Sunday, October 16, 2011

How Would Mitt Romney's Mormonism Affect His Presidency?

Glenn Beck, (Former Catholic Mormon) does a pretty good job of exposing the blasphemy of the left, though he has not been a member of the Latter Day Saints as nearly long as Mitt, who did missionary work for the church eons ago. It is certainly fair to examine any candidate's faith, and how that doctrinal faith may effect the decision making process of a head of state.

Unless you are a Democrat, President Obama's experience with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was a great concern. The flap with Wright, and the twenty-some years candidate Barack spent under the tutelage of the race-baiting racist, was quckly ended when BO threw the Rev. under the old church bus.

Obviously, Republicans are lot more discerning when it comes to qualifications. Democrats will vote for anyone that gets the lib hype, whereas Repubs will usually flay the candidtate until bone is revealed. Mitt Romney has more than a chance among Evangelicals than he has ever had, as the "Anybody But Obama," has replaced the "Anyone But Bush" mantra from four years ago. Still, we must examine Mormonism and its strange doctrines and teachings which could indicate how Mitt would run a country. Their doctrines have changed more rapidly through the years than Mitt's tax plans.

Every sect of Christianity has its pecccadiloes, and, Lord have mercy, even some of our old standby, patriotic, constitutionalist, Southern Baptsists have erred in respects. Jimmy Carter got a lot of the Born Again vote, because he preached Born Againism. However, Jimmy was not only a non effectual president, he was also not much of a Baptist, and he is the last Democrat I voted for. In the years succeeding his presidency we found out more about his particular Baptist beliefs, especially, that he had animosity toward Israel, and worse, his Plains, Georgia Baptist Church would invite Buddhists, Immans, and other new age religonists to preach their brand of "good news" in his church's Sunday School classes.

I would not think of electing a Mainline Protestant Church member,if their church endorsed Biblical sodomy, and gay marriage, such as do many Methodists, Presbyterians, Epsicopalians, United Church of Christ, etc. A candidate congregating with these apsotate churches might consider it a command of God to endorse homosexuality later in his presidency. I'm sure President Obama acting out within his religious mores believes that gays should be given special rights in and out of the military, much to the detriment of the nation. Even Pastor Mike Huckabee is very careful not to offend his Friends at Fox by not seeming to be too judgemental in regards to homosexuality. Could hurt ratings. The above churches also seem not reluctant to object to a "women's right" to end the life of her preborn child.

As a former Catholic, who for many years marched to Mass while in parochial school from elementary through high school, I am very thankful for the advanced educations I received from the RC's - back when there was no tuition! So, we may question some of the doctrines of the Mormon Church, and not things like transubstantiation, praying to saints, especially Mary, and the supernatural power of the priesthood? Even if we would not agree with the use of relics and rosaries, would that prohibit us from voting for a Catholic president? I and other fundamentalists have been staunch supporters of Catholic Alan Keyes, and even journeyed to Notre Dame University to protest ND's leaning to the left - way left. I must say it was hard to be in one accord with Alan, as he marched on the ND campus carrying a large banner donned with a picture of Jesus's mother, Mary.

I've always considered Mormonism to be a sort of grafting of some of man's fantasies with with the Holy Bible. As with the Book of Mormon, you can see the same thing in the Koran, where it is obvious that a lot of Islamic stories and verse were ripped right out of the Bible.

The Mormons have the Angel Moroni visiting Joseph Smith, yet you have Mary visiting people at various times in history. Does that disqualify Catholics? Mormonism has other oddities such as humans having god power, secret underwear, Masonic links, Jesus and Satan were "brothers," at one time, God originated as a mere man, etc., but how would that direct Romney's political life? The Presidents of the Mormon Church are overly honored, possibly beyond the Papacy, and revered as high priests, prophets, seers, revelators, rulers and are considered nearly "infallible." However, there are provisions that the LDS President can be removed if he would mislead the flock. Notwithstanding, not one president has ever been removed in Latter Day Saint history. My reasoning goes, if Mitt's Mormon president is nearly infallible, could Mitt ascribe the same traits to himself? Could that be why he will not relent on his infamous Massachusetts Romney Care, and not admit it has become a billion dollar boondoggle?

The most pressing question about Mitt's faith is his understanding of who Jesus Christ is. Catholics, without doubt, believe in the divinity of Christ, unlike the Mormons who do not see Jesus, the Son of God, as also being God. If He was less than God, how could His sacrifice have been considered a proper propitiation for the sin of the world? Yet, the Mormons may believe more like Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, who did not believe in the Godliness of Jesus, as did not other colonials. The problem with this is that as man degrades Jesus, he lifts himself higher in the spiritual scheme of things: Jesus is merely a Good Example, and not Savior.

Liberal mainline protestants have always claimed that Jesus is divine but their current doctrines prohibit obedience to the One who is supposedly the Head of their Church. In short, someone who believes Jesus is Lord is more apt to obey Him, since He has been honored with Divine authority.

I like Rick Perry, despite the fact that even Fox News, Laura Ingraham, Carl Rove, and other conservative pundits have labeled him ineffective, not smart, and ill prepared. I could even see Chris Wallace's face contort as he unnecessarily tore into Perry, as he did Michelle Bachmann. When Perry and Romney were trading punches in the last debate, Anderson Cooper was giggling like a girl, lapping up the discord between the two men.

Rick Perry does not seem as wooden or plastic as Romney and has a humilty that I admire. Governor Perry, despite his low blows to Romney at the last debate, and other gaffs, is much less practiced in public speaking (better than President W, though), and he is more of a doer than a politico. Perry is chided for not answering questions according to the interviewers designs, as he commonly answers questions with, "Drill Here, Drill Now," because he is one of the few candidates which understands the energy choking policies of the Environmental Protection Agency. Governor Perry is a non-denominational Christian attending a sort of Methodist church which is technically a Southern Baptist church.

I am even more interested in Perry, as I see Dick Morris, Dennis Miller and Bill O'Reilly denigrate him, and the fact that he is perceived as the weakest Republican candidate by the Lamestream Democrat intelligentsia also enhances his resume in my mind.



In the spirit of President Abraham Lincoln, Adams, Truman, Harrison, Reagan, Truman, and America's First Continental Congress, Rick Perry genuinely called for a Day of Prayer and Fasting, called the Response, August 6, which was sponsored by the American Family Association, yet condemned, of course, by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

And that is why Big Media, and Fox, has targeted him. Perry took the risk of looking like a grand stander for political reasons, but I believe he was, and is sincere about the need for America to seek Divine Providence despite how Fox and Friends grades him.

I don't demand that candidates profess this sort of faith at every turn, but Mitt, what do you believe?


Wednesday, October 12, 2011

The Rich Are Richer And The Poor Will Stay Poorer... . .

. . . Due To Liberal "Generosity." 50 million Americans are recorded as living below the poverty line, and nearly 50 million citizens are receiving Food Stamps, compliments of the rest of the tax paying populace. Lyndon Baines Johnson originally alloted a little over 1% of U.S. Gross Domestic Product to fight the War on Poverty, which we are miserably losing.




Now, over 14% of America's GDP is spent on poverty programs. Dividing the estimated GDP of $14,000,000,000,000 by 50,000,000 "poor" Americans equates to each poor American receiving some sort of welfare in the amount of $280,000 per person. Don't ask me how its disbursed, because there are so many overlapping federal, state, and local entitlements that, I would guess, no one knows how the money is spent, excepting that the middle man - Uncle Sam - is paid quite a chunk to "administer" the funds.



In addition to the "regular" poor, whom tax paying Americans must support, a family of four with income under $44,000 (twice the poverty income level) is also eligible for many government bennies.



For all the ranting of those Occupying Wall Street and other streets across the nation, demanding that the rich pay more taxes, which will make little difference in denting the national debt, 50% of Americans pay no federal income tax.



America's poor is 2400% wealthier than the Democratic Country Of The Congo according to International Purchasing Power scales and wealthier, by far, than most every other country in the world, but for how long at these rates of increasing indebtedness? Not long.



All the above number crunching has only been revealed to explain how spurious it is for the Millennial student protesters to call for more taxation on the rich, who are mainly rich because the American middle class and poor have been satisfied with the economic status quo which pays so much in various benefits. Why would a public or private union member, or teacher desire to acquire some Yankee Ingenuity and risk starting a business which would could eventually advance them into the richer realms of life? Why should any American strive for a better American Dream life, when there is no need to dream?



I, of course, am speaking of physical riches which by no means offer a really abundant life as promised by Christ who taught that the poor can actually (and do) experience a better life according to Biblical standards. However, if the poor are covetous of the rich folks' riches, then they can plan for a life of self induced poverty - if only for wanting OP, other people's money.



My baby boomer generation is somewhat responsible for the Wall Street Occupation, because we set up the attitude for the youth to expect everything, while paying for nothing. We sent our children to public schools which taught them not to judge themselves through the Self Esteem movement. We allowed our children to graduate from high school not proficient in reading, writing, or arithmetic. Most are barely literate. We threw tons of government loan money at them for college tuition, all the while college expenses increased exponentially - as the funding increased.



One point for the Occupy Wall Steeters is that when all that TARP and Bailout money was helicoptered to the banking and finance industry, the danger of Moral Hazard was activated. If we bailout only those who "are too big to fail," then why cannot those who are small, and fail, receive similar benefits? Now we see the Democrats who ignited the housing loan crisis by guaranteeing housing to constituents who had no job, no down payment, and a bad credit rating, supporting the anti capitalist youth protesting on Wall Street.



As long as America's very wealthy "poor" are lusting for other people's money by demanding higher taxes for the rich, they will never break out of their cycle of poverty.



Its a universal law and it works in the physical as well as the spiritual: "For whosoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance, but whosoever has not, from him shall be taken away even what he has."


Google
WWW http://joeclarke.net