A Communist in the Whitehouse – I’m just getting started…more to come

9 01 2014

propagandaAt a glance many people will smirk and chuckle about the title of this post, but I’m not using hyperbole and trying to emphasize a point of view;  I’m stone cold serious. And I’ll demonstrate how I found this and why I believe it and why it’s important.

First off, this country is not a Democracy nor is it a Republic per se.

We live in a Constitutional Republic.

Why is it important to understand this from the beginning?  Because it is the very foundation upon which our nation was perceived, framed and constructed; and the antithesis of Barack Obama’s vision for our future.

What is a Constitutional Republic? First, let’s start by defining Democracy and Republic.

A democratic form of government is simply, majority rule.  Everyone who is eligible and can vote has a voice, and in the end the majority’s persuasion wins the day.

A republic form of government is one where the elected government officials represent the individual, but are beholden to the populus at large and therefore, their affairs are open to public view and scrutiny.

America is a Constitutional Republic.

We adhere to the tenets of our founding Constitution and its articles of declaration and our elected government officials, who are elected by a process that is democratic (and that’s why people believe America is a democracy, because we vote) are therefore bound to the principles within the Constitution and its amendments.  The Constitution is their playbook.  Everything they do, comes from within those documents.  At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

In America, the Federal government has no power over the people.  They merely have the authority act within the boundaries created by the Constitution; nothing more and nothing less.

The individual united states however, have authority to pass laws and regulations based on their social needs created from the desires of the people living within their boundaries by a democratic process.

Elected officials within the states represent the people to the Federal government i.e. Congressmen and Senators.

So to make it very simplistic, the people in the states vote for individuals who have the same beliefs and principles and give them their trust as they then go to the Capital of the Nation to represent the voice of the individual.

Why are there Congress and Senate and what do each do?

I’m not going to go into all that much detail but the purpose of a Congressman is to hear the voice of the people by the state in which he was elected and take that voice to the Federal government to be heard.

The Senate is there to evaluate the deeds of Congress, and to ratify their bills and laws and decide if they are in line with constitutional principles.  If they are, the laws are passed, amendments chartered and so on and so forth.

The purpose of the President is to oversee the deeds of the Congress and Senate and to make sure that they are upholding the principles of the Constitution, from which their authority is granted.  And he is given the power to veto bills and laws if they are not in line with the Constitution.

He is an overseer.  The president is granted no legislative authority.  That is reserved for the purposes of the Congress and the Senate.

But all to often, once a man is given a little authority, he immediately exersizes unrighteous dominion, and that is why there is a Senate, to keep Congress in check, and a President to make sure all bills are in line with constitutional principles.

And then we have the Supreme Court, but we won’t go into that.  Enough is enough with our discussion of government 101.

However, many people believe that the office of the President is one of authority, and power over Congress, the Senate and the People.  This is completely opposite to the purpose of the creation of this experiment called America.  For the President to have authority over the legislative bodies and the people, would be to have a King or a Dictator.  As I said before, the President is merely an overseer and protector of our freedoms; nothing more, nothing less.

The office of the President is very simple, although its execution is complicated by politics.  And now we return to the temptation that a man given authority has the tendency toward the immediate exersize of unrighteous dominion.

Without being too detailed, I’ll lay out, based on my understanding, which has come by my formal education and relentless pursuit for the knowledge of our nation’s history and government (I’m not just repeating what I hear others say) so that as we proceed, we also understand together the same definition of political titles and terminologies, where authority is given and its boundaries.  Because too often conversations turn contentious simply because ideas are represented by words which are defined differently from one person to another; ergo the explanation of the authorities of the different branches of government in America.

And now that we have that foundation laid down, and a common understanding of things we can begin to discuss all this communist-in-the-whitehouse hoopla (see what I did there, with the foundation and that…).

One thing I’ll give to this president is his honoring the promise to fundamentally transform America.  Because that’s exactly why he ran for office.  Hope and change, to fundamentally transform America.

Here’s the actual quote given October 31, 2008

“After decades of broken politics in Washington, and eight years of failed policies from George W. Bush, and 21 months of a campaign that’s taken us from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunshine of California, we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. In five days, you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street.”

And in this context its critical to remember that in another speech given February 19, 2008, which has been given the title “Just Words”, he quoted many former presidents and emphasised how important the words used in presidential speeches really are, and that they mean what they say.

He threw those words over our heads in his speech but when I heard him say that my hair caught fire.  And that’s one of the reasons I’ve been relentless over the past five or six years in pointing out his actions and trying to demonstrate in a way that people can understand, the direction in which they are steering our nation.

So what does a ‘fundamental transformation’ really mean and why would he say something like that in regards to his Hope and Change campaign?

It’s important now, that we understand where the campaign slogan “Hope and Change” originated.  What are the roots of these terms and why did he use the word Hope, and what does the word Change really mean to him?

Those words resonate with everyone on a level that brings comfort and enthusiasm for prosperity, and relief from our burdens.   But it’s important to understand what those terms mean to the person who used them in the first place.  Why did he say them to us and what is he really trying to say?  Because he knows that those are positive, uplifting terms to most, however his definition of them is far more sinister than many of us realize.   And its because of the origin of those terms coming from him, in context with his background, that they are so dangerous.

Let’s start with the term ‘change’ and what it really means coming from his roots.

Barack Obama was indoctrinated deeply with sympathy for the cause of Marxist, Leninist, Taoist, Trotskyite, AKA Communist principles, especially while he was at Columbia University and then in Chicago in the mid nineteen eighties where he was given accolades, attention, a taste of power and some vision he could believe in, in actually being an influential part of the infiltration and eventual overthrow of what he perceived as a corrupt and oppresive American regime.

When Obama got to Chicago, he began his work as a community organizer.  This is public knowledge and sounds like a credible and honorable position of leadership.  But understanding what a community organizer is and where its roots spring is critical in understanding Obama’s indoctrination into a full blown Marxist.

He began training in the mid nineteen eightees at the Midwest Academy, through a grant from the Woods Fund which he received through his associations with Thomas Ayers.

Thomas Ayers is the father of William Ayers and was then CEO of Commonwealth Edison, which is one of the largest gas and electric utility holding companies in the nation.

One of Bill Ayers’ most poignant comments was, after being charged with terrorist bombings and being acquitted on a technicality, “guilty as sin, free as a bird.”  Of course he was acquitted because of his powerful connections through his father.

The Midwest Academy was founded by sixties radicals who were members of the SDS, Students for a Democratic Society.  Remember the definition of Democracy?  Majority rule.  No foundation in principle or ethics and no constitution.  Simply a powerful arm to forcing the rule of the strong over the weak.

Now were going to take a little diversion to explore the origins of the SDS, just for a moment, so that we can better understand what type of motivation his trainers at the Midwest Academy had in forming him into a community organizer, then I’ll demonstrae what a community organizer really is.

The SDS was born of Marxist philosophy and founded upon its principles.  In short, the SDS is a new-age euphamism for modern day Marxist think-tankers.

NOTE: If you don’t understand Karl Marx and the fact that he was a megalomaniac bent on the destruction of liberty and freedom then you should go back to the drawing board, get a little brush up on the origins of Communist theory and start all over with this post.

Here’s how the SDS links directly to Karl Marx and the proof that Obama is a Communist.  But that’s not even the smoking gun in all of this, so stick with me because it will all come together.

Karl Marx was inspired by the philosopher George Hegel, who created dialectic theory and the art of argument.  Without going into the details of Hegelian Dialectics, I’ll define it briefly.  George Hegel isn’t the man who created the dialectic theory originally but he is the one to whom its philosophical body is commonly attributed.

Dialectics approaches all theories and theoroms based on the premise that all supporting axioms of thought are inherently flawed.  Therefore the proponents of dialectic theory naturally seek to find fault in everything around them and therefore are able to create a new problem which then needs to be overcome by thier implementation of a solution, thereby giving them the control; which was their original design, taking control.

Dialectic is more than just rhetoric or debate.  It is a mode of moving an idealogy or philosophy off of its foundation for the purposes of change and assimilation, to bring differing ideals into a more commonly accepted realm of thought.

This is how socialists, leftists, Marxists and facists think and approach everything.  At a glance it looks like a healthy way of exploring ideas, because we must be open to the possibility that there are flaws in ideas so that we can correct them and move forward to healing and truth.

However, those who have more diabolical ideals coursing through their thought processes use dialectic theory to poke holes in otherwise sound and solid modes of thought for the purposes of usurping power over more natural and morally based ideals which have stood for millenia.  That’s why it’s so easy to lead a group around by the nose once religion, or a principled foundation is removed from the equation.

There are no absolutes in dialectic thought.  Everything is up for discussion and everything is open to change; and a democratic power structure who rules over a dependent, lower class is always the force manipulating that change for their own needs and pleasures at any given time.

All that the power hungry structure needs for a populus to follow them is a large enough common crisis that affects everyone, and then they are able to propose a solution to what seems an unsolvable problem.

Please share this with everyone who is open to the truth.  It’s important that Americans are knowledgeable about these things.  This isn’t a game and it isn’t a safety net.  It’s literal tyranny, just what the Founding Fathers escaped.

(image used without permission)

Advertisements




Sources

5 03 2011

During all the controversy I’ve created among my circle of friends and family with my thoughts and opinions I’ve come to find that they want sources for my insights.  I have failed to provide the sources of my research, therefore I am being accused of lying and making things up.

In the future I will start to cite my sources but for now I’ll say that all of what I have gathered has come from the study of a combination of sources.  Many of which will go against the  grain of many peoples comfort but these are my conclusions based on research of the best books I have found in life.  And one of the things I was taught as a child was to find truth from the best books, and I have held on to that as a standard of guidance for my life, to answer the questions I come up against throughout my trials and they have served me well as I now have inner peace and calm and I am in balance with what I believe is divine nature, God.

People in my life accuse me of many things but I have come to this by work, research, experience, living life, making mistakes, making choices, exercising reason and applying these things to my daily life.  These are all the things the people in my life who are accusing me of wrong doing are telling me to do, and I do them, and these are the results.  So why are they pointing fingers at me?  I think the confusion is with them, not with me.  I am fine and I am free.

My primary sources are the cannon of scripture from the LDS church.  The King James version of the bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, along with many translations of ancient Egyptian writings from the times of the pharaohs.  I also follow after the philosophies of the ancient Roman philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero, coupled with the reason and integrity of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and George Washington.

Recently I have been privileged to have been enlightened by the teachings of Dr. Bruce Lipton, a microbiologist who has done stem cell research  since 1967 and who has pioneered the new bio-science of epigenetics.

Thanks for following along.  Comments are welcome,  please check your anger at the door.  This is discussion of important matters that pertain to life.  Humor is welcome always!

(top image used without artist permission)





My religion is showing!

1 02 2011

Alright, every once in a while the virtual soap box upon which I stand on the information superhighway becomes a platform for religious discussion. All my life I’ve been a pretty consistent rule breaker and I’m breaking the politic/religion rule here. I’m not trying to start a war or convert anyone, it’s just that there are some things that are so intimately woven into the fabric of my being that I have to express them, and that’s what this blog is all about.

Everyone knows by now that I’m one of those kooky Mormons. I’ve been growing my hair long to hide my horns and I have sixteen of my wives living secretly in a bunker west of the Great Salt Lake.

And most people know that we Mormons have this extra bit of scripture we call the Book of Mormon. I’ve mentioned it in other blog posts because a lot of what I think about corresponds to its teachings and it has helped shape my philosophy throughout my life. It’s a good book!

But there are some things about its coming forth that are somewhat extraordinary. They don’t prove its authenticity but they are things not to be merely dismissed and taken lightly if one is prone to argue against the truthfulness of the book.

Just to give a very brief synopsis of what the Book of Mormon is: It’s a record of a people who came from Jerusalem during the reign of King Zedekiah around 600 BC. They built a boat and crossed the waters, brought with them records of the ancient prophets, i.e. Jeremiah, Isaiah, Moses, Zenock, Zenos (guess they liked the Z names); some in the Bible and some not but for the most part they had the law of Moses and the writings of the old testament prophets.

This people kept records on plates made of brass and gold and hid them up with prayers to God and a promise from Him to them that the record would come forth in the latter days by simple and small means to bring to pass the work of righteousness for the salvation of their ancestry and the family of men. Joseph Smith, Jr. was the vessel directed by God’s hand to bring this record to light in these, the last days.

Here is a list of many factoids concerning the Book of Mormon and its translator, Joseph Smith, Jr.

  1. He was between 23 and 24 years of age
  2. He had only three years of formal schooling
  3. The book contains 239 chapters; 54 of them about wars, 21 about history, 55 about prophecy, 71 about doctrines, 17 about missionaries, and 21 about the mission of Christ
  4. The book contains the history of two separate nations, along with histories of different contemporary nations and groups of people
  5. It describes in detail the religious, economic, social and political cultures and institutions of these two nations.
  6. The book covers a period over 1000 years of history and was written in approximately 80 days
  7. Since it was finished there have been no major contextual changes, only grammatical corrections
  8. There is a challenge to the reader at the end of the book concerning its authenticity and truth: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask of God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, He will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost”
  9. Millions of people have testified that they know the book to be true and correct because they put the challenge to the test
  10. Many great men, intellectual giants and scholars have subscribed discipleship to the record and its movement even to giving their very lives
  11. The descriptions of the cultures in the civilizations spoken of in the book were not known when it was published but have since been discovered to exist exactly as described
  12. There are no contradictions within the book or with the words of the Holy Bible
  13. Many of the facts, ideas, and statements given in the record were in direct opposition with the prevailing beliefs of the world at the time it was published
  14. The translator invited the ablest scholars and experts to examine the text with care. He made great efforts to see that the book got into the hands of all those most eager to prove it a forgery
  15. Thorough investigation, scientific evidence and archaeological discoveries for the next 180 years have verified the claims and proven many of the details in the book
  16. After 180 years of extensive analysis, not one claim or fact in the book has been disproved
  17. The translator, Joseph Smith, Jr., after suffering persecutions and revilement for 20 years after finishing the translation died as a martyr at the hands of evil men for his testimony that it is a true record given to us from God

You can read it online –> here

(some images used without permission)





Give because it’s the right thing to do

14 01 2011

Sometimes you have something to say to someone that they need to hear. It’s the answer they are looking for, but it’s not the answer they want and it’s not scratching the itch they’re feeling at the moment. So you offer it up and it’s not received in the way you hope it will be received.

What do you do? Do you get angry, frustrated, begin to point out how this person is missing the picture or missing your point? No, that doesn’t help anything. You’ve set out to try to uplift someone and if they don’t absorb what your offering, certainly don’t respond by tearing them down and giving them a dose of, “Well if you don’t take what I’m giving then I’ll put you in your place, mister!”

You’ve put it out there and it’s out there. It got to them the best it could and it will come back at a time when it’s able to fit into position within them, to settle in and be of value to them. It can’t be forced if there’s no holding place for it to settle into. Time needs to pass and experience needs to create that holding place for your words to comfortably settle in and and take their place to have meaning and fortify their being.

I once offered a homeless man a cup of hot chocolate I bought for him, specifically for him. My son Spencer, eight years old at the time told me to give a homeless man a cup of hot chocolate as a gift of compassion while we were out that day. I thought that was an amazing request and was so happy that he had been learning good things at such a young age. As his dad I was going to take the opportunity to follow through and solidify in his young and developing character the value of giving, service and compassion.

So we walked into Starbucks and I bought hot chocolate for the three kids and an extra for the sign-holder and went down to the street level and I held out the cup of hot chocolate to the man who is holding a cardboard sign, which is telling us, “anything helps.” It was winter and it was cold. He was bundled up with gloves and a hat to cover his ears and head and he was huddling up to keep warm. I thought it was a nice gesture. I said, “here’s some hot chocolate, we got it just for you.”

He just looked at me and said, “I can’t hold it.”

I repeated and said, “I just bought it for you, it’s fresh warm, and it’s good.”

He said again, “I can’t hold it.”

So, what was I supposed to do? Get upset and react in anger? Being turned down is something you don’t hope for, but it happens and it’s OK. The point is that my little guy had the heart to make this offering of compassion to someone he saw in need, and he did it without worrying about what others around him might think. He was only concerned for this man who was holding out his hand.

So we took the hot chocolate and were going to offer it to someone else but there was nobody else around to give it to. We shared it and it was good, and we talked about this experience and we were able to see that sometimes people who are in need don’t want what you have to give and that it’s OK. The important thing is to offer, and to love them. Their reaction or response is their responsibility. Our responsibility is to be kind and to give what we can. If it is not understood that is OK. Sometime in the future that guy will remember the group of people who offered that hot chocolate to him and that memory will have some meaning and value. That day it didn’t, but that doesn’t mean that the experience was meaningless. It was important on many levels, and a selfish reaction of anger or contempt because of the rejection by the beggar would have turned that opportunity into something ugly and nasty.

Let’s all rise above ourselves and make the best out of every situation, and when we are rejected or surprised by the reactions of others, let’s be grateful for the opportunity we had to make any sort of offering whether it was accepted or not.

The moral to this story is to be bold, but not overbearing.  Be compassionate, but not forceful in giving.  Do things for the benefit of others, to make the future better, to make the world a better place.  Remember that your influence is like a seed being planted.  At the moment you plant it, it is unseen, buried and goes unnoticed.  But in time it grows and nobody remembers who planted it or where it came from, but the tree is there to offer fruit and shade and beauty to countless people who find themselves in its way.  To be noticed for your efforts is not the reward.  To bring comfort to the lives of others is.




Politics and religion reprisal…

12 12 2007

Mike Huckabee is starting to scare me. OK, for the record, lest any of you wonder, I’m a Mormon and have been for most of my life. I’m not exactly the standard of purity at this point in my life, I may fall under the category of Jack Mormon, but that doesn’t change what I believe. I like Mitt Romney. Not because he is LDS, he just happens to be, and I find a lot of common ground with him.

I like Rudy Giuliani a lot too. The problem with him is his scandals and the mistakes he’s made. I mean, he abused his privilege as mayor while hiding his mistress and recommended Bernard Kerik to be homeland security secretary among other things. He was a great mayor and a great leader but I’m not so sure he is what America needs at this point in its history. I’m just not sure if he can rise to the challenges before us.

The real reason I’m making this post is because Huckabee is really starting to look kooky, and here’s why.

The man is an ordained Baptist minister and had a congregation of over 400,000 before his political career. He has founded his life on his beliefs in Christ and the teachings of the bible as he understands them. He is a man who would say that character counts. He is a man who will defend what he believes. He is a man who lives by his religion and wears it on his sleeve and shares it liberally. The problem I am having is that his campaign and former church are reluctant to release much, if any of his sermons for public review. Does anyone else smell something stinky there?

I don’t believe for one second that he has anything unethical or scandalous to hide. I think the reason there may be some reluctance is because sometimes the Southern born-agains get a little carried away in their exuberance and from time to time his preachings likely contained things that can easily be used against him to make him look like an extremist wacko. If he said those things as a minister for Christ why can he not share them now as a presidential candidate? Why do they become such separate issues now that his life is in the public eye?

What really pisses me off is that, while he tries to hide his potential to look silly, he deflects the spotlight of scrutiny onto Mitt Romney by asking in the New York Times, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”.

The answer to that question is an entirely separate issue. I do find it to be an incredible opportunity to explain the Mormon understanding of our literal relationship to God as His children to the world. Most mainstream Christian churches contend that Mormons are not Christian because we believe that Christ and Lucifer are spirit brothers. I find that to be ridiculous and really just laugh when I hear a statement like that tossed out with the intention of making us seem like blasphemous heretics.

For some reason people just find it abhorrent to think that God might have created the spirit that became Satan. Was Lucifer not an angel in heaven before the fall? Could God not have created him as a spirit child as he did me, you and Christ? Did God not create all things? Where in the bible does it clarify this point of doctrine?

I’d like to hear Huckabee explain where Lucifer came from and who created him if he expects Romney to do the same. Is it really an issue at the end of the day? What it really is, is just another notch in the belt of sensationalism for Huckabee and the mainstream, fundamentalist Christian right to say that Mormons are a non-Christian cult.

For Huckabee to try and embarrass Romney rather than open his vault and share the words he preached from the heart, his core beliefs, the teachings that were supposed to be salvation to the souls of hundreds of thousands, is cowardly.








%d bloggers like this: