Free Girls Clothes or Empty Promises?

I’m about to admit something that says way too much about me. My name is Courtney, and I like the Napoleon Dynamite cartoon. There. I said it. I know, it’s ridiculously stupid, and maybe even uncomfortable at times, but I find myself laughing out loud, and I’m afraid I even let out a snort or two the last time I watched it.

Why did I just confess this, you ask? Well, believe it or not, I actually find some interesting analogies in the show. Let me explain.

Last week, Napoleon’s friends were upset at each other, so he was trying to find a way to get them to talk. Naturally, he set up a trap. This was no ordinary Mystery Inc. trap, this was a good, old-fashioned, catch-a-rabbit-with-a-carrot trap. Deb came walking into the school hallway to find various signs hanging all around with “Free Girl Clothes” written on them and arrows pointing the way under a giant box propped up with a stick. Well, you can guess what happened: Deb said, “I like girl clothes,” and the next thing you know she’s tied up on a chair in the gymnasium—and no free clothes.

How many times do people offer lovely speeches with lofty promises and high hopes only to end up giving an empty box?

President Obama has dangled many carrots in front of us. He has promised Hope. He has promised Change. In 2009 he vowed, “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half.” He said he was, “taking responsibility right now in this administration for getting our spending under control.”

Well, unfortunately, those carrots have only lead to, that's right, an empty box.

This is what some politicians often do. But we have the responisbility to look past their words at their deeds. We have to look at what sort of person have they been throughout their lives? What are their beliefs and values? What have they done to serve and show leadership and make positive change in others' lives? What sort of country do they want us to be, and how will they help us get there?

So, the next time you see a “Free girl clothes” sign, ask yourself, “Will that really lead me to frilly skirts and ruffly blouses, or just to being tied to a chair in the dark gym?”

I, for one, believe in America, I believe in Mitt Romney. I believe he will lead us back to the America we love, and that he won't be pulling a string to trap us in an empty box full of empty promises.

First Amendment Fight--Holy War?

I’m seeing a disturbing pattern, and I don’t mean my husband’s Christmas tie.

During his recent speech at the National prayer breakfast President Obama described our time as “a time when it’s easy to lose ourselves in the rush and clamor of our own lives, or get caught up in the noise and rancor that too often passes as politics today.” Then he suggested we need to pray, “avoiding phony religiosity,” and listen to our Creator.

Well, I’m thinking that either Obama has lost himself in noisy politics, or, in order to avoid phony religiosity, he is just avoiding religion, or rather freedom of religion all together.

We all have been hearing about the current contraceptive controversy, but let’s look back at the recent little-publicized yet epic Supreme Court decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commision.

With an astonishing, unanimous 9-0 margin, the Supreme Court slammed Obama’s view that the federal government can tell a church what ministers it must employ if the church violates anti-discrimination employment provisions. The administration claims that under our Constitution, clergy have no special protection. To that the majority ruled it is “hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization's freedom to select its own ministers." Take that.

The president has said, “it is our hope that people of goodwill can pursue their values and common ground and the common good as best they know how, with respect for each other.” But I think he’s sending the message that if the “best they know how” isn’t what he and the government want and think is best, then the government should step in. Even in religion.

When the Obama administration lost their fight on the standpoint of religious freedom and ministers, they tried reaching into religious freedom another way, which we’ve heard so much of lately, the contraception mandate.

I’m left to wonder what is next? Will Obama’s government decide appropriate Sabbath day activities, or decide who can or cannot be allowed into sacred facilities, or maybe even decide what religion, if any, people can practice and how? It’s pretty clear to me that no liberties, no Constitutional Amendments are off limits to President Obama’s stepping in and trying to regulate. Including freedom of religion.

Render unto Caesar

At the National Prayer breakfast this week, President Obama encouraged, once again, his notion of taxing the rich to give to the poor. This time he used Jesus to push his idea. Obama quoted Christ’s teaching that "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required."

Here’s the thing. Jesus Christ can say that, because, when it comes to God, it is true; Christians would agree that all we have comes from God, so it is just and reasonable to require much from us in return. The government, however, does not give us everything (yet), so they are not in the same position to require much from us.

Could we not say from these verses we’ll be judged for how we choose to use that which the Lord has given us—not that we’ll be judged by what the government forces us to pay?

When Christ said these words, I do not believe He was talking about fair taxes. In fact, in the same chapter, Luke 12, a man came to Christ, seemingly complaining about the unfairness of his brother’s inheritance:

“13 And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.

14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth” (Luke 12:13-15).

Christ went on to remind them to lay up their treasures in heaven, not in the things of the earth.

And let’s not forget the inspiring account of the widow’s mite. The poorest of the poor giving her all. When Christ stood at the temple watching the wealthy put money into the treasury, a poor widow cast in just two mites. The Lord could have turned her away, telling her she didn’t need to give—let those who could spare more pay for her. But He understood that she would receive far more in return. Her sacrifice would strengthen her spirit, firm her faith. He understood that her self-reliance would foster self-respect. Christ, in His greater understanding could not deny those blessings of this faithful widow.

Interestingly enough, in the same speech where Obama suggested those who have the most should just take care of the poor, he also referred to the “Jewish belief that the highest form of charity is to do our part to help others stand on their own.” Christ understood this. He allowed the widow to offer her mites. He knew that self-reliance brings self-respect, and that it doesn’t come by taking away responsibility. He taught all people that where their treasure is, their hearts would be also. And although he taught us to love and serve and care for each other, He also instructed:

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt 22:21).

All's Fair in Love and War, but not Politics

Ok—I’ve talked about this before, my feelings about fairness. But Obama brought it up again last night, so I’m going to comment again, too.

Growing up with lots of brothers and sisters, fairness was a pretty common theme in our everyday lives—take turns, ask before you borrow something, both the boys and the girls have to do housework and yard work, leave some for your sister—you get the idea.

Well, I’ve already said what I think about the general discrepancy between what people are paying into the system verses what they are receiving from the system. So, I’ll just address what I think both the media and the president have focused on—unfair taxing of the rich, namely, Mitt Romney.

Although I think we would all agree the tax code could use some serious adjustments, Romney has paid his “fair share” according to tax laws.

I agree with senior editorial writer, Philip Klein, of the Washington Examiner that in regards to his taxes, Romney “has absolutely nothing to apologize for.” In fact he put into perspective what $3.2 million in federal taxes—Romney’s estimated 2011 taxes—pays for:

-- The monthly food stamp allowance for about 23,909 people.

-- The cost of educating 302 elementary and high school students.

-- The base salary (before bonuses and allowances) of 178 privates in the U.S. Army.

-- The federal contribution to the benefits of 636 Medicaid enrollees.

In addition to his taxes, Romney has given around 16.4 percent of his income over the past two years to charity, and not just to the Mormon church.

Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post put it this way:

“Another way of looking at it is that in 2011 the Romneys paid out 42 percent of their income in taxes and charity. Here’s how I got there: Total tax (line 60) + foreign taxes (line 47) + state taxes and real-estate taxes + other taxes (Schedule A, line 9) + charitable contributions (Schedule A, line 19) divided by Adjusted Gross Income (1040 line 37).

“Let’s compare this percentage to that of average Americans. A 2009 Urban Institute study found: ‘The average charitable contribution per return filed in 2009 was about 2.0 percent of [adjusted gross] income.’

As for the effective marginal rate, Jim Pethokoukis writes: ‘While Romney’s tax rate is — in his own words — ‘probably closer to 15 percent than anything,’ that’s still higher than the 8.2 percent average effective income tax rate (as of 2010) of U.S. households (once you factor in various tax credits). Indeed, nearly half of U.S. households pay no income tax at all. Their average effective tax rate is actually negative. Even if you add in the payroll tax, the effective tax rate of the middle fifth of U.S. taxpayers is 12.8 percent.’

“So, yes, Romney is much wealthier than most Americans. But he also gives away or pays in taxes in absolute and percentage terms far more than most Americans.”

The liberal rhetoric Obama uses regarding taxes not being fair, and that the rich don’t pay their fair share, and that the poor are treated unfairly, and that we need to all play fair, makes it seem as if the rich are just a bunch of lazy bums getting a free ride while all the rest of us are doing all the work and paying all the taxes.

Obviously, the rich have much more money and pay much more money into federal taxes. In fact, the top one percent pays four times more than the bottom 40 percent. Half the country owes no income tax at all. And as I said, although our nation has a progressive tax system, that system could use some adjustment. But we should be glad we have many wealthy Americans who are contributing so much (yet, taxing them higher isn’t going to solve the deficit problem as Obama suggested).

We should be lauding the kind of success the Romneys have achieved through hard work and ingenuity. We should be praising their generosity. Instead, the media and the president try to make out their success as somehow being unfair and immoral. If we are truly talking about fairness, I would say Mitt Romney does more than his “fair share” for society.

Welfare Reform Mormon Style

When Mitt Romney releases his tax information I think we’ll hear some discussion on the need for tax reform.

But, when people see his contributions to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I think we could have some serious discussion about welfare reform. I went to LDS.org (the official website for the church, also known as the Mormon church) to see some of what the church does with its contributions. It’s impressive.

First, the church does not have professional, paid clergy. It is comprised of a huge volunteer force. Second, not only do they use tithing funds to build churches, temples, and help support their educational facilities, they have the LDS Charities and humanitarian services set up. What is so distinct about these humanitarian efforts is that 100% of the donations received to the humanitarian funds goes to the projects. The church absorbs all the overhead costs itself. And then there is the miraculous work they do throughout the world.

Here is what they say about the LDS Charities on their website:

“Helping People Help Themselves”

“Jesus Christ told those who would be His followers that they were to give meat to the hungry and drink to those who thirst. His is a gospel that includes taking in the stranger, loving neighbors as self, and visiting those who are sick or imprisoned. He taught while He lived on the earth—and has since taught through modern prophets—that we are to love and care for each other, that we should visit the fatherless and the widow in their afflictions, and lift up those whose hands hang down and whose knees are feeble.

“Latter-day Saint Charities, sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is an application of this admonition of Jesus Christ to help others in need. We have sponsored relief and development projects in 167 countries. This assistance is rendered without regard to race, religious affiliation, or nationality and is based on the core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self–reliance, and sustainability.

“Unique in its support structure, Latter-day Saint Charities has access to the resources of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which include food production and processing, grain storage, vocational rehabilitation, donated used clothing, and employment and social services. Largely run with volunteer labor, Latter-day Saint Charities operates both independently and in cooperation with other charitable organizations and governments. Last year, over one million man–days of labor were contributed by volunteers in support of welfare initiatives.

“Latter-day Saint Charities provides emergency relief assistance in times of natural disasters. In addition, our primary community development programs include clean water, neonatal resuscitation training, vision care, wheelchairs, immunizations, food production, and other health programs.

“The assistance we render is made possible by generous donations of cash and in–kind materials from members and friends of the LDS Church.”

The Church provides food, and other relief supplies as needed. In 2010 alone the Church provided relief to people affected by 119 disasters in 58 countries.

Here is some of the work they’ve done:

• In Haiti, after their massive earthquake two years ago, the LDS Charities provided over one million pounds (25 semi–trucks) of food, hygiene kits, water filtration bottles, water systems, and medical supplies such as medicine and wheelchairs. Two thousand seven hundred tents were distributed to families forced to leave their homes.
• 
  
• In Japan, after last year's tsunami, in the first few days the Church provided more than 135,000 pounds of food, water and supplies, 10,000 liters of fuel and 15,000 blankets. Local Church leaders created an emergency response committee, which met daily to identify and respond to community needs and to organize volunteer efforts. Over 40,000 hours of service were given by more than 4,000 Mormon volunteers. Hundreds of congregations in Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka established plans to assemble hygiene and cleaning kits. Members also delivered aid by scooters provided by the Church to areas too difficult to reach by car. In addition, the Church made a substantial financial donation to the Japan Red Cross.

W This sort of organized assistance from the LDS church can be seen at almost any disaster any place in the world. Many of us have seen the bright yellow T-shirts or vests with the Mormon Helping Hands logo on it worn by local volunteers helping with disaster assistance or just community clean-up.

Some of the church's on-going efforts include:

Training –The church provides programs to train and provide equipment for health care providers to help save the lives of newborns in resource limited countries. Since 2002, over 193,000 health care workers have been trained in these life-saving techniques.

Wheel chairs—The church provides mobility devices including wheelchairs for rough terrain, hospital wheelchairs, crutches, walkers, and canes. Since 2002, over 415,000 people have received one of these devices.

Immunizations—Church financial contributions and help from 59,000 local Church volunteers have supported campaigns in 35 countries since 2003. As a result of these international efforts, there has been a 92% reduction in measles deaths in Africa and a 78% reduction worldwide. An estimated 4.3 million lives have been saved.

The church also has programs for building water systems, personal food production, and vision assistance. Just in Africa they have hundreds of projects in every country from pineapple farming and clean water projects to animal husbandry skills training and remodeling school classrooms. They have over 600 projects in Asia, over 300 in South America, and hundreds more world-wide.

But the general theme throughout all of their efforts is helping people to help themselves. This is something the church believes is critical in strengthening individuals, families, and communities.

We’ve heard the saying, “Give a man to fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and feed him for a lifetime.” The LDS church seems to push that even further to include, “Teach a man to teach another to fish, and feed a village for generations.”

How's that for welfare reform?

Forget Grandiose, Return to Simple Basics

My husband and I have been discussing how Gingrich has embraced his being "Grandiose" with grandiose ideas. Well, here's our conclusion:

We don’t need grandiose ideas.

Grandiose ideas are expensive. Remember FDR and the foundation of our grandiose, excessive entitlement state? Look at Europe and their grand experiment in economic equality where the government takes care of you, cradle to grave.

Grandiose ideas only serve to self-aggrandize the person behind the grandiose idea. Fancy that sort of thing coming from Gingrich.

The problems we face do not call for grandiose ideas.

What our nation needs right now is not grandiose ideas, but a return to simple, foundational principles – principles recognized by our Founders:

• Liberty--freedom is good.

• Work--hard work is good.

• Opportunity--opportunity to succeed on one's own merits is good.

• Success--of course, success is good.

• Charity--charity, person by person, is good.

• Smaller government--States and local governments (closer to the people) can generally do things better than the federal government, and that is good.

So, instead of coming up with attention-grabbing, expensive, grandiose ideas, what we really need to do is remember and get back to our simple principles. Those are largely what is required to return to the America we believe in and love.

The Media Made Me Do It

In the Garden of Eden, when Satan tempted Adam and Eve, remember what Adam said after he ate the fruit? Eve made me do it—and it’s sort of Your fault, too, for giving me that woman. Well, Adam may have been the first to try to blame someone else for his actions, but he certainly wasn’t the last. We saw it again last night.

Newt Gingrich is a master at spinning negative attention from himself and putting it back onto someone else.

So, when CNN asked Gingrich about his open-marriage request and affair with Callista, Newt went into a tirade. Not about the corrupt morals of government officials, not about the devastating pain and anguish such behavior causes to families and society. No, he blew up over how the “Destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the media makes it hard for decent people to run for office.”

Hold on. I assume he is lumping himself into the “decent people” category. But what about the “destructive, vicious, negative nature” of his behavior and its “destructive, vicious, negative” effects on his family?

And he thinks ABC’s actions are “despicable.” Do a kettle and a pot come to mind here?

But he topped all that when he blasted the moderator for choosing to start the debate with such a question and what a horrible a beginning it was. “Don’t try to blame somebody else,” Newt warned.

Wow. Here it goes, stating the obvious, but Newt, YOU are the one who CHOSE to lie. YOU chose to deceive, and cheat with your wife. YOU. Don’t try to blame somebody else.

Here’s the really ironic thing about Gingrich complaining that the media brings all this up again right before a big vote—he did the exact same thing.

Here’s a headline from a Washington Post article dated Oct. 30, 1998: “Gingrich Orchestrated GOP Ads Recalling Clinton-Lewinsky Affair.” This multimillion dollar ad campaign was devised by Newt Gingrich. The ads revived the White House scandal with President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. The ads were about Clinton lying and denying the affair. And—I like this one—one had two mothers discussing “What did you tell your kids?” Guess when these ads aired—that’s right, just a few days before election day.

Do I even need to point out the hypocrisy of Newt leading the charge against Bill Clinton while he himself was having an affair with a Congressional aide?

But, to be fair, in an interview with James Dobson Newt explain he was moving forward with action against Bill Clinton, not because of infidelity, but because, “You cannot accept…perjury in highest officials.” I think what he’s saying here is that it’s ok to cheat and lie, as long as you don’t get caught doing so in front of a sitting federal judge.

Remembering back to Newt’s ads against Clinton has made me do some thinking. Now I ask myself, if Newt and Callista get into the White House, what am I going to tell my kids?