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]

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.

As always - excellent post!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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

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.

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.

[…] Connor Boyack wrote an interesting article based on Chuck Baldwin’s recent letter titled “Why do Latter-day Saints ignore Ron Paul?” […]

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

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.

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..

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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/

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.

[…] July 17th, 2007 · No Comments Why Do Latter-day Saints Ignore Ron Paul? […]

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!

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.

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.

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?

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!

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?

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.

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!

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

BTW,

Ron Paul 2008!

[…] 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 […]

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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

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.

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

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?

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!

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!

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.

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/

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 t