Saturday, February 2, 2008

Why I am Still hanging in there with Ron Paul

I want it to be known that I am still struggling with the decision to be made in the next week. I also chose Romney early on and Phil is correct that the overall picture is different now but I do not see it as a fight between Romney and Cain, oops, I mean McCain. I see it as a battle against a force much more difficult to fight.

Let me explain it this way. The Lord decreed that in the next life, those who are just will be separated from those who are not. There will be a resurrection of the just, and another of the unjust. The concept of justice is summed up by the Lord in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:12;3 and Ne 14:12)

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets

We know this law as the Golden Rule, and cannot over look it, for the Lord has declared it to be the law and the prophets. It forms the basis or the foundation for all human action. If one does not treat his fellow man as he would be treated, he has violated this universally known rule and subjected himself to the penalty of being placed with all others who do not obey it. I believe these will be the unjust.

I think the Lord can and will use this law to judge all mankind because everyone knows it, even from childhood. It is universally known and understood, even by the young and simple, and easily applied. We all have a good idea of what harms use and this knowledge lets us know what harms others. It is simple for men to apply this rule of justice in their personal relationships. If we do not we are labeled as rude, impolite or worse.

But that which is understood so clearly on a personal basis, is often not seen when men act in groups and especially when they act in the name of government. When it is not applied in a government, it becomes corrupt and wicked to the same extent.

Ezra Taft Benson Spoke many times about the force that was destroying our government. He gave a great talk Called I Testify (Ezra Taft Benson, “I Testify,” Ensign, Nov 1988, 86) and testified of many great things. At the end of that talk he warned us against a Secret Combination.

I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14–16; D&C 84:49–53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world. (See Ether 8:18–25.)

This same secret combination has destroyed every civilization which has lived on this Promised Land. That includes the antediluvians, the Jaredites, and the Nephites. We have been specifically warned against them and threatened with destruction unless we repent.

What does this have to do with the elections? I think everything. What concerns me most about Romney is that I think he is a great man. He is a man of excellent character with a solid family relationship loyal sons and family. All great qualities and ones I hold with high importance in a good president. But I am not sure he is prepared for what he is going to find when he gets into the White House. Here is a bishop and Stake president that at one time was confused about his feelings about the abortion issue. I have read all the reasons he has given and accepted them at first. Now that we are further into the campaign I see him becoming just like all the rest. Instead of talking about the issues they make accusations against each other. They sound just like little kids at times.

I am concerned that I never here Romney talk about the North American Union (SSP) this is one of the greatest threats to our nation. If you do not know about it then you need to look into it

In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.

SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Economía Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.

Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:

In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people

This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.

Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.

And again, the June 2005 SPP report stresses:

The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure.

Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.

What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.

Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.

When you take a close look at this you realize that the warnings of our Constitution hanging by a thread take on a new meaning. Our constitution is hanging by a thread and yet Romney says nothing. Is it because he is unaware or just chooses to not talk about it.

I am also concerned about the Federal Reserve and the power they now have over our Government. We were warned by our founding fathers that we should never allow a private company to print our money and the use of irredeemable paper money.

The reason we have so much debt and will never see it go away is because of the power we have given to the Federal Reserve. Most people today think it is a part of our government and it is not. They have the power to print money as they see fit and then they loan it to our government at interest. Since it was formed we have continued to go further and further into debt.

Again Ron Paul seems to be the only one that talks about this. I found a paper that everyone should read. It explains how the Federal Reserve was formed and why. You can read it for yourself at http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/fr5.htm

Ezra Taft Benson also said:

“I believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, and a circulating medium convertible into such money without loss. I regard it as a flagrant violation of the explicit provisions of the Constitution for the federal government to make it a criminal offense to use gold or silver as legal tender or to issue irredeemable paper money.”

I believe that the very Secret Combination that we have been warned about is right in front of us. John F Kennedy knew what was going on and how it was destroying our country and passed an executive order to change that.

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. They can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superseded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

When President John F Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed at http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.

I just don’t believe that Romney is prepared for what he will find if he gets in office. Ron Paul is fully aware of what he is getting into, and would put together a staff that would protect him and our country because he is not going in blind. I am afraid that if Romney if elected will find out what is going on and will not be prepared for the fight and will end up just like Kennedy.

I still feel we have to vote, not for the lesser of two evils but for the person we believe will get the job done. In the past so many people, me included, end up changing their vote because they think their candidate will not win. At some point we all need to have the courage to vote our continence and not compromise. I am not say that this is what Phil is saying I just feel I am tired of doing that myself.

I hope this blog will help all of us make the right choice.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have read some interesting information regarding "secret combinations" in our modern days.

I feel that if we were to have a candidate in a position to make the necessary changes in Washington, Romney would be the man that could bring those changes and he can be inspired with the Spirit of the Lord to lead this nation through its toughest times.
Ricardo Loya

R.Song said...

I don't think it is wise to assume someone will be inspired in the future based on their religion. If Romney were open to such powerful inspiration, it would show in his voting record, policies and campaign. Furthermore, I do not think the Lord is not limited by religion, but can call and inspire any who are ready to do His work. I'm not opposing Romney, but I think we should judge each canidate by their works rather than their claimed religion.
-Morgan

Gary Slack said...

Just as the founding fathers were inspired by the lord, I think anyone that has there heart in the right place can receive inspiration. I do think they have to believe in God to receive inspiration, but they don't have to be a member of the the church of Jesus Christ of later day Saints.

Derek said...

Good thoughts... I think that "inspiration" can come in many forms as well, and to many people, not just to members of the church (ie, Columbus, founding fathers of US...etc)... Ron Paul may be receiving it already by his revelations as to the importance of holding to the inspired constitution just as much as Romney may receive inspiration by the Gift of the Holy Ghost as a member of the church. As far as voting is concerned, I as well would vote based on a candidate's policy, because that is the product of inspiration. If inspiration is present, it will be apparent through the policies or 'fruit' of a given candidate.

Hyrum Andrews said...

Good point. Let's also not forget the principle of what revelation an individual is entitled to. When Romney was steak president, or bishop, he was entitled to revelation regarding his steak or ward. A father or mother is entitled to revelation regarding their family. I don’t believe that Romney would be entitled to revelation regarding the country any more than any other just man, trying to follow God and his consensus.

It can be argued, however, that Romney is probably the most practiced and educated on seeking God and revelation when making decisions than the other candidates.

I believe that it is very important to have a president with high morals and who is a good example to the country of good citizenship and leadership, but that fact that Romney is Mormon doesn’t mean that he does or doesn’t meet that criteria.

I guess the point is mute now that Romney dropped out, but the principals are still worth discussing.

Sparrow said...

I really like what Gary wrote. You can tell it was well thought and well documented. I like Ron Paul more because of his realization of the fundamental problems facing America, a result of the erosion of individual accomplishment and free markets by socialists attempting to distribute wealth. Kindness and charity are important admirable virtues but they do less to help humanity than Ambition and profiteering. That's right I said it Henry Ford did more to help mankind because of his selfishness than Mother Teressa did because of her kindness.

Derek said...

I agree with the value of so called 'selfishness'. A great book on this is my favorite book, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand

Hyrum Andrews said...

Although I do agree with you to some extent, and you make a good point, not so fast, Paul. There is another side of that argument. The American definition of "happiness" or, in the context of your definition, "helping people" is improving their stardard of living. However, we must remember that that is all relative. I believe that kindness and charity extends beyond improvng ones standard of living, and helps individuals to be happy. For example, Mother Teresa, although she perhaps lacked the ambition and circumstances to create an industry to improve people's standard of living, she no doubt helped inumberable people to be happy by giving them hope, faith, and love (which people were then inspired to help out their fellow man in similar ways). Henry Ford improved people's standard of living by providing cheap automobiles (more freedom to travel), and a great many jobs and wealth. So which "helps humanity" more?
We observe that although wealth and prosperity does improve comfort, and, of course, we know that everyone wants it, we must also note that some of the poorest people on earth are much happier than the most powerfull, richest people on the earth, so the two are obviously not directly connected.
We could ask the question: Which would help a poor person more? to give them wealth, or to help them to be happy, despite what they have.
Moreover, I think that while your comparison does make a good point about the effects of an increased standard of living due to ambition and profiteering, such effects cannot be compared to charity and virtue.

Sparrow said...

Atlas shrugged is one of my favorites too. It really opened my mind.

Gary, what is a antediluvian?

Sparrow said...

You bring up a good point of happiness vs standard of living. I don't think that poor people are more likely to be happy than rich people. I think that happiness is an individual pursuit. It is easier for someone who isn't starving or dying of malaria (basic needs fulfilled) to find happiness. A good example of this is found in the movie: The Pursuit of Happiness. I think this is the only correlation between happiness and standard of living, but for many people on this world it applies. Since Henry Ford lifted more people of of these dire circumstances than Mother Teresa I think that indirectly he helped more people be happy. Anyhow, Mother Teresa didn't go around trying to make everyone "happy" her main objective was to easy pain and suffering through kindness and charity. Henry Ford's main objective wasn't to easy pain and suffering but he eased a lot more of it than Mother Teresa.

In answer to your question Which would help a poor person more? to give him wealth, or to help them be happy? First we have to assume that they are unhappy already. Second I think it's very difficult if not impossible to help someone be happy because it's an individual pursuit. Third, the best thing that you can do to help someone be happy is to allow them the freedom to succeed or fail so that they can use their good given gifts.

Hyrum Andrews said...

"he [Henry Ford] eased a lot more of it [pain and suffering] than Mother Teresa."

That is the part that I disagree with.

Another fundamental question could be this: which helps humanity more, a great missionary, or a great capatialist?

I'll site some examples of why I think a great missionary(like Mother Theresa) does.

Martin Luther, one of the key people in the Renossance movement, had leadership and courage to stand up to a corupt system and help bring people inspiration and ambition to progress out of the dark ages.
William Wilberforce (character portrayed in Amazing Grace) was a missionary to help change people's opinion on slavery and human rights.
King Benjamin, in the Book of Mormon, had such a profound impact on the people under his reign, after his speech, they fell down and dedicated themselves to choose the right and obey the commandments. (not unlike the day of Pentacost in the new testement)
After Jesus Christ's visit to America, there were four generations of complete happiness. "And there were never a happier people." (in that cililization) Now regarding an individual's decision to be happy, Lets consider the last example of the Nephites. Christ instilled in them a desire to do good, and to be happy, and they then made the individual decision to be happy. I agree it is a individual responsibility and choice to be happy, but others can and should be infuential as well.

Furthermore, when Henry Ford marketed the automobile, there was a need in the market and he filled it. If he wouldn't have, someone else would have. (which is one of the great things about a free market). In contrast, if there would have been no Mother Theresa... well, the people she touched would have had to do without. Although Henry Ford's work ethic and vision were admirable, I dont think that his contribution to humanity is comparable to a true teacher of faith, hope, and charity.

Sparrow said...

The fundamental disagreement that we have is that you think that happiness is obtained for most people after they are inspired by others, I think that it is mainly responsibility of the individual. I think that your outlook on the attaining of happiness is very depressing because it assumes that most people are unable to find happiness on their own and need help from some great missionary. This thinking is dangerous because it assumes that people need to follow a missionary and are largely incapable of finding happiness on their own. Discovering ones own path to happiness is the great individual adventure and should not be left up to others. What about the people that don't have a Mother Teresa, or King Benjamin? Are most of them going to be unhappy because they weren't lucky enough to be inspired to be? Most people who have a "Pentecostal experience" are touched in the moment, they might profess to be very happy at the moment and resolve to live perfect lives but the true measure of their happiness and resolve are found in the long term and they are mostly responsible for that, not their missionary. Basically what you are saying is that people most people don't have free-agency. They are either lucky enough to be touched by a great missionary or they are screwed.

Sparrow said...

One more thing, I am not saying that we shouldn't learn from, or be inspired by others. Or that our happiness is not in part derived from these lessons that we learn. I am just saying that it is wrong to think that most people need these missionaries to teach them how to be happy. Most people are capable of finding their own mentors/teachers/leaders in there respective time in history and place to discover what happiness is to them.

Sparrow said...

I do agree that great teachers who changed people's paradigms like Jesus, Einstein, Newton, and Gahndi may have done more to help humanity than the great capatalists but I still think Henry Ford has done more than Mother Teresa.