Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Christmas Joy

Christmas Joy

Dear Lord, the Christmas season comes
To cheer our hearts and bring us peace.
We think of thee and thy dear Son.
Through Mary's selfless service was born
The babe of Bethlehem - Jesus the Christ,
The Son of God, Savior, Divine Redeemer.

Our sin-laden prayers are now lifted high.
His love comes to fill our sorrowing hearts.
Our sins and fears flee His loving embrace.
We feel our sagging spirits revive as
He saves our souls from death and Hell.
We wash His feet with our tears of joy.

Dear Lord, hasten His return to Earth
As Messiah and King to reign supreme.
Thy will shall fill a new heavenly Earth.
Love abounds and sorrows are no more
As peace breaks forth and terrors flee
And the Christmas season knows no end.

Neil David Holland, 22 Dec 2015

Saturday, November 21, 2015

New Yorkers! Defend yourselves from ISIS!

In the last few days ISIS has directly threatened New York City and Washington DC, yet on Megyn Kelly’s news show (the Kelly File) a former US Navy SEAL said that since he lives in the city (of NY) he cannot carry a weapon (for self defense). Subsequently he carries a small high intensity flashlight. EXCUSE ME!? A man who can save himself and many New Yorkers is forbidden to carry a firearm for protection!? 

In light of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) 2008 decision in District of Columbia vs Heller, why can he not!? In this landmark decision SCOTUS found that having a handgun for self defense was an “individual right” under the Second Amendment of our Constitution. The Heller case involved home defense in a “federal enclave” (such as Washington DC) but federal courts since this ruling have extended this individual right to the States. In 2014 a Federal Court also found “… that the District of Columbia's complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.” 

As a result of these rulings people in Washington DC can carry a pistol to protect themselves. New York City has refused to change its laws on the pretense that their laws are “reasonable.” The Second Amendment is very clear - “the (individual [SCOTUS 2008]) right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Why are “we the people” - the sovereigns of this nation -  oppressed by unconstitutional laws that we must break in order to overthrow them in Court!? 

Is it time for a New York City Civil Obedience Movement to the Constitution? Is it time for New Yorkers to arm themselves under the right to defend themselves and send a clear message to ISIS, “Come here at your own risk!” - and to their politicians, “Come down from your ivory towers and bear your throats to ISIS - we will not!” Let New Yorkers be obedient to the Second Amendment - not to the unconstitutional restrictions they are under. 

It is time for American’s to arm and train themselves in self defense as our Constitution allows - even in New York City. As for those politicians who want to restrict this right, such as President Obama and Hillary Clinton, let them surrender their Secret Service protection and bear their throats to ISIS - unless of course they choose to carry their own protection as Donald Trump admits to.


Saturday, November 14, 2015

NATO Must Destroy ISIS and, A Strategy to Defeat Radical Islamists


Today I am French. Vive la France! The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) attack on Paris, France, is an attack on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). France is a member of NATO along with other Western European countries, Turkey, the US and Canada. I encourage France to invoke the NATO treaty, just as the US invoked the NATO treaty immediately after 9-11 when NATO E-3 AWACS flew over the United States to help protect our skies. Similarly NATO is in Afghanistan because of 9-11. NATO needs to declare war on ISIS and it’s allies and destroy them - quickly - not withholding any of our combined capabilities other than Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). NATO is already engaged against ISIS in Afghanistan.

NATO should use all National capabilities to accomplish the destruction of ISIS.  
Specifically:

A. Political Power - Assemble a broader alliance of the willing to augment NATO and strengthen freedom of thought and religion in the Middle East. 
  1. Invite Russia (already in Syria) to participate, but do not allow them to constrain NATO in any way. Require Russia to contain themselves and their allies (Syria, and Iran) in Syria. Working with Russia recognizes its own threat from Islamic terrorism and it’s long alliance with Syria. It also sends a strong deterrent message that NATO will stand up for the security of it’s member states if Russia continues it’s expansion into Western Europe.
  2. Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States will assist, as well as Egypt. 
  3. Muslim states in the Middle East who are unwilling to assist, should suffer economic consequences. 
  4. The destruction of ISIS will send a strong deterrent message to Iran, an Islamist state that supports terrorism and sees ISIS as a competitor to its own global Caliphate agenda.
  5. At end state, return conquered territories to representative Republics that will guarantee freedom of thought and religion.
  6. Stop the flow of refugees to Europe by establishing a safe zone for refugees in northern Syria and Libya to be administered by the UN until political agreements are complete to return such territory to an appropriate sovereign state.

B. Economic Power - Cut the flow of cash to ISIS and any supporting state. Seize the assets of any entity supporting ISIS.

C. Military Power - Except for WMD, use unconstrained military power to cut off ISIS’ ability to wage war and destroy (not capture) its fighters.
  1. Conduct an intensive air and land campaign to destroy ISIS and it’s allies in Syria, Iraq, and beyond. Rules of engagement should be very limited so that NATO forces can be effective in accomplishing their mission. ISIS forces should be attacked until they are destroyed - not captured. 
  2. If Russia and its allies do not effectively engage ISIS in Syria, perform the mission in their place and retain conquered territory until political agreements are complete to return such territory to an appropriate sovereign state.
  3. Remove the oil fields in northern Iraq as a source of revenue and fuel for ISIS. Retain them for NATO use until political agreements are complete to return them to an appropriate sovereign state.
  4. With Egypt as an ally, destroy ISIS in Libya and retain conquered territory until political agreements are completed to return such territory to an appropriate sovereign state.
  5. Work with Egypt to destroy ISIS in the Sinai.
  6. Support Saudi Arabia going into Yemen to destroy Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and restore regular governance in Yemen.

I believe these actions will destroy ISIS, but they will not destroy the larger threat of the radical Islamist Movement. The strategy to accomplish that is much broader and long term and involves what I call a Free State Coalition.

The Strategy to Defeat the Radical Islamist Movement.*
*Any Islamic entity (Shi’a or Sunni) that seeks to (1) deny individual liberty, (2) overthrow free institutions, (3) institute the rule of Sharia to replace constitutional law, and (4) establish the global Islamic Caliphate. Examples of such entities are ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and its surrogates such as Hezbollah.

The Challenge:
Islam, like Christianity, calls for all to repent and convert to their faith. The Radical Islamist takes this to the extreme of declaring war against the “unbelievers” - this is considered their religious duty (Jihad). The Islamists pursue a global Islamic State (or Caliphate) through force of arms and the killing of all who oppose them or will not convert to their brand of Islam. Radical Islamists do not promote freedom of religion, speech, or thought. The question we must ask is: Shall we give up our liberty to an Islamic dictatorship, and secondly, should we allow a significant percentage of the world population to be enslaved to their ideology? 

As the Islamists recruit soldiers from within free societies, governments that support individual liberty will be forced to stand against this threat and defeat it, or be destroyed from within. Free citizens must call Free States to action. It is a time to preserve individual liberty and to free those under the rule of radical Islamists, indeed it is a war for the liberty of all men and women, not initiated by us, but by the Islamists who wish to enslave us to their religion.

The Strategy:
The principles of liberty unite Free States, including freedom-loving Muslims, against radical Islam. The US Declaration of Independence is the source of the Free States unifying principle: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The United Nations (UN) is not a coalition of Free States, therefore the United States of America, as the most capable Free State, must form and lead a Free States coalition, perhaps through an adaptation of the Proliferation Security Initiative, a coalition of more than 100 States, that currently works to stop the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The Free States Coalition defeats the Islamist cause by (1) liberating and thereby strengthening their own economies; (2) promoting liberty and tolerance to counter radicalization; (3) destroying Islamist fighting elements; and (4) liberating populations enslaved under Islamist ideology.

Name:
The Free State Coalition

Alternate:
Liberty Coalition

Principle:
All men are Created equal, with the unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Banner:
LIBERTY FOR ALL 

Mission:
United Free States preserve and expand liberty 

Essential elements of the Free State strategy include:

1. Strengthening Liberty at home:
Liberty must not be confused with license. For example the license to abort terminates life and liberty for the unborn. The license of anything-goes sexual relations leads to justification for the license to kill infants. These two licenses are signifiant recruiting tools for the Islamist. They represent a significant threat to their society that places greater value on the process of creating and giving life to the unborn than the West. 
Liberty of economy is also significantly constrained by government regulation, or license, that favors special interests over individual economic liberty.
We need to increase our birth rates to counter the demographic shift to a predominant Muslim population in Europe and elsewhere. Muslim men with up to four wives are out populating the West. Returning to more traditional values of marriage and large families is crucial to countering the Muslim demographic wave.

2. Denying Islamists WMD:
While we are horrified by the ISIS slaughter across Syria, Iraq, and Libya, we must be careful to not avert our eyes from Iran. This Islamist state has the same goals as ISIS and is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons technology. This cannot be permitted. A very high priority is to keep WMD, including Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) weapons material out of the hands of radical Islamists. For this reason it makes sense to continue the Proliferation Security Initiative and build the Free State Coalition around it. Free States should also support legitimate UN efforts while not being constrained by the UN.

3. Stopping Islamist Proliferation within Free States: 
Islamist inspired attacks within the US and other Free States are on the rise. The Islamist ideology propagates easily across national borders, especially among Muslim populations, as seen by the allegiance given to ISIS by radical elements within an increasing number of nations. The strategy to defeat them must therefore engage all elements of Free State societies. Western Europe is rapidly becoming Muslim due to the very low birth rates among Europeans - this must be reversed. Muslim immigrants and their children must also be taught to value individual liberty and preserve the Free States. Those seeking to overthrow Free States from within must be identified and stopped. The Islamic State and its advocates, wherever they are found must be stopped and destroyed.

4. Recruiting Muslim States to join the Free States Coalition:
Freedom of religion is required of Muslim states for them to be considered a Free State. State institutional proscriptions against religions other than Islam, or penalties for conversion from Islam, support the Islamist movement and cannot be permitted in a Muslim state that desires to be in the Free State Coalition. Muslim states unwilling to support freedom of religion must be considered belligerents and an active political and economic campaign to encourage them to adopt liberty should be pursued. If they permit Islamists to operate within their borders then they are considered a state supporting Islamist movements.

5. Destroying and Overthrowing Islamists in their Home and Supporting States:
9-11 was a strategically significant victory for the Islamists. The successful post 9-11 campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq by the US and its allies are put at risk by not following up with equally committed campaigns against ISIS and Iran, and any other State that harbors the Islamist threat. Misguided US and European policy in the Middle East and Libya during the Obama administration has destabilized Middle East nations and given space for ISIS and other Islamist movements to grow. In addition the democracy movement in Iran was not supported. The full weight of Free State political, economic, and military power must be brought to bear against the threat. United Free States must engage the Islamists economically and militarily in their home and supporting states before they can effectively engage us with WMD in our States. Opposition forces that stand for liberty within these Islamist states must be encouraged and fully supported until full liberty is established.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Black Lives (Finally) Matter to Democrats?

I congratulate my “Democratic” friends and their leadership for finally recognizing that Black lives matter. I just do not understand why they so loudly proclaim that we Republicans, who have valued Black lives for years, should also acknowledge that Black lives matter. We know that ALL lives matter. It is the Democratic party that vehemently opposed the abolition of Black slavery. It was the Republican Party that fought for and won that (14th) Amendment to the Constitution. And let’s see - which Party was it that had KKK members in it? It is the Democratic Party that has torn apart Black families through their welfare programs. It is the Democratic party that advocates so strongly for the killing of Black babies through Planned Parenthood. When will they extend their new-found value for Black lives to Black babies? It is the Democratic Party that doesn't allow Blacks to defend themselves in the inner cities by denying them their 2nd Amendment rights - as a result innocent Black citizens are killed daily. The only true interest that the Democratic party has in Black lives is to use Black issues and Black bosses to enslave Black citizens to their controlling ideology and power. It is time for Black America to throw off the Democratic yoke and rejoice in the liberty Republicans achieved for them. Embrace liberty, family values, and the Republican Party as Ben Carson has so well illustrated. Obama has been nothing but a Democratic Boss under whom Black unemployment and welfare slavery has dramatically increased - the same will happen with Hillary Clinton! Black lives do matter - to Republicans! Once again I congratulate my Democratic friends but have to impatiently wait for them to extend their condescending graciousness to the rest of America's Black citizens whom the Republicans freed from slavery so many years ago. Wake up Black America!

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Hillary's Lack of "Cred" with the People and the President will Undo Her

To be fair, Hillary won the Democratic debate last night on points and style and a lot of Democrats will continue to support her. However, since 60% of Americans believe she is corrupt and dishonest, I give the debate to Bernie Sanders. I think it's fair to say that most Democrats listening to Bernie, would believe that he would honestly try to do everything he talks about. Now Bernie might not "give a dam about (Hillary's) emails" but we do!

I was stunned that Hillary would advocate that Edward Snowden and Wall Street CEOs go to jail for their wrong doing - but not her?! As CEO of the US State Department did not Hillary do exactly as Snowden and Wall Street "gamblers" did? She had her staff in the State Department copy classified information over to her unclassified network - just as Snowden. She accuses Wall Street CEOs of being gamblers with our money, but hasn't she gambled with our national secrets? As a military officer, if I had copied classified information and put it into an unclassified network, I would expect to go to jail. 

State Department staffers moved more than 400 pieces of classified information over to Hillary's unclassified network by one of three methods - all illegal. 
  1. Simply reading off information on the classified network and hand jamming it into the unclassified network. 
  2. Downloading classified information onto a storage device and transferring it over to the unclassified network as Snowden did. 
  3. Hooking an unclassified computer to the classified network. 
She obviously directed that this be done for her convenience - to Hell with national security.

I think it highly likely, if there is any justice in America, that Hillary will go to jail. She has not openly broadcast classified material that she had copied off the secure network, but in all other regards she has done the same as Snowden. At a minimum she should lose her security clearance. She has demonstrated what 60% of us have perceived - she is not trustworthy. 

President Obama is obviously using Hillary's email situation to his advantage. In his 60 Minutes interview, instead of not commenting because of the ongoing FBI investigation, which he has allowed, he expressed the view that she had made a mistake. Through his White House spokesman today, he emphasized his trust in the independent agencies (FBI/Justice Department) to do their job. Through his (corrupt) influence he could have stopped the FBI investigation, as he did the Lois Lerner investigation, but he has not. I think Rush Limbaugh's prediction will turn out to be right, Obama has no intention of turning the Democrat Party back to the Clintons by allowing Hillary to be nominated/elected President. 

I expect Obama to see that Hillary is in serious legal jeopardy, sufficient to cause her to drop out of the race. Bernie Sanders will likely be the Democrat nominee if Joe Biden stays out. 

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Constitutional Republican or Progressive Democrat in 2016 - A Mormon's Doctrinal Choice


This is an update to my October, 2012 post, Obama or Romney - A Mormon's Doctrinal Choice. It is updated to reflect the current campaign for the U.S. presidency in 2016. I have retained President Obama to represent the Progressive Democrat agenda that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders will pursue if they are elected. I replace Governor Romney with the phrase “Constitutional Republican” in the expectation that the Republican nominee will be pro-Constitution.

The October 2012, Semi-annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon or LDS Church) concluded without the Church endorsing Mormon Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States. Neither Mormon Prophet Thomas S. Monson nor any other Church leader encouraged Mormons to vote for Romney in any way.  For those not familiar with the Church this was in keeping with the Church's doctrine on individual liberty and choice and is applicable to the upcoming 2016 Presidential Election. 

The face of Mormonism in politics today is probably best reflected in two characters - Senator Harry Reid and former Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney. This also reflects a division within Mormonism on politics - Reid, liberal Democrat; Romney, conservative Republican. For the purposes of the 2016 presidential race, a Mormon's liberal Democrat choice can be represented by President Obama whom Senator Reid supports. The Church does not tell its members how to vote, and there is a strong doctrinal case to be made for that principle; however, in my view, the same doctrine supports an individual member voting against President Obama or a progressive Democrat successor.

The first 2012 Presidential debate, 3 Oct 2012, highlighted this doctrinal point. Mormons seriously considered voting for Governor Romney, not because he was a Mormon, but because he held up "God's" Constitution and President Obama did not. Mormons doctrinally accept that the US Constitution was established by God to protect His children's individual liberty. The Governor specifically referred to these documents and their principles of protecting life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and a limited Federal government. President Obama made no reference to the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution when asked about the role of government. Even following Governor Romney's direct reference to these documents and the role of government in upholding their principles, President Obama made no statement of agreement. 

President Obama's views on the US Constitution may not be well known, but his expressed views are available for evaluation. He has described the Constitution as "fundamentally flawed from its founding", and advocates for income redistribution through extra-Constitutional legislative and administrative means. From a Mormon doctrine perspective, his views concerning the Constitution are not the same as God's stated view. As a faithful Mormon I believed I could not stand with God while also standing for Mr. Obama as President, or any Progressive Democrat. Let me explain.

As a Mormon immigrant to the US and as a US military officer with 35 years of active duty service, I have felt it a great privilege to serve under an oath to defend the US Constitution and I wish to do so here. I will lay out the Mormon case for individual liberty and the Constitution, and then against the President who took the constitutionally-required oath of office to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and ... to the best of (his) ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

THE "MORMON" CASE FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND THE US CONSTITUTION

As a young New Zealand citizen and Mormon, I read revelations of God to the Prophet Joseph Smith (detailed below) in which God said "Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land (the USA), by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose .... And that law of  the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; and as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil."

Why would God lay claim that He "established the Constitution"? Mormons know that God's greatest heritage to His children is individual liberty or "agency." That heritage was established in Heaven, before His children came to Earth. God rejected a plan from Lucifer (Satan) who "sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him" and "there was war in heaven" to preserve that sacred liberty. God knew His children would make mistakes with their liberty while on Earth but "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son (Jesus Christ), that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life(John 3:16). The Savior was required because God preserved the liberty to His children. Furthermore Mormons believe that God "established the (US) Constitution" to reinstate individual liberty in the world in preparation for the Millennial return of His Son.

MY "MORMON" CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA

2016: Obama's America, a documentary movie I highly recommend, is very sympathetic to President Obama. After viewing the movie I could see how he has a genuine interest in the role of government in correcting inequality in society. Many Mormons also seek to see the poor rise and support government redistribution of wealth to achieve this goal. Equal opportunity is empowered by individual liberty as protected by the US Constitution; but equal outcomes are not guaranteed. Doctrinally, care for the poor is accomplished through voluntary contribution by individuals, not through government or even church involuntary taxation or redistribution of wealth. Mormon doctrine teaches that "every needy, naked soul ... their needs and wants" are to be taken care of by "people (who) ... should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God." Nowhere in scripture is forced care of the poor taught. Equal outcomes through forced redistribution can only be achieved through losses of individual liberty. God allows each of His children to achieve their potential through their own actions and the grace of Christ - the "righteous judge" of their "works."

In a 2001 radio interview, Illinois State Senator Obama made his views clear on the "flawed" Constitution and its obstruction to wealth redistribution (follow these links to various segments of the interview - the full interview is no longer available at WBEX.FM). He describes the Constitution as an "imperfect document ... reflect(ing) the fundamental flaw of this country that continues today." From a Mormon's perspective he did not recognize the divine perfection and establishment of that original Constitution. Slavery could not stand against it, neither unequal rights for women. The foundational principles and processes for change and review established by the Constitution, have corrected error in US society and enthroned individual liberty - as God intended. 

Paul Roderick Gregory in his Forbes article, Why the Fuss? Obama Has Long Been On Record In Favor Of Redistribution, does an excellent job of summarizing Senator Obama's views expressed in that 2001 interview:

QUOTE (with Senator Obama's statements in quotations):

First: “We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.” By positive economic rights, Obama means government protection against individual economic failures, such as low incomes, unemployment, poverty, lack of health care, and the like. Obama characterizes the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” which “says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”
Second, Obama regrets that the Constitution places “essential constraints” on the government’s ability to provide positive economic rights and that “we have not broken free” of these Constitutional impediments. Obama views the absence of positive economic liberties that the government must supply as a flaw in the Constitution that must be corrected as part of a liberal political agenda.
Third, Obama concludes that we cannot use the courts to break free of the limited-government constraints of the Founders. The courts are too tradition and precedent bound “to bring about significant redistributional change.” Even the liberal Warren Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”
Fourth, Obama argues that economic rights that the state must supply are ultimately to be established at the ballot box. Those who favor redistribution must gain legislative control through an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.” The electoral task of a redistributive President is therefore to craft coalitions of those who stand to benefit from government largess. The legislature, not the courts, must do this “reparative economic work.”

In sum, Obama views the Constitution as a flawed document from which we must “break free.” We need, instead, a “living” Constitution that refocuses from “negative rights” to requiring income redistribution from the Haves to provide “positive economic rights” to the Have Nots. 

END QUOTE

Heather Higgins also does a good job of describing Senator Obama's interview in her US News and World Report article,  Barack Obama's Poor Understanding of the Constitution, The Founding Fathers were correct in the way they set up the Constitution.

Then Senator Obama's arguments for wealth redistribution were a fundamental infringement on individual liberty. He is correct that the Constitution does not support redistribution of wealth - therefore he seeks extra-constitutional means to enact his plans. The Obamacare redistribution of health care through the government is an example of this approach. In order to achieve equal outcomes it restricts religious freedom. Multiple Catholic lawsuits against the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) are "to protect the conscience rights of health care providers and institutions that do not want to participate in abortion or assisted suicide ...." The Mormon church is clearly in support of Catholics and these concerns as shown in their official website statements on religious freedom. 

To a Mormon, arguments of equal outcomes is similar to the argument of Lucifer in Heaven. His equal outcome to "redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost" could only be accomplished by "destroy(ing) the agency (liberty) of man, which ... the Lord God, had given him ...." Likewise, President Obama acts to change the Constitution which God "suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; that every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins (actions) in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another" - not the slave in bondage to the rich as in days past, or the rich in taxing bondage to the poor as our President intends.

To put it in Paul Roderic Gregory's words: 

QUOTE:

The Obama administration has given us a taste of an overbearing majority’s “schemes of oppression” (to use Madison’s words) not decided “according to rules of justice and the rights of the minor party:” the blackmailing of Chrysler bondholders, the transfer of property from creditors and shareholders to organized labor in the GM bailout, the attempted destruction of whole industries, such as coal, through regulation rather than legislation, transfers of income from lenders to borrowers under forced loan renegotiations, and the use of unelected and unapproved economic czars to redistribute income and wealth by executive fiat.

END QUOTE

Add to these the redistribution of Obamacare, the individual mandate of which could only pass Supreme Court scrutiny under the governments power to "tax;" the failure to have the Justice Department defend the Defense of Marriage Act in Court; and the failure to uphold immigration laws.

As Americans we have a great blessing and responsibility to exercise our vote. "I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." 

I see President Obama's actions and the Progressive Democrat agenda with respect to the Constitution as "evil" in that they do not support God's Constitution of individual liberty. I balance that statement with the observation that by Mormon doctrine we also know that President Obama is one of the valiant sons of God that upheld the principle of maintaining individual liberty in Heaven - had he not, he would not be upon the Earth with a physical body, with the opportunity to exercise his liberty and learn for himself that "wickedness never was happiness."

May God bless the President of the United States, and may we uphold the Constitution of individual liberty that the current President opposes buy electing a Constitutional Republican in 2016.

The following quotes on the US Constitution are accepted by Mormons as scripture from God:

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

54 Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.

The Equal Outcome Argument and Preservation of Liberty in Heaven:

1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.
3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Care for the Poor:

27 And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given.
28 And thus they should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God, and to those priests that stood in need, yea, and to every needy, naked soul.
29 And this he said unto them, having been commanded of God; and they did walk uprightly before God, imparting to one another both temporally and spiritually according to their needs and their wants.

14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.
15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.
17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.

18 Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Donald Trump’s Unconstitutional and Divisive Tax Plan

Donald Trump's tax plan may in fact stimulate the US economy; however, it will continue a form of taxation that is unconstitutional and divisive. 

First, the 16th amendment provides that the federal government can collect income taxes, however; it does not provide for unequal taxation. How can progressive tax rates (0%, 10%, 20%, 25%) be justified under the 14th Amendment requirement that we all be treated equally under the law? How can a tax system constitutionally penalize or discriminate against the rich in favor of the poor? Equality requires the income tax rate be the same for everyone.

Second, we equally share responsibility for our government; however, Donald grants 50% of our citizens who will pay no income taxes, the privilege to vote on tax rates that only the other 50% will pay. This is neither equality nor liberty - it puts the wealthy in bondage to the poor. For those who wish to argue that the rich have a responsibility to the poor I ask, “Where is that found in the US Constitution?” The low income (democracy) mob will clearly steal from the rich through a system of “legal plunder” under the Donald’s tax plan.


A flat income tax rate, as proposed by Ben Carson, is constitutional and will unite us.

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Kim Davis, Kentucky, and the Supreme Court.

How many of us are willing to go to jail for our religious beliefs? Kim Davis, a County Clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses after the recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, had the courage of her convictions - she was willing to have contempt for a judge rather than contempt for her God. Many have condemned her for not fulfilling her oath of office without considering the failure of Kentucky to protect her 1st Amendment (free speech and religious) rights.

The Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage came after Ms Davis had taken her oath of office. The change in the law put her between the Supreme Court and her Supreme Being. She could resign from her office and lose her livelihood, or she could stand for her beliefs while waiting for Kentucky to protect her 1st Amendment rights. Subsequently she refused to issue any marriage licenses. A suit against her was brought by two gay and two straight couples. A judge ordered her to issue the licenses but she refused and went to jail for it. Why didn’t the judge order Kentucky to make accommodation for her 1st Amendment rights?

The Supreme Court decision on marriage, based on the 14th Amendment, cannot negate our 1st Amendment rights. There is a long history in US law for accommodation of religious rights. A recent example is the Supreme Court ruling that Obamacare could not require Hobby Lobby to provide abortion coverage, because the owners of the company had a religious objection to abortion. 

The judge should have recognized the conflict between the 1st and 14th Amendments in this case, understood the long history of 1st Amendment accommodation, and recognized that Ms Davis was not willing to show contempt for the highest law of the land - the Constitution. She rightly had contempt for the unconstitutional order of the judge who subsequently jailed her. This forms the basis of Governor Huckabee’s accusation of judicial tyranny.

I see too many pandering to politically correct thought with respect to the gay lobby and Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage. All they see is that Ms Davis violated her oath of office. They have no compassion for her conscience. Respect, and 1st Amendment accommodation, for Kim Davis' religious beliefs are dismissed. Kentucky must provide accommodation for Kim Davis' religious objection to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The current action of removing her name and signature on the licenses is a first step towards satisfying the 1st Amendment, since it removes the appearance of her sanctioning same-sex marriage.

After the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal, "conscience clauses" were passed into law so that health-care professionals who objected to abortion on religious grounds might be excused from a legal obligation to perform them. Similar accommodations need to be made in the case of this Supreme Court ruling. Kim's case is simply helping the 1st Amendment accommodation to occur. Let's have some respect for her in that light. If she were a doctor in a Federal hospital, would we demand that she kill a baby when the mother's life was not at risk because the law had just made it legal?

Kiwi