Who I Am
My name is Daniel. I’m a part time political blogger. Once you get in, it is very hard to leave. Politics is in my blood, and I can’t get away. So I make the most of it by blogging. I’m a moderate Democrat who is very strongly against the war in Iraq and against the use of torture. As to the rest, I’m quite moderate in my views. And I hope that we get our country back from the brink of extreme politics we’ve seen these past seven years.
As I have more time and motivation, I will add to this page my beliefs on various topics, including my political leanings.
104 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
Comments
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.
The Good Democrat 
I think the same way. Apparently it’s easier to kill each other instead of talking and solve problems. It makes me think of that famous talk by President Ezra Taft Benson in 1989 “Beware of Pride”…
Comment by Miguel— October 7, 2006 #
Hi Miguel,
Thanks for stopping by the blog. Yes, President Benson’s Pride talk is very relevant. There is much we can do for peace in the world if we let go of our pride.
Comment by redhatmandan— October 10, 2006 #
An LDS missionary(?) named Elder Platt came by my house every week for a year and we talked about all world of things. Wonderful fellow, I hope he has a great life. I’m a happy Episcopalian, but he certainly left me with a fine impression of the LDS.
Salutations and God Bless,
Doug
Comment by unitedcats— November 28, 2006 #
God bless you too Doug, and thank you for stopping by and commenting on my blog.
Comment by Daniel— November 28, 2006 #
Well you know Jesus Christ said that he came to bring division between His people and the world. So there will never be world peace. Only in Heaven.
Comment by Marley— December 14, 2006 #
Marley,
Thanks for commenting. While the Savior said he did not come to bring peace, but division, he did not say that his followers should bring division to the world, but in fact commanded his followers to forgive their enemies, love their enemies, do good to them that despise them, show love and kindness to those who persecute them. These are not the actions of divisive people, or of people who do not seek world peace.
Comment by Daniel— December 14, 2006 #
All I can say is, Amen! I look forward to perusing more of your blog. Keep up the good work.
Comment by Julie— January 16, 2007 #
Julie,
Thank you and welcome to my blog. I hope you comment frequently.
Comment by Daniel— January 16, 2007 #
Daniel:
Nice Blog. Missionaries from LDS are welcome at my house anytime, as is anyone believing that we are here to “build the kingdom of God”. It too saddens me to once again have leaders masquerading as Christians (You may or may not be aware that Hitler did that as well).
What I like about most about LDS is they not only “talk the talk” but “walk the walk”. FWIW, I accept Jesus Christ as “a” way to God, but not as the “only” way. I pretty much read only the NT, and then mostly only the four gospels. And then, it seems to me even really understanding the Sermon on the Mount is enough. To me Christ’s message is KISS- keep it simple stupid. The Golden Rule, or doing everything out of love and truth suffices.
Thanks again for your blog and god bless.
Comment by Erich WWK— January 19, 2007 #
Erich,
You’re welcome. And thank you for your comments. It is amazing how the small and simple things can do so many powerful and great things. So many of us forget those small and simple things sometimes.
Comment by Daniel— January 19, 2007 #
I believe Jesus Christ was a true prophet, and most of what he had to say is contained in the Sermon on the Mount.
I believe there is an ultimate creator, preserver, and destroyer of the universe, a God within, a quiet still voice that is always there, that can be heard if one is still, disciplined, and striving to hear it.
You may or may not be familiar with Buddhist thought. I find the precepts helpful:
The Three Pure precepts:
1. Cease from evil
2. Do only good
3.Do good for others
The Ten Great Precepts are:
1. Do not kill
2. Do not steal
3. Do not covet
4. Do not say that which is not true
5. Do not sell the wine of delusion
6. Do not speak against others
7. Do not be proud of yourself and devalue others
8. Do not be mean in giving either Dharma or wealth
9. Do not be angry
10. Do not defame the three treasures.
Comment by Erich WWK— April 2, 2007 #
I think religion is sad and dangerous, but in spite of that you strike me as a fantastic person from your writing. Visit my blog antime:)
Comment by iansforest— April 18, 2007 #
Ian,
Well thank you for the compliment. I hope I can bring about a better light on religion than you’ve seen in the past. 🙂
Comment by Daniel— April 18, 2007 #
Great blog and content. I love the look and feel. Do you mind sharing what WP theme you used?
Comment by Kate— April 24, 2007 #
Kate,
Thanks. I use the MistyLook theme. I’ve placed my own picture in the header. I like this theme a lot, very simple, very refined and very easy to use.
Comment by Daniel— April 24, 2007 #
As a former missionary, and as an european, I always thought I would never be able to agree with an american LDS, until I read your blog. Keep showing the world that we do think for ourselves, and that war is definitely not a part of our doctrine!
Comment by Daniel Martins— May 8, 2007 #
Daniel Martins,
Thank you for your comment. Yes, there are Mormons in America who are not brainwashed by the Republican party. 🙂
Comment by Daniel— May 8, 2007 #
You seem all concerned about how GOOD you are. Typical liberal, all concerned with warm and fuzzy feelings — like the liberals who buy the electrical car which pumps more coal into the air to produce the electricity. The # 1 stated reason they bought the electrical car is that they like what it says about them. Liberals are all concerned with fuzzy thoughts. …btw, you’re all over Glenn Beck for satirically talking about killing Michael Moore. How do you feel about the Hollywood types, the musical types, the writers and the people who produce off-Broadway plays advocating for Bush’s assassination. No doubt, they’re impassioned citizens exercising their free speech and artistic voice.
Comment by Tom— August 11, 2007 #
Tom,
We all should be concerned about how good we are. We are Americans. The rest of the world indeed looks to us for the righteous example. Note how Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is using our surveillance laws to justify his own intrusion on the privacy of his citizens.
As to Glenn Beck and Hollywood, I’ve always been struck by conservatives’ justifications for bad actions or words. In the eyes of conservatives, as long as the enemy does it, so can we. The “Clinton did it too” excuse is the most glaring. Apparently because Clinton did it, it somehow justifies Bush doing it (whatever it happens to be). Interesting, for an ideology that prizes itself on being on a different level than that of liberals.
Comment by Daniel— August 11, 2007 #
I don’t always get around to reading other blogs and I should. I am a Christian, not Mormon. I applaud people who stand up for what they believe in. I’m in USA, have several military personnel serving including my son right now. But I know that God is a good God. I know that in Christ, all things will work together. I believe that peace is not going to be achieved until the Prince of Peace returns. It just isn’t going to happen by man. I’m not going to say which country my son is serving in but I’m going to read some of your other links because I see it listed here.
God bless.
Comment by kathleenvibbert— August 17, 2007 #
Ha, nice try avoiding the point Tom brought up. He is simply pointing out that you cry EVIL when any conservative says something extreme, but any extreme liberal statement is left by the roadside as freedom of speech. Nobody is justifying evil with evil. That on your part is putting the worst construction on this. Which is hardly the moral “Good” American you profess to be. Why don’t you humble yourself Daniel? Be the righteous example for me and Tom and be humble for once. Instead of saying, ya know Tom you’re right, I do have a slight double standard when I look at conservatives vs liberals. But no, nothing Daniel does can be wrong, for he is that righteous example for us all… except for that humility thing… Instead Daniel launches into a tirade about how Republicans are an idealogy that believe they are morally above the Democrats. But Daniel, you are the “Good” American. What are good people supposed to do? Point the finger, or examine themselves? You see, Tom is explaining to you that you are not doing the “Good” thing. Instead of examining yourself and your party, you are constantly pointing the finger. Which is exactly the opposite of good conduct, and you actually want people to model us as the “righteous” example!
Comment by knightstemplar— August 18, 2007 #
Templar,
I’m starting to feel like you have never heard of the term “red herring.”
Comment by Daniel— August 18, 2007 #
Daniel,
You are an LDS Democrat; isn’t that an oximoron? Also, the tenants of the LDS Mormon Church are not scriptural and you can’t work your way into heaven.
Love your enemies, yes, but don’t turn a blind eye to evil. The devil is alive and well on earth and he comes to destroy, etc., etc, and uses war to enhance this. There is no peace on earth until Jesus comes back again, and ‘works’ won’t get you there.
Oh yes, you need to brush up on your history of the Arab/Muslim world. Doesn’t it teach the destruction of all non-muslim/Arabs.?
Blessings
Comment by Barry— September 18, 2007 #
kathleenvibbert said: “I believe that peace is not going to be achieved until the Prince of Peace returns.”
The problem is, that same Prince of Peace told us exactly how to achieve it, and we have steadfastly refused to listen.
Peace is not achieved by buying up armies and navies, and attempting to rule the earth with blood and horror.
That’s someone else’s plan.
Comment by Mark N.— September 18, 2007 #
Barry,
No, it is not an oxymoron.
Since when does our doctrine state that we should turn a blind eye to evil?
Hmmm, what do you call those who employ the devil’s tools?
Actually there is, but only for those who seek peace. Those who seek war, well, you said yourself, the devil uses war…put two and two together dude.
Nope, but thanks for playing.
Comment by Daniel— September 19, 2007 #
“Hmmm, what do you call those who employ the devil’s tools?”
Ummm… Satanic?
Comment by Mark N.— September 19, 2007 #
I guess I should introduce myself. Hi…I’m Rob. I got my BA/MA in public policy from BYU. I was political science student of the year at BYU back in 1999, with PSA Paper of the Year that same year. At BYU, I used to always get the “how can you be a good Mormon and a good democrat line?” My answer was usually, “I’m not really a democrat…it’s just that there is no functioning socialist party anymore.” I think it is dangerous to have the Church too closely associated with any party or platform other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. My blog is: http://jenirob.blogspot.com. After getting fed up working for both Republican and Democratic administrations in Virginia, I became a financial advisor and moved to Arizona, where the Republicans are rabbid.
Comment by Rob— October 26, 2007 #
Hey Rob,
I was at BYU in PoliSci also in 1999. I wonder if we ever had a class together.
Comment by Daniel— October 26, 2007 #
I was a TA for Dr Galbraith, an RA for Dr Wilson.
Here are some other Poli Sci professors I had fantastic experiences with in a rough order of personal influence:
Dr LaMond Tullis
Dr Don Sorensen
Dr Gary Bryner
Dr Byron Daynes
Dr Jay Goodliffe
Dr Richard Davis
Dr Kelly Patterson
Dr Ralph Hancock
Comment by Rob— October 27, 2007 #
I just found your blog .
I am going to post my opinion
of the Iraq war.
Great blog keep up the good work.
Comment by RALPH— January 2, 2008 #
I just picked you up on Conner’s blog, having just visited there for first time, where the thread concerned the speeches by Pres. Hinkley. Have to confess, I think you explicated his position on Iraq war accurately. I don’t much like it, but have to live with the thought that his talks did support our intrusion into these countries and the ‘War on Terror’.
I’m a ‘Conservative/Consitutionalist’, but belong to the wing (it does exist) that has deplored the Middle Eastern wars from the beginning, and have even handed out flyers at the Republican Convention containing BofM passages showing the Lord deplores pre-emptive wars in other lands.
In my view, the Democrat/Republican thing is something of a false dichotomy, with Democrats’ emphasizing ‘compassion’, etc., and Republicans emphasizing (or should be) individual liberty and responsibility. People should emphasize both. Christians/LDS Christians should emphasize both
Unfortunately, the powers-that-be exploit this and many other ‘dichotomies’ for there own purpose through media and other pervasive control.
Interesting blog, good defense of your positions on Conner.
Comment by Brad Larsen— January 20, 2008 #
Hey Brad,
Thanks for stopping by and for actually reading my huge long comment over on Connor’s blog. I’m glad you agree with it. I’m highly disappointed in numerous of Connor’s readers who wish to see whatever they want in President Hinckley’s talk. Cognitive Dissonance at its best.
Comment by Daniel— January 21, 2008 #
It is absolutely hysterical reading your ignorant words, actually comical!!My favorite is the part about the peace- oh if the world had only read your words years ago, and how if you seek peace– pow, it will happen! So simple- War? what was anyone who lead any war thinking? Stupids, just seek it and there will be WORLD PEACE!! Tell that to the children who lost there parent(s) on 9/11.
Comment by Lacey— January 21, 2008 #
Uh, oh, Dan. I just saw your contributions on Conners site regarding 9/11. Heaven help me from wading into this issue with someone with your mind set. Life is really tooooo short, and I’ve already wasted months doing this type of thing with others.
I’ll just say that your view of science appears to be considerably different than mine. Upon hearing Dr. Jones for 3 1/2 hours in October 2005, I thought he did a good job in presenting the improbability of the airplane/fire/damage hypothesis being responsible for the WTC building collapses. He also showed that some form of explosive solves all the inherent problems of that hypothesis.
The presence of molten metal/high temperatures in the rubble is very well attested, and includes data collected by the USGS, which I used to work for. Dr. Jones and others is also finding myriad metallic spherules in WTC dust samples, exhibiting EDS/XRF signatures of spent thermite residues. He has also found small chips in this material that may be actual thermite remants. This, including the molten metal, is physical data that can’t be ignored.
Incidentally, your assessment of Dr. Jones is mainly ad hominem and your critique of his papers is extremely weak.
Having posted a positive comment about one of your offerings, I don’t want potential visitors to your web site to think I agree with your ideas on what caused the WTC towers to come down. Please don’t pick up the cudgel. We just have a difference of opinion on this issue. Thanks.
Comment by Brad Larsen— January 22, 2008 #
Brad,
I stand behind my criticism of Dr. Jones. I feel he is doing a disservice to the truth.
I have watched the videos of the collapses of the towers and for the life of me, they collapsed on their own without the aid of demolitions. Take a look at this video, as one example. Look at it very carefully at the 14th second. This guy has his camera trained on the burning section of the South Tower where you see very clearly a collapse. The strength merely went out right there. Look at it carefully. Look at it several times. You’ll see that one floor finally lost its strength and ability to hold the 30 or 40 floors above it anymore. Gravity is a far more dangerous killer than explosives are. You merely have to weaken one floor just enough and let gravity do the rest. The impact of the plane, the fires did just enough to bring down the South Tower.
As much as I think our government is very nefarious and does many evil things, this is not one of theirs. 9/11 was Al-Qaeda’s through and through.
Comment by Daniel— January 22, 2008 #
Visual perception and interpretation can be deceptive. Other video images fully support the explosive hypothesis. The laws of physics and probability, etc., just don’t support the fire/damage one, in my strongly held view.
Based on your Conner posts, I think it would truly be a waste of both our times to explore differences of opinion on this issue.
As I mentioned, our views on the function and operation of scientific investigation seems to be very divergent. And I’ve had too many years in the halls of science to be able to change my approach to such things.
Comment by Brad Larsen— January 22, 2008 #
hey no worries, Brad, you can believe whatever you want to believe. Just know that others, like me, have very good reasons to believe otherwise. The reason I speak so bluntly on a blog like Connor’s is that people like Connor and his readers jump waaaaay too quickly to conspiratorial conclusions.
The thing about buildings and airplanes is that we just haven’t been able to test airplane crashes enough to really make the judgment that buildings like the two towers would not collapse because of planes crashing into them. There are too many variables to make such a statement without any supporting previous evidence. We can make statements that such and such material built a certain way is impenetrable, but without actual testing, our statement is not factual, but merely theoretical.
Finally, I just want to add that in my strongly held view it is the laws of physics and probability that lead me to my conclusion that indeed it was fire and damage that did those two towers (and WTC7 in). This is why we shouldn’t really make definitive statements about one theory or the other.
But in the end, what does it for me is that it is unfathomable that a government as inept as that of the Bush administration could execute such a brilliant hocus-pocus on the population. That is where the controlled demolition theory goes to pot.
Comment by Daniel— January 23, 2008 #
Daniel, in response to the last paragraph, its because they are really good actors with one hell of a script.
Comment by Johansseon— January 26, 2008 #
Dan,
Yup, thanks Conner. You’ve driven home the point that further dialogue would be a wase of time.
Brad
Comment by Brad Larsen— January 27, 2008 #
Dan, I think we’d be friends in real life. I appreciate your blogging here and over at that other site.
Best,
andrew
Comment by andrewsmiracledrug— February 5, 2008 #
Thanks Andrew’s Miracle Drug. 🙂
Comment by Daniel— February 6, 2008 #
Hey Daniel
Comment by Jeanette— March 17, 2008 #
Hey Daniel
I doing a arugment paper on Hillary Clinton why should she be America President. where can I get information for Hillary, what are the main arugment of her be a woman run for President.
Can you email me at Sianijcpink@yaoo.com
Thank you
Comment by Jeanette— March 17, 2008 #
Thanks for doing this blog. People say you should never mix politics with religion, but the way they relate to each other is fascinating. It’s perhaps my greatest source of entertainment. 🙂 I regard myself as liberal Mormon, but I think I’m pretty moderate in general. I can relate to your view on things.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident— March 31, 2008 #
Hi Dan,
Nice to see that you are alive and well on the Internet. I just got kicked off of LDSLinkup for the 3rd time. You remember me, right? 😉 Mormonchessplayer, aka, Muad’Dib?
Comment by Michael Towns— June 1, 2008 #
Hey Michael,
Yeah, Linkup sucks, doesn’t it? I appreciate that I met my wife there, but Jed is not keeping up with the times.
So welcome to my blog. 🙂
Comment by Daniel— June 2, 2008 #
I met my wife there too, but there is selective enforcement of rules. Some people are allowed to get away with threatening people, others aren’t. But oh well.
Any predictions for 2008? Now, deep down in your heart you know that Obama doesn’t exactly have smooth sailing into the White House. This election won’t be a cakewalk for him, despite the prevailing mood.
Comment by Michael Towns— June 2, 2008 #
Michael,
Yeah, there are a lot of inconsistencies in how that site is managed.
As for Obama and 2008, I believe Obama will win in November. And I do think he will win fairly handily. It won’t be smooth, and there will be quite a number of Republican operatives who will do what they can to tear him down, but they won’t succeed. Not this time. Bush is pushing to start the Gitmo trials before the November election (par for the course with him), because he knows that under the Democrat starting in January, these guys in Gitmo will not be charged as he wants to charge them, in kangaroo courts. I worry that he might try a ‘rally-around-the-flag’ bombing of Iran before he leaves office. (He so needed to be impeached in 2004!).
I think Republicans are going to lose very badly in the Congressional elections. (they lost 3 supposedly safe seats already). There might even be the possibility (though unlikely) of Democrats gaining up to 60 seats in the Senate. 🙂
General Petraeus has put up enough walls throughout Baghdad that Sunnis and Shi’ites cannot go around killing each other as much anymore. There has been an ethnic cleansing going on in most neighborhoods so that now you cannot find many Shi’ites in distinctly Sunni neighborhoods and vice versa. There is little if any progress on the political reconciliation front, and it frankly makes Iraq look like another fractured Lebanon, which is not a good thing at all. Iran will continue to have more influence than we will, even with our 150,000 strong army there. That’s a real embarrassment, frankly, that the world’s most powerful military has less influence than Iran in Iraq. But that’s one of the consequences of many of Bush’s policies there. He should have gotten out like he originally planned to, within months. Let Iraqis deal with their headless country on their own.
The numbers out of Iraq, as far as Americans dead are concerned do not tell an accurate picture. True in May there were, what, a mere 19 American soldiers killed? What obfuscates that number is the massive increase in sorties for air power. We’re dropping bombs everywhere now instead of sending in the troops. This leads to an increase in Iraqi dead, but a decrease in Americans dead. It plays great back home, but will ultimately be self-defeating (as with the rest of our policies in Iraq).
As long as McCain continues to tie himself to Bush, he will lose; badly.
Comment by Daniel— June 3, 2008 #
Good posts, particularly on the Middle-East. Kudos. I’ll have to keep an eye on the blog.
Comment by Derek— June 25, 2008 #
WOW! That’s about all I can say for your site Daniel! Best of luck at whatever you choose to do in the future! You’re gonna need it!
Comment by Chris M— July 25, 2008 #
[…] Who I Am Posted by: Daniel | August 29, 2008 […]
Pingback by My Top Ten Most Viewed Posts « The Good Democrat— August 29, 2008 #
I haven’t been very political in my past, but I have been enjoying reading this blog. It has been interesting to see everyone’s impression on what is happening. I hope that we will elect the candidate that would do what the Lord would have him [or her] do.
Comment by Jaime's Mom— September 26, 2008 #
I wish more people knew of what is going on in America.
If your civil rights are violated, and you have no money for a lawyer, you have NO access to the courts. Did you know that?
This country has enaced Ex Post Facto law, and punishing thousands of people for a crime they committed 10, 20, 30.. 50 years ago and have satisfied the contract of their sentence.
These people have gone on, not committing any more crimes, and gotten married, had kids, new careers and new lives. All of a sudden, in 2006, George Bush passed Unconstitutional Ex Post Facto law, and RE SENTENCED these people who have served their time to countless more punishments.
I would love to see you research this and speak out about it.
The effect is devestating on the children of these people. Come watch a video by an innocent 14 year old who’s life has been forever impacted by the implementation of unconstitutional ex post facto law. This child represents THOUSANDS of children being daily raped by our crooked government.
Comment by lamomof3— September 26, 2008 #
I’ve been ‘enjoying’ your discussion with Dave. Though I almost feel sorry that you have more blog cred than I do to prevent him from banning you. Luckily, he decided to ban me for criticizing his absurd cracks at anyone who doesn’t align with his naive political approaches. Though I’ll admit now it’s almost frustrating for him to spout what he does and not be able to respond. Good luck with it all.
Also, I enjoy your blog. Keep up the good work.
Comment by the narrator— October 28, 2008 #
Thanks narrator. You think Dave is going to ban me?
Comment by Daniel— October 29, 2008 #
He won’t ban you because you are too established as a blogger. Since I am a relative nobody he didn’t hesitate to ban me.
Comment by the narrator— October 29, 2008 #
Nice write-up, Dan. I’m glad you point out you’re a moderate … I somehow didn’t pick that up in the posts where you peg conservatives as “stupid.” If you want to claim a moderate label, you should use moderate language. No one’s perfect and sometimes blogging brings out the worst in us — maybe we can all try for a little more moderation.
Narrator, it seems you can’t tell the difference between posting different and opposing viewpoints in comments versus being rude and insulting to the guy who runs the site and other commenters. Blogging 101 — if you make yourself obnoxious enough, people get tired of you.
Comment by Dave— November 2, 2008 #
Dave,
I wish I could be more moderate with my words, but conservatives have gone hard right and have honestly said some really stupid things. But I really am a moderate. I would probably have voted for McCain in 2000. At this point, however, after these past eight years, unless Republicans change their behavior, I will not be kind to them.
Comment by Daniel— November 2, 2008 #
Yeah, it’s funny what a few years in office will do to your opinion of a candidate or a party. I’m betting that after seeing Obama in office for four years … you’ll be running a site called “The Good Republican.” Or at least “The Better Democrat.”
Comment by Dave— November 3, 2008 #
I might. However, I was sad to see Clinton go, because as far as governing philosophy goes, he did a very good job. Ronald Reagan was pretty good too, though the Iran-Contra thing really tore into his legacy/image and the protection of the United States.
Because you don’t know me personally, and because you only know me during the Bush administration, it’s hard to see that I’m really not that extreme.
Comment by Daniel— November 3, 2008 #
Great blog! I just stumbled across you on LDS BLOGS. My husband and I just built a website (MormonsMadeSimple.com) which uses simple, explanatory videos to explain the Mormon faith. Feel free to embed one of our videos in your blog, if you think it would be a good missionary tool.
Thanks!
Laurel & Doug
Comment by Laurel— March 1, 2009 #
Just waiting for another 4 year term, I need to feel the democratic status.
Thanks
NRA Hare oneillvaldez
Comment by Otniel Valdez— May 29, 2009 #
Dan,
Could you email me? Thanks.
Chris H.
Comment by Chris H.— June 7, 2009 #
welcome back to my blog Chris.
Comment by Daniel— June 7, 2009 #
Hey, I like the new design.
Comment by Chris H.— July 7, 2009 #
Thanks. Got tired of the old one. I had that one for like two years.
Comment by Daniel— July 7, 2009 #
your quote: “The numbers out of Iraq, as far as Americans dead are concerned do not tell an accurate picture. True in May there were, what, a mere 19 American soldiers killed? What obfuscates that number is the massive increase in sorties for air power. We’re dropping bombs everywhere now instead of sending in the troops. This leads to an increase in Iraqi dead, but a decrease in Americans dead.” What numbers?
Comment by SUNN(0)))ofaB.C.Rich— August 7, 2009 #
Nice site. I think your political views are spot on.
Lose the religious pandering, though. You say you don’t believe in torture or the war, perhaps you should look at the history of the catholic church.
Comment by Jon— October 22, 2009 #
Jon,
If I were Catholic you’d have a point. 🙂
Comment by Daniel— October 22, 2009 #
Daniel, I apologize for my rant on MM. My bad.
Comment by annegb— February 14, 2010 #
No problem Arlene.
Comment by Daniel— February 19, 2010 #
There is no way to contact you on this blog other than by writing a comment.
In response to your other responses – you are right. It is your blog.
Goodbye.
Comment by ThirstyJon— February 19, 2010 #
why do you need to contact me?
Comment by Daniel— February 19, 2010 #
Daniel- thanks for the Good Dem site, I appreciate finding someone with similar direction and beliefs.
Comment by Joyce Wilson— March 27, 2010 #
Daniel, I like this site man. I agree with your political views, and plan to read up on your religious ones. I am a Christian, but not in a conservative-fundamental way. This view didn’t exist back 2000 years ago, and shouldn’t now.
Anyway, I am a big advocate for human rights (including torture), against war except in extreme circumstances, against international poverty, and for American prison reform. The picture of America is not good right now. We are divided and vulnerable due to ignorance and hate. Keep up the good fight brother.
Comment by bigheets— April 1, 2010 #
You write that “There Is No “Right of Secession” Guaranteed by the Constitution.” No arguement there.
However, the Constitution is not a national Constitution; for states made it– the Constitution did not make the states.
Thus, the Constitution could not have formed the states into a single nation, unless they clearly and expressly said so therein– and they didn’t.
And sovereign states can only change their sovereignty by express and clear language declaring such;; absent this, all writings between states are purely voluntary stipulations, since no law can bind a state’s sovereign power.
In fact, the states didn’t never even expressly acknowledge the USA as a sovereign state unto itself– as did Great Britain recognize the individual states as sovereign, via the 1783 Treat of Paris. Therefore, all American “sovereignty” exists solely by proxy, via the individual states delegating various powers to their constitutional federal government– while “the union” itself has no sovereignty of its own as an actual nation. Rather, it is simply an organization among separate nations, or “sovereign states.”
So it doesn’t really matter what the Constitution says, so long as it doesn’t clearly and expressly relinquish any state’s soveriegnty to another– or acknowledge any new sovereign state among them to receive such (e.g. “the USA”)– shyster’s arguments of implied intent notwithstanding. On the contrary, sustaining such arbitrary challenges would void all national sovereignty, since any regime could then conquer any sovereign nation, via a mere challenge backed by sufficient military force to overcome the nation’s defenses– ala Saddam Hussein against Kuwait etc.
In conclusion, the U.S. is only perceived as a sovereign nation, as a result of repeated lies, and suppression of the truth; however no good ever came from that. By law, the American states are still as sovereign as Kuwait: for their sovereignties were suppressed solely via the same combination of force and false authority, and so the sovereignty of all must stand or fall together.
Comment by kirkskywalker— May 27, 2010 #
(Correction to above:)
“In fact, the states didn’t ever even expressly acknowledge the USA as a sovereign state unto itself”.
Apologies for the sloppy editing.
Comment by kirkskywalker— May 27, 2010 #
kirkskywalker,
Wow, you’ve built up such a confusing logic that is based far too much on assumptions that do not rest in real life. Let’s start at the top
yes it is. Just look at the text of the preamble of the Constitution:
That’s the purpose of the Constitution. The people of the United States, not of divided, separate, sovereign states, IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION, establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Sorry man, your analysis is flawed at its core. The rest of your points rest on whether or not the Constitution is for the United States or for the disparate states. Sadly, your argument doesn’t stand against the facts. The Constitution is for the nation, not for the states. Don’t get confused by what this country is called. The word “states” in United States does not indicate that the states within the Union are separate sovereign entities. This should be perfectly clear by the fact that states cannot have their own separate armies and navies. Nowhere in the Constitution does it indicate that states have any right to their own armies and navies. It’s quite clear that only the nation as a whole gets that right. Thus with the monopoly of violence solely in the hands of the nation, as written in the Constitution, states themselves have absolutely no sovereign authority. It just doesn’t exist. Never has. Only in the fantasy world of those who still unconscionably support the defeated Southern rebels.
Comment by Daniel— May 27, 2010 #
The people of the United States, not of divided, separate, sovereign states, IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION, establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Sorry man, your analysis is flawed at its core.
No, “man,” the simple absence of any express relinquishment of any state’s sovereignty, absolutely precludes the possibilty of such effet; for state sovereignty is not subject to challenges based on subjective allegations– only clear, express and direct relinquishments thereof… and the Constitution contains none.
Consider the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
As we see, this passage expressly recognizes new sovereign states, and expressly relinquishes Britain’s sovereign claims to the land in question. In contrast, the Constitution doesn’t; and so it can’t, no matter how you slice it (or dice, twist and mutilate).
Again, you’re challenging state sovereignty based on a construction of mere semantic langauge– not express clear statements of direct intent to relinquish that sovereignty, or to recognize a new sovereign state. And that kills your argument… just like it killed Saddam Hussein’s identical legal argument against the sovereignty of Kuwait.
Comment by kirkskywalker— May 28, 2010 #
heh, and you’re gonna listen to the King of England? Let me recommend to you a better source. Some dude named George Washington…
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
Then I would recommend another American president, one Andrew Jackson
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/jack01.htm
Yeah, these two SOUTHERNERS surely didn’t know what they were talking about.
Comment by Daniel— May 28, 2010 #
Well, Jackson certainly didn’t; note that he doesn’t cite a single law or fact to support his conclusion- just his personal allegations backed by nothing but fire-eating rhetoric so rabid that even Unionists don’t cite it for fear of being mocked.
As for Washington, he doesn’t anywhere expressly say that the union is a sovereign nation; again, you’re simply repeating common layman’s misinterpretations of his words– completely obvlivious as to their actual meaning and context– in order to support your foregone conclusions: a perfect “self-fulfilling sophistry.”
If you want to quote a REAL expert on the Constitution, you can’t beat good ol’ James Madison, its proverbial “Father:”
The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.
…
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
–James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch8s42.html
Again, you can’t find a single clear, express and direct relinquishment of sovereignty by any state, EVER– and therefore legally, there weren’t any: again that’s how national sovereignty works.
Perhaps you believe in Saddam Hussein’s law, wherein “allegation + force = valid international sovereignty over any state.” However, live by Saddam Hussein’s law, die by Saddam Hussein’s law– he certainly did.
Comment by kirkskywalker— May 29, 2010 #
Dude, you’re pretty dumb. The individual states within the United States NEVER had any sovereignty. They were never free states. They never existed as anything but a part of something else, whether the British Empire or the United States of America. The only reason there never was any direct, clear language about their sovereign status was because THEY NEVER HAD IT.
Why are conservatives so stupid?
Comment by Daniel— May 30, 2010 #
“Dude, you’re pretty dumb.”
Said the pot to the kettle.
“The individual states within the United States NEVER had any sovereignty. They were never free states. They never existed as anything but a part of something else, whether the British Empire or the United States of America.”
The United States of America was never a sovereign nation, and that’s all that matters.
“The only reason there never was any direct, clear language about their sovereign status was because THEY NEVER HAD IT.”
Au contraire, mon frer: note the direct, clear language below which says expresly that they DO have it:
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.
–US Declaration of Independence
That’s pretty clear: each state was declared to be a sovereign nation unto itself. Free and independent states cannot also be subordinate parts of a single sovereign state, as you claim they were; that would slightly put a damper on the “free and independent” part.
Then:
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
–The Articles of Confederation
So each state expressly REMAINS sovereign– i.e. a separate nation.
And finally:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
— Paris Peace Treaty of 1783
That’s all plain, clear and direct English, and there’s no need to explain it.
“Why are conservatives so stupid?”
Because you don’t LISTEN!
Comment by kirkskywalker— May 31, 2010 #
You’re dumb. I’ve had enough of you.
Comment by Daniel— May 31, 2010 #
Legal opinions are like… every other kind of opinion. Everyone’s got one.
My uncle-in-law swears blind that taxation is illegal, virtually every aspect of federal government lacks authority, and so on and so forth. And he’s got oodles of references, citations and quotes, as well as detailed opinions from lawyers who are (or claim to be) experts in the field. He’s got an answer to every objection, a comeback to any question.
Guess what?
It doesn’t mean a single thing. The adversarial legal system depends, by its very nature, on having at least two sides to every question. No matter how settled, sensible or uncontroversial a legal viewpoint is, you can cook up an exhaustively argued opposing view. That’s been known since Aristotle.
Until a court of sufficient standing agrees with your legal theory, it remains just a theory. You can always argue that some future enlightened court will do so. But until then, it’s worth no more than anyone else’s theory.
Comment by Mormon Socialist— June 2, 2010 #
I like your blog and your comments on the Mormanity blog about Preserving Freedom: Hard to Die in Ignorance. Thank you for speaking out so eloquently.
Comment by Alan— June 23, 2010 #
thanks Alan.
Comment by Daniel— June 23, 2010 #
Daniel, I would be interested in what you think of Frank Schaeffer?
Comment by The Troll— June 30, 2010 #
Troll,
Just looked him up on wikipedia. No clue who he is.
Comment by Daniel— June 30, 2010 #
Trying to subscribe to your blog.
Comment by Alan— August 3, 2010 #
Strange as it may sound, the causes of the Civil War have become an issue in a legislative race in northwestern Montana. See my website and mtcowgirl dot com for more information.
Your discussions of the Civil War are outstanding and very helpful.
Comment by James Conner— October 25, 2010 #
I’m glad they helped
Comment by Dan— October 25, 2010 #
Hey Daniel, been trying to find your contact email to no avail. Would you contact me about guest posting for fMh’s Manuary? Thanks.
Comment by idahospud— January 4, 2011 #
I just wanted to say I enjoyed your most recent comment on T&S, about Reagan. Thanks
Comment by Scw— January 7, 2011 #
Thanks Scw. It looks like that comment also ruffled some feathers.
Comment by Daniel— January 8, 2011 #
Hi, Dan. Long time, no talk. Just saw your post on feministmormonhousewives and had a feeling it might be you. Sure enough, it is. Hope you and your family are doing well!
Comment by Debra— January 23, 2011 #
Thanks Debra. The family is doing well. 🙂
Comment by Daniel— January 24, 2011 #
I’m a conservative Tea Party, Bush-loving, Iraq War supporting, free-market, pro-life Mormon. I think global warming is a bunch of hot air. I really get a kick out of Glenn Beck and I’d never vote for Harry Reid.
I often asked the very common question, “How can you possibly be a Mormon and a Democrat?” Like most people who ask such a question, I was asking it rhetorically. Then I grew up or something and started asking the question sincerely.
Yada yada yada. I wrote an entire book answering that question, and I did so in a way that appeals to the conservative mind.
And I called the book…
… How Can You Possibly be a Mormon and a Democrat?
Yes, that old rhetorical, even accusatory question. A commonly suggested title was “How You CAN be a Mormon and a Democrat?” That’s nice ‘n all, but vey few conservatives would go near that book and I wouldn’t want to alienate my target audience.
So, attention, all you Mormon Democrats! This book was NOT written to you. It was not written FOR you. It was written in YOUR defense. It hasn’t changed anyone’s political views, but it has succeeded wonderfully in softening the hearts of the staunchest of conservatives. Whew!
Just search for “Mormon democrat” on Amazon. Or try this link: http://www.amazon.com/How-Can-Possibly-Mormon-Democrat/dp/1453819533
Comment by Possibly Joe— February 9, 2011 #
good blog. You may be interested in my blog and thoughts on the Iraq war (among other things). Here I am on the war:
http://www.moderatebutpassionate.com/p/temperate-pacifism.html
Comment by Passionate Moderate Mormon— February 20, 2011 #
Hi Daniel,
I apologize for the indirect communication (I couldn’t locate an email address), but my wife and I have enjoyed reading and perusing your blog for some time and were thinking/hoping that you might be interested in a blog that we have recently begun with a few others: http://voiceoftheorder.blogspot.com/ . Being complete neophytes in the blogosphere/bloggernacle, I was hoping that you might take a glance there and consider whether my initial posting would be of interest to you or your readers/contributors/etc. If such is the case, I would kindly request that you mention it, link to it, or comment upon it in order to generate traffic and interest in what I hope will become an innovative and relevant topic to interested members of the LDS community. We’d appreciate any links (or advice for that matter).
Please keep up the good work in providing an interesting and valuable resource for the online LDS community.
Best regards,
Morley-Moffitt.
Comment by Morley-Moffitt— April 4, 2011 #
Be safe this weekend, Dan.
Comment by FireTag— August 25, 2011 #
thanks firetag. sorry, your comment was under spam
Comment by Daniel— August 31, 2011 #
Daniel,
I have asked previously if you delete all of my comments on your site. I would appreciate it if you would do so.
Thank you.
Comment by Nathan Towne— March 9, 2017 #
Hi Nathan,
sorry I haven’t been on here in some time. I’ll grant your request. Next time, stand by what you say. 🙂
Comment by Daniel— November 15, 2018 #