President Hinckley Becomes Oldest Church Leader Ever

6 November 2006

SALT LAKE CITY — Last week, President Gordon B. Hinckley — president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — became the oldest prophet in the history of the Church.

On 3 November 2006, President Hinckley was 96 years old and 133 days, surpassing President David O. McKay, who died at 96 years and 132 days on 18 January 1970.

During the October 2006 general conference of the Church, President Hinckley said: “If I last a few months longer, I will have served to an older age than any previous president. I do not say this to be boastful but rather grateful. ... The Lord has permitted me to live; I do not know for how long. But whatever the time, I shall continue to give my best to the task at hand.”

John Kerry is a Fool

Kerry has long despised the military. His 1971 testimony before the Senate is now infamous. The Boston Globe has an interesting story too. In a 1972 campaign, he said:

I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown.

His recent insult of the troops proves that he still holds the same world view. He is normally a good enough politician to hide what he really thinks. Even if his excuse of botching a joke is true, his actions show that he really does loathe the military.

Ironies of our Era Abound

This article on NRO has a disturbing account of the slippery slope of the marriage debate. On the surface, gay-marriage activists seek acceptance by legalizing gay marriage. After gay marriage they seek to legalize polygamy and polyamory. The result of their advocacy will be to entirely destroy the entire institution of marriage.

The irony of this age is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, once derided for practicing polygamy, will end up being one of the strongest voices against polygamy. The prophets were truly inspired to release the Family Proclamation in 1995. Its message will protect those who follow its counsel.

A Great Clip From Mitt

As usual, thanks to NRO for having a link to this great clip of Mitt putting a reporter in her place.

One Immigration Solution

There are two parts of the immigration problem. One is that it is very easy to enter the US illegally. The enticements of jobs, money, and opportunity make it very hard to combat illegal immigration.

The other half of the problem is that countries illegal immigrants leave are so bad that no one wants to stay. If they want to enter the US and leave Mexico, how can you stop them. There have been a few improvements in making it harder to enter the US, but that doesn't make anyone want to stay in their homeland. If Mexico had a free and open society and opportunities for jobs and prosperity, there would not be this huge flood of people leaving.

I think the US should encourage economic reform for societies who have people who want to come here. There should be standards of overcoming corruption, putting the dealings of government in the daylight, and cultivating opportunities to take advantage of the vast natural and human resources of these countries. These countries could be given more freedom to enter the US as they become more prosperous.

To make it hard to enter the US will help, but to give them a reason to stay home will do far more.

Also, the US can set the example in shedding daylight on government and overcoming corruption. If this was the policy of the US, many problems would be solved across the hemisphere.

When a Christian Man Can Enter a War

This is from John Bytheway who quotes President David O. McKay in the April 1942 General Conference (the first conference after Pearl Harbor was attacked):

There are two conditions which may justify a truly Christian man to enter, mind you I say enter - not begin, a war: one, an attempt to dominate and to deprive another of his free agency. And two, loyalty to his country. Possibly there is a third. Defense of a weak nation being unjustly crushed by a strong, ruthless one.

Preventing Torture

I am amazed at the naivete of the people who argue against all "torture" or coercive interrogations. I am just fine with someone arguing against torture. I hate when they use stupid arguments. Here is the latest one:

Make no mistake — logically, that's where the ticking-bomb scenario takes you. [Hillary] Clinton insists that she wasn't really saying that torture should be legal — no, no, of course not. She still thinks that torture is immoral, ineffective and counterproductive. It's just that for an "improbable but possible eventuality" such as a true ticking-bomb scenario, she thinks that we should make "a very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances."

And this wouldn't undermine the Geneva Convention? You'd better believe that countries such as Syria, North Korea and Iran would also just love to carve out some "very, very narrow exceptions" to treaties banning torture.

This is a stupid argument because Syria, North Korea, and Iran ALREADY VIOLATE GENEVA CONVENTIONS. It is well known that these countries hold political prisoners and starve, torture, and kill them. North Korea's gulags and reeducation camps are infamous.

Our good behavior is not going to change their bad behavior. If you want to argue against coercive interrogations, fine. But don't pretend I am an idiot.

As a side note, I am surprised to (partially) agree with Hillary Clinton.

On Vietnam

I once had an interchange with an idiot on CougarBoard.com who said Iraq and Vietnam were both unwinnable wars short of genocide. I think that is patently absurd. The U.S. military is the best fighting force in the history of this planet. None have sacrificed more to bring freedom and hope to the rest of the world.

The media of the day portrayed the Tet Offensive to be a disaster of biblical proportions for the U.S. military. Military history, however, tells a different story (no surprise there). NRO had a link to this site:

The summary of the Wikipedia entry on the Tet offensive captures the current view of military historians, even if it is quite different from the conventional wisdom of the Boomer editors and producers who set the agenda in the mainstream media:

The Tet Offensive can be considered a crushing military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved any of their tactical goals. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the huge losses inflicted by South Vietnamese and other Allied forces. Nevertheless, the Offensive is widely considered a turning point of the war in Vietnam, with the NLF and PAVN winning an enormous psychological and propaganda victory. Although US public opinion polls continued to show a majority supporting involvement in the war, this support continued to deteriorate and the nation became increasingly polarized over the war.[1] President Lyndon Johnson saw his popularity fall sharply after the Offensive, and he withdrew as a candidate for re-election in March of 1968. The Tet Offensive is frequently seen as an example of the value of propaganda, media influence and popular opinion in the pursuit of military objectives.

The Boy Scouts is a Favorite Target of Leftists

This was good, so I will just quote Jay Nordlinger (from NRO):

It may be too much to speak of a war on the Boy Scouts, but they are certainly being . . . hampered. A couple of items: In Berkeley, Calif., “a Scouts sailing group lost free use of a public marina because the Boy Scouts bar atheists and gays.” (I’m quoting from a news story.) Okay, that’s Berkeley — Berserkley, whatever.

In Connecticut, “officials dropped the group from a list of charities that receive donations from state employees through a payroll deduction plan.”

Okay, that’s Connecticut, land of nutmeg and nutters.

And in Philadelphia? “The city is threatening to evict a Boy Scout council from the group’s publicly owned headquarters or make the group pay rent unless it changes its policy on gays.”

Just a little more quoting: “On a separate matter, federal judges in two other court cases that are being appealed have ruled that government aid to [the Scouts] is unconstitutional because the [organization] requires members to swear an oath of duty to God.”

Etc.

No, it’s too much to speak of a war on the Scouts. But should I say “too much” or “too early”? Will there come a day when the Scouts will be some kind of underground organization?

These are weird times, my friends.

Mitt Hits a Line Drive

I am so glad to see Mitt getting the message of the Family Proclamation out in the public square. Even if he has no luck in the presidential arena, his message will do some seroius good. NRO has a summary here. The money quote is this:

“Marriage,” Romney said, “is primarily about the nurturing and development of children.” He added, “A child’s development is enhanced by the nurturing of both genders. Every child deserves a mother and a father.” And, driving the point home: “The price for same-sex marriage is paid by children.”

NRO also has a link to this great website supporting Mitt.

More Problems in France

The Corner on NRO points out this article about French Muslims.

Scores of youths had attacked seven officers who had tried to arrest a man for not wearing his seat belt while driving. The driver refused to stop and later rammed a police car trying to block his path.

Les Mureaux Mayor Francois Garay criticized aggressive police tactics that left "the people on the ground to pick up the pieces."

This opposition to police action sounds like the opposition to the mission in Iraq: "Don't oppose the criminals (terrorists) or you will make them mad."

An Interesting Quote on War

I found this interesting quote on NRO and thought I would preserve it for later use.

John Stuart Mill... is no conservative favorite, that’s for sure, but this is arresting:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Why fighting terrorism is always good:

A recent intelligence report claims that the war in Iraq is responsible for creating more terrorists. That may be true, but it is only because the world perceives the Islamofascists to be winning. Once it is clear that the US is winning, there will be no major recruitment of new terrorists. Victor Davis Hanson says it this way:

Most people have no ideology, but simply accommodate themselves to the prevailing sense of an agenda’s success or failure. Just as there weren’t more than a dozen vocal critics of Hitler after the Wehrmacht finished off France in six weeks in June of 1940, so too there wasn’t a Nazi to be found in June 1945 when Berlin lay in rubble.

It doesn’t matter whether Middle Easterners actually accept the tenets of bin Laden’s worldview — not if they think he is on the ascendancy, can bring them a sense of restored pride, and humiliate the Jews and the West on the cheap. Bin Laden is no more eccentric or impotent than Hitler was in the late 1920s.Yet if he can claim that his martyrs forced the United States out of Afghanistan and Iraq, toppled a petrol sheikdom or two, and acquired its wealth and influence — or if he got his hands on nuclear weapons and lorded it over appeasing Westerners — then he too, like the Fuhrer in the 1930s, will become untouchable. The same is true of Iran’s president Ahmadinejad.

Hanson concludes his comparison thus:

We can argue whether the present-day Islamic fascists have the military means comparable to what was had in the past by Nazis, Fascists, and militarists — I think a dirty bomb is worth the entire Luftwaffe, one nuclear missile all the striking power of the Japanese imperial Navy — but there should be no argument over who they are and what they want. They are fascists of an Islamic sort, pure and simple.

Preventing these crazies from obtaining worse weapons is worth almost any price.

Some people just don't get it

Over and over, liberals cry, 'Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11!' Another article I read (it is not worth a link) said that Fox said it over and over until people believed that Saddam was specifically involved in 9-11. I have watched a lot of Fox and no one has ever argued that.

What is inarguable is that Iraq was involved with al-Qaida. (Interesting, isn't it, how liberals who love 'nuance' can't distinguish between 'Iraq helped on 9-11' and 'Iraq was involved in al-Qaida.') Iraq had no specific role in 9-11, but they were a country proven to have gassed thousands and they would have loved to create some 9-11-like event.

Despite the 'Bush lied' garbage, Saddam did TRY to get uranium. He may not have gotten it, but he TRIED to. Had Saddam been successful, we would have two crazies on the verge of nukes by now. Saddam and Mammoud.

The world could always be more dangerous

I had never even thought of this potential problem. Mark Levin said:

I know from my days at the Justice Department that our prisons would become more difficult to manage if they were sprinkled with terrorists, including the problem of recruitment.

Were terrorists in normal jails, we would have some very scary people on the streets in no time. Jihadists would recurit already crazy people to becoming new terrorists.

My Email to The Corner at NRO

I sent this in response to this article at National Review Online. I doubt they will publish it so I will here.

Philosophers have argued about evil since time immemorial. If God is good, and God is all powerful, how can He allow evil to happen? Also, from the Judeo-Christian perspective, God created all things. Therefore, some conclude, God created evil. Some deny the existence of evil. Others question the existence of God. Others still, wonder if God could really be all powerful.

The Mormon perspective is that creation was not ex nihilo. Things you see were made of something. Even all of humanity existed as spirit children of God before birth on this planet. Good parents sometimes raise bad children. Children bring something with them from their previous life. This is not some funky version of reincarnation. Actually it is a belief that birth on earth is a step forward in eternal progression.

Mormon theology teaches that one thing we had before birth and we bring with us is our moral agency. There was a war in heaven where one third of His children chose not to follow God and thus were denied the opportunity for mortal birth. They remain disembodied spirits for eternity because of their choices. This moral agency is something so precious to God that he will not interfere with it, even if it means suffering in this life. Without our agency and choice, we would be automatons to be acted upon, not Children who knowingly choose to become more like God by choosing good.

The Mormon question is not 'Why evil?', but 'Why agency?' Clearly there is some purpose which is higher for God than preventing suffering. The Mormon answer is found in God's statement in Moses 1:39: "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Something about this mortal experience prepares us to become more like God and to return - not for the first time - to His presence.

Today on Mitt Romney

I laughed right out loud at this one.

The First Wives' Club [Kate O'Beirne]

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Governor Mitt Romney's great-grandfather had multiple wives and two great-great grandfathers had 10 wives each. The article allows that Romney "is a confirmed monogamist of nearly four decades and polygamy has been absent from his family going back two generations." While some might note the upside of generously sharing those handsome Romney genes in the past, current history is noteworthy. Should Mitt Romney join a 2008 race that included John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and George Allen, the only guy in the GOP field with only one wife would be the Mormon.

Not Yours To Give

Here is an article from David Crockett about why government should not be in the business of charity (link).

The short version of the article is that to give money to some, the government must take it from others who may be worse off. I wish that an attitude like that would become acceptable again. Instead, even the best political candidates still plan on some form of taxation and redistribution of wealth.

Such is the state of the country that charity is mandated from Washington and taxes determine almost all business decisions and purchases and even life decisions.

Crockett closes with these lines about congressmen:

Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.

Signs of the Times

The nut-case president of Iran, Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad, wrote a letter to President Bush recently. The letter says, in part:

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, Feel obliged to respect human rights, Present liberalism as a civilization model, Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, Make “War and Terror” his slogan, And finally, Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, But at the same time,Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire village, city or convey set ablaze, blah, blah, blah.

The excerpts read on the radio contain all sorts of examples of the pot calling the kettle black. Mammood, referring to the United States, pointed out how

History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive.God has entrusted The fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

and

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.

I did not know that Giddianhi was a type of latter-day loonies. His letter to Lachoneous had the same tone:

Lachoneus, most noble and chief governor of the land, behold, I write this epistle unto you, and do give unto you exceedingly great praise because of your firmness, and also the firmness of your people, in maintaining that which ye suppose to be your right and liberty; yea, ye do stand well, as if ye were supported by the hand of a god, in the defence of your liberty, and your property, and your country, or that which ye do call so.

And it seemeth a pity unto me, most noble Lachoneus, that ye should be so foolish and vain as to suppose that ye can stand against so many brave men who are at my command, who do now at this time stand in their arms, and do await with great anxiety for the word - Go down upon the Nephites and destroy them.

And I, knowing of their unconquerable spirit, having proved them in the field of battle, and knowing of their everlasting hatred towards you because of the many wrongs which ye have done unto them, therefore if they should come down against you they would visit you with utter destruction. 3 Nephi 3:2-4

This happening was not on my list of items to check off as signs of the times but it happened. Now it is on the list and checked off. It may be like Isaiah, in that we will recognize its fulfillment when it happens.

France and Europe are messed up.

Last week sometime, French students were rioting by the millions over freedom given in a new law to employers. The students were bent out of shape because this new law made it easier to fire younger workers. Unemployment among young workers in France is supposed to be 25% to 50% in some areas. The business owners won't hire them because it is too hard to fire them. The youth complain that having to compete for their jobs is too much like evil American Capitalism. Sheesh. And I thought our welfare nanny state-ism was out of hands.

About a month ago Muslim youth were rioting in the streets of France for some of the same reasons.

Elder L. Tom Perry recently delivered a devotional at BYU-I and said of he and his wife's trip to Europe:

We witnessed the de-Christianization of Europe. Europe is beginning the 21st century in a new and uncharted phase of history. People of these great nations are embracing secularization. Most secularized value systems reason that the human being has total autonomy. An individual does not have to give an accounting to anything or anyone except himself and, to a certain extent, to the society in which he lives. Secularization becomes a force for bringing about false ideas and the breaking down of old traditions that have held civilizations together.

This secular lifestyle has a spiritual and moral price. It has brought with it a curse of extreme worldliness and selfishness, the decline of public and private morality, and the defiance of authority, favoring individual freedom over responsibility to society, community and the world. Another result is a declining birthrate to below replacement levels. Filling the gap of these reduced numbers will be those of strong non-Christian faiths. It is forecast that the native German population will drop from 85 million to 25 million by the turn of the next century.

My concern is that we are following the same pattern towards secularization. We have embraced and committed ourselves to the gospel of Jesus Christ which is completely contrary to Satan’s plan. He is doing all he can to destroy families. Throughout your life, you must set an example to safeguard the principles and doctrines which will bring the blessings of the Lord.

People don't understand the consequences of their actions. People cut ties to families (or never even make those ties in the first place), turn to government for help, and then they wonder why society and civility fall apart.