Saturday, December 15, 2007

I missed this one as a kid. Maybe Kimba remembers it? At any rate, this is a Hot Air (props).

Video: The best three minutes in television history

posted at 9:36 pm on December 14, 2007 by Allahpundit

I was planning to save it for Christmas Eve, but what can I say? I’m overcome by the spirit of the season.

If you were touched by that Christmas gift video this afternoon, wait until you see Harrison Ford emoting in front of a giant man dressed like a space ape.

I found the entire video if one is so inclined:

The Huck Before the Cart

"Huckabee is the Republican Jimmy Carter"

Coulter on Huckabee. She says something that Laura Ingraham says as well, as well as the Drudge Report. She mentions that the press "likes" Huckabee because they feel that he will be the most beatable in the race between a Democrat and his Presidential run if he is the nominee.

Hot Air (props)

Are Mormons Just Another "Denomination?"

Are They (LDS) Christians?

(With thanks to Bill McKeever's work)

The twelfth Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball said:

Latter-day Saints are true Christians. We cannot understand how anyone could question our being Christians. It would certainly be a reflection upon anyone who would say such a thing, because if they attended even one session of any meeting of this church, they would come to realize that every prayer and every song and every sermon is centered in the Lord Jesus Christ. We are the true followers of Jesus Christ; and we hope the world will finally come to the conclusion that we are Christians, if there are any in the world. (Edward L. Kimball, ed., The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 434).

Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie stated:

Mormonism is Christianity; Christianity is Mormonism; they are one and the same, and they are not to be distinguished from each other in the minutest detail…. Mormons are true Christians; their worship is the pure, unadulterated Christianity authored by Christ and accepted by Peter, James, and John and all the ancient saints. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 513)

Rex Lee, the president of LDS-owned Brigham Young University, felt that it was “ridiculous” to not consider Mormons as Christians. He added:

I assume that qualification as a Christian turns mainly on belief in Christ. Mormons not only qualify as Christians under that definition, but they have also given broader meaning to the definition itself. (Rex Lee, What Do Mormons Believe?, p. 19)

The LDS Church has been striving in recent years to gain acceptance as a Christian religion. Although the LDS Church has been very successful at polishing its image, it has never backed off from its many heretical doctrines, which distinguish it from Biblical Christianity. While many Mormons claim that they should also be entitled to the name “Christian,” many of these same Mormons would be equally offended in Bible-believing Christians insisted on being called “Mormons.”

>>>> Imagine the Mormons’ reaction to the following statement:

I’m a Mormon but I don’t believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. I’m a Mormon but I don’t believe that God was once a man or that men can become gods. I’m a Mormon but I don’t believe the Mormon Church is the only true church or that we need human prophets to guide the church. I’m a Mormon but I don’t believe the Book of Mormon is the Word of God. I’m a Mormon but I don’t believe temples are necessary or that couples can be married for eternity.

A knowledgeable Latter-day Saint would defy that such a person was, in fact, a true Mormon. why? Because this person who claims to be Mormon denies the very doctrines that make Mormons what they are. At the same time, however, a Mormon who claims to be Christian denies the very doctrines that make Christians what they are. <<<<

Indeed, Mormonism denies or distorts the basic tenants of Biblical Christianity. The two religions are incompatible. The areas of difference include the doctrine of God, the basis for authority, and the idea of salvation for mankind.

Brigham Young University professors Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks ask “anti-Mormons” to refrain from calling Mormonism a cult. They ask that “more neutral terminology [be used], such as ‘religious movement,’ ‘religious group,’ or ‘church.’” I would do this, but in return I would ask the Mormon Church to quit attempting to use the name “Christian” to describe its “religious movement.”

Unlike many contemporary Mormons who desire to have equal status within Christianity, many LDS leaders have gone out of their way to deride these same Christian churches. Throughout the history of the LDS Church, its leaders have continually taught that Mormonism is far superior to the Christian denominations.

Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism, made the first attack on Christianity when he claimed to have asked God, in 1820, which of all the churches was correct. He was answered that “I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight; that those professors were all corrupt…” (Joseph Smith’s Testimony, 1:13).

According to Smith, Christianity was not in need of reformation. Rather, its corruption was so severe that a complete restoration was necessary. Drs. Peterson and Ricks attempted to downplay the severity of Christianity’s “depravity” by claiming that Smith merely referred to the local churches at the time of his youth. They write:

What the Lord told Joseph Smith in the grove was that the churches and creeds of 1820 were defective and distorted by error. He did not say that they were entirely and utterly wrong (since they preserved much truth), nor did he say that each and every Christian church would always be wrong…. He did not say that Christianity, as such, is false. There is nothing logically wrong with saying that the churches of 1820 were incorrect on many important issues (“corrupt”), and then saying that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (organized in 1830) is true (Peterson and Ricks, Offenders for a Word, pp. 170-171).

Was Smith really referring only to the churches of 1820? To draw such a conclusion undermines the very existence of the LDS Church as well as goes against the pronounced statements of many Mormon leaders. Contrary to what these professors claim, Bruce McConkie seems to be more consistent with Mormonism’s overall attack on Christianity. Following a quotation of the Athanasian Creed, he concluded:

Is it any wonder that the Lord of heaven, as He stood by His Father’s side on that glorious day in 1820, speaking of all the churches in all Christendom, told young Joseph “that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight”? (McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p. 117, [emphasis mine])

What Smith supposedly was told by God – that there could only be one true church upon the earth – is supported by the Book of Mormon itself. It reads:

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth ( Nephi 14:10).

McConkie described the “church of the devil” when he wrote:

What is the church of the devil in our day, and where is the seat of her power?…. It is all of the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospel…. It is communism; it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in all it parts. It is Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, and Italy under Mussolini (McConkie, The Millennial Messiah, pp. 54-55, [emphasis mine]).

Doctrines and Covenants 1:30 confirms this idea of exclusivity when it says that smith’s restored church is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased….” Expounding on the idea that only two churches exist – the Church of the Lamb and the Church of BabylonGeorge Q. Cannon, a former member of the LDS First Presidency, said:

The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon. God is not the founder of them, yet there are many sincere people who belong to them. These Elders of the Church are commanded to warn, and they commanded to gather out. The Spirit of the Lord moves upon the people who will listen to His servants to leave Babylon and join the Church of the Lamb (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, p. 324, [emphasis mine]).

As indicated by the pretense of his statement, Cannon believed any non-LDS Church is part of Babylon or, as the Book of Mormon puts it, “the church of the devil.”

Christians and Mormons may believe in Christ’s literal resurrection, >>>> but Christians do not believe that Jesus went to Americas after His resurrection, nor that His resurrection merely paves the way for men to be resurrected (earlier post on salvation); they do not hold that Christ’s birth was a result of God the Father having sexual relations with Mary; nor do Christians believe that Jesus is a created being who was the spirit-brother of Lucifer.

Christians have never worshipped a God who, as the offspring of another God, became a mortal man and eventually attained godhood. Thay have also never worshipped a being who resides near a planet called Kolob. <<<<

Peterson and Ricks write:

At least until recently, Mormons have thought of conservative Christians as, in many ways, their allies…. Most Latter-day Saints can only shake their heads, therefore, at the claim that Mormonism is not Christian (Offenders for a Word, p. 57)

Despite the arguments made by these writers, Gordon B. Hinkly, first counselor to LDS President Ezra Taft Benson, disagreed that the differences are minor. Speaking of the uniqueness of his church while classifying it as Christian, he wrote the following in an LDS Church tract:

They [Mormons] are generally classed as Protestants, since they are not Catholics. Actually they are no closer to Protestantism than they are to Catholicism. Neither historically nor on the basis of modern association, theology, or practice, can they be grouped with either…. Suffice it to say that its theology, it organization, and its practices are in many respects entirely unique among today’s Christian denominations (What of the Mormons?, p. 2)

Mormon leaders since Joseph Smith’s day have continually emphasized the differences, not the similarities, between Mormonism and Christianity. A Christian who is approached by a Mormon who says Mormonism is “just the same” as the historical Biblical Christianity needs to realize that this Mormon either does not know Mormonism or does not know the tenants of the Christian faith.

Baseball's Long Affair with Drug Use

Friday, December 14, 2007

Mitt Romney Denies Church Doctrine

Mitt Responds to Huckabee’s Apology:

Voters will reject attacks on his Mormon faith, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Wednesday in response to a question raised about his beliefs by rival Mike Huckabee.

"I think attacking someone's religion is really going too far. It's just not the American way and I think people will reject that," Romney told NBC's "Today Show" about Huckabee's asking whether Mormons believe Jesus and the devil are brothers.

"That's been something that's leveled at our church over many, many years,"…

~ Mitt Romney

So, is this a canard? Or is it official Mormon doctrine? At a debate going on elsewhere on the WWW, Bill McKeever brought up an article by a Momron that calls for those persons (Mormons) to be truthful in all cases:

In an article that has been posted on for quite some time (Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness), I mention an article written by BYU professor Robert J. Matthews for the October 1994 issue of Ensign. In that piece Dr. Matthews wrote that the ninth commandment is a “strong declaration against … gross understatements, fabrication, or the willful giving of any explanation not supported by the facts.” He went on to say, “Even sharing the truth can have the effect of lying when we tell only half-truths that do not give the full picture. We can also be guilty of bearing false witness and lying if we say nothing, particularly if we allow another to reach a wrong conclusion while we hold back information that would have led to a more accurate perception. In this case it is as though an actual lie were uttered” (pg.54).

A short while latter in the text Bill McKeever again asks this poignant question:

So Ralph and Dj, I take your responses to mean Mormons do believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. So the answer is simply, yes.

What was the answer… after lots of twists and turns, this finally came down the written turnpike:

…And Bill, the answer is Yes, they are brothers. I have no reservations about saying that on this site as most of you already know the answer and know about the other doctrine that goes with it.

So. The question remains… although I know the answer to it via Mormon sources, not anti-Mormon sources, for example:

"By definition exaltation includes the ability to procreate the family unit throughout eternity. This our Father in heaven has power to do. His marriage partner is our mother in heaven. We are their spirit children, born to them in the bonds of celestial marriage" (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, LDS Church manual, p.129).

Thursday, December 13, 2007

OUCH!! Hillary Got Owned!

I Love It!

Hot Air (props)

Recommended Reading (free videos to view at the bottom)

Stocking Stuffers

Since Mormonism is all the “rave” today, at least in the blogosphere, I will recommend a few books that will assist the researcher to better understand what Mormonism is all about. If one were to read these five books listed, you would have quite a grasp on Mormon history, theology, as well as a reasoned theological and philosophical response to it. Click on the books for the link.

Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (this book is a sequel to the historical survey above and deals more with what modern Mormonism teaches)

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis (Studies in American Religion Series) – Library Edition

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Free Videos!!

(Click on the images below to start watching the videos)

The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

DNA vs. the Book of Mormon

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Lifting the Veil of Polygamy

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

UPDATE: 12-16-07, in response to comment section:

Starting to Learn,

All you need to do is open up your “quad” and the Bible that is in that conglomeration of adding and taking away authority from it is what I accept.

This "Continuing Revelation" is key to Mormon theology. Scripture can be changed. For instance, in the 1835 edition of Doctrines and Covenants we find this in Section 101:4:

4. All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religous faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that all person who exercise control over their fellow.

Polygamy was practiced from 1832 to after 1890 while the 1835 D&C 101:4 (which was Scripture until 1876), originally condemned the practice of polygamy. The Book of Mormon likewise condemned it:

Mosiah 11:2

For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.

Jacob 1:15

And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

Jacob 2:24

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Jacob 3:5

Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

Now, this "Continuing Revelation" is one aspect (of quite a few) of what makes Mormonism a theological cult (not a harmful cult that interprets scripture that end up killing people, like Jehovah's Witnesses), but the mere fact that whomever is in control can change the Scriptures to suit there needs, and all the previous “editions” of “revelation” are now obsolete. For instance, from the 1833 edition to the 1835 edition of Doctrines and Covenants there were 65,000 changes. But I am only dealing with one aspect of those changes here, polygamy. IN later editions of Doctrines and Covenants we find this, and the previous section I quoted was removed:

Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:1

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

Section 132:37-39

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

Section 132:61

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

This weighs heavily on me in regards to a politician who is “wishy washy” already in what they typically promise and bring to fruition. Except in Mitt’s case, he has a theological premise to change, cover-up religious truths because he feels only those who have been sealed in the Temple are worthy to know the real meanings behind LDS theology, etc.

I am sure others reading here who were not aware that changes to “Holy Scripture” could be made so easily is somewhat eye raising, to say the least And the 150-year long history of half-truths to what Mormons believe should likewise concern those who take religious convictions mixed with political serious as well.

Cult break-offs of the Mormon Church happen because as the Main church changes their “revelations,” others stick to the belief being X-ed out or “white-washed.” Take the "Black Issue" and the changing of Mormon Scripture to cover up the fact that Mormonism taught racist ideology.

Mitt Romney's Faith -- More Reflection

A recent blog over at the Washington Times hones in on the issues surrounding Mitt Romney a bit more than most other papers dare to be. So here I will post a promised video as well as the original blog entitled “Jesus and Lucifer: Spirit brothers?”, by Julia Duin. First, the video for the curious, then the Washington Times blog:

Watch the audio levels…

I wasn't planning to deal with some of the more esoteric corners of Mormon doctrine today, but the blogs are humming about the Jesus-Lucifer connection. It's the same question Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is said to ask in an upcoming Dec. 16 New York Times magazine interview, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

Associated Press leaked part of the magazine story late Tuesday.

Mr. Huckabee, who is running neck-in-neck with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, knows there are places in Mormonism where Mr. Romney's campaign does not want to go.

Most of you may think Americans can't discuss theology, but a copy of the AP article posted on had 220 comments by mid-afternoon Wednesday, many of which dissected Mormon doctrine.

Breitbart had also posted a debate Mr. Romney had about his faith with a radio talk show host in Des Moines, Iowa; however, by mid-afternoon Wednesday, the link was not operating. Hmmmm.

"It's interesting we're having this teachable moment," Gary Cass, chairman of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission told me. "If Romney becomes president, you will get a knock on your door and a nice-looking missionary saying, "Would you like to hear about the faith of our president?"

Adding that he grew up among Mormons in Las Vegas, "Mormons have redefined all our terms but most Christians don't know that," he said. "And most people in the media are theologically illiterate."

He's got that last part right. This morning, I was in a meeting with two of apostles from the church's Quorum of Twelve. They were making the rounds of newspaper editorial boards this week to better explain their religion to media who don't get it.

They gave a group of us at the Times some impressive statistics of a 12.8-million-member religion with 53,000 roving missionaries in 178 countries. Since 1985, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has given out $705 million in humanitarian assistance.

But when I asked M. Russell Ballard and Quentin R. Cook about the spirit brother question, they dodged it.

All they would say is that Jesus was the son of God and Lucifer was a fallen angel.

Yes, but what about a pre-historic time before Lucifer fell?

So I began trolling about. First I looked at a document, dated Janury 2000, that the two men left me. Also posted on the front page of, it is called "The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles."

It says "(Jesus) was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament."

Then I learned that several LDS apostles and luminaries, including Spencer W. Kimball, president of the church from 1973 to 1985, had referred to God having two spirit sons known as Lucifer and Jehovah.

Here is another Mormon-related site that explains the "spirit brother" connection. Basically, there was an incident before the dawn of time when God knew he would have to send down a savior. Two of his spirit sons, Jesus and Lucifer, volunteered. This is explained in Abraham 3:27 and Moses 4, both chapters in the "Pearl of Great Price," one of the LDS scriptures. When God chose Jesus, Lucifer rebelled.

The rest, as they say, is pre-history.

I will now post my input on the issue:

Thank you sooo much! Not too many papers are dealing with this aspect of the discussion which we can only scratch the surface of here. Much Appreciated WT.

Being a conservative Evangelical, I am wrestling with this theology almost like the first time I encountered it nearly twenty years ago. After studying Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons for nearly that long, it was old-hat, so-to-speak. Now, however, it is washed in a newness that has infected even the counter-cult websites. Now Mormon eschatology is being rooted around for, since many believe these are the "end-times," trying to fit every President in some manner to the New World Order and other intricate beliefs of our depraved minds… this time is no different than the six letters of Reagan's name, the "secret society" Bush Sr. belonged to, the supposed executive orders granting Clinton -- via FEMA -- control over our lives, and little Bush… now thought to be Satan himself by some holding posters in anti-war "marches" (e.g., really, anti-Bush, anti-capitalism, pro-veganism marches). The possibility of a rational discussion about theology -- given the wildness in thought from the Left, and the almost cavalier belief about core-truths in regards to religious beliefs -- is not in the cards. The McLaughlin Group proved that.

All that being said, the question that ultimately needs answering is this: would I vote for Romney if the Republican nominee. That answer is always a resounding "yes."

So the deeper philosophical questions about the impossibility of an infinite regress of gods being born to other gods (See: The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis Beckwith & Stephen Parish) is an exercise in futility – politically speaking.

In regards to (as a footnote here) that interview of Romney via that radio show, I have isolated a portion of that "debate/interview" that will make the brow of the eschatological fans rise. In the portion I isolated, which I will repost at my site, Mitt Romney mentions a Mormon author, Cleon Skousen. While Mitt wasn't referring in his mentioning him all the authors' works, I would be curious as to which of the authors books Mitt has read. Cleon Skousen wrote a couple of classics in conspiratorial thought (which I use to swallow "whole clothe") which are entitled for the investigative mind:

The Naked Communist; and, The Naked Capitalist.

These are usually found in any John Birch book store right next to Tragedy and Hope, by Carol Quigley, and None Dare Call it Conspiracy, by Gary Allen. This conspiratorial view that is now working its way into the back streets of the Leftist mind first came from us Conservatives (unfortunately). So the fact that Joseph Smith was a Freemason and many of the Temple ordinances are from Masonic rituals will not help in keeping this discussion grounded in rational thinking.

OoHh! … the pains of having read 1,800 [+] books cover-to-cover are now hitting home in my mind!

Papa Giorgio


A quick synopsis from explaining the "Mormon Jesus:"

Now for a little Cleon himself... take note near the end he references the ideas of the "war-in-'hevaen'" that caused (according to LDS theology) people to be born with black skin:

MixMaster Mike

Beastie Boys Pageant Tour 2004

Scratch - All The Way Live

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

One of the Greatest Debates... Ever! (A Classic in Christian "Pre-Suppositional" Apologetics)

14-Parts... its long, but for the apologist, its worth it.
(It is a debate at University of California, Irvine.)
More audio like this can be found at this site: Greg Bahnsen

Mistruths Galore...

  • STRONG LANGUAGE WARNING in the comments section. As usual I have to put this warning up because a left leaning person has once again decided that strong language somehow makes a point more forcefully.

...I would say enjoy, but, only those who can quote Rise Against may like the video.

CAUTION, this video is full of “cards,” like, “for the children…” as well as misrepresentations about what the Constitution allows for, like Article II, Section 2, which was the most non-discussed item during the formation of the Constitution, so it was defined during the Civil War. And like it or not, this definition sticks. In other words, the President is Commander in Chief of the military; he has a Constitutional right to protect us from future events like 9/11. The Constitution, on the other hand, does not allow for private health-care for “the children.” (more about that at the end.) I can almost see Ron Paul and Chamberlin holding that piece of paper up and declaring, “this means peace in our time.”

Before watching the video… listen to this caller get the “smack down” by Medved. So when you hear numbers being thrown around… these same numbers were thrown around at Reagans feet constantly. No more Berlin wall, and hopefully, a change in Islamo-Fascism to a more moderate view. Reagan could have failed, Bush may… time will tell… this in no ways means that Reagan – if he failed – would have not been right in what he was trying to do, just like Bush – if he fails – was not right in what he did.

This video is full of mistruths, misconceptions, and conspiracy theories. I post it here because a reader mentioned it, but I doubt he will be able to pick a subject out of it and defend it. A few years back many would tell me that “Bush stole the election.” In fact, this is what a visual arts teacher told my son and his classmates in the classroom setting, even mentioning Jeb Bush and the disenfranchisement of black voters (the teacher is obviously a Michael Moore fan), So I wrote a letter to the teacher and the principle, and guess what, the teacher couldn’t back her position and neither could all the people who told me the same thing. Come on folks, use your heads!

What W. did was when a call comes into our country from another country from a number that is a possible terror link (like the numbers taken from the computer of the guy who planned 9/11), or visa-versa, when a number is called from this country to another country and either person is on a watch list, then those calls should and could be monitored.

The girl holding the sign about an illegal war has no clue as to the legality of resuming the war with Saddam. It wasn’t a pre-emptive war, it was resumptive. I debated a professor from Michigan U who died on this hill. A U.N. treaty/cease-fire was brokered between Iraq and the United States/and he allies which made mention that if Saddam didn’t disarm in a short amount of time, we could legally resume the war. The fact alone that our fighter pilots were fired upon almost daily in the “no-fly zone” was reason enough, legally, to resume the war, let alone the other reasons mentioned above already in a link.

No money for kids… Why would a Ron Paul guy show this video??? Ron Paul wants to shut down all social programs (yes, socialized health-care would be gone forever). Welfare is gone with Ron Paul, let alone some health bill that demands private insurance companies to insure kids. This is where my commentary has to stop. My fellow politico at work says this all-the-time. He cannot understand why Liberals and Democrats want Ron Paul, he is a strict Libertarian… every Dept., except maybe for five mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, would be on his list to shut down. This video complains about something that would not even come to Ron Paul’s desk if Ron Paul had his way!? If it did, he would veto it as well. Oh, so frustrating.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

A Clinton Affair

According to some rumors coming from the left, Miss Hillary is having an affair with a staffer. I will posit that Hillary has better taste than her hubby… if the rumor is true.

Paulites Cruising Districts


Dedication Station!

Paulites interviewed…

The problem is, are they going around telling people that the Blimp will save them from the evil Bilderbergers?

16-year Old Girl Strangled to Death

Another Death at the Hands of Islam

(Imported Article Little Green Footballs [props])

The 16-year old girl who was attacked and strangled by her own father in the Toronto suburb of Mississauga for refusing to wear the Muslim head scarf has died.

It’s almost unbelievable, but the ultra-left Toronto Star is actually trying to whitewash this story: Hijab can divide families.

The suggestion of violent disputes between a 16-year-old girl in Mississauga and her father over her desire to show her hair and live a “normal” lifestyle raises questions about tensions between parents and children in the Muslim community.

But members of the community – particularly young Muslim women – say the tension can exist both ways.

Ausma Khan, the editor-in-chief of Toronto-based Muslim Girl magazine, said research into the readership of her publication shows that the decision to wear the hijab – the traditional Muslim headscarf – is almost always a choice the girl makes on her own.

“We have also heard from other girls saying that they don’t know if they want to wear it and that they’re unsure and that there is community or family pressure to wear it,” she said, but stressed that type of response was in the minority.

Maryam Rana, 20, a student at the University of Toronto’s Mississauga campus, said she has been wearing the hijab since she was in Grade 3 and was not very receptive to it at first.

“I remember when I was little, I found it weird because I was the only one who wore it so sometimes I would `forget’ it at home,” she said laughing. “Not really `forget,’ but leave it at home.”

When she grew older she wore it of her own accord and recently chose to begin covering her face as well. She said that in her experience the tension more often exists the other way around – when girls who want to wear the hijab are discouraged by their families because they fear it will make them the targets of racism.

Murtha Slips and Tells the Truth

Founding Generation vs. Generation O

The Blimp-o-nator

Ron Paul Blimp

Hot Air (props)

It’s a bit drug out… but if you hang in there, the main conspiratorial message will come through.