Happy Valentine’s Day!

Since it’s Valentine’s Day, I’ll make this short and sweet. . . .

Check out the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Associationand support Prop 13 (for all of you California Residents). Founded in 1978, this organization is California’s largest taxpayer rights organization. Committed to opposing new taxes and defending Prop. 13. California is in for a rough 4 years, so it’s great to have an organization watching the bottom line, even if the Governor Brown and Sacramento aren’t.

If you’re all about lower taxes and smaller government, this is a group to check out. I follow them on facebook so I can see their updates, and you can find their twitter page here.  On their website you’ll find press releases, legislative updates and studies and reports. If you’re not in California, I’m sure there is a similar organization in your state that will provided you with pertinent tax related information. It’s great to stay informed and involved. It’s our money, our future and our bottom line, and we shouldn’t expect the government to ever look out for our interests.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has been leading the California Tax Revolt since Howard Jarvis’s passage of Prop. 13 in 1978. Prop. 13 has saved homeowners billions in taxes and has saved countless people who would have otherwise been taxed out oftheir homes. Originally called the California Tax Redution Movement, the organization was renamed in honor of Howard Jarvis when he passed away in 1986. Recently, HJTA led the campaign against the Proposition 1A $16 billion tax hike through our No New Taxes campaign committee. Our Department of Legal Affairs has just this month won major victories for taxpayers establishing that money government raised by water rates cannot be used for any other purpose other than the provision of water and in another case that government must disclose bureaucrat salaries to concerned citizens who would otherwise have no way of knowing the extent of waste, fraud and abuse in our government. HJTA also has a full time lobbying presence in the Capitol and works closely with the California Tea Party Patriots and other taxpayer organizations.

Apparently there are rumors going around that Donald Trump might be in the running for President in 2012. I certainly hope so. Although he’s probably like me and having too much fun running his company and is hesitant to give it up and go to Washington where he would have to hob nob and rub shoulders with a bunch of crooks and slimy politicians. Not my idea of fun. But, either way, I think Donald Trump is brilliant! I would vote for him for President and  I hope he does run in 2012. He’s a genius when it comes to business, he’s recovered from financial problems and he’s still on top! We could really use someone like him to get this country back on track financially and remind Americans what it means to be American. I’ve read all of his books (“The Art of the Deal” is my favorite) and think that this country would be better off if more people did the same.

One of my church leaders once said, “if you don’t know what you’re doing, ask someone who does.” I love that quote! I think Donald Trump definitely knows what he’s doing, and we’d be all the better for replacing Obama in office with someone who actually knows what he’s doing.

The National Organization for Marriage had this to say about “The Donald”:

The Donald came out as a conservative at CPAC, saying “I’m pro-life, I’m against gun control, I’ll end and replace Obamacare, and I won’t raise your taxes.” He says he’ll decide by June whether to run for president. Other candidates say what this country needs is “you.” The Donald says what the country needs is him. Someone who is successful, competitive, used to winning, who understands “life is war.” His platform includes fair trade, kick China for manipulating its currency, demand OPEC lower oil prices and generally make America great again.

~Journalista

photo source: life123.com

Did you know that a recent survey says that most U.S. teens want to be virgins when they marry? It was news to me. I hadn’t realized that a large portion of teens were concerned with this.

My sister teaches Junior High math in a Southern California public school. Let’s just say she has a very interesting job working with today’s youth. Many teens seem to be lacking some basic moral character. It’s very sad, and honestly something that can really only be fixed in the home. Teaching children correct principles and values is the role of the parents, but unfortunately, many have quit that job and left their children to fend for themselves.

However, a recent study presents some marginally happy news. And considering how much trash kids today are exposed to, and how many of them have little to no parental supervision or guidance, LifeSiteNews.com posted an article about some positive findings from a poll conducted last year by

Drs. Rene Paulson and Jacquelyn Pennings under the auspices of the Christian youth research and outreach organization OneHope as part of their Spiritual State of the World’s Children study. . .recruited [teens] to take the online survey through a panelist company and through social networking websites.

The survey found that 61 percent of youth ages 13 to 18 would like to be virgins when they get married.

Additionally, 63 percent said that, presuming they had lost their virginity, they would change the past if possible and regain it.

I wonder how, if so many teens think that being a virgin when they get married is important, they certainly seem to act otherwise? I’m in complete agreement that the media and television play a huge role in this, in addition to absentee parents who fail to provide the essential moral teachings that these teens so desperately need.  The study addressed the loose morals found in a majority of television shows.

A press release from OneHope announcing the release of the study today said the results of the survey were “surprising” given the high teen exposure to sexually explicit media content such as the controversial MTV program “Skins.”

According to a report by the Parents Television Council, two-thirds (64 percent) of all TV shows contain “sexual content” – anything from flirting to intercourse.

Additional data about U.S. teens’ beliefs and values revealed in this survey include some troubling aspects of the influence of media on children, such as:

• 69 percent watch MTV on a weekly basis {very scary in my opinion}
• 62 percent believe truth is relative {they somehow don’t think honesty is important?}
• 76 percent approve of divorce even when children are involved
• 59 percent said the Bible has little/no influence on their thoughts and actions {the Bible and the teachings contained therein should have a profound influence on our thoughts and actions; religion and moral upbringing is obviously something that is missing in many children’s homes}
• 57 percent believe being good people and doing good deeds will get you into heaven
• 34 percent spend less than 15 minutes a week talking with their fathers about things that matter {this is so scary and a huge factor in all of this}

However, some positive findings include:  {sounds like a good start}

• 82 percent believe God intended marriage to last a lifetime
• 80 percent cite parents as having a lot/some influence over their thoughts and actions
• only 16 percent thought sexual intercourse between two people who are not married was morally acceptable
• 79 percent overall had never had sexual intercourse
• 81 percent said it’s not OK to break the law as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody
• 84 and 87 percent said they had not watched a pornographic movie or read a pornographic magazine

The survey group consisted of 5,108 teens. (Just a small sampling of the country’s teens, but still pretty great that so many of them want to save sex for marriage). The full text of the US Spiritual State of the World’s Children study is available here.

Thanks for reading ~Journalista

I found this blog post because the brilliant writer Zoey linked to one of my posts. . . and now I want to link to hers. I think that many American’s are missing how important it is to be self-reliant, and how important this principle is to their happiness and wellbeing, in this life and in the next. It’s not about money, or making a lot of it, it’s about hard work and being industrious, being able to provide for and take care of yourself and your family, using your talents, helping to bless the lives of others, and having the freedom to exercise your agency. Thanks for this amazing post Zoey!

Hey, I’m Zoey and I blog over at Stand, where I join the ranks of the Digital Army as a marriage and family activist. Em’s “Something” is one of my daily favorites so I’m more than excited that she’s asked me to do a guest (re)post for her “I believe” series.

(Photo courtesy of a-penny-saved).
I’ve been thinking long and hard about the state of our nation and the notion that we can just spend ourselves to oblivion. It’s as if a wife said to her husband: “Don’t worry about our dire financial state! We’ll just spend our way out!” How does that make any sense, whatsoever? If there isn’t money to pay the bills you cut the fat and only spend on necessities. Obama and his cronies obviously have no interest in setting that standard. What, with the $252 billion for income-transfer payments, $600 mil for new fed cars, $1 bil for Amtrak (hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years), $400 mil for global warming research, $650 mil for TV conversions, $2 bil for child-care subsidies, and I could go on.

I adore my brilliant friend Journalista:

“I think we need to hold our government officials to the same financial standard that all responsible American citizens hold themselves to. Live within your means. Don’t spend money you don’t have, and prioritize how to best spend the money you do have, even if it’s just a little. That, my friends, is how to build a wealthy nation. All of the free social programs and hand outs in the world will not solve the problems in America if we don’t expect our citizens to buck up and quit relying on the government to take care of them”.

My dad has worked two full-time jobs since before I was born. He and my mother are the most honest, hard working people I know. I’m telling you- they are as honest as honest can be. My dad would have gotten a job at a mini-mart or McDonald’s to pay back any sort of debt if that’s what it took. If us kids didn’t have milk to drink or clothes to wear he would work the sweat of his brow (literally) to meet our needs. I can’t express my gratitude for what they taught me. I wish more Americans were taught the eternal principles of self-reliance and living within your means because I’ll tell you- we wouldn’t be in this sad state right now.

I am grateful to belong to a church that has long taught its members these principles. Here are my favorite quotes on the matter, given by some general authorities:

President Joseph F. Smith: “You must continue to bear in mind that the temporal and spiritual are blended. They are not separate. One cannot be carried on without the other, so long as we are here in mortality. … The Latter-day Saints believe not only in the gospel of spiritual salvation, but also in the gospel of temporal salvation… We do not feel that it is possible for men to be really good and faithful Christian people unless they can also be good, faithful, honest and industrious people. Therefore, we preach the gospel of industry, the gospel of economy, the gospel of sobriety.” (Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1939, p. 208; emphasis added.)

Marion G. Romney: “The most fundamental principles of temporal salvation include two concepts: providing for oneself—self reliance—and providing for one’s family—family reliance. The first principle, that of self-reliance, grows out of a fundamental doctrine of the Church—that of agency. The doctrine of agency is based on the truth that the basic essence of man is comprised of spirit matter, or intelligence, which by its very nature is independent ‘in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself. … Behold, here is the agencyof man.’ (See D&C 93:26–38; emphasis added.) As a result of this eternal condition, Elohim, in creating man and placing him on this earth, gave him his agency to act for himself. While this agency applies to all facets of life, with respect for temporal affairs the Lord makes this specific elaboration:

‘For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.’

For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.’ (D&C 104:13, 17; emphasis added.)

Thus, we understand that all is in place so that man can, if he so chooses, work out his salvation—both temporal and spiritual—and can achieve the benefits promised in this, his second estate. The self-reliance we speak of in the Church, then, grows out of eternal truths connected with the doctrines of intelligence and agency. Consequently, self-reliance, as taught by the prophets, becomes a fundamental truth in the gospel plan.”

Spencer W. Kimball: “The responsibility for each person’s social, emotional, spiritual, physical, or economic well-being rests first upon himself, second upon his family, and third upon the Church if he is a faithful member thereof. No true Latter-day Saint, while physically or emotionally able will voluntarily shift the burden of his own or his family’s well-being to someone else. So long as he can, under the inspiration of the Lord and with his own labors, he will supply himself and his family with the spiritual and temporal necessities of life”.

The freedom and joy that come from using our God given agency to care for our own personal necessities is nearly indescribable. We are not bound to another; we are honest in our dealings with our fellow men; we have security. Most importantly though, our spiritual salvation is dependent upon our temporal actions and through the Savior we can be free.

Thanks for reading! ~journalista

~Journalista

P.S. The Political Math blogger has entered a video contest and needs our votes.

Please vote for me (Matthias Shapiro) at the Know-Y.org Y-Care video vote and help me win the $5,000 prize. (I have a very large scale visualization of the national debt that I’m working on, but I really need some capital to pull it off. This would be an awesome way to help me with that.)

The blogger and math genius who made this video has more info on his blog:

Political Math Political Information Visualization and Other  Math-y Things

Go check it out!!!!

I got this in an email from my sister. It’s definitely worth the read.

This man is truly a genius!

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before,
but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A…
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)  Remember, there is a mid-term election in 2010!

The trial continues and Attorneys for Proposition 8– the measure that upheld traditional marriage in California– are focusing on democratic rights. I agree with that angle. I’m not an attorney, yet, but from my point of view, as a voter, that’s where the problem is. Legal counsel for the opposition to Prop 8 are trying to invalidate our votes and our rights as Californians to change our State Constitution.

“Clearly the big issue on this case is going to be the role of the courts and the rights of the people ultimately to make decisions in the democratic process and to be able to have their votes counted,” explained attorney Andre Pugno.

Prop 8 attorneys say they’re concerned about hatred against traditional marriage supporters.During the campaign against gay marriage, church vandalism was witnessed and some Prop 8 supporters received death threats, including Pastor Jim Franklin in Fresno, Calif.

“I’ve had threats before and you don’t know how seriously to take them,” Franklin recalled. “The chief of police called me back in about two minutes and said ‘Yes, we’re taking it very seriously because of the nature of it.’”

That kind of intimidation is why Prop 8 supporters oppose broadcasting the trial and posting it on YouTube. They fear for the safety of witnesses.

Opponents, however, say Americans should be able to view the debate for themselves.

The U.S. Supreme Court will make a final decision on the issue Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the California trial against Prop 8 is expected to last two to three weeks. No matter the outcome, the case is expected to be appealed to the high court.

source: CBN.com

source: the liberal oc.com

A small victory today for the Pro Prop 8 side.

The Supreme Court has blocked youtube streaming of the trial,

at least for now.

The U. S. Supreme Court has put a halt, at least temporarily, on plans to let Google’s (GOOG) video site stream coverage of the “Proposition 8″ trial, which kicked off today in a San Francisco courtroom.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker was going to allow the trial to be covered, on a tape-delayed basis, on the world’s biggest video site.

The Supreme Court has granted a temporary order overturning Walker’s ruling to allow tape-delayed youtube videos to be uploaded to the site by Court staff.

The court didn’t explain its reasoning, according to the Los Angeles Times, but perhaps we’ll hear more down the road–the ruling is only supposed to remain in effect until Wednesday.

Prop. 8 trial Day 1: Live coverage from the courtroom

If you want up-to-date trial info, the San Jose Mercury News is covering the trial from the Court room, and you can read their updates here.

Sources: TorrentBomb News All Things Digital

Share this blog or post with your friends.  Click the button below:

The lawsuit claims that the state ban violates the United States Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses and creates a category of “second-class citizens” for gays and lesbians.

The LGBT legal teams is set to try and convince the Federal court that the voting rights of Californians should be ignored and that what they (we) have passed into law for our state shouldn’t matter.

What about a child’s equal protection under the law and their right to grow up in a traditional family? The original arguments of Prop 8 proponents are still valid.

. . .the federal lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of California’s voter-approved ban against same-sex marriage, set to begin Monday, January 11, could have sweeping impacts on whether gays and lesbians can legally marry in the Golden State..

I guess that’s a no for In Session, formerly known as CourtTV, when U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker rejected their offer to broadcast the trial. However he announced Wednesday that he will give the public access to the trial via tapped sessions that will be uploaded to youtube.com daily, via court staff, as he wants the process to be completely under the Court’s control.

The decision not to allow the media to broadcast the court proceedings live is somewhat of a setback for LGBT activists who had urged Walker to televise the proceedings. The judge issued his ruling after hearing arguments from both sides in the case Wednesday morning.

Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, must sign off on the video plan. The court only recently decided to allow judges to have discretion over whether to televise proceedings in the courtrooms or not.

Walker’s decision is a partial win for the attorneys for the groups backing Prop 8, who warned the court that opening up the procedures to television cameras could result in their witnesses being harassed. The judge said he would turn off one of three cameras set to be used during testimony if witnesses ask not to be videotaped.

The lawsuit, known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger , has drawn wide media coverage since it was first filed in late May 2009, particularly for the odd legal pairing of lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies. The two notably argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore U.S. Supreme Court case of 2000, which was won by Olson and handed the presidency to George W. Bush.

The attorneys agreed to argue the Prop 8 case on behalf of two couples – Berkeley residents Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Burbank residents Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo – who were denied the right to marry by the passage of Prop 8 and the California Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling upholding the constitutional amendment. The lawsuit claims that the state ban violates the United States Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses and creates a category of “second-class citizens” for gays and lesbians.

The parties involved are expecting this case to be rather lengthy and complex. The No on Prop 8-ers and the couples who brought the suit are hoping that by the time this case gets to the Supreme Court (which apparently they are planning on happening) that the Court will be very different from what it is today, more liberal and apt to rule in their favor.  They are also hoping that the country will be more accepting and sympathetic to their plight.

I can’t predict what the make-up of the Supreme Court will be in years to come, but what I can say is that the individuals who voted in favor of Prop 8 did so according to their value systems and beliefs.  Newsflash, we have that right in this country, and in our great state of California. We actually have a backbone, we can’t be bought and we aren’t likely to take leave of our morals just because the opposition is trying to publicize this mess and wear us down. Are we sick of hearing about it, of all of their whining under the guise of “discrimination” and equality? I sure am. I find it appalling that they can whine when they don’t get their way, when other conservative voters out voted them, and then think that the entire country should be so concerned about their having been out voted on the gay marriage issue. Sorry, that’s the way it works folks.

In my opinion, their case simply translates into this: Prop 8 oponents, (who have now been boiled down into the lawsuit brought to Federal Court by these two couples),  have no regard what-so-ever for the voters of California, for our rights as citizens to shape our own state’s Constitution. To the GLBT Prop 8 opponents, our conservative, moral-based winning vote and wining law suit, might I remind them,  doesn’t matter. That is what you folks are saying right? In fact, they actually believe that their votes are the only ones that should matter. Now who’s being discriminated against? Talk about inequality. This just in: Gay votes counted 2 to 1 against conservative votes. Would that make you happy GLBT supporters?

Let’s just play a little hypothetical game here: say the gay votes did count 2 to 1, (which would be insanely unconstitutional, but let’s just say), in order for them to be properly counted, they’d have to make some kind of designation on their ballot, or registration or something. So the fact that they would have to disclose their sexual orientation, would likely make them up in arms again, and feel that they are being discriminated against. The point here is, you just can’t win with these people. They use the whinny, “poor me” mantra when ever they feel like it, and we are all supposed to bend over backward to accommodate them, just because they claim to have been treated unfairly.

Well, I hope that the attitude in the country and in the Supreme Court is different if this ridiculous case ever gets there; I hope Americans are tired of being bullied by pathetic political correctness, and that they will be able to see right through this anti-prop 8 way of thinking and start to focus on the horrendous impact gay marriage can and will continue to have on children who deserve both a father and a mother. The research is out there, some of it posted in the archives of this blog. Check it out.

Thanks for reading. ~journalista

Source: Bay Area Reporter