Romney Gets Riled

As for secrecy among the governing body of our nation and the behind-the-scenes string-pullers that no one likes to talk about. Yes, let???s go to the Clinton cover-ups, Bush???s Patriot Act, the Skull and Bones brotherhood, the North American Union and the Amero replacing the dollar, the Council on Foreign Relations - who they're comprised of and what THEIR influence is on decisions, The Federal Reserve, the International Bankers, all the fingers in the pie that no one likes to talk about if you don???t want to be called a conspiracy theorist. There IS a secret society already pervading the White House???s decisions - obviously a completely abhorrent phenomenon to you and to me, in a country founded on proper checks and balances and transparency of decisions under a supposedly representative democratic government. Another Republican candidate Ron Paul, has a lot to say about this. I'll post some of his comments in the next few days. (It's soooo late here right now! I can't keep my eyes open.)
Thanks for reading, all, God bless you and our beautiful country!

As for "secrecy" Doodle Yankee, let's talk about two subjects, the first being temples, and the second being the status of secrecy in the current, or any other, presidency of the United States.

First of all, I'll offer what could possibly put one's mind at rest concerning temples. Temples are holy places in the LDS religion, the house of God, the same status as that given by the Jews to their temples, the Muslims to theirs, the Native Americans to their sacred ceremonies, the Polynesian islanders, the native Africans, and many, many other world religions that reserve sacred things for those of their family, culture or faith. Sacred means, sacred. Beautiful, holy, and not to be trodden into the muck by those who have no depth of understanding yet. A simple example that at least HolyRoller should know from the New Testament is that Christ often spoke in parables to the public, and then later expounded the meanings of his teachings to his disciples who were ready to receive higher things. He tells them, Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they turn again and rend thee. It's not a matter of judgementalism. It's a matter of whether someone is ready to receive.

So it is with temples and why you need a recommend to go in - through simple symbolism they teach us about who we are as sons and daughters of God, and mankind's purpose on earth and after this life. A common phrase to explain it is "sacred, not secret". I want anyone who reads this to know that there is nothing evil, scary, or ugly or contrary to the happiness and goodness of humankind there at the temple. No sex, no weird anything else you've heard. Hopefully, you can conceive of a place like a temple that is purely good, purely beautiful, and purely holy. Hopefully you are above being trapped by the world's desecration of anything that claims to be so. As for the rest of the details, you'll have to exercise a little faith in Christ, repent of your sins, learn about the teachings of the church, get baptized, wait a year, and then get a recommend to go there yourself. I promise you it's worth it. LDS temples are meant to invite you closer to God, not keep you out. Go to the official LDS church website at http://www.lds.org/temples/purpose/0,11298,1897-1,00.html for more real info.

So that's temples. Of course, Doodle Yankee, we all know that the White House is not a temple. So that sorta preempts your concerns right there. Hopefully a man or woman???s good convictions, taught to him or her by their religion, would be an influence on their presidency ??? like, honesty, kindness, tolerance, standing for truth, making peace with your enemies, preserving and respecting life, defending the helpless, and providing safe haven for those under your leadership.

But on to the next subject: corruption and secrecy today in the White House and Other Places of Decision...

There were several times that the Jewish carpenter did not speak at first or at all when questioned - at certain times to test faith, at other times, as a profound statement to those who questioned him, most notably:
1. when the woman taken in adultery was cast before him and he was questioned as to what her punishment should be - he wrote in the dust with his finger for a while first.
2. Matt 15:22-28, when a Canaanite woman not of t he Jewish lineage asks him to heal her daughter, "but he answered her not a word." Later, when she showed great faith, he helped her.
3. In Luke 23:8-10, when Jesus is brought by the chief priests before Herod to be questioned by him, "Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him."
4. In John 19:8-11 "When Pilate therefore heard that saying (that Jesus declared himself to be the Son of God), he was the more afraid; and went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer."

I hope this helps!

Dear HollyRoller,
You've really undermined your credibility with that comment about "authentic Christians". Mitt declares that he follows his religion, which is entirely Christ-based. Even if he didn't follow it to the letter, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, how can we get around it, in fact, Christian in every respect. The LDS people, ("Latter-day Saints", or "Mormons" as so nicknamed in regard to additional scripture to the Bible: "The Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ"), believe in the fundamental principles of Christ as the Son of God: his condescension from glory to be born to a virgin under humble circumstances, his ministry on the earth, his sinless, perfect life, his miracles, his suffering for the sins of all mankind, his crucifixion, and his resurrection from the dead on the third day, to the eventual redemption of mankind. They believe in 1. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, 2. Repentance from sin, 3. Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and 4. The laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, as promised by the Savior to his disciples.

Ever wonder why people can see the EXACT SAME CLIP and come to completely opposite conclusions? Some find Romney to be coolheaded and adept at clarifying his intended meeting and the role lobbyists have in his campaign while others see him as angry and evasive?

Well, I saw an interesting article today that may be related. It answers why Mitt is stuck with the label flip-flopper depsite that his competitors have changed their positions just as much. Have a look: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/news/releases/2008/1/18/vanderbilt-poll-explains-why-romneys-flip-flopper-label-sticks-political-scientist-says-anti-mormon-bias-finds-cover

This article is so typical. The MSM dares to say that they have littles access to Romney. Wow , what a surprise, they do nothing but belittle him,His conservatism being an overt threat to their yellow journalistic leanings. That they should all now band together to support this weasel of a journalist is predictable as well. How dare Romney not allow their driveby media habits to go into withdrawl, They need to perhaps rotate from one campaign to another to get their sensationalistic fix elsewhere.

Ron your a poor reporter. Get your facts straight.

Romney has one natural advantage over all other candidates of both parties: He looks presidential, he looks credible as supreme commander of the US Forces - can you see Hillary in that role? Like it or not, as we all know from previous elections, some voters go by looks.

oh my goodness! You think that's a temper???? Give me a break... he was stern and frustrated with the guy, trying to emphasize a point some rude, arrogant reporter wants to contradict...but obviously not losing his temper. It amazes me what the Romney hating media tries to rack up. Give it up, we don't fall for your ridiculous mud slinging.

I thought this was an interesting article on Romney's flip-flopping. I'm sure this isn't true all of the time, but it certainly fits the mold of comments I have seen on this and other blogs:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/is_flipflopping.html