Reblogged from Jenn Morrill’s great work at

I highly recommend paying a visit to the original article and subscribing to her future articles.  You can find the original here:


‘Bomb Iran’ billboard in Salt Lake sparks controversy

A new billboard went up Thursday off I-215 in West Valley City, Utah that has evoked a strong reaction among viewers, which, the designer of the billboard says, was exactly the point.

In large red letters, “Bomb Iran!” is scrawled across the sign. At first glance, many are certain to wonder why someone would pay to put that message on a billboard in the very conservative, heavily Mormon dominated population of Utah. On the second or third glance, the answer might become more obvious.

Above the words “Bomb Iran” is written in smaller lettering, “Support the Troops,” with “Troops” crossed out and replaced with “Military Industrial Complex.” The sign points viewers to where it is made clear that the creators of the sign do not actually want to bomb Iran.
One of its designers, Connor Boyack, author and director of The Tenth Amendment Center in Utah, said that the goal of the billboard is to challenge people’s assumptions. He told Examiner,

Whenever the government drags us into war, the politicians, media, and opinion makers collectively try to claim that we must ‘support the troops’ in their mission (whatever that mission may happen to be) in order to be patriotic Americans. We believe differently, for if a war is illegitimate and immoral, it should be opposed. Ultimately, we want people to go to the website to find some helpful links, book suggestions, and videos to learn more as to why we shouldn’t fight Iran.

The creators wanted an “in your face” way to get the message across and felt the billboard would be a good option. They also felt using sarcasm would be a more effective way of reaching people who do support going to war with Iran. Boyack said, “We wanted people to be at least slightly confused to make them stop and think for a second.”

Though Boyack is a vocal Ron Paul supporter, he said the sign is not a Ron Paul project. It was a grassroots effort, funded by fifty people across the country, but not all of them Paul supporters. He said,

This is an issue much bigger than one man or his campaign to win the presidency. This is a project to educate others; those who want to learn more about the issue by reading the recommended books listed on our website, or by watching the videos, will come to see that Ron Paul’s position on the subject of Iran is the correct one.

In less than 24 hours of the billboard being up, had already received 12,000 visitors.
Boyack believes the conservative, largely Mormon audience is especially receptive, when educated, to the anti-war message, given counsel in Mormon scripture and Church leaders on the subject over the decades.

Boyack said,

But certainly, this isn’t a Mormon thing at all. Utah’s conservative majority claims it supports the Constitution and wants limited government, and yet so many of them support wars such as these — the last batch of which has kept us in the Middle East for a decade with $4 TRILLION spent, thousands of lives lost, tens of thousands more injured, and millions displaced or dead in the region we’ve occupied, invaded, and carpet bombed. Those offensive wars (as would be the case with a war in Iran) are neither constitutional nor reconcilable with limited government, let alone a Christian approach to foreign policy.

Many on social networking sites have been critical of the controversial approach to this subject and don’t believe most people will recognize the sarcasm while driving by at 70 mph. Boyack readily admits the design is not perfect and that the people who were involved with its creation aren’t marketing and design experts. Boyack noted,

It was pretty complicated to pack in a meaningful message that got a point across (that the military-industrial complex encourages and benefits from war), did it concisely, and in a way that got people to think for a minute rather than viewing the billboard and framing it with their preconceived bias and stopping there.

Boyack is unsure of how long the billboard will remain on I-215, saying that it will depend on how much money they are able to raise. Right now, it will probably be about a month. If they do raise additional funds, Boyack says the money might be used to put up a second billboard in another location.



Obama Signs NDAA into Law, Dismantles Bill of Rights H.R. 1540

Jenn Morrill Aptly Toasts the New Year

 I found her article after I posted my rant below.  I thought she did a great job, hence the re-post here.
Article below.
Jenn Morrill's photo

, Salt Lake City Independent Examiner

December 31, 2011 – Like this? Subscribe to get instant updates.

Rumors have been floating around the internet for the past week or so that Obama signed NDAA into law before Christmas. Well, he didn’t. But that doesn’t really matter now, because today he did.

According to the ACLU, President Barack Obama just signed one of the most controversial bills into law since the Patriot Act. The sad part is that neither the House nor the Senate nor Obama seemed to think it was all that controversial, as it passed overwhelmingly in both the House and the Senate, and the president just signed it (even though he had at one time threatened to veto).
In case you haven’t heard, H.R. 1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 or NDAA, is not your typical defense spending bill. It gives authority to the president (or perhaps it’d be more fitting to call him king or ruler at this point) to order the military to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without official charge or trial on the mere suspicion of being a terrorist or linked to a terrorist organization.
Many in government will argue that there is nothing for Americans to worry about — unless you’re a terrorist that is. But as our government slips further and further from the rule of law and the founding principles of our nation that once made us great, tyranny inevitably creeps in to take its place. And when tyranny reigns, the line between who is a terrorist and who isn’t becomes easily blurred. A “terrorist” could simply mean a political enemy of the state.
The citizens of our country that understand what happened when Obama lifted his pen off the dotted line (while in Hawaii) wonder why their elected representatives don’t remotely represent them or stand up for the Constitution as they swear to do. In a previous article I pointed out that the U.S. senators from Utah were divided in their vote on this bill. Senator Orrin Hatch voted for NDAA, while Senator Mike Lee was one of only seven senators in the country that voted against it.
68 percent of the House voted in favor, and only one of three U.S. congressmen from Utah earned his title of “representative” by voting against the bill: Rep. Jason Chaffetz.
Rep. Jim Matheson (of district 2) is going to have a difficult time defending himself next year against his opponent, a Constitutional conservative and Utah State Representative, Carl Wimmer, who says he would have voted against the bill because Section 1031 (of the Senate-passed version) remained intact. Wimmer told Examiner that anyone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution should have voted against the bill. He said,
We’re well down a dangerous path, here — trying to preserve our safety by trading away what makes us American. Being “suspected” of having connections to terrorism is not justification for removing our right to due process. Some people I respect voted for this, but I’m afraid I strongly feel that this is a really bad bill.
Out of all the main contenders for the presidency, there is only one who has voiced opposition for the egregious bill. It should be predictable at this point that the one who stood on the side of the Constitution was Rep. Ron Paul. He said of the bill,
Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed…The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.
He explains that the dangers of the new law are in its deliberate vagueness:
The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.” How closely associated? And what constitutes “substantial” support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?
The Bill of Rights has no exemption for ‘really bad people’ or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the bill of rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.
It should be painfully obvious to Americans by now that if they continue to vote for the status quo, no matter if it’s Republican or Democrat, then the attack on civil liberties and the dismantling of the Constitution will inevitably continue.
So raise your glasses to toast the new year. It’s not even midnight, and your right to due process has already been taken away. What’s next?
(To see how your “representatives” voted, click here.)
If you enjoyed this article, please click “subscribe” at the top of the page to be notified of all new articles posted by Jenn Morrill.
Other recent articles by Jenn Morrill: