Politically Incorrect Answers to Mormon Questions

Image via Wikipedia

Why aren’t women allowed to hold the priesthood?

Short answer: We don’t need it, men do.

Longer answer: Women already run the church as it is. We are in charge of the primary, Young Women‘s and Relief Society. We do visiting teaching. We make sure those families in need are taken care of. We also have our own families. Of course, many women work outside the home today as well. Therefore, you want women, to work their full time job, go home and take care of their family, do their Visiting Teaching and whatever other calling they may have, then on top of that  you want the women do all the missionary work, the baptisms, confirm people with the Holy Ghost, be the Bishop, the ward clerks, run the Elder Quorums, the Stake Presidencies and ever other male assigned function in the Church. When exactly would we breathe? Are you crazy? What are the men doing, while we are doing everything inside the home and church? Drinking Sprite and watching BYU football? I don’t think so! The men need to do their fair share as well. In our Church, the roles are assigned to all members, and each member has their own duties to perform. To dump more duties on women and less duties on men would be cruel. The women are an integral part of the Church and they have a significant say in the how things are done in the church. We don’t need the priesthood to get things done.

Secondly, women are already in tune with the Spirit alot more than

men. We see this in the Book of Mormon when the Stripling warriors defend their families. In Alma 56:47-48 we read: Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the ^aliberty of their ^bfathers than they did upon their lives; yea, they had been taught by their ^cmothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them.  48 And they rehearsed unto me the words of their ^amothers, saying: We ^bdo not doubt our mothers knew it. It is not that the fathers are unimportant or are not spiritual, but mothers have historically been the spiritual teachers in the family.

I think we have a stronger connection to Heavenly Father because just as he is the Giver of Life, so are we. We understand Him on such a fundamentally different level than men. Men with the priesthood and who exercise it righteously are given a wider understanding of that connection to Heavenly Father, one that we have almost intrinsically. The priesthood is given to men because of the “errand of angels is given to women.” [Sisters in Zion]

 How come anyone cannot attend the temple?

Short answer: Anyone can attend the temple. All you need is a temple recommend.

Longer answer:  The temple is God’s house. Do you just allow anyone to come into your house? No, you only allow those you know to enter. God is no different, he only allows those he knows to enter. In this case, knows is in reference to, those he recognizes as being obedient to His word and the commandments He has set forth. He doesn’t wish to keep everyone out, but just wants them properly prepared before they enter.

What if we met and you wanted to come over to my house and I told you I live at 314? Well 314 what? I didn’t give you a street name, a city, nothing…just 314. Do you think you are going to make it to my house? Of course not, you don’t have enough information to go on.  Well, God has given us all the information we need to enter his house, all we need to do is follow those directions. What if I gave you my address and all the information you needed and told you to turn left on Alexandria, but you decided you knew better than me and turned right on Alexandria. Well you have no cause to get angry with me, I told you left. We often do things our own way and when it doesn’t turn out we blame God, but He made his directions explicitly clear and we decided to ignore them. Anybody can get to the temple. No one is barred from entering as long you have done the things needed to enter the temple. The temple is not meant to keep you from God but to help you get closer to God and all it takes are the right directions.

 How can you guys put yourself on the same level as Jesus Christ?

Short answer: We don’t, the Bible does. See Romans 8:16-17

Longer answer:  Here is the actual verse from the Bible: The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

That being said, we also recognize that Christ is the only perfect one of us to ever live. It is our intention to be more like Christ and emulate his ways in all we say and do. We often fall short and thankfully, our perfect brother, paid the price for all his imperfect brothers and sisters. His Atonement makes it possible for us to return home to Heavenly Father. We only see ourselves as equal in terms of us being Heavenly Father’s children as well, beyond that we know Christ is the only way we will have salvation and that His grace is sufficient for all of us.

‘Related articles

• 2012 Book of Mormon Sunday School/Relief Society/Priesthood Lesson Schedule Bookmarks (bethanyjensen.com)
• Emboldening Women (Through Identity): an interview with Neylan McBaine, founder of the Mormon Women Project (motleyvision.org)
• Christianity vs. Mormonism: Jesus Christ (anotherchristianblog.org)
• Will America Get Its First Mormon President? Five Facts About Mormons (thegreatone22.wordpress.com)
• Latter-day Saints launch “I’m a Mormon” ad campaign (losangeles.ibtimes.com)
• Review: Women of Faith in the Latter Days, Volume One, 1775 – 1820 (bycommonconsent.com)

 

The Death Penalty: The Pro-Life Case

Image by bikertect via Flickr

People like to say you cannot be pro-life and yet advocate for the death penalty, that the two are inconsistent with one another. However, that is not necessarily the case. I do not advocate the death penalty in all cases but I do agree there are times when it is appropriate and that doesn’t conflict with my pro life view.

The major argument of those who oppose the death penalty is that the innocent often get killed. However, these same people have no problem killing an unborn child whom we know with 100% certainty is an “innocent” therefore it is not the concept of innocence that is truly a factor here. While it is unfortunate that any innocent person perish, everything is done to make sure that the person being put to death is indeed guilty of the crime they are accused of and the fact that people have been released from death row after serving time and finding out they were indeed innocent all along is a clear demonstration of how seriously we take the death penalty. It is not meted out with reckless abandon but with thoughtful and painstaking consideration. While mistakes do occur it is not the intention of the court to “stick it to the little guy” and to murder its citizens.

Image via Wikipedia

When you are talking about cases like Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer, then the death penalty is indeed an appropriate punishment for the crimes that were committed. There is no doubt of their guilt or of the viciousness of their crimes. Timothy McVeigh participated in bringing down the Oklahoma Federal Building and took the lives of innocent strangers. Ted Bundy persuaded innocent women to come to his aid and then raped and murdered them. Jeffrey Dahmer went to nightclubs, brought men back home with him and then murdered them and placed their decapitated heads in the freezer.  These men were not benign threats to society and as such they received the correct and appropriate punishments for their particular crimes.

In terms of the death penalty being a deterrent; that is only the case if we are talking about rational people. I doubt Jeffrey Dahmer gave any serious consideration to his actions beforehand and with his obvious fascination with death, I don’t think the death penalty would have been much of a deterrent anyway.  So while the death penalty will not deter the more seriously mentally unbalanced people; it does not mean we should abolish it altogether. It is not a perfect system because the people who run the system are themselves imperfect beings, however, one should be careful in throwing out the baby with the bath water.

The death penalty should not be abolished and we should continue to make sure that it is not being used as some political weapon but in accordance to the standards of justice.

Image by Pam's Pics- via Flickr

This blog post is an official entry for the Law Blogger’s Scholarship, sponsored by The Law Office of Joshua Pond, http://www.joshuapondlaw.com.

Election 2012: The Most Important Issue Award Goes To….

This is an official blog entry for the YourLocalSecurity.com Blogging Scholarship. If selected, I’ll receive $1000 towards my college expenses in 2012. This scholarship is sponsored by YourLocalSecurity.com

Abortion. That’s right, the most important election issue this cycle is abortion. Readers of my blog will most assuredly go, “Okay, we get it, you are anti-abortion, can you talk about something else already?”  However, abortion continues to top the headlines. This past week we had Rick Perry, a Republican contender for the Presidency, say that he has “transformed” his view on abortion. After watching a pro-life movie in which a woman conceived of rape speaks, he is now saying he is 100% pro-life.  There was also a couple who did an abortion at home and when they couldn’t quite fully kill their child they put the remains under the Christmas tree in a gift box. http://www.fox8.com/news/nationworld/ktla-aborted-fetus,0,250932.story

Much to the chagrin of the fiscal conservatives and zealous pro-choice liberals the issue of abortion is not going away and will have a defining impact on this upcoming election. Especially with Personhood Amendments appearing on ballots throughout the nation, the question of abortion can no longer be ignored. The abortion issue is to this election what slavery was to the 1860 campaign trail. It is now coming to the forefront of our nation’s consciousness. Its importance cannot be  understated because we are talking about human lives here. Regardless of what the pro-choicers would like you to believe the biological debate of when life begins  was settled in the 19th century. The anti-personhood argument is philosophical, political and theological in nature, not scientific therefore has no rational basis to seek a denial of human rights and protection under the law.

With this issue not going away, how could one successfully resolve it? One way is already being done, states are proposing their own Personhood Amendments that would become effective when Roe v. Wade gets overturned. In fact, South Dakota is the only state not to have any abortion clinics within its territory. So we see that it can be done. Education of basic fetalogy and the current stage of the baby have had a profound effect on women obtaining abortions afterwards. Continuing to educate women along with allowing them to see the ultrasound if they so desire, give women all the accurate information they need to make a better choice. Finally, extending the 14th amendment to include the unborn would be the easiest way to make sure that the unborn are given the rights they deserve without having to pass a new amendment which would be time consuming and may not pass the ratification process.

You  may wonder why I did not pick an easy answer like the economy as the most important issue, well because the elimination of 50 million human beings takes precedence but also because it does have a profound effect on the economy. By annihilating 50 million potential workers, we have created the economic dire straits we find ourselves in now. The only addition to the population and henceforth workers has been through immigration-legal and otherwise. We are below replacement levels and we are hemorrhaging not only in the moral sense but in the economic sense as well. Therefore, it is imperative we correct this situation or else we will find ourselves on the road to extinction. At that point the economy won’t mean very much will it?

Related articles

• Perry ‘transforms’ on abortion (politico.com)
• Perry shifts views on abortion, opposes exceptions (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Rick Perry Shifts Views On Abortion (huffingtonpost.com)
• GOP Candidates Reveal Plans For ‘Personhood’ Laws (huffingtonpost.com)

Women Predators: When Women Abuse Men

Cover via Amazon

With all the talk about male sexual abuse going on, especially with the Penn State scandal, I thought it would be a good time to re-run an article I did back in 2007 for the now defunct Defending Truth website. It was one of my best received articles at the time.

For some reason there seems to be a foregone conclusion in our society that women cannot and are not abusive in the same way men are. People believe women are incapable of sexually or physically abusing anyone, especially children or males. As such women who do molest boys or beat their spouses are least likely to get help for it. I can hear the laughter now at such a preposterous and absolutely ludicrous suggestion that females could be child molesters or “husband beaters”. However, men are starting to come out and talk about their hidden shame. For far too long, males, especially young boys, have been made to feel that if a female had sex with them, then he did something right not that she did something wrong. He had become ‘a man.’ He was to be congratulated. They have also been told if a woman hits and you take it then you are not a man, however if he does raise his hand to her he liable to be hit with a domestic violence charge, even if it was purely self defense. This leaves a lot of men not knowing what to do.

I don’t pretend to be completely objective about sexual abuse particularly, as something that I have experienced, (of course in my case, it was the usual male perpetrators.) I have a kinship for anyone who has gone through this. So I readily identify with the victims and hold no allegiance to perpetrators, even female ones. A woman should not get a free pass because of her gender when it comes to victimizing a young boy. I see her role in sexual abuse no different that I do a male victimizer. Not to mention, the male victim’s pain is just as real as mine is. Probably even more so, since no one even believes he is in pain to begin with. As far as the physical abuse goes, more needs to be done to insure all parties; men and women both have resources available to them when in such a dangerous situation. No one should have to take abuse, man, woman, or child.

Image via Wikipedia

Statistics show that women abusers are not the rarity that many people believe it is. ‘Sexual assault of boys by females – whether they be mothers, sisters, grandmothers, or other women – is grossly underreported. In his book “Abused Boys: The Neglected Victims of Sexual Abuse,” psychologist and therapist Mic Hunter stated that “women account for 20% of the [sexual] abuse of boys.” http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/abusedboys.htm

Many reading this article may feel I am betraying my gender by bringing such things to light. However, it is the ones keeping it hidden and secret that are doing the real harm. To deny the violent streak in women does not make it go away. Not only does bringing the information out help men get on with their lives, it helps women by forcing them to deal with issues that may not want to. Violence in people is not gender-based as society would have you believe. Men are no more prone to violence than women are. In fact, most violent people tend to have a psychological disorder, the most prevalent being Borderline Personality Disorder. [Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) was first introduced in 1984, so it is a relatively new psychiatric disorder] In fact, women by and large suffer more from BPD than men do. According to most studies, seventy-five percent of people with BPD are women. This does not mean everyone with BPD is going to end up abusing their spouse or children. Only that it is contributable factor and one that must be considered when it does occur. (Note: Studies show men with BPD tend to have a proclivity for violence against women they are in a relationship with, but no studies have been done to confirm the BPD connection and violence in women even though women suffer from it more than men.)

Whether it is physical, emotional or sexual abuse more must be done to protect everyone. As a true feminist (ugh I hate that word), I believe in true equality for women, that means women must be held accountable for their actions. It does not mean we put women in a position of superiority as the chauvinists did in the past with male supremacy. That is only trading patriarchy for matriarchy and both devalue the opposite sex. As a real feminist, I believe we should live in a complementary society, where men and women work together to build a more solid future for future generations. Not a competitive or combative society.

Image via Wikipedia

I am ashamed to say when I saw a report on 20/20 about this very subject a few years back I actually laughed at them, I actually thought to myself, ‘Good for them it is about time women started abusing men after all the times we had to take it.’ If a male had laughed at female domestic violence victims and said good for them, I would’ve been livid but here I was laughing at them. And as ashamed as I am about admitting that, my reaction is pretty much the normal one among society. Men are laughed at when they have the courage to report domestic violence at the hands of women. They are not taken seriously. Not only that resources for them are non-existent, ever hear of a Battered Shelter for Men’ I don’t think so. Domestic violence and child molestation needs to stop being so gender biased, we need to start seeing the perpetrators for who they are and not assume the word perpetrator automatically means male. National Violence Against Women survey shows 37.5% of victims each year are men. Men are at real risk of serious physical injury.

Here are a few of the comments I got from a website called batteredmen.com. These are some of the injuries and mental anguish these men have endured;

“As I put away the shopping she stabbed me in the back with a 7″ knife. I was put on life support. It was several days before my family knew whether I would survive.”

‘She said “You realise I could kill you and get away with it”. She slept with the knife under the pillow.’

“I am 80 years old come Christmas. I am blind. I obtained a protection order against her. She laughed at it and the beatings have increased.”

These are real men who have had to endure a life of hell because feminists want to claim domestic violence and sexual abuse as solely their own. However, we know this is not the case. In fact, ‘when the perpetrator is female, boys are 10 times more likely to be abused than girls. Some studies even go so far as to report 1 in 3 incidents of sexual abuse against boys are done by female abusers.’ http://ct.essortment.com/sexualabusebo_rhpm.htm. On the other hand, male perpetrators don’t seem to be too picky, they seem to abuse both boys and girls in equal numbers. Before I go further I want to say one thing, I am not here to disparage my gender, to vilify them and make them out to be monsters. But I am here to hold up a light and say, ‘Stop putting us on a pedestal. Take us down, we don’t want to be up there. Start looking at us, really looking at us. See who we are and not what you want us to be. Not what you are comfortable with. See the darkness in us, it exist and it doesn’t simply vanish because you wish it so. Help us overcome our sins, our real sins, not your perceived ones. Not the ones you are comfortable helping us with. But the sins that wreck our lives and yours.’ In the 70′s it was I am woman, hear me roar. Today it is I am woman, hear me scream. Women who abuse are screaming for help while the men’s screams are being silenced. We must hear their screams.

Most of this article deals with physical violence against men and some sexual abuse of boys, so let’s get a profile of who we are talking about here. What kind of female has sex with young boys

My research showed the female offender committed their first deviant sexual crimes during their mid teens. However, most of the other studies I have seen, has shown the female offender committing her first crime between the ages of 18 and 27. http://www.breakingthesilence.com/female.html. According to this same site most female perpetrators don’t actively seek out their victims in the same predatory way that men do. She tends to take fewer risks overall and tends to have fewer victims as well in comparison to males who abuse. The report goes on to say most of the females had some type of relationship with the victim whether it was babysitting, parenting, sibling, teacher, etc it was far more common for the female perpetrator to wait for the victim to come to her than to go out and find one. The motivation for the abuse is also different than the males. For instance, a woman will deny it was sexual and say she did it as a form of punishment, whereas males will say they were only showing their love or the child came onto them. The article further describes the female abuser but I don’t have enough space to list everything, but it is something you check out and read for yourself.

The time has come to break down the barriers surrounding domestic violence and sexual abuse. The time has come for men to make their voices heard. The good news is more and more websites and support groups are popping up in order to give men a voice. If we are to become a truly equal society then we should not censor the pain of these courageous men because we are uncomfortable with the concept of women being violators. It will be a glorious day indeed when men have the same resources availed to them that women have. It will be a jubilant day when men are no longer ridiculed or faced with scorn for being abused by their significant other. For when such a day comes, it will truly be a day of equality for all.

---

Related articles

• Male abuse victims find few support networks (canada.com)
• 10 Ways Men Can Prevent Gender-Based Violence (masculinityu.wordpress.com)
• Does Society Train Boys to Be Victimized? (abcnews.go.com)

Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea Party

Image by ajagendorf25 via Flickr

Anyone who has followed my blog for any length of time knows that I am a Tea Party girl. However, one cannot ignore this Occupy Wall Street movement that is the Left’s equivalent of the Tea Party. When the Tea Party first started growing the Left tried their inane beverage parties as if the people joining the movement were all enamored and obsessed with tea or something. You had the Coffee Party, there was a Beer Party and I am sure if  you looked hard enough you could’ve found a Diet Fanta party for anorexic Hispanics or some other such nonsense. 
         With the failure of those parties, they finally hit upon an idea-re-create Woodstock with its sex, drugs and non-existent bathing and boom the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement was born. OWS is basically Woodstock on speed. There is a vast difference between the two movements and it can best be summed up in this “photo” I recieved in my email:

 There is a reason the two parties cannot get along besides the whole  rape thing. The reason is because the two movements fundamentally disagree on how this country should be. The tea party thinks people should be responsible for creating and carrying out their own destiny. While the OWS group thinks government should be involved every time you take a breath.  While the government does a role in the lives of its citizens it is not supposed to be a nanny. The purpose of government is to protect its citizens and provide infrastructure to society in order that its citizens can then live their lives according to their own beliefs and ideals. So long as those ideals don’t cause undue harm to others.

The only thing these two movements have in common are that they are both grassroots based. Beyond that, the movements are like night and day. The Tea Party wants to reign in the government and hold them accountable for their actions. The OWS blames Wall Street for the woes the nation is facing while they are carrying around laptops,  IPODs and wearing FUBU. It is pretty clear they have no understanding of what they are fighting, whereas the Tea Party is very clear in what it wants to see take place. Ask anyone at a Tea Party about the Constitution and they will most likely whip out their own little pocket copy. People at a Tea Party have an understanding of what the Constitution and why it should be followed. The OWS crowd seems far less educated about their own cause. Which only makes them look foolish.

What is worse is the government is actually behind this movement. You have both Obama and Nancy Pelosi encouraging and supporting the protesters. Rule number one of a protest: Never have the government back your cause! No protester worth their salt would ever have the government endorse them! I know you OWS people dropped a lot of acid during Woodstock but even with your limited brain cells left you must at least remember that from your protest days!

In closing, all I can say is if it comes down to a showdown between the Tea Party and the OWS crowd  you better hope and pray the Tea Party wins or else you won’t have a country, job or freedom left.

A Mormon Presidency

Image via Wikipedia

Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Harry Reid-what do these men have in common, they are all Mormons. However, in my opinion, they do not represent Mormons nor the American people very well, (with the exception of John Huntsman just because I don’t know his views very well) instead they seem more concerned with appeasing the Left instead of doing what is Right. To be fair, people have a right to know how one’s religion will impact the decisions a politician makes. I know I would not go out endorsing a candidate who professed to be a Satanist because those beliefs are incompatible with my notions of liberty and responsibility. [Satanists focus solely on  "freedom" and have little use for responsibility or helping those in need.] So what would a Mormon presidency (by a real Mormon and not one who sets aside their beliefs when convenient.) look like?

1. We are all about “restoring” things. We also have a profound respect for the Constitution of the United States and so would work on restoring the Constitutional republic of this land. Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve, in February of 1992 wrote about the
“Divinely Inspired Constitution.”

The success of the [Constitutional] convention was attributable in large part to the remarkable intelligence, wisdom, and unselfishness of the delegates. As James Madison wrote in the preface to his notes on the Constitutional Convention:

“There never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them.”⁴ Truly, the U.S. Constitution was established “by the hands of wise men whom [the Lord] raised up unto this very purpose.” (D&C 101:80.).

By the same token, we are not blinded by such devotion that we see the Constitution as a perfect document in need of no change whatsoever as illustrated by this quote by Reuben J. Clark, “who referred to the Constitution as “part of my religion,”⁶ also said that it was not part of his belief or the doctrine of the Church that the Constitution was a “fully grown document.” “On the contrary,” he said, “We believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.”^7.  Even when changes are clearly needed as they were in the days of slavery and Jim Crow laws one does not need to change the totality of the document or the central message of the Constitution to do so. These things can remain affixed and should be considered the starting point of which to derive more just laws.
By having a Mormon in the White House, you would have someone with a great love for the U.S. Constitution and would not seek out to destroy it. People’s liberties would be far more protected with a Mormon in the office than they have been with our current Muslim president. There would be no stomping over the rights of the people by executive order with a Mormon in office.

 2. Families would be made a priority. An important part of the Plan of Salvation involves the creation and the maintaining of families, laws that hinder that would not be allowed to stand. As we have seen through Proposition 8, Mormons are willing to stand up for traditional marriage publicly as well as privately. ”The Family: A Proclamation to the World” by Gordon B. Hinckley had this to say about the importance of family, especially both mothers and fathers:

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

It is because families are eternal that we value them above all else except God. We spend our time in temples connecting family members one to another. We seek out the past with full knowledge that our salvation is very much dependent on the salvation of our ancestors. Like the Marines, we leave no man behind. With a Mormon in the office of the President, you would see the uplifting of families not the tearing down.

3. Charity. While most people associate charity with the giving of money to the poor and/or needy, ask any Mormon and they will tell you that true charity is the pure love of Christ. We believe we are to be charitable to others in order to exemplify that pure love of Christ that was freely given to all when he was on Earth. As a member of the church, we are called to be charitable and we give not only to the Church’s humanitarian aid but to other charities as well. However, anyone can give money. What is more important is giving time. If you were in the hospital and someone sent you some money while you were in there-would that do you any good? Probably not, you are confined to a hospital bed what are you going to do with money? However, if someone came in to visit you, talked to you, helped you eat if you were unable to do it yourself, wouldn’t that be far more charitable? When you left the hospital what would you remember the money you received or the visit? When people equate charity with money it totally undermines and undervalues the true meaning of charity. With a Mormon in the presidency there would be more of a focus on charity, helping those in need in order so they can become self-reliant. The Economist wrote an article dealing the LDS Welfare system, here is the link for the article, http://www.economist.com/node/988818

It concludes by saying: The Mormon welfare system shows how comprehensive church-run social services can be. Unfortunately, it does not support Mr Bush’s belief that federal tax breaks will unleash a wave of such projects. When the president announced his programme, the church authorities were polite, wished him well—and said they wanted nothing to do with it. The system runs because Mormons give up time and money. Tax breaks will make no difference to that—but they may, the church fears, enmesh the welfare system in a tangle of government restrictions.

A Mormon president would revamp the welfare system in this country and would help people become more self-reliant. A Mormon president would understand it would take more than money to solve problems  especially when it comes to those who find themselves in some serious dire straits. The mission of the LDS church is four-fold

1) Perfect the Saints 2) Redeem the Dead 3) Proclaim the Gospel and 4) Help the poor and needy. Because this is seen as our mission, a Mormon president would not shirk from it and would help devise a welfare plan in such a way that it would actually benefit those who needed it and not continue to enable their dependency.

These are just a few of the things that would take place in a Mormon presidency and from what I can see this country would be better off under a Mormon president than it has been under any other for a long while now. The only “Mormon Question” I see is, “Why wouldn’t you have a Mormon president?” And while I truly do wish to have a Mormon president, I do not believe Mitt Romney is that candidate. Personally, I think Dena Leichnitz would be a much better pick. LOL

Related articles

• The Mormon Thing (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Mitt Romney and the “Mormon Question” (themoderatevoice.com)
• Despite Divide, Evangelicals Could Support A Mormon (npr.org)

South Central Tea Party Organizes

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday I went to the South Central Tea Party. I had a good time and for once no one said, “It is good to see a Black person here.” Not that I mind all that much, but it was great just to be one of the bunch. Gathered around were people who were concerned about their country and the color of their skin did not play into it.

We were out there to protest the lies of the NAACP, who was busy holding a conference at the Convention Center.  Jesse L. Peterson who is the founder and director of BOND was the primary organizer of this event. An event that was a long time in coming. Did we make a dent in armor of the NAACP? Probably not, but then again nothing worth fighting for is ever easy.

This past Sunday was just the beginning. It was to let the NAACP know that they can’t depend on support of every Black person because if anyone is racist, it is the NAACP. Any other organization that would advocate for the death of millions of Blacks would be brought up on blatant discrimination charges yet the NAACP is able to get away with it? Why is that? Abortion is the biggest killer of Blacks and yet the NAACP has sided with those who seek to destroy us.

Anyone who would side with people who want to destroy the poor and Blacks which oftentimes are the same thing are nothing more than thugs. What South Central Tea Party gets that other Tea Parties don’t is that this cannot just be about how the government spends money. That how it spends money, is a root of something much deeper. That if you don’t fix the moral compass of a nation, nothing else is going to matter.

Abortion was not only brought up at this Tea Party, it was specifically addressed as one of the issues deeply affecting the Black population. That is something that is seldom addressed at other Tea Parties and while I understand you don’t want to get bogged down with too many issues, the issues of life and death and our government actively promoting death should be a topic to be addressed within the Tea Party framework.

While we may not have made a dent to Ben Jealous and his organization, we might have at least raised some awareness of what the NAACP believes and what the average Black person believes and that can only benefit the dialogue between the two.

Related articles

• TEA PARTY MOVEMENT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL: “While potentially broadening its appeal, going after pol… (pajamasmedia.com)
• Black Tea Partiers to Protest NAACP (theroot.com)
• Black Tea Party group to rally against the NAACP (thegrio.com)
• NAACP 1, Tea Party 0 (talkingpointsmemo.com)
• The Tea Party’s anti-NAACP tantrum leaves bad taste (thegrio.com)
• No Black Tea Partiers Allowed! (According to the NAACP) (jeffersonteaparty.com)
• Critics of the So. Central Los Angeles Tea Party (Race Baiting / Racism / NAACP) (pumabydesign001.wordpress.com)