Have your words ever been twisted? Have you ever been railroaded by others? If
so you may have some understanding of why Lois Learner (possibly) chose to take
the 5th amendment and not testify before Congress. Having had my words twisted
in times past and also having others try to railroad me, I fully supported her
in this.When she exercised her 5th amendment right, tea party types
in Congress tried to say she had waived her 5th amendment rights when she denied
having done anything wrong. Really?, how does this do that? And if there is
some rule that defines this as doing that, shouldn't people testifying
before Congress be warned of this? shouldn't she have been warned? Similar
to when a person is given their Miranda rights?At this point, the
conservatives in Congress deserve to twist in the wind and be frustrated in
their efforts after what they tried and are trying to do to Lois Learner. Tea
party types say their are all about the law and about the constitution, well
I think the author of the letter may have been thinking about more than just
politics. The recent case of the police officer (civil servant) who refused to
do his job because he disliked the group he was supposed to be serving, for
example.@Stormwalker;Great commentary about the true
effect of the "pro-lifers". If ever there was an oxymoron,
"pro-life" is it.
@JoeCapitalist2First, I did not say "cradle to grave," I
said making sure the resources are available to support the *child* you demanded
be born. Easy to pass laws that only impact others. Second,
"choice," as I am sure you know, refers to reproductive choice and not
other activities. You are pro-birth when you want to force
government control over a womb that is not inside your own body. You are
pro-life when you support children having the resources they need to grow up -
food, adequet shelter, fully funded school, healthcare. I know
perhaps a dozen women who have talked about the decision to have an abortion. In
each case it was a wrenching decision, and often they talked about being in
poverty already and not having resources or support to have another baby. And I should note that states mandating comprehensive sex education
throughout school and mandating inexpensive and widely available contraceptives
have the lowest teen birth and lowest abortion rates, while states with no
little or no sex ed and hard to obtain contraceptives have high teen births and
Open Minded MormonI think Mike Richards trumped your argument.
However, having read these posts my conclusion is that civil servants, and
political servants have different roles. Certainly a fireman or policeman
should not care about the politics of any person they serve. However, that
should be the main thing a politician should care about when representing his
constituency. Only the office of President of the U.S. can be said to be for
all the people, as well as the Executive Branch workers who are appointed or
overseen (military, FBI, Justice,ect.) by the President. Every other elected
political office holder is representing a local entity. State or district.
"With Utah being the most conservative State in the Union, the likelihood of
our members of Congress voting with liberals should be somewhere between nil and
never."What an odd statement. I assumes there are no issues
in which conservative and liberal agree upon. What a profound indication of
how the writer views those who don't agree with him on all ideologic
issues. It is an all or nothing proposition. If a "liberal" were to
come up with a good highway bill... it is mandated that Utah's delegation
must vote against it.Mike - we are Americans first - all living
under the same constitution. This attempt to divide this nation into two
opposing sides is what will turn what is the arguably greatest nation on earth
to yet another Iraq, a nation divided against its self sole based on
ideologies.Its a sad statement that you make - that we must be
opposed to everything the other side agree with. And it surely doesn't
reflect the council of the LDS leadership.
Stormwalker: "Pro-life verses pro-birth rant"So let me get
this straight...it is not enough to advocate not killing an unborn child. You
must advocate cradle to grave entitlements for that child or you are not
"pro-life"???Is that really what you are saying?I suppose by that kind of logic, you can't be "pro-choice" either
unless you advocate that a woman should have a choice in EVERYTHING. (e.g. can
choose to not pay taxes, to not sign up for Obamacare, to carry a gun without a
All people who receive compensation from the United States government for
services rendered, are employees of the United States government. It
doesn't really matter how they got the job, they are expected to perform
the duties of their job according to the rules of the job description as
specified by our government.
I do not support Gay Marriage, but I don't oppose Gay Marriage either. I
do support the concept that an adult American can do as he pleases so long as he
doesn't infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. I do
not believe that the majority of adult Americans support Gay marriage. Just
because we grant certain freedoms to others, doesn't mean that we support
all the things that a person might do.
Mike Richards said, "It's interesting to read the polls. Obama would
lose if an election were held today."That statement could have
been said about most presidents, especially at the halfway mark of a two term
president. But the only poll that really counts is the one that's taken on
election day. Obama won and Romney lost. Accept it and move on.
george of the jungle said "I think the writer is referring to those who has
an automatic 3% cost of living increase compounded every year."Then, of course, you are NOT talking about federal employees who got a 1.5%
pay raise last year after no pay raises for the previous 4 years. Oh, and then
there was the sequester that took 20% of the salary for no other reason than
Congress didn't do it's job. So who are you referring to?
@L WhiteDoesn't it tell us that the majority rarely agree to do
anything that is immoral or unjust? =========So you
support Gay Marriage right? The majority of the country does. The
majority of the country also supports Freedom of Choice.So is this
tyranny of the majority suppressing the wisdom of the minority?
Anyone else see the irony in Michele Richards lecturing us about majority
rule?If the majority ruled then the majority of their platform would
be completely ignored.It's only through our system that a small
vocal minority, like the tea party, can shut down the entire government for
throwing a fit. In a parliamentary system, the tea party and their cohorts would
be completely ignored.
@ Mike Richards, "In a Democratic Republic, the majority decides the
election." You wouldn't know that by the behavior of the right wing.
(Who I think would prefer a totalitarian regime as long as it's
@ george of the jungle, automatic increases have not been happening for federal
employees. I've seen it in the private sector. And do you even know the
meaning and context of "compounded"?
And what pray tell does abortion have to do with being a civil servant?Elected republicans trot it out every election but your civil servants
don't perform them?
@J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UT...Congress is duty bound to represent the
majority.====You know, you are only making
weakening your arguement.The majority of Americans are in favor
of:Medical Marijuana, are Pro-choice, Favor Gun Control
- ioncluding a complete ban on assault rifles,Same Sex Marriage,Raising Taxes on the Uber Wealthy,Less Coal and Fossil Fuels,Getting out of the Middle East,Tighter controls on Business, Raising the Minumum wage, Support Immigration Reform, and Dislike the Tea-Party.You are entitled to your opinions, but
you do not control Reality.
Pro-life verses pro-birth.I rarely hear from anybody who is pro-life
- that is, they want the baby born, and they support fully funded pre-natal
health care for poor women, and they want WIC and other nutrition programs to be
fully funded, and they agree education should be fully funded and teachers well
paid, and they agree that childcare is needed and the working poor should get
help to cover their childcare expenses and that children need full medical care
in clean and well run settings, and education opportunities for single mothers
will improve the lives of children...Nope, nope, nope. None of that,
it would be socialist. We'll complain about all that.Just no
abortions. You are not "pro-life." You are
"pro-birth" and also "anti-child."
J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTWe have an all volunteer military. If you
do not accept the responsibilies of military life, you have no obligation to
enlist.We live in a Republic where the majority choose our
Representatives. Those Representatives are duty bound to vote the will of the
people, not to cower when policially active minorities try to change society.I sense someone’s guilt. Sorry you did not serve our Country, but
as you stated, it was YOUR choice.I chose to Serve – as both active
Duty and Civil Service.FYI – President Obama is our duly
elected Representative. By the Majority -- Twice!However, you are
right about one thing; he does not need to “cower” to the minority.
========== L WhiteSpringville, UTLDS Church policy
– “The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals
or public demonstrations concerning abortion.”There -- Legislatively
neutral, period.Sorry if you disagree with it, but if you are going
to lecture, you are going to need to lecture the LDS Church – not me.I will follow the Prophet.
51 percent or more of Americans support abortion, marriage equality, and the
civil rights act of 1964. 51 percent or more Americans do not support bribery
for free speech, shorter voting times, and the elimination of min wage.The repubs have lost the popular vote in White House elections in 5 out of the
last 6 elections.So if repubs want to be ruled by "the
majority" then I say, "Amen!"
I think the letter writer and many of you are not understanding the difference
between a Civil Servant, an elected official, and a political appointee. I
would encourage you to figure out the difference before posting. A
civil servant is an competitive employee. He/she applies and is hired for a job
somewhat like a private sector job, interviews, applications, etc. They are
generally paid on a scale where everyone in the same job is paid in the same
salary band and their jobs are classified based on the position description and
responsibilities. Political affiliation is not an issue, it is inappropriate to
discuss, and they serve the pubic regardless of their politics. An
elected official is just that, elected by the public in a certain area. They
are politically affiliated. A political appointee is in a position
deemed by Congress to be appointed by the President. They are not necessarily
aligned with a political party, but serve at the pleasure of the President. He
can hire, fire, replace, etc. for any reason he/she deems appropriate. Most
agency heads are political appointees. Please learn the difference.
It makes you look foolish when you don't.
J. Thompson:According to Gallup, 53% of Americans (i.e. the
majority) support keeping Roe v. Wade. So by your logic, our representatives
should abandon their efforts to overturn it.Guess what? The rights
of the minority become much more important if you are in the minority.And BTW, I was forced to become a soldier. You must be too young to remember
I think the writer is referring to those who has an automatic 3% cost of living
increase compounded every year.
As usual, there are those who think that the exception to a rule becomes the new
rule. No one is forced to be a soldier. We have an all volunteer military. If
you do not accept the responsibilies of military life, you have no obligation to
enlist. A woman who has been raped or the victim of incest can go to a hospital
where she can get the help that she needs, she doesn't need her employer to
pay for her abortifacients. If she wants to buy an abortifacient, she can do
that with her own money.We live in a Republic where the majority
choose our Representatives. Those Representatives are duty bound to vote the
will of the people, not to cower when policially active minorities try to change
society. The courts give everyone the right to be heard, but they cannot change
the Constitution just because a small group have their feelings hurt because 97%
of society disagrees with their demands. If they want a parliamentary system,
they should consider moving to a country that has that kind of government.
America is a Democratic Republic.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah@Open Minded,With all
due respect, how can any civil servant, elected official, or business owner
serve people if those demands are diametrically opposed? If your
church teaches you not to assist, pay for, or promote abortions and the
President of the United States tells you to fully fund abortifacients, what are
you going to do? Are you going to follow God or are you going to follow the
President?========= With all due respect, God said not to kill.I served in the Military.Yet as a member of
the LDS Church, killing [i.e., diametriacally opposed] was authorized.And Yes -- Many of us struggle with that.For the rest of our lives.and may God be the Judge on that, and have mercy on our souls.BTW
-- the Church does oppose abortions, but you are still wrong about there
being no absolute!Time and again, you and others convienently ignore or
intentionally leave out the "Exceptions" to that rule as well.Rape, Incest, life or health of the woman.Decisions to made by her, her
Doctor, family and clergy.The Church is politically neutral
regarding legislation about abortion.Are you going to follow God?
In the Ultra book of values the street sweeper is just as important to society
and the voluntary military person. Civil servants, sometimes called
public servants, are all a cut above the ordinary citizen, but only because they
have been given the authority and duty to be employees of society. To carry Mikes logic a little further, even though the Utah representatives of
Utah are elected by conservatives in Utah, when in the condition of being a part
of the national government, they should represent all the people of America and
not just Utah.
FreedomFighter41 - Interesting that you left unions and left leaning mega-donors
out of your list. I have not heard where Romney has ever engaged in large
donations to any politician - wherewas the hundreds of millions donated by
George Soros and Tom Steyer are well documented. As for the unions, the latest
estimates I have seen are that they donate nearly $600 million a year to
political causes.So exactly why were all of the people upset by the
Kock brothers and corporations making donations so silent regarding the
contributions of unions and liberal donors? The leftist interpretation of the
1st Amendment - you are entitled to free speech - if you agree with us.
Why should our elected official represent "everyone" when only a few
have enough money to bribe them with "free speech"?The rest
of us are struggling to make ends meet. Meanwhile, folks like Romney, Koch Bros,
etc have millions to bribe our elected officials with.Until we get
rid of special interest bribery, our "democracy" will continue to be an
Lois Lerner is the poster child of government gone amuck. Instead of viewing
their resposibility as a servant of the public, they view their role as a
dictator who imposes their political will on those who fall under their control.
The servant becomes the master, accountable to no one.The bigger the
government becomes, the more this mentality will pervade the system. I hope it
is a small minority, but it is still a huge problem nonetheless. We need to root
this corruption out whether it is on the right or the left.The EPA,
the FDA, the education system, and the Justice Department are all examples where
abuses of power lead to less freedom, not more.
I'm not sure where you're heading with this, Darrel. Maybe just a
chance to throw a rock at government. Truth is, most people who are civil
servants, nearly all, are dedicated, conscientious people.
@Mike Richards:Our Republic is dedicated to "liberty and justice
for all," the Bill of Rights balancing the will of the majority against the
rights of the minority. Your "winner rules with an iron fist" scheme
denies the very foundation of the representative republic. In a pure
democracy 51% beats 49%. Your idea would remove the voice of the minority and
only allow that minority rights condescendingly granted by the majority. In your
view there is no political compromise, no ability to see - or acknowledge - the
minority. Only the strongest group has power, only the strongest group is heard.
It functions like a dictatorship and, based on most of your other statements,
you endorse a theocratic dictatorship where the majority is presumed to be the
party of a God and the minority are presumed to be sinners who oppose God. I know you think your majority actually would be ordained of god and
righteous and all, but... That is what they all say. And then they reign with
blood and horror. A parliamentary system would be preferable, where
coalitions must be formed to govern. All voices are heard.
@Open Minded,With all due respect, how can any civil servant,
elected official, or business owner serve people if those demands are
diametrically opposed? If you have a sign on your door that says, "No
shoes, No shirt, No service" and some of those shoeless, shirtless people
demand service, while at the same time those who respect the rules tell the
owner that they will take their business elsewhere if he changes the rules, what
would you do? If your church teaches you not to assist, pay for, or promote
abortions and the President of the United States tells you to fully fund
abortifacients, what are you going to do? Are you going to follow God or are
you going to follow the President?When society is divided because
some have lost all belief in absolute right and wrong, and some in society start
to demand that society change to enable them to destroy themselves (drugs), to
destroy the family (ssm), to corrupt the minds of the youth (why I have two
mommies), what is a "civil servant" to do?
Liberals think the are elected to rule, not serve. I make that statement from
close observation! Term limits would solve this problem but of course liberals
are opposed to that!
LDS liberal. Why exactly do the rich and wealthy need to serve you? If the
people are paying their salary, that is one thing. If they start their own
business, that is another. They have taken risks and worked hard to get what
they have. I simply do not understand the mentality of - you have been
successful therefore you owe me. As a small business owner I have good years
and bad years. During good years some of my employees assume that they should
be entitled to someof my profits. Funny thing, in bad years none of them are
interested in foregoing their salary.The rich and wealthy, as you
put it, pay far more in taxes than do the middle class. The most annoying thing
to hear is someone who pays little, if any, taxes complaining about others not
paying their fare share.While I am not wealty, I try and follow the
teaching of thou shall not covet. (except for a 911 Carera S4 - it does not say
anythingabout coveting you neighbors car)
ECR makes a good point. There is a difference between civil servants and
elected officials. I think most civil servants do a pretty good job and I am
disheartened when they are reviled and demonized for selfish or political
purposes. Elected officials need to move from hyper-partisanship when they are
elected and endeavor to serve all the people instead of particular
constituencies. They need to be pragmatic and moderate so that solutions to
problems can be found. They need to find a way to seek common ground with other
elected officials, otherwise they have failed. The idea that elected officials
should not compromise is a sure path to destruction.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and I have no scientific measurements
to back this up - just long experience as a civil servant. The VAST majority of
employees, federal, state, and local who work in the public sector - who compete
and are hired for jobs (not political appointees) treat the customers (the
public) fairly and without regard to political affiliation. I have worked as a
uniformed Army soldier as well as a scientist in a federal civilian agency and
the political affiliation of our customers is never discussed, never taken into
account, and it is not an issue. We serve the public proudly regardless of
whether we agree with the policies from the political appointees or not.
Mike -- The letter to the editor said this:"Those
who would claim to be our civil servants need to understand that they serve all
Americans, not just those with whom they agree."I work for the
DoD -- civil servant.Police, Fire, Mailman, School Teachers, et.al = Civil
Servants.We do not get to pick and choose who we serve and
protect.ALL Americans, period.No party cards allowed.Elected Officials should act and behave the same way.
Representatives are elected to represent the will of all the people of Utah, not
just those who elected them in their district. The Constitution does not divide
a State into districts. It allows a State to have Representatives based on the
population of the State. Utah is the most conservative State in the Union. ALL
of our Representatives should agree on ALL legislation and be unified when they
vote. That has not happened.Senators are elected to represent the
State. With Utah being the most conservative State in the Union, our Senators
must vote conservatively, or they are voting against the will of the people.With Utah being the most conservative State in the Union, the likelihood
of our members of Congress voting with liberals should be somewhere between nil
and never. That does not mean that they should disregard the phone calls or
emails from liberals, but they should educate those liberals WHY they must vote
to represent the majority of the people of Utah.
Last I heard, the military is supposed to protect all of us not just the
"good" Americans. And last I heard, the term public servant (referring
to elected officials and government employees) were supposed to do their job for
all of us, not just the ones they might support politically. And I always
thought that people or businesses that provide goods and services to government
were supposed to give the services to any citizen, not just the ones they might
see in the pew next to them on Sunday.However, it appears that we
now have a new right of religious conscience that says "if you don't
like 'em, you don't have to give "em the service, the goods,
etc". Apparently the newly discovered "right" to discriminate is in
place. Wonder where that will lead us all. Pity every minority, every one who
sees and lives differently from the majority. You know have a target on your
back. And the arrow used is now religion.
The author makes a broad assumption - civil servants only serve those with whom
they agree - but has no evidence or references to back up that assumption.
There may actually be some evidence but that doesn't change the fact the
the author has failed to provide them.Second, the author makes
another bold assertion - "If they find ... they should consider a different
line of work". Why should they find another line of work. Wouldn't it
be better to establish a plan for what to do when one is compromised, like
decide to do the right thing, rather than find another line of work.I suspect that the author might be confusing civil servants with elected
officials. The civil servants I know do their job to the best of their abilities
and they carry out the policies of the government. They may not always agree
with those policies but they carry them out, because that's their job. If
a citizen disagrees with a government policy, it's not the fault of a civil
servant. Change comes from our elected officials, not from civil servants
deciding to act against the policies of the government.
Agreed.This Republicans serve only Republicans, Democrats
serve only Democrats just has to stop.BTW -- This same thing
applies to the RICH and Wealthy, and the new non-human Corporate