Drones

There has been discussion for months now about whether Obama should have authorization to use drones to kill American citizens on U.S. soil.  After all, he has already used drones to assassinate Americans abroad.

Several secret Justice Department memos were written to justify this type of drone use, but they have not been released, so the public cannot challenge them.

Today, A.G., Eric Holder, responded to Congress that he would not rule out the use of drones to kill Americans (see article).  He was asked if the Constitution forbids it, and he did not answer directly.

What have I been telling you?  The government is not necessarily your friend.  Yesterday he said that the President has "no intention" of using drones to kill citizens here at home.  That is just code for "until he changes his mind".  The Department of Homeland Security is spending $$-BILLIONS to buy drones for domestic use.  If they don't "INTEND" to use them, then why are they buying them?

Do you smell the scent of totalitarianism yet?  I do.  Will you pretend that it really is no big deal?

Silliness

In the wake of the recent tragic mass shootings in Colorado and Connecticut, the liberal mob is clamoring for more limits on the availability of firearms and ammunition.  You would assume that these bleeding hearts are genuinely hoping to prevent future massacres by reducing the number of bullets in circulation.  Proposed regulations include the enforcement of background check guidelines.

I don't have exact statistics, but one news report noted that nearly as many people are murdered each year by blows from hammers.  I don't believe that Obama and his posse seriously want to outlaw hammers (or knives for that matter).

Cook County (Chicago-land), Illinois, has some of the strictest gun prohibitions in the nation, yet the number of murders there has increased steadily over the last two years.

Let's be honest.  This push to get guns (or automatic weapons) out of the hands of Americans has little do to with preventing massacres.  You know that liberals want bigger government.  For them government is inherently benevolent - especially if they are running it.  They want it to grow if only so that more of them can enjoy the security of recurring revenue.

Think about it.  What is government?  It is just other folks like you and me who now have the power to make collective decisions for you and me - power which we accorded to them, or power that they seized through duress.  That is why we vote - so that we can get rid of power-hungry tyrants.

Problem is - through devious, cunning manipulation, the government/banker types in America have voided the Constitution, diluted the Bill of Rights, mortgaged our land to our enemies, and plotted to utterly dismantle our republican form of government.  We are more closely resembling ancient Rome and ancient Babylon.

The Framers created the Second Amendment because they had watched European governments seize the citizens' guns and oppress and brutalize them for personal gain.  Their goal was to arm the American citizenry so that tyrannical scum like our current "leaders" wouldn't be able to storm into our homes and take our guns, food and daughters.  That's the whole point.  The regular folks need to have guns so that the enemy - be it foreign or domestic - cannot overwhelm them when our social infrastructure collapses.

In pre-war Nazi Germany, gun ownership was virtually eradicated.  No wonder Hitler met with little resistance in his campaign for total national control.  We, the People, are asleep because we are not the ones making the plans for the devastation of our land.  The least we can do is be prepared and be armed.

Why does Obama want you to give up your assault rifles?  Because he doesn't want you to be able to defend yourself when he comes to take your gas and food.  He wants your protests to fall on deaf government ears - just like they do now.

Silliness !!!

I'm Confused

Race discrimination is a delicate topic in the U.S. (and in other parts of the western world).  If you want to preserve your reputation, you simply do not bash members of non-white races.

Mark E. Petersen

The Mormon Church came under fire in the 1970's because it denied priesthood ordinations to black men.  Its longstanding policy was articulated by Mark E. Petersen in this speech. 

Spencer W. Kimball

The hue and cry reached a fever pitch in 1978, and the Church's Council of the Twelve saw no other option but to surrender to public sentiment and alter its policy.  The Church was facing immense pressure regarding its new temple in Sao Paolo, Brazil.  Church president, Spencer W. Kimball, had been confronting criticism for several years.  In June, of 1978, Kimball announced that through "revelation" he (and the Twelve) had been directed by God to start ordaining negroes.  You can read about these events here, but I have been unable to find a copy of the alleged revelation to Kimball.  Perhaps he considered it too personal and not for general publication.

Last week the Church announced a batch of changes it has recently made to its canon of holy writ - the four "Standard Works" (read this article in the Salt Lake Tribune).  Among the recent edits are "tweaks" to the portions of the scriptures that address race.  Part of Peggy Fletcher Stack's article reads:

 - - - The lead-in to Official Declaration 2, which describes the church’s 1978 announcement to lift its ban on black males holding the faith’s priesthood, makes clear that Mormon founder Joseph Smith had previously ordained several black men.

Subsequent LDS officials "stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent," the new introduction says. "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."

The new edition does not dispel any of the theological myths that arose to defend the practice, saying only that Mormon leaders believed it would take a revelation to undo the ban. 

"I am thrilled by the new statement regarding blacks," says Darius Gray, former president of the Genesis Group, a support organization for black Mormons. "The language is more forthcoming than anything we’ve previously had on the past priesthood restriction, so I take great pleasure in seeing the changes." - - -

So, as an external observer, I find my self confused by the mixed arguments made by the Church regarding its policies towards negroes and the priesthood.  The Church's two contrasting explanations can be summed up by the following:

1.  Blacks were denied priesthood throughout and since Bible times.  Joseph Smith eventually came to understand this proscription and retracted the ordination of Elijah Abel (a negro) after having given him the priesthood in error.  Negroes remained ineligible to receive priesthood until 1978, when God deemed them finally worthy (lifting the "Curse of Cain"), and He directed Spencer Kimball to start ordaining them, admitting them to the temples, and sealing them to white people. 

2.  Blacks have been worthy to hold priesthood since the days of their first ancestor.  Joseph Smith ordained them rightfully.  Joseph Smith's successors INEXPLICABLY suspended the ordination of negroes, - - - - and, no matter how hard we look, we cannot find a single treatise in the "records" of the Church to help us understand why blacks were refused priesthood.  So, when we woke up in the 1970's, we realized what a silly oversight this was, and we hurried and corrected it (especially in light of the huge international outcry against our doctrines).

Aren't you just as confused as I am?  Do you get the impression that the Church's doctrines have a half-life of about 20 years, and depend wholly on the prevailing tide of fashion and public sentiment?