Finishing the Job and Fighting to Win

I am tired of the worn out and misguided meme about "finishing the job" in Iraq.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

First of all – let's get this out of the way – the Iraqi invasion had nothing whatsoever 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.

So what are we doing in Iraq?

1) We are building an unprecedented network of American military and intelligence bases set to be our permanent bastion in the Middle East and from which we can conduct all further "national security operations" in the Mideastern Theatre into the conceivable future.

2) We are securing American [and other promised Western] Oil contracts -- again, in the interest of "national energy security".

3) We are employing slave labor to build a high walled city-within-a-city (larger than the Vatican) in Baghdad in order that Iraq (and their neighbors) never, ever forget who is really in charge over there.

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 BlackWater USA 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.

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.

Tell me again why we should "finish" that job.

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"?

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".

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.

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.

I've quoted him before on this site, but it bears repeating:

"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."

I also think it is relevant to recall once again what President Kimball said in the First Presidency Message of June, 1976:

"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:

"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;

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 5:44-45). "

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 ('collateral damage' it is politely termed) that so many Americans are willing to close their eyes to.

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 He loves all of us equally], when we allow our nation to behave like an Imperial Conquistador it also affects our specific freedoms at home in adverse ways. Not just "blowback" which clearly makes our nation less safe (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".

Freedom

Has the American invasion and occupation of Iraq provided freedom and liberty for its people?

Does the average Iraqi have more freedom today than they had under Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?

P.S. Don't get me wrong. I know that many (from my experience, the vast 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.

A Reflection on the "War on Terror"

I find myself increasingly being asked to explain my disapproval of the current war to friends and family.

It's simple really. I'm against war. I know for a fact that war brings with it attendant murder, lies, and intractable problems. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 because 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.

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.

Some of the Reasons I'm Voting Ron Paul on Super Tuesday

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.

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.

Here's the tape [If you really want to get right to the good stuff drag the slider to about 3minutes and 10seconds]:

Summary:

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.

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).

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 conservative or liberal. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Standing for Something

Gordon Bitner Hinckley June 23, 1910 - January 27, 2008

President Gordon B. Hinckley is far and away one of the most 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'.

I can in no way sufficiently summarize my estimation of 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 life he lived and find renewed inspiration in it.

I particularly admired his courage, his wisdom, his love, his open-mindedness, his humor, his kindness, his encouragement of learning, his positive outlook, his hope, 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.

Amazing Grace: an Inside Job

I recently watched the film Amazing Grace with my wife and my oldest son (on the MLK holiday which made it even better).

I can't believe I'd missed this one!

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.

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 John Newton (Amazing Grace writer and former Slave Ship captain who repented, became a minister, and profoundly inspired the British abolitionist Wilberforce), William Wilberforce, and William Pitt (British Prime Minister at 24 and sometimes Wilberforce's friend and co-conspirator in the abolitionist movement).

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.

But I only have time for three quick notes at the moment.

The first is how moving it is to read the full text of the hymn Amazing Grace 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.

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.

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.

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.

The Killing Factory – Unchecked, Unbridled

A little over a year ago I read a well-researched article about the evolution of the psychological training of US troops to more efficiently kill perceived enemies.

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?

Jeff Tietz, the author of the article, provides some background. He explains that:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But I also know you can go 'too far' with anything. The road to hell is, as they say, paved with 'good intentions'.

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.

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.]

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 Doctrine and Covenants: "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."

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.

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 all been granted.

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 for 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.

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".

I've quoted before 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 whole article 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.

I believe it is time to regain perspective in the self-governance of our nation and its formidable powers. I also strongly believe Congressman Ron Paul 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.