Mitt The Hypocrite

The news has been even more unwatchable/unreadable than normal since Charlottesville on Saturday. What is even worse than the media, who I expect to be completely biased and spinning the "news" for the advantage of the political Left, are the milquetoast "conservatives" that are misrepresenting President Trump and virtue signaling for all they are worth, and completely in vain. One of the most egregious, hypocritical examples comes from the Twitter account of former Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney who wrote:

No, not the same. One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry. Morally different universes.

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) August 16, 2017

Now Romney is entitled to his opinion but it is worth pointing out that Mitt Romney is a Mormon and a graduate of Brigham Young University. As a Mormon, Romney is required to "affirm" that Brigham Young was a prophet of God in the same way that Isaiah was a prophet. What did this prophet have to say about blacks, specifically about miscegenation?

For Marriage to an African. Brigham Young said: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).

This is in the Journal of Discourses and is stated by a "prophet" who claims it to be the law of God, the mixing of the races carries the penalty of death. If someone is divinely chosen to be a prophet of God and says that something is the law of God, a "Thus sayeth the Lord" if ever there was one, the question becomes one of two options. Was Brigham Young wrong, in which case he can hardly be called a prophet, or was Brigham Young right and mormonism ought to enforce this law of blood atonement for miscegenation? The mormon "church" taught until 1978 that blacks were accursed and barred from the "restored priesthood", right up to the point where God magically changed his mind and the mormon church published Official Declaration 2 granting blacks the "priesthood". For the record, Official Declaration 1 records God again conveniently changing His mind and revoking polygamy. So much for a new and everlasting covenant that lasted for less than 50 years. Many religions, including some denominations of Christianity, had racist views but none were so adamant about them as mormonism.

In Salt Lake City stands a statue memorializing a famous racist...

Brigham Young Monument, Salt Lake City, UT

Is Mitt going to call for the statue of Brigham Young in Salt Lake City to be torn down? Would he applaud if Alt-Left antifa took it upon themselves to rip it down and dance on it?

The mormon "church" still sells and uses the teachings of Brigham Young as an official resource.

The flagship university of mormonism, Brigham Young University, still bears his name.

Mormonism was racist to the core long before the KKK was even dreamed of.

Mitt should heed the advice of Jesus for a change and examine the plank in the collective eye of his own "church" before he goes spouting off about the mote in the eyes of someone else.

If Donald Disavows David Duke Will Mitt Disavow Brigham Young?

The latest desperate attempt by the Republican party in cahoots with the mainstream media to derail Donald Trump's inexplicably popular Presidential campaign has to do with the (apparently unsolicited) endorsement of former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke of Trump. Former disastrous Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney went to Twitter to denounce Trump

A disqualifying & disgusting response by @realDonaldTrump to the KKK. His coddling of repugnant bigotry is not in the character of America.

— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) February 29, 2016

OK, so Trump is on the hook for not denouncing David Duke's endorsement. But what about Mitt Romney? Will he denounce the words of a man that he is required to affirm was a "prophet, seer and revelator" .who said this about blacks:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).

That sounds like something David Duke would applaud. Now granted Young is long dead and is not running for President but Romney's religion requires that he recognize Brigham Young as a prophet, a direct mouthpiece for God of the "restoration". Some may try to brush the quote above and the numerous other examples of vile racism by the mormon leadership as a product of the times that they lived and that the Journal of Discourses is not "official" mormom scripture but when a man who proclaims himself the single unique prophet of God on earth at that time declares that whites who mix their seed with blacks are under penalty of death, not because it was taboo time but rather because it was the law of God and furthermore according to God's prophet would always be so. So really I am not at all interested in faux outrage from a man who is part of a religion that did and must still to be consistent affirm that blacks are cursed as the "seed of Cain" and that interracial marriage as declared by the prophet of God must be punished by death "on the spot". This is not a defense of Trump or a comment on the entire situation, although there are some serious questions to be asked here, but simply a challenge for consistency on the part of a man who lost one Presidential race and is waiting in the wings as a last minute savior of the Republican party. 

So Mitt I will await your disavowal of Brigham Young's racist prophetic declaration of "God's law". Until that time keep your phony indignation to yourself.

The Conclusive Case For An Anabaptist View Of Government In Less Than Two Minutes

Behold Mike Huckabee:


That makes my brain ache. The only thing worse than the nonsense Huckabee is saying is the knowing, pious hums of affirmation coming from the host (no idea who that guy and his wife are). I am declaring an edict that any Christian who does the eyes closed, head nodding, "mmmhhhmmm" when someone else is talking is subject to immediate excommunication.

When we make the church about politics and politics about the church we should expect to receive mockery. Not the sort of mockery we expect because of the foolishness of the cross (1 Cor 1:18) but rather the sort of well-deserved mockery that this kind of garbage draws. I have no reason to doubt that Mike Huckabee is a brother in Christ. I wish another brother would take him aside and tell him that this sort of stuff is doing nothing to advance the cause of Christ.

As an aside, is this what the Republican party is going into 2016 with? Mike Huckabee. Mitt "Third Time Is the Charm!" "The Human Weather-vane" Romney. Jeb "Also Third Time's The Charm" Bush Version 3.0. Sarah Palin. If that is the plan, to pick from whichever candidate emerges from the GOP clown car as the anointed one to slay the Hillary dragon, they can do so without my support and without my vote (which they aren't getting regardless nor is anyone else). America is 17 trillion in debt and heading full speed over a fiscal cliff that will make pre-World War II Germany look like a model of fiscal discipline and people are serious about Mike Huckabee? I guess he would be a better President than the current President but that is true of just about anyone you picked up off the streets.

So Romney Is "Pro-Life"?

This video just came out from the Romney campaign....



Note that this is on the Mitt Romney youtube channel, a channel his webpage links to.

Now on his campaign page, in the generic "values" section, Romney says, emphasis added:

Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.

Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Mitt Romney is "pro-life" and believes that "life" begins at conception but his campaign is putting out a video that touts his support for abortion when the circumstances are right. When a child is conceived as a result of rape, incest or can be a danger to the life of the mother, that life that began at conception is expendable.

Let's be clear. If life begins at conception and all human life is precious, then it doesn't matter what the circumstance are behind that life coming into being. Perhaps he is sincere but muddled on this position but more likely Romney is simply pandering here. The "rape, incest, life of the mother" clause is cover for conservative politicians but make no sense. There are tragically lots of people walking around that were conceived as the result of rape or incest and many more that were born in spite of the danger to their mother (Tim Tebow anyone?). They are not less worthy of life than people conceived by loving married upper class parents who were seeking to conceive a child.

Someone says on the one hand that he is pro-life and opposes abortion but then turns around and says that some human beings, defenseless children who committed no crime, can be punished for the acts of another. That is not being pro-life. That is being a politician. I don't expect any more than that from him but those who tell us we are duty bound to vote for Romney because he is "pro-life" need to rethink what that term means.

Mitt and Billy

I have been mulling over what, if anything, to say about the kerfuffle over Billy Graham's meeting with Mitt Romney, his subsequent endorsement of Romney and the highly controversial removal of mormonism from the list of cults on the webpage of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Many of my fellow believers who are former mormons or on the front lines of mormon evangelism were rightly outraged by this and then today I read something that drove me to write this post.

Apparently the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association took out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal, using funds donated for this stated purpose "building the kingdom of God and bringing people into relationship with Jesus Christ" to buy an ad to advocate for someone who is diametrically opposed to that mission in every possible way. In part the ad reads:

"As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election may be my last," Graham says in the ad. "I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman."


How exactly can we take seriously a statement like that? A man who belongs to and has been a leader in a religious cult that denies every crucial doctrine in the Bible and perverts the Gospel cannot in any sense of the word be said to "base their decisions on biblical principles". The Bible says nothing about gay marriage. The Bible says nothing about abortion being wrong but preemptive war being OK. The Bible does say an awful lot about being wary of wolves seeking to devour the sheep, wolves who externally look like sheep but are only interested in destroying God's sheep.

I don't pretend to know Billy Graham's motivation here nor do I discount his decades of service to the Kingdom preaching the Gospel night after night to more people than I have talked to in my entire life about any topic. I do know this much. This action is yet another example of the extent to which American Christians are willing to set aside any sense of discernment to win a political victory. I also know that Christians who know nothing about mormonism look to Billy Graham as a trusted leader in the church and that leadership is a responsibility that transcends political pragmatism.

Watchbloggers like the Pyromaniacs would jump all over Billy Graham for this under normal circumstances but instead we are treated to a six part series about why they are voting for Mitt Romney. If Graham had met with Thomas Monson and then removed mormonism from the BGEA webpage as a cult, you can be sure that the boys would have something caustic and ugly to say. But not when it comes to defeating Barack Obama! These same fellows blew a gasket about other Christians signing the Manhattan Declaration which calls for unity among Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians in working toward ending abortion. One thing all three of those groups share is a belief in orthodox trinitarian doctrine and that is something that Mitt Romney explicitly denies. Just don't point that out or you will get an earful of self-righteous bleating.

Listen to me carefully:

Defeating Barack Obama in this election is not the highest priority of the church.

Did you catch that? In fact it isn't even in the ten top. Dare I say not anywhere on our priority list at all as the church.

The apostle John spoke to this very issue in his second epistle:

A lovely visit with a wolf

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (2 John 1:7-11)

I wonder what John would have to say about the most recognizable figure in the church warmly greeting and endorsing someone that John called "the deceiver and the antichrist" because this election is so important to the church.

If you want to vote for Romney in the certain to be dashed hope that he will do great things like ending abortion, that is fine. Not my choice, not by a long shot. Obama is a horrible President and Romney probably would be a less horrible President and I don't feel obligated to vote for one over the other. Just don't blur the bright line between the Biblical Gospel and the perversion of mormonism to make evangelicals feel better about casting their vote for him. America will some day be gone and no one will care who won the 2012 election but those who spend an eternity in hell thanks to the lies of mormonism most certainly will care.

Pastor Romney

I studiously avoided the Presidential debate last night. I am not very interested in listening to two guys lie to me. Plus we were at the pregnancy resource center ministering which is a far more valuable;e use of my time. Anyway we got home and my wife turned on the TV and since all we get is broadcast TV of course the very end of the debate was on. I was in the other room but I could hear them. Romney said something that made my ears perk up. This is from the CNN transcript of the second debate (Emphasis added)

My - my passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God. And I believe we're all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I - I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I've sat across the table from people who were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times.

If I call myself Pastor maybe they will forget I am a mormon?

THAT got my attention. Mitt Romney, in case you missed it, is a mormon. He served in the Stake Presidency in Massachusetts and also as a "bishop" in his ward. This is important to note. As a mormon I never once heard a single reference to any mormon leader as "pastor". In fact pastor was more often a pejorative term. I would never have called the bishop of any ward we were in "pastor" nor would we have called the stake president by that title.

So why would Mitt Romney call himself a "pastor" when he never would have referred to himself as a "pastor" when he was in leadership and none of the people he led would have called him that either? Maybe saying "I served as a bishop and stake president" sounds too weird and alien to evangelical voters ears? Perhaps using those terms would remind evangelical voters that he is part of a religion that historically called orthodox Christianity heretical and an abomination in God's eyes?

Make no mistake. Mitt Romney is quite literally trying to become a wolf among the sheep and his job is made easier because the sheep have no idea what wolves look like. So many Christians think that Mitt Romney "shares our values" because he claims to be pro-life (at least when it comes to abortion). As a Christian, I can think of very few values that I would think Mitt Romney has in common with me because my values are formed by my faith in Christ, a faith that Mitt Romney does not share and in fact actively rejects. He talks about God but the "god" he worships is one of many in a polytheistic pantheon and is not the God we read of in the Bible. He says that we are all "children of the same God" but he means that literally in the sense of being offspring from a procreative act.

I am not saying you can't or shouldn't vote for Mitt Romney. I will not be but not because he is a mormon. I think and President Obama are two peas in the pod and neither of them would know the truth if it was tattooed on their foreheads. What I am saying is that because of the perverse marriage between politics and what we understand as the church many Christians are getting the impression that we share more in common with Mitt Romney, a pagan blasphemer, because he is "conservative" than we do with a "liberal" follower of Christ.

If you vote, and you are under no religious obligation to do so no matter what some blowhards say, do so based on your conscience and with your eyes wide open. Mitt Romney is not "one of us" and he does not share "our values" and neither does President Obama. Just watch how Romney speaks and pay attention to the words he uses because it is clear to me that he is trying to deceive the elect by making himself out to be something he is not.

An Evangelical-less Election, What Will We Do?!

American evangelicals, a group I find less and less in common with each day, find themselves in a pickle. 

Did I mention that your church is the Whore of Babylon?

With the choice of Rep. Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate Evangelicals find themselves in an interesting situation. Choosing between a ticket featuring a Roman Catholic (Ryan) and a proud member of a cult (Romney) versus a ticket of another Roman Catholic (Biden) and someone who was a long time member of a liberal black liberation theology "church" (Obama). What is not found anywhere on stage is anyone who would hold to anything resembling Evangelicalism at all. In contrast to the years when tickets featured Baptists like Clinton, Gore and Carter, Episcopalians like George H.W. Bush and Methodists George W. Bush and Dick Cheney this year gives Evangelicals no one of a comparable faith tradition.Interesting factoid, Richard Nixon was a Quaker. Huh.

I think it puts many Evangelicals in a predicament. There is not a guy running that they would share a church pew with on Sunday. With no one running that many of us would consider "going to church with", who is "our guy"?

Maybe this is a good thing. Maybe we can see this election for what it is, a secular fight over secular issues. Important issues perhaps but not issues that are Gospel related. Sure one ticket is far more pro-life when it comes to abortion but that same ticket is far more pro-war as well (although the current administration seems to have found the power of the commander in chief to it's liking). This election cannot be framed like the Bush v. Gore or Bush v. Kerry elections of siding with God's guy. That is a good thing.

Anyone who knows me knows that I consider political issues to be important. I find that many policies that purport to "help the poor" and save the middle-class are in fact a means to control people and trap generations of families in permanent poverty. I also see many of the "security" related issues to be little more than a pseudo-conservative means of spending money and keeping power while waving the flag of patriotism and invoking a variety of bogeymen to frighten voters into unlimited military spending that eventually goes to preemptive wars, hardly a "Christian" position.

All of that aside, I think we are entering a period of time when a candidate being religious is going to mean less and less to an increasing proportion of the voting population. I am hopeful that this will help sever the ties between "the church" and Caesar. Time will tell but I know that we are in the midst of a unique political race that is going to change the way we view politics. I am hopeful that the change will be for the best.

Inviting Wolves Into The Flock

Liberty University, one of the largest "Christian universities" in the world, announced it is hosting mormon Mitt Romney as the commencement speaker in May.

Now the GOP nominee and potential future President of the United States certainly is a great speaker to have but what message does this send? The final speaker these kids will hear before being sent out into the world is someone who denies Christ and is part of a religious movement that intentionally and vigorously targets Christians with a false gospel.

What do you think, is this appropriate? Would Liberty invite a devout Muslim to speak or an atheist? If not, why a mormon?


But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed unless of course you agree with his politics and he will advance your agenda if elected. (Gal 1:8-9, Culture Warrior Standard Version)

Who are the real “religious bigots”?

The whole blow-up over Robert Jeffress calling mormonism a cult has been driven by the media to paint evangelicals as intolerant religious bigots. See, those evangelical Republican voters are bigots! You should stay clear of them!

Here is the awful truth the media doesn’t want you to know. There are a lot of people who would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he/she was a mormon. They just aren’t conservative evangelical voters. Two news stories today show us where the real religious bigotry is found. The first article is in the Wall Street Journal, The Cult of Anti-Mormonism…

Partly this has to do with white evangelicals, who are an important bloc in the Republican coalition. Thus many stories on the issue of Mr. Romney's Mormonism invoke a striking May survey from the Pew Research Center. According to this survey, 34% of white evangelicals report themselves "less likely" to vote for a Mormon for president.

That's fair enough as far as it goes. The same Pew survey, however, shows something much less reported. This is that, overall, more Democrats than Republicans are hostile to a Mormon candidacy (31% to 23%). More interesting still is Pew's finding that when it comes to this particular animus, "liberal Democrats stand out, with 41% saying they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate."

As disappointing as these attitudes might be, far more alarming for Mormons are the attacks on Mormon property and Mormon livelihoods just three years ago that registered barely a peep among the same media now so obsessed with Mr. Jeffress. These attacks happened during the 2008 campaign in California over Proposition 8, a state referendum to ban same-sex marriage. When opponents of the measure found that Mormons had contributed heavily to its passage, ugly attacks followed.

Well that is not exactly how this story is being spun. Turns out there is plenty of religious bigotry from the supposedly open minded liberals in America. There has been an awful lot of media attention about the use of the word “cult” by a Rick Perry supporter to describe Mitt Romney’s mormonism but precious little attention to the attacks on mormons following the Prop 8 vote.

The other story came from across the pond from my friend Christopher Dryden who sent me an article from The Telegraph, The new, ugly debate about Mitt Romney's Mormon faith will only push him closer to the nomination. Here is the same information…

True, there is a small but significant minority who say they would never vote for a Mormon. According to Gallup, it’s around 22 percent of the population. But opposition to Mormonism doesn’t come from conservative Evangelicals or Catholics. On the contrary, Gallup’s polls show that it’s a liberal thing. Only 7 percent of Baptists and Catholics wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, compared with 32 percent of gays and 49 percent of atheists. Amusingly, the figure is also much, much higher among Mormons, at 22 percent. That’s right, 22 percent of Mormons would never vote for a Mormon. Perhaps they know something we don’t.

So yeah, religious bigotry is alive and well in America. You just are more likely to find it on the left rather than the right. That doesn’t play well for the media so you are unlikely to hear that from them but the truth is easy to manipulate when you conveniently leave out pertinent facts.

Facts can be awfully inconvenient....

Romney Drops Out

In a somewhat surprising move, at least this quickly, Mitt Romney has dropped out of the race to be the Republican nominee. It was a pretty classy exit statement:

Mitt Romney suspended his presidential campaign Thursday, telling a stunned conservative group that continuing his uphill battle against John McCain would hurt the Republican Party and make it more likely that the Democratic candidate would win the general election in November.

“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention … I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I’d be making make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win,” Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference. “Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”

As early as yesterday, the Romney campaign was drafting a road map to winning the nomination, despite trailing McCain badly in the race for delegates. But according to a campaign spokesman, Romney decided to drop out as he was writing the CPAC speech late Wednesday.

“This isn’t an easy decision. I hate to lose,” Romney said Thursday, as many in the crowd booed the decision. “If this were only about me, I’d go on, but it’s never been only about me. I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America in this time of war, I feel I have to now stand aside, for our party and for our country.”

I assume Huckabee will follow shortly, and the party can begin to rally around McCain. Time for the Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter cabal to swallow their pride, keep McCain honest from a conservative standpoint but quit bellyaching and threatening to support Hillary or stay home. Romney was very gracious in defeat and bowing out, his supporters should take their cue from his actions and support the nominee. Not everyone is being gracious about it though:

Evangelical leader Pat Robertson told FOX News Radio Thursday morning that he and other evangelicals would not support McCain, citing his temper.

Robertson referenced a Wall Street Journal article describing him as a “capped live volcano,” adding: “You never know when he’s going to explode … If you’ve got a guy who’s the commander in chief with his hand on the red button, I just don’t know, I wouldn’t like to be in WWIII, and I just have a feeling he wants to show how macho he is and we might just get ourselves in something we don’t want.”

Uh, someone who called for the assassination of the leader of a foreign nation and has prophesied untold destruction on America is being critical of someone else for being intemperate and unstable? McCain may be a hothead, but he served this nation in war and spent years being tortured by the North Vietnamese. He knows far better than the vast majority of Americans, including Pat Robertson, what war is really like.

I hate to break it to you Pat, but you ceased to be relevant to Christians as a whole many, many years ago. I don't know of any Christian under the age of 60 who gives a rip what Pat Robertson says or thinks. He has become like the crazy old great uncle at family events that people tolerate because they are trying to be polite. He has no business and no right declaring who evangelicals will or will not support.

Not looking good for Mitt

Despite the sniffing and hand-wringing by National Review and Rush Limbaugh (is he still on the air?), it is not looking good for Mitt Romney with Super Tuesday three days away... According to the latest Real Clear Politics polls, Romney is not ahead in any of the Super Tuesday states. If he gets swept in every state on Super Tuesday (except his home state of Massachusetts ), where does he go from there? I guess he can keep pouring his seemingly endless personal fortune into a failed campaign, but after all he touts himself as being a businessman so he must come to the point where he realizes it ain't gonna happen and drops out.

Huckabee is also looking like he is at the end of the line, but at least he still has a shot to be on the ticket. His support through Tuesday from social conservatives will sink Mitt in the South.

Adding to the fun is this insane comment from formerly relevant, alleged conservative Ann Coulter saying she would both vote and campaign for Hillary Clinton if John McCain is the nominee....



Huh. So all of a sudden, opposition to torturing people is a leftist position. Last time I checked, John McCain knows a little more about torture than Ann Coulter, inflicted on him while doing more to defend freedom than Coulter has even dreamed about.

Great post on Romney

Joe Carter at the evangelical outpost, an ardent Huckabee supporter, has a great post on why he doesn't support Romney. There is a sense in which some people modify their position over the years, but with Romney it is a pattern of changing seemingly at a whim. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal argues that it is not because Romney is a flip-flopper but that the he lacks any real convictions and thus his positions are suspect and subject to change at any time. Whatever the reason, Romney is untrustworthy to be the sort of President he claims he would be on the campaign trail.

(For some real fun, check out the breathless defense of Romney in comment number 5 by a guy named Baggi. He argues that it is the conservative position to nominate pro-abortion judges and that claiming to be a lifelong hunter when Romney never really hunted is not a flip-flop. Funny stuff!)

The man who has claimed the title of "True Conservative"

Mitt Romney is jumping all over McCain for not being a genuine conservative, but the facts speak loud and clear. These clips of Romney trying to out-liberal Ted Kennedy show that Romney is nothing but a weathervane. When the wind blows left, he shouts out the liberal party line. When the wind blows right, he is the second coming of Ronald Reagan. He tells us he is the real conservative in the race, but who knows which Mitt Romney will show up after the inauguration, Ronald Reagan Jr. or Ted Kennedy Light?

The passing of a "prophet"

Gordon B. Hinckley, President and "Prophet, seer and revelator" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints died yesterday at the age of 97. Hinckley was the president of the mormon church when we became mormons and is the only mormon president we have known. A kindly and jovial fellow, Hinckley will likely be remembered as the man who led the explosion in the number of mormon temples. When we first joined the mormon church, the number of temples was very limited especially in the Eastern United States. There were around 45 or so temples, mostly in the West and overseas. Today there are 124 with a dozen more in the works. For mormons that will be his legacy, making the temple more accessible than ever before. Hinckley led a church that in his 13 years at the helm underwent a lot of changes. He was very visible, appearing on Larry King Live a number of times, often being less than honest about mormon beliefs but being the public face of his faith in a way unlike any of his predecessors. During his tenure, the Olympics came to Salt Lake City, mormonism spread outside of the borders of Utah and other western states to become a national religion and underwent increased scrutiny, especially with the Presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. Hinckley will be replaced by Thomas Monson, "called" to be prophet by being the oldest of the mormon apostles. It will be interesting to see what kind of President Monson will make.

There is a knee-jerk reaction when someone dies, especially religious folks, to arbitrarily declare them to be in heaven (case in point the evangelical church leaders falling over themselves declaring Pope John Paul II to be heaven bound). It is inappropriate in most cases to make that sort of sweeping generalization, and especially in this case. It may seem unseemly to speak thus of one who has just died, but it is necessary. If Hinckley died as he lived, he died outside of Christ no differently than a Muslim or an atheist, and his eternal destiny is the same. The Bible is clear on his fate. It doesn't matter how nice he was, or how many kind works he performed or oversaw, or how sincere his faith was. He believed in a false god, and stood unreconciled with the God of the Bible. Because of that he remains in his sins and is condemned. How can I say that about a man who spoke so often and so reverently the name Jesus Christ? Because he, and all mormons, revere a different Jesus and a different gospel. They worship a Christ who is not God, who is a created, perfected being. They add to and subtract from the Gospel and Word of Christ. They denigrate Him by seeking to add their own righteousness and works to His Grace. Simply invoking the name Jesus Christ in conversation is inadequate to be called a Christian. When Christ asked Peter "But who do you say that I am?", He asked the big question and that question has only one answer. Answer that question incorrectly, fail to see and give glory to Christ for who He is and revealed Himself to be, and it matters not how reverently or often you speak the name of Jesus Christ. Gordon B. Hinckley failed that simple test, as so many others have throughout the centuries.

My ongoing concern is not for him, as he has passed from this life to await judgment. My concern is for those who are still alive in mormonism, who believe wholeheartedly in a lie, who believe in a false prophet, who wrote false Scriptures and worships a false god. It is too late for Gordon Hinckley, but it is not too late for those who followed him. I pray that mormons around the world will have the opportunity to examine what their church teaches in the days following Hinckley's death and come to see how they diverge from Christianity.

A couple of random news items that caught my eye...

Most irrelevant endorsement award 2008

For some reason, this item made the news...

Liz Cheney, Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter and former co-chair of Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign, has signed on as a senior foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney’s campaign.

Cheney, a State Department principal deputy assistant secretary who was responsible for Middle East and North Africa initiatives, could help blunt charges by John McCain that Romney is weak on foreign policy issues.

“I am proud to support Governor Romney. Throughout this campaign, he has distinguished himself as a leader who can guide our country with a clear vision for overcoming the threats we face today,” Cheney said in a statement released by the campaign on Sunday.

I consider myself fairly "in-the-know" about politics and I had no idea this person existed. I am sure she is great, the mother of five, works for the state department etc., but why is her endorsement newsworthy? Is Mitt's campaign so desperate that this becomes newsworthy, or they think this makes people more likely to vote for Mitt? I may be wishy washy on positions, but Liz Cheney supports me!

In another news item, a burglar stole a crown belonging to a Greek Orthodox bishop, Bishop Metropolitan Isaiah (cool name by the way!)

ARLINGTON, Texas — A burglar who broke into a Greek Orthodox bishop's car made off with quite a haul, but fencing one of the stolen items could prove difficult.

Among the items stolen from Bishop Metropolitan Isaiah's car was a jeweled crown of gold and silver, which Isaiah estimated to be worth between $6,000 and $10,000.

Isaiah, who is based in Denver and is bishop for the Northwest region of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, said he was dining with others at a restaurant when the break-in occurred. He said the car was parked in a well-lit spot.

"We came out at 10 o'clock, and the window was smashed," he said.

The burglar also made off with a copy of the New Testament, a veil, a cell phone and a black fabric bag. The bag had special meaning to the ex-Marine because it was given to him years ago by the widow of a fellow Marine.

Isaiah offered a reward of at least $1,000 if the crown is returned without damage.

"That was the first gift I received as a bishop 22 years ago," he said. "I feel lost without it."

At a vespers service Saturday night, he was the only priest with no head covering. "I just hope and pray that those who took it will have a change of heart," he said.

What in the world is a man who claims the title of bishop doing wearing a bejeweled crown worth as much as $10,000? The One who is truly a King, the One who is worthy of a crown never sought such adornment. When men claim to represent Christ and yet adorn themselves with costly jewels and raiment, one has to wonder who their audience is, the Lord or men. I don't care if the thieves return the crown, but I do hope that they read the New Testament they stole and perhaps if it is His will it will change their lives.

Viva la mormon solidarity!

No doubt Mitt will crow over his virtually unopposed win in Nevada. What is getting some attention is that the sizable mormon population in Nevada went for Mitt in a huge way.

On the Republican side, Mormons comprised a quarter of those attending Nevada's GOP caucuses, and more than nine in 10 were voting for Romney. Romney is a Mormon, and his religion has been cited as a problem by some Republican voters.

About half of Romney's overall vote in Nevada came from Mormons.

With Huckabee, McCain and Thomson fighting it out in South Carolina, Romney had Nevada to himself with Ron Paul. The real horse race has nothing to do with the state where betting on it is legal. It is all about South Carolina and the upcoming Florida race. But like everything else about Mitt, the Nevada win is all show and no substance.

For shame Michigan...


Congrats to Romney and his supporters for their win yesterday.


What is sad is the way Romney positioned himself and that people ate it up. The whole auto jobs not coming back to Michigan kerfuffle by McCain was dead on. Instead of lamenting the loss of high paying auto industry jobs for low skilled workers, we better as a state start to figure out how to replace those jobs. Otherwise we can wallow in our 7%+ unemployment indefinitely. Those jobs really are gone and aren't coming back. The UAW and weak-kneed auto executives have made sure of that by pricing the auto industry out of competitiveness through ridiculous salaries for relatively low skilled workers, untenable promises of pensions and health care and union rules that make auto plant jobs into entitlements.

Promising to fight to bring those jobs back is shameless pandering. Recognizing that the world has changed and so must Michigan is the honest approach, but apparently honesty is not what people want to hear.

Mitt vs. McCain

We are only three days out from the January 15th Michigan primary, and things are getting testy between McCain and Romney.

Romney attacked McCain for being defeatist about the jobs lost in auto factories. I found his comments pretty refreshing and realistic, two attribues that Romney's comments rarely have.

McCain, who wasn't in Michigan on Friday, unveiled a radio ad that attempts to capitalize on his reputation as a maverick on Capitol Hill and as someone who isn't afraid to tell hard truths. Still, he was caught in a war of words with Romney, who has latched onto McCain's statements that some lost automotive jobs will never return to Michigan.

At his sparsely attended event, Romney suggested McCain's attitude is defeatist.

"I'm committed to helping industry and manufacturers. It's unacceptable to me to see any jobs go away," he said.

For a "business man", Romney seems awfully naive about how to run businesses. The auto industry as it existed 30 years ago is untenable today. Huge bloated bureaucracies, overpaid and overstaffed union factories with insane pensions and health insurance promises are not the hallmark of a successful business model. The UAW and Big Three management have brought us to this point, where foreign manufacturers have become more innovative and more efficient. Instead of clinging to an old model of business where hundreds of thousands of high paid factory jobs drove Michigan's economy, we need to figure out what Michigan is going to do for the future. Michigan has a bunch of universities, maybe we should try to keep the grads in Michigan in high tech jobs? Trying to cling to that nostalgic view of Michigan's economy has gotten us where we are, in a so-called one state recession. The unions have brought us where we are, and we are not going to be successful in the future by holding on to that failed model and trying to return to it. Is it harsh to the ears to hear that some of those jobs, many perhaps, have left the state and never come back? Yep, but it is also true. Romney is an empty suit, who parrots back what he has been taught to say in particular situations. That is why so many conservatives leaders like him, he will do what he is told. Quite frankly that is not what I want. The GOP and America can do better.

No one seems to be giving Huckabee much of a shot in Michigan, but if you have ever been to Grand Rapids (a city of over a million), it is heavily evangelical and there are churches seemingly every 50 feet. I think Huckabee will do very well in Western and Northern Michigan. We shall see what Tuesday brings...

Romney pushing the panic button?

Looks like the coiffed one is really scared that he is going to lose Michigan. According to the Detroit Free Press, he is pulling ads in other states to focus on Michigan where he is losing ground to McCain and Huckabee....

A relaxed Romney, the Bloomfield Hills native and former Massachusetts governor, made several stops Wednesday in Grand Rapids, following his disappointing second-place finish in New Hampshire. His campaign announced it was adding emphasis to the Michigan campaign, pulling television ads in South Carolina and Florida to beef up Michigan. He also added an appearance Monday before the Detroit Economic Club.

That doesn't sound good for Romney, and he is waaaay behind in the polls in South Carolina and Florida. If he fails to do better than second in Michigan, and distant thirds in Florida and South Carolina the question becomes how much more of his own money does he pour into a losing cause?

New Huckabee TV ad



A new ad is running in Michigan. Not sure I care for the shots at Romney for coming from a wealthy family, but it should play well in Michigan. Romney is going to be in serious trouble if he loses in Michigan and the latest polls show him trailing McCain badly, with McCain at 29%, Romnet at 20% and Huckabee at 18%. If Huckabee passes Romney and he ends up with a bronze (to use his annoying olympic analogy), Romney is in serious trouble.

Only five days until the Michigan primary!