Saturday, April 28, 2007

Mormon Underwear

Mormon Theology and the Presidency

The article below shows, I think, a flaw in the political aspects of the cult of Mormonism. Not to mention that many of the illegal immigrants are Catholic, and would be surprised to know they are being moved not by a wish to better their lives but by Satan… who would want to destroy their lives.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah County District 65 Chairman Don Larsen has submitted a formal resolution to oppose the devil’s plan to destroy the country -- to be discussed this weekend at the Utah County Republican Convention.

“In order for Satan to establish his ‘New World Order’ and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S.,” Larsen’s resolution states. “[It is] insidious for its stealth and innocuousness.”

Larsen’s proposal to defeat Satan? Close the borders to illegal immigrants to “prevent the destruction of the U.S. by stealth invasion.”

Mormons Blame Devil for Immigration

Jesus of Historic Christianity: Jesus is eternal, there never was a time when He did not exist. He is the creator of the time/space continuum which includes the entire known and unknown universe, all the planets and stars, energy, gravity, natural laws, and the like – all this places him as part of the Trinity. Because of His all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-presence nature, he is rightly called God Almighty.

Jesus of the Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses): Michael the Archangel is the first creative act of God, after that God creates everything else through Michael the Archangel. When Michael comes to earth he is known as Jesus Christ, but when back in heaven once again takes his place as Michael the Archangel.

Jesus of LDS (Mormons): Jesus was the first begotten son by Heavenly Father and Mother (one of many mothers, but presumably this one is the most important. Polygamy is practiced in the Mormon top-tear heaven), Lucifer was also born of a sexual act in heaven, so Jesus and Satan are literally brothers – as we are all brothers and sisters, albeit most likely half-brother or sister. During the judgment period Elohim, Jesus, and Joseph Smith will judge every Mormon and according to his works. (I say his, because in Mormon theology women are consecrated to a Mormon man, so her salvation depends on his good works. If he does not make it, in heaven she may become one of the many wives of a Mormon male that did make the cut, so-to-speak.) Again, Jesus had to become exalted Himself to also attain the best Heaven so he to can be a god of his own world. This godhood exaltation goes back to infinity in Mormon theology. So Heavenly Father was once a man on a planet much like our, and he too had to attain exultation, he had a father, that father had a father, and so on. (see video below)

Mormon Theology in Cartoon Animation

Underwear Mitt Romney Wears

Mitt Romney probably went through a temple ceremony similar to these (they have been changed since these ex-Mormons revealed these ceremonies)

Impact of the Hypothesis of Evolution on Marxism & Communism

Periodic Table Challenge to Darwinists
$1,000 up for grabs!

Cell life – Harvard University

DNA / RNA Replication – Evolutions Death Nell

Flagellum Motor – Evolutions Death Nell

Friday, April 27, 2007

Imported Article Worth Reading

Original Article @

10 Differences between Conservatives And Liberals

By John Hawkins

Friday, April 27, 2007

Conservatives and liberals approach almost every issue with completely different philosophies, underlying assumptions, and methods. That's why it's so hard to find genuine compromise between conservatism and liberalism -- because not only are liberals almost always wrong, their solutions almost always make things worse.

With that in mind, let me take a few moments to explain some of the key differences between liberals and conservative to you.

Bonus) Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings. Liberals view judges as a backdoor method of getting unpopular left-leaning legislation passed. They don't want umpires, they want political partisans in black robes who will side with them first and then come up with a rationale to explain it.

10) Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren't going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.

9) Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.

8) Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn't be punished for being successful. Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That's why they don't respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs.

7) Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion. Most liberals, despite what they'll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.

6) Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens. Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them -- as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan.

5) Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it's vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn't like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.

4) Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That's why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best. Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is guessed it, another government program.

3) Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That's why we believe in "American exceptionalism" and "America first." Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation.

2) Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper. Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That's why, whether you're talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays," liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society.

1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they're "nice" and make them feel good. Whether the policies they're advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.

Gender Wars in California Schools

Here we go again

World Net Daily Article

A plan that has been launched in the California state Assembly again could be used to ban references to "mom" and "dad" in public schools statewide by prohibiting anything that would "reflect adversely" on the homosexual lifestyle choice.

It's similar to a plan WND reported was approved by lawmakers last year, but fell by the wayside when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

"SB 777 forcibly thrusts young school children into dealing with sexual issues, requiring that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality be taught in a favorable light," according to an alert issued by the Capitol Resource Institute.

"Not only does SB 777 require that classroom instruction and materials promote and embrace controversial sexual practices, it also bans school-sponsored activities from 'reflecting adversely' on homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals," the group said.

"Pushing this radical homosexual agenda in California schools will stifle the truth in favor of political correctness and will inevitably conflict with the religious and moral convictions of both students and parents," said CRI Executive Director Karen England. "The full ramifications of this sweeping legislation could affect the entire nation as most textbook companies tailor their material to their number one purchaser: California."

She noted that Los Angeles schools already have implemented most of the proposals now pending for districts across the state, and among the changes are:

  1. "Mom" and "dad" and "husband" and "wife" would have to be edited from all texts.
  2. Cheerleading and sports teams would have to be gender-neutral.
  3. Prom kings and queens would be banned, or if featured, would have to be gender neutral so that the king could be female and the queen male.
  4. Gender-neutral bathrooms could be required for those confused about their gender identity.
  5. A male who believes he really is female would be allowed into the women's restroom, and a woman believing herself a male would be allowed into a men's room.
  6. Even scientific information, such has statistics showing AIDS rates in the homosexual community, could be banned.

"It's embarrassing that we've got kids who can't pass their exit exams, but we add all sorts of complications [to school]," she told WND.

She cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center. ….

"If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity you should be allowed to do so," it advises. "Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible."

Further, the groups advise, "If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you."

Half of the Democrat Presidential Hopefuls are Whack-jobs!

HOT AIR props

The Iraqi Insurgents and Terrorist Leaders Agree – Democrats Good for Business

My “10-out-of-10” Blog

I think this article supports my thesis that the terrorists WANT the Democrats to win.


Democrat debate 'victory for Iraqi insurgents'

Terrorists say anti-war statements moment of glory for global 'resistance movements'

April 27, 2007

By Aaron Klein

World Net Daily Article

Democratic presidential hopefuls flashing their anti-war credentials last night at a national debate by stating they would immediately withdraw from Iraq, encouraged Palestinian terrorist leaders here, who labeled the debate a victory for Iraqi insurgents and "resistance movements" throughout the world.

The debate was widely covered today by the Palestinian and pan-Arab media.

"We see Hillary (Clinton) and other candidates are competing on who will withdraw from Iraq and who is guilty of supporting the Iraqi invasion. This is a moment of glory for the revolutionary movements in the Arab world in general and for the Iraqi resistance movement specifically," said Abu Jihad, one of the overall leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror organization…..

….Abu Muhammad, a leader of the Islamic Jihad terrorist group in northern West Bank city of Telkerem, said he believes both the Democrats and Republicans are controlled by Israel but said he thinks the Democrats are better for his group's interests.

"They will keep supporting Israel, but, yes, I think the Democrats are preferred and have a bigger chance of withdrawing from Iraq and making deals with Iran and Syria."

Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades took joint responsibility for every suicide bombing in Israel the past two years. Both terrorist groups regularly carry out shootings and rocket attacks against Jewish civilian population centers.

Robert Spencer on Fox & Friends

Talking About Islam – Openly (something not allowed in Muslim countries)

“Green” Ham Nation

Bill O’Reilly on Bill Moyers
PBS Showing Falsehoods

Neal Boortz Going Off on Islam

I am not a huge Boortz fan, but time-to-time he hits the spot.

WIFI/Cell Phone Protective Veil

(Drudge Report Props)

Not an important story, but I guarantee I will start seeing this on some people at my work.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Global Warming Causers? Democrats Hypocritical

(Drudge Report Props)

2008 Candidates Rely on Private Jets

A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.

For Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, it was wheels up shortly after they voted in favor of legislation requiring that U.S. troops begin returning home from Iraq in the fall.

No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions…

As usual… the Democrats are showing that they really do not believe in curbing Global Warming, rather, they show (when they speak on it) that they use it for political ends. Plain and simple.

Here We Go – IRAQ

I hope Rice gives em’ a whooping! Or will the Republicans grow their jelly fish spine?

House panel votes to subpoena Rice on Iraq

Wed Apr 25, 2007

Washington (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic lawmakers voted on Wednesday to subpoena Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify about administration justifications for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

On a party-line vote of 21-10, the House of Representatives' Oversight and Government Reform Committee directed Rice to appear before the panel next month.

Republicans accused Democrats of a "fishing expedition." But Democrats said they want Rice to explain what she knew about administration's warnings, later proven false, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger for nuclear arms.

"There was one person in the White House who had primary responsibility to get the intelligence about Iraq right -- and that was Secretary Rice who was then President George W. Bush's national security adviser," said committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat.

"The American public was misled about the threat posed by Iraq, and this committee is going to do its part to find out why," Waxman said.

Oh I can’t waith! I say this because if I were in her place I would love to hit the Democrats where it counts. In their “collective” thinking. On Uranium and niger I pulled this (I got the following from


  • …..A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”

    • A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.

    • Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.

    • Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium…….

    …..The "16 words" in Bush's State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003 have been offered as evidence that the President led the US into war using false information intentionally. The new reports show Bush accurately stated what British intelligence was saying, and that CIA analysts believed the same thing.

    The Butler Report

    After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford.

    The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:

    • Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

    The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.

    • Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africawas well-founded……

    I am sure that they (the Democrats) will go right toi Weapons of Mass Destruction as a fallback. Saddam had broken almost every condition for the cease fire agreement brokered by the U.N. between the U.S. and Iraq. In fact, the picture below is chemicals that are key to making WMDs. These were found in a safe house along with a chemist that worked for Saddam’s government.

    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

    Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

    Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, one of Saddam’s main nuclear scientists, had buried in his backyard the capacity to build uranium-enriching gas centrifuges. It isn’t that Saddam had the entire nuclear program under his belt – plans, processes, equipment, and the like. It is that he had enough of it to pass on to terrorists with whom he allied himself. At any rate, hiding centrifuges in a garden was in direct violation to the cease-fire treaty signed by both parties.

    A really good synopsis of the uranium “thing” (and Armitage) can be found in a video of the

  • Beltway Boys – Libby & Uranium from Niger (9-02-06)
  • . I suggest watching this discussion as part of your journey to see where Democrats often fail on security matters and the facts involved in them.

    Also take note of the Daily News article that includes this checklist:

    • A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

    • A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

    • Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

    • New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

    • Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

    • A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

    • Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

    • Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

    • Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

    And a list coming from an investigative author is as follows:

    Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

    Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

    Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

    Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

    Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

    The update to these is of course the following: 750 serine gas tipped shells were uncovered, of which about 15 of them killed 5,000 people (at Iraqi hands years ago).

    As for where much of the weapons went. I saw a general the other day still mentioning those truck from Russia moving stuff north. The following old-story would seem to bolster this view:

    Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists planned a chemical attack on Jordan's spy headquarters that could have killed 20,000 people, officials have said.

    Earlier this week King Abdullah said a massive attack had been thwarted by a series of arrests, but named no target.

    Now unnamed officials say the suspects have confessed to plotting to detonate a chemical bomb on the Amman HQ of the Intelligence Services.

    The plot was reportedly hatched by al-Qaeda suspect Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi.

    Washington has accused the 38-year-old Jordanian radical of masterminding a string of spectacular suicide bombings in Iraq.

    'Deadly gas'

    An official involved in the inquiry in Jordan told AFP news agency: “We found primary materials to make a chemical bomb which, if it had exploded, would have made nearly 20,000 deaths ... in an area of one square kilometre.”

    These massive amounts of base chemicals came from Syria. So I think we already had a connection with what disappeared over the border and them popping up, so-to-speak.

    I hope Condi shows some toughness with these crackpots!

    Tuesday, April 24, 2007

    Islamic Myths

    Family Security Matters - Article

    Myth: Islam is a peaceful religion.

    Truth: When we hear this, we understand the meaning of the statement from a very Western perspective, but the meaning intended by the Muslim speaker is very different. “Peaceful religion” to a Judeo-Christian trained mind means a religion that embraces and practices peaceful intentions toward all others. When an Islamist says “peaceful religion” he means a religion whose ultimate goal is peace upon earth - when all non-believers submit to it. “Islam” does not translate to “peace” as some people falsely believe. Its meaning is “submission;” - that is, submission to Allah and to Islam, of all peoples of the earth. This is the mission of Islam - using violence against non-believers to achieve that goal is absolutely condoned and is a stated legitimate tenet of Islam.

    Myth: Mohammed was a prophet for peace and a “good person”.

    Truth: It is true that Mohammad had some wise things to say. In his early days of preaching he was peaceful. However, as his following grew, his frustration at his political rivals also grew. He became a killer - a leader of a band of thugs who “converted” by the sword. (When not by sword physically, it was by social deprivation and isolation - forced submission to Islam.) He was brutal and merciless, intent on spreading his ideology primarily for political purposes. Many “moderate” Muslims struggle greatly with reconciling this history with their desire to see good in their faith. What do you do when you hunger for wisdom and your prophet is a brute?

    Myth: Most Muslims don’t believe in violence.

    Truth: This is a moot point. Those who don’t embrace violence are silent and intimidated, while those who do are in power - in Muslim society, in the Middle East, and in the West. An opposition which has been bullied into acquiescence is not a real opposition threatening the bullies in any realistic way.

    Myth: We need to embrace Muslims as peaceful people and be inclusive in our culture.

    Truth: For us, practicing multiculturalism means showing respect for the beliefs of others. But for many Muslims it means that we should implicitly acknowledge the superiority of Islam or, in other words, our own submission. We fail to comprehend that Islam is not a religion in the same sense Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taosim, or Judaism are. It is not a code for ethical living in relation to morality and all humankind, including the propagation of peace. In fact, Islamism is more a political ideology, advocating openly for the establishment of Islam as law of the land. The idea of ethical Islamist living is not separable from political power. There is NO separation of church and state in Islam.

    Myth: Suicide bombers come from poor families, are underprivileged, uneducated and war-weary.

    Truth: The majority of suicide bombers are middle class or even wealthy. They are usually literate and educated. They have in common that they have been indoctrinated by an Islamist-philosophy-based society to believe that killing the infidel is a path to glory and that their faith requires it as the ultimate sacrifice for the good of Islam.

    Such few examples only begin to illustrate the enormous differences between the mind of a person raised in the West or in Buddhist tradition, or Hindu tradition, and that of one raised in Islam. Recently I read a piece where the very articulate writer, whom we’ll call Larry X, made a common mistake in judgment - precisely the type of which we are speaking. He speaks of the radicals who have hijacked Islam and made it violent. I wrote to him:

    “I appreciate your thoughts very much. But you seem to be making the mistake many in the West make. For example, when you say the radical Islamists "have taken Islam and turned it into a violent medieval ideology", you are mistaken. Islam IS and always HAS been a violent medieval ideology. Assuming that Christians and Muslims can somehow get together, sing Kumbayah and write up a list of human rights declarations is naive: the very core, the very values of Islam are so different from those of the West, that this common ground would be evasive.”

    I realize that it makes Westerners uncomfortable to be confronted with the statement that negotiation with Islam is not possible. We want to believe that there is always room for negotiation, for joint efforts in peace building. However, clinging to that belief in the face of the reality of an Islamist mindset is not realistic, and it will be the death of Western society. As we spin our wheels trying to negotiate peace with a religion that does not define peace in the same way we do, the political agenda of a political religious ideology is easily establishing itself within our shores, and this is in direct opposition to many of our constitutional values. The issue isn’t all about us versus them. It’s about our commitment to peace not only for ourselves, but for millions of Muslim lives caught up in the violence of Islam. And so our final most important myth:

    Myth: Islam is a religion like any other, worthy of respect.

    Truth: It is unlike any other. True Islam advocates violence, is political in nature, embraces dominance, tortures its own followers, and does not contain a seed of tolerance for other belief systems. When one understands this, one cannot in good conscience treat it as an equal to other religions. We need to correct our teachers, politicians and newscasters who make incorrect assumptions that we all share values in common.