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.


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

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.

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?


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."

---

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.)

The Mormon teaching.
A Spirit baby on his way to this "probation."

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.


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.

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.


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.

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?

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.

---

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.)

"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.


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.
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 polygamist,  as 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?

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."

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.)

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.)

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.


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?


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?

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.)