Call Me an Idealist—I’m Honored

By Kellene Bishop Face it. You’ve no doubt heard yourself uttering, or at least thinking the words “the lesser of two evils” when it came to voting for a particular candidate. However, to put it simply, choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. As members of His church who have covenanted to build up this kingdom and to protect it, we simply cannot settle for such mainstream thinking. We are not here in the last days to take it easy and bask in the abundance of technology and goods. We are here to preserve, protect, and to prepare for His coming. And yes, it is US that are here to do so, not our distant ancestors still to come, folks. In 1980, Ezra Taft Benson gave a talk at BYU in which he stated, “you students are a part of a choice young generation—a generation which might well witness the return of the Lord.” He went on to say, “It will be your responsibility not only to help to carry the kingdom to a triumph but to save your own soul and strive to save those of your family and to honor the principles of the inspired constitutions of the United Stated.”

So, are we responsible for choosing only that which is good for our country and our religion, or shall our hands be clean if we simply vote for the “lesser of two evils?”

In Alma 46, Captain Moroni shows us just how important it is that not only do we refuse to accept any degree of evil among us, but that we must also ensure it doesn’t live to infiltrate our lives in the future generations either. (See verses 29-35)

Still others, who are strongly rooted among us, would have us believe that a belief that “Right will reign if we but stand firmly for it” is idealistic, and as such is doomed for failure—especially in light of our prominent two party voting system. I’m certain that such a view point is perpetuated by the adversary. I’m convinced that the Lord’s way is not to advocate “that which isn’t most wicked” but rather to always stand for that which is truly right, that which will truly protect freedoms, and preserve our religion.

The nay sayers can call this being an idealist all they want, telling the world how an idealist never gets anywhere so they can/should simply moderate towards the centrist view. I firmly do not believe this. The attitude that “we simply can't afford to be idealistic” and that we need to moderate in order to get back to the Constitution is what got us here to begin with. Surely we have seen that those who hold the views which threaten our religion and our freedoms never moderate, ever. Have you not noticed that? They don’t. And they never sleep. The holders of these views even admit that they have extreme agendas. But then they watch as the typical Conservative movement gets all bent out of shape, then “they” back off from their original extreme agenda and accept a few baby-steps towards their original agenda. And so on it goes. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the adversary ends up with what he wanted all along. Perhaps it’s hard to stand boldly and courageously in the face of truly evil principles, because such principles are held by living, breathing human beings who we instinctively love and strive to nurture, not destroy. But stand we must, regardless of the face which breathes out these false principles.

Perhaps the tragedy in all of this is not that many have tried to make a difference and feel that they have failed in doing so, but more importantly, the disaster is that we who hold the truths actually give up in fighting against evil. We try so hard to resist evil that we forget that the strength is in persisting evil. Understandably our nemesis does not sleep, nor get distracted with families, television, church callings, or other intrusions on his efforts to thwart the Lords plan. But far too many Believers have given up. Where would we be today if people had held strong to their ideals and principles 70 years ago? 50 years ago? Even 20 years ago? I believe we would be in the midst of a far different nation, and even world.

It is because we have decided to abandon our principles for so long that we find ourselves in our current situation, not because we held to them too tightly before finding it didn't work exactly as we had planned. It is far too common that the Holders of Eternal Truths simply live their lives, hoping (or even assuming) that someone else will take the heat and tow the line, while the adversary works tirelessly for his cause, knowing that it is all dependent upon him to do so. It is because Believers have not stood by their principles that we are left wondering what principles are anymore, let alone which ones we should try to hold onto and which ones we should save to fight for another day.

If we are not willing to stand on our principles, how can we expect anyone else to? If we are willing to stand on our principles, why not NOW so that we can begin to affect change? The Savior will not do it for us. We are to make these changes for Him.

Do you simply believe that you are not leadership material? That somehow true leadership is somebody else's responsibility? What is it about standing for something right now that scares us so badly? Do we think we will lose an election by doing so?

Advocating a slower moving train towards Socialism/Communism is still advocating for such a repugnant government. We cannot fool ourselves into believing that someone who will give away ANY of our Constitutional freedoms may not be as bad as someone who confesses that they would give them all away. Raping and pillaging is a violation of another, regardless of the speed at which it comes. Worse, if we don't see the freedoms that we’ve lost up to this time, then we are truly blind to what has been going on in this nation for far too long.

Yes, holding to our principles and voting for better leadership than we have now will split the Conservative ticket and allow a puppet of the adversary to be elected, but it will also show other Believers that they, too, can hold strong to their principles and cast a better vote. The fight must begin with us, though the minority. We cannot wait until we are in the majority, because it will never happen, according to prophesy. In addition, as that movement grows, it will show the current leadership that there are those of us out here that stand for something and that we will no longer remain silent. It is when we refuse to lead out, be first, and stand strong that both dominant parties know they can move where they want to because there is no one that will hold them accountable. You’ve heard of gun-free zones, right? You’re aware that the last five “mass shootings” all took place in a noted “gun free zone,” right? Well, “the powers that be” prey upon “truth free zones.” That is where we find ourselves today. If we are honest with ourselves, we have to admit that continuing to cast a vote for the lesser of two evils hasn't worked out real well for us thus far, and that this simple, but stubborn fact isn't likely to change in the future either.

How well did abandoning our principles and moderating the Republican Party work for us in the last election? How well did abandoning our principles stop WRONG from being elected last election, and how well were we able to stop the last Presidency from destroying liberties faster than we were able to stop them? Americans are justifiably fatigued with voting for the lesser of two evils and getting government leaders like we've had and have. They're waiting for someone else to take a stand, someone to rally around. Why can't that be you? Frankly, it should be all of us.

I promise from this day forward that I will never vote for the lesser of two evils again. If that puts me squarely in the camp of "useless idealist" then so be it, but I am responsible for my votes and actions to a Heavenly Father that expects more of me than that. Again, I implore you to read H. Verlan Anderson's "Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen" (http://www.redhotlogo.com/2-Many%20Called.pdf) before entertaining a thought process which attempts to address the lesser of two evils. It’s not an A or B vote, folks. It should always be the Lord’s vote.

While some may claim it to be idealistic, it is also according to the Lord's commandments that we seek good and honorable men for our leaders. If choices are not available before us, then we must step up to provide such a choice, just as Joseph Smith did. The ONLY reason why he ran for President of the United States was to preserve our religious and Constitutional rights. (See Teachings of Joseph Smith pages 331-334) He even goes so far as to say, “if I lose my life in a good cause I am willing to be sacrificed on the altar of virtue, righteousness and truth in maintaining the laws and Constitution of the United States, if need be, for the general good of mankind.”

The problem of giving up our “idealistic” cause in response to the dominance of the current two-party system is akin to thinking, "Well, kids are going to have sex anyway, so let's at least provide them a condom and teach them how to have sex safely." Clearly that doesn’t work for us and violates what we know to be right. It is this mentality that causes our actions, even when shooting for best, to do nothing more than hand the victory to the other side. Some have even gone so far as to rationalize “let's get closer to the other side so that we can get votes from both sides.” This certainly is a faulty strategy. Even as an accomplished and skilled warrior as well as a righteous man that Teancum was, he was victorious over his enemies until he shunned the protection of the Lord by going “forth in his anger.”

Either we stand on principle, or we admit that our principles can be bought. Which is it for you? “Let's elect someone that takes us down the road of Socialism slower, yeah, that will be better for us, but, hey, at least we won the election.” Nope. We will never win with such thinking. The adversary will always win in this case by convincing us that voting for the lesser of two evils was much better than voting our true conscience, which is what the Lord asks and requires of us as citizens entrusted with a great nation and great, though lessening, liberties.

Prayerfully read the scripture for guidance on these matters. Then read the published political platform of which you support. Ask yourself if this platform truly ensures freedom for all men, and the liberties as the Lord had intended. Unfortunately, I assure you that neither of the predominant platforms will reflect His Gospel. So you need to ask yourself, “if not this, then what?” I pray that you will find guidance and sure direction in exploring this question.

May we also covenant as did Moroni: “Behold, whosever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant that they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them.” (Alma 46:20)

In parting, let me say this: In the war in heaven there was a group of Communists (roughly a third) that wanted to be forced back into the presence of Heavenly Father. There were a group of Constitutionalists (roughly a third) that were willing to accept complete liberty and freedom to take on the responsibility for their own actions and then rely on the Lord to make up the difference. And then there was a group of fence sitting, middle of the road, let's-play-nice-with-everyone-so-we-don't-tick-anyone-off-so-everyone-will-like-everyone, just-a-little-bit-of-both-sides-is-good-for-me, I-just-want-to-be-on-the-winning-team-regardless-of-who-it-is "voters" (roughly a third) that were willing to give up a little liberty to get a little security. Which one are you?

The Lord claimed the Constitution as a work provided by inspiration at his hand through men he raised up for this very purpose (compare its ideals to those given by Christ in the war in heaven). In response, Satan came up with the Communist Manifesto (compare its ideals to those given by Satan in the war in heaven), but he doesn't care if we accept it wholeheartedly right now as long as we're moving towards it, however slowly that may be. Any move away from the Lord's plan towards Satan's plan is unacceptable.

As for me, I'll take the Constitution coupled with the Gospel.

What type of tyranny would you like served today? And would you like fries with that?

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Aliens Attack the U.S.

By Kellene Bishop

In view of Obama’s pick for U.S. Regulatory Czar, I have truly been converted today to the reality of aliens from outer space. I say this because I have no earthly idea where a person would come up with such alien statements and beliefs as this person does. Because the Sunstein Doctrine is so completely foreign to the substance and culture of this nation, it clearly demonstrates proof that Obama is pursuing his own agenda and not that of the American people. I am 100% certain that this guy’s beliefs are indeed foreign.

Introducing Cass Sunstein, the nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This name accompanied by his bloodcurdling doctrine should cause you to shudder. The fact that he would rape and pillage the first five Constitutional Amendments is only the tip of the iceberg. Read on to see this freak of nature at his best.

In 2007, during a speech given at Harvard, Sunstein proposed that hunting be banned throughout the United States. Ok, I can try to give him credit for wanting to save the lives of the hunting partners of Dick Cheney, but unfortunately his mutant beliefs only get more far fetched from here.

He believes that the internet is “anti-Democratic” because users can filter out any objectionable material. As such he believes that the required use of technology by all citizens is necessary to ensure that a site contains “fair and balanced” information and that such a requirement should be put into play as soon as possible. Does this mean that every site that communicates sound Christian values should also be required to communicate the thoughts and opinions of Satanic cults? Does this mean if a site displays a picture of a virtuous woman that that same site must give the viewer access to porn as well? And yes, Sunstein has gone so far as to declare that non-profit groups should be required to publish counter positions to theirs on their own websites. That’s right. If Mother Teresa had a web site, she would be required to provide information on Hitler as well.

He also believes that we should be required to use software which would prevent anyone from sending an e-mail in which the SOFTWARE determines holds “uncivil” comments. Awww. Ain’t that cute? These poor little defenseless politicians must have had their feelings hurt by all that was said during the Tea Parties. They need a software program to protect them from hearing any dissenting opinions. He proposes that this software double-ask the sender if they really want to send an “uncivil” e-mail message. And if they do, then the e-mail must be filed away for 24 hours for a mandatory cooling off period. Oh I get it. The First Amendment gives free speech, but only if it’s not offensive to anyone. Right.

In his book “Radical to Robes” Sunstein writes that he believes that all gun control legislation is constitutionally congruent. He believes that the U.S. Supreme court “got it wrong” in determining that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals.

Ok, here’s a real loony one. In his 2004 book entitled “Animal Rights” he wrote that he believed that “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …" Holy cow! (pun intended) I’m all about protecting animals, but providing them with a public defender at the expense of tax dollars is laughable! If you hurt my dogs, I will indeed defend them, but where will it stop? We already have an over burgeoning court system. Criminals get off for murder of a human being? What additional justice are we to expect when a person sends an uncivil e-mail to Mickey Mouse? Are the lawyers not making enough money? Do they need to start chasing Fido rather than ambulances? Where does the U.S. Constitution stand on giving animals the same rights as humans? Oh yeah. It doesn’t. And besides, how can we expect to preserve and protect the Constitutional rights of animals when we are proving ourselves incapable or unwilling to preserve and protect the rights of legal, law-abiding American citizens? If you give animals constitutional rights, then you must give them consequences as well. Will we expect law enforcement to release Shack, the vicious Pit Bull because he wasn’t read his Miranda Rights?

To me, here is the most horrific aspect of all of this. Read what Obama thinks of this individual, specifically in relation to his ability to uphold the Constitutional rights and freedoms of our citizens: “As one of America's leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics," said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. "He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration's regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team." I have no doubt that he is a dear friend of Obama’s based on this information. However, it’s clear that Sunstein knows about as much about the constitution as Anderson Cooper and Janeane Garofalo know about civility.

To completely prove my case of this alien-born, anti-Christ, Sunstein states “limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.” Yup. We’re just dumb human beings incapable of making the “right” choice if we are presented with so many choices. You’re right Sunstein. Americans simply have too many choices, and as such we’re certainly making the wrong decisions. But I ask you, why stop at the internet, Sunstein? Why not reel in those villainous makers of feminine products as well? Slim, mini, super, extra super, pink, blue, white, mega, etc. How is a sane person to choose? I find the vast amount of tampons for women completely overwhelming and sending my poor husband out to retrieve the proper box could result in a 3rd World War. I’m sure limiting our choices between good, bad, evil, and truly in our best interests was exactly what the Founding Father feared in declaring ultimate freedom from an oppressed government. Too bad they didn’t declare freedom from beings from Mars as well. I’d feel a lot safer now.

I think the best science fiction writers of our time will find merit in the Sunstein Doctrine. After all, it will provide great fodder for their story lines. What’s the saying? “Truth is stranger than fiction.” We might as well prepare ourselves for the same kind of alien invasion represented in the Will Smith movie, “Independence Day”, if we are to tolerate a man in such a controlling a position as this.

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.

Baptist Pastor vs. Border Patrol

By Kellene Bishop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

This video of Steve Anderson is just over 8 minutes long. The contents of it are disturbing to me from a standpoint of freedom, but even more disturbing to me are the comments of ignorant fools in response to this video. Lest any more of you should grossly err in your judgment of this situation, allow me to enlighten you.

The time to stand up for your rights is ANY and EVERY time they are being violated.

One person on YouTube commented that this person should not have “taken the law into his own hands.” Sorry folks. The law is FOR the people, not issued in hopes that power-drunken agents such as these will honor it. It is for ALL of the people. It is your DUTY to know what the laws are and push back. For too long the overwhelming majority has been apathetic to their rights under the laws, and this is exactly why such atrocities of law have occurred in this situation. Do you naively believe that only the military is empowered to support and sustain our Constitutional rights? How is that fair that our soldiers have to lose their lives to defend our freedoms, but every citizen in this country doesn’t have to do their part as well? As insignificant as this act may seem to others in the nation, in my opinion there is virtue and righteousness in affirming our rights under all circumstances.

Another ignoramus commented that “from what he was able to find out, this guy isn’t a very good person.” Others accused him of being a “know-it-all” and a pompous @$$, etc. Guess what, folks? The rights of the U.S. Constitution are ensured for all people, including someone who may come across to some as a jerk. That’s why some personalities are permitted to grace your television sets and radio stations. There is no U.S. law which states you must comply nicely when your rights are or are not being violated. There is no requirement that you speak softly, etc. So whether you support the personality traits of this person is completely unimportant. As an American, his rights are his rights regardless.

As the result of his FIRST Amendment right (which is not a coincidence that such a right is in the first position of all outlined rights in our Constitution) this individual has the right to free speech. Thus anything he may have said which would make a person angry is unacceptable grounds for the actions of these so-called agents.

Several foolish posters commented that “all this guy had to do was answer the questions.” Again. They are wrong. If a police officer comes to your door and begins asking you questions, you are under NO obligation to answer such questions. Answering questions by law enforcement is not a requirement. In fact, in accordance to the Fifth Amendment, we have the right to not say ANYTHING which may incriminate us. Even the Miranda Rights reaffirm such. Not answering questions does not negate any of your other rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Another fool posted a supposition that Congress has granted the Border Patrol broad authority of search and seizures. Guess what. I don’t care if the President himself gave the Border Patrol agents permission to behave this way, it’s illegal! Pure and simple. No law can be passed in this country which is at odds with the U.S. Constitution. The only way that this act could be made “legal” is if there was a Constitutional Amendment fully ratified. Congress also recently passed an enormous bill without even reading it. Does that make it right or legal? No. It’s malpractice. And such a foolish comment flies in the face of all of those who have died so that we may now possess those rights. Until I see a Congressman who will pay the “uttermost farthing” to protect my rights as did our Founding Fathers, then such a Congressman does not receive any honorable attentions from me. Too many of our Americans today are sheep. They feel that simply because the President declares something, or the Congressmen say it and then sign it, that it’s law. Sorry folks. All laws MUST be in alignment with the U.S. Constitution. New laws can specify, clarify, and even give consequences for violating the laws and rights of the U.S. Constitution, but they cannot circumvent or violate them.

Then there are the masses of individuals who would judge this person because he’s a Baptist Pastor. He’s accused of being difficult by being non-compliant. Boy howdy am I ever GRATEFUL for my non-compliant Founding Fathers, as well as my non-compliant Savior who did NOT “save” the Jews based on their short-sighted expectations and demands. Too many individuals wrongly presume that as a Baptist pastor, he should be a mouse and comply. Sorry, you’d be wrong again to presume such. This guy did not spew foul language at these agents. He did not “get in the way” of their tazers and metal batons. These “agents” made a choice to act in the manner in which they did. As such, Jesus would condemn them, not the person upon whom they acted. It’s alarming to me just how many folks believe that standing up for your Constitutional rights is an act of deviance in the Christian world—especially in light of the fact that God inspired the men who served as our Founding Fathers of this nation. God is fully invested in our rights being upheld in this nation.

The fact that the dog was brought into this as grounds for the search is laughable as well, since the Fourth Amendment requires that probable cause be established by “oath or affirmation.” Clearly Fido didn’t say anything. He was merely used as a pawn for their designs. Isn’t it ironic that law ENFORCEMENT officials don’t care much for a person who actually helps them understand the laws of which they are to enforce? Case in point, if a 31-year-old man has sex with a 14-year-old girl, even if it’s consensual, it’s illegal. Coinciding with that, even if the American people are willing to have their rights raped and pillaged “consensually” it’s still illegal and in direct violation of our Bill of Rights. Even honest citizens with nothing to hide are violated whenever we consent to the erosion of our rights and liberty.

Another aspect of this incident is the excessive force. Hmmm… how many drug traffickers have made it across the border without their windows bashed in, or having been cut, tazed, and battered? Even if this guy WAS a drug dealer, they are NOT permitted to treat him as such. That’s right. Even if he was verbally belligerent, had a couple of kids and some drugs in the back of the car, the Border Patrol are not permitted to handle the situation the way they did. This constitutes “unreasonable search.” But hey, it’s not unreasonable seizure because they found NOTHING. (Although, due to the damage they inflicted on the vehicle, they did in fact illegally “seize” this man’s car.)

This person is rumored to have had a “run-in” with Border Patrol previously in which he also refused to answer their questions. However, posting a video on YouTube complaining about your previous treatment with Border Patrol does not give an “agent” free reign to violate your Constitutional rights. Plain and simple, Folks.

While it may take a while to get this all sorted out, anytime a person legally defends their rights of this nation, they have my wholehearted support. I may not agree with their personality traits, their religion, or their other beliefs, but they are indeed correct in asserting those rights.

Bottom line, if you will not stand up for the Constitution, who will?

Copyright 2009 Kellene Bishop. All rights reserved.
You are welcome to repost this information so long as it is credited to Kellene Bishop.