The Presidential Election

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

I guess it may not come as a surprise - I am content that Barack Obama was elected the president of the United States. I think he will be a better president than John McCain would have been. I was very impressed by John McCain's concession speech, where he implored his supporters to give Obama their respect and admiration for the campaign he ran. President Bush has also encouraged Americans to be proud of Obama.

Last night I was awestruck by the significance of the event historically. Whether one agrees with Obama's politics, we can at least agree he certainly is the poster-boy for the belief that anything is possible in the United States of America.

President Obama is going to have a boatload of problems to attack, literally the second he is sworn into office. I hope he will do what is best for the country, and not just do the bidding of the far left and the progressives. He certainly has a lot of potiential. A large majority supported him in the election, and people around the world have been inspired by his message and his story.

I wish him the best. We still have a couple months before Bush leaves office. Obama will be selecting people for his administration in the meantime. I want to just let things kind of quiet down, and just take in all the change that's in the air. I hope others will be optimistic at the possibility for moving the U.S. in a new, better direction. If John McCain had won, I would have been optimistic as well. Change is inevitable. And if it's pursued in the correct manner, change can be a very good thing.

Ugly Times for Republicans

This morning I watched Meet the Press on NBC. Tom Brokaw interviewed Senator John McCain, and I thought I could listen and try to see if McCain had anything different or worthwhile to bring to the table that I haven't already heard.

Turns out, he didn't. He was as evasive as ever. He kept repeating the same senseless jabber about Joe the Plumber and Socialism; which polls he believes, and which he disagrees with. He talked about bucking the party, and going against the president. Whenever Brokaw brought up a tough question, McCain evaded. And, of course, he was in attack mode most of the rest of the time.

The issue that I don't understand is this (and if you can lay it out for me, it would be appreciated): first, Barack Obama is a Socialist because he says we need to "spread the wealth around."
Okay, we get it, senator.

So when questioned about tax policy, McCain says the LAST thing you want to do during tough economic times is raise taxes. But McCain is for the $700 billion bailout, he will certainly be for subsequent bailouts, which in no uncertain terms, could be described as Socialism. His explanation? It is government's job to step in during tough times and intervene to help the American people.

Okay, stay with me here. John McCain - against wasteful spending, lambasts Bush every day on the national deficit size, says the government should intervene in unprecedented ways because the times are hard, yet says the worst thing you can do is raise taxes. How does it make sense? And if you can make it make sense, how does McCain pay for it? If you believe he will actually impose the spending freeze he's been talking about, you are, as Bill O'Reilly is oft heard saying, "living in the land of Oz."

Here's the hard reality. McCain is going to lose. He is getting farther and farther behind. But it is not just the presidential race that republicans stand to lose. In an opinion piece, David Frum talks about how McCain is sinking not only himself, but other republicans as well. Democrats only need a net gain of 15 seats in the House to have a majority, and it they can pick off a few Senate seats, they could even get to 60 senators, something that it almost unheard of. But thanks to McCain, it may happen.

Says Frum: McCain's awful campaign is having awful consequences down the ballot. I spoke a little while ago to a senior Republican House member. "There is not a safe Republican seat in the country," he warned. "I don't mean that we're going to lose all of them. But we could lose any of them."

In the Senate, things look, if possible, even worse.

On Meet the Press, Brokaw pointed out that in 2004, 37% of voters considered themselves Republican, and 37% considered themselves Democrats. Now, the numbers are 37% Democrat, 29% Republican.

Things could get ugly for the Republicans. But they are in denial. If they are not in denial, then they probably just don't care much. As long as Sarah Palin can go around firing people up over Obama being a terrorist socialist, I guess they will be content. It's just too bad that Republicans may lose the White House, House of Representatives, and the Senate, all at a time when the Congress' approval rating is even more dismal than that of the president. I guess that is what it will take to jolt the Republicans to the idea that they might need to change their policies up; do things differently in the future.

If not, the Democrats could be in power for a long, long time.

Will Ferrell as George W.

I love Will Ferrell as President Bush. The man is hilarious. The skit is great, too. John McCain wants nothing to do with Bush.

Some Clarifications

I don't know why I'm doing this. I have no evidence people even read this blog, and I have no basis on which to suppose that anyone who cares will read this post.

However, some conversations I've had with different individuals concerned, have encouraged me to make some clarifications. I was, in fact, going to refrain from anything political until after the elections. But strangely, with the encouragement of my best friend, I feel I shouldn't have to worry about simply giving my opinion on politics.

First of all, I still have not decided for whom to vote. I got my early ballot today. I am not voting for John McCain, but I am still trying to decide if I should actually vote for Barack Obama, or for one of the third party candidates. I originally intended to go third-party no matter what, but lately I am feeling like that strategy would have little point.

That's my way of saying: understand when you read posts on this particular blog, you are reading words from a very conflicted individual. The presidential race has been going on for nearly two years, and yet I cannot make up my mind. If Ron Paul was still in the race, I would have voted for him without question.

My posts have been particularly accusatory toward McCain and Sarah Palin. I have posted many clips from The Daily Show, which is a very vulgar, and offensive show. In my mind, these actions are perfectly justified, as they help explain why I hold certain political positions.

Those who read the blog rarely, if ever, will not understand these nuances. They do not understand me, nor my points of view. Sometimes they don't understand my viewpoints, because they refuse to acknowledge that my opinions have any validity. They want to call names and point fingers, rather than discuss differences.

It should be understood that my opinions, which differ greatly from those you may have heard me state in the past, are not meant to be directed at individuals, but are a way of describing what I have come to believe, and why I think in such a manner. In my humble opinion, there are those out there who dislike my vocal nature because they do not want to deal with opinions contrary to their own. They avoid doing so because they think considering other viewpoints is somehow a repudiation, or at least a demonstration of doubt, of their deeply held views.

Then, they change the subject, saying what I say is mean-spirited, negative, or offensive. I've gone back and read many of my posts, and I have been hard pressed to find anywhere where I have crossed whatever imaginary moral line one might think exists in discussing politics.

I've thought it curious that in college, as a strong conservative, I was afraid to speak out because I thought I would be ridiculed by my more liberal professors (and sometimes I was ridiculed). Now, I have looked at some of those opposing opinions, so much so, that I have even come to agree with some of them. Now, I am afraid to speak out, because I might be ridiculed by my republican associations.

I talk way too much. There is no doubt about it. But my object in speaking my mind has been rather simple: I have come to reject some of the lessons that were taught to me as infallible in my youth. Again, if people disagree, or still believe what I am about to denounce, it is simply my opinion. But have no doubt, I am sometimes passionate about these opinions, because I feel I have been denied a full understanding of how the world works, because for quite awhile, I was given the false impression that I really only had one choice to follow in politics.

So here goes - here are some of the ideas I had years ago, that I have fully come to reject (and yes, I feel strongly about them, and others probably feel just as strongly the opposite view):

- You can't be Mormon and a democrat.

- The Republican Party is more religious, more righteous, than the Democratic Party.

- The media have a liberal bias.

- The poor (those who rely on government aid to subsist) are poor because they are lazy. Democrats are the party of the "lazy" and believe in "spreading the wealth socialism."

- I should vote for someone I don't support, just because the opposing party is more scary.

- If you feel strongly about something, there are no other points of view that are as valid as yours. It is okay to make fun of others' view points, if they oppose yours, but it is not fair for them to insult yours.

I think most of what I've been saying can be found under the umbrella of those six topics. I find some of the above ideas rather disturbing. But I understand that some people believe them firmly, and I respect them for it. I do not find the individual people themselves disturbing. Rather, I would like to be able to have a discussion with any of them, so we could come to a better understanding.

Unfortunately, today's culture is extremely enveloped in the mentality that if you disagree with someone, you can expect to be judged by your views, often before anyone on the opposing side has tried to understand them.

Since I haven't had much success in other forums discussing these viewpoints, I have chosen to post them on a blog, a blog that is rarely read by anyone, at least that I am aware.

I am not going to stop giving my opinion. I am not going to change how I feel, even if it is not acceptable to some of my associates. And I am not going to post feel-good "we went to the zoo today" entries on my blog because I just don't have any interest in doing that kind of stuff. If my significant other wants to, she can do it. If you're interested in knowing a little more about the Cherry family, they have started a blog.

And just for the future, if you plan on telling me how offensive my views are to you, I am going to ask you if you've read this 23 Oct. post, and if you've read carefully, and if you've tried to come to an understanding before you got offended. If you haven't, I am not going to take your complaint too seriously. We all need to listen to and consider other points of view. I believe it makes us better people. We can't just get offended and go off and pout. In the end, we can respect each other more, once we come to understand our disagreements. If you don't have time to gain understanding, or read carefully, then let's just leave it alone. Just walk away from the blog, and we'll discuss something else.

P.S. I've decided to stop posting clips from The Daily Show. I did so before, because Jon Stewart is one of the only people out there who actually makes excellent political points, and he does so in a hilarious way. However, I think a lot of the material is unsuitable for what I would like to consider a "safe" blog site. But I will still comment on my views, and I will bring it fiercely every day.

Just As I Thought

This is a great article. I have often thought the idea of living in a small town being preferable to the city, was more myth than true. The misconception is prevalent, especially when you talk to someone who lives in a small town, about quality of schools, and general safety.

I know where I grew up, it was harder to find someone who wasn't doing drugs, or drinking beer every weekend, than the opposite. The high school where I did student teaching, there was a day care for kids who had been born to teenage mothers. Kids would come to class high. But it was in Wyoming, which was surprising. If we looked at the numbers, it wouldn't be surprising at all. The numbers are not that different from city to rural town.

Yet, Palin acts like she is better than the Washington "insiders" because she comes from a small town, and therefore can relate more to the average American, even though the average American (80% of them or thereabouts) doesn't come from the lifestyle she's trying to exhibit. Beyond that, many people seem to be glad to have a president or vice president with lower-than-average intelligence? Look at Bush, and look at Palin. I admit, all the candidates sound like robots, but why are we so averse to having an elite person become president? Why do we want an ordinary person? That's not to say someone can't come from a small-town setting and rise up to become an extraordinary candidate.

Well, I've spouted off long enough. Read on for the better information.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Palin's Small-Town Snobbery
By Steve Chapman

Americans disdain snobbery in all its forms except the most popular one: reverse snobbery. Joe Biden would never get up in front of a crowd and suggest that the citizens of Manhattan are morally superior to the residents of Possum Gulch, Ark. But Sarah Palin was happy to tell the Republican National Convention that the very best people come from the country.

"We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity and dignity," she declared, quoting the late journalist Westbrook Pegler. "They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food, run our factories and fight our wars. They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America." Not like those idle, insincere, lying city folks who dare to suggest that America can sometimes be wrong.

But no one seemed to take offense. The myth of rural virtue and urban vice is an old one in this country, and it persists no matter what the changes in the landscape. And whatever questions Palin may face in her debate with Biden, her paeans to small-town virtue aren't likely to be among them.

Most Americans, it seems, can tolerate hearing of the superiority of the small town, as long as they don't have to live in one. You wouldn't know it from listening to country music stations, or to the governor of Alaska, but four out of every five Americans choose not to reside in rural areas.

Maybe if they ventured beyond the city limits more often, those people would not be so inclined to believe everything they hear about the merits of rustic hamlets, which harbor a full complement of social ills.

Not everyone in rural America gets high on fresh air and the smell of new-mown hay. Illicit drugs are nearly as common out there as they are in cities and suburbs.

In 2007, a survey of 8th graders by the Monitoring the Future project at the University of Michigan found that country kids were 26 percent more likely to experiment with drugs than middle-schoolers elsewhere. Overall methamphetamine consumption among adults and teens is more than 50 percent higher in the country.

The story with alcohol is worse still. "Relative to their urban counterparts, rural youth ages 12 to 17 are significantly more likely to report consuming alcohol," says a 2006 study by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. Excessive boozing among adults, it noted, appears to be no less widespread in Mayberry than in Metropolis.

Nor is the countryside exempt from social problems often associated with the inner city -- such as, if you'll forgive me, out-of-wedlock births. The federal government apparently doesn't tabulate these births according to whether they occur in urban or rural areas. But it does break them down by state, and wide-open spaces are no guarantee of responsible sexual behavior.

The highest rates of births to unwed mothers are in Mississippi and New Mexico, both of which have high rural populations. The most urban states, New Jersey and California, do better than the average in out-of-wedlock births.

It's true that crime is much more common in the city than in the country. Is that because the sight of cattle grazing saps felonious impulses, or is it something else? Alfred Blumstein, a criminologist at Carnegie Mellon University, thinks the explanation is pretty simple. "It's a matter of social control," he says. "Small towns have networks of family and friends, and most everyone knows everyone else."

This deters crime in two ways. First, you don't want to damage your reputation among people who may ostracize you for doing wrong. Second, you don't want to rob someone who can easily identify you to police -- and in a small town, that limits your pool of victims. Crime is more common in cities because they offer a target-rich environment and much less chance of being spotted by someone who can tell the cops your name, address and 3rd-grade teacher.

One of these days, the 80 percent of Americans who live in more populated areas may tire of being obliquely insulted. Most urbanites and suburbanites don't think they're any better than their country cousins. But Palin might want to think twice before telling them they're worse.
schapman@tribune.com

Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.

A Tribute

I would like to take a moment and at least try to acknowledge the significance of what we've just seen happen this week. Yesterday, August 27, 2008, the Democratic National Convention formally nominated the first African-American man as the party's presidential candidate.

For some reason, the importance of the above statement fails to strike me completely. I do not know if it is because we already knew this was coming for a long time, or because there is so much animosity toward Barack Obama and his politics and views. But it feels like the historical importance of what we've just seen occur is not getting much press.

We act as if the civil rights movement happened a lot longer ago than three or four decades. We act as if racism still isn't a part of society today, even when it still is in many instances. Maybe we have too small a grasp on the impact this has in the actual context of our history. Imagine thinking in the 1950's or 60's that the United States of America could nominate a black man to be president. Of course, we always talk about the American dream, and often don't see enough evidence of said dream. Yet here we have the epitome of what the dream really denotes, and it is lost in the politics of it all.

So at least for one day, or for a few minutes at least, I am sitting down, forgetting about the fact that it's Obama who is the nominee. The individual is insignificant. The politics are irrelevant. Just think about the wonder of something happening that people may have never imagined would be possible. And maybe, in some small way, it can help us believe that we can do great things, too.

In connection with this short thought, I would also include the significance of Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency. She didn't win, but she came very close. I think her impact, especially on women, in the context of history, is difficult to measure. Again, forget for a moment that it is Hillary, and just think about the act itself - she came closer to holding the highest office possible in the free world, as a woman. I submit that no one would have imagined it possible fifty years ago, either.

For just a moment......wait for it.......there. Good.

Now let's get back to the "fighting."

Why I Want Obama to Win the Election

I have been thinking about this topic lately, and there are a lot of reasons why I want Barack Obama to win the presidential election this November. Some of you (of the two who read my posts) will interpret this as me "coming out" as an Obama supporter. I am not "coming out." I am simply stating exactly what I already said - these are reasons why I want Obama to win. Nowhere will you see, "This is why I'm voting for Obama," because I have not even come close to concluding that I would be bold enough to take that course of action. Without further adeiu, here are some of my top reasons:


- He sounds intelligent. Now I know, no one is perfect, and even Obama can sound pretty labored when not having the luxury of a teleprompter next to him. But, come on, Bush can't speak coherently with a teleprompter (and John McCain is not so great himself). So having an intelligent-sounding president would be a real treat.


- I can't wait to hear the dynamics of political discussion completely flip-flop. After listening to "things aren't as bad as democrats make it sound" for at least eight years from conservatives under the rule of George W. Bush. I can see and hear and smell it now: all of a sudden, the country will be in the crapper, only because Obama became president. And it will be all Obama's fault. Of course, democrats will be saying "things aren't as bad as the republicans make it sound."


- Obama might actually have some positive foreign policy attributes, other than, we tell you what to do, you do it, or we threaten you, and then we bomb you. But then again, President Bush isn't the only president in recent history to take those positions, so I don't know how much hope we can have for the "weak on defense" democrat Barry.


- For all that's gotten screwed up under Bush's watch, I can't imagine Obama could do that much worse. I want Obama to get elected so everyone can see that the country actually won't be sent to hell, just because the "radical, marxist, socialist, communist, white-hater, muslim, abortion-loving, extremist-associating, corrupt-real-estate-broker-relationing," Obama got into office.

- When Obama implements his "socialist" policies, I want to see economic conditions improve in the country. And then I want to hear how it has nothing to do with Obama from the conservatives. Actually, I would love to hear them say they were wrong about the stock market self-destruction predictions they made previous to the elections, but I might as well clean all the bathrooms of Grand Central Station with my tongue (to quote "Weird Al"), because that ain't gonna happen.

- I want to laugh while people keep listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, attack and attack and attack President Obama, and defend their actions, all the while forgetting how dispicable they thought (and said so) democrats and liberals were for doing the same thing to President Bush for eight years. My oh my, no wonder nothing changes. But it will be bittersweetly funny.


Okay, those are just a few reasons I came up with off the top of my head. On a related note: after decidedly hating contradictions, I am really starting to embrace them. Epecially the fact that so many people do not even see the blatant hypocrisy in their words and actions (and I probably don't see it in myself, which makes it even more ironic and painful). For republicans, when the economy is in trouble, it is not Bush's fault - it's the democrats'. When gas prices go way up, it's not Bush's fault. It's the democrats' because they resist more oil drilling, and nuclear power.


However, when Obama's president, if the economy is weak, it will be his fault. If immigration doesn't change, it will all be on Obama. If gas prices don't go down, Obama will be to blame. And people can't see the double standard that they wake up with, walk out the front door with, and come home with, every day of their lives.

I'll come right out and admit - I don't like Bush, not really much at all. But I don't think he's ruined the country. I don't hate him. However, I think he set the bar so low for U.S. presidents, that either Obama or McCain will make a better president. So I may vote for McCain, I may not. I may vote for an independent candidate like Ralph Nader or Chuck Baldwin. But when the new president is sworn into office in January, 2009, I will have hope for him, for us, for the country, because he will not be President Bush.

But hypocritical politics, I suppose, will endure. People who want to hate McCain will find reasons that support that agenda. People who want to demonize Obama so they can feel better about voting for McCain when they never would have supported "the maverick" otherwise, will do so. I will not be a part of groups similar to those. As a close relative said recently (and I hope he doesn't mind me lifting this from him), "I vote for people, not parties."

Maybe later on, I will tell you why I want McCain to win.

Baracknophobia

I am not much of a fan of Barack Hussein Obama at all, but this video is very true. If the mainstream "liberal" media are in Obama's corner, why are they bringing up all these so-called unsubstantiated charges against him? In the end, we still do not know who Obama even really is because of all the wasted time talking about lapel-pins and pictures of Barack when he was six.





I found an article from Media Matters that addresses this issue as well. Have a read.

After a couple dozen debates (and I have watched a good number of them), can many of us really even state briefly what John McCain or Barack Obama stand for on key political issues? And NO, "McCain's a conservative and Obama's liberal does not answer the question.

The End of Talk Radio

Tuesday I effectively swore off talk radio, if not for the rest of my life, at least until early November 2008.

I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck, or J.D. Hayworth, or Bill O'Reilly. Yet, while driving the automobile-supersaturated freeways of Phoenix, I find myself needing to be entertained - so I flip them on. And I listen. And it is all sort of hypnotic. And I listen way longer than I intended.

Maybe there's a caller making some inane argument about how the U.S. flag is the coolest, or maybe I get sucked in by the ever-so-seductive hook: "When we come back, we'll talk about...." which is repeated for three to four segments before the material is actually addressed. So when I say what I am about to say, I do not mean to extend the situation to all of you faithful dittoheads (ah, the disclaimer). But in the word of O'Reilly, "with all due respect," talk radio makes me a stupid, robotic, brainless, intelligence-starved, moron.

I've thought these things before, but who would have thought a meaningless incident involving some less-than-thoughtful observations by Michelle Obama, wife of presidential hopeful Barack Obama, would push me over the edge.

No, I am not going to go into the details of the matter. That can be accomplished by you turning on 550 KFYI, or the equivalent right-wing trash station you can find on your dial in your hometown. No, I am not a fan of Obama, not even close. In fact, I think electing Obama would be more of a mistake than electing Hillary Clinton.

But the Michelle Obama situation is emblematic of what talk radio really is: entertaining people with news that is not news, with information that is not important. While turning a blind eye to everything that could undermine their purpose, these jockeys pick up bits (ants, if you will) of information and blow them into veritable anthills.

Want to spend your time more wisely? I suggest doing anything else BUT listen to those clowns. Listen to some music on the radio (although that is almost as disgusting most of the time). Listen to an audiobook. Listen to your air conditioner blowing. Don't waste your life enriching the dregs of society.

Oh, yes, I am still talking to myself. And myself says TURN IT OFF!

The Book of Mormon on Riches, Terror, Secret Combinations

The prophet Joseph Smith said "the Book of Mormon [is] the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

I would not be surprised if many libertarians and Ron Paul supporters are not Latter-Day Saints or affiliated with offshoot religions that still use the Book of Mormon. Among the most common themes addressed by the book's prophets are the issues of love of riches, pride, and secret combinations. I will try to put our current "war on terror" in a Book of Mormon perspective and try to argue why conventional thinking about the current political system in our country may be extremely misguided.

While the current prosperity in the United States can be arguably God-given because we are a God-fearing and righteous nation, I think this argument has been the excuse to allow starvation and suffering inexplicably among our own people, but even more among the peoples of the world. To buttress my claims, I will use as a source The Book of Mormon Reference Companion by Largey, as well as the book itself, and other words of modern LDS prophets.

First, the Reference Companion says "in addition to being a source of pride (2 Ne. 28:15; Alma 4:6; Hel. 3:36, 7:26; 3 Ne. 6:10,12), riches are also used to support wickedness (Mosiah 11:13-14);...they can divide societies into classes and ranks (3 Ne. 6:12, 4 Ne. 1:24-26); they are the foundation of materialism (Alma 31:24, 27-28; Hel. 7:21); and they lead to secret combinations (Hel. 6:17). It is obvious that these signs of riches are seen all over our society today. Meanwhile one must understand that secret combinations go unperceived simply because secret combinations are just that: secret. However, they are also all over our society today; even among our highest government officials.

2 Ne. 28:14 says: "They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men."

Simply put, we are compelled to change our ways of viewing and worshiping God from all sides. From elimination of prayer in public, to elimination of the Bible in any public affairs, to the fight to strip the Pledge of Allegiance of the words "one nation under God," the government has become a sort of "false God." The government has been set up to take care of us, thus becoming a substitute for the true Father of our country.

But looking into verse 14 more deeply, is it not accurate to say that our views on our society and the government currently are shaped almost exclusively by the government and the educational system set up by said institution? Therefore, many are ignorant, either outright or willingly, and even the few are caused to stumble because of the "precepts of men." One precept of men that is becoming more prominent is the idea that our founding fathers were not inspired men - rather they were no better than terrorists today. The peddlers of this believe explain that the tactics used by the founders in their warfare against England were similar to the tactics terrorists use today. Therefore, the Constitution has little use in these different, more sophisticated times. If this is not an evil position, I don't know what is. In truth, I am not as put off by the comparison as I may sound. With today's ever more broad definition of terrorist, just about anyone who challenges the status-quo in any way might be labeled a terrorist. The founders definitely challenges the top-down government emanating out of London, the policies of which were similar to those of our current government in too many ways.

Such talk immediately demonstrates that our ways of thinking are skewed not only by our indoctrination by the powerful, but also by the pride and ease that have come as a result of our riches.

Hel. 6:17 says "the Lord had blessed them so long with the riches of the world that they had not been stirred up to anger, to wars, nor to bloodshed; therefore they began to set their hearts upon their riches; yea, they began to seek to get gain that they might be lifted up one above another..."

Despite the current political climate and various wars on multiple fronts taking place today, most of us have not had to worry about fighting or even thinking war, and we have enjoyed several years if not decades of ease enjoying the riches of the world. Complete with million-dollar homes, fancy cars, HDTV's, fine clothes, we see examples of this all around us. Meanwhile people are starving left and right and we are told that we deserve our wealth, that we earned it, that the poor are poor because the government welfare state made them that way, or because they are lazy.

Here again we see "precepts of men" creeping in. How is it not an outrage that the U.S. - five percent of the world's total population - consumes 25% of the world's goods and commodities? Yet thousands of people die every day from starvation around the world, and this suffering is compounded by the policies of western states, especially the United States today. The idea that this is an inspired nation was not meant to be a pretext to make us feel we are better than everyone else.

While we go around after the riches of the world, families are torn apart, children's lives are severely harmed, if not destroyed. Yet returning to God and family is yet another "extremist" idea. Yes, the presidential candidates, particularly on the republican side will say we need to return to family, but the evidence shows that these same individuals when placed in power will continue to increase the grip of the federal government and will do anything in their means to assure that the U.S. still controls a disproportionate amount of the world's goods as the planet's only super power.

Since we see all around us the effects of the love of riches, and of pride, it is then easy to expect to have present many forms of secret combinations, even among our most "pious" government officials. Hel. 7:4-6 says: "Seeing the people in a state of such awful wickedness, and those Gadianton robbers filling the judgment-seats - having usurped the power and authority of the land; laying aside the commandments of God, and not in the least aright before him; doing no justice unto the children of men;

"Condemning the righteous because of their righteousness; letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money; and moreover to be held in office at the head of government, to rule and do according to their wills, that they might get gain and glory of the world, and moreover, that they might more easily commit adultery, to steal, and kill, and do according to their own wills-

"Now this great iniquity had come upon the Nephites, in the space of not many years."

These symptoms of secret combinations are all around us. We have seen our country go to war against an unknown foe for an unknown stretch of time. Thousands of our brave men and women have been killed along with tens of thousands of the innocent. While soldiers are often prosecuted for missteps and crimes they performed, the leaders of the military have walked away blameless. Yes, some like Donald Rumsfeld have lost their jobs, but they have not taken any responsibility for the ugly scene they've helped to create among the people in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of corporate welfare and "capitalistic" seizing of more of the world's resources.

Look at who President Bush appoints as his leaders: almost without exception they are old elite friends who got rich as leaders of large corporations. When they leave their assignments in the government, they will still be rich, but the world will suffer more because of their actions.

All of these arguments seem inappropriate since the real threat is the one to which we have surrendered ourselves which the government has used to cunningly scare us into submission of our God-given rights and privileges. Yes, another "precept of men" that is looming over us. God gives us our freedom, and government is charged to protect those rights.

But there are the real secret combinations out there: the modern form of Gadianton Robbers - the al-Quaeda's, the Hamas's, the Hezbollah's. What does the Book of Mormon say about them?

We read these words in Hel. 7:23-25: "...it shall be better for the Lamanites than for you except ye shall repent. For behold, they are more righteous than you, for they have not sinned against that great knowledge which ye have received...and ye have united yourselves unto it, yea, to that secret band which was established by Gadianton."

This prophet is speaking to the people of Nephi - the Christians of their day. The Lamanites, of whom he refers were the "non-believers." The entire theme of the Book of Mormon is that the people would be blessed if they turned to God, and they would be punished if they turned away. The Lamanites also had interaction with the secret combination of Gadianton, who was the first leader of the band in that time. However, the Nephites seemed to unite themselves more freely to this secret group, and it led to their destruction, as well as the destruction of the people of Ether, who lived in this land before the Nephites.

The message is clear, and it has been repeated to us in contemporary times by leaders of the church, as well as leaders of the United States: that the country would not falter unless it was defeated from within.

While I do not diminish the fact that there are certain individuals in the world who would kill themselves and others to send a message to the world, I am coming to see more and more that the supposed "war on terror" is a scheme of deflection. This way we focus our attention to some unknown, outside threat, and thus remain oblivious to the widespread takeover of our government by members of secret societies, or puppets (our politicians) of the aforementioned. It is clear that this fact threatens the very existence of our nation more than any amount of damage a bin Laden or Ahmadinejad could inflict upon us.

We are the ones who have been blessed of God. We are the ones who are turning from Him after he has bestowed so much on our heads. But because of the precepts of men, we are largely unaware of the current danger surrounding us. We are told that "we" are good and "they" are evil. Meanwhile, our leaders commit sometimes horrendous acts for which they will never answer. Just like in secret combinations, they are above the law.

President Ezra Taft Benson, the thirteenth president of the Church said these chilling words in one of his final testimonies: "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.)"

That address was given nearly twenty years ago. If the Nephites were able to degenerate in a matter of not many years, and President Benson said a secret combination was increasing its hold over the world, how could we be so self-satisfied to think that it is not there, right in front of us, but we are unaware.

We are unaware because of imagined enemies. We are unaware because of meaningless issues being debated on the corporate-owned media outlets. We are unaware because of the false left-right paradigm. We are unaware because we are watching football and American Idol and Survivor all day long. We are unaware because although we are skeptical of the worthiness of our public servants, we are still a "pretty good country" so things can't be that bad.

Ron Paul is giving an outlet to people who have not had a voice among Democrats or Republicans for many elections. He is bringing up issues that the mainstream do not want us to be aware of. After all, if the most sinister plot of all was made common knowledge, that we are told we are a democratic free people while our rights are being torn right from our outstretched arms, the powerful might lose their power and dominion over us. That is something that they will do anything to avoid; even murder, plunder, commit adultery, declare war, etc.

May we open our eyes and start learning about the real issues that are being avoided by our very politicians, media, and presidential candidates today. Find out that change is a must, and change will not come by walking down the same millionaire democrat/republican one-way dead-end street.