Not quite the same. If the farmer has threatened to use those materials against others, to kill people, this is a crime.

In the case of Iran, the murderous dictator, who the U.S. and the U.K. supported in the overthrow of what little democracy existed, was not only given approval, but help in establishing a nuclear powered Iran. After years of dominant oppresion and horrible violations against human rights, the U.S. backed tyrant was overthrown by his own people (again). Then the new more democratic Iran faced sanctions from the west and an invasion from Iraq (backed by the U.S. and the U.K.). To this day they are forbidden by foreign powers the same renewable energy source the west sought to give them through their tyrannical muderous dictator.

Backing dictators who serve your purposes is questionable. I see there's an inconsistency here, but the old saying is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Sort of like chosing the best of the worst. Roosevelt didn't like dealing with Stalin, but for practical purposes at the time it had to be. Before the invasion most Iraqis supported intervention, saying it was "right", or "absolutely right". According to reports I have most Iraqis say they are better off now than before the invasion. Of course there are different opinions, but if Iraq is deserted now there will be all out civil war. Some say they were better off under Saddam. Ron Paul wrote in 2005:

We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world – and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others.

Maybe America can chart a different future, wait until someone nukes someone else, then act. Fortunately the Japs didn't have the A-bomb, so the initial damage was relatively small.

And today, while our government and media cannot cease the preaching of fear of Iran and the demonization of her leaders, the energy trouble of Iran is well on its way to an energy crisis. While a U.S. presidential candidate rewords the famous Beach Boys song and sings 'Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran' to the laughter of his constituency while internationally visible on the internet, our fellow beings in Iran live with the fear of an invasion from western military forces as they go to work and take their children to school while facing the effects of sanctions against their nation and the possibility of a coming catastrophic energy crisis.

I offer one view from an Iraqi here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/18/1981957.htm

Some mixed views there. Intervene for change, but don't intervene using the military? I think the real issue here is what Iran will do with nuclear weapons. That is a question those outside of Iran have to ask. If Hitler had the A-bomb, should Britain have waited for a preemptive strike by Germany? We live in different times. Actually, the Brits acted after the invasion of Poland. Germany at the time was no where near English soil, but still a looming threat.

From Time:

The new discoveries could destabilize a region already dangerously on edge in anticipation of war in Iraq. Israel — which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear plant in Osirak in a 1981 raid — is deeply alarmed by the developments. "It's a huge concern," says one Israeli official. "Iran is a regime that denies Israel's right to exist in any borders and is a principal sponsor of Hezbollah. If that regime were able to achieve a nuclear potential it would be extremely dangerous." Israel will not take the "Osirak option" off the table, the official says, but "would prefer that this issue be solved in other ways."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html