You know (taking your paragraph on throwing your vote away as a tacit admission) that Ron Paul is as likely as I am to take the GOP nomination. You can vote on principle in the primaries, but to do so in the election is just stupid. (Remember the vote split caused by Ross Perot?) As each party gets closer to choosing their man (usually a done deal well before the conventions), I am sincerely curious about your practical, votable thoughts on the others in the arena.

If Ron Paul is all that you say he is, I have no doubt that he’d be a right fine president, but the two-party chokehold held from behind who knows what closed doors will see to it that he never makes it.

Looking toward the general election, who do you think will make it, and which way do you plan to vote?

Mitt Romney’s record speaks for itself…

You would do better to look at what he’s done from people closest to him. In this day and age any conservative trying to do what’s right is always going to have the truth about them twisted 100 different ways.

If Ron Paul was even a little bit of a threat to the Democrats or McCain you would see this happen. Ron Paul is a threat to no one and needs to get his name out there as much as he can and get out. Put his hat behind someone who can realistically win and give his support. Of the three, if he or you were honest it would be Romney.

Good choice.

“You’re asking the wrong guy if you’re looking for what most call “practicality” in the voting arena.”

Connor, your idealism is to be admired, but I have to ask you to take a hard look at whether it might be misguided in this context. Rather than make a vote for the man you find to be the lesser of two evils, would you abdicate your right to have a voice to those very sheeple?

There is no doubt that American politics is fundamentally broken in its contemporary execution, but sitting out, and saying “I don’t like the rules of the game so i won’t play,” and going home to leave your team one man short isn’t the answer. I can’t follow politics anymore, beyond blog entries of friends (like the ones you do); it shorted me out. My own idealism caused me to sit out for years, and I have to say that looking back on those years, it is not with a sense that I protected my sacred vote, but that I copped out.

It is a shame that the ideal and the reality are so far apart in this (and many other) cases, but you still have to deal with the real, Connor. This is not Zion; it is a fallen and a falling world, and yet we are here. We are here for all its fallen state, by His will.

I should clarify that, at a time like this, speak out for Ron Paul all you can. I am skeptical of the chances of a man who is openly opposed to the Fed, but if you can get him heard, then do so, but when he drops out; don’t write in President Hinckley again. It made for a cute stunt, but in the end, it’s no different than writing in Mickey Mouse.

Connor,

I applaud you in voting for who you think will best represent you. The problem with someone like Ron Paul, however, is that he is very much in the same vein as a Dennis Kucinich on the left, a maverick who is outside the mainstream parties. The problem with individuals like these is that they don’t have the political power to move their respective parties in the right direction.

John Adams felt very wrongly about political parties, and I symphatize with him. He said:

“There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into tow great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other.”

Yet this was exactly what had happened. The “turbulent maneuvers” of factions, he now wrote privately, could “tie the hands and destroy the influence” of every honest man with a desire to serve the public good. There was “division of sentiments over everything,” he told his son-in-law William Smith. “How few aim at the good of the whole, without aiming too much at the prosperity of the parts!”

(pg. 422 of McCullogh’s biography)

This is something someone like Ron Paul will never have the political power to fix. This is a problem that started right from the beginning, and even one like Ron Paul who loves quoting the Founding Fathers should realize that even our Founding Fathers were quite complicit and guilty of partisan squabbles over principle. Heck, Thomas Jefferson’s relations with France were quite treasonous!

It is noble and nice to vote for this kind of person who stands for what he believes, but the power lies in the party, not in the individual. It always has and always will. Why? Because politics is about people. The more people you have in your respective party, the more power and influence you have.

What I would recommend someone like Ron Paul attempt is to create a third party (and there are a host of small third parties in American politics) that has traction. This build up will be slow and unsuccessful for a long time. Heck it might not even work, because of the stupid Electoral College (and yes people like Ron Paul decry those who want to eliminate the Electoral College, when really that’s what’s holding them back from creating a viable third party!).

So basically, vote for who you want, but it is my belief that a vote for Ron Paul will not be a wise vote, no matter how often you quote John Adams who said to vote for your conscience.

Connor,

The only trouble is that you’re never going to get what you seek. As I stated, party troubles began right at the very beginning, so it is disingenuous of a Ron Paul to hearken back to the “good ol’ days” of principled men. Hah! Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were about as partisan as you are going to get!

You’ve already made up your mind however. There are no statesmen in American politics. There never were, except maybe John Adams and George Washington. The rest were partisan hacks through and through.

And I figured those would be Ron Paul’s views on the Electoral College. Too bad he’s fighting against the only thing that would ever reform our system to allow more parties and thusly better competition, and less corruption. The irony!

As for why Ron Paul is ignored, one just has to ask, what has Ron Paul done for the party that would be reciprocated in the form of media attention? There’s a reason why Ron Paul will never amount to much besides a Congressional seat in a highly conservative district. That is because he’s one man. What has he done for the party, so that the party will in turn do something for him?

I struggle with this all the time. Do I vote for who I believe is best? Or do I vote for the one who has the best chance of winning and overall will be the best chance of protecting my ideology . . . ? Those are often two different people. . . Still haven’t reconciled that one mentally and I usually vote for the latter as long as they pass my social litmus test (i.e. moral values issues . . . .)
So you’ve answered why you favor Ron Paul. But you have not adequately addressed the issue of why Mitt is so bad . . .
True, he may or may not be a viable candidate in the long run at this point. But at this stage, I do not believe that Ron Paul will engender enough political momentum to have a prayer of a chance. And I believe that his best role will be to influence someone who does . . . Does that group include Mitt? Not sure.
But it’s the crayon story — Janet Lee (Rex Lee’s widow) tells the story of her child being tested for kindergarten readiness. She refuses to write her name with the crayon. In the car home. her mom asks her, “Why didn’t you write your name? You know how.” Her daughter answers, “The teacher told me to pick my favorite crayon and there was no pink crayon in the box.”
We must select from the crayons in the box . . . . Ron Paul is a fabulous choice — but I don’t believe he is in the box of electable candidates . . . But you never know.
So back the question of Mitt . . .

If anyone is just considering a vote for Ron Paul, I would say to them that their effort is way too small - - and this is why: If we think we are doing our duty to just vote only, we err. We need to actively take a stand and study and talk among our friends, aquaintances and family to make our stand for moral representatives in government. We then need to see how we can influence our representative government for the good (fruits). After we have done some of these steps, we THEN can cast our small, puny vote for the person we feel will best represent.

If we do these additional duties first, then vote last, then we have accomplished real fruits - - and we can then feel good about casting our lone vote, whether one considers it to be “thrown away” or not.

Sure, Ron Paul doesn’t stand much of a chance to actually win, because he is fighting for what is right against the Gadianton power-brokers of the established mainstream media. But that doesn’t mean we can just ignore what is going on, and then the day before the election decide on which candidate is the “lesser of the two evils.” By the time we get to the election of the lesser of the two evils on election day, it is already too late. We need to start taking a stand for Constitutional principles right now, and we need to do it loudly - - just as Connor is doing with his post.

We do need to consider the fact that whoever wins the Presidency will be the pre-chosen person that the Shadow Government (Secret Combinations) are throwing their money behind. Right now, it seems that those Gadiantons are throwing money behind Obama. If you think that’s OK, then you need to just sit back and do nothing, and your vote on election day will truly be thrown away, regardless of who you vote for!

Although an admitted long-shot Ron Paul can win the election. Unity is the key. We must not allow corporate and elite plants among us to derail this grassroots effort. A divided people will certainly ensure our continued course of rendering our Constitution as a worthless piece of paper. To be Americans we must act like Americans. We must put away our petty differences and look at the issues that effect each and every one of us as a whole. Ron Paul addresses the issues that are near and dear to us with sound principles steeped in Constitutional Law. He has taken a stance in Congress on more issues than probably all the other candidates combined. Endorsing and voting Ron Paul will most likely be the most important patriotic thing any one citizen can ever do for this country. Great presidents are far and few between and at age 46 I’d love to see one in my lifetime.

His biggest obstacle is that he is from Texas. No good politician ever came out of Texas.

He said he is against the drug program. I wonder how he expects the elderly to exist paying $70.00 and more per prescription because of the greedy drug companies. If you cut Social security we will see more elderly either dying or in third world poverty.

Kelly,

Right now, it seems that those Gadiantons are throwing money behind Obama.

What?!?!?!? Where the hell do you get that from?

Dan,

I said “seems.” That means it is my opinion. That’s because he seemingly came from nowhere, with little political background, and yet seems to command great presence with the media. This to me shows his money is coming from SOMEWHERE. And who and where is that money coming from?

Ron Paul is the ONLY choice! If Thomas Jefferson were here he’d be supporting Ron Paul and not any of these other phony conservative socialists. My money, my time, my energy, and my vote go to Ron Paul. No one else even comes close.

Kelly,

The same could be said of Romney. Politically he was not well known in the nation. You obviously know him because he’s Mormon. Before his run for president began, nobody knew him besides people in Massachusetts and Utah. So where did he suddenly get all HIS money from? Could he have gotten it from Secret Combinations?

As for Barack Obama’s meteoric rise, it is two-fold. One, he is a fresh political face, a fairly young African American who is very successful but not extreme, in the likeness of an Al Sharpton. He gave a most moving speech at the Democratic Convention of 2004 that assuredly touched most Democrats who listened, and as such, talk began early about him for 2008. He writes his own speeches and gives very hopeful and moving speeches wherever he goes. He does what few politicians can do, and that is reach to the voter personally. Secondly, the media obviously likes the story: the first African American president. Can it happen?

Your opinion that Obama’s money comes from secret combinations seems to imply that the mainstream media is a secret combination. That’s an awfully simplistic view of the media, and does you no good.

I guess I shouldn’t try to convince conservatives from supporting Ron Paul. After all, the more conservatives vote for Ron Paul, the more Barack Obama will win the 2008 election.

So please, have at it boys and girls. Vote for Ron Paul!

Dan, your comments are insightful, thanks. Personally, I have been voting third-party candidates exclusively during the past 2 election cycles, and will very likely do so again in ‘08. And FYI, I do consider the mainstream media and Mitt part of “Secret Combinations.”

While Mitt truly may have changed, repented, and embraced new values, one cannot be certain and therefore should not trust the man based on what he says without being able to see evidence of those values.

Connor, what kind of evidence would you expect to see?

It is very difficult for me to read people who only vote in the idea of “winning” the whole nonsense of “lesser of two evils.” This is how the Gadianton Robbers in our day play on the stupid and the ignorant.

Bill Clinton had a mentor, Carrol Quigley, professor from Georgetown University who was given to write the true history of the establishment “shadow” government—the true lucifarian’s of our time—that book was the 1348 page “Tragedy and Hope.” Quigley’s great objection to these people was that they wanted to keep themselves hidden from public view, hence what he called the “tragedy.” Dr. W. Cleon Skousen’s Book “The Naked Capitalist” is a book review essentially of Quigley’s book. Quigley, in describing the propaganda and method to manipulate states:

“The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). … The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”

Fools get caught in the “vote for who will win” mentality, and in so doing, are dupes and always get stuck in the “lesser of two evils” idiocy, while in reality Skull and Bones Team A, or Skull and Bones Team B win either way, makes no difference, as Columnist Gary North pointed out in the last election where both major candidates were both from the secret society, “Skull and Bones.” That election was a sham, it made no difference who won, as both men were committed to the same essential policies, despite rhetoric. As we see, truth is stranger than fiction, and Republican’s expand government much faster than even Democrats. We are in trouble.

Ron Paul is the one the establishment can’t abide. They’ll probably attempt to arrest him at debates, as they did in 1996 with the Republican Debates where mysteriously Alan Keyes would be missing from the lineup, only to find out that when he arrived outside, the police arrested him, long enough so that he could not participate in the debate.

Joseph Smith spoke about voting for principle, rather than the scoundrel who “has a chance for winning,” clearly a wrong view of voting:

“…we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that we have acted conscientiously, and have used our best judgement. And if we have to throw away our votes, we had better do so upon a worthy rather than an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his hand to destroy us.” (Times and Seasons, Nauvoo, IV, 441. Cited also in Roberts, Comprehensive History, II, 208-209.)

Hyrum Smith, Head Patriarch of the Church in 1844 stated:

We engage in the election the same as in any other principle: you are to vote for good men, and if you do not do this it is a sin: to vote for wicked men, it would be sin. Choose the good and refuse the evil. Men of false principles have preyed upon us like wolves upon helpless lambs. Damn the rod of tyranny; curse it. Let every man use his liberties according to the Constitution. Don’t fear man or devil; electioneer with all people, male and female, and exhort them to do the thing that is right. We want a President of the U. S., not a party President, but a President of the whole people; for a party President disfranchises the opposite party. Have a President who will maintain every man in his rights. (History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.15, p.323)

Voting for Ron Paul should be where we through our support, not the ravening wolf Mitt Romney. There are many “ungodly and wicked” people today professing to belong to the true church of Christ, and this we have been warned about over and over again by the Prophets, yet too many will by default just “vote for the LDS wolf.” Too many too believe George W. Bush, a Skull and Bonesman, will fill the next vacancy in the quorum of the twelve.

Here is one writer who believes Ron Paul can win:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sabrin5.html

Why shouldn’t I vote for Romney? (-Wrong Question-).
Why should I vote for Romney? (-Right Question-)

When I talk to my Stock-Mormon friends here at BYU, I get the clear impression that somehow the burden of proof lies in my hands - i.e. that Romney is the obvious choice (because he’s Mormon), and that it is up to me to prove that he is a bad candidate, when they have yet to offer me any compelling arguments (beyond his religious affiliation) that he is a good candidate. Every time I explain to them that he has been pro-abortion for the majority of his career, they either refuse to acknowledge it, or else say, “Well, he changed his mind - and I think we should trust him on this one.”
- Even when I show them quotes such as this: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.” - They tell me I must be taking this out of context… I’ve even been accused of slander by some, because I assert that Romney is pro-choice, and it is evident to me (obvious to me) that he has “changed his mind” in order to get the presidential bid.

Oh, go ahead and whine, go ahead and cover your ears and deny it - go ahead and explain it away - go ahead and accuse me of maliciously misquoting Romney… I’m sorry if I can’t help that I see things as they really are.

Mitt Romney is also towing the same Iran garbage as the current administration. If he is elected, mark my words, Iran escalation will continue.
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/01-23-07
http://byufreedomsociety.blogspot.com/2007/02/mitt-romney-and-middle-eastern-wars.html
(second link has my take)

I’m assuming those of you who already worship Romney also worship Bush. You’r in luck, because former Bush campaign officials have recently joined the Romney campaign team. Jeb Bush is also showing support.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061023/COLUMNIST89/610230458
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17187253/
(or just google “mitt romney” “jeb bush”).
Anyway, for those of us who recognize the Bushes for who they really are, these developments do not reflect well on Romney.

For those of you who want to invade Iran and believe GW is a “good Christian” - sorry for offending you - you can go back to watching Fox News now, as the rest of this message won’t appeal to you very much.

To you who believe in voting for the “lesser of two evils” - remember you are in reality voting for evil, and just because you are voting for the lesser of the two, it doesn’t mean you are voting for good. Voting for an evil man does not meet the criteria that God has set for Latter-day Saints in choosing their government leaders (i.e. good, honest, and wise men). In reality, if you believe in the Doctrine and Covenants and still vote for the “lesser of two evils,” you need to repent. Go ahead and tell me that that’s too harsh a judgment to make - or that it’s not my role to judge that. Go ahead and try to make me out like the bad guy. You know my logic is sound - and you can’t debate it. If God tells you to do something, and you don’t, you need to repent - case closed. It’s not about being on the winning team or supporting the winning party/candidate - this isn’t a college football game. Those who consistently act according to true convictions are always the true winners. To expect that freedom can be maintained by any other type of people is to expect that which will never be.

The current two party system is nothing but two sides of the same coin - the policies, practices, plans, etc, that are most detrimental to our freedom continue to be advanced no matter which party is in power. Our greatest threat as Americans lies within, not without. We have in reality been taken over by a pack of spineless, bloodthirsty, greedy, … , traitors who don’t have you and me (let alone the Constitution) anywhere near their highest priorities. They are a pack of common criminals - a mob - and we all know what eventually happens when mobs rule.

I don’t believe that Romney is an evil guy (yet), as he hasn’t given me any reason to - I just believe his platform/views/etc aren’t anything special - just the same old junk they feed us every 4 years.

And for those of you who have been offended by this post - I’m sorry that your pride is getting in the way of your common sense.

“…we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that we have acted conscientiously, and have used our best judgement. And if we have to throw away our votes, we had better do so upon a worthy rather than an unworthy individual who might make use of the weapon we put in his hand to destroy us.” (Times and Seasons, Nauvoo, IV, 441. Cited also in Roberts, Comprehensive History, II, 208-209.)

So do you really think that Mitt is an “unworthy individual.” I know I might get criticized for saying this, but I will anyway… He seemed to be worthy enough to hold the keys to a stake presidency. Does this not give him adequate experience? Does this not merit any worthiness?

okay i was thinking about this, if Ron Paul was so principled and wanting to reflect the original Founding Fathers, basically, then why is he a member of the Republican party? Does not his membership in this party undermine his very message? Why do you give him a free ride on this? If he really is that principled, then let us see him leave the Republican party once and for all.

You short changed Romney in all regards. Imposing the personal beliefs upon your constituents against thier wishes is immoral. It is an abuse of power.
So, to attribute the liberal aspects of Mass. to Romney without taking into account his conservative successes in the most liberal state in the nation does not bode well for your fairness.

Also, your accusation that Romney, Governor of a sophistated state like Mass. and graduated Magna Cum Laude out of Harvard law, lacks understanding of the constitution makes me laugh. Perhaps you could teach him, since you have more google cites that match your name with ‘constitution’?

One more. The flip flop card is cliche and overused. It is obvious that Romney is consolidating votes for a realistic run by adapting his platform. Does that offend you that he is looking to grow the platform to the right rather than the center? Perhaps you’d rather he stay consistent, in spite of his personal beliefs, which have been held in reserve during his political life in Mass.?

Pragmatically speaking, you would elect a 70 year old man who (statistically speaking) will die of old age in office during a time of war simply because he is 100% conservative and therefore demonstrates 0% ability to work with 50% of the US constituency?

To Chris,
I’m ok with pro-choice. Am I evil? For the record, I think Romney personally is too.
But are you really going to center your vote on a media fed issue like abortion or immigration? These are small firecracker issues.
Fiscal issues like Social security, health care reform loom with much more foreboding.
As do issues in foreign policy…and Romney is not going to war in Iran unless Iran strikes first. I don’t think Romney is anything like Bush and I compliment him for it.

Dan,
I’m on Romney’s fundraising team here in Cali and i can tell you that most of the money comes from small and medium sized business owners and staunch republicans. You can read up on it b/c it is public information.
The man made a billion dollars learning how to finance venture capitalists…and you think he has to sell his soul to ’secret combinations’ to get funding? Mitt knows how to finance…look at his ‘fruits’.
$2600 per person my friend, that’s all he can get, that and dinner plates at speeches. Secret Combinations…hmph.

Sam,

You’re naming the wrong person. I’m not the one who thinks Romney is getting money from ’secret combinations.’ I was making that comment in response to Kelly Witherton who believed that Barack Obama was being funded by ’secret combinations.’ I was making the comment to show how silly it is to say something like that.

I should clarify that, at a time like this, speak out for Ron Paul all you can. I am skeptical of the chances of a man who is openly opposed to the Fed, but if you can get him heard, then do so, but when he drops out; don’t write in President Hinckley again. It made for a cute stunt, but in the end, it’s no different than writing in Mickey Mouse.

While it may not make a difference in the turnout of the election it may make a difference for the individual voter.

For example, if Ron Paul is the only good, wise and honest canidate someone can find and if they vote for Ron Paul then they can stand before Christ with a clear conscience knowing they have been true and faithful. When a man stands for freedom and man stands for God and when a man fights for freedom he fights for God and even if he fights alone he fights on God’s side.

Simply because the secret combinations may have ’sole management of the government’ we are not absolved of our opportunity to prove ourselves valiant in the fight for agency. Those who write in Mickey Mouse or vote for one of the wings on the same bad big bird will, like the one who votes for the single good, wise and honest man, answer before their maker for their vote. So, gratefully we have lesser kingdoms for lesser beings and higher kingdoms for higher beings.

First, are you stating that Mitt doesn’t share your fundamental values? I think he does if your fundamental values are LDS. Does Ron drink alcohol? Does Ronkeep the Sabbath day holy? as a libertarian would he look down upon the principle of tithing and the law of consecration? etc etc…(not that these are valid political positions)

Second, There really is no response to your ‘fruit’ argument since of course, all of Mitt’s changes have occurred only recently since he left his commitments as Governor of Mass. I wouldn’t ever advise anyone to ‘trust’ a politician, even one I trust…so your point stands. Personally, I feel comfortable with his changes.

Third, You’re diversion into what Bush has/hasn’t done is off point. I doubt if Bush has read the Constitution. Why is any comparison between Bush and Romney valid?
They both come from wealthy families.
They both served as governors. That’s it.
i see little other similarity. Romney was top of his class at Harvard Law/Business. Bush was a flunkie at Yale. Bush failed when given charge of an oil division, Romney became spectacularly successful at the most difficult of business enterprise. Romney saved the Olympics. Bush didn’t kill Texas while governor, Romney overcame a vehemently opposed legislature to balance a budget and work bi-partisanly to create the nation’s second successful system of universal healthcare (which is a minus in your conservative column) . Bush has two misbehaving daughters, Romney and spouse raised 7 kids, all of whom are doing great. Bush steamrolls political opposition, Romney finds workable compromise, Bush hides behind God when he lacks foundation, Romney presents facts and is never without foundation. And I find Romney’s penchant for compromise comforting in light of Bush’s brash resolution and its current consequences.
I still think that Romney run knows the constitution better than you’ll admit, and I think he has been forced to act in accordance with it when confronted with issues as Governor. You’d like something you can find on Google…that’s pathetic research. I’ll take Magna Cum Laude at Harvard Law any day…and I’m still laughing that you would deny him the presumption based upon google cites.

Fourth, if Romney stayed consistent with stances he found early on in his political career to be necessary, just to be consistent, and lost the election, would that satisfy you? what about if he is know aligning his stances closer to his personal beliefs and taking the hit for flip flopping? This is worse to you? You are comparing him to a noname Senator who comes from a conservative bastion who has never been challenged on his platform with any diversity. I’m not impressed with Paul’s untested fruits. In fact I find them sheepish.

“I do not work from fear, I work from faith”
This sounds familiar…oh yeah, Bush was working on faith as well, I hope yours is better founded than his.

“Postulating that Paul might die while in office is a ludicrous reason not to support him.” Is it? The man is 70. If you don’t think that matters, look at McCain’s numbers reflecting concern about his age. It matters to some people.

“since when has the President worked with more than 50% of the constituency? Have you looked at Bush’s ratings recently…”
Um, how about every time a president has worked with an opposition legislature he is working with that other 50% constituency.
Another off point reference to Bush, only less relevant b/c Bush spent 75% of his tenure with a Rep. legislature, isn’t going to help the weakness of your point.

“Have past politicians ever listened to the voice of the majority after being elected?”
Yet one wonders why president’s pay attention to polls? Hmmm even commissioning some themselves? It is a mystery, because clearly they don’t listen to the majority of Americans. Hardly.

I like your threads Connor. I really do. Obviously you think independently, but don’t box up Mitt in too tight of a box this early on.

Sorry Dan,
My bad. I didn’t read it closely enough. I take it back.

Also, your accusation that Romney, Governor of a sophistated state like Mass. and graduated Magna Cum Laude out of Harvard law, lacks understanding of the constitution makes me laugh.

Sam: Are you going to automatically put faith in Reverend John Doe, because he studied the Bible for x years in Harvard Divinity School (or other seminary)? As far as I’m concerned degrees (PhD, MD, JD, BS, BA) can only definitively demonstrate one thing - that you can think - but not necessarily think correctly.

I’m ok with pro-choice. Am I evil? For the record, I think Romney personally is too.
But are you really going to center your vote on a media fed issue like abortion or immigration? These are small firecracker issues.

Point taken. Abortion actually isn’t an important issue for me - as I realize that it is to the point that it would almost hurt either party to solve the problem - because then they have lost a means to divide us. The reason I bring up abortion with my buddies down here in Provo, is that they do care about abortion - it’s not really for me to debate abortion with them, but just to get them to realize that they have not honestly looked at Romney, and just taken the de facto Mormon support stance - without knowing anything about him. Furthermore, the fact that you only “think” Romney is pro-choice - shows me that he has been unclear… all of a sudden, he starts claiming that he believe life starts at conception… and there’s so much uncertainty about what he really stands for. On any given issue, I could probably tell you exactly where Ron Paul stands (on a for-or-against basis) - there’s no uncertainty with him - because he’s a principled politician.

Romney is not going to war in Iran unless Iran strikes first. I don’t think Romney is anything like Bush and I compliment him for it.

Did you read the speech excerpts I linked to? It is very clear that Romney will use his power as President to undermine Iran’s legitimacy as a government, and to turn other countries against them… so whether or not he is going to go to war in Iran is not the whole issue - it is whether he will continue current policies which only serve to heighten the tension in our relationship with Iran… Honestly - if we really want peace, we need to back off - and not keep pouring gas on the fire… Bush hasn’t gone to war with Iran yet - but he definitely wants to - isn’t it obvious?

My frustration in the whole scenario is not with Romney - it is with the people of America, especially the LDS that I’ve debated these issues with so far. If Romney is elected, I will support him (inasmuch as he upholds the Constitution) and will hope that he will make a positive impact. If he can help our country out with finances, and solve some of the problems with Social Security, then I will be happy that he was elected. I believe Ron Paul will do more in these areas (and other areas) if elected - as well as end some of the faulty policies that Romney will undoubtedly continue.

As far as I’m concerned degrees (PhD, MD, JD, BS, BA) can only definitively demonstrate one thing - that you can think - but not necessarily think correctly.

Chris,
Aren’t his achievements as Governor, businessman, father and politician evidence that he knows his stuff? His only weakness is inexperience in national security so he must talk tough. I accept that. I still don’t think Romney is Hawkish. He is firm. He has said nothing to the effect that he will act pre-emptively. With Iran we don’t need to, we have them surrounded with US army camps. It’s no secret why they are puffing thier chests. Any candidate is just going to wait it out. None of them are neocons.
But I think it is evident that Romney thinks through issues. I think the ’state choice’ approach to homosexual rights is the most legitimate and constitutionally valid approach, don’t you agree? And that is his stance. Coincidentally it is also libertarian in its approach.

Ron Paul probably is principled in Texas. But could he ever get anything done as a Governor? probably. In Mass.? Probably not. The United States is not Texas, and the legislature is not Republican. Compromise and bipartisanship is sorely needed. Romney is proven in that area. He is the MOST proven in that area.

I care about foreign policy, my undergrad was in International political economy. But I’m more concerned with social security, health care reform and education. I trust Romney with these issues. Ron Paul may have solutions, he may even be as principled as you say, but I don’t believe he could ever be a successful president without compromise. You love him because he won’t. Democrats will chew him up for the same reason.
Compromise doesn’t mean one is loose on his principles, it means that one knows how to prioritize them and respect others.

WOW! This editorial is superb! Excellent piece, my friend. Keep writing. I’m gonna have to add this blog to my “favorites” so I can come back again and again. Great job!

What we disagree on, then, is the issue of compromise in politics. I personally believe that compromising one’s value system and set of ideals leads to capitulation on important issues that demand a strong hand and endurance through opposition.
You obtusively fail to distinguish between personal compromise and political compromise. That is naive and tyrannical. Bush is a paramount example of a non-compromising president. Will you herald his banner? Didn’t think so.
You are right, there are some issues that shouldn’t be compromised upon. But you are wrong; Romney hasn’t compromised his value system…he’s prioritized issues and made decisions. You wish he was personally corrupt so you could demonize him. typical.

I don’t need to demonize Ron Paul to make Romney look better. I’m sure he’s a stand up guy. Probably wouldn’t mess things up too badly if President. But if we are going for stand up libertarians who will never be president maybe I should vote for my dad?

Romney showed you that he is a socialist in Mass.? Again I am laughing. You can’t say that with a straight face. Liberals in that state hate him for his lean style. Romney shrunk the size of the Mass. government by cutting programs or downsizing them. He worked with the legislature to install universal health care because in States like Oregon and Mass. they have a wealthy enough middle class and few enough persons not covered with insurance that they could afford it. It is overwhelmingly approved of in that state. Your derision of it belies ignorance and blind religious devotion to libertarian ideals at the cost of the best solution. Do you really think that I want him to bring nationalized universal health care? Are you crazy? He’s said nothing of the sort. To the contrary. There is no one size fits all answer. I use the example to show that Romney can find the right solution to the right problem. Socialist…incredible.

He streamlined companies acquired by Bain Capital and resold them for profit, found good companies and made them more productive with less overhead and sold them for profit. he took the Olympics which were at a loss and made 130 million profit. He shrunk a liberal states government.

There is no area where libertarianist ideals are more violently challenged in the market then venture capitalism. Romney is an expert at what you value–market solutions. In fact, his knowledge of free market enterprise is forged in the fire of the market itself. If you cannot accept this as valid evidence, then you comment with a closed mind.

I’d comfortably posit that given his experience as both a champion and an administrator inside a free market system Romney knows much more about the market system, its strengths and weakness, than you can imagine.

This ’socialist’ stuff is as banal as the ‘he doesn’t know his constitution’ crap. Magna Cum Laude means he aced constitutional law. That is not easy and you can’t fake it. Its graded on a true curve, which means he knew it better than 80 other very very smart people, probably the worst of whom knows the constitution better than either of us, so not only is he thinking, according to his con law professor, he’s doing it better than 95% of Harvard law students.

See his stance on Gay rights if you need a lesson on Federalism, 4th and 14th amendments and freedom of speech. Then look at how he stood up and opposed Gay marriage in Mass. in a losing cause and tell me that the man has no spine. Please…

Is Romney an unworthy individual is one query?

Yes, he absolutely is.

Here are some statements from LDS leadership warning of wolves like Romney, who will sell their soul for a Federal Mess of Pottage. Michael O. Leavitte did so, he turned over the private information of evey man, woman and child in the State of Utah to a Federal Database, with a grant from the Federal Executive Branch, and all in secret until the story broke after the damage was done. Then, what happened? He was rewarded with high political appointment into the Cabinet. Dirty traitor and sell out. We will yet see and be witness to the treachery of Mike Leavitte, as he is being groomed for some important work for the globalist traitors, as we saw numerous close up’s of his face in the last State of the Union speech, with his name put on screen. Getting that name and face recognition going is not an accident, as he’ll be the big cheese in the coming bird flu pandemic that will be released upon this nation.

Here goes some warnings about the wolves from within. First, way back in 1949, J. Reuben Clark standing in General Conference gave powerful information, which was quoted by Ezra Taft Benson 20 years later:

Yes, within the Church today there are tares among the wheat and wolves within the flock. As President Clark stated, ‘The ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and they, more than any others, are clothed with sheep’s clothing because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood…. We should be careful of them…’ (Era, May 1949, p. 268. See also Conference Report, April 1949, p. 163.) (Ezra Taft Benson, “To the Humble Followers of Christ” Improvement Era June 1969. p. 43.)

Then, after quoting this, Elder Benson then warned that these wolves are more numerous and devious today than when president Clark first made that statement.

The following year, Harold B. Lee warned:

We have some tight places to go before the Lord is through with this church and the world in this dispensation, which is the last dispensation, which shall usher in the coming of the Lord. The gospel was restored to prepare a people ready to receive him. The power of Satan will increase; we see it in evidence on every hand. There will be inroads within the Church…., We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church. (Harold B. Lee, in Conference Report, Oct. 1970, p. 152.)

There are many more warnings along these lines, warning of treachery from within. Romney is a Constitution destroying basket case. Should the establishment annoint him and get him in office, it will be by the instigation of the evil one and his earthly emissaries—they will use him, then spit him out, disgrace him and have him as the key means to bring the “multitudes of the nations” against the “covenant people of the lamb” as foreseen by Nephi. Yes, if Romney is put in, it will be that he might be holding the bag when the Globalist Bankers ruin the dollar in totality, leaving Romney holding the bag, and leaving the media with the best scape goat they’ve ever had. Failed socialist states always need scape goats, and always produce them, blame them for the ills, then persecute and murder them. This, I believe is part of the Romney deal in the works if in fact he is the “Establishment’s Man” for 2008.

okay, let’s put to rest this silly notion that our two main political parties are indeed “secret combinations”, and that the media is a “secret combination.”

Many good latter day saints are deeply immersed in the media, in both political organizations, and well, in numerous other organizations, institutions, and corporations whose morals we may question. If these were indeed secret combinations, our prophets would warn us about them, and warn us to stay away from them. After all, if we participate in them, we would be aiding and abetting secret combinations, whose ultimate goal would be our own destruction.

So let’s just put aside the silly notions that the main political parties and the media are secret combinations.

Now, that’s not to say that there aren’t secret combinations WITHIN these organiaztions. It is my belief that the Council for National Policy is a secret combination. I would hope never to see a Mormon in that council or supporting that council, but unfortunately there probably are some. And I’m sure there are others as well.

Sam,

But I think it is evident that Romney thinks through issues.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe this to be the case. This is where his flip-flopping undermines this point. If he indeed thought through the issues, why have fundamental changes of heart from earlier positions? Does it mean that earlier he did not think through the issues and just spurted them out because it was politically expedient? Why did he fund a Democratic candidate in 1992, vote for Paul Tsongas, a Democrat in the 1992 Democratic primaries (note that he was a registered independent in 1992).

The one position he’s taken where I think he definitely did not think things through at all is torture. He backs Bush’s torture policies.

Shaun,

Here are some statements from LDS leadership warning of wolves like Romney, who will sell their soul for a Federal Mess of Pottage.

Huh, if they were warning members of one of their own being a wolf, and Romney was that wolf, why would church leadership meet with him on several occasions before he embarked on his race for president? Please stop the hyperbole, it undermines the debate.

As President Clark stated, ‘The ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and they, more than any others, are clothed with sheep’s clothing because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood…. We should be careful of them…’

Do you have a link to the entire talk? I’d like to read the context of his words.

As to the rest of your comments, dude…

Lohengrin:

Those who write in Mickey Mouse or vote for one of the wings on the same bad big bird will, like the one who votes for the single good, wise and honest man, answer before their maker for their vote. So, gratefully we have lesser kingdoms for lesser beings and higher kingdoms for higher beings.

Gee, if I vote for the wrong person I stand at losing my exaltation? Wow, I’m sure grateful for the Atonement! I wonder if the question of who you voted for will even come up at the judgement seat. Even IF it does, I find myself saying, “You know, I’ve always found politics frightfully boring and confusing. I did the best I could with the knowledge I had at the time. I’m sorry that I voted for …” Then I will have faith that the Savior will extend mercy.

Sam:

“Postulating that Paul might die while in office is a ludicrous reason not to support him.” Is it? The man is 70. If you don’t think that matters, look at McCain’s numbers reflecting concern about his age. It matters to some people.

I don’t think you can convince Connor here. He did vote for a 90+ year old man last election

Shaun:

You’re a nut. Look, wolf! Got ya! hehe

Dan,

Yep, all is well in Zion.

Kelly,

Just where do you get that I think that all is well in Zion?

Dan,

I got that idea from your quote:

“So let’s just put aside the silly notions that the main political parties and the media are secret combinations.”

Boy do I think that the Cheney/Bush administration has taken our Constitution to the point where it is actually hanging by that thread. And I believe the media is much to blame.

I think this is just as Satan would want it. Not only would he want our Constitution and Media to fail, he would also want the normal person to be oblivious to it as it happens.

But America is not Zion, Kelly. The church is. We’ve got a long way to go before we make America Zion. That said, and while I totally agree with you that Bush/Cheney have perhaps irreparably harmed our Constitution, not every bad person in America belongs to a “secret combination.” To say they all are means you do not understand your enemies. There are bad people in the world that do not belong to secret combinations. Bush happens to have belonged (and probably still does) to Skull and Bones, most probably a secret combination. Same for Kerry.

But to make the bald assertion that both major political parties and the mainstream media are secret combinations is silly.

Dan, thanks for your clarification, I however differ in opinion on the point that the media and major political parties are NOT part of the secret combinations of the latter-days. I believe the media and politcal parties are INDEED the very embodyment of latter-day secret combinations.

Well it seems then this debate is done. There’s no point in continuing debating someone who sees the world in such stark contrasts. The problem with this kind of vision is that there is no room for compromise. Either you believe what Kelly believes, or you are part of the secret combinations. Such a shame that American political discourse has degraded so sharply.

Dan:
This kind of discourse is inevitable with religious believers. If you know what God believes, compromise is wrong. If your hypothesis can’t be disproven, so much the better.

Kelly:
You may be interested in my theory that Katrina was an inside job. The CIA controls the weather. I shouldn’t say too much because the NSA is monitoring our communications.

Dan,

I’ve read all of the posts on this page - and nowhere does anyone ever say, that the two major political parties or the media are secret combinations themselves - it is only insinuated that they are influenced by secret combinations.

A few questions:

Do secret combinations have any influence at all in these organizations? I think you would be unwise to insist that they don’t.

Do they control these organizations? It depends on what you mean by “control”… I think it is more a judgment call as to what level of influence they have. There is a point where influence becomes so great that it can be justly referred to as control.

One last question: If secret combinations were to gain some influence in the republican or democratic party (or media), would they settle for just a small level of influence? Would they ever settle for less than complete control? I don’t think they would.

If they did have complete control - how would you know? They’re secret.

Once again Connor has eloquently given his adherents more substantive content than can normally be consumed by a casual observation. His determined efforts to stay on topic are, likewise, profoundly evident.

After wading through the many comments offered up by the masses, I have serious doubts about my being able to offer much in the way of enlightenment not already considered.

I have often wondered what the scene looked like in the life before our second estate wherein we were all engaged, to some extent, in the debate over agency. I have pondered many times what my stance was. I like to think, like King Josiah, I “turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.” I also like to believe that I was a valiant, loyal follower of the plan which was offered by Jehovah right from the beginning, and was steadfast in my certainty that Lucifer was wrong. Alas, I am not certain if I flip-flopped, or may have even been, at least, occasionally considering the merits of the plan of coercion, and effortless salvation. I am certain that I shall, at some futuristic point, be given a clearer picture of that experience and many others as well.

As I have stated earlier on another topic, I am currently changing from being solidly in the camp of Mitt Romney to offering my support to Ron Paul. I suppose that is likely to be considered a case of flip-flopping to some, but I frankly do not care just how long it takes for me to get it right providing I do, in fact, get it right. I voted for President Bush both election cycles, and I have been bemoaning my so doing quite frequently these days. I know now that I simply voted for him because I find it nearly impossible to find any redeeming qualities within the current makeup of the Democratic party to even consider supporting. That being said, I also know now that I can no longer support anyone in either of the two so-called mainstream political parties unless it is someone who almost totally abandons the inherent philosophies of either party. Ron Paul has demonstrated to me that his principles are not only acceptable, but are as consistent today as they have always been during his career in politics. On the other hand, my friend Mitt Romney has given me apprehensions which I simply cannot, at this point, accept without fearing he may be just a little too globalist for my support. I will say, in his defense, that his understanding of economics, and persuasive nature are likely to keep me hoping he will come around to my way of thinking, but at this point, I am more concerned that I stand for anyone who stands for being solidly behind the Framer’s Constitution. Once again, Ron Paul has shown he has that quality solidly under control.

It have had the impression lately that the 2008 election will be the last time we will have an election for President of the same United States I remember so I am hoping we will choose the best man for sticking to our Constitutional foundational principles, and the only one on the scene at this point is Ron Paul. Granted, the scene may change dramatically before the election, but I sincerely hope my stand will still be for the same principles no matter what may happen next. I will say, just for the record, that I will still raise my hand to follow the Prophet no matter who the Lord has holding that office.

Mckee,
Bem Dito. I see the reason in your conversion to Ron Paul. But I don’t go that far. Your reservations about Romney, in my opinion, have merit.
I just can’t suppress the realist in me.
Presidents have always, always had to politically posture when engaging national audiences. Posturing requires some adaptation.
Dan and I diverge as to how to weight Mitt’s actions 15 years ago. What I recognize and understand as political concessions on two issues 14 years ago while running for a Senate in a heavily Democratic state, Dan sees them as lifetime commitments and unseperable from personal values.
I think the universe will roll on past Dan and my differences.

Shaun…dude, I don’t know quite how to respond without feeling like I’m talking back to the tv when X files is on.

Michael McKee,

It have had the impression lately that the 2008 election will be the last time we will have an election for President of the same United States I remember so I am hoping we will choose the best man for sticking to our Constitutional foundational principles, and the only one on the scene at this point is Ron Paul.

What gives you this impression?

See, stark talk like this ends up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, because one side becomes so stiff and unmovable that they become an impediment in the political world, rather than part of a solution to the multitude of problems facing our nation.

I understand the need to be prepared for the last days, but my impression from what our prophets today (not fifty years ago) say is to just simply carry on. Do good, vote for who you feel best represents your values, and so on. I don’t get a sense of this impending doom from our prophets, especially not one less than five years away (because if you think 2008 is our last election, then all our problems will come in the next five years). This kind of talk is foolish.

Dan,

Maybe I can speak for Michael.

Have you ever heard of the North American Union? The NAFTA Superhighway (beginning with the Trans-Texas Corridor)? The SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America)? The Council on Foreign Relations and their recent report, “Building a North American Community”? PNAC (the Project for a New American Century)?

Do a little research on the above subjects - and then let me know if you still think it’s crazy to state that our country may drastically change in the next 5 years.

My impressions are neither unrealistic nor fatalistic. I did not intimate that the scenario was one of doom, but rather change which will be so profound as to defy current or past understanding.

The scriptures are replete with warnings applicable to our present political structure in the world, and they even tell us of the many who will be mesmerized by false attempts to lead us to the ‘New World.” As for our nation in particular, I do believe we will see events unfold over the next six months to a year which will indicate my impressions are founded upon preparation, and adherence to sound logic.

There is an event taking place in Washington, D.C. this Saturday, the 17th. of March which will, I believe, give us a clearer picture of just how divided we are in the United States. The so-called “peace” march to the pentagon will be met by a “Gathering of Eagles.” If nothing dramatic takes place between these two forces, I will soften my tone slightly, but I have been around since the last “peace” march so I am of the opinion that we will be experiencing much more as we progress toward 2008, and beyond.

I do insist that we follow the Prophet, but to discount Prophetic utterances from 50 years ago is, in my estimation, more akin to foolishness.

Dan,

We need to stop dealing with party’s—factions—as George Washington called them, warning against them in his farewell address. For you to act like Ron Paul being in the Republican Party is a great breach of his integrity is quite stupid and shallow, almost doesn’t deserve to be responded to, but for the sake of an opportunity to quote J. Reuben Clark, and being educational for yourself and any others, I will post this by Pres. Clark, that great educator and Constitutionalist, legal mind:

“Now, I am not caring today, for myself, anything at all about a political party tag. So far as I am concerned, I want to know what the man stands for…When I find out these things, then I know who it is who should receive my support, and I care not what his party tag is…Today, our duty transcends party allegiance; our duty today is allegiance to the Constitution as it was given to us by the Lord.” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., CR 10/62:8)

Forget parties, too bad we have them at all, as people devote allegience to party, rather than to principle.

To hear the great Dr. W. Cleon Skousen speak of this, listen to this choice piece of audio:

http://www.awakeandarise.org/media/Dr.%20W.%20Cleon%20Skousen%20on%20Secret%20Combinations.mp3

Dan,

You want that talk by J. Reuben Clark speaking of the “wolves” within. I don’t have that 1949 talk, but it could be had at the BYU library in the “Improvement Era” bound by year in the periodical section.

I do have Ezra Taft Beson’s 1969 talk quoting President Clark in PDF form, a document created from the scanned images of the original Improvement Era that I could send in e-mail.

You can get many quotes, including that one at this URL as well, a most valuable little piece:

http://www.awakeandarise.org/article/TheNewWorldOrderAnAnalysisforLatter-daySaints.htm

Shaun, I don’t think anyone here would argue that there are “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, but I don’t know where you got the knack to point them all out so easily. How do we know you’re not a wolf?

Chris,

Do a little research on the above subjects - and then let me know if you still think it’s crazy to state that our country may drastically change in the next 5 years.

I’m a student of politics. I’m quite familiar with those programs. I don’t see them as anything more than benign. Furthermore, our prophets TODAY haven’t said a thing negative about them. And this is the key. There are members of the church who seem stuck on what our prophets said 50 years ago, in a completely different era, but yet don’t seem to talk about what our prophets are saying TODAY. What have our prophets said about politics today, everybody? Do I hear any doom and gloom coming out of their mouths about politics today? Do I hear them warning us about the impending doom supposedly coming in the next five years? No. Does this negate earlier prophets’ counsel? Of course not. But taking earlier prophets’ words out of context does not help you understand today’s problems.

Michael McKee,

I did not intimate that the scenario was one of doom, but rather change which will be so profound as to defy current or past understanding.

I’m afraid you are going to have to be more specific. I don’t deal with such generalities.

As for our nation in particular, I do believe we will see events unfold over the next six months to a year which will indicate my impressions are founded upon preparation, and adherence to sound logic.

Again, specifics. What are these warning signs you see? The only thing I see that will possibly profoundly impact America is Bush starting a war with Iran. Interestingly, though, that will come at the behest of pro-Israeli groups like AIPAC.

Shaun,

That’s too bad that you don’t have his full talk. I had hoped to read his full talk to get the context.

Also Dan,

You quote:

Many good latter day saints are deeply immersed in the media, in both political organizations, and well, in numerous other organizations, institutions, and corporations whose morals we may question. If these were indeed secret combinations, our prophets would warn us about them, and warn us to stay away from them. After all, if we participate in them, we would be aiding and abetting secret combinations, whose ultimate goal would be our own destruction.

Heaven help us! Prophets have warned, and the Book of Mormon cries out warning, yet few read and comprehend it, but rather “treat it lightly” and hence the condemnation, the scourge and judgement that rests upon the church today.

In 1987, President Ezra Taft Benson likened 3 Nephi to our day, paralleling it to our very time. Those listening were stunned by such an application, for note what it is he stated about secret combinations:

“Secret combinations flourished because, as Helaman tells us, the Gadianton robbers ‘had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils’ (Helaman 6:38)…even at today.” (Conference Report, April 1987, Ensign, May 1987, p. 4.)

It matters not where LDS people are in media and politics, as the “more part” of them have been “seduced” to upholding and believing in the abominations of the Gadianton Robbers. The prophets have been mentally stoned and rebuffed on this issue, and it is most unfortunate.

In 1959, David O. McKay stood at the pulpit in general conference and waved in his hand the book “The Naked Communist” by Dr. W. Cleon Skousen. He asked the church to read it. Some obeyed certainly but in the whole, the counsel coming from President McKay went unheeded. By 1965, Ezra Taft Benson warned the Gathered Preisthood on their failure to obey, to read, heed, and listen to the living prophet who had instructed them to become informed. Here is his prophetic warning that should chill us:

“Brethren, if we had done our homework and were faithful, we could step forward at this time and help save this country. The fact that most of us are unprepared to do it is an indictment we will have to bear. The longer we wait, the heavier the chains, the deeper the blood, the more the persecution, and the less we can carry out our God-given mandate and world-wide mission. The war in heaven is raging on earth today. Are you being neutralized in the battle?” (Conference Report, April 1965, Era, p. 539; as quoted in An Enemy Hath Done This, pp. 278-279.)

Until this day, most have been neutralized in that battle. Then, nearing and just a few years before he was “taken out of our midst” and his voice stilled in testimony against us, Ezra Taft Benson, then President of the Church spoke to what is ahead of us:

“To all who have discerning eyes, it is apparent that the republican form of government established by our noble forefathers cannot long endure once fundamental principles are abandoned. Momentum is gathering for another conflict—a repetition of the crisis of two hundred years ago. This collision of ideas is worldwide. The issue is the same that precipitated the great pre mortal conflict—will men be free to determine their own course of action or must they be coerced?” (The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner, p. 27; as quoted in The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 623.)