[544]=>Good morning
 [543]=>You know the fee...
 [542]=>Date more, care ...
 [541]=>Moving On



March 2018
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31


 [RAndoMness]=> 28Sep09
 [JPsDocs] => 22Feb09
 [JPics] => 10Dec11

recent music
Boycott SONY


  getentry(494); getentry(496);

A little bit more history
added Tue November 13 2007 at 8:23 PM
On December 16, 1773, a band of terrorists and smugglers came together to destroy the property on a ship waiting off the coast of Boston. Yet we, as Americans, honor these men as patriots and heroes.

The colonists were tired of a government that could be lobbied and bought by large corporations. A government that taxed them needlessly. A government that threatened to control every aspect of their lives by oppressive laws.

What's changed?

Join the R∃VO」UTION


Michael McQuay says:
Mitt Romney for President!
posted Thu November 29 2007 at 9:49 PM

Jo-Pete Nelson says:
Mitt Romney was originally my candidate, but we had a bit of a falling out. I think that Ron Paul does a better job of targeting the positions that I care about.

I didn't write this, but it seems to be a pretty fair comparison of the two candidates:
posted Thu November 29 2007 at 10:05 PM

Michael McQuay says:
Yeah...I also think that personal revelation via the Holy Ghost is something that can be over looked when considering which of these two gentlemen will help the nation in it's time of serious need. :)
posted Sat December 01 2007 at 11:25 PM

Jo-Pete Nelson says:
By all means - after researching the candidates so that you have a clear understanding of what each candidate stands for, please pray about which one will be better for the country.
posted Sat December 01 2007 at 11:38 PM

Michael McQuay says:
Sorry...I was referring to Mitt Romney's "advantage" (if you will) over any other candidate because of his priesthood and companionship of the Holy Ghost. It just is funny to me that one would think that any other candidate would be better fit for such a position that would ultimately benefit most from such divine spiritual guidance....
posted Sun December 02 2007 at 10:44 PM

Michael McQuay says:
and by the way, I disagree with your calling the above-mentioned article a "fair" comparison. I think it would be more appropriately labeled a "biased" article.
posted Sun December 02 2007 at 11:48 PM

Jo-Pete Nelson says:
While I see your point, I'm not sure that this country is ready for another president who claims divine intervention.

I've known a _lot_ of members of our church that I specifically would not want to see as President (for example, you and I differ on enough politics that I don't think either of us would vote for the other). On the other hand, the fact that he is a member does give him more weight in my eyes, just not enough more for me to vote for him over Ron Paul.

Romney is a politician. A fairly good politician (if such a thing exists), but still a politician. In the last few debates, I got the impression that he was afraid to say anything declarative because he doesn't want to risk losing the vote. For example, when he was asked if he would bomb Iran, he avoided the question by replying that he would have to ask his lawyers. His position on both abortion and gay rights has drifted over the course of the last few years as he started running for president. I actually preferred his old stance on both positions, but that's because I'm a firm believer in the right of an individual to practice his agency. You should probably ask yourself, though, which side of the issues he would really fall on if he were to become president.

Paul, on the other hand, is a statesman. His voting record is constant and consistent with his professed beliefs. He is a strong believer in a small federal government and in the constitution. His message rings true with the common man, not because he's a populist pandering to the people, but because he says it how he sees it and has a vision of how things should be. People are tired of being afraid of the government, tired of worrying that our foreign policy is making more enemies than friends, tired of presidents who don't practice what they preach.
posted Sun December 02 2007 at 11:48 PM

Jo-Pete Nelson says:
Please feel free to do the research and come up with a better comparison. I picked out the first one I could find that gave Romney a fair representation. What you'll find is that if you search for Paul vs Romney on google, the majority of the sites that come up are fellow Mormons talking about why Ron Paul is better the Romney.
posted Sun December 02 2007 at 11:59 PM

stephen says:
i wonder what was meant when it was said that "no power or influence ... ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood." we could play around with words all day (night) long, if you want to, but the truth is that these positions of power and influence should be "only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." but i'd better check with my lawyers before i decide to stand for it one way or the other.
posted Mon December 03 2007 at 10:02 PM

Michael McQuay says:
My dear Joe Pete,
I have to admit that I was actually convinced by your last posting. Of the many postings that I have read from you, this was probably the only good, convincing one.
Nevertheless, I don’t agree and have just a few thoughts:
“I’m not sure that this country is ready for another president who claims divine intervention.”
Wow! I cannot possibly disagree with you more. I believe that the thing that this country needs more than ANYTHING (especially during this time of great wickedness and war) is a president who not only claims divine intervention, but actually, truly, without any question or doubt, HAS divine intervention.
“For example, you and I differ on enough politics that I don't think either of us would vote for the other.”
Again, I’m stunned by your lack of understanding my point! If you ran for any office what so ever, and I knew that you were a temple-worthy, priesthood-bearing latter-day saint with the companionship of the Spirit (i.e. divine intervention), I would vote for you NO MATTER what. As our doctrine teaches, the Spirit is ONE, and guides us all on the ONE path of truth and light. You would make an EXCELLENT politician if you were to lead in politics while following that path.
Finally, you discussed Romney’s flip-flopping…this is something that many have criticized him over. I simply believe he explained his change of opinion best: he thought one way, and then realized that there is a better way. He can learn from his mistakes. I believe that what we direly need in a president right now is one that admits his mistakes (i.e. how the war in Iraq has been fought from day one!, etc.) I believe what many see as a weakness is actually one of his strengths, but that’s just me.
I have an incredibly strong belief that the guidance of the Spirit can heal the world. I believe that Mitt Romney lives by the Spirit and walks by the Spirit. I believe that there is nothing, ABSOLUTLY NOTHING that could be a better quality in leadership than the companionship of the Spirit. If you disagree with me there, well then, you and I have a very different interpretation of the importance of that divine power.
And for Stephen, my dearly beloved, it stresses me out so much that you continually insist on applying scripture out of context. Furthermore, be careful when you say “we could play around with words all day (night) long”…this implies that you believe that reading the scriptures as they are, without outside explanation, is the only way to do it correctly (i.e. your hilarious misunderstanding of Satan’s role in the War in Heaven as found in D&C). I couldn’t disagree more, and I believe that that type of attitude was actually what was at the root of the Apostasy in general.
Amo voces, meus bichos.


posted Mon December 10 2007 at 10:19 PM

Chris says:
I'm the blogger who wrote the Romney/Paul comparison linked above, this link showed up in my blog stats today so I decided to check it out.

I was initially hesitant about even posting the comparison because I realize how it could be interpreted as a divisive issue among some members of our faith. Yes, I'm LDS and I support Paul, but I truly did make an effort to portray Romney in a fair way, while still be honest about each candidate's positions. It should be noted that I always have and will continue to defend Romney from any anti-Mormon attacks against him. I've made posts on my blog doing this very thing.

It should be made clear that with political matters, I find it extremely important to examine the instruction of our inspired prophets, both past and present. Among them there is a common theme of not endorsing any specific candidate for any political office but rather emphasizing and reemphasizing the divine, inspired nature of the Constitution, and therefore allow us to make our own choices based on true principles.

I don't think emphasizing the Constitution is just coincidence or just a nice way of reminding us of an old tradition. I believe they truly want us to know and understand that the Constitution has literally been given to us from God through our inspired founders.

"[The Constitution] is the keystone of our nation. It is the guarantee of our liberty. That original document, with the Bill of Rights, constitutes the charter of our freedom. Through all of the years that have followed we have had some ambitious men who have sought to subvert the great principles of the Constitution, but somehow we have endured one crisis after another. We have been involved in terrible wars during this, the bloodiest of all centuries in the history of man. All of this is part of the miracle that is America, the struggle, the travail, the bitterness, the jealousies, the cynicism, and the criticism." [Gordon B. Hinckley "Keep Faith with America", commencement address given at Weber State University, Ogden, Utah on 6 May 1999.]

"Latter-day Saints should have nothing to do with secret combinations and groups antagonistic to the Constitutional law of the land, which the Lord "suffered to be established," and which "should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles." (David O. McKay, CR [Oct 1939] 102-05; also in Statements on Communism and the Constitution of the United States 3, 5-6)

"I repeat that no greater immediate responsibility rests upon members of the Church, upon all citizens of this Republic and of neighboring Republics than to protect the freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States."
(David O. McKay "Free Agency . . . A Divine Gift" 367, 378)

"We stand firmly in support of the principles enunciated in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and every Latter-day Saint would defend to the last those eternal principles." (Ezra Taft Benson "America: Land of the Blessed" 343)

Supporting the Constitution has to be a matter of supporting the principles it advocates.

The questions shouldn't be which candidate holds the Priesthood. Many good men have allowed this power to become dormant within them, have failed to use it at all, or have had it withdrawn from them. The question should be which candidate will uphold and defend the Constitution and its divine principles? Most of the revelations that we will need now and in the future regarding proper government have already been given to our nation. Why aren't we following this revelation?

It becomes very clear once one looks into the candidates' professed positions and track records. Ron Paul is a man devoted to liberty and defending the Constitution. He understands well the Spirit of Freedom. His voting record proves this, and his words and actions only further confirm it.

People of faith and virtue outside of the church still have access to the power of the Holy Ghost and to the Spirit of Truth and Freedom, and any suggestion otherwise is ridiculous.

Its very possible that one day Romney will wake up and realize the many un-Constitutional positions he supports, and I hope and pray that he does. Until then, we have a great man who has already done the research, and who no doubt has received guidance from God in his quest for knowledge and wisdom about the proper role of government, and about how to truly defend our lives and liberties. This is Ron Paul.

I'm sorry for being so long-winded on this point but it's obviously something that is very important to me. If anyone is interested in more prophet's quotes on this matter is a good place to start.

posted Thu December 20 2007 at 12:30 AM


Allowable HTML:
<a href="">links</a>
Comment guidelines