I want to expand this a little bit and follow by stating that I believe anyone who engages in this type of deception, for any reason, is inspired by this same Evil. The frightening thing is that we find this happening in every aspect of life, and the most pronounced in Politics.

The Liberals have become expert at this. How many times each day do we hear from Liberals in the Media or in Politics how backwards, unenlightened, outdated, etc. Conservatives and conservative policies are? And how progressive and advanced the Liberals think they, themselves, are.

Isaiah give this warning: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Barak Obama has millions of people fooled because they cannot discern that he is not a force for evil in the world. He comes across as so charismatic and pleasant, but he represents future misery. Read the Book of Mormon.

I usually won’t spend a lot of time talking about people on this site unless I feel they really have earned the distinction. Mr. Spencer has crossed the line from the political to the dogmatic in such an overt way that I felt compelled to address his claims.

I’m going to refrain from addressing the claims of divine endorsement for Mr. Spencer because I believe that most people are wise enough to see such silliness for what it is without any help from me. Instead, I’d like to focus on the claims he has made regarding his position and why it contrasts with that of Jason Chaffetz.

The Bush Tax Cuts

Mr. Spencer has said we should not make the Bush tax cuts permanent because they are hurting families. Mr. Spencer obviously has not been watching the news in the last four years. Nationally, unemployment has been at it’s lowest level in decades, which means that more families have a better income than we have seen in years. How is it that we can have almost non-existent unemployment, but still our families are hurting as a result of the tax cuts?

Mr. Spencer also implied that Jesus would vote to repeal those tax cuts out of compassion. Mr Spencer obviously believes in a very different Jesus than the one I know. Did the Jesus of the Bible teach that we should support governments that engage in legal plunder to benefit those who will not work at the expense of those who will? Or that we should support governments that will usurp the role of the Church in caring for the poor and the needy? Was Jesus a Socialist? If you are Christian, and especially LDS, you must answer a resounding NO!

Jesus believed in obeying the law of the land correctly. An example of this is found in Matthew 17: 24-27.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay atribute?

He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Jesus questions Peter’s submission to a law which did not apply to him. The tribute spoken of was a tax collected on foreigners (strangers), which did not apply to citizens (children). Initially, the United States operated on a tax system very similar to this. It wasn’t until the Progressives (Socialists) came into power in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s that we began to tax the “children.” Socialism was not what the Founders envisioned.

Immigration

Mr. Spencer wants you to believe that Jason Chaffetz’s plan is to round up all 12 million or so illegal aliens and hold them indefinitely in a concentration camp-like tent city. Mr. Spencer is simply incorrect about Jason’s plan. We all know rounding up 12 million or more people into one place is a logistical impossibility. Jason knows it too. But it is interesting to note that each time in our history that we have begun to rigorously enforce our border laws, and arrest a good number of people, an even larger number of those here illegally return to their home country of their own volition.

You see, there is no way for them to know if they will be arrested next or not. Rather than take that chance, they prefer to exit the country. It works every time. There is never a need to round up everybody.

Mr. Spencer would have us believe that Jesus would want a “very compassionate” immigration policy. But he doesn’t go into detail on what that entails, so we are left to only guess at what he means.

But “compassion” is always the buzz word trotted out by those who apparently don’t believe we should be enforcing our laws for one reason or another. Mr. Spencer wants us to equate compassion with not rounding people up, which means with not enforcing our border laws. But we LDS believe in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law–even if we disagree with it. We don’t believe in flouting the law for compassion’s sake. In fact, we believe just the opposite.

Let no man break the alaws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

We can see that God’s position in the scriptures is one of obedience. We may not break them ourselves, but the result is the same if we allow them to be broken by others and we do nothing.

We believe that agovernments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men baccountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society. (D&C 134: 1)

A careful study of the issues brought up by Bennion Spencer indicates that he is not in line with the mainstream of thought in Utah’s Third Congressional District, even though he actually lives in the district. It also shows that he is not in line with Christian doctrine on government. There are several more points to cover, but they will be addressed in the next post.

Chaffetz is know for his role as campaign manager in Jon Huntsman’s successful bid for the governor’s seat in Utah. Chaffetz later was named Gov. Huntsman’s Chief of Staff. During that time, Chaffetz was instrumental in engineering the end of the standoff between the state government and environmental activist groups over Utah’s Legacy Highway.

Chaffetz recently criticized Gov. Huntsman’s positions on Global Warming, calling the climate hype “a farce.”

“Last year, CPAC gave me the sendoff I needed.  I was in single digits in the polls, and I was facing household Republican names.  As of today, more than 4 million people have given me their vote for President, less than Senator McCain’s 4.7 million, but quite a statement nonetheless.  Eleven states have given me their nod, compared to his 13.  Of course, because size does matter, he’s doing quite a bit better with his number of delegates.

“To all of you, thank you for caring enough about the future of America to show up, stand up and speak up for conservative principles.

“As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever.  We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future.  I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century – still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower.  And to me, that is unthinkable.  Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he thought about the war in Iraq.  ‘First,’ he said, ‘I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world.  In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land.  No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea.  America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world.’  The best ally peace has ever known, and will ever know, is a strong America.

“And that is why we must rise to the occasion, as we have always done before, to confront the challenges ahead.  Perhaps the most fundamental of these is the attack on the American culture.

“Over the years, my business has taken me to many countries.  I have been struck by the enormous differences in the wealth and well-being of people of different nations.  I have read a number of scholarly explanations for the disparities.  I found the most convincing was that written by David Landes, a professor emeritus from Harvard University.  I presume he’s a liberal – I guess that’s redundant.  His work traces the coming and going of great civilizations throughout history.  After hundreds of pages of analysis, he concludes with this:

“If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference.  Culture makes all the difference.

“What is it about American culture that has led us to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world?  We believe in hard work and education.  We love opportunity: almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity – opportunity is in our DNA.  Americans love God, and those who don’t have faith, typically believe in something greater than themselves – a ‘Purpose Driven Life.’  And we sacrifice everything we have, even our lives, for our families, our freedoms and our country.  The values and beliefs of the free American people are the source of our nation’s strength and they always will be.

“The threat to our culture comes from within.  The 1960’s welfare programs created a culture of poverty.  Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven’t given up.  At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility.  They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever.  Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug.  We have got to fight it like the poison it is.

“The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless.  And tolerance for pornography – even celebration of it – and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare programs have led to today’s grim realities: 68% of African American children are born out-of-wedlock, 45% of Hispanic children, and 25% of White children.  How much harder it is for these children to succeed in school and in life.  A nation built on the principles of the Founding Fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.

“The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and father.  Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of a nation.  I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history.  It is time for the people of America to fortify marriage through Constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it.

“Europe is facing a demographic disaster.  That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality.  Some reason that culture is merely an accessory to America’s vitality; we know that it is the source of our strength.  And we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture.  We will always be honored to stand on principle and to stand for principle.

“The attack on our culture is not our sole challenge.  We face economic competition unlike anything we have ever known before.  China and Asia are emerging from centuries of poverty.  Their people are plentiful, innovative and ambitious.  If we do not change course, Asia or China will pass us by as the economic superpower, just as we passed England and France during the last century.  The prosperity and security of our children and grandchildren depend on us.

“Our prosperity and security also depend on finally acting to become energy secure.  Oil producing states like Russia and Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran are siphoning over $400 billion per year from our economy – that’s almost what we spend annually for defense.  It is past time for us to invest in energy technology, nuclear power, clean coal, liquid coal, renewable sources and energy efficiency.   America must never be held hostage by the likes of Putin, Chavez, and Ahmadinejad.

“And our economy is also burdened by the inexorable ramping of government spending.  Don’t focus on the pork alone – even though it is indeed irritating and shameful.  Look at the entitlements.  They make up 60% of federal spending today.  By the end of the next President’s second term, they will total 70%.  Any conservative plan for the future has to include entitlement reform that solves the problem, not just acknowledges it.

“Most politicians don’t seem to understand the connection between our ability to compete and our national wealth, and the wealth of our families.  They act as if money just happens – that it’s just there. But every dollar represents a good or service produced in the private sector.  Depress the private sector and you depress the well-being of Americans.

“That’s exactly what happens with high taxes, over-regulation, tort windfalls, mandates, and overfed, over-spending government.  Did you see that today, government workers make more money than people who work in the private sector?  Can you imagine what happens to an economy where the best opportunities are for bureaucrats?

“It’s high time to lower taxes, including corporate taxes, to take a weed-whacker to government regulations, to reform entitlements, and to stand up to the increasingly voracious appetite of the unions in our government.

“And finally, let’s consider the greatest challenge facing America – and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate.  These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy.  To them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law.  They find the idea of human equality to be offensive.  They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.

“To battle this threat, we have sent the most courageous and brave soldiers in the world.  But their numbers have been depleted by the Clinton years when troops were reduced by 500,000, when 80 ships were retired from the Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25%.  We were told that we were getting a peace dividend.  We got the dividend, but we didn’t get the peace.  In the face of evil in radical Jihad and given the inevitable military ambitions of China, we must act to rebuild our military might – raise military spending to 4% of our GDP, purchase the most modern armament, re-shape our fighting forces for the asymmetric demands we now face, and give the veterans the care they deserve.

“Soon, the face of liberalism in America will have a new name.  Whether it is Barack or Hillary, the result would be the same if they were to win the Presidency.  The opponents of American culture would push the throttle, devising new justifications for judges to depart from the Constitution.  Economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead.

“Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign.  You are with me all the way to the convention.  Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976.   But there is an important difference from 1976:  today, we are a nation at war.

“And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror.  They would retreat and declare defeat.  And the consequence of that would be devastating.  It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play.  About this, I have no doubt.

“I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know.  But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror.  If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win.  And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

“This is not an easy decision for me.  I hate to lose.  My family, my friends and our supporters – many of you right here in this room – have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President.  If this were only about me, I would go on.  But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

“I will continue to stand for conservative principles.  I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in.  And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face evil extremism.

“It is the common task of each generation – and the burden of liberty – to preserve this country, expand its freedoms and renew its spirit so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.

“To this task, accepting this burden, we are all dedicated, and I firmly believe, by the providence of the Almighty, that we will succeed beyond our fondest hope.  America must remain, as it has always been, the hope of the Earth.

“Thank you, and God bless America.”

As I noted in a comment on one of those blogs, the seriousness of Mitt’s answer can be gaged by the credibility of the person posing the question, in this case an anti-war activist who really isn’t interested in seeing Mitt’s son’s join the military to fight for America.

Several of these posters call Mitt and others in the Bush Administration “Chicken hawks,” in reference to the lack of military service on the part of several of the war’s supporters. Now, I understand fully that the assertion is a non-sequitur, that it is simply more evidence of Liberalism’s latent violence and illogic. But as I believe that not addressing a question because it’s not formulated according to philosophically correct formulae is itself a red-herring, I will address it briefly here.

Why is it necessary to serve or have served in the military in order to support the war on terror? Why does the Left think that it can call Republicans and Conservatives who have not served, but who support the War on Terror, “chicken-hawks?” It can be easily demonstrated that the vast majority of our Nation’s leaders in wartime never served in the military. Many of our great founding fathers did not serve in the military during the Revolutionary War, yet they fully supported it. Why are things different now?

The Left prides itself on being the “intellectual elite,” so you know this non-sequitur is not designed to affect anyone but those on the Right who may not be acquainted with the forms of logical fallacy. Liberals are hoping for one of three outcomes:

1. The person targeted will be pressured into a change of position on the War.
2. The person targeted will join the military under pressure from his or her fellow Conservatives and will drop out of the public light.
3. The person targeted will join the military and be killed in action.

In any of these scenarios, the person targeted is no longer a political threat to the Left. That’s the primary motivation for this absurd demand on the part of these “pacifists” and anti-war activists. They want their way, and they will stoop to ridiculous measures to get it. They know they can’t win at the ballot box, despite all their cries of “Democracy,” so they resort to more disingenuous methods like anti-war activists suggesting that we increase the scope of the war by sending more soldiers into battle.

Some of these posters have attempted to paint Romney as egotistic or self-righteous because of this statement. My first response is that they put too much credence in the seriousness of the question. That is the natural and expected reaction for the Liberal, given the ideology of the person asking the question. But, let’s assume the question really is serious, and Romney’s response was equally serious. Why is it either egotistic or self-righteous to state that someone is serving our country by campaigning for a man that they believe will be an excellent President? Would these people say that about Hillary’s campaign workers? Obama’s? Edward’s? I’m guessing they wouldn’t.

I support Mitt Romney. Yes, I am LDS, but that’s not why I am supporting Mitt Romney. I know about Mitt’s talents because he came to Utah to help bail out the Olympic Games. And he did so spectacularly. After the Games, he ran for office in Massachusetts where he became governor. During his term in office he turned a huge State deficit into a surplus without raising taxes. Yet despite his conservative record and numerous accomplishments, many conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, refuse to consider him a viable candidate for President.

Perhaps they would consider Newt Gingrich. He plays well to that demographic. He has spent a lot of time and energy promoting some really innovative ideas for the future of America. But he hasn’t even said he will run yet. The only commitment he has made will be that he will look at it after the first of next year. And the charges of infidelity have left a mark on his name that has not yet faded.

Rudy Giuliani has a strong position on national security, very attractive in a candidate at this point in history. But he has very liberal ideas concerning gays and marriage that don’t square with conservative Christian values. Being strong on national security isn’t enough for today’s voters. A candidate has to have a good mix of the right foreign and domestic policy ideas. His several divorces are also distasteful to many on the Right.

John McCain has alienated much of the Right. In fact, many commentators are calling his campaign finished already. His positions on campaign finance reform and the recently debated immigration reform bill have left a bitter taste in the mouths of conservative Christians. His gruff demeanor did not help to diffuse the anger felt towards his policies.

Fred Thompson hasn’t even officially announced his candidacy yet. He has made no formal announcements, has put forward no specific plans or ideas, and hasn’t really said what the theme of his campaign will be. He is only exploring the possibility. But as soon as word hit the ‘net, he became the instant favorite among the conservative Christian demographic. I think I know why.

Mitt Romney would fit all their requirements for candidate if only he were not a Mormon. The attempts to label Romney a flip-flopper would get no traction among Christians if he were not a Mormon. They cannot trust that his now 13 year old change of heart is serious, because such things are usually driven by one’s religion and because they dislike the religion, they will not trust the man. Ronald Reagan had a similar change of heart, but he was trusted because his religion was acceptable. Romney also has some really good ideas, but they are drowned out in the cacophonic protests over his religion.

Fred Thompson fits the southern, conservative, evangelical Christian stereotype. He looks like them, talks like a lot of them, and believes like them. He fits in. What it all boils down to is that Fred Thompson gives Christians a reason to not support Mitt Romney–he gives them a way out.

My question is, why did they wait until now to produce this series? He was governor of Massachusetts. You would think that this kind of series would be perfect for a local candidate. So why now? It’s no secret that The Boston Globe doesn’t like Mitt Romney. The Globe’s writers have produced some real doozies, including one that attempted to connect Romney with polygamy via genealogy (his ancestors practiced polygamy…4 generations ago).

The bias in this story is open to view. I would compare the headline on this piece to any headline any supermarket tabloid might dream up. The headline creates the impression that Romney was a select recipient of some special dispensation from the Church that allowed him to obtain a draft deferment while the Vietnam war was going on. That is, of course, only half-true. Romney happened to be one of many who received deferments from the government for religious service. The Globe’s attempt to cover its tracks by including “other missionaries” is ridiculous. The mental connection has already been made, the damage done. The intent is obviously to paint Romney as a religious draft-dodger in the minds of readers.

Of course, the plan might just backfire…the Left considers Bill Clinton one of our best Presidents, and he also received a deferment. Then again Clinton granted his own deferment, while Romney’s was given according to law by the government. Maybe it’s that rugged independence that makes Clinton so likable in liberal circles; the Left never has been much for obedience to the law.

The media early on attempted to spin Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper, and some conservatives bought it. But it didn’t stick. Why? Because Romney effectively answered the charge and is a believable guy. Apparently he has had some traction with voters because his poll numbers have been steadily rising.

Anyone heard the MSM using the flip-flopper label on Romney lately? Not much anymore. But leave it to some conservatives who have not studied Romney’s record or positions to continue to carry that sad mantra as proxies for the MSM.

Liberal Patriot (an oxymoron) attempts to paint Romney as a hypocrite (and a very poor attempt at that) because he advertises in spanish while supporting English as the official language. This is a “non-sequitur,” and a bad one too.

Informed people understand that passing an English-as-offical-language bill would only mean that the government would be prohibited from printing its forms in anything but English. It would not prohibit you or I or even presidential candidates from advertising in Spanish.

So is Romney really a flop-flopper or a hypocrite? No, but I suspect that the facts don’t matter to many of Romney’s critics. Facts certainly haven’t swayed them thus far.