Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Did You Know That The Prophet Joseph Smith Predicted A Third Major Political Party And World War III On American Soil?

On October 24th, 2010, New York Magazine published an assessment of 2012 American presidential politics written by John Heilemann. Entitled "2012: How Sarah Barracuda Becomes President", it postulates about the possible outcome of a three-way race between Sarah Palin (Republican), Barack Obama (Democrat), and a third group predominantly consisting of alienated moderate Republicans, with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as their standard-bearer. None of the three get the necessary 270 electoral votes to win outright, throwing the election into the House of Representatives; because of Republican domination of the House, Palin wins. TheWeek pans this scenario, claiming that Bloomberg is unlikely to play.

But the first President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, who foresaw the Civil War, also foresaw the development of a third major political party. He also foresaw World War III being waged upon our soil. The prophecy was recorded by Mosiah Hancock in 1844 and is documented in "The Autobiography of Mosiah Hancock" (excerpt available HERE). In this prophecy, Joseph Smith predicted the advent of a third major political party in the United States as well as a physical invasion of the U.S. by foreign powers. Here's the key excerpt:

There will be two great political parties in this country. One will be called the Republican, and the other the Democrat party. These two parties will go to war and out of these two parties will spring another party which will be the Independent American Party.

The United States will spend her strength and means warring in foreign lands until other nations will say, "Let us divide up the lands of the United States", then the people of the U.S. will unite and swear by the blood of their forefathers that the land shall not be divided. Then the country will go to war, and they will fight until one half of the U.S army will give up, and the rest will continue to struggle. They will keep on until they are very ragged and discouraged, and almost ready to give up -- when the boys from the mountains will rush forth in time to save the American army from defeat and ruin. And they will say, "Brethren, we are glad you have come; give us men, henceforth, who can talk with God". Then you will have friends, but you will save the country when its liberty hangs by a hair, as it were.

Note that when Joseph Smith made the prediction in 1844, the dominant political parties in the United States were the Democratic-Republican Party and the Whig Party. Yet he referred to separate Democrat and Republican parties, by name, 12 years before the Democratic-Republicans split up into two separate parties. This implies that he envisioned the evolution of an Independent American Party by that specific name. Since George Wallace's short-lived movement in 1968 was called the American Independent Party, it seemingly would not qualify. There is currently a National Independent American Party, but its name is slightly different, and it is only a marginal force. It is my belief that Joseph Smith specifically meant "Independent American Party" BY NAME.

The two prominent parties have indeed "gone to war" against each other. The rhetoric now is harsher than in nearly any other period of American history save it be that preceding the Civil War. Many Democrats routinely refer to Republicans, particularly the Tea Party variety, as "Nazis", "fascists", "racists", etc. The abuse endured by Alaska Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller, Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle, and Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell has been particularly hideous. And Republicans aren't exactly guiltless; they frequently refer to lefties as "moonbats" and "socialists" and even "baby-killers".



The remaining question is which group will form the Independent American Party. Will the Tea Party break away from the Republicans and form the new party, or will the Tea Party complete the takeover of the Republican Party, driving moderates into the arms of the Clintonistas in the Democratic Party to combine and form the new party? Since the present dynamic within the Republican Party clearly lies with the Tea Party, the latter alternative seems most likely. And a moderate coalition would respond well to a Michael Bloomberg candidacy.

The second half of the prophecy adds to the credibility of the first half. Since World War II, the United States has been spending its strength and means warring in foreign lands. Only during the second Eisenhower Administration and the Carter Administration was the United States not officially making war in some part of the world. And America's forces are suffering from mission creep; no longer restricted to defending the country, the American military now is forced to engage in peacekeeping and nation-building activities. These activities have contributed to an explosion of the national debt and annual deficits as far as the eye can see. In addition, due to the lack of a draft and the onset of political correctness, the character and composition of American forces is changing -- and not for the better. The U.S. Navy is breaking a long-standing tradition by placing women aboard submarines. To compensate for low enlistment numbers, the U.S. Army has turned a blind eye towards the enlistment of high school dropouts, street gang members, and those who openly promote white nationalism. And all services are about to be forced to admit those who are openly gay.

It is my belief that when the hammer drops, the one-half of our forces who give up will have a large complement of women, gays, gangbangers, and high school dropouts. The white nationalists, with discipline gone by the wayside, may instead turn their guns against non-whites. More traditional troops will continue to soldier on.

All prophecy is conditional upon the situation becoming ripe for its fulfillment. This prophecy need not be fulfilled if America repents. But the conditions are slowly coming together. If a third party forms, attracts prominent public personalities, and calls itself the Independent American Party, it will be a major step towards its fulfillment.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution, stipulates that in the event of no candidate getting at least 270 electoral college votes, the House of Representatives decides who will be president.
With National Popular Vote this would never happen, because the compact always represents a bloc consisting of a majority of the electoral votes. Thus, an election for President would never be thrown into the House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote) and an election for Vice President would never be thrown into the Senate (with each Senator casting one vote).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado—68%, Iowa—75%, Michigan—73%, Missouri—70%, New Hampshire—69%, Nevada—72%, New Mexico—76%, North Carolina—74%, Ohio—70%, Pennsylvania—78%, Virginia—74%, and Wisconsin—71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska—70%, DC —76%, Delaware—75%, Maine—77%, Nebraska—74%, New Hampshire—69%, Nevada—72%, New Mexico—76%, Rhode Island—74%, and Vermont—75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas—80%, Kentucky—80%, Mississippi—77%, Missouri—70%, North Carolina—74%, and Virginia—74%; and in other states polled: California—70%, Connecticut—74% , Massachusetts—73%, Minnesota—75%, New York—79%, Washington—77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes—28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Jack Mormon said...

Thanks for the info, Anonymous. I was not aware that sentiment for direct presidential elections had reached this level.

The Electoral College does seem antiquated, and throwing an election into the House would render it hostage to party politics. But I wouldn't want someone declared president unless he or she received at least 50 percent plus one of the popular vote.

Anonymous said...

Under the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's electoral votes.

Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote. – including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912, and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

Nicole Tracy said...

I used to poke fun at my husband for being so paranoid, but now I'm paranoid. I know that the government is going to fall apart as it says in the Book of Revelation, but after reading this article it all seems so sudden. :(

gltskline said...

I have a different interpretation of "these two parties will go to war." It does not say that they will go to war with each other. It just says they will go to war. I believe it means that they will take this nation to war. That is exactly what both parties have done!

gltskline said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Keep this in mind the man who claimed to hear the Prophesy Mosiah Hancock was only 10 years old at the time he claims Joseph made the Prophesy. This means it is very likely he was not a first hand witness. Much like the White horse Prophesy I have found NO solid evedance to support this. By the time Hancock wrote it the Democratic-Republican party had already split. It is likely a third hand misquote at best.

Anonymous said...

Let me add one more thing the quote was writen in 1865 21 years after the events took place. Now each of you 31 years old or older think bank to when you were 10 and give me a quote from someone that is as detailed as this quote. Also look at the part befor what people quote and Hancock claims Joseph said YOU WILL LIVE TO SEE. So the things he claimed were supposed to happen in his life time. There is also no other person to back up this claim.

Unknown said...

Hello from the Future: Look at the wording and get the meaning.

War with each other. Dem and Rep fighting over gun rights, healthcare and the third Independent party may just as well be the Libertarian party. Fema regions split up the united states. 1st Amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 10th amendment are all under distress.

I wonder what it will be like in another 3 years.

Unknown said...

Hello from the Future: Look at the wording and get the meaning.

War with each other. Dem and Rep fighting over gun rights, healthcare and the third Independent party may just as well be the Libertarian party. Fema regions split up the united states. 1st Amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 10th amendment are all under distress.

I wonder what it will be like in another 3 years.

Unknown said...

Senator Says Politics Have Reached Civil War Levels 27 sept 2013

Tom Harkin
"It's dangerous. It's very dangerous. I believe, Mr. President, we are at one of the most dangerous points in our history right now. Every bit as dangerous as the break-up of the Union before the Civil War."

Unknown said...

" YOU WILL LIVE TO SEE" The person that quoted this does not understand what oneness is. Joseph was also said to live to be 85. One.

People need not learn but remember.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous couldn't be more wrong. Why would any presidential candidate have any concern for the small states like Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, when they could twice as many votes by visiting New York. Your "National Popular Vote" theory does not hold water, unless, of course, you simply trying to blind people into following your support for changing the constitution. This is silly stuff. If you have another reason, state it, but your logic holds very little water.

Jared Beck said...

See: IndependentAmericanParty.org and/or IAMRU.org

Jared Beck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

One of the definitions of politics is warfare without bloodshed. I believe the current conflict between the two major parties qualifies according to this definition. Under this condition, it seems reasonable that persons and candidates will start a new political party based on high accepted principles, morals and demonstrated capability. Such persons exist in this country but the conditions for emerging has been inhibited by the desire of both major parties to preserve the power they have obtained over the years.

Anonymous said...

The statewidepopular vote for president should be abolished, and strict adherence to the electoral college chosen by state legislatures should prevail. Unless we want the powers of government finally consolidated in the executive.

Anonymous said...

One of Odgen Kraut's reprints of the Mosiah Handcock Journal predicted the election of a black U.S. President, followed later on by a woman - Maybe?7