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 How many times each day do we hear from Liberals in the Media or in Politics how backwards, unenlightened, outdated, etc.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.

“They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a ^atree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.” –Isaiah 65:22

What greater condemnation of Socialism could there be than from God himself? One witness from the Old Testament, and one from the current dispensation through Joseph Smith.

I heard a young LDS guy on the radio a few months back who was convinced that Socialism was the United Order. It was troubling to me. How many of the Latter-day Saints think that Socialism is akin to the United Order? I’d like to hear from you. Post your comments to this post below.

The California State Supreme Court this week struck down the public initiative, passed overwhelmingly in 2000, which strictly defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The precedent is historic and frightening. The effect of this ruling is to say that four unelected men or women, largely unaccountable for their actions, can overturn the will of the people at a whim.

Of course, the useful idiots of the Left call this “Justice,” and in their meager intelligence equate this ruling to that in Brown v. Board of Education. Reason breaks down that argument in a moment. The Left attempts to make of these two issues one question of discrimination. They cannot be tied this way.

The discrimination that was struck down in Brown is wrong because skin color or race is a condition of birth that cannot be helped or changed. Brown is bad law with good intentions.

The alleged discrimination being targeted by the justices is not unjust because homosexuality is not a condition of birth. The many formerly gay men are proof that sexuality can be changed. It is a question of will. The California ruling goes far beyond judicial activism. It falls well into the realm of judicial tyranny and usurpation of power.

Earl Warren used the power of the Court to enforce the provision in the Declaration of Independence which holds “that all men are created equal.” In this decision in California, the effect is the exact opposite–all men are not created equal, and some have more rights than others.

This violation of the principles of the Declaration will not stand. One of two things will happen. Either the voters will overturn the ruling by ballot initiative in November, or the people will not be able to overturn the ruling, the decent people of California will refuse to live under judicial tyranny and will leave, and those who remain will destroy themselves. Either way, marriage will not be defiled.

The Book of Mormon informs us that the Nephite government was brought down due to the sedition and treason of the judges, the lawyers and the high priests. No government can long endure when the judges and lawyers no longer honor and sustain the law. By enacting this law unlawfully from the bench, the justices blatantly disobeyed a greater law, which sets a balance of power in the state governments.

Some have argued that this will not go to the US Supreme Court because it’s a state issue. However, the Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government. Therefore, the US Supreme Court should step in to uphold the will of the people under the banner of protecting and upholding the republican government in California. It is unfortunate that this will never happen.

The useful idiots of the Left will continue to say that this was justice being enacted. They completely ignore the founding principles of this nations for this moment of expedience. The separation of Church and State only goes one way for them; Religion may not influence government, but government can dictate religious practice and observance “in all cases whatsoever.” Sound familiar?

These people approve of tyranny when it agrees with their agenda. They are tyrants themselves. Their desire is the enslavement of their fellow men. As seditionists and traitors, they have no business claiming the benefits of this country. I would not defend them against expatriation. In fact, I would encourage it.

The conclusion drawn by Oliver “Buzz” Thomas in USAToday is frightening. In his April 21st editorial, “Might our religion be killing us?“, Mr. Thomas openly states that among others Mormons, with our encouragement for large families, and Catholics, with their opposition to birth control and abortion, are hastening the extinction of the Human Race.

Don Feder, who is not LDS, writes a rebuttal that can be found on Meridian Magazine, and at his website, GrassTopsUSA. I would strongly encourage you to read Mr. Thomas’ editorial, and then Mr. Feder’s response.

Mr. Thomas questions how these organizations can claim to be led by God when they espouse doctrines that are so obviously harmful to our environment. The arrogance is really astonishing. In Mr. Thomas’ opinion, he and his Green Leftist friends are obviously the holders of the correct doctrine, and religions are simply pretenders when it comes to knowing the mind of God. He never even pauses to consider whether he might be wrong. I mean, Christian religions have only been around for about 2,000 years. What would they know?

In his response, Mr. Feder correctly points out that “All of the left’s crusades begin with proselytizing and end in coercion.” Put another way, the Left ends up killing people to further their ends, regardless of what those ends are. The Left pretends to be peaceful and benevolent; that’s just a mask to lure the world into complacency. They convince the people to put them in power. They begin carrying out actions to meet their goals. The opposition stands up in protest, and then begins to disappear, one by one. Years later, the news headlines expose the Progressive movement for what it really was–a screen for murderers and psychopaths. It is a repeat of every revolutionary movement in the world’s history. As Isaiah says, quoting the anti-christ, “there was none that moved the wing, or opened the mouth, or peeped.”

The Book of Mormon warns Americans about this very thing.

Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.
Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.
For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

Are we listening? Are we awakening? It is time to stop these murderers before they come into power. If we should allow them to come into power, God says he will not protect us. We chose our destiny, and he will not intervene.

I was driving through Las Vegas in a taxi one time. The driver had a Ph.D., probably in Philosophy or something, which would explain the fact that he was a taxi driver.

As we spoke, he asked what I did for a living. I told him. Then he asked what kind of education it took to get me there. After chatting for a moment he said, “You’re an educated man, so I can safely assume you lean left politically and you’re liberal in your thinking.” He then launched immediately into a tirade of sorts about how much he admired the Clintons and hated Pres. Bush. He even said, “Bill Clinton is one of the greatest statesmen this country has ever had.”

I said, “Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who says I’m a leftist? As a matter of fact, I lean pretty far to the Right.” He looked at me like I was from Mars. Then, in a tone of incredulous disbelief, he blurted out, “But…you’re educated!”

I smiled and explained that a person could be both educated and conservative. “In fact,” I explained, “the things I’ve studied about our Constitution and the Founding Fathers increase both my education and my conservatism.

As we talked I said, “Let me explain something. We could talk all day on a variety of topics and, in the end, they would all boil down to the same point.”

“You believe morality is relative. Thus, to you, religion is a crutch; rules hamper your freedom; and one man’s actions are as good as another.”

“You can call terrorists ‘Freedom Fighters’ with a straight face, because they are incapable of evil.”

“To you, there is no evil, and the only boundaries you recognize are those established by law.”

“You will say ‘you can’t legislate morality’ while failing to recognize that almost all legislation is based on morality.”

He was dumbfounded. I continued: “I believe that morality is absolute. I believe there is such a thing as absolute truth, and I seek after it. I believe that there is right and wrong, based on eternal, unchanging universal Truth.”

I then explained, with interjections from my new friend, what I meant, and how absolute morality changes the picture. I said, “We could explore any cause, and arrive at the same end—absolute truth.”

“Let’s take environmentalism. Environmentalists say we should save the Earth, Gaia the Mother. All nature simply “came to be”—and shares equal footing. A man is no more important than a rat, so humans are a blight on the planet, a corruption of the natural order.”

“If we are animals and the fickle fortunes of evolution brought us to a higher state, it was an accident. We’ve upset the balance of nature. We were not created to have dominion; there is no Creator. Therefore, there is no higher truth—no higher law—no higher accountability. There is no God, so there is no evil—no need for religion—nothing but dust.”

“Either that thinking is right, or there is a God, we have dominion, and we have a divine destiny. I assert that this is the case. Absolute truth.”

“We could discuss animal rights. If an animal enjoys the same status as man and is anthropomorphically endowed with “rights,” that animal must have arrived at such a state as part of an evolutionary, not a creative, process. Therefore, there is no dominion. No higher law, no accountability, no God.”

“Or God gave us dominion. He holds us accountable to be wise stewards, and our rights are granted by Him. Absolute truth.

“Let’s take social programs—welfare, universal health care, even communism. If we pollute the inspiration of God, which declares that all men are created equal, and say ‘all outcomes should be equal,’ we rob men of their agency and, before long, they become like cattle. ‘By the sweat of thy brow’ does not mean ‘enjoy the fruits of another’s labor without recompense.’

Our Constitution was established, in part, to help preserve the equal opportunities (and therefore, responsibilities) of man, not equal outcomes. ‘All men are created equal,’ but the law of the harvest has not been suspended. If all men are compelled to be equal, they cannot better themselves. They cannot grow through selfless service. They develop no self-control or self-determination. They behave as cattle, not sons of God, and one man is as good as another. There is no law but compulsion; religion is a crutch and a fantasy; there is no God, thus there is no devil. There is only the State, and the flagging will of a decaying society.”

“Or–Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are granted by God.”

I don’t remember exactly how the conversation went, but if I had more time, I would have probably continued: “A man can exercise his rights for good or ill, and learn from the inevitable outcome. He is personally responsible to choose good over evil. There is a God. He has granted freedom to man. The love of God shines forth from the man who chooses absolute truth.”

Our Founding Fathers well understood that the Constitution, our political system, in fact our entire way of life depends on the ability and willingness of the individual to govern himself. When self-government ceases to be enshrined as the hallmark of character, man begins to descend. Ere he is aware, he has sold his freedom for a mess of pottage, having exchanged the fruits of morality and industry for anarchy, irreverence, and corruption.

The solution is to instill in the hearts of children and adults a true love of freedom; a knowledge of the abundant fruits of an upright character, and a quick discernment and stalwart resistance to any person, program, or attitude that threatens. The only safe place for liberty, freedom, understanding, brotherly love, and progress, is enshrined in the heart of one who loves and seeks absolute truth.

I have heard many conservative Mormons attempt to argue that you can’t be a good Mormon and a Democrat. I am forced to disagree. There have been a good number of great LDS men and women who were also Democrats. However, I am also forced to consider that perhaps their passion is misdirected by semantics. Perhaps they equate Democrat with Liberal, certainly understandable in today political climate. I will go so far as to say that you cannot be a Liberal, by today’s standards, and remain a “good Mormon.” The two are entirely incompatible.

Mormonism values family bonds, patriotism, faith, and virtue. Modern liberalism values the freedom of self above all else. Family bonds are a hindrance to radical individualism; patriotism means rebellion; faith is nonsensical; virtue is weakness. To quote the scriptures, Liberalism “seeketh to become a law unto itself.”

I have a lot more to write on the matter, but this will have to suffice for the moment.

Of course, the expected backlash is both abundant and revealing.

Dean is spot on when he says, “the 2,000 word story was about the 9/11 Generation, not the Baby Boomers. But rather than wanting to talk about Joe Moseley, they wanted to talk about themselves.”

Here’s a post from Peter Mehlman at the Huffington Post called “At least they didn’t mean well…”

It puts everything I have ever suspected about liberals right up front: they think decent people doing their best are intentionally bad, and they find excuses for the truly evil among us. For example:

“You could argue that even the world’s worst fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, etc.”

Straight from the horse’s mouth, that is. Any questions?

Of course, the idea that Guantanamo is a gulag is silly. The Gulag is where the Soviets kept political prisoners to keep them silent. People who spent time there usually did so without the benefit of a jury trial, or the chance to dispute the evidence against them. In almost all cases, the prisoners of the gulag were Soviet citizens and the Soviet government violated its own Constitution to put them there.

At Guantanamo, there were exactly two (out of nearly 1,000) prisoners that had some claim to American citizenship. The men being held there are prisoners of war. They were all caught engaging in warlike activities against American soldiers during wartime on the battlefield. Guantanamo is a POW camp, just like the POW camps in which we held German prisoners during WWII. Were we operating a gulag then, too? No reasonable observer would say we were.

The author, “daedalus,” acknowledges the exceptionally fine treatment the prisoners receive there, but has a problem with the fact that these characters are being held there without trial. One wonders why? My attempt to post a comment to the site was unsuccessful, due to a problem with their security features, but during the course of crafting my response to the post, I was struck by a thought that brightly illuminated the reasoning behind the actions and methods of the modern Left in America.

The Left demands that we treat prisoners of the war against Jihad with the same Constitutional protections afforded to American citizens, i.e. the right to trial by jury of your peers, the right to an attorney, the right of habeas corpus, etc. Now, I will concede the right to habeas corpus, which is the right to be presented before a judge who will determine if there is sufficient evidence for the government to detain you. Habeas corpus should be limited for non-citizens, however, to ensure that the government need not divulge sensitive information in the course of presenting its evidence. You cannot depend on the loyalty of judges anymore it seems.

The Bush Administration at first balked at allowing this limited right to those captured on the battlefield, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Rasul v. Bush (2004), and the administration initially respected the ruling. Since then, Congress has nullified the ruling with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which denied jurisdiction to federal courts to hear habeas corpus claims from Guantanamo prisoners, which Congress can do under Article III of the Constitution. There is an excellent article by James Taranto in today’s Opinion Journal on this issue, or watch video of Mr. Taranto talking about it.

We must keep in mind that these detainees were not just people that our military grabbed off the street because they looked Arabic. These men were caught engaging in warlike activities against our soldiers in wartime. They do not meet the Geneva Conventions requirements for enemy combatants because they fight for no specific nation, they wear no uniform and no identifying insignia. This puts them precisely under the definition of unlawful enemy combatant under the Conventions. The laws Congress has passed regarding our treatment of these prisoners is largely based upon the Conventions. To say that we are denying these people their basic Human Rights is misinformed or deceitful.

The complaint that the Left has had even before the ruling in Rasul is that these prisoners should be given a full jury trial in a civil court with the full panoply of rights recognized in citizens, which would necessarily include a right to full discovery and access to the government’s most sensitive information regarding its activities in the War on Terror. Why they should have this level of rights afforded them is never explained beyond vague claims of human rights. But whether or not these are even “human rights” is a subject for another article and won’t be treated here.

The difficulty arising from the extension of these rights to non-citizen, enemy combatants should be easily apparent. In fact, I believe that most observers would readily recognize the difference between the rights of citizens and the rights of prisoners of war. The Left is not making this distinction, however. The call for enemy combatants to be extended the same rights that citizens enjoy includes two flaws that, if implemented, would prove fatal to our system of government and which, I think, exposes the character and motives of those making the call.

First, extending the rights of citizens to enemy combatants degrades the rights of citizens. It puts citizens on the same legal standing as (and therefore viewed by the law as) enemies of our government. If there is no distinction between the legal standings of citizens or enemy soldiers, then citizens must be viewed (and thus, treated) by the government as enemies.

It also means there are rights that are above those which citizens enjoy. To illustrate, we know that our rights to free speech are balanced by our enjoyment of the blessings of society. We give up a portion of our freedoms to be part of our society. An example of this is the limitation on speech which says you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. If we assume that the rights of citizens are the same as an enemy’s rights, we must infer that there is a level of rights above that enjoyed by citizens. How is one to obtain that level of rights? How is the obtaining of those rights decided, and by whom? Are these higher rights simply the rights which citizens enjoy, except without any limitations whatever? If so, then society is not society at all but merely people living in proximity to one another with a common government.

Second, if we accept the premise that enemies can be granted these rights by the government, we must assume that those rights are also a grant by government to the citizens. And if we accept that premise in turn, we must reject the founding principles of our nation, which include the concept of rights as a gift from God, superseding government. “Rights” granted by government, especially to non-citizens, are historically called “privileges” which can be granted and revoked at the whim of government. If we elevate privileges to be equal with rights, we destroy rights altogether.

The rights we enjoy under the Constitution are a subset of the natural, inalienable rights with which we are “endowed by [our] Creator.” Indeed, inalienable rights are the hallmark of our western Anglo-Saxon civilization. Belief in these God-given, inalienable rights distinguishes our society from every other on the planet and is the foundation of our system and institutions of government. Without this belief the entire system crumbles, resulting in a catastrophic paradigm shift toward unlimited governmental control and power over the lives of ordinary citizens. In this paradigm, government becomes illiberal, oppressive, venal, and controlling, and “We the People” are no longer our own masters.

But this is the Liberal view of government. It is this paradigm which the Left insists we adopt, and which they have spent 40 of the last 50 years in control of Congress trying to create. Now that their majority in Congress is no longer a given, they have resorted to legislating through the courts with the help of judicial activists in the justice system. Either way, their aim is the overthrow of our traditions and institutions in favor of a new governmental system founded in political radicalism. It is indeed a war.