April 10th, 2007

Doctrinally Justifiable Treason


photo credit: viciousg42

If we look at the timeline of events that led up to the Revolutionary War and compare it to current day events, we will see a disturbing similarity. Must our present-day inaction, indifference, and silence in the face of tyranny cause us to march down the same dreaded path? Our wake-up call is so clear; why do we ignore it? (Jesse Winchester, via Quoty)

If the gospel were restored prior to the Revolutionary War, would the Founding Fathers be counted as faithful members? Would the revelations given to Joseph Smith about submitting to governments and law have negated the support for and determination in committing treason against England and waging a war against the present head of state?

There are many scriptures that discuss our role in relation to government. For example, the 12th Article of Faith states:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

What happens if the enforced law is tyrannical in implementation and satanic in nature? What happens if the legislation of the land is contrary to revealed gospel principles? We are further counseled:

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.
Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet. (D&C 58:21-22)

One might argue that this revelation was given after the American revolution, and the same counsel might not have applied to those who preceded it. Were that not true, the Founding Fathers would have been required to “be subject to the powers that be” until Christ’s coming. Methinks there was a reason this counsel was given after America broke free of its English shackles.

We learn something interesting, however, in a revelation that mentions the Constitution and its divine origins:

Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. (D&C 98:6-7)

Any law that contradicts the Constitution—even if it was instituted by popular vote—is evil. It is more or less than the Constitution, and therefore God describes it as satanic.

In an intriguing section on government and law, we find another interesting instruction regarding our subservience to the state:

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. (D&C 134:5)

Sedition and rebellion are therefore permitted and justified when the government is not protecting the citizen’s inherent and inalienable rights.

So the question stands, is there room for rebellion against our government today? With the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, and other similarly abominable pieces of legislation that have destroyed our “inherent and inalienable rights”, we are doctrinally justified in resistance and rebellion. These laws—un-Constitutional in nature and satanic in substance—deserve to be hurled into eternal burnings where they belong.

To repeat Winchester’s question, “Our wake-up call is so clear; why do we ignore it?”

57 Responses to “Doctrinally Justifiable Treason”

  1. Allthoseinfavormaydosoby...
    April 10, 2007 at 2:24 pm #

    Lets storm the White House with torches and impeach our government which is possessed by satanic spirits from Hell!

    Just like the Church has changed doctrine since the restoration (blacks & priesthood, polygamy, dare I say Hinckleys counsel on earrings?) so does the government. Are there corrupt leaders in the government? Yes. Are there corrupt leaders in the Mormon church? Yes. Neither makes either untrue or Satanic. Your arguments are empty and pretty cheesy. I know you like to technically look at the information, but geez, this is overboard. I think a practical approach would be to read the scriptures while watching conference, not CNN or MSNBC…

    The wake up call, if any, should be to get more people out to vote in better leaders, or run yourself, you seem to know everything and have countless hours of time on your hands.

  2. Carissa
    April 10, 2007 at 3:07 pm #

    I have been reading The Life of George Washington with my son recently and have wondered similar things. Would such revolutionary behavior ever be condoned by our church today, given the right circumstances?

    It has occurred to me that many of us do not even know the constitution well enough (myself included) to know if many laws are constitutional or not. How can we tell when we are taught in school that everyone has their own view of the constitution (strict or loose) and there is no right or wrong way to interpret it? Is it true that the constitution was meant to be an evolving document, and if so, how is that claim compatible with D&C 98:7?

  3. Connor
    April 10, 2007 at 3:16 pm #

    Are there corrupt leaders in the government? Yes. Are there corrupt leaders in the Mormon church? Yes.

    I’m not concerned with the personal worthiness of government officials, nor that of our Church. That is their own concern. What I am concerned about is the policies and laws enforced upon those subject to the government (or church, for that matter). When an individual (“corrupt” or not) imposes a law on another person that violates their “inherent and inalienable rights” it is of grave concern.

    Your arguments are empty and pretty cheesy.

    Wow, now there’s a good argument.

    I think a practical approach would be to read the scriptures while watching conference, not CNN or MSNBC…

    I quilted during this past conference. :)

    The wake up call, if any, should be to get more people out to vote in better leaders, or run yourself…

    …and get rid of Diebold.

    …you seem to know everything and have countless hours of time on your hands.

    You’re too kind!

  4. Connor
    April 10, 2007 at 3:22 pm #

    Would such revolutionary behavior ever be condoned by our church today, given the right circumstances?

    What’s interesting to note, Carissa, is the numerous prophecies attesting to the fact that the Elders of Israel (and Zion, as a whole) will be the only ones supporting Constitutional government when things go to pot. For more information on this I highly recommend Duane Crowther’s book, Prophecy: Key to the Future. Now that the Lord has established a Constitutional Republic through servants He raised up for the purpose, we are to adhere to the Constitution (remember, more or less of it comes of evil, or in other words, Satan) until He comes to take the reigns.

    The revolution in our day, I think, is to support the Constitution explicitly, despite the socialistic garbage being forced down our throats, despite the fiat currency being touted as currency, despite the godless excuse for an education being provided to our children, and despite everything else that runs against what our Founding Fathers envisioned.

    It was George Orwell who once wisely said:

    Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. (via Quoty)

    Upholding morals, truth, and virtue in our day truly is revolutionary. The gospel, then, is part of that revolution. Joseph Smith agreed, when he once remarked:

    I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. (via Quoty)

  5. Carissa
    April 10, 2007 at 3:37 pm #

    So maybe I am already part of a “revolution” by wanting to teach my children what the founding fathers were really like and what the constitution actually says? (As I teach it to myself too at the same time, of course). I Never really thought of it that way.

    I like how you said “Upholding morals, truth, and virtue in our day truly is revolutionary”. That really is true. Thanks for the book reference and your thoughts.

  6. Odd Thomas
    April 10, 2007 at 3:40 pm #

    Joseph Smith was also killed.

  7. Connor
    April 10, 2007 at 3:45 pm #

    Joseph Smith was also killed.

    Um… your point?

    He said he would lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world, and that he did. The stone cut out of the mountain without hands is rolling forward to fill the earth. The kingdom of heaven (and of God) is readying itself for the Groom, who will rightly come take His place soon enough.

    ¡Viva la revolución!

  8. Odd Thomas
    April 10, 2007 at 3:53 pm #

    My point is that that is all well and good, but realize it may get you or your family killed. Also realize, that you better sure as shootin’ know it is worth it and “treason” is THE most important thing you need to be doing with your life. It requires that it will be effective. One must also understand that raising a family up unto the Lord is pretty high on the list. One must also realize that when you start sympathizing too much with Timothy McVeigh, your view of the world may be a little skewed.

  9. Connor
    April 10, 2007 at 3:59 pm #

    One must also realize that when you start sympathizing too much with Timothy McVeigh, your view of the world may be a little skewed.

    Um, duh… Anybody who advocates terrorism and the killing of innocent civilians needs to have their head examined.

  10. Carissa
    April 10, 2007 at 4:16 pm #

    Apparently some people think that Connor’s comment “we are doctrinally justified in resistance and rebellion” automatically means that he advocates terrorist-type behavior and the killing of innocent people. Is there no other way to disagree with and advocate change of laws or policies that are unconstitutional?

  11. Michael L. McKee
    April 10, 2007 at 6:16 pm #

    Well, Connor you have finally begun to march to the beat of the drummer who is beating a path toward revolution, and the resurgence of the true American spirit which must be revitalized soon or it will all be in vain.

    We can no longer permit our so-called Federal Government to usurp every fiber of the fabric of the original Framer’s Constitution bestowing full and absolute power unto the general populace.

    We have, over the last 100 years or so, been very derelict in our duties to secure our future by holding accountable those in the 3 respective branches for what they have done, and continue to do in our name.

    I fear that future elections will not bring about sufficient change to restore that which has been abrogated to a point where the people are unrecognizable in their current status as the holders of Constitutional power given us by those men who gave all they possessed spiritually to ensure the future would remain as free as the day they gave us the glorious document which was duly inspired and blessed by the Lord Jesus Christ.

    I sincerely hope and pray we will receive some kind of guidance for exactly how we must come together to stop these Kingmen before it is too late. We are in need of a valiant leader such as Captain Moroni

  12. Odd Thomas
    April 10, 2007 at 6:31 pm #

    Carissa,
    Sure there are other ways. I just can’t think of any that would constitute treason. it is not a word I picked.

  13. Connor
    April 10, 2007 at 6:38 pm #

    I just can’t think of any that would constitute treason. it is not a word I picked.

    Treason is defined as betraying one’s country/government. In our day, adhering to and supporting the Constitution (and hence disobeying the garbage coming from Congress, Bush’s numerous signing statements, and astounding executive orders) might just qualify as betrayal of the current government.

  14. Wade
    April 10, 2007 at 7:24 pm #

    Carissa’s following comment is a great challenge to your point Connor:

    …many of us do not even know the constitution well enough (myself included) to know if many laws are constitutional or not.

    You are making a good point (one I actually agree with in theory), but you run into a problem when it comes to the meaning of the Constitution. I could pose many challenges in regard to what may or may not be “Constitutional”. And depending on your personal view of its text, it will mean different things (it often meant different things to the Framers themselves).

    The concept of a “wall separating church and state” is not in the Constitution and is a concept that grew out of the early 20th century protestant nativist penchant to exterminate Catholic narrative. Yet, one can point to various letters from Jefferson advocating a separation and several other statements from other Founders who opposed his view. The issue today is the meaning of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

    Then there is the spectre of substantive due process. Are you prepared to denounce all fundamental rights under this regime established by the Court since the founding? Is the regime constitutional?

    This is a problem for you to consider. Yet, ironically, I have started down this path of yours; i.e., considering the real need for some kind of revolution.

  15. Connor
    April 10, 2007 at 7:54 pm #

    Wade,

    Excellent points, my friend. I am amazed at the various ways people (even our judges, all the way up to the Supreme Court) interpret certain portions of the Constitution. At times I feel that these people (and perhaps myself included) interpret certain sections so as to favor their own bias and purpose, rather than poring over the statement in its original context, taking into account the other writings of the Framers in an effort to see what they intended it to mean, instead of what we want it to mean.

    Nothing is void of varying interpretations by people with different backgrounds, circumstances, and perspectives. The scriptures are subject to our personal interpretation to an extent as well, resulting in the interesting (and at times, heated) discussions we often see in the bloggernacle.

  16. Wade
    April 10, 2007 at 10:16 pm #

    I too am an originalist; but even that ideology presents the problem that the Framers often had bitter disagreements. Also, there’s the issue that stare decisis presents a problem because of all the questionable precedent over the years.

  17. Chris Merris
    April 11, 2007 at 4:01 am #

    Though I am also inclined toward original intent, I have realized that it is not a cure-all for our nation’s problems. There are genuinely new situations in our nation that the Founders didn’t envision or expect. Who could have planned for something like the internet? Who could have planned for something like drug-use epidemics?

    We cannot stop just at what the Founders said; we need to carry the process through and become like them. What did they study? What molded them? How did they become acquainted with tyranny? Why did they write what they did in the Constitution? There is so much surrounding the Revolution – so much to learn and study.

    I believe it can and will get much worse in our country. I think we may still be far away from any kind of tyranny that the mass populace would recognize. It’s going to take some very clear and discernible invasions into our privacy and our unalienable rights before people start to realize what’s going on.

    Anyway, great work again, Connor. I am with you here.

  18. Dan
    April 11, 2007 at 8:13 am #

    Ah, I do miss the days of my 20s when revolution sure sounded like a great idea. Things change when you start a family and have responsibilities. That’s one of the most fascinating things I’ve learned when studying revolutions. That spirit of change, the drive to fight the power, to rage against the machine, is strong and vibrant in the minds and hearts of the 20 year olds.

    Things change when you have a family. You start liking structure and stability. Because, your children need that growing up. The more unstable their environment, the worse their ability to grow up properly. Just look at the children in Iraq, for example. What are they learning about the world around them. They are most certainly in a revolution of sorts. But what they are learning is the art of violence and death. Hardly the qualities of a thriving nation.

    There is no doctrinally justified treason, Connor. If you break from this nation and its laws, then you will be held accountable, tried, convicted, and most likely executed without many raising a cry of concern, besides perhaps your family. The church today does not endorse any such action against our government. Why do you? The reason I ask this is because you use church doctrine to justify treason, but offer up scriptures you interpret wrongly. Who was the man who said to watch the Twelve? Keep your eye on the Twelve. What do they talk about today? Certainly not to rise up against this government, as bad as it is.

    Have patience, Connor. Those who commit evil acts, like Bush and his supporters, will have justice knocking on their door at the appropriate time. But rushing to revolution is not the prudent, wise, or smart answer right now. Keep your eye on the Twelve. There lies safety.

  19. Carissa
    April 11, 2007 at 8:14 am #

    We cannot stop just at what the Founders said; we need to carry the process through and become like them. What did they study? What molded them? How did they become acquainted with tyranny? Why did they write what they did in the Constitution? There is so much surrounding the Revolution – so much to learn and study.

    Great comment! We are planning to buy and study the Federalist Papers, Democracy in America and many other works that express the ideas and philosophies of the time in order to get a better idea. History itself, could teach us so much if we can find the right sources (as accurate and unbiased as possible). Definitely something different than the textbooks we had in school. Autobiographies and journals would be great sources.

    I’d also like to study more about what early American life was like, when freedom was still a high priority for every citizen and the constitution/laws/thoughts were still in their more original state. How did our society function for those first 50-100 years as compared to now? I know a few differences… there were no compulsory attendance laws for education (although literacy was extremely high), nearly all schools were privatized, we were not a welfare state, and there was no income tax law. Can you imagine our country being like that again?

  20. Dan
    April 11, 2007 at 8:18 am #

    Carissa,

    (although literacy was extremely high), nearly all schools were privatized, we were not a welfare state, and there was no income tax law.

    Can you share your sources for that information, please? I’d like to see the numbers on literacy in the 1790s in America. I’d like to see your information about the privatization of schools, and tax laws of the 1790s. Thank you.

  21. Carissa
    April 11, 2007 at 8:24 am #

    If one were standing up for a constitutional principle in opposition to a current interpretation or law, it would only be labled as “treason” by those not abiding by the constitution themselves. Would it be treason to God, though, who specifically told us to support that law which is constitutional? Does God want us to stand up for the constitution at all costs, or does he want us to be patient and do our best within the current law (which may not be constitutional)? This is the real question for me.

  22. Dan
    April 11, 2007 at 8:47 am #

    Carissa,

    If you want to know God’s will in this case, I would look at what His representatives (The Twelve) are saying on the matter right now. Follow their lead.

  23. Connor
    April 11, 2007 at 9:01 am #

    There is no doctrinally justified treason, Connor.

    I think the scriptures I’ve cited show that we are commanded to obey the laws that protect our inherent rights and are in harmony with the Constitution. While the scriptures do not sanction treason, they seem to justify it in the event that the laws are corrupt and tyrannical. Do you think it was wrong for the Founding Fathers to commit treason in the quest for liberty and freedom? Does our current doctrine justify their actions?

    If you break from this nation and its laws, then you will be held accountable, tried, convicted, and most likely executed without many raising a cry of concern, besides perhaps your family.

    I fully agree. Any government in power will not easily relinquish its control. Hence, the Declaration of Independence brought about the Revolutionary War. I like what Thomas Jefferson said:

    Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion. (via Quoty)

    The church today does not endorse any such action against our government. Why do you?

    Of course the Church is not going to call its members to arms and start a revolution. Political neutrality is the name of the game for a world-wide entity. This makes perfect sense.

    The reason I ask this is because you use church doctrine to justify treason, but offer up scriptures you interpret wrongly.

    How, then, would you interpret the scriptures I have cited above? Do you disagree that they state one must obey Constitutional law that protects liberty, whereas laws that do not fall under this category do not require such adherence?

    Follow their lead.

    Or read this post. :)

  24. Carissa
    April 11, 2007 at 11:14 am #

    I’d like to see the numbers on literacy in the 1790s in America. I’d like to see your information about the privatization of schools, and tax laws of the 1790s

    I don’t know about the exact numbers in the 1790’s, but in 1817, the Boston School Committee appointed a subcommittee headed by the architect Charles Bulfinch to conduct a survey on education. The following passages are from the book by Samuel L. Blumenfeld called Is Public Education Necessary?

    “The survey, which was made public in November 1817, revealed that Boston, with a population of about 40,000, supported eight public schools, including the Latin School, an African School for Negro children, and a school in the Almshouse for the children of paupers. Total enrollment of the eight schools was 2,365 pupils. This was approximately 33 percent of the school-age population. The report also revealed that there were scattered throughout the city 154 private schools for both boys and girls with a total enrollment of 3, 767. There were eight “charity free schools” with an enrollment of 365 pupils. All told, over 4,000 students between the ages of four and fourteen attended private schools of one sort or another, at a total cost to their parents of almost $50,000. The survey reported that there were 283 children aged seven and under who attended no schools. Thus, an astonishing percent of the town’s children were attending school, and the 4 percent who did not, had charity schools to attend if their parents wanted them to.” pg 43

    Even the “public” or common schools were not the public schools we know today, in that they were voluntarily set up, had voluntary attendace, and parents paid tuition which allowed them to be more locally or privately controlled:

    “In New York State, in 1795, the legislature created a large school fund based on income from land grants. Many towns did indeed establish common schools, but these were only partially financed by the state fund. The counties were required to raise matching funds, and tuition was also paid by parents.” pg 26

    “All primary education was still private, and a child had to be able to read and write to be eligible for the public grammar school at age seven. In addition, the public grammar schools had to compete with a large number of private schools for the school-age population.” pg 24

    On literacy:

    “Prof. Lawrence Cremin, in his study on education, estimated that, based on the evidence of signatures on deeds, wills, militia rolls, and voting rosters, adult male literacy in the American colonies ran from 70 to 100 percent. It was this high literacy rate that, indeed, made the American Revolution possible. Like the Reformation, it was a Revolution among literate men in which the written word was crucial to the spread of revolutionary ideas and projects.” pg 20

    According to the Journal of Education in January 1828:

    “Our population is 12,000,000, for the education of which, we have 50 colleges, besides several times the number of well endowed and flourishing academies leaving primary schools out of the account. For meeting the intellectual wants of this 12,000,000, we have about 600 newspapers and periodical journals. There is no country, (it is often said), where the means of intelligence are so greatly enjoyed by all ranks and knowledge is so generally diffused among the lower orders of the community, as in our own.”

    Not until 1913 when the 16th amendment was adopted, was the income tax law a permanent fixture. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

  25. Carissa
    April 11, 2007 at 11:32 am #

    What if next year it becomes treasonous to condemn homosexuality as a sin according to some new hate crimes legislation? “The twelve” have recently been very bold and clear about our doctrinal views on the subject, despite the controversy over it. What would they do?

    If you want to know God’s will in this case, I would look at what His representatives (The Twelve) are saying on the matter right now. Follow their lead

    As representatives of the church they cannot take political action for all to see. How do I know what they do politically in their spare time, who they vote for, what organizations they support, or what their political views really are? Do you propose that since they are silent on most political matters that we all should be too? Since they advise us to take an active part in elections and such, I’m sure they personally do too.

  26. Kelly Winterton
    April 11, 2007 at 9:34 pm #

    President Hinckley in his conference talk of April 2003 set the guidelines that we as latter-day Saints should take in dissent of our government. He said: “Modern revelation states that we are to renounce war and proclaim peace. In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally.”

    I am trying to be as treasonous as is legally possible by exposing the Cheney/Bush administration’s crimes, in the effort we can use the Constitution to impeach them for their crimes. These government criminals must receive the justice from their crimes as the Constitution spells out. Bill O’Rally would call this treasonous, but I do not. The destruction of our Constitution as is happening presently is not of God, it is of Satan, and God would justify the efforts of Saints to uphold its principles.

  27. Sam Hennis
    April 11, 2007 at 10:40 pm #

    Well said Kelly. We need to be doing all we can to expose the fraud which is being purpetrated against us by the Bush regime, namely the “War on Terror.”

  28. Dan
    April 12, 2007 at 7:25 am #

    Kelly,

    I am trying to be as treasonous as is legally possible

    But that’s not what Connor is espousing in this post. He’s basically trying to justify illegal action, which is treasonous. If your actions are legal, they are not treasonous, no matter what the Bill O’Reilys of the world say. Connor is attempting to justify full on rebellion, by reaching to the Founding Fathers who broke away from English rule. He’s using scripture that he is not interpreting correctly. He’s young, and doesn’t have a family of his own yet. I understand exactly how he feels. I felt the same way back then. With little to give up, revolutions sound great, and are very appealing.

    However, the older you get, the more responsibilities you have in life, with the addition of children, you start to realize that such problems as how our country should be run can be handled without the need for revolutions. The process will be much slower, but far more stable.

    We’re building up the kingdom of God. Were America in a revolution of the kind espoused by Connor, the buildup of the kingdom of God would suffer tremendously. Furthermore, by espousing the breaking of laws to change laws, Connor would only further marginalize himself and the religion he believes in. Think David Koresh. Much good it did him to fight the power.

    Treason is a very serious and wrong path to take. Yes, our country has some pretty evil people in power, and many working behind the scenes to undermine liberties. But you will fail in taking them down if you rebel against the system. Be patient. They will get their dues at the appropriate time.

  29. Connor
    April 12, 2007 at 7:36 am #

    He’s using scripture that he is not interpreting correctly.

    Dan, as you’ve done in previous posts, you have dodged a standing invitation in a recent comment to offer your own explanation on these scriptures which you seem to think I am not interpreting correctly. Rather than brush aside somebody’s argument without offering an alternative explanation, please explain why you think I am interpreting them incorrectly.

    With little to give up, revolutions sound great, and are very appealing.

    Revolutions never sound great. The risked cost is always great. The Founding Fathers lost family, friend, possessions, and in some cases, their own lives. It’s never a small price to pay. Hardly appealing, if you ask me. But necessary? At times, yes.

    The process will be much slower, but far more stable.

    And far more ineffective, if it yields any results at all. Tell me, do you think a slow process will reverse our fiat currency’s demise, the infringements of our liberties through the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act, and the continual (and fast-paced) hoarding of power in the executive, leading us more to a tyranny-like police state? We’re spiraling down the drain of Constitutional government, and a “slow process” won’t do much in the way of reversing the process. It will simply delay the inevitable.

    Look people (well, Dan)… I’m not saying anybody should go out and commit treason. Such an argument was never the point of this post. The point was simply to illustrate that at times a revolution is necessary, and when necessary, it is justified by scripture. Despite your claims that I’ve interpreted the cited scriptures incorrectly, I stand by my explanation and invite you to offer your own interpretation which you apparently feel is the correct one.

  30. Dan
    April 12, 2007 at 7:36 am #

    Connor,

    I think the scriptures I’ve cited show that we are commanded to obey the laws that protect our inherent rights and are in harmony with the Constitution. While the scriptures do not sanction treason, they seem to justify it in the event that the laws are corrupt and tyrannical.

    No they don’t. Because I can quote you Paul who says that we must be subject to kings and rulers, and basically bear with patience their rule.

    Do you think it was wrong for the Founding Fathers to commit treason in the quest for liberty and freedom? Does our current doctrine justify their actions?

    I think I’m starting to understand why so many conservatives are looking admiringly at the South’s rebellion against the North in the Civil War….that said, the actions of the Founding Fathers do not justify your desire for treason, as much as you may want it to. Their actions weren’t treasonous, or even revolutionary. They kept most of the same laws from British rule. They didn’t alter much at all. All they did was say, “look, King George, we don’t like how you’ve oppressed us with your tax laws; we don’t get to be represented in your government, and as such, we’re going to govern ourselves.”

    Of course the Church is not going to call its members to arms and start a revolution. Political neutrality is the name of the game for a world-wide entity. This makes perfect sense.

    Then why don’t you follow church policy, Connor? You’re using church doctrine to justify treason, and then state that the church itself doesn’t justify treason. That just don’t make sense, yo.

    How, then, would you interpret the scriptures I have cited above? Do you disagree that they state one must obey Constitutional law that protects liberty, whereas laws that do not fall under this category do not require such adherence?

    Because it is not up to you to interpret which laws “protect liberty” and which ones do not. You think if each individual had that power, any of us would be subject to the enforcement of the laws? Heck, I would call all tax laws against my “liberty” and choose not to follow them. But that’s not the kind of society the Founding Fathers created, or even had in mind, Connor. You ARE subject to laws you may not like, and even ones you may feel are against your liberty. You are still liable to follow those laws, and if you don’t you can be punished to the fullest extent of the law without anyone raising a doubt in their minds that you were the lawbreaker.

  31. Dan
    April 12, 2007 at 7:36 am #

    Connor,

    Dan, as you’ve done in previous posts, you have dodged a standing invitation in a recent comment to offer your own explanation on these scriptures which you seem to think I am not interpreting correctly. Rather than brush aside somebody’s argument without offering an alternative explanation, please explain why you think I am interpreting them incorrectly.

    Have patience my friend. As you see, I was working on replying to you. :)

  32. Dan
    April 12, 2007 at 7:38 am #

    Carissa,

    What if next year it becomes treasonous to condemn homosexuality as a sin according to some new hate crimes legislation? “The twelve” have recently been very bold and clear about our doctrinal views on the subject, despite the controversy over it. What would they do?

    What would the Twelve do if the laws were not to their liking? Let me ask you this. Do the Twelve approve of the legalization of abortion? Most likely not. Are they advocating we break that law? I’ve not heard that. Perhaps you can show me if they have.

  33. Dan
    April 12, 2007 at 7:47 am #

    Connor,

    Hardly appealing, if you ask me. But necessary? At times, yes.

    The point is the ease to which you advocate revolution. As a young man with no family of his own as yet, it is very easy to advocate revolutions. Let me tell you, having a one year old daughter, I do NOT want a revolution right now. I want to raise up my daughter well, without any traumatic experiences in her young life. With revolutions come job instabilities, economic disasters, etc. When you have a family to raise, you think of all other options FIRST before you even consider revolutions, and let me tell you, Connor, there are other options.

    And far more ineffective, if it yields any results at all.

    Connor, I’ve studied revolutions and political change. This is incorrect. Far more effective are the slow stable changes than big revolutions. The French Revolution, for example, is the worst out there for change. Nothing positive came out of it. Not just a few years after the revolution you get Napoleon. Wasn’t the French Revolution supposed to stop such people from coming to power? Note also the amount of death, fear, carnage and terror that came with that revolution.

    The American “Revolutionary” War was not a revolution, not even by the loosest of definitions. What did America change from the previous rule? What political structures were changed? The reason America succeeded so well was because of the slow, patient progression. That is far more efficient and successful than any revolution.

    Tell me, do you think a slow process will reverse our fiat currency’s demise,

    Yes.

    the infringements of our liberties through the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act,

    Yes.

    and the continual (and fast-paced) hoarding of power in the executive, leading us more to a tyranny-like police state?

    Yes.

    Now, to turn this on you, answer me how a revolution can stop all that, and still keep all the liberties and economic stability we currently see?

    I’m not saying anybody should go out and commit treason. Such an argument was never the point of this post. The point was simply to illustrate that at times a revolution is necessary, and when necessary, it is justified by scripture.

    Then call for a revolution, not treason. I admit I haven’t read every single piece of Thomas Jefferson’s writings, but I don’t recall ever seeing him justify treason. Perhaps you can show me an example. Before doing that, know that treason and revolutions are two very different things.

  34. feedme
    April 12, 2007 at 7:57 am #

    The commandment given in the D&C about the word of wisdom was given in part for us to have a healthy lifestyle. Those of us in the Church who seem to have become lazy and order the 3 patty fat burger from greasetown don’t seem to be following what our founding fathers had in mind (Joseph Smith). By your reasoning the Church should rebel against them and they should be excommunicated.
    I understand what you are saying as far as what the leaders from back then would think if they were here today, but the same thing can be said of our leaders 30 years ago.

  35. Carissa
    April 12, 2007 at 9:01 am #

    Dan,

    What would the Twelve do if the laws were not to their liking? Let me ask you this. Do the Twelve approve of the legalization of abortion? Most likely not. Are they advocating we break that law?

    How would they advocate breaking the law of legalization of abortion? Not getting an abortion even though it’s legal… ?Um, in nearly all cases, yes. Making abortion legal still gives one the choice of whether or not to do it.

    What I asked you was entirely different. If it became a crime to openly call homosexuality a sin, that would infringe on one of the responsibililties of the church. I am wondering what they would do if their rights to preach the gospel, including denouncing sin, became “treasonous” according to new legislation.

    Treason seems to be one of those things that can be in the eyes of the beholder. To you, nothing the founding fathers did was treasonous. I’m sure King George and many others did not share your opinion.

    You say that because of your concerns as a parent, you wouldn’t want the instability that might come from revolutionary actions to restore our constitutional government. I have four children myself, and I worry about what life will be like for them if nothing changes and we continue the course we are on.

    I don’t think Connor is necessarily advocating “revolutionary behavior” in the way you may be thinking. As he has already said, just living the gospel and upholding morals, truth, and virtue is revolutionary in our day.

  36. Carissa
    June 18, 2007 at 8:06 am #

    Here’s a quote I just came across from President John Taylor and I thought it applied to this post:

    If it be treason to stand up for our Constitutional rights; if it be treason to resist the unconstitutional acts of a vitiated and corrupt administration, who by a mercenary armed force would seek to rob us of the rights of franchise, cut our throats to subserve their own party, and seek to force upon us their corrupt tools, and violently invade the rights of American citizens; if it be treason to maintain inviolate our homes, our firesides, our wives, and our honor, from the corrupting, and withering blight of a debauched soldiery; if it be treason to maintain inviolate the Constitution and institutions of the United States, when nearly all the states are seeking to trample them under their feet—then indeed are we guilty of treason. (LJT 288; also in JT Papers 1:213)

  37. Dan
    June 18, 2007 at 11:06 am #

    Um, Carissa,

    What do today’s prophets say about obeying the laws of our land?

  38. Michael L. McKee
    June 18, 2007 at 11:32 am #

    Dan,

    What exactly do they say?

    More importantly, what do you say?

  39. Carissa
    June 18, 2007 at 11:52 am #

    I have heard them quote D&CWhat does D&C say?

    “And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
    And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
    Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
    And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” (D&C 98, in 1833)

    All I am trying to say is I think there can be such a thing as “doctrinally justifiable treason” (when those who define treason are acting unconstitutionally). Whether our current prophet wants us to be patient in obeying unconstitutional laws or not is an entirely different discussion. See my comment #21. I think that right now we are supposed to obey the laws while doing all in our power to defend the constitution by electing good leaders and supporting correct principles. This may or may not always be the case. D&C gives us a good guide, though, as to what the Lord “justifies”. I do believe there is great safety in following the current prophet because we do not always understand the Lord’s purposes.

    Here’s another interesting comment from the First Presidency Message, The Rule of Law:

    “Revolutionary movements that aim at the abolition of government itself are contrary to the law of God. …”

    What about revolutionary movements that aim at restoring constitutional government?

    On the other hand, there is another scripture in D&C which says “be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.” (D&C 58, 1831)

  40. Kelly Winterton
    June 18, 2007 at 12:16 pm #

    Carissa, I’m with you! I think we can feel justified in wanting to restore Constitutional government to the USA. The Constitution is waiting for us to save it from the thread it is now hanging by.

  41. Mark N.
    June 18, 2007 at 12:44 pm #

    I can quote you Paul who says that we must be subject to kings and rulers, and basically bear with patience their rule.

    I can quote you Joseph Smith who revised Romans 13 to show that Paul was referring to the leadership of the Church, and not the secular government at all.

  42. Kelly Winterton
    June 18, 2007 at 1:06 pm #

    If we are to be subject to Kings, etc., and bear with patience, then let’s just be subject to Bush and bear him with patience while he goes out and knocks off other governments by use of pre-emptive war (offensive) that hasn’t been declared by Congress.

    If Bush can do it to other countries, then what’s the difference if I espouse doing it LEGALLY to my own government when they act contrary to Constitutional laws?

  43. Carissa
    June 18, 2007 at 1:44 pm #

    There is an Ensign article that gives us good advice about the extreme situations where revolutionary action is justified against one’s government (I Have a Question, June 1976). Here are some quotes from Richard L. Bushman and Dallin H. Oaks in that article:

    When should a people go to the extremity of revolt? “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such governments. …” The key word was design. Mere incompetence was not enough. Mistakes had to be tolerated. It was only when the will of the sovereign aimed specifically at destroying all the rights of a people and reducing them to slavery that revolution was justified. “The history of the present King of Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States.” The abuses listed in the declaration were aimed at proving the point. The American revolutionaries themselves would not endorse a revolution arising from ineptitude in government or even suffering among the people. A much deeper and pervasive corruption was necessary—a malevolent and enduring design to destroy the freedom of the people.

    There are exceptions. The command of loyalty to laws and rulers does not compel a citizen to participate in or submit to a government edict that runs counter to the common consensus of humanity, such as genocide or other cold-blooded murder. Nor should it require a person to violate the fundamental tenets of religious faith. For example, if the current laws permitting abortion (which are highly objectionable) were expanded to requiring abortion in certain instances, an unwilling mother and father who regarded this practice as “one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day” (First Presidency statement of January 1973) would be justified in refusing to observe the law. Another exception is specified in our Declaration of Belief, which proclaims that “human law has [no] right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion. …” (D&C 134:4.) An additional exception is hinted in the Doctrine and Covenants sections that proclaim the duty of government to protect our rights of conscience, property, life, and religious belief and practice, and which may condition our duty of loyalty to a government that fails to fulfill those obligations. (D&C 98:5–6; D&C 134:2, 5, 7.)

    Dan, you asked about abortions in comment #32. Dallin H. Oaks gives you the answer here. We would not be expected to obey a law which required getting an abortion.

    Call it treason or whatever you want, but there are doctrinally justified exceptions to obeying laws when those laws violate certain principles of freedom.

  44. Janet
    June 19, 2007 at 7:04 am #

    Connor,

    In the fall of 1981 Elder Bruce R. McConkie was called by “The Brethren,” meaning the first presidency of the church, to go to BYU and call erring teachers and beguiled students to repent and follow the mainstream of the church. Elder McConkie spoke at a devotional and quoted out of a book (the ink was still wet; it was hot off the press) that had been written by a BYU professor, stake president and one of the most popular fireside speakers on campus. Elder McConkie said, “This is false doctrine.” Then, for the next hour, in his very deliberate, concise way he told what the correct doctrine was and gave a lengthy sermon on staying in the mainstream of the church and following the brethren.

    The issues were: #1. We pray to our Father in Heaven in the name of Jesus Christ; we do not pray to Christ. #2. Avoid extremes! The professor had encouraged students to follow the prophet Enos’ example and pray all day and all night (staying on your knees in the wilderness for as long as it took) to develop a personal relationship with the Savior. Students were encouraged to tend to the little daily activities that build testimony to develop their relationship with the Savior.

    The counsel that the brethren sent Elder McConkie to deliver is that there is safety for the soul in following the mainstream of the church and keeping your eyes focused on the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve. There is no safety on the fringes of any extreme and death or worse yet, the death of the spirit or apostasy lie in wait for those who ignore this warning.

    You assume some outcomes from the revolution you are entertaining in your thoughts: #1. That you will win. #2. The original constitutional form of government will be restored. Regardless of your motives, you would be wise to recognize the guile of others who would join you in the battle. Revolutions are not just fought by a party of one. Several parties join in the fight for various reasons –not all are reasons that you would embrace.

    You have chosen your scriptures to support your cause. I would encourage you to write a debate on the opposite point of view (peaceful restoration of Constitutional principles) and proof text the debate using the scriptures. When the Nephites were loosing it, Alma gave up the judgment seat (a government office) and spent the rest of his days preaching the word of God because it had the greater power for change.

    Perhaps in your case, you would have a greater power for inviting a change back to the original constitutional form of government that we started with if you would moderate the tone of your message so that you educate rather than incite. Be a political missionary and think peace. War was only used against the Kingmen after the Kingmen used war to usurp the government. That hasn’t happened yet so there is time to let “we the people” know what the constitution says and why. The first presidency has promised safety to your soul if you follow the brethren and stay in the mainstream.

  45. Michael L. McKee
    June 19, 2007 at 10:07 am #

    The current so-called government of the United States as a political body does not adhere to the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, nor should it do so. That being said, it is currently not operating under the rule of law provided by the Constitution of the United States of America as it was originally constituted either.

    The Kingmen used war to usurp the power of the government, and they were attempting to destroy a governmental body which had been accepted by the people, and their efforts were not lawful. They were doing so from the bottom up. Conversely, the Kingmen of our time are attempting to destroy the Constitutional powers vested in the people through usurpation from the top down. What they are doing is likewise, not lawful.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints covers the entire earth, and is currently led by a Prophet called of God to lead the body of the church. and It just so happens that the Prophet is also a citizen of the United States of America. That may or may not always be the case.

    The people are not considering revoltionary tactics to destroy the law, but rather to restore the law. The people do not want to destroy the government, but many in the government want to destroy the peoples voice which is the law.

  46. Kelly Winterton
    June 19, 2007 at 11:20 am #

    Janet, I’m not trying to reform government, I only wish Cheney to be impeached because of his crimes, which would then be made public. Justice alone demands this, not scriptures. (Government’s crimes are hidden from view by the mainstream media.) If the media could just recognize the crimes of the Cheney cabal, that in itself constitutes major reformation. After all, we LDS members are supposed to fight to make known the secret combinations that we have been told are around us right now. Notice my use of the words “LDS members.” The prophet will stay out of this reformation, because of the political neutrality of the church.

  47. Janet
    June 19, 2007 at 9:19 pm #

    Kelly, I have no problem with what you say. I agree with you and would love to see Cheney and all other conspirators have their day in court. I agree that the Constitution is hanging by a thread. And the press won’t do anything about it because they have a different agenda and they own a lot of politicians.

    Check out the holdings of Rupert Murdoch. Forbes Magazine ranked him the 4th most powerful billionaire in the world. Last I read, he owned the Fox News Channel, T.V. Guide, and 24 other magazines including The Weekly Standard that promoted war with Iraq. He owns 20th Century Fox, Fox Broadcasting, and Harper Collins Publishing. He also owns the largest group of T.V. stations in the U.S. and 130 English-language news papers including the London Times and the New York Post. He also has ownership or major interest in satellite systems that cover the globe. He uses his power to influence politicians world wide and any politician who would challenge him is destroyed by his media. That is raw power used for personal gain. (If you would like to find out more about right wing radicals and their conspiracy, check out Al Franken’s book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. It is a well documented book researched by 14 students from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. The book will give you a different view and a better understanding of some of the Kingmen who are destroying our government from the top down).

    My concern is if a revolution were used to try to restore Constitutional law, the revolutionaries would be joined by those who want to destroy it and form a world government. Once a fight began and the order of law no longer existed, we could not control the outcome of the battle to our favor. I believe that the one of the reasons the Lord wants us to work within the framework of government is that it give us more control over the outcome. If Connor educates people about the Constitution without seeming radical, others will join him. Talk of justifiable treason and revolution will drive others away.

  48. Michael L. McKee
    June 20, 2007 at 10:00 am #

    Janet

    How would you go about trying to restore Constitutional law?

    What form of law would you say we are currently following?

    Do you believe revolutions are a last resort?

    How long would you say we should wait to see if we were correct in our decision to wait?

  49. Cricket
    November 18, 2007 at 8:04 am #

    I have read a couple of posts and some of the responses. I don’t advocate a full global war on terror, but appeasement has not been shown to work. What is happening instead is escalation of the conflict beginning in the late 70s and up through until now, where it is going to be full scale war.

    Just my two cents as a military spouse…

  50. Cricket
    November 18, 2007 at 8:06 am #

    As to the Patriot Act, didn’t John Kerry have something to do with some of the more egregious parts of it? Kerry is a Bonesman.

  51. Kelly Winterton
    November 18, 2007 at 2:17 pm #

    Many authorities are saying that Orrin Hatch was one of the key authors of the Patriot Act. I wrote him a letter asking who authored the Patriot Act, and he wouldn’t say, refusing to answer my question.

    Yes, Kerry was a bonesman, like Bush I and Bush II. Skull and Bones is one of those very same Secret Combinations that Mormon warned us to watch for in the last days.

  52. Cricket
    November 18, 2007 at 8:12 pm #

    Senator Orrin ‘Escape’ Hatch should answer it if you are one of his constituents. He should answer it any way since he votes for the laws that bind us all.

  53. Kelly W.
    November 18, 2007 at 10:09 pm #

    I am one of Hatch’s constituents. I wrote him a very simple letter, wherein I asked him two questions. 1) Who wrote the Patriot Act, and 2) When was it written.

    I asked him that because I thought it utterly ridiculous that 800+ pages of legislation could be written between the date of 9/11/2001 and five weeks later when it was passed. The Congress didn’t even have a chance to read it before voting on it. I therefore believe it was written well in advance of 9/11/2001.

    But Hatch’s letter back to me stated that the Act was passed on X date with almost total approval of Congress.

    I wrote back again, and asked him to answer the two questions, not tell me when it was passed, but who wrote it and when.

    His second reply back to me was equally evading and dodgy, answering neither of my questions.

    When politicians can’t answer simple questions like this, we must assume they have something to hide. Hatch is not to be trusted at all.

  54. Cricket
    November 19, 2007 at 6:46 am #

    Hm. Hatch wrote some legislation back in Clinton’s day…1996 I think it was…and the name of it was the Anti Terror Bill. It passed, but I think it was the basis for the Patriot Act, tightened up.

    While I don’t think 9-11 was necessarily an inside job, I was amazed at how quickly government moved to put this into law.

    Now for something truly creepy; I am a military spouse. My husband is retired. However, he was on active duty in 2001, and we were stationed at Fort Leonard Wood, MO.

    During the spring of 2001, there were messages going out to all the military bases with a heightened alert. FLW was an open base. That means you could drive on. No sticker needed. Part of the reason was it was a shortcut to southern MO and also many people lived off the base and commuted.

    That started to change. By August, guard shacks had been put up and the federal police were manning them. checking IDs and searching our vehicles. You have to understand something basic about this; the military installation is under martial law at all times. You surrender your rights when the base is ‘closed,’ or requiring a pass, orders, a sticker or all three to get on.

    So, they knew something was in the wind. The dreck going around was that a terror strike was being anticipated but no one knew where.

    My husband called me from the battalion briefing room on the morning of September 11, and he told me to turn the idiot box on. That was one of three times I have had cable.

    He said “You will not believe this. Planes have flown into the WTC and hundreds of people have been killed in one strike. We are now in a state of war.”

    I asked him if this was what all the buzz was about earlier. He said ‘If it was, there will be he** to pay.’ So, something was KNOWN even BEFORE the strike, but whether or not it was an inside job is still up in the air. Based on what I have read and heard, I tend to sit out those discussions, because there are still too many unanswered questions.

  55. Shiloh
    March 5, 2010 at 8:45 am #

    In the English language we have 7 coordinating conjunctions: for, and, nor, but, or, yet, and so. These words connect two different clauses together (e.g. I think I am going to go to the mall, AND I think I am going to get a shirt).

    When we read the 12th Article of Faith, we often assume the coordinating conjunction ‘and’; however, ‘and’ is not actually in the 12 Article of Faith. What does this mean?

    Most members read the 12 AoF as follows: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, AND in obeying honoring and sustaining the law.” This context says that there are two clauses that we believe in: (1) being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, and (2) in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. This isn’t how the 12 AoF is actually written though.

    The 12 AoF states: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.” Notice that the coordinating conjunction is missing? What does this do to the sentence? It changes “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” from being a separate clause of our belief to a conditional statement associated to the actions of our “kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates”. How the 12th Article of Faith can read — to be consistent with the English language and D&C 134:5 — is that “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in THEIR obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

    Lest we believe then that we’re not under obligation to obey the Constitutional law of the land — that law that keeps vouchsafe the freedom and liberty of the people (contra the law of man that does not) (D&C 98) — the Lord tells us that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected in their inherent and inalienable rights (D&C 134:5).

  56. Jim Davis
    March 5, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    Here are some quotes from well respected sources within our culture defending the idea of personal/state sovereignty…

    Ezra Taft Benson (Stand Up for Freedom):

    Another recent development has been the call for national unity. I believe there needs to be a unity in our land. But it must not be blind, senseless, irresponsible unity. It should not be a unity just for the sake of unity. It needs to be a unity built on sound principles… by all means let us return to a program of sound Constitutional principles on which we can unite.

    9th & 10th Amendments to US Constitution:

    9) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    10) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Joseph Smith (Latter-day Prophets and the United States Constitution):

    Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No!…The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all power not reserved to itself.

    Declaration of Independence:

    …That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

    D&C 134:5

    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…

    Ezra Taft Benson (The Proper Role of Government):

    Man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around.

    History has repeatedly taught us that our government continues to give little to no regard to uniting under Constitutional principles. One might argue that the federal government has already seceded from the Constitution and therefore the people who wish to continue a Constitutional form of government aren’t actually advocating leaving the Republic but in restoring it. From this perspective—who are the rebels? Who are the law breakers? Who are the extremists? Who has caused disunity? Who has committed treason?

  57. Shiloh Logan
    March 5, 2010 at 11:35 pm #

    Jim,

    Following your line of thought, you might be interested in this paper that I am refining to submit to different academic journals: http://libertarianthink.blogspot.com/2009/12/natural-law-positivism-civil.html

    We know that all “experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”, but what is that point when we finally know when enough is enough? http://libertarianthink.blogspot.com/2010/03/few-years-ago-reporter-asked-well-known.html

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.