Friday, March 29, 2013


I had an interesting conversation with a non-Mormon, Christian, co-worker recently. Our conversations are always interesting, really, but this one I wanted to blog about. (I will blog about another one later.)

My co-worker (whom we will refer to as L) surprised me by saying that she finds most contemporary Christian music trite and offensive. I couldn't believe she was saying that. I thought all modern Christians were in love with all contemporary Christian music, considering they use much of it in their contemporary worship services! It was awesome. I told her that I thought I was alone in my disdain for that particular genre, and thought that maybe it was because I am Mormon. I guess other Christians have ears, too :)

Image: Christian Metal (Wikipedia)
We both agreed that today's "Christian" music is trying really hard to be the same as all the other non-Christian music out there. From their clothing to the way they trail off whine-ily at the ends of their songs. (Warning to Scrabble players: Do not attempt to pass off whine-ily as a real word.) The Wikipedia page for Contemporary Christian Music has an excellent section addressing some of the controversy surrounding it (here). Surprisingly, L also mentioned that she likes Christian metal/screamo (you know, the screamy-type music). I told her that I wondered how those artists would feel about playing their music in front of the Lord. You can hear some samples on Wikipedia's Christian Metal page, and decide for yourself.

One of the reasons that I personally am offended by most of what comes out of the contemporary Christian music genre is the way they repeat the Lord's name so many times. It is, of course, a Mormon peculiarity to avoid speaking the Lord's name too frequently (see D&C 107:1-4), but it wasn't always just a Mormon thing: this used to be common practice among many, if not all, Christian religions. (I seem to remember a scriptural proscription against this practice...)

I once found a Little Golden Book at a thrift shop, which I purchased and have subsequently lost over the years, the point of which was to provide a simplified explanation of Catholic teachings and/or practices to small children. I found it fascinating - and really it was the reason I bought it - to find that back when this book was published, it was apparently a common practice among Catholics to whisper "Blessed be God" under their breath whenever they heard someone take the Lord's name in vain. My, how things have changed! Nearly every non-Mormon I know today, including Catholics, takes the Lord's name in vain without giving it a second thought!

Today's pastors have definitely dropped the ball.

Image: Profanity (Wikipedia)
The discussion with my friend L lead me to think about how the too frequent use of the Lord's name robs it of its significance. This may be difficult to understand at first, but when you realize that the opposite of sacred is profane, it all starts to make sense. If you look up the word profane on, you will see that one of the several definitions is common. Interestingly, all of the other definitions basically boil down to the same thing: the sacred is special, unique, uncommon, while the profane is frequently observed, common, and therefore not special. The very act of making something which is sacred into something common is profanity.

As I pondered this, I thought about what we commonly refer to as profanity, and wondered how this sacred/profane approach might relate to the use of foul language.

The most interesting thing to me is that, in English anyways, nearly every swear word refers to either a body part, or a physical act associated with those body parts. In particular, the elimination of bodily wastes and the procreative act find the most frequent use among English profanitizers (Scrabble warning #2!), with the abuse of the Lord's name rounding up the top three. Since Satan is the driving force behind profanity, we might ask ourselves if there are any possible reasons he might have for focusing on these things.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism has the following, under the heading Mortality:
Mortality is not viewed as a curse by Latter-day Saints, but as an opportunity and an essential stage in progress toward obtaining exaltation. The ultimate purpose of the period of mortality from birth to death is to prepare to meet God with a resurrected body of glory (John 5:25-29; Alma 12:24)...

Although mortality is a temporary stage of life, it is essential for an individual's eternal progression for two reasons. First, it is necessary to receive a physical body. God the Father, in his perfected state, has a body of flesh and bone, as does the Son (Luke 24:36-39; D&C 130:22). Mortal men and women, as the spirit offspring of God, also gain physical bodies in mortality that are indispensable to their progress, and will rise in the resurrection and be perfected (Job 19:25-26; Luke 24:39). Without a physical body one cannot have a fulness of joy.
From this, we learn that A) God and Jesus have bodies, and B) since we are meant to become like God, we also need bodies; therefore, our physicality is important. Satan will never receive a body because he rejected the Plan of Salvation (see Abraham 3:26-28). This is certainly a point of contention for him.

Another thing we learn from this is that we cannot have a fulness of joy without our bodies. So, what does Satan do? He drives people to hate, destroy, and mar their bodies with poor self-image, eating disorders (anorexia/overeating/etc.), tattoos, brands, mutilation, and false philosophies that claim that our physical bodies are unimportant and corrupt. He ridicules necessary bodily functions, turning them into a cause of embarrassment and shame.

The scriptures teach us that our bodies are temples (see 1 Cor. 6:19). Our sense of morality and modesty teaches us that our bodies are not things for display, but are to be kept hidden away from the prying eyes of the world, just as the most sacred areas of the temple were kept hidden from the common people. Notice the connection between that which is sacred and that which is kept hidden. Psalms 31:20 tells us that this is to protect the sacred from "the pride of man" and "the strife of tongues," or verbal profaning. Prideful people do not keep sacred things sacred.

Once upon a time, it was virtually unheard of for people to have sexual relations with partners they were not married to. At least, if they did so, they did not do it openly, preferring instead to keep such things a secret. It was looked down upon by society, and adulterers were shunned, or worse. Today, however, so-called "casual sex" is extremely common, and people frequently discuss their escapades openly and without shame.

In another article from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Procreation, we read:
Latter-day Saints have an exceptionally positive view of procreation. After God commanded Adam and Eve to "multiply and replenish the earth" (Gen. 1:28), he pronounced all of his creation, including the power of procreation, "very good" (Gen. 1:31). President Joseph F. Smith noted, "The lawful association of the sexes is ordained of God, not only as the sole means of race perpetuation, but for the development of the higher faculties and nobler traits of human nature, which the love-inspired companionship of man and woman alone can insure" (IE 20:739).
Mankind existed in a premortal life as spirit children of God (see First Estate). This earth was created to provide physical life and experience in a second estate. The divine plan of procreation provides physical bodies for premortal spirits. Thus, "children are an heritage of the Lord" (Ps. 127:3). To beget and bear children is central to God's plan for the development of his children on earth. The powers of procreation therefore are of divine origin.
 Procreation is closely associated with the previous theme of physical bodies. People must have sex so that they can create bodies for God's children to inhabit. They must do so within the bonds of matrimony so that children can develop "higher faculties and nobler traits of human nature" which is only possible when two parents are present in that relationship that God intended for them.

When sex ceases to be something sacred, and instead becomes profane, or common, as it has today, it loses its value both for bringing children into the world (since cheap, easy abortion rids the carrier of the consequence of her action), and for creating family units (which are not formed when sex is merely sex for the sake of sex).

Why has Satan promoted the profaning of body parts and functions? It desensitizes us to the true sacred nature of our bodies, and the joy they can bring us - a joy that he will never know.

Why does Satan encourage the profaning of sexuality? The sexual free-for-all that we now see in the world brings children into the world in a handicapped state, without the presence of both mother and father; it encourages the selfish murder of the unborn; it frustrates the "great plan of the Eternal God," although it doesn't stop it; it promotes the spread of disease; it causes the adulterer to lose the joy that comes from parenthood, from intimate association with one loving partner who is focused on them, and, above all, keeps them from experiencing the influence of the Holy Ghost.

I hope you will think of these things the next time you swear, or you hear someone else swear.

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

-- 1 Cor. 6:15-20

Monday, November 5, 2012

Missing But Not Absent

While I am trying to post to this blog on a weekly basis, I must say that I have a commitment to live my life, as well. I go to school, work, and help raise my kids. And... help friends publish books.

My friend, D. Christian Markham, has just today published a book, entitled "There Are Save Two Churches Only, Volume I". It is 534 pages long, and is available for purchase at cost, and to read online. What does this have to do with me, you ask? Well, I have spent a good portion of the last year-plus proofreading this tome, as well as providing research and documentation that was included. I also created the website, and maintain it. So, yeah. I've been busy.

I will will hopefully begin updating this blog regularly, as intended, now that things have calmed down a little. Unless I get that job... Well, life never stops, does it? I mean, until it does... but I don't have any morbid expectations. Of course, who ever does?

Please visit the website for my friend's book, here: There Are Save Two Churches Only.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Please Be Kind (aka Adventures in Homelessness)

A couple. (Photo: Public Domain

On my way to work last Friday, I stopped at a red light. Seated next to the sidewalk on my right, just outside a Jack in the Box restaurant, was a young homeless couple. He looked to be in his early twenties, with slightly dreadlocked blonde hair and a short, pointy beard and mustache. She was a pretty girl, possibly in her late teens or early twenties, wearing a fedora. They were eating, and not begging as might be expected, but it was obvious they had not bathed in a long time. My heart went out to them, and I sort of wished they had been begging, so I could offer them something... but I had nothing to give them, anyway.

The girl looked at me for just a second and then turned away. There's no way she could have known what I was thinking, so I knew she probably assumed I was looking down on them like many others would have.

As I drove off, I began thinking about this couple, about how hard their lives must be. I wondered why they were homeless. I was reminded of an experience I had during the summer of 1991, in Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA. I was visiting mu uncle's family in Southern California while I prepared to go on a mission for the LDS Church. In short order, I made friends with a neighbor guy who was also visiting from out of town. We'll call him B.P. He was from Omaha, Nebraska, and his father was a Lutheran pastor. We were both coming from a punk rock background, so we got along swimmingly.

We were on an Air Force base, out in the desert, so things got boring pretty quick. B.P. suggested that we take the long drive to L.A. and find something to do. I had never been, so I excitedly agreed. As we walked the streets of Hollywood, we wondered if there were any punk rock shows we could catch while we were there, and we asked the first guy with a mohawk we could find. His "name" was Irk. Irk's mohawk was purple, and twelve or so inches tall. He was panhandling, with his dog Bango, and was homeless. The particular band that would be playing that night allowed homeless people into their shows for free.

The show he would be attending was not for several hours, so he took us to his "squat" and introduced us to several of his friends. (A squat is basically any abandoned place where homeless people stay on a long- or short-term basis, with or without permission. This building was used with permission, I was told. Most squats tend to look like the building pictured below.) I was surprised to discover that this particular squat was right around the corner from the main Hollywood strip; there were Hollywood stars on the sidewalk right across the street.

An abandoned house. (Photo: Public Domain

Although Irk was quite friendly, others took exception to the fact that he brought us into their refuge, and were standoffish at first, but most everyone eventually warmed up to us. Some of the others we met were Fhat Fhoot, Scooby and Scrappy, Christ and Crust, Grabby and May, and Satan. They ranged in age from around ten to the early twenties. We discovered that everyone was homeless for a reason - escaping abuse, mostly - and the street names were to hide their identities. This served two purposes: 1) to keep from being found by those you were running away from, and 2) to keep your friends from knowing who you were, so they couldn't inadvertently help the police find you.

Amy, Irk, B.P., and a few other homeless friends. Photo: the author.

I worried about all of our new homeless friends. Scrappy was the youngest. He was out with us until all hours of the night, and said that his parents didn't care where he was. I assume this was true, because he always came back, and never seemed worried about going home. (Scrappy was the only one who still technically had a home to go back to.) Grabby and May were cute teenage girls who made money by pretending to be underage prostitutes, taking the money and running, as they told me.

Because everyone was running away from something, and most were not old enough to legally get a job or live on their own, drugs and alcohol were rampant. It's a cliche', I know, but if you put yourself in their shoes you can understand the escapism. They truly were at a dead end.

B.P. and I came to visit several times that summer. We spent the night with them a few times, took everyone out for pizza, brought them blankets and candles and other things they could use, and learned all we could about their experience. We learned how to sneak uneaten food left on a plate at Denny's, and how how to make tomato soup with the free ketchup and hot water you could get there, if you couldn't find anything else. We learned that people ignore you when you panhandle, and shopkeepers call the police to make you leave. We learned that roving gangs of privileged kids seek out the homeless in order to rape them, beat them, and sometimes kill them. This made me worry about them even more.

There is a lot more to this story. I could tell you about the hollow bush that Grabby slept in in the park, until Satanists came to hold rituals there and forced her to participate. Or the homeless guy we accidentally scared away when we went to the park, who was sleeping curled up in the sand in the pit beneath a swing on the swingset, so he wouldn't be seen and harassed...

So, this is what I was thinking about when I saw that couple on the side of the road: the long days of being ignored and wondering where your next meal will come from; the long nights of wondering if you will have your personal space invaded, if you will have to run for your life, if you will live until the morning, or die at the hands of some prick who would kill you just for fun.

My point in writing this is really singular and simple: it is simply to ask that the next time you see a homeless person, you remember what you have read here. And be kind.

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.

 17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—

 18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

 19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?

 20 And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with joy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.

 21 And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.

 22 And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.

 23 I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to the things of this world.

 24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.

 25 And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.
--Mosiah 4:16-25

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Watchman on the Tower

From now on, I will be posting a weekly debriefing of world events, like the Weekly Web Roundups I have been doing, at this new site: Watchman on the Tower.

I will continue to publish other content here, but that site will be devoted solely to to my commentary on articles, news, and events.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Web Roundup for Wednesday, Sept. 19th, 2012

As I am no longer on Facebook, I will attempt to post, here on Blogger, all the interesting articles I come across, as well as my own religious, philosophical, and political rantings. There is a lot going on in the world, and ALL of it will have an effect on you soon. Check back here often, and I will post the things that I come across.

Above all else, please share this blog with your friends and family via email, Facebook, Google+, etc. Remember:
Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor. (D&C 88:81)


1. Muslims, Mormons and Liberals - Why is it OK to mock one religion but not another? (Wall Street Journal)

So let's get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam. Why? Maybe it's because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons.
My Take:

While it is true that no one has ever been killed for mocking Mormonism, the author is correct that it is hypocritical to endorse the mocking of one religion and yet condemn the mocking of another. The truth, as always, lies beneath the surface: contentions between Islam and Christianity are being used for a number of underhanded purposes, including A) causing "conservatives," who are typically Christian, to feel justified in supporting the unConstitutional wars in the Middle East, and B) to steadily increase tensions in the Middle East specifically, and between Islam and Christianity generally, in order to foment the next World War, justifying, once again, intervention by "international authorities," leading, at last, to a global government.

In order to understand how world wars fit into the plan for global government (i.e., the New World Order), I recommend reading The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations, by Myron Fagan, which I am in the process of annotating and fact checking online.

2. LDS apostle tells Mormons: Stock up on food, not ammo (Salt Lake Tribune)

LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks cautioned Mormons against joining or supporting "right-wing groups who mistakenly apply prophecies about the last days to promote efforts to form paramilitary or other organizations." ... Latter-day Saints should not "substitute [their] own organizations for the political and military authorities put in place by constitutional government and processes," the apostle said.
My Take:

A careful reading of this shows that Elder Oaks did not say that Mormons should fail to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Beyond that, however, I have a unique angle on this story that most do not. Within the past year, it was revealed that a gentleman from a forum I frequented had taken it upon himself to form what some perceived as a "paramilitary group." From what I understand, these individuals felt that it would be their duty to fulfill certain specific prophecies in the future, and they were training to do so. The forum administrators were contacted by law enforcement, which lead to the disbandment of their organization under threat of possible excommunication of those involved. Zoiks! Apparently, all this was going on in a private sub-forum to which I did not belong.

3. Our Eternal Life (YouTube)

My Take:

The graphics in this new Mormon Messages video are pretty cool, and it is neat that they were able to pretty much cover the entire first missionary discussion in under four minutes!


1. The Federal Reserve, a Privately Owned Banking Cartel, Has Been Given Police Powers, with Glock 22s and Patrol Cars (AlterNet)


Quietly, without fanfare or Congressional hearings, the USA Patriot Act in 2001 bestowed on the 12 privately owned Federal Reserve Banks, domestic policing powers... The Cleveland Fed notes that the job “may include, but would not be limited to: use of deadly or non-lethal force…” ... In addition to regular policing functions, the Federal Reserve police have been observed in airports with rifles, functioning as dignitary protection teams.  Various recruitment ads confirm that this is sometimes part of the job... There is also the obvious question as to why the expense, training and potential liability of armed police would be necessary when all of the Federal Reserve Banks are in cities with large municipal police forces.  With private bankers sitting on the Boards of each of these Reserve Banks, many of whom are officers of banks under criminal investigation, there is the serious need for Congressional investigation into how the Nation’s criminal databases are being used by the private sector as well as the further chilling of protest and dissent from another new sheriff in town.
My Take:

If you have not already done so, please watch Aaron Russo's film, America: Freedom to Fascism, here (on Google Video) or embedded below, from YouTube. A semi-governmental police force in the hands of a private organization, specifically a banking organization, should frighten everyone. I believe the film raises enough issues to make the reasons clear.

2. Allen West: 80 communists in the House (Politico)

In a video clip of the event posted Wednesday, West was responding a question from a constituent asking “What percentage of the American legislature do you think are card-carrying Marxists?”
“That’s a fair question. I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party,” West says in the video.

He went on to say, “It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus,” according to a spokesman, Tim Edson.
My Take:

While this information is only intended to rile Allen West's Tea Party supporters (i.e., don't expect any Un-American Activities Committees to be formed), it is more than likely true, as history bears out, beginning in the State Department: Alger Hiss (Wikipedia) was a Communist serving in the State Dept during the Forties, and Hillary Clinton is the Communist serving there now. Nothing has changed. If there is one thing you can trust, it is that Communists will never give up positions of power. This will be apparent if you have been following the pretended fall and subsequent "rise" of Vladimir Putin (John Birch Society). (The Wikipedia article linked above casts doubts on Alger Hiss's Communist ties. See what former Secretary of Agriculture and Apostle Ezra Taft Benson, former FBI Chief W. Cleon Skousen, and others had to say about Alger Hiss at Latter-day Conservative.)

For more specific information about the individuals mentioned, please click here to see "an alphabetical list of all members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) as of April 2011" on Discover The Networks.


1. Infinite quantitative easing (QE3) now initiated; the final chapter of America's financial blowout has begun (Natural News)

This is it, folks: the final chapter of America's great financial blowout has begun. The Federal Reserve's decision to announce "infinite" quantitative easing has now put us all on the path of infinite money creation. With up to $85 billion in monthly money creation -- including $40 billion a month in purchases of mortgage-backed securities -- the Fed is now wholly committed to the creation of new fake money to cover old fake debts. Mathematically, this financial death spiral can only end in sheer catastrophe.

This massive money creation tactic is the Fed's last-ditch plan to desperately try to save the economy. "I think the country should have panicked over what the Fed is saying that we have lost control," said Ron Paul, "and the only thing we have left is massively creating new money out of thin air, which has not worked before, and is not going to work this time."

Peter Schiff added, "This is a disastrous monetary policy; it's kamikaze monetary policy." (End Of the American Dream)

And he's right. It's suicide. It's also highly offensive to anyone who can actually do math... which, sadly, isn't that many people these days.
My Take:

There was never any intention of getting America back on track, financially. These people are not idiots, no matter how the so-called "right-wing media" paints them so. They are implementing the long-planned, and hard-won, financial destruction of our country.

2. Land of The Freebies, Home of the Enslaved (YouTube)

My Take:

If you didn't already see how this all works, maybe now you will. As mentioned above, this has all been PLANNED. It is known as the Cloward-Pivens strategy. According to Discover the Networks:
First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Pivens Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse...
The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8 million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls."  Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces for major economic reform at the national level."
Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all -- working and non-working people alike.
NOW do you know what a "community organizer" does, and why this all sounds so much like the last four years under Obama?

See Also:

USDA Spends $5 Mil To Recruit Food-Stamp Recipients (Judicial Watch)

Obama Admin. Boosts Food-Stamp Participation by Targeting Seniors (New American)

3. Italian Supreme Court head calls for international 9/11 inquiry (Digital Journal)

Fernando Imposimato, the President of the Italian Supreme Court, has raised the call for a criminal investigation of 9/11, comparing the terror attacks to the declassified "false flag" incidents carried out by the CIA in Italy under Operation Gladio.
"The 9/11 attacks were a global state terror operation permitted by the administration of the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq," Imposimato declared in a letter published on Sunday by the Journal of 9/11 Studies. As a former state prosecutor, Imposimato has extensive experience investigating high-profile crimes, including the kidnapping and assassination of Italian Prime Minster Aldo Moro and the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II. He also worked on the Anti-Mafia commission as a Senator, giving him a wealth of knowledge on the inner workings of organized crime syndicates. 
"Italy too was a victim of the 'strategia della tensione' (strategy of tension) of the CIA, enacted in Italy from the time of the Portella della Ginestra massacre in Sicily in 1947 until 1993," he wrote, recounting the decades of clandestine violence carried out by Western intelligence agencies in the Mediterranean. These terror attacks, conducted under the codename "Gladio", were condemned by the European Parliament in 1990, but a criminal investigation has yet to be initiated.

My Take:

Once again, "conspiracy theories" are borne out as true. The CIA has committed, and does commit, clandestine acts of violence in order to foment conflicts that will serve the purpose of the American Empire. End of story.

4. General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years (YouTube)

About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."

My Take:

I could have posted this in another section, but I thought it would be most appropriate here, beneath all of the other PLANNED orchestrations I have listed. I am not sure exactly when this interview aired, but it is clear that we have been on a steady track to "accidentally" do exactly what Gen. Clark was told had been planned, and pretty much in the order listed.

Second Amendment/Police State

1. Man Investigated By Police For Buying Ammunition (Prison Planet)

Loftus said the police told him someone who was in the gun store while he made the purchase who works for the Chief of Police reported Loftus to make sure he “wasn’t going to do something crazy.”
Loftus told the police he had no criminal record, a fact they immediately confirmed having admitted that they had already checked his record. Loftus told the police they shouldn’t even be pulling the record unless he was a suspect in a crime, which he was not..
“I shoot that amount of ammunition on a good weekend at the range..."

My Take:

Once upon a time, when America actually was a free country, the police needed a "search warrant" and "reasonable cause" before treating people like a criminal. Now, the new nanny state just wants to check on you to make sure you have taken your pills before you go to bed. Thanks, nanny! We couldn't get along without you.

Also, the man's final comment echoes what has bothered me about most recent news stories about "alleged shooters:" the notion that "thousands of rounds of ammunition" means that a person must be "up to no good." The general public sheeple have no idea that you can shoot off a couple hundred rounds of shotgun shells in one short evening at the range with your friends. Even more so if you are shooting something cheaper like .22's, that come in boxes of thousands for that very reason.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Obama vs. Romney - Liberty News Network Does Us All A Favor

Liberty News Network recently posted an excellent series of videos comparing Mitt Romney's policies to Obama's. The results are astounding. See for yourself. About 20 minutes total.

Friday, August 31, 2012

Was the Republican Convention Romney's Defining Moment?

Image: Wikimedia Commons
When my father was in the military, a man we went to church with, an MP, I believe, was dismissed from military service for receiving stolen goods. Garbage bags, of all things.

I can only imagine that there was some proof that he had prior knowledge, otherwise how could they have justified his dismissal from service? If these allegations were true, this was a man of very poor character.

As the RNC shenanigans have taken place recently - changing rules on a whim, shutting out Ron Paul-favoring delegates, and de-certifying entire states' delegates - we must ask of Romney, as others asked about Bush during the 9/11 hearings: what did he know, and when? This is important considering that all of the shenanigans turned things in Romney's favor.

Did he know in advance, and say nothing? If so, there are serious ramifications for fraud that must be demanded. If not, then his character rests on his reaction to the news.

So, what if he only found out about it afterward? Or should we first ask if he even knows about it now? Yes, he does. How do we know? Recently, a FOX news anchor put the question to him during an interview on August 27, 2012. Without acting surprised in the slightest, Mitt Romney said he "would not comment on it," and he "really hasn't looked at this." No reaction, no disgust, just pithy politics. If nothing else, we know he is aware now.

What should be expected from a man of character upon finding out that his recent conquest was unfairly gained? I would hope it would be to demand that things be redone properly. That is, after all, what character means. But there have been no such calls from either Romney or his campaign. This is especially troubling for someone traveling so prominently in the limelight of his religion (and mine).

Perhaps you believe Ron Paul did not stand a chance of winning. Well, there are those who disagree with you. Either way, and especially if you think Congressman Paul had no chance of winning, what would Romney stand to lose by going through the motions one more time, and coming out on top a second time? This could only have served to ease suspicions that there was collusion against Congressman Paul and/or for Romney.

As it stands, many Republican voters feel disenfranchised, and wonder whether their vote really counts, or if there is a greater fraud afoot.

So, as I see things, this all boils down to one of the following options:

  1. Romney knew about these underhanded tactics ahead of time, and supported them, either actively or passively. A poor show of character.
  2. Romney did not know in advance, but even after finding out, accepted the win it provided him. Another poor show of character.
  3. Romney did not know in advance, but now that he knows about it, he will soon be calling for a proper vote. The only choice for a man of character.

How long until Romney calls for fairness? Only time will tell, of course, but I wouldn't hold my breath. After all, the Republican Convention is over.

That leaves two options, and neither one of them is good.



Reality Check: RNC Pulling Out All Stops To Keep Ron Paul's Name Out Of Nomination (YouTube)

Opponents defeat feared 'power grab': Romney sought delegate rules change (Washing Times)

Rep. Amash Calls for Audit of RNC Over Treatment of Paul Delegates (The New American)

Reality Check: One on One With Romney, Did Romney Really Not Know About RNC & Maine's Delegates? (YouTube)

Definition of Character (Character Unlimited)

You Used to Need Five States to Be Officially Put in Nomination for President at RNC. Ron Paul Gets Six. Rule Change! Now You Need Eight! (