tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55194189034072027732024-03-05T15:30:44.572-07:00Mormons for PeaceA presence and refuge for anyone who favors peace over war. Particularly designed for Mormons to discuss Post 9/11 American Foreign Policy in an intelligent and respectful manner.Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-6933275724159936882010-01-05T14:45:00.010-07:002012-03-06T08:43:59.909-07:00Why I Thought About Blogging Again in 2010I'm dismayed that I'm still having these type of conversations:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">[The following conversation is entirely fake but very similar to real-life conversations I've had many times. In fairness, I tried to make myself sound as silly and unreasonable as I probably do sometimes and I tried to have my fake-friend-foil be reasonable and logical sometimes. Because, in real life, these are generally conversations with bright, well-educated people and they *do* say intelligent things during them. It's just my personal feeling that often they haven't had time or motivation to investigate specifics of our wars overseas nor have they done much considering of the 'big picture' foreign-policy wise. Since I believe we have a civic responsibility to vote for politicians who will do the 'right' thing with our trust, our troops, and our taxes, I'd like to see more of us doing more considering of the 'big picture'] </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">One-Of-My-Many-Friends-With-Whom-I-Wisely-Never-Discuss-Politics:</span> Can you *believe* this coward Obama? First he stalls on expanding the war in Afghanistan and now he's re-opening our embassy in Yemen? We should have bombed the Yemeni camps Christmas day.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me</span> (not sure where to begin or if I even want to go there)<span style="font-weight: bold;">:</span> [Laughing] Heh, well I'm such liberal I actually think Obama is *too much* of a warmonger.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> Wait, really? You're a lib? I thought you were like one of our Republican Precint chairs or something.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me </span>(regretting the joke)<span style="font-weight: bold;">:</span> Well, I don't know. I'm kidding. I'm not really into the "liberal/conservative" thing. I'm 'conservative' on things I wanna keep and I'm 'liberal' on things I think need changing. It's a pretty long list on both sides, heh. [Smile, Nervous Laugh]<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> OK. Whatever. Gotcha. But, you really think Obama's doing OK as Commander in Chief?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> Oh no. A thousand times no. I'd probably describe him as Bush/Cheney *plus* in his belligerence. He maintains all the same policies, procedures, and arguments that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, and now Pakistan. He's continuing the saber rattling on Iran. But he's ramped up the drone terror strikes which kill 500 civilians for every alleged 'terrorist leader' they claim to successfully 'de-commission'. You should look up the numbers. I do occasionally like his speeches though. His rhetoric is a little more measured than Bush. If only he'd 'walk the walk' you know?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> Oh Gee! I don't trust any of those 'propaganda' websites with fake numbers. And I do <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> like Slick Barry's speeches! But, that's what I'm talking about: his cowardly rhetoric, you know? The man won't even say the word <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">terrorist</span>. Too afraid it'll offend his Muslim constituencies. You simply should not endanger the American people by talking <span style="font-style: italic;">diplomatically</span> with terrorists. Waiting for them to actually blow up our cities before taking action! You gotta fight terror with terror you know? Take it to them. Make them think twice before doing it to us.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> Heh, well, that's where I disagree I think. Like this Yemeni thing. How does it make sense to attack the civilian population of Yemen because of some terrorist kid from Nigeria? Or, really, even if he was from Yemen? I mean our government is asserting that he had terrorist support from Yemen – Yemeni officials have countered with proof that his primary terrorist support was in London ; he allegedly had help avoiding normal boarding procedures in Holland . . . the Wall Street Journal reports he was doing something mysterious in Ghana for the weeks immediately preceeding his flight. He's spent most of the last few years in Togo. Should we also attack Holland for policies that let him back on the plane inappropriately? If the terrorist sponsorship in London checks out, should we send cruise missiles there? . . . I mean the hawks would be screaming for it if it were Somalia or something, wouldn't they? What about this Togo school? Or the Ghana connection? Hey, if he claims help from Indonesians should we just add that nation to the list?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> Wait, what? Oh the libs and their bad analogies! Look, Holland might be a nation of pot-heads but they're *not* terrorists. The Yemenis, clearly, *are*. The Brits are our staunchest allies in this war so <span style="font-style: italic;">of course </span>the terrorists are going to try to implicate them. Or maybe they have planted agents there – just to try and divide us . . . I didn't know about the Ghana thing and hey! I've never even heard of 'Togo' but if they're harboring terrorists then it's the price we have to be willing to pay, ya know. We can't pick and choose and let some of these places fester.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me</span> (not sure where to start again)<span style="font-weight: bold;">:</span> OK, let's take the five Americans charged this month in Pakistan with terrorism . . .<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> Oh man! It's like that Blackwater nonsense! So our "allies" over there [air quotes] are trying to say that the <span style="font-style: italic;">Americans</span> are *the terrorists* huh?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> No, these are 5 middle-eastern American men with dual citizenship who allegedly attempted to join militant organizations in Pakistan to go to Afghanistan and fight against the Americans. The Pakistanis arrested them first.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> Oh yeah. OK. I heard about these guys. Like Johnny Walker, only worse! Those guys shouldn't be called 'Americans'! That's the problem with the liberal media. They always twist the story . . .<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> OK. But some of these guys grew up most of their lives in America . . .<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> I don't even get . . .<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me</span> (trying to get to the point)<span style="font-weight: bold;">:</span> So allegedly some of them were 'radicalized', if you will, in Virginia and other U.S. states. Do we send bombers and troops to Virginia?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> Oh brother! Wait, I don't know, you mean like take out the Mosque where it happened?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> Oh man! No! Well, OK, sure. Let's say you target just the Mosque where some of them were allegedly radicalized and organized. The President issues an executive order to strike the Mosque when intelligence sources indicate nobody is in it except the Mullah who 'brainwashed' them into fighting Americans.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> Wait, is this a real issue? What's the Virginia Mullah's name?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> No, I'm being hypothetical here. We strike the Mosque with Hellfire missiles. Despite the intelligence reports, there are innocent Americans inside. A bus of school children on a field trip with the mayor of Herndon, Virginia and his sweet, kind, charitable wife.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> (laughing) Oh stop! We wouldn't fire missiles on domestic soil, for one. Look, I don't buy into fake, bleeding-heart, *what-if*, fairy tales.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> No, these aren't what-if. These are the kind of things that go on every day in the countries where we're carrying out operations.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> Okay. We should just play cards. These are <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> the kind of things that go on *every day.*<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> I'm just saying. Iraqi's and Afghanistani's and Yemeni's have schoolchildren and mayors and sweet, kind, charitable wives. The terrorists that come from their countries *do not* represent their nation as a whole. Anymore than those who advocate terrorism from within the States or Britain represent their nations. Full-scale warfare makes no sense here. These are not countries that we should be attacking with indiscriminate force.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> Look, really, if they can't control the terrorists . . .<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> Can we control our own? Like the 5 Americans in Pakistan?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> Oh gee. For one, the US government doesn't officially fund terrorist operations. Apples and oranges.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> (biting my tongue . . . <span style="font-style: italic;"> *not going to go off on U.S. funding for Osama bin Laden's organization creation and support through the Russian war years. . . not going to talk about U.S. trained 'freedom fighters' in Central America . . . not going there, not going there . . .</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span></span>saying something foolish to avoid deeper controversy) Are you sure? What if, for instance, the Mosque had applied for one of those faith-based-initiative grants and some journalist proved it was those funds that sent the dudes to Pakistan.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> (laughing) Oh stop! First, if they lied to get the grant then it's not really government support, is it? Secondly, I'm pretty sure this is why [insert any hate-radio pontificator] was trying to talk about the actual beliefs of Islam and why it shouldn't be considered a religion last night. At first I thought it was kind of racist, but the more I think about it...he's got some really good points!<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me:</span> Oh no, <span style="font-style: italic;">great, </span>now my hypothetical fairy-tales are supporting racist hate-radio! I think you're right - that we should just deal the cards. I'm just saying that, you know, not every person in these countries are terrorists. 99%+ are regular people like you and me with wives and kids and hopes and dreams ya know?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Friend:</span> I wouldn't say 99%! But, duh. That's why we go to liberate the rest.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Me </span>(sighing, almost under my breath)<span style="font-weight: bold;">:</span> If only that's what this was about. If only it worked like that . . .<br /><br />Friend(biting <span style="font-style: italic;">his</span> tongue now): [Rolls eyes, deals cards]Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-62535410042850966322008-09-11T11:30:00.012-06:002008-09-11T20:33:04.691-06:00Why We Remember<span style="font-size:130%;">Since my last post was simply a President Kimball talk, I may as well use another quote of his as a segue way to today's link.<br /><br />I have the following quote stuck into in my 9th grade Seminary scriptures right where Helaman is quoted on the importance and effects of "remembering" (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/hel/5/6-12#6">Helaman 5:6-12</a>):<br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;">"When you look in the dictionary for the most important word, do you know what it is? It could be <span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" >remember</span><span style="font-size:100%;">. Because all of you have made covenants - you know what to do and you know how to do it - our greatest need is to remember. That is why everyone goes to sacrament meeting every Sabbath day - to take the sacrament and listen to the priests pray that 'they may always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them.' Remember is the word. Remember is the program."</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Kimball, Spencer W. "Circles of Exaltation," Address to Seminary and Institute Personnel, BYU, June 28, 1968.</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">As Helaman taught his sons [and our modern Prophets have reminded us]</span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" > – what</span><span style="font-size:130%;"> we remember and </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >how </span><span style="font-size:130%;">we go about it – has significant effect on our lives.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/">Connnor Boyack</a> – one of my favorite bloggers – posted today on 'appropriate remembrances' with an eye towards the "We Will Never Forget" themes that play out in 9/11 memorials. Here's an excerpt:<br /></span><blockquote><p><span style="font-size:100%;">But for what purpose are we remembering?</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">If our memorials, songs, tributes, and political propaganda serve only to help us remember the lives of our loved ones who died that day, then we have acted appropriately. But I fear that the continual display of 9/11 fanfare is intended not specifically to honor the fallen, but instead to continually evoke feelings of revenge, hatred, frustration, and fear. </span></p></blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">You can read the whole post </span><span style="font-size:130%;">– <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/we-will-never-forget">"We Will Never Forget"</a> – </span><span style="font-size:130%;">at his blog<a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/we-will-never-forget#more-721"></a>. Connor paints a larger picture that includes some other things we shouldn't forget and the actions such remembrances might more appropriately inspire.</span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-8738097076180636432008-06-23T08:00:00.003-06:002008-06-23T08:13:29.509-06:00The False Gods We Worship<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size:85%;">I've had a number of people tell me I need to post the entire text of President Kimball's talk "The False Gods We Worship". [I've linked to it before and quoted passages.] Given that the motivating event was the Prophet's thoughts upon the bi-centennial celebration of the United States of America, it seems especially appropriate to consider on a blog like this one.<br /><br /></span></span>By President Spencer W. Kimball<br /><br />First Presidency Message, <i>Ensign</i>, June 1976</span> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="3"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">I have heard that the sense most closely associated with memory is the sense of smell. If this is true, then perhaps it explains the many pleasing feelings that overtake me these mornings when I am able to step outdoors for a few moments and breathe in the warm and comfortable aromas that I have come to associate over the years with the soil and vegetation of this good earth. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="4"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Now and then, when the moment is right, some particular scent—perhaps only the green grass, or the smell of sage brought from a distance by a breeze—will take me back to the days of my youth in Arizona. It was an arid country, yet it was fruitful under the hands of determined laborers. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="5"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">We worked with the land and the cattle in all kinds of weather, and when we traveled it was on horseback or in open wagons or carriages, mostly. I used to run like the wind with my brothers and sisters through the orchards, down the dusty lanes, past rows of corn, red tomatoes, onions, squash. Because of this, I suppose it is natural to think that in those days we were closer to elemental life. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="6"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Some time ago I chanced to walk outdoors when the dark and massive clouds of an early afternoon thunderstorm were gathering; and as the large raindrops began to drum the dusty soil with increasing rapidity, I recalled the occasional summer afternoons when I was a boy when the tremendous thunderheads would gather over the hills and bring welcome rain to the thirsty soil of the valley floor. We children would run for the shed, and while the lightning danced about we would sit and watch, transfixed, marveling at the ever-increasing power of the pounding rainfall. Afterward, the air would be clean and cool and filled with the sweet smells of the soil, the trees, and the plants of the garden. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="7"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">There were evenings those many years ago, at about sunset, when I would walk in with the cows. Stopping by a tired old fence post, I would sometimes just stand silently in the mellow light and the fragrance of sunflowers and ask myself, “If you were going to create a world, what would it be like?” Now with a little thought the answer seems so natural: “Just like this one.” </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="8"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">So on this day while I stood watching the thunderstorm, I felt—and I feel now—that this is a marvelous earth on which we find ourselves: and when I thought of our preparations for the United States Bicentennial celebration I felt a deep gratitude to the Lord for the choice land and the people and institutions of America. There is much that is good in this land, and much to love. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="9"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Nevertheless, on this occasion of so many pleasant memories another impression assailed my thoughts. The dark and threatening clouds that hung so low over the valley seemed to force my mind back to a theme that the Brethren have concerned themselves with for many years now—indeed a theme that has often occupied the attention of the Lord’s chosen prophets since the world began. I am speaking of the general state of wickedness in which we seem to find the world in these perilous yet crucially momentous days; and thinking of this, I am reminded of the general principle that where much is given, much is expected. (See <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/12/48#48" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/12//48#48')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">Luke 12:48</a>.) </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="10"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">The Lord gave us a choice world and expects righteousness and obedience to his commandments in return. But when I review the performance of this people in comparison with what is expected, I am appalled and frightened. Iniquity seems to abound. The Destroyer seems to be taking full advantage of the time remaining to him in this, the great day of his power. Evil seems about to engulf us like a great wave, and we feel that truly we are living in conditions similar to those in the days of Noah before the Flood. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="11"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">I have traveled much in various assignments over the years, and when I pass through the lovely countryside or fly over the vast and beautiful expanses of our globe, I compare these beauties with many of the dark and miserable practices of men, and I have the feeling that the good earth can hardly bear our presence upon it. I recall the occasion when Enoch heard the earth mourn, saying, “Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me?” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/7/48#48" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/7//48#48')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">Moses 7:48</a>.) </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="12"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">The Brethren constantly cry out against that which is intolerable in the sight of the Lord: against pollution of mind, body, and our surroundings; against vulgarity, stealing, lying, pride, and blasphemy; against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and all other abuses of the sacred power to create; against murder and all that is like unto it; against all manner of desecration. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="13"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">That such a cry should be necessary among a people so blessed is amazing to me. And that such things should be found even among the Saints to some degree is scarcely believable, for these are a people who are in possession of many gifts of the Spirit, who have knowledge that puts the eternities into perspective, who have been shown the way to eternal life. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="14"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Sadly, however, we find that to be shown the way is not necessarily to walk in it, and many have not been able to continue in faith. These have submitted themselves in one degree or another to the enticings of Satan and his servants and joined with those of “the world” in lives of ever-deepening idolatry. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="15"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">I use the word <em>idolatry </em>intentionally. As I study ancient scripture, I am more and more convinced that there is significance in the fact that the commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is the first of the Ten Commandments. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="16"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Few men have ever knowingly and deliberately chosen to reject God and his blessings. Rather, we learn from the scriptures that because the exercise of faith has always appeared to be more difficult than relying on things more immediately at hand, carnal man has tended to transfer his trust in God to material things. Therefore, in all ages when men have fallen under the power of Satan and lost the faith, they have put in its place a hope in the “arm of flesh” and in “gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/dan/5/23#23" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/dan/5//23#23')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">Dan. 5:23</a>)—that is, in idols. This I find to be a dominant theme in the Old Testament. Whatever thing a man sets his heart and his trust in most is his god; and if his god doesn’t also happen to be the true and living God of Israel, that man is laboring in idolatry. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="17"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">It is my firm belief that when we read these scriptures and try to “liken them unto [our]selves,” as Nephi suggested (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/19/24#24" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/19//24#24')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">1 Ne. 19:24</a>), we will see many parallels between the ancient worship of graven images and behavioral patterns in our very own experience. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="18"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">The Lord has blessed us as a people with a prosperity unequaled in times past. The resources that have been placed in our power are good, and necessary to our work here on the earth. But I am afraid that many of us have been surfeited with flocks and herds and acres and barns and wealth and have begun to worship them as false gods, and they have power over us. Do we have more of these good things than our faith can stand? Many people spend most of their time working in the service of a self-image that includes sufficient money, stocks, bonds, investment portfolios, property, credit cards, furnishings, automobiles, and the like to <em>guarantee </em>carnal security throughout, it is hoped, a long and happy life. Forgotten is the fact that our assignment is to use these many resources in our families and quorums to build up the kingdom of God—to further the missionary effort and the genealogical and temple work; to raise our children up as fruitful servants unto the Lord; to bless others in every way, that they may also be fruitful. Instead, we expend these blessings on our own desires, and as Moroni said, “Ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not.” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/morm/8/39#39" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/morm/8//39#39')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">Morm. 8:39</a>.) </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="19"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">As the Lord himself said in our day, “They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own God, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and <em>whose substance is that of an idol, </em>which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/1/16#16" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/1//16#16')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">D&C 1:16</a>; italics added.) </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="20"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">One man I know of was called to a position of service in the Church, but he felt that he couldn’t accept because his investments required more attention and more of his time than he could spare for the Lord’s work. He left the service of the Lord in search of Mammon, and he is a millionaire today. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="21"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">But I recently learned an interesting fact: If a man owns a million dollars worth of gold at today’s prices, he possesses approximately one 27-billionth of all the gold that is present in the earth’s thin crust alone. This is an amount so small in proportion as to be inconceivable to the mind of man. But there is more to this: The Lord who created and has power over all the earth created many other earths as well, even “worlds without number” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/1/33#33" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/1//33#33')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">Moses 1:33</a>); and when this man received the oath and covenant of the priesthood (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/84/33-44#33" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/84//33-44#33')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">D&C 84:33–44</a>), he received a promise from the Lord of “all that my Father hath” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/84/38#38" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/84//38#38')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">D&C 84:38</a>). To set aside all these great promises in favor of a chest of gold and a sense of carnal security is a mistake in perspective of colossal proportions. To think that he has settled for so little is a saddening and pitiful prospect indeed; the souls of men are far more precious than this. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="22"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">One young man, when called on a mission, replied that he didn’t have much talent for that kind of thing. What he was good at was keeping his powerful new automobile in top condition. He enjoyed the sense of power and acceleration, and when he was driving, the continual motion gave him the illusion that he was really getting somewhere. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="23"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">All along, his father had been content with saying, “He likes to do things with his hands. That’s good enough for him.” </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="24"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Good enough for a son of God? This young man didn’t realize that the power of his automobile is infinitesimally small in comparison with the power of the sea, or of the sun; and there are many suns, all controlled by law and by priesthood, ultimately—a priesthood power that he could have been developing in the service of the Lord. He settled for a pitiful god, a composite of steel and rubber and shiny chrome. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="25"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">An older couple retired from the world of work and also, in effect, from the Church. They purchased a pickup truck and camper and, separating themselves from all obligations, set out to see the world and simply enjoy what little they had accumulated the rest of their days. They had no time for the temple, were too busy for genealogical research and for missionary service. He lost contact with his high priests quorum and was not home enough to work on his personal history. Their experience and leadership were sorely needed in their branch, but, unable to “endure to the end,” they were not available. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="26"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">I am reminded of an article I read some years ago about a group of men who had gone to the jungles to capture monkeys. They tried a number of different things to catch the monkeys, including nets. But finding that the nets could injure such small creatures, they finally came upon an ingenious solution. They built a large number of small boxes, and in the top of each they bored a hole just large enough for a monkey to get his hand into. They then set these boxes out under the trees and in each one they put a nut that the monkeys were particularly fond of. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="27"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">When the men left, the monkeys began to come down from the trees and examine the boxes. Finding that there were nuts to be had, they reached into the boxes to get them. But when a monkey would try to withdraw his hand with the nut, he could not get his hand out of the box because his little fist, with the nut inside, was now too large. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="28"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">At about this time, the men would come out of the underbrush and converge on the monkeys. And here is the curious thing: When the monkeys saw the men coming, they would shriek and scramble about with the thought of escaping; but as easy as it would have been, they would not let go of the nut so that they could withdraw their hands from the boxes and thus escape. The men captured them easily. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="29"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">And so it often seems to be with people, having such a firm grasp on things of the world—that which is telestial—that no amount of urging and no degree of emergency can persuade them to let go in favor of that which is celestial. Satan gets them in his grip easily. If we insist on spending all our time and resources building up for ourselves a worldly kingdom, that is exactly what we will inherit. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="30"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had—in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition most repugnant to the Lord. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="31"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching: </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="32"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="33"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/5/44-45#44" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/5//44-45#44')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">Matt. 5:44–45</a>.) </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="34"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/1/7#7" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/1//7#7')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">2 Ne. 1:7</a>)—or he will fight our battles for us (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/14/14#14" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/14//14#14')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">Ex. 14:14</a>; <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/98/37#37" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/98//37#37')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">D&C 98:37</a>, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/26/53#53" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/26//53#53')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">Matt. 26:53</a>.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_chr/20" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/2_chr/20/')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">2 Chr. 20</a>), and when Elisha’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_kgs/6/16#16" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/2_kgs/6//16#16')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">2 Kgs. 6:16</a>). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_kgs/6/17#17" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/2_kgs/6//17#17')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">2 Kgs. 6:17</a>.) </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="35"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Enoch, too, was a man of great faith who would not be distracted from his duties by the enemy: “And so great was the faith of Enoch, that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch.” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/7/13#13" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/7//13#13')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">Moses 7:13</a>.) </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="36"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? Our assignment is affirmative: to forsake the things of the world as ends in themselves; to leave off idolatry and press forward in faith; to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="37"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">We must leave off the worship of modern-day idols and a reliance on the “arm of flesh,” for the Lord has said to all the world in our day, “I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/64/24#24" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/64//24#24')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">D&C 64:24</a>.) </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="38"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">When Peter preached such a message as this to the people on the day of Pentecost, many of them “were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/2/37#37" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/2//37#37')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">Acts 2:37</a>.) </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="39"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">And Peter answered: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and … receive the Holy Ghost.” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/2/38#38" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/2//38#38')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">Acts 2:38</a>.) </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="40"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">As we near the year 2,000, our message is the same as that which Peter gave. And further, that which the Lord himself gave “unto the ends of the earth, that all that will hear may hear: </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="41"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">“Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the Lord is nigh.” (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/1/11-12#11" onclick="newWindow('http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/1//11-12#11')" target="contentWindow" class="scriptureRef">D&C 1:11–12</a>.) </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="42"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">We believe that the way for each person and each family to prepare as the Lord has directed is to begin to exercise greater faith, to repent, and to enter into the work of his kingdom on earth, which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It may seem a little difficult at first, but when a person begins to catch a vision of the true work, when he begins to see something of eternity in its true perspective, the blessings begin to far outweigh the cost of leaving “the world” behind. </span></p> <span style="font-size:130%;"><a name="43"></a></span> <p><span style="font-size:130%;">Herein lies the only true happiness, and therefore we invite and welcome all men, everywhere, to join in this work. For those who are determined to serve the Lord at all costs, this is the way to eternal life. All else is but a means to that end. </span></p>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-52735251481912503432008-06-20T11:03:00.006-06:002008-06-20T11:30:12.749-06:00Call For Papers<span style="font-size:130%;">I've been finding more and more sites similar to this one where Mormons are sharing thoughtful insights on "Post 9/11 American Foreign Policy" (most often with better writing, documentation, and perspective :] ). Initially when I started my blog I hoped to invite writers like that to contribute. Otherwise I would have named my blog "One Random, Often-Uninformed, Busy Guy who Happens to be Mormon and Sometimes Blogs against Tyranny and Obvious Lapses in Governmental Wisdom".<br /><br />"Mormons for Peace" seemed a better project to bring into the blogosphere.<br /><br />So anyways, I'd really like to finally invite more writers and participation on this blog. If you've always wanted to pour out your heart and mind about what your nation is doing with your trust, your tax dollars, and in your name – including any insights you might have from a restored gospel perspective – please email me your essay at <a href="mailto:mormonsforpeace@gmail.com">mormonsforpeace@gmail.com</a>.<br /><br />Even if you've already cross-posted your essay at <a href="http://www.mormonpeaceproject.org/">Mormon Peace Project</a> or <a href="http://ldsfreemen.com/">LDSFreemen</a> or some other forum, chances are that at least one person who visits here hasn't seen it (even if it is only me I suppose) – and it can't hurt to get your message and the widening discussion out in other venues.<br /><br />I don't have any funding to pay for great writing. I don't advertise on my site and don't intend to. (I also don't have any costs other than time since we're hosted on blogspot.) This is simply a labor of love.<br /><br />If you want to write something and send it, please do! Thank you.</span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-1412829416562615672008-06-18T15:59:00.025-06:002008-06-20T10:02:06.271-06:00A Small Note on The Worth of Souls<span style="font-size:130%;">I believe in people. I believe that in every person there is a divine spark of decency, goodness, and wisdom that they have a choice to foster or ignore.<br /><br />As a Latter Day Saint, I believe that not only is <i>every person</i> I encounter quite literally a child of God and an inheritor of divine talents and goodness, but further that each person I encounter made a conscious choice in the premortal world to follow the "choice, responsibility, and growth" plan championed by our Savior, Jesus Christ and not the "security, slavery, and stagnation" plan of Satan. Indeed, that is our doctrine.<br /><br />Consequently, I try not to oppose any specific person or group of people but rather to fight against sin, deceitful propaganda, and misguided philosophy. I think it is vital to remember to 'hate the <i>sin</i>, not the <i>sinner</i>.'<br /><br />In war, hatred is often unleashed against <span style="font-style: italic;">people</span> instead of the underlying problems. Worse yet, aggression in war (as opposed to just and defensive war) requires dehumanizing entire groups of people in order to unite the aggressive nation and <a href="http://mormonsforpeace.blogspot.com/2007/12/killing-factory-unchecked-unbridled.html">allow soldiers to ignore their divine sense of 'right and wrong'</a> as they carry out orders.<br /><br />Indeed, I keep hearing from otherwise sensible people about the need to punish and bomb <span style="font-style: italic;"></span>whole nations in the Arab world as if there are not innocent people in the way of these supposedly "precautionary bombings". Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was <span style="font-style: italic;">terrorism</span> to kill innocent people in order to send "a message." Quite frankly I cannot condone terrorist tactics no matter who is conducting them.<br /><br />I hear people say that those lives [the 'collateral damage' at Iraqi checkpoints, or in mistaken bombings in Afghanistan, or in a potential "pre-emption" in Iran] are worth<span style="font-style: italic;">less</span> simply because the people are a certain religion or – just as thoughtlessly – because they haven't shown 'the sense to rise up against their own government'. The latter really riles me because how many Americans are willing to stand up against their own government when it behaves unwisely or immorally?<br /><br />When people cite hateful newspaper articles and even State-sponsored propaganda in some of these countries, I marvel that we overlook our own inaccurate propaganda about the Muslim nations and our own hateful newspaper articles and media. How can we forget that President Bush pronounced four entire cultures as part of a so-called "Axis of Evil" not so many years ago. I don't know about you, but when somebody calls my whole country "Evil" it bothers me even if there are certain people, elements, [and even official State actions] in my country that I would agree are clearly immoral.<br /><br />That kind of belligerent propaganda dehumanizes people. It allows atrocities to be committed. It is exactly the opposite of what brings peace or how Christ taught that we should behave.<br /><br />The apostle Paul says - when talking about the need for the "whole armour of God" - that "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."<br /><br />Paul knew well. He was at one time the infamous "Saul" – a frighteningly successful fanatic in his persecution of what he considered <span style="font-style: italic;">blasphemy</span>: the new Christian religion. But instead of opposing "Saul" (the person), the Savior countered the incorrect principles Saul had accepted – opening for Saul a chance at redemption and the opportunity to put considerable talent to better use. I'd like to see more Saul-to-Paul experiences all over the world. Our current political culture will certainly not accomplish that.<br /><br />One of my main reasons for this blog is to do my small part to counter what I see as a major de-emphasis on the 'worth of souls' as people get caught up in the fear, excitement, and rhetoric of war. The rhetoric is really what I meant to address when I sat down to write this but I'll get to that in my next post.<br /><br />There are most certainly dangerous people in this world mis-using their freedoms. But they can't be clearly defined by the arbitrary conveniences of ethnicities and national boundaries – and any campaign using those designations to justify violent engagement and conquest should be opposed by good people everywhere.<br /><br />Any time one group of people starts believing they've forever cornered the market on 'civilization' and 'righteousness' to the denigration, exclusion, and exploitation of 'other' groups of people then they are ripe for God's wrath, not His blessings. Perhaps more so than any time in our history, our current foreign policy is <span style="font-style: italic;">extraordinarily</span> condescending, prideful, and dismissive of other cultures and peoples.<br /><br />The United States was founded on legally recognizing the divine value of each individual, the right of each nation to sovereignty, and the general application of the Christian "golden rule". Much of what the United States is pursuing today (both at home and abroad) is totally at odds with these bedrock principles; I believe we ignore 'the worth of souls' at our peril.</span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-57342322864174252142008-04-02T13:02:00.015-06:002008-04-03T01:58:15.744-06:00Finishing the Job and Fighting to Win<span style="font-size:130%;">I am tired of the worn out and misguided meme about "finishing the job" in Iraq.<br /><br />Two wrongs do not make a right.<br /><br />First of all – let's get this out of the way – the Iraqi invasion had nothing <span style="font-style: italic;">whatsoever</span> to do with the attacks of 9/11. Yes, it was sold that way. Yes, I initially supported it on those grounds since I was still in 'shock and awe' from the horrific attacks of 9/11 and so believed all the tenuous connections that the Bush administration was avowing. But in the years since they have disavowed every single one of those connections. Many government leaders have come forward and admitted that many in the administration knew that most or even all of them were untrue from the beginning (but that the ends justified the means). Now the war is justified based on other reasons – some still push 'WMD' claims for instance, Sadaam's evils are enumerated, etc. But none of the reasons put forth by any government official have to do with the actual attack on U.S. soil by the [mostly Saudi Arabian] thugs associated with Osama bin Laden and motivated – according to our official Intelligence reports – by decades of U.S. interference and warmaking in the MidEast.<br /><br />So what <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span> we doing in Iraq?<br /><br />1) We are building an <a href="http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hale/Special%20Reports/US%20Military%20Bases/America%27s%20Empire%20of%20Bases.htm">unprecedented network</a> of American military and intelligence bases set to be our permanent bastion in the Middle East and from which we can <a href="http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hale/Special%20Reports/American%20Empire/Permanent%20Bases%20the%20World%20Over%20-%20Behold%20the%20American%20Empire.htm">conduct all further "national security operations" in the Mideastern Theatre</a> into the conceivable future.<br /><br />2) We are <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/blood-and-oil-how-the-west-will-profit-from-iraqs-most-precious-commodity-431119.html">securing American [and other promised Western] Oil contracts</a> -- again, in the interest of "national energy security".<br /><br />3) We are employing <a href="http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43444/">slave labor</a> to build a high walled city-within-a-city (<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/from/ET/">larger than the Vatican</a>) in Baghdad in order that Iraq (and their neighbors) never, ever forget who is really in charge over there.<br /><br />4) In addition to the slave labor [conveniently contracted out to firms in Dubai, Kuwait, etc.] we are employing nearly as many U.S. based contractors as military personnel to do various and sundry (often fiscally irresponsible, even criminal) jobs around the country. Not the least of which are the security operations ("too . . . 'messy' for 'official' US forces to be involved in" as one returned soldier described to me recently) in which corporations like <a href="http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hale/Special%20Reports/Jeremy%20Scahill/Making%20a%20Killing.htm">BlackWater USA</a> send trigger happer thugs to secure safety for diplomatic vehicles, etc. often by simply machine gunning innocent citizens who get too near their charges. In a shining example of liberty, freedom, and 'justice for all' these security contractors are carefully held innocent of both Iraqi and US laws.<br /><br />5) We are completely failing to promote peace, democracy, religious harmony, prosperity, or even – five years later – basic living standards of clean water, power, health, and education that used to exist before our violent invasion.<br /><br />Tell me again why we should "finish" that job.<br /><br />Or, even worse, I often hear the idea that regardless of how the fight started we should now "fight to win!" In what sphere of morality is this "good"? So now that we have destroyed the infrastructure of a nation, set various factions to fighting, and are still struggling to carve out our initial unwise, un-Constitutional, selfish, and illicit goals: it "behooves" us to "fight to win"?<br /><br />I simply do not subscribe to that perverted idea of fervent nationalism. The USA is a great nation because our carefully preserved ideals -- as enshrined in the Constitution and [more or less] exhibited through over two centuries of action preclude us from doing what this administration has taken us over to Iraq to do. I am tired of the inconsiderate dismissals of any honest discussion of our foreign policy as simply being "Blame America First".<br /><br />I love America because of what we stand for, what I truly believe God intended us to be and do. I am patriotic because I believe in the ideals our Founding Fathers lived and died for. I do not for a second believe that America will receive and deserve God's blessings regardless of her actions in the world simply by virtue of 'being America'. God's promises do not work that way.<br /><br />Between the broadcasts of our last General Conference, there was a special presentation on President J. Reuben Clark. President Clark was a counselor in the First Presidency of Presidents Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, and David O. McKay. Previous to that time he had practiced law, and served in the U.S. State Department, eventually becoming the Undersecretary of State for President Coolidge. He also held other various government positions such as being the American ambassador to Mexico.<br /><br />I've quoted him before on this site, but it bears repeating:<br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">"For America has a destiny – a destiny to conquer the world – not by force of arms, not by purchase and favor, for these conquests wash away, but by high purpose, by unselfish effort, by uplifting achievement, by a course of Christian living; a conquest that shall leave every nation free to move out to its own destiny; a conquest that shall bring, through the workings of our own example, the blessings of freedom and liberty to every people, without restraint or imposition or compulsion from us; a conquest that shall weld the whole earth together in one great brotherhood in a reign of mutual patience, forbearance, and charity, in a reign of peace to which we shall lead all others by the persuasion of our own righteous example."</span></blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">I also think it is relevant to recall once again what President Kimball said in the First Presidency Message of June, 1976:<br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">"We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel – ships, planes, missiles, fortifications – and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching:<br /><br />"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;<br /><br />"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 5:44-45). "</span><br /></blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">That may seem a bit extreme, but I think it puts our aggression in an appropriate context. For instance, my strongest objection as an American citizen is that the people we are attacking and punishing – ostensibly for the events of 9/11 – are not even our enemies. They are certainly not the ones who actually attacked us. But, even if amongst their nations there were those who were indeed 'our enemies' in some respect (through historical Anti-American rhetoric or trade negotiations or in some other way) it would not justify the hatred, dehumanizing, inaccuracies, and literal murder of innocents (<span style="font-style: italic;">'collateral damage'</span> it is politely termed) that so many Americans are willing to close their eyes to.<br /><br />I write on this blog because I love America and everything it stands for. When our mission and purpose become perverted by powerful people who do not share these ideals, it behooves me to speak out. And, quite frankly, though much of my concern is for the larger human family of God's children [and I believe <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/26/33#33">He loves <i>all</i> of us equally</a>], when we allow our nation to behave like an Imperial Conquistador it also affects our specific freedoms at home in adverse ways. Not just "<a href="http://www.mises.org/story/2588">blowback</a>" which clearly makes our nation <span style="font-style: italic;">less safe</span> (setting the fallacious arguments of the warmongers on their heads), but also – as holocaust survivor Hannah Arendt presciently described it: "Empire abroad entails tyranny at home." Our behaviors in regards to these issues of national security – both at home and abroad – send the wrong messages to any that would look to us as the example of "the" nation most blessed with liberty and freedoms "for all".<br /></span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-54933173073843051452008-04-01T19:30:00.004-06:002008-04-01T21:19:41.120-06:00Freedom<span style="font-size:130%;">Has the American invasion and occupation of Iraq provided freedom and liberty for its people?<br /><br />Does the average Iraqi have more freedom today than they had under Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime?<br /><br />What does freedom mean to you? Do they have freedom of assembly, the press, religion? Do they even have freedom to travel the streets, find food, clean water, and basic utilities, or even the freedom to make use of the much-touted energy resources of their native lands?<br /><br />Americans don't ask these questions. The American Press generally avoids them as well. Americans question how German citizens could have so easily bought into the group-think propaganda of Hitler and yet we, as a people, close our eyes to the violent truths of American Imperial conquests.<br /><br />Despite all the heartwarming images of purple fingers, despite the early footage of Iraqis toppling the statue of Saddam, our intentions and actions in Iraq continue to do more harm than good and they [our illicit intents] become more clear to the rest of the world daily. As citizens, we cannot close our eyes in impunity forever.<br /><br />The truth is that before America began its violent "re-making" of the Middle East, Baghdad, for instance, was a relatively peaceful city with clean water, working electricity, functional hospitals and Universities – and people were able to live decent lives. There was not freedom of assembly, but neither is there now. There was not freedom of the press, but [in the name of 'temporary restrictions' to protect Iraqi and US national security] there is not now either. Some freedoms of religiosity have fledgling starts but there is violent warfare as a result and the US has no interest in providing either a good example of how to resolve them nor thoughtful discussion of the matter. Rather, we fuel the discord when it suits our needs, we make shifting alliances with different violent and intolerant factions – and we even arm and support them when we see a selfish advantage.<br /><br />It is certainly true that Saddam and his sons were tyrannical monsters who claimed absolute authority to torture, kill, and exploit their perceived enemies within the populace. I won't make the obvious comparison here, but the fact remains that – five 'freedom building' years later – the newly violent Baghdad is much worse off in nearly every regard (including the *increase* in the number of feuding groups that all claim 'absolute authority to torture, kill, and exploit their perceived enemies'). The *only* place that gets 24-hour electricity these days is the gargantuan embassy-city of the conqueror-occupiers (the United States). Even the once secure hospitals regularly lose electricity because our only true concern is that we finish the mission of establishing permanent military bases (and "diplomatic" hegemonic city-states) from which to continue re-shaping the Mid-East in order to more surely control energy, water, shipping, and other resources in the region all in the name of our own "national security".<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;">Does this sound like exporting freedom and liberty to you? What should American citizens do about it? And, honestly I hope somebody has some encouraging comments for me because, what can we do about it?</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />P.S. Don't get me wrong. I know that many (from my experience, the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">vast</span> majority) of our good men and women in uniform go 'over there' and do the right thing. They bring hope, order, and love to a war-torn people (generally sidestepping the complication that we brought the war in the first place). I've seen the pictures. I've read the stories. I have personal knowledge that many such stories are certainly true. But this breaks my heart more because it drives home the ease with which the architects of these Imperial conquests are able to successfully use good people for illicit causes.<br /></span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-72401773272821537662008-02-08T17:55:00.000-07:002008-02-09T13:20:32.298-07:00A Reflection on the "War on Terror"<span style="font-size:130%;">I find myself increasingly being asked to explain my disapproval of the current war to friends and family.<br /><br />It's simple really. I'm against war. I know for a fact that war brings with it <a href="http://mormonsforpeace.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-mormons-for-peace.html#peacein">attendant murder, lies, and intractable problems</a>. The very act of "declaring war" [or in this case "claiming" war without a Constitutional declaration . . . but I digress] . . . the very act of "declaring war" should be so detestable, so debatable, so far from desirable that Christian people ought to treat it like late, third-trimester abortion or the dropping of an atomic bomb on a civilian population.<br /><br />Abortion, in fact, is the example that I most recently cited in a comment to a friend here on my blog. I share the Church's stance on abortion, but one of the reasons we have pro-life protesters at LDS General Conference is because official Mormon doctrine is not 100% anti-abortion. I suppose you could even call it pro-"choice" but not in any conventional use of the term. The official stance [as I understand it] is that abortion is strongly counseled against - even considered a heinous sin in most cases - but in certain cases such as rape, incest, and where the mother's life is seriously endangered then the counsel is to consider it prayerfully on an specific basis.<br /><br />I do not believe a declaration of war should be undertaken with any less consideration. Generally in the abortion debates every individual life is given consideration by the kind of people I find at Church . . . but somehow when the topic of war gets debated the whole idea of "the worth of souls" too often gets sidelined, shunned, and forgotten. Worse, it seems that if we find any legitimate-seeming reason for U.S. military action in a foreign country we seem to act as if it means that conventional morality no longer applies to that entire region of the world from that moment and into the forseeable future.<br /><br />We are not – by any stretch of the imagination – under imminent attack way back here in the U.S. by the specific Iraqi and Afghani rebels who want us out of their countries. Furthermore, however you might feel about our original missions in those two countries, we have long ago abandoned them and replaced them with far-less-respectable, brazenly imperialist goals. In Iraq when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished," the best information I can gather indicates that we should have been honest about it and left. We didn't even have "Al Queda" copycats in the country at that point. In Afghanistan it is increasingly unclear why we should not have followed bin Laden and his enterprise into Pakistan instead of continuing the strange dual objectives of occupying Ahghanistan and propping up the dictator Musharrif who promptly allowed bin Laden what has effectively been permanent sanctuary.<br /><br />I am greatly troubled that many tenets of our current foreign policy only make sense from the point of view that American Corporate interests (oil, shipping, military-industrial, World Bank investments, etc.) and American Empire (our power, prestige, and control in the world) are the actual driving forces behind our actions and not - as too often claimed by pundits and politicians - the evil boogiemen of 'global jihad'. Our own intelligence services issued a non-classified report this very month citing the great strengthening of Al Queda in particular (in its new stronghold in Pakistan) – and global terrorism generally – precisely <i>because</i> of our current foreign policy. I worry sometimes that the problem isn't that we're not smart enough to fight terrorists any more intelligently; the problem is that for many of the policymakers and politicians [whether they realize it or not – and I opine that the great majority do not realize this] fighting terror isn't even really the goal. And that, to me, is pretty terrifying.<br /><br />I believe that as citizens we can be more engaged in learning about the 'big picture' of our foreign policy and our decisions to engage conflicts using our military might. I believe that there have never been more opportunities for an informed or an involved electorate. My outlook on these things is anything but bleak, but I do fear that we are not exactly headed the right direction. If anybody has good suggestions for being productively involved I'm very interested.<br /></span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-11228956393852508402008-02-04T18:11:00.000-07:002008-02-04T18:24:52.432-07:00Some of the Reasons I'm Voting Ron Paul on Super Tuesday<span style="font-size:130%;">Well, tomorrow's the day. Utah is one of the 24 states voting on "Super Tuesday". I'm voting for Ron Paul despite the fact that Romney is at 84% in Utah in the poll I heard about on the radio this morning. It's too bad the polls become such self-fulfilling prophecies – numbers like that make me wonder if I might as well just give up on the Republican primary altogether but I'm registering my vote for Paul tomorrow regardless.<br /><br />Paul got less than 8 minutes of the two-hour debate in the last pre-Super-Tuesday Republican debate on CNN but the upside of that is you can hear a lot of Paul condensed to very little time.<br /><br />Here's the tape [If you really want to get right to the good stuff drag the slider to about 3minutes and 10seconds]:<br /><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/2WLGMLpA-20"></a><object height="350" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/2WLGMLpA-20"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2WLGMLpA-20" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></embed></object></div><br /><br />Summary:<br /><br />0-1:20 Paul says our economy is in bad shape. Says we're bankrupting the country and the standard of living is going down especially for the middle class. Talks about fiscal policy and monetary policy and throws out terms that cause people's eyes to glaze which is really too bad since Paul understands these things far better than any other candidate in the running.<br /><br />1:20-2:00 Paul answers the question about whether it is OK for Schwarzenegger to implement his plan for "greenhouse gasses" by saying that CA should be free to do whatever they like. In typical Paul fashion, however, he overestimates how informed his audience is and mentions in passing that he thinks it's too bad that nobody ever discusses property rights when they talk about pollution. This is an area Paul could really shine since his discussion of pollution is really unorthodox and pragmatic. He believes allowing big corporations to pollute public water, air, and land violates the property rights of those whose land or water gets polluted. This is simple truth, regardless of your political persuasion and yet you don't hear many politicians talking about it. It avoids simply siding with big business (all-too-typical Republican stance) against public health or siding with some indefinable "global village" against the property rights of big businesses (all-too-typical Democratic stance).<br /><br /> At any rate, Paul pushes right past this opportunity to press for what he correctly identifies as a topic that really needs addressing: talking about how silly the "mainstream conventional wisdom" is about <i>conservative</i> or <i>liberal</i>. Even most talk-radio extremists agree that those words get overgeneralized and abused [and apart from this strange notion where it's considered "conservative" now to police the world, Paul is the only traditional "conservative" on the stage]. But Anderson Cooper shuts him down with a lie about a question that addresses "exactly that" "in like 2 minutes or 2 questions." Big surprise -- the question and opportunity to speak on the topic never comes.<br /><br />2:00-3:00 Paul is glad Huckabee is also making the point that it is absolutely ludicrous that we are borrowing from the Chinese to fund our government largesse. He notes that nobody else is talking about cutting spending (which I think is strange too because I would expect Romney to talk more about it . . . only he can't since he has signed onto this idea of pre-emptive worldwide military strikes which are unimaginably expensive). Paul notes our military expeditions are hitting $1trillion a year (with a lot of it being unbudgeted "emergency" addons during the year each year). He points out that our official foreign policy calls for taxing our people to blow up bridges overseas, then taxing our people to rebuild bridges overseas while all along we're falling behind on checking the aging infrastructure and bridges in our own country because there is simply not enough money to do both.<br /><br />3:00-3:10 Paul starts a short answer about why he feels Sandra Day O'Connor was not a strict enough Constitutionalist but the CNN moderator Anderson Cooper frankly doesn't care and cuts him off at an awkward point (after less than 5 seconds) to simply turn it over to McCain.<br /><br />3:10-5:10 Paul's best question and answer of the night. Paul is asked if he agrees with McCain's quote about keeping troops in Iraq for "100 years or more". Paul's answer is the reason I'm praying he's still in the media after tomorrow.<br /><br />5:10-7:15 Paul's other best answer of the night. Even if you don't agree with him on foreign policy, this is the right answer on the economy. The fact that none of the other Republican candidates is willing to talk about these things is remarkable in my opinion.<br /><br />7:15-7:55 Paul notes that though he doesn't pretend to know what Ronald Reagan would do that Reagan and he often campaigned for each other from before Reagan finally gained traction within the party. Furthermore, Reagan solidly agreed with [perhaps Paul's most infamous "crazy idea"] Paul that the U.S. needs to return to the gold standard to save the dollar. He backed that claim up with a great Reagan quote about it.</span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-51678062874963273192008-01-31T10:30:00.000-07:002008-12-09T05:53:15.691-07:00Standing for Something<div align="center"><table width="100%" border="0"><tbody><tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLrddQNxaWyHFdBHeSgk1MIEb1Z2aMBsCknZq7V4_uOoiUJ_2wT4tbYz2gSQFuhvf8tWLRUe5cTdRTZmtcBubg4EM_xdAcWnfpUb4tnFt_vDNt0blu4esnWdMBAwtRp76SNyuRBLkwj08X/s1600-h/HinckleyAge12.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5161704421820362434" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 129px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 152px" height="136" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLrddQNxaWyHFdBHeSgk1MIEb1Z2aMBsCknZq7V4_uOoiUJ_2wT4tbYz2gSQFuhvf8tWLRUe5cTdRTZmtcBubg4EM_xdAcWnfpUb4tnFt_vDNt0blu4esnWdMBAwtRp76SNyuRBLkwj08X/s200/HinckleyAge12.gif" width="127" border="0" /></a></td><td><div align="center"><span style="font-size:180%;">Gordon Bitner Hinckley</span></div><div align="center"><span style="font-size:130%;">June 23, 1910 - January 27, 2008</span><br /></div><br /><p></p></td><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjonbfCnmCEcXT9nN288u9wECFHd0R9fDhPoUtXnNtqgHa9eD4CwxLt2SifyyWn8-L28P6ixFgAbxajCBX6z0A_0hVj1gxO3vU5NVR4ajIsiwsx23Pc2fPrp0nSc7h632L6BndpWI-6waF0/s1600-h/Hinckley0002.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5161706015253229346" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjonbfCnmCEcXT9nN288u9wECFHd0R9fDhPoUtXnNtqgHa9eD4CwxLt2SifyyWn8-L28P6ixFgAbxajCBX6z0A_0hVj1gxO3vU5NVR4ajIsiwsx23Pc2fPrp0nSc7h632L6BndpWI-6waF0/s200/Hinckley0002.jpg" border="0" /></a></td></tr></tbody></table><br /></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSMssOHETznlcx4oV-Qx90jR6HJ6uHgDc98XWiOEP7fMfCPJHDd1zoA8WKuYrxxMEN9XZZ03Hl62kjja-y8DJA63sPRqdezUiDmO93E3i4IKsvNWdShDfWzmgnJ9COQNJF5tykvrCxMxG1/s1600-h/hinckley-cane.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5161704808367419106" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 128px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 160px" height="106" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSMssOHETznlcx4oV-Qx90jR6HJ6uHgDc98XWiOEP7fMfCPJHDd1zoA8WKuYrxxMEN9XZZ03Hl62kjja-y8DJA63sPRqdezUiDmO93E3i4IKsvNWdShDfWzmgnJ9COQNJF5tykvrCxMxG1/s200/hinckley-cane.jpg" width="96" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:130%;">President Gordon B. Hinckley is far and away one of the most </span><span style="font-size:130%;">inspiring people I have ever studied. He certainly exemplified his oft repeated challenges to "Stand for Something" [great and good] and to "Be!" 'grateful', 'smart', 'clean', 'true', 'humble', 'prayerful', 'positive', 'involved', and 'still'.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I can in no way sufficiently summarize my estimation of <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUiAwZd6xsySMGzN9auZ2Aha9vSjMqZwz9hr2Z2niyrUPVrFbo1XnKvKAXUQ44EOFPgSEGKu2gE1lhSG8bfdSGkXV_oF3tk76cZGXmtEZN5yFh0dv-dZatU_hAOqsnq0XXUBBSqo_HvOJA/s1600-h/hinckleysMoscow2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5161705809094799122" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUiAwZd6xsySMGzN9auZ2Aha9vSjMqZwz9hr2Z2niyrUPVrFbo1XnKvKAXUQ44EOFPgSEGKu2gE1lhSG8bfdSGkXV_oF3tk76cZGXmtEZN5yFh0dv-dZatU_hAOqsnq0XXUBBSqo_HvOJA/s200/hinckleysMoscow2.jpg" border="0" /></a>this man. But he leaves behind an astonishing legacy of words, actions, and example that speak to all who take the time to notice. I would encourage everyone to take the opportunity of his passing to remember the </span><span style="font-size:130%;">life he lived and find renewed inspiration in it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I particularly admired his courage, his wisdom, his love, his open-mindedness, his humor, his kindness, his encouragement of learning, his </span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXTojC6Xrilmrw010YxIwHnDc13d2VdnH9J9_xO3LZWgkqt8vnzh30C0lL_hjucHbpOhCgmhlIj_e2flEKBrZn0WCdkfLU30ucHtAKStlEPiBHHoou0-yhQAPQoEZJToGmnFPqxzDakAwJ/s1600-h/hinckleysMoscow2.jpg"></a><span style="font-size:130%;">positive outlook, his hope, <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGgMm5-njIL2Xwq3gSdOzhwK1rYwhIM7lCSMaBfXIy0J-LgWcmi4prJafMa1LXHenub5i71suZKhjCOKSkW_FM76TiBpUom9DCkP5JE-wLeuoT4WRgix_kZ-eogt-8lHdAdox0GDxlOtMg/s1600-h/GordonAndMarjorie.jpg"><span style="font-size:130%;"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5161704589324086994" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 218px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 136px" height="93" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGgMm5-njIL2Xwq3gSdOzhwK1rYwhIM7lCSMaBfXIy0J-LgWcmi4prJafMa1LXHenub5i71suZKhjCOKSkW_FM76TiBpUom9DCkP5JE-wLeuoT4WRgix_kZ-eogt-8lHdAdox0GDxlOtMg/s200/GordonAndMarjorie.jpg" width="154" border="0" /></span></a>and his ever-ready, strikingly-sincere smile. He was a brilliant ray of light in a often-darkened world and the world is a better place for having had him here.</span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-82471311716641295222008-01-24T12:03:00.000-07:002008-01-24T12:20:47.709-07:00Amazing Grace: an Inside Job<span style="font-size:130%;">I recently watched the film <a href="http://www.amazinggracemovie.com/">Amazing Grace</a> with my wife and my oldest son (on the MLK holiday which made it even better).<br /><br />I can't believe I'd missed this one!<br /><br />The film retells the true story of William Wilberforce and his unceasing crusade to end slavery in the British Empire. It does not shy away from either his overt religiosity or his personal struggles.<br /><br />I'd never heard the background of how Amazing Grace came to be composed. The song means even more to me now. I immediately went online to read more about <a href="http://www.amazinggracemovie.com/castcrew_newton.php">John Newton</a> (Amazing Grace writer and former Slave Ship captain who repented, became a minister, and profoundly inspired the British abolitionist Wilberforce), <a href="http://www.amazinggracemovie.com/castcrew_wilberforce.php">William Wilberforce</a>, and <a href="http://www.amazinggracemovie.com/castcrew_pitt.php">William Pitt</a> (British Prime Minister at 24 and sometimes Wilberforce's friend and co-conspirator in the abolitionist movement).<br /><br />There is a lot I'd like to write about the parallels between the Slave Trade of the British Empire (ie the American Slave Trade) and our new slavery wherein we off-shore all of our manufacturing, textile production, etc. to third-world "sweat shops" but have to neither see nor consider it. There were a few interesting parallels to our current fascist-Empire building and those in parliament who would argue, for instance, that slavery was a necessary evil for the economic health of the empire (much as, I would contend, many in our government argue that the conquest and sacrifice of innocent civilians abroad is a necessary evil for our current oil economy) and that consequently anyone arguing for abolition was nothing less than a traitor.<br /><br />But I only have time for three quick notes at the moment.<br /><br />The first is how moving it is to read the <a href="http://www.amazinggracemovie.com/song.php">full text of the hymn Amazing Grace</a> and consider the awesome power of the atonement of our Savior in overcoming our own personal trials, mistakes, and evils. It was very inspiring early in the film when Wilberforce leaps to top of a table in what was essentially a gambling bar-room and sings the hymn with perfect baritone.<br /><br />The second thing I wanted to note was that, interestingly, the film spends some time showing Wilberforce's personal struggles with depression, disillusionment, discouragement, and confusion about what to pursue in life. He ends up being shepherded into a dependency on heroin prescribed by a well-meaning family doctor and has to break free of that addiction (due to what he and his wife recognize as negative side effects) despite the fact that his society tended to overlook the ill effects of that drug's abuse.<br /><br />The final thing I wanted to mention was a brief scene where one of Wilberforce's close personal allies in the abolition movement tries to recruit him into the bloody French (and potentially British) Revolution. Wilberforce – who has earlier in the film indicated that he favors sovereignty for the Americans and harbors other concerns about the the British Empire – explains forcefully to his friend that he has taken an oath to the King which he still cherishes and clearly sees cause for hope within the current British system. Even when another friend (the Prime Minister, Pitt) abandons the abolitionist movement [and Wilberforce himself] as being too anti-British during a time of war, Wilberforce remains true and keeps trying to work within the system he cherishes. I don't think it will ruin the movie to reveal what history already tells you – that ultimately Wilberforce prevails against incredible odds.<br /><br />Amazing Grace reaffirmed my deep belief that if we can start within ourselves, within our families, and within our communities there is an insuperable power of God that can come to the rescue of all that is good and right. I'd recommend it to anyone.</span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-8802099838549633752007-12-27T15:59:00.000-07:002007-12-27T16:59:45.924-07:00The Killing Factory – Unchecked, Unbridled<span style="font-size:130%;">A little over a year ago I read a well-researched <a href="http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hale/primers/The%20Killing%20Factory.htm">article</a> about the evolution of the psychological training of US troops to more efficiently kill perceived enemies. </span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Apparently, during WWII, US Army historian S.L.A. Marshall made a diligent study of combat behavior amongst his fellow troops. His published conclusion was that a shocking 75% of American soldiers failed to immediately return fire when fired upon. His report and methodology were of course the subject of much controversy. But the question had been raised. What could America do to better prepare its' defense forces for the brutal reality of the actions required by a soldier?<br /><br />Jeff Tietz, the author of the article, provides some background. He explains that:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><blockquote><p><em>Before World War II, basic training sought to produce disciplined men, not killers. The closest you got to battle was shooting at bull’s-eye targets and bayoneting hay bales. Less than a year after Men Against Fire [the published report by Army historian Marshall], the Army began distributing a “Revised Program of Instruction” to its officers and drill sergeants. Marshall considered it essential to “free the rifleman’s mind with respect to the nature of targets”—to keep soldiers from thinking human before shooting.</em></p><p><em>On his recommendation, the Army began training recruits in “massing fire”—shooting at the types of inanimate cover they would see in combat: tree lines, embankments, ridges. It also began downplaying its standard exhortation “Kill the enemy!” and emphasized instead a rifleman’s responsibility to deliver his comrades from danger. “Protect your buddy!” and “Protect the integrity of your unit!” became common maxims.</em></p><p><em>The value of applied psychology soon became apparent: The firing rate during the Korean War rose to nearly sixty percent. In Vietnam it was ninety percent, and in the first Gulf War it reached ninety-eight percent. In Iraq, the number of soldiers who fail to fire is thought to be statistically insignificant. American forces never lost a major engagement in Vietnam, and they have not lost one since.</em></p><p><em>The Army now spends nearly $2 billion annually on basic training. It employs thousands of people: to invent virtual-reality environments, to calculate the maximum volume of information a recruit can absorb in fourteen weeks, to determine the emotional state in which recruits will most freely shoot at the human form, to discover how much punishment their bodies can take, to build mock urban battlefields that replicate mosque spires and the sound of a muezzin’s call to prayer. The Army’s infantry schools graduate nearly 20,000 soldiers a year. No institution in history has come close to training so many people to kill so effectively in such a short time.</em> </p></blockquote>I have mixed feelings about this. I really do have a dedicated and passionate allegiance to our nation and its freedom. I also have great respect and admiration for being 'the absolute best'. Maximizing potential. Protecting loved ones. Fighting for Freedom. Succeeding. Winning.<br /><br />But I also know you can go 'too far' with anything. The road to hell is, as they say, paved with 'good intentions'.<br /><br />One of the most effective psychological techniques that our battle-trainers utilize is de-humanization. With Vietnam it was describing the enemy as 'gooks', not people. In Iraq, they're all 'rabid-terrorist-camel-jockeys' - and worse. The idea is that you want to create as much psychological separation between the enemy and your troops as possible. The less human your "enemy", the less problems you have managing your troops. Truth and reality go right out the window. The enemy is not comprised of fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, daughters, sons, and innocent children. No, somehow, they are all nameless, faceless, entirely unconnected to the world you know, completely negligible, and most probably hell-bent on destroying your faithful batallion members, you, and everything you hold dear. This extends beyond the enemy army to the complicit neighbors, villages, families, and other sometimes unavoidable collateral damage that [presumably] should have and could have chosen not to support such inhuman evil in their midst.<br /><br />I suppose this is one of the 'evils of standing armies' that our Founding Fathers warned against: the over-professionalization of warmaking, killing, and conquest. [As a side-note I was reading the Federalist Papers the other day and discovered a long argument about how any politician that wanted to could always cook up a good argument that the Union was in imminent danger from Spanish or British support of the disgruntled Indian tribes – and thus, disingenuously keep America in a constant state of needless war . . . perhaps times have not changed so very much.]<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. When I decry the potential 'evils of standing armies' and our leaders 'going too far', it's not that I don't understand the need for a strong defense. It's just that I have often observed the maxim that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Also, from the <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/121/39#39">Doctrine and Covenants</a>: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."<br /><br />A strong national militia is indeed a dangerous power. The founders worried ceaselessly about this. It's a necessary component of a free and sovereign nation and yet that component is fraught with perilous downsides. In the Constitution they drafted (as well as in their writings) they labored diligently to provide checks and balances to these powers that seem to have been completely ignored in our current warmaking processes.<br /><br />Anyways all of that, of course, brings me back to my Presidential candidate of choice and why I back him so fervently. Dr. Paul talks about Constitutional safeguards that have been neglected in our current conflicts. Ron Paul talks about the inherent humanity of each person in each sovereign nation and the "God-given" rights that we have <i>all</i> been granted.<br /><br />Paul is not a simple pacifist nor is he soft on defense. He served in the armed forces as an Air Force surgeon and he was one of the first to support Reagan (and his talk of restoring America's defenses) out in Texas. Paul voted against the irrational conquest of Iraq, but he voted <i>for</i> going after al Queda who had taken responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. He still advocates going after bin Laden and questions our strange support of the military dictator (and Islamo-fascist nuclear rebel) Musharrif in Pakistan where bin Laden has - by most reports - taken up residence.<br /><br />Paul is the only candidate I've heard who respects the wisdom of the Constitutional framers, who advocates limited and judicious use of our military powers, and who opposes our wholesale transformation into an angry 'pre-emptive' warmaking Empire who marches around the world and forces policing on cultures we don't care to even understand. Paul suggests that de-humanization itself is a weapon we should wield with much more caution. He suggests restraint, diplomacy, and a re-focusing of our defenses on defending our borders as opposed to Imperial conquests; he understands that our men and women in uniform should be treated with respect and well-taken care of as we choose our engagements in the world. Anything else is neither "support for the troops" nor "strengthening our defenses".<br /><br />I've <a href="http://mormonsforpeace.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-support-byu-its-administration-and.html#kimball">quoted before</a> that First Presidency message from 1976 where President Kimball said "We are a warlike people, easily distracted . . . when threatened we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching. . ." The <a href="http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=9341fd758096b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1">whole article</a> is good for perspective and addresses many of the "False Gods We Worship", not just the militant ones, of course, but that part of his message seems particularly applicable to the political questions of today.<br /><br />I believe it is time to regain perspective in the self-governance of our nation and its formidable powers. I also strongly believe Congressman <a href="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/">Ron Paul</a> is the most capable advocate of that cause in the running. So I look forward to voting for him February 5th. At any rate, I particularly like the perspective he has that the issues are far bigger than he is and – win or lose – they aren't going away.</span><br /></span></span></span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-62794481197141979152007-12-20T13:17:00.000-07:002007-12-27T14:27:00.981-07:00The American Revolution, Pax Americana, and Ron Paul<span style="font-size:130%;">Ron Paul's understanding of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_americana">Pax Americana</a> and our new American Empire is one of the things I most admire in him. (Check out the Wikipedia link on 'Pax Americana' – it is, I believe, a fairly concise and balanced consideration of the term.)<br /><br />I think the questions engendered by the concept of Pax Americana are vital to the continued health, strength, and future of our nation. Do we truly live in such a changed world that we must entirely jettison every reason and precept of the American Revolution and our Founding Fathers in favor of a neo-British-Empire (our new American Empire) with exactly all of the same excesses, abuses, and problems that our forefathers rebelled against?<br /><br />I don't think the average American is even aware that we have over 6,000 large, complex, and wildly expensive bases worldwide. While many of them are here in the states to protect our borders and train our forces, literally thousands of them are not. These are not temporary bases in response to an existing security threat. These are permanent military installations in over 130 countries and growing all the time. Most nations where we run these small colonial "footprints" (as our current leaders like to call them) are understandably scared to death of opposing the American hegemony and asking for their sovereignty back.<br /><br />The once independent, non-Imperial 'United States' have only recently been building this Empire. Before WWII, almost none of it was in place. Every decade since, our rhetoric and action have increasingly accelerated towards Empire. Perhaps a modicum of increased defense was required in the changed world, but I would argue we've gone much too far and we're headed the wrong direction.<br /><br />Many of my friends and colleagues welcome this recent turn of events. "Somebody has to force the world to be a safe place," they argue. "Who better than us? I am sure," they contend, "that we are better than anybody else to consider the worlds' best interests as we send our military out to enforce democracy."<br /><br />Those ideas, however, are wrong in so many ways! If you are Mormon and reading this, than I am certain you can see the philosophical parallels to what we believe to be one of the fundamental differences between the Savior and the Devil. The Savior upheld the universal necessity of free will, while the Devil proposed a radical new hierarchy wherein morality would be forced with [what he argued was a negligible] loss of freedom and autonomy.<br /><br />Ron Paul talks about the sovereignty of nations. He reminds us that we expect other nations to respect ours and we should respect theirs. He has considerable – and I believe well-informed – philosophical doubts about the success of forcing value changes at the barrel of a gun versus inviting changes in values through consistent example and action.<br /><br />I can see how there might need to be a reasonable debate about how much of the Empire to dismantle. And how quickly. It is similar to the debates on nuclear and chemical weapon reduction in the 1980's. At one point it was reasonably estimated that the US alone had the current capacity to annihilate the entire planet some 1300 times over. Consequently, it was the considered wisdom of compromises and open debate that the nuclear stockpile could be seriously reduced without leaving our nation either vulnerable or weakened. Much redundancy was maintained for judicious reasons. But, as I understand it, the perhaps 'overzealous' expansion of our nuclear stockpile was indeed slowed to combat the innumerable <em>unintended consequences</em> that we had discovered. We had gone past even the point of 'diminishing returns' to the place where too many nukes were actually becoming more of a liability than a strength.<br /><br />In considering our global Empire, what we should certainly <i>not</i> do is continue to ratchet up the pre-emptive wars and foreign military bases without some pause for consideration of what we have in place already. Admittedly, assessing the state, scope, and influences of our Empire is increasingly difficult. Many of our overseas bases and installations are 'off the books' so to speak. Even non-classified installations are often prepared with intense secrecy and disinformation – with our 'national security' cited as trumping both the right of our regular citizens and even our duly elected Congress members to be involved with the building of base-colonies on foreign soil until <i>after</i> they are complete. (I could probably write a book on the number of purposefully inaccurate DoD/Intelligence community reports to Congressional leaders that have ended up being exposed in recent decades – and remember that's only when they got caught so that normal people like me could even be aware of it.)</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">But, regardless of how they get their start, once these bases are in place they wield considerable influence over the nations they exist in. To argue otherwise is simply foolishness.<br /><br />We have few "traditional colonies" in the world today. That method of colonialism is no longer acceptable in the modern world. But the whole concept of 'Pax Americana' recalls to my mind these words of wisdom from Alexander Pope:<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><blockquote><em>Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,<br />As to be hated needs but to be seen;<br />Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,<br />We first endure, then pity,<br />then embrace.<br /></em><br />– <em>Essay on Man</em>. Epistle ii. Line 217 </blockquote>Many of the official agency reports coming out of our Federal institutions these last few years openly telegraph our new plans to radically and hastily <em>increase</em> our numbers of foreign military bases. Generally this is cited as being in the interest of what is clearly an expanding definition of 'national security.' Furthermore, much of the rhetoric coming from our current administration warns of impending first-strikes against nations that have not, indeed, attacked our soil – or anybody at all, in most cases.<br /><br />When, exactly was it that we repudiated everything our Founding Fathers stood for in their revolution against Empire? And if we decide, as some have suggested, that it was sometime after our victories in the 'Good War' – and remember, I don't have a problem with our battles against the Imperial Japanese or the Imperial Germans – have we discovered any unintended consequences to our own expanding Empire that we need to re-examine? Please comment.</span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-68947987114618951872007-12-13T12:43:00.000-07:002007-12-14T10:48:25.443-07:00High Treason and the Founding Fathers<span style="font-size:130%;"><blockquote><strong><em>A toast, to high treason. <p>That's what these men were committing when they signed the Declaration. <p>Had we lost the war, they would've been hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered, and oh! oh my personal favorite, had their entrails cut out and </em>burned<em>! <p align="left">So, here's to the men who did what was considered wrong, in order to do what they knew was right.</em></strong><p align="right"><a href="http://128.187.40.29/moviequotes/treason.wav">Ben Gates in <i>National Treasure</i></a><br /><br /></p></blockquote><div align="left">In the 2003 film, National Treasure, the fictional Ben Gates toasted our Founding Fathers' convictions. I think it is worth recalling exactly <i>why</i> they were willing to place their lives on the line and <i>what</i> was so wrong with the British Empire that they were dangerously and unconventionally rebelling against it. I sometimes take for granted that everybody knows what the American Revolution was about. But when yesterday's blog entry referred to Washington's Farewell Adress as kinda being something people know about generally, I quickly got feedback that - unfortunately - that's fairly rare these days. Which is really too bad.<br /><br />But Hey! that's why I blog. :]<br /><br />I've posted Washington's Farewell Address as a blog entry so that I could bookmark specific parts of it and link right to them. I think I'll do the same with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution at least.<br /><br />I have noticed a growing number of politicians and pundits writing and opining that the Constitution is woefully "outdated" or, more precisely, a "mere piece of paper." Times have changed, they challenge, and the wisdom of our forefathers no longer serves in the world we live in now. I think such thinking merits analysis. It certainly deserves an honest, open debate.<br /><br />I, for one, am still with the Founding Fathers. I believe in liberty, hope, peace, and equality in the pursuit of happiness for all people.<br /><br />I grant that there are those that genuinely [and rightly] question the 'vaunted wisdom' of those early patriots. In those first steps of our Republic, they contend, there was no equality for either gender or race. Women couldn't vote at all. Slavery was actually somewhat protected as an institution - or at least officially recognized in half of the nation. I would agree, that by my reckoning, those are gaping holes in liberty. But I would invite anybody who rationally questions what went wrong to study the history. Arguably, the meetings, documents, institutions, and decisions of those founding rebels are precisely what set in motion our original Bill of Rights, abolition, universal suffrage, and most other revolutionary liberties that Americans often take for granted today.<br /><br />Indeed, most of the Bill of Rights and other missing protections (including egregious examples such as complete abolition slavery and universal suffrage) were strongly argued <i>for</i> by at least some representatives. There were those who lost strong debates on such liberties to heartbreaking compromise, but could see that such freedoms could be clearly granted by what they were then setting in motion. Some continued to champion such unfulfilled guaranties of liberty throughout their lives of public service. The rapid ratification of the first ten amendments is testament to the ongoing debate.<br /><br />Of those that intimate that those "ancient" debates and writings bear little relevance in our modern world, I would request a sincere and transparent discussion. The United States has one of the oldest, if not <i>the</i> oldest functioning Constitution in use today. Maybe it is, indeed, (as has been opined) completely outdated.<br /><br />Certainly our current leaders – with their strong regard for strength through empire, standing armies, and the use of force – are out of sync with the kind of passions and beliefs that forged our original Union.<br /><br />I believe we are at crucial juncture. We crossed a line when we pre-emptively conquered Iraq and then we crossed another when we stayed and made them a de-facto colony in order to build more permanent military bases. You certainly don't have to look far to find powerful politicians and pundits that reject the ideals of our anti-Empire, pro-Liberty Founding Fathers. The question is, then: do you?<br /><br />[I'll close with another great National Treasure quote (this time quoting the Declaration of Independence).]<br /><br /></div><blockquote><em>Ben Gates:"<strong>'But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.' People don't talk that way anymore.</strong>"<br /><br />Riley Poole:"<strong>Beautiful. No idea what you said.</strong>"<br /></em></blockquote><p align="right"><a href="http://128.187.40.29/moviequotes/noidea.wav">Audio from <i>National Treasure</i></a></span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-48389050532172336202007-12-13T12:38:00.000-07:002007-12-13T12:42:23.460-07:00Source Document - The Bill of Rights and other ratified U.S. Constitutional Amendments<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Bill of Rights and other ratified U.S. Constitutional Amendments</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span></strong>1789<br /></span><br /><strong>Amendment I</strong><br /><br />Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment II</strong><br /><br />A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment III</strong><br /><br />No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment IV </strong><br /><strong><br /></strong>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment V</strong><br /><br />No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment VI </strong><br /><strong><br /></strong>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment VII </strong><br /><strong><br /></strong>In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment VIII</strong><br /><strong><br /></strong>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment IX </strong><br /><strong><br /></strong>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment X</strong><br /><br />The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XI</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795. Note: Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution was modified by Amendment 11.<br />The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XII</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804. Note: A portion of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th Amendment.<br /><br />The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.<br /><br />* Superseded by Section 3 of the 20th Amendment.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XIII</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. Note: A portion of Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th Amendment.<br /><br />Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.<br /><br />Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XIV</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. Note: Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution was modified by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.<br /><br />Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.<br /><br />Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.<br /><br />Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.<br /><br />Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.<br /><br />Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.<br />* Changed by Section 1 of the 26th Amendment.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XV</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.<br />Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.<br /><br />Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XVI</strong><br /><strong><br /></strong>Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913. Note: Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution was modified by Amendment 16.<br />The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XVII</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913. Note: Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th Amendment.<br />The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This Amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XVIII</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by Amendment 21.<br /><br />Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.<br /><br />Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.<br /><br />Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an Amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XIX</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.<br />The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XX</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933. Note: Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution was modified by Section 2 of this Amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th Amendment was superseded by Section 3.<br /><br />Section 1. The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.<br /><br />Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.<br /><br />Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.<br /><br />Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.<br /><br />Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.<br /><br />Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an Amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XXI</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.<br />Section 1. The eighteenth article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.<br /><br />Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.<br /><br />Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an Amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XXII</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.<br />Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more that once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.<br /><br />Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an Amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XXIII</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.<br />Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of Amendment.<br /><br />Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XXIV</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.<br />Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.<br /><br />Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XXV</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967. Note: Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th Amendment.<br /><br />Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.<br /><br />Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.<br /><br />Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.<br /><br />Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XXVI</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971. Note: Amendment 14, Section 2, of the Constitution was modified by Section 1 of the 26th Amendment.<br /><br />Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.<br /><br />Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.<br /><br /><strong>Amendment XXVII</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.<br /><br />No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-58826267968242139312007-12-13T12:34:00.000-07:002007-12-13T12:36:54.920-07:00Source Document - Constitution of the United States<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Constitution of the United States</span></strong><br /><br />1787<br /><br />WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.<br /><br /><strong>ARTICLE I</strong><br /><br />Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.<br /><br />Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.<br /><br />No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.<br /><br />Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.<br /><br />When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.<br /><br />The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.<br /><br />Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.<br /><br />Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.<br /><br />No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.<br /><br />The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.<br />The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.<br /><br />The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.<br /><br />Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of Honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.<br /><br />Section 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.<br />The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.<br /><br />Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.<br /><br />Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.<br /><br />Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.<br /><br />Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.<br /><br />No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time: and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.<br /><br />Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.<br /><br />Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Section Law. Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.<br />Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;<br />To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.<br />Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.<br /><br />The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.<br /><br />No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.<br /><br />No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.<br /><br />No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.<br /><br />No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.<br /><br />No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.<br /><br />No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.<br />Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.<br />No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.<br />No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.<br /><br /><strong>ARTICLE II</strong><br /><br />Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:<br />Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.<br /><br />The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.<br /><br />The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.<br /><br />In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.<br /><br />The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.<br /><br />Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."<br /><br />Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.<br /><br />He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.<br />The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.<br /><br />Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.<br /><br />Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.<br /><br /><strong>ARTICLE III</strong><br /><br />Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.<br /><br />Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.<br /><br />The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.<br /><br />Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.<br /><br />The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.<br /><br /><strong>ARTICLE IV</strong><br /><br />Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.<br /><br />Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.<br /><br />A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.<br />No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.<br /><br />Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.<br /><br />The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.<br /><br />Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.<br /><br /><strong>ARTICLE V</strong><br /><br />The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.<br /><br /><strong>ARTICLE VI</strong><br /><br />All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.<br /><br />This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.<br /><br />The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.<br /><br /><strong>ARTICLE VII</strong><br /><br />The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.<br /><br />Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,<br /><br />George Washington - President and deputy from VirginiaNew Hampshire: John Langdon, Nicholas GilmanMassachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus KingConnecticut: William Samuel Johnson, Roger ShermanNew York: Alexander HamiltonNew Jersey: William Livingston, David Brearly, William Paterson, Jonathan DaytonPennsylvania: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouverneur MorrisDelaware: George Read, Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jacob BroomMaryland: James McHenry, Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer, Daniel CarrollVirginia: John Blair, James Madison, Jr.<br />North Carolina: William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh WilliamsonSouth Carolina: John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce ButlerGeorgia: William Few, Abraham BaldwinDoughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-67884647921164696202007-12-13T12:30:00.000-07:002007-12-13T12:32:51.696-07:00Source Document - The Declaration of Independence<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Declaration of Independence</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span></strong>IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776<br /></span><br />The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America<br /><br />WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.<br /><br />WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.<br /><br />He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.<br /><br />He has forbidden his Governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.<br /><br />He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.<br /><br />He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.<br /><br />He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.<br /><br />He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.<br /><br />He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.<br /><br />He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.<br /><br />He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.<br /><br />He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the Consent of our legislature.<br />He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.<br /><br />He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:<br />For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:<br />For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States:<br />For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:<br />For imposing taxes on us without our consent:<br />For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:<br />For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:<br />For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies:<br />For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:<br />For suspending our own legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.<br /><br />He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.<br /><br />He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.<br /><br />He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.<br /><br />He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.<br /><br />He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.<br /><br />In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whole character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.<br />Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.<br /><br />We, therefore, the Representatives of the United states of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-36446557740901924932007-12-13T12:25:00.000-07:002007-12-13T12:33:19.162-07:00Source Document - George Washington's Farewell Address<strong><span style="font-size:130%;">The Farewell Address</span></strong><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span></strong>By George Washington<br />September 19, 1796<br /><br />Friends, & Fellow--Citizens:<br /><br />The period for a new election of a Citizen, to Administer the Executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be cloathed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made.<br /><br />I beg you, at the sametime, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken, without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation, which binds a dutiful Citizen to his country--and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my Situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.<br /><br />The acceptance of, & continuance hitherto in, the Office to which your Suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last Election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed & critical posture of our Affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.<br />I rejoice, that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety; & am persuaded whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.<br /><br />The impressions, with which, I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the Organization and Administration of the government, the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthned the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the encreasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotizm does not forbid it.<br /><br />In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude wch I owe to my beloved country, for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the stedfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful & persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that, under circumstances in which the Passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, viscissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of Success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence--that your Union & brotherly affection may be perpetual--that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained--that its Administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and Virtue--that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection--and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.<br />Here, perhaps, I ought to stop.<br />But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments; which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a People. These will be offered to you with the more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to biass his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your endulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.<br />Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the Attachment.<br /><br />The Unity of Government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main Pillar in the Edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home; your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that from different causes & from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal & external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly & insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective & individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual & immoveable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our Country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.<br />For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.<br />With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles. You have in a common cause fought & triumphed together--The independence & liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts--of common dangers, sufferings and successes.<br /><br />But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your Interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding & preserving the Union of the whole.<br /><br />The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal Laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of Maratime & commercial enterprise and--precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South in the same Intercourse, benefitting by the Agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow & its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation envigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish & increase the general mass of the National navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a Maratime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications, by land & water, will more & more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth & comfort--and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the Secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of Interest as one Nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own seperate strength, or from an apostate & unnatural connection with any foreign Power, must be intrinsically precarious.<br />While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate & particular Interest in Union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means & efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their Peace by foreign Nations; and, what is of inestimable value! they must derive from Union an exemption from those broils and Wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighbouring countries, not tied together by the same government; which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments & intriegues would stimulate & imbitter. Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown Military establishments, which under any form of Government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty: In this sense it is, that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.<br /><br />These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting & virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of Patriotic desire. Is there a doubt, whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective Subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. 'Tis well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to Union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason, to distrust the patriotism of those, who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.<br /><br />In contemplating the causes wch may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations--Northern and Southern--Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of Party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions & aims of other Districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies & heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render Alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal Affection. The Inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have Seen, in the Negociation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the Treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their Interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two Treaties, that with G: Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them every thing they could desire, in respect to our Foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by wch they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those Advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their Brethren and connect them with Aliens?<br />To the efficacy and permanency of Your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable. No Alliances however strict between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions & interruptions which all Alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government, better calculated than your former for an intimate Union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation & mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its Laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political Systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the People to establish Government presupposes the duty of every Individual to obey the established Government.<br /><br />All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and Associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, controul counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities are distructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.<br /><br />Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of Governments, as of other human institutions--that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing Constitution of a Country--that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses & opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion: and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a Government of as much vigour as is consistent with the perfect security of Liberty is indispensable--Liberty itself will find in such a Government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest Guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the Government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the Society within the limits prescribed by the laws & to maintain all in the secure & tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person & property.<br /><br />I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.<br /><br />This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.<br /><br />The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.<br />Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.<br /><br />It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.<br /><br />There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in Governments of a Monarchical cast Patriotism may look with endulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.<br /><br />It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its Administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional Spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, & constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient & modern; some of them in our country & under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.<br /><br />Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.<br /><br />'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of Free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric.<br /><br />Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.<br /><br />As a very important source of strength & security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible: avoiding occasions of expence by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it--avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expence, but by vigorous exertions in time of Peace to discharge the Debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your Representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue--that to have Revenue there must be taxes--that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient & unpleasant--that the intrinsic embarrassment inseperable from the Selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the Conduct of the Government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining Revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.<br /><br />Observe good faith & justice towds all Nations. Cultivate peace & harmony with all--Religion & morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice & benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages wch might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human Nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?<br />In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one Nation against another--disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate envenomed and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill will & resentment sometimes impels to War the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the Nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister & pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of Nations has been the victim.<br /><br />So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favourite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels & Wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification: It leads also to concessions to the favourite Nation of priviledges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions--by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained--& by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom eql priviledges are withheld: And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favourite Nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition corruption or infatuation.<br /><br />As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great & powerful Nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.<br /><br />Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens,), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intriegues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause & confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.<br />The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our comercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.<br /><br />Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations & collisions of her friendships, or enmities.<br /><br />Our detached & distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one People, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or War, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.<br /><br />Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice?<br />'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances,[note] with any portion of the foreign World--So far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it--for let me not be understood as capable of patronising infidility to existing engagements, (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it therefore, Let those engagements. be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.<br />Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.<br /><br />Harmony, liberal intercourse with all Nations, are recommended by policy, humanity and interest. But even our Commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favours or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing & deversifying by gentle means the streams of Commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with Powers so disposed--in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our Merchants, and to enable the Government to support them--conventional rules of intercourse;the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, & liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that 'tis folly in one Nation to look for disinterested favors from another--that it must pay with a portion of its Independence for whatever it may accept under that character--that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favours and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favours from Nation to Nation. 'Tis an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.<br /><br />In offering to you, my Countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression, I could wish--that they will controul the usual current of the passions, or prevent our Nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the Destiny of Nations: But if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now & then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign Intriegue, to guard against the Impostures of pretended patriotism--this hope will be a full recompence for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.<br />How far in the discharge of my Official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public Records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to You and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.<br /><br />In relation to the still subsisting War in Europe, my Proclamation of the 22d of April 1793 is the index to my Plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of Your Representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me; uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.<br /><br />After deliberate examination with the aid of the best lights I could obtain I was well satisfied that our Country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest, to take a Neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverence & firmness.<br /><br />The considerations, which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe, that according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the Belligerent Powers has been virtually admitted by all.<br /><br />The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every Nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of Peace and amity towards other Nations.<br /><br />The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections & experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle & mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption, to that degree of strength & consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.<br /><br />Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration, I am unconscious of intentional error--I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my Country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that after forty five years of my life dedicated to its Service, with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the Mansions of rest.<br /><br />Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a Man, who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several Generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow Citizens, the benign influence of good Laws under a free Government--the ever favourite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labours and dangers.<br /><br />Go: WashingtonDoughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-31784333614567626642007-12-12T10:30:00.000-07:002007-12-12T13:59:44.100-07:00Hate-Radio Propaganda, National Sovereignty, and George Washington's Farewell Address<span style="font-size:130%;">The other day I called in to a local radio show. This was a few days before the new NIE report that, thankfully, seems to have ratcheted down the rhetoric on Iran a bit. The formulaic gimmick for generating callers that morning was: 'let's talk about recent and outrageous miscarriages of justice in the Sudan (the teddy bear named Muhammad) and Saudi Arabia (the condemned rape victim) in order to get people worked into a supportive and patriotic frenzy for bombing Iran'. I <i>do</i> understand that's the standard MO for talk radio. And, no, I don't think the topic was any part of a 'warmongering conspiracy'. But once enough propaganda has made it's way into general discourse, the ideas become pretty self-perpetuating. I really objected to this particular propaganda and so I felt obliged to call in and say so.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I started off by stating that both of these tragedies were, of course, indefensible and – I hoped – might reasonably help us reconsider our strange national alliances – in this case our alliance with Saudi Arabia in particular. As we look closer at the laws on the books and the way they are carried out in some of these countries, I said, it seemed unwise to be providing those same regimes with billions of dollars worth of the latest military machines to push their agendas with.</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The host, of course, started to agree until he heard me suggest that tired 'no entangling alliances' meme from George Washington's farewell address. Then the host backpedaled and said that maybe the world has changed too much to heed advice like that anymore. I've called in to that show enough that I felt comfortable asking if I could make my second point and take my answer off air. He obliged (I'd been fairly succinct and polite) and I stated it:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The show started off with two far-flung travesties of justice in entirely different non-neighboring countries which only happen to have Muslim majorities. It seemed like dangerous propaganda to me when the justification of bombing Iran was suddenly conflated with those events in Sudan and Afghanistan. It was, I said, too similar to propaganda on communist television during the Cold War. There'd be an isolated hate crime against a some religious minority in Canada perhaps and something similarly tragic like a school shooting in Scotland maybe and the point of the broadcast would be that nations like the U.S. (not mentioned in either story) who get caught up in the dangerous expression of religions and who are, further, free to distribute guns to regular citizens are the most <i>frightening</i> and <i>violent</i> on the planet.</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I said I worried that a such a similar setup for that day's morning show was going to mostly draw poorly considered racist-hate comments from callers for the entire program. [Indeed, I'd had to sit through two or three long, racist tirades that the host had tried to tone down while waiting to speak.] Perhaps that rang true with someone because – for that morning at least – they switched topics after my call.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">I'm not really sure at which point <i>reasonable and logical similarity</i> becomes <i>pernicious, conflated propaganda</i>. I don't think I've considered it much before. I would likely do well to be more careful of it myself. Perhaps it has to do with your dedication to 'fairness' and your respect for 'reality'. By this I mean, that too many messages out there have ulterior motives as their ultimate endgame. Some pundits and leaders seem to care less about accuracy, fairness, and reality than they do about generating controversy, provoking discussion, or – far too often – promoting a pre-determined ideology.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Of course that gets me thinking about Ron Paul and why I really like his leadership the more I take a look at it. He is studiously judicious in what events he believes do or do not have relevant relation to each other – and he can defend his reasoning quite clearly. (eg he <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">does</span> find it reasonable to point out that our general policy of asymmetric military intervention incites Anti-American resentment throughout the globe, but he does not find it reasonable to exactly label every US military action in the Middle East a 'measured response to the attacks of 9/11'.) His lack of polish when he simply states things as he sees them is remarkably reassuring. When he does find himself falling back on ideology he is extremely transparent in hearkening back to the principles laid out by the Founding Fathers.<br /><br />Consequently, Paul is the only Presidential candidate confidently preaching that George Washington's warnings are <i>not</i> too old-fashioned – but needed more than ever. Further, he is intimately familiar with those warnings; he understands them; and he can communicate them clearly.</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Paul proposes that long-term, sovereignty-sapping, entangling alliances complicate the world and our foreign policy in ways that are bad for everyone. We need to deal with the Iranians, and the Pakistanis, and the Sudanese, and the Saudis on more <i>transparent terms</i> – and not based on back-channel promises, unwise military pacts, and multitudinous pressures from "allies" who may not share our world-views or goals.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Here's a link to </span><a href="http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Documents/Farewell%20Address.htm"><span style="font-size:130%;">Washington's Farewell Address</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> where he warns against both "apostate & unnatural connection with any foreign Power" and "overgrown Military establishments, which under any form of Government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty". </span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">[Given Romney's recent speech you may also be interested to read that portion that begins "... Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness ..."]</span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-55656790030833518332007-12-06T10:02:00.003-07:002007-12-10T10:51:22.636-07:00Romney's Speech on Religious Freedom in America<span style="font-size:130%;">I have to say that Mitt Romney exceeded my hopes and expectations with his speech about Religious Freedom in America. </span><span style="font-size:130%;">It wasn't a perfect message, of course, but it deserves praise for what it did well.</span><span style="font-size:130%;"> That speech was Romney at his best. I'm even going to revise the title of my previous blog post criticizing his potential speech; to my way of thinking, at least, that was a speech that <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mattered</span> and made a good difference in the world.<br /><br />I truly admired his clear and unabashed references to religion in the lives of our founders, in the "symphony" of faiths in our current populace, and in his personal life. He focused on common beliefs, bore a sincere testimony, didn't back away from his beliefs, and really delivered . . . maybe Paul could use him in the cabinet somewhere. I'd back that. :]</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />I still think he is over the top when he cites "radical Islam" itself as America's greatest danger, but he was pretty careful in that speech to both openly praise the good, common beliefs of many faiths in America (including Muslims) and specify that it's only the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">radical</span> Muslims he believes we need to fear. I'll stick my neck out and profer that I honestly fear <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">radical</span> Christians and Secularists in this country (like those inventing some of the belligerent-imperialist worldviews that Romney seems to have bought into so deeply) as much or more than <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">radical</span> Muslims. Somehow Romney seems blinded to this. <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Radical Muslims </span>frighten him. <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Radical Secularists</span> worry him. Heck, I'm concerned about both of those as well. But he doesn't seem to see the common thread that would indicate that <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">radical <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">anything</span></span> is pretty scary.<br /><br />Nevertheless, any mainstream politician that is willing to speak out in such an eloquent and sincere way in the defense of the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">good</span> in religion – and a brazen belief in God – impresses me. It is simply a fact that such beliefs defined our Founding Fathers. The idea that a number of them might have been skeptical about specific denominational observances is not necessarily anything derogatory – in fact it illuminates both their sense of reason and tolerance. Likewise, the fact that a few expressed a sense of deism in personal belief, for instance, still puts those founders a long way from secular atheism.<br /><br />As Romney emphasized, our laws and principles were <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">predicated on</span> and <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">informed by</span> religious laws, principles, and a sincere belief in God. A <a href="http://www.amazon.com/American-Political-Writing-Founding-1760-1805/dp/0865970386">thorough study</a> at the University of Houston [examining nearly 15,000 political essays written between 1760 and 1805] shows that <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">overwhelmingly</span> the Bible was the most frequently quoted text informing political thought. (After that it was Blackstone, Montesque, Locke, etc. - but far behind the Bible.) You simply cannot understand the worldview of our Founding Fathers without considering their readings of the Bible and their beliefs about man's divine origin.<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />On the other hand, sometimes Romney seemed to go too far in his pandering to hard-core evangelicals. Not only did he not seem too worried about weaving in his traditional Islamic scare, but he didn't show much awareness or tolerance for those who might currently be lacking a specific faith. It would have been wonderful for Romney to reach out in tolerance, understanding, and exemplary confidence with a more inclusive and less condemning message but quite frankly I didn't expect the full wisdom of President Hinckley at the podium. Of the candidates who <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">are</span> in the race, if you want Romney's observance of our Christian foundations <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">plus </span>a thoughtful and inclusive message <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">plus</span> true regard for liberty then you should probably vote Ron Paul.</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />But Romney's heartfelt speech was successful in its ability to </span><span style="font-size:130%;">convey </span><span style="font-size:130%;">both </span><span style="font-size:130%;">his own sincere convictions <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">and</span> the central role of religious expression in the foundation of this great nation. Romney highlighted that role and celebrates it – and he is right to do so.<br /><br />That unique balance of devoutness and tolerance exhibited by our forbears – and laid out in our Constitution – is one of the most revolutionary characteristics of this great experiment we call the United States of America. It is still providing strength and liberty more than two centuries later.<br /><br />[I'll post a youtube when I can get one. For now you can stream the speech <a href="http://www.ksl.com/?sid=&nid=520#">from KSL</a>]<br /></span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-15340210851904871652007-12-04T12:18:00.000-07:002007-12-06T14:02:34.204-07:00The Imperial Elephant in the Room<p><span style="font-size:130%;">I've noticed that when trying to discuss America's foreign policy there seems to be what is often called "an elephant in the room." And it's not the branded GOP mascot, but rather both Democrats and Republicans have been inviting this elephant into the house for decades: feeding it, grooming it, but otherwise acting completely oblivious to its presence and the awkward way family and guests alike are sometimes squashed against the wall in an effort to maneuver around it. The elephant in the living room is the growing American <span style="font-style: italic;">Empire</span>.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;">When our founding fathers found it necessary to separate from the British Empire, they had clear grievances regarding the very ideas of imperialism, colonialism, and holding the interests of large corporations [like the East India Trading Company] as more important to 'national interests' than any petty concerns of far flung individuals living abroad. Further, they were particularly sensitive to the dangers and abuses of a standing imperial army sent overseas to police a people that they didn't really understand.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;">For example, one of the key incidents that led to American Revolution is the "Boston Massacre". Three to four hundred angry civilians surrounded a regiment of British troops on the evening of March 5, 1770. The mob resented the presence of the troops - sent to protect 'Loyalist' interests in the wake of unpopular Imperial decrees - and particularly on that day the forming mob was angry about the interactions of some soldiers that had physically struck a child throwing snowballs at the troops earlier in the day. When one of the civilians struck a soldier down with a club, chaos ensued and at its end three civilians had been shot dead, with two more dying of injuries in the days to follow. That is what has entered our American history books as the 'brutal' and 'horrific' <i>Boston Massacre</i>. With tragedies far worse than this occuring almost daily in our newest colony over in Iraq, I find the irony deeply disturbing.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;">There is much that needs to be said in recalling our founding principles and relating them to our current actions. For instance, following up on the Boston Massacre in particular, it is notable that the 'rebellious Patriot' and future President John Adams agreed to legally represent the <i>British</i><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>soldiers in the incident. He felt that - despite his politics - the soldiers had indeed felt threatened and were actually just trying to do their jobs. He wrote in his diary that to have exacted vengeance upon them would have been "as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches." He felt it a moral duty to get the soldiers acquited and did so. But he also wrote that the incident was "the strongest Proofs of the Danger of Standing Armies." Not all the Patriots felt so magnanimous about it and, in fact, general outrage at the soldiers' acquitals contributed directly to the American Rebellion. Nevertheless, I find Adams' personal actions notable.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;">But back to the elephant at hand. How on earth have we moved so far from our principles that we have allowed ourselves to become <em>Imperialists</em>? When I call Iraq a colony, I am not mincing words. I am calling a spade, a spade. I am pointing directly at the elephant in the room and saying "What are we going to do with that?" What concerns me is the glib denial of our current state of affairs. We have, in fact, invaded a far away, sovereign nation that did not attack us. We have deposed the government and set up a new government that is <i>at the present time</i> as completely beholden to our interests as the original American colonies were to the British empire.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;">As neo-colonialism dictates, we have put in a place a series of promises and treaties to put a good public face on this wherein we proclaim the nation 'liberated' and explain that we are merely transitioning them to a 'new and better democracy'. But despite our innumerable claims to the contrary, we have <i>always</i> – since before the invasion – intended to set up an archipelago of <b>permanent</b> military bases (read: U.S. inland-island-colonies) in Iraq. These are intended to complement the ones left behind in Korea, Cuba, Germany, Japan, the Philippines, and <a href="http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hale/Special%20Reports/Primers2/America%27s%20Empire%20of%20Bases.htm">throughout the world</a>. Specifically, in this case, the Iraqi bases allowed us to physically relocate, expand, and upgrade our older Saudi Arabian military bases.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;">In fact – because America is still a free country – many of the documents proving that this was our intention and certainly <b>the greatest unstated reason for invading Iraq</b> have come to light in recent years. The main problem with these admissions is that not only were our original intentions not stated, but they were categorically denied – with intense campaigns of disinformation.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;">This is the new colonialism. We build great standing armies and circle the globe with them, but we are extraordinarily careful not to call ourselves a global <em>empire</em>. We likewise cultivate entangling alliances with agent nations that are not actually called our 'colonies'. It is more complex, yet in the end we do all of the things that the British Empire did when they caused our forefathers to rise up in condemnation and rebellion. It is anti-American for so many reasons that the founders could have written tomes about it – and in fact they did.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;">Perhaps if we studied our history, we would have the courage to break the taboo and have an honest debate about neo-colonialism and the new American Empire. Until we do, we are going to have to spend more and more resources trying to figure out how to properly domesticate and conceal the elephant in the room. And I for one, do not believe that to be in the best interest of <i>anyone</i> in the room.</span></p>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-44826005812522251742007-11-20T12:21:00.000-07:002007-11-21T12:19:20.823-07:00Ron Paul and Barack Obama<span style="font-size:130%;">I've spent the year trying to study the different candidates and messages regarding America's future under a new President beginning in 2008. I've particularly mentioned some candidates that I couldn't support and I think I've made my case pretty clearly as to why. But I have not spent enough time talking about the candidates and messages that I *do* believe are worthy of support.<br /><br />The two candidates that I find most compelling, given my particular values and concerns, are Barack Obama and Ron Paul. They are similar in many ways and I probably could support either of them in the general election.<br /><br />Each of them talk with sincerity about unity, honesty, communication, and freedom.<br /><br />At present, Paul gets the edge in my book. Paul is taking the much more difficult road, however, with his principled stance against special interest and lobbying funds – and consequently his actual message and platform are much less well-known.<br /><br />Obama has plenty of mainstream corporate and lobbying support which assures him a greater probability of succeeding as either a Presidential or VP candidate in the general election, but also brings with it a great deal of baggage. Obama's substantial Israeli lobby support is, I would expect, an important part of his political calculus now – to name just one example.<br /><br />Both Paul and Obama seem to have a better connection to the 'lower and middle' classes that comprise over 90% of our nation (depending on your definition, of course, read on). Congressman Paul spent decades delivering the babies of young, growing families. Senator Obama quit a law firm to follow his heart-felt calling to social work in struggling Chicago neighborhoods. The surprise and disbelief on his opponent's face last week when he asked if they realized that less than 6% of the country makes more than $97,000 (the income point that was being portrayed as 'working middle class') was just priceless – and for me, very telling. Most politicians with the means to compete at this national level are so far removed from the average citizen that it is simply unreal. But Paul and Obama – through their vocational choices – have a far greater understanding than average.<br /><br />I've discussed some of Obama's multiple strengths before, but I haven't said much about Paul and he has become the candidate I support most strongly. I'll discuss them both more in future posts. Today I'd like to introduce Paul.<br /><br />As a Latter-Day Saint my favorite parts of the Paul message are:<br /><br />1. The Constitution is an inspired document that we have all pledged to uphold. We should follow it, and if we do not intend to, we should be honest about that and discuss it.<br /><br />2. We are a Christian nation and should reasonably be expected to follow the precepts Christ taught. If we live as an <a href="http://mormonsforpeace.blogspot.com/2007/06/republic-or-empire.html#Clark">example to the world</a>, we will do far more good than if we attempt to <a href="http://mormonsforpeace.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-support-byu-its-administration-and.html#Kimball">force such values at the barrel of a gun</a>.<br /><br />3. Debt is real and must be reckoned with. The sooner the better. Denial doesn't make it go away. As Paul said the other day "My personal finances would be very good if I was borrowing $1 million a month. But someday the bills will come due." Key components in the Paul platform are reckoning with our astronomically frightening debt and fostering an atmosphere in which individuals and families could do the same. By at least one measure, simply fulfilling our current debt obligations would require $175,000 from each man, woman, and child in the nation. I don't know about you, but I won't *earn* that much this year . . . and neither will my wife or sons. The vast majority of that debt is from our ever-increasing misadventures in foreign policy. The fact that – like most debt – it's only <em>increasing</em> is not good. Furthermore, much of our debt is on loan from 'less-than-friendly' nations like China.<br /><br />4. Individual responsibility is liberating and requisite. As nations, communities, families, and individuals we should be promoting liberty and responsibilty. Paul believes that Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. should be free of our national aid grants that purchase their military hardware and their indebtedness. They could then work out agreements that made more sense in the region and weren't complicated by pandering for our financial aid. [It is assumed by some in the media that this would benefit the Arab countries more than Israel, but there are a number of groups – even within Israel – arguing the reverse. Paul's consistency on the issue frees Israel's hand. Also it prevents the US from propping up dictators that surround them – like the $10 billion dollars and F16 aircraft we just sent Mushariff in Pakistan . . . not to mention all those years alternating propping up Iran and Iraq.]<br /> Likewise, Ron Paul strongly advocates helping individuals and families break free of becoming dependent on government aid. He contends, quite convincingly, that if we were more rational in our foreign policy we would save so much money that not only would government welfare projects actually be solvent but further, individual Americans would see more money in their own pockets – which is an important step in reducing the number of people who become dependent on government aid.<br /><br />5. Finally, for Ron Paul, every individual soul has worth and should not be dismissed with a label or attacked with a collective slander. When Ron Paul talks about our schoolchildren, soldiers, or immigrants, or the citizens in Iraq, Israel, Mexico, or Darfur – he has the same message. He doesn't need to tailor his message to appeal more to the Arab League or to the WTO or to Iowa veterans. If you listen to his reasoned wisdom on Iraq, for instance, you find that he has concern for both our valiant young men and women being sent into battle <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">and</span> the innocents that sometimes find themselves 'collateral damage'. He is not a weak pacifist or an isolationist. Indeed he strongly advocated going after bin Laden and al Queda – and still does – (remember when that was a shared goal?). But he believes that each use of our considerable might should be reasoned, clearly laid out, and executed quickly and judiciously.<br /><br />Despite not being in the back pocket of any large and influential organizations, Ron Paul's message is so rational, so 'in touch with the people', so consistent, and so, well, "good" that he literally has the largest grass-roots support any presidential candidate has ever seen. His supporters put up signs and spend hours creating you-tube videos, writing letters to the editor, etc. Regardless of what you think of such efforts, please take a couple of minutes to watch one short exemplary fan-made video. Paul's words are clear and speak for themselves better than any summary I could attempt.</span><br /><br /><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: center"><br /><br /><br /><a class="abp-objtab-08528181157375918 visible ontop" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" style="LEFT: 338px! important; TOP: 33px! important" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG_HuFtP8w8"></a><a class="abp-objtab-08528181157375918 visible ontop" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" style="LEFT: 338px! important; TOP: 33px! important" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG_HuFtP8w8"></a><a class="abp-objtab-08528181157375918 visible ontop" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" style="LEFT: 338px! important; TOP: 33px! important" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG_HuFtP8w8"></a><object height="350" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG_HuFtP8w8"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG_HuFtP8w8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></embed></object></div>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-74752925123568071962007-11-15T17:37:00.000-07:002007-12-06T11:18:28.439-07:00Some Potential Hypocrisy in Romney's Talk<span style="font-size:130%;">Romney is weakened a bit in his potential to give a JFK-like straight-talk about his private religion – and how it should in no way influence people to discriminate against the job he could do as a public executive. This is because – despite his apparent sincerity and dedication in his private religious observance – he seems to be overlooking the gravity of one of his key public failings in that observance. And his advisors may actually be correct that consequently he would do better to play it down, rather than highlight it.</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />The sad fact of the matter is that Romney's own blatant discrimination against Muslims in general [for political gain] – and his facile echoings of the exaggerations, slanders, and lies leveled against Islam generally – have hobbled him as a moral authority in speaking of respect for religious freedom in American politics.<br /><br />Without doubt, there would be some hypocrisy in Romney going before the American people and talking up the cherished freedom of religion that we all enjoy. It would be disingenuous to propose that he strictly embodies his own religious creed that<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;">"<span style="font-weight: bold;">We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.</span>"</span></blockquote>In saying this, let me emphasize that I am not questioning his faithfulness as a Mormon. Indeed, I've commented many times that I think Mitt Romney is an excellent example of a faithful Mormon for the public eye. He is positive, cheerful, sober, intelligent, hard-working, and – very impressive to me as a father of four boys – appears to have the strong support of five remarkably successful sons. His relationship with his wife and children is a strong testament to me of his character. One that can simply not be dismissed.<br /><br />Furthermore, contrary to some, I have been impressed with nearly every instance where I've seen him pressed on Mormon doctrine, culture, and beliefs. His knowledge, practice, and well-spoken answers leave me sincerely impressed with Mitt as one attempting to live as a "Latter Day Saint". It is no wonder that he has served in various ecclesiastical leadership positions and I am well satisfied that he has done as well as anyone can in those capacities – which is no small feat. And a great sacrifice which few outside the faith are likely to be aware of.<br /><br />On the other hand, I've never met a perfect person and consequently I've never known a perfect Mormon. Tragically, one of the only public failings that I've seen evinced in Mitt Romney coincides bafflingly with the question of religious bigotry. [His <a href="http://mormonsforpeace.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-is-mitt-romney-such-warmonger.html">other public failings</a> seem inextricably linked with this. As much as I like Mitt the person, many of his weaknesses are right where I think our nation's leadership is most lacking at the moment.]<br /><br />Following lock-step in the dubious advice of such Washington luminaries as Cofer Black (VP of Blackwater) and Norman Podhoretz (<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010139">publicly "praying" that we bomb Iran regardless of diplomacy</a>), Mitt Romney has made anti-Muslim-defamation a key plank in his presidential platform. As <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/21/romneys_misstep_with_muslims/">Massachusetts</a> governor he proposed specifically wiretapping every Mosque suspected of preaching "hate" and investigating every University student from a known Islamic nation. As a presidential candidate he has talked numerous times about the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOPp9K1JUCs">imminent danger</a> of a present war that will end only with a Muslim 'caliphate.' Consciously or not, he is a key figure spreading the fear that Muslims generally advocate the violent overthrow of the world's nations in order to unite under a pure Islamic leader. And he is using that fear to pander to the frightened for their votes.<br /><br />There is something profoundly wrong with promulgating the known falsehood that the Muslim religion *itself* is filled with hatred, blasphemous genocidal justification, and dangerous fanatical calls to 'jihad' – and then asking the American people to overlook any of the probably over-wrought falsehoods about his own religion that they may have heard.<br /><br />Indeed, almost every world religion can be painted as dangerous and full of fanatics. Ironically, Muslims share many of the same criticisms as the Jews and the Christians. The Old Testament has a great number of frighteningly black or white calls for God's People to entirely wipe out another nation, for instance, or stone – to death – an apparent sinner. Those passages are certainly not, in my opinion, precisely representative of the larger text. And neither are the few similar passages in the Koran.<br /><br />Nevertheless, you can always find a modern rabbi, or Christian preacher [with an actual following] who emphasizes such frightening passages in ways that the majority of Jews or Christians would be quick to repudiate. Additionally, you don't have to look very far in the past to find Christian [or Jewish] leadership colluding with (or at least appeasing) evil madmen intent on murdering innocent populations of people to make political statements. The local Catholic leadership's relationship in Germany and Spain with Hitler and Franco, respectively, are just two well-known examples. Despite what some will say are crucial differences inherent in the Muslim faith that the 'politically correct' crowd is glossing over, it simply is not so.<br /><br />Given his religious heritage, I find it especially disturbing that Romney would embrace such obvious distortion and bigotry about another faith. A century and a half ago, his religious ancestors found such fears and slanders of their own beliefs magnified to the point that the surrounding populations in Missouri and Illinois were agitated to violence against the Mormons generally. Much of it was later found to be orchestrated by evil-intentioned politicians and mis-informed, but well-intentioned, religious people.<br /><br />If Mitt Romney wants to offer "True Strength for America's Future", he would do well to consider if the founders had divine inspiration in protecting diverse religious freedoms and why it was that stunning portion of Joseph's Smith's letter [written to John Wentworth of the Chicago Democrat – and containing a resolute defense of the sanctity of individual religious thought in <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1/11#11">Article 11</a> –] was canonized in his personal religious tradition.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it is clear that Romney is so far down the road of defamation against a particular religious tradition – so contrary to both his own private religious conviction <em>and </em>what he must ask of the general populace for himself – that he cannot in all sincerity speak of it effectively during this campaign.</span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-45096867369174321672007-06-27T14:46:00.000-06:002007-11-21T17:06:10.442-07:00Republic or Empire?<span style="font-size:130%;">The founders of our nation were great students of history. Many of their friendships and bonds came from a mutual appreciation of great thinkers and great writers. The tenets of our sovereignty were forged in a manner unlike any other nation. There were great debates lasting months, even years. Great philosophies were dissected, deconstructed, and held to the light of experience, reason, history, and judicious analysis.<br /><br />For more than a decade after these United States won their independence, great thinkers wrote, studied, debated and convened to set the right course for what would emerge as the uniquely democratic republic called the United States of America.<br /><br />Famously [according to the notes of a Maryland delegate to the Convention of 1787], as the last day of Constitutional deliberation drew to a close and the attendees were exiting Independence Hall:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><blockquote><p><span style="font-size:130%;">A lady asked Dr. Franklin, </span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;">"Well Doctor, what have we got: a republic or a monarchy?"</span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;">"<strong><em>A republic</em></strong>," replied the Doctor, "<strong><em>if you can keep it</em></strong>."</span></p></blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;">The ever astute Benjamin Franklin set the correct challenge before us those many years ago. Can we keep the republic envisioned by our inspired founders? Or will we fall to the natural temptation to choose monarchy and empire . . . to trade liberty for security and bondage? </span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />This is not an outdated question. In all of recorded history there have been powerful leaders who articulately, resolutely, and logically argued for the cause of empire – and against the ennervating freedoms of the common people. Some of the most famous clashes amongst our own founders were upon this question. But they — all of them – ratified, in the end, a system which favored freedom above security and democracy above hierarchy. History is full of the regimes that decided otherwise – and the atrocious abuses of power that resulted.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there is no question about it for a surprising number of our current leaders. They strongly advocate <em>empire</em>. If history is any guide, it is clear what path they are championing. And it is not a path I want to follow.<br /><br /><a name="Clark"></a>President <a href="http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=84010fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=1&bucket=AllChurchContent&query=J.+Reuben+Clark&submit=Search"> J. Reuben Clark</a> put it best, perhaps:<br /><br /></span><blockquote><p><span style="font-size:130%;">"For America has a destiny – a destiny to conquer the world – not by force of arms, not by purchase and favor, for these conquests wash away, but by high purpose, by unselfish effort, by uplifting achievement, by a course of Christian living; a conquest that shall leave every nation free to move out to its own destiny; a conquest that shall bring, through the workings of our own example, the blessings of freedom and liberty to every people, without restraint or imposition or compulsion from us; a conquest that shall weld the whole earth together in one great brotherhood in a reign of mutual patience, forbearance, and charity, in a reign of peace to which we shall lead all others by the persuasion of our own righteous example."</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;">Finally, since I don't seem to be following up with my writing goals lately (lol) or moving (as indicated) to my new blog yet, here is a relevant discussion at an <a href="http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/empire-or-republic">outstanding blog </a>I just found last week. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;">Also, a website that has umpteen thousand recent articles and books on this topic: "<a href="http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/">Liberty Park, USA</a>" . . . I especially recommend </span><a href="http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hale/index.htm"><span style="font-size:130%;">http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hale/index.htm</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> and </span><a href="http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Franklin/index.htm"><span style="font-size:130%;">http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Franklin/index.htm</span></a><span style="font-size:130%;"> </span></p><blockquote><span style="font-size:130%;"></span></blockquote>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519418903407202773.post-15868513811827774182007-06-05T10:37:00.000-06:002007-06-05T11:48:08.974-06:00The Reality Disconnect<span style="font-size:130%;">This morning I was at the dentist for a couple of hours and had the opportunity to hear a good deal of President Bush's speech to the "Democracy and Security" forum at the G8 convention.</span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />The speech was great rhetoric but completely disconnected from reality. He tried to tackle the questions of our Iraqi occupation, for which I commend him. Somehow, however, he was trying to connect internal democratic revolutions of the past with our violent, foreign occupation of Iraq in the present. It was a pretty speech, but vulgar in its absolute disregard for truth, reality, and reason.<br /><br />Lets be frank about this. President Bush talked about East Germans defying communism by praying in their living rooms and contributing to the end of the Berlin Wall. Then he talked about humble organizers amongst dock workers in Poland bringing about the democratic revolution there. Those are great stories but they are basically the antithesis of what is happening in Iraq. This was not the Iraqi people standing up to tyranny and oppression. This was an outside force coming in to depose one tyranny and forecefully impose a new order. It is about the most unwise connection you could try to make.<br /><br />I would love to know how these speeches get written. Does President Bush have a hand in writing these? Do they get vetted through any aides? Does the President ever sit in the middle of his own speech and say "OK, what??" Or do his aides cringe when he adds these kind of ideas and refuses to heed advice to cut them from speeches.<br /><br />In contrast, I heard a fairly rational analysis from Tony Lagouranis on the radio as I drove in to work. He discussed his book on the questions of prisoner interrogation in the Iraqi war. It was not the disconnected stories (and red herrings) that the President was dishing out this morning.<br /><br />Lagouranis was one of the first interrogators sent to Iraq. He quickly discovered that the architects of this war went out of their way to say that "the detainees that they had were not covered by the Geneva Conventions". His book discusses how the events at Abu Ghraib were often the rule and not the exception (even after the PR fiasco). He was deeply disturbed by his orders and continued to be disturbed when he got back to the states. He explains that many people that got rounded up for interrogation were ultimately proved to not be involved with resistance forces – but that so much harm was done to them in trying to assess them, that they left (if they left at all) as an enemy of our occupying force.<br /><br />So he wrote a book to talk about facts and ask questions. I commend that. I think there are a lot of facts that need discussion and some difficult questions that need revisiting. If we are going to promote "Democracy and Security" in the world, lets actually <em>do it</em>, not just give pretty speeches about it to try to obscure the reality of our current actions.</span><br /><br />Note: I am cross-posting this at a new blog site called "<a href="http://www.poliplain.com">Politics in Plain English</a>". I was kinda hoping this blog would turn into a "group" of Mormons pressing for peace, but since it's more just my own silly soapbox, I'm thinking that having "Mormons" in the title is kinda mis-representative and it would be better to just post over at my new site in the future. Also, the Cheney protests at BYU showed me that there are plenty of Mormons concerned about peace and US foreign policy and that they are discovering their voices just fine as well. :] Thanks though to anybody who's ever taken the time to read my crazy musings and/or post here. :)<br /><br /></span>Doughttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02005947277425774328noreply@blogger.com3