Tenth Mormon Church President, Racist Joseph Fielding Smith states:

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there [pre-existence] received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less. . . . There were no neutrals in the war in Heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61, 65-66; emphasis added).
How revolting that this nincompoop is regarded by Christians as anything but a fraud.  How ridiculous and offensive he conducts an “I have a dream” rally.

“…the negro are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concern.” –Mormo Apostle Bruce R. McConkie. (Mormon Doctrine, 527-28; 1966 orig. ed., changed in the current ed.; emphasis added).

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin.

–Brigham Young, 2nd President of the Mormo Church and “prophet” of Mormonism

It never ceases to amaze me that people need “more evidence” that Mormonism is an institutionally racist fraud.  It stunns me that the media bends over backwards to normalize Glen Beck and Mere Willard Romney.

It is wickedness for any Christian, any born-again person, to partner with Glen Beck or Willard Romney in anything – social work, whatever.

Or tell me, you who are so clever, if the Devil was “pro-family” would you vote for him?

Christians who fail to forcefully reject Mormonism and its institutional racism lend aide and comfort to leftists who (wrongly) accuse all right wing people of racism.  If you know this man represents a party that is not just institutionally racist, but believes in its racism as a matter of alleged holy writ, then how in the world can you go wave pom poms at his rally and claim you are not supporting his racism?

But more to the point, this man preaches against the Jesus Christ of the Bible.  He preaches salvation by means of…Joseph Smith.  Beck preaches an anti-Christian blasphemy.  Why would a Christian ever think about partnering with such a person?

“In The Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, justification by faith in Jesus Christ is called a “pernicious doctrine” twice and he states that it has been “an influence for evil.” (pp. 107, 480) Bruce McConkie once stated at Brigham Young University that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is “improper and perilous” (Church News, March 20, 1982, p. 5)” -quote by Pastor James Melton

Joe Farah, assaulted now by both left and right,  spoke on several radio shows where the host was gay.  His critics assaulted him for this after Farah canceled Ann Coulter as a conference speaker for accepting a paid speaking engagement headlining a gay group.

Asked for how he responds to the author at the dailycaller, Farah had this to say to his critic.

“Ann Coulter was never ‘blasted’ by WND or me for talking to ‘gay conservatives’ as your article suggests. That is a total misrepresentation of what I have said and written on this matter. But yet that is the straw man you construct to make a story out of the fact that I have engaged openly homosexual radio hosts who invited me as a guest on their programs. Instead, WND dis-invited Ann Coulter to headline WND’s ‘Taking America Back National Conference’ in Miami because her paid appearance before a homosexual activist lobbying group served to validate their agenda. Talking to homosexuals and engaging them on the issues of the day is one thing. Accepting paid speaking assignments from homosexual activist lobbying groups promoting same-sex marriage, open homosexuality in the U.S. military ranks and hate crimes legislation is quite different. If you can’t discern a distinction between those two things, I will illustrate the difference for you.

“I might have a public discourse with a Ku Klux Klansman for the purpose of illustrating the bankruptcy of his ideology. But I would not accept a paid speaking engagement before a Ku Klux Klan organization because it would provide a certain degree of validation and legitimacy of the group, no matter what I might say to the members. In addition, the acceptance of money from groups like this raises additional questions.

“In no way did I ever criticize any conservative for, as you say, ‘embracing members of the gay community who share beliefs on issues like taxes, health care and the role of government.’ These are your carefully chosen words that completely misconstrue and distort my carefully chosen words. Neither do I believe GOProud has a conservative agenda at all on taxes, health care and the role of government. GOProud is, as its chairman has stated, 100 percent about the promotion of a radical, anti-American, anti-freedom homosexual agenda.”

I wouldn’t have done the radio  show, but I  see Farah’s point.  There is a difference between appearing on a talk show with a gay host, and accepting hefty fees to headline a promotional for a gay event.

The nation is well aware that Arizona is being assaulted by the federal government for daring to use local police to bring lawbreakers to jail. But lesser known is the revelation we find today from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees’ union.  According to its workers, the federal agency charged with actually enforcing the immigration laws is doing precisely what Arizona accuses the feds of doing:  nothing.

“The majority of ICE’s enforcement and removal officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing U.S. immigration laws outside of the jail setting.”

Read that sentence again slowly.

Lewis Carroll , prophetically imagining the US immigration policy of the twenty-first century wrote, “If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t.”   It could be the motto for ICE;  we’ve subcontracted sovereignty to the Mad Hatter.

But the statement from the ICE employee’s union, accompanying a denunciation of the head of the agency issued by its officers, is both insurrection and sanity.  When insanity is your breakfast, you’ve got to quit eating it, and the agents decided enough is enough.

Civil order requires laws, obedience by the citizenry, and maintenance of discipline within the command ranks.  We now have a loss of all three, as evidenced by this statement from the employees union.  We know that the immigration law is flouted by the US government.  We know that the citizens of Mexico do not obey the US law and that citizens of Arizona are prevented from enforcing American sovereignty.  But new is this third piece -  the breakdown in the chain of command that maintains authority amongst enforcers.

What’s going on?

America needs to recognize Mad Hatters for what they are:  a premeditated attempt to dismantle our social order from inside out.  We are not facing a natural breakdown due to circumstances.  We are facing intelligently created circumstances designed to assist a deliberately orchestrated breakdown.  We can abandon the hypothesis of a natural disaster striking our social order when we notice that too many factors neatly line up, too many perfect storms land in one beach, too many brightly timed lunatics compounding the mess.

Let me give you an example.

When one plane hit the World Trade Center, most people thought it was an accident – a terrible, perhaps incompetent, ghastly, improbable, accident.  But when the second plane hit the second tower, instantly the entire world knew it was a premeditated attack.  That is the world’s most stark example of intelligent design.  It was possible to argue for a freak accident on the first plane, and impossible to argue for an accident with the second.

From coincidences too numerous to list, the public is realizing that our country’s border defense is under attack from the American side of the border. The breaking of the ICE is not normal.

It’s obvious this is not incompetence or accident:

Arizona’s police are not allowed to bring illegal immigrants to prison, because that’s a federal job.  But Federal agents are not allowed to enforce federal immigration laws except in a prison.  State police don’t bring them to jail, and jail is the only place the law applies; it’s perfect.  That leaves all of America as a sanctuary city where illegal immigration is still legal. When you can only arrest someone if they are already in jail,  that’s not law, it’s Lewis Carroll.

“If you drink much from a bottle marked ‘poison’ it is certain to disagree with you sooner or later.”, notes our prophet.  How did that man so clearly foretell something so obscure as immigration policy?

What does it mean to be conservative?  Politically?

Of course, it means to conserve that which is beneficial to the body politic.  But to modern people this has come to mean more simply: anyone who regards original truth as a concept at all.

You cannot conserve what you do not believe exists so people who continually discard traditional, age-old, truths cannot be regarded as orthodox conservative.  The entire meaning or principle in holding to a politically conservative agenda is to preserve civilization by believing that certain things, facts, do not change, cannot ever change.

The oft quoted proverb for social conservatism is, “Human nature has no history.”  It’s a fair encapsulation, and it’s why Mitch Daniels has no future.

So who, today, are real conservatives?

George W. Bush gave up traditional marriage to support “civil unions”.  You can’t abandon the institution of marriage and be a conservative.

George Reekers hired a young gay man to travel-massage him, carry his bags.  That’s hardly conservative.

Rush Limbaugh hired Elton John to play wedding music that Rush regards as, I guess, beautiful.  Could a guardian of conservatism get married to the most notorious drag queen in the world belting out, “rolling like thunder, under the covers”?  What else did Elton sing?  The Time Warp?

Yuck.

So, who’s left?  Who’s right?

I think the better question is, “Who would benefit?”

Who would benefit from, say, paying a bunch of “conservative” personalities, building them up for years with street cred, and then outing them as liberals, or even as gays?  Maybe fading them from “conservatives” into people who had “broadened”? Or from shock-changing from pastor to gay-hooker? Who would benefit from Reekers going unstable, or Haggard going light, or Elton John playing the Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies?

Think about this.  If you were devoted to a secularist, socialist, Soros, anti-Christian utopia and you had an evangelical, free-market, Christian America full of people who opposed you, how would you use money to persuade them all that their views were meaningless?   How could you remove them as an obstacle?

By persuasion?  Well, yes.  But not by constructing an argument.  Christians are such rational people, and we always expect the other side to present their case in a logically well constructed way. Because we defend the Christian faith from first principles, with citations, and with logic we suppose our enemies will do the same thing.  But there is no cohesive, logical, argument for believing homosexuality or socialism are good things.  All the facts – diseases, gross domestic products, life expectancies – are stubborn things.  But as psychology teaches, you don’t have to have the facts or the winning argument to persuade people.  You just have to emotionally damage them, make them jaded, embitter and disillusion them – then they open up their brains to drive through degradation.  When they are beaten into sad disillusionment, they are willing to let the water roll right over the dam.

If you remember that whole Bible-deal? In the Bible, the enemies of Israel ensnared them with?

Idols.

So what would happen if we first worshipped Glenn Beck as the most conservative thing in the universe, to win peoples’ affections, and then spun him around into a gay-marriage advocate?

What would happen if ultra-nationalist Bush championed the Defense of Marriage act, and then came out for civil unions?  What if the macho Bush gave exlusive interviews, press passes, and softball questions to a faux reporter from gay websites?

How about if some conservative firebrand woman became famous for shredding liberals, and then was outted as of a different persuasion?

Persuasion.

Disillusionment for Christian conservatives doesn’t have to be argued.

It just has to be well constructed.

What if you had some figureheads willing, for whatever reason, to trade honesty for acting, fame, and money?  Actors to pretend to be one thing, and then shift to something else, all to manufacture disappointment in you?    It’s as simple as, “Say it ain’t so, Joe!”  Why is it just athletes who might be persuaded to throw the game, for dollars, for whatever?

Nod if you understand.

So how to identify the true pundit, the real McCoy, the trustable preacher?

Is that really such a hard problem?  Jesus Christ said, “By their fruit, you will know them.”

Now, if you have an “advocate for the family” who has been married three times, you know not to listen on that issue.  If he’s been in and out of drug addiction clinics, you know not to regard him on social pathologies.

What about good looking women who preach traditional marriage, have hundreds of suitors, and who never wed themselves?  Of course the Bible has a place for celibacy.  But when the former boyfriends (girlfriends?) lie in shattered heaps all along the highway, you know that the public persona is not married to the private person.

Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?

This Jesus fella! His advice was good enough even to make navigating politics quick and easy.