Report from WA 27th LD Republican Caucus


We met Saturday to vote in delegates to the state convention. From the 27th, there was a near-majority of Romney delegates, quite a few Ron Paul and Santorum supporters, and a handful of Gingrich supporters.

Before breaking into districts, the convention entertained an amendment that would allow each district to elect a chair, a secretary, a teller, etc… That was roundly and soundly defeated. Why? Because the Paul campaign put it forward, and the other three campaigns opposed it. We didn’t want to waste time choosing a chair and such, when the district leaders were already there.

One rule change that might have been adopted, would it not have contradicted state party rules, was the option to vote by slate. Some proposes a slate, people vote yea or nay. With 50% + 1 for a slate, that slate would win, and we’d be done. A simple hand count could be taken to see if the slate would get close to winning 50%+1, and if so, we could make it official with a simple ballot, Athens style. “Put a white stone in the can for a yes, a black stone for no.”

The people who showed up in our district gave a Romney-Gingrich combo a majority vote.

Previously, the national chair of the Romney campaign, the state chair of the Santorum campaign, and a few of the Gingrich supporters (since there is no official Gingrich campaign in WA) met to put together a “Unity” slate. “Unity” here meant “everyone but Paul.

(If people wonder why Paul cannot and would never win, this is why. He has no friends outside of his campaign.)

By the time Saturday morning rolled around, Greg Woodard, who claimed to be a Santorum supporter, was passing out slates he had created in conspiracy with the Ron Paul people that duplicated the layout, font, and even icons of the official Unity slate. Alex Hayes from the Romney campaign furiously denounced this fraud. Greg Woodard tried to defend it, as well as a Paul supporter, but the people were not entertained.

Unfortunately, Alex Hayes didn’t come forward to play the role of the whip. Had he taken some time during the initial ballot to correct the slate, removing Greg Woodard, we might have been done in 1 ballot. Instead, we suffered all four ballots. Halfway through, the Santorum people and the Paul people formed a coalition. I believe the Santorum people were being manipulated by Woodard.

Regardless, at the end of the day, I believe 12 Romney supporters were elected, along with 1 Paul, 3 Gingrich, and 6 Santorum. The original Unity slate had 11 Romney, 0 Paul, 2 Gingrich, and 8 Santorum. The Santorum people lost 2 seats, giving one to a Gingrich supporter and 1 to a Paul supporter. If you count Greg Woodard as a Paul supporter, then Santorum lost 3 seats they could have had. I think the reason why Paul and Santorum got any more seats was a slight confusion on how to vote down the ticket. Many Romney and Gingrich supporters were running the show, and missed out all the shenanigans happening during the counts.

It’s now on to state. The impetus is mostly to stop Paul. The Paul people act like they are innocent lambs in the whole affair, but I think people see through their deception too easily. Why they do not behave as republicans, why they do not simply accept the fact that they are not going to win, is beyond me.

Hopefully, a lot of lessons were learned that day. The Paul supporters suffered from the conceit that they were working harder than anyone else, they had more devotion than anyone else, and at the end of the day, it was clear that they didn’t. It’s a tough lesson for 20-some-odd year olds to learn, but it’s an important one.


21 Responses to “Report from WA 27th LD Republican Caucus”

  1. Jason Says:

    The reason why Paul does not have any “friends” outside of his support base is because of two reasons. 1.) Paul represents a very real change than what Romney Gingrich and Santorum Represent. If any of the Three “real” contenders drop out, their voters would not care, because they all support the exact same principles. Ron Paul is the only one that stands out a little different than the rest.

    The second reason why he does not appear to have many “friends” outside of his support base is relatively the same reason. He is so different than the rest that it becomes impossible to be unsure with him. You either support him or you don’t.

    And you are right, we do not behave like republicans. Because republicans AND democrats BOTH behave like socialists. Supporters of Ron Paul are tired of the crap that the “Party” puts forth as “conservative”. There is nothing conservative about political parties. In fact, George Washington himself stated that in order to stay a prosperous nation, we needed to avoid political parties, and foreign wars. We have failed so grossly on both of those accounts. Republicans will always put party before principle, and that is why we do not “behave” like republicans.

    And finally, we refuse to believe that we cannot or will not win, because you don’t know that we cannot win. State after State we are taking over in the caucus’ and are winning delegates. Real delegates. P.S. that’s the important thing to win. You can continue if you like, to stick your head in the sand, and believe that Romney (the great ‘conservative’ who gave us romneycare, which destroyed the health care market in MA, and some of the largest gun bans in the nation, you know that pesky 2nd amendment) or anyone else (Lets assassinate Iranians Santorum) will lead this country to greatness and victory, but thats fine. Just stop with your hatred of Paul k?

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      The first paragraph contains a gross misrepresentation about the views of the supporters of Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. I guess you find it hard to believe that people might disagree with you and may even have superior reasons to do so.

      Let me quote back to you some of the things you said. You tell me if it helps you understand why Paul supporters do not get along with everyone else.

      • “Republicans … behave like socialists.”
      • Supporters of Ron Paul are tired of the crap that the “Party” puts forth as “conservative”.
      • There is nothing conservative about political parties.
      • Republicans will always put party before principle
      • we refuse to believe that we cannot or will not win.
      • you don’t know that we cannot win.
      • (the great ‘conservative’ who gave us romneycare

      I know you don’t understand why these things make it so that people don’t like Paul, and you probably don’t care what other people besides yourself have to think about things, but I’ll take the time to explain it anyway.

      Throwing all republicans under the socialist label is grossly offensive. Yes, there are socialist republicans. But there are also anti-socialist republicans. By labeling all republicans as socialist, you are pulling the carpet from out of the legs of people like Jim DeMint and Rand Paul and Paul Ryan, who are actively working to overthrow socialism in the US. You’re basically shooting your own teammates in the back. If you can’t understand why that makes you not a team player, I really don’t know what will help you understand.

      Can you name one republican who isn’t tired of the “crap” that the party puts forward? That’s why we’re actively engaged in the party. We’re trying to change it. We’re not the kind of people who suffer a small defeat and then go home with our toys. We live and learn and regroup and do better the next time.

      Your sad understanding of the political party structure and why we have it all shows you know little to nothing about how politics really works. Maybe one day, when you actually try to win something, rather than satisfy yourself with standing on the sidelines and mocking those who are playing the game, you’ll come to realize why we have political parties. Yes, our nation is broken. We should have one representative per 30,000 people, which would completely eliminate political parties, at least in the house. But the senate was designed for and intended to be the political hotbed of our government, the aristocracy to balance the fire of democracy and the cruelty of the dictatorship that is the presidency. Yes, George Washington decried the people who were loyal to the party first, but I don’t see a whole lot of that on the republican side of things.

      You inability to accept defeat also shows your childishness with regard to these matters. When you’re defeated, the best thing to do is admit defeat and start getting ready for the next round, where you will do things differently and hopefully better. Instead, your side is wasting their time trying to get someone who will never get nominated or elected nominated. Instead, you should be focusing on who’s going to run 4, 8, 12, or 16 years from now. You should be organizing all the local races, from dogcatcher to water board to city committees. If you want to fall on your sword and end your political career, rather than retreat and regroup, that’s fine with me. It’s a waste, but it’s your choice.

      You can feel free to argue with my analysis that the race is over. That’s fine. But to suppose that I do not possess knowledge you do not have is another form of conceit. Seriously, grow up, and realize that there are people who have been in your shoes years ago, and people who have studied and researched these things and know far more about politics that you’ll be able to learn in the next few minutes. That’s another reason the Paul campaign is not part of the Republican Party. They are ignoramuses who refuse to be taught or to learn. Those few Paul supporters who aren’t idiots about it are not doing what you are doing right now. You’d be wise to follow their example rather than tilt at windmills.

      And finally, you’ve said the magic word “Romneycare”, showing to the world how politically ignorant you are. Do you often consume the fodder that the spin machines feed the masses? Do you hold out your bowl and ask, “More propaganda, please, sir?” Any serious analysis of so-called Romneycare, which you can do yourself, will show how “Romneycare” does indeed show how Romney is the superior candidate for president, even vastly more superior to Ron Paul. Let me walk you through the logic. This doesn’t fit in a ten-second sound bite, so it may be difficult for your propaganda-addled brain to grasp. It requires careful thought and analytical thinking. I am not right about these things because I am smart or good, but because the things are right, and I’ll show you.

      First, when “Romneycare” entered the scene, Governor Romney had a choice. (1) Support what the democrats were doing, (2) oppose the democrats, and accomplish nothing because they had a supermajority in the legislature, making his signature unnecessary anyway, (3) hijack the process and steer it towards as conservative a position as follows. Guess what Romney chose?

      Which direction did Romney steer the health care bill? Why, at every opportunity, he steered it in as conservative a position as could be reasonably be obtained. He worked closely with conservative think tanks. Every decision he made was a conservative one. In the end, he didn’t get everything he wanted, using his line-item veto to overturn funding of abortions and such. It didn’t matter. In the end, the legislature overrode his veto. When he left office a few years later, the democrats went back and tried to reverse a lot of the changes Romney convinced them to adopt, and were successful with some, but many of the stopgap measures Romney supported are still in the law today, which is why MA has not gone bankrupt (even though it doubtless would have if Romney did nothing or simply opposed their actions.)

      Now, if Ron Paul had been in Romney’s position, what would he have done? Nothing. Maybe he would veto it, but nobody would care what he had to say about it, since he doesn’t get along with anyone. If that’s the kind of leader you like, you can go ahead and waste your time supporting him. You’ll be sadly disappointed when he does take power, because it would have been better for you to choose someone more amiable and who actually knows how to do politics in the real world.

      I’ve written far too much, I’ve wasted far too much time on you. I know you don’t consider what I’m doing a service. I am sure you don’t appreciate having your basic beliefs and ideas challenged. That’s a fault you have to eliminate. You have to learn not only to understand other people’s ideas, but to learn to embrace them and cooperate with them to get the most of what you’d like out of it. That’s politics. No, it’s not ideal. Ideal governments and politics tend to end up killing a lot of people, which I don’t think you really want to see.

      Bottom line is this: If you’re fine being in the minority, why bother speaking at all?

      • Jason Says:

        Sorry, socialist was not the word I was looking for. Totalitarian is. Both Parties are looking to gain more power. The only difference is what they plan on doing with that power. For example (and we are going to use the constitution here since all conservatives supposedly love the constitution): Republicans (And by Republicans I also mean Romney, Santorum and Gingrich) supported the NDAA bill which is a gross violation of the 4th 5th and 6th amendments to the United States Consitution. They all also support Gitmo, which is an institution of torture, which violates both the 8th amendment and also international law. Romney also supported an assualt rifle ban, which is a violation of the 2nd amendment. Both Romney and Gingrich (Don’t know about Santorum) support Health Care Mandates, which is against the 9th and 10th amendments. So these so called “Conservative” candidates have supported laws that violate the 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 8th 9th and 10th amendments. That is 4/5ths of the Bill of Rights! How can you even make the claim that they are for small government, or even a constitutional government, when their words and their actions do not support such a fact! Mitt Romney was for the Bailouts, which is in and of itself anti free market. So we can’t even make the claim that they are for free markets. They all also support a federal ban against Gay Marriage, which as much as I wish were legal to do, is not at all legal. They violate the constitution at every step of the way. In fact, I ask you, when was the last time they did ANYTHING to support the constitution?

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        I don’t understand this mindset.

        Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and the republican party in general is dead-set on abolishing government largess. For the first time, we are actually working with real cuts to spending on the table. Romney is looking to reorganize, even perhaps abolish, welfare from the federal government.

        Somewhere in the Ron Paul supporter’s head, they get this idea that their interpretation of the constitution is the only correct one. They get this idea that unless every word that falls from the lips of a candidate is in complete agreement with that document, that the candidate is unworthy of consideration of office. I’m sorry, no such candidate exists, not even Ron Paul.

        Regardless, we are where we are today. How do we get back to a more constitutionally limited government?

        In the Ron Paul supporter’s head, they believe that if they can just get Ron Paul elected as president, he can make everything better. I think this is naive and foolish. The president has no such power. Indeed, I believe a Ron Paul might very well end up impeached and removed from office.

        What you need is someone who can walk us back the same way we came. We need someone who is popular, who can work with congress, and who at the same time understands that we can’t simply change our government to be constitutional overnight. The same baby steps that brought us the socialist states of America need to be walked back by baby steps.

        How many baby steps would a Ron Paul take, versus a Romney or Gingrich or Santorum? Seeing as how he has been completely ineffective as a congressman, my guess is that he would take zero baby steps, and unable to manipulate congress, we’d likely see baby steps in the wrong direction as he is overturned time and again.

  2. Neville Says:

    @Jonathan Gardner, you don’t see much “party over principle” here (here, meaning in the GOP at large) ??? Where, exactly, do you live? I am in Texas, and I hear it all the time: (paraphrasing) “In the end, I’ll hold my nose and support the party and vote for XYZ, if he’s nominated.” To me, that is exactly “party over principle”. What else would you call it?

    What sort of response do you expect to get from the Paul supporters when you make statements like:
    “They are ignoramuses who refuse to be taught or to learn. Those few Paul supporters who aren’t idiots about it are not doing what you are doing right now. You’d be wise to follow their example rather than tilt at windmills.” ??? Those Paul supporters are growing in number with every election, in case you haven’t noticed, and the old-guard GOP will either die off and hand the keys over to a Paul camp that has endured this sort of hostile rhetoric and behavior for years, or else the GOP old-guard will extend an olive branch (and I don’t mean the “my way or the highway” olive branch) and learn to work together. I really don’t see any other possibilities.

    Here’s the real irony, as I see it. For months, the polls (not all of them, but it is a clearly distinguishable repeating pattern) have shown that while Paul is hugely marginalized WITHIN the GOP, when it comes to the general electorate, which includes the 40% that are INDEPENDENTS as well as the conservative “Reagan” democrats, Ron Paul usually wins those critical subgroups convincingly, and does as well or better overall against Obama as the other three remaining GOP contenders. It should be obvious that with this result during the PRIMARY, when at least some of the old-guard GOP are going to answer the poll with “I’d prefer Obama” just to spite Paul, then in a general-election contest with all those “party over principle” old-guard “I’ve never voted for a Democrat, and I never will” folks throwing the lever for “Straight Ticket – GOP”, that Ron Paul would carry the GOP subset, he would carry the Independent subset, and he would also pull in conservative disaffected Democrats just as Reagan did when he won in 1980. It would be the old-guard that would actually ENSURE that Ron Paul would beat Obama in November. If they mean what the say, that the one thing they want most of all is to unseat Obama, then they should avoid at all costs nominating a Romney/Santorum/Gingrich whom the general electorate has already renounced.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      I live in Tacoma, WA, USA.

      I’m sorry Texas sucks. I guess that’s why I don’t live there. Why don’t you try to change things for the better, rather than yip like a little dog at the heels of the people you wish would change?

      I call holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils good. What do you call it? Or would you rather have it so that the greater of two evils wins? I call that evil.

      The young, ignorant Ron Paul supporters, which you are apparently a member of, are fools. That’s simply the best way to put it. Do you really think you are ever going to learn how to run a political organization in your ignorance? Do you really not know what motivates the majority of Americans, and why the Republican Party does what it does today? Or do you think that all of the people who make up the party are dumber than you, and if only they’d listen to you, of all people!

      If you think time is one your side, you have little to no understanding of history. Right now, in your generation, you are unusually politically active. But don’t think that as your generation ages, and more and more of you become wealthy and business owners or senior members of their respective organizations that they’ll suddenly decide to do what the current senior generation is not doing.

      I don’t know what polls you are reading, but you’re deluding yourself. You have all deluded yourselves, and you can’t even see it.

      When you wake up, and the Florida convention votes in Mitt Romney as the candidate, what are you going to do then? You have no hope, whatsoever, of changing that, and your only displaying your pathetic powers of reasoning when you think otherwise. Come November, when Mitt Romney wins in a landslide, what will you say then when your pathetic powers of prophecy have been proven wrong?

      • Neville Says:

        “I call holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils good. What do you call it?”

        I call it cowardice.

        I am also very likely old enough to be your grandfather. It is this tendency to make brash statements based on uninformed assumption that has the old-guard GOP so scared that they are breaking their own rules (and, in some cases, the law) all over the country to try to keep real political conservatives our of their country-club.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        Cowardice is doing nothing, which is what voting or supporting a candidate who cannot win is. Ron Paul is and has been a coward, afraid to make the political alliances necessary to further his moral ends. And so are the Ron Paul supporters, who would rather watch America burn than make a difference and shift the political discussion to the right by aligning themselves with people who do not 100% agree with them.

      • Neville Says:

        The only reason a candidate would ever not win, is if people did not vote for him. You perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy with your elevation of pragmatics over principle. The irony is that it if unchecked, in this case, it will result in the nomination of Romney, who simply cannot bring the required crossover vote, and will thus lose the general election.

        Cowardice is not “doing nothing”, cowardice is being afraid to do what is right. As a Christian, I would not yoke myself to an unbeliever or a liar (which easily covers all of the other 3 candidates), especially when there is an honest godly man in the race. I choose to stand with Yeshua and John Quincy Adams – “Duty is ours, results are Gods.” I will do the right thing, and let God worry about any necessary “miracles”, as that is clearly His department. I will not set myself above him.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        Yes, candidates cannot win if people do not vote for them. So take the number of people who would actually vote for Paul, and fill a thimble with it. Then compare it to the number of people who would vote for a Romney, or even a Santorum or a Gingrich, and compare the two numbers. QED.

        Of course, you might be tempted to shift public opinion, supposing that everyone is as ignorant as you. That’s fine. Just don’t be surprised when others disagree with you.

        As a Christian, I do not yoke myself to any candidate! What absurdity?! I am Christ’s, not man’s! I am not electing Pope, or Prophet or Stake President, or Pastor. I am electing a president. What are you electing?

        Why are you yoking yourself to Dr. Paul if you are a Christian? What man of God is there but Christ? How can you compare mortal, fallible Dr. Paul with Christ at all? Egads! Why do I even have to say this!?

        Cowardice is supporting a candidate who obviously cannot and will not win, when you should be throwing your support behind the lesser of evils. No, Romney is not my first choice, and neither is Paul or any other. I cannot tell you who my first choice would be, because my first choice dare not voice their real opinion in public. The thing that needs to be done in America cannot be done in 2012, or 2013, or for many decades hence. (Trust me: I am far to the “right” than you, or as Reagan put it, “up”.)

        If you disagree with the political climate, educate! Don’t waste your vote, don’t sacrifice your political career, don’t make a mad stand like the Alamo or Custer. We vote for our current slate of political leaders, vote for the one most like us but likely to win, we educate to shift public opinion so that when the next election comes by, the people will support the candidate we like.

      • Jason Says:

        “I call holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils good. What do you call it? Or would you rather have it so that the greater of two evils wins? I call that evil.”

        Let me tell you a story about a young (you’d probably call him ignorant) boy who had a situation where he learned something about the lesser of two evils.

        His name was Joseph Smith, and he asked God what church is right. God told him none of them, and to go and restore the true church. he didn’t say “None of them are right, but this one is the closest” or “None of them are right, but any of them would be better than this” he said “None. They are ALL wrong”

        I know you will dismiss me and say im wrong, or that I shouldnt use Gods commandments to try and sway peoples votes, but I honestly don’t care. Because what I just said was true.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:


        Joseph Smith had God on his side, and had assurances that his life would be protected as long as he did exactly as he was told.

        Where do you find such promises today? Do you not know that we are commanded by the same God to participate in politics? Do you think throwing all of your political eggs into the Ron Paul basket, and burning every bridge you can find, is going to qualify you as participating in politics?

      • Jason Says:

        Also, let me teach you another Principle. I call its “Teaming with Commies to Kill Nazis”.

        In WW2, we teamed up with the Russians to kill the Nazis. Even though the Russians slaughtered far far more people than the Nazi’s did, we had to team up with the lesser of two evils.

        Then all of the sudden the Russians became a problem for us. We had to defeat them. Who did we ally with to defeat the Russians? Oh that would be the Mujahideen (Later called Al Qaeda).

        And now who is the problem in todays world? Oh thats right, its the very Al Qaeda that we put in power to take out the Russians, who we allied with to kill the Nazis.

        So do you see how the “lesser of two evils” really does not work at all?

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        So, you would rather have lost World War II than team up with the Russians? Or should we have sacrificed our men and blood and treasure because Soviet Russia didn’t live up to our high expectations of what an ally should be? Perhaps we should have avoided an alliance with Great Britain, you know, because they thought government flowed down from God through a sovereign king. Perhaps we should have refused to compromise with the democratic government who ran our country at the time, called the war “Roosevelt’s Folly” and laughed when the troops came home in defeat?

        Or maybe when we fought the Cold War, we should have only cooperated with nations that were already fully functional representative democracies. (Note: Your ignorance is showing again when you claim we teamed up with Al Qaeda during the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict.) Not a drop of American blood should have been shed to fight in Korea, in Vietnam, in Europe, Africa, America, or anywhere else. Let the Soviets build satellite nations wherever they pleased, because their targets were not worthy enough of our help and assistance.

        Yes, we will team up with whomever we need to to protect our country and secure our borders. We are not so strong that we can go it alone. Yes, that means we sometimes have to sleep in the same bed as the devil, but at least we are alive and able to fight the devil tomorrow. Suicide is not the answer, not now, not ever.

        I was pondering why the United States has been so successful with our form of government while other American countries have not. I recalled that our Founding Fathers emphasized that our government was made for a virtuous people. Well, does that mean that other American countries are not as virtuous as ours? Indeed, I believe it to be the case. What are the other countries like, where is their virtue lacking? I recalled that other American countries are more idealistic. They are even more fierce defenders of justice and liberty and rights than us, and yet, they have less justice and liberty and rights than we have. Why is that? It is for a simple reason: A virtuous man understands the nature of evil, and is willing to do things like compromise when an un-virtuous man cannot. A virtuous man is grounded in reality, understanding things as they really are, and is confident enough to make decisions that are not easy yet are good.

        You may think of yourself as some kind of Thomas Cromwell (look it up.) I ask you: Do you think Thomas Cromwell forfeited his life lightly? Why do you think he took a stand on that issue when he was willing to compromise in all others? Are you sacrificing your political life for such a cause, or something far less worthy? Or do you consider Mitt Romney to be assuming the throne of God himself?

      • Neville Says:

        “So take the number of people who would actually vote for Paul, and fill a thimble with it.”

        This comes from ignorance or blindness, I’m not sure which. Which “people that vote” really count in the POTUS selection (prior to the EC, or Congress, or the SCOTUS, of course)? It is the general electorate of the USA. It is not the GOP. As much as I disdain pragmatics, I have to call out the GOP for its incredible inconsistency. They want to be pragmatic and say “Oh, we’re sure Romney will win, so we should all vote for him and put the primary behind us”, without paying attention to all the polling data across the country that says Romney simply cannot win the general election. Of the four GOP contenders left, it is Paul that most often comes out on top in that matchup.

        “As a Christian, I do not yoke myself to any candidate! What absurdity?”

        The problem is that you do not understand the scriptural concept being discussed. The second problem is that you are placing yourself above God.

        “Cowardice is supporting a candidate who obviously cannot and will not win, when you should be throwing your support behind the lesser of evils.”

        You can redefine it all you want, but the path you propose amounts to abandoning principle, abandoning respect for the law, and abandoning the duty that God has given us in choosing godly men to lead us. It upholding His principles brands me a coward, then bring on the branding iron.

  3. republican anonymous Says:

    If you believe Ron Paul has no chance of getting elected, it is because you watch too much t.v. I have watched fellow republicans become overcome with fear while watching fox’s talking heads spinningRon Paul’s foreign policy. How can republicans who supposedly support a right to life, then turn around and support candidates who have liberal and dangerous foreign policies regarding going to war?

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      I don’t watch TV, except for the rare movie we get from Netflix.

      Regardless, it’s you who are the fool here. You do not understand that if you want to protect the right to life, you have to be willing to kill those who would kill you or your neighbors. War is a necessary evil, like government. If we ever reach the point where we live in a world where people no longer want to murder or use military force to achieve their selfish ends, then we can safely disband the military, “beat our swords into plowshares”, and so on. That’s not going to happen for some time, and we fool ourselves if we believe that we can bring world peace by disarming the only military power who has ever used their power for the freedom and liberation of mankind.

      In other words, the way to world peace is throw arming the American people, fighting foreign wars, and disarming, by force if need be, those who care nothing for life or liberty.

      • Jason Says:

        But who is trying to kill us? And ask yourself why they are trying to kill us.

        The Muslims are “trying to kill us” because we went over to their land, and killed their people. We desecrated their holy land, and ruined their families. We overthrew their governments that they put in place, so we can earn oil. THAT is why they are trying to “kill us” The Book of Mormon clearly defines when war is “just” and there is no way you can justify the Iraq and Afghan wars as just.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        The Muslims have been trying to kill us since 400 AD. What American troops were stationed in the Middle East in 400 AD? Why are they trying to kill us? Go read the Koran and go read what any Imam says. You either learn Arabic for yourself or you rely on translations by objective translators who aren’t trying to hide what the Muslims really say.

        Dr. Paul’s grasp of historical context is very, very, VERY shallow. He is outright wrong on much of what he has said about the Middle East.

        Go back, go read about the Crusades, go read about Vlad the Impaler (Who did he impale and why?) Go read about where Croissants came from (Hint: Constantinople. Second Hint: Crescent = Croissant.) Do you know about the famous French general Charles “The Hammer” Martel? Why do we call him “The Hammer”, and why is he credited with saving Western Civilization?

        Go find out about the Knights of Malta, about Napoleon who stole the treasure on that island, and why France, up until WWI, was tasked with quelling North Africa and the Middle East.

        Go read about Stephen Decatur. Go see our historical relations with countries and men from that part of the world.

        When President Bush stood up after 9/11 and said, “We will democratize the Middle East,” given the historical context, do you understand what he really said? At the time, historians had already told the American Government what must be done. The Romans had it figured out, and that was before Mohammed. “Decimate” means to kill 1 in 10 men. Line them up, count to ten, and kill that man, and do it again. Europe had tried various strategies until they settled on the most effective one: divide and conquer. Keep the muslims fighting each other, and then when one rises to power, crush them before they get too strong.

        When President Bush said, “Let’s democratize the Middle East”, what he really said is, “We could go and just kill a bunch of young male muslims, but instead, I am offering an Olive Branch by saying we won’t do that.” There were actually people who thought he was crazy for saying that, and that instead, we should just nuke Mecca and be done with it. Were you even old enough to understand what people were saying at the time? Why do you think he said, “Religion of Peace”? Did you hear about the hundreds of Imams he sent to Iraq in the devastation, did you hear about what happened to them?

        It’s not just the Muslims. Do you know why Japan does not have a military? Can you track down who proposed the concept and who implemented it? (Hint: It wasn’t MacArthur.) Do you remember what Americans felt before WWI and WWII? Yes, WWI might have been a mistake. But who can argue that WWII was? What happened on that fateful December Sunday morning so many years ago that caused public opinion to shift from protectionism to war?

        I have spilled far too many electrons trying to correct your ignorance and fantasies. Go read history, go read books, go see what real people said and did when faced with life’s challenges, and then put today in that context. Stop believing propaganda. Go think for yourself. Dr. Paul is wrong on so many things, dangerously so, and that’s why there are only a handful of republicans who find him tolerable.

  4. Jason Says:

    “Yes, that means we sometimes have to sleep in the same bed as the devil,”

    Did you really just say this? Did you really just say that it is OK to sleep in the same bed as the devil, as long as your intentions are pure? Have you forgotten the story of Job, who was offered all sorts of power, if he just sided with the devil once? But who did not because he chose god even when it was inconvenient. Even when people suffered. You say I am young and ignorant, and maybe I am. But your statement has thoroughly disgusted me sir.

    Further more, to your statement of protection. God has made that promise to us. Spencer W. Kimball has said “We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us — and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Nephi 1:7) — or he will fight our battles for us (Exodus 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many).” When we engage in warfare across the world, we are committing acts of murder and that is not righteousness. So while you may cling to your armies or your politics, I am putting my faith in Gods commandments. There is no need for us to go and fight wars over oil like we are currently. There is no need for us to send our soldiers to die for another Nation. Especially since we are often the ones who put our enemies into power in the first place. We simply need to follow the lord, and renounce war and proclaim peace.

    Remember, the ANL swore they would not commit acts of war to god, and they were protected in their time of need, by the grace of god. Do not cling to the words of your politicians, but to God.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Jason, I hope you one day overcome your naivety about life in general.

      Job wasn’t offered power. He wasn’t offered anything. Job’s test was to see if, despite suffering under unimaginable circumstances, he would remain faithful (ie trusting) in God.

      When we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you forget that President Hinckley blessed the effort? Do you forget that we are supposed to be subject to the state—it’s one of our Articles of Faith, for goodness sake! That meant in WWII, German Mormons had to fight with Allied Mormons. You can imagine that God would have arranged things so that no Mormon had to shoot another Mormon, but that’s just childish fantasy. If we oppose a war, on whatever grounds, and the state endorses it, guess what? Pick up your rifle and report for duty, because we’re going to war. Before you say it, yes, I’d send my own kids to an unjust but state-sanctioned war, and I would’ve gone to war if I was physically acceptable. Not because I like to fight, but because I love my country, even though my country is not Zion.

      Anti-Nephi-Lehies were a special case. They swore an oath that no one else in recorded history has ever sworn, and they swore the oath because they were murderous warmongers seeking to repent of their gross sins. Why did they swear this oath? Did Ammon, their religious leader, ask them to? No, their head of state asked them to. Remember they were willing to break that oath and pick up arms to fight for the Nephites, until Helaman (God’s representative on the earth at the time) convinced them that they weren’t required to (and breaking oaths, even childish ones, is never a good idea.)

      Pacificism was never a part of LDS or Christian doctrine. Yes, we forgive, but there comes a point where we pick up arms and start killing people, and that’s the doctrine of Christ. He is just as much a God of War as he is of Love or Peace or everything else in the world.

      Don’t fall into the same error that the Quakers and the anti-war movement has fallen into. War is good, when it is called for. Allying with people who would otherwise be your enemy is good in the face of greater threats. It is better to have a military presence anywhere anything could harm us than to remain open to attack from our enemies.

      No, we should never, ever love war or the taking of life, never let our hearts harden, and we should love our enemies, but we still fight and oppose them while we love them. Remember Nephi built swords to kill his brothers, and probably killed his brothers or at least his nephews in the end, despite his great love for them and their descendants. I’d rather send missionaries to places like Iraq and Afghanistan rather than fight, but as long as missionaries are not safe there, we should either wait until their political climate changes or take advantage of the fact that we are forced into war with them and use that to build a peaceful society that would protect basic freedoms such as religion, turning something bad into something good.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: