BY LT. COL. DANIEL L. DAVIS

I spent last year in Afghanistan, visiting and talking with U.S. troops and their Afghan partners. My duties with the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force took me into every significant area where our soldiers engage the enemy. Over the course of 12 months, I covered more than 9,000 miles and talked, traveled and patrolled with troops in Kandahar, Kunar, Ghazni, Khost, Paktika, Kunduz, Balkh, Nangarhar and other provinces.

What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground.

Entering this deployment, I was sincerely hoping to learn that the claims were true: that conditions in Afghanistan were improving, that the local government and military were progressing toward self-sufficiency. I did not need to witness dramatic improvements to be reassured, but merely hoped to see evidence of positive trends, to see companies or battalions produce even minimal but sustainable progress.

Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.

My arrival in country in late 2010 marked the start of my fourth combat deployment, and my second in Afghanistan. A Regular Army officer in the Armor Branch, I served in Operation Desert Storm, in Afghanistan in 2005-06 and in Iraq in 2008-09. In the middle of my career, I spent eight years in the U.S. Army Reserve and held a number of civilian jobs — among them, legislative correspondent for defense and foreign affairs for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

As a representative for the Rapid Equipping Force, I set out to talk to our troops about their needs and their circumstances. Along the way, I conducted mounted and dismounted combat patrols, spending time with conventional and Special Forces troops. I interviewed or had conversations with more than 250 soldiers in the field, from the lowest-ranking 19-year-old private to division commanders and staff members at every echelon. I spoke at length with Afghan security officials, Afghan civilians and a few village elders.

I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base.

I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn’t want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government.

From time to time, I observed Afghan Security forces collude with the insurgency.

FROM BAD TO ABYSMAL

Much of what I saw during my deployment, let alone read or wrote in official reports, I can’t talk about; the information remains classified. But I can say that such reports — mine and others’ — serve to illuminate the gulf between conditions on the ground and official statements of progress.

And I can relate a few representative experiences, of the kind that I observed all over the country.

In January 2011, I made my first trip into the mountains of Kunar province near the Pakistan border to visit the troops of 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry. On a patrol to the northernmost U.S. position in eastern Afghanistan, we arrived at an Afghan National Police (ANP) station that had reported being attacked by the Taliban 2½ hours earlier.

Through the interpreter, I asked the police captain where the attack had originated, and he pointed to the side of a nearby mountain.

“What are your normal procedures in situations like these?” I asked. “Do you form up a squad and go after them? Do you periodically send out harassing patrols? What do you do?”

As the interpreter conveyed my questions, the captain’s head wheeled around, looking first at the interpreter and turning to me with an incredulous expression. Then he laughed.

“No! We don’t go after them,” he said. “That would be dangerous!”

According to the cavalry troopers, the Afghan policemen rarely leave the cover of the checkpoints. In that part of the province, the Taliban literally run free.

In June, I was in the Zharay district of Kandahar province, returning to a base from a dismounted patrol. Gunshots were audible as the Taliban attacked a U.S. checkpoint about one mile away.

As I entered the unit’s command post, the commander and his staff were watching a live video feed of the battle. Two ANP vehicles were blocking the main road leading to the site of the attack. The fire was coming from behind a haystack. We watched as two Afghan men emerged, mounted a motorcycle and began moving toward the Afghan policemen in their vehicles.

The U.S. commander turned around and told the Afghan radio operator to make sure the policemen halted the men. The radio operator shouted into the radio repeatedly, but got no answer.

On the screen, we watched as the two men slowly motored past the ANP vehicles. The policemen neither got out to stop the two men nor answered the radio — until the motorcycle was out of sight.

To a man, the U.S. officers in that unit told me they had nothing but contempt for the Afghan troops in their area — and that was before the above incident occurred.

In August, I went on a dismounted patrol with troops in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province. Several troops from the unit had recently been killed in action, one of whom was a very popular and experienced soldier. One of the unit’s senior officers rhetorically asked me, “How do I look these men in the eye and ask them to go out day after day on these missions? What’s harder: How do I look [my soldier’s] wife in the eye when I get back and tell her that her husband died for something meaningful? How do I do that?”

One of the senior enlisted leaders added, “Guys are saying, ‘I hope I live so I can at least get home to R&R leave before I get it,’ or ‘I hope I only lose a foot.’ Sometimes they even say which limb it might be: ‘Maybe it’ll only be my left foot.’ They don’t have a lot of confidence that the leadership two levels up really understands what they’re living here, what the situation really is.”

On Sept. 11, the 10th anniversary of the infamous attack on the U.S., I visited another unit in Kunar province, this one near the town of Asmar. I talked with the local official who served as the cultural adviser to the U.S. commander. Here’s how the conversation went:

Davis: “Here you have many units of the Afghan National Security Forces [ANSF]. Will they be able to hold out against the Taliban when U.S. troops leave this area?”

Adviser: “No. They are definitely not capable. Already all across this region [many elements of] the security forces have made deals with the Taliban. [The ANSF] won’t shoot at the Taliban, and the Taliban won’t shoot them.

“Also, when a Taliban member is arrested, he is soon released with no action taken against him. So when the Taliban returns [when the Americans leave after 2014], so too go the jobs, especially for everyone like me who has worked with the coalition.

“Recently, I got a cellphone call from a Talib who had captured a friend of mine. While I could hear, he began to beat him, telling me I’d better quit working for the Americans. I could hear my friend crying out in pain. [The Talib] said the next time they would kidnap my sons and do the same to them. Because of the direct threats, I’ve had to take my children out of school just to keep them safe.

“And last night, right on that mountain there [he pointed to a ridge overlooking the U.S. base, about 700 meters distant], a member of the ANP was murdered. The Taliban came and called him out, kidnapped him in front of his parents, and took him away and murdered him. He was a member of the ANP from another province and had come back to visit his parents. He was only 27 years old. The people are not safe anywhere.”

That murder took place within view of the U.S. base, a post nominally responsible for the security of an area of hundreds of square kilometers. Imagine how insecure the population is beyond visual range. And yet that conversation was representative of what I saw in many regions of Afghanistan.

In all of the places I visited, the tactical situation was bad to abysmal. If the events I have described — and many, many more I could mention — had been in the first year of war, or even the third or fourth, one might be willing to believe that Afghanistan was just a hard fight, and we should stick it out. Yet these incidents all happened in the 10th year of war.

As the numbers depicting casualties and enemy violence indicate the absence of progress, so too did my observations of the tactical situation all over Afghanistan.

CREDIBILITY GAP

I’m hardly the only one who has noted the discrepancy between official statements and the truth on the ground.

A January 2011 report by the Afghan NGO Security Office noted that public statements made by U.S. and ISAF leaders at the end of 2010 were “sharply divergent from IMF, [international military forces, NGO-speak for ISAF] ‘strategic communication’ messages suggesting improvements. We encourage [nongovernment organization personnel] to recognize that no matter how authoritative the source of any such claim, messages of the nature are solely intended to influence American and European public opinion ahead of the withdrawal, and are not intended to offer an accurate portrayal of the situation for those who live and work here.”

The following month, Anthony Cordesman, on behalf of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote that ISAF and the U.S. leadership failed to report accurately on the reality of the situation in Afghanistan.

“Since June 2010, the unclassified reporting the U.S. does provide has steadily shrunk in content, effectively ‘spinning’ the road to victory by eliminating content that illustrates the full scale of the challenges ahead,” Cordesman wrote. “They also, however, were driven by political decisions to ignore or understate Taliban and insurgent gains from 2002 to 2009, to ignore the problems caused by weak and corrupt Afghan governance, to understate the risks posed by sanctuaries in Pakistan, and to ‘spin’ the value of tactical ISAF victories while ignoring the steady growth of Taliban influence and control.”

How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding and behind an array of more than seven years of optimistic statements by U.S. senior leaders in Afghanistan? No one expects our leaders to always have a successful plan. But we do expect — and the men who do the living, fighting and dying deserve — to have our leaders tell us the truth about what’s going on.

I first encountered senior-level equivocation during a 1997 division-level “experiment” that turned out to be far more setpiece than experiment. Over dinner at Fort Hood, Texas, Training and Doctrine Command leaders told me that the Advanced Warfighter Experiment (AWE) had shown that a “digital division” with fewer troops and more gear could be far more effective than current divisions. The next day, our congressional staff delegation observed the demonstration firsthand, and it didn’t take long to realize there was little substance to the claims. Virtually no legitimate experimentation was actually conducted. All parameters were carefully scripted. All events had a preordained sequence and outcome. The AWE was simply an expensive show, couched in the language of scientific experimentation and presented in glowing press releases and public statements, intended to persuade Congress to fund the Army’s preference. Citing the AWE’s “results,” Army leaders proceeded to eliminate one maneuver company per combat battalion. But the loss of fighting systems was never offset by a commensurate rise in killing capability.

A decade later, in the summer of 2007, I was assigned to the Future Combat Systems (FCS) organization at Fort Bliss, Texas. It didn’t take long to discover that the same thing the Army had done with a single division at Fort Hood in 1997 was now being done on a significantly larger scale with FCS. Year after year, the congressionally mandated reports from the Government Accountability Office revealed significant problems and warned that the system was in danger of failing. Each year, the Army’s senior leaders told members of Congress at hearings that GAO didn’t really understand the full picture and that to the contrary, the program was on schedule, on budget, and headed for success. Ultimately, of course, the program was canceled, with little but spinoffs to show for $18 billion spent.

If Americans were able to compare the public statements many of our leaders have made with classified data, this credibility gulf would be immediately observable. Naturally, I am not authorized to divulge classified material to the public. But I am legally able to share it with members of Congress. I have accordingly provided a much fuller accounting in a classified report to several members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, senators and House members.

A nonclassified version is available at www.afghanreport.com. [Editor’s note: At press time, Army public affairs had not yet ruled on whether Davis could post this longer version.]

TELL THE TRUTH

When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid — graphically, if necessary — in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it.

Likewise when having to decide whether to continue a war, alter its aims or to close off a campaign that cannot be won at an acceptable price, our senior leaders have an obligation to tell Congress and American people the unvarnished truth and let the people decide what course of action to choose. That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start. AFJ

We’ve all heard about how Christians were thrown to the lions during the reign of the Caesars. But it is very doubtful that Christians were feeding one another to the lions. Alas, it appears that should this kind of Christian persecution become vogue in America, many Christians would doubtless join with these modern-day Caesars and gladly feed their own to the lions.

How did it happen? How did Christians lose their love? Of course, our Lord predicted that the day would come when “the love of many shall wax cold.” (Matthew 24:12) Sadly, this truism also obviously applies to many of us calling ourselves Christians. But how did it happen? How did Christians lose their love for souls? How did they lose their love for the Brotherhood? How did they lose their love for truth? How did they lose their love for peace? How did they lose their love for liberty? How did it happen?

I sat aghast as I watched the Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina and listened to hundreds of the GOP faithful (which included a great number of Christians) boo Congressman Ron Paul when he injected the Golden Rule into the discussion of America’s foreign policy. To say I was stunned is the understatement of the year! Christians booing a Presidential candidate (who, himself, is a Christian) for suggesting that our country practices the Golden Rule? Egad! What’s next? Christians cheering when people are thrown to the lions? I confess that I am flummoxed beyond words to describe!

I was raised in a Christian home by Christian parents who never missed Sunday School or church. My dad saw to it that I began memorizing scripture before I started kindergarten. I have heard the great Bible stories taught and re-taught. And while Christians have always differed on the nuances of particular Bible doctrines, the fundamental principles of God’s Word were universally taught and accepted.

Universally, Christians believed and taught, “God is love.” We understood the virtue and necessity of loving God and our fellow man–especially our brothers and sisters in Christ. Universally, we accepted the primacy of the Golden Rule, which states, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)

So, what has happened? How is it that the people who cheer the loudest for ever-burgeoning wars of aggression overseas are Christians? How is it that Christians will be the first ones to boisterously sing the chorus with John McCain, “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran”? How is it that it doesn’t seem to cross their minds at all that the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children were killed, wounded, and maimed by our government in a needless and unconstitutional war of aggression? How is it that the US government can wantonly wage war with an almost unlimited number of nations–killing and maiming thousands upon thousands of innocent people in the process–and Christians cheer? Some even join with the likes of Madeleine Albright and pompously spout: it is “acceptable collateral damage.” How did this happen?

So deep is our bloodlust that when a Republican Presidential candidate (Ron Paul), who is the only military veteran in the entire GOP Presidential field, by the way, introduces the Golden Rule into a political debate, he is booed and jeered–by Christians! What in God’s name has happened to us?

Watch and listen to Christians booing Ron Paul’s suggestion that America practice the Golden Rule at:

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=e-US_dF58Rw

Is war sometimes justified? Yes! Do 2000 years of Western Civilization and even all of Biblical history recognize the right of men to protect and defend themselves, their families, their communities, and their country? Yes! Christians on the whole have never been pacifists. A few have been, but they have always been the exception to the rule. In the strict definition, the Lord Jesus Christ was not a pacifist. He proved that when he removed by force those moneychangers from the Temple. In the South Carolina debate, was Ron Paul suggesting that America not protect and defend itself? Absolutely not! Dr. Paul proudly supported Ronald Reagan’s “Peace Through Strength” initiatives. He simply asked, should not our dealings with foreign countries reflect the principles of peace and goodwill as exemplified and taught by our Savior? And for that, Christians jeer and boo him?

I believe there are a couple of mitigating factors in this propensity of today’s Christians to relish in bloodlust. First, many Christians have lost respect for their own character. When men give in to hatred, bitterness, jealousy, resentment, etc., they do more damage to their own soul than to anyone else’s. Our Lord said that if we hated our brother we murdered him (in our hearts). So, what do we commonly see in our churches today? Envy, bitterness, resentment, gossip, rancor, and hatred! Rightly does the scripture state, “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” (I John 4:20)

If we Christians take delight in “murdering” our “friends” and fellow believers through our bitterness, envy, and hatred, why should we lose any sleep over the deaths of thousands of unknown people who live halfway around the world? And nevermind that many of these innocent victims are also our brothers and sisters in the Lord! For example, most Christians in the United States refuse to even acknowledge the fact that there is far more state persecution against our Christian brothers and sisters in Iraq since the US-backed puppet regime took power. Far more!

People who allow their heart and soul to be taken over with bitterness and hatred become angry, vengeful, and even dangerous. People with the love and peace of Christ in their hearts do not salivate for war; they do not desire violence. They seek peace with their fellowman. Oh yes! They are prepared to defend themselves against the wolves and lions who seek to prey on their neighbors. Yes Sir! For sure! But that is a far cry from hollering out for war against people who have not even harmed us–or who may not even have the capability of harming us. And it is a far cry from booing a Christian man who actually believes in the Golden Rule.

One of America’s great warriors, General Douglas MacArthur rightly said, “War is a scourge.” Why would Christians cheer for a scourge unless, as King David said, “I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war.” (Psalms 120:7)

Secondly, many Christians have developed a Caesarean “might makes right” philosophy regarding patriotism. But from the earliest days of our nation, our leaders respected Saint Augustine’s “Just War” doctrine. Daniel Webster and other American statesman gave eloquent tribute to the necessity and importance of never fighting unjust wars.

Was Pharaoh justified when he ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent babies? Was King Herod justified when he ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent babies? Were Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung justified when they ordered the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children? Is violence against innocent people justified merely because the one ordering violence is powerful enough to get away with it? If so, will somebody please tell me what those Nuremberg trials were all about?

If power-mad potentates of history were unjustified in the manner in which they ignored the moral, Natural Law principles of God, how can Christians rejoice when power-mad leaders in the United States do the same thing? Do we really think that God has given some sort of special dispensation to America?

Missouri Senator Carl Schurz gave what must regarded as one of the truest and most insightful oratories regarding genuine patriotism ever given. In a speech delivered at the Anti-Imperialistic Conference, Chicago, Illinois, October 17, 1899, he said, “I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country–when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.’” Schurz, Carl. The Policy of Imperialism. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1913. Print.

Instead of cheering when we see our country’s leaders ignoring the Golden Rule, constitutional government, and the Natural laws of God, we Christians should be on our knees begging God to forgive and mend us–and vociferously demanding that these leaders cease and desist their illicit conduct! The same trepidation that filled the heart of Thomas Jefferson should fill our hearts also: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Figuratively speaking, Christians in South Carolina threw Ron Paul to the lions. They tried to boo him off the stage when he proposed that America follow the Golden Rule in its dealings with foreign nations. I shudder to think what they would have done if he had quoted Jesus saying, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

© Chuck Baldwin

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. See Chuck’s complete bio at: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=6

Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://chuckbaldwinlive.com

Dr. Ron Paul will be making a trip to Pahrump, NV this Friday, February 3rd to spread his message of Liberty to the residents of Nevada! The details are as follows:

Skate Zone Rollerskating Rink–located at 1261 E. Calvada Blvd.
Doors open at 12 noon
Dr. Paul is scheduled to speak at 1pm

The event is FREE and open to the public. We are expecting a very large turnout, and encourage you to spread this information far and wide!

Please join us for this tremendous event to support the cause of Liberty and mingle with the many other Ron Paul supporters who live in the area.

We have the support and momentum to take this movement all the way to the White House, and you are the reason. I want to thank each and every one of you for your breathtaking commitment to this cause and I will see you on Friday, February 3rd at noon!

For Liberty!
Sarah Tung
Nye County Coordinator
Ron Paul 2012
702 353 1368

At a speech in Sacramento, California, on December 10, Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), announced that within a matter of days he will be filing a lawsuit in federal court against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for slander, libel and defamation.

Sheriff Mack, who successfully challenged the 1993 federal Brady handgun control act in a landmark case that went all the way through the United States Supreme Court, has been an outspoken champion of constitutionally limited government and a critic of federal usurpation and abuse of police powers. The forty-year-old Southern Poverty Law Center is notorious for lionizing left-wing extremists (such as unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers) and equally notorious for smearing innocent individuals and organizations with the “racist,” “extremist,” “anti-semitic,” “anti-government,” and “hate group” labels. It is not surprising then that it has targeted Richard Mack for vicious treatment in a number of its publications and web sites over the years. But even more troubling than what it has published about him, says Sheriff Mack, are the lies that it has spread to law enforcement agencies about him in the seminars and training programs the SPLC conducts for federal, state, and local agencies.

Sheriff Mack, who was a speaker, along with this writer at the 53rd Anniversary Banquet of The John Birch Society in Sacramento, also announced to the assembled guests that he would also soon be filing papers to run in the Republican primary for the 21st Congressional District of Texas against incumbent Rep. Lamar Smith, whom Mack describes a “RINO” (Republican In Name Only). The 21st District includes much of San Antonio and Austin, as well as Fredericksburg, where Mack now resides.

In an interview with The New American after the banquet, Sheriff Mack, explained that he had contemplated a lawsuit against the SPLC for the past several months, but the difficulty, time, and expense of taking on such an endeavor against the well-funded organization had prevented him from doing so. In May of this year, however, he received a telephone call from an SPLC “reporter.” Mack says he was amazed and told the reporter: “This is really funny. You guys have been lying about me for 15 years and this is the first time you’ve bothered to call me.”

The reporter asked, “When did we ever lie about you?”

Sheriff Mack recounted the telephone conversation:

I said, well, recently you said I believe in shooting federal agents, killing federal agents — IRS agents in particular. I said I have never said anything like that. I don’t believe in violence. I spent 20 years in law enforcement and never slugged or slapped or hit or maced or shot another human being. So I don’t believe in violence and I’m not a violent person, nor have I been.

Read more

What I find so amazing is that most of these religious bigots are so called Christians and/or Jews. They believe that GOD Himself directed Moses and gave the world the Old Testament. But in the Old Testament Blacks could not have the priesthood. Neither could Asians or American Indians or even JEWS. ONLY the Levites got to hold the priesthood. And of course no women.

Was God a racist then? Is THEIR God a changing God? And why only Levites? None of the other 12 tribes of Israel got the Levitical Priesthood. Not even the tribe of Judah. Was God an anti-Jew Racist too? Why don’t these people that attack Romney’s Church attack the Old Testament they call the Word of God? Why don’t they attack Rick Santorum for believing that the Old Testament is the Word of God? Why don’t they attack Newt Gingrich having a religion that allows for him to in cheat on his wives and get divorced and having open marriages and switching religions and being a Fascist? (I do hope I got Newt’s religious beliefs down correctly.)

The Catholics do not allow women to hold the priesthood even TODAY but would that be an issue in a presidential campaign if the Catholic Church had started giving them the priesthood in the 70s like the Mormons did concerning the Blacks?

Would Christian voters cry out: “The Catholics USED to be Sexists?”

What about all the Protestant Churches that do or did not allow women to be ministers etc.? (Protestants don’t have the priesthood but The Church of England claims it.)

Are they sexists today or just following Paul (the alleged woman hating Gay apostle) concerning this issue?

And everyone LOVEs to harp on polygamy. EVERY Catholic Nun is allegedly married to Christ. Talk about polygamy! Should that be a issue in a presidential campaign?

And then of course Israel/Jacob was a polygamist as was David and Solomon and on and on as Christ came for a long line of polygamists. If Christ ran for office today would the Protestants and Catholics attack Him because His Great whatever Grandfather was a polygamist? How about because one of the women in His line was a Prostitute? How about because Christ was illegitimate and His mother never married his dad but instead hooked up with some guy named Joseph to cover up her unmarried conception pregnancy?

I don’t refuse to support Mitt Romney because he is NOT a faithful Mormon but BECAUSE he lends aid, encouragement AND sympathy to false political isms like Socialism and Fascism and even Marxism.

I don’t support him because he IS a Fascist. Not because he is an unfaithful Mormon that is ALSO a Fascist.

If you are a Fascist or a Socialist or a Marxist THAT is your REAL religion anyway. Gingrich and Perry and every other Republican EXCEPT Ron Paul belong to the same Church. The Church of Socialism. So does Obama and the Clintons and Al Gore etc. The Twin Parties have the same religion. They steal from Middle Class to give welfare to the poor and bailouts to the rich. If you pay Social Security taxes or income taxes you are a member of the Religion of Socialism and a voluntary slave.

All such theft based political religions are false political isms and false religions and Mormons, like Mitt Romney and Huntsman and Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch and Dean Heller cannot be faithful members of the Church that claim membership in because they lend aid, encouragement AND sympathy to these false political philosophies.

If you don’t believe me just read what their own LDS web site says about faithfulness and false political isms.

Communism destroys man’s God-given free agency; the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints can not be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies.

Romney is a Fascist. He supports arresting Americans without a warrant and sending them to foreign countries to be tortured without a trial. He supports unconstitutional war and nation building. Those issues alone should disqualify him from being voted for.

Therefore, Romney is not a faithful Latter-day Saint AND is a Fascist.

I really don’t care if the Church he claims to be a member, in the past, was Racist, just like the one Moses set up. Or as Sexist as the Baptists and the Catholics.

What I care about is that Romney is a New World Order Puppet that will keep the Income tax, try to save Socialist Security and defends unconstitutional wars and the Federal Reserve Bank Fraud with every breath he takes.

Those are the only real issues. All the Church he belongs to issues are just propaganda put out by the very people that don’t want voters to talk about the issues Ron Paul puts on the table. Income taxes, the Federal Reserve, unconstitutional wars, etc.

So keep worrying about whether or not Romney’s great grandfather was a polygamist and that the Mormons didn’t allow Blacks to have the Priesthood before the 1970s so that you can remain a average idiot uninformed voluntary slave voter that should not vote because you are honestly too stupid to think.

Or wake up and support Ron Paul.

You really do have a choice. Ron Paul or continued Voluntary Slavery.