Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
Samuel the Lamanite wrote:Assuming this law was passed in the city where you live, would you be willing to go to jail rather than submitting?
linj2fly wrote:davedan wrote:The point and ENDGAME of all of what the globalists are doing is the get us to LOSE FAITH in our government. So, that when the final "shock" happens, our government will fail and people will divide up into tribes just like 3Nephi 5-7. The globalists are hoping the constitution falls right along with the corrupted US government.
Look at our government leaders involved in scandal after scandal, we are losing faith in police, and doctors, scientists, and religious leaders and everyone in authority.
WHAT THE GLOBALIST WANT IS FOR US TO LOSE FAITH. Then in a divided country, they will create a race war. which has been fomenting in US prisons all across the nation. THEN CHINA, RUSSIA, allied with MEXICANS AND NATIVE AMERICANS will strike.
The key is that the Sheriff is supposed to be an elected position. The county Sheriff and his deputies are supposed to serve and protect the people. They elected Sheriff has been replaced in many places by appointed city police or federal law enforcement who serve and protect the government against the people. THIS CREATES A DANGEROUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST. What we need is to do away with appointed law enforcement and return to elected leadership.
Warning--I'm about to go on a sidepath...
Davedan, what you said has really helped me articulate something I've been reflecting alot on lately. They (Satan and his minions/secret combination), by encouraging ENMITY, want us to LOSE FAITH AND DIVIDE US (Which we have--lost faith in Jesus Christ; and now losing faith in the govts--the natural result, I believe, of trusting on the arm of flesh, which is really the philosphies of the false 'God of this world')--to our destruction both physically and spiritually. War is a consummation of these goals.
The Savior wants us to BUILD FAITH AND GATHER US (UNITY being the fruit of CHARITY and the foundation of Zion).
I've found an interesting juxtaposition in the scriptures that hits on this. I've recently finished reading first Nephi (and finally starting to grasp Isaiah...he seems much more plain to me this time around--it especially helps that Nephi plainly explains Isaiah's writing right after reciting them to his brothers). In 1st Nephi Ch 22, Nephi explains Isaiah 49. In verses 8 through 12, he explains the 'marvelous work' among the Gentiles, and the subsequent gathering of the house of Israel, bringing them "out of captivity", and being 'gathered together to the lands of their inheritance.' Immediately following, (vs 13-16) he describes how the the great and abominable church, which is the whore of the earth, "shall turn on their own heads; for they shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood."
In D&C 98, I have always found it peculiar that RIGHT AFTER the Lord states "Renounce War and proclaim peace" (v16)--he states what we SHOULD DO:...and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children; v17, and again, the hearts of the Jews unto the prophets, and the prophets unto the Jews; lest I come and smite the whole earth with a curse, and all flesh be consumed before me.
These verses refer both to the gathering of Israel here as well as the 'gathering' under the covenant of our dead ancestors. So important is this work that the Lord states, "If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming." (D&C 2:3)
Is it possible that War is completely antithetical/antiproductive to the Lord's work. Is it possible that this is one of Satan's consummate tools in attempting to THWART GOD'S GATHERING OF HIS CHILDREN. Perhaps that is the very reason that we should 'Renounce war and proclaim peace?' Is it possible that 'renounce war and proclaim peace' is not just a trite, 'feel-good' saying, but essential to gathering as many of God's children as we can, so they are not sent out of this world before they are 'prepared to meet God.'
This is why I believe we should forbear in saying, as the Nephites said of the people of Ammon, "Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us." Just as the Lamanites were restored/reclaimed and became a delightsome people, so shall be the restoration of the peoples of the house of Israel and all those adopted therein. As it would have been a tragedy for the Nephites to have actually acted upon those feelings (and eventually, they did, to their utter destruction!), so it is/would be a tragedy for us to support and build up those who beat the war-drums against peoples (all nations) out of whom the House of Israel might be gathered.
Satan has been very successful at dividing us (or 'polarizing' us, as some say). When it comes down to it, all issues can trace back to the original issues in the Council in Heaven: force versus agency (ENMITY/PRIDE vs. CHARITY). There is an obvious division right now between those who value agency and those follow the philosophy of force, and all its spoils.
Another significant division brewing is that between Americans and illegal immigrants. I personally think this is not by accident. Several governmental acts and negligences have led to this situation and have FOMENTED ENMITY towards hispanics, (the CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM BY MANASSAH), those that have been prophesied to 'blossom as the rose.' They have become 'hated,' and a 'hiss and a byword among' us (3 Ne 16:9). This is so sad. These are our people, our brothers and sisters we are to assist in being gathered to the House of Israel, those whom we are 'to carry on our shoulders.' (I personally think they have become scapegoats and the blame for what has happened should be put squarely on the shoulders of our leaders, who seek to keep us, the House of Israel, divided).
Unfortunately, if we do not repent of this:10And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.
--then this enmity will escalate into OUR (Gentiles) destruction:D&C 87:5 And it shall come to pass also that [b]the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation[/b].
The footnote for remnant refers to the Lord's familiar prophecy:3 Ne 16:15 But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel.
I have read before that 'salt' refers to covenant people, but I don't remember which scripture refers to that. If that's true, he's not just talking to the Gentiles in general, but to 'covenant' Gentiles. (That invites some introspection )
The footnote for tread refers to the Lord's more specific prophecy:3 Ne 20:16 Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.
Sounds like a pretty 'easy' destruction on their part. This would certainly be the case if we are divided 'into tribes,' our country is in shambles economically, our troops are spread across the earth, etc., etc., etc. Or when we are again in the middle of Civil War.
Renounce War and proclaim peace! How do we obtain peace? Repentance. Repentance turns us to the work of Gathering, which will continue to have a snowball effect as we persuade our brethren and ourselves to repent.
Anyway, that's an articulation of my thoughts. Correct, add, take away.
Ex-Spy Alleges Bush White House Sought to Discredit Critic
WASHINGTON — A former senior C.I.A. official says that officials in the Bush White House sought damaging personal information on a prominent American critic of the Iraq war in order to discredit him.
Glenn L. Carle, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information on Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who writes an influential blog that criticized the war.
In an interview, Mr. Carle said his supervisor at the National Intelligence Council told him in 2005 that White House officials wanted “to get” Professor Cole, and made clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to collect information about him, an effort Mr. Carle rebuffed. Months later, Mr. Carle said, he confronted a C.I.A. official after learning of another attempt to collect information about Professor Cole. Mr. Carle said he contended at the time that such actions would have been unlawful.
It is not clear whether the White House received any damaging material about Professor Cole or whether the C.I.A. or other intelligence agencies ever provided any information or spied on him. Mr. Carle said that a memorandum written by his supervisor included derogatory details about Professor Cole, but that it may have been deleted before reaching the White House. Mr. Carle also said he did not know the origins of that information or who at the White House had requested it.
Intelligence officials disputed Mr. Carle’s account, saying that White House officials did ask about Professor Cole in 2006, but only to find out why he had been invited to C.I.A.-sponsored conferences on the Middle East. The officials said that the White House did not ask for sensitive personal information, and that the agency did not provide it.
“We’ve thoroughly researched our records, and any allegation that the C.I.A. provided private or derogatory information on Professor Cole to anyone is simply wrong,” said George Little, an agency spokesman.
Since a series of Watergate-era abuses involving spying on White House political enemies, the C.I.A. and other spy agencies have been prohibited from collecting intelligence concerning the activities of American citizens inside the United States.
“These allegations, if true, raise very troubling questions,” said Jeffrey H. Smith, a former C.I.A. general counsel. “The statute makes it very clear: you can’t spy on Americans.” Mr. Smith added that a 1981 executive order that prohibits the C.I.A. from spying on Americans places tight legal restrictions not only on the agency’s ability to collect information on United States citizens, but also on its retention or dissemination of that data.
Mr. Smith and several other experts on national security law said the question of whether government officials had crossed the line in the Cole matter would depend on the exact nature of any White House requests and whether any collection activities conducted by intelligence officials had been overly intrusive.
The experts said it might not be unlawful for the C.I.A. to provide the White House with open source material — from public databases or published material, for example — about an American citizen. But if the intent was to discredit a political critic, that would be improper, they said.
Mr. Carle, who retired in 2007, has not previously disclosed his allegations. He did so only after he was approached by The New York Times, which learned of the episode elsewhere. While Mr. Carle, 54, has written a book to be published next month about his role in the interrogation of a terrorism suspect, it does not include his allegations about the White House’s requests concerning the Michigan professor.
“I couldn’t believe this was happening,” Mr. Carle said. “People were accepting it, like you had to be part of the team.”
Professor Cole said he would have been a disappointing target for the White House. “They must have been dismayed at what a boring life I lead,” he said.
In 2005, after a long career in the C.I.A.’s clandestine service, Mr. Carle was working as a counterterrorism expert at the National Intelligence Council, a small organization that drafts assessments of critical issues drawn from reports by analysts throughout the intelligence community. The council was overseen by the newly created Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Mr. Carle said that sometime that year, he was approached by his supervisor, David Low, about Professor Cole. Mr. Low and Mr. Carle have starkly different recollections of what happened. According to Mr. Carle, Mr. Low returned from a White House meeting one day and inquired who Juan Cole was, making clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to gather information on him. Mr. Carle recalled his boss saying, “The White House wants to get him.”
“ ‘What do you think we might know about him, or could find out that could discredit him?’ ” Mr. Low continued, according to Mr. Carle.
Mr. Carle said that he warned that it would be illegal to spy on Americans and refused to get involved, but that Mr. Low seemed to ignore him.
“But what might we know about him?” he said Mr. Low asked. “Does he drink? What are his views? Is he married?”
Mr. Carle said that he responded, “We don’t do those sorts of things,” but that Mr. Low appeared undeterred. “I was intensely disturbed by this,” Mr. Carle said.
He immediately went to see David Gordon, then the acting director of the council. Mr. Carle said that after he recounted his exchange with Mr. Low, Mr. Gordon responded that he would “never, never be involved in anything like that.”
Mr. Low was not at work the next morning, Mr. Carle said. But on his way to a meeting in the C.I.A.’ s front office, a secretary asked if he would drop off a folder to be delivered by courier to the White House. Mr. Carle said he opened it and stopped cold. Inside, he recalled, was a memo from Mr. Low about Juan Cole that included a paragraph with “inappropriate, derogatory remarks” about his lifestyle. Mr. Carle said he could not recall those details nor the name of the White House addressee.
He took the document to Mr. Gordon right away, he said. The acting director scanned the memo, crossed out the personal data about Professor Cole with a red pen, and said he would handle it, Mr. Carle said. He added that he never talked to Mr. Low or Mr. Gordon about the memo again.
In an interview, Mr. Low took issue with Mr. Carle’s account, saying he would never have taken part in an effort to discredit a White House critic. “I have no recollection of that, and I certainly would not have been a party to something like that,” Mr. Low said. “That would have simply been out of bounds.”
Mr. Low, who no longer works in government, did recall being curious about Professor Cole. “I remember the name, as somebody I had never heard of, and who wrote on terrorism,” he said. “I don’t recall anything specific of how it came up or why.”
Mr. Gordon, who has also left government service, said that he did not dispute Mr. Carle’s account, but did not remember meeting with him to discuss efforts to discredit Professor Cole.
Several months after the initial incident, Mr. Carle said, a colleague on the National Intelligence Council asked him to look at an e-mail he had just received from a C.I.A. analyst. The analyst was seeking advice about an assignment from the executive assistant to the spy agency’s deputy director for intelligence, John A. Kringen, directing the analyst to collect information on Professor Cole.
Mr. Carle said his colleague, whom he declined to identify, was puzzled by the e-mail. Mr. Carle, though, said he tracked Mr. Kringen’s assistant down in the C.I.A. cafeteria.
“Have you read his stuff?” Mr. Carle recalled the assistant saying about Professor Cole. “He’s really hostile to the administration.”
The assistant, whom Mr. Carle declined to identify, refused to say who was behind the order. Mr. Carle said he warned that he would go to the agency’s inspector general or general counsel if Mr. Kringen did not stop the inquiry.
Intelligence officials confirmed that the assistant sent e-mails to an analyst seeking information about Professor Cole in 2006. They said he had done so at the request of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which had been asked by White House officials to find out why Professor Cole had been invited to CIA-sponsored conferences.
John D. Negroponte, who was then the director of national intelligence, said that he did not recall the incident, but that the White House might have asked others in his office about Professor Cole. A spokeswoman for the office said there was no evidence that anyone there had gathered derogatory information about him.
Around the time that Mr. Carle says the White House requests were made, Professor Cole’s conservative critics were campaigning to block his possible appointment to Yale University’s faculty. In 2006, conservative columnists, bloggers and pundits with close ties to the Bush administration railed against him, accusing Professor Cole of being anti-American and anti-Israeli. Yale ultimately scuttled the appointment.
Professor Cole, 58, is still teaching at Michigan, and still writes his blog on the Middle East, called Informed Comment.
ACLU: Obama’s extra-judicial killings raise ‘profound legal and moral questions’
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is strongly objecting to a speech given Monday by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder at Northwestern University’s law school, during which he offered a public acknowledgement that the Obama Administration believes it has the right to kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world without judicial review.
Police Kill 68-Year-Old Man in His Home After He Accidentally Triggered His Medical Alert System
The niece stood in the darkened stairwell of the Winbrook Houses, listening, as 20 feet away five police officers yelled at her uncle, who had locked himself in his apartment.
It was 5:25 on a chill November morning. The officers banged loud and hard, demanding that her 68-year-old uncle open his door.
“He was begging them to leave him alone,” she recalls. “He sounded scared.” She pulls her shawl about her shoulders and her voice cracks; she is speaking for the first time about what she saw. “I heard my uncle yelling, ‘Officers, officers, why do you have your guns out?’ ”
The string of events that night sounds prosaic, a who-cares accumulation of little mistakes and misapprehensions. Cumulatively, though, it is like tumbling down the stairs. Somehow the uncle, Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., a former Marine who had heart problems and wheezed if he walked more than 40 feet, triggered his medical alert system pendant. The system operator came on the loudspeaker in his one-bedroom apartment, asking: “Mr. Chamberlain, are you O.K.?” All of this is recorded.
Mr. Chamberlain didn’t respond. So the operator signaled for an ambulance. Police patrol cars fell in behind — standard operating procedure in towns across America. Except an hour later, even as Mr. Chamberlain insisted he was in good health, the police had snapped the locks on the apartment door.
They fired electric charges from Tasers, and beanbags from shotguns. Then they said they saw Mr. Chamberlain grab a knife, and an officer fired his handgun.
Boom! Boom! Mr. Chamberlain’s niece Tonyia Greenhill, who lives upstairs, recalls the echoes ricocheting about the hall. She pushed out a back door and ran into the darkness beneath overarching oaks. He lay on the floor near his kitchen, two bullet holes in his chest, blood pooling thick, dying.