About Me

Name: Phil E.
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Mitt Romney: The Party's over?


McCain Palin campaign button
Whew! That was close!
Once again, we give thanks... to OUR God that
it wasn't a Mormon in the White House.

Future Plans

Mitt Romney isn't going to go away any time soon. (Confirmed today by a Mitt Romney backer in the 3rd hour of the Hugh Hewitt show.) Mormons are nothing if not persistent. I mean, how else could you watch the same temple ceremony movie over and over and over again, ad nauseum? Sadly, like the Roman Catholic mass, you can never attend enough times.

I "prophesy," if Senator McCain wins the Presidency (and his chances just got a lot better), he will make Mitt Romney Secretary of the Treasury.

Get ready for "the mark of the beast " jokes if Mitt Romney signs our currency as Secretary of the Treasury.

The thinking is that Mitt Romney is some kind of economic genius. I don't think so and will plan to post on that one of these days... maybe after the elections if Senator McCain wins. But I'll go out on a limb and "prophesy" he won't last very long in that position. And Governor Palin will be next in line for the Presidency, should Jesus tarry and this country still be around.

Wouldn't it be classic if Mitt Romney changed party affiliation and became a Democrat, like Brother Reid? You heard it hear first!


In the meantime, I plan a few parting shots about what I learned about the so-called "Right wing" media during this time. It ain't pretty.

Maybe a few funnies as they come up. (For now, if you know your Mormonism, see The Book of Zelph, a second witness to The Book of Mormon for some comedy relief after this long battle. If you just came out of Mormonism, the site will help you see just how programmed you were.)

If I can find the time and energy, I'll try to go back and fix broken links. (But don't hold your breath.) It's been amazing to me how many posts and links have mysteriously vanished here. Ostensibly, there are more than 200 posts in the system. If I did one a day, 6 days a week, it would take more than half a year to proof.

And then I hope to be outta here.

I never put a site counter on this blog because I wanted to avoid the sin of pride that so many fall in to, should there be many hits. So I really don't know how many of you read this blog. I noticed this blog has been high in search engine rankings. So I want to thank my God and you for that privilege. (I learned my lesson after Google removed all links to my funny Mormon in the White House book cover parody, so I'm not going to say what the key words have been.)

Of course, I need to thank all those who left insightful, ad hominem attacks. Wow... just like being in the first grade again with your name calling. But truly, if you didn't leave your brilliant comments, I would have wondered if anyone was reading.

By now you should be able to see that the Mormon church is not true. If you want to be Mormon after all this Mitt Romney exposure, you can no longer claim ignorance. God will not have mercy on you and, as I take leave, I dust off my feet.



Even though I'm winding down, you can still mail me if you have a tip (don't forget the dots in the address)

le dot romney dot tips @t voila.fr

If you want to catch the my last gasping breaths, use this RSS feed http://rss.townhall.com/userblogs/romneyforpresident

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Anti? Mormon bigotry


The Mike Huchabee Christmas ad, showing a window pane in background that some think is a Christian cross
Cross over Mike Huckabee
Who hates whom?

BACKGROUND: For the past couple weeks, while discussing Senator McCain's choice for VP, Rush Limbaugh has been saying that Mike Huckabee has been "trashing" Mitt Romney.

Now, I haven't been paying as much attention to things political as I did before the primaries, but I haven't heard anything about this. Surely, if it were true, staunch Mitt Romney cheerleader and defender of the faith, Hugh Hewitt, would have harped on it.

Well, today, Rush had Mike Huckabee on his show to clear things up. Surprisingly, Rush was going by really old news (Rush isn't a fan of Mike Huckabee), when former Gov. Huckabee asked a New York Times reporter in December if Mormons didn't believe that their jesus and the devil are brothers.
Yes, Mormons do. I've posted about it, quoting a page right out of an official Mormon publication.
Since I try to make this a somewhat "events" driven blog, Rush's interview with Mike Huckabee got me thinking about Mormon bigotry. Let's see if we can see who the true bigots are when it comes to Mormonism.

You know it when you see it

I've never liked analysis that begin pedantically by quoting Webster's dictionary for a definition of terms. (While words mean things, definitions are subjective and can be skewed.) So I'm not going to quote you a definition of "bigotry." Hopefully, you know it when you think about it.

Unfortunately, the term "bigotry," especially as in "anti-Mormon bigotry" is thrown around pretty loosely by Townhall personalities, especially when it comes to anyone critical of Mitt Romney's Mormonism. (Hugh Hewitt as chief sinner.) Fortunately, Michael Medved has concluded that evaluating a man's religion and how it affects him is not bigoted. (I'll qualify that, and say "not necessarily bigoted." It could be bigoted... more on that in a moment.) Mr. Medved correctly observes that, unlike skin color or race, a man can change his religion—as the Right has demanded Senator Obama do when those sound bites of 'reverend' Wright came out.

The log in your own eye

Now, before going too far, let's do a quick hypocrisy check. Given what we know about radical Wahabbi Islamists, that the Qur’an says to "kill the infidels" and given that, in fact, the radical Islamists have killed many infidels to date, would you want a Wahabbi Muslim for President? Even if he assured you he wasn't going to kill you?

I hope your answer is "no."

Similarly, Michael Medved has said he wouldn't want Tom Cruise for President. Why? Because Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, pure and simple. Is that bigoted? Not if Mr. Medved simply doesn't want someone jumping up and down on a couch in the Oval Office in a moment of crisis.

Unfortunately, Hugh Hewitt is not as transparent as Mr. Medved. When a caller asked him if he wanted a Scientologist for President, Mr. Hewitt pulled a Hillary. "I don't deal in hypotheticals."

But we hope his answer would also be, "No."
Mr. Hewitt has been very inconsistent on religion and bigotry, as he's made fun of Raelians among others. He's even called radical Islam a "cult." But don't call Mormonism a cult. That would be "bigoted."

A Mormon on bigotry

Now, Doug Wright, of radio station KSL (a media outlet in Salt Lake City, owned by the Mormon church) is your quintessential "True Believing" Mormon. If you want to get insight into how Mormons think, simply listen to Mr. Wright for a while. It's subtle—I have an audio clip where he's going to rebut someone "precept upon precept; line upon line" - a Mormon perversion of a quote from the King James Bible—but you might pick up on the Mormon code words after listening a while.

The audio clips to follow are all from the Monday, April 7, 2008 Doug Wright radio show, 1st hour. Mr. Wright was talking about possible Vice Presidential candidates for Senator McCain. I take it as Providential, but he begins by indirectly defining bigotry for us. In the audio clip, he says it's wrong to judge someone by their gender or race. But notice he doesn't mention religion!

Irrational

Now, I said I wasn't going to quote some dictionary definition of bigotry. But are we agreed it would be wrong to disqualify a man for the office of President simply because his skin is not the same color as yours?

Now, suppose his religion is different from yours. I qualified Mr. Medved's observation about bigotry by saying it's not necessarily bigoted to judge a man by his religion. It could be bigoted. When is it bigoted and when is it not? When it's irrational, rather than reasoned.

For example, I've explained over and over again on this blog that one reason for not wanting a Mormon in the White House is because Mormons swear an oath of allegiance to their church, to use EVERYTHING they have (that includes political office) to build up their church. Jesus said "No man can serve two masters," and like a Wahabbi Muslim, you will never know which master Mittmoud Romnidinejad is serving. When there's a conflict between his church and State, will Mitt Romney keep his temple oath or his Constitutional oath? Some faithful Mormon police officers in Utah chose the former.

Another reason for not wanting a Mormon in the White House is because Mormonism meets all the secular definitions of a cult. That means Mitt Romney is mind controlled. (Ironic his father used the term "brain washed.") He follows his leader. I don't want a cultist in the White House. When the red phone rings, will it be Salt Lake calling?

Lastly, since I've studied Mormonism for years, I know that, even though they use the same words as Christians, they've attached different meanings to them. They worship a different jesus than the Jesus of the Bible. (My Jesus is not the 'spirit brother' of Lucifer. How about yours?) Mormonism is not Christian.

If I want a Christian man for President, then it can't be a Mormon in the White House. As I wrote in my last post, they don't believe what God teaches, that murdering babies is murder. (a.k.a. "abortion.)

I have good reasons for not wanting a Mormon the White House. None of them have to do with hate. While you may want to argue with my reasoning, or dispute my facts (especially if you're Mormon), I have a rational, articulable basis for not wanting a Mormon in the White House. Contrast this with Mormon Doug Wright when it comes to Southern Baptist, Mick Huckabee.

"I cant' stan' 'em."

To Mr. Wright's credit, he admits, over and over again, that his hatred for Mike Huckabee is irrational. Visceral.
Honestly, if Mike Huckabee were on the ticket, I... gasp... it almost makes me ill...."

That old time religion—Hypocrisy

Mr. Wright goes on to say that Mr. Huckabee
makes me crazy.... the sight of him just about makes me nuts...
He's got that right.

Then he tries to rationalize his hatred by saying that the problem is Mr. Huckabee's "insidious attacks" (plural) on Mitt Romney's religion. Which is Doug Wright's religion, Mormonism.

Now, did Mike Huckabee insidiously attack Mitt Romney's Mormonism? Is asking a New York Times reporter to confirm Mormon doctrine, that jesus and Lucifer are brothers, an attack? Or is that (irrational) paranoia?

Do you see an attack against Mormonism in Mike Huckabee's Christmas political ad, above? (It didn't play in Utah, but in Iowa, during the primaries.) Even if that is a dreaded cross in the background, instead of a window frame (Mormons hate the cross... you never see one on any of their buildings. It's a spiritual thing.), was that an attack on Mormons? Or is that (irrational) paranoia of Mormons?

Mr. Wright talks about "Preacher Huckabee." I'll show later on where this hatred of Southern Baptist preachers come from. Would you be surprised to know it's part of the Mormon religion and was promulgated in their secret temple ceremony? Such is the way of a mind-controlling cult.

Then Mr. Wright goes on to say that you bad Christians, why, you just want a Christian for President. And that's just wrong.
But, as we'll see, it's okay for Mormons to want a Mormon for President. Why, that's not bigoted at all.

Ye Hypocrites!

Here, a caller says that the reason Mitt Romney would win Nevada is because of the large Mormon contingent there.
 
So let's see... it's okay for Mormons to vote for a former Mormon bishop, like Mitt Romney. (They vote in a block. But don't call it a cult.) But it's wrong for Christians to vote for a Baptist Preacher?

You saw this same phenomena when 90% of Utah voted for Mitt Romney, even though he hasn't held office there! Southern Baptist preacher, Mike Huckabee, only won 1.4%... which sounds like the number of Evangelical Christians in Utah. But don't state the obvious, that it's those Mormons, voting as a block, for a fellow Mormon and against a Baptist Preacher. No, that would be bigoted.

Mr Wright offers no retort to Chases's observation because he wasn't indignant that Mormons wanted a Mormon for President.

The silence speaks volumes.

I TOLD you they were Liberals!

I've told you on this blog over and over again that Mormons are really Liberals, because Mormonism is inherently liberal. That Mormons believe in "Progressive Revelation." And you know what "Progressive" means. Want proof?

In this audio clip, Mr. Wright once again admits he's irrational about Mike Huckabee's religion. In fact, he's so irrational, that he admits he would be "quite comfortable with Joseph Lieberman on the ticket."

Yikes! Senator Lieberman is all for murdering babies.

Hey Rush, do you still think Mormons are Conservative?

The battle is the Lord's

Where do Mormons get their irrational hatred for Southern Baptists? (And other Evangelical Christians, as well?)

Well, first and foremost, it's a spiritual thing. As the Apostle Paul said, there can be no fellowship between light and dark. There's going to be spiritual enmity. But, unlike for the Mormon, for the Christian, our battle is not against flesh and blood. Mormons don't make me physically sick, as Christians make Doug Wright sick. (Actually, when one beat me up, it did make me "sick" in that the assault sent me to the hospital.)

Rather than hate, as Mr. Wright does, I love Mormons. If they attack my beliefs, as I expect them to, then my response is to have a ready answer for the hope I have in me. (See 1 Peter 3:15) If I have the truth, I should be able to defend my faith. If they attack my face (which they've done), then I turn the other cheek.

The Temple of Doom

More materially, Mormons hate Southern Baptist because they've been, ahem, "conditioned" by their temple ceremony.

[The fact that the Southern Baptists held a convention in Salt Lake City in 1998, doing what SB's do (knocking on doors, proselytizing), make Mormons even angrier. But then, don't Mormon missionaries go out en masse, knocking on doors, proselytizing too? I guess that's okay for Mormons to do. But no one else. Remember, only Mormons have free speech rights in Utah.]

Before the Mormon church quietly changed it in 1990, the Mormon temple ceremony used to have a character in the play dressed much like the stereotypical, old tyme, Southern Baptist preacher. Mormons were taught he was a hirelings of Satan.
LUCIFER: I am the God of this world.
ADAM: You, the God of this world?
LUCIFER: Yes, what do you want?
ADAM: I am looking for messengers.
LUCIFER: Oh, you want someone to preach to you. You want religion, do
you? I will have preachers here presently.
(Lucifer turns his head as a sectarian minister approaches.)
LUCIFER: Good Morning sir!
SECTARIAN MINISTER: Good morning!
(The preacher turns and looks into the camera.)
SECTARIAN MINISTER: A fine congregation!
LUCIFER: Yes, they are a very good people. They are concerned about
religion. Are you a preacher?
SECTARIAN MINISTER: I am.
LUCIFER: Have you been to college and received training for the
ministry?
SECTARIAN MINISTER: Certainly! A man cannot preach unless has been
trained for the ministry.
LUCIFER: Do you preach the orthodox religion?
SECTARIAN MINISTER: Yes, that is what I preach.
LUCIFER: If you will preach your orthodox religion to these people, and
convert them, I will pay you well.
SECTARIAN MINISTER: I will do my best.
(Lucifer guides the preacher to Adam and Eve, who stand nearby.)
LUCIFER: Here is a man who desires religion. He is very much exercised,
and seems to be sincere.
(As Lucifer presents the preacher to Adam and Eve he steps back and
observes the ensuing conversation. The preacher is made to sound
sincere, although misguided and credulous. Adam appears humble, faithful
and immovable in his determination to serve God. He is not swayed by the
preacher, and is astounded by the doctrines espoused by the preacher.)
SECTARIAN MINISTER: I understand that you are inquiring after religion.
ADAM: I was calling upon Father.
SECTARIAN MINISTER: I am glad to know that you were calling upon Father.
Do you believe in a God who is without body, parts, or passions; who
sits on the top of a topless throne; whose center is everywhere and
whose circumference is nowhere; who fills the universe, and yet is so
small that he can dwell in your heart; who is surrounded by myriads of
beings who have been saved by grace, not for any act of theirs, but by
His good pleasure. Do you believe in such a great Being?
ADAM: I do not. I cannot comprehend such a being.
SECTARIAN MINISTER: That is the beauty of it. Perhaps you do not believe
in a devil, and in that great hell, the bottomless pit, where there is a
lake of fire and brimstone into which the wicked are cast, and where
they are continually burning, but none never consumed?
ADAM: I do not believe in any such place.
SECTARIAN MINISTER: My dear friend, I am sorry for you.
Can you see why they hate Preacher Huckabee?

I'm always amazed that the Mormon church mocks EXACTLY what God says in the Bible. It's a perversion of truth. And just like the Preacher, we feel sorry for Mormons.

I don't know who wrote the Preachers lines, but whoever it was clearly understood what they were doing as they stove to inoculate Mormons from God's truth. Jesus said there were degrees of punishment in hell based on levels of knowledge, and someday, someone is going to find it very, very hot for all eternity.

You will not doubt think this temple stuff bizarre. Congratulations. You're thinking for yourself. But here's a true story.

(updated) One night, while I was evangelizing to Mormons, an older Mormon man stopped by.

As always, I try to show the contrast between the god of Mormonism and the God of the Bible. To make the point, I asked the man, "Does God, the Father, live in you?" This is a requirement to be able to love, directly from the Bible. ("God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him." 1 John 4:16 ) Note that this is virtually the same as asking if God can "dwell in your heart," as the preacher said in the Mormon temple ceremony, quoted above.

Now, it's impossible for the Mormon god to live in you because the Mormon god is just a puny little man, with a body of flesh and bone as tangilbe as man's (that is, the Mormon god is material, not spirit, as is the Christian God) who lives on a planet near the star Kolob with his many wives. (Google for Kolob. Even the Osmond's sang about it.) So the Mormon man told me "I cannot comprehend such a being." A line right out of the ceremony.

I knew that sounded familiar, but I'm a little slow on the up take. (I've never been Mormon.) I didn't realize I was inadvertently acting out his temple ceremony with him, playing the part of Lucifer's hireling! I mean, who would think someone would actually live this stuff?

Such is the mind control within the Mormon cult. You've heard Doug Wright flesh it out too.

Judge for yourselves what is right

Who are the true bigots here? Mormons? Or those they call "Anti-Mormons?"

There are good reasons I don't want a radical Muslim or a Mormon in the White House. I've listed them logically. Unlike Mr. Wright, I am not the irrational one. The latter smacks of  true "bigotry."

FLASH: Drudge is reporting that Senator McCain has made his choice for Vice President. Barring any leaks, we should know whom he chose tomorrow. If he chose Mitt Romney, please know you're not a bigot if you have good reasons for not wanting a Mormon in the White House. I leave it between you and your god how you would vote. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. You don't HAVE to choose between the lesser of two evils. That's still choosing evil. As even Mormons might say, "That's not 'Choosing the Right.'"



After numerous blocks of my email at yahoo and lycos, I'm trying this one. Mail me if you have a tip (don't forget the dots in the address)

le dot romney dot tips @t voila.fr

(Wrong conjugation of the definite article. Should be "les.")

Want to follow my posts with RSS? http://rss.townhall.com/userblogs/romneyforpresident Do you laugh at my photos? Tell your friends!

Please copy and paste the following clip to your friends and in the comment field of pertinent blogs or news stories. (Copy it because the link needs http:// in the address, but not www.):

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Check this out:

http://romneyforpresident.blogtownhall.com/

Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.

(Funny photos too.)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What does Mitt Romney's Mormonism teach about murdering babies?


The spirit baby on his way to earth, from the movie '2001: A space odessy'
The Mormon teaching.
A Spirit baby on his way to this "probation."
A magnified image of a human sperm cell impregnating a human egg.
Conventional Wisdom
Life begins at conception

What's good for the goose...

I trust you heard the Right today analyze (and criticize) Nancy Pelosi's silly statements about the Roman Catholic church never having a clear position about murdering babies.

Baby on board tee shirt, struck out to say 'fetus' on board?I refuse to call it "abortion," because then the Left automatically wins. George Orwell was right. Control language and you control thought.

It's not a "fetus." It's a "baby." No pregnant mom says "Oh! The 'fetus' just kicked." Even little girls know it's a BABY in there!

The Right needs to get smarter about this. (See what Jesus said in Luke 16:8.) The Left has demonstrated they understand Orwell's principle quite well. For years the Main Stream Media has defined our terms.

So when someone asks you what you think about "abortion," simply turn the question back on them. "You mean, what do I think about murdering babies?"

We all knew it was murder back in 1966, when "The Fugitive" was on TV. From Episode 103,
Kimble becomes acquainted with one worker, a Hungarian immigrant named Josef Karac, who Kimble discovers is a doctor wanted by the police for an abortion that he performed years earlier.
Karac is wanted because he committed murder.
 
(Although, really, he's an accessory to murder. The mother is the one choosing to murder her baby.)

Rush Limbaugh did a particularly excellent job of refuting Nancy Pelosi, quoting early Christian church fathers and even quoting Psalm 51:5 from the Bible!

... is good for the Gander.

So if it's okay to challenge on Nancy Pelosi about her view about murdering babies, it's perfectly okay to challenge Mitt Romney on his view of same.

What would Mitt Romney say if Rick Warren (heretic) asked him when life begins? Could he answer as definitively—and, more important—as believably, as John McCain did? No. He cannot. (See the famous YouTube video.)

Even Rush Limbaugh acknowledged that Mitt Romney panders. Why is that? It's because Mitt Romney has no root. He changes positions when convenient.

That's ultimately because Mormonism has no root. It, too, changes positions when convenient. As when their god changed his mind about polygamy when it became a Statehood issue or when he changed his mind about blacks inheriting the priesthood, when it became a civil rights matter.

Proud of my faith?

Mitt Romney is constantly saying that he's proud of his faith. So what kind of deep conviction does Mitt Romney have about murdering the unborn? What does Mormonism teach about this, and is it the same as what the God of the Bible teaches?

To find the answer, we go to a Mormon friendly website, Ask Gramps. When asked "What is the Mormon Church's position on abortion?" Gramps gives this answer, quoting Mormon authorities, such as they are.

President Spencer W. Kimball [a former 'living prophet' of the Mormon church] has said,

Abortion is a serious sin. There is such a close relationship between the taking of a life and the taking of an embryonic child, between murder and abortion, that we would hope that mortal men would not presume to take the frightening responsibility (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.188). [Note he did not say it WAS murder. Just close.] We read the following specific information regarding abortion in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Abortion is one of the most revolting and sinful practices of this day. Members must not submit to, be a party to, or perform an abortion. The only exceptions are when:
  1. Pregnancy has resulted from incest or rape;
  2. The life or health of the woman is in jeopardy, in the opinion of competent medical authority;
  3. The fetus is known, by competent medical authority, to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.3).
Do you notice anything strange about this? Aside from the fact that their "living prophet" consults an Encyclopedia for inspiration.

And aside from the fact that the Mormon church has compromised with evil as has the "christian" church. Both say it's okay to murder your baby if you were raped or if your health might be in "danger."

"Would you feel better if we murdered your baby and you didn't have to carry the child to birth?"
"Yes"
"Okay, then."

No. In the Bible, when women were faced with traumatic childbirth, they GAVE their lives—demonstrating true love—rather than TAKE the lives of their babies. When it comes to rape, you execute the rapist. Not the child.

When is sin not sin?

Aside from parsing mormon church statements (remember what Mitt Romney said in the Jan Mikelson interview: "You got to read this like a lawyer"), you might not pick up on the deeper duplicity unless you know a lot about Mormonism and speak Mormonese. Which is why I'm here.

You see, in Mormonism, there are some sins so bad, so "grievous" (keyword), that you have to shed YOUR OWN blood to have any hope of being forgiven by the Mormon god.

This is akin to the Roman Catholic heresy of "mortal" and "venial" sins.

Whereas, to the God of the Bible, all sins require the shedding of blood for forgiveness. The only question is, whose blood will it be? Yours? Or Jesus'?

Quoting, among others, a 'prophet' of the Mormon church, Joseph Fielding Smith,

Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine, and is taught in all the standard works of the Church. Doctrines of Salvation, v. 1, pp. 135-136, 1954

One of those grievous sins is murder. This is why the firing squad was still used in Utah as of 2003. (A Mormon child murderer convicted in Utah wanted to have his blood shed to make atonement.)

Here's the deep obfuscation: Ostensibly, the Mormon church teaching is that members must not "murder" their babies. That it's a "serious sin." But if it's really murder, then why doesn't it rise to the level of  "grievous sin," requiring your own blood be shed?

Science Fiction

Answer: Because, in Mormonism, it's not really murdering your baby. In Mormonism, according to their 'prophet' Brigham Young, the "baby" isn't really there until the fetus kicks.

This is part and parcel of the Mormon concept of a "Pre-existence" and "Spirit babies," somewhat akin the masthead image (above, left) from the movie, "2001: A Space Odyssey." It's where the baby in space comes to earth. (Google for those two terms to come up to speed.)

So in Mormonism, until this Spirit baby comes, there really is a "fetus," a lifeless body in the womb. In Mormonism, when the baby kicks, that's when you know that the "Spirit baby" moved in. 

When the body is prepared, at the proper time, the spirit enters the tabernacle, and all the world of mankind in their reflections and researches must come to this conclusion, for the fact is they can come to no other—that when the mother feels life there is an evidence that the spirit from heaven has entered the tabernacle. Journal of Discourses, Vol 18, p258

So, in Mormonism, if you were to "remove" the fetus before the "spirit baby" moved in, you didn't really murder anyone because no one was home. Some Mormons even argue that, even if you kill the baby before it's born, the Spirit baby will simply return to "heavenly father," where he/she waits in line for another earth body to become inhabitable again.

No bottom line

So there is NO depth of conviction in Mormonism about when life begins in the womb, and, consequently, no conviction in Mormonism about when extinguishing that life is murder! In fact, True Believing Mormons are forced to conclude, from their own church publications, that murdering your baby isn't murder!

It would be interesting to trace Mormon thought on the issue before Roe v. Wade. Before then abortions were mostly illegal and inaccessible. So there are not many references in say, the Journal of Discourses, that discuss abortion or as it was more commonly known then as feticide. We see George Q. Cannon and a young Joseph Fielding Smith basically equating abortion to murder. However these stronger statements appear in non-official publications. [i.e. for the Mormon, that means these are non-binding.] The 1973 ["official" church] statement [quoted below] approvingly cites David O. McKay’s acknowledgment that no definitive, revealed statement has put abortion in the same class of crime or sin as murder, yet cautions that this admission should not be 'be construed to minimize the seriousness of this revolting sin.'

Confused? Welcome to the Maze of Mormonism

They're saying there's little if anything, in any Mormon extra-biblical scripture (that is, their current Book of Mormon, their Pearl of Great Price and their current "Doctrines & Covenants") about abortion. (Not that it would matter, since Mormonism is Liberal. Like interpreting a "living and breathing" Constitution, "Progressive revelation" trumps whatever was written beforehand.) Naturally, they ignore what God has said in the Bible. Hopefully you Christians can site some proof texts from the Bible proving God considers the baby to be a human life, calling for the death penalty of a baby's killer.

Anti-Mormon literature?

So True Believing Mormons are forced to base their entire doctrine on this life and death issue on one paragraph from a book by from one of their former living 'prophets' and some lines from something called the "Encyclopedia of Mormonism." Neither are scripture and both are subject to change without notice. In desperation, some run to the church's website, apparently from where official doctrine is promulgated now in a Glossary of terms. (It used to be a mere FAQ!)

In 1973, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [in Mormonese, that means 'the living prophet'] released the following statement regarding abortion, which is still applicable today: "The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer."

Not very definitive, is it?

Contrast this with how Christians strive to find the Truth. Quite independently of any man, we read the Bible, FOR OURSELVES, to learn the will God. To know what He thinks about various issues. There is no central "church website" that tells us what to think. We have no central leader on earth, like a Pope, Grand Ayatollah or 'living prophet' claiming to tell us what we should think. Yet, in the main, Christians throughout the world and throughout time have believed the same things.

Try reading the Bible for yourself. It's God's love letter to you! See what YOU think about what HE thinks.

The Courage of your Convictions

Nor is it very convincing. "Just pray about it." The common Mormon answer to everything. If it feels right, it must be right. One Mormon could pray about it and conclude their god says it's okay to murder their baby. Another Mormon, in exactly the same circumstances, could pray about it and get the opposite answer.

It's as convincing as Mitt Romney's view on abortion. (NOT!) If, in fact, he has any convictions.

Contrast this with Senator McCain's solid answer on when life begins, given at the Saddleback forum. Words that have been backed up by action.

And then ask yourself: If you're really pro-life, do you really want a Mormon in the White House?

Pray that Senator McCain does NOT choose Mitt Romney for Vice President.

You know, the Muslims put us to shame. Abortion is considered premeditated murder in Saudi Arabia. Do you think God will spare us? Surely the land will vomit us out. (Leviticus 18:28)


After numerous blocks of my email at yahoo and lycos, I'm trying this one. Mail me if you have a tip (don't forget the dots in the address)

le dot romney dot tips @t voila.fr

Want to follow my posts with RSS? http://rss.townhall.com/userblogs/romneyforpresident Do you laugh at my photos? Tell your friends!

Please copy and paste the following clip to your friends and in the comment field of pertinent blogs or news stories. (Copy it because the link needs http:// in the address, but not www.):

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Check this out:

http://romneyforpresident.blogtownhall.com/

Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.

(Funny photos too.)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mormon church: Mitt Romney's grandfather is cult member

 A snapshot of a Correction from the Wall Street Journal, stating polygamist Mormons are a cult
The Wall Street Journal being politically correct,
bowing to the Salt Lake denomination's propaganda.
Quoting the Mormon church about polygamists being a cult.
They should know.

Preamble: Now that Senator Obama has chosen Senator Biden for Vice President, you might think there's no way Senator McCain can lose. That anyone he picks for Vice President would be better than Joe Biden. You'd be wrong.

If Senator McCain chooses Mormon Mitt Romney for Vice President, it's his election to lose.

Ignoring for the moment what Evangelical Christians on the Right will do (i.e. not vote) because they're trouble by why they know about Mormonism, the Left will once again fixate on Mitt Romney's Mormonism and all that it entails, just as the Right focused on Senator Obama's church with it's "Liberation Theology."

What, you don't think there's a damning audio clip of Mitt Romney or the leaders of the Mormon church out there somewhere? After what those on the Right did to Senator Obama, it'll be double pay pack time for the Left.

I wonder if the Mormon church wants all that scrutiny again. I bet their recruiting numbers (and, therefore, income) are way down. I wonder if they're losing members as Mormons are confronted with facts and finally think about their faith? Maybe the 'prophet' has a message for Mitt Romney?

Like... "Stop!"

You think it's unfair to hold a man accountable for the religion he chooses? Bigoted? Vile? Oh yeah?

Well, now that those on the "Right" have bashed Senator Obama over and over again for not changing his religion (which is something you can change), spending 20 years with "Reverend" Wright, wondering aloud why he didn't leave the church while playing that infamous audio clip "No, no, no, God d___ America!"  The Right has proved that it's perfectly okay to judge a man's religion and expect a man to leave his church if it's in error.

Let's not have a double standard here. Those on the Left will, rightly, bring up same with Mitt Romney, asking why, for example, he didn't leave his church when it discriminated against Blacks. Who knows what other dark secrets the Left has dug up?

In fact, credit to Senator Obama for distancing himself from Jeremiah Wright. While probably purely political, at least he's made a statement condemning the teachings. Not so Mitt Romney, who continues to be "proud of his faith."  If the Left doesn't make hay about the secret oath of allegiance Mormons swear to their church, those who are truly on the Right, who truly care about oaths and vows taken before God, will.

It's true that no one votes for a President because of his Vice President. A good VP choice can't help you. But a terrible Vice Presidential candidate can hurt you. Let's hope Senator McCain doesn't let his guard down, thinking this just got a lot easier with Senator Biden as Veep. If he chooses Mitt Romney, the controversy will never end.

"What is 'Truth?'"

The great thing about finding truth is that you can come at it from different directions and still arrive at the same answer. For example, you may never have read the Bible, where the Apostle Paul declares that the Creation points to a creator God.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
But let's say you watched Ben Stein's Expelled and started thinking about the evolutionists' claims, that somehow, all this stuff appeared out of nowhere and, instead of rusting to death, like everything always does, it instead, quite by accident, produced life. You quickly realize that it takes more faith to believe that then it does in a Creator.

For example, you have faith that sex organs on two different individuals just "evolved" over millions of years and over a million individuals, so that, one day, magically, they fit each other and produced offspring? This isn't even considering all the other "trivial" things that would have to simultaneously, magically work together to make this so. Like, said individuals would have to have branched off into XX and XY individuals BEFORE sexual reproduction (what's the natural selection advantage of that?), presumably while still budding to reproduce. Somehow the XX individuals, for no particular reason, eventually developed a womb, tubes, eggs, etc. (What was the advantage while these things were in process?) And that mitosis, a process that goes on in every cell to reproduce itself, would suddenly not be the norm in the sex organs, where meiosis prevails.

How did evolution know in advance that only half the chromosomes would be needed from each partner? How did the sperm and egg work out all that complex chemistry to unite before even knowing about each other's existence? Wow. That truly is "amazing faith!"

This all makes perfect sense when you look at it from the finished product perspective. Like looking at a folding keyboard for your pocket, you can see that this was all cleverly designed so the parts fit together. But it makes absolutely no sense when you look at it while it's all "evolving." What good are vestigial limbs that maybe will eventually become wings if only the bones in the rest of the body hollow out, if only muscles develop to flap, if only the brain develops a stabilization system for flight, if only "instincts" randomly evolve so you know you can fly with those former limbs, not to mention land in an aerodynamic stall so as to not kill yourself on landing. Seems to me these mutants would be so slow on the ground to be eaten before the others who are the norm. And who's going to mate with a mutant? Etc. Etc.

So you conclude all that doctrine the public school system has been pumping into your head is wrong, and, quite independently of reading the Bible, you come to the conclusion there is a creator God. You found the truth, despite a circuitous route.

Look at this photo from Hubble. It's supposed to be where nothing exists!
The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
     And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
Day to day pours forth speech,
     And night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words;
     Their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
     And their utterances to the end of the world (Psalm 19:1-4)

Okay, end of sermon. The point is, when you've found the truth, it will hold up under analysis from all sorts of tests.

Proof from Geometry class

Now, one of the few things of worth I learned in public school was a method of proof. I forget what it's called, but you assume the premise is true and follow it to it's logical conclusion until you find a contradiction. If you find a contradiction, then the premise can't be true.
Upon researching this while writing, apparently I've "evolved" in my thinking. What I learned in high school geometry was called an "Indirect Proof." We assumed the opposite of the conclusion. If that lead to a contradiction, then the original premise must be true.

That doesn't seem right to me now. While it might have worked in geometry, it tacitly assumes only two answers exist. Either a line bisects another line or it does not. ("either/or")

But when considering more philosophical matters, this can lead to the bifurcation fallacy. That is, if evolution is not true, that doesn't necessarily imply that Creation is true. There could be another answer, although I don't see what it would be. (Spontaneous Generation?)

Apparently, I've evolved to a better type of Indirect proof, called reductio ad absurdum.

I like this way of defending the faith with unbelievers because, one, it keeps me humble. I mean, I could be wrong. By assuming they're right, I try to keep myself from being a "Santa Claus" christian. That is, a christian who believes just because I believe. That would be a blind faith, no better than the Mormon or Muslim. God doesn't teach a blind faith in the Bible. Even Jesus told the Jews that if they wouldn't believe His words, they should believe the miracles He did. (See John 14:11) If I really have found the truth, then I should be able to show my acquaintance the error in what he says first. If they have the truth and I'm wrong, then I should admit it.

The other reason I like this method is that it keeps my acquaintance at ease, from going on the defense. You know, like watching either Hannity or Colmes resort to silly arguments, just to win the point. That's sophistry, not truth finding.

Putting on the Mormon garments

So let's assume that what the Mormon church teaches is true. That ALL the other churches are wrong. That the Bible is terribly corrupt. That things were so bad in the 1800's that God had to send Joseph Smith to restore the true gospel. That among the elements of becoming a god was that you must be a polygamistas practiced by Joseph Smith and his followers.

Including Mitt Romney's great grandfather, Miles Park Romney.

I could probably stop here in looking for logical contradictions, because you know that Mitt Romney said he couldn't think of anything more awful than polygamy.

Has he condemned the practice and left his church?

In some weird way, I think I can explain how Mitt Romney thinks here. I've never been Mormon, but you see, Mormons don't think of "polygamy" as polygamy. They think in terms of "plural marriage." While exactly the same thing, somehow, in the mind of the Mormon, they're different. Perhaps they figure, since they get married (and married) in their temple, it must be okay.

So in true double speak, Mitt Romney can say he finds "polygamy" awful. But "plural marriage" is okay. Otherwise, Joseph Smith would be awful... and for the Mormon, that would be awful.

I know this all sounds like one big contradiction. But stop thinking and "just pray about it to know if it's true."

Taking the Mormon church at its word

Let's also assume that the PR the Mormon church promulgates is true. That, per the above clipping from the Wall Street Journal, the Texas polygamist "sect" [a polite word for "cult"] is not Mormon. And that "the Mormon church excommunicates practitioners of polygamy."

The Mormon church PR machine is so powerful, it's gotten even the Liberal Associated Press, in their Stylebook, to swallow this garbage. (Hmmm... one wonders how many Mormons have infiltrated the Associated Press?) Here's the direct quote from the Mormon church:
When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms "Mormons," "Mormon fundamentalist," "Mormon dissidents," etc. are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other [Latter Day Saints] churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."
Sadly, the Wall Street Journal decided to regurgitate this. As if the Salt Lake denomination of the Mormon church holds the trademark on who is, or who is not, Mormon. But since it declares itself to be "the one true church"...

In fact, members of the Salt Lake denomination of the Mormon church regurgitate this too. If you search my early posts, there's a comment from someone calling herself "mrsfamous." She quotes this church propaganda almost verbatim. The Mormon church says,
A correct term to describe these polygamist groups is "polygamist sects."
mrsfamous says the same thing. But don't say she's in a cult. She thought of that all by herself.

Chart of similarities between Texas polygamists and Salt Lake MormonsThe funny thing is, the Texas polygamists (Warren Jeffs and Colorado City polygamists) are holding truer to Mormon teaching than the Salt Lake denomination. And they are suffering for their beliefs. THEY are the true Mormons! The Salt Lake church has gone soft. They are the liberal denomination of Mormonism!

Here's a graphic from the very funny salamander society web site (you have to know your Mormonism to get the joke in their name) making the point that, except for modern day open polygamy and a dispute over who's the true living prophet, there's really no difference between the Texas polygamists and the Salt Lake denomination. (Click on photo for larger image.) In fact, they both use the same song book!

QED

Now, the Salt Lake church insists that it is incorrect to use the term "Mormon" to refer to people who practice polygamy. Such people are in a "sect," which I think we all recognize is the politically correct word for "cult." (Funny how they can say others are in a cult.)

Therefore, Mitt Romney's great grandfather, not to mention his great, great grandfather (12 wives) are NOT Mormon, but are in a cult.

But wait! The church didn't excommunicate Mitt Romney's polygamist grandfathers. So they are Mormon.

But wait! That's "incorrect" because they're polygamists. The Mormon church says polygamists aren't Mormon.

A contradiction. Therefore, the Mormon church isn't true.

At least they got the cult part correct. That's consistent.

And if Mitt Romney's grandfathers were in a cult, then it stands to reason that Mitt Romney is in a cult.

A plug for good hair

Let's pray that Senator McCain chooses someone other than Mitt Romney for Vice President to head off Senator Biden. As long as Mitt Romney chooses to remain Mormon, the Mormonism problem isn't going to go away. Neither for those on the Left, or for those like me, Evangelicals on the Right.

For the shallow undecided, a few more plugs and Senator Biden's pompadour will be as perfect as Mitt Romney's.

You though Kerry v. Bush and Gore v. Bush shouldn't have been close? If Senator McCain chooses Mitt Romney for a running mate, Senator Biden might win this one by a hair.


After numerous blocks of my email at yahoo and lycos, I'm trying this one. Mail me if you have a tip (don't forget the dots in the address)

le dot romney dot tips @t voila.fr

Want to follow my posts with RSS? http://rss.townhall.com/userblogs/romneyforpresident Do you laugh at my photos? Tell your friends!

Please copy and paste the following clip to your friends and in the comment field of pertinent blogs or news stories. (Copy it because the link needs http:// in the address, but not www.):

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Check this out:

http://romneyforpresident.blogtownhall.com/

Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.

(Funny photos too.)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Common Sense about Mitt Romney


 An ink dot drawing of a sad Mitt Romney
A parody of a popular Journal drawing,
showing a sad Mitt Romney.

The Wall Street Journal, again, on Mitt Romney

As I wrote in my last post, you won't find the Wall Street Journal quoted on Townhall when it's critical of Mitt Romney. (Call it the "Hugh Hewitt effect.") So it falls to me to bring this to your attention. Especially since the likes of Rush Limbaugh have been pushing for Mitt Romney for VP this past week.

So have Michael Medved and Sean Hannity.

Rush can be forgiven because he's not a Christian, nor does he claim to be. Jesus is not Lord of Rush's life; nor does he know what it's like to obey the Lord. So he can't understand the differences between the Christian Jesus and the Mormon jesus.

Michael Medved can't be forgiven as much. While he has missed his Messiah and also doesn't know the Lord, in Mr. Medved's case, he should know it's an abomination to Y*WH to think you can become a god someday. Which is what Mormons believe.
Okay, okay. For the Mormons out there, I'll say it YOUR way, which says the same thing:
 "We have the potential to become gods."

Yikes!
Mr. Medved knows so much, I can't believe he doesn't know basic Mormon theology.

Sean Hannity is Catholic and falls somewhere between Medved and Limbaugh. His problem is the same as the Mormons'. He worships a different jesus than the Jesus of the Bible.
The Catholic jesus did not die for all the catholic's sins. They say he did, but they deny it with their actions. If their jesus died for ALL their sins, then why a Purgatory to work off their sins? Why the need to attend mass continuously, crucifying their jesus over and over again? (How do you know when you've done enough?)
Still, Mr. Hannity should know that no man can become a god. That's something only Mary can do. (Poking fun at Catholicism, hoping to win some over to Christ.)

The Wall Street Journal to the rescue

Once again, I point out that when you think "Conservatism," the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal has to rank right up there. But you won't see the editors quoted on Townhall when they speak the truth about Mitt Romney. From their Thursday, August 7, 2008 editorial on A12
A name often mentioned is Mitt Romney, who looks and speaks the part and as an entrepreneur himself could help on the economy. The former Massachusetts Governor failed to catch fire in the primaries, though, and, however unfairly, his Mormonism seems to be an issue with many evangelicals. Our own concern is that he continues to defend his state health-care reform even as it looks increasingly like a fiscal disaster.
How many houses does  the entrepreneur Mitt Romney own?

Ya' wanna see some real scummy right wing reporting by a Mitt Romney lover? Check out Kathryn Jean Lopez's attempt to spin the Wall Street Journal to Mitt Romney's way. First, read her blurb. She makes it sounds like the Journal is endorsing Mitt Romney. Then read what the WSJ actually wrote. The "he" in the story is referring to Senator Lieberman. Mitt Romney isn't mentioned at all.

I'm developing some info on Kathryn Lopez for a future post. It isn't pretty.

Common Sense

You won't get much common sense about Mitt Romney from Mitt Romney's spiritual brother, Hugh Hewitt. But God works in mysterious ways (not a Bible quote, but a true observation). Sometimes you get it from Mr. Hewitt's guest. Skip down to the audio link below – this next text is mostly for the search engines to pick up.

The devil is in the details...

On June 9, 2008, Michael Barone, of US News & World Report (and apparently, occasional Townhall columnist), was a guest in the third hour of the Hugh Hewitt Show. The discussion was about vice presidential candidates. Mr. Barone wasn't mentioning Mitt Romney as a viable candidate, so naturally, Mr. Hewitt had to steer the conversation that way. Knowing about Mr. Hewitt's bias, Mr. Barone tried to be positive. But there's not much positive he could say about Mitt Romney. So again, Mr. Hewitt steered the conversation, stating that Mitt Romney could bring in a few states. Mr. Barone agreed. Mitt Romney would certainly bring in Utah, with its 5 Electoral votes. Whoopee. (But that has nothing to do with Utah being predominately Mormon. Whatever you do, DON'T call it a cult, you anti-Mormon bigot you!)

Mr. Barone went on to claim that "Utah is the Number One Republican State in the nation."

This is patently false, and absolutely absurd, as any Evangelical Christian who's tried to witness the true Gospel in Utah can testify. I wish I had the time to go back through my posts and cull the links for you, but troll around this blog. You'll see, among other things, that you don't have Freedom of Speech in Utah.

I've posted the story of two Christian ministers in Utah who were arrested on bogus charges when they attempted to hand out literature at a Mormon pageant on public property. (Dismissed.) Here's one about a Mormon cop who unlawfully stopped some Christian college students who were on a mission in Utah, telling what they were doing was "shameful." He got a letter of reprimand. Big deal.

Salt Lake City cops intimidating Christians Here's a picture from the Mormon General Conference in Salt Lake City. (General Conference is a biannual meeting where Mormons get their marching orders.) Those are Salt Lake City cops. They are photographing anyone around their temple who doesn't look Mormon. (Click for full size image.) Go there yourself someday and see. (And get your photo posted in the secret book.)

Isn't the First Amendment a treasured right of those who claim to be Conservative? But as the Mormon 'prophet' Joseph Smith destroyed a local newspaper when it criticized him for starting polygamy, so too the Mormon church persecutes its enemies. Google for "Nauvoo Expositor" and "Joseph Smith." Then google for "Salt Lake Tribune" (in quotes) and "McCartheys." Like father, like son.

I've told you over and over again that Mormons are really Liberals. Their theology—indeed, their god—is constantly changing. The latter is literally "living and breathing." The former is same.

Mormons in Utah are not Conservative. They are "old fashioned." Those aren't the same things. The former has root and doesn't change with time. Not so the latter. (Pun intended.)

Even now, after the latest Mormon 'prophet' was sustained, he scheduled to meet with homosexual Mormons about their relationship to the Mormon church. If you're a Christian, I presume you know what God says about homosexuals. 

But true to form, the Mormon 'prophet' changed his mind. He's since backed out of the meeting. For now. I "prophesy" he's waiting until after the elections. And then he'll happily meet with the homosexuals.

Stating the obvious

Anyway, Mr. Barone stated the obvious to the blind Hugh Hewitt. (Very end of 3rd hour.)
If Romney had been a really strong candidate, he woulda won that nomination."
You can hear Mr. Hewitt gasp at the blasphemy!

Loser

Arnold (Schwarzenegger) was right. Why go with the losers? Former Governor Mike Huckabee won as many votes on much less money and could bring in the South. But for many who claim to be on the Right, this Romney thing has become an exercise in political correctness. He's a Mormon. He's a minority. So we OWE it to him to nominate him to show we love everyone. Whether he's qualified or not. It's the Right's version of "affirmative action."

God doesn't love everyone. Why should we?

(Read the last chapter of the last book of the Bible to see who's going to hell.)

D'oh! Don't be a 'Ditto head'

Rush Limbaugh not withstanding, the Wall Street Journal has it right. Mitt Romney is not a Conservative. If you won't judge by his religion (implying his faith, and YOUR faith, mean nothing), judge by his actions. His RomneyCare. And his many flip-flops.

Don't be a Ditto head on this one. You'll end up quoting Homer Simpson if there's a Mormon in the White House. D'oh!

WANTED: prayers

With only one week to go before Senator McCain announces his choice for VP, the final push is on. If you're truly a child of God, please pray that Senator McCain chooses a Godly man (or woman?) for Vice President. Not a Mor-man who thinks he will be a god-man.

And please pray for me, that I can post to the end. There are a few more major points that need to be brought to light and this is truly a spiritual battle.



Want to follow my posts with RSS? http://rss.townhall.com/userblogs/romneyfo rpresident Do you laugh at my photos? Tell your friends!

Please copy and paste the following clip to your friends and in the comment field of pertinent blogs or news stories. (Copy it because the link needs http:// in the address, but not www.):

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Check this out:

http://romneyforpresident.blogtownhall.com/

Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.

(Funny photos too.)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mitt Romney and the Vast Right Wing (Townhall / FoxNews) Conspiracy?


 Screenshot of Internet Search Engine result showing zero hits at Townhall for a Wall Street Journal editorial critical of Mitt Romney
Searching Townhall for a Wall Street Journal Editorial critical of Mitt Romney.
No Hits.
Fair and Balanced?

Will the REAL Conservatives please stand up?

When you think of Conservative media in the United States, what outlets do you think of? I hope that true Conservatives all agree that the Editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is a bastion of Conservatism and, like Rush, is right 99% of the time.

But not the rest of the paper. I like to read about technology, but even Walt Mossberg can't help infecting his technology columns with his Liberalism. Did you know that "An Inconvenient Truth" was a "blockbuster?" He also "reported," in a technology column, that he didn't understand what the fuss over Elian Gonzales was all about.

So when the editors of the Wall Street Journal are critical of Mitt Romney's HillaryCa...errr, RomneyCare, why doesn't it get reported in Townhall?

For a really good treatment on Mitt Romney's Anti-Conservative RomneyCare see my excellent blog post (if I do say so myself) titled Mitt Romney's HillaryCare: This is Conservative? Or the shorter version "Stuck-on-Stupid?" The GOP if Mitt Romney as Veep. In both cases, the key quote is
A spokesman for the department [of Revenue] said the goal is to keep the fines as simple and clear as possible so everyone knows the cost of not getting insurance.
THE COST OF NOT GETTING INSURANCE? It costs you to NOT buy something?

That's not Conservative! In fact, it's perverse – a key element of Liberalism!

I couldn't find this important, Conservative editorial referenced at Townhall. Search for yourself.

You can use the Townhall search engine, but here's a trick using a (better, easier) popular search engine. Type the phrase you want to search, in quotes (in this case, the title of the editorial "The Price of RomneyCare") and then add [space] site:townhall.com. That forces the search engine to search for the phrase and limits the search engine's results to just the townhall.com website. You can test to see if this works by doing the same search but using site:blogtownhall.com to see if it picks up this entry a day or two after I post it.

I'll be Fair & Balanced

To be fair, Townhall columnists (cheer leaders?) for Mitt Romney didn't cover Mitt Romney's most recent self aggrandizing op-ed in the Wall Street Journal either, touting his "legacy" of HillaryCare in Massachusetts. Maybe they knew it would be trouble?

As you might expect, like telling his story of Joseph Smith, Mitt Romney left out a few "minor" facts in this tale too.

FoxNews won't?

We all know about Hugh Hewitt and his bias toward Mitt Romney. I don't listen much to Sean Hannity anymore, but he's on a similar track. I used to like FoxNews when they first started, but Hillary may be right. Fox has joined the vast right wing conspiracy and, for some reason, is trying to ram Mitt Romney down your throat in the same way the Left is trying to ram homosexuality down your throat.

Here's an observation from a Lefty blog (they're occasionally useful) titled The "Mitt Romney Phenomenon?" One wonders if Neil Cavuto's tele-prompt writer isn't Mormon? In any event, with Sean Hannity pitching for Mitt Romney and now, wittingly or unwittingly, Neil Cavuto, it seems that Fox is on Mitt Romney's not-so-straight talk express.

Viva la blogosphere

So I'm biting the hand that feeds me and reporting on Townhall what Townhall won't. Ahhh, the blog'o'sphere.

Well, I'm thankful they let me do this so far. But I "prophesy" to you that, over time, the powers that be at Townhall will compromise and my blog will quietly disappear as it did a little while ago. Use your new found search skill and google for
technical difficulties site:blogtownhall.com

Purely Secular

Forcing universal health care on everyone has nothing to do with Mitt Romney's Mormonism. (Directly.) Mitt Romney's Universal Health care for Massachusetts commoners simply reflects the fact that he's really a Liberal at heart. Mitt Romney is not a Conservative. He's only touting Conservative values for now because he thinks he can win telling you what you want to hear. That makes him a RINO. But don't believe me. Believe his own words.

Let's continue to pray Mitt Romney doesn't get picked for Vice President. In this case, it has nothing to do with having a Mormon in the White House. More like "A Liberal in the White House." Ewww... don't do it. (Rhymes with....)



Want to follow my posts with RSS? http://rss.townhall.com/userblogs/romneyforpresident Do you laugh at my photos? Tell your friends!

Please copy and paste the following clip to your friends and in the comment field of pertinent blogs or news stories. (Copy it because the link needs http:// in the address, but not www.):

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Check this out:

http://romneyforpresident.blogtownhall.com/

Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.

(Funny photos too.)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Does Mitt Romney have a prayer?


 Senator McCain shields his eyes from Mitt Romney
A doctored photo.
But funny because it's true?
Will Senator McCain choose Mitt Romney for Vice Pres?
As an aside, notice Mitt Romney's hands?
He's not praying. Mormons don't pray like that.
They pray with their arms crossed.

Flash on Drudge

The story didn't last very long. Not sure why. The LA Earthquake seems to have taken the headlines. When it was there, the headline was "Evangelicals warn against Romney on ticket," in the Washington Times. The story reports that if Senator McCain chooses Mormon Mitt Romney for his running mate, that
likely would cost Mr. McCain 7 percent to 10 percent of the evangelical vote — enough to spell defeat for Mr. McCain in a close race with Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee.
That sounds about right.

God deals with remnants

If you know God from your Bible, you know that God deals with remnants. I don't think that's predestiny. (Calvinism. Which isn't Biblical.) Rather, it's simply a reflection that men hate the light. (John 3:19-20). Remember, out of all the millions, if not billions, of people in the world before the flood, God saved only eight. (1 Peter 3:20 ) Remember that in all of Sodom and Gomorrah, God only saved four. (Of which one turned back. See Genesis 19 along with 2 Peter 2:6-8)

Begin Sermon: If you really want to get theological, God says He was only able to find one righteous man in both the above situations. But instead of only saving one, God graciously saved the unbelieving families of those two men. It's called "sanctification," and is the key to understanding 1 Corinthians 7:14. (About how the "the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his [saved] wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband.") That verse doesn't mean the unbelievers are saved from the eternal judgment of hell—the rightful punishment for their sins. That's a personal transaction between you and God. You cannot save anyone else (dead or alive) from hell by your actions. But God is gracious and often will spare the family of a believer from trials on this earth for the sake of the believer, as He demonstrated with Noah's and Lot's family. End of Sermon.

Compare and contrast this remnant truth with what the Mormon church promulgates. They ALWAYS cite their membership numbers in church press releases (is it 13 million this year? Who knows for sure?) and claim, variously, that they're the "fastest growing religion / church / christian church," as if that proves they must be true. But Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world right now, so if you believe the truth is in numbers, you'd better start following "the prophet" Mohammed instead of "the prophet" Joseph Smith.

Now, when the reporter says that 7 to 10 percent of Evangelicals won't vote for Mormon Mitt Romney, the Mitt Romney who claims to be a Christian and who has sworn an oath to the Mormon church, that really means that only 7 to 10 percent of all those who claim to be Evangelical Christians are Evangelical Christians. Remember Jesus' words: "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven... " And these people were even performing miracles! (See Matthew 7:21-23.)

The usual suspects

Sadly, not everyone who says they're a believer is a believer and not everyone gets it. Here's a Townhall columnist covering this same story who resorts to the usual, thoughtful, name-calling. In his own title! "The Recycled Anti-Romney Story." If you won't vote for Mitt Romney because of his ever changing values as manifest by his never changing flip-flopping, you're obviously an "Anti-Mormon" bigot. (Implied.)

Why would you suddenly believe Mitt Romney is pro-life just because he says he is now? Wouldn't it be smarter to believe someone who's actually proven this by their actions over the years? Jesus was right - Christians aren't very shrewd. (And He said you ought to be.)

Just the facts

If said Townhall blogger wanted to deal in facts, Mike Huckabee won as many votes as Mitt Romney on a lot less money. It's obvious Mitt Romney is not popular with the people. And yet the elite "right wing" media keeps trying to ram Mitt Romney down our throats just as the Left tries to ram their agendas down our throats.

So Mitt Romney will bring in Utah's 5 Electoral votes for sure, even though he wasn't Governor of that State. (But don't say Mormons are in a cult and vote in a block.) He might bring in Mormon heavy Nevada and Wyoming too. (Interesting. States adjacent to Utah. Probably just coincidence.) Whereas Mike Huckabee would bring not just the 6 votes from Arkansas, but the whole South. Including at least half of Florida.

Said Townhall blogger, in a pseudo-disclaimer of sorts, admits to "close personal associations" with some of the players in the presidential campaigns.

But he won't tell you for whom he is carrying water.

I trust you can read between the lines.

We don't have any say whom Senator McCain will choose for a running mate. We don't have a preliminary vote. We only have a final vote on this one. The only worldly thing we can do is squawk like this, and let him know what our response will be if he chooses the wrong VP.

If you're a Christian, I encourage you to not vote for Mitt Romney, for all the many reasons I've stated on this blog, both spiritual and secular. But as is always the case, even though we're the small minority, our power is in prayer. (More accurately, a little faith in a BIG God.)

I'm not convinced that God is happy with a Democratic form of government, and maybe we are reaping what we've sown. (It won't be a Democracy when Jesus rules and reigns!) But for now, for the sake of our nation, let's pray for a more Godly man than not. Let's pray that Senator McCain doesn't put a Mormon in the White House. As with every VP, Mitt Romney would only be a heart beat away from being our President ... maybe even more so with a President McCain. But if not, you know from history that the current Vice President is typically next in line for President. (Gerald Who?)

But if Senator McCain does choose Mitt Romney, take your queue from the remnant Evangelicals. Don't compromise your principles. Don't vote for Mitt Romney.



Want to follow my posts with RSS? http://rss.townhall.com/userblogs/romneyforpresident Do you laugh at my photos? Tell your friends!

Please copy and paste the following clip to your friends and in the comment field of pertinent blogs or news stories. (Copy it because the link needs http:// in the address, but not www.):

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Check this out:

http://romneyforpresident.blogtownhall.com/

Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.

(Funny photos too.)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mitt Romney. Green Eyed Monster?


Mitt Romney (background) with glowing green eyes jealously stares at Senator John McCain in the foreground
Mitt Romney eyeing John McCain.
(Notice the green eyes.)
Senator McCain, "Check your Six"!!!

Nightmare scenario

I warned you Mitt Romney would be back

He's back, so I'm back. The press is abuzz about John McCain naming his running mate this week.

They all want Mitt Romney. What did Rush say about the Media choosing the GOP candidates?

The man who does baptisms for the dead isn't quite dead yet. (But here's what the Bible says about baptism for the dead. Oh, I forgot. Mormonism is Christian... even though their theology is anthema to Christianity. Oh, right. Mormons are the TRUE chrisitans. We Christians are the apostates.)

Off on a tangent

That's a creepy look Mitt Romney is giving John McCain. You don't have to be an expert in body language to guess what Mitt Romney is thinking.

Okay, I admit this next will sound really paranoid. But then, maybe you haven't been evangelizing to the Mormons for 20 years as I have and haven't seen what I've seen? For example, do you know the rumor that the Mormon hierarchy, Mafia like, killed off one of their own "living prophets?" (Harold B. Lee - the latter "presidents" of the Mormon church always use three names... makes 'em sound important.) Seems Mr. Lee, a True Believer, had dissolved a key Mormon church corporate entity involved in banking transactions because it was evil. (Filthy lucre, doncha know.) Shortly thereafter, Mr. Lee checked in to a hospital complaining of lower back pain. He checked out dead.

So I wonder if some unfortunate circumstance might befall Senator McCain, where Mitt Romney would be ready to swoop in? If not before the nomination, certainly after, should Mitt Romney be VP? In the Mormon mind, this could be the start of their "White Horse Prophecy". I'm not the only one seeing this.

Psyche you out in the end

I'm hesitant to even mention this, because I know God hates psychics. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) So I don't want to condone them or their practices. But they're seeing it too.

As the end approaches, as Satan rises to power, God will send unbelievers a strong delusion. (2 Thessalonians 2:11) I expect psychics might be empowered for a while to accurately predict the future so as to lead you away from God. 

Now, I'm not condoning the show, but if you listen to Coast to Coast AM, the No. 1 rated overnight talk show in the U.S. (which often tends toward the para-normal - ghosts, UFO's, etc.), you've probably heard the psychics, "remote viewers," etc. predict some kind of health crisis for John McCain just before the nomination. Let's hope he doesn't have lower back pain.

According to the Bible, the father of the psychics is the same father of the Mormon church. Maybe some family secrets are leaking out?

Motherly advice

Senator McCain continually says that Mitt Romney has earned a place in the Republican Party. ("Bought a place" would be more accurate.) But Senator McCain! Please listen to your mom! Don't put a Mormon in the White House. Don't choose Mitt Romney for Vice President. For your sake as well as ours.

But if you do, watch your back! Someone's already got you in their sights.



Want to follow my posts with RSS? http://rss.townhall.com/userblogs/romneyforpresident Do you laugh at my photos? Tell your friends!

Please copy and paste the following clip to your friends and in the comment field of pertinent blogs or news stories. (Copy it because the link needs http:// in the address, but not www.):

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Check this out:

http://romneyforpresident.blogtownhall.com/

Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.

(Funny photos too.)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Muslim—and Mormon—teaching in our Public Schools.


Photo of Mount Rushmore with Mormon 'prophet' Joseph Smith added to the sculpture.
Revisionist History?
Joseph Smith a part of American history?
(Could just as easily be the "prophet" Mohammed.)

Outrage

I trust you were outraged to read the story on WorldNetDaily about the public funded school in Minnesota, located in a Muslim mosque, that is actively teaching children about Islam. So I trust you would be just as outraged to learn that Mormons in Utah also teach about Mormonism in our public schools?

Late in class

It's called "Utah History." Seems innocuous enough. But ask any non-Mormon parent about what is taught to their non-Mormon children in Utah public schools as Utah history. Why, they're taught about Joseph Smith, Founder of the Mormon church, of course.
Except that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with Utah history. You see, by the time the Mormons got to Utah, Joseph Smith was "late." As in "the late" Joseph Smith. He was dead. He was killed by an angry mob (for treason) in Nauvoo, Illinois.

What does Mitt Romney say?

I "image and suppose" Mitt Romney would say he's against taxpayer money being used to teach Islam in our public schools.

Notice how quiet the ACLU is when it comes to "separation of church and State" when it comes to Islam It's Christianity (even heretical variations) that they hate. (They can't tell the difference.)

The ironic thing is, that when the Fundamental Muslims take over, THEY will stop the abortion clinics.

But he's apparently okay with Mormonism being taught in Utah public schools. (He's also okay with pornography being offered at the Marriott hotels, where he used to sit on the Board of Directors, despite saying
Pornography and violence poison our music and movies and TV and video games...

But that's another story.

Speaking of Vice...

We can't vote or not vote for Mitt Romney for Vice President. We're stuck with whomever Senator McCain chooses. (Although many Christians will have to sit it out for reasons of conscience.) But we can pray that Senator McCain doesn't vote Mitt Romney for VICE President.

In Mormonism, and in Mitt Romney's mind, Joseph Smith is an integral part of American history. I trust that's not YOUR history.

Religion matters. It says something about you. You wouldn't want a radical Muslim in the White House. I trust you wouldn't want a Mormon in the White House either. Even if he was second in command.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Stuck-on-Stupid?" The GOP if Mitt Romney as Veep.


Parody of Forrest Gump movie poster, with Mitt Romney sitting at the bus stop
Mitt Romney as Forrest Gump.
Like a box of chocolates.
(Let's pray he misses this bus.)

Dumb, dee-duh-dumb

I've posted before about Mitt Romney's most excellent economic plan (NOT!), RomneyCare in Massachusetts. It's a long post, quoting original sources, but the key phrase is
A spokesman for the department [of Revenue] said the goal is to keep the fines as simple and clear as possible so everyone knows the cost of not getting insurance.
THE COST OF NOT GETTING INSURANCE??? It costs you money to NOT buy something? That's perverse. And anti-Republican!

Fortunately, I'm not the only one seeing it. From Bizzyblog, this story titled "Romney as Veep? Only If the GOP is the Stuck-on-Stupid Party" Unlike my typical posts, his is short. Here's one key paragraph, buttressing what I've said before.
The warning signs about RomneyCare's implosion have been out there at least as far back as last October (fourth item at link). Its crackup will be used by the Democratic nominee as"proof" that the only solution to the "health care crisis" is to have Uncle Sam take the industry over, as it's "just too big" for one state to try to solve.
See the rest of his post for documentation.

No religion, too...

This particular issue is totally secular. It has nothing to do with Mitt Romney being Mormon. At least, not directly. It just proves what I've been saying. That, at heart, Mitt Romney is really a Liberal. In my post above, about Romney-Care, his own story (from the Wall Street Journal) began like this:
Only weeks after I was elected governor, Tom Stemberg, the founder and former CEO of Staples, stopped by my office. He told me, "If you really want to help people, find a way to get everyone health insurance." I replied that would mean raising taxes and a Clinton-style government takeover of health care. He insisted: "You can find a way." I believe that we have.

The facts are proving he was wrong. Romney-Care is a financial disaster, as Bizzyblog documents.

Mitt Romney started out on the Right foot (pun intended), but tripped up immediately. It is NOT the government's job to "help people." That would be the Christian church's job. (Hey, Christians. The Mormon church is out-doing you!)

The best way for the government to help is to get out of our way! Isn't that the essence of Ronald Reagan's statement, "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem."

This is so foundational to being "Conservative" it proves Mitt Romney is not the Conservative he, so chameleon-like, now tries to play. Nor is he the economic genius he and the right wing MSM would like you to believe.

We don't have any direct control over whom Senator McCain chooses for his running mate. It's not like we can not vote for Mitt Romney, as we did in the Primaries. (Although you would think that would send a strong signal to Senator McCain.)

But we can pray. Pray that Senator McCain does not yoke himself with Mitt Romney. As off the Conservative reservation Senator McCain sometime is, Mitt Romney is even worse. But unlike John McCain, Mitt Romney, as a Mormon missionary, knows when to keep his mouth shut and/or will tell you what you want to hear.



Want to follow my posts with RSS? http://rss.townhall.com/userblogs/romneyforpresident Do you laugh at my photos? Tell your friends!

Please copy and paste the following clip to your friends and in the comment field of pertinent blogs or news stories. (Copy it because the link needs http:// in the address, but not www.):

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Check this out:

http://romneyforpresident.townhall.com/

Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.

(Funny photos too.)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mitt Romney: Vice President by a hair?


A parody of a Newsmax cover, with Mitt Romney sporting Christie Brinkley's hair

No Thanx, News-max.
It shouldn't be a beauty contest.
But they're making it one.

Silly NewsMax

For some reason, Mr. Ronald Kessler (always billed as "chief Washington correspondent of NewsMax") is enamored—no, make that "infatuated," as in "in love"—with Mitt Romney. In this, he's actually worse than Hugh Hewitt.

Like Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Kessler has written his share of Mitt Romney puff pieces.

One wonders if Mr. Kessler is LDS (Mormon), he's so biased toward Mitt Romney. But I can't find anything on the web to hint at that. I'm not sure why he's so biased. Maybe a kickback? Maybe his wife is LDS?

The latest puff piece from Mr. Kessler echoes my last post, following on the heels of The Drudge Report headline wondering if Senator McCain might choose Mitt Romney for his Veep. Mr. Kessler quotes someone named Andy Card, both trying to tell us why Mitt Romney would be a good Vice President. (If you click the link, you'll see the origin of my parody NewsMax Romney cover.)

Interestingly, Mr. Card admits
he doesn't expect that Romney would deliver the electoral college vote from Massachusetts... !
Oh. Like Al Gore and Tennessee? Brilliant!

April Fool!

I first noticed this irrational NewsMax bias in an April 1, 2007 article titled "Romney to the Rescue." (No fooling on the date! God has a wry sense of humor, doesn't He?) Among other things, this highly scholarly article (NOT!) about Mitt Romney mentions his hair.
First, he has sensational good looks. People magazine named him one of the 50 most beautiful people in America. Standing 6 feet, 2 inches tall, Romney has jet-black hair, graying naturally at the temples. Women - who will play a critical role in this coming election - have a word for him: hot.

One has to wonder about Mr. Kessler's "sexual orientation." I, as a normal man, do not notice the hair of other men (unless they're a lot older than I am and have a lot more). I do not notice their looks or whether women consider them "hot." (It's hard enough understanding women, let alone knowing what they consider "hot.")

Digress: Don't get me started on women, their emotions and their voting. Remember the Menendez brothers and the women jurors? The women jurors thought the brothers were "hot" too. That resulted in a hung jury the first time.

Here's the women's side from the first hung jury. They said it was all the men jurors' fault. (Note that a second jury found the brothers guilty of 1st degree murder, despite what the women jurors' asserted in this article.)

See what God says about the way He made women and their decision making capabilities. See this manifest in the flesh by reading the first few sentences of "We CAN fix the Jury System," written by Judge Harold J. Rothwax. Sadly funny because it's true.

God made men and women different. We are not equal in the flesh. (Christian wives: Do you vote opposite your husband, canceling his vote? If so, aren't you supposed to be one flesh? And he your head?)

Cool Conservative or Loonie Liberal?

This obsession about Mitt Romney's hair is silly. It's as silly as when Mr. Mark Leibovich wrote about Tom Daschle's "morning-fresh pompadour of excellent brown hair." You probably laughed at that. So you should be laughing at the same comments about Mitt Romney.

Again, I have to wonder about Mr. Leibovich's "sexual orientation" for him to be obsessed, let alone even notice, Tom Daschle's hair. Let alone think it's important to report. (But what do I know? I'm not good enough to be a "Journalist.")

But wait! There's more!

I remember when NewsMax first started advertising on the Rush Limbaugh Show. By associating with Rush, the implication was that it was Conservative. But here's more silliness from NewsMax about Ann Romney. This from The Carpetbagger Report.
But Ben Smith (Politico) noted yesterday that NewsMax wrote a profile about Ann Romney, Mitt's wife, that is so remarkably over-the-top, one almost wonders if it's a joke. Alas, it isn't. "Ann is warm and very natural. She has the look of an outdoors woman bred to be an equestrian, which she is — good carriage, rosy complexion, square jaw, and blond mane. "When she is not flashing her truly unbelievable smile, she may lower her eyes demurely. But Ann Romney is not demure — she may be modest, but she isn't meek. She is unpretentious, but she isn't shy. She lowers her eyes, thinking, and then looks up directly at her interviewer and dazzles him with that smile." Smith noted, "I think I've never seen writing, in a publication apparently written by and for grown-ups, like this passage." Agreed. There's flattery, there's sycophancy, and then there's this. It's truly breathtaking.
But here's the kicker.
But let's delve a little deeper. First, its worth noting that NewsMax was apparently humiliated for having published such tripe. Less than a day after running the profile on its site, NewsMax gave it a little touch-up. Without alerting readers to the fact that the article had been changed, the publication apparently removed most of the passage, including all of the adjectives. The reader no longer sees anything about Ann Romney's carriage, complexion, jaw, hair, or "truly unbelievable smile." (As a rule, its unethical to make substantive changes like this without alerting readers.)
I couldn't have said it any better. That's why I quoted them.

Don't forget that in Mormonism, Ann Romney HAS to be the perfect Stepford Wife. If she isn't, she might be DOA in the next life. It's up to Mitt to call her up from the Mormon resurrection.

Love is blind

This is akin to Hugh Hewitt's "hagiography" of Mitt Romney. (Per Publisher's Weekly review of Mr. Hewitt's book on Amazon.) Mr. Hewitt has talked about Mitt Romney's hair too, but I don't think even he got this silly. (Although I never read the book. Maybe he did?).

Now, I hate to say Hillary was right, but I've learned from my blogging experience here that there is indeed a "vast right wing conspiracy" in the so-called "Conservative" side of the media. Some people "on the right" are just as bad as Carville on the Left. And just as double minded and hypocritical. They have an agenda and facts don't matter. They want Romney in office and will say and do anything to accomplish that goal.. Despite being soundly rejected by us (despite his 40 million dollar investment, trying to buy the election), they're trying the back door to break in. Don't fall for it.

[While I have always admitted to having an agenda here (just look at my masthead and my very first post), I have always been diligent to present facts about Mitt Romney and Mormonism. The facts why you don't want a Mormon in the White House. The White House includes the Vice Presidency, where Mitt Romney could really be a heartbeat away from fulfilling Mormon prophecy. ]

So it's not over yet. If you're a child of God (and most people are NOT), then, for the sake our our country, please keep praying that Senator McCain does not alienate the base by yoking himself with Mitt Romney. While I don't expect that Conservatives would vote for Hillary or Obama if Mitt Romney were on Senator McCain's ticket, I expect many of us would simply not vote for-and could not vote for-a Mormon as heir to our President.

Before you claim "Anti-Mormon" bigotry, be advised that Michael Medved said, on his program today, that Mormons would not vote if Mike Huckahee were Senator McCain's choice. Hugh Hewitt has said same. Anti-Christian bigotry?

While Mormons generally vote as a block (but don't you dare say they're in a cult), there are more Christians than there are Mormons.

The Mormon church claims 13 million members, give or take a million. But they count 8 year olds as members when they're indoctrinated (baptized), and, some say, they even count babies "born under the covenant." (i.e. babies born into Mormon families.) How many of their number are of voting age? Who really knows?

The Mormon church knows, but it's not telling.

 A dispassionate analysis indicates Mike Huckabee the better choice if Senator McCain wants to win states, as Mike Huckabee's previous track record against Mitt Romney proves.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A friendly warning to Mitt Romney's "Mittens"

Ann Romney begging Mitt Romney to 'Just remember me when you're a god.'

"Just remember me when you enter your kingdom"
Ann Romney HAS to please her husband.
It's a matter of life or death. (Hers.)

Ladies, do you really want to join her in Stepford?

Rush Limbaugh Smitten


I like Rush Limbaugh. What Conservative doesn't? But he doesn't get it when it comes to Mitt Romney.

That's not surprising. Rush isn't a Christian. Therefore he can't discern between the real and the counterfeit.

ASIDE: While he jokes about "talent on loan from God" and acknowledges a Creator, he's never claimed Christ as his Lord. (If I recall correctly, he swore once in Jesus' name on the air.) To his credit, he did not get married in a church for his 3rd marriage, which would have made a real mockery of a religious ceremony since that marriage ended in divorce too. (Although perhaps not his fault.)

Interestingly, just a week ago or so he acknowledged on the air that he wasn't that great at keeping his vows. Specified "marriage." (Did he say "before God?" I can't remember.)

[However, here is someone who says Rush did claim to be a Christian in an interview in 1993. Or, at least, a member of "churchiantiy."]

Given that Rush isn't a Bible believing Christian, and given he lives on the East Coast, far away from Mormon Utah, it's not surprising that he probably thinks Mormonism is just another Christian denomination.

I did when I lived on the East Coast and wasn't a Christian. I mean, the only thing I knew about Mormons was what they carefully pitched in their TV commercials. Had they said, "Want to be a god someday? Ask us How," I would've run. And they know that.

There wasn't an Internet back then, where you could search for "Mormonism" and learn what their nice commercials wouldn't tell you. That their god is just a puny little man who lives on another planet near the star Kolob with his many, many wives, having sex to make spirit babies to populate the earth. That they, like Satan, believe they can become "like" God. Not only "like" God, but they BE a god. (Shudder.)

Clearly, this is anathema to Christians. (Even Satan knows he's not going to be a god.) But you'd have to be reading your Bible and be a follower of Christ to be repelled by Mormon doctrine.

Taking the Faith Speech on faith


But Rush has clearly fallen for Mitt Romey's faith speech and seems to have crowned him a saint.

While I agree with some things Mitt Romney said in his speech, he was more wrong than he was right. (And "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.") I'll plan to post fuller someday, but for example, he tried to invoke Article 6 of the Constitution on you.

If you don't know by now, Article VI of the Constitution says,

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


Fair enough. The government—not you, but the GOVERNMENT— cannot require a religious test to qualify the aforementioned candidates for office. That means that the government cannot make a law saying, for example, "The President must be a member of the Church of England."

You see, the Founders had just come out of a system where you had to be a member of the King's church to be in government.

In that country [England] no man can be a member in the House of Commons, or hold any office under the crown, without taking the sacrament according to the rites of the Church. (From Richard Dobbs Spaight, a framer, during the North Carolina ratification debates of the U.S. Constitution.)

Article VI has nothing to do with YOU—a voter— not having a religious test for a Presidential candidate. This is so patently obvious, I shouldn't have to say it. (Cal Thomas gets that much. Sadly, his faith must not influence his convictions, for he loses it after that.)

If you're a Christian, would you want an atheist for President? Would you want an overt, blood drinking Satan worshiper for President? [I trust the answer is, "no." If not, I have to wonder what your faith means to you.]

Would you vote for Mittmoud Romnidinejad, a fundamental Muslim for President? Unless you're a Mor... errr, Muslim yourself, I hope not. And you would be justified because you know that, as Mitt Romney said in his own "faith speech,"

Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us!

I trust even Mitt Romney would not vote a radical violent Muslim for President.

Boy, where's the Irony Award for that?

Counterfeit Conservative


Lost on Rush Limbaugh are the parts of Mitt Romney's speech where he says

I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.

But when Mitt Romney says that, he literally means that his jesus is A son, in the most literal sense of the word, a son of the Mormon god. That his god has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's. That this man-god came to earth and had sex with Mary. ("Sired" is the word their 'living prophet' used.)

Catholics? Would you want a President who can't understand the miracle of the virgin birth? What else does he not understand about fundamental truths?

My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths.

He got that right. As his own 'living prophet' said,

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ. "No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages."'

(Notice their veneration of Joseph Smith, something they hide now. Have you heard Mitt Romney speak publicly of his devotion to Joseph Smith at all? Suppose he was more forthcoming in his admiration for Joseph Smith, as he probably is in his ward meetings. Would you still want him for President? (Anyone got a You Tube video of Mitt Romney at a Fast & Testimony Sunday?)

Then he said something that makes no sense. Even those who aren't spiritual ought to recognize the irrationality of this statement.

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God.

No, I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Is he saying that radical Islam, those who seek to destroy us (his words) draws its very faithful adherents closer to God?

He's just pandering to the ecumenical masses. Like Rush Limbaugh? (Hopefully, Rush's brother, David, is a true Christian and will speak the truth to Rush.)

Medved getting it


Forgetting the spiritual, I don't understand why Rush can't see through flip flopping Mitt Romney, who will say anything to get elected. Michael Medved has been saying for a few weeks now that Mitt Romney "lacks integrity." Glad you finally see it Mr. Medved! But is Rush blinded by party politics? Why does he believe "life long" member of the NRA (for a year now) is a Conservative. Didn't John Kerry do the same thing when he bought me a huntin' license here"?

Mittens


Well, as usual, I've digressed quite a lot from my original subject. Getting back on point, Rush is smitten with Mitt Romney.

Now, on his show yesterday (Wednesday, January 16, 2008) a few women called in expressing their irrational Bill Clinton-esqe lust for Mitt Romney.

Just a reminder. God says, ".. it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." (1 Timothy 2:14)

There was a time in this country, when we were closer to the Bible, that women weren't allowed to vote. We've been reaping what we've sown. (Think Bill Clinton. For 8 years.)

Maybe the women callers were all Mormons? I don't know. Rush isn't savvy enough to ask if the callers who gush for Mitt Romney if they're LDS. (One today reading talking points.) Rush was impressed with the series of women callers and decided to nickname these would be plural wive wannabes "Mittens."

Ladies, do you know anything about Mormonism? Do you know what you're in for?

Welcome to Stepford, wives


Well, this was a long post to send you to a previous post, "Love & Marriage - Mitt Romney (Mormon) style."

The key sentence is

You see, in Mormonism, the husband is resurrected first. And then, IF HE DECIDES, he calls his wife out.

Isn't that God's job, to resurrect the dead? (See Luke 23:42) But never mind. This is Mormonism we're talking about, where men become gods. (Shudder.)

It's not all it's cracked up to be for the women. In fact, it's documented to be very depressing, being a Mormon wife. (More so if you're one of many Mormon wives.) Essentially, you get to look forward to being eternally pregnant. But you'd better be perfect now or it'll be the death of you. (If your husband doesn't call you out of the resurrection.)

But go ahead. Be politically correct. Put a Scientologist or a radical Muslim - or a Mormon in the White House. Be like a Liberal. Be godless and don't consider someone else's "god" when you choose them for your leader.

You Mittens out there who like Mitt Romney because of his hair. You may find yourself spitting up hairballs. (Sorry, it was my only line.)



Got a tip? Send it to romney 'dot' tips at yahoo 'dot' com. (May be blocked. If I don't respond in a couple days, please leave a comment here on the blog with the subject line "tip problem.")

Want to follow my posts with RSS? http://rss.townhall.com/userblogs/romneyforpresident

Do you laugh at my photos? Tell your friends!

Please copy and paste the following clip to your friends and in the comment field of pertinent blogs or news stories. (Copy it because the link needs http:// in the address, but not www.):

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Check this out:

http://romneyforpresident.townhall.com/

Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.

(Funny photos too.)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mitt Romney's Hillary-Care:This is Conservative?

Mitt Romney on left, Hillary Clinton on right, side by side, both with silly clown smiles

Is there really any difference between these two?
They're both Liberals.

A Secular Detour


In this blog, I mainly focus on the spiritual reasons why you don't want a Mormon in the White House. In this cycle, that would be Mitt Romney.

ASIDE: It was Orrin Hatch last and before that, Mo Udall.

If a Mormon couldn't win before the age of the Internet, where voters couldn't Google "Mormonism" for themselves, what makes you think a Mormon can win today when voters can learn the facts for themselves? (Some say creepy?)

But in the past, I've provided secular reasons for not voting for Mitt Romney. Here's another.

FYI, here are the three main spiritual reasons:

Mitt Romney is a Mormon, not a Christian. So he cannot truly support Christian (Conservative) values. This is a 'Christian Nation,' not a Mormon one in the sense that this country was founded on Biblical principles, not Book of Mormon ones. They are NOT the same.

He's in a cult, so of questionable mind. You wouldn't want Tom Cruise for President. Why would you want Mitt Romney? Both Scientology and Mormonism were started for the same reason. Their prophets made profits! (Pass it on!)

And he's sworn an oath to his church (leaders) that can conflict with an oath of office, when it comes to matters of church & state. Or matters like the Mid-East and Israel. Or free speech. (Already Mitt Romney says talking negatively about Mormonism is "going too far" and has chided 527's who try. Although it seems okay to grill Mike Huckabee about Christianity.)

Alternate headlines


I wrestled with what to title this post. There are so many candidates.

  • Mitt Romney's delayed tax increase

  • Mitt Romney's Great Society. NOT!

  • Mitt Romney: "Bain, bain? What is bain" (Star Trek parody)

  • Mitt Romney doesn't believe in wise virgins
    (Not what it seems)

  • Mitt Romney: "It's not a tax. It's a penalty. (And that's 'fine' with me)"
    Or, Mitt Romney lies again about taxes.

  • The American Spectator on Mitt Romney: Not so miraculous

Depends on the meaning of Conservative


There's been quite a battle on Conservative Talk Radio lately over who, of the Republican Presidential candidates, is truly a Conservative. Wrapped up in that is what the definition of Conservative is, and so it becomes rather circular.

Rush Limbaugh seems to be leading the charge. I agree with a lot of what he says, except he's content with American troops warring in foreign countries and I'm not. (A blurry line about providing for the common defense.) Lately, Hugh Hewitt has been beating up on former Governor Mike Huckabee. But with the Michigan Primary looming and Senator McCain neck and neck with Mitt Romney in this MUST win for Mitt Romney, Mr. Hewitt has relented on Mike Huckabee but stepped up his attack on Senator McCain, calling the latter a Liberal.

Whereas I say Mitt Romney, the REAL Latter, is a Liberal. (Indeed, Mormonism is progressive, so Mormon Mitt Romney is progressive.)

I'm not a famous talk show host, but I think the definition of "Conservative" is someone who goes back to fundamental principles. In the secular world, that would be our Constitution. (Don't we want Conservative judges who are "strict Constitutionalists?") In the spiritual world, that would be the Bible. And someone who believes in personal responsibility, as echoed in the Bible and the Constitution.

It seems to me Ron Paul is the true conservative. But he's not a team player in the Grand Old Party. so the partiers reject him.

"By your words you will be condemned"


But let's look at Mitt Romney's own words on his Hillary-like Universal Health Care plan. Judge for yourself if Mitt Romney is a Conservative or a Liberal. (Try to forget that he was Governor of one of the Bluest States in the Union, even though that ought to tell you what they thought of his conservative "convictions.")

On Tuesday, April 11, 2006, Mitt Romney wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page. This is when he was Governor of Massachusetts. BEFORE he decided he wanted to spread the misery and campaign for our President. It's titled "Health Care for Everyone? We've found a way."

Just the facts


We're not going to get very far into this study. Like listening to Bill Clinton, once you have the famous blue dress, you have enough facts and it doesn't matter what else he says after that. So like reading the Book of Mormon, you don't have to get very far here with Mitt Romney before you spot trouble and can stop reading. Nothing that Joseph Smith or Mitt Romney follow up with will change the facts. In fact, you could stop with just the title of Mitt Romney's piece. What is the government doing providing health care for everyone? Is that a Conservative principle or a Nanny State Liberal one?

Mitt Romney begins:

Only weeks after I was elected governor, Tom Stemberg, the founder and former CEO of Staples, stopped by my office. He told me, "If you really want to help people, find a way to get everyone health insurance." I replied that would mean raising taxes and a Clinton-style government takeover of health care. He insisted: "You can find a way."

I believe that we have.

Arrrrgh! STOP!! It is NOT THE JOB OF GOVERNMENT TO 'HELP' PEOPLE! That's what Liberals believe! This is LBJ's Great Society all over again!

 If you're a Conservative and you want to help people, GET OUT OF OUR WAY! Lower taxes, cut regulation, step back and let the free market take care of things!

What did Ronald Reagan say? "Government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem."

What does Rush Limbaugh say? It's not the job of government to be a safety net! Get the government out of our lives and let us help ourselves. No entitlements. Self reliance. You can do it yourself! (Listen to the 3rd hour of Rush's show, Tuesday, January 16. "Conservatism is the answer.")

If someone truly needs help, that's the (Christian) church's job - or your and mine as individuals - to provide charity. Not the government's.

You can judge a man by the company he keeps. Does it bother you that Mitt Romney keeps company with an obvious bleeding heart RINO like Tom Stemberg?

"I will judge you by your own words!"


But Mitt Romney admits he knew interfering in health care would be a de facto "Clinton-style government takeover." Still, he did it anyway.

Look, you can't be a Governor meddling in the private sector without it being, by definition, a government takeover. It's no longer the free market, something Conservatives are supposed to believe in. But I guess it depends what the meaning of "government takeover" is when government interferes with your decisions.

And then Mitt Romney lied. But it's taken this long for the lie to appear, long after he's no longer Governor and no one (excpet me) can accuse him of raising taxes. How convenient.

Time delay fuse


Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced. And we will need NO NEW TAXES, NO EMPLOYER MANDATE and no government takeover to make this happen.

He lied when he said "No New Taxes" and "No Employer Mandate."

This from The Boston Globe: "Uninsured Mass. residents face monthly fines starting in January." It published on Christmas Eve, and seems to have been missed by everybody. I'm trying to report without comment and let you decide, but this is really disgusting.

Come Jan. 1, Massachusetts residents who still haven't signed up for health insurance will start racking up FINES on a monthly basis.

[Oh, they're fines. This must be Brian Lamb speak, where he insists that C-SPAN is not government funded, even though the government requires cable companies to pony up "fees" for Mr. Lamb's "private, non-profit" company. Even though the fines go to the government (Mass Dept of Revenue) and the government is confiscation your money, Mitt Romney says it's not a "tax." No, no.]

Those penalties may be up to half of the monthly premiums for the least expensive health care plan available, although the exact amount of the fines is expected to be announced as soon as this week.

That's on top of the loss of the $219 personal tax exemption for anyone not insured by the end of December.

[Oh, so now the government is punishing you with a reverse tax for not playing their game. THAT'S conservative.]

The fines are part of an increasingly more aggressive approach written into the state's landmark health care law designed to pressure Massachusetts residents into getting insurance.

[Long after Mitt Romney is gone. Can't blame him for this. Can you?]

The law, intended to create near-universal coverage in the state, was approved by lawmakers and signed by former Gov. Mitt Romney in 2006.

[In fact, Gov. Romney, in his Wall Street Journal piece, takes credit for being the creator (organizer, if you're Mormon. A little joke) of this "conservative" universal health care plan.]

Everyone, including those insured through their employers, will be required to fill out a new tax form proving they have insurance to avoid paying penalties.

[Ahhh... more paperwork. The sure sign of a Conservative government.]

That form -- dubbed 1099-HC -- will require taxpayers to provide the name of their insurer and their subscriber number.

[i.e. Government intrusion. Even if you play the game their way and do what they want?]

The form will also allow individuals and families to claim an exemption to the law -- either for religious or hardship reasons. Those claiming exemptions will be asked to provide supporting information to back up their claim.

Those who still refuse to get insurance even after being deemed able to afford it, will see the penalties add up quickly.

[So far this doesn't seem to be an "employer mandate." It puts everything squarely on the back of the employee! But you'll see later how even this turned out to be not true.]

The monthly premium for the least expensive health care plan -- a so-called "bronze level" plan with no prescription drug coverage -- for a 37-year-old male living in Boston is $196.

Under the law, the penalty for not getting insurance could be up to half that cost -- about $98 a month, or $1,176 for the year.

[DID YOU GET THIS? YOU ARE PENALIZED FOR NOT GETTING SOMETHING YOU DON"T WANT! We used to call this "extortion."]

The actual penalty will be determined by the Department of Revenue that is charged with coming up with the fine structure.

A spokesman for the department said the goal is to keep the fines as simple and clear as possible so everyone knows the cost of not getting insurance.

[THE COST OF NOT GETTING INSURANCE???  It costs you money to NOT buy something? That's just perverse.]


Bliss said the department launched an outreach campaign this year to alert people to the new law, including mailing postcards and distributing flyers to taxpayers, setting up a web site and creating a video tutorial to walk taxpayers through the new form.

[But this is NOT government intervention or a government takeover. In fact, the government hardly has anything to do with any of this!]

Earlier this month, Leslie Kirwan, Gov. Deval Patrick's top budget chief and chairwoman of the Connector board, said estimates of the number of uninsured in Massachusetts before the law took effect ranged from 370,000 to more than half a million.

[There's a reason for these numbers. Most of them want to be uninsured! They're single males under 50, who don't want (nor need) insurance!]

Bliss said officials will have a much better idea as people begin to file their taxes and are forced to say whether they are insured or not.

Forced? FORCED? Someone should throw up a 5th Amendment right claim here and gum up the works.

Back to Mitt Romney


When I took up Tom's challenge [which a Conservative would never had done], I assembled a team from business, academia and government and asked them first to find out who was uninsured, and why. What they found was surprising.

Here Mitt Romney departs from what he's said in his stump speeches. (What a surprise.) I have it on TiVo. In his speeches, he says that what they found was that most of the people who weren't insured were single males under the age of 50. (I'll try to put that up on You Tube if it's not there already. Someone please remind me if I don't get around to it after the South Carolina primary.)

The Bain way? DUH!


In his stump speech, Mitt Romney makes a big deal about how he gathered the data and "wallowed in it." All this to come up with the fact that it's single males under 50 who don't want health insurance? Duh! I could have told him that and I wouldn't have charged a million bucks to do it.

This is a subtlety of being Mormon. You see, Mormons are told they MUST be married (to many wives) in their temple in order to be a god someday. Whereas the Jesus of the Bible says you'll never be a god someday and that it was better to be single. (Echoed by the Apostle Paul. The single man is free to please the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:32-33)

The point is, Mitt Romney has hardly been single. He has NO idea how single men think. So it never occurred to him that most single males under 50 don't want or need health insurance.

How else does being steeped in Mormonism affect his thinking? (Hint: What does the name "Gordon B. Hinckley" mean to you? It means the world to Mitt Romney.)

Now, I have been a single man under 50, and I lived quite well without health insurance. Isn't that my right? Since I'm a Conservative, I'm willing to take my chances and pay the price if something befalls me. Read the Wall Street Journal article about this, "The financial parable of 10 Virgins." THAT is Conservative.

In the parable, the 5 foolish virgins, those who did not plan ahead, they lost out. And rightly so. But in Liberalism, there are no consequences for bad decisions. The safety net will save them. Worse, you who are wise, who did plan ahead, you are the ones who will be forced to save the foolish.

In Mitt Romney's version of the Great Society, he's forcing everyone to live their lives HIS way. Now in Massachusetts, you HAVE to have health insurance. Well, you don't HAVE to, but the State is going to take your money if you don't, so you might as well take the money they were going to steal and give it to an insurance company instead.

Why does this remind me of Mafia "insurance?" (a.k.a. extortion?)

Solving a non-problem


The solution we came up with was to make PRIVATE HEALTH insurance much more affordable. Insurance reforms now permit policies with higher deductibles, higher copayments, coinsurance, provider networks and fewer mandated benefits like in vitro fertilization--and our insurers have committed to offer products nearly 50% less expensive. With private insurance finally affordable, I proposed that everyone must either purchase a product of their choice or demonstrate that they can pay for their own health care. It's a personal responsibility principle.

First of all, a true Conservative wouldn't think that the government can MAKE insurance more affordable. Insurance companies are private enterprises, driven by profit and loss and actuary tables.

Second of all, have any of you lived in New York or New Jersey? When I was there, both states had State controlled auto insurance. It was supposed to save us money. If you're really a Conservative, I don't have to tell you what happened.

And so, all Massachusetts citizens will have health insurance. [Whether they want it or not.] It's a goal Democrats and Republicans share [NO - I bet über Republican Rush Limbaugh doesn't want it], and it has been achieved by a bipartisan effort, through market reforms. [No it hasn't. It was achieved by a Governor meddling in the private lives of individuals, where government should never tread.]

How did the story end?


This next part is interesting.

My Democratic counterparts have added an annual $295 per-person fee charged to employers that do not contribute toward insurance premiums for any of their employees. The fee is unnecessary and probably counterproductive, and so I will take corrective action.

I wonder if Mitt Romney ever did stop this "fee" on employers. (He didn't. Read the American Spectator quote further below.)

And did you notice, Mitt Romney doesn't call it a "tax." Oh, no. It's only a fee. More Liberal Brian Lamb C-SPAN Double speak.

True Conservative?


This stinks. If you have the misfortune to live in Massachusetts (a.k.a. Taxachusetts), you will now be FORCED to pay someone $200 a MONTH for a service you did not want.

That stinks.

FLASH: Listening to Laura Ingraham this morning. Says Fred Barnes chided Mitt Romney last night on "Speical Edition" for sounding like a Democrat in Michigan, promising 20 billion in Federal aid to help the automobile industry out of it's hole.

HUME: Is Romney pandering himself into being a non-conservative on these issues?

BARNES: Absolutely; of course he is.

LIASSON: That will be the interpretation.

BARNES: Well, it's my interpretation. I think that he's not taking a conservative approach. It's one that Washington will come out and bail you out, and you're such a great state. Michigan has done this largely to itself.

Whereas Laura says "Let Americans compete." She sounds like the Conservative to me.

[Larry Kudlow has also noted Mitt Romney's democratic tendencies. Listen to him in the 2nd hour of the May 4, 2007 Hugh Hewitt show, available for download on Townhall, where he says Mitt Romney's tax cut proposal (back then, anyway. Mitt is always changing) is classic Democrat stuff. The rich don't get the same tax breaks as the middle class.]

American Spectator weighs in


Oh, I almost forgot. Speaking of Michigan and economic recovery, this from The American Standard: Mitt's Mythical "Mass. Miracle"

One could take Romney seriously as an architect of economic redevelopment if he had displayed such skills as Massachusetts governor. Instead, his reign was a parade of economic stagnation and retreat. He even advocated an SUV-tax increase that would have hammered the very same domestic automotive industry he now says he champions.

Andrew Sum and Joseph McLaughlin of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Boston's Northeastern University placed Romney's rule beneath their statistical microscope. Let's hope what they discovered is not contagious.

"Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country," the researchers wrote in the Boston Globe.

On Mitt Romney's Hillary-care they said:

Romney's vaunted healthcare plan also disappoints. It forces individuals to purchase medical coverage and slaps the non-compliant with "tax penalties," as a state-government radio ad described them last November. These charges were $219 in 2007, equal to the personal exemption on Massachusetts' state tax. However, this year's formula could crank this figure up to $912. Businesses with at least 11 workers either must offer health insurance or face annual fines of $295-per-uninsured employee. This is consistent with Romney's statement at a January 5 GOP presidential debate: "I like mandates."

This program is run not by the free market, but by the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, a Romney-created government bureaucracy. For 2007, reports the Pacific Research Institute's Sally Pipes, RomneyCare is expected to have cost taxpayers some $619 million. That's $147 million and 31 percent above original projections.

Romney blames all this on tinkering Democratic state legislators.

Of course.

But go ahead. Vote for Mitt Romney for President. He's a true Conservative. He won't raise your taxes. Just fees and penalties.

He's really a wolf in sheep's clothing... in more ways than one. Secularly speaking, he's a Liberal. A Republican in Name Only. Like Mayor Bloomberg, he's trying to buy the election too. That's their way. By their fruits you will know them.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »