Do I have to be a Bircher in order to comment on or agree with something they say?

To assume that the notion goes against “my own conspiracy [theories]” is a bit presumptive, since there are many theories out there that promote different ideas. Frankly, this notion is perfectly in step with my own beliefs, that being that our nation’s sovereignty is eroding as its leaders seek a globalized government.

The neo-conservative ideals and the UN globalized agenda are often one and the same. PNAC’s own statement, cited previously, stated the “need” for a catalytic change in order to promulgate the idea of going to war in the Middle East. The U.N., while acting surprised and disapointed with the results of the war, agreed in Security Council resolutions to support him in the war. This was largely done through political pressure and economic threats, since the other countries in the SC have deep economic ties to the U.S. and can’t stand to put them in jeopardy. And so, they fell in, rank and file behind Bush, who then turned around and said that he was and is enforcing the “demands of the world”.

I agree with a quote by Thomas Jefferson, also used as #25 in Cleon Skousen’s Principles of Liberty:

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”

Entangling alliances include most all things associated with the U.N., our agreements with our nations fighting in the current war, NAFTA, SPP, and others.

We should engage in causes to aid others. It should not, however, be mandated by the government. My hard-earned tax dollars are to help America, not other governments and peoples. I choose to give privately to those in need. I should not be forced to do so. That redistribution of wealth is socialism.

We have no global responsibilities. Nowhere in the Constitution (unless I am wrong, and if so, please let me know) is our President authorized to fight other people’s wars (especially for his friends and their deep pockets) or administer humanitarian aid to victims in other countries (or rather give the aid to their corrupt governments, where the aid never reaches the people who need it).

Yes, we should give aid. No, the government should not be in charge of it.

Terrorism has been hyped up to be way more than it is. It has existed throughout the history of time (read your BoM if you don’t believe me!) and is nothing new. Sure, advancements in travel, technology, and munition has facilitated it, but it has also facilitated the “good guys” and their ability to protect their citizens. Yet the fearmongering tactics of the Bush camp lead us to believe that if it weren’t for the war in Iraq and the preemption we use to justify it, that we’d all be blown up by street bombers here in our own land. I don’t buy it.

9/11 did change everything. And now PNAC is quite happy.

Of course I comprehend the magnititude of this “task”. I have the Book of Mormon, the best guide and playbook one can have in times like these. But this “task” is not a heavenly ordained one. It is being conducted by greedy men seeking to fill their own pockets and retain their power. While promoted differently, ours is not a perfectly just cause. As Elder Eyring said in the CES fireside last week, we always operate with multiple motives. “Spreading democracy” isn’t the only reason we are over there.

These thugs and murderers want me and my family dead? Highly unlikely. O’Reilly and the rest of the media portray these villains as wanting to slit my throat simply because I’m a Westerner and a Christian, but I don’t believe it’s really that bad. And even if it is, that’s fine. But our troops should come back and protect the homeland. We should not be implementing a preemptive attack. There is no justification. Good grief, have you read anything about our borders? Do you know how easy it would be for “terrorists” to enter our country? There is much left to be done to protect and secure our nation, and being in Iraq is not one of them.

Dustin, thanks for your questions. My responses:

1. Was it right to go overseas and fight World War II?

Yes – we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. When the enemy comes to us, then we “bring the fight to the enemy”. But going out and fighting other people’s battles is not the proper use of American lives and taxpayer’s dollars.

I like the lesson we learn from the Anti-Nephi-Lehis and the Nephites. The ANL required military assistance for protection from their enemies. It was not the Nephite’s battle to fight. So what happened? The ANL gave support to the Nephites in exchange for their service. It would be interesting to see that happen today.

2. If our government is so in debt, are we really the richest nation in the world and should we be going further in debt to help others?

Our debt is astronomically increasing. Others will probably disagree with me on this, but I believe we are headed for an economic collapse. The dollar continues to be devaluated as inflation (in the control of the wicked Federal Reserve) rises. War only serves to catalyze this process and quicken the pace of our nation’s debt. As our nation needs more money, it asks the Fed to print some more, who then does so, printing this fiat currency out of thin air (with no gold and silver backing). The money makes its way into circulation, thus decreasing the purchasing power of my existing money. We should not go into debt to help others.

Now I know you think that the attack on 9/11/2001 was a big conspiracy, but what if it really was terrorists. Would we be justified in taking “the fight to the enemy”?

Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no.

Steven, regarding your belief that terrorists are out to kill us all, I’d like you to read this when you have a chance.

The part I most enjoyed was the last sentence: “Terrorists are a potential threat, but the biggest and most potentially lethal threat Americans face from human sources is, always has been, and ever shall be, the government that supposedly protects us.”

Curtis, thank you for your comments. My polar response of saying yes to Afghanistan and no to Iraq was incorrect. Believing as I do that 9/11 was either planned, assisted, or known about by Uncle Sam, then neither Afghanistan nor Iraq should have seen one single soldier of ours in response. Indeed, the FBI has publicly stated that there is no known connection between Bin Laden and 9/11. He is a scapegoat (most likely a dead one, at that) used to further the neocon desire for war and profiteering.

Narrator, this link has a summary of the issue.

Steven, I believe that Osama is dead. If he is really the enemy, and if he is as dangerous as Bush tells us he is, and if he is still alive, I’m positive we’d have him caught by now. But he’s dead, irrelevant, and Bush’s camp uses him as a tool to further their own desires.

Think about it, doesn’t it make sense? The fearmongering tactics of Bush’s administration are too obvious to ignore. To instill fear in the American public and have them accept more and more government control, there needs to be an enemy.

I invite you to read some of the quotes posted here to have this put in some additional perspective. One of my favorite is by James Madison: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

Osama is dead, innocent Iraqis (and Americans) are dying, and Halliburton is making a huge profit.