jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (39 posts)

The Mormon Plan for America and the Rise of Mitt Romney

  1. 0
    Justsilvieposted 4 years ago

    I am not sure if I should laugh or cry! But a conservative friend posted this website on facebook with a warning to other conservatives.

    http://www.saintsalive.com/resourcelibr … le-rituals

    an excerpt from the site!

    The very ethos of the Mormon faith is built around the anticipated return of Jesus to Independence, Missouri, for his thousand-year millennial reign. It is here that he will assign godhood to the worthy. However, it cannot take place until the U.S. Constitution falters and is saved by the LDS church. The nation will become a Mormon theocracy. Mitt Romney has raised Mormon speculation that this may be the time and that he may be the one to lead the way as both U.S. President and LDS high priest.

    Am I just totally off for laughing at stuff like this? Are people in this country going over the far right edge?Is this a result of cutbacks on mental health care the last few decades. Wasssup?

    1. Onusonus profile image87
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ah they are referring to the "white horse prophecy" it is a account of something that Joseph Smith allegedly said that was written down over fifty years after it was supposed to have been said. It is most definitely not official church doctrine.

      You've got give the liberal media credit for their attempts to turn Romney into a religious extremest though. Bravo!

      1. Shanna11 profile image91
        Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I learned about this (I'm Mormon and I go to a Mormon University), and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Joseph Smith who said it. I can't remember who it was... I don't have my notes with me, but I know it was some members early on in Church history. Smith for the most part didn't say much about it, though. 

        Nowadays, much of the White Horse Prophecy has been discredited by church leaders. The whole constitutional thread thing is like the only part of it that Mormons consider to be true. It isn't what I would call 'doctrine' though. I would be surprised if most Mormons even knew about it.

        1. Onusonus profile image87
          Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Edwin Rushton and Theodore Turley originally wrote it.
          This is what the LDS church says about it;
          "The so-called 'White Horse Prophecy' is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine."
          - Kim Farrah, representative from Church Public Affairs

          1. Shanna11 profile image91
            Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yep, those names are familiar.

            Pretty much sums it up.

        2. 0
          Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          your quote:

          The whole constitutional thread thing is like the only part of it that Mormons consider to be true.

          Could you please explain this further?

          1. Shanna11 profile image91
            Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There were other 'prophecies' and predictions included in the overall prophecy, but it was written by men who weren't inspired by God (as Mormons believe) and the other parts (I don't remember the exact parts, but I can look them up for you in my notes later) were later declared false by church leaders.

            1. 0
              Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you Shanna11 for your input. Seems like this came up in 2007, guess most of us are not familiar with it since Romney was not chosen as the running mate.

              Here is an article

              BY THOMAS BURR
              PUBLISHED JUNE 4, 2007 6:34 AM

              Romney candidacy has resurrected last days prophecy of Mormon saving the Constitution

              This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

              WASHINGTON - It's Mormon lore, a story passed along by some old-timers about the importance of their faith and their country.

              In the latter days, the story goes, the U.S. Constitution will hang by a thread and a Mormon will ride in on a metaphorical white horse to save it. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it does not accept the legend - commonly referred to as the "White Horse Prophecy" - as doctrine.

              The issue, however, has been raised on those occasions when Mormons have sought the Oval Office: George Romney was asked about it during his bid in 1968, Sen. Orrin Hatch discussed it when he ran in 2000, and now Mitt Romney.

              "It is being raised," says Phil Barlow, a professor of Mormon history and culture at Utah State University. "I've heard it a bit lately."

              Romney says he doesn't believe in the supposed prophecy, nor did his father when he ran.

              "I haven't heard my name associated with it or anything of that nature," Mitt Romney told The Salt Lake Tribune during an interview earlier this year. "That's not official church doctrine. There are a lot of things that are speculation and discussion by church members and even church leaders that aren't official church doctrine. I don't put that at the heart of my religious belief."

              The disputed prophecy was recorded in a diary entry of a Mormon who had heard the tale from two men who were with Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Ill. when he supposedly declared the prophecy.

              "You will see the Constitution of the United States almost destroyed," the diary entry quotes Smith as saying. "It will hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber."

              Not only will the Mormons save the Constitution, under the prediction, but the prophecy goes further, insinuating that Mormons will control the government.

              "Power will be given to the White Horse to rebuke the nations afar off, and you obey it, for the laws go forth from Zion," the prophecy says.

              The LDS Church denounces the premonition, which was recorded 10 years after Smith's death. A church spokesman pointed to a quote from the faith's sixth president, Joseph F. Smith, who called the prophecy "ridiculous."

              "It is simply false; that is all there is to it," the church prophet was quoted saying.

              Joseph Smith, who Mormons believe found ancient gold plates and transcribed them into the Book of Mormon, ran for president in 1844, a year after he supposedly told of the White Horse Prophecy. Smith was murdered by a mob shortly thereafter.

              So far, it hasn't been overtly discussed in reference to Romney's bid, but he told The Tribune previously that it was raised in the 1968 presidential run of his father, George Romney.

              "It came up in the race, but he didn't believe in it," the younger Romney said in 1999.

              In fact, George Romney said there are different interpretations of what Smith and Brigham Young, another Mormon prophet, were saying, according to a 1967 edition of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought:

              "I have always felt that they meant that sometime the question of whether we are going to proceed on the basis of the Constitution would arise and at this point government leaders who were Mormons would be involved in answering that question," George Romney was quoted as saying.

              In the 2000 presidential race, the prophecy again made news during Hatch's failed bid for the White House. The Utah Republican and Mormon commented on the Constitution hanging by a thread during a radio interview, fanning thoughts of whether he was referring to the prophecy. Hatch says he was not referencing the premonition.

              Mitt Romney has faced a barrage of questions about his religion from the news media but few in public from voters. One man in New Hampshire last week told Romney he wouldn't vote for him because Romney's a Mormon. But the guy added that he was a liberal and voting for Hillary Clinton.

              On the trail, Romney talks generally about his belief in God but does not engage in doctrinal debate over details of his faith. He declines often to go into the specific tenets of the Mormon religion, saying that he is not a spokesperson for his church.

              Ann Marie Curling, a Mormon in Kentucky who backs Romney, knows of the prophecy but puts no stock in it.

              "It's definitely not playing into why I support him," says Curling, who runs a pro-Romney blog.

              She says the few who believe in the prophecy are in the "extreme" fringes of the faith. "I don't see it being the reason everyday LDS persons are supporting him."

              While the LDS Church does not accept the White Horse Prophecy as doctrine, several former leaders of the faith have spoken of the threat to the Constitution at various times, according to research by George Cobabe, who studied the prophecy's origins for the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research. The group's mission is to defend the church and correct misunderstandings.

              He says the concept of religious people saving the Constitution in the last days is a common theme for many faiths, but adds the White Horse Prophecy is bunk.

              "I don't think the White Horse Prophecy is fair to bring up at all," he says. "It's been rejected by every church leader that has talked about it. It has nothing to do with anything."

              Barlow, the Utah State University professor, says probably 10 percent to 20 percent of Mormons in America have heard of the prophecy by name but that many more have likely heard bits and pieces of it.

              "It's dubious whether this originated with Joseph Smith but it seems to have a life of its own," Barlow says. "While most Mormons may not have heard of it, there are some themes that have some currency."

              The main theme is the apocalyptic end of the world and the phrase that the Constitution - which Mormons believe was divinely inspired - will "hang by a thread."

              Still, Barlow says it's doubtful the so-called prophecy will make a big splash during the campaign.

              "It's too esoteric than bigger things like polygamy that will get brought up," he says, referring to the practice of marrying multiple wives that the church officially denounced in 1890.


              'White Horse Prophecy'
              In the last days, the U.S. Constitution will "hang by a thread" and a Mormon will ride in on a metaphorical white horse to save it.

              * Background: The story was hearsay - supposedly uttered by LDS Church founder Joseph Smith - recorded in a Mormon diary.

              * Fact: LDS Church leaders have declared it is false.

              * Reaction: Mitt Romney doesn't believe the legend.

              "I don't think the White Horse Prophecy is fair to bring up at all. It's been rejected by every church leader that has talked about it. It has nothing to do with anything."

              GEORGE COBABE

              Studied the prophecy's origins for the Foundation for Apologetic

              Information & Research

              I guess the only new question would be is it really true Mitt Romney doesn't believe the legend?

              1. Shanna11 profile image91
                Shanna11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Interesting--- glad I got the facts right though.

                I would hope Mitt doesn't, because that would be first and foremost, really arrogant. Secondly, I don't think he is, and I don't think a lot of Mormons do either. Maybe the small group of super orthodox Mormons? IDK, none of my Mormon classmates and friends have made mention of it. Like I said earlier, I would be surprised if a lot of the younger generation of Mormons even knew about it.

                1. WritingPrompts profile image75
                  WritingPromptsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm thinking of the "Constitutional Party" (which a few of my Mormon friends belong to - but I'm sure has many other religions as well) and how they INTERPRET the Constitution.  They think that it's in danger because of things like not saying the pledge of allegiance, or creating a version without "under God" in it.  I can't see Mitt in this group - but some of his supporters probably are.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image92
                    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The pledge of allegiance only added "under God" during the McCarthy era.
                    Here's the background.

                    Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:

                    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

                    In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The current Pledge reads:

                    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

                    The Pledge is recited, on average, tens of millions of times a day -- largely by students in schools across America.

                    On 2002-JUN-26, a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2 to 1 to declare the Pledge unconstitutional because of the addition of the phrase "under God." This decision only affects the states of AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA. The ruling stating that "the text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God."

                    The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Circut Court of Appeals reading. They did not rule on the basis of the Pledge violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, they ruled that the plaintiff Michael Newdow did not have primary custody of his daughter and thus did not have standing to take the case to the federal court system.

                    It is interesting to note that this decision happened to occur one day after the 40th anniversary of the Engel v. Vitale decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared unconstitutional the inclusion of state-sponsored school prayer as a part of instruction in public schools. The Texas Justice Foundation had declared that anniversary a day of mourning

      2. 0
        Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Can't blame this one on the liberal media. The person doing this web site sounds like a very far right leaning conservative.

        1. Onusonus profile image87
          Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Those guys are about as conservative as the KKK.

          1. 0
            Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yea! And most of them vote Republican!

            1. Onusonus profile image87
              Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              the KKK was founded by liberals. And yes they probably voted Republican this time because the head guy of the DNC was a black dude. Still doesn't make them conservatives.

              1. 0
                Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The parties switched sides a few decades ago! I am sure if George Wallace was running today he sure would not be a Democrat. How far right do you have to go still be considered a Republican?... Since I keep hearing all Liberals are Communists the right seems to think everyone on the left side is under one blanket so its a fair question?

                1. Onusonus profile image87
                  Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That is a false claim, the Democrats changed their strategy a few decades ago to pander to other races but they still play the race game. It's still the same platform of servitude to big government. They still insist on expanding programs like planned parenthood, (formerly known as the Negro project), that wipes out Black families on a massive scale, black neighborhoods that vote democrat are poverty stricken due to government welfare policies that create a sense of entitlement when the only thing it entitles them to is a life of poverty, and democrats want to fundamentally change the social contract by redefining marriage. It seems to me that the more progressive the world becomes the more the basic family unit suffers.

                  The truth is the further right you go the less government there is, and the further left you go the more government there is. Democrats just want to focus on race to take the focus away from the big government "Chains they want to put yall back in."

                  1. 0
                    Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You sound like you are quoting Herman Cain. Funny Half of my family comes from Germany and they would argue the point about the right and less government they survived Hitler. But it is always interesting to hear other people thoughts.

                  2. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Onerous, I am a member of the other "race" and I have not been pandered to, the political right is talented in the bait an switch, the choice of nothing having Government involved at key points is anarchy and domination by rightwingers that would take it all without challenge. That is dead in the water...What qualifies you to speak on such things anyway?

              2. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Man this comment made my day tongue keep up the laughs man!

    2. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi, Silvie, what ticks me off about this is that if it wasn't for the prospect of another term by our Black 'so called' Muslim president, the evangelical right would not have given Mitt Romney any consideration.

      When it comes to religion, to each man his own, but Mormonism from a Judeo Christian standpoint is one of the most blatant cults out there. What is the name of that planet where God is suppose to live?

      Jesus returning to Independence MO,? PLEASE!! I guess that being White Anglo Saxon is Romney's sole qualification for the religious right and  trumps all other considerations. Because Mitt would score a big zero on each and every other front.

      They also talk about baptising the dead and that human beings could become gods in alternate dimensions and such. If this were possible than WHO is God? There is a lot of kooky stuff that really needs to be brought into the open particularely by those for whom the religious denomination of a candidate is crucial to the voting decision. Mitt's Mormonism is too far out for me. After all they sure put Obama through it over the lie that he is of Muslim faith.

      Great thread, Justsilvie!!

      1. 0
        Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Creed, Great to see you.

        I only know a little about the Mormon church, when I was very young and running away from my Catholic upbringing I considered the religion after spending some time with a Mormon couple who were Missionaries. They were really nice and we had some great discussions and the only thing that kept me from embracing the religion was the structure reminded me of the Catholic church and I had enough of religious structure and they accepted my decisions with grace, there was no mention that I was doomed to hell, for not accepting their belief.

        But to be honest, I would rather believe in anything other than the hateful God the the fundamentalist of the major religions try to pass off.

        I read the Mormons talk about stocking food and water for one year, if the worst happens, the right talks about stocking food and water and weapons. Who you gonna trust more?

  2. Al Bacon profile image75
    Al Baconposted 4 years ago

    The biggest problem with the U.S. Constitution is that it is being interpreted according to the beliefs and feelings of the Court justices and not according to what it actually states.  For example, the Supreme Court decision that religious symbols can not be displayed in some public places is a violation of the constitution itself because the constitution was never intended to impose those restrictions upon churches or their members, and as a part of the established "state" the court had no authority to make those decisions.  Thomas Jefferson once stated in a letter to one church group that the state had no intention to interfere with their religion or its expression.  There is no difference between the supreme court decisions regarding not displaying religious symbols in public places and the dictates of England regarding religious expression which was one of the reasons for the American Revolution itself.
    The religious beliefs of any elected or even appointed official should have no bearing upon his or her ability to do the job we picked them to do and if they try to impose their beliefs upon others, it may and probably is a sign that we picked the wrong person to serve us.
    The term "state" is the entity of those people who chose leaders to make decisions good for the majority of citizens and for that state to make a decision regarding religion based upon what they consider to be law rather than the desires of the state is an abuse of the power we gave them and a sign we need to take that power back.
    In our present effort to find the best man to serve as president, it should make no difference whether he is Mormon, Christian, or believes in Mohammad but rather whether his arguments are compete, concise, and coherent and whether we feel that he, or she, is the best person to be trusted with the power of a presidency.

  3. 0
    Justsilvieposted 4 years ago

    I agree. I feel religion has no place in politics and the last time I even remember it really being an election subject other than Bush was when Kennedy was elected.

    But I am wondering if this is splitting the Republican party further since a lot of the "born again's" think Religion first Party second.

    1. Al Bacon profile image75
      Al Baconposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think that may split the party even more but I actually think this election is going to come down to party because there are still so many who will vote for Romney in spite of his lack of respect at so many places in the world where he has visited recently, for example, England.  I also think that because I took a blind pole recently where one answered questions about their position on various things and then it told you which candidate best reflected your own values, and that showed that my choice should be Gary Johnson.  I also sent that to others and they all came up with the same answer, but most polls ask whether one would vote for Obama or Romney without including Johnson's name, and without a miracle Johnson will not take part in the upcoming debates so few people even know the name Gary Johnson,  let alone his plans for turning the country around, so then it comes down to the party rather than the person or perhaps a question of religion or race.
      Perhaps Johnson's ideas will not work - cutting the size of government some 40%, abolishing the IRS and personal income taxes, fixing medicare, Medicaid, and a balanced budget by the end of 2013, but unless he is able to get into the debates so that people can hear his ideas and plans, I fear it will become a question of party versus party and not a question of who best to pick to lead the country for the next 4 years.

      1. vrbmft profile image80
        vrbmftposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well, you gotta an interesting thread going here.  The Bacon-Just show!  Unfortunately, it seems to me that the people I bump into and talk to and listen to, including some of my own family members and best friends, give very little intellectual THOUGHT to the candidates who are running, give very little thought to how the candidates reflect our experience in our country today, or very little thought to the candidates having a clue of our experience of the country's economy, for example.  Most folks seem to key in on one or two items of the platform and don't even consider if the candidate could even pull it off.  I wrote a blog listing the questions to ask the candidates if one ever had a chance to go one on one.  It is somewhat tongue in cheek, but also very very serious.  Unfortunately, I do not think the candidates "care" about us as individuals, and maybe that is too much to expect, but neither do they care about us as a people, and give little thought and energy as to how to shape our nation into a thoughtful and intelligent country who does more than chase oil and set ourselves up for one war after another.  We could be such a smart country, and I don't think the illegals or the welfare folks have anything to do with the state of our economy.  Voters give little thought to the history of our country and to the lessons of history and to the previous candidates who are similar to the current candidates and what happened when they were in office.
        And speaking of giving thought, I haven't heard anyone talk about the Mormon agenda and it's a worthwhile consideration on our part to at least have an awareness of it, if there is one.

        1. Al Bacon profile image75
          Al Baconposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for the thought that you find this interesting.  I find it interesting to see how some people think when it comes to things like this election.  I saw one post somewhere recently where the poster simply stated that the ideas of Gary Johnson would never work and yet he had no idea of what those ideas were.
          Many  people do not want to think intellectually as shown by some of what is presented on tv year after year, such as the housewives of this place or that and many politicians realize that and spend billions on advertising to tell them what they want to hear.  I am amazed at times by what others find interesting and what I am shocked by, such as the episode on a Jay Leno show where a person he talked to on the street could not tell how many stars were on an American flag because it was waving and so impossible to count them.
          Politicians are a breed apart from the average person and not that many try to find out what is best for those they represent and those people in turn do not try to find out what their elected officials are doing with their money.  Almost no one, for example, has heard of CAGW.org and yet that site will tell them who is wasting their money and should be voted out of office for abuse of the powers we give them.
          Politicians make campaign promises because they know that they can blame the other party for the reasons that they do not keep those promises.
          Another big reason that we do not become the country that we could be is because of the over thousand lobbyists for groups such as petroleum, banks, insurance companies and attorneys, to name a few because a politician will sacrifice his or her integrity for one or more of the lobbyists in order to be assured of campaign donations - over a billion dollars in this coming presidential election.
          I think the answer is and has been for a long time a smaller government and more power on a state or even city level rather than with a federal government.  As Thomas Paine once stated, people came together for mutual benefit and protection but the larger that unit became, they less they were able to protect themselves.  There is another theory, and I can not recall the source, that people rise to the level of their incompleteness and we can see that as a politician rises from a local level to a federal one.
          As far as a Mormon agenda, or any other belief system for that matter, that should be only one of the things we consider when trying to determine who we want as a leader.
            I think we may be far better off in elections to listen to as many sources as we can and judge those sources as to correctness, whether their view is cohesive and makes sense, whether it is complete or ignoring something important to know, and whether it is correct or corrupted by some outside source or opinion, and then endorse or reject who we vote for based upon the opinion or opinions of those who have spent more time than we have picking a candidate to endorse.
          History tells us what happened in the past under past leadership and there may be things we can learn from that but at the same time we need to try to consider whether to try things which haven't been tried such as Johnson's ideas of reducing government by some 40% or his plan to abolish the IRS.

  4. mio cid profile image68
    mio cidposted 4 years ago

    You are more right than you know, if people knew enough of how the mormon church operates,Romney wouldn't stand a chance in a national election.Luckily for him all the focus has been on rather innocuous stuff like magic underwear and the such.I don't want  to exaggerate and say it would have tragic or long lasting consequences for the country, but I can assure you no major decision would be made without Salt Lake city's approval.

  5. Al Bacon profile image75
    Al Baconposted 4 years ago

    It is interesting to me that most of the talk here concerns republican versus democrat but I just finished looking at a poll, I believe from Pennsylvania, which showed Gary Johnson getting some 50% of the votes as opposed to much smaller numbers by everyone else.  Perhaps this is a fluke but many polls have only asked voters whether they would vote for Obama or Romney so I wonder how many other polls would have showed a similar result for Johnson?  Perhaps it is still too soon to make a decision as to who we will support although the fact that Obama appointed a Montsanto VP as adviser to the FDA, considering their effort to put genetically modified food on our tables without labeling those as such leaves me with a very bad taste.  Almost every country in the world is taking steps to keep genetically modified foods off the market and out of our diets and yet we have a Montsanto VP as adviser to the FDA which should be doing the same in this country in light of evidence of the dangers of those foods and we have Montsanto donating billions of dollars in California to defeat a proposal to require lables to warn us of those GM foods.  What was Obama thinking???

    1. Mighty Mom profile image92
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I hope to see both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates.

      1. WritingPrompts profile image75
        WritingPromptsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'd like to see that too.  It's crazy that we have only the two parties show up in the debates.  I know it has to do with poll numbers and TV executives - but I'd like to know ALL the choices we have to vote for president... and get some idea how they act under pressure.

  6. Al Bacon profile image75
    Al Baconposted 4 years ago

    The dominant political parties, democrat and republican, establish rules and regulations to try to keep the contest between them and not allow outsiders.  When there has been a third party, it is only because they jumped through the hoops necessary to get into the debates.  It becomes hard to do when polls do not allow anything but republican or democratic choices as a great many have mentioned on various social sites. A recent poll however, I believe in Penn. if I recall, gave Johnson 50% of the vote so perhaps he could have done as well in many other polls had his name been included. Johnson has filed a law suit against the commission in an attempt to be included but only time will tell whether he will be able to have a chance to express his ideas and views.

  7. Michael-Milec profile image60
    Michael-Milecposted 4 years ago

    As the Country is sinking deeper into economic despair, moral decrease , political  disorientation the politician and media helplessly throw  the guilt on religion or a party affiliation.
    It's not being said plainly and distinctively that all religions are equally wrong as well as any political party does  the same religious mistake, pushing it's own agenda uncompromisingly lying that " we are better than the others..."
    The " general public " ( mostly tax payers,hard working citizens ) are not  pointed to an individual or a group of higher morality,honesty,integrity, hard working honest ,truth telling/living , family keeping together - loving- caring raised children in wisdom and respect  --  standing out and above apart of their "group affiliation." Why ?  Why not? .... 
    That what is being done in this game of blaming - mainly cares of hiding ( own ) corruption of loud-talkers with or without slim signs of positive results of improvements.
      . [[seems unsuccessful copy of failed communist- socialist religion .]]

  8. Al Bacon profile image75
    Al Baconposted 4 years ago

    Well put, Michael, but many people are content to be spoon few information in the media and endorse one side or the other without questioning anything else and often the things we should be made aware of are ignored because of politics.  For example, the president appointed a Montsanto VP as adviser to the FDA in spite of the fact that Montsanto is pushing for genetically modified foods without adequate testing by the FDA as to the safety of those foods and despite some scientists fighting to keep GMF products off of shelves without further testing.  Few people know of the CAGW.org group or their ratings as to what our congressmen and senators are doing with our money and our government, and the congressman or senator with the nice smile may be the one fighting against a requirement to list GMF food ingredients from labels so that we have some idea of what we are eating.  It makes no sense to fight for good causes and then elect those who are voting against the very causes we endorse, and yet that happens more often than not.  The CAGW.org rating list give us a list of every congressman or senator and what their vote was on those things which affect our day to day lives and yet most will listen to a debate or speech rather than do any independent search themselves regarding something which they saw or heard on the media.  We might do better to find a neutral person or site which gives us the facts, with or without their opinion on those facts, or do more research ourselves online as to those facts, rather than making an uneducated guess which of two choices would be better.