Latterdayconservative -Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:59 am
Here is an excerpt of a meeting with Cleon Skousen on August 18, 2005:
“This is the beginning of the fall of the United States of America. . . It will most likely take an intervention from the Lord to save us.”
A great source of up to date information and truth can be obtained from Howard Phillips and the Conservative Caucus.
Regarding Iraq, “We’re fighting a war that will never end, the way it’s going.” We’ve been in Iraq for over 2 ½ years, supposedly giving them freedom and democracy. Iraq will soon have a new Constitution; regarding this, Dr. Skousen said that in Iraq they will “not get a stable government” but rather “civil war.”
The socialists have been in charge for over 60 years, and according to FDR, “it doesn’t matter if the Democrats or Republicans are in power, the Socialists are still in charge.”
source -
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/mo ... blog_id=20
He also said on August 25, 2005:
“we’re in a war that the Founding Fathers warned against.” (regarding the Iraq war)
President Ezra Taft Benson warned the Saints. He told them to become well informed on the Constitution. “The Saints are not doing this,” Skousen said. “Only small groups are.” The Saints ignored much of the prophet’s counsel. Both President Benson and McKay requested that W. Cleon Skousen teach, meet, and have discussions about the Constitution, with all who have ears to hear.
Dr. Skousen informed us that we also need to learn about Government and Economics. The “Free Trade agreements have all been unconstitutional, and hurt our economy.” The majority of Americans don’t understand this, and have been misinformed by those in power whom promoted these Trade Agreements.
We are losing our Constitutional Rights. “The
Butler Case did more to destroy the people’s rights than any other case.” That was the end of the Constitution.”
Regarding the Republicans and Democrats, Skousen said that “they are enmeshed in the Secret Combination.” Many of the Saints “are sound asleep” and have not yet waken up to this awful reality. “It is important that you [the informed] get the people awakened in an intelligent and careful way.”
http://latterdayconservative.com/module ... blog_id=23
bdupuis Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:23 am
This doesn't address the issues above regarding Dr. Skousen, but it is on a similar topic.
I would like to point out the problem raised by America's "Blame the Victim" mentality, which was the subject of a recent article linked on Free Capitalist.com. A great paragraph from this article is this:
Quote:
I have a constitutional right to go skydiving without a parachute. (If I end up looking like a pressed flower, am I a victim of gravity?) You have a constitutional right to go away for a week and leave your house unlocked, with a sign on the door -- "Valuables inside; doors open." Angelina Jolie has a constitutional right to walk into a bikers' bar in a sheer negligee.
In certain circumstances, the exercise of your constitutional rights can be lethal.
We need to apply the idea of this article to American foreign policy. The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the responsibility over foreign affairs, including the power to declare war, however this grant of power gives no guidance as to the correct use of these powers. On FCR, Rick has stated that we (America) didn't start the war with Iraq. I would argue that nothing morally justifies the jihadists when they kill Americans abroad, but here the article applies again:
Quote:
Although it shouldn’t be necessary, we will willingly stipulate to the following: 1) St. Guillen did not deserve to be raped and murdered. 2) Her death was horrible and tragic. 3) Her killer is an animal who deserves to be tossed out of a plane over Gaza, naked, with an American flag tattooed on his chest.
Still, honesty compels us to admit that St. Guillen's actions contributed to her death. If you can’t deal with that, then you can't deal with reality -- which would make you a liberal.
This applies to America's interventionist foreign policy throughout the world for the last 100 years (led by socialists), which I would argue in great measure helped lead the Arab (and other) countries toward socialism and tyranny. Again this doesn't justify attacks by the extremists on innocent people, but it does question why we are "wandering around drunk in downtown Boston at 3 AM" and then complaining when the criminals rape and kill us (read the article if you don't get this allusion). In this I'm addressing the larger issue of interventionist foreign policy, in which one intervention necessitates another, and another, and another, starting (in this century) with Woodrow Wilson's crusade to "make the world safe for democracy".
As Pat Buchanan recently said: (again, he's not always right, but here I think he makes a valid point)
Quote:
So it goes. We hail the fall of Czar Nicholas and get Lenin. We go to war to hang the Prussian Kaiser and get an Austrian corporal named Hitler. We cut off aid to the "corrupt" regime of Chiang Kai-shek and get Mao Zedong. We denounce Lon Nol and get Pol Pot. We destabilize the Shah and get the Ayatollah.
To this I would add that we got rid of Saddam Hussein (whom we originally propped up against Iran), and I'm personally afraid that the above-mentioned historical outcomes will be repeated in Iraq. We have to take responsibility for the consequences our actions abroad for the past 100 years, and those actions have had both positive and negative consequences, both foreseen and unforeseen. That being true, I must question whether true principels led us into our first intervention in WWI, which essentially "necessitated" so many subsequent interventions. Dr. Kimber recently mentioned a report put out by people including Henry Kissinger, who decided that what was needed was a perpetual state of war somewhere in the world. (sorry, I'll have to research the reference). Les mentioned how dark the motives of socialists are, and their willingness to resort to secret, hidden means to advance their agenda. I would say this includes fomenting war and conflict. Rick said that the most recent invasion of Iraq was (at least partly) due to the violation of a cease-fire agreement from the 1991 war. He further stated that "we" (the U.S. as a whole, I suppose) decided that the defense of Kuwait was justified from the perspective of furthering our (U.S.) interests in 1991. As far as I can tell, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait would have been seen by the Founding Fathers as a purely local affair, in which we should not meddle. The fact that the modern state of Kuwait was indeed a historical province of the state of Iraq, which the British colonial forces carved out unilateraly, reinforces this view. So again, one ill-advised intervention in 1991 eventually led us to another in 2003. As the old saying goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right". This is not a blanket anti-war statement. It does however, reflect my opinion that war should be for defense, not merely "interest", particularly economic interest.
Well, I have a tendency to ramble, and so I'll end here. I'd love to further this discussion. I think constitutionalists in the tradition of the Founding Father's will agree all day long on most domestic policy, particularly regarding government intervention in the free market, but we have a long way to go to reach a consensus on many aspects of foreign policy. It is to this end that I write.
Brandon Cool
P.S. To quote Vizzini from "The Princess Bride"
Quote:
I've hired you to help me start a war here. It's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.
not1word Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:18 pm
To the preceding excellent posts, I add John Quincy Adams' observation:
Quote:
“America 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.... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom.”
There are methods of thinking in foreign countries and cultures that the American mindset will never comprehend or fathom. Slights and ills are remembered for generations in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, yet many Americans find it difficult to recount the list of offences which led our founders into breaking with England. It is time to mind our own borders, and care for our own flagging republic. We need to spend some significant attention fixing our own broken system, and let the rest of the world's countries mind their own governments, as well, free of the enslaving shackles of U.S. foreign aid and intervention.
latterdayconservative Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:50 am
Well said not1word.
I agree, and the Founding Fathers also agreed that the United States should not be involved in entangling alliances and foreign wars all across the globe. If there is a threat in our homeland we should defeat it, but we don't need to fight overseas.
The Book of Mormon also teaches this principle. The Lord was with the Nephites while they were fighting to truly defend their land. The Lamanites would sometimes take Nephite cities and then the Nephites would fight to regain them... but once the Nephites decided to wage an offensive war and go into the Lamanite land the Lord did not protect them, and from then on the Nephites began to be destroyed.
Freeagency - Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:58 pm
The Free Capitalists argue that the Irag war is justified because it is an extension of the Kuwait War and UN sanctions against Iraq. The Joint Resolution by Congress lists two reasons for authorization for the use of United States armed forces against Iraq. They are to "defend the national security of the United Startes against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq". The security of the US was never threatened by Iraq. Suposedly one person from Iraq was involved in the goverment's version of 911. This was known before we attacked Iraq and was not justification for a war. The leap of facts for support of the idea that the US is responsible for enforceing UN resolutions against any nation (Iraq) can not be supported. What nations were behind us and what authorization did we recieve from the UN to make us the UN Enforcer. Most of the UN members opposed our invasion of Iraq and now almost all oppose our involvement in the war.
There is also the little matter of the Constitution, which does not allow our leaders to sign our alegance or to be involved in international treaties that superceed our Constitution. If you support the Constitution you cannot support the UN. How can so called LDS Church members support politicians that champion the UN. George Bush and other globalists have not intention in protecting the soverinty of the US.
W. Cleon Skousen will be shown to be prophetic as the nation of Iraq will soon be in civil war. This was never a righteous war and I do not believe President Hinckley supports the war as a moral war, but as citizens of the country we are subject to the law.
Freeagency
hendog - Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:58 pm
Yes, we may be subject to the laws of the land but remeber that it is our elected officials that make the laws. Truly the power of this country lies in the people. It was the intent of the founding fathers for the people to ultimately hold the power of the government. This being said, I would challenge the people to understand, not only their Constitutionally protected rights, but to exercise these rights. Parties are not the solutions. People are the solutions. Turn your brain ON.
rithban - Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:18 pm
hendog wrote:
.... Parties are not the solutions. ...
There's interesting information about parties in the Federalist and Democracy in America. De Toqueville provides some interesting ideas on two different classes of parties, one good and short-lived, the other troublesome and long-lived. He suggests that the Revolution was aided by the former, but stated that politics degenerated quickly into the latter, which is human nature.
I'll not rehash here the material in those two books, but throw it out for those that are interested.
RustyB - Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:25 pm
You know whatever is happening right now in this country is a direct result of something very easily explained . . .
1) Ideas have consequences. Whatever ideas are being spread, be it war with Iraq, or the decision to go to war with Iraq, is a direct result of the ideas in the minds of our elected and appointed officials.
2) Ideas (the ones mentioned above) came from what they were trained, taught and educated.
The only way we will really ever make change in the future is to spread ideas. True ideas. Principle-based ideas.
hendog - Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:52 pm
In light of what we have been trained, taught and educated with, I turn to the farewell address of Washington and his expressed fear of parties. "The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty" (farewell). Washington was referring to the spirit of a party with the party leader beginning to think for the individuals. Thus, such a leader could lead to the ultimate demise of the individuals.
George W. Bush has this to say;
Twisted Evil "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000 Twisted Evil
Farewell Address Available at
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
Freeagency - Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:34 am
Those entering comments on this thread are generally on target. Too bad the rest of the nation is not awake. The Neocons are usurping power for their own purposes and the masses in blind support follow Bush. We are headed for big trouble.
Freeagency - Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:01 pm
Free Capitalist Rick,
The need for a "new Pearl Harbor" can be found at
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf
Word search Pearl Harbor or go to page 51 first paragraph then check Project Participants on the last page. Further check out Constabulary Duties on page 6. I did not see in the Constitution where the US is to be the constabul of the world? Who appointed us? Check out page 75 where America needs forces to "meet the demands of the world's sole superpower." If we are to become the sole superpower we may have war with China. There is nothing like poking a country in the eye with statements like this, but this is what Neocons want, global war to impose a one world goverment. And don't throw in the Constitution to stop Bush, "it is a G-- D--- peice of paper" says Bush on his way to be the constabul (sherrif) of the world.
bdupuis - Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:06 pm
Freeagency:
I invite you to read my post on the "new Pearl Harbor" portion of that report, posted under the Radio Show Comments for today (Friday the 24th), and post a response, either in this thread or that one.
Brandon
Freeagency - Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:07 pm
I should add to my last post that Bush needs the Patriot Act in case the Citizens try to stop him. He has the threat of unrestricted survailance and he can just claim we are terrorists and lock us up with no trial required.
Sounds almost like a conspiracy. Thank you Ssenator Hatch and Bennet.
Freeagency - Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:09 pm
I should add to my last post that Bush needs the Patriot Act in case the Citizens try to stop him. He has the threat of unrestricted survailance and he can just claim we are terrorists and lock us up with no trial required.
Sounds almost like a conspiracy. Thank you Senator Hatch and Bennet.
latterdayconservative - Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:03 pm
I heard that Free Capitalist Rick said on his radio show that he was going to respond to this post about Skousen not agreeing with the Iraq war, but I don't see a response from Rick yet.
Brainstewn - Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:35 am
Know your enemy
“Murderous and disruptive as Osama bin Laden and his ilk are, they are just symptoms of a larger problem: a totalitarian ideology.” Now know as Islamofascism.
“In the mid-18th Century, Islamofascism became institutionalized. The theories advanced by the radical cleric of the Arabian Peninsula, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Wahhabism, as this creed came to be known be is the State religion of Saudi Arabia."
“Wahhab’s version of Islam represents an outright falsification of the Muslim faith.”
“By 1746 just two years after Ibn Saud embraced Wahhabism, the new Saudi-Wahhabi State proclaimed jihad against all neighboring Muslim tribes that refused to subscribe to the new religion.”
The “War on Terror” is not only a terrible slogan it is a quandary of rhetoric and actions that have no real end in sight. I’m developing a much better understanding about the good intentions of our President and simultaneously developing contempt for all branches of our federal government’s incompetence.
Not once have I heard our leaders or any leader inform us of Wahhabism, let alone use the word at all. Is this ignorance or intentional? All we hear is Terrorists, then we equate Terrorists with Islam. Worldwide people think Mormon's are polygamist, which couldn't be further from the truth. Wahhabi’s are cannibals, murderers and totalitarians. Our government leads you to believe that Saudi Arabia is our friend and ally. Balderdash! They are Wahhabist of the worse kind. They use their oil revenue to propagate Wahhabism to youth all over the world. Let's call a spade and spade and expose Wahhabism by replacing the word "Terrorist"with Wahhabist.
The above quotes were taken from the book “War Footing”, authored by Frank J. Gafney Jr. He held senior positions in the Reagan Defense Department and will be on K-Talk this Tuesday March 28th from 7:30 – 8:30 am.
capnregex - Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:24 pm
I would disagree that calling it a war on Wahhabism. It is not a particular religous group that we need to fight.
It is the idea that terrorism is an acceptable means to achieve their ends that we need to disuade them of.
Terrorism is based on deception and cohersion.
Alma 1:12 wrote:
But Alma said unto him: Behold, this is the first time that priestcraft has been introduced among this people. And behold, thou art not only guilty of priestcraft, but hast endeavored to enforce it by the sword; and were priestcraft to be enforced among this people it would prove their entire destruction.
http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/1/12#12
From your description Wahhabsim is priestcraft that attempts to enforce itself by the sword (terrorism).
Joseph Smith wrote:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We cannot condem them because of their beliefs. But when they attempt to enforce those beliefs by means of violence, we can condem their actions. Thus IMHO it needs to be a war on terrorism ( their actions ) rather than their beliefs ( Wahhabism )
Brainstewn - Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:57 pm
Thanks for reading my post, you did bring up an excellent point which was inferred but not intended in my post. I want us to call Terrorist practicing Wahhabism Wahhabist first Terrorist second. “A Wahhabist suicide bomber exploded a bomb in the terror filled town of Selah killing 9.”
capnregex wrote:
It is the idea that terrorism is an acceptable means to achieve their ends that we need to dissuade them of.
There is absolutely no dissuading a Wahhabist. Since inception in the mid-18th century, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab has taught that other tribes shall concede or die. Infidel’s must die! A well funded Wahhabist movement will not be dissuaded. Their free agency is free until they inflict terror. Then they must pay for their actions accordingly.
My point is that Terrorism is becoming diluted and if we don’t make the practice of Wahhabism a household name, their movement continues to grow in the shadows of the ignorant.
latterdayconservative - Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:37 am
Just because there is terror going on in the middle east, doesn't mean we need to be involved... we are just creating more terrorists... 95% of terrorists have emerged since we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq, which means that an overwhelming majority of terrorists exist only because the US invaded them.
We need to stop meddling with the affairs of other countries, and start following the wise words of the Founding Fathers who taught against Foriegn Wars (see W. Cleon Skousen's teachings/writings for proof of that)
I think if we stop terrorizing the middle-east they will stop terrorizing us...
The US should focus on defense - defending it's borders at home, so the terrorists will stay home. When W Bush says "we're fighting the terrorists there so that we don't have to fight them here" doesn't anyone realize how rediculous that is? Are the American people so ignorant and "brain-off" that they buy into that lie?
I like the examples from the Book of Mormon. The Nephites were always prosperous in war when they kept it to defense and protecting their home land AT HOME... as soon as they decided to go into the lamanites land and fight them there (so they didn't have to fight them at home), that is when the Lord stopped helping them and this led to the destruction of the Nephites.
The Book of Mormon also has good examples of how they defended their home land against terrorists, or rather the Gadianton Robbers, who came into and around their lands. They used strategies to starve them out, to keep resources from them, etc...
I sure hope we don't go to war with Iran. We must be a nation of peace.
rkoerber - Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 4:08 pm
I posted this on today's radio show as well.
In response to latterdayconservative regarding "why" I don't respond.
1) I do often respond on the radio.
2) The 9/11 topic I agreed to research. I mentioned it on Monday's show. I've begun that research. I am not to a point of concluding on any particular element of the discussion. I find much of the information less than convincing, but I find some of it highly informative and interesting. I think it is quite possible there is more to the story and that explosives could have been involved. But, I made no commitment to post by a specific time nor did I promise a particular conclusion. I committed to keep my brain on. I am reading, researching, discussing, learning.... More people should try this process... But I understand it is quite different than the BOC membership manual's recommendation.
3) Regarding Dr. Skousen. I have spent some time considering my response.
First, I think it is HIGHLY, HIGHLY, inappropriate and ignorantly disrespectful the way Dr. Skousen's name gets bantered around in support of this or that issue. How individuals claim to have respect and admiration for him and then to treat his comments so casually is so disappointing to me.
Second, I spent many hours both one on one and in small groups with Dr. Skousen and his family. I have discussed the Iraq war and the war on Terror with him at length. I would consider my relationship with him personal. I have the highest respect for him, his integrity, his intellect, and his stated opinions on political issues (and many other types of issues as well.)
Third, I think one problem is that some who call HIM a FRIEND, casually use his name in uncritical, sensational, out of context quotes to make meaningless points in inconsequential ways.
The problem is that these individuals can not understand what I mean here AT ALL. THESE are usually the Patriotic Sheep I talk about in my "Brain Off Conspiracy" article today. Now, I want to be clear I am not accusing latterdayconservative or any other particular person of this behavior. I am making a common observation to provide context for my remarks.
My brief, but more specific response to latterdayconservative's remarks are:
1. I don't think Dr. Skousen and I disagreed in principle on this matter (RE: the war in Iraq).
I talked with him personally and in front of the group you mention on the subject. I do believe that Dr. Skousen had issue with among other things Pres. Bush's timing, war strategy and with the process of nation building. I believe he and I also agreed on this topic. But these are two different topics that seem to get blurred together in your's and Tom's criticism.
2. Along that same line, I think your arguments [claims] are lacking context, imprecise, and generally using Dr. Skousen's 'sentiments' distorts the method of argumentation and undermines your conclusion.
I'll be more specific below. However, I want to point out in advance that I recognize this is an Internet forum, not a scholarly journal.
3. I have taken a few days to respond in order to prepare a more thorough response.
I was determined to make a meaningful response out of respect to those who were sincerely concerned on the topic (and I promised to do so) that I have resisted the banter that is so common on this forum in favor of a more deliberate written response. I will post it or publish it when its complete.
4. You quickness to judge is telling.
I find it HIGHLY disappointing when patriotic individuals get so impatient with the process of actually developing a well thought out opinion that they prefer to judge another as either subscribing to dogma or rejecting it. This reminds me of the socialist approach to public policy. Throw info at the mass media, take a poll, and react.
To say to another person publicly that "I don't think you'll get an answer from Rick on that" implies I lack integrity and shows an over anxiousness that is EXACTLY what motivated me to write the "Brain Off Conspiracy" piece I published today. This by the way was the beginning of a response to you, Tom and a few others. Unfortunately, by being less than direct it appears that a few of you didn't see that THAT publication is a response to much of what is being discussed here. Though I again state, that a more specific response to the Pres. Bush, Iraq War and the War on Terror topic will be made in the future
5. I have stated my position repeatedly. Yet you haven’t addressed it, only the general notion of the issue.
As I have publicly stated many times, my position is that I reject the dogma of the ANTI-WAR crowd that increasingly floats through so-called conservative circles. This however is not the same as you have represented my stand.
For example, you state:
Quote:
One thing that we don't understand is how Rick Koerber can be so pro-bush and so pro-Iraq-war, when W. Cleon Skousen taught completely the opposite about the war...
How would you quantify my position as being "so pro-Bush?" and “so pro-War?”
I think this is disingenuous at best. I have stated over and over that I am not a person who supports personalities. I have also suggested that the war could be conducted with a more effective strategy.
I have argued over and over that personalities and issues are subject to the consideration of principle and facts. I have said that I think President Bush is dead wrong with some of his views regarding the role of government (especially domestically) and I have repeatedly said that I think we have not executed the best strategy in Iraq.
[bold] But what I did say is that I think the decision to go to war in Iraq was a principled decision and that I support that decision. [/bold]
You seek to "sensationalize" my argument by saying I'm "so pro-Bush" well you appear to be on the same side of the issue with regard to your war protest as John Kerry and Michael Moore and the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri but I would not say that you are "so pro-Zawahiri" or that you are so “pro-Kerry.” That would be irresponsible, disrespectful, distorting the point of your statement and disingenuous on my part because I can obviously tell that is not the case.
6. Your Representations of Dr. Skousen are not credible.
You claim in multiple places to be well informed about what Dr. Skousen taught. You even state for example:
Quote:
I took notes at the meetings during Skousen's classes, most of them are on my site (except the most recent):
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/mo ... p?cat_id=5 - anyone who wants me to e-mail a document containing all these notes can request it here:
http://www.latterdayconservative.com/modules/contact
I have to say that I think it is highly unfortunate that you think it appropriate to take your private notes of what Dr. Skousen said in his basement (often late at night and off the cuff) when he was well over 90 years old and proclaim that as essentially his final judgment of the matter. I would never feel comfortable taking advantage of him in that way. But the worst part about it is that I think you get it completely wrong. [bold] You are repeatedly out of context and incomplete in your summaries of his teaching.[/bold]
For example you state:
Quote:
Here is an excerpt of a meeting with Cleon Skousen on August 18, 2005: “This is the beginning of the fall of the United States of America. . . It will most likely take an intervention from the Lord to save us.”
What is the context? What was the question posed? What is the elipsed part of his comment? What is the rest of his statement? Did he know you were going to be publicly reporting this as his final judgment of the war effort? Did you get permission to represent him that way or present yourself as part of the press?
Why not explain that Dr. Skousen for at least 30 years has been teaching about the pre-conditions for the Fall of America. Why not quote from Behind the Scenes in Washington, Behind the Scenes – March 1987 under the title of “The Soviet Formula for Conquering America.” When Dr. Skousen actually explains that:
Quote:
It is significant that the story line for "Amerika" was the assumption that the traditional Soviet formula for the conquest of America had worked. The Soviets have said the United States would fall when three things happened: (1) encirclement externally, (2) demoralization internally, and (3) capitulation with little or no resistance.
It seems to me that Dr. Skousen was well aware of many items that could contribute to the potential fall of America, I could quote many more. The last quote though makes clear that one of the ways the enemies of the U.S. work to contribute to our fall is demoralization which is what I think happens with arguments like the one you’re making.
Similarly in Chapter 9 of “The Naked Communist” Dr. Skousen writes:
Quote:
In spite of public indignation, however, American feelings were somewhat compromised at this particular moment by a rapidly growing desire on the part of many citizens to forget the whole foreign "mess" and get on with home-front developments which promised to provide an all-time record of American free enterprise prosperity.
Does this sound familiar. It seems to me like the context for your arguments. Dr. Skousen continues,
Quote:
Mao Tse-tung accurately diagnosed this national feeling as an anti-war sentiment, and he therefore accelerated his campaign of propaganda throughout Asia by representing the United States as a "paper tiger." He taunted the United States with additional disclosures of illegally-held American prisoners of war and by open implication boastfully defied the United States Government to try and do something about it.
Now, putting this in context I think it would be hard pressed to argue that Dr. Skousen misunderstood the thread of such anti-war, and demoralizing propaganda. It has been my experience that Dr. Skousen know quite well that it was not President Bush who was bringing about our demise.
You continue to make the same errors as you quote:
Quote:
Iraq will soon have a new Constitution; regarding this, Dr. Skousen said that in Iraq they will “not get a stable government” but rather “civil war.”
But, I am quite sure that Dr. Skousen was concerned about the role of the United States as a nation builder who then proceeds to help draft a Constitution that is much different than our own. You don’t include that context.
[bold] Perhaps most telling you state:[/bold]
Quote:
President Ezra Taft Benson warned the Saints. He told them to become well informed on the Constitution. “The Saints are not doing this,” Skousen said. “Only small groups are.” The Saints ignored much of the prophet’s counsel. Both President Benson and McKay requested that W. Cleon Skousen teach, meet, and have discussions about the Constitution, with all who have ears to hear.
The problem is that you seemed to miss the point. Why are the Saints not doing this? I think I am teaching quite a few Saints in quite large numbers and am doing so with the help of Dr. Skousen’s family and friends. But, your group my friend, will I think remain small, because you haven’t internalized what Dr. Skousen broadcast in Program #21 of his Freedom University of the Air. In part it explains,
Quote:
Many, many loyal Americans, and some of them I know as my personal friends, are much opposed to what we are trying to do here, and this seems a strange paradox, and it is on that theme that I want to talk today, because these are not disloyal Americans. They are as loyal as any of us, and yet they are at odds with us, and that's our challenge. It isn't just enough to be against our enemies. It's more, even, to win our friends, not to oppose them, not to drive them into the enemy camp….because we make a mistake if we, in trying to help Americans, drive Americans away from the truth.
This is precisely what I judge your style of argumentation to do.
7. Your Method of Responding to My Position.
I think that I do more than enough each day (radio, magazine, internet form) to provide a forum for this kind of discussion for any honest person who truly wants to engage in a dialogue to clearly judge that there is a difference between your rhetorical posturing and real substantive interchange. You seldom quote sources (other than your notes) you seldom elaborate on arguments, and you repeatedly seem to be on the negative side of the contemporary American cause.
I would just summarize my post with the following. Look, I think latterdayconservative and many others are great folks, well intentioned, and very valuable in the fight for freedom. However, it is important that we do more in this battle than make claims, and pigeon hole ourselves at the expense of civil dialogue. Being opinionated is not the same as being informed. AND, being informed means more responsibility than RASH or HASTY judgment.
Principle is more important than the issue, and facts are more important than the perspective when seeking truth. So, brain on to all of you fact finding, principle based free capitalists, lets address topics like the Iraq war in meaningful ways rather than hollow dogma and castigating rhetoric.
Happy Tuesday, The Free Capitalist.