What I Know

Well, I Guess Everybody Needs to Believe in SOMETHING.

2010-12-09T11:43:00.000-08:00

Idol.
"There are some ten different Hebrew words so translated in the KJV, representing the various kinds of objects of worship among heathen nations. Idolatry generally meant nature worship in one form or another; e.g., in Egypt the chief objects of worship were the sun and other heavenly bodies, the Nile, and sacred animals, especially the bull. Ra, the sun god, was the active power in creation and giver of life. Among the nations of Canaan and W. Syria Baal was the sun god or source of life, and Ashtoreth was the corresponding female deity. In addition each nation had its own peculiar god to whom it ascribed its prosperity and misfortunes." -Bible Dictionary

Does anybody else think that God's got a wonderful sense of humor about the Global Warming conferences? In Copenhagen they got record snow before and during the conference. There was a blizzard on our East Coast making it hard for our government officials and 'scientists' to get to Copenhagen in the first place. So the Global Warming conference planners got smart and moved the next one to Cancun. And now there are record low temperatures in Cancun. I love it!

The Lie of the So-Called Centrists and Moderates

2010-11-09T23:09:00.000-08:00

I've got friends that call themselves moderates that are to the left of Obama and insist that he is a moderate and a centrist. Sure, those are subjective labels, but at some point, shouldn't we consider what the 2 sides are and where the middle really exists before stating that people who are for socialized medicine and redistribution of wealth via big government force are somehow in the middle of the ideological spectrum?

Problem is, I think the far left is desperately trying to convince us (and perhaps even themselves) that they are the norm, not the extremists. But they are very much on the extreme. The current make-up of the country is 40% conservative, 35% on the fence, 21% liberal, and 4% out to lunch. So if you look at where the middle is, it is center right, exactly where Obama is not, and exactly where my "moderate" friends are not. In fact, they are so far from being center right that it's asinine for them to assert that they are centrists or moderates.

A part of this campaign for the uber-left to claim that they are moderates is a series of ads which they are now running, (the concept of which they entirely stole from the Mormons, by the way) which attempts to make Communists look like relatable people. Here's a question for the commies in the new "... and I'm a Communist" tv commercials, which I won't attach here because I don't want to give them Youtube hits: You've decided to become Commies because in our current cultural climate that makes you a non-conformist, but non-conformity is exactly what will get you killed under Communism, so isn't your own non-conformism self defeating when you choose to use it to conform to a totalitarian political system whose only proclaimed virtue is it's ability to make everyone the same?

The commercial should be more open and honest and say, "Hi, I'm Jane, and I like revolution, anarchist riots, dressing up effigy's of Republicans in Hitler costumes at anti-American rallies, and I believe that all of the rich people should be killed so that we can share their wealth and create world peace through bloodshed... and I'm a Communist." That would at least be honest. People like that might actually believe that Obama is a moderate, but anyone trusting them to make that distinction shouldn't have any credibility in social discourse.

Until the pendulum swings and Liberalism takes the largest slice of the ideological pie in this country, I am more of a centrists than anyone who praises the health care bill with its ability to grow over time, and I am, by no means, a centrist.

I'm No Troll

2010-11-09T01:04:00.000-08:00

When I first started blogging I was shocked at the nasty trolling that I saw going on. Each blog I found to follow seemed to have its own vitriolic contrarian dedicated to attacking every fact and argument: using 5th grade bully tactics, inundating the discussion with baseless accusations, creating red herrings, and attempting to stifle the dialog with insults when all else failed. Having blogged for a while now, I'll be honest, it's still shocking that people choose to use their free time starting online pissing contests.

I don't troll. I spent about 2 days last year looking at liberal blogs to get the other side of the argument, but I got a bad feeling every time I did it, so I had to stop. Arguing on liberal blogs means pinning people down only to have them change the subject when the facts are not in their favor. It gets old really fast, especially considering that I'm not naturally a confrontational person. Politics are dirty, and to me that means they are uncomfortable. I share what I know, hence the title of this blog, and I'll let others share what they know in peace. Is it really too much to ask the same of people who stumble across this blog? Obviously so.

A friend of mine had someone who claimed to be his friend attack him in a series of anonymous comments on his non-offensive personal blog. What's the point? Has trolling seriously become a fun pass time? What kind of sad soul has nothing better to do than try to make people mad online?

I've been called "offensive," "sickening," "racist," illogical, and "stupid," had my writing skills attacked on multiple occasions by people who don't even know that "American" should be capitalized, and had my researched facts called lies over and over and over and over. At the end of the day, none of it means a thing. We earn our friends and our enemies when we are following our unpopular principles and standing up for time tested truths. I'm not always right, and I know that, but I do my best.

I very much believe that when you wrestle with pigs you inevitably get dirty, so I don't dive into a fight unless I'm forced to defend myself. Arguments cause both parties to polarize, becoming even more self-assured in their positions, rather than helping people to think and consider other points of view. Trolling can only cause ugliness unless it's done sweetly, and seldom have I seen that done. So I'm no troll. I don't want to push someone to defend their liberalism, because that would just reinforce it in the process. If you are a Conservative/Republican/Libertarian/religion/whatever-hater and want to troll here, be forewarned that it will only further solidify my convictions. And if you call me a name (to quote an amazing woman) "it's just another jewel in my crown."

Why I Might Consider Becoming a Democrat

2010-11-08T00:30:00.000-08:00

OK, OK, before you haul me off to a padded cell, let me first assure you that I haven't lost my mind.

Here are the (only) reasons I would consider becoming a Democrat.

1) To save the Democrat Party from the modern Democrats. The Party has gone nutty, having been almost entirely taken over by people who more closely align themselves ideologically with Socialists and the European Labor Party than with the Democratic platform. JFK today would be a Republican, no doubt. The party needs some sane free market-loving, constitution-respecting people in it again. If the Democrat Party is to be saved from the uber-left, somebody has to be willing to be a Democrat that can inject some common sense back into the party.

2) Because we need at least 2 viable parties to exist so that there can be some semblance of checks and balances in the Senate and the House. Can the Democrat Party survive having been taken over by Marxists? Probably not, in my opinion. We saw it happening in this election: Progressives and Marxists forcing Democrat voters that actually like the American way into the Republican Party. Keep going like that and they could essentially implode our current party system by making the Democrat Party shrink tremendously, giving the Republican Party free reign. But I'm OK with a useless Party going under once in a while. It is how the free-market of ideas works, after all. Perhaps we could then have a Libertarian Party and a Conservative Party, or maybe a Libertarian Party and a Republican Party. There would still be plenty of fireworks in either scenario, and we might actually get back on the right track instead of always having to try to derail the train to dictatorship.

3) To help the Democrats actually get some decent people on the ballot. Again, we saw how that went for the Democrats this election. *cough*Al Greene*cough* In my state the people of each party who show up and get chosen as delegates pick who gets to be on the ballot. Here in Utah we had a massive Republican turnout, but the Democrats could hardly get anybody to attend the primaries. That's sad. But, in all honesty, I wouldn't go show up to a Democratic delegate meeting or a primary to cast a vote because ultimately that would be dishonest, and I'm not willing to sell my integrity to save the Democrats from themselves.

Truth be told, I can think of reasons to become a Democrat, but I couldn't make myself do it. You might have to do it for me. :o)

My Principles are Getting the Better of Me. Keith Olbermann Should Be on the Air.

2010-11-06T12:06:00.000-07:00

He's not an unbiased journalist. Duh. He's not really a journalist at all, and he makes no effort to seem unbiased. I don't agree with him on much. But he should not have been fired for having an opinion and acting on it in private.

How could MSNBC honestly think that they can force their employees into not having personal opinions? Progressives really are running MSNBC, aren't they? I fully expect all journalists and pundits to have their own personal politics. I expect real journalists to keep those opinions separate from their work, but they should absolutely be allowed to donate to whichever campaigns they choose. Granted, it was in his contract, but it sounds like it was a pretty controlling contract. I don't think that him donating should mean anything in relation to his job. MSNBC's 'no donating to campaigns' rule is stupid. Nobody is totally apolitical who actually has to talk about politics as their job. Of course Keith has an opinion and should be able to use his own money however he chooses. It's HIS money. MSNBC sees otherwise, and he lost his job for it. That was wrong.

I don't agree with him, but I think the debate he's a part of is absolutely essential. He can't be shut up without it putting the masses back to sleep. We can only educate the people if there is allowed to be an honest, unabashed discourse on the issues and principles so they can choose a side. The firing of Keith Olbermann seems to me to be part of the silencing of an open debate. That serves the purpose of the losing side, by the way.

Progressives are in a position right now where they have to figure out whether to hunker down and crawl back into their caves, ending the debate, or push on the gas and be seen for what they are. This firing, to me, signals that they want to hide, because they know they're losing the debate. They couldn't get Keith to shut up, so they took him off the air.

I have a big problem with that. How can we teach the people when there is no discourse because someone wants to end the debate?

Conforming to the Non-Conformists (My Vent For the Day)

2010-11-05T10:11:00.000-07:00

This blog link has been flying all over Facebook, and the comments for it are "Bravo," "Go mom!," etc.: http://nerdyapplebottom.com/2010/11/02/my-son-is-gay/

It is about a 5 year old boy who dressed up as Daphne for Halloween with his mom's blessing, who was worried that he'd be ridiculed at school, but wore it anyway at his mom's behest, making her proud of her non-conformist little kid. Sure, the picture of him in his costume is cute, but encouraging this when he's older can pose a physical and emotional threat, and that's cruel.

In her post she praises herself, but was she really being wise or kind? He even gave her the out, telling her that he was worried that the costume might not be appropriate. She should have said, "You know what, you're a smart boy, and maybe you're right. Maybe being something more boyish would be better. What would you like to be?" But she did the opposite, and what was his day at school really like? He got weird looks and comments. At some point in the day I'm sure he probably wished he had just gone as a ninja. The blog post is all about countering the idea that cross-dressing might make him gay, and criticizing other moms who would not have been so quick to let their sons go to school in sparkly pink outfits. And truth be told, it comes off to me as her ego getting in the way of protecting his.

My son is as boyish as they come, but his favorite color is pink. I'm fine with that for now, but at some point, if he chooses to tell people that his favorite color is pink through middle school, he'll be putting himself in a position to be ridiculed and possibly bullied. I prefer that he change his favorite color choice so that he not go through that pain, but I'm not going to push it. I think he'll see that other boys like blue and figure it out before it becomes an issue. But I'm going to be the mom that fosters his desire to change his favorite color when it comes up, instead of encouraging him to stick by his guns and inevitably get hurt.

His Halloween costume was Iron Man, and he carried a pink pumpkin bucket. I was uncomfortable when people asked him if he was carrying his little sister's bucket, but it's not a big deal as he can explain for himself that he just likes pink and they don't have an issue with it either. Unlike the mom in the blog post, it's not the parents judging him that I worry about. I worry about my son's social life. The boy in my high school that wore dresses and high heeled jelly shoes had ZERO friends, but I'm sure that his hippy parents were proud of him for "being himself" regardless of what damage it caused him. Whether or not cross-dressing will make a child "gay" is a completely different issue from the fact that it will for sure make him look weird. And the couter argument is the usual liberal relativist response: Who decides what is socially acceptable and cool? Here's the answer: Society does. Weird is anything that makes it hard to get along in society. Get over your conformist need to be a non-conformists and encourage your kids to not be weird. That would be the nice thing to do.

Bullying is never OK, but it can be prevented sometimes by wise parents stepping in and helping their kids figure out how to look normal. Praising yourself for helping your kids be non-conformists, and then crying victim when they don't have friends is both self-righteous and mean.

I'm tired of watching meanness be praised as transcendence at the expense of children.

Be Yourself?

2010-11-04T18:39:00.000-07:00

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48

Over the pulpit the last 2 weeks the First Presidency message was read which stated that programs which promise that you will "find yourself" by focusing on yourself and confronting others are counter to the gospel. It was read the first week as scheduled, and then had to be repeated the second week because so many in the congregation had been confused by the message. I get it. They don't understand how "finding yourself" through contentious communication and self-focused programming can be so evil.

Here are my thoughts. I was tickled by the message, having figured out that (almost) everything I learned about therapy, coaching, and personal progress in my psychology and sociology classes were wrong, and based on Freudianism. They are wrong because they teach a philosophy opposite to the philosophy in the scriptures. We learn from the Bible that it is only through losing ourselves in service that we will find ourselves. Why is that? Because you can't respect yourself unless you earn that respect through being a good person, and if you can't respect yourself you cannot like or truly love yourself. The world gets it backwards. We're told that we have to love ourselves to be able to love others. But it doesn't work that way in reality. While it's true that we have to respect ourselves to be able to have healthy relationships, healthy relationships and love are two different things. We have to love others to love and respect ourselves, and then after we've got that worked out we're ready to have healthy relationships. That's taught in the scriptures, not in self-help programs.

I've said it before, and I will say it again: Self-esteem is Satan's counterfeit for self-respect. Self-esteem alone actually tends to destroy the self because we're taught that we should esteem ourselves regardless of our actions. Self-esteem which you can have, no matter your actions, is a cancer. It is pride.

Self-help programs and books, which usually push self-esteem, will always fail upon application because self-focusing is self-centered, and self-centeredness is harmful. Self-centered programming teaches us to focus on who we are, teaching us to be content with ourselves whether or not we're being good people. They also teach us how to manipulate others through communication exercises. Good communication skills are essential, but manipulation will never lead to healthy relationships or increased love. Service is the key. Focusing outside of the self is the key. Learning that wickedness is not happiness is the key. You'll never be happy in your own skin until you're righteous. And communicating evil feelings (rather than taking responsibility for your feelings) doesn't help relationships. Contentious therapy is not helpful therapy. God said contention is "not of [Him]."

How often do we hear, "Be yourself" or "You are perfect as you are?" And how do those statements contrast to the commandment to "Be ye therefore perfect?" They are opposites. One says there is no need for personal progression and the other says that it is a commandment from God to be making constant progress toward perfection. We need to be our best and better selves. And none of us are perfect as we are, though we can be pretty great, and appropriate praise is good. But praising to the point of lying and telling someone they don't need any improvement is mean. There is always room for improvement and that's worth acknowledging and working through. Our culture embraces as wisdom the mantra "Be yourself" and the entire gay agenda is based on the belief that if you are gay you are perfect just as you are. There is no call for personal betterment but rather only enabling and flattery. The scriptures already tell us that Satan works through flattery and teaching the people that they don't need to become better. The answers are all there in divine writ. We just need to notice that this is another one of Satan's clever counterfeits that we are consistently falling for- taking his lies for wisdom.

No wonder Americans are so depressed. We're told that we can skip the whole being good thing and still be happy. Talk about being sold a bill of goods!

Halloween & the Free Market

2010-10-29T15:43:00.000-07:00

The candy is wealth.
The costumes are the uniforms.
The door-to-door trick-or-treating is the work.
The people who give out the wealth for the work do it willingly.
The trick-or-treaters receive as much wealth as they willingly walk from house to house in the cold to get.
Some trick-or-treaters choose to stay home and don't get the goodies.
Some home-owners choose not to participate and don't get the thrill of giving out the candy.
You get what you put in and everybody participates willingly and enjoys it.
Some kids can't get as much candy as others because of sickness, size or disability, and will likely get some charitable sharing from other more capable and nice trick-or-treaters.
Everybody is happy and has a good time.
And then the entitled brats show up and demand candy or they'll egg your house.

(under my breath) Unions!

Why Uncouth Works

2010-10-28T11:32:00.000-07:00

It's a little bit ridiculous that the same people who claim that they're against "politics as usual" are the first to jump all over candidates and politicians who exemplify that quality because they don't play the game the way they are expected to by the establishment. Isn't it strange the treatment Chris Christie gets from liberals for not following the unspoken political rules? He's honest. He's brash. He's unashamed. He's doing what he legitimately believes is the right thing even when it is political suicide. He is the opposite of politics as usual. He's a PR nightmare. He awes without a teleprompter and speech writers. That's why we love him. And it's also why they hate him. It's dangerous to the established order when "politics not as usual" goes from being a platitude to being a reality.

The tea party is the definition of politics not as usual. It's a truly organic movement, existing without any organization or funding. That's unusual. It is a principled instead of selfish movement. That's unusual. It's about doing the hard thing and long term rather than short term goals. That's unusual. We're "dangerous" to the Clintons, Obamas, and other big government ideologues because the movement is not predictable to them; because it's not politics as usual, and they can't wrap their minds around a movement that is entirely unlike the movements they know and have been a part of. The fact that it is so unusual is one reason it has taken like wildfire with those who agree that the usual is corrupt and broken, and why it is so scary to those who claim to be against politics as usual and yet refuse to get out of that box or let anyone else get out of it.

Being uncouth is good right now. That's what the people really want: smart politicians who are not polished and perfect (because we can see it for the farce it is), but principled and, at the risk of sounding cliche, real. Humble humanity in our politicians is refreshing.

Socialism as Institutionalized Cannibalization

2010-10-23T11:11:00.000-07:00

Why is it that bands like Muse and Mumford and Sons who come from the British Isles, where riots are starting because of austerity measures, get it while we're still busy institutionalizing the cannibalization of society described in these lyrics? Read these lyrics from Mumford and Sons and let me know what you think:

The Cave
by Mumford and Sons

It's empty in the valley of your heart
The sun, it rises slowly as you walk
Away from all the fears
And all the faults you've left behind

The harvest left no food for you to eat
You cannibal, you meat-eater, you see
But I have seen the same
I know the shame in your defeat

But I will hold on hope
And I won't let you choke
On the noose around your neck

And I'll find strength in pain
And I will change my ways
I'll know my name as it's called again

Cause I have other things to fill my time
You take what is yours and I'll take mine
Now let me at the truth
Which will refresh my broken mind

So tie me to a post and block my ears
I can see widows and orphans through my tears
I know my call despite my faults
And despite my growing fears

But I will hold on hope
And I won't let you choke
On the noose around your neck

And I'll find strength in pain
And I will change my ways
I'll know my name as it's called again

So come out of your cave walking on your hands
And see the world hanging upside down
You can understand dependence
When you know the maker's hand

So make your siren's call
And sing all you want
I will not hear what you have to say

Cause I need freedom now
And I need to know how
To live my life as it's meant to be

And I will hold on hope
And I won't let you choke
On the noose around your neck

And I'll find strength in pain
And I will change my ways
I'll know my name as it's called again

It All Comes Full Circle. Criticize Political Correctness and Somebody Gets Fired

2010-10-21T17:03:00.000-07:00

Isn't it funny how NPR just proved the point O'Reilly was trying to make on the View by firing Juan Williams? In his View appearance he was trying to explain why the American people feel divided from the President. His explanation was that Obama adheres to free-speech-abolishing political correctness, and the example he used was about Muslims and the mosque. In an act of free-speech terrorism the women on the View sought to censor him by calling his factual statement a lie, calling it bigotry, and walking out to silence him, because they too adhere to political correctness and thus necessarily try to stifle the argument from the other side and distort facts. So they proved, through their accusation that O'Reilly made up the fact that the 911 terrorists were Muslims, which they were, that political correctness is idiotic and leaves us intellectually impaired, and therefore separates the (pseudo-)intellectual and political class from the rest of the American public who choose to be intellectually free to look at facts objectively, even when they are ugly. In essence they gave us an object lessen on why the American public feels distanced by the President because of his love of political correctness.

Then, since the left didn't learn what O'Reilly was trying to teach them about political correctness and how it distorts reality and leaves a chasm between those who live it like a religion and the rest f us who would rather live honestly, NPR fired Juan Williams for saying something that I guarantee you an overwhelming majority of Americans also feel (including the View ladies and NPR staffers), whether or not they admit it, but is politically incorrect. So the View ladies gave us an object lesson on political correctness, the attack it is on free-speech and how to separate yourself from the majority of Americans by adhering to it, and NPR gave us an object lesson on political correctness as terrorism against the first amendment by firing Juan Williams for going on O'Reilly and telling the truth.

Many thanks to The View and NPR for proving O'Reilly right. His argument has now come full circle.

PEACE!

2010-10-20T18:53:00.000-07:00

I have a fascination with uncovering counterfeits and newspeak definitions. Peace is a word that has a real meaning, and a counterfeit newspeak meaning.

Peace is a state of non-violence and well-being, in which people can coexist without fear or malice, but more than that, are charitable, joyful, and have freedom and peace of spirit and mind. If you talk to a liberal, peace is non-violence and non-judgment achieved through tolerance and respect... that and unicorns, forced wealth equality (through murder and theft, but they either don't know that or omit it), and free "love". So, therefore, to them, we have to tolerate and respect everything and anyone in order to get to peace, including those who want to destroy the family, the constitution, religion, and lives. And in return for you condoning their vices they will condone yours so nobody will judge and everyone can be happy in their sin. Sounds like someone's addicted to soma, doesn't it?

So, if I tolerate a murderous lunatic and respect him, will we have peace?

Really?

No. Of course not; That's stupid.

You'll just end up being exterminated, and that's not peace.

So where does real peace REALLY come from? Unfortunately for hippies and liberals, real peace can only be achieved through moral living... you know, that thing that's the opposite of what happened at Woodstock. By moral living I don't mean moral living by government force, but moral living by choice by individuals. Why? Because prideful, covetous people are necessarily contentious. Because immoral people are easily offended. Because morality makes people better and more peaceful in their own lives, and tolerating evil is not virtuous and doesn't make that which you are tolerating be more moral or peaceful toward you. Moral people give. Immoral people take. Moral people forgive. Immoral people inflict revenge. Moral people seek for the better. Immoral people say there is no such thing as the better, but if you happen to find it they sure do want to take it from you.

Is it no wonder, then, that out of the same social revolution of the 60's that tried to bring peace through sexual depravity and drugs we got the most violent radicals calling for the murder of the rich and those in the population which would not submit themselves to their prospective Marxist rulers? The peace of the hippies isn't really peace at all but a movement toward genocide and slavery, for the simple reason that their "peace" is a counterfeit, meant to fool the foolish and flatter the immoral into believing that their immorality is the way to a peaceful utopia. But it doesn't logically follow, does it? It is supremely naive! Why would murder and theft lead to peace? Wickedness never was happiness. The Bible states that peace comes through the Spirit, and the Spirit is only with us when we are being moral, so morality is the only thing that can bring peace.

If one more liberal friend deals me another idiotic platitude about tolerance and respect being the way to peace (which are nice words, but both insinuate only a surface level moral regard for the other person) I might just rip my hair out. We've all heard it over and over, but it just isn't true simply because everybody repeats it. In fact, to some extent, the reverse is true. Intolerance of evil in our own lives IS morality. And not only are we called to respect each other, but to LOVE them, which means doing whatever is in their best interest, and to be honest, that means telling them that their actions are wrong from time to time. Wow, that is SOOO intolerant and disrespectful... yeah... I know. But it's good, right, and loving in reality, which reminds me of another scripture about evil being called good, good being called evil, and so on.

"The truth shall set you free" is scripture, so it should be taken literally. Is diluting yourself into believing in a Marxist peace-promise going to set mankind free, or is it going to lead to slavery? What is the truth that the scripture says will set us free? I'd argue it's the whole message of the book; the entire ideology. The whole truth about God, Christ, the Spirit, moral living, God's laws, and His plan for us, is what sets mankind free literally. Think about it. What countries in the world are the most free? And what is their religion, and how free are they to learn about and practice it? Which are the least free? What is their religion? In North Korea, for example, they worship Kim Jung Il. How's that working out for them? It's like 1984 with death camps in there!

Is becoming a slave to vices good for us or bad for us? Sin can be easily defined as anything that makes us or someone we're acting upon spiritually, emotionally, or physically less free to become more godly. Addictions, vices, and negative impulses we feed are sins and at the same time, are our masters. Sin is slavery, not the other way around. Conversely, morality is freedom and peace. So to embrace that truth is to be set free spiritually, and because God's laws work on many levels, it ultimately has the effect of setting us free literally. The truth shall set you free. Morality shall set you free. It's pretty simple. You can't have real peace without freedom, can you? So technically, those who are saying that morality is bunk are the ones who are really destroying our peace and our freedom.

Joseph Smith's Presidential Campaign: INTERESTING!

2010-10-13T14:20:00.000-07:00

I have often wondered why in the world Joseph Smith ever ran for president, considering that he was already plenty busy with the saints, being the prophet, dealing with persecution, and trying to get justice for the saints from a judicial system that wasn't working, and from government officials that let the persecution and murders go on because the Mormons were generally unpopular and being on their side would have meant no reelection. But I think I have figured it out. His platform itself was what we needed, not for him to necessarily become the president, and today, even more than perhaps back then, we can find wisdom in it to get us back on track.

Included in his platform were 1) expediting the ability of the president to send troops to counter mobs, 2) an end to slavery because it went against the self-evident values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence while paying the slave-owners to free the slaves (which would have meant no Civil War), 3) the creation of a national bank and banks in each state which would have pre-empted the FED, made service of the national and state banks be elected positions while bringing in revenue and alleviating taxes, 4) reducing Congressional pay by 80%, 5) reducing the number of government officials, 6)prison reform, and 7) annexing new states when the Native Americans wanted it.

We can't really go back and preempt the FED or take Congressional pay back to $2/ day, but WOW if we had done these things back then we wouldn't be in the dung heap we are today! This is his document that started his election bid and stated his intentions:

"VIEWS of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States.-Joseph Smith

In the evening I met with my brother Hyrum and the Twelve Apostles in my office, at their request, to devise means to promote the interests of the General Government. I completed and signed my "Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States," which I here insert:
Born in a land of liberty, and breathing an air uncorrupted with the sirocco of barbarous climes, I ever feel a double anxiety for the happiness of all men, both in time and in eternity.
My cogitations, like Daniel’s, have for a long time troubled me, when I viewed the condition of men throughout the world, and more especially in this boasted realm, where the Declaration of Independence "holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" but at the same time some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours; and hundreds of our own kindred for an infraction, or supposed infraction, of some over-wise statute, have to be incarcerated in dungeon gloom, or penitentiaries, while the duellist, the debauchee, and the defaulter for millions, and criminals, take the uppermost rooms at feasts, or, like the bird of passage, find a more congenial clime by flight.
The wisdom which ought to characterize the freest, wisest, and most noble nation of the nineteenth century, should, like the sun in his meridian splendor, warm every object beneath its rays; and the main efforts of her officers, who are nothing more nor less than the servants of the people, ought to be directed to ameliorate the condition of all, black or white, bond or free; for the best of books says, "God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."
Our common country presents to all men the same advantages, the facilities, the same prospects, the same honors, and the same rewards; and without hypocrisy, the Constitution, when it says, "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," meant just what it said without reference to color or condition, ad infinitum.
The aspirations and expectations of a virtuous people, environed with so wise, so liberal, so deep, so broad, and so high a charter of equal rights as appears in said Constitution, ought to be treated by those to whom the administration of the laws is entrusted with as much sanctity as the prayers of the Saints are treated in heaven, that love, confidence, and union, like the sun, moon, and stars, should bear witness,
"For ever singing as they shine,
The hand that made us is divine!"
Unity is power; and when I reflect on the importance of it to the stability of all governments, I am astounded at the silly moves of persons and parties to foment discord in order to ride into power on the current of popular excitement; nor am I less surprised at the stretches of power or restrictions of right which too often appear as acts of legislators to pave the way to some favorite political scheme as destitute of intrinsic merit as a wolf’s heart is of the milk of human kindness. A Frenchman would say, "Presque tout aimer richesses et pouvoir" (Almost all men like wealth and power.)
I must dwell on this subject longer than others; for nearly one hundred years ago that golden patriot, Benjamin Franklin, drew up a plan of union for the then colonies of Great Britain, that now are such an independent nation, which, among many wise provisions for obedient children under their father’s more rugged hand, had this-They have power to make laws, and lay and levy such general duties, imports, or taxes as to them shall appear most equal and just, (considering the ability and other circumstances of the inhabitants in the several colonies,) and such as may be collected with the least inconvenience to the people, rather discouraging luxury than loading industry with unnecessary burdens." Great Britain surely lacked the laudable humanity and fostering clemency to grant such a just plan of union; but the sentiment remains, like the land that honored its birth, as a pattern for wise men to study the convenience of the people more than the comfort of the cabinet.
And one of the most noble fathers of our freedom and country’s glory, great in war, great in peace, great in the estimation of the world, and great in the hearts of his countrymen, (the illustrious Washington,) said in his first inaugural address to Congress-"I behold the surest pledges that as, on one side, no local prejudices or attachments, no separate views or party animosities will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests, so, on another, that the foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the pre-eminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world."
Verily, here shine the virtue and wisdom of a statesman in such lucid rays, that had every succeeding Congress followed the rich instruction in all their deliberations and enactments, for the benefit and convenience of the whole community and the communities of which it is composed, no sound of a rebellion in South Carolina, no rupture in Rhode Island, no mob in Missouri expelling her citizens by Executive authority, corruption in the ballot-boxes, a border warfare between Ohio and Michigan, hard times and distress, outbreak upon outbreak in the principal cities, murder, robbery, and defalcation, scarcity of money, and a thousand other difficulties, would have torn asunder the bonds of the Union, destroyed the confidence of man with man, and left the great body of the people to mourn over misfortunes in poverty brought on by corrupt legislation in an hour of proud vanity for self-aggrandizement.
The great Washington, soon after the foregoing faithful admonition for the common welfare of his nation, further advised Congress that "among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. As the Italian would say-"Buono aviso."
The elder Adams, in his inaugural address, gives national pride such a grand turn of justification, that every honest citizen must look back upon the infancy of the United States with an approving smile, and rejoice that patriotism in their rulers, virtue in the people, and prosperity in the Union once crowded the expectations of hope, unveiled the sophistry of the hypocrite, and silenced the folly of foes. Mr. Adams said, "If national pride is ever justifiable or excusable, it is when it springs not from power or riches, grandeur or glory, but from conviction of national innocence, information, and benevolence."
There is no doubt such was actually the case with our young realm at the close of the last century. Peace, prosperity, and union filled the country with religious toleration, temporal enjoyment, and virtuous enterprise; and grandly, too, when the deadly winter of the "Stamp Act," the "Tea Act," and other close communion acts of Royalty had choked the growth of freedom of speech, liberty of the press, and liberty of conscience-did light, liberty, and loyalty flourish like the cedars of God.
The respected and venerable Thomas Jefferson, in his inaugural address, made more than forty years ago, shows what a beautiful prospect an innocent, virtuous nation presents to the sage’s eye, where there is space for enterprise, hands for industry, heads for heroes, and hearts for moral greatness. He said, "A rising nation spread over a wide and fruitful land traversing all the seas with the rich productions of their industry, engaged in commerce with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye,-when I contemplate these transcendent objects and see the honor, the happiness, and the hopes of this beloved country committed to the issue and the auspices of this day. I shrink from the contemplation, and humble myself before the magnitude of the undertaking."
Such a prospect was truly soul-stirring to a good man. But "since the fathers have fallen asleep," wicked and designing men have unrobed the Government of its glory; and the people, if not in dust and ashes, or in sackcloth, have to lament in poverty her departed greatness, while demagogues build fires in the north and south, east and west, to keep up their spirits till it is better times. But year after year has left the people to hope, till the very name of Congress or State Legislature is as horrible to the sensitive friend of his country as the house of "Bluebeard" is to children, or "Crockford’s" Hell of London to meek men. (Reference is had to Crockford’s famous gaming club house at No. 50 on the west side of St. James St., London.)
When the people are secure and their rights properly respected, then the four main pillars of prosperity-viz., agriculture, manufactures, navigation, and commerce, need the fostering care of Government; and in so goodly a country as ours, where the soil, the climate, the rivers, the lakes, and the sea coast, the productions, the timber, the minerals, and the inhabitants are so diversified, that a pleasing variety accommodates all tastes, traders, and calculations, it certainly is the highest point of supervision to protect the whole northern and southern, eastern and western, centre and circumference of the realm, by a judicious tariff. It is an old saying and a true one, "If you wish to be respected, respect yourselves."
I will adopt in part the language of Mr. Madison’s inaugural address,-"To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations, having correspondent dispositions; to maintain sincere neutrality towards belligerent nations; to prefer in all cases amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of differences to a decision of them by an appeal to arms; to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities, so degrading to all countries, and so baneful to free ones; to foster a spirit of independence too just to invade the rights of others, too proud to surrender our own, too liberal to indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves, and too elevated not to look down upon them in others; to hold the union of the States as the basis of their peace and happiness; to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system; to avoid the lightest interference with the rights of conscience or the functions of religion, so wisely exempted from civil jurisdiction; to preserve in their full energy the other salutary provisions in behalf of private and personal rights, and of the freedom of the press,-so far as intention aids in the fulfillment of duty, are consummations too big with benefits not to captivate the energies of all honest men to achieve them, when they can be brought to pass by reciprocation, friendly alliances, wise legislation, and honorable treaties."
The Government has once flourished under the guidance of trusty servants; and the Hon. Mr. Monroe, in his day, while speaking of the Constitution, says, "Our commerce has been wisely regulated with foreign nations and between the States. New States have been admitted into our Union. Our Territory has been enlarged by fair and honorable treaty, and with great advantage to the original States; the States respectively protected by the national Government, under a mild paternal system against foreign dangers, and enjoying within their separate spheres, by a wise partition of power, a just proportion of the sovereignty, have improved their police, extended their settlements, and attained a strength and maturity which are the best proofs of wholesome laws well administered. And if we look to the condition of individuals, what a proud spectacle does it exhibit! On whom has oppression fallen in any quarter of our Union? Who has been deprived of any right of person or property?-who restrained from offering his vows in the mode which he prefers to the Divine Author of his being? It is well known that all these blessings have been enjoyed in their fullest extent; and I add, with peculiar satisfaction, that there has been no example of a capital punishment being inflicted on any one for the crime of high treason." What a delightful picture of power, policy, and prosperity! Truly the wise man’s proverb is just-Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.
But this is not all. The same honorable statesman, after having had about forty years’ experience in the Government, under the full tide of successful experiment, gives the following commendatory assurance of the efficiency of the Magna Charta to answer its great end and aim-to protect the people in their rights. "Such, then, is the happy Government under which we live; a Government adequate to every purpose for which the social compact is formed; a Government elective in all its branches, under which every citizen may by his merit obtain the highest trust recognized by the Constitution, which contains within it no cause of discord, none to put at variance one portion of the community with another; a Government which protects every citizen in the full enjoyment of his rights, and is able to protect the nation against injustice from foreign powers."
Again, the younger Adams, in the silver age of our country’s advancement to fame, in his inaugural address (1825), thus candidly declares the majesty of the youthful republic in its increasing greatness:-"The year of jubilee, since the first formation of our union, has just elapsed: that of the Declaration of Independence is at hand. The consummation of both was effected by this Constitution. Since that period, a population of four millions has multiplied to twelve. A Territory, bounded by the Mississippi, has been extended from sea to sea. New States have been admitted to the Union, in numbers nearly equal to those of the first confederation. Treaties of peace, amity, and commerce have been concluded with the principal dominions of the earth. The people of other nations, the inhabitants of regions acquired, not by conquest, but by compact, have been united with us in the participation of our rights and duties, of our burdens and blessings. The forest has fallen by the ax of our woodsman. The soil has been made to teem by the tillage of our farmers. Our commerce has whitened every ocean. The dominion of man over physical nature has been extended by the invention of our artists. Liberty and law have marched hand in hand. All the purposes of human association have been accomplished as effectively as under any other Government on the globe, and at a cost little exceeding, in a whole generation, the expenditures of other nations in a single year."
In continuation of such noble sentiments, General Jackson, upon his ascension to the great chair of the chief magistracy, said, ‘As long as our Government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will, as long as it secures to us the rights of person and property, liberty of conscience, and of the press, it will be worth defending; and so long as it is worth defending, a patriotic militia will cover it with an impenetrable aegis."
General Jackson’s administration may be denominated the acme of American glory, liberty, and prosperity; for the national debt, which in 1815, on account of the late war, was $125,000,000, and being lessened gradually, was paid up in his golden day, and preparations were made to distribute the surplus revenue among the several States; and that august patriot, to use his own words in his farewell address, retired, leaving "a great people prosperous and happy, in the full enjoyment of liberty and peace, honored and respected by every nation of the world."
At the age, then, of sixty years, our blooming Republic began to decline under the withering touch of Martin Van Buren! Disappointed ambition, thirst for power, pride, corruption, party spirit, faction, patronage, perquisites, fame, tangling alliances, priestcraft, and spiritual wickedness in high places, struck hands and revelled in midnight splendor.
Trouble, vexation, perplexity, and contention, mingled with hope, fear, and murmuring, rumbled through the Union and agitated the whole nation, as would an earthquake at the centre of the earth, the world heaving the sea beyond its bounds and shaking the everlasting hills; so, in hopes of better times, while jealousy, hypocritical pretensions, and pompous ambition were luxuriating on the ill-gotten spoils of the people, they rose in their majesty like a tornado, and swept through the land, till General Harrison appeared as a star among the storm-clouds for better weather.
The calm came, and the language of that venerable patriot, in his inaugural address, while descanting upon the merits of the Constitution and its framers, thus expressed himself:-"There were in it features which appeared not to be in harmony with their ideas of a simple representative Democracy or Republic. And knowing the tendency of power to increase itself particularly when executed by a single individual, predictions were made that, at no very remote period, the Government would terminate in virtual monarchy.
"It would not become me to say that the fears of these patriots have been already realized. But as I sincerely believe that the tendency of measures and of men’s opinions for some years past has been in that direction, it is, I conceive, strictly proper that I should take this occasion to repeat the assurances I have heretofore given of my determination to arrest the progress of that tendency, if it really exists, and restore the Government to its pristine health and vigor."
This good man died before he had the opportunity of applying one balm to ease the pain of our groaning country, and I am willing the nation should be the judge, whether General Harrison, in his exalted station, upon the eve of his entrance into the world of spirits, told the truth, or not, with acting President Tyler’s three years of perplexity, and pseudo-Whig Democrat reign to heal the breaches or show the wounds, secundum artem.
Subsequent events, all things considered, Van Buren’s downfall, Harrison’s exit, and Tyler’s self-sufficient turn to the whole, go to show-* * * * * certainly there is a God in heaven to reveal secrets.
No honest man can doubt for a moment but the glory of American liberty is on the wane, and that calamity and confusion will sooner or later destroy the peace of the people. Speculators will urge a national bank as a savior of credit and comfort. A hireling pseudo-priesthood will plausibly push abolition doctrines and doings and "human rights" into Congress, and into every other place where conquest smells of fame, or opposition swells to popularity. Democracy, Whiggery, and cliquery will attract their elements and foment divisions among the people, to accomplish fancied schemes and accumulate power, while poverty, driven to despair, like hunger forcing its way through a wall, will break through the statutes of men to save life, and mend the breach in prison glooms.
A still higher grade of what the "nobility of nations" call "great men" will dally with all rights, in order to smuggle a fortune at "one fell-swoop," mortgage Texas, possess Oregon, and claim all the unsettled regions of the world for hunting and trapping; and should an humble, honest man, red, black, or white, exhibit a better title, these gentry have only to clothe the judge with richer ermine, and spangle the lawyer’s finger with finer rings, to have the judgment of his peers and the honor of his lords as a pattern of honesty, virtue, and humanity, while the motto hangs on his nation’s escutcheon-"Every man has his price!"
Now, O people! people! turn unto the Lord and live, and reform this nation. Frustrate the designs of wicked men. Reduce Congress at least two-thirds. Two Senators from a State and two members to a million of population will do more business than the army that now occupy the halls of he national Legislature. Pay them two dollars and their board per diem (except Sundays.) That is more than the farmer gets, and he lives honestly. Curtail the officers of Government in pay, number, and power; for the Philistine lords have shorn our nation of its goodly locks in the lap of Delilah.
Petition your State Legislatures to pardon every convict in their several penitentiaries, blessing them as they go, and saying to them, in the name of the Lord, Go thy way and sin no more.
Advise your legislators, when they make laws for larceny, burglary, or any felony, to make the penalty applicable to work upon roads, public works, or any place where the culprit can be taught more wisdom and more virtue, and become more enlightened. Rigor and seclusion will never do as much to reform the propensities of men as reason and friendship. Murder only ran claim confinement or death. Let the penitentiaries be turned into seminaries of learning, where intelligence, like the angels of heaven, would banish such fragments of barbarism. Imprisonment for debt is a meaner practice than the savage tolerates, with all his ferocity. "Amor vincit omnia."
Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave States, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and ruin, infamy and shame.
Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress.
Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings; for "an hour of virtuous liberty on earth is worth a whole eternity of bondage." Abolish the practice in the army and navy of trying men by court-martial for desertion. If a soldier or marine runs away, send him his wages, with this instruction, that his country will never trust him again; he has forfeited his honor.
Make honor the standard with all men. Be sure that good is rendered for evil in all cases; and the whole nation, like a kingdom of kings and priests, will rise up in righteousness, and be respected as wise and worthy an earth, and as just and holy for heaven, by Jehovah, the Author of perfection.
More economy in the national and state governments would make less taxes among the people; more equality through the cities, towns, and country, would make less distinction among the people; and more honesty and familiarity in societies would make less hypocrisy and flattery in all branches of the community; and open, frank, candid decorum to all men, in this boasted land of liberty, would beget esteem, confidence, union, and love; and the neighbor from any state or from any country, of whatever color, clime or tongue, could rejoice when he put his foot on the sacred soil of freedom, and exclaim, The very name of "American" is fraught with "friendship!" Oh, then, create confidence, restore freedom, break down slavery, banish imprisonment for debt, and be in love, fellowship and peace with all the world! Remember that honesty is not subject to law. The law was made for transgressors. Wherefore a * * * * good name is better than riches.
For the accommodation of the people in every state and territory, let Congress show their wisdom by granting a national bank, with branches in each State and Territory, where the capital stock shall be held by the nation for the Central bank, and by the states and territories for the branches; and whose officers and directors shall be elected yearly by the people, with wages at the rate of two dollars per day for services; which several banks shall never issue any more bills than the amount of capital stock in her vaults and the interest.
The net gain of the Central bank shall be applied to the national revenue, and that of the branches to the states and territories’ revenues. And the bills shall be par throughout the nation, which will mercifully cure that fatal disorder known in cities as brokerage, and leave the people’s money in their own pockets.
Give every man his constitutional freedom and the president full power to send an army to suppress mobs, and the States authority to repeal and impugn that relic of folly which makes it necessary for the governor of a state to make the demand of the President for troops, in case of invasion or rebellion.
The governor himself may be a mobber; and instead of being punished, as he should be, for murder or treason, he may destroy the very lives, rights, and property he should protect. Like the good Samaritan, send every lawyer as soon as he repents and obeys the ordinances of heaven, to preach the Gospel to the destitute, without purse or scrip, pouring in the oil and the wine. A learned Priesthood is certainly more honorable than "an hireling clergy."
As to the contiguous territories to the United States, wisdom would direct no tangling alliance. Oregon belongs to this government honorably; and when we have the red man’s consent, let the Union spread from the east to the west sea; and if Texas petitions Congress to be adopted among the sons of liberty, give her the right hand of fellowship, and refuse not the same friendly grip to Canada and Mexico. And when the right arm of freemen is stretched out in the character of a navy for the protection of rights, commerce, and honor, let the iron eyes of power watch from Maine to Mexico, and from California to Columbia. Thus may union be strengthened, and foreign speculation prevented from opposing broadside to broadside.
Seventy years have done much for this goodly land. They have burst the chains of oppression and monarchy, and multiplied its inhabitants from two to twenty millions, with a proportionate share of knowledge keen enough to circumnavigate the globe, draw the lightning from the clouds, and cope with all the crowned heads of the world.
Then why-oh, why will a once flourishing people not arise, phoenix-like over the cinders of Martin Van Buren’s power, and over the sinking fragments and smoking ruins of other catamount politicians, and over the windfalls of Benton, Calhoun, Wright, and a caravan of other equally unfortunate law doctors, and cheerfully help to spread a plaster and bind up the burnt, bleeding wounds, of a sore but blessed country?
The Southern people are hospitable and noble They will help to rid so free a country of every vestige of slavery, whenever they are assured of an equivalent for their property. The country will be full of money and confidence when a National Bank of twenty millions, and a State Bank in every state, with a million or more, gives a tone to monetary matters, and make a circulating medium as valuable in the purses of a whole community as in the coffers of a speculating banker or broker.
The people may have faults, but they should never be trifled with. I think Mr. Pitt’s quotation in the British Parliament of Mr. Prior’s couplet for the husband and wife, to apply to the course which the King and ministry of England should pursue to the then colonies of the now United States, might be a genuine rule of action for some of the breath-made men in high places to use towards the posterity of this noble, daring people:-
"Be to her faults a little blind;
Be to her virtues very kind."
We have had Democratic Presidents, Whig Presidents, a pseudo-Democratic-Whig President, and now it is time to have a President of the United States; and let the people of the whole Union, like the inflexible Romans, whenever they find a promise made by a candidate that is not practiced as an officer, hurl the miserable sycophant from his exaltation, as God did Nebuchadnezzar, to crop the grass of the field with a beast’s heart among the cattle.
Mr. Van Buren said, in his inaugural address, that he went in the Presidential chair the inflexible and uncompromising opponent of every attempt, on the part of Congress, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, against the wishes of the slave-holding States, and also with a determination equally decided to resist the slightest interference with it in the States where it exists.
Poor little Matty made this rhapsodical sweep with the fact before his eyes, that the State of New York, his native State, had abolished slavery without a struggle or a groan. Great God, how independent! From henceforth slavery is tolerated where it exists, constitution or no constitution, people or no people, right or wrong: Vox Matti! Vox Diaboti! And peradventure, his great "sub-treasury" scheme was a piece of the same mind. But the man and his measures have such a striking resemblance to the anecdote of the Welshman and his cart-tongue, that when the Constitution was so long that it allowed slavery at the capitol of a free people, it could not be cut off; but when it was so short that it needed a sub-treasury to save the funds of the nation, it could be spliced! Oh, granny, granny, what a long tail our puss has got. * * * But his mighty whisk through the great national fire, for the presidential chestnuts, burnt the locks of his glory with the blaze of his folly!
In the United States the people are the government, and their united voice is the only sovereign that should rule, the only power that should be obeyed, and the only gentlemen that should be honored at home and abroad, on the land and on the sea. Wherefore, were I the president of the United States, by the voice of a virtuous people, I would honor the old paths of the venerated fathers of freedom; I would walk in the tracks of the illustrious patriots who carried the ark of the Government upon their shoulders with an eye single to the glory of the people, and when that people petitioned to abolish slavery in the slave states, I would use all honorable means to have their prayers granted, and, give liberty to the captive by paying the Southern gentlemen a reasonable equivalent for his property, that the whole nation might be free indeed!
When the people petitioned for a National Bank, I would use my best endeavors to have their prayers answered, and establish one on national principles to save taxes, and make them the controllers of its ways and means. And when the people petitioned to possess the territory of Oregon, or any other contiguous territory, I would lend the influence of a Chief Magistrate to grant so reasonable a request, that they might extend the mighty efforts and enterprise of a free people from the east to the west sea, and make the wilderness blossom as the rose. And when a neighboring realm petitioned to join the union of liberty’s sons, my voice would be, Come-yea, come, Texas; come Mexico, come Canada; and come, all the world: let us be brethren, let us be one great family, and let there be a universal peace. Abolish the cruel customs of prisons (except certain cases), penitentiaries, court-martials for desertion; and let reason and friendship reign over the ruins of ignorance and barbarity; yea, I would, as the universal friend of man, open the prisons, open the eyes, open the ears, and open the hearts of all people, to behold and enjoy freedom-unadulterated freedom; and God who once cleansed the violence of the earth with a flood, whose Son laid down His life for the salvation of all His Father gave him out of the world, and who has promised that He will come and purify the world again with fire in the last days, should be supplicated by me for the good of all people. With the highest esteem, I am a friend of virtue and of the people.
JOSEPH SMITH.
NAUVOO, ILLINOIS.
February 7, 1844."

Needless to say, Joseph was murdered because of this platform. His “views on government were widely circulated and took like wildfire” in many states.

That's So Libertarian!

2010-10-10T15:24:00.000-07:00

I've been reading the Book of Mormon since I was little, all the time knowing that it was written to help us know what God wants us to know, but only recently have I realized that it is the most libertarian book I've ever read. Here are a few things I've learned, and believe me, there are a lot more things that can be gleaned from its verses and stories about freedom, liberty, and tyranny. This is a very small sampling:

Mosiah 11:6: The purpose of taxation is to support the lazy that rule over us.

Mosiah 11:3: 20% is an iniquitous, “grievous” tax rate.

Mosiah 2: 14: The country’s leaders should be servants of the people, not live off of them through taxes.

Alma 60:27: God will always support us if we desire freedom.

Alma 46:43 and 62:11 and Helaman 1:8: Traitors of freedom should be put to death for trying to put their own people into slavery to kings, after a trial of their peers. (Put that in the context of the McCarthy trials. Interesting thought, isn't it?)

Ether 8: 25: Those who seek to overthrow freedom are led by Satan.

3 Ne. 2: 12: It is sometimes necessary to fight wars to defend freedom.

3 Nephi 5:4: The people should covenant with each other that they will defend freedom with their lives.

Alma 59: 13: It’s OK to get upset with the government for not helping us preserve our freedoms, (but we still have to submit ourselves to the laws of the land.)

2 Ne. 3: 5: The creation of the United States fulfilled prophesy.

Alma 46:17: This entire area of the world is meant to be the "land of liberty". (Monroe Doctrine)

Alma 43:7: Liberty is essential to being able to follow God’s laws.

Alma 61:9 (and also from the Bible, Acts 22:28): God is the granter of freedom and we have a right to it at birth.

Mosiah 23:13: You can’t trust kings to rule over you

2 Nephi 1:7: It’s only a land of liberty if the people are righteous and trust God. If they are wicked the land is cursed and the people will lose their freedom.

Mosiah 29:39: Liberty comes through law.

And what was written directly to us:

Ether 8: 18-26:

He saw our day, the wickedness of the people, the people working to overthrow our liberty and the liberty of all sovereign nations, and begged us to wake up and not allow those people to gain control and destroy our freedom, because if we remain wicked and they destroy the freedom of this land we’ll be cursed and experience the wrath of God.

A Little Saturday Poetry

2010-10-09T09:53:00.000-07:00

“Love thy neighbor” is naïveté and “from the sweat of the brow” a chore

When wanting is a virtue and others too want ever more.

Begging for social progress and groveling for a bone

The tyranny of the majority redistributes what you used to own.

The devil is in the details and his craft is done in stealth,

Preaching that man deserves what he did not earn himself.

Abusing the freedoms of Democracy the wicked vote themselves wealth,

Claiming inalienable rights to school, to food, and to health.

But rather than outright steal it and risk the Creator’s wrath,

They’ve found someone else to commit the theft, to take on their behalf.

From Lucifer’s lazy plan of robbery, they found their sneaky way:

Get the government to tax and take it and make a neighbor a slave.

Dustbowl Dance

2010-10-06T19:10:00.000-07:00

During the 30's we had the Dustbowl: huge ares of the midwest immersed in drought and flying arid soil. It was the Great Depression already. FDR was President, and farming was nearly impossible in the affected areas. So what did FDR and his New Deal do? Slaughter the livestock of the already impoverished farmers and let the meat rot, in order to stabilize prices. Those farmers could pay the mortgage another day with the money the government gave them, but what would they eat later without their cows and pigs?

In addition, FDR sent money to the area to help those affected. The result? People staying longer than they probably should have, living off of the dole welfare of the New Deal, and being more likely to die of pneumonia from staying when they otherwise would have left for better land. Why do modern professors and politicians teach us to worship FDR? His intervention may have helped individual people avoid bankruptcy, but what of the net effects on them and the people of the area as a whole? The increased debt, lengthening of the Great Depression, increased power in the executive branch, increased time people spent in unhealthy places, the increased waste and starvation? Shouldn't net effects be the determining factor in deciding which policies are successes and which are failures? At least from a conservative perspective, I'd sure think so.

Who Cleared This Thing?

2010-09-18T08:27:00.000-07:00

Is that an elevator button? B is for basement. D is for down.

Hey, Democrats, I've got a better D logo for you:

Tolerance and Caution. 9/11 Reflections

2010-09-11T10:30:00.000-07:00

Naive was my scarlet letter for a long time when I was younger. It was assumed that I was inexperienced and naive because I refused to give in and experiment with the vices of my peers. What they didn't understand is that I didn't fool around because I knew better, understanding the potential consequences of my actions. I wasn't naive. My understanding was just deeper than theirs. They were naive, pretending to be invincible, while they called me naive for my strength to withstand.

Now I am laughing my little butt off watching, ten years later, those same people be naive again, while again calling me naive for being cautious. They've never read the Koran. They've never learned anything about Islam's past or present beyond what some tv commentator told them. They don't know about the decades of Islamic butchery and conquest that necessitated the crusades. They don't know about the Arab slave trade, which was mostly a sex slave trade, that was justified using the Koran, which made American slavery look like a trip to six flags. They don't even know about the message of Muhammad that there is only one god, and that idolatry is wrong, and that we are supposed to treat each other well. They really know nothing of Islam except that they're being told that Muslims are being terrorized by white people, and that, understandably, makes them mad.

I read the Sharia Project website before it got scrubbed. It was friggin' scary. I have looked at Koranic scripture to see for myself whether it talks of peace or of terror. (The answer is that it commands both.) I am actively educating myself so that I can reach an understanding that works for me. At this point, that means that I am cautious because some of the things that I have found are quite disturbing, and I can't deny that. I have also found hope in the good things commanded by the Koran, and I do understand that, like with the Bible, there are things in there that were meant for that moment only and cannot be applied to modern day, and if they are, like is being done by terrorists, bad things happen. I am cautious about some specific Muslim individuals because I am not naive, and have actually done my homework. Whether or not Islam is a religion of peace doesn't change the fact that some Muslims find justification for evil there because they want to, and at the same time many people are good people because it teaches them to be that too. But we shouldn't be so naive as to pretend that Islam doesn't command terror and war, because those parts are in the scriptures too.

I am not naive to the fact that Muslims, like ALL people, are self-justifying individuals, just like I am not naive about some Christians who believe in a perversion of Christianity, and should likewise receive our mistrust. Christians who believe in collective salvation, for example, use the Bible to justify their belief, even though it is not in there and is antithetical to the message therein. People of all faiths are individuals and should be treated as such. Some Muslims find a call for violence in their good book. Some Christians, likewise, find calls for evil in their own good book, like when they justified slavery with the Bible. We have to be cautious of individuals who have crazy ideas, who incite, mean to offend, and act ungodly in the name of religion, from wherever they come, even when all they are doing is taking literally the commandments in their scriptures. That is why I am cautious of Imam Rauf, just like I am cautious of the Westboro church and of the pastor that wants to burn Korans in Florida. To me, they are all on the same level: church leaders who are actively creating offense for publicity to build up their own followership, gain fame, and spread their own putrefied versions of religion, doing so in the name of and under the protection of the first amendment, stomping on the hearts of those who refuse to follow them down their ideological sink holes as a religious rite. I refused to say that I was "for" the mosque on ground zero, even though I defended the constitutional right, and now I am glad that I took the stance that I did because I would likewise have to be "for" the Koran burning if I was to have any intellectual integrity. Both are publicity stunts, intended to offend, defended as a practice of religion, protected by property rights as well as the first amendment, stupid, mean, and unwise.

It is not hate to be cautious of an individual that believes they must subvert, conquer, kill and /or enslave. Individuals killed 3000 people on 9/11, but it would be naive to forget that they did it because they felt that their own scriptures told them to. We'd be naive not to look into their own scriptures for some answers. I'm cautious because I'm not naive, and caution is not hate. I do believe that most Muslims are really good people. I have known a few. But we need to beware of the crazies, and expect the non-crazies to excoriate and help us identify the crazies, and not just let them go on murdering and pillaging because of tolerance. Tolerance is a good thing for the most part, to a point, but beyond that point it just becomes naive. We cannot afford to be naive in the name of tolerance, but rather, we need to be tolerant tempered with knowledge. Looking at the ideologies of the majority of Muslims and the ideologies of the terrorists and comparing them is a fair thing to do, and under no circumstances is that hate. Pretending that one is supreme and that the other has no clout is naive.

Being fair to Mohammad, 1400 years is a long time, and in my opinion, he was a spiritual man who lived in a barbaric civilization. Is it unreasonable to think that perhaps some of that barbarism managed to get itself into the Koran after his death? Our own civilization can't agree on the message of Thomas Jefferson and we have his own writings. HECK, we can't even agree on the ideology of Martin Luther King, and we have his own family members telling us what he believed and we can watch him speak on video. If people were to remember me in 1400 years, I couldn't in any meaningful way expect them to get me right. I can respect Mohammad the man and at the same time be disgusted by the inhumanity done in his name and in the name of his god by the people who misunderstand his message 1400 years later.

At the end of the day, a Sharia state and our constitution are incompatible. The way to fend off the conquest of America by pretend moderates is to defend and uphold our constitution and never give in to changing the law or making special concessions for a religious group in the name of religious tolerance or fear of future terrorism.

I can globally redistribute the wealth better than a Socialist. Watch me!

2010-09-09T14:20:00.000-07:00

I don't usually think of Capitalism as a mode of redistribution of wealth. Perhaps it's not redistribution necessarily, but rather distribution (because redistribution assumes that wealth is finite and cannot be created, only moved around). But it is a much better method by which to "spread the wealth around" globally than any Socialist scheme (read global warming redistribution scam). Let me explain.

1st way I can globally distribute wealth better than a Socialist:
I run my own business, purchasing many of my supplies internationally, from 3rd world countries. That means that a wholesaler in, say, India, buys their wares from a factory for a fair price in rupees (which is only pennies on the dollar in US money. 1 rupee=22 cents), and then sells to me for a large profit because of the difference between our currencies and the prices of living. They can sell to me for massively more than they can sell to others within their own country because of the exchange rate. What does this mean? It means that I have given wealth to a person in India in a larger net amount than it would be had I bought that same item for the same price from the store down the street. You can say that I am exploiting cheap labor, but I didn't buy from a US retailer who sent their factory overseas for cheap labor. The labor is cheaper because the cost of living there is massively cheaper, so should I not buy from them and let the factory shut down and the people starve instead? It's a false argument, in my opinion. By purchasing from wholesalers in 3rd world countries I am globally distributing the wealth straight to those people, not the elite, while at the same time helping their economies develop. I'm not necessarily getting a much better price, but I am making a bigger difference to the person I am purchasing from. That is global distribution of wealth through Capitalism. I happen to sell internationally quite a bit too, so even as I give money to 3rd world countries I am also making money for my own economy.

2nd way I can globally distribute wealth better than a Socialist:
I give to charities because I can make money through Capitalism. We see the statistics over and over again: Generally, people who believe in Capitalism give more to charities while people who side with the Socialists expect the government to give charity for them. I make money, so I can give money, and time and time again the people, under Capitalism, give more in charity than the government or people living under high Socialist taxes can. The people can amass wealth, so they can be charitable, and they are. The government just pretends to be charitable with the money it confiscates. Through charity, funded by the people because of Capitalism, people all over the world receive food, money, clothes, medicine, housing, schools, etc. I give a certain percentage of my wealth to charity every month. I do it because I am a Capitalist. If I was living under Socialism there wouldn't be anything left to give after the government took its portion. Capitalists globally distribute wealth through charity. Socialists don't.

Consider the Climate Change Redistribution of Wealth Scheme:
Under the scheme that the UNFCCC was trying to push through in the name of climate change only the wealthiest in the underdeveloped world would have benefited from the redistribution of wealth, and we are expected to then assume that that will benefit the people of those countries. How can that be assumed? Giving money to a king does not mean that the people will see any of it. It seems that it would only benefit the elite to hand money over to countries from one to the other through the kings, dictators and presidents. And in addition to that, under the UNFCCC plan the undeveloped countries would be restricted in ways that would destroy their ability to really develop- being told that they can't use their oil or coal but that they have to use solar energy and wind power, which are prohibitively expensive, to develop. Only the elite can afford to make money. The people suffer, can't capitalize, can't develop economically, while the governments of the world transfer redistributive money to kings and elite. How is that really redistributive, and not just creating a more powerful and totalitarian elite?

So here's the question: If it is true that Capitalism is the best way to spread the wealth around to the people globally, then why are our elite trying to figure out ways to transfer money and power to their other elite friends? Why be Socialist when Capitalism works better at meeting your redistributive goals? Because redistribution of wealth to the people is not the true goal, but rather, it is the trojan horse. By making it impossible for underdeveloped countries to advance themselves through Capitalism the scheme creates Feudalism or Communism in those countries: a need for the people to grovel before their wealthy government masters for their own survival. The real goal is not spreading the wealth around and equality for all, but a consolidation of power and wealth within a very small minority of mutually sustaining friends, and total control over and suppression of the people, while destroying Capitalism, the better system.

An Open Letter to Glenn Beck

2010-08-31T13:22:00.000-07:00

A couple of years back I used to tease a friend of mine for watching your show every day. I wasn't into politics and avoided doing the soul-searching needed to figure out where I fit in the political spectrum because I had been very confused by politics in the past. I had been a conservative without knowing what that meant as a teenager, then a liberal because of my university "schooling" at BYU of all places, and then confused by real life experience which contradicted my liberal ideals, and then just frustrated. So I avoided.

But I'm very religious, very Mormon. I had a testimony of the constitution and of the founders, but I didn't look into what that really meant or what the founders had really said. I didn't realize that the answers were all there, easy to find, both in the scriptures and from modern prophets.

It wasn't my friend that opened my eyes and got me involved in politics, though, even though she influenced me and pointed me in the right direction. It was God. I had a feeling that I really needed to come to understand the John's Revelation for my own peace and fore-sight, but what I found there-in was a description of the war between free agency and tyranny, and the evils of big government and Marxism. It was one of those moments of inspiration that I couldn't deny and from there I started to research, teach myself, and learn about America's role in the fight for the freedom of mankind. Then I started to read what the prophets have said about freedom, Marxism, the welfare state, and America. They have said it all. I just had to find it. They're still saying those things. I just didn't realize it.

Then I visited my friend. She told me about you, but somehow left out the fact that you're a Mormon in her description. I had the Spirit bear witness to me after watching your show for a couple of weeks, and much prayer that you were right, that you were telling the truth, and that you were doing the work God wants you to do, and that you're also just a fallible human like me who can go astray from time to time, but who is generally on the right track, before I found out that you also share my faith.

I bring up our mutual faith because you have asked that people share with you the random acts of kindness that they experienced during your 8/28 rally. I, from home, received multiple acts of kindness from strangers who also watched your rally. On Facebook a link on a conservative page was posted sharing your rally and there were lots of comments posted, one which said in effect that nobody should listen to you when you talk about God because you are a Mormon, making you not a Christian. I've heard that before, always baffled, but not surprised. I posted that I myself am also a Mormon, and very much a Christian, and I bore witness of Christ's ministry. I was surprised to see the comments roll in one after the other sharing love for Mormons, testifying of their love for Christ, and loving defenses of you, me, and our religion, all from people who do not share our faith. I had the opportunity to bear my testimony to a slew of other Christians because of your rally, and I got to experience a rallying of love on our mutual behalf.

I was thinking today about you and why God chose you for this task. You are not a prophet, but the scriptures are scattered with the witnesses of non-prophets who are called to do great things and gather the people of the Lord to repentance. We are all commanded to preach repentance, not just the prophets. God bless you for your work in the harvest. And when you're accused of self-aggrandizement for it, remember that Christ himself was crucified for supposed self-aggrandizement. We're all commanded to try to make ourselves as good and grand as possible. It isn't pride to say that you have been given a job from God himself. It's just honest. It's not prideful to admit it. As I heard President Monson say at the dedication of a school, to the lady who founded it because of personal revelation telling her to, "It isn't boasting if you really did it." That stuck with me because at the time I didn't understand it. Humility is submission to God, not hiding our good works. Hiding our good works in an attempt at humility goes against a commandment to let our light so shine before men that they may see our good works and glorify their God who is in heaven. The accusations of self-aggrandizement are coming from someone who wants to shut you up and hide your good works so that men cannot glorify God through them.

I do believe that God is using you specifically because of your past. America and you have parallel histories, and she needs to follow your example right now. America is a drunk, lost and self-medicating, addicted to big government hand-outs and moral appeasement. She has to do the hard thing, overcome the addition, and shun the substance of her addiction and the self-justifications for her immorality. God has used people with great repentance stories in the past to do some of his greatest work. Consider Paul in the Bible and Alma the Younger in the Book of Mormon. God chose them to be examples to the people of what it means to truly repent just as he's using you to teach the world about repentance and the hope that comes through shunning addictions and vices. Having such a hard past gives credence to your testimony that can't be denied. You are a living, breathing example of hope to a sinful world that needs to know that repentance works. America needs to know that there is hope beyond their addiction. You are giving us that. Thank you for it!

I mention my story because it also gives hope. I was actively avoiding politics and refusing to pay attention or take a side, and nothing could shake me out of my willful ignorance except God, so God took the reins and basically smacked me over the head, pointing me to what I needed to learn to get me involved. He'll do whatever He needs to do for His cause, including taking it upon Himself to wake up His servants who refuse to get involved. There is hope in that. He's doing His part to rally the forces for freedom. Even me... He even managed to get me here.

I can't wait until October's General Conference to hear whether the messages given there echo your message again as they did last conference. A message from an apostle sticks with me and I think is appropriate here: "Do not underestimate the profound influence—politically and socially—of the principles of the restored gospel upon all of mankind." -David B. Haight. The messages of the prophets may not be as overtly political as they once were in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and during the Cold War era, but the message is the same and is as politically influential as it ever was in and of itself.

God bless you. I pray continually for your safety and inspiration.

If You Build It I Still Won't Come

2010-08-30T00:46:00.000-07:00

I believe in property rights.

I believe in religious freedoms as far as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

I believe that most Muslims are trying to be good, moral people and that crazy people do crazy things which should not be used to denigrate an entire religion, at the same time understanding that that which I call crazy in some religious texts is called moral.

I believe the constitution gives the Imam in charge of the Ground Zero Mosque (I can justifiably call it that because that building was damaged badly in the 9/11 attacks making it a part of Ground Zero.) the right to build on that site because someone sold it to him, whether or not they should have, even if the money comes from terrorists.

I will defend their right to build, but I do not condone them doing it because it is insensitive and cruel for them to do so. I don't approve of it any more than I would support a mega-slaughterhouse being built next to PETA's headquarters, no matter how much I don't like PETA and love eating bacon. They have the right to build. They just should know better and be more sensitive. The argument against the mosque is not one of legality but one of human decency. We're not trying to get big government to step in and change the rules. We just want them to know that they're being rude and that we don't condone that kind of behavior.

And then there's the Sharia Project, which is my REAL beef. America will never be Sharia compliant as long as the constitution is the law of the land. I support the constitution, and I don't believe it is a 1st amendment right to destroy the constitution in the name of one of its amendments. Let the mosque be built, but let's keep a close eye on this Sharia Project and this Imam. Not all Muslims are like him and many are speaking out against him, even receiving death threats for opposing him, so I'm trying to be Christian about this and speak kindly of Muslims generally while opposing the rudeness of the mosque builders and the anti-constitution stance of the Sharia Project specifically.

Opposition in All Things

2010-08-28T13:42:00.000-07:00

2 Nephi Chp.2 Verse 11:
"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so... righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad."

Where you have a gathering of the best you have a gathering of the worst. Where holiness exists evil amasses itself against it. The battle lines are drawn.

I watched the 8/28 rally today and the events last night over the internet. What spiritual, loving, Godly, and holy events they were! Religions of the world were brought together to celebrate the divine mission of this land and to gather the strength to conquer the evil that looms over us. It was a day of prayer and pleading for God's grace to be poured down on our behalf. It was not political or vitriolic or accusatory or a revolt. It was about praising and praying to God. And who dares protest against a gathering of God's praying servants? The enemies which amass to destroy light when it stands up against the darkness, and, ironically enough, the protest rally was led by a reverent, Al Sharpton, bolstered by the liberals, and praised by the media for protesting the event while spewing blatant false accusations against those in attendance, including King's own family members. The article covering the event and its comment section on yahoo.com are SHAMEFUL because of the lying, hateful comments and biased altering of the facts. The article doesn't even mention that the keynote speaker was Alveda King, and it sought out liberal infiltrators with ugly fliers as a representation of the crowd. Good is calling itself evil and evil is calling itself good. Don't be fooled. The anger of Satan is on FIRE there in protest to this day of prayer. The opposition is an equal and opposite reaction. Great good invokes a reaction of great evil.

We EARN our enemies when we stand up for goodness, sweetness, and light. Glenn Beck's gathering stood up for God, prayed to Him, proclaimed their testimony of His love and His grace. All those in opposition, I urge you, to realize what side you are putting yourselves on by opposing a day of prayer and thanksgiving. Oh, Repent ye, repent ye for bearing false witness against God's servants and for protesting a prayer! Martin Luther King Jr.'s family was with the Beck event, not with the Sharpton protest march. Repent ye, repent ye! His dream was not a protest against prayer!

The Politics of Racism at the Pro-Mosque Protest

2010-08-24T13:43:00.000-07:00

The proof is in the puddin.'

How to be a Leftie:
Step 1: Denounce the Republicans as racist.

Step 2: Play the victim claiming that FoxNews is the entire media complex and that all right-wing protesters have been rallied by that complex.

Step 3: Make anti-semitic racist comments.

Step 4: Deny that being anti-Jew is racist.

Step 5: Hit anyone who calls you out on your overwhelmingly obvious hypocrisy.

Step 6: Kick out the camera when you know you've been caught in your violent bigotry. Censor, censor, censor... in the name of the 1st amendment.

Step 7: See no problem with any of it.

Perhaps I have been Wrong.

2010-08-21T20:41:00.000-07:00

No... not about current politics, but rather, about past politics. Everything I knew about the crusades I learned from liberals who condemn religion, so why should I be surprised that I may have been completely wrong about the crusades (Well, maybe not completely)? I shouldn't be surprised. And yet I still am. This is an interesting article for consideration, if only to receive a rounded out, balanced view of the crusades:

From thenewamerican.com:

The Crusades: When Christendom Pushed Back

Written by Selwyn Duke

The year is 732 A.D., and Europe is under assault. Islam, born a mere 110 years earlier, is already in its adolescence, and the Muslim Moors are on the march.
Growing in leaps and bounds, the Caliphate, as the Islamic realm is known, has thus far subdued much of Christendom, conquering the old Christian lands of the Mideast and North Africa in short order. Syria and Iraq fell in 636; Palestine in 638; and Egypt, which was not even an Arab land, fell in 642. North Africa, also not Arab, was under Muslim control by 709. Then came the year 711 and the Moors’ invasion of Europe, as they crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and entered Visigothic Iberia (now Spain and Portugal). And the new continent brought new successes to Islam. Conquering the Iberian Peninsula by 718, the Muslims crossed the Pyrenees Mountains into Gaul (now France) and worked their way northward. And now, in 732, they are approaching Tours, a mere 126 miles from Paris.

The Moorish leader, Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, is supremely confident of success. He is in the vanguard of the first Muslim crusade, and his civilization has enjoyed rapidity and scope of conquest heretofore unseen in world history. He is at the head of an enormous army, replete with heavy cavalry, and views the Europeans as mere barbarians. In contrast, the barbarians facing him are all on foot, a tremendous disadvantage. The only thing the Frankish and Burgundian European forces have going for them is their leader, Charles of Herstal, grandfather of Charlemagne. He is a brilliant military tactician who, after losing his very first battle, is enjoying an unbroken 16-year streak of victories.

And this record will remain unblemished. Outnumbered by perhaps as much as 2 to 1 on a battlefield between the cities of Tours and Poitier, Charles routs the Moorish forces, stopping the Muslim advance into Europe cold. It becomes known as the Battle of Tours (or Poitier), and many historians consider it one of the great turning points in world history. By their lights, Charles is a man who saved Western Civilization, a hero who well deserves the moniker the battle earned him: Martellus. We thus now know him as Charles Martel, which translates into Charles the Hammer.

The Gathering Threat in the East
While the Hammer saved Gaul, the Muslims would not stop hammering Christendom — and it would be the better part of four centuries before Europe would again hammer back. This brings us to the late 11th century and perhaps the best-known events of medieval history: the Crusades.

Ah, the Crusades. Along with the Galileo affair and the Spanish Inquisition (both partially to largely misunderstood), they have become a metaphor for Christian “intolerance.” And this characterization figures prominently in the hate-the-West-first crowd’s repertoire and imbues everything, from movies such as 2005’s Kingdom of Heaven to school curricula to politicians’ pronouncements. In fact, it’s sometimes peddled so reflexively that the criticism descends into the ridiculous, such as when Bill Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown University and, writes Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University Thomas Madden, “recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.)” Why, indeed. Yet, it is the not-so-ridiculous, the fable accepted as fact, that does the most damage. Madden addresses this in his piece, “The Real History of the Crusades,” writing:

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

But what does good history tell us? Madden continues:

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War.... In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western [sic] Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

[The Crusades] were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

The reality is that in our modern conception — or, really, misconception — of the word, it is the Muslims who had launched “crusades” against Christendom. (In the true sense of the word, the Moors couldn’t be Crusaders, as the term means “those who are marked with a cross,” and the Muslims just wanted to erase the cross.) And like Martel before them, who ejected the Moors from most of southern Gaul, and the Spaniards, who — through what was also a Crusade — would much later wrest back control over Iberia, the Crusades were an attempt to retake conquered Christian lands. So how can we describe the view taken by most academics, entertainers, and politicians? Well, it is the Jihadist view. It is Osama bin Laden’s view. It is a bit like ignoring all history of WWII until December 8, 1941 — and then damning the United States for launching unprovoked attacks on Japan.

Christendom Pushes Back
So now the year is 1095. Just as the Muslims had invaded Europe from the west in the days of Charles the Hammer, now they are pushing toward it from the east. And just as they had taken the Byzantine lands of the Mideast and North Africa in the seventh century, they now have seized Anatolia (most of modern Turkey), thus robbing the Byzantines of the majority of what they had left. The Muslims are now just a few battles away from moving west into Greece itself or north into the Balkans — the “back door” of Europe. Rightfully alarmed and fearing civilizational annihilation, Byzantine emperor Alexius I in Constantinople reaches out to a rival, Pope Urban II, for aid. Inspired to act, in November of 1095 the pope addresses the matter at the Council of Clermont, an event attended by more than 650 clerics and members of European nobility. On its second-to-last day, he gives a rousing sermon in which he appeals to the men of Europe to put aside their differences and rally to the aid of their brothers in the East. Here is an excerpt of the sermon as presented by the chronicler Fulcher of Chartres:

Your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians.

In addition to this call, the pope articulates a second goal: the liberation of Jerusalem and other Mideast holy sites. The pope’s words are so moving that those in attendance are inspired to shout, it is said, “God wills it! God wills it!” The first crusade is born.

Modernity, the Middle Ages, and Myth
Yet, in modern times, much cynicism would be born. People just can’t believe that these medieval “barbarians” didn’t have ulterior motives. This brings us to the “ambitious pope” and “rapacious knights” bit, the 20th-century myths about 11th-century motivations. Let’s examine these one at a time.

First we have the notion that the Crusaders were imperialists. This is an understandable perspective for the modern mind, as the not-too-distant past has been one of a dominant West colonizing a world of backwaters. Yet this was a recent and relatively short-lived development. Do you remember how Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi considered the eighth-century Europeans barbarians? It was no different in the 11th century; Dar al-Islam was the burgeoning civilization. It was the imperialist force — and this wouldn’t change for another 600 years.

Next we have two myths that contradict each other; although, considered individually, they may seem tenable. One is that, despite the Crusaders’ purported religiosity, they were just seeking riches by the sword. The other myth is, they were so darn religious that they were seeking to convert Muslims by the sword. It seems unlikely that both could be true, and, as it turns out, neither is.

Today we like to say “Follow the money.” Well, if you followed it in the 11th century, it led right back to Europe. The reality is that most Crusader knights were “first sons,” men who had property and wealth — much to lose (including their lives) and little to gain. And just as the United States can drain the public treasury funding Mideast interventions today, medieval warfare was expensive business. Lords were often forced to sell or mortgage their lands to fund their Crusading, and many impoverished themselves. It also doesn’t seem that the average knight entertained visions of becoming “the man who would be king” in a faraway land, either. As Madden said in an October 2004 Zenit interview, “Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.”

As for conversion, the Crusaders were warriors, not missionaries. They had no interest in converting Muslims; in fact, I doubt the notion ever entered their minds. They viewed the Muslims as enemies of God and His Church and a threat to Christendom, nothing more, nothing less. Treating this matter in a piece entitled “The Crusades: separating myth from reality,” Zenit cited medieval history expert Dr. Franco Cardini and wrote:

“The Crusades,” says Cardini, “were never ‘religious wars,’ their purpose was not to force conversions or suppress the infidel.” … To describe the Crusade as a “Holy War” against the Moslems is misleading, says Cardini: “The real interest in these expeditions, in service of Christian brethren threatened by Moslems, was the restoration of peace in the East, and the early stirring of the idea of rescue for distant fellow-Christians.”

Yet, whether or not the Crusades were religious wars, they certainly flew on the wings of religious faith. And when the Crusaders sought treasure, it was usually the kind that was stored up in Heaven. As to this sincerity of belief, Madden has pointed out that Europe is peppered with thousands of medieval charters in which knights speak of their deepest motivations, of their desire to do their Christian duty. Then, Professor Rodney Stark, author of the new book God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, tells us that while the knights were serious sinners, they were also serious about becoming more saintly. Anne Godlasky of USA Today quotes him as stating, “These knights did such terrible things that their confessors kept saying, ‘I don’t know how you will ever atone for this — why don’t you try walking to Jerusalem barefoot.’ And they would do it — they took their faith very seriously.” Moreover, when the Crusaders met with failure, Europeans embraced a characteristically religious explanation: They blamed their own sinfulness. Then, seeking to purify themselves, piety movements arose all across their lands. Perhaps this is why Oxford historian Christopher Tyerman has called the Crusades “the ultimate manifestation of conviction politics.”

We should also note that the Crusaders didn’t see themselves as “Crusaders”; the word wasn’t even originated till the 18th century. They viewed themselves as pilgrims.

Having said this, it would be naïve to think that all Crusaders’ worldly endeavors were animated by heavenly thoughts. Some say that Pope Urban II might have hoped he could regain control over the Eastern Church after the Great Schism of 1054. It’s also said that Urban and others wanted to give those militant medieval knights someone to fight besides one another. As for those on the ground, the Crusades involved a motley multitude encompassing the regal to the rough-hewn, and it is certain that some among them dreamt of booty and betterment. Yet is this surprising or unusual? People are complex beings. Within a group or even an individual’s mind, there are usually multiple motivations, some noble, some ignoble. Charles the Hammer might have very well relished the glory won on the battlefield, for all we know. But it would be silly to think that was his main motivation for fighting the Moors. Likewise, if the Crusaders were primarily motivated by covetous impulses, it was the most remarkable of coincidences. For those dark urges then manifested themselves just when a Christian emperor appealed for aid, just when Europe again seemed imperiled — and after 400 years of mostly unanswered Muslim conquests.

Into the Mouth of Dar al-Islam
But however great the Europeans’ faith, the first Crusade was a long shot. The soldiers had to travel on foot and horseback 1,500 miles — traversing rivers, valleys, and mountains; braving the elements; dealing with hunger and thirst and whatever unknowns lay ahead — and then defeat entrenched Muslim forces. And the endeavor had gotten off to a rather inauspicious start: An unofficial Crusade comprising peasants and low-ranking knights had already departed — only to be massacred by the Seljuk Turks.

So, now, it is August 15, 1096, and the official Crusader armies depart from France and Italy. Arriving in Anatolia many months later, they lay siege to Muslim-occupied Nicea; however, Emperor Alexius I negotiates with the Turks, has the city delivered to him on June 1, 1097, and then forbids the Crusaders to enter. They then fight other battles against the Muslims on the way to their next objective: the great city of Antioch. It is a must-win scenario; if they do not take it, they cannot move on to Jerusalem. The siege continues for seven and a half months, during which time the Crusaders are hungry, tired, cold, and often discouraged; Antioch’s formidable walls seem an impenetrable barrier. On June 2, 1098, however, they are able to enter the city with the help of a spy. It is theirs.

Yet the Crusaders soon find themselves besieged and trapped in Antioch with the arrival of Muslim relief forces. Nevertheless, they manage a break-out on June 28, defeat the Turks, and, after a delay caused by internecine squabbling, move south to Jerusalem in April 1099. Starving after a long journey, they arrive at the Holy City on June 7 — with only a fraction of their original forces. Despite this, Jerusalem will not pose the problems of Antioch, and they capture it on July 15.

The First Crusade successes give Christendom a foothold in the Mideast for the first time in hundreds of years with the establishment of four outposts known today as “Crusader states.” They are: the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch, founded in 1098; the Kingdom of Jerusalem, founded in 1099; and the County of Tripoli, founded in 1104. Perhaps the tide has finally turned in Christendom’s favor.

But it was not to be. It was still a Muslim era, and more Crusades would be launched in the wake of Islamic triumphs. In fact, there was a multitude of Crusades — if we include minor ones — lasting until the end of the 17th century. However, it is customary to identify eight major Crusades, dating from 1096 through 1270, although this does omit many significant campaigns.

Great passion for a second Crusade was sparked when the County of Edessa was overcome by Turks and Kurds in 1144. Led by Kings Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany and advocated by St. Bernard, it was an utter failure. Most of the Crusaders were killed before even reaching Jerusalem, the campaign did more harm than good — and Muslim power continued to grow.

Because of this, Madden writes, “Crusading in the late twelfth century … became a total war effort.” All are asked to answer the call, from peasants to patricians, either by devoting blood and treasure to the defense of Christendom or through prayer, fasting, and alms to make her worthy of victory. Yet these are the days of the great Muslim leader Saladin, and in 1187 he destroys the Christian forces and takes one Christian city after another. And, finally, after almost a century of Christian rule, Jerusalem surrenders on October 2.

The loss of the Holy City inspires the Third Crusade. Led by storybook figures such as England’s King Richard the Lionheart, German Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, and France’s King Philip II, it is sometimes called the Kings’ Crusade. Yet it is no fairytale affair. Frederick’s army quits the campaign in 1190 after their aged German leader drowns while crossing a river on horseback, and King Philip leaves after retaking the city of Acre, owing to continual friction with Richard. Despite this, the English King is undeterred. Displaying brilliant leadership and tactical skill, he fights his way south, taking on all comers, and eventually recaptures the Holy Land’s entire coast. Yet the crown jewel, Jerusalem, eludes his grasp. Believing he would not be able to hold it (since most Crusaders will be returning home), he must swallow hard and settle for what he can get: an agreement with Saladin to allow unarmed pilgrims unfettered access to the city. Richard then returns home and never sees the Holy Land again, dying from a battle-related wound sustained in Europe in 1199.

While the passion for Crusading remained strong in the 13th century and the Crusades were greater in scope, funding, and organization, they were lesser in accomplishment. There would be no more Richard the Lionhearts. Mideast Christian lands would slowly be overcome. And Jerusalem would never again be in Crusader hands. In fact, by 1291, the Crusader kingdom had been wiped off the map.

The Next Crusades Battle:  The History Books
Because the Crusades ultimately failed to achieve their objectives, they are typically viewed as failures. And this brings us to a common Crusades myth. It’s said that those medieval campaigns are partly to blame for anti-Western sentiment in today’s Middle East, but this is nonsense. The reality is, as Madden told Zenit, “If you had asked someone in the Muslim world about the Crusades in the 18th century he or she would have known nothing about them.” This only makes sense. Why would the Crusades have been remembered? From the Muslim perspective, they were just routine victories — like so many others — events that would just naturally fade into the mists of time. What in truth is partly to blame for Islamic anti-Western sentiment is 19th-century pro-Western propaganda. That is to say, when England and France finally started colonizing Arab lands, they wanted to rubber-stamp imperialism. To this end, they taught Muslims in colonial schools that the Crusades were an example of an imperialism that brought civilization to a backward Middle East. And, not surprisingly but tragically, when imperialism was later discredited, the Crusades would be discredited along with it. Muslims would start using the false history against the West.

But there are many Crusade myths. For example, some would characterize the campaigns as anti-Semitic. Yet, while there were two notable massacres of Jews during the Crusades, there is more to the story — as Madden also explained in the Zenit interview:

No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army [the aforementioned “People’s Crusade”], descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there.... Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it.

This obviously adds perspective. In every war there are rogue forces that commit transgressions. Why, the United States had the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Yet, to echo Madden on this count, it would be unfair to claim that the goal of American forces was to, respectively, murder innocent civilians or commit sexual abuse.

There were other Crusader sins as well. In the Second Crusade, the warriors foolishly attacked Muslim Damascus, which had been an ally of the Christians. Worse still, the Fourth Crusade saw the sacking of Constantinople itself — occupied by the very eastern Christians the Crusades were designed to protect — after the Crusaders helped an imperial claimant gain the Byzantine throne and then were refused the aid he had promised them as a quid pro quo. In response, the pope at the time, Innocent III, condemned the attack (and he had already excommunicated the Crusade). Nevertheless, the damage was done. The act widened the Great Schism of 1054 to perhaps irreparable proportions.

Yet, again, perspective is necessary. Medieval armies didn’t have modern discipline or rules of engagement, and they were, above all, medieval. You could not have put hundreds of thousands of men in the field during the course of centuries in that age without writing some dark chapters. Really, though, you couldn’t do it in the modern age, either.

With all these failures and missteps, we may wonder why Europeans continued Crusading well beyond the 13th century’s close. We may ask, was it worth the blood and treasure? Yet the answer boils down to one word: survival. The threats to Europe mentioned earlier would not remain theoretical. The Muslims would extinguish the Byzantine Empire — and Constantinople would be renamed Istanbul. They would cross into the Balkans, and their descendants would clash with Christians there in the 1990s. The Ottoman Turks would capture the Italian town of Otranto in 1480, prompting the evacuation of Rome. The Ottomans would occupy what is now Hungary for 158 years. And, in 1529 and 1683, they would reach the gates of Vienna.

Yet the tide would finally turn against Dar al-Islam. The Ottomans would lose the Battle of Vienna in 1683, and, more significantly, Europe was blossoming. It would outpace the Muslim world technologically, and in its march toward modernity, the Christian “barbarians” would become the burgeoning civilization. In fact, they would become dominant enough to forget how recent their time in the sun is — and how, perhaps, it almost never was.

So, were the Crusades really a failure? Sure, there was no Charles Martel and Battle of Tours, no Duke of Wellington at Waterloo; there was no history-changing engagement where we could say, ah, that is where we slew the dragon or “this was their finest hour.” And they accomplished none of their stated goals. But the Crusades era might have constituted a “holding action,” a time when Christendom was pushed toward the abyss and, outweighed and wobbling, pushed back. Of course, this isn’t the fashionable view. But it is easy today to characterize those medieval warriors any way we wish; they are no longer around to defend themselves. But had they not defended the West, we might not be troubling over the past at all — because we might not have a present.

The AP's Bias is Undeniable Today

2010-08-20T11:00:00.000-07:00

They have an anti-Tea Party article up that claims racism in the tea party, citing incidents which have been proven time and again to be fictional, and they had the audacity to title it, "In their own words."

They have an article up claiming that families of 9/11 victims say that opposition to the mosque at Ground Zero is un-American. What about the majority of them that know that the mosque is a symbol of anti-Americanism? They don't agree with the liberal agenda, so they are erased.

The AP is also applauding a family's decision to let their 13 year old son go to North Korea to discuss a peace forest for kids to interact between North Korea and South Korea with the dictatorial Communist regime. Um... What is smart about that? Would you let your kid go meet a Communist dictator? Would you take your kid to Iran? What do you bet the North Koreans would plant landmines along with the trees in that children's forest to teach those kids that there is a border for a reason? I'm sure they let this kid in for a giggle, making fun of how stupid and gullible Americans are. It's pure pacifistic idiocy to think that peace can come from cooperating with violent, anti-human dictators.

The AP has no intellectual integrity, obviously. But we already knew that.

There goes the language...

2010-08-10T23:15:00.000-07:00

Is it really true that humans can only think as far as the words available to them allow by the limits of their definitions, and therefore as the definitions change so do our capacities to understand the world we live in? If so, we're in trouble because our language is being corrupted by way of shifting definitions:

Love

Hate

Bigotry

Charity

Education

Tolerance

Science

Racism

Punishment

Justice

You

Question of the Day

2010-08-06T12:22:00.000-07:00

Consider Darwin's tautological premise: The fittest survive.

Therefore, if I kill you, then I am by definition the fittest, and my fitness/greatness is defined by my being a murderer, and as such my lack of morality makes me a superior being.

Satanism, anybody?

Was not Darwinism the justification Hitler used for the Holocaust?

Yes, it was.

Then why are we teaching this unprovable, evil, ends justify the means tautology, which has led to the mass murders of millions, in our schools, and why do we esteem the creator of such a disgusting philosophy as one of the greats?

Happy Are We

2010-08-05T09:46:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I think too much. I get myself worked up over the day to day attacks on liberty and forget to "Be still and know that [He] is God." We will win the war for freedom. I know this. The people will turn against their liberal masters and we will lead them back to the constitution and be victorious. God has already told us so, and if we pray for a confirmation we can know that it is true.

I named my blog The Knowledge Czar originally as a play on my real name and then changed it to "What I Know" because there are things that I absolutely know that I want to share with my little corner of the world. I know them because I first intellectualize and reason through them, and then ask God directly if they are true. I've prayed about a lot of the concepts I have written about on my blog, and I know that they are right and that the people leading us are generally good men and women who honestly believe what they say and though human and fallible are trying to be righteous.

I found myself yesterday actually being bolstered up by the Spirit (and signing "We Are All Enlisted" in my head) after hearing that a gay liberal activist judge struck down proposition 8 in California. Why? Because I already know we will win. Because the people are getting fed up with elitists attacking our values and now forcing us away from them. How much more can the people take before they turn against their slave-owners and say "NO MORE!"? I think (and it's just my opinion) that the gay marriage issue is a good litmus test for the virtue of the people. And every time they've had a chance they have shown that they are still more good than evil, but that the gap is closing, which tells me that the moment when the people have to stand up and stop the madness is very quickly approaching or all would be lost.

I feel like we are at the beginning of a roller coaster, the part where we climb to the top of the highest peak, and we've been climbing for centuries. We know something scary and epic is coming, we know it will get sketchy for a second, but ultimately we know that we will be OK. I know that we will be OK from prayer, and from scripture after scripture, prophesy after prophesy pointing to this point and assuring us that God is on our side and that we'll win. (No, I'm not talking about Armageddon, LOL) Benson called it the war for freedom, and it's almost time for us to prove unequivocally to the rest of the world that freedom works. He also prophesied that when Christ returns to rule over His people the stars and stripes will still fly over this land. We can see the sky over the seats in front of us on the roller coaster, and that they're starting to level out finally. The first cars are on the tipping point and about to pull us down into the scary part which will be short and perhaps frightening, but we know that the designer did a good job, foresaw the fall, and will get through it safely. I feel so much peace knowing that God is watching over us, is on our side, and that He is still in charge, and I am so thankful for prayer and personal revelation: being able to pray and get an answer and because of it being able to "Be still and KNOW that [He] is God."

We Are All Enlisted:

"1. We are all enlisted till the conflict is o’er;
Happy are we! Happy are we!
Soldiers in the army, there’s a bright crown in store;
We shall win and wear it by and by.
Haste to the battle, quick to the field;
Truth is our helmet, buckler, and shield.
Stand by our colors; proudly they wave!
We’re joyfully, joyfully marching to our home.

[Chorus]
We are all enlisted till the conflict is o’er;
Happy are we! Happy are we!
Soldiers in the army, there’s a bright crown in store;
We shall win and wear it by and by.

2. Hark! the sound of battle sounding loudly and clear;
Come join the ranks! Come join the ranks!
We are waiting now for soldiers; who’ll volunteer?
Rally round the standard of the cross.
Hark! ’tis our Captain calls you today;
Lose not a moment, make no delay!
Fight for our Savior; come, come away!
We’re joyfully, joyfully marching to our home.

3. Fighting for a kingdom, and the world is our foe;
Happy are we! Happy are we!
Glad to join the army, we will sing as we go;
We shall gain the vict’ry by and by.
Dangers may gather—why should we fear?
Jesus, our Leader, ever is near.
He will protect us, comfort, and cheer.
We’re joyfully, joyfully marching to our home."

"If you lose marriage, you also lose freedom of religion. Atheistic moral bedlam and religious repression go hand in hand.... As you hold fast to the iron rod of the gospel you will gain strength to fulfill your divine destiny. Be strong, stalwart soldiers in the army of God, protected by His divine armor, helmet of salvation and shield of faith." -Elder Russell M. Nelson, June 2010

So That When They Get Spanked They Have An Excuse Already Lined Up

2010-08-02T20:03:00.000-07:00

Are the Democrats really so scared of the 2010 election results that they need to create an excuse for their imminent booting? Who would have ever thought that there would be a call for a Democrat election boycott? I guess if they can pretend that their party will be ousted in November because of a holier-than-thou boycott perpetrated by themselves then the agenda and corruption that are the real cause can be over-looked, right? And does anyone else find it funny that the Democrats are trying to force through unemployment expansions right before they themselves become unemployed?

The Difference, and It Makes ALL the Difference

2010-07-31T22:13:00.000-07:00

Entitlement welfare is a degenerate counterfeit for real human charity. It's easy to confuse tax-funded handouts with charity because they can look the same on the surface. We all need a charitable hand-up once in a while, and it's how and who we get that help from that is the key. Did the giver choose to give or was it taken from him without his consent? Is anyone being edified by the action? Was there a real human connection made that increased love on both sides of the transaction? It's in these moments when we need help or see a need that we can learn the difference. One such moment has presented itself in the conservative blogosphere. One of our own is in dire need of some charity.

The current lack of faith in charity is what has led to us thinking that the welfare state is necessary for our society to function. If the people were charitable and had faith in the charity of others we would have no need for social security, welfare checks, and such. We would be taking care of ourselves, our families, and our neighbors if we were a charity-based society. But when the mentality is that needs should be succored by the state, the state necessarily becomes oppressive. The lack of human charity and affection in our culture is what is feeding the big government monster (or at least the spread of the doubt in our charity, considering that I do still believe we are generally a charitable people.)

Charity as defined by my church is "the pure love of Christ." If we love someone we do what is right for them, not what is easy or convenient for us. When we see a need we help. That is the way charitable giving should be. We shouldn't say, "There's a government program for that." We should open our homes, our wallets, our hearts, and give what is necessary to fulfilling Christ's law to "love one another." When we, of our own free will, give charitably the government loses its job as the savior of the downtrodden just a little bit. Can we in some small way make big government welfare irrelevant? Saber Point needs some help. Prayers, money, a job offer or referral, any little bit helps.

I'm a Proud ThoughtCriminal

2010-07-27T00:05:00.000-07:00

So, as you know if you have been reading my posts lately I have been reading 1984. I finished it tonight, and I must say that I loved it even more the second time over. There are so many things about it that are relevant today! Specifically tonight, though, I was struck by the Afterward section. In it the critic of the book points out that doublethink is in operation today (or in his day, which was obviously during the Cold War era), but the examples he used are now somewhat outdated. It made me think, what doublethink are we as a culture using now? Here are a few I can think of, but I would LOVE for you to point out more since we can only get more wise as we undermine these trapping assumptions:

Debt is wealth. (We must spend to save, borrowing from China and spending and racking up debt stimulates the economy, etc.)

Murder is a human right and it is a violation of human rights when it is not allowed. (Abortion)

You have to abandon the free market to save it.

In order to share the fruits of living under a government which is ruled by law with other countries's people we must abandon the law and take away the consequences for breaking it. (Amnesty)

Big government grants us rights by creating new laws and as such increases liberty and freedom. (Healthcare take-over, economic take-overs, telling us how much salt we can consume, etc.) Government doesn't actually create any rights, only legislation which has the net effect of diminishing rights when it goes beyond its original purpose of securing natural God-given rights.)

Equality comes by placing one group above another. (Affirmative Action)

Being wealthy is evil and the wealthy should pay for their success through higher tax rates. (And yet success is good and supposed to be desirable.) We are taught to hate them and to want to become them all at the same time.

Conservatives who promote equal freedom from all forms of oppression are dangerous fascists who want to control us. (We all know who the dangerous people are and which side they belong to: The Neo-National Socialists, the radical revolutionaries, the underground infiltrating Commies, the Hollywood elite who love dictators and say we misunderstand Hitler, the murderous eugenicists, the subversive professors, etc.)

War maintains the peace. (And yet it is the antithesis of peace.)
The threat of a larger opponent defending himself can maintain the peace. Weakness can produce war by creating vulnerability. It's wise to maintain strong defensive power, but war is not peace and doesn't produce peace.

There is no absolute truth. Then how can you assert that so absolutely without undermining your own argument?

We need to shut down FOXNews and Breitbart.com in order to have a free press.

There is no reality but what we perceive. That will be on a very real midterm- Don't miss it or your reality will suck.

If I don't pay attention to politics then I can't be hurt by them.
Of course you can and your willful ignorance makes the hurt inevitable because silence is considered consent and ignorance is weakness.

Leftist 'Love' Kills 18 in Berlin

2010-07-24T20:37:00.000-07:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-germany-love-parade-20100725,0,2079922.story

The Love Parade, part political concert for world peace and part debaucherous free-love music festival killed 18 people because a few selfish concert-goers who were told that they couldn't go in decided to disobey the rules and stormed the place, causing a murderous stampede. That ain't love, people, and it sure ain't peace. God rest those poor souls who died so that a few could force their way into a concert!

But this is nothing new! Selfish people do mean and terrible things, especially when they have no solid moral code except an agenda. Take the Save Education rally where the supposedly peace and education-loving rioters caused massive property damage starting fires and smashing windows. Do they REALLY love peace and education? Did the Berlin stampeders REALLY love love?

Now take the Tea Partiers as a comparison: thousands of meetings and demonstrations, hundreds of thousands of people, and in 2 years not a single incident of violence, destruction, rioting, fire, property damage, window smashing, stampeding, etc. Not 1 incident to post about. So you tell me, who REALLY loves love and who REALLY loves peace? The rioters, looters, and stampeders who are obviously over-run by their need to conform with other anti-establishmentarians, their testosterone, immaturity, and limbic systems, or the tea partiers, like me, who are young but all about self-control and real Godly charity? You tell me!

God bless the real peace-loving people of this world who love real peace because they love people!

BREAKING- Harry Hearts the Daily Kos

2010-07-24T15:48:00.000-07:00

At a convention of liberal bloggers Harry Reid praises vulgar, Marxist, anti-American liberal bloggers by comparing their work to the Federalist Papers. Irony anybody? Who wants to bet that if he had ever read the Federalist Papers and knew that they contain in them staunch criticism for every aspect of his agenda he wouldn't dare mention them to liberal bloggers?

Remember November! Marxism is Anti-Americanism and Anti-God, and no U.S. Senator or Mormon specifically or American citizen generally should praise the work of those blogging for it.

Thought of the Day

2010-07-22T15:58:00.000-07:00

Every road here is under construction whether it needs to be or not. And no kidding, I saw a "Construction starts 7/22" sign sitting in a construction zone the other day. All of this unnecessary construction is happening because the cities have been given stimulus money to keep people in construction jobs, not because the roads are bad. They're tearing up the roads, causing traffic jams, running heavy machinery, laying down tar, etc. and all to stimulate our economy...

BUT...

How much more pollution, and dare I say CARBON, is being unnecessarily and wastefully produced while they tear up decent road after decent road only to replace them with equally decent roads? And all the while the same people who doled out our money for that purpose are trying to claim that we need to save the planet by CUTTING carbon emissions and passing Cap&Tax? They want to make our bills skyrocket to save the planet from pollution, while they artificially produce jobs that cause a heck of a lot of pollution and are not permanent jobs anyway. At some point if they want to look genuine in either their environmentalism or their support for the economy they have to choose one over or the other since, at least at this point with the shovel-ready jobs, they are at odds with one another. It just doesn't make sense!

1984 and Changing Our History to Create A New Truth

2010-07-18T15:39:00.000-07:00

I've been reading. I read through Brave New World last week and I am currently rereading 1984. I'm in the part about the Ministry of Truth and how they change truth and history to meet their needs, altering historical documents to make sure that their agenda is never undermined by the facts of actual history.

And then today I saw this article: "Honest, Abe didn't want men" in the New York Post. It interests me and reminds me of the alteration of history for reason of agenda because the 'historian' that decided a while back that Lincoln was gay, who claimed that he found some document under the floorboard at Lincoln's house which said so, has admitted that he changed history on purpose with a forged document because he believed that it would raise awareness for gay issues if he could change history and say that some of our most beloved presidents and founders were gay. Truth be damned when the agenda is all supreme.

Is is 1984 yet? They are already saying that they know we're thinking racist thoughts as tea partiers... thought crime, anybody?

Now in Newspeak just for fun: Post 12.31.09 refs unperson sexuality doubleplusungood recify.

Race War Inciters Are Working Overtime

2010-07-14T11:09:00.000-07:00

It's disgusting the way the NAACP is working with the White House to incite race hatred. Michelle Obama was sent to speak at the NAACP about how America is a racist country, the NAACP is waging a war against black conservatives, tea partiers, and whites in general. Racism is disgusting PERIOD, and personally, I believe that the NAACP has degraded itself into nothing more than the black version of the Klu Klux Klan. They have no moral ground to stand on when they call anyone a racist. They are by definition a racist organization. Reverse racism is racism still.

They're using scare tactics to maintain the Democrat party's slave-ownership of the black population and their vote. Problem is, their loyal Stockhold Syndromeites are waking up, realizing that the party of slavery, the party of the Jim Crowe laws, the party of racial discrimination, the party of degradation and exploitation is the Democrat party. The Dems and their racist arm-twisting organization are losing their control over the minorities and are going stark raving crazy, calling an organization that openly welcomes their betrayed constituents and promotes equality and peace racists, throwing around accusations and fairy-tales as facts.

The tea party is an organization consisting of all races, all religions, and all ages and does not need a leader because they are led by principle and the supreme law of the land- the Constitution. If it is racist to want equal rights for all, as the NAACP seems to be claiming, then the world is truly topsy-turvy, and good is evil and evil is good. But I think most Americans are smart enough to not just follow the goose-step of the black panthers, the NAACP, and the party of racial inciting that those racist organizations are closely aligned with. The NAACP- The National Association for the Advancement of Corruptive Politics lost a lot of credibility this week, and should certainly lose their tax exempt status for being the racist arm-twisters of the Democrat Party.

The Office vs. The Man

2010-07-13T14:59:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a lot about decency and respect, trying to discern where the line is between revealing the ugly truth about Obama and crossing the line into disrespecting the honorable office which he holds, regardless of whether or not he's desecrating it himself by his unpresidential actions. And I want to make it clear that I respect the office of the President of the United States. But respecting the office and respecting the man who is in that office are not one-in-the-same. I respect Obama as the President, but I don't have much respect for him as a man outside of that post. I don't want to degrade the presidency, but would rather that Obama lift himself up to the point of respecting the office he holds. As far as I have seen, his Marxist world-view, his racism as spelled out in his own book, his disdain for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, his lack of experience, and his close associations with anti-American radicals make him unfit for the presidency: the presidency that I honor and sustain. I simply cannot sustain an anti-American president, because, in a way, that would mean dishonoring the office of the President of the United States as an office with the charge to be a guardian of the Constitution.

Is it respectful of his office to dress up his effigy like Hitler? No. But then again, what if he really happened to be like Hitler? There's a line there somewhere. It was crossed here:

But it was also crossed here:

Would it be crossing the line if the picture of Obama had been unaltered and the incriminating tagline had come out of his own mouth?:

I myself have crossed the line before in humor, but ultimately, if the President's own actions and words are so bad that his critics can get that close to the line without it being in any way inaccurate or spun, then I do believe that man is not Presidential enough to be the worthy of the Presidency.

For This Purpose Have I Established The Constitution

2010-07-11T15:44:00.000-07:00

I knew I was in for a great Sunday when the speaker got up and said, "I have been asked to speak to you today on Manifest Destiny and the role it played in the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ." Now THAT'S something you just don't hear everyday, and not a lot of people are willing to proclaim. It was an amazing talk. It had me in tears.

As a kid in junior high I was taught that Manifest Destiny was the belief that led Americans to become the evil empire, killing Indians and conquering foreign lands, bombing Hiroshima and forcing other countries into Democracies. (Yep- I was taught a lot of liberal lies.) But that's not the true meaning, the original meaning, of Manifest Destiny. The real Manifest Destiny of the United States IS to, by example, show the rest of the world how freedom works, and thus, through proving it and living it, they would follow suit and free themselves from their own tyrants. In the context of religion, the reason America was ordained for that calling was because God wants all men to be free in order that they might be fairly judged, and He needed a free land in which He could restore His gospel so that it could be shared with all men before the final harvest of mankind.

America's birth was miraculous. That is beyond dispute, in my humble opinion. The Founders often acknowledged the Creator's hand in actively helping them fend off tyranny. The speaker recounted a story that I find telling. But first he read from our scriptures: D&C 101:

  77 According to the laws and ^aconstitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the ^brights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

  78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral ^aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be ^baccountable for his own sins in the day of ^cjudgment.

  79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in ^abondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the ^aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the ^bshedding of blood."

The speaker read the story of Wilford Woofruff (a past modern-day prophet) in the temple, that he was visited by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and that they asked him why their work had not been done for them seeing as how they were the ones who set in motion the government system that made it even possible for this church to be in existence. Now, I understand that many of you readers don't believe this story, but to me, this completely debunks the liberal lie that the Founders were not good wise men, or that they were somehow not sincere in their Christianity. God himself said that they were, claims the Constitution as His own, helped these men create this country, and will help us defend their work until the second coming of Christ, because freedom is essential to the plan of salvation, and frankly, America is the last bastion of freedom.

Today' hymns were awesome too. We sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic, that abolitionist hymn that proclaims that the glory of God is man's freedom,:

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me. As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,While God is marching on,"

then we sang They, The Builders of the Nation:

"They, the builders of the nation,
Blazing trails along the way...

As an ensign to the nation,
They unfurled the flag of truth,
Pillar, guide, and inspiration
To the hosts of waiting youth.
Honor, praise, and veneration
To the founders we revere!
List our song of adoration,
Blessed, honored Pioneer!,"

And lastly we sang Oh Ye Mountains High:

"Here our voices we’ll raise, and we’ll sing to thy praise,
Sacred home of the prophets of God.
Thy deliv’rance is nigh; thy oppressors shall die;
And thy land shall be freedom’s abode.
O Zion! dear Zion! land of the free,
In thy temples we’ll bend; all thy rights we’ll defend;
And our home shall be ever with thee."

I've wandered more than a few times over to leftist Mormon blogs, always realizing that the spirit I feel in them is not Godly, and one thing that I remember reading over and over is how the readers and writers don't like going to church because of all of the deference they hear for America, free agency and what they call the evil empiricism of the United States. The U.S. isn't an empire and no evidence exists for her to be convicted on that account. On those blogs Marxism is praised and American exceptionalism denied. I find it interesting that for a Mormon to praise Marxism and degrade America he has to also be willing to criticize prophets and proclaim that he knows more than the leadership of the church about God's will for His children. But it only makes sense that they would be so conflicted considering that Marxism's God and the one true God are opposing forces.

“His hand has been over this nation, and it is his purpose and design to enlarge it, make it glorious … to the end that those who are kept in bondage and serfdom may be brought to the enjoyment of the fullest freedom and liberty of conscience possible for intelligent men to exercise in the earth.” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939, p. 409.)

Dhimmitude and the Ground Zero Mosque/ Community Center

2010-07-10T09:29:00.000-07:00

You don't have to dislike Islam in the slightest to understand that building a gigantic mosque on the ashes of the World Trade Center is in bad taste. We wouldn't tolerate that from any other religion. But those who proclaim their tolerance insist that it's OK for the mosque to be built there not even 10 years after the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil was perpetrated by Muslim radicals waging jihad against Americans.What if the Phelps crazies that wave the anti-war and anti-gay signs around bombed the Sears Tower? Would they be allowed to build a church on that ground because we have to be tolerant of Christians? That seems completely far-fetched, but it is exactly the same as what is happening at ground zero, just with a different group of religious radicals.

Just think for a minute- Nearly 2 centuries after the Mountain Meadows Massacre a movie was made demonizing the Mormon church for the actions of a few radical fringe members. Did the Mormons build a church or a temple on that ground? They've have a long time and generations to do it! But of course they didn't and wouldn't out of respect for the deceased! But why is it OK to build a mosque where 3000 Americans were murdered in the name of Islam just 9 years ago? Because the Left coddles Islamo-fascists in the name of tolerance. And it's disgusting and bigoted. They make a huge deal out of every little thing that Christians and Jews do wrong, but Islamic radicals can wage a war against them, proclaim that they want them all dead, and then, like morons, they accept them and their demands with open arms.

I'm all about religious freedom and plurality, (there was an extermination order out against my people here in the U.S. because of intolerance and lack of plurality) but tolerating murderous jihad and then dancing on the graves of the deceased is idiotic and disrespectful. Either the leaders trying to get this mosque built are complete dim wits with no understanding of why the family members of 9/11 victims are crying in the streets in protest right now or they are smiley-faced Islamo-fascists celebrating the demise of America through dhimmitude: the destruction of our culture and religion through our own stupidity in the name of tolerance with the goal of silencing dissent and instituting Sharia Law. I sense that in a cave somewhere Bin Laden is laughing.

ChupacaBarack

2010-07-08T12:15:00.001-07:00

American Independence and The Title of Liberty

2010-07-04T15:58:00.000-07:00

"In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children." -The Title of Liberty- Alma 46:12

This quote comes from the Book of Mormon. Whether or not you believe that the Book of Mormon is a true historical document you can appreciate the message. The history behind this quote is that the people were being threatened by an aggressor who was corrupting them and gaining power for himself by colluding with the judges and promising them power and wealth if they would give him governmental power. His main goal was to become king, destroying their system of people's rule, but he also wanted to destroy the peoples' religion and religious freedom.

The people found out about the plan to overtaken them, but they believed that it was their God-given right to be free and were willing to die for the cause of liberty. To solidify the people in purpose Captain Moroni tore his coat, wrote on it, "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children", and made it into their flag, but called it a title because they were proclaiming their ownership of those freedoms and rights. Similar flags were then flown in all of their villages to remind people of what they needed to value and protect. They went to war, determined to not be taken slaves or be ruled by a king. They were so strong in their convictions and amassed such numbers that the would-be king deserted his troops, who were later overtaken by the army and commanded to take a vow to protect freedom and to be peaceful. They won because, like in the American revolution and in the Civil War, God is always on the side of free agency.

The Book of Mormon describes the evils of governments that take from the people and give the spoils to those that they can bribe into giving them more power. It describes how evil men infiltrate the government and the jugde's seats to gain power and undermine freedom. The Book of Mormon has some of the most accurate descriptions of our modern day political situation that I've read. The prophets in the Book of Mormon tell us that the book was not written for them but for us and that they've seen our day and the secret combinations that we'll need to awaken ourselves to if we want to remain free. The Book of Mormon also shows us the way out:

"Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written."-Ether 2:12

Pelosi's Unemployment Joke

2010-07-02T12:16:00.000-07:00

I've got friends and family struggling with unemployment. It's a tragedy! But they haven't given up and aren't accepting government "assistance," aka going on the tax-payer funded dole. According to my religious leaders we should first rely on ourselves, then on family, then on the church, and lastly, if all else has absolutely failed, on government assistance, but only as a very last resort. That is because going on the dole is spiritually dangerous. It can spoil you of your motivation, self-reliant attitude and undermine your understanding of charity.

Pelosi said that unemployment checks are one of the fastest ways to stimulate the economy. The discussion about that on the news missed some key points. First of all, the government doling out free checks can't stimulate the economy because it undermines one's need to be a part of the economy as a producer. Secondly, those who are receiving the checks, if they are really in need, will be spending them on their utility bills and rent, not on toys and new shoes like the liberal on tv claimed. That doesn't stimulate the economy. Just like liberals announced gleefully that they were saving the economy by creating short-term census and construction jobs, this too will fail to help in any real kind of way. It's a dirty band-aid on a stab wound, and one that's friggin' expensive to boot.

It reminds me of a little joke that was emailed to me recently. It will be censored a little for language:

"A guy walked into the local welfare office to pick up his check.

He marched straight up to the counter and said, ' Hi. You know, I just HATE drawing welfare. I'd really rather have a job.'

The social worker behind the counter said, ' Your timing is excellent. We just got a job opening from a very wealthy old man who wants a chauffeur and bodyguard for his beautiful daughter.

You'll have to drive around in his 2010 Mercedes CL, and he will supply all of your clothes. Because of the long hours meals will be provided. You'll also be expected to escort the daughter on her overseas holiday trips.

...A two-bedroom loft type apartment with plasma TV, stereo, bar, etc. located above the garage will be designated for your sole use and the salary is $200,000 a year.'

The guy, just plain wide-eyed, said, 'No way! You're got to be kidding me!'

The social worker said, ' Yeah, well, you started it.'"

"It is significant to note that about this same time, when the Lord established his way of caring for those in need, the “world,” or government, introduced its form of dole assistance—a counterfeit alternative to the Lord’s way. In most ...instances, the world’s way dismissed the principle of individual work and family responsibility and adopted the philosophy that “the government will take care of our needs” or “the government owes us a living.” Individual and family initiative was supplanted by government handouts. The true spirit of love for our neighbor and concern for others as taught by the Savior had been generally ignored. A brief look at statistics highlights how far government has taken us down the road toward bankruptcy while at the same time destroying the will and incentive to work and earn what is received by the sweat of our brow." -David B. Haight (1978)

The New Media

2010-06-30T21:28:00.000-07:00

Facebook Chart:

New York Times Stock Chart:

As I stated in my last post, I am working on being more honest and bold, understanding that I might lose friends and gain enemies in the process. But, the truth is, I have gained friends, and have earned respect for myself in the process, to the extent that I don't care that I've been 'unfriended' for my political views by a few minor acquaintances. I'm using one of the most effective tools for dissemination of information at my fingertips, and it isn't blogger. It's Facebook. A lot of people don't care for Facebook, but with hundreds of friends I am able to blitz all of my Facebook friends at once with thought provoking articles and information that is being buried or denied by the main stream media. They can read my posts if they want or they can ignore me, but I've put it out there for them and they have to make that conscious decision for themselves whether to consider the information or ignore it.

Most Americans now know that the media is biased toward the left and as such that they can't be entirely trusted. But most people trust their friends. Facebook is the perfect new media because you only get the news that your peers actually care about, and it shows up on your home page automatically. Sure, it's a lazy person's newspaper, but it works, and it can be very effective. If we want to educate our spheres of influence Facebook is the way to go, at least for me. And I've noticed that being more outspoken and blunt on Facebook has led to some of my friends and family members getting interested in politics and starting to post those same kind of articles as well. I'm sure Obama would consider Facebook to be full of "confusing" and dangerous information, and it is... if you're 5.

One thing Facebook has taught me is that I'm not alone. Most people don't sit around discussing politics, but they're starting to, and I think online networking sites have had a hand in that. So, I guess the question is, how soon before the ObaMao administration starts monitoring and at the very least trying to scare us away from being so candid with our political beliefs on Facebook. They've already told us that they're cataloging every Tweet in the Library of Congress, and they REALLY want to pass net neutrality. During the campaign they loved Facebook, but in the battlefield of ideas that is Facebook, how can they honestly win?

The Enemies We Earn

2010-06-26T13:03:00.000-07:00

(Not a real photo.)

A friend of mine, an amazing principled patriot who has been teaching free classes tirelessly about American history and the need for a renewed love of the Constitution since early on in the Bush years, posted a link to an article in which she was being lambasted in the county newspaper for her work. She was being ripped apart by an atheofascistic, statist liberal. That's an enemy you can be proud of. She was heartbroken, but all the same, she earned that enemy, and good for her!

I'm a nice person, and have always tried my best to live my life in a way that would leave me with no enemies. I thought that that was a good thing to do. But I realized something last night. The greatest of all, the only perfect man, the pure example, Jesus Christ, had earned his enemies. He had LOTS of them, and they hated him with such vitriol that they had him killed. His crime? Unapologetically delivering His message. Am I better than Him because I'm more tolerant of evil, because I'm more indiscriminate? Or is living my life in such a way as to offend no one actually doing me and others more harm? In order to offend no one you have to be willing to not offend Satan. In order to have no enemies I have to tolerate and apologize for the things that I know are true that some people hate because they hate the truth. Perhaps I'd be better off living by and defending my principles under all circumstance, even when it earns me enemies.

Indiscriminateness is not a virtue. Honesty and integrity are. Tolerance toward evil is not a virtue. Charity is, and it's not charitable to be an enabler, but it's also not charitable to be a forcer.

If people who love their own self-justifications, greed, carnal security, and vices more than they love being giving, loving and good want to be my enemies, so be it. The contention is not with me, but from them projected at me. It just means I'm doing something right.

"A man must not only stand for the right principles, but he must also fight for them. Those who fight for principle can be proud of the friends they’ve gained and the enemies they’ve earned." -Ezra Taft Benson

Have Times Ever Changed!!!

2010-06-23T20:28:00.000-07:00

About this cartoon, all I can say is WOW! Watch and let me know what you think.

The BP Spill- The Perfect Example of Government Intrusion Gone Disastrous

2010-06-13T21:55:00.000-07:00

Fact 1: BP is an oil company.

Fact 2: The Federal government capped possible damage charges at 75 million dollars for BP in case of accidents or spills.

Fact 3: That cut BP's risk. No matter what they destroyed they could only be charged 75 million.

Fact 4: BP practiced risky oil collection because the financial risks and consequences were mitigated by the government.

Fact 5: BP caused a MASSIVE oil spill with damages in the billions.

Fact 6: Under true capitalism BP would pay 100% of the damages.

Fact 7: If your congressman believed in capitalism more than he likes reelection this might have been avoided.

Conclusion: The government should mind its own business because capitalism does a better job of regulating the economy (and the environment, obviously) than a bunch of politicians doling out legislative favors.

Disclaimer- LANGUAGE, by your president and quoting your president:

Perplexed by AntiSemitism

2010-06-11T16:03:00.000-07:00

Does anybody else feel shocked by the antisemitism that seems to be creeping out everywhere? I had a conversation with a statist friend that insisted that hatred for Israel is not anti-semitic, and I understand the argument that the UN didn't have the right to create a country and take away property from one group to give to another, but the emotions don't end there and the hateful rhetoric certainly doesn't end there. My mind has been trying to make sense of it.

Theory 1: Anti-Israel sentiment stems from disdain for America because of Israel's close relationship and resemblance to America. Israel is guilty by association to those who hate America and her exceptionalism.

Theory 2: The Bible says we are to support and defend Israel, and my understanding is that when the people are scattered Israel is scattered, and when they are a cohesive unit in one place Israel is the place and the people inclusively. So do liberals hate Israel and the Jews because the Bible tells us to support and defend them? Are they guilty by association because liberals hate Judeo-Christian religion?

Theory 3: The 10 Commandments are a blockade against Marxism, which at this point is the real goal of the anti-semitic left. Property rights are inherent in Judaism and Christianity, making theft and covetousness sins. Also inherent are the virtues of hard work, accountability, and reeping what you sow, all of which lead to financial success under capitalism. The Jews therefore would be hated for their religion and for having spread the 10 commandments, righteous principles that lead to economic prosperity, and capitalism to the rest of the world, making it harder for the statist left to reach their collectivist goals.

Theory 4: Because liberals who protested the war during the Bush years have taken up the Muslim countries of the world, including Palestine, as their new favorite victims, taking their side in the war on terror, pure by association because they share a hatred for America, a hatred for Christianity, a hatred for American capitalism, and a hatred for Bush. It was only a small step to go into a hatred for Israel since Israel, like America, is an enemy of their new friends.

What do you think? Why do liberals, who ironically call us Nazis, hate the Jews?

I'm Tired

2010-06-01T16:34:00.000-07:00

I'm tired.

I'm tired of hearing the Founders denegrated by people who say that they learned this and that and how terrible they were from the History Channel. Read their own words and you will know they were inspired and amazing people.

I'm tired of being told that religion will over-run our government if Atheism ceases to be the state-sanctioned religion and religious plurality is returned to its rightful place in this nation. How is that assertion even logical?

I'm tired of having to reexplain what the original meaning of separation of church and state was.

I'm tired of hearing Liberals talk about Israel and the Jews as though they want another Holocaust.

I'm tired of partisan blaming when almost everyone is at fault, some for actively destroying America and others for allowing it with their apathy.

I'm tired of bickering.

I'm tired of the Constitution being trampled and misread when it is so simple to understand. Its meaning is clear, not coded or cryptic. Those who want it to be a living document or actively misread it obviously hold it in contempt and should never have been sworn into their respective offices in the first place. Shouldn't they be charges with perjury?

I'm tired of having to expect that all politicians will lie, cheat, bribe, and betray. We've got 2 good Republican candidates here in Utah, and I want so badly to be able to trust that they'll stay true if they get elected.

I'm tired of racists calling non-racists racist. I'm tired of special categories of people being sanctioned and protected in their racism.

I'm tired of cries for equal things. There is no way to create equal things for all. It's impossible. We can only have equal rights and equal opportunity. Why is that so hard to understand?

I'm tired of Marxism being called Liberalism.

I'm tired of Illegal being called a racist, dehumanizing word in order to mask the true agenda of destroying America's right to enforce her laws and protect her borders.

But I'm also tired of Alinskyite liberals, so getting tired and worn down by those who use Alinsky's rules for radicals to discredit, defame, and shut up conservatives is just not an option.

Regurgitating the Apple

2010-05-25T13:30:00.001-07:00

I saw this video from the heritage foundation over at Self-Evident Truths and I just had to share. This man is brilliant!!! Watch if you want to know why the modern liberal always ends up on the wrong side of the argument, why they hate America, Israel, prosperity, religion, talk radio, and free speech.

The Forgotten Way We Vote

2010-05-20T13:52:00.000-07:00

Chart shows ratings for Beck of FOX in red, Blitzer for CNN in green, and Matthews of MSNBC in blue.

In my 7th grade English class my teacher, Mr. Lomeli, taught me something that I have never forgotten. He asked us, "How do we vote in this country for what we want, believe in and enjoy?" As students we said that we can vote for the President once we're old enough, but we couldn't figure out what he wanted us to say beyond that. We figured that there was only one way to vote. He got very passionate and kept pushing us, giving us hints, and trying to get us to figure it out, but finally, because we were clueless, he had to tell us: We vote with our money. He said that even more important than voting in politics is how we choose to spend our money every day. It shows what we value, what we like, and who we are, and because the Capitalist system produces supply based upon demand, we get from our culture and society the very thing we vote for with our dollars.

I'm trying to live this principle. If no one shopped on Sundays the stores wouldn't be open on Sundays and we'd all get the Sabbath off from work. If we refuse to see movies with Sean Penn in them he would cease to be a star and we wouldn't have to see his mug on Yahoo's homepage disparaging the US and praising Communist dictators. If we spend money supporting Arizona businesses we can counter the boycott. Buy American. Don't buy Chinese. If we think a little bit more about our purchases we can make a difference.

I passed by Target the other day and for the last couple of weeks they've had union members out front holding pre-fabricated union protest signs that say, "Labor dispute, shame on Target." My first thought was to go make signs to protest the protesters, something like, "Shame on unions for ruining our economy and driving up costs" or something to that effect. But then I remembered, it's more effective to just vote with my dollars and go out of my way to shop at Target during the protest, and encourage others to do the same: Patronize the businesses that are being targeted by the union thugs. They're trying to get us to boycott, so let's buycott instead. Make the protests be counter-effective.

Newsweek is in the pits and being sold off because we stopped buying it when it turned into Leftist drivel, so voting with dollars can work. Donate to the campaigns of principled patriots. Purchase from decent companies. Buy products that reflect our values. Don't see a movie unless it's worthy of your vote, and then if it is, go twice. I'm working on figuring out which actors and directors are decent and which should be avoided altogether. There are shows that I won't watch. There are stores I won't go to. I'm just trying to be more conscious of how I'm voting. At some point, if enough people stick by their principles in their purchases, the market will get the message.

2 Videos For Your Consideration

2010-05-20T09:16:00.000-07:00

The first is Pastor Manning discussing riots in the streets and how he will support the white folk who are fed up with being pushed around by Obama, groups like the Black Panthers, etc.:

For clarity, I don't believe that Obama is a homosexual illegal alien, as Manning says, but I agree about people being fed up with their country being destroyed and trampled on by racist groups, Marxists and Liberal inciters. Will we riot and have a revolution, as he states, or will we just stop putting up with it as you can see already happening in the next video?

The second is a video of a community standing up against a group of Black Panthers who have come to protest at the house of a man that shot 2 burglars in his own house. It's interesting that the Left wants to make illegal legal, while making it illegal to protect yourself and your own property. Are burglars, drug pushers, and illegal aliens the new victims for Democrats to take under their nanny-state wings?

Muse's Matt Bellamy is a Libertarian. Rock On!

2010-05-18T08:32:00.000-07:00

I went to the SLC Muse concert a little while back and was really struck by the imagery they used paired with their extremely political lyrics. There was a lot of 1984, anti-Darwinian imagery and an image of Obama with the leader of China that directly led into images of war, destruction, governmental tyranny, dictatorships, etc.. (The kid next to me was in an Obama t-shirt and I saw a couple of Che shirts... how embarrassing!)

Bellamy also never put a fist into the air like most rockers; Instead he always pointed one finger into the air. Was it to make sure he didn't do the Commie fist thing? I wondered. I left there convinced that they are libertarians, but have not been really willing to outwardly make than claim. Since then I have been trying to really pin down their political leanings, considering that a big influence of Bellamy's is the book 1984, which is all about rebelling against a tyrannically controlling government, but was written by someone who claimed to be a socialist/near-anarchist in his time. (But his definition of socialism was equal rights for all, which is hardly what socialism REALLY is.) 1984 is a must-read even though its original purpose was to show how wrong socializing can go if the people in charge are not benevolent. I counter that no one who wants to lead us into it COULD be benevolent anyway, so the book is still relevant.

So, I assumed that they would keep their leanings private so as to not alienate their more Marxist or Progressive followers, but then I found this quote from an interview:

"When asked what issues and aspects of the world concern him these days Bellamy answered, "Government. Generally just, yeah… I think just generally the people that are making a lot of the decisions, won’t have the heart, and really not being able to trust a single one of them." So, obviously he's not a liberal in the American sense because they believe that government is the solution to all that ails us instead of the people and equal rights being the answer. Though British, he certainly can't be described as a Liberal in the American sense.

And then I found this little gem that showed me EXACTLY where Bellamy stands from an interview with Q magazine:

"I’m coming to the conclusion that the UK needs a constitution. I’m a libertarian but it feels like a time for a drastic change. Because Britain has no constitution there’s no higher power than the government – I think that’s why the UK is getting so done over. " -Matt Bellamy, lead singer and songwriter of Muse

Well, I was right. So to all those socialists that think Muse is just anti-fascist, Na na na na boo boo!!! Muse is all around anti-big-government. It's not often we get music that fits our politics exactly, but when we do, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥!!

When The Collective Pays For Your Body's Maintenance, Who Owns Your Body?

2010-05-17T10:55:00.000-07:00

(Thanks to Reaganite Republican for this cartoon!!!)

The movement of our government toward forcing us to be healthy is a scary thing for me. Why is the FDA trying to regulate our salt intake? Why is there a bill, the Healthy Choices Bill to be exact, in Washington to track the BMI's of all American children until they turn 18? Why do they want to tax soda for being unhealthy?

The answer: Because they passed Health Care, and thus the collective that's paying for your health care has a financial stake in your health.

The point of the health care bill was to eventually evolve into a universal health care system,...

breaking down the door and then expanding through 'reforms', and according to Pelosi it isn't about health care for America but about creating a healthier America.

As such, it must be noted that the goal is to get to a point where all American bodies are being maintained by the collective. In other words, we're all going to be paying for eachothers' maintenance. But what happens when the collective has a financial stake in your health? Doesn't it naturally follow that then since you're receiving some benefit from the collective in the form of bodily maintenance that they partially OWN your maintenance, and as such partially own your body? They are paying for it, aren't they?

So we can already see the fruits of the health care law: the collective gets to regulate our health. The health care bill was never about health care. It was about gaining control over your personal property- your body.

Now, since it will be costing us all greatly if you're obese, have high blood pressure, poor exercise habits, eat at McD's too much, etc., then we get to regulate your salt intake, your BMI, and your health. Get it? Socializing medicine is indeed socialist, and it takes away your most prized property right: to your own body. When the collective pays for your maintenance and you're just a means of production for the economy of the collective, you are owned, body and all, by the collective. THAT is one of the scariest parts of Marxism: You don't even get to own yourself, let alone make your own choices.

A Hymn For Today: Do What Is Right

2010-05-16T13:55:00.000-07:00

Sometimes the most profound lesson I learn in church comes from a hymn. Today was no exception. The meaning of the words changed for me today from the gazillion other times I have sung it, and I want to be better at doing the right things. This hymn is about free agency, choosing to do what's right, fighting for the cause of freedom, and knowing that if we do we will be protected by God, blessed as a natural consequence, and quoted by angels.

Do What Is Right

1. Do what is right; the day-dawn is breaking,
Hailing a future of freedom and light.
Angels above us are silent notes taking
Of ev’ry action; then do what is right!

[Chorus]
Do what is right; let the consequence follow.
Battle for freedom in spirit and might;
And with stout hearts look ye forth till tomorrow.
God will protect you; then do what is right!

2. Do what is right; the shackles are falling.
Chains of the bondsmen no longer are bright;
Lightened by hope, soon they’ll cease to be galling.
Truth goeth onward; then do what is right!

[Chorus]
Do what is right; let the consequence follow.
Battle for freedom in spirit and might;
And with stout hearts look ye forth till tomorrow.
God will protect you; then do what is right!

3. Do what is right; be faithful and fearless.
Onward, press onward, the goal is in sight.
Eyes that are wet now, ere long will be tearless.
Blessings await you in doing what’s right!

[Chorus]
Do what is right; let the consequence follow.
Battle for freedom in spirit and might;
And with stout hearts look ye forth till tomorrow.
God will protect you; then do what is right!
Text: Anon., The Psalms of Life, Boston, 1857
Music: George Kaillmark, 1781–1835

Support This Movie! Go See Robin Hood!!

2010-05-15T10:06:00.000-07:00

I went and saw Robin Hood last night, and for once Hollywood got it right! It has gotten terrible reviews by the liberal establishment, probably because they didn't like the message. In this movie the anti-tyranny, anti-taxation Robin Hood from the minstrel stories is brought back, rather than the semi-socialist we've seen from Hollywood over the last century. There is no spreading of wealth in this movie. It is about liberty, equal rights, unjust taxation, and rebelling against tyranny. It is about the creation of the Magna Carta, which was the first document of its kind attempting to limit the powers of kings and establish rights for the people, and inspired the Declaration of Independence.

Hollywood, or at least Ridly Scott, has taken note of us and has delivered us a true tea party movie. Let's show them how much money they can make when they give us something true to our values instead of liberal propaganda and smut! It's PG-13, has some graphic violence and a little skin, but also a wonderful message.

Robin Hood, Feudalism, and What The Progressives Have Us Progressing Toward

2010-05-14T15:07:00.000-07:00

Governments cannot be Robin Hoods. They cannot ever resemble Robin Hoods. They are the very thing the Robin Hoods of the world fight against. Robin Hood "stole from the rich" aka government and government cronies, and "gave to the poor" in the form of returning their tax money to them. Robin Hood, at least in the minstrel stories, revolted against the Feudal system in order to right some of its wrongs. He was an outlaw to an evil system. That doesn't mean he did everything the right way (I don't condone stealing ever.), but it does make for a good story, and a great tea party story.

Where Marxist ideology, which doesn't work because it goes against human nature, gets us is to FEUDALISM because it's taught to the poor and gullible by the elite in order to get them to give up their rights and property to 'the collective' (but the elite and the government control the acquisition of those things for the use of the collective) and then the elites just end up having all power and property over the rest. That's feudalism. It's stupid to think that after we make the government and the elites tremendously powerful and rich in order for them to make things "fair" and to "spread the wealth around" that they'll ever do anything but keep the power and wealth for themselves. Marxism/Progressivism is just a trojan horse for totalitarian dictators and a pseudo-religion for well-intentioned "useful idiots".

Progressives want us to progress past the Constitution, but what they're really doing is regressing civilization back to the dark ages of no equal rights, high taxes, and grovelling to big governments. Their ideology is a stupid cancer to society. It doesn't work. Their view of human-kind is wrong. And they are so blinded by their happy frou frou green loving, peace at all costs- asserting, 'humans can be perfected on earth if they are forced into it, but otherwise they're worthless and evil' ideology that they can't see how wrong and destructive it is. The Robin Hood story is the 1984 of the 13th century.

"If Americans should ever come to believe that their rights and freedoms are instituted among men by politicians and bureaucrats, then they will no longer carry the proud inheritance of their forefathers, but will grovel before their masters seeking favors and dispensations - a throwback to the Feudal System of the Dark Ages. We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness [and property]. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." -Ezra Taft Benson from "The Proper Role of Government"

AND according to the New York Times (Wait- the New York Times???), "You may have heard that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, but that was just liberal media propaganda. This Robin is no socialist bandit practicing freelance wealth redistribution, but rather a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles. Don’t tread on him!"

BREAKING NEWS FROM UTAH

2010-05-08T14:47:00.000-07:00

Our Republican state delegates just kicked Bob Bennet out as our senator!! He won't even get to be on the ballot in November!!! WOOOOOHOOOOO!!!!! I love Utah's delegate system!!! It's going to be Bridgewater and Lee duelling it out to get the nomination. I heart them both!! Lee is a Constitutional lawyer who has worked under Alito, loves the Constitution and has a true understanding of it. Bridgewater is a true Capitalist who also loves and understands the Constitution. It's a beautiful day in Utah!

REAL Racism... Not the Kind Al Sharpton Has Been Blathering On About

2010-05-06T19:02:00.000-07:00

NO WHITES ALLOWED: In an elementary school in Detroit white students were not allowed to go on a field trip with the black students. The reason? Ummmm..... because racism against whites is state-sanctioned now, (consider affirmative action) kinda like how racism against the Jews was state sanctioned in Germany, or how racism against blacks used to be state sanctioned during segregation. Reverse racism is racism against whites, and for some reason it's OK now and not considered racist.

CINCO DE MAYO TRUMPS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PATRIOTISM: Students in California were sent home and given unexcused absences for showing up at school wearing American flag colors on Cinco de Mayo. Hispanic students considered it to be disrespectful to wear the colors of the American flag in America on a holiday that's not actually a national holiday in either Mexico or the US. So in America now it's considered un-American to be a patriot because it might hurt other countries' feelings to wear patriot colors on their semi-holidays, I guess. Wearing red white and blue must be raaacist against the Mexican-Americans, because, you know, the American flag is not for them or something.... Huh?

In other news, Al Sharpton is in Arizona stirring up race riots in which people are calling the governor a racist Nazi in the name of supporting the Hispanics because a law that doesn't profile and treats all races of illegal immigrants the same is racist.

Does anybody else think we've lost of friggin' minds? How long are we going to sanction racism against one race?

Where I Stand- Gay Rights and Same-Sex Marriage

2010-05-06T13:12:00.000-07:00

(Notice the Communist fist in the middle... Hmmmmm, are the Commies targeting gays?)

I haven't touched on homosexual issues here on this blog before because it's such a touchy subject. I don't subscribe to any Darwinian ideas about why homosexuality exists in nature (the ideology Hitler used to justify slaughtering gays), and I don't subscribe to any idea that it's purely environmental either (an idea that minimizes the difficulty homosexuals who wish they could be heterosexual face). I do believe that some are "born that way," that a few choose it (like those "experimenting in college"). I also believe that some have become so out of a defense mechanism because of early childhood abuse. Either way, unless it is a conscious decision at some point (I've only seen a few cases of this) it is not their fault that they feel that attraction. Regardless of causation, I prefer to look at homosexuality through strictly religious eyes, which is actually the most charitable and fair way, in my humble opinion.

I have had ~~homosexual~~ friends with same-sex attraction (Can you really by "sexual" without being sexually active? The word homosexual insinuates that there is no choice in the matter.) since high school, and am still close to some. Many have fought throughout their lives to overcome their same-sex attractions and all have been unsuccessful. Under no circumstances is it OK to blame them for an attraction they cannot control. According to my particular religion, there is no sin in same-sex attraction unless it is acted upon. It is the action that is the sin, and people experiencing same-sex attraction are expected to live up to the exact same standard as the rest of us. Homosexual sex is just as bad a sin as pre-marital sex because God's law says that any sex outside of a heterosexual marriage is a sin. That applies to everybody equally, though the rule is harder to follow for some than others. The attraction is a temptation, and are we not here on earth to face temptation in order to be tested and taught? We all have our mountains to climb.

Discrimination because of sexual orientation is unjust. It shouldn't be happening, but saying that they can't change the definition of marriage for the rest of us is not discrimination. They have no legal right to do it. I have no problem with civil unions or gay people living together and being able to be on each others' insurance, being able to visit each other in the hospital, etc. The only place where I care is that they don't get to change the definition of marriage, and I don't think it's best for them to adopt, though it's still their choice... BECAUSE I think that the best way to raise children is with parents of both sexes who love each other and create a healthy environment in the home. A manly lesbian is not adequately masculine to exert the masculine influence in the home. An effeminate man is not adequately feminine to exert the feminine influence in the home. And both mothers and fathers are needed to optimally raise children. But this is not much different from a child being raised in a single family home either. Both situations are not in the best interests of the children, and thus should not be the main plan for raising them. Raising kids is about doing what's best for the kids, and not about doing whatever you want to because of your desires, or because you want to prove to the world that it is possible and OK for a same-sex couple to raise kids without terribly scarring them. Isn't it selfish that you are even willing to take that chance?? Selfishness makes terrible parents. Yes, I am saying that it is selfish to knowingly and gleefully adopt kids when you know it's not going to be the best situation for them.

Generally speaking, I am more Libertarian about homosexual rights issues than many conservatives, but that absolutely crosses my line when it comes to marriage and children. Everything else should be the same as for the rest of us. If someone indulges in their urges and commits the act of homosexuality, that is between them and their partner and God. I won't condone the action because ultimately it hurts them and their partners eternally, but I'm not going to openly scorn them either. Love the sinner, not the sin. Homosexual sex is a sin that they commit against each other. That attraction won't exist after this life and the relationship will not last into the eternities. It is the temptation that I wouldn't wish on anyone, and it must be heartbreaking to go through this life having to choose between loneliness and celibacy and committing one of the most grievous sins against your partner and God.

Still, though it is the action that is a sin; God does not "hate" anyone. He disapproves of the action because it is an action that hurts His children and keeps them from receiving the eternal blessings that He wants to give us all. But, at the same time, He doesn't allow us to be tempted beyond what we can handle. It isn't our place to judge because everyone's situation is different and God knows where mercy is needed and where it needs to be withheld. If He created them that way then He knows how to deal with it and how to justly deal with the way they chose to act upon or deny that temptation.

Free will is the key to understanding our purpose here on earth. We are dealt our flawed stack of cards and we prove ourselves by how we use them. Some people have enormous trials, some trials are self-inflicted, and some people have only minor problems, but we will get what we earn, and we are choosing our heavenly rewards now by how we choose to use our free will according to the cards we're dealt. Same-sex attraction is one card I'm glad I didn't get. But understanding the discussions that inevitably happen politically concerning gay rights means that we need to understand the principles, and frankly, the answers are just not clear without religion on this particular issue, which just makes it harder to discuss with moral relativists. I say it is a sin out of love, and to say it is not or to get mad at anyone who admits that it is a sin is mere self-justification and will make it only hurt more in the long run. It takes more love to tell the truth when someone doesn't want to hear it than it takes to appease them and tell them that it doesn't matter, which only helps them continue hurting themselves. I love enough to tell the truth while not attempting to take away free will.

Anybody Want to Buy Newsweek?

2010-05-05T12:04:00.000-07:00

According to this AP article Newsweek is up for sale because it has been a financial burden on its mother company recently because of shrinking sales. They blame the recession and online news sources. I blame the fact that Newsweek is irrelevant, politically motivated, uber-liberal, and out-of-touch with Americans. They backed themselves into a corner by abandoning their market. Conservatives are readers. Duh! And we don't like reading magazines that insult my intelligence, our country, and our ideals.

So good riddance! It makes the experience of getting my car's oil changed worse when the only thing to read is a Newsweek.

If We Can't Call a Jihadist Bomber a Jihadist Bomber Then Do We Really Have Freedom of Speech?

2010-05-05T10:49:00.000-07:00

Shahzad is a jihadist terrorist bomber. He tried to blow up Time's Square. Just because he was a failed, incompetent jihadist terrorist bomber doesn't mean we should treat him any less like a jihadist terrorist bomber. He is on the same level as Tim McVeigh, but with admitted ties to terrorists in Pakistan. Many in the press still refuse to call him what he is. The article up on yahoo.com says, "motive is still a mystery," making the AP look moronic. Everyone knows the motive. The AP article wants us to know about how his "life had unraveled" as if that will make us feel sorry for him or excuse his terrorist act. MSNBC points out how the Pakistanis that lived around him in Pakistan think the accusations against Shahzad are a conspiracy theory. The problem is that the media is not willing to admit that this guy was an extremist Muslim because they'll get skewered with shouts of "racism" if they call a duck a duck. The media might be reluctant to use their freedom of speech and of the press to report the actual truth because the truth doesn't fit their political agenda, but I'm not. You feared McVeigh, huh, liberals? Why are you not afraid of Faisal Shahzad and those who he's been colluding with to kill us?

Where is your horror and feigned shock now? It was so evident 15 years later with McVeigh. Is it only because McVeigh succeeded and Shahzad failed?

Or is it because of his "religion of peace" which you love so much simply because you hate Christianity? If his religion teaches him to blow people up then it is not a religion of peace. I have known a few Muslims in my time, and all were fantastic people and none were Islamic extremists. Islamic extremism is not the same religion as Islam, just like FLDS polygamists are not Mormons. When the doctrine is different they cease to be the same religion.

Also, why is it that the left is OK with Islamo-fascism and fascism in America as long as Liberals are in power?

Shahzad is a naturalized citizen and should be mirandized and treated fairly within our justice system, meaning he shouldn't be protected from justice either just because of the color of his skin or his religion. He tried to murder people and commit a terrorist attack and deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. He should be treated the same way by the media that a white right-winger would be treated had he committed the same crime. But alas, the hypocrites in the media are protecting him from those racist Americans who will call him an Islamic extremist terrorist for being an Islamic extremist terrorist. What was the punishment that McVeigh got again?? If Shahzad doesn't receive the same then we have no justice in this country.

Tolerating terrorists is not tolerance. It's suicide.

Why Rule of Law Matters in the Immigration Discussion

2010-05-04T23:24:00.000-07:00

A question for consideration:

What would happen if we opened our border with Mexico?

If we do as we are being told at the immigrant rallies and open up our Southern border because of Aztlan, or to 'combat racism' or because "America is a continent, not a country," then officially we would be changing our laws and undermining our ability to do our duty to protect our borders against immigrants that would like to destroy this country. For reference, see Jihad. We would essentially be saying that all of our borders are open to all people from all countries, regardless of circumstances and intentions because we wouldn't be able to say that under the law we have enforceable borders any longer. Breaking the rule for one group means breaking it for all. Saying it's OK for people from Latin-American countries to break the law and/or be allowed to declare themselves residents under any circumstances means saying it's OK for everyone because that's how justice and the rule of law works. The process of becoming an American should be the same for all ethnicities.

If our borders are opened for one country of people, then there is no fairness, no blind justice, and no enforceable immigration law for anyone. The Hispanics can claim racism now, and they're being prodded on by our anti-American media and president, and in 10 years when it's another country like say, Iraq, they would be able to claim racism then too if we try to secure our borders, and there would be precedence for them to point out to prove their claim. We would officially be opening our country up to anyone from anywhere under all circumstances, and that's not safe or smart.

It seems to me that the people pushing easy amnesty and a 'get rid of the border' agenda are the same people that want us all to be "citizens of the world" so that we can have one government over all of us and the US along with its divinely inspired constitution would be a distant memory. We'd fade into a new world order of sorts that would also eventually be so overrun with corruption (as most countries become at some point in their histories), but there would be no America or outside force left to fight to free us from tyranny. The entire world, under one government, would be dooming itself to slavery to an astronomically big government. The people who are advocating this are the REAL big government people, and they are America's enemies.

We need to remember that the law rules over us, not the whims of men. Laws are our security. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. And this country's rule of law is our haven against the Socialism that many countries are falling into. We have a right and a responsibility to expect immigrants to come through the front door instead of sneaking in under the radar. Immigrants need to make sure they learn to love and respect the fact that this country is great because it is ruled by law and not by men, and that the constitution is all we have to keep up from slavery and anarchy. It's equal justice, not empathetic justice for some and not for others.

We need to advocate for our borders to be secure and that the rules on immigration stay the same for everyone regardless of accusations of racism- immigrate legally by going through the process properly, or understand that you're undermining our ability to remain a country at all, and undermining our ability to vote with our feet and find safe havens from tyranny in this world. If someone like Napoleon/Saddam/Hitler/Stalin were to rule the world, who could rise up to dethrone him? And with that absolute power, would that person not also become absolutely corrupt? Is the UN not already adequately corrupt?

And They Think We're Dangerous!

2010-05-04T17:51:00.000-07:00

He wants everything to be free and to not have to pay taxes. How would THAT work?

He says we owe him. What do we owe him? Nothing.

He says they will shoot more police to get what they want.

Deport, deport, deport!!

Big Brother Makes a Tax Commercial

2010-05-03T16:15:00.000-07:00

My thoughts:

1. How little respect do they have for the little guy who is paying their government salaries? None. We're just targets of their indignation.

2. They're actually, unremorsefully trying to scare people into getting their taxes in on time! They're fear-mongering!!

3. Whoa, hold on there Big Brother!! I thought this was America where we supposedly have privacy rights.

4. I'm glad I don't live in PA right now.

5. Who green-lighted this atrocity? It's really bad marketing when the government is making itself look like a totalitarian spy.

6. And this is why we have tea parties popping up all over the states. Not racist. Not violent, just no longer silent!!

Illegal Immigration is Color Blind 2.0

2010-04-30T16:54:00.000-07:00

This is a great video illustrating what I said in the last post. Legal immigrants are saying, illegal immigrants don't speak for me! This is from 2008 in California, but the same sentiment exists today just as it did then:

Illegal Immigration is Color Blind

2010-04-29T13:03:00.000-07:00

Picture thanks to LDSPatriot.wordpress.com

Just because the Mexican border is the leaking faucet right now doesn't mean that being against illegal immigration makes you a racist. It has nothing to do with skin color, language, or racism. People get deported back to Canada all the time!! Are the Canadians crying raaaacism? Of course not! The racism argument is nothing but a shill coming from the real racists. They claim that we are racists because all they see is skin color so they assume we're like them in that respect. The real issue is about the fact that everyone from every country that wants to be a US citizen should have to go through the naturalization process legally. Justice is blind. Immigration laws should be blind too, and they are except that we allow millions of one race to not have to obey them while enforcing it for all others. That's why Arizona is saying no to racial profiling while saying yes to enforcing the laws which are already on the books regardless of race.

Back before WWII when shiploads of Jews crossed the ocean to seek asylum in America because they were experiencing persecution in Europe we sent them back to Europe without letting them even get off of their ships. Why? They weren't going about immigrating the legal way. Many of those aboard ended up dying in the Holocaust. It's a shame that that happened, but their situation was FAR worse than that of those sneaking in from our southern borders today. There's no Holocaust going on in Mexico. Should we not treat the Mexicans the same way we treated the Jews? Are we raaaaaaacist for expecting them to stay in their own country and fix it or immigrate the legal way?

And what about the moral Mexicans that refuse to be sneaky and break into this country illegally? They're still in Mexico trying to get their papers and submissions to our government worked through. If we give those who are here free and easy amnesty and then shut the borders, we'll miss out on the best of the best who are still there while allowing the ones who could care less about the law to stay. It's backwards and irrational! That's not right! My cousin just went through the arduous task of getting her Hispanic husband his US citizenship and it was extremely stressful and a very long process- TOO long. Those who know how hard it is to do it the right way are some of the first to get upset at the cries of the illegals that they're being treated unfairly. They're not being treated unfairly. They broke the law, and their treatment is a natural consequence of that action. We love them anyway, but I'm afraid a little tough love is the only way to get them to appreciate what they could have if they obey and honor the law and learn to respect this country.

Quotes I've seen on Facebook lately:

*First Name Hidden* Rodriguez:

"My family came to the US the RIGHT and LEGAL way. Illegals are NOT entitled to anything. The US can help but don't expect free things."

*First Name Hidden* Salazar:

"That's the left's way to try and marginalize people who believe in the rule of law. Let's call them all racists, even if they are of the same race as the illegal immigrants. Make sense, doesn't it? Don't agree with Obama, your a racists. OH PLEASE!"

*First Name Hidden* Velasquez:
"Im a fourth generation mexican american and a registered democrat. both of these facts are being used against me by the federal, state, and local government. Just today I was on hln news between 2pm and 3pm california time responding to the projected government responce to ariz.immigration law.... I have lost my job and cannot find more employment. My company laid off 23 people for economical reasons. The same company then hired 24 illegal immigrants in our place. The wages I established over a period of two+ yrs ended up being the deciding factor. I was under the impression that the laws that were clearly posted on the wall of the break room were there to protect us from just this kind of unfair labor practice. But instead of enforcing these laws the Federal government is more worried about the people that these laws are now intended to protect "illegal aliens"......sounds crazy huh? Ive contacted local, state, and federal government agencies, naacp, cnn, hln, fox, cival attorneys and yes even the white house and the responce has been "duuuuuuuuuuuh" Im not at a loss for words though and am now well versed in the Declaration of Independance the constitution and the bill of rights."

I fear that what the Democrats are doing is using the Hispanics for political gain, letting them in illegally and then attempting to defame and ridicule anyone that doesn't think it's right for them to so blatantly mistreat and victimize a whole race of people. We have a real slavery problem in this country, and it's being perpetuated by those who pretend to be helping those they enslave. They're not helping. They're creating dependency.

Another Attempt to Silence the Opposition

2010-04-28T15:39:00.000-07:00

When I write here I am speaking for myself. I try to be civil and respect the opinions of others, but I'm not going to condone that which I find inaccurate, deceitful, disingenuous, mean, or to be an attempt at silencing my opinions.

Recently someone has tried to silence me through an anonymous comment, and upon looking at some other blogs I have noticed a pattern. If you disagree with the politics of Harry Reid or other self-professed Liberal/Feminist/Democrat/Progressive Mormons you get this particular piece sent to you: Mormon Ethic Of Civility

But why? I do not disagree with a single thing in that piece. Is it the part about there being good things about different political opinions? I don't disagree with that. There are plenty of good people that are Democrats that really want equality and charity in the US, but I think it's dangerous when the pluralist party system gets undermined, which I think is exactly what's happening because the Democrat party is being taken over by Socialists, and as we've been counselled, "No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction. These evil philosophies are incompatible with Mormonism, the true gospel of Jesus Christ." -Ezra Taft Benson

I just don't think there are any died-in-the-wool Marxists who actually know the teachings of Marx (included social warfare, murder, theft, coveting, envy, dismantling of the family, destroying religion, etc.) and want them implemented that can seriously be Godly. How could that be the case? Isn't Marxist ideology the exact opposite of what that piece is attempting to teach us, including where it talks about the need for religion and strengthening the family? And let me remind you that both social justice and moral relativism were called false philosophies in general conference just a few weeks ago, and God claims the Constitution as His own in our scriptures. Both of these false philosophies and the destruction of the Constitution are requirements of Marxism. I attack the evil Satanic philosophy of Marxism here, and I feel comfortable being as blunt as the prophets themselves have been on this subject.

Does that make me un-civil? Or have I been fair and honest? I'm no prophetess and I'm nowhere near perfect, but I do speak with sincerity in an attempt to spread light and truth, even when that means examining the ugly and evil, rather than pacification and flattery, which are both tools of Satan.

As a side note in defense of Glenn Beck, who is almost always discussed in blogs where this piece is mentioned, he is attempting to awaken Americans to their awful situation which the Book of Mormon commands us to awaken to in the last days when wickedness will abound and the hearts of men with fail them. He isn't lying, making it up, or fear-mongering. He's doing the research and sharing with us the things that we need to know about the combinations within our government that are threatening our God-inspired Constitution, and he never accuses without proof. You don't have to enjoy his style, and you don't have to agree with him; You can even think he's crazy, but he is being genuine and trying to do his part. Consider, before attacking him, that his main message is "Restoring Faith, Hope, and Charity" in America. That isn't bad at all. It isn't negative, and please listen to him before forming an opinion on him based solely on what the media has to say about him. His goal is to get us involved in our country and improving ourselves spiritually so that we can heal this nation. I can respect him for that. So before attacking him and "being ashamed that he's a Mormon" please remember that attacking him and judging him is doing exactly what you're accusing us of doing to Liberals and Progressives.

A quote from the Ethic of Civility piece:
"So many of the habits and conventions of modern culture — ubiquitous media, anonymous and unsourced online participation, politicization of the routine, fractured community and family life — undermine the virtues and manners that make peaceful coexistence in a pluralist society possible." Anonymous, you didn't make me be quiet, but you did give me a nice link to a great piece and give me a giggle for posting anonymously a link that criticizes the action of posting anonymously. :o)

"Please do not think that I harbor ill-will or enmity in my heart towards other United States citizens whose views on political policies do not coincide with mine. But when acts and schemes are manifestly contrary to the revealed word of the Lord, we feel justified in warning people against them." -President David O McKay

I will never feel bad for being a conservative Mormon just because that makes me like most Mormons politically and some will assume I'm blindly following the crowd. I'm not blindly following anything and if being a conservative Mormon makes me a "sheep" then so be it. I have done my research, prayer, and am still learning about politics in relation to religion and wisdom, and believe me I gave Liberalism a fair shake in my own life. Being a Progressive/Feminist/Liberal Mormon does not make you more 'enlightened' than the rest of His sheep. In fact, an attempt to be un-like His sheep for a sense of superiority and/ or rebellion often leads to less enlightenment. The question is, what is the true and best relationship between religion and political ideology for a Mormon?

All I Need to Know About Entitlements I learned from My 4 Year Old, Part2

2010-04-25T08:24:00.000-07:00

This morning my son was acting like a Socialist again. He was chasing his little sister around the house yelling, "Share your stuff! Share your stuff" with her marker which he had stolen from her in hand. She was clinging desperately to the little princess white board that the marker goes with, trying to voice that it belongs to her and he had stolen it, and that that's wrong. Even a 2 year old knows it's bad to steal, even in the name of 'sharing'. So mommy Capitalist stepped in and told him that stealing isn't sharing, and gave her property back to her. She's very giving and would share willingly and happily if he didn't swoop in and steal.

He even threw in an "I know better than you. You don't know what's best," and a "Jesus would be mad at you that you don't share your things." Jesus didn't condone theft, coveting and lying to get what we want. Looks like we need to have a little talk about Jesus!
When pressed he admitted that the real deal is that he just wants her stuff.
He really needs to grow up and become a Capitalist already!!

Why Only Democrats and Liberals Should Feel White Guilt

2010-04-24T09:56:00.000-07:00

It baffles me that we're taught that Democrats are the civil rights champions. They are absolutely the opposite.

First of all, the Republican party was created to be the party against slavery because the Democrats were pro-slavery, and good people knew it was un-Christian and morally wrong. Lincoln was a Repblican, and not in "name only" as so-called scholars are teaching on campuses across the country. You'd never know it by how Republicans are portrayed now, but we were THE anti-slavery party, and we still are.

The very first Republican president freed the slaves and was hated for it. He was consequentially murdered by a Democrat.

From Maggie's Notebook, an email to her from David Lemon, and : Astonishing History of Democrat Racism at nodnc.com:

The Klu Klux Klan was created by the Democrats for the express reason of terrorizing blacks and Republicans in the South to prevent them from voting, and that every known Klansman that were members of Congress have been Democrats.

...imagine if you will, what a far different nation the United States would be had not the Republicans been around to block the Democrats’ efforts.

From WorldNetDaily:

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism....

Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before the Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed.

"The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat -- either in the House nor the Senate -- voted for the 14th Amendment...Three years after the Civil War and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans. [David Barton]

Back to the email -- the Timeline:

March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party

May 30, 1854 Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party

June 16, 1854 Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party

July 6, 1854 First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

February 11, 1856 Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in [Republican] President Lincoln’s Cabinet

February 22, 1856 First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

March 27, 1856 First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies

May 22, 1856 For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recover

March 6, 1857 Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”

June 26, 1857 Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks

October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

October 25, 1858 U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as “inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders”; as President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation Proclamation

June 4, 1860 Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery

April 7, 1862 President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade

April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 2, 1862 U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington Carver

July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

August 19, 1862 Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipation

August 25, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army

September 22, 1862 Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation

January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect

February 9, 1864 Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery

June 15, 1864 Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War

June 28, 1864 Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts

October 29, 1864 African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”

January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

March 3, 1865 Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves

April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

June 19, 1865 On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation

November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

December 6, 1865 Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified

February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

April 19, 1866 Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery

May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

July 16, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman's Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights

July 28, 1866 Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen

July 30, 1866 Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150

January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

May 20, 1868 Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors

September 3, 1868 25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress

September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

September 28, 1868 Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor

October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

November 3, 1868 Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation

December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

May 19, 1870 African-American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies

May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

March 22, 1871 Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina

April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871 After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

September 20, 1876 Former state Attorney General Robert Ingersoll (R-IL) tells veterans: “Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a Democrat… I am a Republican because it is the only free party that ever existed”

January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919

July 14, 1884 Republicans criticize Democratic Party’s nomination of racist U.S. Senator Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) for vice president; he had voted against the 13th Amendment banning slavery

August 30, 1890 Republican President Benjamin Harrison signs legislation by U.S. Senator Justin Morrill (R-VT) making African-Americans eligible for land-grant colleges in the South

June 7, 1892 In a FIRST for a major U.S. political party, two women – Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton – attend Republican National Convention in an official capacity, as alternate delegates

February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

December 11, 1895 African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans

May 18, 1896 Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting from Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, declares: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”

December 31, 1898 Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schools

May 24, 1900 Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans

January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

October 16, 1901 President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to dine at White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

June 18, 1912 African-American Robert Church, founder of Lincoln Leagues to register black voters in Tennessee, attends 1912 Republican National Convention as delegate; eventually serves as delegate at 8 conventions

August 1, 1916 Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes, former New York Governor and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, endorses women’s suffrage constitutional amendment; he would become Secretary of State and Chief Justice

May 21, 1919 Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

April 18, 1920 Minnesota’s FIRST-in-the-nation anti-lynching law, promoted by African-American Republican Nellie Francis, signed by Republican Gov. Jacob Preus

August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924 Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

December 8, 1924 Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis argues in favor of “separate but equal”

June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

October 20, 1942 60 prominent African-Americans issue Durham Manifesto, calling on southern Democrats to abolish their all-white primaries

April 3, 1944 U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Texas Democratic Party’s “whites only” primary election system

August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry Truman's surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that "[t]he use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

February 18, 1946 Appointed by Republican President Calvin Coolidge, federal judge Paul McCormick ends segregation of Mexican-American children in California public schools

July 11, 1952 Republican Party platform condemns “duplicity and insincerity” of Democrats in racial matters

September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

December 8, 1953 Eisenhower administration Asst. Attorney General Lee Rankin argues for plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education

May 17, 1954 Chief Justice Earl Warren, three-term Republican Governor (CA) and Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948, wins unanimous support of Supreme Court for school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

October 19, 1956 On campaign trail, Vice President Richard Nixon vows: “American boys and girls shall sit, side by side, at any school – public or private – with no regard paid to the color of their skin. Segregation, discrimination, and prejudice have no place in America”

November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

June 23, 1958 President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders to discuss plans to advance civil rights

February 4, 1959 President Eisenhower informs Republican leaders of his plan to introduce 1960 Civil Rights Act, despite staunch opposition from many Democrats

May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

July 27, 1960 At Republican National Convention, Vice President and eventual presidential nominee Richard Nixon insists on strong civil rights plank in platform

May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

June 1, 1963 Democrat Governor George Wallace announces defiance of court order issued by Republican federal judge Frank Johnson to integrate University of Alabama

September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

June 20, 1964 The Chicago Defender, renowned African-American newspaper, praises Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for leading passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act

March 7, 1965 Police under the command of Democrat Governor George Wallace attack African-Americans demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, AL

March 21, 1965 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George Wallace

August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose

August 6, 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

July 8, 1970 In special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon calls for reversal of policy of forced termination of Native American rights and benefits

September 17, 1971 Former Ku Klux Klan member and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D-AL) retires from U.S. Supreme Court; appointed by FDR in 1937, he had defended Klansmen for racial murders

February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988 President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

April 26, 1999 Legislation authored by U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) awarding Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks is transmitted to President

January 25, 2001 U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”

March 19, 2003 Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference

May 23, 2003 U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture

February 26, 2004 Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) condemns racist comments by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL); she had called Asst. Secretary of State Roger Noriega and several Hispanic Congressmen “a bunch of white men...you all look alike to me”

May I add that one of the most insidiously racist issues supported by the Democrats is abortion. Abortion was pushed as a way to decrease the black population in the US and they've succeeded at it by putting the majority of abortion clinics in black neighborhoods and teaching the people that it's a civil rights issue for them to be able to obtain abortions. Actually it's a civil rights issue that they are targeting the black population with abortions and murdering them before they're even born.

Arizona and Immigration: Thoughts

2010-04-23T19:12:00.000-07:00

Here is the article I am basing my thoughts upon: Arizona Governor Signs Immigration Enforcement Bill

1. Good for them for deciding that the law is the law and no one can run across it, climb over it or can wriggle under it. PERIOD. I personally don't like that we have immigration laws that we're not willing to enforce, regardless of any further discussion on amnesty, deportation, etc.. Either take away the laws (while taking away the social programs that people are draining the system with) or enforce them. That should be a no-brainer, at least if you have a tiny bit of psychological understanding. Rewarding illegal behavior leads to more illegal behavior.

2. We have to be SOOOOOOO careful on this one. It could very easily lead to things that I don't like such as everyone having to carry identification every time they leave the house. I don't always have my purse on me. Sometimes I can't. What would happen if a cop stopped me and wanted my papers while I was out for a jog? That makes me uncomfortable. Some ugliness is probably going to ensue, but that doesn't make the bill wholly wrong, either.

3. The governor says they will not allow for racial profiling to take place, and cops will only ask for documentation when they have a reason to suspect that someone is illegal. I do and don't believe this all at once. But there are some clear times when they would already know, like say if they pull over a van and find 20 non-English speakers crammed in with scared looks on their faces. To be honest, it's really easy to spot illegals. As long as the police carry themselves well this law shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Overall, good job to Arizona for finally dealing with the problem that has been a plague to their state for so long, but at the same time, illegal immigration isn't the cancer in my opinion; the benefits of being here illegally which we provide to them through our many government programs is the real problem, and as I said in my previous post on immigration, if we get rid of those this wouldn't even be an issue. We would welcome our brothers from the South with open arms if they weren't bleeding us dry. The real problem is money and resources, not race. We can't afford to be the world's nannies any more than we can afford to be the world's cops.

My honest opinion on amnesty? If we can't end social programs and go that route I'd be for it if we'd take border patrol and security extremely seriously afterward, but in order to not say "It's OK that you broke the law- we forgive you, so go ahead and break more laws because we don't mean to enforce them" I would impose a fine onto every 'undocumented worker' and every 'undocumented non-worker' in order for them to be able to get their papers, and if after the given period of time for getting documented they didn't apply for documentation they would be deported, and all those who would be found to not be documented thereafter would all be deported. No future amnesty. No future mulligans. One time amnesty and none thereafter. But that's just me.

The Real Face of ACORN Continued

2010-04-23T11:51:00.000-07:00

Transcript provided by Biggovernment.com:

"First of all, let me just say that any group that says “I’m young, I’m democratic, and I’m a socialist” is alright with me. [applause]

The reason that you have to build your organization, and make it as big and as powerful as you can, is because you need to get into real battles. And here’s what I think you need to do. And you need make sure that you get into this battle. The next big battle that’s coming…whether healthcare lives or dies…[break]

Immigration is the next big battle. Immigration, immigration, immigration. And the reason this is so important is, you know, here’s the secret [whispers]:

We’re getting ready to me a majority, minority country. Shhhh. [applause] We’ll be like South Africa. More black people than white people. [laughter] Don’t tell anybody.

You get yourselves together, get strong, get big, and get in this battle. Get in this battle! Because again it’s all about money. How this country works. Who we have in this country. And the fact that a fear of a black planet that’s being played out in the United States today. The future of our country is people of color. And how that’s going to change our psyche and our economics, this is why folks are grabbing so hard to change the economic paradigm, because we gettin’ ready to have a majority country of people of color. And the fear of a black planet is real. [break]

My challenge to black folks, and to people of color and civil rights folks, are as this: the face of immigration needs to be a lot blacker than it is. Because once they can frame the immigration debate as about Latinos, crossing some mythical border, when in fact we have second and third generation black folks in this country who come from immigrant families. But they’re not standing up and marching with their Latino brothers and sisters, and saying “I am an immigrant too”…[break]

So Young Democratic Socialists, join this immigration war. Black people, young black people that have been put in the vast vat of “African Americans”, JOIN. Don’t march along side, don’t march in back, be right out front!

Because that will be the battle for our democracy. That will be the battle for the kind of government that we have. That will be an economic battle of epic proportions. Immigration, self-sufficiency, and the people united. Thanks you. [applause]"

WHO IS INCITING VIOLENCE NOW?!

Immigration reform will not make there be more blacks than whites, as if that honestly even matters or is a rational thought (Latinos aren't black, Bertha). And who are these imaginary people that are afraid of a "black planet?" For real? Is she serious?

I think she slipped up and means more Socialists in America than Americans. Yes, I basically just said that you can't really be both, and I mean it. You can't be a Socialist and love America. Period. Their values are diametrically opposed.

It's pitiful how the liberals are prostituting minorities to incite class warfare and grow their power. And in the case of ACORN, prostituting is the exact right word to use.

My response to Bertha's speech to the Young Democratic Socialists:

Problem is, no matter how insane what she's saying is, there are people there listening and cheering.

The Real Face of ACORN: Pro-Socialist, Partisan, Race-baiting, and Fear-Mongering

2010-04-21T12:49:00.000-07:00

"THEY ARE COMING!" -Bertha Lewis

She says we're coming after them and it will "dwarf" the McCarthy era, Jim Crow laws, internment camps, and segregation.
She says they should spread the Democratic Socialists group across America.
She says the tea party movement is a bowel movement.
She says the mask of racism is coming off at the tea parties.

Talk about paranoia! She is delusional and telling them that we're a racist angry mob that is going to try to do terrible things to them. She's either crazy or trying to rile up fear with her blatant, idiotic lies. She is the one taking the mask off. We don't have one. We're not racist and we're not coming after anybody. They're Socialists, and Socialism is the antithesis of American freedom. Socialism is the antithesis of human rights. God bless the courts for reinstating the temporary defunding of this anti-American, racist, Socialist, law-breaking, hate-mongering, race-baiting, fear-mongering organization. And that's not name calling. It just is what it is.

Gotta Love it.

2010-04-20T10:31:00.000-07:00

What Do Conservatives Actually Believe?

2010-04-19T19:03:00.000-07:00

I think that while we're being attacked by celebrities, former presidents, media pundits and liberal bloggers one thing we cannot forget to do is to make sure we make it plain and clear what we really do believe and want rather than simply defending ourselves against the misinformation. Part of the reason I believe that they call the Republican party the party of no is that we're always being put in the position to say no and defend rather than explain our core beliefs. So let's say yes and explain.

Yes to downsizing government. Government is a consumer, not a producer. Give a consumer complete buying power and they'll buy outlandish amounts of expensive goods. Give government too much power over our money and they spend it all and say it's for our good. Who knows what's better for your good than you? I'd rather spend my money the way I want to than have someone else spend it on me or someone else. And remember that money is nothing more than a power that we've mutually given a physical manifestation. Conservatives are not anti government and we're not anarchists. We say yes to small restrained government.

Yes to personal responsibility. My money, my problem. Government shouldn't get involved with my buying choices, and they shouldn't try to spend my money for me. I take care of me and my family. Government is a waster of responsibility and resources.

Yes to equal individual rights. All people have rights given to us by God. God is the granter of freedom, free agency, and human rights. Governments usurp that role to increase their self-importance and gain more power over the people. And they almost can't help it because they're human, power is a drug, and power corrupts.

Yes to fair taxes. The progressive income tax is unfair, disincentives success, and was one of Marx's pillars for destroying America and creating Communism. Americans should all be treated the same by the government. Being poor isn't a disease or a disability. Everyone should be taxed a flat rate across the board.

Yes to racial equality. Affirmative action is racist. Reverse racism is still racism. Just because anti-white racism is condoned by the government and politicians doesn't make it OK, just like government sanctioned anti-Jew sentiment wasn't OK in Europe a century ago. Government shouldn't have racist programs and policies. All men are created equal and should be treated by the content of their characters and not by race.

Yes to an adequate defense. We don't need to be imperialists to want to have nukes. We don't even need to be imperialists to have to use nukes. We don't need to be warmongers to find it necessary to maintain a big military. We absolutely need to be able to defend ourselves should one of those many countries that hates us decide to kill all Americans. They talk about it plenty. There can be no peace when the enemy wants war.

Yes to non-violence. We have a right to defend ourselves, but we're always non-violent otherwise.

Yes to acknowledging that we are a Republic, not a Democracy. Rule of law (the constitution) supersedes rule by majority, AKA democracy or mob rule. Democracies have short life-spans and when they fall they give rise to rulers. Those who have taught us that we're a Democracy instead of a Republic don't like the constitution because they want either Marxism or totalitarianism (but really they're basically the same thing). The constitution is our safeguard against anarchy and serfdom.

Yes to Morality. A basic morality accepted by the people at large is necessary to us being able to live and function together safely. Not killing, stealing, lying, cheating, etc. is essential to the operation of a free society.

Yes to family values. The family is essential to the functioning of society. When governments step in to do the jobs of individuals and families they create a culture of dependence and irresponsibility. Individuals, families, communities, and churches are the most efficient humanitarians.

Yes to maximum freedom and harsh penalties for crime. The founders intended for us to have the maximum freedom possible. But along with freedom there have to be consequences for infringing upon the rights of others, and the punishments should fit the crimes. Crime shouldn't pay, and the laws should be enforced if they have to exist.

Yes to the Constitution's original intent. We've gotten extremely far from where we were supposed to be under the constitution. Read the constitution itself, the declaration of independence, the Federalist Papers, and the 5000 Year Leap to understand the original intent of the founders. Marxism is a philosophy that looks to destroy property rights and individual rights, and as such, no part of it can be considered constitutional. We've adopted quite a few Marxist pillars, and they should all be done away with one at a time until we can get back to the kind of prosperity that comes from unrestrained personal freedom.

This list is not all inclusive under any circumstance, and I can't speak for everyone, but generally speaking, these are things that conservatives want.

I'm Pretty Sure Somebody Paid A Homeless Man A Banana To Hold An Anti-Tea Party Sign

2010-04-16T00:22:00.000-07:00

Big thanks to Left Coast Rebel for this picture!!

I like to play detective. Let's have a go:

This guy is
1. wearing a ragged, dirty Barack Obama t-shirt,
2. holding a bruised banana,
3. holding a sign that's pointing directly at himself which reads "the stupids are here," and
4. he obviously hasn't had a shower or his laundry done in days.

My conclusion: Somebody paid a homeless man a banana to hold a sign. How cruel!!

No, sir, the stupids are the people who paid you a banana to hold the sign. OK, maybe they weren't stupid, but certainly they didn't have your best interests at heart and they didn't have the guts to be out there holding it themselves. I call that degrading and offensive, but I bet they thought it was funny. Next time come find me and I'll buy you a sandwich instead. No sign holding necessary.

Note to readers, yes, perhaps this guy was sincere, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.
He's either the poster child for the moronic left or I'm right in my original conclusion. OR maybe he's a conservative infiltrating the infil-traitors to make them look stoooopid. Hmmmm....*thinking diabolically with pinky finger on lower lip* :o) Could it be?

Salt Lake City Tax Day TEA Party Pictures

2010-04-15T15:37:00.000-07:00

There was a good sized turn out to the Tax Day TEA Party here in Salt Lake. I didn't make it over to the one this morning at the Federal Building, but I did make it to the Capital. It was a large crowd, and the speakers were great.

I didn't see any infil-traitors, but there was a table set up by Marxists off at the outskirts of the area. Their banner reads, "Workers stop fighting. Start Uniting. Class war not race war."
Losers. Obviously they think we're waging a "race war" which is beyond ridiculous. (Hey look- more minorities were with us than with them. The Marxist hipsters were all white. LOL)
But at least they didn't get in our faces or pretend to be anything but Marxists. Perhaps it did one or two of them good to see what real patriotism looks like and hear our speakers talk about what we actually believe in beyond what Olbermann has been feeding them. But notice where the news cameras were during the event: talking to the Marxist useful idiots.

This is WAY too much fun!!

2010-04-14T13:18:00.000-07:00

Embrace the insult and make it your own. The morons who denigrate us will end up coming off looking like spoined 2 year olds while we walk away and don't let it bother us. They're bullies. Treat them as such.

Thanks to Andrew Breitbart for posting this on Biggovernment.com!!

Thanks to Reaganist Republican for this cartoon!!!

Salt Lake Tax Day Tea Party

2010-04-13T08:51:00.000-07:00

Thursday is the Tax Day Tea Party. This is going to be a big one! 10:00-12:00 at the Federal Building, and then 12:00-2:00 at the Capital on the South steps. I'll be there. I'm just praying I can find parking since I'll have kids with me. For additional info, here is the facebook event page link.

Be forewarned, though. There are plenty of anti-tea party liberals planning on attending the tea parties disguised as patriots to yell racist epithets, say ridiculous things, and make us look bad. Of course those will be the people the media will be watching for to film to prove that we're just racist Obama haters and not actually concerned citizens who want smaller government and love the constitution. If I find anyone like that there on Thursday I will be forced to call them out openly and ask them to leave. I will also be alerting police should they get nasty with me. I may even bring a camera to film any infil-traitors as I ask them to leave for being liberal trolls who want to discredit the tea party movement. Hey, who knows- Breitbart might offer a reward for anyone with a video proving that the 'racism' at the tea parties is coming from liberal infiltrators. :o)

Today's Cartoon

2010-04-09T14:06:00.000-07:00

(Feel free to copy and use this picture if you like.)

Debunking Common Misunderstandings: Communism vs. Consecration

2010-04-08T11:39:00.000-07:00

This post is for my Mormon friends specifically. During the Millennium while Christ rules among us we are taught that we will be of one heart and one mind and there will be no poor among us because we will be a moral, Christ-like people who consecrates our belongings, time, and talents for service and good. That is consecration.

What consecration is NOT/Common misleading statements:

Lie # 1: "Communism is just consecration without God." or "Consecration is Communism with Christ in charge."

First of all, if Communism was just consecration without God then God would be governing it within its inherent philosophy, which is itself anti-God and evil. That wouldn't happen. If Communism was just consecration without God the converse would be true also- Consecration would be Communism with God. That is not nor could ever be true because Communism is Satan's counterfeit ideology to the ideology of consecration. God nor Christ would ever operate under the counterfeit, but rather under the pure and unperverted original. The real thing came first, not the counterfeit, and God would never be a Communist because the ideology behind Communism is entirely anti-Christian at its core and was created by Satan himself, given to men through Marx to deceive us. Not only is the comparison of Communism to Consecration that they're the same with "just" one difference simplistic and inaccurate, but it dangerously makes Communism look like it could be Godly if done right, which it never could be since Marxist theory is evil all the way through. Consecration is what has to be done right. Communism never could be done "right."

Lie # 2: "Communism/Socialism are only bad because of who runs them. If someone good is in power they would be good."

So you're saying the hateful, murderous, jealous and deceitful ideology behind Marxim isn't what's bad about it?? How can something created by Satan as a way to deceive and create hatred and murder in order to steal wealth, with merely the trojan horse of egalitarianism, ever be good or something that a good person would lead us into? That would never happen. Communism and Socialism could never be good because their foundation is greed, envy, hatred of one's neighbor and anti-Christian/ anti-family. A good man would never help the proletariat murder the bourgeoisie and still be a good man. The foundation of Marxism is bad, the ideology is bad, the means are bad, and the ends are bad.

3. "Communism/Socialism and consecration are the same, except..."

That's like saying Satan is the same as God, except.... It's nearly blasphemous to say it. Their purposes are diametrically opposed, not the same except for this or that. The means of getting to socailsm/communism are diametrically opposed to the means of getting to consecration. The means by which the people share their wealth under them are diametrically opposed. The organizations of society under them are diametrically opposed (the family). The characters of the leaders are diametrically opposed. The characters of the people under them are diametrically opposed (charity vs. greed). The ways the people operate under them are diametrically opposed. The only thing that is the same is that wealth gets shared. That is where the similarities end. So let's call it "sharing" instead of "communism," please, for clarity and to not mislead. Sharing is consecration (when done with free will and the right spirit), but Communism is not consecration even though wealth gets shared.

To understand and identify a counterfeit it's necessary to know the original extremely well. Knowing the counterfeit extremely well, on the other hand, will not help you identify the original if you're not already familiar with the original. You would merely fall for other counterfeits until you finally use the original as the standard to judge all others. Why is it, then, that when we try to identify the original (consecration) we keep talking about the counterfeits in order to understand the original?? It's important to know the counterfeits, but only if we already know what the real deal is that we're seeking. Teaching each other about consecration, in my opinion, should be done by teaching about charity, sharing, self-lessness, mercy, and love, and not by saying, "It's kinda like Communism." Not only is that misleading and a lazy comparison, but it could lead others to think that Communism and Socialism are valid and potentially benevolent ideologies.

"The entire concept and philosophy of Communism is diametrically opposed to everything for which the Church stands—belief in Deity, belief in the dignity and eternal nature of man, and the application of the gospel to efforts for peace in the world. Communism is militantly atheistic and is committed to the destruction of faith wherever it may be found.
The Russian Commissar of Education wrote: ‘We must hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the revolution. Down with love for one’s neighbor. What we want is hate. Only then shall we conquer the universe.’
On the other hand, the gospel teaches the existence of God as our Eternal and Heavenly Father and declares: ‘ . . . him only shalt thou serve.’ (Matt. 4:10)
Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state, to which he must look for sustenance and religion. Communism destroys man’s God-given free agency.
No member of this Church can be true to his faith, nor can any American be loyal to his trust, while lending aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies; for if he does, they will prove snares to his feet." ("Statement concerning the position of the Church on Communism" -President David O. McKay at the general priesthood session of the 136th Annual Conference of the Church, April 9, 1966)

The Bar Parable

2010-04-05T15:25:00.000-07:00

A bar full of people are sitting, drinking for the evening and one bleeding heart man in the crowd realizes that there are a few people in the bar drinking only water because they can't afford a beer. Sure, they're not dying of thirst, but he figured it was not socially just.

He stands up and demands that everyone give the bartender their 'fair share' according to what is in their wallets and everyone will get as many drinks from the bar as they need for the evening for no additional charge. They laugh it off for a minute and then he convinces the bar-tender to shut down the bar for the evening unless they do as he says.

Most of the patrons don't mind because they will be getting as much beer as they would otherwise purchase for their fair share, so they stay and give the bartender their share. The poor who are drinking water are stoked! They'll get free beer all evening and pay nothing for it. Most of the rich leave because it's not really worth it for them to contribute 10x more than they would otherwise spend for the same amount of drink. Some rich patrons stay because they're either intrigued or too comfortable to leave, but they figure that if they're asked to contribute more they can leave then.

The money is collected and the bar is opened. An hour in people are talking about how awesome this system is and how the bartender is giving them 'free' booze.

As one of the excited poor patrons steps out for a breath of fresh air he tells the people outside that they're giving out free beer in the bar. Word spreads quickly and suddenly people are clamoring to get into the bar to get their 'fair share' of the free booze. They are not asked to contribute. The middle class and rich realize that this is going to get ugly. The bar runs out of booze in 2 hours and the patrons are now in debt to an empty bar. The money collected didn't come even close to paying the tab because people consumed more beer because it was free, and free-riders snuck in the back door. The bartender has 3 options- take the debt upon himself, borrow more booze from another bar and push paying the debt off until later, or demand more money from the patrons. All the while the patrons are demanding more booze and saying they have a 'right' to it.

The bartender chooses the last option since it is the most fair. The rich are asked to pay their 'fair share' again, so they leave, knowing that they're being taken advantage of. The poor get mad at the rich for leaving even though the rich paid for their drinks in the first place, technically. Eventually, rather than paying for what they receive somone burns the bar down in anger stating that drinking free alcohol is a right.

Illegal Immigration: Progressivism Created the Problem

2010-04-04T23:44:00.000-07:00

I grew up in San Diego County, and I remember Prop. 187 well. I was in junior high and the riots and hateful rhetoric were frightening to me. Mexican flags were brought to school (Shouldn't they have been carrying American flags instead if they wanted to reap the benefits of American citizenship??), trash cans were thrown and the security carts were overturned while "Viva Mexico" and America-hating things were said. The Democrats had told them that Californians are a bunch of racists. I had gone to an elementary school that was 90% Hispanic, and I was OK with that. I had daily SSL (Spanish Second Language) classes in school because the teachers and administrators didn't know what to do with the 3 white, 1 black, 1 Asian, and 1 English speaking Kuwaiti girl in my class while the vast majority of students were in ESL classes. In the 4th grade there were 2 classes of 4th graders- one for those who could speak any amount of English and one for those who couldn't speak a lick. They were taught exclusively in Spanish. I was used to being a minority and I had many Hispanic friends (including some illegals), but the state was failing fiscally, the schools were failing fiscally, and things came to a head with Prop. 187.

The people of California voted for Prop. 187 which would have taken the responsibility to give welfare to and educate illegals off of the shoulders of the tax payers. It was a last-ditch effort to "Save our State" from absolute ruin at the hands of illegal immigrants taking advantage of entitlements, but they were only coming here to escape a corrupt government and lack of opportunity, so a part of me couldn't blame them anyway. It seemed right to me to say that if you do something illegal you shouldn't get rewarded for it, which is what I felt was happening when people came here illegally and then were given welfare checks and food stamps. But 187 was overturned by the Supreme Court. I've always had mixed feelings about it.

Immigration is a tough subject for me. On one hand I'm all for it because I want everyone to have freedom and opportunity, but on the other, illegal immigration and adding millions of undocumented illegals to the dole while not enforcing our laws (What's the point of them if they're not enforced?) is just legislatively ridiculous, undermining the authority of the law, and fiscally irresponsible. California is still drowning in debt, dying a slow death actually. On the other hand, the story of America is one of a people justly overthrowing a tyrannical government and creating better for themselves, so I believe every country's citizens have the right to change their own countries and forms of government for the better. Running elsewhere because it's easier than fixing it doesn't make Mexico better.

But I had a though last night. I know that the reason the liberals in the White House are making a push for amnesty is because they want to add millions of Democrat voters to their coffers. They're using the Hispanics for their own selfish reasons. But what if those potential new voters understood the real source of their problems- the Progressive agenda and entitlements. Consider that every argument against immigration and opening the gates has something or other to do with our inability to financially fund entitlement programs that immigrants often will take advantage of. Get rid of all entitlements, special treatments, and liberal bad ideas for everybody, and I think most conservatives would be happy having the gates swing wide open. Sure, we would want to also make sure that great emphasis is put on learning English (which liberals are against because they seem to like keeping the Hispanics segregated), assimilating (which multiculturist liberals are against), and becoming a fruitful citizen as well (which Socialists seem to be against until they're in power and can force production), but what problem would any of us have with immigration if it didn't mean destroying the country financially through entitlements? The Liberals, Democrats, race-baiters, class-warfare inciters, and Progressives are the real problem. The idea of placing limits on immigration was inspired by the book of a eugenicist in the first place.

Don't join the left as they pretend to care for the immigrants. Join the conservatives that want to keep America prosperous and free. This country is great because it's a land of opportunity, not because of entitlements (or Democrats).

I would like to hear your thoughts.

Easter Morning

2010-04-04T07:40:00.000-07:00

My kids are finished searching for eggs and I'm reflecting on the significance of today before the sugar high kicks in. :o)

Easter is a celebration of the resurrection of Christ. He overcame death after having descended below all things and suffering for all things. The Easter story is the ultimate story of hope. He bled from every pore feeling the pain of every sin, suffering and heartache so that we can repent of our sins and find solace through Him through all of our hard times because he knows exactly how we feel. He was betrayed by His friend, denied by another and crucified. But He overcame. With His help we can overcome all things. He is our Savior and Brother, doing the work of God to bring forth our salvation.

I know I need to use the atonement more in my life. Today, we celebrate that HE LIVES. He is still watching over His little flock and He will return to end the wickedness and suffering soon enough.

Look At All Those Crazy Conspiracy Theorist White People!!

2010-04-03T18:53:00.000-07:00

*BEWARE* Lots of cursing and crazy liberals in this video, even a call for murder...

To me the name calling against the tea party seems to be mere liberal projection. They're appeased now that they're in power, but they're attempting to silence dissent just the way they claim Bush was silencing it. Hmmm... so if that made him Hitler, then according to their own criteria they have just called themselves Hitlers for trying to stop the tea partiers' voices from being heard, right? It's a good thing they were nutty and nobody was really paying attention.

In other news, life-long Democrats that are seeing how Marxist Obama really is and how Marxist the Democrats in Congress have become are defecting to the tea party and becoming independents. FINALLY! CNN article link here.

Uniting, and 'Partisan Vitriol', An Open Letter to Obama

2010-04-02T13:00:00.000-07:00

In response to your call for unity, Mr. President,

There is no point in uniting unless we're uniting on solid principles.
Agreed?

Then why are we conservatives being called bad names for not uniting when we completely disagree with your principles since they all have something or other to do with things you learned from Marxists?

Sorry Obama. I would love to unite with you. I would love for you to understand the Constitution and learn to love it as we do. I would LOVE to love having you as my president, but it's not Rush or Glenn that are the problem in my eyes. They're telling the truth, and they always have proof to back their points up. The problem is that you are acting like a Socialist/Fascist, not to say that you're crazy like Hitler or trying to kill people like all of the Marxists of the last century, but that you make yourself look similar to them by calling for the 'redistribution of wealth,' 'socialized medicine,' 'control over banks,' 'flag@whitehouse.gov,' etc. These things to me mean that you're trying to:

1. control free speech to fit only what agrees with you (flag@whitehouse.gov, accusing media persons of incitement and lies), which is totalitarian.
2. control the private sector financially and through increased legislation (TARP, taking over a car company, "controlling the insurance companies"- Biden, etc.), which is Fascist.
3. socialize the people through "spreading the wealth around", which is obviously Marxist.
4. take powers upon yourself that were considered usurpations under the Constitution through telling the Congress what to do, insulting the judicial branch during the State of the Union Address, and deciding to sign executive orders to get things done that won't fly with the separation of powers, which is dictatorial. I don't care that other presidents did it before you. Precedence is not a good excuse for acting like you are the only voice allowed in government.

So please, Obama, spare us the angry rhetoric in the name of ending the angry rhetoric. You said you'd be transparent, and at least you've kept your word on that point.

-TKZ