Why They Do Not Conform to the Teachings of the Latter-day Prophets and Our Nation’s Inspired Founding Fathers

Below you will read a very revealing document about what Mitt Romney really believes about the proper role of government. In July of 2007, Mitt Romney wrote a featured article in the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs Journal. This - in and of itself - reveals much about Mitt Romney. Anyone who is familiar with the purposes of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) will understand the significance of Mitt Romney having had an article published in this nefarious organization’s publication.

In order to properly understand the context of why this is a big deal, you must learn just a little big about the CFR. Before learning about the CFR, it is important to read a Prophet’s words about the importance of national sovereignty, and how important it is that America remain free and independent from all other nations under heaven.

President Ezra Taft Benson said: “Our leaders in Washington have been acting as though the American people elected them to office for the primary purpose of leading the entire planet toward international peace, prosperity, and one-world government. At times, these men appear to be more concerned with something called world opinion or with their image as world leaders than they are with securing the best possible advantage for us.” (Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, page 682)

As you read Mitt Romney’s article below, you will see that he is the very same type of “leader” that President Benson is referring to in the quote you just read. President Benson also had this to say about our national sovereignty: “Many well-intentioned people are now convinced that we are living in a period of history which makes it both possible and necessary to abandon our national sovereignty, to merge our nation militarily, economically, and politically with other nations, and to form, at last, a world government which supposedly would put an end to war……

Sovereignty for a nation is hard to come by and even more difficult to retain. It cannot be shared, for then sovereignty becomes something else, and, for want of a better word, when sovereignty is lessened the end-product is internationalism. Sovereignty is neither more nor less than self-government. American self-government is blueprinted in the Constitution.” (Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pgs 695-696)

Again, you must compare these thoughts from an inspired Prophet of God, and then compare them to what Mitt Romney believes must be accomplished going forward in America. The Lord decreed that the nation which inhabits this continent, the nation which would allow the gospel to be restored in should be independent and sovereign (Ether 2:12). It will become very obvious that Mitt Romney’s thoughts and beliefs are at odds with the words of our nation’s Founding Fathers and with the words of Latter-day Prophets and Apostles.

It is very important that we realize what kind of organization that Mitt Romney is associating with – the CFR. The secret combination spoken of in Ether chapter 8 has many tools at its disposal and they have a goal of world enslavement, the destruction of the Christian religion and a one-world government. They do not believe in National Sovereignty whatsoever. The dissolving of America into a global government has been the goal of the same powerful elites for many years. Many of these corporate, political and media elites are members of a group called The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has long played an inordinately large role in presidential administrations. The body, headquartered in New York City, was organized largely by Edward Mandell House, Woodrow Wilson's top advisor. Since its inception, the CFR has worked assiduously to maintain control of the presidency, regardless of which party is in power, and to direct policy as much as it is able toward the submergence of U.S. sovereignty under the overarching authority of a world government. Just as the CFR played a significant role in both the Clinton and first Bush administrations, it does so today in the George W. Bush administration.

The president himself, while not a member, has the proper pedigree. His father was a prominent CFR member prior to becoming president. Moreover, like his father, George W. Bush is a member of the secret Yale University society known as Skull and Bones. This shadowy organization serves as a sort of "farm team" for the CFR and has produced many prominent internationalists in both parties. It is interesting, for example, that 2004 Democratic presidential front-runner and CFR member John Kerry is, like George W. Bush, a Bonesman.

As in previous administrations, the current Bush administration has been well-stocked with CFR members, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick. (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a former CFR member.)

In a January 5, 2006 meeting President George W. Bush had with current and former secretaries of State and Defense at the White House to discuss the war in Iraq. The media overlooked a very important aspect of this meeteing, and that is that 14 of the 17 policymakers in the picture currently belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. Two others (Rumsfeld and Laird) are formers members of the CFR.

The CFR has about 4,200 members, several hundred of whom are in the Bush administration. Hundreds of CFR members also served in past administrations, irrespective of whether the president in the White House was a Republican or a Democrat.

Many of the most influential people in America are working towards this one world government goal. Multi-Billionaire David Rockefeller, founder of the Rockefeller Foundation and also a member of the CFR, admits to this fact. In his book Memoirs, published in 2002, David Rockefeller, Sr. made the following remarks, startling in their very frankness: 

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Nearly 30 years ago, in April 1974, a now-famous essay entitled "The Hard Road to World Order" appeared in the CFR journal Foreign Affairs. It was penned by Columbia University professor and veteran State Department official Richard N. Gardner, who most recently served in the Clinton administration. It is also the game plan followed by the CFR and world government elites as well as the international bankers.

Gardner told his fellow one-worlders that "instant world government" is an illusion because Americans would not accept an open assault on their constitutional system. “The globalists”, he said, “must continue to labor for the piecemeal creation of an all-powerful super state. It must be built gradually, piece by piece, brick by brick,” he then said:

“In short, the "house of world order" will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great "booming, buzzing confusion," ….. but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

This gives you a good background to help understand why it is NOT a good thing at all, that Mitt Romney is associating himself with such an organization. It is also interesting to note, that Utah’s current governor, John Huntsman, Jr. was a member of the CFR for a number of years, although his name is not currently on their membership roles. When it comes to the CFR, I believe it is a case of “guilt by association”.

Following is the text of Mitt Romney’s July 2007 article which he submitted to the CFR’s Foreign Affairs Journal. As you ponder this whole situation, is it any wonder why President Joseph F. Smith warned that one of the three great dangers that would threaten the Church from within is “the flattery of prominent men in the world”. Has this happened to Mitt Romney? Or is this happening to all of the Saints who are supporting him?

I have added emphasis (bold and underlining) to the parts of Mitt Romney’s words which cause great concern and are “red flags”, if you will, which raise awareness of ideas or beliefs that are at odds with the Founders and many Latter-day Prophets. These emphasized phrases should cause great concern about Mitt Romney’s lack of judgment or worse, his misleading our nation into sure destruction. Please do not take offense at this effort. I am simply analyzing the situation as I see it and seeking to “warn my neighbor”.

Following is the article with inserted commentary from me in brackets and italics:

Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges

By Mitt Romney

From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007

Summary: Washington is as divided on foreign policy as it has been at any point in the last 50 years. As the "greatest generation" did before us, we must move beyond political camps to unite around bold actions in order to build a strong America and a safer world. We must strengthen our military and economy, achieve energy independence, reenergize civilian and interagency capabilities, and revitalize our alliances.

Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

WASHINGTON DIVIDED

Less than six years after 9/11, Washington is as divided and conflicted over foreign policy as it has been at any point in the last 50 years. Senator Arthur Vandenberg once famously declared that "politics stops at the water's edge"; today, the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee declares that our major political parties should carry out two separate foreign policies. The Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus, who pledged to implement a new strategy, as the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Yet just weeks later, the Senate began crafting legislation specifically designed to stop that new strategy. More broadly, lines have been drawn between those labeled "realists" and those labeled "neoconservatives." Yet these terms mean little when even the most committed neoconservative recognizes that any successful policy must be grounded in reality and even the most hardened realist admits that much of the United States' power and influence stems from its values and ideals.

In the midst of these divisions, the American people -- and many others around the world -- have increasing doubts about the United States' direction and role in the world. Indeed, it seems that concern about Washington's divisiveness and capability to meet today's challenges is the one thing that unites us all. We need new thinking on foreign policy and an overarching strategy that can unite the United States and its allies -- not around a particular political camp or foreign policy school but around a shared understanding of how to meet a new generation of challenges.

[Anytime you see the mentioning of our “role in the world”, or any reference to our needed influence in the “world” – this is a red flag of globalism or world government. Any time you see any discussion or reference to our responsibility in the world, you must consider these thoughts from President Ezra Taft Benson: “There is one and only one legitimate goal of United Stats foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even defend them against their enemies.”(The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.614, 682 & 704) This statement, by the way , perfectly describes Ron Paul’s foreign policy]

A GENERATION'S LEGACY OF LEADERSHIP

Today's challenges are daunting. They include the conflict in Iraq, the resurgence of the Taliban, and global terrorist networks made even more menacing by the threat of nuclear proliferation. While Iran's leaders relentlessly pursue nuclear weapons capabilities and spout genocidal threats against Israel, the world largely stands silent, unable to agree on effective sanctions even as each day the danger grows. Genocide ravages Darfur even as the world stands frozen. In Latin America, leaders such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez seek to reverse the spread of freedom and return to failed authoritarian policies. AIDS and potential new pandemics threaten us in an interconnected world. The economic rise of China and other countries across Asia poses a different type of challenge. It is easy to understand why Americans -- and many others around the world -- feel so much unease and uncertainty. Yet although we face fundamentally different issues today, the United States has a history of rising to meet even greater challenges. Indeed, we need not look to ancient history, but only to the courage and determination of our parents and grandparents to see a stark contrast with the confusion and infighting of Washington today. Just over 60 years ago, we were in the midst of a global war that would take the lives of tens of millions. The outcome was far from certain. General Dwight Eisenhower drafted a short note before the D-day landings at Normandy accepting full responsibility "in case of failure."

[Above you see another very important point to remember. History is replete of governments using very convincing propaganda to cause fear among there own people. To control society and to get people to give up their freedoms for “security”, the people must be afraid of something. If there is always a potential threat, then there is always more need to control society. Consider these quotes from history as you continue to read this document and see the constant reference to “radical Islam” or the “jihadists’ threat”:

Nazi Dictator Adolph Hitler: “Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.”

Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin: “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.

Plato – a Greek philosopher often quoted by our Founders said: “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”

U.S. President and the Father of the Constitution – James Madison: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

The children’s Book of Mormon reader actually contains a great truth in exposing to us how latter-day secret combinations operate. This is revealed on page 60 of this children’s book in the context of the story of Zeezrom. It reads: “Zeezrom wanted to destroy everything that was good.  He would cause problems, and then people would pay him money to solve the problems he had created.”(Alma 11:20-21)

Keep this in mind when you think about September 11th, the ‘War on Terror’, and many other things that we are told about the “threat” we are currently facing.

For a final note upon this subject, consider this warning from President J. Rueben Clark: “I have warned you against propaganda and hate. We are in the midst of the greatest exhibition of propaganda that the world has ever seen. Just do not believe all you read or hear. The elect are being deceived." [October 1941 General Conference] ]

Mitt Romney continues:

The invasion did not fail. Yet no sooner had we defeated fascism than we were engaged in a 50-year struggle with communism. Those whom the journalist Tom Brokaw memorialized as "the greatest generation" made the tough choices that allowed us to prevail in these struggles. And it was not just our Washington leaders who were decisive. In the 1940s, Americans rationed and saved, and mothers and daughters enlisted to work in factories. Together with the GIs who returned home, they built this country's prosperity and fueled a sense of optimism. In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, America pursued learning and innovation to lead the world in space, technology, and productivity -- outcompeting the Soviets and driving them to an economic bankruptcy that matched their moral bankruptcy.

In the aftermath of World War II and with the coming of the Cold War, members of "the greatest generation" united America and the free world around shared values and actions that changed history. They unified U.S. military and security efforts, creating the Department of Defense and the National Security Council. They rethought U.S. approaches to the world, building the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Peace Corps. They forged alliances, such as NATO, that magnified the power of freedom and created a world trading system that helped launch the greatest expansion of economic and political freedom and development in history. Our times call for equally bold leadership and for a renewed sense of service and shared sacrifice among Americans and our allies around the world.

[This is another key red flag which exposes a belief in world government or globalism – “Free Trade” or “World Trade”. This constitutes entangling corporate world alliances. This is not truly “free trade” but heavily managed trade which benefits only the international corporations and their ability to make money.

Thomas Jefferson said: “I deem one of the essential principles of our government to be peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none…”

Free trade agreements likeNAFTA has: cost the United States over 3 million manufacturing jobs, increased U.S. Farm failures, and cost over 1 million Mexican’s to lose their farms. NAFTA has also cost Utahans over 8,000 jobs according to the Economic Policy Institute. NAFTA and CAFTA are systematically destroying the American Middle Class. They are not ‘free trade’ agreements at all but internationally managed trade pacts which benefit corporate interests at the expense of the middle class. They are managed by un-elected and un-accountable beaurocrats who do not have Americans’ best interests at heart. – Mark Hudson, stats from the Economic Policy Institute

Concerning our nation’s involvement in organizations like NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), which consists of an alliance of America with many European nations, was never envisioned nor would they have been condoned by our nation’s Founding Fathers. They warned against this very thing which Mitt Romney is praising:

"Europe has a set of primary interests, which have to us none, or very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collusions of her friendships or enmities." - George Washington

 "America has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings....She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." - John Quincy Adams

 "In the wars of European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do....Our policy in regard to Europe...is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers..." - James Monroe, the Monroe Doctrine]

Mitt Romney continues:

A NEW GENERATION OF CHALLENGES

Today, the nation's attention is focused on Iraq. All Americans want U.S. troops to come home as soon as possible. But walking away now or dividing Iraq up into parts and walking away later would present grave risks to the United States and the world. Iran could seize the Shiite south, al Qaeda could dominate the Sunni west, and Kurdish nationalism could destabilize the border with Turkey. A regional conflict could ensue, perhaps even requiring the return of U.S. troops under far worse circumstances. There is no guarantee that the new strategy pursued by General Petraeus will ultimately succeed, but the stakes are too high and the potential fallout too great to deny our military leaders and troops on the ground the resources and the time needed to give it an opportunity to succeed.

[U.S. President and the Father of the Constitution – James Madison: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”]

Many still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, specifically by those extremists who promote violent jihad against the United States and the universal values Americans espouse. Understandably, the nation tends to focus on Afghanistan and Iraq, where American men and women are dying. We think in terms of countries because countries were our enemies in the last century's great conflicts. The congressional debate in Washington has largely, and myopically, focused on whether troops should be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan, as if these were isolated issues. Yet the jihad is much broader than any one nation, or even several nations. It is broader than the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, or that between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Radical Islam has one goal: to replace all modern Islamic states with a worldwide caliphate while destroying the United States and converting all nonbelievers, forcibly if necessary, to Islam. This plan sounds irrational, and it is. But it is no more irrational than the policies pursued by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s and Stalin's Soviet Union during the Cold War. And the threat is just as real.

[In 1922 General Conference, President Charles W. Nibley said: “We need not fear as to this nation from without. The Lord has said, ‘I will fortify this land against all other nations.’ The danger is not from without, but from within, as the Book of Mormon plainly points out from secret combinations of men giving their first allegiance to their secret combination.” (C.R. April 1922)

Also, don’t forget the warning from President J. Rueben Clark: “I have warned you against propaganda and hate. We are in the midst of the greatest exhibition of propaganda that the world has ever seen. Just do not believe all you read or hear. The elect are being deceived." [October 1941 General Conference] ]

In the current conflict, the balance of forces is not nearly as close as during the early days of World War II and at critical points during the Cold War. There is no comparison between the economic, diplomatic, technological, and military resources of the civilized world today and those of the terrorist organizations and states that threaten it. Perhaps most important is the incredible resourcefulness of the American people and their unmatched education, inventiveness, and dedication. But today's threats are fundamentally different from those we grew used to confronting during World War II and the Cold War. Our enemies now have sleeper cells rather than armies. They use indiscriminate terror rather than tanks. Their soldiers -- as well as their victims -- include children. They count radical clergy among their generals. They communicate via the Internet. They recruit in schools, houses of worship, and prisons. They pursue nuclear weapons not as a strategic deterrent but as an offensive tool of terror.

The jihadist threat is the defining challenge of our generation and is symptomatic of a range of new global realities. It is common to the point of cliché to talk about how much the world has changed since 9/11. Our president led a dramatic response to the events of that day and has taken action to protect the U.S. homeland. Yet if one looks at our tools of national power, what is surprising is not how much has changed since then but how little. While we wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. troop levels and our investment in the military as a percentage of GDP remain lower than at any time of major conflict since World War II. Decades after the oil shocks of the 1970s highlighted the United States' vulnerability, we remain dangerously dependent on foreign oil. Many of our instruments of national security were created not only before most Americans had access to the Internet and cell phones but also before they had televisions. Our difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with disturbing gaps in our intelligence, are well known. A growing number of experts question whether we have the capabilities to meet various transnational challenges, ranging from pandemic diseases to international terrorism. And while the United Nations has stood impotent in the face of genocide in Sudan and has been unable to address Iran's rush to build dangerous nuclear capabilities, we have done little more than tweak international alliances and antiquated institutions.

[What is shocking about the paragraph above is Mitt Romney stating “how little has changed” since the attacks of 9/11. Huh? Since 9-11 the Bill of Rights has been virtually decimated. Tyranny has come to America in the form of legislation to “keep us safe”, i.e. The Patriot Act (the government can now search and seize you or your property without warrant); The Military Commissions Act (the government can now arrest and imprison you without charges by labeling you a ‘terrorist’ or ‘enemy combatant’ thus destroying Habeas Corpus); The John Warner Defense Act (the government has destroyed Posse Comitatus which means they can now use the military for policing our streets domestically), Presidential Directive 51 (the President can take total control over all 3 branches of government in any “emergency” that he declares, without congressional approval); Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (the government has virtually outlawed dissent and can now legally detain someone as a ‘domestic threat’ for speaking out against the government.)

All of this, and Romney believes that these “tools of national power” are not enough.

President J. Rueben Clark warned: “…The principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom.…when you see government invading any of these realms of freedom which we have under our Constitution, you will know that they are putting shackles on your liberty, and that tyranny is creeping upon you …no matter what the reason and excuse therefore may be.”]

While the difficult struggle in Iraq dominates the political debate, we cannot let current polls and political dynamics drive us to repeat mistakes the United States has made at critical moments of doubt and uncertainty about our role in the world. Twice in the last several decades, following the end of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam and the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, the United States became dangerously unprepared. Today, among our main challenges are an Iranian regime and an al Qaeda network that developed while we let down our defenses. Whether or not the current "surge" in troop levels in Iraq succeeds, the United States and our allies need to be prepared to deal not only with the struggle against jihadists but with a new generation of challenges that go far beyond any single nation or conflict.

[Don’t forget these quotes again: Nazi Dictator Adolph Hitler: “Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.”

Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin: “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.

Also remember, the truth revealed on page 60 of the children’s Book of Mormon Reader:: “Zeezrom wanted to destroy everything that was good.  He would cause problems, and then people would pay him money to solve the problems he had created.”(Alma 11:20-21)]

We need an honest debate about what policies and what sacrifices will ensure a strong America and a safe world. As President Ronald Reagan once observed, "There have been four wars in my lifetime. None of them came about because the United States was too strong." A strong America requires a strong military and a strong economy. And we need to take further action if we are to remain strong and if we are to build a safe world, with peace, prosperity, freedom, and dignity. Doing so will be controversial, and it will be strongly resisted because it will require dramatic changes to Cold War institutions and approaches. The Cold War is over, and the world that too many of our current capabilities and alliances were created to address no longer exists. We cannot remain mired in the past.

[These things are beginning to sound like the Satanic plan mentioned by President David O. McKay who said: “Today, freedom – political, economic, and individual freedom – lies destroyed or is in the course of being destroyed over great areas of the globe. And it has been destroyed and is being destroyed in the name of freedom…..A ruthless dialectical battle is being waged against the Christian way of life, against political liberty, against individual freedom, and it is being waged in the name of Freedom. Black becomes White; Tyranny becomes Freedom; The Forced Labor Camp stands for Liberty; The Slave State is represented as Democracy. This is the deadly challenge of Communism. [i.e. Fascism, Socialism, etc…] (David O McKay, CR Oct. 1962, pp6-7) Again, refer to my previous commentary above about all of the legislation that has been passed since 9/11 for the purpose of ‘keeping us safe’.]

Change is difficult in and of itself. And it is especially hard to summon the will necessary to set a new course in the absence of a clear and convincing crisis. Look at how long it took the U.S. government to confront the reality of jihadism. Extremists bombed our marines in Lebanon. They bombed our embassies in East Africa. They bombed the U.S.S. Cole. They even set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center before we truly saw the threat they posed.

Change will require sacrifice from the American people. But I believe America is ready for the challenge. To meet it, we need to focus on four key pillars of action.

[Founding Father Benjamin Franklin said: “Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”]

BUILDING U.S. MILITARY AND ECONOMIC STRENGTH

First, we need to increase our investment in national defense. This means adding at least 100,000 troops and making a long-overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense. The need to support our troops is repeated like a mantra in Washington. Yet little has been said about the commitment of resources needed to make this more than an empty phrase.

[LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball in an address entitled “The False Gods We Worship,” given in June of 1976 said: “When I review the performance of this people…..I am appalled and frightened…..We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord.  When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel – ships, planes, missiles, fortifications – and depend on them for protection and deliverance.  When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-Kingdom of God; we train man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching: ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven’.”]

After President George H. W. Bush left office, in 1993, the Clinton administration began to dismantle the military, taking advantage of what has been called a "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War. It took a dividend, but we did not get the peace. It seems that our leaders had come to believe that war and security threats were gone forever; as Charles Krauthammer observed, we took a holiday from history. Meanwhile, we lost about 500,000 military personnel and about $50 billion a year in military spending. The U.S. Army lost four active divisions and two reserve divisions. The U.S. Navy lost almost 80 ships. The U.S. Air Force saw its active personnel decrease by 30 percent. The Marines' personnel dropped by 22,000.

And we purchased only a small fraction of the equipment needed to maintain our strength, living off the assets that had been purchased in prior decades. The equipment and armament gap continues to this day. Even as we have increased defense spending to meet the challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan, our budgets for procurement and modernization have lagged behind. This is a troubling scenario for the future, and it puts our country and our troops -- present and future -- at risk, as we wring the life out of old and inadequate equipment.

The Bush administration has proposed an increase in defense spending for next year. This is an important first step, but we are going to need at least an additional $30-$40 billion annually over the next several years to modernize our military, fill gaps in troop levels, ease the strain on our National Guard and Reserves, and support our wounded soldiers. Looking at military spending over time as a percentage of GDP provides an interesting perspective. During World War II, the United States made huge sacrifices, investing more than a third of its economic activity to fight the war. As we confronted different enemies, such as those in Korea, our investment in defense responded accordingly. Since then, slowly but surely, it has decreased significantly. Through the buildup under President Reagan, it reached six percent of GDP in 1986 and helped turn the tide against the Soviet Union. Yet during the Clinton years, defense spending was dangerously reduced. More recently, although spending has increased, less than four percent of our GDP has been devoted to baseline defense spending. These ebbs and flows stemming from political dynamics have increased the costs and the uncertainty of our military preparedness.

The next president should commit to spending a minimum of four percent of GDP on national defense. Increased spending should not mean increased waste, however. A team of private-sector leaders and defense experts should carry out a stem-to-stern analysis of military purchasing. Accounts need to be thoroughly scrutinized to eliminate excessive contractor and supplier charges and prevent deals for equipment and programs that do more for politicians' popularity in their home districts than for the nation's protection. Congress needs to set stricter lobbying rules and keep a far more watchful eye on self-serving politicians, current and past, in regard to these matters.

The United States' strength goes beyond its military capacity. Indeed, a nation cannot remain a military superpower if it has a second-tier economy. The weakness of the Soviet economy was a vulnerability that President Reagan exploited. Our ability to influence the world also vitally depends on our ability to maintain our economic lead through policies such as smaller government, lower taxes, better schools and health care, greater investment in technology, and the promotion of free trade, while maintaining the strength of America's families, values, and moral leadership.

[Here, Mitt Romney suggests that government somehow has a role in providing “better schools and health care” as well as economic help to the world. Consider this quote from President David O. McKay:

“I cannot help but think that there is a direct relationship between the present evil trends and the very marked tendency of the people of our country to pass on to the state the responsibility for their own moral and economic welfare. This trend to a welfare state in which people look to and worship government more than their God, is certain to sap the individual ambitions and moral fiber of our youth unless they are warned of the consequences. History is replete with the downfall of nations who, instead of assuming their own responsibility…mistakenly attempted to shift their individual responsibility to the government.” – Letter from David O. McKay to the President of BYU – Wilkinson, circa 1960]

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

Second, the United States must become energy independent. This does not mean no longer importing or using oil. It means making sure that our nation's future will always be in our hands. Our decisions and destiny cannot be bound to the whims of oil-producing states.

We use about 25 percent of the world's oil supply to power our economy, but according to the Department of Energy, we possess only 1.7 percent of the world's crude oil reserves. Our military and economic strength depend on our becoming energy independent -- moving past symbolic measures to actually produce as much energy as we use. This could take 20 years or more; and, of course, we would continue to purchase fuel after that time. Yet we would end our strategic vulnerability to oil shutoffs by nations such as Iran, Russia, and Venezuela and stop sending almost $1 billion a day to other oil-producing nations, some of which use the money against us. At the same time, we may well be able to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy independence will require technology that allows us to use energy more efficiently in our cars, homes, and businesses. It will also mean increasing our domestic energy production with more drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, more nuclear power, more renewable energy sources, more ethanol, more biodiesel, more solar and wind power, and a fuller exploitation of coal. Shared investments or incentives may be required to develop additional and alternative sources of energy.

We need to initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative -- an energy revolution -- that will be our generation's equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the moon. It will be a mission to create new, economical sources of clean energy and clean ways to use the sources we have now. We will license our technology to other nations, and, of course, we will employ it at home. It will be good for our national defense, it will be good for our foreign policy, and it will be good for our economy. Moreover, even as scientists still debate how much human activity impacts the environment, we can all agree that alternative energy sources will be good for the planet. For any and all of these reasons, the time for energy independence has come.

RETHINKING AND REENERGIZING CIVILIAN CAPABILITIES

Third, we need to dramatically and fundamentally transform our civilian capabilities to promote peace, security, and freedom around the world. After World War II, America created capabilities and structures -- such as the National Security Council, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Agency for International Development -- to meet the challenges of a world that was radically different from that of the 1930s. In the Reagan era, the Goldwater-Nichols Act helped tear down bureaucratic boundaries that were undermining our military effectiveness, fostered unified efforts across military services, and established "joint commands," with an individual commander fully responsible for everything going on within his or her geographic region. We need the same level of dramatic rethinking and reform that took place at these critical junctures.

[Again, I quote the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson: “There is one and only one legitimate goal of United Stats foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even defend them against their enemies.”(The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.614, 682 & 704)]

Today, there is no such unity among our international nonmilitary resources. There is no clear leadership and no clear line of authority. Too often, we struggle to integrate our nonmilitary instruments into coherent, timely, and effective operations. For instance, even as we face the need to strengthen the democratic underpinnings of a country such as Lebanon, our resources in education, health, banking, energy, commerce, law enforcement, and diplomacy are spread across separate bureaucracies and are under separate leadership. As a result, we have had to look on as Hezbollah has brought health care and schools to areas of Lebanon. And guess who the people followed when the conflict between Israel and Lebanon broke out last summer? Likewise, the popularity of Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank should be no surprise given that the group has provided Palestinians with the basic services that neither the international community nor the Palestinian government could deliver.

[The implications of these thoughts and plans that Mitt Romney has are very scary. He suggest that America must become more involved in providing equality in health care, schools, commerce, jobs and in virtually every other area to other nations, so that our enemies can’t be the positive influence. He wants to beat our enemies at their own game in being the great provider. This is supposed to bring peace and freedom to the world. When considering the thoughts presented in this section of Mitt Romney’s article, you must ponder these strong words from Elder Dallin H. Oaks. While this is a long excerpt, I feel it is absolutely vital to understanding God’s will with regard to these types of policies. We must not create a culture of dependency around the world, much less in America:

“The traditions or culture or way of life of a people inevitably include some practices that must be changed by those who wish to qualify for God’s choicest blessings….

“In these examples I am not contrasting the culture or traditions of one part of the world with another. I am contrasting the Lord’s way with the world’s way—the culture of the gospel of Jesus Christ with the culture or traditions of every nation or people….

“The Savior invites all to come unto Him (see 2 Ne. 26:33; D&C 43:20), and His servants seek to persuade all—including Americans—to become Latter-day Saints. We say to all, give up your traditions and cultural practices that are contrary to the commandments of God and the culture of His gospel…

“There is a unique gospel culture, a set of values and expectations and practices common to all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This gospel way of life comes from the plan of salvation, the commandments of God, and the teachings of the living prophets. It is given expression in the way we raise our families and live our individual lives….This requires us to make some changes from our family culture, our ethnic culture, or our national culture. We must change all elements of our behavior that are in conflict with gospel commandments, covenants, and culture….

“The gospel plan is based on individual responsibility. Our article of faith states the eternal truth “that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (A of F 1:2). This requirement of individual responsibility, which has many expressions in our doctrine, is in sharp contrast to Satan’s plan to “redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost .” (Moses 4:1). The plan of the Father and the Savior is based on individual choice and individual effort….

“The doctrine and practice of personal responsibility and personal effort collide with individual traditions and local cultures in many lands. We live in a world where there are large differences in income and material possessions and where there are many public and private efforts to narrow these differences. The followers of the Savior are commanded to give to the poor, and many do. But some gifts have promoted a culture of dependency, reducing their recipients’ need for earthly food or shelter but impoverishing them in their eternal need for individual growth. The growth required by the gospel plan only occurs in a culture of individual effort and responsibility. It cannot occur in a culture of dependency. Whatever causes us to be dependent on someone else for decisions or resources we could provide for ourselves weakens us spiritually and retards our growth toward what the gospel plan intends us to be.

“The gospel raises people out of poverty and dependency, but only when gospel culture, including the faithful payment of tithing even by the very poor, prevails over the traditions and cultures of dependency. That is the lesson to be learned from the children of Israel, who came out of hundreds of years of slavery in Egypt and followed a prophet into their own land and became a mighty people. That lesson can also be learned from the Mormon pioneers, who never used their persecutions or poverty as an excuse but went forward in faith, knowing that God would bless them when they kept His commandments, which He did.

“The changes we must make to become part of the gospel culture require prolonged and sometimes painful effort, and our differences must be visible. As the “salt of the earth,” we are also the “light of the world,” and our light must not be hidden (see Matt. 5:13–16). The Apostle John warned that this will cause the world to hate us (see 1 Jn. 3:13) – Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Oct. 2003 General Conference address: “Repentance & Change”]

Mitt Romney continues:

The problem has been just as evident in Iraq. In 2003, while the U.S. military moved in rapid order to topple Saddam Hussein, many of our nonmilitary resources seemed stuck in tar. Then, even as we were taking casualties and spending over $7 billion a month on the war, U.S. civilian authorities were fighting over which agency was going to pay their employees' $11 daily food allowance. In response to these problems, the White House has sought to give to a single individual the authority to oversee all the agencies operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet broad interagency challenges remain and continue to stymie our efforts not only in these areas but around the world.

It is time to move beyond the current limited approaches that call for "transformation" and truly transform our interagency and civilian capabilities. We need to fundamentally change the cultures of our civilian agencies and create dynamic, flexible, and task-based approaches that focus on results rather than bureaucracy. We need joint strategies and joint operations that go beyond the Goldwater-Nichols Act to mobilize all areas of our national power. Just as the military has divided the world into regional theaters for all of its branches, the work of our civilian agencies should be organized along common geographic boundaries. For every region, one civilian leader should have authority over and responsibility for all the relevant agencies and departments, similar to the single military commander who heads U.S. Central Command. These new leaders should be heavy hitters, with names that are recognized around the world. They should have independent objectives, budgets, and oversight. Their performance should be evaluated according to their success in promoting America's political, military, diplomatic, and economic interests in their respective regions and building the foundations of freedom, democracy, security, and peace.

[This is a perfect example of the centralization of power, the very thing the Founding Fathers feared the most and the reason that they set up the separation of powers in our three branches of government. Power and responsibility should be divided up and control given to the most local level possible.]

REVITALIZING AND STRENGTHENING ALLIANCES

Finally, we need to strengthen old partnerships and alliances and inaugurate new ones to meet twenty-first-century challenges. The inaction, if not the breakdown, of many Cold War institutions has made many Americans skeptical of multilateralism. Nothing shows the failures of the current system more clearly than the UN Human Rights Council, an entity that has condemned the democratic government of Israel nine times while remaining virtually silent on the serial human rights abuses of the governments of Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, and Sudan. In the face of such hypocrisy, it is understandable that some Americans would be tempted to favor unilateralism. But such failures should not obscure the fact that the United States' strength is amplified when it is combined with the strength of other nations. Whether diplomatically, militarily, or economically, the United States is stronger when its friends stand alongside it.

[“I deem one of the essential principles of our government to be peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none…”- Thomas Jefferson]

In the changing world we face, our alliances and engagement must change, too. Clearly, the United Nations has not been able to fulfill its founding purpose of providing collective security against aggression and genocide. Thus, we need to continue to push for reform of the organization. Yet where institutions are fundamentally incapable of meeting a new generation of challenges, the United States does not have to go it alone. Instead, we must examine where existing alliances can be strengthened and reinvigorated and where new alliances need to be forged. I agree with former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar that we should build on the NATO alliance to defeat radical Islam. We need to work with our allies to pursue Aznar's call for greater coordination in military, homeland security, and nonproliferation efforts.

[The United States of America should have absolutely nothing to do with the United Nations. It is the epitome of “entangling alliances”. Mitt Romney should be saying that American will no longer be a member of this nefarious organization, but no, he wants to reform the U.N. so that it is more effective and powerful within the world. You should be aware of a prophet’s warning about the United Nations. President J. Reuben Clark Jr., of the First Presidency of the LDS Church, widely respected as an international legal mind was publicly opposed to the United Nations.  In 1945 he submitted his 33 page letter to the editor of Salt Lake City’s Deseret News, giving his analysis of the UN charter quoted here in part:

“The Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace. . . . The Charter is a war document not a peace document. . . . Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.” (Clark 451, 455, 470)]

The challenges we now face -- especially terrorism, genocide, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction -- require global networks of intelligence and law enforcement. We should also look for new ways to strengthen regional cooperation and security partnerships with responsible actors in order to confront challenges such as the genocide in Darfur. And if the UN Human Rights Council continues to be inactive or behave hypocritically, we should unite with nations that share our commitment to defending human rights in order to promote change.

[This is one of the most dangerous of all ideas presented in this document. Mitt Romney here is promoting an all-powerful, global police state. Again, remember the Founding Fathers’ focus on separation of powers. This is very important. Global networks of intelligence and law enforcement means TYRANNY. Consider this from President J. Rueben Clark:

“I say unto you with all the soberness I can, that we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back; and once lost, we of this Church will, in order to keep the Church going forward, have more sacrifices to make and more persecutions to endure than we have yet known, heavy as our sacrifices and grievous as our persecutions of the past have been….If we do not vigorously fight for our liberties, we shall go clear through to the end of the road and become another Russia, or worse….[He added that if the Conspiracy ever completely takes over America, and destroys our freedom by instituting a police state], it will probably come in its full vigor and there will be a lot of vacant places among those who guide and direct, not only this government, but also this Church of ours….”

Again, the warning of President David O. McKay so aptly applies here that it is stunning, he said: “Today, freedom – political, economic, and individual freedom – lies destroyed or is in the course of being destroyed over great areas of the globe. And it has been destroyed and is being destroyed in the name of freedom…..A ruthless dialectical battle is being waged against the Christian way of life, against political liberty, against individual freedom, and it is being waged in the name of Freedom. Black becomes White; Tyranny becomes Freedom; The Forced Labor Camp stands for Liberty; The Slave State is represented as Democracy. This is the deadly challenge of Communism.” [i.e. Fascism, Socialism, etc…] (David O McKay, CR Oct. 1962, pp6-7)]

Mitt Romney continues:

In no area is our leadership more important and more urgently needed than the Islamic world. Today, the Middle East is facing a demographic crisis: over half the population there is under 22 years old, and the GDP of all Arab nations put together remains lower than that of Spain. A growing population and a lack of jobs create fertile ground for radical Islam. The Marshall Plan showed our deep understanding that winning the Cold War would depend on far more than the strength of our military. The situation we face today is dramatically different from the one we faced in the wake of World War II. Yet it requires the same type of political attention and resolve we exhibited then. Today, thousands of Americans, such as former Senator Bill Frist, are helping to alleviate problems in the vulnerable parts of Africa and the Middle East, showing that we are a compassionate people. And other leaders in this effort, such as the musician Bono, have highlighted the need to address problems far from one's borders in today's interconnected world. Recent government efforts such as the Middle East Partnership Initiative, the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative of the G-8, and the Forum for the Future are a start, but they have garnered nowhere near the degree of attention, resources, and commitment necessary to address such serious problems.

If elected, one of my first acts as president would be to call for a summit of nations to address these issues. In addition to the United States, the countries convened would include other leading developed nations and moderate Muslim states. The objective of the summit would be to create a worldwide strategy to support moderate Muslims in their effort to defeat radical and violent Islam. I envision that the summit would lead to the creation of a Partnership for Prosperity and Progress: a coalition of states that would assemble resources from developed nations and use them to support public schools (not Wahhabi madrasahs), microcredit and banking, the rule of law, human rights, basic health care, and free-market policies in modernizing Islamic states. These resources would be drawn from public and private institutions and from volunteers and nongovernmental organizations.

A critical part of this effort would involve creating new trade and economic opportunities for the Middle East that could be powerful forces, not only economically, but also in breaking down barriers to cooperation on even the most intractable problems. Muslim countries pursuing free-trade agreements with the United States, for example, have dismantled all aspects of the Arab League's boycott of Israel. The power of trade to break down barriers and build ties is also seen in the Qualified Industrial Zone program that grants U.S. free-trade benefits to Egyptian products that incorporate materials from Israel. When the program was first suggested, some Egyptian officials balked, saying that trade with Israel would spark protests. When the program was launched, there were indeed protests -- from Egyptians who were excluded from the program and wanted to participate.

[Again, we read of the acceptance and promotion of “trade and economic opportunities” around the world. This is the playbook of Globalists who want to destroy Sovereign nations around the world replacing them with a one-world government. Richard N. Gardner, mentioned at the beginning of this treatise, said that “the house of world order” must come about gradually. He suggested luring all nations into a variety of technological, economic, and political entanglements which would gradually be strengthened until they formed a genuine world government.

The first three institutions Gardner pointed to for this purpose were the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In 1995, GATT was transformed into the WTO, with greatly expanded status and powers.

The World Trade Organization created the entangling alliances of the aforementioned NAFTA and CAFTA under which we are now suffering and they are promoting the expansion of those agreements into the FTAA.

Lest one thinks that this is only a Republican problem – it certainly is not. Politicians from both sides of the isle are guilty of ignoring the Constitution and either knowingly or unknowingly working towards a loss of U.S. Sovereignty and a move towards world government. Believe it or not – this has been part of a plan by powerful elites to use both major parties to achieve their world government goals.]

Mitt Romney continues:

Congress must give the president the authority to move forward with these efforts so that we can expand and integrate our existing free-trade agreements in the region. A critical part of the economic resurgence and peace of postwar Europe was the United States' support for a unified market and U.S. engagement in cross-country ties. Today, we must push for more integration and cross-border cooperation in the Middle East. As a group of experts working on the Princeton Project on National Security noted recently, "The history of Europe since 1945 tells us that institutions can play a constructive role in building a framework for cooperation, channeling nationalist sentiments in a positive direction, and fostering economic development and liberalization. Yet the Middle East is one of the least institutionalized regions in the world."

Few would have thought before 1945 that the war-torn and divided nations of Europe could achieve the stability and economic growth that these states know today. Some have called for developing in the Middle East a regional organization based on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which would build cooperation and encourage political, economic, and security reforms and integration. How these efforts would be institutionalized is a question that we must address in partnership with our friends in the region and key allies. Yet we cannot wait to address this problem.

Merely closing our eyes and hoping that jihadism will go away is not an acceptable solution. U.S. military action alone cannot change the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of Muslims. In the end, only Muslims themselves can defeat the violent radicals. But we must work with them. The consequences of ignoring this challenge -- such as a radicalized Islamic actor possessing nuclear weapons -- are simply unacceptable.

[Again, following is another quote which very aptly applies to our day, even now. President J. Rueben Clark warned: "I have been preaching against Communism for twenty years. I still warn you against it, and I tell you that we are drifting toward it more rapidly than some of us understand, and I tell you that when Communism comes the ownership of the things which are necessary to feed your families is going to be taken away from us. I tell you freedom of speech will go, freedom of the press will go, and freedom of religion will go. I have warned you against propaganda and hate. We are in the midst of the greatest exhibition of propaganda that the world has ever seen. Just do not believe all you read or hear. The elect are being deceived." [October 1941 General Conference]

If you doubt that Communism isn’t still alive and well and a threat, then study the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto and see how many have been completed in America today.

Mitt Romney is spewing forth much propaganda in order to create fear. Islamic radicalization is a dialectical creation of the elites, just like the communist were, an enemy that we must always have. Because we supposedly “defeated” communism, we must now have another ‘enemy’ who is trying to destroy us, thus keeping us in a never ending state of fear and in perpetual warfare.]

MOVING FORWARD

The new generation of challenges we face may seem daunting. Yet confronting challenges has always made the United States stronger. The confusion and pessimism that prevail in Washington today in no way reflect the United States' legacy or underlying strengths. I believe our current generation can match the courage, dedication, and vision of "the greatest generation." I recently had the privilege of spending some time with Shimon Peres, the former prime minister of Israel. Someone asked him about the conflict in Iraq, and he said, "You need to put this in context. America is unique in the history of the world. During this last century, there was only one nation that laid down hundreds of thousands of lives of its own sons and daughters and asked for nothing for itself." He explained that in the history of the world, whenever there has been a war, winning nations have taken the land of losing ones. "America is unique," he added. "You took no land from the Germans, no land from the Japanese. All you asked for was enough land to bury your dead."

[Investigate the evils of Zionism and learn about Shimon Peres and Zionism]

We are a unique nation, and there is no substitute for our leadership. The difficulties we face in Iraq should neither cause us to lose faith in the United States' strength and role in the world nor blind us to the new challenges we face. Our future and that of generations to come depend on our resolve to move beyond the divisiveness in Washington today and unite America and our allies to confront a new generation of global challenges. [end of Mitt Romney article]

In conclusion, Mitt Romney may be a good man. I do not know that, either way. But his policies prove that either he is deceived or he is a wolf sheep’s clothing. This should not be shocking to us, for the Prophets have warned us that such would be the case. President Ezra Taft Benson warned in his Civic Standards For The Faithful Saints talkfrom 1972:

“We need the constant guidance of that Spirit. We live in an age of deceit. “O my people,” said Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, “they who lead thee cause thee to err and destroy the way of thy paths.” (2 Ne. 13:12.) Even within the Church we have been warned that:

“The ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep’s clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood.” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., CR, April 1949, p. 163.)

“The Lord holds us accountable if we are not wise and are deceived.” (End of excerpt)

Isaiah prophesied specifically of our day. Do we match the description of the Saints described below in Isaiah 30?

9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:

  10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:

  11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.

  12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because ye despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon:

Are we “trusting in oppression”? Are trusting in politicians like Mitt Romney to “keep us safe” and provide for our needs? Do we really believe the words of the Prophets quoted within this treatise?

Again, President Benson warned:

“It is the devil’s desire that the Lord’s priesthood stay asleep while the strings of tyranny gradually and quietly entangle us until, like Gulliver, we awake too late and find that while we could have broken each string separately as it was put upon us, our sleepiness permitted enough strings to bind us to make a rope that enslave us.”

“For years we have heard of the role the elders could play in saving the Constitution from total destruction. But how can the elders be expected to save it if they have not studied it and are not sure if it is being destroyed or what is destroying it?...

“There are some regrettable things being said and done by some people in the Church today. As President Clark so well warned, “The ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep’s clothing because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood… We should be careful of them.”

“Sometimes from behind the pulpit, in our classrooms, in our council meetings, and in our Church publications, we hear, read or witness things that do not square with the truth. This is especially true where freedom is involved. Now do not let this serve as an excuse for your own wrongdoing. The Lord is letting the wheat and the tares mature before he fully purges the Church. He is also testing you to see if you will be misled. The devil is trying to deceive the very elect.” (excerpts from President Ezra Taft Benson’s book “En Enemy Hath Done This” pgs 313-317 - emphasis added).

Does Mitt Romney fall into this description?

“The Lord holds us accountable if we are not wise and are deceived. “For they that are wise,” he said, “and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.” (D&C 45:57.) (Ezra Taft Benson’s talk Civic Standards For The Faithful Saints from 1972)

“There is a conspiracy of evil. The source of it all is Satan and his hosts. He has a great power over men to ‘lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken’ to the voice of the Lord (Moses 4:4). His evil influence may be manifest through governments; through false educational, political, economic, religious, and social philosophies; through secret societies and organizations; and through myriads of other forms. His power and influence are so great that, if possible, he would deceive the very elect.” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg 404)

George Washington once stated:

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” (George Washington)

- - -

Mark Hudson is dedicated Latter-day Saint and Patriot. He joined the LDS Church in 1995 and served a mission to Utah in 1996-1998. He has served as a Republican state delegate and most recently was the Constitution Party's candidate for U.S. Congress in Utah's 1st District in the 2006 elections. He is a student of the Constitution and the principles of liberty established by our founding fathers. He strongly believes that one cannot separate his politics from his religion.

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Bliss Tew said:

In 1958, Robert Welch, Founder of The John Birch Society, warned that the United Nations was created to become a world government. From that time forward, the JBS has stood firmly opposed to US membership in the UN, WTO, NATO, or other entangling supranational governmental institutions. The Naked Capitalist, written by Dr. Cleon Skousen, warned of a conspiratorial power-elite building a world government. Then, in 1971, the block buster by Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy blew the lid off of the Council on Foreign Relations. The John Birch Society staffer sold 5-million copies of his book. Many books from The JBS have follwed such as Shadows of Power-The Council on Foreign Relations and America's Decline, by James Perloff, to expose the CFR.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 30, 2008
Votes: +0

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment