Is Mitt Romney’s love for America a Mormon thing?

You folks DO know how the BoM was translated; right??

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."

---Joseph Knight's journal.

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.

(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),

"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,

as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,

and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:

"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"

reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881

in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)

In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,

Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12

June 15, 1879, pp. 190-91.)

Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:

"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"

("A New Witness for Christ in America,"

Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."

---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.

From Wiki

Religious Duty argument

The most important ruling of the case was over whether Reynolds could use a defense due to religious belief or duty. Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.

The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not fall under this. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.

Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former “lies solely between man and his God,” therefore “the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions.” The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and “to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion, but could legislate against action.
_____________________________________________

Mitt Romney, Dec, 2007, speaking @ the George Bush Presidential Library: “I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”

Those posts are about three screen pages of rainbow colors on my screen that I am not going to read.

I wish you would quit doing that to me, I’m not willing to wade through rainbows and pages, searching for whatever the pertinent point is that you wanted me to find buried in the mass of what look pages from a long, long, long course on Mormonism.

Very interesting article. Before I read it, I knew practically nothing about the Mormon faith, other than its historic relationship with the practice of polygamy. Though I admit that I do like to listen to the Mormon Tabernacle choir, they do the American patriotic classics in a very uplifting manner, and this article helped me to understand why. Mormons are taught to believe in the value of America, and that is a good thing. But it seems to me, that the brief course in Mormon fundamentals that this article gives, makes me believe that not very many Mormons, who are interested in being faithful to God, could vote for Romney. Romney is about the most godless creature that the GOP has ever considered nominating. Romney sounds like a heretic to his own religion. While the Mormon religion teaches that America is deserving of the blessings of Divine Providence, Romney has wedded himself to policy positions that contribute to the cutting off of Divine Providence to this nation. And that is the subject of the article I would like to share with all of you here, who are struggling with the decision whether or not to vote for Romney. A no vote for Romney is a sure way to keep from compromising your soul before God. That is for sure.

Divine Providence
is the Key to the
Saving of America

The government keeps getting bigger, our chains keep get getting heavier, and our nation continues to decline, under both Democrat and Republican elites. The reason for this is that the people have lost the capacity to grasp the principle of Divine Providence and how that principle plays a central role in determining whether America rises, or falls.

We need to use this election cycle to begin the process of resurrecting in the people a new-found appreciation for the principle of Divine Providence. This is our only hope.

We can begin this process, in this election cycle, by coming to terms with this great truth, by studying it, and coming to understand it deeply, that we set America back substantially by allowing Romney to cast a deep inky black shadow of godlessness upon the once bright landscape of the Republican Party.

Please see:

VOTING FOR ROMNEY
IS TO VOTE FOR THE
DEATH OF AMERICA

The Republican elite has trained us to think inside a box they have created, which they enforce through the darkest side of peer pressure, which is public character assasination. And this box is like a little cage, inside of which they have mounted a circular treadmill, it is commonly referred to as a rodent exercise wheel, in which the little squirrel is free to run all day long, on their behalf, huffing and puffing, bleeding great drops of steaming sweat, thinking that miles and miles are covered in the direction of victory, when in fact the little squirrel is going worse than nowhere. The elites are carrying the cage downhill the whole time. Open the cage door, and climb out, and begin to allow real and valid outside-the-box ideas to populate the mind. To see is to believe.

Now is the time for all good men, and women, to stand up and shout, with one unified voice, "No more pet rodent exercise wheels for us!" We will choose to serve the Lord God, and finally, put our country back into an upward trajectory towards the realization of that Shining City on the Hill spoken of so eloquently by the late President Ronald Reagan.

Again, please see:

VOTING FOR ROMNEY
IS TO VOTE FOR THE
DEATH OF AMERICA

“I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”

Those posts are about three screen pages of rainbow colors on my screen that I am not going to read.

What?

I go thru all the trouble to uncover facts about MORMONism, find the most pertainant things and accent them, make them large enough so that older eyes can read them; and then you say this?

HERE!

Other than TMI; you've no excuse left.

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."

---Joseph Knight's journal.

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.

(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),

"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,

as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,

and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:

"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"

reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881

in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)

In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,

Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12

June 15, 1879, pp. 190-91.)

Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:

"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"

("A New Witness for Christ in America,"

Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."

---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.

Mormons do view the land mass that constitutes America as a Promised Land for them.

Other than their own religious system, I’m not sure what governmental system on this land would best fit them.

Mormons are Mormons, and have much in common, but are also individuals.

This is true when applied to people of other religious world views, as well. Stereotyping doesn’t necessarily get you there, if you’re trying to understand that one person.

When I look at Romney, it’s through the prism of Obama and the Statist thugs who hate America as founded and want to run it for themselves and ruin it for traditional Americans. I see someone who apparently will be the major opposition to Obama and minions.

Period.

Apart from the Obama prism, I don’t like what I see in Romney. That’s putting it mildly. But I flat out FEAR what I see in Obama, and I am deeply ANGRY at him and his. So that’s how I view Romney.

Romney the politician, apart from his position as major opponent to Obama, wouldn’t get the time of day from me.

As for voting, I’ve come down to this being a vote of conscience for every individual.

Where do you live? Is your state a toss-up? Or is it a given FOR or AGAINST Obama. And can you in good conscience pull the Romney lever in order to stop Obama, or in good conscience can you not?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Does the number of your post count as 2/3 of THE number ???

BUMP!

No, but it DOES equal INT(#_Of_Beast/10)

I don’t read but a hand full of your posts, the short ones, I don’t what that one was supposed to be either.

You don’t need to make every post of yours a huge, impersonal, cut and paste, history dump, I’m on your side and I just scroll right past them because they are rarely more than just massive spam rather than something that you personally wrote to the poster.

Even the post I am answering is one of those, and it is supposed to be a response to me already pleading with you to quit doing it to me.

By the way, people can wear glasses at the computer, or adjust their own text size, I doubt that people are spending the day looking at blurry threads that they can’t read, while hoping that they may come across one of yours, where you put the type “large enough so that older eyes can read them”.

I noticed you never posted during the 2007/2008 election cycle, we covered all this years ago, especially the Reagan bashing part of the Romney devotees comedy routine.

OK so you can go back to my posting history for 4-5 years (I have no problem with that, of course), but you can't by way of any amount of research seem to add substance to those 1993 "switch" allegations. Fair enough.

As you should know, 2007/2008 was also at a time when one was not as free to discuss such things around here. That said, Romney wasn't my first choice in that election cycle either, but you will also recall that many were banned from FR who had Romney and Giuliani (also not my first choice, and he faded prior to FL anyway) as their first choices.

We were stuck with McCain in 2008, but that said, we did get Sarah Palin. Now Sarah Palin would never have received the visibility that she ultimately did and has enjoyed since then -- all the way to NOT running in this cycle. Go figure. Apparently she did “figure” and calculated that there was no value in doing so. She's a politician like any one else and I have proposed a place for her in a Romney Administration where her skills sets may be used effectively.

As an extension of the Romney Administration, I would be employing her to do a job I think needs to be done to move conservatism forward. Unlike many around here, however, I have no conservative’s “crush,” just an interest to get a job done that corresponds with conservatism. That's it. And for conservatives not beguiled by a sense of hero worship, that's all that should be required for them, as well

Politicians are politicians. Here's me standing with a politician I got to meet back in 1969. That's me on the far left. You might even recognize this politician: Strom Thurmond. This was at a gathering of conservative religious Christians at the Christian Admiral hotel in Cape May, NJ. How do you like that big ol' Bible he's holding?

Now, unknown to anyone at this time and since ~ 1947 until the day he died, Strom was paying child support to a lady who happens to be “black” for what was a youthful indiscretion of his that bore fruit – an illigimate, born-out-of-wedlock child. Yes, a good ol' Southern Boy he was, wasn't he?

Now, this happened at the time he was a rising political star (did I happen to mention a (D) star? Oh yeah, by the time I met him he was a (R ), but again we’ve seen and welcomed similar conversions with Reagan, Perry, etc.). If he wanted to be honest, and own up to his fatherhood, to his child, and married the mother of his child in the deep segregationist South of the time, can we all agree that his political career would have been finished?

I'd hate to learn someday that Thurmond ever used campaign funds to pay off the mother, or the child, or else he'd be little different from that scoundrel, John Edwards, on trial today. I am hoping beyond hope he kept those accounts separate, but back in the 50's and 60's before all the campaign finance reform went in, who really knows?

OK, all that said, Thurmond, that outward paragon of virtue (and on this topic, much like Gingrich) lived what most of us would consider to be a HUGE lie in his personal life. He musta had enough political dirt on enough people to be able to keep that affair quiet until after his death and to allow his 50+ year political career to flourish in spite of the payments to his consort to keep her faithfully "quiet." He took care of her for over 50 years, that's for sure.

At the time I met him he’d already been living that lie for > 20 years! What’s even funnier in retrospect is that at the time he was having sex with her he was a “Dixiecrat” preaching the popular “segregation” meme to his constituents at the time.

Hypocritcal? You bet. Wrong? Absolutely. He’d later admit he was wrong to have been a (D) and all it stood for. He never would admit to the hypocrisy – that would have blown his political cover. As a conservative myself, who sees only a human race regardless of skin hue, I am happy that he got over all that by the time he became an (R ).

Funnier still, he regularly visited Bob Jones University and addressed chapel services to the entirety of the student body there from time to time. What do you think those segregationist racists, BJ Jr, BJ III, and the entire Administration who forbade a Vietnamese-heritage friend of mine from dating his white girlfriend, and forbade “blacks” and “whites” from dating at all (once they were finally forced to let “blacks” in at all) would have done if they knew about the virtuous Senator’s ½ black love child?

As disappointed as we all were to hear of this indiscretion and cover up, the only question any of us should have is this: did Strom Thurmand advance the cause of conservatism all those years in the Senate, or not? I think most on this board would say that he did advance the cause. If so, he did what we hired him to do. Tennessee Nana doesn’t seem to get this but that doesn’t mean we are endorsers of or parties in any way to what was Thurmond’s intentional decades-long and almost life-long deception(s). He voiced our platform and voted accordingly. He did what he was told. I’m happy.

FR lost a lot of good, long standing, conservatively minded posters in that 2007/2008 era. Realizing this I think FR has rethought that this time around, because we need a united front this time around. The stakes are far higher in this election.

Having come to the realization that we have been dealt the cards we have this election cycle, and where most of us did not get our first choice in the primaries, at the peril of Obama's forces dividing and conquering, freedom to speak freely has been granted by the owner of the site as of last week.

We don't have to like the politicians who represent us. In fact I advise against making friends of any one of them lest anyone be taken into their confidence. It should be simply the contractual "you perform, or you're out." We use them for what they are good for and what we believe to be in our collective best interest to advance conservatism. We expect that those who espouse our values and run on our values believe that those values reflect theirs also. But they are politicians who should be regularly subjected to a "Trust, but Verify" metric.

Too many are inclined to be almost worshipful of some conservative politicians, and almost to the point as the liberals were and are worshipful of their liberal "Messiah Obama."

Politicians are humans themselves and as corruptible by the system of power as any. Some have been tempted and acted out sexual sins and in most cases tried to hide them from their adoring public (e.g., Thurmond, Gingrich). Some attest to a faith walk "rudder" of Judeo-Christian based morality to keep them aligned personally and I welcome that (e.g., Bachmann, Palin).

Romney affirms marriage between one man and one woman, and he wants to rip the guts out of Planned Parenthood. I’m OK with that. He has affirmed his Mormon faith-walk. It is not mine. I believe he is sorely in error scripturally speaking. I am not electing a pastor. That said, his Mormonism, unlike Obama’s Islamo-cryptoMarxism, is 100% pro-America and affirms core conservative beliefs that are held by practicing Mormons and practicing evangelical Christians alike.

We have to face reality and use the imperfect tools we've been given to move conservatism into the arena using those elected to local and national offices and ride them constantly so we are the squeaky wheels getting the grease.

Not many conservatives have been quite so diligent on this aspect of conservative maintenance, but the "tools" we elect will have to be maintained for them to continue to be useful to promoting the conservative cause.

Conservatives are well advised not to make the same mistake as did our opposition. Put a check on the idealism when it comes to politicians. Expect them to disappoint. Stand on top of them. In the end they will tend to disappoint you less.

FReegards!

Let me be very clear again: I am an evangelical Christian and staunch conservative from way back. This is not in any way an endorsement in any way of Mormonism as religion. Where conservatism and American supremacy is the issue we are allied with their conservative positions, though most of us are not aligned with them on religious terms. I knew that 40 years ago.

What I am saying is that if Mitt Romney is given the freedom to tack toward what is his core, and not placed in the position of doing only what he can with a 90% (D) legislature like he had as Governor of Massachusetts, I think we might all be surprised to see how much of a core conservatism might actually reside there.

Indeed. I wouldn't rule that out of the realm of possibility. Evidently, based on his public statements today on Fox News, neither does Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. He said that although there are profound, irreconcilable theological differences as between Evangelicals and Mormons, they share core values that are inherently politically conservative: Liberty, devotion to the Constitution, preeminence in international relations and national defense, commitment to the capitalist system, family and life values.

While Romney was not my "pick" as the GOP presidential candidate, it looks like he's on-track to win the nomination. Of course, this would be a horrific disaster for our nation — IF the caricature of the man I've been reading around here is at all a truthful description of the man. My problem is the caricature is so overblown and distorted that I do not recognize it as any kind of accurate picture of Mitt Romney in terms of who he is as a public (or private) man.

Of course, all I want to do is to remove the on-going criminal conspiracy from the White House. I figure the normal way to do that is at the ballot box. But it appears that some folks around here want to do it the hard way: To effectively concede the election to Obama (by giving support to a third-party candidate without a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected president), and then — assuming that we can elect a sufficient number of Tea Party-type conservatives to the House and to retake the Senate — try to (1) Impeach him, and (2) remove him from office. Part (1) looks relatively easy — assuming a GOP majority in the House. But (2) would require an enormous amount of political courage in the Senate — for the President would instantly produce the Race Card....

In this way, we will let the current dysfunctional GOP establishment know that we political conservatives are sick and tired of being taken for granted by a Party that, if anything, is embarrassed by us; that we're "mad as Hell and just not gonna take it anymore."

Well, it's a plan.... Can it work? I have no idea.

In an earlier post, I made a comment about "my fellow twits" that caused much pain among some of my correspondents. I had "stooped so very low," you see. But please note the deliberately considered language I used: I included myself in the group of twits ("my fellow...."). This is a simple acknowledgement that, as far as I am concerned at least, I have never seen a more unsettled state of affairs political in this nation in my lifetime, nor have felt so helpless about "fixing it." I have never seen a time where abject, calculated lies are accepted by the populace without demur, when the very language is being traduced (e.g., the very definition of "marriage" must be changed for "social justice" reasons, etc.), when class warfare is being assiduously cultivated by the Swindler in Chief, etc., etc. There is so much deliberately propagated chaos, some days it's hard to tell what's going on.... I'm suffocating in the Kultursmog....

And I blame Obama for all of this. Which is why I believe it is so very urgent to give him "the bum's rush" as soon as possible. I honestly do not believe that the America we know and love can survive four more years of this man.

Thus I consider myself a hapless "twit" with respect to present matters. I can think of no precedent that gives any guiding principle, yet I venture to give an opinion anyway. But I freely apologize to any person who was offended by my remark. Perhaps they really are wiser than I am....

In an earlier post, P-Marlowe flatly said that Romney does not have a prayer of winning in Massachusetts (or in California) on November 6th. I'm sure he's right about California. But I'm not so sure about Massachusetts.

Fenway Park enjoyed its 100th anniversary, coinciding with Opening Day, a few weeks back. So President Obama recorded a video address congratulating Red Sox fans on this milestone, which was put up on the Jumbotron for all to enjoy.

I was amazed at what happened next: the President was roundly, loudly BOOED by the fans. This happened in BOSTON of all places. I would never have expected it — but there it was. Evidently Red Sox fans are a different breed of cat than the elites that populate Cambridge, whose standard-bearer this year (after Obama) is the millionaire progressive "squaw," Elizabeth Warren.... I sure do hope the fans turn out to vote on election day.

I don't know what the outcome will be. Whatever it is, it seems there isn't much that I can do about it.

And so at this point, I am simply going to leave it all up to God.

All is in His Hands anyway.

May he continue to bless the United States of America — and my fellow correspondents. (I shall now retire the "twit" word....)

Thank you so very much, Agamemnon, for your insightful and highly informative essay/post!

P.S.:
BTW, an article in the May 2012 edition of the Smithsonian magazine corroborates the Romney family's background in the very place you have connected Skousen to: the 100+ year-old Mormon colony, Colonia Juarez, in Mexico. In the same edition, there was an eye-opening piece on Obama's background in Kenya....)

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights and reasoning, dear brother in Christ!

And then the rules all changed one day,
illegal it became;
To bring the Lamb of God to school,
Or even speak His Name.

How chilling, dearest sister in Christ! The Progressive Left (be it Marxist, Communist, or anarchist) has "re-educated" a couple of generations of school children by now into rejecting any idea of ultimate universal Truth, as grounded in the Logos of God....

Absent an anchor in Truth, everything becomes simply a matter of opinion, and one man's opinion is just as good as any other man's — unless the opinion is offered by a progressive elitist who deems the people must be governed for their own good. THAT opinion must be always be deferred to.

Our culture is increasingly irrational, even progressively insane, as a consequence.... Our Free Republic cannot be sustained on this basis.

What will the people do, next November?

That will tell me a lot about what we as a people have become, and whether we can continue to maintain a republican system of individual liberty under just and equal laws....

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister, for posting this chilling, yet ever-so-truthful version of "Mary Had a Little Lamb." And also for the SCOTUS precedents that set this train in motion....

bttt - great post!

That was something else we noticed from the romneybots in 2007, since they couldn’t defend Romney’s left wing life and record as a Governor, they would write long, meandering, personal essays, as though they would mesmerize people into joining Romney’s devotees.

So when Mitt says Marriage has been ‘one man and one woman for thousands of years’ he does so as a person whose faith rewrote the cultural norms of marriage as recently as 21 years before Reagan was born. How can this be?

Rather than parse the twit sentence, I think you should just apologize.

You have been our FRiend for years, betty. Remember that.

We have a choice between Romney and Obama, such as it is. I think Clintonian adage “It’s the economy, stupid” will be Obama’s undoing.