According to a few sources, President Bush angrily opposed any mention of the Constitution when he and others were gathered together to brainstorm how best to trample the document, calling it just a “piece of paper” (the actual quote containing some more colorful language). When reports of this exchange were published, many were justifiably shocked and appalled at the behavior of a man who has publicly sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

But while such behavior is repulsive and tyrannical, Bush was right—the Constitution is just a piece of paper.

The Constitution is a contract that exists between “we the people” and our federal government. In reality, the document itself is nothing more than a collection of much-debated words scrawled on parchment. It is a historical wonder and a great collector’s item, but at the end of the day, it’s just a paper with words on it.

Like any other set of words, the Constitution only has power if the value we apply to the words leads us to honor and fulfill their meaning. A contract between two people that nobody enforces is worth nothing more than the sheet of paper upon which it is written. Likewise, without a group of people who respect and implement the Constitutional contract created by the words found on the document, its only value is that of the price it will fetch at a collector’s auction.

Ignoring the Constitution—an action which happens more often that not in Washington, D.C.—renders null and void any attempt to establish authority and restraint on power. Without a willing and authorized party to enforce its provisions and ensure they are obeyed, the document serves no purpose and transforms itself into historical eye candy.

With leaders like President Bush in power, and a cowardly and complicit Congress and Supreme Court, the checks and balances created by the document fade into oblivion and leave us with a piece of paper. Bush was right: our failure to enforce the contract created by the Constitution has resulted in it being treated as little more than the animal parchment and ink used to create it.

As I ponder Thanksgiving this year, my focus rests on the action portion of the word itself: giving thanks. Oddly enough, I only really noticed portion of the word after learning its Spanish equivalent: día de acción de gracias (day of action of thanks).

As Latter-day Saints, we frequently express the necessity of giving thanks as an active expression of our gratitude. This is reflected in our hymn “Because I Have Been Given Much,” where we publicly affirm our commitment to give of our time, talents, and energy to others as a declaration of our love of God and man. We further state that we will show our thanks through both word and deed—a comprehensive approach if ever there was one.

In light of this obligation, it is appropriate to ponder our activities not only on Thanksgiving day (and its secular sister holiday, Black Friday), but on every day. Just as our worship should not be reserved for the Sabbath, so too should our action of thanksgiving not be relegated to one box on the calendar.

How are we as individuals, Latter-day Saints, and as a society at large, expressing our gratitude? Does my thanksgiving end when the turkey and mashed potatoes are done digesting? Do I consider the celebration and holiday complete once my favorite football game ends?

I take the opportunity today to ponder how I am, through word and deed, offering my thanks to God (by serving my fellow man) for the countless blessings I enjoy. Verbally listing a few of them is not enough—I have, running through my mind, faces of the people I’ve met who today are likely either dead from AIDS, going without a meal, or putting in a fourteen hour day of hard labor to provide a horribly meager living for their family. As I enjoy my meal, I think of the gratitude I have not only for the food in front of me, but for the opportunity I have to help those who have been put in my path.

My thanksgiving is incomplete without taking some time to ponder and reassess my charitable actions and attitude. I encourage each of us to increase our actions of thanksgiving—thus shall [our] thanks be thanks in deed.

As I write this post, families across the nation are settling in to watch the season premiere of 24. I’ve talked to a few individuals who have come to use this show as a bonding experience in their family; since each person in their family enjoys the show, it becomes an opportunity for everybody to spend some time in the same room… staring at a TV screen.

I once was an avid fan of the show myself, and had a bit of fictional “hero worship” pointed in Jack Bauer’s direction. But a few seasons into the show, I became disgusted with what I was watching. At that time in my life, I began making a habit out of scrutinizing the philosophical and moral implications of everything around me. Rather than just doing something for fun or out of habit, I would try to rise above the issue to get new perspective and assure myself that the action was acceptable.

It was roughly during the same time period that I became intensely interested in politics and philosophy. With the new personal interests and constant analysis, I soon came to an epiphany that I was surprised I had not before realized: my favorite TV show was absolutely detestable!

The reason is quite simple, yet effectively subtle. I only noticed its presence in the TV show after having studied the methodical deterioration of the rule of law in the Bush administration, and the lopsided media campaign used to shape public opinion and drum up support for the abandonment of time-tested doctrines such as the Just War theory and the golden rule.

In 2000, George Bush ran on a successful campaign that continually asserted the need to have a humble foreign policy, follow the rule of law, not police the world, nor build other nations. Like the man himself, Bush’s most ardent supporters quickly began an evolution of ideology that resulted in a 180 degree shift. Under the threat of terrorism, these individuals soon supported foreign intervention, nation building, policing the world, and even torture—the very things they had not long before so vocally opposed.

Once the scales fell off of my eyes, I realized that Jack Bauer embodied every one of these principles, and perhaps aided in deceiving the people that safety is even worth the price of liberty.

You see, the entire premise of the show 24 revolves around a lawless individual pursuing whatever methods he thinks proper to stop the antagonists. These antagonists usually pose some immediate threat, and so the viewer is treated to one ethical violation after another, all in the name of safety and defense. Whether chewing off an enemy’s jugular with his teeth, or blowing off somebody’s kneecap with his gun, Bauer never shies away from torture and violence as an acceptable method of protecting the homeland. In the world of 24, the end always justifies the means, whatever they may be.

Like any other form of media, this one is not without its implications for affecting the human psyche. After being tantalized with explosions, hard-hitting last-minute scenarios, and general lawlessness, the viewer is left with a surge of adrenaline, but also with a (likely unnoticed) depreciation in the value of liberty, the rule of law, and due process.

In my own informal surveys I have found that fans of the show do indeed condone similar actions conducted by the government, carried out in the name of safety and defense. I believe that this show is partly to blame for creating a culture of tolerance for the rejection of the rule of law. That each episode is saturated with violence only further augments the moral arguments against it.

Like the Bush administration, it is my hope that everything Jack Bauer stands for will one day be generally recognized as destructive, amoral, and antithetical to liberty.

Much has been said and debated in the public arena during the last few months regarding the economy. As with any catastrophe, people are looking to point fingers in order to be able to channel frustration and demand recourse. Sadly, the majority of the public has been deceived into believing that “unrestrained capitalism” and speculative, greedy investors were the major factors behind our current economic troubles.

Make no mistake: this accusation was not accidental, nor is it in the slightest bit truthful. In this instance we see a perfect example of the art form that is the shifting of accountability. This is done by getting the public to place the blame on the wrong people, much like a third grader suspected of causing mischief in class feigns innocence, shrugs his shoulders, and suggestively points to the kid next to him.

By diverting attention from themselves, those who are truly culpable free themselves from the consequences of their own actions, thus allowing them to continue pursuing their destructive course. In this case, the Federal Reserve has repeatedly and frequently avoided the attention they justly deserve through orchestrated media campaigns designed to misplace the blame and prevent any and all discussion related to the organization’s history, mission, agenda, and policies.

This campaign to quell public interest in the matter can be easily seen by asking a random person on the street what they know about Federal Reserve. For all the noise people make about losing their life savings, high food prices, and the housing bubble, few Americans attempt to truly understand the root of the problem.

A nationwide rally was held yesterday in 39 cities to raise awareness about the Federal Reserve and support the campaign for its abolition. As I stood with my sign in front of the Salt Lake City branch building, I amused myself by watching the reactions of people in the cars that drove by. The vast majority were visibly perplexed as to what the “Fed” is, or why people might be upset about its existence.

The fact that very few individuals understand the role of the Federal Reserve illustrates its successful strategy to deflect attention and place blame for its destructive policies onto individuals, organizations, policies, and market forces outside its sphere of influence. By so misplacing blame for what the Federal Reserve does, Americans are wasting their time and energy, and further supporting policies and laws that penalize and restrict individuals and practices that did nothing to create the environment used to bring the economy to its proverbial knees.

Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so too can destructive political ideologies persist, regardless of the package they are wrapped in. In order to create real political change, it is necessary to perform more than just a transfer of keys and titles; changing the guard does not change what is being guarded. Until we are able to have fresh blood in Washington, the contaminated cesspool of big-government socialists will not be threatened by any attempts for real change.

The KGB provides an interesting case study to further this point. According to Spiegel Online, a 2006 study asserts that 78% of Russia’s leaders were involved with the KGB before the country’s government structure was forced to make some stark changes. But are we to believe that the change in the political ideology, world view, and long-term goals of such individuals happened at the same time and speed as the fall of the iron curtain?

This question raises an important point regarding real change: political ideologies can use whatever vehicle necessary to achieve their agenda. Simply having the skeleton framework of a constitutional republic (as we do in our country) does not guarantee the security and propagation of liberty. A change in government does little good if those put in power share and advance the same ideas that the public had previously rejected.

Thus, it would behoove the next President—one who incessantly chanted the word “change” at every opportunity—to ensure that real change is created by refusing to associate with individuals who have long been part of the national political establishment, and who have continually advocated policies held up as sacrosanct by the Democratic elites. His recent nominations have shown a refusal to follow this course of action, therefore we can rest assured that the change he promised his followers will simply be a change in the guard—what is being guarded will not change under his presidency.

Real change—a different set of ideas, goals, and policies—rarely succeeds unless accompanied by radical action. Revolutions attempting to tear down tyranny and create real change have not always been physical and violent in nature, nor need they be. But proposing minor changes or slightly differing policy does not change the overall direction and goals, much like digging in the snow with a shovel does not deter the incoming avalanche. Until America rises up and demands new leadership, any change promised or implemented will simply be in furtherance of the same overall political agenda we’ve been subjected to for the past several decades.

The more things change, the more they stay the same…

Our current economic situation is unsustainable. America’s prosperity—a transitory illusion if ever there was one—has largely been due to the fact that we have long enjoyed the status of being the producer (literally) of the world reserve currency. Through widespread international confidence and shady militaristic adventures, we have, up until now, been able to convince the rest of the world that the dollar is worth owning.

The gig is up.

America lives on credit. While our individual finances may be in order, we likely would not have gotten to where we are without artificial credit greasing the wheels along the way. The companies that pay our salaries have likely all enjoyed easy credit to fund their operations (and provide us with employment). The homes we live in are almost always tied down with a mortgage. The vehicles we drive sap our wallets through monthly payments. And with the holidays right around the corner, America will be pulling out its plastic to finance extravagant and unnecessary gifts.

We have gotten to where we are today only due to the risk others were willing to take. The world bet on America, and as recent weeks have shown, it was a bad bet. America’s wealth is nothing but hot air, as has been evidenced (if only in part) by the sharp decline in the stock market and peoples’ 401(k) funds vanishing into thin air.

A depression is coming, and it’s unstoppable. Why? Because the current system is absolutely unsustainable. The bubble, which is continually being inflated and expanded by the Federal Reserve’s printing press and an irresponsible monetary policy, will burst.

But how bad will it be? The upcoming depression will make the one we learned about in school look like a field trip to the zoo. Consider a few fundamentals which clarify the situation:

• America is no longer a manufacturing nation. We have outsourced and offshored our factories, our jobs, our self-reliance, and our knowledge of basic fundamentals. We are a nation of consumers, as opposed to the nation of producers that existed in the early twentieth century.
• Unlike during the last major depression, the dollar is no longer backed by gold. There is no restraint preventing either hyperinflation or massive deflation, no precious metal limiting the amount of money that can be created, and no opportunity for Americans to demand a wise monetary policy through threat of exchanging those dollars for gold on demand.
• Our shopping habits and consumption rely entirely upon stocked shelves in the local supermarket. Our fragile network of merchandise delivery could snap as a result of any number of scenarios, the least of which is the lack of funds necessary to make the wheels turn. We don’t have gardens, we don’t have cows and chickens, we don’t know how to bake essential goods from basic ingredients, we don’t have wells, and we don’t know what to do about it. If the grocery store shelves are emptied, America will riot.
• Self-reliance has been replaced with an overwhelmingly widespread entitlement mentality. America depends upon government and the dollars it creates, instead of finding a way to survive on its own. When the system collapses, the vast majority of Americans will have no idea how to make a living, nor where to get that evening’s dinner. Food stamps will be of little use in a barter economy.
• America is up to its eyeballs in debt, with IOUs coming out of nearly every orifice. We have shirked the frugality and sensibility our grandparents were raised with, and have embraced a lavish lifestyle of unnecessary waste and frivolity. We try to reap what we have not sown, rather than planning ahead and living within our means.

Collectively, we lack the ability to cope with the sudden changes and life-changing circumstances that accompany any major economic collapse. The current course chartered by the federal government is only delaying the inevitable—and making it worse. Going through a depression is tough medicine, but it’s what the fiscal doctor has ordered, and if we have any hope of returning this nation to its previous strength and vitality, it’s imperative that we take that medicine and get it over with.

This depression will be far worse than any others America has seen; those who have invested their time, money, and energy into relevant preparation will soon see their efforts rewarded, as neighbors, friends, and Americans in general fall into a state of shock, panic, and desperation. When the nation wakes up to a world where the dollar is kaput, their credit cards don’t work, and the grocery store shelves are empty, we will see what we’re really made of. (Hint: quite likely, foolishness.)

In the public’s mind, what is the purpose of journalism? My understanding leads me to believe that the industry exists to investigate issues that others—who are preoccupied with their own engaging pursuits—cannot. An industry has thus been created around investigative reporting, with individuals specializing in sifting through the constant turmoil of the world to find and report on news that is relevant to their audience.

Journalism (and public knowledge as a whole), however, only succeeds to the extent that it asks the right questions. One need only look at Fox News—champions of the neoconservative establishment—to witness the erosion of public trust and credibility that occurs when individuals fail in their duty. But while other reporters and journalists have skated by with some semblance of journalistic integrity, the public is waking up to the disappointing truth that the vast majority of journalists do not ask the right questions.

What do I mean by this? Picture, if you will, a reporter interviewing a legislator on the subject of overbooked prisons. This legislator has proposed a bill that mandates tax increases over the next five years to fund the construction and operation of two new prison facilities, thus increasing the state’s total prisoner capacity by 250%. If you were conducting the interview, which questions would you ask?

Here’s a list of questions a journalist on any leading news channel might ask the legislator:

• Most polls show that the majority of residents do not favor a tax increase. How do you plan on finding support to pass this bill?
• Where would the new prison facilities be built, if this bill passes?
• New prisons require new staff and guards—how many new jobs will this bill create?
• When would this bill go into effect, and how long would it take for its full implementation?
• How many co-sponsors do you have on this bill? Are you hopeful it will pass?

Contrast the preceding questions with others that might be asked:

• Given the alleged need to expand prison facilities, can you explain why there is an increase in crime, if any, leading to higher numbers of individuals sentenced to prison?
• Instead of building new prisons, what might be done to decrease the number of individuals being sent to prison?
• With one out of every 32 people in this country in prison, do you think that spending our time and money expanding prison facilities is the best use of our resources in deterring crime?
• Is it proper for people who commit small crimes to be sent to prison?
• Would you favor seeing prison sentences reduced in length to have more turnover, and thus a decreased need for expanded prison facilities?
• Your bill suggests a tax increase over five years; after that time, can you guarantee that the tax rate will return to where it stands today?

The differences between these questions may or may not be apparent, but they are important. The first set of questions deals only with superficialities, whereas the second deal with the underlying issue and attendant consequences. In the first, the reporter fails to challenge the legislator in any way, instead turning the interview into a simple media appearance benefiting the legislator, rather than the tax-paying viewers. In the second, the reporter uses the opportunity to raise alternative viewpoints and make sure the legislator has thought them through and has appropriate responses for each.

If journalists (and individuals seeking to understand things as they really are) do not ask questions that address the underlying issues, then we are doomed to the same fate as the Titanic—ignoring the looming iceberg whose massive volume lies just beneath the surface, outside of plain and immediate view. This selective questioning (in effect throwing softballs to almost all interviewees) occurs every day: we hear talk of monetary policy and the economy, but nobody discusses the nature and purpose of the Federal Reserve, a key component in the discussion; we read reports of troop surges, new deployments, and funding, but no explanation of what constitutes a sound foreign policy or how the Just War Theory plays into the picture; we view passionate speeches on health care reform without discussing where the federal government was granted the authority to do a single thing about it.

Hugh Nibley, always one to get to the heart of the matter, once wrote about the effect of not asking the right questions:

Satan’s masterpiece of counterfeiting is the doctrine that there are only two choices, and he will show us what they are. It is true that there are only two ways, but by pointing us the way he wants us to take and then showing us a fork in that road, he convinces us that we are making the vital choice, when actually we are choosing between branches in his road. Which one we take makes little difference to him, for both lead to destruction. This is the polarization we find in our world today. Thus we have the choice between Shiz and Coriantumr — which all Jaredites were obliged to make. We have the choice between the wicked Lamanites (and they were that) and the equally wicked (Mormon says “more wicked”) Nephites. Or between the fleshpots of Egypt and the stews of Babylon, or between the land pirates and the sea pirates of World War I, of between white supremacy and black supremacy, or between Vietnam and Cambodia, or between Bushwhackers and Jayhawkers, or between China and Russia, or between Catholic and Protestant, or between fundamentalist and atheist, or between right and left — all of which are true rivals, who hate each other. A very clever move by Satan! — a subtlety that escapes most us most of the time. (Hugh Nibley, via Quoty)

So, while we often watch debates between two different individuals, or hear contrasting viewpoints presented on a given issue, what is not readily apparent is the simple fact that a third option is almost always left out of the discussion. C. S. Lewis noted this as well:

I feel a strong desire to tell you—and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me—which of these two errors is the worse. That is the devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs–pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them. (C. S. Lewis, via Quoty)

If we as individuals do not ask the right questions, we will simply allow ourselves to be led down a path chosen for us by people bent on pursuing their own agenda, shaped by ulterior motives. The refusal of journalists to ask hard questions, and the tolerance of the public at large to accept their softballs as valid investigation, must be repudiated if we are to hold people accountable for their actions and pursue the right course.

In the past week, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been the subject of several new websites, initiatives, protests, news reports, and blog posts, nearly all negative. As a result of the Church’s efforts to protect marriage, thousands have signed petitions, demonstrated in front of temples and chapels, and stormed the internet with disparaging comments of hostility and hatred.

But like most clouds, this one has a silver lining. While persecutions may rage and mobs may combine, no unhallowed hand has yet to stop the work from progressing—nor will it. In fact, such displays of opposition and vitriol naturally and tangentially spur a sense of curiosity in many individuals who were previously ignorant or apathetic on the subject.

In this most recent General Conference, Elder Robert D. Hales helped explain this occurrence:

Experience shows that seasons of negative publicity about the Church can help accomplish the Lord’s purposes. In 1983, the First Presidency wrote to Church leaders, “Opposition may be in itself an opportunity. Among the continuing challenges faced by our missionaries is a lack of interest in religious matters and in our message. These criticisms create . . . interest in the Church. . . . This provides an opportunity [for members] to present the truth to those whose attention is thus directed toward us.”

We can take advantage of such opportunities in many ways: a kind letter to the editor, a conversation with a friend, a comment on a blog, or a reassuring word to one who has made a disparaging comment. We can answer with love those who have been influenced by misinformation and prejudice—who are “kept from the truth because they know not where to find it” (D&C 123:12). I assure you that to answer our accusers in this way is never weakness. It is Christian courage in action. (Robert D. Hales, “Christian Courage“)

Polarization is part and parcel of the gospel message itself—those who already do or would otherwise object to the doctrines and commandments of God will ultimately find themselves consciously choosing that side when the time comes. Conversely, those sympathetic to this message and desirous to learn more will—with the help of any media attention—find new opportunities to pursue an investigation of the gospel.

Elder Maxwell noted the polarization effect of the gospel herein described, and the inherent divisiveness created as a result of the opposition it always encounters. On another occasion he spoke of the same subject, referencing the “wheat and tares”-like division that will ultimately result:

There will also be “a great division among the people” (2 Ne. 30:10; see also D&C 63:54). This stressful polarization will, ironically, help in the final shaking of that strange confederacy, the “kingdom of the devil,” in order that the honest in heart, even therein, may receive the truth (2 Ne. 28:19).

This “great division” is what President Brigham Young also saw, saying: “It was revealed to me in the commencement of this Church, that the Church would spread, prosper, grow and extend, and that in proportion to the spread of the Gospel among the nations of the earth, so would the power of Satan rise” (in Journal of Discourses, 13:280). (Neal A. Maxwell, “For I Will Lead You Along“)

In effect, further media attention and social discussion about the Church simply serves to eliminate the neutral ground that currently exists between the two sides. God seems to prefer that we choose sides, one way or another. So, the increased polarization that takes place as a result of the spotlight on the Church is really nothing more than the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the devil signing up new recruits on either side. The Prophet Joseph once spoke about this effect:

Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigations of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant. (Joseph Smith, via Quoty)

The call to determine whose side we are on is an urgent and important one. For those who have not yet had the opportunity to decide and affiliate, any publicity of the Church (negative or otherwise) further polarizes the matter by sifting through the wheat in preparation for the ultimate harvest.

Perhaps we should start a campaign to send postcards to those protesting at our temples, thanking them for their missionary efforts? Who’s with me?

On a new website launched by the “Obama-Biden Transition Project”, the Nation’s next Decider-in-chief hides in plain sight a startling stance on compulsory national service. Intended for the youth of America, this plan boldly lays down Barack Obama’s desire for mandatory “community service” by all school-age children:

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

Note the deception intended to soften the blow: the opening line describes only encouragement or persuasion by referencing a “call on Americans to serve”, whereas the statement later admits to requiring a certain number of hours of community service for each age group. Not to be outdone, Obama apparently intends to put retirees back to work in his service as well—so much for pursuing one’s own desires.

President-elect Barack Obama is not alone in his desire for federally-mandated compulsory service. As this article reports, Obama’s new chief of staff has previously advocated three months of compulsory service for all individuals ages 18-24.

This article reminds us of a speech given in July where Obama also outlined his tyrannical desire:

In July, Obama revealed his plan for “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military. In the speech, Obama said “People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.” He also said this mass movement requiring servitude “will be a central cause of my presidency.”

Barack Obama, while not a descendant of slaves himself, would do well to recall the idea behind the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution—namely, the part about involuntary servitude. Whether coerced by an individual to satisfy his demands, or forced by government to do the same, the result is identical: slavery, fascism, force, and the loss of liberty.

While one court ruling has held that the military draft does not qualify as involuntary servitude (something with which I strongly disagree), the quest to mandate compulsory community service at a federal level will break new ground and likely will be challenged in court, if pursued by the Obama administration (whether legislated by his messianic followers in Congress, or issued by executive order). While I lack faith in the impartial, fair judgment of many of those appointed to the bench, I nevertheless hope that some clarity and reason will attend the hearings that seek to bury this fascist policy into the ground.

At 2pm this afternoon (Pacific time), a press conference was held at the LDS Temple in Los Angeles, where a protest had been organized by opponents of CA Proposition 8. To the media present, the woman speaking (Lorri L. Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center) made the following announcement:

Today we have decided to include the President of the Mormon Church in a campaign that is more productive for our community. We are going to raise money to support the effort to repeal Proposition 8, and we are encouraging people to make donations on our new website: www.invalidateprop8.org. For every donor who makes a donation, a postcard in the name of that donor will be sent to Pres. Thomas Monson of the LDS Church, and I want to read what it says:

“Dear President Monson:

A donation has been made in your name by _________________ to “invalidateprop8.org” to overturn California’s Proposition 8 and restore fundamental civil rights to all citizens of California. The money will be donated to legal organizations fighting the case and to support grass-roots activities in support of full marriage equality. Although we decry the reprehensible role the Church of Latter Day Saints [sic] leadership played in denying all Californians equal rights under the law, we are pleased a donation has been made on your behalf in the effort to overturn the discrimination your church members helped enshrine in the California Constitution. Given that throughout its history the Mormon Church has been subjected to bigotry, we hope you appreciate the donation in your name to fight religious bigotry here in California.

Here are the videos of the protest and press conference:

Here is the Associated Press story just released about the protest. And here’s another.

Here are some photos of the protest.

Update 11/7: Tonight a protest rally was organized at Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City. See this video, this video, this news story, and this blog post for more information.

Speaking on the Glenn Beck radio program this morning, Senator Orrin Hatch began by highlighting what he sees as “really, really outrageous legislation”: the card-check bill—a dishonest method for unionizing labor workers.

Ah, the Republic is crumbling around us!

Later in the conversation, Hatch agrees with his host that the Constitution is hanging by a thread:

You got that right. And I tell you what is really fearful to me besides — there are so many issues but I’ve mentioned card check. What’s fearful to me is the makeup of the United States Supreme Court. Obama has said that he’s going to appoint people who are more concerned about the poor and those who don’t have a lot of wealth. Well, that’s not what the Supreme Court should be doing. It should be concerned about the poor, the wealthy, everybody. It should be concerned about obeying the law and enforcing the laws of the Constitution.

Here we see Hatch shifting attention and blame: instead of discussing his own votes and their constitutionality, he points the finger at the judiciary—the weakest branch of government—and inflates the threat they can be to the Constitution.

This from the politician who voted for the recent bailout, ignores the Constitution when it suits him, misapplies the directives when his party stands to benefit, and apologizes for anything leaders of his party do.

The list goes on: Senator Hatch has received a pitiful score of 36% on The New American’s “Freedom Index”. Few things the man does are in harmony with the document he claims to revere and obey.

But the Senator is correct: the Constitution is hanging by the thinnest of threads, ready at any moment to snap. What Senator Hatch failed to admit, however, and what Glenn Beck failed to point out to his listeners, is that Senator Orrin Hatch is one of the main proponents of pushing the Constitution towards historical oblivion. While speaking platitudes of praise, Hatch turns around and votes however he (and his party) pleases, the Constitution be damned.

Talk about a wolf in sheep’s clothing—Hatch calls issues like unionization “really outrageous legislation”, shifts blame and attention to the other branches of government, and admits a problem while not taking accountability. Perhaps it’s time to find a sponsor for those billboards after all…

A common tactic used by individuals who wish to silence a person making a judgment on a moral issue is to cite the Lord’s own words in their support: “Judge not, that ye be not judged”. The attempt to use these words to prevent any judgment from taking place is not only absurd, but scripturally incorrect.

For starters, one need only look as far as the Joseph Smith Translation which adds context and clarity to the Savior’s words. In doing so, we learn that the Savior instead was telling his disciples to not judge unrighteously. Further, he counseled them to “judge righteous judgment”, in effect instructing them to judge others—but based on the correct moral standard God had given them.

Ignoring this insight, people who try to end a discussion with an appeal to the “judge not” line of scripture evidently advocate a “live and let live policy”, where no individual judgment occurs, and thus each person implicitly condones and supports whatever his neighbor chooses to do. This warped version of the golden rule shirks our responsibility to stand for what is right—instead of advocating doing unto others what we would have them do unto us, we’re told to not do unto others what we don’t want them to do unto us.

Conversely, the Lord would have us act instead of being acted upon—taking a proactive stance to work in righteousness, stand for truth, and spread the light of the gospel. The golden rule has the right idea: we should do good unto others, not simply not do bad things.

Interestingly, the word “judge” itself conveys this lesson:

A careful study of the roots of the words judge and righteous can help us better understand and apply these concepts. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the etymology of the noun judge in Latin is “ju-s right, law + -dic-us speaking, speaker.” Literally, a judge is someone who speaks rightly or someone who interprets the law for people. Because the concept of choosing rightly is inherent in the semantic DNA of the word judge, judgment presupposes righteousness.

The author of this paragraph goes on to make the following commentary regarding righteous and unrighteous judgment:

In other words, unrighteous judgment tends to call good evil and evil good; it substitutes darkness for light and bitterness for sweetness (see Isaiah 5:20). Unrighteous judgment distorts or ignores the truth.

Righteous judgment, on the other hand, honors and upholds the truth. It includes acts of charity, mercy, humility, and justice.

As Elder Oaks masterfully explained, there does and should exist righteous judgment where we interpret words, actions, and principles—both our own and those of others—in light of revealed truth and divine will.

Those who parrot the “judge not” line would rather not be the focus of such a judgment, and therefore argue that no such judgment should take place. To be sure, we are all, in various settings, the focus of righteous judgment. Only when we disobey and deviate from the proper path do we prefer the darkness to light, and loathe the judgment of other people observing our behavior.

The beautiful thing about this principle is its universality: while each of us is counseled to judge righteously, we are also to live our lives in such a way that others’ righteous judgment will see in us the light of Christ—His will, His teachings, His spirit. If ever we find ourselves detesting others’ judgment, then perhaps that is the time to seek the spirit and righteously judge our own actions. After all, we are our own best mortal judge.

This month’s Charity of the Month is a local organization called Kaiizen. Comprised heavily of BYU students, this group is a non-profit (operating since 2004) that helps college students lend a hand to orphans in Mexico.

Kaiizen takes four-day road trips to Baja California, Mexico to serve and have fun with underprivileged kids. They camp on the beach and coordinate carpools (hey, they’re college students—gotta save money where you can, right?), and have a great time.

For more information:

• PDF flyer with information about Kaiizen
• PDF flyer about the December trip
• Email list

“But it’s my money—I’m just getting some of it back.”

Such is the argument proffered by those who disagree with the government’s socialist programs in general, but excuse their own participation by claiming that they are simply withdrawing the money they’ve previously been forced to give. After all, if the government has been taxing us for years to fund these programs, are we not justified in taking advantage of the offered incentives and reaping the benefits of our own taxation?

While conventional wisdom may suggest that this is the case, it’s utterly false; in wealth redistribution, you are never able to get your money back. This, of course, is a no-brainer. Few will argue that you are able to later receive the very same dollars you were coerced to give. But most people seem to think of these socialistic programs (social security, unemployment, welfare, medicare, medicaid, etc.) as some sort of savings program whereby the money you are taxed sits and waits for you to withdraw it at a later date.

In reality, socialism is a type of ponzi scheme—forcing you to surrender your money to benefit others, and later forcing others to surrender their money to benefit you. Thus, the taxes you pay are spent immediately, and the money has vanished back into the economy through the pockets of other individuals.

How, then, are you going to get your money back? I suppose you might find out to whom the money was given, contact them privately, and arrange for them to give you your money back. Far-fetched as that may seem, it’s really the only solution whereby you can get your money back.

The alternative and popular solution is to encourage “perpetuation through participation”. In plain English, this means that when person A wants to receive some of the benefits of the program he’s been funding for years, he is indirectly coercing person B and person C to surrender their own money for his benefit. Herein lies the grand ponzi scheme: whatever money person A receives through socialism (the redistribution of wealth), he can only receive it by forcing others to pay. At no time does person A get his own money back, as it was spent long ago. Instead, person A is encouraging a fundamentally broken and immoral system by taking money from others, just as money was taken from him for others.

Whatever the program may be, and whatever it’s intended purpose or proclaimed benefit, if it relies on taking money from one individual to give it to another, then it’s socialism, a ponzi scheme, and confiscatory. Thinking that an individual is simply getting his own money back is tantamount to suggesting that since person A was wrongfully jailed for a crime he did not commit, that person B and person C should likewise suffer. By passively allowing a ponzi scheme to continue, the individual who participates in the socialistic program in an effort to personally benefit is authorizing the government to plunder others’ pockets on his behalf, just as his were plundered before.

Who can stop this cycle? How many people are needed to cause the ponzi scheme to come crashing down? Where are the individuals with the moral courage to say no to the perpetuation of legalized robbery?

In summary: once an individual has been taxed for the purpose of helping others who are allegedly less fortunate, that money is immediately spent. (The government is broke; it spends what it gets within days, and borrows and prints the rest.) Thus, for that individual to benefit from the same programs he has been contributing to, the government must continually and increasingly tax others.

I submit that this is an immoral and invasive act of government, and one that should be stopped immediately. Whenever the government condones and encourages an action that would, in the hands of private citizens, be decried and prosecuted, we may conclude that the action is wrong.

As for me and my house, we will not participate in any such programs. I cannot in good conscience take any money from another person through the force of government and immorality of wealth distribution.

In a stinging rebuke of the LDS Church and the recent request of its leaders, self-labeled “Mormon progressive” Joe Vogel has unabashedly declared the church to be on the “wrong side of history” by supporting Proposition 8 in California.

Molding his accusation around a litany of issues describing what he perceives to be a failure to promote “social justice and equality”, Vogel counsels God’ servants, in his wisdom, what they should be spending their time on instead: universal healthcare, government-mandated corporate leave policies, child predators, public education, and global warming. Progressive indeed—Vogel would rather see prophets become political pundits championing the entire Democratic platform.

This opposition from within the Church’s ranks is further evidence of something I came to understand yesterday: not all Mormons are Saints. The two labels are not mutually exclusive, of course, but one does not necessarily imply the other. Again we are reminded of then-Elder Benson’s words on internal division within the Church:

Sometimes we hear someone refer to a division in the Church. In reality, the Church is not divided. It simply means that there are some who, for the time being at least, are members of the Church but not in harmony with it. These people have a temporary membership and influence in the Church; but unless they repent, they will be missing when the final membership records are recorded. (Ezra Taft Benson, via Quoty)

Another recent example is Nadine Hansen, editor of mormonsfor8.com—a website that aims to “out” all Latter-day Saints who donate in support of Proposition 8. As this article notes, she too has turned against the Church to oppose its involvement in politics:

“Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee,” said Hansen, 61, a Mormon who lives in Cedar City, Utah, and has stopped going to church. “You can’t get involved in politics and say, ‘Treat me as a church.’ “Hansen said she focused on Mormons because she is one. She said Mormons have contacted her to shut the site, saying it was being used by the Daily Kos campaign in a “witch hunt.”

Vogel and his fellow Mormons who have publicly opposed the prophetic invitation to support Proposition 8 consistently demonstrate a myopic outlook on the traditional cause-and-effect model. Ignoring the law of unintended consequences (and refusing to believe that men we sustain as seers can know of those consequences), they feign ignorance by asking such questions as “how does [same-sex marriage] hurt the average Mormon family?” Vogel is an intelligent individual who weakens his position by publicly pretending that far-reaching and long-term consequences to a major shift in the societal structure do not exist.

The axe-grinding diatribe ends with Vogel’s call to action: “Today I voice my public support in favor of treating my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as equals, and ask my fellow Mormons to do the same.” (This after encouraging Mormons to spend their time watching a movie, going for a drive, or watching a baseball game instead of doing what the Prophet has asked.)

Well, Brother Vogel, today I voice my public support in favor of sustaining God’s chosen servants in both word and deed, and ask my fellow Mormons to do the same. Individuals with limited understanding may accuse those on our side of being on the “wrong side of history”, but time and God will vindicate those who stand for truth and righteousness. When the line is drawn in the sand and, as Elder Benson said, the “final membership records are recorded”, self-labeled Mormons who oppose their leaders will, sadly, be the ones who are really on the wrong side.

What is the purpose and aim of a modern education? Or, put more simply, why do people go to school? Young children no doubt attend to their studies in part due to compulsion, but what of the majority of young adults who sacrifice time, money, and other pursuits to attend the educational institution of their choice? For whatever reason, it seems to be a common attitude that the summum bonum of education is to become successfully and lucratively employed.

Like any general observation, this one is not without its exceptions. But go to any university, stop a few random students, and ask them why they go to school—their answers will, almost assuredly, detail the career they intend to pursue (and by corollary, the amount of income they hope to receive). Hugh Nibley made such an observation over two decades ago:

People were horrified when General Barrows, at the time president of the University of California at Berkeley, bluntly proclaimed at a commencement exercise, “The only reason anyone goes to college is to increase his earning power.” I was petrified by the statement, little realizing that the time would come that it would be treated by everyone as a universally accepted truism and even an idealistic proclamation. (Hugh Nibley, via Quoty)

This false truism and secular proclamation leads to the compartmentalization of an individual’s life. Students by and large cast aside the distractions that would deviate them from their goal of receiving a diploma and landing a good job. They then go to work, and work hard. They save in their 401k, put in late hours at times, all for the goal of an enjoyable, easy retirement. Then comes the glorious day when they can finally quit working, and relax. Retirement has come—now what?

As Stephen R. Covey has noted, retirement is just one more secular compartmentalization of life that shifts our focus from things of eternal importance:

There’s not much place in the Lord’s kingdom for “retirement.” In fact, the idea of retirement is, in my opinion, a sick, secular notion. We may retire from an occupation, but we retire to serve missions on both sides of the veil.
…
Since life is not a career but a mission, there’s no better retirement concept than the gospel: the work goes on, we’re in a constant learning mode, and we continue to grow to the very end of our lives. Every person has enormous capacity, and we must not lose our opportunity to contribute as we get older. (Stephen R. Covey, via Quoty)

By looking at life as a set of phases through which we progress—preparing for work, working, and resting from work—we lose sight of what we should really be spending our time doing. Hugh Nibley further commented:

“The cares of the world” (D&C 40:12), said the Lord, have taken many away from the real path, the real work, for the cares of the world quickly become our sole concern. Brigham’s favorite word for Satan’s trick was “decoy”—the work ethic decoys us away from the work we should be doing. Mammon is a jealous god and will not tolerate a competitor. But we get the idea that the only virtues are business virtues. (Hugh Nibley, via Quoty)

Gone, it would seem, are the days when education was an end unto itself; when great mental sacrifice was made to learn and understand, not just to memorize and pass tests; when one’s life was dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. In a day when people are dedicated to working 40 hour work weeks for 40 years of their life, yet 25% don’t have the time or desire to read a single book (and of those who do, an average of four are read per year), it would seem that our priorities are a bit askew.

The Lord’s idea of an education—the eternal kind to which we should dedicate ourselves now, and carry with us into the hereafter—is far more expansive and broad than what is provided in a 120 credit course at the leading universities. When He counseled us to seek wisdom out of the best books, he wasn’t referring to textbooks:

Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;
Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—
That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you. (Doctrine and Covenants 88:78-80)

Our failure to continually and broadly educate ourselves has led us into what President Hinckley termed in 1997 the “age of utter mediocrity”. The “idealistic proclamation” to which Dr. Nibley referred has, in recent decades, become the conventionally accepted purpose and aim of education.

We as Americans don’t care about education for intelligence’s sake; there is evidently no incentive to learn without an economic purpose and promise behind every assignment and test. Sadly, while an education today will help students make a living, it does little to help them make a life.

In an effort to improve “community standards” and increase property value, it has become popular in recent decades for real estate developers to form housing associations—pseudo-governmental governing bodies that enforce certain policies and standards upon the whole community. As HOAs have proliferated, property rights have all but vanished.

It is important to understand at the outset that a person does not have a certain right if he cannot make use of it, or can only use it in limited fashion. The right to bear arms, for example, becomes nearly meaningless if it is encumbered with rules and regulations that determine how, where, when, and why you may bear arms. When the burden of limitations upon the so-called right delve into frivolous minutia—once only the envy of micro-managing bureaucrats—then that right has degraded into a privilege extended by the individuals who govern you.

However, rights are often subject to the security and well-being of the community. Just as it’s not right to use free speech to induce fear or catastrophe (say, by yelling “fire!” in a crowded setting), or use your freedom of assembly to assemble in the girls’ locker room, so too are property rights subject in certain cases to realistic and acceptable laws put in place to protect your neighbors.

Such limitations on natural rights, though, are few in number and generally understood to be necessary. In contrast, some of the measures found in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of most HOAs are downright draconian. Telling property owners what color paint they must use (specifying exact shades, no less), how high their trees and playgrounds may extend, which flags or signs they may display in their yard, and which vehicles they may park in the driveway are not the types of regulations established in an environment where liberty may flourish.

Indeed, the very existence of such rules implies a drive towards uniformity—a hallmark of communistic flights of fancy. In a proclaimed effort to establish a community of ideal and improved standards, the HOA works by suppressing the varying manifestations of property rights they deem injurious to the desired standard of living. What’s worse is that these pseudo-governmental agencies are free from many Constitutional restrictions their municipal counterparts are subjected to, and are a far cry from providing a fair, representative system to oversee the administration.

In many HOAs, the board is comprised of elected volunteers; in communities still in their infancy, the developer usually has full control of a paid staff (the salary and benefits our HOA employees give themselves amount to 46.5% of their overall revenue), leaving the residents without any say in the ever-shifting policies. To such property czars, the concept of property rights and individuality are a foreign concept deemed dangerous and easily dismissed. Instead, their totalitarian drive for uniformity and perfection makes them a natural enemy of individual property rights.

This is no small matter—an estimated one-sixth of all Americans are subjected to such contrivances. To the extent that HOAs are allowed to impose such stringent rules, property rights will continue to fade into the annals of history.

Individuals who cast their vote based on some predefined strategy weigh their options based on which candidate they think is the best option. This relative analysis compares the candidate not with any principle, but with their opponent. The ultimate deciding factor in this situation becomes which person is better than the other.

A common manifestation of this “strategic voting” is the oft-heard line that one candidate is the “lesser of two evils”. While at times people phrase this statement in a more positive manner, such as “candidate A is better than candidate B”, the widespread dissatisfaction of most people in the political process results in the far more common “candidate A isn’t as bad as candidate B”.

Not only is this method of casting one’s vote ineffective and chaotic, it’s also antithetical to divine command. After the Lord discusses the importance of Constitutional law and the negative impact an evil politician can have, He says the following:

Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. (Doctrine and Covenants 98:10; emphasis added)

In this verse we note three qualifications the Lord gives for political office: individuals must be honest, wise, and good. The obvious lesson here is that in no way does the Lord sanction strategic voting. Rather, we are specifically instructed to support leaders whose actions demonstrate a proven commitment to basic principles: honesty, wisdom, and morality. Further, we are told that anything less that these traits is evil.

A common critique against the “lesser of two evils” mantra is that the lesser of two evils is still evil itself. The Lord appears to agree. This is nothing to be trifled with, as the Lord continues in the following verse by explicitly commanding us to shun all evil (including the “lesser”):

And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God. (Doctrine and Covenants 98:11; emphasis added)

Imagine if the Saints collectively upheld this rule, did their homework, and proactively supported the campaigns of those candidates that applied (after all, the Lord says to diligently seek for such people, not wait until the primaries and caucuses have decided the candidates for you). We alone would be a great force to be reckoned with, as would the worthy individuals we support.

But instead, the good candidates are largely passed over with an excuse that if a person voted for them, they’d basically be voting for “the other party” whose candidate would win. Herein lies the basic strategy: Saints cling tightly to the two-party system and fear that should they not vote for whoever the Republican candidate is, we’d be in for a tough time with a winning Democrat.

But imagine if everybody did proactively and enthusiastically support whichever person (whether in a “third party” or one of the main two parties) was right for the job. If all those who voted out of fear instead decided to pool their support behind the good, honest, and moral individual running for office, the “lesser of two evils” would fade from the spotlight and not have ascended so easily through the primaries.

It is to the Saints’ condemnation that we do not participate in the political process from its inception through its conclusion. Instead of seeking for the right people diligently, we sit by idly while the decisions are made for us, and then work ourselves into a frenzy as we approach the final election, throwing our support behind the lesser of two evils.

The Lord continues in verse 12:

For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith. (Doctrine and Covenants 98:12)

We are being tried and tested to see if we can shun all evil and refuse to support those who do not meet the basic standards the Lord has set. Sadly, we are horribly failing this test, as evidenced by the propensity of the “lesser of two evils” ideology and the caliber of candidates currently in and running for office.

Imagine, if you will, a political campaign being run without any money. Far-fetched, I know, but consider it for a moment: individuals volunteering their time to the candidates they support, donating resources for signs and other materials, and going door to door to connect with people and pitch their favorite candidate’s platform.

In an election cycle that has brought in almost $1.5 billion total, one can only wonder what this money could do if spent on things other than commercials, signs, and airplanes. Campbell Brown of CNN has suggested that the current presidential candidates stop using their money on negative campaign ads (which have little to no effect) and donate to food banks that are in dire need of supplies.

I’m not sure what the campaign finance laws (thanks, McCain-Feingold!) are regarding using campaign money for such purposes, but regardless of the (horrible) laws on the books, it wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Here’s a better idea: get rid of the money to begin with. I’m not talking about passing a law to ban donations, but about individuals who refuse to be bought. Money isn’t an inherently evil thing, but when it becomes the main driving force by which an individual is able to gather support, make his own message heard, and push his opponent(s) to the fringe of public spotlight, then its effects are destructive.

A campaign without cash would be an interesting thing, to be sure. Perhaps only then would we see politicians have to explain the planks of their campaign platform in full sentences, rather than thirty-second sound bytes. Maybe it would entice people to do their homework more, rather than being swayed by observing who has received the most financial support, who is able to plaster cities with more signs, and who is able to purchase more air time.

Money has corroded the political process into an unrecognizable pulp devoid of honesty and principle. Its absence would alleviate many of the problems associated with modern campaigns, and make candidates actually work for their votes, rather than spending their time putting on makeup, getting their smile just right, and practicing their most important line: “I’m ____, and I approve this message”.

Three years ago (almost to the day), Rusty at Nine Moons revealed the identities of a few individuals involved in some anonymous blogging that had taken by the bloggernacle by storm. To say that the revelation caused a bit of controversy would be an understatement.

One of the participants apparently could not stay away from the comfort of anonymity, and later started Trash Calls. (The information below supports the claim of this affiliation.) Since its inception, the identity of the blog’s owner/editor has remained a mystery. Until today.

This evening, a visitor came to my blog around 5pm. According to my analytics tracker, he scrolled through three pages of posts, and then searched for “marriage” in my blog’s search form. He then left my blog.

This visitor has been to my blog before, and commented three times on a blog post I wrote in May. At that time, I “tagged” them in my analytics tracker to tie their name to their IP address. See below for screenshots showing both of these sources.

Not two minutes later, a visitor came to my blog by clicking on a link on the Trash Calls blog. I clicked through to see what link they had come from, and it was a post that had just been written. That post contained a link at the end to a post I wrote about getting married.

Thus, it’s quite safe to conclude that the editor of Trash Calls, who had just written a post containing a link to a post on my blog about marriage, was the same individual who not two minutes previously had searched for “marriage” on my blog to find a relevant post.

So, who is Joseph Addison?

As the source images below show, it’s the person most have suspected all along: Steve Evans.

Thanks Trash Calls, it’s been a real trip!