February 28th, 2007

Why Do Latter-day Saints Ignore Ron Paul?

Pastor Chuck Baldwin wrote an article yesterday titled “Why Do Evangelicals Ignore Ron Paul?”. The article raises several key points I’d like to address while changing the audience from Evangelicals to Latter-day Saints.

The question burning in the minds of [Latter-day Saints] today is: Which Republican candidate for president will we anoint? There are several possibilities, but apparently Congressman Ron Paul is not one of them.

For example, Jerry Falwell’s widely distributed National Liberty Journal, in its March 2007 edition, had a major section entitled “Campaign 2008-Identifying the Republican Presidential Candidates.” A total of ten Republicans made the Journal’s list. The ten listed were Sen. Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Sen. John McCain, Gov. George Pataki, Gov. Mitt Romney, and Rep. Tom Tancredo.

Most Latter-day Saints—eager to avoid the political process and wallow in electioneering apathy—will no doubt vote for Mitt Romney, simply because he’s also LDS. Praising him as a successful businessman, they see him as the perfect person to clean up our government’s fiscal nightmare and fix the plummeting debt. But is he the right man for the job? Does he understand the Constitution and support its principles? Or is he just a handsome smile with a knack for savvy business maneuvers?

Other leading Republican contenders have committed adultery (adding to a list of negatives) which should be enough for any smart Latter-day Saint to disqualify such a person for this nation’s most powerful position. Clearly any sleazy politician with such latent moral ambiguity is not the proper person to guide this divinely-established nation.

So, fine. Mitt Romney may not uphold the Constitution (as is evidenced by his recent romp of mandating health insurance for every citizen in Massachusetts) and the other leading contenders have fornicated. Who else should we consider? The article continues:

However, even though Rep. Ron Paul has also formed a presidential exploratory committee (something Gingrich has not even done yet), his name was conspicuously absent from Falwell’s list. Why is this? Why do [Latter-day Saints] ignore Ron Paul?

Indeed, any list I’ve recently seen from the larger media networks leaves Ron Paul absent. As the article mentions, he has an exploratory committee and has thrown his hat in the ring. Why, then, does the media refuse to give him any attention? Why is his name ommited from every list of potential candidates? Is such a blatant omission “fair and balanced”? We are fed lines such as “we report, you decide”, but can we truly and accurately decide when the reporting is shoddy and incomplete (if not conspiratorial in its omissive nature)?

Ron Paul has served as a conservative congressman from Texas for over 16 years. He currently has a 100% rating from The Conservative Index, which is probably the most relevant and accurate reflection of a congressman’s true conservative record out there.

Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul’s commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric. For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the “Sanctity of Life Act of 2005.”

Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the [Latter-day Saints]‘ pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul’s pro-life bill.)

In addition, Ron Paul has been the most outspoken defender of constitutional government in the entire congress-bar none. He has often stood virtually alone against federal abuse of power, corruption, and big government.

Most Latter-day Saints are pro-life, anti-abortion (except for in certain cases). Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on the abortion issue, yet Ron Paul, a true conservative (not a career politician acting as one for his benefit), has the voting record to prove it. This good man is void of sycophancy, honorably fighting to reduce government, uphold the Constitution, and save our economy from destruction.

As Pastor Baldwin says, Ron Paul’s commitment to the life issue (as well as countless other important political issues) is more than rhetoric. Unlike others, he can prove it.

Currently, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Speaking of the CFR, two of the U.S. senators listed as presidential candidates in Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Journal, Chuck Hagel and John McCain, are current members of the CFR.

For his entire political career, Ron Paul has served foursquare upon the principles of constitutional (limited) government, less taxation, right to life, and personal liberty. Ron Paul is a conservative’s conservative, a principled constitutionalist of the finest order. How is it, then, that Jerry Falwell and [Latter-day Saints] ignore him?

Any politician worthy of being elected as President of this Nation should address the key issues facing our nation, not just the ones blown to incredible proportions by the mainstream media. These media-saturated issues are important nonetheless, but there are several laws, policies, and programs that deserve the attention of our citizenry and far too many go undetected. Need an example? Who, without the help of the internet, heard of the Military Commissions Act before it destroyed our nation? Who heard of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act before it was signed, transferring control of the National Guard from the governors (all of whom opposed such an action) to the executive? Who has heard of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a precursor for a North American Union?

The average American hasn’t heard of any of these freedom-destroying initiatives. People have fallen into American Idolatry, content to live with their bread and circuses. And we wonder why our nation is such a mess? It’s our own fault. Said Patrick Henry:

We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth… Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not…? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth. (via Quoty)

Pastor Baldwin continues:

Maybe today’s [Latter-day Saints] are more concerned about being accepted by the GOP establishment than they are supporting principled, conservative candidates. After all, Paul’s willingness to openly oppose his own party has caused him to be blacklisted by party loyalists and apologists….

Another reason might be that today’s [Latter-day Saints] are extremely shallow in their discernment. They seem to love Republican candidates who wear religion on their sleeve. Whether the candidate walks the walk does not seem to matter near as much as whether he talks the talk.

This, in my humble opinion, accurately describes many Latter-day Saints with whom I have discussed politics. They hear President Bush invoke the name of the almighty and therefore consider him a “good, religious man”, while they neglect to observe his fruits to see from what tree he comes.

Such people obviously do not understand that a large part of politics is convincing countless citizens of a certain character style. In order to win on the Republican ticket, one must appeal to the Christian conservative base, otherwise that person doesn’t stand a chance. It doesn’t matter if the politician really is religious or conservative, but they better appear that way in front of the camera!

And so, we hear sound bytes of religiosity touting that such a candidate is a “man of faith”, when the inquisitive person can easily pull up google and view the candidate’s voting record, previous media statements, summarized personal history, etc., and view the person’s fruits.

Instead, people are “shallow in their discernment”. They tow the party line, they believe whatever they hear on FOX News, and they proclaim it as gospel (allowing no room for possible deception or misinformation). Anybody who disagrees with them becomes a liberal naysayer who is just spreading rumors and lies about this good, God-fearing man.

Right.

Another trap [Latter-day Saints] seem to fall into is the puerile desire to “pick a winner.” Wanting to be sure that they are seen dancing with the last man on the floor, [Latter-day Saints] are trying to figure out who that man will be so as to be ready to receive their invitation to the dance. And since they don’t expect to see Ron Paul issuing dance invitations, they have already written him off.

However, rather than letting themselves be used as dupes by the GOP machine, if America’s [Latter-day Saints] would determine to stand on principle by supporting only those candidates who most courageously champion our principles (regardless of their popularity, or lack thereof, with the Republican hierarchy), they might actually be able to bring real change to American politics.

As it is, [Latter-day Saints] continue to call George W. Bush “one of us,” they continue to drink Kool Aid from the faucet of Republican propaganda, and they continue to ignore Ron Paul.

The time has come to stop ignoring Ron Paul. If this truly God-fearing, Constitution-supporting, liberty-loving man stands a chance, it is with grassroots action and rapid, internet-based information dissemination. The best way to get started is to inform yourself. Pick any of his recent articles and find out for yourself what this noble man has to say on the issues.

And turn off FOX News.

363 Responses to “Why Do Latter-day Saints Ignore Ron Paul?”

  1. Mark N
    February 28, 2007 at 9:05 am #

    Hey, we can’t have one of these secret libertarians become President, because we all know that all libertarians want to do is smoke pot and legalize prostitution, and to put a pot-smoking hippy in charge of the Nuclear Football, well, the potential consequences of doing that just boggle the mind.

    [/sarcasm]

  2. John David Anderson
    February 28, 2007 at 9:39 am #

    Maybe we’d like to hear why Ron Paul is the right man, rather than why everyone else isn’t, and how ignorant and shallow we are in making political decisions.

    :)

  3. Connor
    February 28, 2007 at 9:50 am #

    Maybe we’d like to hear why Ron Paul is the right man, rather than why everyone else isn’t, and how ignorant and shallow we are in making political decisions.

    Touché. Each must do his own homework on the candidates, though. The best way to find out if Ron Paul is the right man for the job is to read what he himself has to say on the issues and peruse his voting record.

  4. Chris
    February 28, 2007 at 10:26 am #

    As always – excellent post!

  5. Jason
    February 28, 2007 at 10:29 am #

    I’ve heard him speak on one or two issues (YouTube, or some blog), mainly governmental fiscal issues and the one or two things I’ve heard him say are absolutely right on. Before I would support him as president though I’d need to do a lot more research about him.

    Connor, your comment on Mitt Romney is right on in my opinion. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be president (I haven’t done enough research on him and his platform yet), but I get the same feeling that Mormons are all excited for him to be president just because he is Mormon. I’m not saying I hope he doesn’t make it to the White House, but I’m not supporting him just because we share a religion.

  6. Dan
    February 28, 2007 at 10:30 am #

    Maybe because Republicans know two things about libertarianism that people like Ron Paul don’t understand. Libertarianism is an impractical political philosophy. It’s a beautiful, romantic, noble political philosophy, but one that can so easily be dismissed when it comes to solving the nation’s problems.

    For example, libertarians think smoking pot should not be illegal. But yet, the use of pot leads to other far more dangerous drugs. At what age should kids be allowed to start smoking pot? Can government under libertarian philosophy regulate the smoking of pot among children?

    When it comes down to the details, libertarian political philosophy ends up being impractical, and those advocating libertarian practices end up jumping ship and into conservatism (a totally different political philosophy where the regulation of morals by the government is espoused).

    There are many reasons why Ron Paul is so easily dismissed. The second reason Republicans dismiss him so easily is because he will have absolutely no sway with Evangelicals who wish to regulate morals, and nothing even close to any support among independents and you can just forget about liberals (although some liberals—like myself—find some aspects of libertarianism to be good).

    Furthermore, libertarian foreign policy is a joke, and is easily dismissed. Take the following for example, from Ron Paul’s archives:

    Former President Carter’s new book about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine has raised the ire of Americans on two sides of the debate. I say “two sides” rather than “both sides,” because there is another perspective that is never discussed in American politics. That perspective is the perspective of our founding fathers, namely that America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.

    I guess he doesn’t really know the Founding Fathers all that well. I mean it was Monroe (who was one of the original Founding Fathers) who instituted the Monroe Doctrine, which is all about the internal affairs of other nations. When he says something like this, it easily discredits the man, and makes one wonder why any American would ever consider him as the spokesman of our country, one who doesn’t understand his own country’s history.

    No, Ron Paul is a joke and will never be considered a contender for president and representative of the United States of America to the world.

  7. Connor
    February 28, 2007 at 10:56 am #

    For example, libertarians think smoking pot should not be illegal.

    When asked his opinion on this issue, Paul replied:

    Dear Mr. Meyers:

    Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding marijuana. As a medical doctor, I have a particular interest in this issue. Please be assured, I will oppose any and all attempts to use federal power to prevent the people of any state from adopting laws legalizing the use of medical marijuana. I also oppose the use of federal funds to finance the “drug war,” and particularly the outrageous attacks on those who use marijuana for medical reasons.

    I think it is important to emphasize that the federal government has no constitutional authority to intervene in or regulate the medical or drug industries. Moreover, the federal government is prohibited by the Constitution (via the ninth and tenth amendments) from meddling in doctor/patient relationships. With that understanding, I can certainly agree that medical marijuana researchers and drug companies alike should receive “equal and fair treatment” from the federal government. Additionally, I would agree that there should be no federal ban on medical studies. This is why I am an original cosponsor of the States’ Rights to Medical Marijuana Act, which restores the ability to make decisions about medical marijuana to the states. I have also cosponsored and voted for the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Act that would defund federal prosecutions that violate the medical marijuana laws that states have enacted.

    In recent years, our federal government has abandoned individual liberty and states’ rights in the name of a federal “war on drugs.” However, constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting. The federal government’s role in law enforcement must be limited to these constitutionally federal crimes and should certainly not extend to the doctor’s office.

    I will continue my attempts to educate my colleagues that ours is a federal government of limited powers, restricted by the United States Constitution and the too-often-forgotten Bill of Rights. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns on this most important issue with me.

    Sincerely,

    Ron Paul

    I guess he doesn’t really know the Founding Fathers all that well. I mean it was Monroe (who was one of the original Founding Fathers) who instituted the Monroe Doctrine, which is all about the internal affairs of other nations. When he says something like this, it easily discredits the man, and makes one wonder why any American would ever consider him as the spokesman of our country, one who doesn’t understand his own country’s history.

    Uhh, what? The Monroe Doctrine was all about reinforcing George Washington’s vision of staying out of the affairs of other nations when America is not directly involved nor threatened. So, as Paul mentions, one “other side” of the debate is that we should not be meddling in conflicts that have nothing to do with our country.

    Whether you agree or not, Ron Paul knows the intents of the Founding Fathers quite well, and is one of the few politicians to frequently cite their words to scrutinize proposed legislation in our day and weigh their constitutionality.

    No, Ron Paul is a joke and will never be considered a contender for president and representative of the United States of America to the world.

    He’s a joke? Please. Dan, your arguments here are, in my opinion, quite implausible. Ron Paul understands the founding documents of this nation and is fully aware that our current government has strayed quite far from the vision and intent of the great men who fought and died for the liberties we today enjoy. While as a liberal you may disagree with his stubborn strictness of constitutional interpretation and isolationist foreign policy, that does not make him wrong, nor make you right.

    Paul seems to perfectly apply the wise words of Thomas Jefferson:

    In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. (via Quoty)

  8. Russell Page
    February 28, 2007 at 10:58 am #

    Frankly, the media doesn’t cover Ron Paul because he isn’t going to win, and they know it. I write about this all the time, but the media is a business, and they aren’t going to focus on Ron Paul because there aren’t that many people interested in hearing about him. Basically, it’s not something that is of interest to their customers.

    Fair and objective for them only applies to whatever it is they cover, and it doesn’t mean they give equal time to all the candidates. But, you and I both know that they rarely tell all sides of a story.

    I wish it were different, but politics in this country often turns out to be about which team you support, and the same two teams are always in the championship. I really want to see more of a focus on supporting a person instead of a party and focus on the principles by which they make decisions (like the Constitution) . . . I’m with you.

  9. APJ
    February 28, 2007 at 11:00 am #

    Dan, are you really questioning whether or not the Founding Fathers were less involved in foreign affairs than today? Setting aside whether that is right or wrong, it is true. Now, this could have had more to do with assuring that a fledgling nation prospered and lack of resources to do be involved in international affairs. It probably also has to do with increasing technological advances and globalization in general. But to ‘easily discredit’ a man by dropping the term ‘Monroe Doctrine’ says more about your desire to dismiss Paul than about his position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

    Same goes for dismissing libertarianism. You point to one plank of libertarianism, ask questions about it (without answering them), and then condemn the whole philosophy. By the way, what is so much more practical about any other political philosophy? Of course you can call any political philosophy ‘romantic,’ but so what? Socialism could be called ‘romantic’ and ‘noble,’ but practically it will never work because human beings are: 1. selfish by human nature; and 3. corrupt when put into positions of power. Every political philosophy will have its flaws. Your ability to identify those flaws do not make that philosophy completely unuseful. Frankly, a political philosophy which encourages personal responsibility and accountability is not the worst I can think of.

    In short, your diatribe against libertarianism is so unconvincing that it sounds more like you were just running talking points through your head.

  10. Dan
    February 28, 2007 at 11:14 am #

    APJ,

    Now, this could have had more to do with assuring that a fledgling nation prospered and lack of resources to do be involved in international affairs. It probably also has to do with increasing technological advances and globalization in general. But to ‘easily discredit’ a man by dropping the term ‘Monroe Doctrine’ says more about your desire to dismiss Paul than about his position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

    You’re right, I put very little into my comments, very little research and all. I probably should have just stayed quiet, honestly, because I really don’t have the motivation to elaborate.

  11. Connor
    February 28, 2007 at 11:22 am #

    I probably should have just stayed quiet, honestly, because I really don’t have the motivation to elaborate.

    Translation:

    “My position is a weak one, unsupported by the facts, and fueled only by my intolerance for libertarians. I therefore acquiesce.”

    ;)

  12. Dan
    February 28, 2007 at 11:28 am #

    no Connor, if I really had the desire and motivation, I would present to you a very well researched position on why Ron Paul gets less than 1% of the vote for aspiring presidential nominations. But I really don’t care, and shouldn’t have commented.

  13. APJ
    February 28, 2007 at 11:52 am #

    Dan, I am not going to go do any research, but I would guess that the reason for the low percentage is more or less the same that the Communist party (completely opposite end of the spectrum) or any other obscure 3rd party doesn’t: lack of ginormous donations and lack of media coverage. That, and like other less mainstream candidates, he is not afraid to advocate big changes, which always make people nervous.

  14. Kelly Winterton
    February 28, 2007 at 1:09 pm #

    Russell writes:

    “Frankly, the media doesn’t cover Ron Paul because he isn’t going to win, and they know it.”

    This is only part of the reason, however a key reason. The real reason is that the Secret Shadow Government is not backing him with the money and media. The Secret Shadow Government owns the media.

    We should define my term “Secret Shadow Government” as today’s embodyment of “Secret Combinations.”

  15. Russell Page
    March 1, 2007 at 12:41 am #

    Oh let’s not throw in conspiracy theories . . . the people don’t back him either. Most of them back Democrats and Republicans.

  16. Michael L. Mc Kee
    March 1, 2007 at 7:01 pm #

    Connor

    I had informed you several weeks ago that I was solidly in the camp of Mitt Romney, and I believe I stated my reasoning. I now believe I was not wise in being so quick to endorse a candidate simply because he is a good man, and a member of the Church. While I am not, in my estimation, a shallow person, I do believe the depth of my knowledge of Mitt, and his politics would have been considered less than well informed.

    At this point I am even more convinced that Mitt is a good man, and I have done sufficient research to convince me that he would make an excellent President for our country. I do not find his changes blatantly politically motivated, and I do not accept the MSM portrayal of him as a so-called flip-flopper. Many of our leaders in the past changed their philosophical positions after they had been elected or did so at a time when it meant very little to their future plans politically.

    That being said, I have decided, at least for now, I am going to make the decision to declare myself no longer a Republican. The 2 parties, are apparently too far gone to really have much hope in anyone with either a D or R after their name. Unfortunately that includes Mitt too. The power structure behind the scenes has too much of a strangle hold on both parties, and I see no current reason for things to change for the better.

    I also told you earlier that I felt Ron Paul was a principled man of unimpeachable character and I would support him under different circumstances. Well, I think it is time for me to take a stand for the things I believe in most fervently, and they do not exist in the Republican Party. I will change my voter registration, and work toward making the Constitution Party a viable alternative to the status quo.

  17. fontor
    March 1, 2007 at 10:17 pm #

    Attention, Republican Party: When you’ve lost Michael, you’ve lost it.

    Political parties can be as dearly held as religion, and people who change may experience some difficulty in letting go of past beliefs and affiliations. So, coming from my perspective as a born-again atheist, I wanted to say congratulations on this new reality, Michael, and best of luck.

  18. Connor
    March 1, 2007 at 11:52 pm #

    Michael,

    Welcome to the fold. Not fontor’s fold of atheism, but the Constitution Party’s fold of light and truth. :)

    I registered w/ the party prior to this past election, as I too came to the conclusion that the Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, doesn’t even live up to its own name, much less provide a Constitutionally sound platform for addressing the issues our nation faces today.

    I can’t speak for Mitt Romney as a man. His flip flopping may be general repentance and personal conversion to a different ideal. Then again, it may be political expediency and a big farcical show. What I do know is that he doesn’t understand the Constitution as well as Ron Paul, given the speeches and soundbytes I’ve been privileged to come across.

  19. NH
    March 1, 2007 at 11:53 pm #

    Successful house party for Ron in NH last weekend and here is the video!

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1922599324814774610&q=ron+paul&hl=en  [Part1]

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8788872033380636574&q=ron+paul&hl=en    [Part 2]  

    IF 1 MILLION PEOPLE EACH SEND $20.00, that’s $20M dollars!

    Checks should be made out and mailed to:

    The Ron Paul 2008 PEC
    837 W. Plantation Drive
    Clute, TX 77531

    NH4RonPaul-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    RonPaul2008-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    RonPaulforPresident-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    democratsforronpaul-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    RLCNH-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

  20. Connor
    March 2, 2007 at 12:42 am #

    NH,

    I just watched the video clips you posted. Great stuff! Thanks for stopping by. I’ll be sending my check in this weekend.

  21. WillyPete
    March 2, 2007 at 10:11 am #

    Hey Connor, thanks for the read. I’ve never been to your blog before but I ran across it while researching information about Ron Paul. I’m encouraged to see your interest in the good doctor. He is worthy of consideration and should not be ignored. I have posted excerpts from your article on a Ron Paul 2008 blog I just started. I had already posted the piece from Pastor Chuck the other day and thought your writing would be a good follow up to that.
    I also sent a lil more traffic your way. ;)

  22. Connor
    March 2, 2007 at 7:25 pm #

    Duane Johnson blogged about this post which has raised some interesting comments. One commenter, having allegedly worked previously with Ron Paul, charged him with the following:

    He’s got no pizzaz. He’s got no sense of humor. He’s got the personality of a rock.

    Another commenter offered an awesome rebuttal worth reading:

    Oh Ron, he just just wants, oh you know, a radical liberty loving social revolution in order to totally overhaul and downsize government and to rip out the Federal Reserve monetary system, amongst other things. Yeah what a boring guy, I mean you can see from the video links above he’s really not passionate about what he believes. I mean all this excited waving his hands back and forth, clearly he must be faking all of it. You know what you’re right, liberty ideas just aren’t sexy. It’s just too bad. I mean what we really need is Hillary in a bathing suit, very exciting, racy even. I mean I’d elect that in a second; wouldn’t you? So I can turn my Doctors office visit into a bread line, woohoo exciting! Sorry I lost my train of thought… now back to watching Roadrunner. durrrr TV, me likie the TV, entertainment good, boring bad, durrr. God you tards it’s called freedom! And I don’t care if comes around to the background score of elevator music, so long as it comes around. A strong president might as well be a boring president too. Hell, I don’t even want to know government exists in my life; that’s how boring I want to make it.

    Amen, brotha!

  23. Connor
    March 5, 2007 at 1:21 pm #

    Be sure to check out this CNN interview with Ron Paul from last week.

    The media blackout seems to have ebbed ever so slightly, if only temporarily. Great job, Rep. Paul!

  24. Bob McMillan
    March 9, 2007 at 12:17 pm #

    Thanks for the great insights on the Saints and their lack of support for Ron Paul. My big “What the heck” concerning MItt Romney came when he failed to veto the gay marriage bill which passed is Mass. during his time as governor there. He had his shot to stand up and say no, and he didn’t, why? Given that, I wonder what we can expect from him as a president..I believe, and the record shows, that Ron Paul would have no problems vetoing such a bill. I signed on with the Constitution Part last election. You can’t expect to get what you want if you aren’t willing to stand up and ask for it. We need to stop backing republicans (are you listening Orrin Harch??) and start finding someone who really represents our thinking..

  25. Dee Czeszel
    April 9, 2007 at 10:14 am #

    If ANYONE did ANY research on just how far from “original intent” the federal government has actually come… the fear of “how much further” it can go should have anyone who doesn’t want every aspect of their lives to be “ruled over” by government looking, voting and praying for Ron Paul. The federal government has infultrated everything in our lives. Even with good intent, it is NOT constitutional. Everyone is depending on the governement to “subsidize” us, make our decisions for us, and “take care of us” when we either can’t, or chose not to. Mostly the latter. It’s less work to stay home, have babies, and collect money for doing so, than going out and getting a job and only having the children we can afford to have. I’m tellin ya… it is getting VERY scary and if “SHE” gets elected as president… Sweden looks good…

  26. Dee Czeszel
    April 9, 2007 at 10:29 am #

    All candidates can afford to promise you the moon and stars… because who do you think is going to have to pay for them??? YOU, you fool! Your taxes will increase with EVERY promise made and fulfilled. Wake up! Did you know that a major portion of your tax dollars are being “GIVEN” to countries less fortunate than ourselves?… sad as that is… “I” don’t have all that “I” need and I am being FORCED to give my wages to someone else that the government has decided needs it more than “I” do!!! Your duty as an American voter is to be “informed” before voting… PLEASE, PLEASE, look at the Constitution Party web site… at least challenge the “wool over your eyes”… you will see that if you love your country and your personal freedom that Ron Paul is the man you want in the White House.

  27. Richard Brodie
    April 12, 2007 at 12:20 pm #

    Ron Paul is in favor of stopping the giveaway of our contry to the Aztec indian tribe. I think Latter Day Saints would like to see the Mexicans take over control of the United States because this would vindicate the “Blossoming of the Lamanites” prophecy.

  28. DCZE
    April 12, 2007 at 2:39 pm #

    Ron Paul, exciting or not, is not self-serving, not trying to please lobbiest, not even injecting his own opinion! All the man is saying is this country is going to hell because the federal government has far outreached it constutional boundaries and taken too many state powers away from the people and he wants to stop it! PERIOD. Look and read your founding documents… it’s all there… black & white. Read George Washington’s farewell address on foreign policy, national debt, immigration. The the speeches made by the founding fathers. Ron Paul is a mouthpiece for their original intentions. Nothing more. He wants the people… you and me… to regain our political powers we were intended to have, that we DID have, until we started handing it all over to the government. I don’t care if he has 1% of the vote… he’s got mine. He represents me.

  29. DCZE
    April 13, 2007 at 9:25 am #

    I read as many bloggs as I can and I can tell you that there are a ton of opinions out there and that is good. It’s the American way. However, when it comes to running this country, opinions should rank second to the legal constitutional boundaries set by the founders of this country. There is only ONE man who honors this system and it is Ron Paul. His voting history will tell you that he consistantly votes according to the constitution and NOT his opinion. Even when the issue is an emotional one, he weighs it against it’s legality first. We should have been doing this ALL ALONG and have not, which is obvious by all the issues that the federal government is involved in that are constitutionally illegal. If only the states would take back their powers. That is where the “people” have the biggest voice and we are losing our “powers of speach” with every issue the federal government takes charge of.

  30. Connor
    April 26, 2007 at 2:55 pm #

    Laurence Vance has a great article worth reading on Ron Paul being the right candidate for the “Christian Right”.

  31. Chris A
    May 4, 2007 at 5:04 pm #

    Wow!!

    This is really refreshing. I thought I was all alone here in Utah by supporting Ron Paul and his candidacy. Ron Paul is the only candidate on either side that if elected will try his best to reverse the unfortunate direction and what I sometimes feel is the inevitable downfall of our country/society.

    Americans need to wake up and smell the coffee ..err um hot chocolate. We cannot continue consuming an unfair percentage of natural resources or paying ridiculous interest (illegal personal income tax) on money borrowed from a private bank (Federal Reserve) to fund our Imperial goals.

    I truly feel that we are on the verge of collapse…it’s inevitable…unless we support candidates like Ron Paul who are brave enough to tell the truth and fight for it.

    “Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

    Oh ya, the MSNBC POLLS showed that a significant number of Americans would be open to exploring Ron Paul’s candidacy if they had only heard about the man.

    http://www.digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_s_Approval_Rating_s_up_32_Following_Republican_Debates

    If you like what Ron Paul stands for…please do anything that you can to get the word out…since the controlled media will not.

  32. Lisa
    May 15, 2007 at 5:49 pm #

    Go Ron Paul! I am LDS and pro constitution all the way.

  33. Marnie Pehrson
    May 15, 2007 at 6:30 pm #

    Great post Connor! For those here who are for Ron Paul, I say “be not faithless but believing!” :) A large ship is maneuvered by a very small helm. The enemy knows (and we need to wake up and realize) that a few, well-informed individuals who open their mouths in an intelligent manner can make a difference.

    Who’s to say Ron Paul can’t win? The mainstream media doesn’t have to lay our options before us. I personally believe with the power of the Internet, we can wake people up to the fact that there is a rule book for good government – the U.S. Constitution – and that it should be used in evaluating issues and proposed legislation. Personally, I believe Ron Paul’s just the man to do it.

    Every question posed to him in the California debate he took back and compared to the Constitution. Who else up there even thought to do such a thing? The fact that he outperformed every other candidate in the MSNBC poll following that debate shows that people perked up and listened. They saw the logic; they saw someone who stands by principles and not by what’s popular or expedient. I believe that people CAN wake up and realize “all is not well in Zion” and that it’s time we worked toward restoring Constitutional government.

    I think more Latter-day Saints would be taking notice of Ron Paul if Romney wasn’t running. Pull Romney out of the running and they’d really have to put on their thinking caps and examine the candidates instead of assuming that a good Latter-day Saint automatically makes a good President. What makes a good president is someone who will uphold his oath of office to defend the U.S. Constitution. Romney may be a good man, but he doesn’t “get” the Constitution… you can tell that by the way he answers questions and flip-flops.

  34. Anchorage Activist
    May 16, 2007 at 4:15 pm #

    I’m LDS, and I have been leaning towards Mitt Romney, not so much because he is LDS, but because he got into the race before Ron Paul and I believed that only Romney was strong enough to stop John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. McCain is a grandstanding opportunist and Giuliani plays the 9-11 card too much.

    However, I consider Ron Paul more ideologically attractive. He must specify how we have departed from the Constitution in order to pick up steam.

    First, he must emphasize that the First Amendment merely prescribes religious neutrality and does not mandate the removal of religion from the public square. He must denounce this “separation of church and state” nonsense.

    Second, he must emphasize that the rights of the Second Amendment are ABSOLUTE and UNCONDITIONAL for all law-abiding Americans, and that the “militia” clause is merely an explanatory clause rather than a conditional clause.

    Third, he must denounce extra-judicial asset forfeiture as an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. Asset forfeiture, when not prescribed by a judge during the sentencing phase of a trial as part of the punishment, is government theft, pure and simple.

    And finally, Ron Paul must take a harder line against mass immigration in general and illegal immigration in particular. This way he can pre-empt Tom Tancredo’s candidacy. Tancredo’s attitude towards illegal immigration is heroic, but in reality he’s a single-issue candidate. Ron Paul would need the help of people like Tancredo in Congress to enact truly effective immigration reform.

  35. William Adams
    May 24, 2007 at 1:23 pm #

    I remember an article Ron Paul wrote on the US dollar about 3 years ago. That article convinced me that Ron Paul was different than your average politician. He’s about solutions, not politics.

  36. Adam Chavez
    June 9, 2007 at 5:30 pm #

    I have really enjoyed reading through this discussion. I just thought I’d post an article I saw the other day entitled, “Ron Paul $5 Million Dollar Man?”

    http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=43192

    Yes that’s right, estimates show that he has now raised nearly $5 million dollars! Will the mainstream media NOW begin giving him the attention they give their favorite picks? No. Why? Is it lack of money? No, not anymore. Lack of support? No he was the second most searched item on the internet and the first most searched item on Technorati. He has won numerous straw polls…even came second place in a Fox News straw poll.

    Latter Day Saints like myself should be able to recognize that this man is the moral equivalent of our founding fathers. He is good. His judgment is righteous. He stands, many times alone; but he stands on principle.

    Way to go Ron Paul supporters wherever you are! I chipped in my $20. Have you?

  37. Liz
    July 12, 2007 at 9:45 am #

    I am LDS, and I don’t lean for Ron Paul OR Mitt Romney. The question in my mind is not “Which Republican candidate for president will I anoint?” It is which CANDIDATE, of all parties, will I anoint? Assuming that all LDS people are Republicans is a gross generalization. Statements like that really weaken the arguments that follow. Also, assuming that all “good” LDS people are Republicans weakens your argument even further.

    I have a question. Why do you think Ron Paul belongs to the Republican party versus the Constitution party?

  38. Chris....
    July 12, 2007 at 10:16 am #

    Ron Paul did run for president in 1998 as a libertarian. During that time he noticed that is was far too difficult to gain any traction running as a third party candidate in a two party system. He spent most of his time and money trying to get on ballots and things like that.

    Ron Paul is a paleo conservative….the Republican Party has been hijacked by neo conservatives who believe in preemptive war among other things is not following “just war” doctrine.

    Basically its just easier to gain traction by working in the two party system rather than fighting it.

    As and LDS person, you should be looking for a candidate who is a “good man” or woman who supports and defends the constitution above all else. I have never seen such a candidate ever in my lifetime and I do see that in Ron Paul.

    Here are some resources for your review:

    To learn about doctrine and latter-day prophets’ guidance about choosing a candidate:

    http://www.latterdayconservative.com/

    To learn about Ron Paul:

    http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

  39. Carissa
    July 13, 2007 at 12:45 pm #

    Why do you think Ron Paul belongs to the Republican party versus the Constitution party?

    Ron Paul would be the perfect Constitution party candidate, but I am glad he’s running as a major party candidate so he’ll have a better chance of getting his name out. I could care less what party he is part of. I just want him to win because of who he is and what he stands for. From the Constitution party’s own website, here’s what they have to say about him:

    “…as the party who puts principle above party loyalty, it seems that in the unlikely event that Doctor No [Paul] is able to capture the Republican nomination, we would stand behind him 100%.

    If the Grand Old Party does choose to return to its conservative ideals by supporting Congressman Paul, then there will be ample opportunity to throw our support behind him should our delegates so decide. If he does not win the GOP nomination we will have done much of the work to gain the ballot lines necessary to field a candidate who shares our values and who will govern constitutionally. That candidate could be Ron Paul should he decide to continue his race by seeking the Constitution Party nomination.”

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=613

    Sounds like they support him wholeheartedly, but want a backup plan in case he doesn’t win the nomination.

  40. Shawn Loura
    July 17, 2007 at 2:20 pm #

    I am also a Mormon (convert) and I am all for Ron Paul the Patriot President to be.
    I agree there are alot of ignorant mormons out there but there are alot more Patriotic Mormons then I before Would have thought.

    In fact here in the provo area there are a good number and rising number infact of Mormons for Ron Paul.
    We were talking about patriotism and militia.

    We thought it would be a great idea if someone even if it were one of us were to create a site called…Mormons for Ron Paul.
    Something along those lines to educate people and inform them that not all mormons are so ignorant as to vote for a socialist like Romney.

    Get a constitution vs what Romney has voted for and supported and show why it matters etc.

    Romney vs the constittuion.

    The constitution is the word unto us.
    I forgot which prophet off top said those words but it should be spoken of again.

    Infact before I forget my friend bob the mormon from utah offered methis site….

    http://www.freedom-force.org/

    I am glad I did some searching to find your site.
    There are more Faithful saints then you know.

    Living the gospel also includes the constitution and those members who don’t live it put their exaltation in danger.

    Educate our fellow members about the constittuion and why it matters not only for our liberty and freedoms but also our security.

    Educate inform and loving rebukes from time to time cause not all is well as they want tp\o believe cause the idea is pleasing to their minds.

    Remember the Elders of israel will save the constitution.
    but not by faith alone but by word and deed.

    God Speed!

  41. Shawn Loura
    July 17, 2007 at 2:25 pm #

    Liz ,

    It does not matter what party you are in, Good Point what does matter is are you for or against the constitution keeping in mind there is no middle ground no luke warm patriots.

    Ron Paul is a Republican and being a republican doesnt mean you have to be a sheep you.
    Any more then being a democrat or other.

    Ron Paul is indeed registered as a republican thats why the constitution party has not officialy supported t\him but rather are more likely and some have already indirectly supported him and or support him.

    And other partys are likely to get behind him as I have.

    I was originally an independent went democrat socialist communist now republican.

    To me becoming a member of any other partY is not the solution it is rather part of the problem.

    Stay in what ever party you are in but educate each of your party members as I educate mine of the constitution in it’s original intent/

    God Speed sister.

  42. Shawn Loura
    July 17, 2007 at 2:29 pm #

    Adam Good for you, Everyone should that can donate to the cause of a patriot be it ron paul or anyone else.

    And if you cant contrinbute thats a shame but there are other things you can do.
    First of all get off your back side and be pro-active.

    Rather then meet at events with the hopes of getting a few people on our side why not goto the constitution party the independents and any other party that has good patriotic intentions and get them from being devided back to being united.

    We can not stand devided but united we can and shall.

    Find the most effective ways to campaign for ron paul don’t waiste good time on good intentions cause the path paved to hell was done with good intentions.

    Find the groups like john birch and freedom force international and many other patriotic groups and work with what we alreayd have then you can go after the few lost ones.

    Think effective.

  43. Shawn Loura
    July 17, 2007 at 2:34 pm #

    Dear A. Activist:

    M. Romney is a Socialist so is one socialist any better then another?
    of course not. Why support a socialist when you can support a Patriot like Ron Paul.
    What would Christ vote for if indeed he were to vote???

    Your words are those of a defeatist not a patriot.
    I mean no offence but what I speak i speak with bold truth.

    Ron Paul should do this Ron Paul should do that…

    That’s lazy mybe you should do this and that to show just how much of a patriot you really are.

    Are people to be so lazy that everything should be handed them on a silver platter or should we be more informed? and who should we delegate to inform us? or should we be doing that ourselves?

  44. Shawn Loura
    July 17, 2007 at 2:44 pm #

    Dan have you ever smoked pot?

    I have in my ingorant and more liberal day’s and your statement is 100% false or atleast to assume such for everyone.
    Pot never lead me to doing other drugs but wine and other hard drinks sure did.

    no. People choose to do what they do if pot is illegal then so should beer wine etc etc.
    It is not logical one bad drug is legal and has caused far more problems then the other but that also depends on the persons tolorance for such.

    I don’t like pot drugs wine etc i am against them.

    However where do our rights come from?
    the government or God?

    If from God who is government to give or take away our God given rights?

    See the problem. Neither of us like the idea of people doing drugs not just cause it goes against our common faith but cause it’s stupid in general.
    But I can not rob anothers right of choice.

    Are you saying our founding fathers who the church teaches were devinely inspired were off their rocker? just as you may believe Ron paul is/>

    The constitution needs to be better understood that is not only is good for the individual but also the whole of our society. And that the constitution is not just about liberty and freedom but also our security.

    I believe it was the Prophet John Taylor who said” The constitution is the word of the lord unto to.

    And therefore by logic is just as much as part of the Gospel as anything else.

    Romney is a socialist and that is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    Romney may seem like a nice jack mormon but he has betrayed his faith in politics.
    Ron Paul would make a great Mormon some day but for now I will settle for him being the next President!

  45. Kelly Winterton
    July 17, 2007 at 5:31 pm #

    Shawn, I hope you’re correct when you state there are many more LDS for Ron Paul than we think. The LDS around me are all googly-eyed about the thought of Mitt as pres. I don’t think anything would get them to change their minds enough to even listen or read what Ron Paul has to say.

    Some people I’ve conversed with about USA’s ills say they can’t do anything about the Secret Combinations that control our government. They say what could I, one person, even do to make a difference? In reply to them I say: read and listen to what Ron Paul has to say.

    The mainstream media will not help us out here. We can only do it by you and me getting the word out to our friends and neighbors.

    When a person studies up on things like the PNAC’s “New Pearl Harbor” used to garner public support for an oil war in the Middle East, or the damage to the Constitution caused by Cheney and Bush, one wonders what he as a normal citizen can do. There are 2 specific areas in my estimation:

    1) Let the world know of the true reasons the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated.

    2) Promote Ron Paul and the Constitution of the USA.

    Also Shawn, you state the Elders of the Church will save the Constitution. I personally believe you’re wrong here. I think if you research the wording of the prophets since Joseph Smith’s time, you will see they use the words something like: the good people of the Church will save the Constitution, if it is to be saved at all.

    Some of those good people of the Church will undoubtedly be Elders, (like Steven E. Jones and Jack Monnett), but the prophet will not be the one to do so, or to direct them. The prophet will stay politically neutral to what our shadow government directs our elected government to do.

    I hope and pray the Saints will pay enough attention to the Spirit, and disregard the initial peer pressure of other LDS to support a foul-mouthed jack-Mormon in a run for the presidency. Mitt is not our answer. Our answer is to adhere to the divine document of the Constitution for the direction our country needs to be going in.

    We have ample proof of the prophecies of the B of M, wherein it states that our country will blessed or destroyed by the righteousness of its inhabitants. We can now see the corruptness of our current government leaders at every turn. The dire state of our Constitution is testimony of their corruptness. Do we trust Mitt with the Constitution?

  46. soldieroftruth
    August 17, 2007 at 7:51 pm #

    I do very much trust Mitt Romney with the constitution more so than any other president. I can not, in good conscience, support a cut and run from the Iraq War for president. Ron Paul reminds me of Admiral Stockton, Ross Perot’s joke of a running mate, from a few years back. I have written a peice over on http://logicalsanity.com that will explain why I trust Mitt. And by the way, I have never heard Parley P. Pratt’s grea-great-great grandson use any profanity at all. That would not become a stake president of the church – which he was for a number of years in Boston. He is an active temple going Mormon, Kelly.

  47. Jo
    August 17, 2007 at 9:07 pm #

    Regarding the person who trusts Mitt Romney because he was a Stake President and a Temple goer.
    How naive to think a calling or going to the Temple means someone is a good person. I know a Stake Pres. who molested children. My own Bishop seduced women who came to him for help. A counselor in the Stake Presidency where my sister-in-law lives , is a peeping tom, but no one in the small town will tell on him because they are all friends with his wife.
    These are the last days when”even the very elect will be deceived”!
    Mitt Romney does not follow the Constitution or the gospel. He is a member of The Council on foreign Relations (an evil group seeking to take freedom from the people of the world and replace freedoms with a one world government).
    Don’t believe me? Study the words of Prophet Ezra Taft Benson, he admonished every member of the church to read the book “None Dare Call it Conspiracy”, which Pres. Benson wrote the inside cover for. You can read the whole text online at:
    http://reactor-core.org/none-dare.html
    Wake up people things are not as they appear!

  48. Carissa
    August 18, 2007 at 7:15 am #

    soldieroftruth– I read your link about why you trust Mitt Romney with the constitution. The only reason you give is because he is a Mormon, and Mormon doctrine tells us the constitution is important and inspired. It is a huge leap to say that simply because someone is an active member of our religion, his actions as president would therefore automatically be as hallowed and inspired as Columbus, Washington, Madison and all those other great men. I can see why you would expect such high standards from a member, but do his “fruits” and his actions support this reasoning? Where are your real reasons? What has he done (or planning on doing), specifically, to preserve and defend the constitution in the tradition of the founding fathers? If you cannot find these answers, why give him such an enormous benefit of the doubt?

  49. Kelly W.
    August 18, 2007 at 7:53 am #

    It was pretty stunning to me when my bishop was arrested (two seperate times) for exposing himself to young girls. I guess it can happen even to (once) worthy church leaders.

    The old saying is usually true about power corrupting (and absolute power corrupting absolutely).

    Mitt Romney is now CFR. If you think he’s the one to support both the Constitution and the Church, just do a little bit of study on the motives and ideals of the CFR. This point alone ought to be enough reason to support or reject Mitt – - do you, or do you not support the ideals of the CFR?

  50. soldieroftruth
    August 18, 2007 at 10:34 am #

    I know many general authorities personally and the vast majority personally support Mitt Romney. There is no one better at cleaning out business and reducing deficit. He has proven himself. Mitt is what we need for the economy. He is a good church member with high moral values and you have no proof to the contrary. Lets talk about Ron Paul’s weaknesses for a moment. He is a cut and run dove. I don’t believe he has what it takes to be tough on terror and he will be totally weak on defense, and I speak as an ex-intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy. His stance in the debated was pathetic. I have read several of Ezra Taft Benson’s books on the constitution (I dated his grand daughter at BYU in the early 80′s). I don’t believe that in today’s political atmosphere that Ezra would be a democrat as he was then. And let’s face it, Ron Paul is more in line with democratic thinking then he is republican. Of, course, you may be a democrat – I don’t know – and this is why you like him. I do not! If he got his way and pulled us out of Iraq – he would create a safe haven for Al Queda and terrorism. And then there is the chance that Iran would take over the Shia south – Al Queda with the Sunnis would have the central area and the Kurds, being weakened, would be subject to take over by Turkey. All this being said Ron Paul doesn’t stand a snow ball’s chance on the equator of having republicans elect him, anyway.

  51. Dan
    August 18, 2007 at 11:33 am #

    Soldier of Truth,

    I don’t believe that in today’s political atmosphere that Ezra would be a democrat as he was then.

    You do not live up to your moniker. Ezra Taft Benson? A Democrat? Do you really know the truth or not? You’re a “soldier of truth” but you don’t even know Ezra Taft Benson’s political leanings?

    If he got his way and pulled us out of Iraq – he would create a safe haven for Al Queda and terrorism.

    Our war in Iraq already created a safe haven for Al-Qaeda, over in Pakistan. Funny how we’re in a global war on terror, specifically on Al-Qaeda but we flatly refuse to take them out where they are in plain sight!

    And again, what is it with conservatives and spelling!?!?!?!

    And then there is the chance that Iran would take over the Shia south

    What’s wrong with that?

    Al Queda with the Sunnis would have the central area

    The same Sunnis that get full funding and support from our bestest allies, the Saudis. Hmmm, 16 Saudis attacked us on 9/11. ZERO Iraqis attacked us on 9/11. Over half of the foreign fighters in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia. Hmmm…

    the Kurds, being weakened, would be subject to take over by Turkey.

    Sucks for them, but they shouldn’t have resorted to terrorism in Turkey. You reap what you sow. It’s a lesson America needs to learn.

    All this being said Ron Paul doesn’t stand a snow ball’s chance on the equator of having republicans elect him, anyway.

    Finally you speak the truth.

  52. Carissa
    August 18, 2007 at 11:53 am #

    There is no one better at cleaning out business and reducing deficit.

    Actually, with all the federal programs Ron Paul wants to cut, including war spending, I think he’d do even better at this.

    I’m confused about your comments on Benson. Are you saying you agree with his political philosophies or not? What do you think about his talk, The Proper Role of Government?

  53. Jason Keyes
    August 18, 2007 at 11:53 am #

    SoldierofTruth says “I know many general authorities personally.” How many is many? 2? 3? I doubt you know more than a handful one – on – one unless you are a) a church employee, b) a regional authority, or c) a general authority yourself.

    The fact that the majority of the general authorities that you happen to know support Mitt Romney means virtually nothing – except that a few general authorities support him. And Lord bless them.

    I pray that Mitt Romney would do the right thing if elected. So far he has not proven himself to be a fighter for the Constitution. I hope he flip – flops into believing in the Constitution if he’s elected. I really do. Is he CFR? I don’t know. I’ve never seen that documented. If anybody has something reliable on that, I’d love to look at it.

    The Church encourages citizen thought, and citizen participation. They do not and will never publish studies on who to support for President, Governor, or any other public office. I’m sure none of this is new to SoldierofTruth, but I thought it would be good to point out.

    And I don’t think SoldierofTruth has really read Ezra Taft Benson’s books. Ezra Taft Benson was not a Democrat. And Ron Paul is not a “cut and run dove.”

    Ezra Taft Benson was an old – school Republican who believed so much in the Constitution that he advocated getting rid of farm subsidies while he served as Secretary of Agriculture… he thought a free people should never stoop so low as to become beggars to the all-powerful government.

    And Ron Paul is a fierce advocate for a strong military defense. The reason he wants us out of Iraq is because Congress never declared war on Iraq, so it is an illegal war…. sadly most people don’t see it this way because they don’t believe the Constitution is the law. If the Constitution is not the law this war is legal. If it is the law this war is illegal.

    He also believes that unchecked military aggression with no clear objective is bad for our national defense. It makes us weaker, because our troops are spread too thin and we make new enemies everyday by killing civilians who had nothing to do with 9/11. If you think about it in terms of “How would we feel if they did it?” it makes sense.

    Imagine China coming and bombing California and then building 14 permanent military bases in Los Angeles area – telling us that “It is for your own safety. This area is just too violent….” We would not stand for it. We would send planes, ships, and put boots on the ground to repel the invasion.

    When the U.S. does this to another country, their people desire to react much as we would. Except for one big difference. They don’t have strong armies, navies, and air forces to repel the invaders. So what do they do? Terrorism.

    Since 1953 the U.S. has been poking a stick at a rattlesnake in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other parts of the middle east. The U.S. has now been bitten. The people suffer because their leaders have not been wise.

    Some would say that I am in support of the terrorists. But there is a reason why we study the criminal mind. We ask, “Why does one murder?” not because we condone the act, but so that we can understand in order to protect ourselves from murderers.

    Some people argue that the founders lived in a different time and the Constitution can’t protect us against terrorists, so we need a new form of government with Homeland Security and a weakened Bill of Rights – “such elusive and shadowy enemies did not exist in Washington’s time,” they say. This is simply not true. We call our elusive, non-state enemy a terrorist.

    They called their’s a pirate.

    The founders gave us a tool to fight pirates and terrorists. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal…”

    This allows private quasi bounty hunters to go into other countries to hunt down terrorists. It allows for the U.S. to kill and capture Osama bin Laden and other terrorist group members without invading entire countries and causing problems in Iraq that Dick Cheney understood and explained clear back in 1994. See this clip:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

    And back to the war, with something as important as sending young men and women to kill and die – the inspired founders knew that such should not be taken lightly or without much public debate.

    They understood that most of the country must be in support of the war, that there must be a clear objective. That the dangerous tool of war should only be used when the entire country stood with fierce unity behind the President to achieve something very specific (i.e. defeat the military of Japan, Germany, or destroy the Taliban)

    When we declared war on Germany and Japan, we won. When we did not declare war on the Taliban, but instead sort of quasi-almost fought and happened to do the fighting in Afghanistan against “terrorism” we lost. The Taliban are in pockets of Afghanistan and Pakistan… since our war is against “Terrorism” it is easy for politicians to “cut and run” from the real fight and get involved in the political fights of the day.

    The U.S. “cut and run” from the real fight against bin Laden and the terrorists. I wish there was some way I could get this all across to you SoldierofTruth. It is all true, what I have said.

    In war, truth is the first casualty.
    Aeschylus
    Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC – 456 BC)

    Emotions run high on both sides of the argument. Truth and honesty become second to “proving your point.” I know I have experienced that before.

    Ron Paul believes, like the founders did, in peace. He also believes in the Christian just war theory. The same theory espoused by Captain Moroni.

    In Captain Moroni’s case, his people were being attacked by the Lamanites. They wanted to take land, gold, and freedom from the people. They were prepared to set up a military dictatorship over the Nephites if they were successful in conquering.

    Captain Moroni gathered the troops. He prepared his cities with awesome fortifications (Alma 50). They fought and they won. And they did so for religious freedom, and to protect their families from the Lamanites.

    And I think every one of Ron Paul’s supporters would fight to the death if there was a Lamanite-like enemy coming to overcome us.

    Iraq had no means to do anything like that to America.

    Ron Paul’s point was that we should have been hunting down the terrorists this whole time, not invading sovereign countries like Iraq that did not attack us.

    I won’t get into it here, but there is a much better case to go to war against Saudi Arabia and Pakistan than Iraq and Iran.

    And by the way, Ronald Reagan once wrote letters in praise of Ron Paul’s strong defense attitude. See for yourself on youtube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdailypaul%2Ecom%2Fnode%2F373

    Well, I’m done for today.

    In peace and war may the Saints be friends.

  54. Jason Keyes
    August 18, 2007 at 11:56 am #

    BTW,

    Ron Paul 2008!

  55. soldieroftruth
    August 18, 2007 at 2:47 pm #

    You wanted me to do my homework, I did. See my post at logical sanity for a complete difference in views between the two. Ron Paul, to me, is in the same mold as John Hospers who espoused many views contradictory to LDS doctrine.

  56. soldieroftruth
    August 18, 2007 at 2:59 pm #

    By The Way, I have read many Ezra taft Benson books. I agree whole heartedly with his views on the constitution but see Ron Paul’s views in a far different light than Ezra Taft Benson’s. As for him being a registered democrat, I’ll admit my knowledge of that only comes from what his gran-daughter told me when I dated her at BYU. I love President Benson whole heartedly and have nothing but respect for him – but we must view the democrat of his day in a much different light than today’s democrat. They were much more conservative. As for Ron Paul, what he said, from his own lips, in the debates has been enough to crucify him among main stream republicans. I just don’t like or trust the man with National Security.

  57. soldieroftruth
    August 18, 2007 at 5:08 pm #

    Carissa, I just re-read the talk you referenced and see nothing there that detracts from Romney’s stance on the constitution and constitutional law. I agree 100% with what President Benson had to say. What I don’t agree with is Ron Paul’s stance and methods (especially his non-interventionist/libertarian principles) on combating radical Islamists. This is a real threat and has been since the formation of this republic. In my piece over at logical sanity I give quotes by him where he seemingly ignores the threat and even asks, “what is wrong with Iran having a nuclear weapon”? I believe the guy is not in the best interest of this country that I love so dearly and served for many years.

  58. Dan
    August 18, 2007 at 5:50 pm #

    soldieroftruth,

    I love President Benson whole heartedly and have nothing but respect for him – but we must view the democrat of his day in a much different light than today’s democrat

    Um, DUDE! Don’t taint the purity of the Democratic Party! Ezra Taft Benson was an ultra-conservative. He would never have been a Democrat. In fact, he served in the Eisenhower administration. Do you even know what party Dwight Eisenhower belonged to? And no, it does not begin with a “D”.

  59. Curtis
    August 18, 2007 at 5:54 pm #

    Soldier,
    In today’s world, you would serve your country much better as a missionary for the church than as a military man.

  60. soldieroftruth
    August 18, 2007 at 6:18 pm #

    Yes Dan, I do. And I am far to old to be called “Dude”. Presidents have in the past had cabinet members who were of the other party. Call his grand-daughter a liar. Not me. And Curtis, what makes you think I didn’t serve a mission. I served in the Uruguay, Montevideo mission with F. Burton Howard as my mission president and plan on serving another with my wife as soon as my last daughter (she’s 16 now) is out of the house. After all my parenting responsibilities come first. Some can serve “God and Country”. I am a temple worker and an advisor in the High Priest’s group. I have been around general authorities most of my life. Just because you don’t agree with my political stance don’t question my worthiness as a member of the church. Sonny, I’ve been around it all my life and have never strayed therefrom.

  61. soldieroftruth
    August 18, 2007 at 6:20 pm #

    It is not becoming of a Latter-day Saint to attack the messenger just because one does not like or agree with the message.

  62. Carissa
    August 18, 2007 at 7:29 pm #

    I agree 100% with what President Benson had to say. What I don’t agree with is Ron Paul’s stance and methods (especially his non-interventionist/libertarian principles)

    I also agree 100% with President Benson. However, I see Ron Paul’s stance and methods to be in complete harmony with him. Here are a few examples:

    1. From The Proper Role of Government, he says: “the first step toward restoring the limited concept of government should be to freeze all welfare-state programs at their present level, making sure that no new ones are added”. He goes on to say we should phase them out without any renewal. This sounds exactly like what Ron Paul wants to do. Would Romney do this?

    2. Benson says (same talk): “I believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, and a circulating medium convertible into such money without loss. I regard it as a flagrant violation of the explicit provisions of the Constitution for the federal government to make it a criminal offense to use gold or silver coin as legal tender or to issue irredeemable paper money.” Ron Paul talks extensively about returning to system of sound money and getting rid of the federal reserve. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm Does Romney?

    3. Have you read “United States Foreign Policy” by Benson? In it he says, “Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to “uplift” their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies.”

    4. Benson goes on to quote Taft saying, “Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country. It was the policy of the free hand.” Ron Paul agrees with Taft and often refers to his foreign policy. What about Romney?

  63. Carissa
    August 18, 2007 at 7:37 pm #

    Here is part of the conclusion to the above-mentioned speech:

    “The United States should:

    Establish and maintain a position of independence with regard to other countries
    Avoid political connection, involvement or intervention in the affairs of other countries
    Make no permanent or entangling alliances
    Treat all nations impartially, neither granting nor accepting special privileges from any
    Promote commerce with all free peoples and countries
    Cooperate with other countries to develop civilized rules of intercourse
    Act always in accordance with the “laws of Nations”
    Remedy all just claims of injury to other nations and require just treatment from other nations, standing ready, if necessary to punish offenders
    Maintain a defensive force of sufficient magnitude to deter aggressors.(10) (See The American Tradition, p. 212)

    For the first hundred years and more of the existence of the Republic, Americans developed and maintained a tradition that was in keeping with the above principles. We can say with confidence that the United States established a tradition of foreign relations in keeping with the principles laid down by the founding fathers.” Address delivered on June 21, 1968, at the Farm Bureau Banquet in Preston, Idaho by Ezra Taft Benson

    How are these points so different from what Ron Paul is advocating? I am amazed at the similarity!

  64. Dan
    August 18, 2007 at 7:41 pm #

    Soldier,

    It is not becoming of a Latter-day Saint to attack the messenger just because one does not like or agree with the message.

    It’s not the message, dude. Ezra Taft Benson fought AGAINST Democrats his whole life!

  65. soldieroftruth
    August 18, 2007 at 9:00 pm #

    Dan, he may very well have been a republican. I don’t know for sure – again, I am just going by what his grand-daughter told me when I dated her back in 1978 when he was President of the Quorum of the 12 apostles. I think I said that before and told you my source. I don’t think the subject is important to my or your eternal salvation.

    This blog asks why Latter-day Saints ignore Ron Paul and I answer that question in more detail over at http://logicalsanity.com and lay out in detail the major differences between the two candidates in their own words. I do not prescribe to libertarian views. I think John Hospers who wrote extensively on the Libertarian view was a nut-job and his views were radically different than LDS theology (see The Range of Human Freedom). And may I remind Carissa that Thomas Jefferson was the first interventionist again Radical Islam in the armada that he sent after the Barbary Pirates.

    My personal opinion is that the Lord works in mysterious ways that we do not fully understand to get His message out. He also said that the gospel was to be preached to every nation, kindred, tongue and people – this includes the Muslim countries that prohibit the preaching of the gospel and make it a capital offense to do so.

    I am sure that you all are fine Latter-day Saints and you are free to vote according to the dictates of your conscience and understanding. just as I am doing. I have followed Mitt Romney’s career for many years, I have known people that he (when he was a stake president in Boston) sent out on their missions that have nothing but praise for the man. I agree 100% on his view of small government. My vote for him has nothing to do with his being LDS. I would not vote for Harry Reid for dog catcher! However, I did have a bishop growing up that was a very stubborn democrat but a fine Mormon and great bishop. Political diversity is one of the many things that make this nation great.

    However, I reiterate, that Ron Paul does not share my views on government and I do not care at all for his non-interventionist/isolationist stances and will not vote for him but will do all I can to help Mitt Romney (who frankly, I believe, has an uphill battle as well. There are just too darn many anti-mormons out there who would not vote for a Mormon under any circumstance). I do battle with them daily over at http://truthrestored.townhall.com .

    Anyway, Brother Dan, you have an enjoyable sabbath and I am sure we will chat again.

  66. Kelly Winterton
    August 18, 2007 at 10:17 pm #

    Jason Keyes, I have read in a few of places on the net that Romney is CFR. (Ron Paul is not, being about the only one of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates who is NOT CFR.)

    I don’t know for sure how these sources on the net get their info, but here is one of the links that shows who of the 2008 candidates are CFR.

    http://www.criticalreactor.com/2007/07/25/the-cfr-and-the-2008-presidential-candidates/

  67. Carissa
    August 18, 2007 at 10:56 pm #

    And may I remind Carissa that Thomas Jefferson was the first interventionist again Radical Islam in the armada that he sent after the Barbary Pirates.

    I’m a little confused. Are you trying to justify our current actions in Iraq by the actions of Thomas Jefferson? What was wrong with Ron Paul’s solution for fighting terrorism? (Letters of Marque and Reprisal) http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.html

    Wouldn’t his solution have allowed us to more effectively capture the actual perpetrators without getting politically involved with other nations, incurring so many innocent civilian casualties, costing us so much money, and disrupting so many lives?

  68. soldieroftruth
    August 19, 2007 at 11:27 am #

    Carissa – the U.S. could never muster a mercenary force of sufficient numbers and at as economical cost as the military can. The U.S. does use Defense fighting contractors in some capacity (Blackwater) but they could never do the job that organized military could do on a strategic basis. Ron Paul’s Letters of Marque and Reprissal, in this day and age, are naive and could never protect us. Having overt mercenary forces, in my opinion, would force the U.S. and it’s war technology back 150 years. Of course, being a military man, you may call me prejudiced and say that my first hand knowledge has no merit. This idea of Ron Paul’s, to me, just shows the man to be unfit to lead as commander in chief of the U.S. Military, one of POTUS many titles.

  69. Carissa
    August 19, 2007 at 1:45 pm #

    Hmmm… hindsight would tell us that using the military the way we have been to fight terrorism has not been very economical nor effective like you suggest. It has been six years, where is Osama bin Laden? How safe are we with our armed forced stretched so thin and away from our homeland instead of protecting our own borders? How much has this war cost already and what have we gained for that price?

    I can’t see why using an arguably more effective, direct method of fighting terrorism would force our technology backwards 150 years. The flexibility and creativity of such a method could certainly be an advantage. Not to mention we could strive for justice without compromising the 9 points Benson mentioned in #66 or disrupting so many lives. Lives of soldiers and civilians, here and abroad.

  70. Dan
    August 19, 2007 at 2:45 pm #

    Looks like the soldiers on the ground think we’re losing in Iraq.

    VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

    The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

    A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

    As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

    Read the whole thing. Pretty eye opening, at least for those who have not already known that our political and military leaders have been lying to us the past six years. Mitt Romney wishes to continue this lie. Ron Paul does not. I’m not ever going to vote for Ron Paul—for domestic policy reasons—but on Iraq, he is most correct.

  71. soldieroftruth
    August 19, 2007 at 6:09 pm #

    You guys go ahead and believe what you want to. I know from first hand experience that the majority of “the guys on the ground” do not think we are losing. In fact very few do. Guys in my ward who have been there and recently come back talk about all the progress being made.
    And Carissa, I believe you are twisting President Benson’s words to support your individual ideaology. President Benson supported the troops in Vietnam and my mission president, F. Burton Howard of the 1st Quorum of the seventy (emeritus now) also served voluntarily as an army officer. Anyway, it is a moot point because there is no way the majority of the republican base is going to support him. You are evidently anti-military but there are justifications for war and the Lord has made that clear. Even as the Saints were being driven from this country a number of them left to fight in the U.S. Military, even though they never saw battle they were willing to do so and formed a company with the blessings of the Church Leadership. I, for one, believe in a strong defense and a strong military. You owe your freedoms to the military, you live under the banner of the “stars and stripes”, and you must learn to “render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s” which includes respect to those which died to give you that freedom.

  72. Carissa
    August 19, 2007 at 8:31 pm #

    You are evidently anti-military but there are justifications for war and the Lord has made that clear

    Actually, I’m not anti-military in the least (not quite sure what I said to cause you to assume that). My husband is currently an active duty Army officer. I most certainly do believe in a strong national defense. It is one of the most important and necessary functions of our government. I only wish it to be used in a constitutional manner and for true self-defensive purposes. How is this less respectful of the sacrifice made by those who serve in this capacity? I have great respect for our troops and would consider it very kind if many others were trying to ensure my husband’s service would always be in line with constitutional principles.

    And Carissa, I believe you are twisting President Benson’s words to support your individual ideaology.

    How so? I didn’t have much political ideology of my own (I was pretty much indifferent) until I read Pres. Benson’s words. His words, along with D&C, are the basis for my belief that the most important thing a president can do for America is to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. That is the number one issue for me now when choosing who to vote for. I believe that the erosion of the constitution is still our biggest threat to freedom, no matter where it comes from. Ron Paul seems to understand this the most.

  73. Dan
    August 19, 2007 at 8:35 pm #

    soldier of truth,

    You owe your freedoms to the military, you live under the banner of the “stars and stripes”, and you must learn to “render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s” which includes respect to those which died to give you that freedom.

    No you do not! Our freedom comes from God, not from any man-made military. It is God who gives us our freedom, and it is God who can take it away. Let me remind you what President Kimball said about the worship of the soldier:

    We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel — ships, planes, missiles, fortifications — and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

    “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
    “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:44-45).

    We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us — and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Nephi 1:7) — or he will fight our battles for us (Exodus 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53). We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chronicles 20), and when Elish’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not; for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kings 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha” (vs 17).

    What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? Our assignment is affirmative: to forsake the things of the world as ends in themselves; to leave off idolatry and press forward in faith; to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies.

    We must leave off the worship of modern-day idols and a reliance on the “arm of flesh,” for the Lord has said to all the world in our day, “I will not spare any that remain in Babylon” (D&C 64:24).

    We must stop trusting in the arms of flesh for our protection. You will NEVER be free if you “owe” your freedom to a man-made military. You are NOT free if you “owe” someone something.

  74. Curtis
    August 19, 2007 at 9:14 pm #

    Here is a small excerpt on the subject of war and the gospel of Jesus Christ I wrote a while back:

    Brigham Young has been one of the most vocal on the issue of how to deal with ones enemies. He said, “Never try to destroy a man. It is our mission to save the people, not to destroy them. The least, the most inferior spirit now upon the earth, in our capacity, is worth worlds.” (3) It is easy for us to forget that even the most heinous of human rights abusers fit into this category.

    “Let our worst wish toward our worst enemies be that we may see the time when they will be obliged to do right,” says Pres. Young, “I love my friends, and as for my enemies, I pray for them daily; and, if they do not believe I would do them good, let them call at my house, when they are hungry, and I will feed them.” In another place, “[Our religion] does not send a portion of the people to howl in torment for ever and ever, but it reaches after the last son and daughter of Adam and Eve, and will pluck them from the prison, unlock the doors, and burst the bonds and bring forth every soul who will receive salvation… Had we the power, would we hold the wicked down and whip them? No; for, except in self-defense, it is our duty to plead with them and offer them the terms of life and salvation–to give them all the opportunity God has designed them to have.” (4) This is the brand of compassion that the Lord requires us to have upon our enemies, for they are our brothers and sisters who are miserable in their sins. Likewise, Joseph Smith commented on his enemies, “I have been afraid to ask God to kill my enemies, lest some of them should, peradventure, repent.”(5)

    There is the thought that we must harm our enemy before he harms us, the so-called doctrine of pre-emption that our nation has embraced. Can we by the greatest stretch of the imagination, imagine that this is righteousness before the Lord? Said Pres. Young, “They can do us no harm–they can do nothing against the truth. The Lord will make the wicked and ungodly and their acts accomplish his design.”(6) That’s dangerous, we might say, what if one of their weapons of mass destruction gets to us? Do we need to fear thusly? Pres. Young says, “As the Lord live[s], if this people will be faithful in the performance of every duty, they will never come upon a field of battle to fight their enemies.”(6)

    So, how then do we get justice against our enemies? Answers Pres. Young, “How easy it is for the Almighty to direct the steps of our enemies, until they fall off the precipice and are dashed in pieces, without the efforts of his servants.”(7) Says the Lord, “But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed.”(8) Commenting on this scripture, Pres. Young said, “It is written that the Lord will destroy the wicked, and He has done so by bringing about circumstances to cause them to destroy themselves.”(9) There is a spirit that stirs up men to war one with another, said Pres. Young, “There is a spirit that prompts the nations to prepare for war, desolation, and bloodshed–to waste each other away. Do they realize it? No.”(10) The Lord taught thru Moses the way of safety and security, “If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments,… I will give peace in the land,… neither shall the sword go through your land.”(11) So why are our enemies allowed to exist? What is the purpose of the Lord in not destroying these people off of the earth since he has the power to do it? Again, Pres. Young taught, “We have received enough to understand that the wicked are a rod in the hands of God to chasten his children. If you do not [understand that], it is time that you had learned it, for it is even so; if we are chastened, it is for a purpose… But were we ever destroyed? No, neither will God permit us to be, so long as we are desirous of being his servants, and of doing the work given us to do.”(12) The Lord explained to Nephi right from the get-go what purpose the Lamanites as enemies of the Nephites would serve, “And if it so be that they rebel against me, they shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in the ways of remembrance.”(13) In another place Nephi repeats this teaching, “And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.”(14)

    Here the Lord also gives us the attitude we should be brought into because of our enemies. Have we learned this lesson? The ancient Nephites learned it at one point. After the Lamanites and Amlicites had attacked the Nephites mercilessly and caused a war that brought to pass the death of tens of thousands in one year, the Nephites sentiments were thus, “And so great were their afflictions that every soul had cause to mourn; and they believed that it was the judgments of God sent upon them because of their wickedness and their abominations; therefore they were awakened to a remembrance of their duty.”(15) Or do we react as the ancient Nephites did when they were wicked as is evident here in this exchange between Mormon and the Lord, “And when they had sworn by all that had been forbidden them by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that they would go up unto their enemies to battle, and avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren, behold the voice of the Lord came unto me, saying: Vengeance is mine, and I will repay; and because this people repented not after I had delivered them, behold, they shall be cut off from the face of the earth.”(16) Have we been awakened to a remembrance of our duty by the events of 9/11? Let every soul as him/herself that question, while keeping in mind the words of the Lord which say, “Behold what the scripture says–man shall not smite, neither shall he judge; for judgment is mine saith the Lord, and vengeance is mine also, and I will repay.”(17) What is it then that causes us to desire to go to war with an enemy? As usual, Pres. Young spoke with great wisdom on the subject saying, “Just as soon as our eyes are turned away from watching ourselves, to see whether we do right, we begin to see faults in our neighbors; this is the great difficulty, and our minds become more and more blinded until we become entirely darkened… The main difficulty in the hearts of those who are dissatisfied is, they are not satisfied with themselves… If you want a revolution go to work to improve yourselves and give your minds something to act upon instead of looking at the faults of others… But, says one, ‘I want to fight.’ Do all such persons know that they are not right? If they will examine their hearts, they will find a wicked anger and a malice there; and they cannot get into the kingdom of God with those feelings.”(18) In fact, Pres. Young taught that it is this warmongering attitude that gets the wicked destroyed in the end, “No man or people possessing wisdom will give vent to wrath, for that is calculated to weaken, to destroy, to blot out of existence. When the Supreme Ruler of the universe wishes to destroy a nation, he takes away their wisdom… and they are filled with wrath: they give way to their anger, and thus lay the foundation of their own destruction.”(19) What is the current level of wisdom in our nation? The Lord commented on our wisdom when He said: “And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priest crafts, and [edited by admin]dome, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my Gospel from among them.”(20) Moroni, adding to this said, “Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But Behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing. And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.”(21)

  75. Curtis
    August 19, 2007 at 9:15 pm #

    And just can’t withhold some of the great wisdom of our leaders more:

    If a nation wages an unjust war then, what is the sin they commit? Says Pres. Young, “Our traditions have been such that we are not apt to look upon war between tow nations as murder… Does it justify the slaying of men, women and children that otherwise would have remained at home in peace, because a great army is doing the work? No: the guilty will be [edited by admin]ed for it.”(22)

    One of the things Pres. Kimball listed as a problem was the committing of, “vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel ships, planes, missiles, fortifications and depend on them for protection and deliverance.”(2) Why is it wrong to build up our army into a mighty fighting machine? Says Pres. Young, “A large share of the ingenuity of the world is taxed to invent weapons of war. What a set of fools!”(23) In another place the prophet said, “Much of the skill, ingenuity, and ability of the Christian nations are now devoted to manufacturing instruments of death. May we be saved from the effects of them! As I often tell you, if we are faithful, the Lord will fight our battles much better than we can ourselves.”(24) Here, Pres. Young expresses a desire to be saved from the effects of an arms buildup, and doesn’t seem to be afraid of the consequences of not being ready for an attack from another country, and why is he afraid of an arms buildup? Pres. Young answers, “When the nations have for years turned much of their attention to manufacturing instruments of death, they have sooner or later used those instruments. Our nation, England, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, and other nations have for years exercised their inventive skill, and expended much means in inventing and fabricating instruments of death… From the authority of all history, the deadly weapons now stored up and being manufactured will be used until the people are wasted away, and there is no help for it. The spirit of revolution goes on through the nations: it never goes back.”(25) How soon do we forget that the First Presidency itself has made an official statement on the buildup of weapons that our country is engaged in saying, “We repeat our warnings against the terrifying arms race in which the nations of the earth are presently engaged. We deplore in particular the building of vast arsenals of nuclear weaponry.”(26)

    J. Reuben Clark was a great proponent of peace and from his position in government as a legal aid to the Dept. of State, and Ambassador to Mexico, and from his position in the Church as an apostle of Christ and as a member of the First Presidency, he often spoke of it. On the issue of developing weapons he said, “Thus we in America are now deliberately searching out and developing the most savage, murderous means of exterminating peoples that Satan can plant in our minds. We do it not only shamelessly, but with a boast. God will not forgive us of this. If we are to avoid extermination, if the world is not to be wiped out, we must find some way to curb the fiendish ingenuity of men who have apparently not fear of God, man or the devil, and who are willing to plot and plan and invent instrumentalities that will wipe out all the flesh of the earth… [We] Americans wiped out hundreds of thousands of civilian population with the atom bomb in Japan… [Not] only did the people of the United States not rise up in protest against this savagery, not only did it not shock us to read of this wholesale destruction of men, women, and children, and cripples… it actually drew from the nation at large a general approval of this fiendish butchery.”(27) So what of all of the wars of old? Was not the Lord the author of much bloodshed and war in days of old? The answer is yes, but war sanctioned by God was shaped within very strict confines. The Lord himself gives us the law that he gave to the nations of old as to how to govern themselves with relation to war. He said, “And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them. And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue; And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord; Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people. And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation. Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.”(28) Therefore, as the story is told in Alma 43:23-24, the war of self-defense that the Nephites fought against the Lamanites was sanctioned by the Lord as Moroni consulted the prophet Alma on how to proceed with the battle. Pres. Clark commented on wars of self-defense, effectively offering a clause for a nation that is not righteous enough to take the counsel of a prophet of God, saying, “to be justified in going to war in self-defense, a nation must be foreclosed from all other alternatives.”(29)

  76. Kelly Winterton
    August 20, 2007 at 11:23 am #

    Curtis, these are excellent quotes and comments. I really enjoyed them, but, are there sources for all those footnotes?

  77. Curtis
    August 20, 2007 at 2:24 pm #

    Yes. It’s part of a paper I wrote just for the fun of it. If you want the references, the entire paper with references can be found here:

    http://provopulse.com/home/?q=node/1234

    I was never much of a hit on provopulse.

  78. Jay Gunther
    August 21, 2007 at 2:01 pm #

    I’m heartened to see the growing LDS support of Ron Paul. I’ve been an advocate of him since 1988, about a year after I joined the libertarian party. Prior to that, I had been a hardcore Republican. But then I took to heart President Benson’s counsel to us to study the Constitution. When I did that, it became clear that the Republican party was not aligned at all with constitutional prinicples, nor was the Democrat party. I’m not particularly moved one way or another by a person’s party line. My standard is whether or not they are capable of honoring their oath of office, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. There is clearly only one candidate who will support and defend the Constitution and that is Ron Paul. Mitt Romney appears to be a good man, but as a potential leader of our country, he miserably fails the acid test of the Constitution.

    God bless Ron Paul!

    Jay Gunther
    Redlands, California

  79. Lundbaek
    August 22, 2007 at 10:07 am #

    As a politician, Mitt Romney has shown disdain for certain moral and constitutional principles. He demonstrated opposition to the Boy Scouts’ policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters. He promoted homosexual propaganda in Massachusetts schools through the “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth,” funding this bureaucracy of social engineering instead of eliminating it. He advocated governmental recognition of homosexual adoption rights, domestic partnerships and homosexual civil unions. In his 1994 Senate race against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA, he promised a gay GOP group that you would be a stronger advocate for them than Kennedy was. And he promoted and initiated compulsory health insurance for all Massachusetts citizens which forces all MA citizens to purchase health insurance, and contribute via taxes to the cost of health insurance for MA citizens who somebody will consider unable to afford it. This is socialism and deprivation of free agency.

    Congressman Ron Paul’s record shows that he defends moral and constitutional principles. Mitt Romney’s does not.

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Duke/selwyn50.htm

    http://www.massnews.com/2002_editions/06_June/061802_mn_romney.shtml

    Romney doesn’t fit with the description of those the Lord would want in leadership positions in our country. And I can’t think of an example in which a prophet has suggested that Latter-day Saints vote for someone just because they are LDS or vote for someone that is only partially-good or partially-evil… of all the words of the prophets that I have read they have counseled us to vote for those who will support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

  80. Jason Keyes
    August 22, 2007 at 10:17 am #

    Well said Lundbaek!

  81. soldieroftruth
    September 3, 2007 at 5:15 pm #

    A New post on my blog site at http://logicalsanity.com entitled War on Terror: Just Cause, Constitutionality and Mormon Doctrine should explain all Latter-day Saints need to know on the topic. It also references President Hinckley’s talk on War and Peace and gives the official LDS position on the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I took your advice here and did my homework – now don’t blame me for my findings. I meticulously researched it and use direct quotes from the U.S. Constitution, Federalist Papers and intelligence sources as well as direct quotes from President Hinckley on official LDS position. I stand by my original statements.

  82. Curtis
    September 4, 2007 at 2:00 pm #

    Soldier,
    I read your post and you’re very deluded. May you come to a knowledge of the facts soon.

  83. Curtis
    September 4, 2007 at 2:10 pm #

    Soldier,
    For a nice juicy example, check out this story where representative Kanjorski only gave his consent to war with Iraq after he was showed fake photos of unmanned aerial vehicles by Bush. He later found these photos and Bush’s assertions to be a lie. How can you ignore these sorts of things?

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18300.htm

  84. soldieroftruth
    September 4, 2007 at 7:22 pm #

    You have offered no intelligent alternative to the facts presented from official sources in my blog. What you have offered is opinion. My facts come straight from the congressional record , for the most part.
    You Ron Paul people are the ones deluded. He couldn’t even win his own state in an insignificant straw poll where he had more volunteers on site than he had people that voted for him.
    I backed everything up by the constitution and remarks from the framers of it on the interpretation thereof.
    I, as an ex-intelligence officer in the U.S. Forces, can only go by the facts of what has been found and the knowledge gleamed. You can deny the facts on the ground all you want, but they are there. Furthermore, President Hinckley said that it is a distinct possibility that those who impede the destruction of this evil (speaking of the Iraqi regime) will be held accountable. Read his full talk from April 2003 entitled War and Peace. No delusion – I’ve offered hard cold facts and the words of a living prophet, which you will acknowledge if you are LDS. I promise, the congress knows much more than they are telling you – I use to report to them. Right now it is either because of classification or political expediency that prohibits them from getting the truth to the American public. But 20 to 30 years from now when all the truth comes out – remember where you first heard it.

  85. Kelly Winterton
    September 5, 2007 at 8:06 am #

    Are you, like, one of those people who told Congress and the Press where the WMD supposedly were?

  86. John
    September 5, 2007 at 8:26 am #

    Soldier, see my response here:

    http://smallplates.johndavidanderson.net/2007/09/05/the-war-on-terra/

  87. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 9:30 am #

    A Lot of the WMD were found. Get your head out of the “I hate everything Bush” fog about you and get a grip on reality. Besides, you still canit deny what President Hinckley said, a prophet of God, “It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.”

    Also, it would behoove you to find out how intelligence dessimination works among our elected leaders. Please, stop the ignorance!

  88. C
    September 5, 2007 at 9:40 am #

    WMD were found? Seriously? I’d like to see that story..I’m sure it around on the internet somewhere. I did find this though – CIA final report – NO WMD found

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

    Your posts show me that people will hear whatever they want to hear from their GOD, PROPHET, PRESIDENT or whomever.

  89. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 3:44 pm #

    For WMD being found see the declassified “National Ground Intelligence Center” report of 21 June 2006 and presented by Pete Hoekstra and Rick Santorum before congress two days later. I guarantee you that the CIA knows things that you or I or no one else knows but because of source or ongoing operations or a dozen other reasons are classified and not for public dissemination.

    But, if you would rather listen to a left leaning news organization with a not-so-hidden agenda, go right ahead. Sometimes ignorance is bliss!

  90. Curtis
    September 5, 2007 at 3:50 pm #

    Soldier,
    So you choose to ignore Representative Kanjorski’s allegations of being lied to by Bush to gain his support for the war?

    As for President Hinckley’s talk… he stated that it was his opinion there and not Church doctrine. Church doctrine on war can be found in section 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants. This war is definately not supported by it.

    Your claim to WMD’s in Iraq is evidence of your angel dust use. As is seen in the article link provided above by C, we never found what we were looking for there. We thought it was there since we supplied him with it and provided logistical support for his gassing of the Kurds and the Iranians (yes, the US is complicit in Saddam’s crimes).

    So Congress knows much more than it is telling us? That’s what I heard back in 2003 and now it turns out that what Congress thought it knew was a lie, as noted by Representative Kanjorski above.

    We are about to make the same mistakes… and commit the same crimes in Iran. We have a short memory in the US.

    Paul may not have a vast amount of popular support, but he speaks the truth. Come to think of it, Christ himself probably couldn’t have won a popular election back in his day. Would that have meant he was not speaking the truth? No, it takes a certain amount of muscling past the gag reflex to become a politician in the big leagues. That’s something that Romney definately has.

  91. C
    September 5, 2007 at 3:55 pm #

    I provided a link…where’s yours? Trust me I see whats going on..I am not ignorant…this is why I DO NOT support the UNJUST war
    I DO NOT believe that the muslims are gadiantons…
    I DO NOT trust the mainstream media…..
    I DO NOT trust the executive branch…..

    I DO SUPPORT RON PAUL…….
    I DO Study the constitution and what our modern day prophets say about it.
    I DO prepare like there is no tomorrow…
    I DO have a plan

    Please stop twisting the prophets words into your skewed fantasy.

    D&C 98 – “Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace”

    Again….I find it laughable that men in general hear whatever they want to hear and use religion to fit their agenda.

  92. Curtis
    September 5, 2007 at 4:11 pm #

    Soldier,
    Wow, you really are a crackpot. Fox News (one of those “left leaning news organizations with a not-so-hidden agenda?”) reports the Bush administration’s official position on the ravings of a fringe lunatic politician (Santorum is one of two senators that didn’t vote for confirmation of Gates for Secretary of Defense due to his position of engaging in dialogue with Iran and Syria) in the last throes of his political career (he sufferred the worst defeat of an incumbent republican senator in Pennsylvania ever in 2006) saying:

    “Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions. “This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991,” the official said, adding the munitions “are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.”"

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

    Your credibility recedes rapidly Soldier. Can you pull this one from the jaws of defeat?

  93. C
    September 5, 2007 at 4:11 pm #

    Soldier, Just curious. you say somewhere you “were” an intelligence officer at one time.

    It wouldn’t have been working in the Counter INTEL/PRO operation…would it?

    Are you still getting paid by the “powers that be” that you seem to love so much?

  94. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 4:12 pm #

    The above news article based on the Duelfer Report only tells part of the story of the complete report. For example, Duelfer and Kay (Duelfer’s co-inspector and investigator) found Iraq had “a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical – and biological-weapons [BW] programs.”

    They found equipment for “uranium enrichment centrifuges” whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, “Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors.”

    The report also talks about ballistic missiles which, according to Kay was “as close to a slam dunk as you will ever find for violating U.N. resolutions.” And there is much more if you care to read the Duelfer Report yourself. It is available online at the U.N. website.

    I like reading the actual words of the reports instead of relying on news agencies with an agenda – whether it be MSNBC, FOX, CNN or whatever.

  95. Jason Keyes
    September 5, 2007 at 4:18 pm #

    The report also talks about ballistic missiles which, according to Kay was “as close to a slam dunk as you will ever find for violating U.N. resolutions.”

    Soldier of Truth, I for one do not want to send the young men of America to bleed and die to enforce U.N. resolutions.

  96. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 4:22 pm #

    No, I am not still getting paid by the “powers that be” and my work had nothing to do with counter Intel. It was many years ago but a great experience in how information is disseminated and why.

    I’m just telling you that you know only what the “powers that be” on both sides want you to know. Why do you think that the dems have not stopped the war and have refused to defund the troops. They know things you do not and are playing on “political expediency” and decieving the populace because they know that the majority of the populace are ignorant as to the workings of the Congress and the rules by which they are bound.

  97. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 4:24 pm #

    Our soldiers are bleeding and dying to protect this country and the freedoms that we enjoy here. You, evidently don’t know the agenda of the “modern caliphate” movement which has existed for years and which flourished under “slick Willie”.

  98. Curtis
    September 5, 2007 at 4:28 pm #

    Soldier,
    The Duelfer report claimed no find of WMD’s. You read the report, but you interpret thru some sort of a twisted lens that has no basis in reality.

    In 2004, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. “I don’t think they existed,” commented Kay. “What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don’t think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties.” In a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay criticized the pre-war WMD intelligence and the agencies that produced it, saying “It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/

    As far as the ballistic missiles go for breaking UN Resolutions… I believe you are right there. However, breaking a UN Resolution is meaningless in the history of the UN. Look at all of the UN resolutions that Israel has broken and we have never bombed Jerusalem have we? UN Resolutions only mean something when they are supported by the most powerful imperial power on the Earth.

  99. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 4:34 pm #

    As for President Hinckley’s talk… he stated that it was his opinion there and not Church doctrine. Church doctrine on war can be found in section 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants. This war is definately not supported by it.

    Section 98 was received in 1833 and under different circumstances. It is for this reason that the Lord did not leave us with the Doctrine and Covenants and say “that’s all folks”, but rather saw fit to continue revelation through a living prophet. We are told by the General Authorities to look at conferance addresses as though they were scripture and spoken by the mouth of God. President Hinckley did not say this is my opinion and publicly stated this from the pulpit in a General Conferance. This is why we have a living prophet folks! As LDS you should be very aware of this.

  100. Curtis
    September 5, 2007 at 4:45 pm #

    Hinckely never stated that the official church policy is to support the war from the talk you quote. He said that we can give our opinions and should fight for liberty. He never said what opinions we need to hold, and never said that the Iraq war is a war for liberty that we need to fight for. You twist the words of the prophet like noone man.

    Section 98 is the Lord’s definative word on the subject of war. He said, “Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.” He used this law from the time of Abraham to all of the prophets and apostles who came subsequently. Section 98 is not isolated advice to the people of 1833 as you suggest.

  101. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 4:45 pm #

    Curtis, I said I didn’t listen to the new to get my opinions. I referred to MSNBC as left leaning not Fox. As for a link to the report – I retrieved this last year when it was posted from House of Representatives web site. I’m sure if you care to go to their website and pull up the congressional record from 21 or 22 June 2006 you can find it as it was entered into the record.

    You Ron Paul supporters are as bad as the anti-Mormons in the way you take things out of context. Either you are not being intellectually honest or are ignorant of the facts.

  102. Curtis
    September 5, 2007 at 4:47 pm #

    Soldier, I found the link on my own thank you, and I replied with another link on how it was a bunch of B.S. above. Please stop spouting heresy. You’re making my headache.

  103. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 5:00 pm #

    Curtis, I will beg to disagree. As President Hinckley said, speaking on the subject of the Iraq War, “It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.” Saddam Hussein was an evil man and the forces of evil are and were rampant in that part of the world – they were the repressed ones, not us. President Hinckley said that it is possible that those who “impede or hedge up” our soldiers will be held accountable.

    We have a living prophet for a reason, Curtis. The Doctrine and Covenants also talks about plural marriage, but do we still practice this? The D&C mentions nothing of Tea and Coffee and says it is not a commandment, but the commandment was added later during the presidency of Brigham Young. Situations change and at times war is necessary, as terrible as it is! There are provisions for this and a living prophet knows a bit more of the workings of God than either you or I do.

    And let us avoid calling names, this is not in the spirit of brotherly love that members of the church should have one with another, even in disagreement. I do not consider saying someone is ignorant to be name calling, however, under the true definition of the word. There are many things that I am ignorant on and if someone can give me a rationale and irrefutable source to disprove my claims I will apologize and call myself ignorant. As of yet these sources have not been offered.

  104. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 5:02 pm #

    Heresy? Interesting word. This is one anti-Mormons love also. Are you sure you are an active member of the church.

  105. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 5:04 pm #

    B.S. ? Isn’t that an explicative that goes against the chuirch’s direction of “pure thoughts”?

  106. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 5:12 pm #

    By the way, the report was factual. The argument is to whether they were still usable. According to Duelfer, they still had an extremely lethal component to them and could have been used to cause grave consequences upon the intended victims. Read the report.

  107. C
    September 5, 2007 at 5:17 pm #

    By President Gordon B. Hinckley

    Nearly 10 decades have passed now since my birth, and for the better part of that time, there has been war among mankind in one part of the earth or another. No one can ever estimate the terrible suffering incident to these wars across the globe.

    Lives numbered in the millions have been lost. The terrible wounds of war have left bodies maimed and minds destroyed. Families have been left without fathers and mothers. Young people who have been recruited to fight have, in many instances, died while those yet alive have had woven into the very fabric of their natures elements of hatred which will never leave them. The treasure of nations has been wasted and will never be recovered.

    The devastation of war seems so unnecessary and such a terrible waste of human life and national resources. We ask, will this terrible, destructive way of handling disagreements among the sons and daughters of God ever end?

  108. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 5:18 pm #

    Curtis, good link. If you care to read the entire transcript you will find that Kay pretty much says everything that I stated above. Or would you rather I take the actual quotes from this transcript and place them here?

  109. C
    September 5, 2007 at 5:18 pm #

    The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign intervention, despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 50 years, has brought great harm to our country and our liberty.

    Historically, financial realities are the ultimate check on nations bent on empire. Economic laws ultimately prevail over bad judgment. But tragically, the greater the wealth of a country, the longer the flawed policy lasts.”

    Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas)
    U.S. House Floor; 01/2005

  110. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 5:28 pm #

    C, Why don’t you finish the talk by President Hinckley, which basically states that this will not happen until such time as the Redeemer returns to usher in the millinium. War is terrible! Yes! But sometimes just war is necessary and President Hinckley acknowledges this.

    Furthermore, Ron Paul’s statement above would be nice if it were intervention. This is defense. We were attacked by jihadists on our own shore. These same individuals would take your freedom if we did nothing. Our borders no longer protect us. Why not study a bit of history concerning certain factions of Islam and their desire to spread a caliphate over the entire world. Let’s not be naive, here.

  111. Carissa
    September 5, 2007 at 5:34 pm #

    These same individuals would take your freedom if we did nothing

    Don’t you notice that our own government seems to be doing a better job of this than any terrorist?

    Our borders no longer protect us.

    Who’s to blame? Why are we taking our border patrol away to foreign lands?

  112. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 5:37 pm #

    None of you have done anything to disprove my original statements at http://logicalsanity.com. I will await you – because I do seek the truth on the matter. If you can offer facts instead of opinion, you know where I can be found. Got to run to do some chores before I watch the debate tonight. And yes, I try to catch all of the debates.

    One last thought, when Ron Paul implodes please try to persuade him to run as an independent. Because with his views he will take votes away from Hillary and we will be assured a Republican victory in November ’08.

  113. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 5:41 pm #

    Carissa, the Border Patrol is a seperate entity from the DOD and are not called to combat in any other land, unless they are in the Reserves – and that is their choice (can you say volunteer military).

    And also, if you value Sharia Law more than that of our democracy I am sure that the Taliban would welcome you with open arms.

  114. Carissa
    September 5, 2007 at 6:55 pm #

    The governors of Arizona and New Mexico wrote to Pres. Bush regarding depletion of border security saying:

    “We should be focused on supporting our nation’s security efforts along the Mexican and Canadian border instead of hampering (the Customs and Border Patrol) by sending our best agents to a war zone in Iraq,”
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-05-19-recruit-border_N.htm

    You see this as a purely defensive strategy?

    if you value Sharia Law more than that of our democracy I am sure that the Taliban would welcome you with open arms.

    What? You’re inviting me to leave because I sense some corruption in our government?

    “In the days leading up to the coming of the resurrected Lord to the Americas and also in the period after the two hundred years of peace, the greatest destruction to the Nephites was not caused by outward Lamanite attacks, but by internal problems and internal wickedness.” H. Dean Garrett, “Peace Within,” Ensign, Sep 1988

    “The record of the Nephite history just prior to the Savior’s visit reveals many parallels to our own day as we anticipate the Savior’s second coming” (Pres. Benson Conference Report, Apr. 1987)

  115. Dan
    September 5, 2007 at 7:57 pm #

    President Kimball said it best:

    We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel — ships, planes, missiles, fortifications — and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

    “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
    “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:44-45).

    We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us — and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Nephi 1:7) — or he will fight our battles for us (Exodus 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53). We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chronicles 20), and when Elish’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not; for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kings 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha” (vs 17).

    What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? Our assignment is affirmative: to forsake the things of the world as ends in themselves; to leave off idolatry and press forward in faith; to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies.

    However, instead of turning to the Lord, men like “soldier of truth” would rather have us turn to our soldier, our hero, America’s real god. He’s the one to save us, not the Lord. No, America’s savior is the soldier. The fighter. The warrior. My, how much we’ve lost our way!

  116. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 9:25 pm #

    Dan, you are showing your ignorance on the subject. We do not live in a millenial world. Until Satan is bound war will rage but it is essential to find ourselves on the right side. Many our General Authorities were also soldiers. As unfortunate as it may be war is necessary at times. President Kimball was not the Prophet at the time of this conflict. President Hinckley is and his remarks make it abundantly clear on his positon. We have a living prophet for a reason – and he is the living prophet at this day and age. As Latter-day Saints it is our duty to overthrow evil. This is what we did in Iraq in a legal and constitutional conflict according to constitutional procedure.
    I turn to the Lord in everything, Dan. You don’t know me and you have no idea how often I go to the Lord in prayer or how much time I spend in prayer and contemplation in the temple. I often test the admonission of the D&C to study it out in my mind and then go to the Lord to ask if it is right. It has guided me all my life. You disagree politically and that is fine – but acknowledge at least that these are your opinions and pray that you are not on the side that President Hinckley speaks of when talks of those “hedging up” and “impeding” those that are fighting the evil forces spoke of clearly by our living prophet.

  117. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 9:30 pm #

    Question: Has Ron Paul lost his mind? I didn’t know until the debate tonight that he was in favor of reducing government spending by shutting down and getting rid of the CIA, FBI, DEA and every other intelligence gathering force. Boy, talk abou naive! We have enemies out there that are chomping at the bit to destroy us – in this day and age we can not be isolationists. Your guy is scarry.

    Carissa, I didn’t invite you to leave our country. You just inferred that you would have more freedoms under sharia law.

  118. soldieroftruth
    September 5, 2007 at 9:37 pm #

    I am still looking for the irrefutable evidence against my position. You have given me nothing!

  119. Connor
    September 5, 2007 at 9:59 pm #

    Soldier of “truth”,

    Stop.

    Much like those you charge with being “intellectually dishonest”, you yourself refuse to listen to evidence. You dismiss whatever is not in harmony with your idealized notion of a divinely sanctioned war. You overlook facts, embellish details, and arrogantly pursue a position that is most certainly errant.

    You do not add value to this discussion. You stray off topic, egg people on, and parrot a position that is so full of holes it is almost laughable.

    I do not say this to be condescending, but only to ask you to tone it down. Your most recent comment shows your masked belligerence. One who is after truth does not go around poking people and giving them wet willies to stir up controversy. If you’re after truth, then simmer down, respond to the facts, and open your mind.

    You might just learn a thing or two.

  120. Curtis
    September 5, 2007 at 11:18 pm #

    Soldier,

    Heresy? Interesting word. This is one anti-Mormons love also. Are you sure you are an active member of the church.

    Ah. So the word is only useable by non-mormons and my use of it throws my faithfullness into doubt?

    B.S. ? Isn’t that an explicative that goes against the chuirch’s direction of “pure thoughts”?

    You’ll find that I’m not a stereotypical mormon. Just visit my website. It’s called “The Radical Mormon.” I sort of like Brigham Young’s position on the subject when he said,

    “There is too much of a sameness in this community. . . . I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint and do not believe in the doctrine . . . away with stereotyped ‘Mormons’!”

    Self righteousness is such an unbecoming trait. I should know… I’m often guilty of it myself!

    There are many things that I am ignorant on and if someone can give me a rationale and irrefutable source to disprove my claims I will apologize and call myself ignorant. As of yet these sources have not been offered.

    You’ve received ample evidence from many here today. If you have not recognized it yet you are not being honest.

  121. soldieroftruth
    September 6, 2007 at 12:03 am #

    Connor, no one has done anything to dissuade me. You become angry because I defend my position. So be it. No one here has shown any proof to the contrary. I am sure you are all good Latter-day Saints and you are free to vote according to your conscience’s dictates. I will do the same. I am sorry if I have offended. I become very passionate about politics and religion. Futhermore, Connor, since this is your blog you are free to set the rules however, I have not overlooked facts (I have disregarded personal opinion backed up by mainstream media op-eds), I have not embellished details as they are all verifiable in the congressional record, and I have clearly quoted President Hinckley – his talk was given specifically concerning the Iraqi conflict.

    And Curtis, as for ample evidence, you have offered nothing irrefutable. This is what I seek. Having worked intelligence I know a good bit about this. My sources have all come from government reports of one type or another. So then you are saying that the doctrine of the church is not for you? (I’d like the reference you quote from Brigham Young – I’ve read the entire Journal of Discourses and don’t ever recall seeing that one. I would be interested in seeing the context in which he said it. You are not an active Latter-day Saint then? That would explain a lot. Oh and by the way I heard Ron Paul say tonight that he would also eliminate the Department of Education. He really wants to put the U.S. into third world nation status, doesn’t he?

    Good night guys! Sweet dreams! Vote your conscience – I’ll do the same.

  122. C
    September 6, 2007 at 12:55 am #

    soldier I truly hope most Americans WILL vote their conscience…and I truly hope that they are compelled to choose righteously . The thing is that most will never see the truth until it is too late.

    So, you win for now….your “GOD” will reward you…maybe.

    I think you know the truth…and you are fighting it. I do not know your motivations but something is askew with you & your actions.

    Contention is of the devil man…you revel in it.

  123. Dan
    September 6, 2007 at 1:42 am #

    soldier,

    Connor, no one has done anything to dissuade me.

    And no one ever will.

    And will you look at that, it seems Bush knew in September 2002 from his own CIA that Saddam did NOT have any weapons of mass destruction. What did Bush do when this evidence was shown him (which proved to be correct)? He dismissed it. Because it didn’t fit his preconceived notions.

    So saddening that death and destruction come at the hands of such lunatics as George W. Bush.

  124. Carissa
    September 6, 2007 at 6:49 am #

    Oh and by the way I heard Ron Paul say tonight that he would also eliminate the Department of Education. He really wants to put the U.S. into third world nation status, doesn’t he?

    Perhaps you have never heard this by President Benson (whom you claim to agree with politically):

    There is absolutely nothing in the constitution which authorizes the federal government to enter into the field of education. The Tenth Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States Government are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Nothing could be more clear. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to exercise any powers over education.” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 298)

    Sounds like he’d agree with Ron Paul about eliminating federal departments not specifically authorized by the constutition, no?

  125. soldieroftruth
    September 6, 2007 at 8:25 am #

    Carissa, The congress makes provision for these departments in keeping with the constitution. Please, give me a reference in the constitution which would show the Dept. of Education to be unconstitutional – and if this is the case why would that not also go for the Dept. of Agriculture (isn’t that Government interferance as well?) of which President Benson served as Secretary of under Eisenhower.
    You guys here are on the fringe, the vast majority of Latter-day Saints espouse my view (thus the question that prefaces this article) including General Authorities – that is why Utah is the redest state in the nation. Believe me, I know the truth and am much more in the know than any of you are. My agenda has one purpose and one purpose only, to keep America free – people like Ron Paul (the same as Lyndon LaRouche many years ago) are a danger to that because they do not understand that the world has changed. They espouse doctrines foreign to the revealed word of God.

  126. soldieroftruth
    September 6, 2007 at 8:26 am #

    Dan, do a little homework brother. Many munitions WMD have been found in Iraq!

  127. soldieroftruth
    September 6, 2007 at 8:33 am #

    C, You call it contention, I call it severe disagreement! This article asks the question why. I answer it. You don’t like my answers so start accusing me of things we both are guilty of by the sheer fact we are arguing the worthiness of Ron Paul as a candidate on a republican ticket when he is clearly no republican. That may be heated discussion but I is it contention to stand up for principles that one holds dear to himself?

  128. Dan
    September 6, 2007 at 10:38 am #

    soldier,

    Dan, do a little homework brother. Many munitions WMD have been found in Iraq!

    Show me the money!

  129. Dan
    September 6, 2007 at 11:43 am #

    soldier,

    Earlier you brayed about Santorum and Inhofe’s crowing over Negroponte’s declassified report supposedly showing that we found WMDs in Iraq. Well, here’s Negroponte’s memo:

    Negroponte’s Memo

    I even linked it from FauxNews, knowing your dislike of anything remotely “liberal.”

    Now, Santorum and the rest of his ilk, which it seems includes you, wish us to believe that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program, and thusly a grave enough threat worthy of a full invasion and decapitation of Saddam’s regime. Well, if only the evidence fit the pre-conceived notions, eh? If you look at Negroponte’s memo, here is what you find:

    Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.

    Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market.

    Two things scream out at you from this. “Pre-Gulf War chemical munitions.” and his hedged language, “assessed,” “could be.”

    If all that the likes of Santorum could find are pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, then their assertion that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program is false. How can he be reconstituting his WMD program when the only evidence of WMD comes from his pre-Gulf War days? How could he be a threat in 2002 and 2003 when the only WMDs he still has in his possession come from his glory days? Are the likes of Santorum and Inhofe really saying that that small of a collection of WMDs are such a threat that it is worth the cost that we’ve had to pay to this point? Are they really that stupid?

  130. Curtis
    September 6, 2007 at 12:42 pm #

    Soldier,
    I’m an active LDS, EQ pres in my ward and temple recommend holder. Do you want to report me to my stake president?

    The quote from Brigham Young was in Hugh Nibley’s “Brother Brigham educates the Saints” in the chapter entitled, “Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift.” The original quote is apparently from the Journal of Discourses 13:153, 55. The chapter is actually online at:

    http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=125#8

    Where did I say the doctrine of the Church is not for me? I’m not like you apparently, but that doesn’t mean I’m not for Church doctrine.

    As for nothing irrefutable, your continuing charges of WMD’s found in Iraq are quite annoying. Did you not read the official Bush administration quote I sent you? Here it is again:

    “Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions. “This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991,” the official said, adding the munitions “are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.””

    Now, for the mustard gas or Sarin or whatever inactive degenerated substance was found in those shells. We gave that stuff to him! We gave him his chemical weapons and supported him heavily during his massacres of the Kurds and the Iranians in the 80′s. We created this monster. He was a CIA henchman. We used him to keep the people in control and he did that very well. Our government has gone around the world deterring democracy and stomping out freedom wherever it interfered with our Pax Americana for a long time now. We don’t stand for liberty and freedom. We stand for corporate profits at the expense of life. By Book of Mormon definitions, our government is one manifestation of a Secret Combination. Admittedly most Church members won’t go that far but I believe that it is because of the skill of the propagandists that we are blind to the elephant in our living room. I urge you and all to read, “Manufacturing Consent,” “Necessary Illusions,” and, “Deterring Democracy” each by Noam Chomsky, each backed up to the hilt with verifiable references… to see what our great nation has been involved in for the last little while. Then you can check out “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” to see some of the really dark parts of our Secret Combinations. Then why don’t you check out “The Politics of War” by Gabriel Kolko and see what we did in Vietnam (which helps to explain a lot of what we are doing in the world today). Oh, then check out the text of the Project for a New American Century where the bold plans of the so-called neocons are plainly laid out in all of their Gadiantonesque glory.

    Your intelligence job history means nothing to me. I have much more stock in someone like Scott Ritter who has a lot more credentials than you probably have, and speaks the truth. Don’t tell me you know a lot more than any of us about the situation. I’ve been studying this situation for a long time now and we are that nation spoken of in Ether 8 Of which Moroni says:

    24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.
    25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.
    26 Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved.

    And in Mormon 8 where Moroni says:

    40 Yea, why do ye build up your secret abominations to get gain, and cause that widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans to mourn before the Lord, and also the blood of their fathers and their husbands to cry unto the Lord from the ground, for vengeance upon your heads?
    41 Behold, the sword of vengeance hangeth over you; and the time soon cometh that he avengeth the blood of the saints upon you, for he will not suffer their cries any longer.

  131. Jason Keyes
    September 6, 2007 at 1:02 pm #

    The people of the United States love Ron Paul’s message because they are tired of run-away deficits, un-constitutional laws and executive orders, out of control immigration, lower standards of living, and too much government regulation.

    Ron Paul believes that the founding fathers were inspired men of God. So does Ezra Taft Benson. So do I.

    Ron Paul believes that local communities and states should be able to decide on important issues like education, the rights of the unborn, and health care without Washington bureaucrats looking over their shoulders. So does Ezra Taft Benson. So do I.

    Ron Paul believes that free enterprise is the best system – that neither large corporations nor lobbyist groups should be treated differently, but all equally under the law. He believes in no special favors. So does Ezra Taft Benson. So do I.

    Ron Paul believes that the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN are a threat to our independence as a nation and to our Constitution. So does Ezra Taft Benson. So do I.

    Ron Paul believes that property rights are essential to freedom. If you do not have property, you do not really have liberty. He believes that eminent domain laws and forfeiture asset laws are stripping Americans of their liberty. So would Ezra Taft Benson. So do I.

    Ron Paul believes that we should all unite under the Constitution and drive the modern day king-makers from the government. Captain Moroni once did the same thing. Sometimes I wish that Ron Paul could take a few plays from Moroni’s play book. Imagine that, “If you do not swear an oath to uphold this Constitution, you will immediately be put to death.”

    I’m afraid most members of Congress would not pass this test – that might be a good thing though.

    With the power of the people’s collective voice as expressed online, we are hoisting the modern day standard of liberty.

    May our prayers for freedom be heard and answered.

    We are doing everything we can to cleanse the inner vessel. We are tired of un-Constitutional foreign wars, never declared and never ending.

    We are tired of the personal income tax – something taken right out of the Communist manifesto.

    We are tired of being told we are free but not actually left to be free.

    And I am tired of Republicans and Democrats.

    The Republicans of today are the Liberal Democrats of Woodrow Wilson’s mindset, after his own heart – fighting “wars to spread Democracy.” As Ron Paul has said, “You cannot spread Democracy through the barrel of a gun.”

    The Democrats of today are as bad as the Communists all over Europe, Russia, China, and India – ever promising more protections. “We will take care of you from cradle to grave,” they say. Many do not realize that once they have the strength and capacity to protect us from cradle to grave, they will also have the strength and capacity to take it all away from us. Everything will be lost.

    As one of the founders said, “Give up liberty for security and you will be left with neither.”

    It is so bad now that an obviously faithful member of the Church – soldier of truth – believes that the Department of Education is what allowed America to become the great nation that it is. He implied this when he said that by getting rid of this department we would be turned into a 3rd world country.

    The Department of Education, and every other extra-Constitutional department in the Federal Government – does nothing but impose the Central Executive’s will on every community in America.

    This is not freedom. Freedom is allowing the individuals to decide – to get the government’s sticky tentacles out of everybody’s business. Freedom is something that goes way beyond politics. It transcends life itself and goes to the core of our pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal existence.

    Freedom is so important to the plan that Heavenly Father allowed 1/3 of his children to follow Satan. He could have intervened but did not. Why? Because His children’s freedom was more important to Him than their security. He understood that if you take away one, you take away both.

    He understood that we can only become like Him if we are completely free to choose. Ponder that for a few hours!

    He would not budge.

    The same war that was fought in heaven is being fought today on earth. President Hinckley called it the fight between “liberty and compulsion” in a recent 1st Presidency Message in the Ensign.

    To Latter Day Saints, a free choice man like Ron Paul should make sense.

    Even if you don’t agree with him on the war issue, you have to admit that he is a man of his word. He is consistent. He is honest. He speaks his mind.

    I think most Americans can see that – even if they disagree.

  132. Jason Keyes
    September 6, 2007 at 1:06 pm #

    Soldier of Truth, what calling do you have in the Church?

  133. C
    September 6, 2007 at 1:08 pm #

    Well said Jason…Im sure soldier will disagree with all of your very logical and in my opinion true talking points.

  134. Jason Keyes
    September 6, 2007 at 1:15 pm #

    Thanks C.

  135. Dan
    September 6, 2007 at 1:22 pm #

    Jason,

    Sometimes I wish that Ron Paul could take a few plays from Moroni’s play book. Imagine that, “If you do not swear an oath to uphold this Constitution, you will immediately be put to death.”

    I’m afraid most members of Congress would not pass this test – that might be a good thing though.

    As a commie liberal straight-from-da-devil himself, I of course do not agree with most of what you said, however, I’m quite troubled by this particular passage. You say that most members of Congress would not pass Captain Moroni’s “swear or die” oath, and you say that might be a good thing. Let me get this right, are you advocating the murder of United States Congressmen?

    What is it with right-wingers and their sincere desire for a totalitarian state? I never could get the obvious contradiction in their beliefs.

  136. Jason Keyes
    September 6, 2007 at 1:33 pm #

    Dan,

    I’m sorry I didn’t make it more clear that I was joking.

    Tough crowd tonight, I guess… :-)

  137. Dan
    September 6, 2007 at 1:42 pm #

    Just checkin’ :)

  138. Jason Keyes
    September 6, 2007 at 2:03 pm #

    Dan,

    So you’re a commie, huh?

    It’s all good.

    I hope that our Church is one of the places where we can all be friends, no matter what our political philosophies may be.

  139. Lundbaek
    September 6, 2007 at 2:19 pm #

    I’m seeing more and more the wisdom of LDS Church leaders in trying to disuade members from engaging in political discussions in church activities. The disagreements expressed here could, if joined in by the general membership of the Church, tear it apart.

  140. Michael L. McKee
    September 6, 2007 at 2:20 pm #

    Much of the commentary recently on this thread brings to mind the Latin terms ad nauseum, and ad infinitum.

    Finally we have received inspirational commentary by Jason Keys, and it is certainly a welcome change.

    I, thankfully, have nothing to ad save it be to thank Jason, and add my concurring “So do I.”

  141. Carissa
    September 6, 2007 at 2:21 pm #

    Please, give me a reference in the constitution which would show the Dept. of Education to be unconstitutional – and if this is the case why would that not also go for the Dept. of Agriculture (isn’t that Government interferance as well?) of which President Benson served as Secretary of under Eisenhower.

    The reference you want IS the tenth amendment. Education is not specifically listed as a power, therefore it is denied. I wouldn’t assume that President Benson didn’t think the Dept. of Agriculture was unconstitutional just because he served in it. I wouldn’t come to that conclusion without more research into his own words. After all…

    “Benson opposed the system of government price supports and aid to farmers which he was entrusted by Eisenhower to administer” Wikipedia

    As a Republican, it’s odd that you think the idea of eliminating the dept. of education is so radical. President Reagan promised to do it if he was elected in 1980.

    The GOP presidential platform in 1996 said: “The federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the workplace. That is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning.”

    Were you a Republican back then? Was the US a “third world country” by educational standards before Carter created the ED in 1980? It appears we have only regressed since (In 2003 we were ranked 18 out of 24 countries by UNICEF). But I’m sure this is no news to you since you “know the truth and [are] much more in the know than any of [us] are”.

    Lundbaek – I’ve been thinking that too.

  142. Dan
    September 6, 2007 at 2:35 pm #

    So you’re a commie, huh?

    Straight from da devil himself, just like James E. Faust and Hugh B. Nibley. :)

    I hope that our Church is one of the places where we can all be friends, no matter what our political philosophies may be.

    But see, you say this after castigating Democrats as communists who are in your view so off base as to not even come close to agreeing with a prophet. I can’t reconcile your two comments, Jason. You use a prophet of the Lord to justify your political beliefs and then come around and say, hey, we can be friends in the church regardless of our varying political beliefs. That just doesn’t jive, or jibe. :)

  143. Jason Keyes
    September 6, 2007 at 2:41 pm #

    Dan,

    For purposes of clarification, I was not referring to citizens who are Democrats or Republicans

    I was referring to the Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate. I apologize for not being more clear.

    Here is my exact quotation, so that everybody can now realize exactly what I meant.

    “The Republicans of today are the Liberal Democrats of Woodrow Wilson’s mindset, after his own heart – fighting ‘wars to spread Democracy.’ As Ron Paul has said, ‘You cannot spread Democracy through the barrel of a gun.’

    The Democrats of today are as bad as the Communists all over Europe, Russia, China, and India – ever promising more protections. ‘We will take care of you from cradle to grave,’ they say. Many do not realize that once they have the strength and capacity to protect us from cradle to grave, they will also have the strength and capacity to take it all away from us. Everything will be lost.”

  144. Dan
    September 6, 2007 at 2:45 pm #

    But Jason, I am a Democrat of today. My blog is called The Good Democrat. I am voting for Barack Obama in the primaries and hope he wins the nomination so I can vote for him in the general election. I’ve even considered at some point in my life running for office (though the paper trail of my blog might be too much fodder for my political enemies) :)

    I am a Democrat that you castigate as a European Commie. Worse still, I AM A EUROPEAN! :)

  145. Jason Keyes
    September 6, 2007 at 2:49 pm #

    Dan,

    So if I understand what you are saying,
    because I said what I did about Democrats and Republicans in Congress – and you are considering a vote for one of those Democrats in Congress – that by extension I was insulting you?

    Is this about right?

  146. soldieroftruth
    September 6, 2007 at 7:01 pm #

    You know, I love you guys! Despite the fact that I strongly disagree with you politically. Someone wanted to know my position in the church, I’m currently an advisor in the High Priests Group Leadership here in my ward. I have also taught Gospel Doctrine in the past and been Stake Sunday School President, am a returned missionary having served under F. Burton Howard (1st Quorum of the Seventy Emeritus) in the Uruguay, Montevideo mission and have “feasted upon the scriptures” all of my life. My gospel library has close to 1200 volumes in it. I don’t know about your ward but mine and our sister ward here are pretty staunchly in the Romney Camp.

    Jason, I still believe President Hinckley spoke directly of this conflict when he made the statement I listed above from the April 2003 conferance.

    Carissa, I’m pretty much a life long Republican and served my military intelligence years under the Reagan administration. I only waffled one time and voted for Clinton in 1996 just because I didn’t like Dole at all. I’ve been trying to repent of that one since. I, also, refuse to throw away my vote on third party candidates who are usually pretty out of touch with reality like Nadar, LaRouche, Perot and others. I feel strongly that a President should have executive experience – meaning Governor, Big City mayor, or private enterprise. After all it is an executive office and I don’t want a rookie running the show.

    It has been a heated contest and I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. You have not changed my opinion however and Romney will still get my vote in the primary. I more closely agree with his political philosophy than any I have seen expressed here. I do still very strongly oppose Ron Paul. So much so that if he were to take the nomination (of which he has no chance) I would have to repent again after casting my vote for Hillary (while holding my nose)instead. I think she at least has some common sense, which I feel is lacking completely in Ron Paul. And before you go jumping on me, this is my opinion, and I am entitled to that. Evidently, we get our facts from different sources, I am just partial to mine (as I prefer primary sources) and use my prior experience as an intelligence analyst to make my decisions. I think you would see things differently if you were coming from the same background that I have and if you knew how all politicians, especially congressmen twist the intelligence to suit their own agenda. If you had been involved in the process from collection of intelligence data, to the analysis and reporting and then to see how congress, who has no analytical expertise at all, twists it you would understand my position a little better. I can’t convince you now, but when the history books are written and all the facts come out then maybe you will understand what I have been trying to tell you.

    Dan, I would just like your opinion of who you think the Democratic candidates are going to be. I know you said you favor Obama – but what does your gut tell you. From what I have seen I am thinking that Hillary will probably take the nomination and am betting she will take Bill Richardson as a running mate. She and Obama are too far apart on issues to team up – I believe. The Republican ticket I still believe is going to come down to Romeny or Guilliani. I think Thompson will come and go quickly. If Guilliani wins the ticket I think he will take Hunter or Hucklebee as running mates (possibly McCain, but I think that would hurt him in the general election). If Romney wins the nomination I am betting that he will take Michael Steele of Maryland as a running mate. All partisanship aside – what do you think?

  147. soldieroftruth
    September 6, 2007 at 8:01 pm #

    http://www.ed.gov/print/about/overview/focus/what.html

    Under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “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.” Nothing specific is said about education in the Constitution; therefore it falls outside federal authority.

    In creating the Department of Education, Congress made clear its intention that the secretary of education and other Department officials be prohibited from exercising “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.” The establishment of schools and colleges, the development of curricula, the setting of requirements for enrollment and graduation — these are responsibilities handled by the various states and communities, as well as by public and private organizations of all kinds, not by the U.S. Department of Education.

  148. soldieroftruth
    September 6, 2007 at 8:40 pm #

    Curtis, According to your quote above

    >“There is too much of a sameness in this community. . . . I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint and do not believe in the doctrine . . . away with stereotyped ‘Mormons’!”

    Brother Nibley, whom I love and adore, on this one went way over the edge in taking things out of context and then not siting them correctly. The first line, ““There is too much of a sameness in this community” is indeed from Vol 13 p. 153. But the remainder is from Volume 8 page 184-185 and I quote it below in context with quite a different meaning:

    We have promised the Missionaries, if they will live according to the manifestations of the Spirit, and preach the Gospel by the power of God sent down from heaven, that they will feel more of the Spirit and power of their calling than they have ever felt before. Do you think that we are always going to remain the same size? I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint, and do not believe in the doctrine. Every year the Elders of Israel are improving and learning, and have more power, more influence with the Heavens, more power over the elements, and over diseases, and over the power of Satan, who has ruled this earth from the days of the fall until now. We have to gain power until we break the chain of the Enemy. Are we going to stand still? Away with stereotyped “Mormons.” I have more power than I had last year. I feel much stronger than ever before, and that too in the power of God; and I feel as though I could take the people and bring them into the presence of God, if they only hearken to counsel. Do you think that I am improving? “Yes.” Keep up, then; keep your places, and follow in the track.

    Brother Nibley should be ashamed of himself and so should you for perpetrating such a miscarriage of the words of Brigham Young. Trust but verify – was Reagan’s motto. Check out all sources. I do!

  149. Kelly Winterton
    September 6, 2007 at 11:04 pm #

    The title of this thread is “Why do Latter-Day Saints ignore Ron Pau?”

    I guess Soldier just told us why he ignores Ron Paul.

    I choose not to ignore Ron Paul and the Constitution.

  150. Curtis
    September 6, 2007 at 11:57 pm #

    Soldier,
    At least my sins do not reach much higher levels than the one you’ve pointed out. I stand by the principle that Nibley quoted out of context though. I am definately not a Republican. I am repulsed by the very thought of all they stand for. Nonetheless, I am also repulsed by Democrats, and lately, I see no difference between them. (That’s probably why I’ve voted for Nader the last 3 elections. I take exception to your characterization of him as being out of touch with reality. He’s an extremely smart man who has done a lot of work in protection of consumers against the massive power of multinational corporations. He would have made a great President.) I am different in my political views from most people I know in the Church. I think it is a beautiful thing to have diversity where unity is not essential. Unity in the Doctrine of Christ, standing up against wickedness, working to bring souls to Christ etc. is a good thing. However, don’t make me swallow your white Utah republican culture. The Lord doesn’t require this of me and you are much like the early Church members who required foreign converts to follow the Law of Moses. Mindless word drool. Therefore, I stand by the principle and think it is a true one in spite of the quote being taken out of context.

    You, on the other hand, don’t take things out of context do you soldier. For example, you cry WMD’s on the 500 shells found in 2004, but ignore all context such as the Bush Administration’s official position that these are not the WMD’s that were sought after… not the WMD’s that we went to war over. You ignore that Kay and Duelfer both say there are no WMD’s besides the 500 cannisters and the conclusion that the nuclear weapon program was dead as of 1991. There is a lot of context that you tend to ignore when it doesn’t support your bizzare assertions. Are you sure you are a member of the LDS church? Or was it the LSD church?

  151. C
    September 7, 2007 at 1:39 am #

    Curtis..you are awesome man! I guess WE just need to realize that some people will never see it our way…Opposition in all things..ehh?

  152. Carissa
    September 7, 2007 at 7:29 am #

    In creating the Department of Education, Congress made clear its intention that the secretary of education and other Department officials be prohibited from exercising “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.” The establishment of schools and colleges, the development of curricula, the setting of requirements for enrollment and graduation — these are responsibilities handled by the various states and communities, as well as by public and private organizations of all kinds, not by the U.S. Department of Education.

    That’s nice. But is that what’s really happening? Open your eyes a little. Is No Child Left Behind compatible with these restrictions? What we are getting is more and more federal control over our schools. Here are some statistics that show the increasing federal revenue used for education:
    http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_152.asp

    “Federal taxes for education means federal control over education. No matter how piously the national planners tell us that they will not dictate policies to local school systems, it is inevitable that they will in the long run. In fact, they are already doing it. Whenever the federal government spends tax money for any purpose, it has an obligation to determine how and under what conditions that money is used.” An Enemy Hath Done This, p. 231

    You can go ahead and put your trust in the “national planners” but I have come to appreciate the wisdom of Pres. Benson’s understanding of what’s really going on.

  153. Carissa
    September 7, 2007 at 7:49 am #

    Oh and please don’t try to use the excuse that the federal programs are “voluntary”. According to HR 6, the dept. of education can withhold federal money from any state that doesn’t sign on to their programs. Schools have pretty much become dependent on federal funds, so they really don’t aren’t left with much choice in the matter.

  154. Curtis
    September 7, 2007 at 8:03 am #

    Thanks C,

    Yes, but it is very frustrating to hear Soldier’s sentiments because I’m sure he represents a large part of the population. As such it seems it will be easy to gain support for military action against Iran in this climate. What a horrible thing that will be.

  155. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 9:58 am #

    I just went to the libertarians official website and took a look at their party’s platform. 1) Legalization of all drugs – why not? lets look at the wonderful things it has done for Holland. Look at the hurt and demise of the family due to drug addiction. 2) Pro-choice when it comes to abortion rights. It’s alright under there platform to murder the unborn infant. 3) Pro-marry whoever you want and repeal the “Marriage Protection Act” sifgned into law by Clinton (one of the few things I agreed with him on). This even goes against what the church has actively come out against. As you are well aware the church is in favor of an ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and asked the membership by letter from the first presidency to be activists in the cause. The libertarian party is not a party of righteousness people!

    I am going to try to pull out all of these non-LDS traits and write on why LDS should not be Libertarians on my blog sometime this weekend. But it seems those here care nothing for the commandments of God or the words of a living prophet.

  156. Dan
    September 7, 2007 at 10:30 am #

    Jason,

    So if I understand what you are saying,
    because I said what I did about Democrats and Republicans in Congress – and you are considering a vote for one of those Democrats in Congress – that by extension I was insulting you?

    Is this about right?

    I was hoping the smiley faces would give it away. The internet is surely a bad form of communicating lightheartedness.

  157. Dan
    September 7, 2007 at 10:37 am #

    soldier,

    Evidently, we get our facts from different sources, I am just partial to mine (as I prefer primary sources) and use my prior experience as an intelligence analyst to make my decisions.

    You prefer primary sources, eh? So tell me about “Curveball.”

    You also did not reply at all to my comment about Negroponte’s memo that Santorum and Inhofe used to claim we found WMDs in Iraq. My gut feeling tells me you ignored replying to my comment purposefully as it is detrimental to your point of view. So be it. But let it be known that any WMD found in Iraq today is from pre-Gulf War times, i.e. there is no reconstituted weapons program in Iraq. There never was since the original Gulf War. It is all a bunch of lies from a primary source so aptly named “Curveball” a drunk insane lunatic.

  158. John
    September 7, 2007 at 10:45 am #

    A common tactic when you’re fighting a losing battle in an argument is to change the subject.

    Count how many times it’s done here.

    Another is to ignore points and add new issues to the topic.

    Check it.

    :)

  159. Dan
    September 7, 2007 at 10:59 am #

    soldier,

    Dan, I would just like your opinion of who you think the Democratic candidates are going to be. I know you said you favor Obama – but what does your gut tell you.

    My gut tells me that either Hillary or Obama will win the nomination. I wouldn’t place my bets on Hillary winning just yet. If she does, she will be a very good candidate. She’s got Bill at her side, and will have a good number of very excellent possibilities for her cabinet. The same goes for Obama.

    The direction of politics today almost assures Democrats the White House next fall. I’m sure Republicans have some pretty nasty tricks up their sleeves for next summer as they did in 2004 with the Swift Boaters. Especially if Clinton is the nominee. They’ll dredge up the muck and dirt of the 90s all over again. Karl Rove and the Republican strategists are purposefully trying to play up Clinton, because they would rather see her as the nominee than Obama. They’ve got plenty of dirt to throw at Clinton, but very little at Obama.

    I really do wish Ron Paul is the Republican nominee, because I know he won’t go too dirty. I know Mitt Romney will go dirty. He wants the White House. The only way to get it as a Republican is to go dirty.

    Rudy Giuliani is the worst Republican nominee, I think probably ever. He’s the fakest of the fake. He will be even worse than Bush in leading our country. I can’t believe that Republicans across the nation see him as their front-runner. Tells you what bad shape the Republican party is in right now.

    Mike Huckabee might just be the Republicans’ best hope right now. He’s playing himself up as a nice guy from Arkansas (much like how Bill Clinton did it back in 1992—heck Huckabee is even playing an instrument like Clinton!).

    McCain is old and a complete loss. Poor guy. He should have been the Republican nominee in 2000.

    If the Republicans win the White House in 2008, nothing will change on Iraq and we WILL be at war with Iran. Americans will have to ask themselves if that is what they really want. It will be sold to them, really strongly by the neo-cons.

    If the Democrats win, either Hillary or Obama—the other guys don’t stand much of a chance right now—then we won’t pull out of Iraq right away, but we will draw down, and perhaps leave before the 2012 election. Whoever the Democratic president will be better get us out of Iraq in 2009 or 2010 and not start any war before the 2012 election. Because for the 2012 election, Republicans will try to portray themselves as the “saviors” of our nation from dastardly Democrats who cower to terrorists. By leaving Iraq in 2009 or 2010, we give ourselves two or three years time for Iraqis to control their own destiny and prove that we didn’t need to be in there much longer, thereby undercutting Republicans’ strategy for 2012.

    Rumor has it that General Petraeus is positioning himself as the candidate for the Republican nomination in 2012. In order to do so, he needs the surge to continue on as currently constituted, regardless of how successful it becomes. See, once the Democrats win the White House, the burden of Iraq falls on them, regardless of who started it, and who failed Iraq. That is why it is imperative of the Democrats to pull out of Iraq immediately after winning the White House. 1. It will score all the political points they could ever want from liberals and moderates who already have said no to Iraq, and 2. It will give Iraq enough time to show they can stabilize on their own, without American crutches. It will also undermine General Petraeus’ attempt to be the Republican nominee in 2012. I can’t emphasize how important that is to getting America off the militant phase it is in. We do NOT need a general running our country right now. Especially not one who is so gung-ho about fighting.

  160. Dan
    September 7, 2007 at 11:05 am #

    soldier,

    1) Legalization of all drugs – why not? lets look at the wonderful things it has done for Holland. Look at the hurt and demise of the family due to drug addiction.

    Why don’t we look at Holland. Do you have statistics or unsupported accusations? You may not like the legalization of all drugs, but unless you can support your point, you shouldn’t bring it up at all.

  161. Carissa
    September 7, 2007 at 11:22 am #

    Soldier– why don’t you check out the constitution party (the one advertised on Connor’s site):
    http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
    What problems do you have with it?

  162. Dan
    September 7, 2007 at 11:34 am #

    In fact, are you guys ready for being in Iraq for TWENTY MORE YEARS?

    If you vote for Republicans, that is what you will get.

  163. Curtis
    September 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm #

    I just reposted my research on War and the Gospel of Jesus Christ for anyone who is interested. Check it out at:

    http://theradicalmormon.wordpress.com/2007/09/07/war-and-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ-2/

  164. Michael L. McKee
    September 7, 2007 at 12:34 pm #

    PREDICTIONS

    1. Ron Paul will switch to the Constitution Party once he receives sufficient exposure to the public at large through the debates and public forums with the Republicans. The insiders know this and it is part of the reason he cannot get much traction from the media, and is being ostracized by the Republicans. I should venture to guess it will be announced, or at least be common knowledge, before Christmas. To those skeptics concerning the electability of Ron Paul, he will be a very viable contender by Spring.

    2. Mitt Romney will be one of the last men standing come Spring, and he will likely be standing with Fred Thompson. If this prediction comes true, Mitt will get the nod as President, and Thompson will be point man for the insiders as the VP.

    3. The Democratic Party will not have an opportunity to redecorate the oval office. If they were to win, Obama would accept the roll as VP with Hillary.

  165. Dan
    September 7, 2007 at 12:53 pm #

    Now, why on earth would Americans vote more Republicans in power, Mr. McKee?

  166. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 1:45 pm #

    Because there are a lot of Americans like me, Dan. I appreciate your analysis but, of course, disagree with your conclusions. Regardless of our differing position on the war I don’t like the majority of the democrats position on abortion and their support for pro-gay marriage either. I feel, as you know, that the Republicans are on the right track and would vote for any of them (except Ron Paul) rather than any of the Democrats. I don’t like Obama strictly because of his lack of experience and the way that he has categorized our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He may disagree with the war but don’t “badmouth” our troops. At least he is not hypocritacal though, in what I have see, his story has pretty much stayed consistent since day one. However, his nor Hillary’s message has resonanted with the young people. At the community college that my daughter is currently attending (she is about the only conservative in her major – film and video technology with an emphasis on production – tranferring to BYU in the spring) most of the kids say they would vote for a republican over either of them. Most of the kids still like Edwards for some reason.

    I changed the topic, not because I was losing – I can cite quote for quote with you but it is a waste of time as it is clear we will never agree. You might want to subscribe to the Multi National Force newsletter however where you can hear all the good things we are doing in Iraq and read from the military the day by day progress – this is also one of my sources for what has been found there. I really liked what a Marine, recently returned from Iraq, said to Hugh Hewitt at the Texas Straw Poll. “America is not at war! America is at the mall enjoying their freedoms! America is not at war! The Marines are at War and we don’t know the meaning of defeat! America is not at war!”

    Carissa, when I have a little more time this evening I will check out the Constitution Party Platform. I will admit that right now I don’t know that much about them but will “educate myself”. Thanks for the link. I do know that I am definitely no Libertarian though! The Republicans most fit my personal preferences – although I don’t always agree with them either. I actually hate the out of control spending for “pork barrel” initiatives that are always attached to bills of importance just to get them passed in the name of compromise. Both parties are guilty of this and though it may not be constitutionally wrong I believe it to be constitutionally immoral. I am totally in favor of a line item veto in order to send these items back to congress and make them think a little harder on them. I hate the Bush/McCain immigration doctrine. I was vehemently opposed to the Dubai Ports Deal. I am against the leasing out of America to foreign investors and companies and the exporting of American jobs but realize at the same time that we can not be isolationists for the purpose of our nations security and responsibility in the world.
    I am going to disagree with some aspect of every candidate, I am sure, and so I vote for the one who most closely adheres to my position on things. I think that is what we all do.

  167. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 1:47 pm #

    Michael, I think that’s a pretty astute analysis and you may just be on to something there.

  168. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 1:58 pm #

    Dan, you may be rid of me soon because I am going to test the kindeness and tolerance of the Democratic Party during the Democratic convention. Since I live in Denver and am furthering my education at present at the Auraria Campus which houses 2 colleges and one university and sits adjacent to the convention center, I am going to wear a Mitt Romney for Pres or a “No more donkeys” T-shirt to school that week. I suspect it may be a suicide mission! :)

  169. Dan
    September 7, 2007 at 2:37 pm #

    soldier,

    You still ignore Negroponte’s memo. Please reply to that if you would like to be taken seriously.

  170. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 2:46 pm #

    Dan, what do you want me to say? Over at my blog at http://logicalsanity.com I quote this report in full and in context and my comments on it are there for all to see. I see this as an affirmation that WMD’s were there, that Iraq was in violation of cease fire agreements, and that these munitions were still lethal. Do you always do your homework so assiduously. I get a little tired of repeating the same things over and over again to the deaf.

  171. John
    September 7, 2007 at 2:52 pm #

    Does anyone here side with soldier’s viewpoint? Anyone?

    I think plenty of counter evidence has been provided, you’re just too stubborn to consider it. More news comes out, and you ignore it.

    Who’s deaf, soldier?

    Your consistent effort to dodge questions and muddy the waters with irrelevant information is very revealing.

  172. Curtis
    September 7, 2007 at 2:56 pm #

    John,
    I think Soldier is the sole inhabitant on his strangle little planet as far as this blog conversation goes.

  173. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 3:11 pm #

    Fine, you guys sit here in your little Ron Paul Utopia, hold hands and sing another refrain of Kum-ba-ya. There is more than enough evidence out there to support my position. I’ve looked at your garbage and came to the conclusion based on other documents that that is exactly what it is. You don’t want opposing views here! You stick to your mainstream media propaganda and I’ll look at primary documents. At least I venture out to see what the outside world is like and to raise its hackles a bit. I’m not afraid. If I am given irrefutable proof that I am wrong I will admit it. So far none have done this as I can match you document for document and source for source.

    You may be in the majority in your little RON “Mr Magoo” Paul Planet here where you are comforted by numbers but it won’t help any of you isolationists in the general election. One thing I’ve got to give you – you have proven that misery loves company and won’t venture outside the box with your comments where you are afraid of being crushed by the big boys – isloationism fits you and you deserve it.

  174. John
    September 7, 2007 at 3:21 pm #

    Curtis,

    Given his last statement, I would have to concur. Sorry man, but facts don’t point to your conclusion. Shovel out the insults and buzzwords if it makes you feel better about your backward stance, but it doesn’t change the facts.

    Try addressing the issues rather than calling us names and insulting us.

    Peace out.

  175. C
    September 7, 2007 at 3:25 pm #

    Jesus is disappointed in you soldier…you will know it when you die.

    “Isolationsists”!?!…please you will never get it…..

    Double peace out!

  176. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 3:29 pm #

    Come on! Give me irrefutable facts then! I’ve been waiting. They are not there. You have thrown op-ed at me. I want facts.

  177. C
    September 7, 2007 at 3:30 pm #

    OK i’ll start…kum-by-ya my lord…kum-by-ya
    hahaha

  178. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 3:38 pm #

    John, I’ve addressed your issues. You just didn’t like it and the best you could do was throw the NYTimes at me. You require from me what you refuse to provide yourself. Typical lib behavior!

  179. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 3:39 pm #

    John, all I called you was an isolationist. Does the truth hurt that bad?

  180. Jason Keyes
    September 7, 2007 at 3:51 pm #

    kum-by-ya my lord…kum-by-ya kum-by-ya my lord…kum-by-ya

  181. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 3:56 pm #

    Sing a little louder boys, tune it all out! You are all pretty good at that.

  182. John
    September 7, 2007 at 4:20 pm #

    You’ve addressed no issues.

    Why haven’t the WMDs been used? Please don’t tell me that Saddam is unpredictable. Not good enough. I’ve countered that loose claim, and you’ve ignored it or changed the subject.

    The NYT article I linked to includes quotes from the book. I included one of those incriminating quotes in my comments. Give them a read. Its from the source document *you* quoted.

    Keep up the emotive namecalling. That really helps your credibility.

  183. Doug Bayless
    September 7, 2007 at 5:49 pm #

    Dennis (SoldierOfTruth),

    What we have here is an honest disagreement and mockery and namecalling won’t solve that.

    The big picture is that you believe the fearmongers who are painting the entire Muslim religion as some type of fanatical threat to Western society and most of the commenters on this site have good, factual reasons to disbelieve that.

    It is certainly true that there are Muslim fundamentalists who take scriptures out of context and try to bend and shape their religion to justify all manner of evil generalizations and actions against innocent citizens of the United States or Britain or wherever.

    It is also certainly true that there are Christian [and even Mormon Christian] fundamentalists who take scriptures out of context and try to bend and shape their religion to justify all manner of evil generalizations and actions against innocent citizens of Iraq or Iran or Syria or wherever.

    Many of us here believe that two wrongs do not make a right but rather that for good to truly trump evil, there must be good people who are brave enough to cling to good in the face of evil (as Jesus advocated) instead of returning evil for evil (as he often lamented the Mosaic law had been reduced to by his day).

    We may differ on the constitutionality of the Iraqi war, we may differ on whether weapons discovered since its inception qualify as the type of WMD suggested, etc., etc.

    But surely we won’t disagree that many of the hard-core supporters of the current Mideast foreign policy are as likely to blaspheme their own Christian God in supposedly justifying the murder and destruction of a great many innocent peoples in those countries caught in the crossfire as any Osama bin Laden type that might exist overseas.

    I find great hypocrisy in those that go on and on about how dangerous the Muslim religion is. If you know any Muslims or have visited Muslim nations (I have done both) you will know that they are children of God just like we are. You also probably know that it is very easy to paint the OT God and even the NT God as warlike, vicious, and dangerous – though I certainly believe it would be wrong and misunderstanding to do so.

    Finally, I think it prudent to recall a we would all do well to remember a not-so-distant First Presidency warning penned by the Prophet we are studying in Sunday School this very year:

    We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel – ships, planes, missiles, fortifications – and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

    “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:44-45).

  184. Doug Bayless
    September 7, 2007 at 5:50 pm #

    Forgot to attribute that quote.

    It is from:

    President Spencer W. Kimball
    “The False Gods We Worship”
    First Presidency Message, June, 1976

  185. Jason Keyes
    September 7, 2007 at 6:05 pm #

    Thank you Doug.

    Well said.

  186. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 6:21 pm #

    Doug, I certainly do disagree on the points you have brought up. I have no disagreemant with the Muslim people as a whole. I am not advocating a war on Islam. I am decrying the “jihadists” who feel that it is there God given mission to destroy the United States of America. I have many good friends the are Muslim, even some Jordanians that take the position I do. I have read the Quran (along with the Baghavad Gita – “Hindu scripture”). I find them both enlightening in many ways but they are definitely not scripture. What I classify as WMD are just what the name implies. Definitely, I belief mustard and sarin nerve agents qualify. Pesticides stored in conjunction with laboratories may not, however it would be foolish not to acknowledge that pesticides are used and in fact are the main ingredient in nerve agents.

    I have also read from Russian newspapers, Chinese intelligence sources, our own intelligence sources and Syrian dissident testimonies that Massive amounts of WMD, purchased from Russia were carted to Syria and Lebanon (the Bekaa Valley) in the weeks leading up to the war by Special Russian forces. I remember seeing intel photos in the briefings shown on CSPAN that showed these Russian conveys. Don’t know for sure about the validity of those reports but it is definitely something to consider.

    Again, I go back to President Hinckley’s talk in the Sunday Morning Session of Conferance in April 2003 and can’t help believe that he was saying that this was a just conflict.

  187. Curtis
    September 7, 2007 at 6:55 pm #

    Soldier,

    I have also read from Russian newspapers, Chinese intelligence sources, our own intelligence sources and Syrian dissident testimonies that Massive amounts of WMD, purchased from Russia were carted to Syria and Lebanon (the Bekaa Valley) in the weeks leading up to the war by Special Russian forces.

    What happened to your beloved Duelfer Report? The March 2005 addenda stated, “ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place” but also acknowledging that “ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war.”

    That means, no proof, but it cannot be entirely excluded (because it is extremely difficult to prove a negative). Of course you will ignore this as you do anything that debunks your arguement.

  188. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 7:29 pm #

    Curtis, did you not read where I said that I “Don’t know for sure about the validity of those reports but it is definitely something to consider.” But then again, you are the one who likes quoting out of context. I am well aware of what the Duelfer report said.

  189. Curtis
    September 7, 2007 at 7:43 pm #

    Soldier,
    Your opinion is all I’m getting out of this conversation. Stick to the facts and then we’ll get along a lot better.

  190. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 8:02 pm #

    Curtis,
    And All I have gotten is yours. I presented the facts as I see them. You accuse me of not seeing your points just as I accuse you of not seeing mine. You have not given irrefutable proof to debunk my views. Because of your tone, I don’t believe you are interested at all in getting along. You can’t stand a difference of opinion. You guys get all ticked off when I use snide and cutting remarks but it is fine when you do it. Did I get that right?

    We are both guilty of stubborness. Each believes deeply in his own position. I draw on past experience based on my work in the military, my education in linguistics and my own analysis of information. You come up with different conclusions. Is that a reason for good LDS folk to be at each other’s throats?

  191. Dan
    September 7, 2007 at 8:31 pm #

    Sunday Morning Session of Conferance in April 2003

    Again, what the heck is it with conservatives and spelling?!?!

  192. Dan
    September 7, 2007 at 8:35 pm #

    soldier,

    I am going to paste my comment that you have to this point continued to ignore. It cites a primary source. It even links it to FauxNews, and not the dastardly liberal media. Please refute my comments:

    Earlier you brayed about Santorum and Inhofe’s crowing over Negroponte’s declassified report supposedly showing that we found WMDs in Iraq. Well, here’s Negroponte’s memo:

    Negroponte’s Memo

    I even linked it from FauxNews, knowing your dislike of anything remotely “liberal.”

    Now, Santorum and the rest of his ilk, which it seems includes you, wish us to believe that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program, and thusly a grave enough threat worthy of a full invasion and decapitation of Saddam’s regime. Well, if only the evidence fit the pre-conceived notions, eh? If you look at Negroponte’s memo, here is what you find:

    Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq’s pre-Gulf War chemical munitions filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.

    Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market.

    Two things scream out at you from this. “Pre-Gulf War chemical munitions.” and his hedged language, “assessed,” “could be.”

    If all that the likes of Santorum could find are pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, then their assertion that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program is false. How can he be reconstituting his WMD program when the only evidence of WMD comes from his pre-Gulf War days? How could he be a threat in 2002 and 2003 when the only WMDs he still has in his possession come from his glory days? Are the likes of Santorum and Inhofe really saying that that small of a collection of WMDs are such a threat that it is worth the cost that we’ve had to pay to this point? Are they really that stupid?

    Answer me, soldier.

  193. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 8:54 pm #

    Dan,

    Do you have trouble reading. I addressed this and told you so above, in my post at http://logicalsanity.com. What’s up with Liberals and their ability to read! I cited this in context and complete there and made comments to it. The huge number of pesticides found with chemical labs nearby, same warehouse, shows a propensity for reconstitution of WMD capability. Nerve agents are made from these pesticides. These munitions are just the tip of the iceberg. There are still many more classified documents.

    I am glad you value yourself to be such an intellectual and perfect speller, however forgive me if I see a psuedo-intellect. Yes, in my hurry typing I inadvertantly misspell words. It must be a real crutch being so perfect, Dan.

  194. Dan
    September 7, 2007 at 9:09 pm #

    soldier,

    Please answer here and not on your blog. I read just fine; I just prefer not to read your blog. Besides, your post on your blog does not even discuss Negroponte’s memo. Please answer the question HERE.

    And as far as the spelling thing is concerned, I’m a stickler for correct spelling. It is one of those things that just drastically reduces your credibility, soldier. Please spell correctly. And no, you cannot use the excuse that you typed fast and misspelled. You misspelled Conference earlier. Do a search for “conferance” and you’ll find SIX results on this page. Two results are me quoting you. The other are FOUR times you misspelled it. I let the first few pass, but misspelling is intolerable. :)

  195. soldieroftruth
    September 7, 2007 at 9:34 pm #

    Dan,

    Your party’s mascot suits you well. Negroponte says:

    Dear Chairman Hoekstra:
    Thank you for your letter of June 19, 2006, requesting that we declassify “key points” from a National Ground Intelligence Center report on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. Attached please find the requested paper. Sincerely, John D. Negroponte.”

    Key words here “a National Ground Intelligence Center report”. A single report that they were declassifying. This report is not exhaustive nor is intended to be. The content of the report I quoted in full at my blog. I will not repeat it here. The Negroponte memo does nothing for your argument. This is standard intelligence reporting jargon. I took classes in reporting terminology as part of my training at the National Security Agency. It is intentionally vague and short.

  196. Dan
    September 7, 2007 at 10:46 pm #

    soldier,

    Negroponte’s memo wasn’t just “a” NGIC report. It was the report that Santorum and Inhofe used to claim WMDs were found. It was also the report YOU used to claim WMDs were found. So exactly what Negroponte declassified is highly important. And the fact that the only thing that is in the declassified report is a citation of WMDs from pre-Gulf War days seriously undermines your point that Saddam was reconstituting his WMD program. If all we could find in Iraq were WMDs from before 1991, then there was no reconstitution of a WMD program and the main argument used to enter Iraq was false.

    I don’t know if I am surprised or not that you claim you work in the US intelligence field. On the one hand, I am surprised by your lack of an open mind when it comes to intelligence on the ground, but on the other hand you fit the mold of the ideologues who are running our country right now. It is pathetically sad, actually. You would rather stick with pre-conceived notions than objectively follow the evidence to whatever end it leads. How an intelligence agency could or has hired someone like you is a mystery to me. I would think the best analysts are the ones who put aside their preferences and follow the evidence to its source. You’ve not done that, soldier. Not at all. You claim this and that credential, taking this or that class, being trained in this or that, but you do not show it in your evidence. Instead, you show that you believe in some ideology. How did someone like you get hired for the job you supposedly have? Were there really no other better candidates? How can an intelligence agency work properly if its agents adhere more to an ideology than to facts? How can an intelligence agency properly protect this nation if its agents have as a higher priority the prolonging of a party over that of a state?

    No wonder our intelligence agencies failed to discover the 9/11 plot. They could not think outside their pre-conceived notions. No wonder our intelligence agencies will fail to properly identify and catalog Iran, to our utter detriment. Agents like you would rather us be at war with a nation we really should be at peace with, because that’s the ideology. Facts don’t lead in that direction, but hey, damn the facts. What’s important is what we believe, irrespective of where the facts lead us to. Worse, we’ll attempt our best to stage a conflict, to goad our “enemy” into battle.

    We’re the strutting cock, always jumping at the first provocation. Let me share with you an old Chinese proverb:

    Chi Hsing Tzu was a trainer of fighting cocks
    for King Hsuan.
    He was training a fine bird.
    The King kept asking if the bird were
    Ready for combat.
    “Not yet,” said the trainer.
    “He is full of fire.
    He is ready to pick a fight
    With every other bird. He is vain and confident
    Of his own strength.”
    After ten days, he answered again:
    “Not yet. He flares up
    When he hears another bird crow.”
    After ten more days:
    “Not yet. He still gets
    That angry look
    and ruffles his feathers.”
    Again ten days:
    The trainer said, “Now he is nearly ready.
    When another bird crows, his eye
    does not even flicker.
    He stands immobile
    Like a cock of wood.
    He is a mature fighter.
    Other birds
    will take one look at him
    And run.”

    This is who we are: “He is full of fire.
    He is ready to pick a fight
    With every other bird. He is vain and confident
    Of his own strength.”

    This is who we should be: “Now he is nearly ready.
    When another bird crows, his eye
    does not even flicker.
    He stands immobile
    Like a cock of wood.
    He is a mature fighter.
    Other birds
    will take one look at him
    And run.”

    Such a shame.

  197. Jason Keyes
    September 7, 2007 at 11:11 pm #

    Soldier, Why do you keep calling us liberals?

    I for one am more conservative than you.

    I’ll give you one example.

    You think the federal government should be involved in education on a national level – you like the idea of federal bureaucrats in Washington deciding what gets taught in Alabama, Utah, Idaho, and California. Tell me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you are in the FDR camp – you know that Liberal Democrat from the 30′s.

    I think that states and communities (and individual families) have the responsibility for education. I believe that the founding fathers were wise when they left this out of the hands of federal bureaucrats.

    Tell me how your position is the more traditional, founding fatheresque, “conservative” position. Tell me how I am the liberal in this case.

  198. C
    September 8, 2007 at 2:16 am #

    You guys need to realize that Dennis LOVES this! This thread is boring without him but frustrating with him…so I say Cheers mate (soldier) good show!!

    (……….even though I and most realize that soldier is simply picking fights, changing the subject, egg-ing people on….etc..)

    We wont EVER change his mind!!!…its futile. Going back to Jasons comment:

    Yes, but it is very frustrating to hear Soldier’s sentiments because I’m sure he represents a large part of the population. As such it seems it will be easy to gain support for military action against Iran in this climate. What a horrible thing that will be.”

    You are correct sir…this is why we should get prepared!!! Get ready NOW!!..i am finding more and more that there is no way to stop it…there are too many people that choose not to hear or are ignorant to the truth.

    We should however do our best to stop even though it seems futile…

    Acquire WATER, BEANS, BANDAGES & BULLETS – skills will be good also.

  199. Carissa
    September 8, 2007 at 7:43 am #

    Soldier said:

    Our soldiers are bleeding and dying to protect this country and the freedoms that we enjoy here.

    Furthermore, Ron Paul’s statement above would be nice if it were intervention. This is defense. We were attacked by jihadists on our own shore. These same individuals would take your freedom if we did nothing.

    Look, we all know there are times when war is justified—we get that clearly from the book of Mormon and from the scriptures. The true question is… is this one of those times? Did what happened on 9-11 justify our actions up to this point? Let’s all try to be sincere in answering this.

    The Nephites, however, “were inspired by a greater cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.” (Alma 43:45.)
    The Lord had also commanded them, “Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.” (Alma 43:47.)
    These verses suggest that a war in defense against an aggressor is acceptable to the Lord. The Lord does not justify war waged in order to gain power or to gain control. Neither is it to be waged in anger. President David O. McKay pointed out that “there are conditions when entrance into war is justifiable, and when a Christian nation may, without violation of principles, take up arms against an opposing force.
    “Such a condition, however, is not a real or fancied insult given by one nation to another. When this occurs proper reparation may be made by mutual understanding, apology, or by arbitration.
    “Neither is there justifiable cause found in a desire or even a need for territorial expansion. The taking of territory implies the subjugation of the weak by the strong—the application of the jungle law.
    “Nor is war justified in an attempt to enforce a new order of government, or even to impel others to a particular form of worship, however better the government or eternally true the principles of the enforced religion may be.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1942, p. 72.)
    Mormon states that in defending themselves, the Nephites felt they were following a law given them by God. That law included patience. Mormon explained that the Lord had instructed them, “Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.” (Alma 43:46.)
    The Lord gave Joseph Smith similar counsel, urging even greater patience: “If men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;
    “But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.” (D&C 98:23–24.)
    He then instructed his disciples that, if they patiently bore their enemies’ second and third attacks, not reviling their foes, their reward would be greatly increased. These three testimonies would stand against the attackers. Then, if the wrongdoers escaped God’s vengeance and judgment, the Saints should warn them. After all this, should the Saints suffer another attack, their enemies would be in their hands. The Saints could spare their foes or reward them according to their evil works. (See D&C 98:25–31.)
    The Lord compares this to the law given to Nephi, Abraham, and other ancients. (See D&C 98:32–36.) The disciples of old could go to battle only when the Lord commanded them. They were to lift a standard of peace to an enemy three times before bringing their case to the Lord, after which he would justify them in going to war. This law was not a law of first attack. It demanded that a righteous people do all they could to proclaim and preserve peace.
    The Book of Mormon relates one time when a prophet-general refused to lead the Nephites into battle—a time when the Nephites did not follow the Lord’s law. (See Morm. 3–4.) During a ten-year period of relative peace, the Nephites prepared for war. When the Lamanites attacked, the greatly outnumbered Nephites made a stand at the city of Desolation. This time the Nephites won, “insomuch that [the Lamanites] did return to their own lands again.” (Morm. 3:7.) The following year, the Lamanites again came to battle, and the Nephites again defeated them.
    At that point, the Nephites “began to boast in their own strength, and began to swear before the heavens that they would avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren who had been slain by their enemies.
    “And they did swear by the heavens, and also by the throne of God, that they would go up to battle against their enemies, and would cut them off from the face of the land.” (Morm. 3:9–10.)
    When revenge and destruction became the Nephites’ motivation for war against the Lamanites, Mormon “did utterly refuse … to be a commander and a leader of [the] people.” (Morm. 3:11.)
    It wasn’t only their wickedness that kept Mormon from leading the Nephites, for he wrote, “Notwithstanding their wickedness I had led them many times to battle, and had loved them … with all my heart.” (Morm. 3:12.) It was because “they had sworn by all that had been forbidden them by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that they would go up unto their enemies to battle, and avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren.” (Morm. 3:14.)
    Earlier, Mormon had exhorted his people to “stand boldly before the Lamanites and fight for their wives, and their children, and their houses, and their homes.” (Morm. 2:23.) But now the Nephites were not going to war to defend anything. They had not issued a proclamation of peace, nor had they tried to gain peace by other means. Instead, they were going to war out of vengeance.
    From that point, the Nephite nation began to lose its battles and was eventually destroyed. The Nephites entered into a vicious cycle of vengeance begetting vengeance and wickedness begetting wickedness. “Because the armies of the Nephites went up unto the Lamanites … they began to be smitten; for were it not for that, the Lamanites could have had no power over them.
    H. Dean Garrett, “Peace Within,” Ensign, Sep 1988

    Questions:

    1. Have we been patient in dealing with insults/attacks against us? Have we raised the standard of peace 3 times?

    2. Are our freedoms, families, lives really at stake and are we fighting for purely defensive reasons?

    2. Are we going to battle for revenge or with anger in our hearts against our enemies? Do we boast in our own strength?

    3. Have we taken any territory in this war, gained any power or control over others?

    4. Have we attempted to enforce a new order of government upon anyone?

  200. soldieroftruth
    September 8, 2007 at 10:29 am #

    To Dan,

    You are right. There is a huge insect problem in munitions warehouses in Iraq. There was definitely a need for all of those hundreds of thousands of gallons of pesticide to be in a place that stored mostly metal casings. Togethe with the facilities to convert them to nerve gas. Give me a break! Do you know anything at all about the manufacture of nerve agents? Evidently not. Why are you ignoring this as pointing to a continued clandestine effort to reintroduce weapons as soon as U.N inspectors left the country. Intelligent analysis points to the obvious. That is a smoking gun if there ever was one.

    I guess we ignore statements from Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman from the IAEA, acknowledging that the ISG had found a program to build a “high-speed rail gun,” a device used in the testing of nuclear weapons materials as well as 500 tons of natural uranium. But alas, I guess this was for peaceful, medical puroposes because Saddam was so concerned about his populace being the caring individual that he was.

    And everybody knows that Saddam was only using the oil for food money to help his poor country.

    There was also the stockpiles of chlorine, maybe this was for all of Saddam’s swimming pools, eh? Chlorine is one of the main agents used in the production of mustard gas. You see all the components of WMD were found, all the ingredients just not the weapon itself. What did you expect under the noses of U.N inspectors. They could have quickly re-established their capabilities at a moments notice.

  201. Jason Keyes
    September 8, 2007 at 10:47 am #

    Carissa excellent post! Very well studied, pondered, and written.

  202. soldieroftruth
    September 8, 2007 at 11:05 am #

    Answers to Carissa’s questions:

    1. Have we been patient in dealing with insults/attacks against us? Have we raised the standard of peace 3 times?

    I’m not willing to wait until these extremists hit our shores three times. I don’t want to see a World Trade Center fiasco three times. Don’t you get it! These people will not be happy until this country is part of a Muslim caliphate. In the tape Osama Bin-Laden released yesterday he says that the U.S. will have no peace until this happens. By the way, Saddam was warned many more than three times by Clinton and both Bush’s to comply with ceasefire mandates. He refused!

    2. Are our freedoms, families, lives really at stake and are we fighting for purely defensive reasons?

    I sincerely believe so, yes!

    3. Are we going to battle for revenge or with anger in our hearts against our enemies? Do we boast in our own strength?

    You would have to ask individual soldiers that question. I can tell you that those I know that have returned from the battlefield have come home with love in their hearts for the Iraqi people but a hatred of the evil carried out by insurgents and terrorists around them. It’s like the counsel given us to “hate the sin but love the sinner”. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with strength and I have heard no boasting coming from the soldiers in it. I have heard, however, a lot of humility in those that I know who have been there and returned. I believe strongly in “Peace through Strength”, especially in the face of this enemy.

    4. Have we taken any territory in this war, gained any power or control over others?

    Our desire is for Iraq to become an independent nation with a government that really cares about it’s people. The U.S. has claimed none of its territories on a permanent basis and we are there now at the invitation of that government. The majority of elected officials in that country want us there until there is stability and their own forces are trained. Those that don’t want us there are those hell bent on domination.

    5. Have we attempted to enforce a new order of government upon anyone?

    Yes. We removed a ruthless and evil dictator but then have been guiding Iraq in the formation of the new government where the people rule. Kind of like the French helped us do during the early days of this country. The Iraqi government is and will continue to be a uniquely Iraqi form of democracy, but they – not us – will administer it and are attempting to do just that if our congress will back off and let them.

  203. soldieroftruth
    September 8, 2007 at 11:21 am #

    Carissa, your study of the words of the prophets of the past is to be commended. They are important in the historical context in which they are placed. Gordon B. Hinckley is the living prophet entrusted with this generation and these times. We already know what he said concerning this conflict. Or do you think his words carry less wait because he is still alive? He is the living prophet for our times and circumstances.

  204. Jason Keyes
    September 8, 2007 at 11:59 am #

    We already know what he said concerning this conflict. Or do you think his words carry less wait because he is still alive?

    SoldierofTruth,

    These comments are directed squarely at you, but I think all of us would do well to occasionally remember how we can improve as individuals. I know I can. :-)

    I urge you Soldier to take your own advice. Listen to President Hinckley.

    Since you have been calling members here to repentance for their supposed crimes of disobedience, allow me to allow President Hinckley to call you to repentance- you so eloquently point out that he is the Prophet “for our times and circumstances.”

    “We who hold the priesthood of God must stand above the ways of the world. We must discipline ourselves. We cannot be self-righteous, but we can and must be decent, honorable men.
    Our behavior in public must be above reproach.”

    Gordon B. Hinckley, “Personal Worthiness to Exercise the Priesthood,” Ensign, May 2002, 52

    and let’s not forget the Lord’s own words to Joseph, found in Doctrine and Covenants 4: 5

    “And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work.”

    Soldier, you may have met a few general authorities, but that does not make you one.

    And unless you are a general authority, you really have no responsibility to judge others (unless you were a Bishop or Stake President – but only then within your sphere of responsibility and within the bounds of love, wisdom, and compassion), and you certainly

    unequivocally

    without a doubt

    have no stewardship to give counsel in this forum on the conduct of other Latter Day Saints – in relation to their personal righteousness.

    Such is the prerogative of Jesus Christ only.

    And thanks be to Him that this is the case. He is so kind, so infinitely compassionate, so full of goodness, so bound by mercy, so devoted to forgiveness, encircled about by the sins he so patiently and willingly suffered for – “Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me,” Isaiah 49:16 , and yet with perfect love for you and all the rest of us.

    I urge you again to take your own advice. Follow the Prophet. Use self discipline and do not be self-righteous.

    Others will be much more willing to listen to your point of view – and even agree with you – if you take the Prophet’s counsel.

    You are right. We should listen to him. And it is more difficult to accept living prophets than dead ones. So let’s go and do it.

    Oh, and one more quote for the road. This one we should really ask ourselves from time to time.

    “Never look down on those who are less perfect than you. Never be upset because someone can’t speak as well as you, can’t lead as well as you, can’t serve as well as you, can’t sew or hoe or glow as well as you.

    The Church is a mutual improvement society with the goal to help every son and daughter of God to return to His presence. One way you can measure your value in the kingdom of God is to ask yourself, “How well am I doing in helping others reach their potential? Do I support others in the Church, or do I tear them down?” If you’re tearing others down, you are tearing down the kingdom of God. If you are building others, you are building the kingdom.”

    Joseph B. Wirthlin, “Lessons Learned in the Journey of Life,” Ensign, Dec. 2000, 7

    That’s my two cents in a bucket of quarters.

  205. soldieroftruth
    September 8, 2007 at 12:22 pm #

    Jason, you too would be served well in taking your own advice. I came here to offer an alternative to your universe which you cannot abide byI have a different point of view – but I strive constantly to abide by the words of our prophets. Am I perfect? No, a long way from it. We disagree politically and I do not feel I am out of step with Gospel Teachings. Evil and wickedness abound and we are admonished to fight against it. I will continue to do so whether in this forum or others.

  206. Dan
    September 8, 2007 at 1:31 pm #

    soldier,

    You still did not answer my question about Negroponte’s memo. Instead of answering, you diverted the conversation to something else completely. This is a typical tactic of one who follows Bush. Please answer the question. Was Negroponte’s memo about pre-Gulf War WMDs or not? If it was, then Santorum and Inhofe were misleading Americans when they claimed that memo proved that WMDs were found in Iraq. Furthermore, it undermines your very point, because you used this memo as proof that WMDs were found in Iraq. So answer the question straightly. Don’t divert to other possible examples. We’ll get to the other stuff later. But before we do, you must answer me. Was Negroponte declassifying intelligence that showed that WMDs from pre-Gulf War days were being found in Iraq? And if that is the case, does that not prove that there still is no irrefutable evidence of a reconstituted WMD program in Iraq?

  207. soldieroftruth
    September 8, 2007 at 2:46 pm #

    I’ve answered you time after time, Dan. But let me be very clear since you liberals have limited capacity for understanding. These were pre-Gulf War munitions that were not destroyed under cease fire agreements of the first gulf war. They were WMD. Saddam still had them. Saddam was in violation in as much as he did not destroy them – but the fact remains that they were usable and in his arsenal. This puts him in violation of multiple agreements and resolutions. I have shown with great probability where the reconstitution of his weapon’s programs were being conducted. There, could you understand that? Furthermore, he was chomping at the bit to reinstitute his weapons program and would have continued the moment U.N. inspectors left the area. Typical liberal tactic, make the right repeat things over and over and in different ways until it can penetrate the left’s third grade comprehension skills.

  208. soldieroftruth
    September 8, 2007 at 2:48 pm #

    Again, Dan, insects are a real problem in munitions storage area’s!

  209. Dan
    September 8, 2007 at 3:08 pm #

    soldier,

    I have shown with great probability where the reconstitution of his weapon’s programs were being conducted.

    No you have not. All your points have been refuted by everybody here, but you continue to evade and not answer the charges up front. I’m glad you finally relented and agreed that what Negroponte was referring to was WMDs from pre-Gulf War days. Would you then agree that Santorum and Inhofe were misleading Americans when they claimed that declassified memo as proof that WMDs were found?

    There, could you understand that? Furthermore, he was chomping at the bit to reinstitute his weapons program and would have continued the moment U.N. inspectors left the area.

    Hmm, are you sure you are working in the intelligence field? President Clinton ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq in December 1998. In 2002 when they went back, they found no new WMDs, just the old stuff they already knew about. So where was the reconstituted WMD program?

  210. soldieroftruth
    September 8, 2007 at 3:48 pm #

    No. They were WMD’s found in Iraq after the current invasion that pre-dated to 1st gulf war. They were WMD’s! Saddam was in possession of them! They were still lethal! They were a violation of Iraq’s cease fire agreement and multiple U.N. resolutions! Therefore, they did not mislead the American public.

    So, Dan, are you calling me a liar! I didn’t say that I was now working intelligence nor that I worked it at that time. In fact, above I told you exactly when I worked it and under what administration. That does not mean I don’t still use the analysis skills I learned then. If you will recall – Clinton nor the U.N. inspectors were given much cooperation, often having to wait to inspect certain areas or being refused admittance to other areas. Clinton was convinced that they were hiding something and even proposed an attack during his administration. I was working intelligence while you were still soiling your britches, boy!

  211. soldieroftruth
    September 8, 2007 at 3:51 pm #

    By the way, Danny boy, no one has refuted my points. What were all the pesticides, lab equipment, chlorine, uranium, and “high-speed rail” gun development for?

  212. Carissa
    September 8, 2007 at 6:48 pm #

    Gordon B. Hinckley is the living prophet entrusted with this generation and these times. We already know what he said concerning this conflict. Or do you think his words carry less wait because he is still alive?

    Of course not. But here’s the hang up for me. In his conference talk “War and Peace” back in 2003, he said this:

    “In the course of history tyrants have arisen from time to time who have oppressed their own people and threatened the world. Such is adjudged to be the case presently, and consequently great and terrifying forces with sophisticated and fearsome armaments have been engaged in battle.”

    He doesn’t say “such is the case presently” but “such is adjudged to be the case presently”. There is a huge difference. He is relying on our leaders to give us the facts and make the call because:

    “…as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally.”

    He is putting the responsibility on the shoulders of those who made the decision and reminding us that we are all subject to our respective governments.

    Fast forward 4 years…many things have come to light for the American people since 2003.

    Were our leaders completely honest with us? Did they have other motives? Are their actions purely “defensive”? Plenty of other questions could be asked here that could change everything. Nobody is trying to claim that Saddam was not a tyrant, but we do wonder if the threat was overstated and twisted to serve other motives. I don’t think most people realized back then, what this “defensive” war would entail.

    You freely admit you’re not willing to exercise the patience we are told to in D&C before going to war. Wow. How do you expect God to help us fight our battles? I guess you don’t think we need his help but I certainly do and I want to play by His rules, even if you think I’m naive for doing so or that I just “don’t get it”.

    I am not comfortable with the 14 enduring bases we are building in Iraq. Are they really necessary to “defend” our country? How can we justify this? I am not comfortable that we have been so involved in setting up a new government there. Doesn’t it bother you just a little bit that these things were specifically warned against by David O. McKay as reasons not to go to war? I do not believe his words are “for another time” (the Book of Mormon and the D&C both confirm them) and I do not believe President Hinckley would think so either. What is President Hinckley’s opinion about the war now that we have more hindsight? I don’t know, but unlike you, I’m not assuming his personal feelings are unchanged and that he “backs” the war. He has been pretty silent on the subject since.

    One thing I know for sure, his War and Peace talk had a strong underlying theme about members of the church being at peace with one another regardless of their political differences or opinions. I hope to follow that advice while also being able to add my thoughts and have a logical discussion on the subject. It is obviously something we are all very concerned with and passionate about.

  213. soldieroftruth
    September 8, 2007 at 7:20 pm #

    Carissa, we have a completely different interpretation of the facts. I believe Gordon B. Hinckley gets more inspiration than just from President Bush. I believe the Lord speaks to him. We may as well agree to disagree on this topic. It is clear President Hincly was speaking of the present conflict , furthermore we are admonished to treat the words of the prophets, especially as delivered from the pulpit of General Conference (happy Dan) as scripture.

    I believe there was indeed just cause for this war. I don’t believe our leaders decieved us. The only motive I believe that was involved was in the protection of our country from the whims of a madman who had already conspired to kill one of our presidents. I believe our actions are purely defensive.

    I freely admit that we had been more than patient with Saddam and warned him time after time and don’t think I need to be speaking Arabic and worshipping in a Mosque at the threat of being beheaded before taking action to safeguard my freedom of religion. Quit being so darn naive and study history, especially as it relates to the desire of a global califate among these radicals. God helps those that help themselves. Case in point: Just because we have the Priesthood and it’s blessings doesn’t mean we aren’t suppose to go to doctors.

    Carissa, these are your opinions, my opinions are totally different and they are not out of harmony with the gospel. I can argue this point with you all day long.

    I appreciate your thoughts and I too pray for peace. Despite what you may think I do not like war. I just happen to believe this one is justified and I we are in a literal fight for our freedoms.

  214. Carissa
    September 8, 2007 at 8:38 pm #

    Soldier– it is fine that we disagree. But if you want to come across as sincere when you say things like you “appreciate my thoughts” please do not make comments such as “Quit being so darn naive and study history” when you have no idea who I am or what I have studied. It’s really not polite at all.

  215. soldieroftruth
    September 8, 2007 at 9:06 pm #

    Carissa, I ask the same respect. I haven’t been shown the least bit of respect from the very beginning on this blog. It is clear that you guys don’t like dissent or opposing views. I have a tendency (I’m not perfect) to get a little testy when people make snide and belligerent remarks to me, also. This cuts both ways.

    It appears that many here can dish it out but they can’t take it!

  216. Curtis
    September 9, 2007 at 1:07 am #

    One element that is missing in this discussion of Saddam and his WMD’s (which one of us here seems to think we were in imminent danger of being attacked by, while others of us probably think Saddam was pretty weak since even Kuwait wasn’t afraid of him by 2003) is the bigger picture.

    We essentially created Saddam. See this UPI story of 2003 to see a glimpse of how close Saddam worked with the CIA to keep things under control in Iraq and to keep the region tied up during the Iran-Iraq war. Also read about how the CIA provided Saddam and the Baathists with names of suspected communists, which the Baathists used to execute about 5000 people and imprison and torture 10,000 more, as Saddam took over the intelligence agency in Iraq:

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/205859.shtml

    You can read at the National Security Archives the chilling account of how the US winked at Iraq’s Chemical Weapons use against the Iranians from documents released under the Freedom of Information act (it was all about the oil back then too)… or how Reagan downplayed Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program because the Pakistanis were so essential in supporting the Mujahideen (Osama) against the Russians in Afghanistan.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

    You can hear an interview by the Journalist who broke, “Iraq-gate”, the US plot to provide Saddam weapons and training during the 80′s on this Democracy Now piece:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1412.htm

    This, of course, is not an isolated type of thing here. The US has been involved in numerous coups during the years, often against democratically elected leaders, in support of terrible dictators as a replacement. We have a long history of deterring democracy and freedom, in favor of power, strength and massive profits for our huge corporations.

    There are indeed WMD’s in Iraq right now. There is the White Phosphorous, the new generation of Napalm weapons, the internationally decried cluster bombs, and the huge weapons of the conventional type that have killed so many in Iraq… (upwards of 200,000 according to the Johns Hopkins study) all brought there by the US military since 2003.

    The big picture here is that we are chiefly overrun by secret combinations who manufacture our consent to support their murders so that they can continue to gain the glory of the world… to control the oil resources in the middle-east, to continue to forge the dreams of the authors of the Project for a New American Century and to establish more fully our 5-dimensional full spectrum military dominance, ensuring our hegemony for years to come.

    The little picture is the question of whether or not Iraq still had a few measly WMDs left… swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat.

  217. Dan
    September 9, 2007 at 3:49 am #

    soldier,

    It isn’t a matter of opposing views. You’re employing tactics that I’ve abhorred from Connor and the rest of his readers here, which is to tie their political beliefs to the words of the prophets. They do it with dead prophets. You do it with President Hinckley, as if his (and their) words are the ultimate arbiter about what we should believe politically. You’re trying to come accross, by quoting prophets, as the ONLY position justifiable, that we should all follow.

    Well, we don’t all follow your point of view. But because you use the words of the prophet to base your political belief, you make the rest of us defensive and wanting to attack you.

    It would do you, and everybody else here, well to base your political beliefs on a number of sources, prophets included, but to not try to corner others who don’t agree with you by trumping the prophet card.

  218. soldieroftruth
    September 9, 2007 at 10:53 am #

    Curtis,

    No one is denying that the U.S. helped create Saddam in the early years – this had nothing to do with the present administration however. Past administrations also helped the like of Osama Bin Laden to whom we supplied weapons in the Soviet/Afghan war. I never said the U.S. was perfect. It has made mistakes in the past and I am sure we make them in the present. I just don’t see the present conflict as a mistake.

  219. soldieroftruth
    September 9, 2007 at 11:00 am #

    Dan,

    For me it is difficult not to bring in the words of a living prophet when speaking to an LDS audience. I am first and foremost LDS – I live and breath the Church. It is a major part of my identity and has been for as long as I can remember.

    Well, we don’t all follow your point of view. But because you use the words of the prophet to base your political belief, you make the rest of us defensive and wanting to attack you.

    I don’t see why the words of a living prophet should stir any Latter-day Saint to anger. That is beyond me!

  220. tiredofthisdiscussion
    September 9, 2007 at 11:48 am #

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

    Please don’t feed this discussion any longer.

  221. Curtis
    September 9, 2007 at 12:02 pm #

    Soldier,
    These aren’t mistakes. This is the systematic approach we take to dealing with the world, for the last many decades and the same way we do it now. WE are the problem here. Not the little dictators of the world.

  222. soldieroftruth
    September 9, 2007 at 4:46 pm #

    Curtis,

    Of course, I disagree :)

  223. Curtis
    September 9, 2007 at 11:23 pm #

    That’s fine. Say hi to your opthalmologist for me.

  224. soldieroftruth
    September 9, 2007 at 11:31 pm #

    Another snide remark? There is no playing nice with you people is there?

  225. Jay
    September 10, 2007 at 1:35 pm #

    I have only lurked here a few times and just have one question for those who believe it was right for us to invade Iraq in order to supress/get rid of a tyrant (Saddam Hussein). If it was okay for us to go there and overthrow their government, destroy their infrastructure, kill hundreds of thousands of their people, in the name of defense of their defenseless, then consider this. In America, we kill hundreds of thousands of babies a year in the name of abortion. Suppose that another nation wanted to come here, bomb us, overthrow our government, destroy our infrastructure, kill hundreds of thousands of our people and do it because they want to protect our unborn. Wouldn’t they be just as morally justified in doing that as we are in doing what we are doing over there? Would you be okay with it?

    Jay

  226. Curtis
    September 10, 2007 at 3:08 pm #

    Good point Jay. Also, you could ask: If Iraq was ok to bomb because they supposedly had WMDs and broke UN Resolutions, wouldn’t it be ok to attack Israel which has broken many more UN resolutions than Iraq, and has an undeclared nuclear arsenal?

  227. Doug Bayless
    September 10, 2007 at 3:15 pm #

    Jay,

    Well put. That is an excellent question. I’m interested in Dennis’s (SoldierofTruth) viewpoint particularly.

    But, sometimes I run into the “all is well in Zion and *only* Zion” types who can’t even get their head around any action being “justified” by *any* country that isn’t actually the USA so here’s another tack:

    Pakistan is a Muslim (Islamic Republic) nation headed by an oppressive fanatical tyrant. In the three or four years just before 9/11, Pakistan both *successfully* developed and tested nuclear weapons *and* deposed its democratically elected government with a military coup. Osama bin Laden claims personal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on our soil. Osama bin Laden is said to be in Pakistan. Pakistan refuses to let our military conduct searches in their country and the entire region where bin Laden is supposed to be is a hotbed of anti-Americanism where any requests for aid in finding bin Laden are turned away by ‘deaf ears’. And yet, somehow, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and many other places are on the list for the Bush regime to focus military action because inexplicably Pakistan has been dubbed an “ally”.

    Don’t get me wrong. I think it would be as horrific to force regime change and genocidal occupation of Pakistan as I think it has been in Iraq and would be in Iran. And yet, I think it highlights the many lies that this administration tells when you see our strange relationship with Pakistan and the search for bin Laden.

    We are *not* at war in Iraq in response to the events of 9/11. Whatever happened on 9/11 was simply co-opted as a universal excuse for everything the Project for a New American Century elite had been pushing. This is crystal clear when you see how quickly Osama was replaced by Saddam as “enemy #1″ and how the targets keep moving.

    Even the ignorant, racist, hate-tirades against the “fanatical homicidal Muslim menace” [so popular on conservative hate radio these days] are obviously just another useful charade since the neo-cons have disingenuously bestowed ally status on probably the worst offender of “democracy” and “nuclear stability” in the entire Muslim world.

  228. soldieroftruth
    September 10, 2007 at 4:57 pm #

    In America, we kill hundreds of thousands of babies a year in the name of abortion. Suppose that another nation wanted to come here, bomb us, overthrow our government, destroy our infrastructure, kill hundreds of thousands of our people and do it because they want to protect our unborn.

    Let’s compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I believe abortion is a great evil and it is a problem that many are working on eliminating in this country. But, in so doing are we openly threatening the peace and prosperity of another nation as Saddam so often did in rhetoric and clandestine weapons programs? (By the way no one has answered yet my question of what do you think all of the pesticides, chlorine, lab equipment to convert these items to chemical items, the stockpile of uranium and the “high-speed rail gun” were to be used for?) Your comparison here is not a valid comparison in that we are not threatening other nations by continuing the abominable practice of abortion.

    Again Curtis, who is Israel threatening with their weapons? They seem to just want to live on the land of their birthright in Peace. They attack only those that try to thwart that ideal and after they are attacked.

  229. Doug Bayless
    September 10, 2007 at 5:24 pm #

    Dennis (SoldierofTruth),

    You didn’t mention the nuclear armed, saber-rattling, Osama-shielding Pakistanis when you replied to Jay and Curtis.

    I think the basic point is that Iraq *had not attacked the USA* and indeed had not attacked anybody for more than a decade . . . most countries are guilty of “openly threatening the peace and prosperity of another nation” and yet talk is cheap for all but those the USA decides to attack and occupy.

    The USA has officially openly threatened the peace and prosperity of dozens of nations during the Bush administration alone. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, just to name a few. We are armed to the teeth with WMD and have shown a reckless and dangerous propensity to invade and occupy without having been attacked.

    I love the USA. I still believe we are the best nation on earth for reasons too innumerable to list here. Living and traveling abroad as well as extensive reading and visiting with people have helped shape this belief. And yet, I do not plan to sit idly by and watch good, capable people get caught up in defending any corrupt or inept leaders we might elect.

    President Hinckley explicitly validated my right and duty to do this in the talks you sometimes reference. He went out of his way to advocate caution on *both* sides of what he declared to be a still developing debate. He claimed no revelation on the issue. He carefully labeled his ‘opinion’ as such and even went out of his way to explain its development. I personally believe part of his “personal” feeling may have been influenced by watching the anti-war crowd stall US involvement in stopping Hitler and then witnessing the aftermatch of what hidden atrocities had been occuring year by year while we did nothing – but that is clearly *my* personal speculation based on his talks and biography and whatnot.

    At any rate, I admire your dedication to what you currently believe to be an enlightened worldview as well as your scholarship on some of the substantive issues (WMD, constitutionality, etc.) but I personally believe that while those are interesting debating grounds you may discover that: not only is being against the Iraqi invasion and occupation not an un-enlightened point of view, that not only is being against it not incompatible with current prophetic counsel, but that furthermore being against our current foreign policy is an important mission to be involved with.

    For now I guess let’s agree to disagree; but please consider the arguments and reasonings made here. I know I’ve been putting yours to the tests of truth and reason and consideration (and quite frankly have been doing so with similar arguments for years).

  230. soldieroftruth
    September 10, 2007 at 8:15 pm #

    Doug,

    I too appreciate your opinion and considerate replies. We will have to agree to disagree and admit freely that my view may very well be clouded due to my dedicated service to the United States in the Armed Forces and afraid of watching history repeat itself in the aftermath of Vietnam, which I remember all too well. I feel my arguments to be extremely valid. But please do not put me into your Muslim hating camp. I do not hate Muslims, I do not hate anyone and I do pray for my enemies. Some of these same arguments have been made in every conflict and war that we have faced as a nation. There were those in the Union that constantly harped on Lincoln to end the war and let the South have their country. There were those who wanted to capitulate to Great Britain in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. There were those that wanted us to leave World War II, after all Hitler was not threatening us was the argument they made. So, this being said, I do not share your view on this conflict and pray it will end as well for the Iraqi’s in the long term as World War II ended up for the Japanese, despite the toll that was taken on that country in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    I too have traveled extensively throughout the world and speak several languages and look at things through a world view even though it may sharply disagree with your own.

  231. soldieroftruth
    September 10, 2007 at 8:23 pm #

    Doug,
    Just one more thing. The situation in Pakistan is a tight-rope walk due to their socio-political instability. Barack Obama suggested that he would attack them (however I think that was just political rhetoric). Each nation is different and there are many mitigating factors that have to be taken into advisement that the American populace as a whole know nothing about. A lot of things we must trust our leaders and our form of government on realizing that the large majority really do have the nations interest at heart even though they may see things in very different ways.

  232. Jay
    September 10, 2007 at 10:11 pm #

    “Let’s compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.”

    Well, that was basically a non-answer. I was comparing apples to apples. You took my comments off track by talking about the illusive WMD’s that nobody has ever found. I wasn’t talking about WMD’s. That subject has been debated ad naseum and I’m not the least bit interested in the WMD conspiracy theory of which you speak. A lot of people justify our illegal invasion of Iraq because we freed the people of Iraq of an evil dictator–thus the name of this war, “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” I was comparing our genocide of American unborn babies to Saddam Hussein’s genocide of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. How is that apples and oranges?

    I’m still not sure what anyone’s reasons are for us illegally invading Iraq, but one thing that I do know is that it isn’t about national defense and I certainly don’t feel any more safe now than I did before 9/11.

    You ask about the stockpiles of pesticides, chlorine and lab equipment, but that pales in comparison to our use of depleted uranium that has already taken the lives of over 80,000 Gulf War vetrans and who knows how many innocent civilians. We use our ignorant troops like pawns and inject them with all kinds of experimental drugs and now thousands of Iraq war vetrans are coming down with mysterious brain disorders and neurological diseases.

    There is nothing virtuous or worthy of King George’s illegal invasion.

    Jay

  233. soldieroftruth
    September 10, 2007 at 11:12 pm #

    You know Jay,
    You are one ignorant boy. Yes I’m full of all kinds of experimental drugs. Heck I can’t even function in the mornings until I get a good snort of Napalm. All of this from one who would spit on the soldiers. I can see you have a high intolerance for those that die to protect your freedoms.

    You, sir, disgust me. Furthermore, it is not a none answer. Your comments really don’t even justify a comparison.

  234. soldieroftruth
    September 10, 2007 at 11:15 pm #

    Again with the illegal? Congress approved it! Congress has not repealed it! It is legal, sorry to inform you of that.

  235. Curtis
    September 11, 2007 at 1:11 am #

    Soldier,
    Your views of Israel are a bit uninformed I see. I guess the comparison won’t work unless you know a little bit of the history of the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

  236. soldierisatroll
    September 11, 2007 at 1:21 am #

    soldier = troll
    when will this madness end?

  237. Dan
    September 11, 2007 at 7:27 am #

    I think this madness will only end when Connor gets back from his honeymoon and finally ends this unfortunate conversation.

  238. soldieroftruth
    September 11, 2007 at 8:13 am #

    Curtis,

    I have lived the majority of the conflict. Unlike you children!

  239. soldieroftruth
    September 11, 2007 at 8:17 am #

    May I remind you Curtis, that the land of Israel was given to the children of Israel by God. This land consisted of much more than they presently have. The gaza is justifiably theirs as was the West bank. All of this is fulfillment of prophecy. Read your Bible!

  240. Jay
    September 11, 2007 at 9:36 am #

    I tend to stay away from these kinds of discussions for the very reason that I’m going to drop out of this one. The truth affects different people in different ways. In brings out the good in some and the not so good in others. When a discussion dissolves into put downs (You are one ignorant boy) and (You, sir, disgust me.) and sarcasms (Yes I’m full of all kinds of experimental drugs. Heck I can’t even function in the mornings until I get a good snort of Napalm.), then it’s not longer a discussion—just an angry kid throwing sand. It’s also not becoming of Latter-day Saints.

    I have said nothing that wasn’t the truth. All it takes is a little research.

    The war is definitely illegal. Just because congress allowed it doesn’t mean anything. Congress does a lot of things that are illegal. That’s no more than the fulfillment of prophecy.

    The war in Iraq is not about freedom and it’s not about protecting me and my family. I don’t appreciate our troops for being there. Our troops are for the most part, innocent victims of a handful of power monger neocons. I don’t spit on them. Soldier has no clue how I feel about our troops. I love them and want them home where they belong. And when they engage in a war about defending our freedoms, I will kiss the ground they walk on. I stand 100% opposed to this illegal, immoral war. That said, I will dismiss myself from further debate.

    My best to you true LDS patriots who are active in defending our freedoms.

    Jay

  241. Curtis
    September 11, 2007 at 12:20 pm #

    Soldier,
    Jay is right. You are way out of line. Why do you call us children? How do you have any clue as to how old I am? I might be old enough to be your father for all you know.

    Part of what makes your arguements so distasteful is the way you flaunt your superior experience or moral superiority such as when you questioned my faithfulness earlier. Oh you lived the Israeli/Palestinian conflict did you? You don’t ask for what my experience is that causes me to bring up the case… you automatically trump my experience (which you are absolutely clueless as to how deep or shallow that experience is) with your life experience of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and dismiss any contribution I could make to the discussion with a wave of the hand and by calling me a child. Then… looking down your nose at me you tell me to read my Bible, as if you know how much time I spend reading the Bible and have unilaterally decided that it is entirely insufficient (by what criteria I am clueless I must admit).

    Did you know that I have read the Bible? Did you know that I am well aware that God gave the land to the Israelites? Is it ok, after leaving the land, for whatever reason, that they can now come back and kick out the inhabitants of the land who have lived there for centuries? I am asking you if it is ok, because you have obviously read the Bible much more than me, and you have obviously much higher morals than myself. Your faithfulness to the Restored Gospel is much more than I could ever hope to aspire to, and your life experience is much more than mine (excuse me while I pop my zits).

  242. soldieroftruth
    September 11, 2007 at 5:39 pm #

    Curtis,

    I judge your age by the words of Winston Churchill. “To be young and conservative is to have no heart. To be old and liberal is to have no brain.” Besides I know Doug is a student at BYU from his blog and I know Dan is fairly young by his picture on his blog. Your reasoning shows a total lack of maturity and understanding on a global basis.

    The right that the Jews have to come back and take that land is that it was an everlasting covenant with the children of Israel that they would possess that land. Prophecy foretold that they would lose it and then take it again – just like they had to kick the first inhabitants out with the approval and help of God.

    Jay, I am a faithful Latter-day Saint, even if maybe a little over zealous in my views. I feel sarcasm was waranted to your remarks as, I, having been in the military a long time, having family who were POW’s in Vietnam and a long tradition of service to our country in the armed forces, know of no one who was experimented on. I happen to love the military (they have been very good to me and my family), I love this country with all my heart and would defend it with my last breath. What has been your contribution to this country other than being an obstructionist in the march of freedom for the oppressed? Your post seemed to show a total disdain for our men and women who wear the uniform that represents liberty.

    We went to battle under the guidelines prescribed by the Costitution, therefore, it is not an illegal war. You can ask any Constitutional lawyer if you have ground to stand on with that argument. I’m sure they would tell you that you don’t have a case.

  243. Curtis
    September 11, 2007 at 8:03 pm #

    Soldier,
    Then by your criteria, I judge you to have a severe cognitive learning disability and had better get it fixed by the age of 3 or you may never be able to assimilate information.

    I guess by your reasoning then you are for kicking the gentiles out of the USA so Lehi’s descendants can reclaim what was given to them by God.

  244. soldieroftruth
    September 11, 2007 at 8:42 pm #

    Curtis,
    You are being ignorant on the scriptures. The Book of Mormon says the Lamanites would be blessed by the return of a remnant of the seed of Israel to this land and prophesied the coming of Columbus and the “gentiles” and that they would bless the Lamanites by restoring the gospel. Or did you miss that part?

    All in prophesy is and will be fulfilled, Curtis. Are you sure you are an Elder’s Quorum president? Oh yea, I forgot, you like taking quotes severely out of context.

  245. Bryan
    September 11, 2007 at 10:34 pm #

    hello lds followers. i myself am not a mormon, but some of the lines in the doctrine and covenants are inspiring and chilling. i must say it is impressive the joseph smith predicted the constitution’s collapse. anyways, i encourage all ron paul fans to join meetup.com. it is a site where us ron paul fans meet and decide what we can do to get him elected.

    again, that is meet up.com. just google ron paul and you should be able to find it. right now we have 43,000 + volunteers.

    thank you and god bless.

  246. Carissa
    September 12, 2007 at 8:58 am #

    Question: Has Ron Paul lost his mind? I didn’t know until the debate tonight that he was in favor of reducing government spending by shutting down and getting rid of the CIA, FBI, DEA and every other intelligence gathering force. Boy, talk abou naive! We have enemies out there that are chomping at the bit to destroy us – in this day and age we can not be isolationists. Your guy is scarry.

    You seem to value intelligence from the CIA. Why don’t you listen to Michael Scheuer?

  247. Carissa
    September 12, 2007 at 9:06 am #

    Or more specifically, I guess, why do you disagree with him?

  248. soldierisatroll
    September 12, 2007 at 9:17 am #

    soldier is CIA

  249. soldieroftruth
    September 12, 2007 at 10:12 am #

    Carissa,

    Why do I need to listen to a second hand account and op-ed of our middle eastern policy and intelligence services. Michael Schuere said nothing most of us don’t already know, except that in his opinion the terrorists wouldn’t follow us back here if we were to leave the region. That is his opinion and his opinion only. Many under him in the CIA have said vastly different things and he is in the minority view there. Besides this guy wants to sell books!

    Furthermore, if you haven’t guessed it by now I am very much a zionist and for supporting the Jews (our brethren in Israel). Are we or aren’t we our brother’s keeper? Letting them be slaughtered by a the spawn of a jealous half-brother would go against our duty. Isololationism is not the way to go in the gospel (as Brigham Young so aptly pointed out) nor in the government.

  250. Curtis
    September 12, 2007 at 12:02 pm #

    Iranians and arabs are just as much my brother as an Israeli is. Don’t forget, God has many children.

  251. Ty
    September 12, 2007 at 1:32 pm #

    Soldier,

    Your reasoning is incredibly spurious. I can’t believe that you would simply dismiss a professional who has spent his career serving in U.S. intelligence. You claim to have spent time in the military gathering intelligence, yet as soon as someone presents information that you don’t want to agree with you simply dismiss them as little or no worth. This is very telling of your character. People like you prove that partisan politics blind people from the real dangers out there. The fact is that Michael Scheuer is significantly more reliable and credible source of Al-Queda intelligence than you are. Fact: You have not studied Bin Laden nearly as much as he has. That is why people interview him. Nobody interviews you.

    Many under him in the CIA have said vastly different things and he is in the minority view there.

    Second, basing your opinion on what the majority believes to be correct is silly and ill-informed. Just because he may, as you ostensibly claim, have a minority view does not take away from the possibility that he is right. A person should use fact, reason and truth to decide whether something is correct; not popular opinion. Are we as Latter Day Saints wrong for believing in the church just because we are the minority? Of course not! I can accept an argument that is based on fact, but I refute your opinion based solely on what the majority thinks.

    1. If you believe he is wrong, then why is he wrong?
    2. Who, exactly are these ‘other CIA’ agents that disagree?
    3. What makes you think that he doesn’t know know anything more than the rest of us?
    4. Where is your proof that he just wants to sell books? Would you use the same argument for President Hinckley and his book “Standing for Something”?

    Since you claim to be the expert, you should have no problem answering these questions. If you can not answer these, or refuse to answer these questions I will understand because you I believe that you really don’t know what you are talking about. I prefer real, open and honest debate, not this silly nonsense you keep sending. Quid pro quo: If you can show some real intent, real thought, without your acknowledge “passionate attacks” then I most certainly will gain a much more favorable view of you. Please stop making stuff up. Let’s bring fact into the argument. Please.

    Finally, What does Israel have to do with the current discussion on Michael Schuere? If there is a connection, indicate it in some discernible manner. If you have trouble expressing your self I suggest English 1010. It is a great class about persuasive writing that teaches how to present understandable arguments. The theme of the class is first research the topic, then objectively consider both sides of the argument, then write the paper. In this manner truth can be found. They also teach how to use quotes and how to give due credit to the people you are quoting. I would be highly interested to see this alleged quote that “Brigham Young aptly pointed out” concerning isolationism.

  252. Doug Bayless
    September 12, 2007 at 2:52 pm #

    Dennis (Soldier),

    [If you read my blog where I say I'm at BYU you might notice that I'm not a student but rather that I work there. I can't claim to have the life experience you might as a grandfather but I do have four children of my own and a bit of life experience as well so please don't dismiss my comments as simple youthful exuberance.]

    Anyways, I’d like to know the basis on which you place zionist ideals above the welfare of your fellow American citizens (and I’m choosing my words carefully; I do *in fact* believe that ‘zionism’ is often incompatible with American national security — perhaps you have not yet been faced with any choices like that.)

    In declaring a zionist-first worldview, you have a great deal of company. It seems a majority of the Southern Evangelists share this rhetoric as well as a great many LDS. I used to believe that Christians and especially the LDS specifically had an important role to play in the ‘literal gathering of Israel’ *and* that somehow meant supporting the secular nation of Israel in whatever they might do. But upon studying the issue further I have become convinced that secular nation of Israel is like most other man-made governments – warts and all . . . and that participating in the ‘gathering of Israel’ does not entail de facto support of everything relating to the secular state of Israel.

    Finally, just because there are prophecies of great wars and genocides and calamities I see no injunctions yet that we must take an active part in causing such terrible events when they happen.

  253. soldieroftruth
    September 12, 2007 at 3:29 pm #

    Ty,
    I took English 1010 and 1020 from BYU (A’s in both) probably before you were born. Schuere said it is our presence in the middle east and our support of Israel that fuels the Islamic Jihadists. His “opinion” is that we would not be attacked if we were to change this policy. This is the only point on which I disagreed with him. His point is therefore invalid in the scheme of history and our dealings with Islamo-fascism that goes all the back to the birth of this nation.

    You people keep on insisting on answers from me, which I have given and yet my questions to all of you go ignored. This is so typical of left leaning rhetoric.

    Ty, do we send out missionaries to the world from this country, then we are not Isolationists. This quote was the quote that Curtis so aptly took out of context from the Journal of Discourse. Read the entire talk and it is abundantly clear what he meant when he said, “I am not a stereotypical Latter-day Saint” and then later in the paragraph said that he didn’t believe the doctrine. He speaks specifically of the saints getting out in the world. Read the whole discourse from Volume 8 (the quote is from pp.184-185).

    We have promised the Missionaries, if they will live according to the manifestations of the Spirit, and preach the Gospel by the power of God sent down from heaven, that they will feel more of the Spirit and power of their calling than they have ever felt before. Do you think that we are always going to remain the same size? I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint, and do not believe in the doctrine. Every year the Elders of Israel are improving and learning, and have more power, more influence with the Heavens, more power over the elements, and over diseases, and over the power of Satan, who has ruled this earth from the days of the fall until now. We have to gain power until we break the chain of the Enemy. Are we going to stand still? Away with stereotyped “Mormons.” I have more power than I had last year. I feel much stronger than ever before, and that too in the power of God; and I feel as though I could take the people and bring them into the presence of God, if they only hearken to counsel. Do you think that I am improving? “Yes.” Keep up, then; keep your places, and follow in the track.

    As for your comparison between the selling of books by Schuere and President Hinckley. President Hinckley is a prophet of God and I know what his motivations for writing and selling books are. I’m not so sure in this political climate that the same can be said of a defector from the oath of the CIA.

  254. dennis
    September 12, 2007 at 3:47 pm #

    I was evidently booted under soldier of truth from the blog. Just goes to show that you have no tolerance for dissent and are the closed-minded individuals that I had you pegged for. I disagree with your positions! You tolerate rude remarks only as directed toward me but get angry when I reciprocate. Go ahead and vote fo the court jester that you like so much. You will get what you deserve

    Ty,
    I took English 1010 and 1020 from BYU (A’s in both) probably before you were born. Schuere said it is our presence in the middle east and our support of Israel that fuels the Islamic Jihadists. His “opinion” is that we would not be attacked if we were to change this policy. This is the only point on which I disagreed with him. His point is therefore invalid in the scheme of history and our dealings with Islamo-fascism that goes all the back to the birth of this nation.

    You people keep on insisting on answers from me, which I have given and yet my questions to all of you go ignored. This is so typical of left leaning rhetoric.

    Ty, do we send out missionaries to the world from this country, then we are not Isolationists. This quote was the quote that Curtis so aptly took out of context from the Journal of Discourse. Read the entire talk and it is abundantly clear what he meant when he said, “I am not a stereotypical Latter-day Saint” and then later in the paragraph said that he didn’t believe the doctrine. He speaks specifically of the saints getting out in the world. Read the whole discourse from Volume 8 (the quote is from pp.184-185).

    We have promised the Missionaries, if they will live according to the manifestations of the Spirit, and preach the Gospel by the power of God sent down from heaven, that they will feel more of the Spirit and power of their calling than they have ever felt before. Do you think that we are always going to remain the same size? I am not a stereotyped Latter-day Saint, and do not believe in the doctrine. Every year the Elders of Israel are improving and learning, and have more power, more influence with the Heavens, more power over the elements, and over diseases, and over the power of Satan, who has ruled this earth from the days of the fall until now. We have to gain power until we break the chain of the Enemy. Are we going to stand still? Away with stereotyped “Mormons.” I have more power than I had last year. I feel much stronger than ever before, and that too in the power of God; and I feel as though I could take the people and bring them into the presence of God, if they only hearken to counsel. Do you think that I am improving? “Yes.” Keep up, then; keep your places, and follow in the track.

    As for your comparison between the selling of books by Schuere and President Hinckley. President Hinckley is a prophet of God and I know what his motivations for writing and selling books are. I’m not so sure in this political climate that the same can be said of a defector from the oath of the CIA.

  255. dennis
    September 12, 2007 at 3:50 pm #

    Very Constitutional of you! What hypocrites!

  256. Curtis
    September 12, 2007 at 4:12 pm #

    Doug,
    I agree with you on your views of the Zionist government support issue. It is clear to me that our lopsided support of Israel over Palestine has stirred up the emotions of the Arab people and brought popularity to extremists like Bin Laden. Look at what the battle between Israel and Lebanon did last summer for Nasrallah’s popularity. He became a hero overnight. Anyone who stands up against America too will now be a hero in the Arab world… largely because of our foreign policy in the middle east. And it’s not just Israel, but now Iraq too. Iraq has become a cause for many an arab as they hear of our military raping their women in Abu Graib or hear of the 655,000 dead in Iraq because of our invasion and occupation, or hear of the murders of Haditha etc.

    I agree that the prophecies don’t mean that a man of God can object to the actions of the state of Israel. I rather think that Isaiah’s characterization of Israel applies to today where he said in Isaiah 59:

    1 Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot chear:
    2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
    3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness.
    4 None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.
    5 They hatch cockatrice’ eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.
    6 Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands.
    7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.
    8 The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.

    P.S. I too have 4 kids, but that doesn’t stop some people from calling me a child. You must bow down when a soldier of truth speaks to you and forget all of your learning for it is foolishness compared to the shining brilliant experience obtained from living long enough to become a grandpa. Learn from him for he is all-knowing and does not speak anything that is untrue. In fact I hope he’s called to be the next apostle so that he can excommunicate all of the commenters of this blog.

  257. soldierisatroll
    September 12, 2007 at 4:17 pm #

    In fact I hope he’s called to be the next apostle so that he can excommunicate all of the commenters of this blog.

    HAHAHAHA!

  258. Carissa
    September 12, 2007 at 4:23 pm #

    do we send out missionaries to the world from this country, then we are not Isolationists
    He speaks specifically of the saints getting out in the world.

    Are you trying to equate voluntary association of citizens from different countries with government (forced) intervention into the political life of other countries? Quite a stretch there, no?

    Out of curiosity, what went through your head when Bin Laden said this a few days ago?

    “If you want to understand what’s going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer.”

  259. Jay
    September 12, 2007 at 4:48 pm #

    I don’t know if you were booted or not, but this is a personal blog. If you were booted, then perhaps you ought to have a little respect for the person whose blog it is. That’s sort of the way of saying, “You’re no longer welcome here.” That’s, of course, assuming that you were booted. I mean, the decent, mature and human thing to do would be to leave as asked. That’s what adults do. The rude and childish thing to do would be to come back under a different name after you’ve been booted in order to throw more sand. So if you enter someone’s house and they ask you to leave, do you also hang around and call them hypocrites and throw tantrums? Have some dignity, if nothing else. It would appear that nobody here can stomach your very odd and misguided interpretation of the Constitution.

    Jay

  260. dennis
    September 12, 2007 at 4:53 pm #

    That’s fine! I’m out of here! I’ll see you at the polls!

  261. Doug Bayless
    September 12, 2007 at 5:11 pm #

    Now hold on a second everybody.

    Dennis, I don’t know if you were booted either.

    But to everybody else, imho Soldier aka Dennis is perhaps exactly the kind of person we need to be able to reason with. I didn’t like being simply dismissed as young and naieve for instance, but I’m not sure he’s the only one who’s been kicking some sand . . .

    It seems to me that he’s representative of a large group of people who are just *convinced* very sincerely that (a) there is a huge, wide-spread, rabid, and dangerous Islamo-Fascist uprising threatening our very nation, (b) the political and military leaders of our nation can and *should* be trusted to tell us only what they believe we need to know, and perhaps even that (c) in questions of secular zionist warfare God has already assigned us a side (Israel’s). I liked that he was willing to come in here and try and discuss things even though many of us (myself included) disagree on all three of those points at least.

    I’m not convinced the conversation went as well as it could have lol. But I have a great number of friends and family that share his beliefs . . . in religious missionary work steadfast Christian kindness and building on common beliefs tends to go a long way . . . maybe we could’ve tried harder. :]

    If my neighborhood and/or FOX news are any indication, people that *don’t* agree with Dennis’ expressed views might need to start thinking on the most effective ways to share their views (because a lot of people haven’t heard these alternate views or aren’t even open to them yet). I know I’m still trying to figure it out, because the hostility here seemed pretty tame compared to what I’ve seen elsewhere.

    Just my 2 cents. :]

  262. Carissa
    September 12, 2007 at 5:21 pm #

    Yes, I’m actually very curious to hear a different perspective on the war and foreign policy in general. I admire Soldier for sticking around so long, being the minority viewpoint here and all. There really is value in sincerely trying to understand each other if we could stick to that.

  263. Carissa
    September 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm #

    And FWIW, I doubt you were booted — Connor is out of town. I occasionally have trouble posting too for some reason.

  264. Jay
    September 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm #

    My point was that if this is Connor’s blog and IF he or someone he authorized has booted him, then it’s his right to do so and we ought to respect it. It’s a shame that another adult would need to explain that to Dennis.

    I agree that the exchanges here are tame compared to other sites, but for a group of LDS people, we ought to rise above the mud slinging and name calling and talk like the brothers and sisters that we profess to be. Don’t you think? Otherwise, we’re no better than the rest of them.

    Jay

  265. Jay
    September 12, 2007 at 5:30 pm #

    “And FWIW, I doubt you were booted — Connor is out of town. I occasionally have trouble posting too for some reason.”

    Yup, that’s why I said “IF”.

    I would continue this discussion if there was an attempt by Dennis to act mature and respectful. There are all kinds of boards and forums where the gloves come off. I’ve done my share of fighting and I’m a little weary of it. It’s just not my personal choice of forums. Especially where we are LDS people who are supposed to exercise kindness, gentleness and longsuffering.

    Jay

  266. Carissa
    September 12, 2007 at 5:55 pm #

    participating in the ‘gathering of Israel’ does not entail de facto support of everything relating to the secular state of Israel

    Yes, it has more to do with missionary work, right?

    Schuere said it is our presence in the middle east and our support of Israel that fuels the Islamic Jihadists. His “opinion” is that we would not be attacked if we were to change this policy. This is the only point on which I disagreed with him.

    In Imperial Hubris, these are the grievances listed:
    1. U.S. support of Israel and its indifference to the Palestinians
    2. presence of U.S. and western troops on the Arabian Peninsula
    3. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by the U.S. and its allies
    4. the U.S. support of countries that oppress Muslims (such as Russia, India and China)
    5. U. S. political pressure on Arab states to keep oil prices low
    6. U.S. support for tyrannical governments

    If you try to look at it from their point of view, it’s understandable why they are upset. Could you clarify what you meant when you said:

    His point is therefore invalid in the scheme of history and our dealings with Islamo-fascism that goes all the back to the birth of this nation.

  267. Jay
    September 12, 2007 at 6:05 pm #

    And wouldn’t most of all of these problems go away if we embraced Jefferson’s philosophy of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”? Isn’t that the drum that Ron Paul beats?

    Jay

  268. Carissa
    September 12, 2007 at 6:33 pm #

    Yup. That’s why I don’t understand the thinking of those who oppose Ron Paul’s ideas. He just makes too much sense to me.

  269. Ty
    September 12, 2007 at 11:56 pm #

    Soldier,

    His “opinion” is that we would not be attacked if we were to change this policy. This is the only point on which I disagreed with him.

    I can respect your opinion. I do, however, see much more merit in what Scheuer is saying. If my homeland had been invaded I would fight to preserve my rights of government. Yes the terrorist are wrong in many of there methods. I admit the governments in the Middle East are corrupt and cruel, but freedom is something a nation earns for itself. We can not do for others what they are not willing to do for themselves.

    Have you considered that these “Islamo-Fascists” are very similar to the Lamanites in that their hatred of us was taught to them by the incorrect traditions of their fathers? It doesn’t mean that they are justified in their attacks anymore than the Lamanites were but they have not had the opportunities that we have been blessed with.

    1. If we continue preemptive attacks on other nations, how easy will it be for fathers to teach the children to hate?

    Even if we claim to be helping the common person, if the peoples perceptions are negative towards our preemptive attacks then in effect are we not adding fuel to the fire? I am reminded of Alma the younger. He was the Chief Judge and the high priest for the Nephite nation. Consider Alma 4:20

    “And thus in the commencement of the ninth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, Alma delivered up the judgment-seat to Nephihah, and confined himself wholly to the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to the testimony of the word, according to the spirit of revelation and prophecy.”

    And why did he choose to advocate his governmental position? Consider Alma 31:5

    “And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God.”

    I do not believe for one minute that the Government is the answer to all of our problems. The U.S. government is here to protect our Life, Liberties and our pursuits for happiness for Americans only. That is all! By invading other countries, no matter how we try and justify it, we will only produce turmoil and hate. We don’t need anyone to hate us more than they already do and I fear the damage that is happening as a result of rash preemptive attacks will take many, many years to reconcile.

    His point is therefore invalid in the scheme of history and our dealings with Islamo-fascism that goes all the back to the birth of this nation.

    Interesting. What exactly do you mean? What would a valid point be in the “scheme” of history?

    As for history, if you are referring to the Barbary wars then have you considered that neither Jefferson nor the congress declared war on the Ottoman Empire? The Navy was used to attack the Barbary pirates and defend U.S. shipping. There was not a preemptive strike on the Ottoman Empires government. No land, money, booty or oil or any thing was taken for or in the name of America. The attack was directed at anarchical pirates who had taken the area over and was involved in the extortion of the United States of America. Not only that, but the attack was performed with a majority of the combatants being mercenaries who had made specific agreements with the U.S.. After the Battle of Derne, Prince Hamet thanked 1st Lt. O’Bannon, who was in charge of the action at Derne, gave him the mameluke sword (which is now a US Marine Icon) and thanked them for their efforts which helped restore him to his office. The reason I bring this up is that Ron Paul suggested a similar strategy to dealing with these “Islamo-fascist”. He suggested using the Constitutional right of congress to issue a letter of Marque and Reprisal. The act was called Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, which would have granted the president the authority to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. History tells us it worked then. So why couldn’t it work now?

    Ty, do we send out missionaries to the world from this country, then we are not Isolationists.

    I don’t believe you understand the term Isolationist. The Oxford English dictionary defines the term Isolationist as: • noun a policy of remaining apart from the political affairs of other countries.
    This definition does not mean we as a nation close ourselves from the world. It doesn’t mean we don’t trade or have relations with other nations. It means we don’t involve ourselves with other nation’s politics (ie nation building etc.). We are not citizens of other nations. We are citizens of this nation and therefore can only use political influence here in this nation. I suggest researching your claims before you speak so you can make reasonable and understandable claims because although the quote from Brigham Young you sent was good (I enjoyed reading it, thank you), it had nothing to do with these ideas of isolationism or non-interventionism.

    President Hinckley is a prophet of God and I know what his motivations for writing and selling books are. I’m not so sure in this political climate that the same can be said of a defector from the oath of the CIA.

    You are correct. President Hinckley is a prophet of God and I too believe his motives are divinely inspired. I do, however, think you are being unfair to Michael Scheuer who in my estimation wants to help his country just as much as you or I want to help our country. It is very shallow to dismiss his credibility because you don’t agree with him. If you question his “political climate” that is fine I suppose if you have reasonable objections. So far, from what you have written, your opinion is the only evidence for your discrimination. If truth be told I am cautious also, but I refuse to simply dismiss anyone, including you, without first studying the ideas and elements of the argument. I then ponder and evaluate what has been said followed by prayer to know if I am understanding things correctly. I have found that a sincere search for truth coupled with prayerful supplications for knowledge has helped me immensely. I suggest a similar pattern for you. I think there are many valid points on both sides of the political spectrum. It seems to me, however, that the farther left or right on the political spectrum you go the more ideas become tainted and convoluted therefore caution is paramount.

  270. Ty
    September 13, 2007 at 12:05 am #

    Soldier,

    You know Jay,
    You are one ignorant boy. Yes I’m full of all kinds of experimental drugs. Heck I can’t even function in the mornings until I get a good snort of Napalm. All of this from one who would spit on the soldiers. I can see you have a high intolerance for those that die to protect your freedoms.

    I don’t know who Jay is but I feel you own Jay an apology. I serve in the U.S. Army and have served for 14 years. I have come up the ranks starting out enlisted, then working towards my current position of 1LT in the U.S. Army branch of Aviation. Of the many things our government has pumped into me, thankfully Anthrax is not one of them.

    The main reason they haven’t is because of a friend of mine in my unit, who has earned a doctorate degree from Utah State University in toxicology, warned me about the side effects of the that particular vaccine. He told us about many of the shots the government have been giving to people over the years and explained how harmful some of the things were. So I refused the shot. At the time many people were being threatened that if they did not take the shot then they would suffer UCMJ action. In the end though, those substances had never met the Food and Drug administrations standards for being safe and were never even proven to protect the soldier from harm if they were to be exposed to Anthrax.

    You, sir, disgust me. Furthermore, it is not a none answer. Your comments really don’t even justify a comparison.

    Your sarcasm towards Jay is saddening to me and shows the extend of your poor understanding. If you are a man of real LDS conviction, if you really honor men like me, who serve our great nation, then you will apologize to him promptly and without excuse. I serve my country because I care about our people here in America. Jay was only thinking of me and my brothers in arms and for our health and safety. Please don’t criticize him this way.

  271. Jay
    September 13, 2007 at 11:03 am #

    Thanks, but an apology isn’t necessary. I’m not one to stew over those kinds of things. I forgive him. Honestly, I went through a phase where I was at least that bad, if not worse, when discussing politics. But I finally realized that without exception, it NEVER made me feel better to put people down for their beliefs, but on the contrary, it always seemed to drive away the spirit. I can scrap with anyone, but I just choose not to, anymore. There are a lot of things that are important to me, but none more important than trying to keep my life in tune with the two great commandments. I don’t always do well there, but I try, and I’m going to keep trying.

    As for the military, Dennis misunderstands my feelings towards the military. I have no ill will towards them. It’s not them that I have a problem with as much as it is their leaders. It is a choice they made to join the military, just as mine is a choice to do what I do for a living. Hopefully, we’re all doing our best to make the world a better place to live and they are no more or no less heroes to me than my neighbor whose choice is is to build houses for a living. I respect them just as I try to respect everyone, as, contrary to popular opinion, respect isn’t to be earned, it is to be freely given as the Savior taught. I don’t put the military on a pedestal just because they wear “the uniform”, but neither to I disparage them for it. I don’t agree with what the leaders are doing with our military, their deployment in Iraq and the other hundreds of installations around the world, and in their use of experimental drugs. I also abhor the use by our military of DU which is proven to have long lasting affects upon the health of the servicemen, the innocent civilians and even more sadly, the offspring of those exposed to DU.

    I firmly disagree with our involvement in Iraq and have been from the beginning. I’m still undecided about Afghanistan and am anything but convinced that 9/11 was not an inside job.

    I often reflect upon David O. McKay’s talk about war and murder. I don’t remember his exact words, but he said, paraphrasing, if (1) you are in battle because it is your duty as a citizen of your country, and (2) you are forced to kill someone in defense of your own life, and (3) before you kill that person, you can regard them as a brother (or sister) and love them as a son (or daughter) of God, then, and only then, is it not murder.

    Perhaps I should have just stayed out of this and stuck with reading the board. I think that Dennis has left, anyway. Best wishes to him, as much as I strongly disagree with some of the things he stands for.

    Jay

  272. J K
    September 13, 2007 at 5:09 pm #

    Folks, you can be against the war and still support our troops.

    I know this because I am an OIF veteran. My brother is a Marine who’s poised to go there. My father is a Vietnam Vet. We all think the war is wrong.

  273. J K
    September 13, 2007 at 5:13 pm #

    Every combat veteran I know, to a man, thinks that this war in Iraq is not worth an ounce of American blood.

  274. J K
    September 13, 2007 at 5:28 pm #

    Soldieroftruth, Dennis, whoever you are, you clearly demonstrate your ignorance with all of your words on this blog. I am a Marine. I have a great amount of respect for the late Vice Admiral James Stockdale, former POW and receipient of the Medal of Honor for his gallant resistance against his Vietnamese captors. You clearly do not respect the military, in spite of your supposed service as in “intelligence” officer in the Navy.

  275. J K
    September 13, 2007 at 5:33 pm #

    I know that the owner of this blog is LDS and all but if you notice Dennis/Soldieroftruth’s comments on this blog he has nothing to back up his claims except for the scriptures. This man is intellectually bankrupt.

  276. Connor
    September 14, 2007 at 1:34 pm #

    Comments on this post have been closed until further notice.

  277. Connor
    September 21, 2007 at 9:31 am #

    Phew… that was quite the threadjack, people! :)

    Comments are now back open. Please comment only if it is relevant to the original post.

  278. Mark
    September 26, 2007 at 3:58 pm #

    I am LDS and I can tell you I support Ron Paul. I even built a website to link to the official website. I helped a friend that is LDS discover Ron Paul and he has created RonPaulDVD.com. Unfortunately many LDS are just not politically aware as they should be. I for one am trying to change that. Mitt Romney may be a member of my Church but he votes exactly opposite to my beliefs. The Constitution was inspired by God and therefore every American that believes in God should defend it. Ron Paul consistently supports and defends the Constitution. Others swear to do to support the Constitution but instead break their oaths.

    There was a debate recently run by several Christian groups. Quite honestly the debate looked designed to make Ron Paul look bad. They claimed Huckabee won the debate. It was sad to see the group that could have shown the most support for Ron Paul instead attacked him the most.

    Now for a little positive note. Despite the analysts saying that Huckabee won the result of the polls showed that Ron Paul once again won by about a 50% margin over the next leading candidate Mike Huckabee.

    Support the document that started our Nation. The Constitution was inspired by God. Elect and support those that will defend it… RonPaul2008.com

  279. Bernie Continelli
    October 1, 2007 at 7:03 pm #

    I just discovered this site today, and my response to “Dan on February 28, 2007″ is: “POT-HIBITION” leads to harder drugs because it exposes both the pot curious and dedicated alike to general traffickers they otherwise would have probably avoided – DUH! The same could be said for stereotyped demeanors society often blames on marijuana usage – this too is from ASSOCIATION. Sociologically, legal cannabis would NOT intrinsically lead users to evolve into either gansta-rappers nor vegan mega-pacifists, although I DO think regular cannabis users are more likely to be among the “Question Authority” crowd than non-users.
    Hmmm … maybe “we” should declare ‘pothibition’ to be UN-AMERICAN!

  280. Lowell
    October 27, 2007 at 10:51 am #

    My take on Ron Paul has nothing to do with whether I’m LDS or not, but whether he’s Republican or not. Most of the things I hear from Ron Paul’s lips convince me he’s only a Republican by convenience, and that his real sympathies lie with the Libertarian cause. That’s OK, just not my thing, and I think Mr. Paul recognizes it’s not a party affiliation from which one can launch a successful campaign. I understand his strategy–just ain’t gonna work: he’s still a Libertarian!

  281. Connor
    October 27, 2007 at 11:08 am #

    Most of the things I hear from Ron Paul’s lips convince me he’s only a Republican by convenience, and that his real sympathies lie with the Libertarian cause.

    This depends on what type of Republican you’re talking about. If you define Republicanism as the current ideology being successfully promoted and implemented by neoconservatives, then you’re right, Ron Paul is not one.

    If you define Republicanism as doing that which protects and promotes the Republic, according to the traditional Republican platform (to which Bush adhered only 7 years ago when he was campaigning…), then Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that is truly a Republican.

    I understand his strategy–just ain’t gonna work: he’s still a Libertarian!

    When your strategy is to secure liberty, you bet you’re a libertarian! All true constitutionalists are libertarians! (Mind your capital Ls, by the way.)

  282. John
    October 27, 2007 at 11:27 am #

    Partisan politics are bad for this country – vote for him, or don’t vote for him because of the ISSUES, not some fake partisan label you want to place on him. So he’s a republican, or a libertarian. Who cares.

    I don’t care if he runs on his own party he made up in his backyard last night. The issues he’s running on make a lot of sense to me.

    This same tactic is always used by the fox news lackeys – usually right after Paul has royally owned their own polls for a REPUBLICAN debate.

  283. LDS Anarchist
    October 29, 2007 at 12:39 am #

    Why do LDS ignore Ron Paul? I don’t know the answer to that question. Politics is a very personal issue. There are many different LDS political views. We differ sometimes even on theological views. I don’t think you can lump all LDS as naturally supporting one particular candidate. Scripturally, there is only one system completely in harmony, and that’s anarchy, but you won’t find too many LDS anarchists in the church. So, since most LDS don’t take the scriptural view, their views on politics will vary. They will pick the king to rule over them that they think will rule best, according to their own valuation system. (Instead of rejecting all human kings altogether, in favor of Jesus, the real King.) Such is our present Mormon culture and tradition.

  284. shadeclan
    October 29, 2007 at 12:47 pm #

    I have looked over some of the responses and I am amazed at how many Mormons want to impose our interpretation of right and wrong on others! What, suddenly we’re on the side of the mob that killed Joseph Smith? Even my sister told me that we were in Iraq so that the Iraqis could find out about the Church – a crusade? A Mormon crusade?!? Preposterous!

    Hey, everybody! Don’t you read your scriptures?!? Didn’t you memorize the 13 Articles of Faith in Primary?!? Don’t you remember what the 11th article of faith says?!? If not, let me remind you:

    We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

    You’re going to use government to impose your morality on others? That is NEVER right! The only time that force may be morally employed is in cases where property rights are being violated!

    Or, if the 11th Article of Faith isn’t good enough for you, how about the 121st section of the Doctrine and Covenants:

    No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile — Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

    If the authority of God cannot be used to maintain power, how much less an earthly government? You cannot say that it doesn’t apply – it does apply, and doubly so to ANY earthly power, because unrighteousness will cause the power of God to be removed, but the same cannot be said for earthly power!

    There are only 3 reason why a Mormon would vote for ANYONE but Ron Paul: prejudice, ignorance and / or laziness. I defy ANYONE to contradict that statement and still have the support of the scriptures or of the Spirit!

  285. Dan
    October 29, 2007 at 2:19 pm #

    shadeclan,

    You’re going to use government to impose your morality on others? That is NEVER right!

    So I guess the church should stop trying to encourage members of the church from using the government to impose our morality on gays then, right?

    There are only 3 reason why a Mormon would vote for ANYONE but Ron Paul: prejudice, ignorance and / or laziness. I defy ANYONE to contradict that statement and still have the support of the scriptures or of the Spirit!

    Shadeclan, seeing that you are bringing in contention with the tone and manner of your comment, it is very easy to defy your comments and still have the support of the scriptures or the Spirit. There are a whole slew of other reasons why a Mormon would vote for anyone but Ron Paul, and prejudice, ignorance, and/or laziness are not even close to them.

  286. Bill
    November 30, 2007 at 12:14 am #

    I am a Mormon for Ron Paul. I support him because he his all about the Constitution. I will vote for him if he shows a strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire. Otherwise, I will vote for Romney but not just because he’s Mormon. I think it would be stupid to vote for someone because he is OR is not a Mormon. Here’s why.

    1) It is established doctrine among Mormons that the original Constitution of the United States was inpired by God.
    2) Ron Paul abides by and champions the Constitution more than any public figure I know of (candidate or not) period.
    3) The only thing I have against him is his stance on the war. Don’t get me wrong. Bush is messing up big time. I could do a better job as Commander-In-Chief than he has. Just read Sun Tzu. But I think the war needs to be fought. But it should be fought much better than it has been. I have read the Monroe Doctrine. I’m also a Star Trek fan and believe in the “Prime Directive”. But I believe this is a situation much like the Barbary Pirates vs. Thomas Jefferson. We should fight this war. But I don’t believe Bush is actually fighting a war. He’s nation building. That’s why I’m split on the war issue. So, I still lean towards Paul.

    So why Romney as the alternative to Paul?

    First let’s look at the OTHER alternatives:

    Guliani: The man is an immoral, lying, selfish, wind sock. He makes accusations against others (including Romney and Paul both) that have no credibility. Did you see the exchange between him and Paul at the debate where he says,”I don’t think I’ve heard that before”. Then in the after debate interview goes on to say where he’s heard it before. For the sake of brevity, I’ll direct you to the many youtube videos on the guy as well as a plethora of blogs on his character.

    McCain: I actually like the guy. Yes, I disagree with him on a few major issues (especially immigration). But, I believe him to be an honorable man doing what he honestly believes is right (most of the time). But he was too hurt by Bush’s push polling phone calls to ever get elected. Yes, sometimes it comes down to electability — even in the case of Paul.

    Thompson: He has all the right ideals. He has no depth. He has no clue about the Constitution. He’s lazy when it comes to campaigning. He doesn’t seem to want to be President.

    Huckabee: I’ve only researched him a little bit. But he seems to be the evangelical version of Romney. So, I actually like the guy. But he has no BIG experience. He may stand for the right things. He may be honorable. But what abilities does he have to implement them? What HAS he actually DONE as governor or as any other position? Like I said, I’ve only researched him a little bit.

    Tancredo: One trick pony. I agree with him on immigration. But what else is he about?

    With due deference to the other GOP candidates, I’m going to stop because I don’t think they have anything to offer than what the “major” candidates have to offer.

    What’s good about Romney? If you’ve been reading this thread, you’ve already got a good earful of everything I’d say. So I’ll not repeat it. In generalities: He’s moral, he’s cabable, he’s informed.

    I will point out that everyone’s accusation about his flip-flopping is erroneous. Romney told the people of Massachusetts that he was pro-life. He himself was against abortion. That has never changed. But he made a campaign promise that he kept to not change Massachusetts abortion laws. The funny thing is that every piece of abortion legislation that came across his desk was to make abortion easier. He vetoed them because he was not going to change the state abortion laws.

    So, why would I not vote for Paul anyway (in the primaries)? There were actually multiple sources of this quote that has been attributed to each Monroe and Hamilton: That the Constitution can only work for a moral and a religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other group.

    We have become a nation of amoral atheists. Even if many people in the country say they go to this church or that, they don’t actually practice it in their lives. I’ve known some who do in several faiths (including non-Christian faiths). I consider them good people trying to do what they think is right. I really venerate such.

    But the vast majority I’ve known (in all faiths) don’t really think about right or wrong. They don’t really discuss the morality of laws, words, actions or even commandments that they should be holding close to their hearts if they actually lived their faith. They never research things for themselves. Instead, they just accept the first thing they hear on a subject and never believe anything else.

    Who do you know today that has all the qualities of most of the founders? Honesty, Intelligence, Education, Morality, PUBLIC VIRTUE, ability, confidence enough to pledge life, money, and sacred honor for what they believe in? Ron Paul comes to mind. But anyone else? When I and Ron Paul say “founders” instead of the “founding fathers” we mean every individual citizen that participated and fought for our independence. All the qualities I outlined above were extremely commmon among the founders. But who today would live like them? Does anyone even know what public virtue is? This is one major reason why people are so ready to sacrifice freedom for security.

    I do believe that a Mormon who truly believed in our faith’s position on government could not find it easy to vote for anyone other than Ron Paul. But I also have little faith that:
    1) He can be elected. Thus I must pick the least offensive of the many alternatives (whom I believe to be Romney).
    2) The Constitution in it’s pure form as would work for this country of amoral atheists. The generation we are living in can’t handle all the freedoms that the Constitution promises us (IMHO). I think it would be wonderful if we could. I try my best to be worthy of those freedoms in my life. But in all honesty, I’m not sure if I have public virtue and all the other qualities that the founders had who WERE worthy of these freedoms.

    Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe by restoring freedoms, it would require this generation to take charge of their lives and be responsible again. Maybe by being truly fair and balanced, Ron Paul could get elected. Maybe he would usher in a new congress of like minded legislators that would enforce the Constitution. Maybe public outcry for freedoms would stop eminent domain from being abused. Maybe by protecting the Constitution and national sovereignty, the NAFTA superhighway will never go through and the NAU will never be formed. Maybe we will have another 200 years of peace and prosperity. Naaaaahhhhh.

  287. Carissa
    November 30, 2007 at 9:01 am #

    Bill- In response to your post, this song comes to mind:

    “Do what is right, let the consequence follow”

    We KNOW things will get worse, not better, until the second coming. Does that mean we should stop trying to do what we believe is best, stop striving for the ideal? For me, personally, voting for Ron Paul is more about having peace of conscience than thinking I can change the world. My vote might not make a bit of difference for our country, but it makes all the difference for my soul. I can never regret doing what I believe is right.

  288. Kelly W.
    November 30, 2007 at 1:48 pm #

    I recognize that Ron Paul will probably not be on the ballot, unless some kind of miracle happens. But, I am going to WRITE IN Ron Paul’s name on my absentee ballot.

    I would encourage a National write-in campaign for Paul.

  289. Kelly Winterton
    November 30, 2007 at 10:51 pm #

    We should not be fooled into thinking we can vote for the lesser of two evils and therefrom effect some good in the world. Because of the electoral college, our personal vote is negated in order to “elect” the Shadow Government’s pre-chosen winner.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7503

    In more recent years, the vote has been stolen by even more elaborate means than just the electoral college. The vote has in the last two presidential elections been stolen not only by the electoral college alone, but by the Supreme Court and by electonic voting machines. (Bush did NOT win either election).

    It would not matter one iota if I, as a resident of Utah, voted for a Democrat, a Republican, a Constitutionalist, or Donald Duck. My vote will be negated by the electoral college, and all of Utah’s votes will go, 100%, to the presidential candidate with an “R” behind their name.

    Since this is the case, my vote is for ONE REASON ONLY! My vote is so that I, personally, can declare to my own self, and to my God, that I wll be accountable for at least standing for truth, and not for just the lesser of two evils.

    For this reason, I will write in either Ron Paul, or Dennis Kucinich.

    Every other American ought to do the same, at least if they be someone who chooses to end war, proclaim peace, and uphold Constitutional principles. No other presidential candidates are currently proclaiming any of these three principles.

    With current polling of American citizens indicating a large majority are in favor of ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and a majority saying our country is on the wrong track, why should the current front-running presidential candidates be saying just the opposite of what the majority of Americans actually want? Well, the answer is simple enough! The Shadow Government and the mainstream media are running the show, not the average American.

  290. L. Brown
    December 1, 2007 at 2:24 am #

    I feel that weather Ron Paul wins or loses, it is still the PEOPLE’s responsibility to make sure government is working according to the Constitution. The only reason we are losing our freedoms is because we ourselves let it come to this point. I am for Ron Paul. I will vote Ron Paul. But, either way, I stand ready to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foriegn and DOMESTIC (yea, that means the President, the Vice President, WHOEVER stands in the way). Someone once said, what we do in life echos in the eternities. Long live the Republic, may God have mercy on our souls.

  291. Bill
    December 1, 2007 at 11:32 pm #

    Of the responses to my last post (#290) I found it interesting that they only dealt with my excuse of choosing the lesser of two evils rather than my comment about my faith in Americans’ faith. (Fishing for a reaction from anyone).

    In response to the idea of voting one’s conscience–I feel I’m following my conscience for the following reasons:

    1) I’ve already stated that I still hold out hope for Ron Paul and will vote for him if he even appears to have a chance.

    2) This country is in the middle of an ideological war that people who believe in freedom and God are losing in a bad way. I keep going back to Sun Tzu. There are times for offense and times for defense. In a losing war and greatly outnumbered, you fight defensively. If this were the Regan era where (regardless of the Constitutional issues) conservative values tended to be the norm, I would do a write in for Ron Paul. Conservatives were on the offense then. Now, not only are conservatives on the defense, but we’re split. We have the neo-cons. We have the conservative bunch of libertarians and constitutionalists. We have the apathetics. We have those who are running away. We have the survivalists and revolutionaries. We have the idiots who just keep voting for the “R” no matter who it is. We have everything in between these categories. We all see a losing battle. When you’re in the thick of battle and have wounded, you don’t have time to do surgery on them. You put a band-aid on it and hope to get somewhere you can perform a proper surgery in a clean environment hopefully. If it is so bad that there is gangrene, you chop it off as soon as you can and put a tourniquet on it. Then you go somewhere you can properly stitch it.

    3) I am in a state where my vote can matter. Colorado goes red or blue with a change of the wind. And if my one vote is enough to keep Hillary out and put ANYONE else in, I’ll do it. I would walk through a room full of mustard gas and anthrax if I knew it would keep Hillary from winning. That woman scares me to no end. I’m talking George Orwell scary. I can understand someone writing-in a third candidate when you’re in Utah or New York. Those states are so far red and blue respectively that 10% of the state population wouldn’t swing the vote anyway. In Colorado, a write-in for any third candidate is a vote for Hillary. Even so, I believe your comments have swayed me enough to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries no matter what. But when it comes to the general election, I’ll have to vote for whoever is running against Hillary. If you are actually so far left that you wonder why she is scary, look at her ideas on government’s role BETWEEN parents and children from Ron Paul’s eyes and you’ll see what I mean. If you can’t see what I mean, why are you thinking about Ron Paul? You might find yourself on a high horse because you are a liberal in Utah. But you’d be singing a different tune if you had to choose between someone that you could “somewhat” agree with that had a fighting chance vs someone that you wholly agreed with that hadn’t a prayer vs. the enemy that is dominating the polls that will cause misery and despair the likes of which you’ve never known.

    4) No one has made any comment on my other reason for wanting to NOT vote for Ron Paul even if I’m FOR him. I really don’t know if this country is ready for freedom. With liberty comes responsibility. We have a great symbol in the Statue of Liberty. But Victor Frankl wanted to build the Statue of Responsibility for a reason. Today’s average citizen believes in their own liberty, but not anyone else’s. Everyone wants to play the victim. They point out the Constitution when it suits them, but when it supports the opposing point of view, they turn a blind eye. Don’t believe me? Why isn’t Ron Paul doing better in Polls? How many people refuse government aid if they qualify for it? How often do you hear people saying why something is someone else’s fault? How many people would rather have major medical insurance instead of an HMO? How many people even know the basics of investing in the stock market? I’ll grant that much of the time it is ignorance. But I’ve spoken with too many well informed people who still won’t vote for Paul or a free government or a free market because they are too selfish to give up what they’ve got. When greater than half the country gets their paycheck either directly or indirectly paid or subsidized by the government, I have to wonder if we know what we’re getting into. I thought that I was safe until just this week. I work for a major engineering corporation. I learned that about 30% of the company’s income comes from government contracts. Gladly, I work in a sector that is not in that 30%. I know that Dr. Paul recognizes that the changes have to be gradual. He’s said, ”There’s no Silver Bullet. You have to set priorities and have long term goals.” But I can see a huge change in the country’s economics, social interaction, law enforcement, and logistics with the elimination of the IRS, ATF, and DEA which he intends to wipe out immediately.

    And, Kelly, if you compare Kucinich with Paul, I wonder what your basis for comparison is. Have you seen his voting record on any socialism related issues (especially medicine)?

    To LDS Anarchist. Anarchy is NOT the preferred government. Just read the first few verses of Section 134 of the D&C. It explains why government is absolutely necessary. It also explains why tremendous limits need to be placed on such government (as the Constitution does).

  292. Curtis
    December 2, 2007 at 12:32 am #

    Bill,
    If you hang out here long enough, you’d discover that most who frequent this site don’t buy the war on terror thing. Our liberty is most threatened by our government currently and Iraq and Iran have nothing to do with that. This war is more in line with Satan’s game plan than with the Lord’s by the opinion of most here. Ron Paul is the sole candidate on the Republican side that speaks the truth about the war and it’s roots. The only reason you reject him is the only reason I am interested in him at all. Kucinich is similar in speaking out against the war, though not to the level of Paul.

  293. Bill
    December 2, 2007 at 1:13 am #

    Curtis,

    Thanks for saying something more than the touchy-feely comments I’ve received. I completely understand everyone being against the war. So, let me clarify the war issue in my mind. I am not for the “war” in Iraq. I think it was imperialistic for us to go in there. But it was bad judgement on Congress’ part to declare war in Afghanistan with a clause that essentially said, “And the President has full discretion to attack anyone he feels like in the process.” This gave him license to use the first declaration of war on Iraq. No, I’m not shifting the blame. I’m putting the blame sqarely on both branches of government — one that allowed it and the other that excecuted it.

    Please correct me if I’m getting bad information, but even Ron Paul voted for the war in Afghanistan. I and many others wanted Bin Laden dead. We were attacked on our own soil. For me it was a self-defense move. But like I said, Bush is messing up big time. With all the resources of our nation, we can’t find one weak old man who has difficulty making sure he eats everyday? We know where the Al-Queda training camps are and we don’t bomb them? What is going on?

    I know what Ron Paul says about non-intervention. And I believe it. I also know what he said about the Middle East specifically. I understand it. But you must remember two things: First, they asked us to be there during the cold war to defend against the FSU. When they didn’t need us anymore, they didn’t ask us to leave. They treated us like the enemy from the get go. We pump in a whole lot of resources including men to help them and we find out that they were an ally of convenience. Second, I believe in the Jewish nation of Israel and the need for the United States to help them (need to reference the formation of Israel after WWII). No matter what else we did to appease the Arab nations, that one fact alone would draw their fire.

    I also noted that your post (#77) talked a lot about Christ’s principles on loving your neighbor. Keep in mind that the underlying principle of the Constitution is that Government must run on one set of principles (enforcement of law while securing liberty for its citizens) while individuals are to abide by more tender principles such as love, forgiveness, mercy, and aiding the less fortunate. This is why communism/socialism is evil and the united order is ordained of God. One is government run and the other privately (or in this case Divinely) run.

    I’ll keep reading, studying, fasting, and praying. Maybe you will sway me. I’m not too old to be set in my beliefs. I am stating what I believe with what I know at this time. I might add, I may not know everything, neither do you. I may not be the most informed, but I am more informed than most of those I know. I’ll always look to be more informed. So if you find me ignorant, don’t insult me, inform me. I welcome more education from all sources.

  294. Jay
    December 2, 2007 at 6:32 am #

    There was no declaration of war on Afghanistan.

    Jay

  295. Carissa
    December 2, 2007 at 8:12 am #

    There was no actual declaration of war by Congress as Jay mentioned. What Congress did do was pass an authorization for the use of military force. Is this the same thing in different words? No. When Congress passed the AUMF, it did not automatically declare us to be at war like a declaration of war would have done. What it did was transfer that decision over to the President to make, pending certain conditions. The President then had the authority to decide when or if we actually went to war, then simply inform the Congress. Congress is just as much at fault for handing over their power as the President was for asking them to do it.

    In a letter dated July 21, 2007, Dr. Paul states:

    I opposed giving the president power to wage unlimited and unchecked aggression. However, I did vote to support the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.

  296. Carissa
    December 2, 2007 at 8:38 am #

    It is my belief, borne out by five years of abject failure and tens of thousands of lost lives, that the Iraq operation has been a dangerous diversion from the rightful and appropriate focus of our efforts to bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us and seek still to undermine our nation, our values, and our way of life.

    …same source as above. Notice how he says it is “rightful and appropriate” to “bring to justice to the jihadists that have attacked us“. It is not appropriate, nor realistic (in my eyes) to go around the world and stamp out, with military force, anyone who we think may someday pose a threat to us. That is not to say we just sit back and do nothing about terrorism, but there are other ways.

  297. Curtis
    December 2, 2007 at 11:52 am #

    Bill
    I appreciate your comments. A few things. You said:

    First, they asked us to be there during the cold war to defend against the FSU. When they didn’t need us anymore, they didn’t ask us to leave. They treated us like the enemy from the get go. We pump in a whole lot of resources including men to help them and we find out that they were an ally of convenience.

    I think the facts show that after the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan, we left Afghanistan alone and forgot all of our promises to help that nation post Soviet deafeat. It turns out that we were the allies of convenience rather than vice-versa. When we left, the Taliban filled the power vacuum and we allowed that to happen.

    As far as Paul being for the Afghanistan war, I am dissappointed. I am not a strict pacifist, but our rationale in going to war was to get bin Laden. Before the war bin Laden was offered to us by the Taliban, but we didn’t take the offer, desiring instead a war. The war was apparently planned from before 9/11 as is evidenced by a diplomat’s comments that we would be in Afghanistan by October (comments made during the summer of 2001). The war was one of aggression and caused untold suffering, causing a refugee crisis on the cusp of winter while not allowing for relief agencies to bring food and other necessary materials to the refugees. Bush said that anyone who harbors the terrorists are the same as the terrorists, but at the same time we are harboring terrorists ourselves. Oscar Bosch and Jose Luis Posada Carriles are the worst terrorists in the western hemisphere and yet they roam the streets of miami with impunity. I was and remain one of the few who was opposed to the Afghanistan war.

    I am different from you as I don’t believe in the Jewish nation of Israel and the need for the US to protect it. It was founded on the backs of the Arabs in the region and terrorism. The Arabs in Palestine are the victims of a horrible imprisonment and have had every right ignored by the powers that be while the whole world has stood in condemnation of Israel’s actions over there via numerous UN resolutions which are winked at by the USA and ignored by Israel. It is little wonder that our support of Israel draws the ire of Arabs everywhere.

  298. ERIC
    December 2, 2007 at 12:25 pm #

    I am very interested in the debate that I have seen so far between hardcore LDS Republicans (which I generally consider myself) and Libertarians (which I feel generally support the Constitution better than anyone else in this nation). I caveat my growing support of the Libertarians with the experiences that I have had here in the Seattle area of the Libertarian pot-smokers who cower in their blue smoke haze behind the guise of total personal freedoms that the Libertarians support. I have seen the devastating impacts of marijuana usage (for example) in my wife’s family and NO ONE can tell me it is a joke or has no impact on society or the individuals’ ability to function as a responsible citizen, father, husband, child of God. Unfortunately, this one issue alone sinks the whole Libertarian boat for me.
    Aside from that, I think the rest of the Libertarian ideals are the only hope for America’s future – to extricate ourselves from this huge corrupt political malaise that we are in.

    Of interest, here is a sourceable quote (attributed to Joseph Smith) about the rise of the American Independent party – that will happen right before the total collapse of the corrupt form of government we now have in power. A friend of mine sent it to me in November 2000 when our country was on the brink of a Constitutional crisis over the whole FL mess in the Presidential election. Read it and see if Mosiah Hancock (who was one of the few JS loyalists left in Nauvoo at the time, was quoting JS in his diary) did not accurately transcribe some of JS’s last words from 1844. An uncanny and scary portend for the future – that we are playing into with this very discussion :

    “Mosiah Hancock, son of a close friend and bodyguard of Joseph Smith, recorded an important prophecy as having been made by the Prophet.
    According to his diary, this prophecy was made the day after Joseph made his final speech to the Nauvoo Legion (Wednesday, June 19, 1844; eight days before his martyrdom). After telling how the Prophet discussed a
    map of the West and foretold the route the Saints would follow in their western exodus, Hancock records Joseph Smith statement to him that,

    “There will be two great political parties in this country.
    One will be called the Republicans* and the other the Democrat party. These two parties will go to war ** and out of these two parties will spring another party which will be the Independent American Party ***.
    The United States will spend her strength and means warring in foreign lands**** until other nations will say, ‘Let’s divide up the lands of the United States’. Then the people of the U.S. will unite and swear by the blood of their fore-fathers, that the land shall not be divided.
    Then the country will go to war, and they will fight until one half of the U.S. army will give up, and the rest will continue to struggle.
    They will keep on until they are very ragged and discouraged, and almost ready to give up – when the boys from the mountains will rush forth in time to save the American Army from defeat and ruin. And they will
    say, ‘Brethren, we are glad you have come, give us men, henceforth, who can talk with God’. Then you will have friends, but you will save the country when it’s (sic) liberty hangs by a hair, as it were.”
    (Mosiah Lyman Hancock, Life Story of Mosiah Lyman Hancock, p.29).

    * The Republican Party originated in Ripon Wis. in early 1854 and was formalized on July 4, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The first national convention was held in Philadelphia, Pa., on June 17, 1856–Ten years after this prophecy was made!
    ** I believe this war was started for real with election difficulties of this year (Nov 7,2000) and will be exacerbated within a short time.
    ***An Independent American party presently exists in several states.
    **** Since 1992 the United States military has been reduced to less than 50% of what is was in 1991 and less than before the II World War. It has spent it’s strength and means warring in foreign wars needlessly.
    This is especially true during the past twelve years when every conflict has been politically motivated, not necessitating the U.S. involvement!

    I have since sourced this with many other statements that corroborate these words and sequence of events. Right now, we are expending (at a frightening rate) our “strength and means” in foreign lands on a war that we will quite possibly never win. If you don’t believe that a $1.3 trillion (so far) hit on our economy is having an impact, just take a look at the dollar’s slide against other currencies.

    I have much more relevant information and topics to discuss, but am limited because of time, etc.

    My main candidate litmus is this:

    If a spouse (of a man in particular) shows great adoration for them and has never had to worry about infidelity or what they are doing when they are separated from each other, and their children show the same kind of overwhelming respect and adoration (ie, good leadership in the home), then they at least deserve a further investigation as a viable candidate (this is an easy way to eliminate Giuliani, Clinton, etc.)

    God Bless America!!

  299. Bill
    December 2, 2007 at 3:46 pm #

    Jay, thanks for your correction.
    Carissa, thanks for your expanding on the issue.

    I was unclear as to the details–which is why I specifically invited corrections to my comment. With that clarification about HR 3076, I find myself in perfect agreement with Ron Paul’s position. Now I can’t find anything wrong with him, darn it.

    Curtis, thank you for your correction on the historical events following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. I’ve taken the last hour or so looking up that segment of history. WHAT A TRADGEDY! I had no idea the cess pool of violence that Afghanistan has been living in for decades. Tradgedy isn’t a big enough word for it. My heart actually goes out to the Taliban in spite of how I feel about their policies.

    I believe we have different data on the Taliban’s willingness to turn Bin Laden over. My source information states that we were already in the process of bombing Afghanistan. The Taliban offered to turn him over if we stopped the bombing. Bush’s response was that we don’t just want him, we want all his cohorts, his hostages, and we want his bases and training camps destroyed.

    Then the Taliban hedged. They said ok, but they want all evidence turned over to them. They want a trial in Afghanistan. They would turn him over to a third country.

    I don’t appreciate Bush’s response. “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.” There’s a discussion tangent right there.

    Eric, WOW. I’ve never heard that before. (No, I’m not doing a Guliani impression). I need to correct or at least expand on your statement about the Independent American Party. There is the “American Independent Party” which is the California Affiliate of the Constitution Party. There is an “Independent American Party of Nevada” which is also an affiliate of the Constitution Party. There is the “Independent American Party” which is an evangelical Christian/Protestant based party. And there is the “New American Independent Party” which has a completely different platform. Can we be any more convoluted? I can tell that many here have the precision of a lawyer, so you understand why I’m not sure how this prophecy will pan out.

    This possible revolution means a lot to me personally. It actually explains a lot of the pattern of history that I’ve been noticing the past 20 years or so. (Am I really getting so old?)
    There was a pattern that changed in the 1800s. Then the pattern chaned again with the industrual revolution. Then the two world wars. Then each decade after WWII has had it’s own shake up. But the pattern has been undeniably asymptotic as we approached the end of the 80s. Is this a possible new thread?

  300. Curtis
    December 2, 2007 at 6:24 pm #

    Bill,
    Here is what I dug up on the question of the Taliban being willing to hand over bin Laden. Found this in September of last year:

    It is very strange that we never indicted Bin Laden for 9/11. The FBI page on B.L. has him as wanted for the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Africa, but mentions nothing of 9/11.

    http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

    The Taliban was apparently willing to hand B.L. over if we presented evidence to them that he was involved (as is the practice among all nations that have extradition treaties).

    “On September 20 2001, the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer. On October 1, six days before the bombing began, they repeated it, and their representative in Pakistan told reporters: “We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems.” Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: “There’s no negotiations. There’s no calendar. We’ll act on [sic] our time.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1082289,00.html

    B.L. himself has stated (reportedly) that he had nothing to do with 9/11.

    “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam.”

    http://www.robert-fisk.com/usama_interview_ummat.htm

    Why hasn’t B.L. been charged? The answer appears to be that there is no evidence connecting him.

    “On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

    Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

    http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

    Go figure.

  301. Bill
    December 3, 2007 at 11:11 pm #

    Curtis,

    I can play this game too.

    Washington Post
    Monday, August 28, 2006; Page A13

    Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a longtime and prominent member of the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” list, which notes his role as the suspected mastermind of the deadly U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998.
    But another more infamous date — Sept. 11, 2001 — is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice.

    The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.
    Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government’s long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.
    “There’s no mystery here,” said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. “They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don’t need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it.”

    Friday, October 29, 2004 | 10:21 PM ET CBC News
    Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.
    The militant Islamic group decided “we should destroy towers in America” because “we are a free people… and we want to regain the freedom of our nation,” said bin Laden, dressed in yellow and white robes and videotaped against a plain brown background.
    In the 18-minute message, parts of which were played on Qatar-based Al-Jazeera just four days before the American presidential election, bin Laden accused U.S. President George W. Bush of negligence on the day 19 suicide hijackers took over four American passenger jets.
    He also threatened new attacks if the policies of the U.S. government do not change.

    24 May 2006, 1050 hrs IST , IANS (An Indian Newspaper)

    AMMAN: Al Qaeda terrorist network leader Osama bin Laden said in an audiotape broadcast by the Al Jazeera satellite channel that he himself had assigned 19 people for the Sep 11, 2001, attacks in the US.

    “In fact, brother Zacarias Moussaoui has no connection whatever with the Sep 11 operation,” Osama bin Laden said in the audiotape that Al Jazeera on Tuesday reported was posted on a website.

    “I am the man responsible for the recruitment of the 19 people who carried out the attacks, and I did not assign any task to Moussaoui,” he added.

    Moussaoui was recently sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole, sparing him the death penalty by a US jury.

    Osama bin Laden contended that Moussaoui’s confession to having a role in the Sep 11 attacks was “null and void, because it was extracted under pressure”.

    “Moussaoui was arrested two weeks before the September events, and if he knew anything about (the operation), we should have told (9/11 ringleader) Mohammed Atta and his brothers to leave the US at once,” the Al Qaeda chief said.

    Finally, if you don’t believe the above statements, here is Bin Laden’s own Fatwa. How can you believe his statements in the Ummat interview when he wrote a religious piece as an official Fatwa and declaration of war justifying and encouraging the killing of Americans. In fact saying that killing Americans is a better way of getting into heaven than killing anyone else.

    Bin Laden’s Fatwa
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

    In the end, we believe whom we want to believe. Seriously, I have read both sides of the issue until my eyes have become sore, my finger is tired of clicking the mouse, and I wonder if I, myself, had anything to do with 9/11. I’ve even looked at Connor’s questions on 9/11. I can’t answer all the questions with certainty because there is so much information on both sides that seems plausible.

    Here’s what I know as a structural engineer. The vast majority of the structural questions and statements that I’ve seen on the conspiracy side (notice I didn’t say “theorists”) are really ignorant. The traditional side’s explanation is entirely plausible and all the evidence they provide doesn’t conflict with that explanation.

    Again we’re getting off topic: Ron Paul.
    Honest man. Great message. If he just had the charisma thing going, he’d be a shoe in.

    I think I’m going to leave this thread now. I’ll jump over to the more religious side. I like this web site Connor.

  302. Curtis
    December 5, 2007 at 10:13 am #

    Bill,
    Sorry, it was not my intention to question bin Laden’s innocence or guilt. My intention was to show that the US didn’t have to bomb Afghanistan. Through internationally accepted channels, namely those of extradition treaties recognized between nations, Afghanistan was offering bin Laden up. Instead, we decided to exposed a lot of people to the misery of our bombs. That is part of the reason I did not support the war on Afghanistan.

  303. M. G. Vincent
    December 5, 2007 at 11:15 pm #

    If anyone is interested, here’s an site I recently discovered.

    http://www.mormonsforronpaul.org

  304. Scott
    December 10, 2007 at 9:20 pm #

    I think a national write-in is a great idea. However, on Election Day after the media picks up on our little scheme, Katy Couric, Anderson Cooper, and Blitzer, that fateful night will go on as planned, ushering in Hillary Clinton as the new president (G*d forbid) completely ignore any write-ins, and America go on as if fairly defeated. Or will we…mooahhh mmoooaaaahhh mmmoooaahhh mmooaahh mooahh mm:) dr. evil, so i can’t spell mmooaahhh…but who can? anyways…

    It’s amazing the power money can have, that we could spend the next year putting all our energy and money into getting people to write Ron Paul in, despite how the primaries turn out, he would still lose. Unless we could get that wonderful but stubborn talk/radio show host Glenn Beck, who is LDS, Lou Dobbs who is a great American media man, and even Mitt Romney to ally, then we would be in great shape.

    ***But first and most importantly, we would have to spread a message that would reach all Mormon voters. Now is the time for the Elders of Israel to save the Constitution, lets do it. I think we could reach a million Saints. I’m not internet-smart, but we need to get something rolling. If Romney hears the Mormons are backing Paul personally through mail and so forth, he’ll have something pretty heavy on his conscience. Beck will definitely hear about it, Lou Dobbs, and before you know it, the Mormons save America on the front pages all over the country in less than a year :) If not, buckle up for one a long one. Get your food storage, and buy as many guns as you can, you may even want to invest in a horse. God bless!

  305. Ralph Hughes
    January 11, 2008 at 8:38 am #

    Somehow, Mormon voters need to be awakened to our “awful situation”, and to its causes. I suggest heavy campaigning in Utah especially, in areas where many Mormons frequent, like Temple Square, including distribution of flyers that expose Romney’s demonstrated distain for certain moral and constitutional principles, and highlight Paul’s espousal of the US Constitution.

  306. Dan
    January 17, 2008 at 8:05 am #

    I don’t know if anyone else has brought this up yet, but here are some really good reasons for Mormons to NOT back Ron Paul for President.

    Remember the words of President Gordon B. Hinckley:

    “I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ,” said President Hinckley. “How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color, is ineligible?”

    How can any Latter Day Saint support a racist like Ron Paul?

  307. Michael L. McKee
    January 17, 2008 at 9:06 am #

    Dan:

    Rather than feign your concern for those of us who are supporting Ron Paul, you should conduct a more thorough investigation as to the source and credibility of the information you have so willingly accepted as truth. As a matter of fact, calling Ron Paul a racist leaves little doubt that you, sir, are sadly incapable of understanding truth. I am not going to waste my time directing you to a source for the facts and circumstances because I do not believe you are interested in anything beyond your own opinionated conclusions. By the way, to interject the words of President Hinckley in this situation is also an irresponsible attempt to add legitimacy to your suppositions. In my opinion, you have failed miserably.

    Connor:

    If these words which I have carefully chosen do not pass the PC test, so be it. I accept full responsibility for my words and if they are offensive to Dan or anyone else, so be it.

  308. Connor
    January 17, 2008 at 9:10 am #

    How can any Latter Day Saint support a racist like Ron Paul?

    Aaaand, he’s back.

    Doug and I have already discussed this issue on this thread.

    Suffice it to say that RP didn’t write those words, so he cannot be branded a racist. And everything he’s ever done in the public sphere has been to fight for individual rights, regardless of race, religion, sex, or any other identifier that segregates people. Your accusation is without merit.

    And even if RP did author one or more of those newsletters (which has yet to be proven), what of repentance? Would I be disqualified from office, in your eyes, if I had said some sexist remark ten years ago that I had repented of and left behind? If RP or anybody else held “racist” opinions/thoughts a few decades ago, is that enough for you to label them as a current racist?

    The Lord has counseled us to support wise and honest men. Ron Paul, out of all the current candidates, comes the closest to that standard.

  309. Connor
    January 17, 2008 at 9:22 am #

    How can any Latter Day Saint support a racist like Ron Paul?

    Dan, if we were to use your standard of judgment for “racist” (somebody who supports others and their statements that have racist components), then what of your favorite candidate?

  310. Dan
    January 17, 2008 at 8:03 pm #

    Connor,

    Hey, I really don’t care who you wish to run this country, and I really don’t care how racist or not racist they are, or ever were. I want the best candidate that will run the programs and philosophies that I back, regardless of how un-PC he may or may not be. If I believed in the same things that Ron Paul espouses, then I would support him regardless of writings attached to his name from 20 years back. That is trivial matter to me. It is petty 7th grade mudslinging.

    But that isn’t how you frame this man, Connor. You frame him as a man of integrity, a “noble man.” A man of goodness, who has—and this is highly important—consistently stood for what is right. Yet here he is in the 1980s pandering to white supremacists, giving a ghost writer the rights to his (Ron Paul’s) name and identity to write some pretty reprehensible stuff. And for what? For MONEY to be re-elected to his seat. He did this for money. Where is this man of goodness? Where is his consistent integrity? Why did he allow a ghost-writer (most likely Mr. Rockwell) to write such reprehensible material under Mr. Ron Paul’s name? Ron Paul would love for this to go away (as most politicians who get caught red—or in this case white—handed).

    Now, knowing the history of members of this church, I can understand why they have a tendency to support someone like Ron Paul. Blacks, after all, didn’t get the best treatment socially within this church, second class citizens and all, no priesthood. It seems to fit nicely. Maybe Ron Paul and his ghost writer touched a certain deeply hidden aspect of many Mormons’ real thoughts about blacks.

    It sucks when such evidence comes out, Connor, and I feel for you. You thought your hero had come, the man to ride down from the mountains to save the Constitution and fulfill that apocryphal prophecy from Joseph Smith. It turns out he’s not really that different from most politicians, except that because he has so little to lose, he can say what he really thinks—to an extent of course.

    I’m sorry that your man turns out to have had reprehensible thoughts about blacks back in the 1980s and 1990s, Connor. But your counterattack with the reverend that Barack Obama is friends with is very weak, and shows that this revelation about Ron Paul has touched a raw nerve in you, Connor. The comparison is highly weak. On the one hand, Mr. Paul used a ghost-writer to write disparagingly about blacks to increase revenue for his campaign. On the other hand, we have merely a close connection. My dad is an anti-Mormon Southern Baptist. Does that say anything at all about me? Or, hey, Joseph Smith’s family left the church and criticized Brigham Young and the rest of the Apostles. Does that say anything disparaging about Joseph Smith? Please.

    So, don’t worry Connor, I don’t frequent your site much, but I felt I had to get that in there, about Ron Paul. I think you frame him in too much of a righteous light and you should do better at presenting him more accurately to your readers if you want your readers to have an informed opinion about him. Your praise of him is near reverent. I would be careful at how much praise you give ANY politician.

  311. Connor
    January 17, 2008 at 9:25 pm #

    Dan,

    I’m not going to dignify your inaccurate, bias-laden comment with a rebuttal or lengthy reply. You may think that it is because your comments are spot on, but they are not. You may think that it is because you have “touched a raw nerve”, but you have not. Feel free to think what you wish, but man, your comment is hilariously off base.

    Good day.

  312. Michael L. McKee
    January 18, 2008 at 6:24 am #

    Dan:

    In a word; phooey.

    Connor:

    Did you catch the recent article in NewsWithViews.com by Alan Stang? It is typically, in my opinion, quite accurate and I find Stang’s methodology in expressing himself refreshingly devoid of PC.

  313. Bill
    January 26, 2008 at 5:05 pm #

    I just took some time to hunt down the so-called “racist comments by Ron Paul”. There are two points I wish to make about them.

    1) Of the 13 quotes that I was able to find. I only found 3 that were actually racist. The rest were things that either did not have anything to do with race OR were comments about race but not really racist.

    2) We’ve all heard his speeches dozens if not hundreds of times. We’ve heard him saying the same things today that he said 20 years ago. The tenor and pattern of his speaking and writing hasn’t changed. But the writing style of the articles I was able to dig up didn’t sound like him at all. I absolutely believe him when he says that he himself did not write these articles. I still reserve judgement on whether he actually “gave a thumbs up” on the articles or didn’t even read them.

    Of the three comments that I believed to be racist, I will make the following comment / disclaimer;

    I am oriental. I was adopted by a white family that gave me every material joy that they could afford (we were middle class). But the one thing they never did was make me feel that I really belonged or that I was even loved as a member of the family. (Yes, I was sealed to them). The reason why was simple. I wasn’t white. They thought they showed me love. I wasn’t ever treated like a servant. On every visible level I was a son to them. But the subtext was obvious to anyone that really paid attention.

    With the benefit of hindsight, the experience of maturity, and study, I realize that this wasn’t a personal flaw on their part. This was the culture of the country at the time I grew up. They made racial jokes and expected me to laugh along. They made racial comments (very similar to the one’s now attributed to Ron Paul) and expected me to understand that they were obviously true and therefore justified. All it did was confuse me.

    If Dr. Paul actually read and approved these comments in the 80s, I can say (because I was there) that it was no different than what 90% of Americans were saying openly in front of blacks at the time. I’m not saying it’s right. But that was reality. It is like condemning half the founding fathers for having slaves.
    Maybe it was wrong by our standards today. But it was perfectly acceptable in the day that it occurred.

    BTW: I realize some may have wondered why I called myself “Oriental” instead of “Asian”. The answer is that I don’t want to take the extra mouth movements (or keystrokes) to say “African American” so I say “Black”. So I have to give equal treatment to myself. Although “Asian” does have fewer letters and syllables. Maybe I’ll reconsider.

  314. Steve Walker
    January 31, 2008 at 3:48 pm #

    Many Latter-day Saints support Ron Paul. That takes courage because he goes against the establishment. Another LDS courageous story is Cedar Fort Inc recently publishing “The Shell Game” This makes me want to explore this faith a little more.

  315. Greg S
    March 13, 2008 at 4:27 pm #

    Thank you very much for being informed. I know that I will somehow muddy this up but finally I have found another LDS person who sees what I see.

    Time has not yet permitted me to read others responses to your case for Dr. Paul. I can pretty much tell you what the opposing view point is. I have heard it endlessly from most everyone around me.

    I am continually astonished at why more LDS people do not overwhelmingly support Ron Paul. He is the only candidate with a set of principles that he has honored 100% with out fail. We are taught to live our life in accordance with timeless principles that are unchanging. He does. We are taught to be honest in our dealings with our fellow men. He is. We are taught to live within our means. He does.

    I could go on for days on this subject. the truth is that most people will not do their own dilligence and actually think for themselves. It takes only a few seconds of conversation with someone to figure out where their infromation comes from.

    Like the Book of Mormon, Ron Paul shines when you actually investigate him but most people will not take the time because that would mean a commitment. The truth alwaws requires a commitment.

    Much of what he has to say (truth) people do not want to hear because that would mean change. We need to change our course as a people. We need to get involved in the process again and start taking control of our future instead of allowing an ever growing, ever imposing government run our lives.

    Last time I checked Mormons are supposed to be about being self supportive, the US is not. Last time I checked Mormons are supposed to be about protecting personal liberty (see Moroni) the US government is not. Last time I checked Mormons are supposed to be about personal accountability. Many have forgot about this when it comes to electing a President.

    I have to believe that if Joseph Smith were alive today he would be running on the same platform as Ron.

    Thanks for standing tall.

    Greg S.

  316. Dan
    March 14, 2008 at 3:52 am #

    Wow, now Ron Paul is likened to scripture!

  317. Ralph
    March 14, 2008 at 9:05 am #

    I think it is aboutt ime that Latter-day Saints become aware of the evidences of Mitt Romney’s disdain for certain constitutional and moral principles. Once they realize that Romney has not been living up to the principles expected of a Latter-day Saint, they might just recognoze those principles in Ron Paul.

  318. Rotpada
    April 9, 2008 at 12:43 am #

    Wow! with so many posts, I doubt anyone will ever get all the way down here to read this.

    I have so much to say, but lack the desire say it all. I will stick to two ideas.

    First, does anyone remember when the Republican Party was more in line with the ideas Ron Paul espouses? I think he was totally right running as a Republican. Jumping parties doesn’t solve the problem. There is talk in the thread of the Constitution Party. While I agree with the party philosophies, I can’t help but look to the future when the same corruption that crept into the Republican Party will corrupt the Constitution Party and then everyone will want to jump to a new party. We need to root out the pagan, blue-blood, bastards of the royal family and hang them all for treason. We need to show them what We the People will do with treasonous scum. (Whenever I bring up the “Royal” family, people narrowly think I am talking simply of the queen of England. I am talking about the pagan, interbreeding family that usurped power across Europe when the Romans left. King George never accepted defeat after the Revolutionary War. He simply changed tactic and then imposed his reign on us through forcing his bastard inbred relations into our political and economic structure to insure ongoing control and taxation under a different name.)

    Second, Mitt Romney. Oh brother. I guess we start with waterboarding. Hop on Youtube and do a search, If it doesn’t cause extreme discomfort in your heart and mind, you deserve to have it done to you. Let’s call apples, apples. Waterboarding is torture. Mitt Romney said, “I think we should double Guantanamo.” Really?!?!? AND THEN…. He runs around the country trying to convince everyone he is a Christian. Does Jesus Christ condone Guantanamo? Yes or no.

  319. Rotpada
    April 9, 2008 at 1:04 am #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G2wZ5A2zRA

  320. Kelly W.
    April 9, 2008 at 6:57 pm #

    Well, there’s good news, and bad. Good news is that Romney’s not in the running anymore, and that Ron Paul has outlasted him.

    Bad news is that Ron Paul, even though he’s the only one left to run against McCain, is such a long-shot.

    I talked to two die-hard Utah Republicans tonight – (they were off the the Republican Caucus Meetings) – if they were supporting McCain now. They replied that even though they don’t like McCain, they are supporting him because they hate Hilary and that leaves them with no other choice but to support McCain, because Ron Paul cannot win.

    One of these people even said that even though he agreed with the whole platform of the Constitution Party, he was on his way to the Caucus Meetings to support McCain, because the Constitution Party had no chance of winning.

    The other person said that he was supporting the Republican Party because “it is my way to fight against them. (Republicans).”

    The Scriptures say that in the Last Days, even the very elect will be deceived. Seems many LDS have been deceived into support of McCain and his 100 year war.

  321. Rotpada
    April 9, 2008 at 8:45 pm #

    Amen!

  322. Mike
    April 13, 2008 at 12:20 pm #

    I agree with Kelly’s comment. This whole idea that one will support somebody else just because the candidate they feel is the correct one doesn’t have a chance is absurd…especially for a Latter-day Saint. The Lord has been clear on this subject: “Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatesoever is less than these cometh of evil” (D&C 98:6) Notice He does not say “…good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold if they are likely to win.” I believe that Ron Paul is an honest and wise man. This is why I support him and when it comes down to election day, I will write in his name on the ballot. You see, I look at it this way: the scriptures are clear on the great evil that will exist in our day. We see it, but even that which we see is probably just the tip of the iceburg. The scriptures are also clear that evil will lose; that the Lord will come and reign and receive His unto Himself. This promise gives people hope, as it should, but I think in that very hope satan has laid a snare: “And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well – and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.” (See 2 Ne. 28:21) I have always felt this verse was aimed towards members of the church. I think our biggest danger before us is complacency. We read these vast promises about good overcoming evil and how the righteous need not fear and we sit, content, not feeling that we need to do anything because the scriptures say evil will inevitably come, but soon be conquered. In that we err, for we forget that the Lord has never fought the battles of His people without first requiring a sacrifice at their hands. Said Joseph Smith so well: “We know what we shall be called to pass through before Zion is delivered and established; therefore, we have great need to live near to God and always be in strict obedience to all His commandments, that we may have a conscience void of offense towards God and man.” (Teachings, pg32). I believe that which we’ll be called to pass through will depend on our earnestness in defending the Constitution and the liberty it provides. And so I repeat, I will continue to support and vote for Ron Paul because I feel it’s my obligation before God to uphold this honest and wise man. The outcome matters not but my works do.

  323. Bernie Continelli
    April 13, 2008 at 2:04 pm #

    Last year I put a Ron Paul bumpersticker on the left side of my car, and it has since been “counterbalanced” with (seriously) a Ralph Nader one on the right. Why not a Libertarian / Mike Gravel one? Because it’s reached the point where MY vote’s going to those politicians who have the BEST CHANCE to cause as much harm as possible to an incredibly corrupt system EVEN IF they do it from radically different political / ideological perspectives. If you remember (the 1950′s film version of) “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” I’m now WITH ‘The Professor’, and ANY ‘collision speed’ with evil (i.e. the “imperial” New World Order) is a GOOD thing!

  324. Race Webber
    September 20, 2008 at 11:02 am #

    Ron Paul has no chance to win. He’s not. I’ve voted many times for the 3rd wheel in these elections. Not one has won and twice the guy I didn’t want to win won. So I’m not going to again waste my vote on the afterthought guy. It doesn’t really go beyond that. If Ron Paul is so great, why didn’t he get the nomination? If he can’t do that then he’s failed my test to become president. Otherwise, I’d just vote for myself and shoot the I.R.S. when elected.

  325. Deborah
    March 15, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    I remember vividly in 7th grade that there was a studious, smart, zit-faced, quiet, guy running for Class Treasurer against a good-looking gregarious guy who didn’t do well in math. Of course you know who won.

    Politics is still a popularity contest to many. Obama has charisma. So did Clinton. Bush had more than Gore or Kerry. Edwards had it to some extent. Even Huckabee has cute dimples. Alan Keyes is awesome! But he doesn’t come across well on camera and neither does Ron Paul. He is awkward and gangly. He doesn’t “look presidential”. Even Romney comes across as a bit of a stuffed shirt. Hillary Clinton does okay, but only with some groups of people. Palin is a huge threat to Dems because she is so likable and can’t be bought!

    Obama was chosen and groomed by brilliant people who knew they had no chance of winning, but Obama has the looks and speaking ability to get the lemming voters to follow him. It is really hard to train a lemming who deep down, just wants to follow someone based on “feelings”. They don’t want to learn or think. It works. Whoever controls the media, controls the lemmings.

  326. Ralph Hughes
    March 15, 2010 at 10:56 pm #

    That Ron Paul may never win the presidency is no fault of his. It is the fault of most Amerian voters.

  327. Ralph Hughes
    March 16, 2010 at 5:07 pm #

    I would not expect most American voters to support Ron Paul. That’s too much to expect. But I consider it a disgrace that American LDS voters did not support Paul over Romney in 2008. And likewise that more voted for McCain than for Chuck Baldwin. But I felt the same way when in 2006 Utah sent Orrin Hatch back to the Senate instead replacing him with Scott Bradley, and generally overlooked the three Constitution Party candidates for the House of Representatives. Since then I have lost a lot of respect for American LDSs in general, and I feel it when I sit with them in church meetings.

  328. oldmama
    March 25, 2010 at 5:00 pm #

    Thank you for continuing to try to teach–

  329. oldmama
    March 30, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    I read it; it’s interesting.

    I have come to see myself as an individual who ascribes to “Mormon” beliefs, rather than as a “Mormon”; it does make a difference.

    Collectivism scares me. I suppose, for some, there is safety in it.

    I am a temple recommend carrying LDS, and I don’t have any ‘complaints’ against the church at all.

    I think the church is quite a nice organization, as organizations go; it’s certainly better than most.

    But, the idea that I am somehow ‘branded’–

    and that makes me different, exceptional, or makes me think a certain way about things is becoming very uncomfortable to me as I become older.

    This is why I like Ron Paul. He tries not to be ‘followed’, which is unusual in American culture and is certainly unusual in politics.

    I see him as a teacher. Not a leader.

    I don’t really think about him ‘running’ for office as much as I think about what he has stood for for the last 30 years, and I have watched him most of that time.

    I think that most Mormons (or many) place a lot of importance on ‘voting’.

    Now, I’m not saying that voting is bad or wrong, but I am wary about how honest most elections are; I struggle with partisan politics, and I think that how each person lives his/her life is actually more important than voting.

    A president may seem to be causing a lot of chaos, but in reality it is the individual life that is powerful.

    After decades of feeling ‘guilty’ because my country (and it’s not mine, either) seemed to be going downhill fast–

    I have realized that I am not responsible for the actions of all these Americans and all these people who call themselves leaders and like to pull strings.

    The important thing is to know the truth.

    That is why, after all, Mormon conpiled the ancient records. So *we* could know the truth, and be set free.

    That is where there is power.

    In the meantime, I like Ron Paul. I really like him.

  330. Liz
    April 1, 2010 at 10:37 am #

    I ignore Ron Paul because he has brilliant brain flashes like, “Why didn’t the U.S. government just BUY all the slaves instead of fighting a war to free them?”

    Hmmmm. Let’s think that through a bit good doctor.

    Why indeed.

  331. carissa
    April 1, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    Liz- it worked for the British. It saved a lot of unneccesary death. So, yes, it should be given some thought.

    Under the terms of the [Slavery Abolition] Act [of 1833] the British government raised £20 million to pay out in compensation for the loss of the slaves as business assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves.

  332. Jim Davis
    April 1, 2010 at 11:00 am #

    Hmmm… Correct me if I’m wrong Liz but I assume you’re LDS.

    I recall another smart guy who also advocated the government buy the slave’s freedom. This guy ran for president. His name was Joseph Smith. Part of his platform was:

    Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from members of Congress. -Joseph Smith (History of the Church 6:205)

  333. Liz
    April 1, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    1. The British did it.
    2. Joseph Smith did it.

    Well, those are two very compelling arguments. I like the British, and I like Joseph Smith.

    Abortion is abhorrent and goes against the laws of God. How about if our government offers to buy any American woman’s baby if she is considering an abortion?

    What do you think the logical result of the government providing a new market for babies would be?

    Apply that thinking to the slave trade. Thank you for your time.

  334. Liz
    April 1, 2010 at 1:22 pm #

    Tell ya what, though, I am really diggin’ on Joseph Smith’s idea of funding government through a reduction in pay of members of Congress. Pass that idea on to Ron Paul, that there’s a winner.

    I also like Rand Paul’s belief that government should not force the use of seatbelts. Gentle persuasion, yes, force, no.

  335. Jeffrey T
    April 1, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    Liz,

    That’s a silly comparison (forgive me for saying so).

    Once the slave market is ended and all the slaves freed, anyone bringing a NEW slave to the government for money would just be arrested on the spot for enslaving another human being.

  336. Rotpada
    April 1, 2010 at 1:39 pm #

    Wow! This thread has been boing on for a long time.

    I was in Elders quorum 2-3 weeks ago and mentioned Ron Paul in a comment. It was relevant to the lesson, I wasn’t campaigning. Of course, my comment was followed by some mumblings and laughter, then a few snide remarks. I was a little taken back by the very negative nature of the comments. The teacher tried to take back the conversation by saying we shouldn’t be talking politics in church, “especially fringe topics, like the things Ron Paul talks about.”

    I was under the impression that the constitution was an important part of our scripture and doctrine. Why is it that the Constitution, even among LDSs, is a hiss and a byword? It is the very core of liberty in this country and a shining, albeit imperfect, example to the rest of the world. How is conversation of constitutional government a fringe topic? When we look at the core of liberty as the foundation of our country, aren’t preemptive war, socialized auto manufacturing, and corporate socialism the real fringe topics? Why do LDSs hold so tightly to the fascist views of the the neo-con Republican Party? Since when is an aggressive war okay in the eyes of God? What about the Patriot Act supports Free Agency? We all chose Agency in the pre-existence, why do so many despise it now? Since when is a conversation about Agency or Liberty unfit for a church setting? Why are comments of the Constitution hanging by a thread always in some distant future? Why don’t LDSs see that the thread is ready to break, if it has not already broken? Why aren’t predominantly LDS communities focusing on State and Individual sovereignty? How can we be a light to the world when all we seem to do is run around trying to prove to the world that we really aren’t that much different? We should be different. We should be Constitutional, regardless of what the federal aristocracy does. The Gadianton Robbers have infiltrated DC and they are in the White House, they roam the halls of Congress, and they lounge in the seat of Justice.

    Do we read the warnings of corruption and tyranny in the BoM with disdain, then turn around and embrace it in our lives? God will not magically save this country from itself. We can either get busy and make huge changes to turn this boat around, or we can share the fate of all the “sinners” we so easily point a critical finger at.

    Sorry to bug, that’s just what’s floating around in my head at the moment.

  337. Jim Davis
    April 1, 2010 at 2:24 pm #

    Liz,

    It’s really difficult for me to understand your logic (or lack thereof). Ron Paul has never advocated for the government to “buy the slaves” as if they were going to “provide a new market” for slaves. He advocated buying their freedom… Just like Joseph Smith campaigned. Please tell me you can see the difference. Your “government providing a baby market” analogy doesn’t apply at all.

    Tell ya what, though, I am really diggin’ on Joseph Smith’s idea of funding government through a reduction in pay of members of Congress. Pass that idea on to Ron Paul, that there’s a winner.

    Ron Paul is the only member of Congress who, every year, voluntarily returns a portion of his congressional salary, returns a large portion of the congressional office budget, and refuses to take part in Congress’ pension system. I’ll be sure to pass on that idea… But I think he’s already got it.

  338. oldmama
    May 13, 2010 at 2:00 pm #

    it’s been interesting to go back and read all of this–

    I wonder if everyone still feels the same way about things–

    I still like Ron Paul.

    I was an anarchist wannabe for years–

    and then I called myself a pro-life libertarian (which includes no aggressive wars)–

    and now I’m just an old woman with grandchildren I would like to see live in a better world.

    Thanks for keeping your blog going, Connor. So many have ‘fallen by the wayside’–

  339. FreedomVideos.org
    May 27, 2010 at 10:48 am #

    Great Article to read years later after seeing all the changes in our national Discourse. Ron Paul was Right. The majority of voters were wrong not to listen to him. But look at what he’s accomplished after so many years after an election. He gets just a small number of votes during a national election but goes on to forge the foundations of the liberty and tea party movements. What other candidates who lost the primary do you ever even remember? He is a true American Hero and when freedom is restored the the hearts of this nation, he will be remembered as a national Hero.

  340. Mike
    May 27, 2010 at 3:23 pm #

    Count me as one of the unfortunate many who bought into the mainstream media’s distortion of Ron Paul for far too long – all based on false propaganda. I once laughed and mocked at the mere mention of his name simply because I let others do my thining for me. I know now that I have been deceived for the majority of my life and I’m working hard to correct my skewed beliefs with good old-fashioned study! While I realize that all politician’s are human/fallable, and Ron Paul is no exception, the ideas that he espouses are based on principles that will always lead to greater freedom and prosperity. I’m glad that I wasn’t too stubborn to admit that I was wrong. I’m glad that blogs such as this exist to help shed light on the deception that many of us assume is true due to lack of knowledge and effort to learn correct principles. It’s exciting to see the awakening that is occurring. Hopefully there are many more willing to admit error, think more critically and discover how easy it is to judge our politicians by their adherance to correct principles. So far, Ron Paul is one of a very select few who passes muster.

  341. Liz
    March 29, 2011 at 12:06 am #

    I kind of see Ron Paul like a Newt Gingrich, in terms of the presidency. There are idea guys, and there are leaders. you can tell idea guys because they have a unique following, usually they look a little unkempt, because appearance and balance aren’t as important to them as are their ideas and ideology. But they just can’t do what it takes to actually have a shot at leadership.

    And one other follow-up question: Why don’t you Paulies like Glenn Beck? I’m telling you, he basically pushed “end the fed” for an hour the other day. Give Ron Paul a personality, and you’ve got Glenn Beck. So what is it?

  342. Ralph Hughes
    March 29, 2011 at 12:24 am #

    A congressional representative who has stood up and fought against a basically socialist congress for 20+ years and repeatedly beat down attempts by his own Republican Party to unseat him is quite capable of functioning very well as President of the United States. The media has constantly tried to make Ron Paul appear unkempt and clumsy. But in person he has shown me that he has leadership ability PLUS integrity to defend, uphold, and abide by moral and constitutional principles.

  343. Liz
    March 29, 2011 at 1:07 pm #

    Well said, Mr. Hughes. You could very well be right.

    I don’t have a whole lot of respect for congressional reps per se. ESPECIALLY those who are there for almost a quarter of a century, if that number is correct! I think that should not be permitted. I’m not sure anyone can stay in Washington that long and not be compromised, warped, and/or corrupted. Bennett started out a nice man.

    That was my biggest beef with McCain. Decades in Congress, and nothing has changed. These guys do not need to be recycled into positions of greater authority and even less accountability, apparently. Has to be a Washington outsider.

  344. Ralph Hughes
    March 29, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    A couple of days ago I read that Senator Rand Paul is considering running for President if his father does not. Assuming he and his dad are of the same political persuasions, and I think they are, that could be something to hope for. And he is no more a greenie to the poltical arena than other possible candidates who espouse constitutional principles, like Pastor Chuck Baldwin, for whom I voted for President in 2008.

  345. Liz
    April 30, 2011 at 9:21 pm #

    Rand’s better than pops. Problem I have with Ron Paul is he’s godless. By that I mean, he doesn’t subscribe to American exceptionalism as it’s laid out in the Book of Mormon. America is just another spot on the map to him. If you don’t grasp the special role this country has played in world history, you have no business being POTUS. (We have one in office right now, so it still happens.)

  346. Connor
    April 30, 2011 at 9:27 pm #

    Liz: many of your comments make me roll me eyes, but none more so than this last one. To assume that one is “godless” if s/he does not recognize the greatness of American is the height of arrogance, if not heresy.

    That aside, you are completely erroneous in your assertion that Rep. Paul does not feel America is “exceptional” and has an important mission to fulfill. If anything, he is one of very few who are trying to bring government back down to its moral and proper size such that that exceptionalism can really shine through. It’s the stuff that John Quincy Adams talked about in his famous address, 50 years after the nation had been formed, and only Rep. Paul has consistently advocated a return to that noble standard.

  347. Carissa
    April 30, 2011 at 10:50 pm #

    Liz, what you noticed is that he doesn’t pander to people’s sense of patriotism in order to get “feel good” votes. But look a little deeper:

    “I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.”

    “I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution.”

    “Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.”

    http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm

     

  348. Jim Davis
    May 1, 2011 at 2:02 pm #

    Liz,

    I recall other lawyers condemning men because they spoke plainly in favor of The Law and against evil policy. In fact those lawyers used a similar tactic you’re trying here- twist someone’s warnings to mean they don’t believe their country is great. Many of the Book of Mormon prophets underwent this treatment. Nephi, son of Heleman, warned the people that they would suffer destruction unless they repented of their wickedness and the corruptness of their laws/government.

    For behold, Nephi had spoken unto them concerning the corruptness of their law…And those judges were angry with him because he spake plainly unto them concerning their secret works of darkness…Therefore they did cry unto the people, saying: Why do you suffer this man to revile against us? For behold he doth condemn all this people, even unto destruction; yea, and also that these our great cities shall be taken from us, that we shall have no place in them. And now we know that this is impossible, for behold, we are powerful, and our cities great, therefore our enemies can have no power over us. (Heleman 8:3-6)

    Similarly, some lawyers tried this tactic against Amulek. They tried twisting his words around to insinuate that he was unpatriotic by saying that he “testified against (the) law”. Amulek’s reply is appropriate to any person accusing a Constitutionalist of hating their country:

    For behold, have I testified against your law? Ye do not understand; ye say that I have spoken against your law; but I have not, but I have spoken in favor of your law, to your condemnation. (Alma 10:26)

    The “American exceptionalism” you claim the Book of Mormon outlines does not teach that the country is great no matter what. This is a choice land but our greatness is conditional.

    And thus the Lord did pour out his blessings upon this land, which was choice above all other lands; and he commanded that whoso should possess the land should possess it unto the Lord, or they should be destroyed when they were ripened in iniquity; for upon such, saith the Lord: I will pour out the fulness of my wrath. (Ether 9:20)

    America has great potential, a potential which can’t be reached by merely “believing” it to be so. Speaking plainly for truth and against bad laws/policy is not only justified but necessary if we are serious about being a great country.

  349. Jonathan
    August 13, 2011 at 4:13 pm #

    I generally agree with some things advocated on this blog since I support what has been called “classical liberalism” but I am also pragmatic enough to know that politics is the art of compromise and achieving the possible, not the pie in the sky. I think experience indicates that both Mr. Paul and libertarianism have about as much chance of winning any American election as would Kim Jong Il. Simply not possible, no matter how passionately libertarian advocates state their cause. So this blog is an interesting intellectual exercise but nothing more.

    I am not Mormon but have Mormon friends and find it interesting to watch what they and their church do and discuss. I have read enough of this blog to see clearly that Mr. Boyack’s political philosophy is motivated in large part by his Mormon religious beliefs. If he and his supporting commenters typify American Mormon thinking, then it appears the Mormons have confined themselves to an unrealistic, insular echo chamber that will ensure Utah’s continuing status as a political backwater, virtually irrelevant to the broad national picture.

    No matter how much heat is produced here or in op-ed pieces or in guest appearances on rural Utah radio stations, such effort will generate no light outside the Mormon heartland unless and until you all become more practical and realistic about what you can actually achieve. No matter what principles they advocate, uncompromising zealots usually end up one of two ways: either they never achieve anything, or their achievements are temporary and then overthrown as balance and compromise are restored and human nature reasserts itself.

  350. Ralph Hughes
    August 13, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    Back to the original question: Why do Latter-day Saints ignore Ron Paul ? Most have not done their homework assigned them by the Lord thru prophets and apostles. They have not studied or even familiantized themselves with the U.S. Constitution. Most are unaware of or indifferent to their responsibility to uphold and support the principles of the Constitution and our liberties. Most are unaware of the role freedom plays in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

  351. sleepyzZ
    December 18, 2011 at 11:07 pm #

    #356 response to the question is completely unfounded. He doesn’t know if it is most, many, or even some. He judges others, possibly because he believes that he is right and can’t understand why others don’t think the same way he does. He doesn’t know their education or the level of diligence in studying the scriptures or the Constitution. It appears that he feels he is morally superior to those with a different perspective than his. This is similar to the position of some who can’t understand why there are LDS Democrats.

    I will give you my perspective as to why I will not vote for Ron Paul even though I don’t hate the guy. Just two points. I believe in prophecy and modern revelation. I believe that one day the Savior will come again. I believe that part of that prophecy deals with the idea that every country will turn against Israel. I believe that you can also be against someone one by not lending aid. I believe that the United States will not come to the aid of Israel when she is surrounded by her enemies. The attitude of people like Ron Paul, however well intended, only fosters to grow this spirit. This is a very strongly held belief by others that will be difficult for Ron Paul to overcome. If he can’t then he cannot win.

    Second, I understand that Ron Paul supports the Constitution, but many of his statements lead me to conclude that he would rather support the Articles of Confederation. I personally would not vote for someone who I believe would rather support something other than the Constitution.

  352. sleepyzZ
    December 19, 2011 at 12:52 am #

    I should also mention that the Libertarian view on things like pornography, drug use, and even abortion is not in line with the LDS church. I mention these things because this site apparently is LDS oriented. As far as I know, LDS have a good grasp as the real reasons for the decline of the United States. It’s righteousness and it does not matter what other policies are implemented without it. You will only be treating symptoms and not the cause. So, no. Ron Paul does not get my vote.

  353. Ender
    February 10, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

    Ahhh….. Agency….the thing Mormons love to talk about but never want to allow others.

    Libertarianism is NOT about smoking dope or porn, it’s about freedom and liberty.

    Ron Paul is not in favor of drugs etc, but he understands that it is not the federal government’s role to regulate what an individual does. All the WoD has done is increase drug use- just like prohibition increased drinking. These are issues that belong to the states, not to the fed gov.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that actually believes in Agency and liberty- and he’s not LDS.

  354. Ralph Hughes
    February 11, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    It appears that most American Latter-day Saint voters, for various reasons, have chosen to not follow the admonitions in the Doctrine and Covenants and of prophets and apostles in official Church statements which, if followed seriously, would have opened their eyes to the principles of the US Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, to their responsibilities to honour those principles and to honour freedom, and to their duty to seek for and support candidates for elected government offices who will abide by those principles. Now that an Latter-day Saint candidate appearing to be true to the LDS faith is running for President of the United States, other LDS voters place almost unconditional trust and approval in that candidate, closing their eyes and ears to evidence that said candidate has betrayed certain tenents of the LDS faith and demonstrated disdain for certain moral principles.

  355. TRON
    May 1, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    Here we go – a debate on economics between my hero Paul Krugman and Connor’s hero Ron Paul.

    Enjoy

    http://www.bloomberg.com/video/91689761/

  356. TRON
    May 1, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    Bloomberg skipped the Q&A with Krugman. Youtube has the whole thing.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEoGKpnutyA

  357. Sarah
    September 25, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    The official church policy regarding political choice is as follows:

    The church “expect[s] its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.”

    Most of the Ron Paul supporters that I have met do not respect this policy. I used to see a lot of positive support for Paul, which I thought was awesome. But after a while, it turned into “Whoever your candidate is, it doesn’t matter because Ron Paul’s better. If you’re LDS and disagree then maybe I understand our religion better than you do.” No matter which scriptures/Ensign articles you decide to quote, that is not appropriate nor is it in line with official church policy. You don’t know their stories and it is rude to assume that they “don’t understand their religion” because you disagree with them, no matter how much “proof” you may have.

    Also, while I would love to vote for someone based solely on my religious beliefs, we do not live in the Celestial Kingdom. In a Telestial world like this one, there are more factors to take into consideration. Those factors can be considered without losing one’s religious standards. In reference to what is best for our country, I believe that what is best is for Obama to no longer be in the White House. I do not believe that Romney is the perfect option, but when Romney’s term(s) are over, the American situation will not be as bad as it would have been had Obama occupied office for one more term. Writing in Ron Paul is simply becoming a vote for Obama to stay in office because you’re not voting for the one person who actually has a chance of getting him out. If you disagree, that’s okay. I don’t mind. But please don’t tell me that I don’t understand my religion because your opinion and “proof” differ from mine.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Going Up » Connor Boyack on Ron Paul - March 1, 2007

    [...] Connor Boyack wrote an interesting article based on Chuck Baldwin’s recent letter titled “Why do Latter-day Saints ignore Ron Paul?” [...]

  2. WILL MORMONS VOTE IN SATAN OR RON PAUL? « WHY ORGANIC - July 17, 2007

    [...] July 17th, 2007 · No Comments Why Do Latter-day Saints Ignore Ron Paul? [...]

  3. logicalsanity.com » Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul - August 18, 2007

    [...] is a blog that asks Why do Latter-day Saints ignore Ron Paul? . The response off the top of my head is, “for the same reason that most of America ignores [...]

  4. Mormons for Ron Paul » Blog Archive » Why do Mormons ignore Ron Paul? - October 25, 2007

    [...] is an excellent article on why Mormons ignore the best man for the job. It analyzes the various reasons the faithful have [...]

  5. two great articles by Connor Boyack - December 6, 2007

    [...] Why Do Latter-day Saints Ignore Ron Paul? [...]

  6. What do Mormons Think About Ron Paul? | Politics | Mormon DNA - March 29, 2010

    [...] associate of mine wrote a post a few years ago entitled Why Do Latter-day Saints Ignore Ron Paul? I’d like to chime in with my own opinion, having only recently been introduced to Ron [...]

Leave a Reply

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