Thursday, December 27, 2007

Leadership amidst Tyranny

The news today from Pakistan reaffirms the resolve to do all in our power to combat tyranny wherever it exists. The need arises from our instinctual understanding that the threat to freedom anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere.

In the time of upheaval, leaders will arise and show what they can accomplish. If there is strong leadership at the top, the majority will recognize and respect it. During the years when the U.S. had an ineffectual president with Bill Clinton, the number of fringe groups in the United States reached a point they had not been to before. The militarists of Waco, Oklahoma City, and Ted Kaczynski are nationally known examples of individuals who amassed weapons and took unilateral actions to (in their minds) advance the cause of freedom. Still the inaction at the top levels of government persisted during the continued attacks by Islamist Terrorists.

This is a highly underrepresented idea, where contrary examples can certainly be brought forward. But, strong leadership is certainly going to handle the events of the day much more effectively than handshaking and aisle-crossing. In order to save America's democracy and freedoms, we will need a President that can act for the good of all Americans in preserving and advancing freedom throughout the world.

Only a handful of the candidates have experience running a state. Senators are too busy stroking each others egos to be considered leaders. Just look at how ineffective the leaders in both houses of Congress currently are.

Look at the person you decide to vote for, beyond just what they claim in the run up to the election. If they are thoroughly untested, you may be making the way easier for terrorists from without and from within.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Half Truths (more specifically, Jon Garrido) is afraid of Mitt Romney. The top three articles on their website make personal attacks on his religion in an attempt to discredit his candidacy for President. You can read them for yourself here. I am publishing here an open letter in response to the mess of half-truths and baseless claims. I sent the letter to Jon, but got no response or acknowledgement.


I have an issue with your attempts to "expose" Mormonism. It is undeniable that politicians attempt to garner support by telling people what they want to hear. But, it is also true that differing religious viewpoints can still find a common ground. The differences do not disappear when people work together. But, once the commonalities are established, you have a framework on which you can build harmony and understanding. What is inexcusable in your essay is the claim that "
From the beginning, Mormons have used half truths to evangelize the world". More accurately, critics such as yourself are listening to the half-truths told by non-Mormons than the things that Mormons are saying about themselves. The "other 'Mormon truths' that as of late have been exposed" have been around for 150 years.

You spend the majority of your essay delving into concepts that are not preached by the leaders and scholars in the church, due to the fact that they lie beyond the scope of what has been revealed, or is even relevant, in this mortal existence. The prophets, apostles, and other leaders of the LDS religion do not seek to reason out a hypothesis on how a man can become like God, exactly how Mary conceived her first child, or whether DNA evidence will substantiate the Book of Mormon. In the same manner, Mormon leaders do not attempt to debate over whether Job's persecutions truly happened, why the sinless Jesus had to be baptized to "fulfill all righteousness", or how the Red Sea could part to allow the people of Israel to cross on dry land. They don't seek for a historical record to confirm the plagues on Egypt, the divine creation, or the flooding during the time of Noah. These are accepted on faith, as substantiated in Holy Scripture. But, these generally accepted similarities with other Christian religions do not make the divisive and titillating argument you are seeking. In reality, your omission of the numerous similarities is a much greater half-truth than Governor Romney's omission of the differences. At least he acknowledged both sides of the argument.

Mormon leaders advise their adherents to avoid argument over religious matters, and follow to the advice in James 1:5 – "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men liberally". Mormons share the foundation of Christianity: prayer, scripture study, repentance, forgiveness, and good works. The main difference is in the fact that they worship God the Father and his son, Jesus Christ, as 2 separate Gods. Any person who joins a church simply because they believe Ancient Americans believed it first or to become like God is not going to endure for long in Christianity.

I can see from your website that you are a Democrat that opposes abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. Until today, I didn't know a group called "Blue Dogs" exists. If you told me you were Democrat, I would have believed you support what the leaders of the Democratic Party so firmly pronounce: unrestricted abortion, fully accepted Gay Marriage, and complete restrictions on guns and ammunitions. But, to your benefit, I have personally met and talked to rational people who happen to be registered Democrat. I would suggest you offer the same courtesy to Republicans and Mormons.

You are free to express your beliefs about a candidate for President. But, you have gone beyond that to state that each one of the 13 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is deluded, a liar, or both.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Vast Multitude of Conspirators

By now you may have heard about the subversive planting of Democratic Party Candidate supporters into the CNN/YouTube Republican Candidates debate. If not, here is the report by the "evil" Fox News or the point-by-point by Michelle Malkin.

There is a small chance that they randomly selected 4 openly staunch supporters of Democrat Party candidates. There is also a chance that a majority of the 5000+ entries were from such people. In either case, it is clear that the party that coined the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy" did so because its members regularly act conspiratorially.

This latest example shows that, not only are people at CNN willing to plant questions in the debate that can easily be shown to be from supporters of liberal candidates, but they prefer to use questions that liberals feel should be of concern to conservatives. The purpose of this is to coerce conservatives to think that their fellow conservatives are concerned about these issues. If the issue of gays in the military, or in party leadership, were important to the common Republican voter, it would be brought up as a matter of course. But, in truth, it is merely a stick that liberals attempt to use to bash conservatives for their supposed lack of diversity, understanding, or acceptance.

Most heterosexual Americans forgot all about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy shortly after it was enacted. That was the point of the policy -- not to make your sexual preference a relevant factor in your identity. By so doing, you remove this as a divisive factor. However, people who are directly impacted are not content to leave the matter settled. Since they are currently powerless to change the policy openly, they have sought to do so subversively.

There are innumerable examples of situations where editors have chosen to "out" a Republican, but show mercy to a "victimized" Democrat, in the same situation. The fact of this is being made ever more clear, and has been a direct impetus for the boom of the blogosphere.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

The Election Is Taking Shape

Here's how I see it:

The Democratic Nominee will be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. There isn't anybody else on the ticket with a snowball's chance....

The Republican Nominee will be Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. Huckabee can only win Iowa. Nobody else will look at him, including his home state. Ron Paul has the anti-establishment vote and, quite frankly, some good ideas. But, the majority of Americans consider him too offbeat to consider for the highest office in the land. Fred Thompson is hoping to skate in on the platform that he is an actor turned politician, just like Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, that's the only experience he has to run on. John McCain is supposed to be a contender, but is merely looked at with pity for his valiant effort in his advanced years.

Clinton vs. Obama -- Clinton has the political machinery to make a nomination happen. Obama has only been involved in national politics for a couple years. Oprah may rule the airwaves, but she doesn't decide elections. Clinton will be the next contender for a Democrat President.

Giuliani vs. Romney -- Only time will tell. The one who wins will be the one who is able to prove to the voters that he has the desire and skill to beat the political machine that controls the Democrat Party. Romney has a good shot at it, with his speech to be delivered at the Bush Library. Giuliani is hoping to capitalize on the admiration he received for his handling of the 9/11 attack. Unfortunately, mainstream America has too short of a memory to base their votes solely on past activity. When was the last time you heard Romney heralded for his handling of the disaster surrounding the Salt Lake City Olympics or Boston's Big Dig? Neither of these were as traumatic, but both were more recent.

The final point is, whether Clinton faces Romney or Giuliani, she will have to face them in debates and other public forums. Hillary will have to show her face to the American people, and will have to speak. Looking at Hillary is enough to turn many voters away from her. But, forcing her to identify and defend a position will be pure gold in the coffers of the Republican candidate.

-- Edited 6/12/2008
So, I was wrong on both counts. That's what makes this country great, and keeps me learning.