In 2008, I wasn’t interested in the radical differences between Mormonism and my Evangelical Christian Faith.  I was fixated on the clear and present danger posed by Barack Obama as he ran against one of the worst choices I could imagine the Republican Party putting up against him in Senator John McCain.  Not only did McCain have a record of betraying even the moderately “conservative” George Bush on vital issues like ratifying judicial nominations or stumping for continued illegal immigration to the point of lying about it, it didn’t even appear as if he wanted to win!  It gave “conspiracy theorists” endless fodder about how “rigged” the game was when considering that one of McCain’s top advisors was an Obamaboy who made an ugly public resignation because he just doesn’t want to hurt McCain’s opponent!

So I swallowed my pride and cast a vote for the Man from Massachusetts.  I had made a calculated decision based upon what I perceived was a balance between his minimum acceptable dedication to my values and his ability to win in the general election.  And boy was my throat sore!  From protecting the Second Amendment to safeguarding the unborn, ole’ Mitt was a mess!

But thanks to some backroom back-stabbing from the “Christian” who’s changed waist sizes more than Oprah Winfrey (who isn’t a Christian)—Mike Huckabee—Romney ran aground.

Since then, I’ve had some time to more thoroughly vet Mitt’s Mormon methodology and there may be some issues that even give secularists pause.  I think it is fair to say that, at least earlier in his life, Romney took his faith very seriously and almost certainly still does.

I can do no better than the eldest daughter of “Bible Answer-Man” Walter Martin—Jill Martin Rische—who posted several disconcerting but well-documented summaries of Mormon beliefs: such as how Mormons become gods and goddesses but yet the “goddesses” still spend eternal submission to their husband while forever giving birth to spirit-babies within their celestial harem, and other such interesting ideas.

But the truly disturbing connecting I found wasn’t between Mormons and Raelians, it was between Joseph Smith and Muhammad.

SEPARATED BY BIRTH

It is interesting to note that both Joseph Smith and Muhammad claimed that they were visited by “angels” and that their critics accused them (both then and now) of poorly fabricating religions that were loosely based on Judeo/Christian traditions and Scriptures for the very earthly purpose of personal lust, greed and aggrandizement.  Certainly, that is what both men achieved in their lifetimes (as well as ignoble ends).

The Bible Answer-Man has noted several oddities in the Book of Mormon such as over 25,000 plagiarized words from the King James Bible (available handily in Joseph Smith’s time but not very accessible during the supposed “inspiration” of the book ages before), or that Jews brought horses and elephants to the New World before Columbus was a gleam in his daddy’s eye.

Muhammad, on the other hand, couldn’t keep Miriam the sister of Moses straight with Miriam the mother of Jesus.  The confusing labyrinth we know as the Quran contains many more twists such as who the first muslim was (Muhammad [Surah 6:14], Moses [7:143] or Abraham [2:127-133]) or is it even possible to see the most merciful Allah (Surah 53:1-18 says “yes” but 6:102-103 says “no”).

Seeing the power brought by the Hebrew religion, Smith appropriated much of its trappings, calling non-believers “Gentiles” and labeling his place of worship a “temple” but it was his propensity for using polygamy as a cover for lust that brought him the most notoriety:

In identifying 33 well-documented wives of Smith — other researchers have placed the figure as high as 48 — [author Todd] Compton found that in the case of 11 women, Smith’s polygamy was polyandrous.  That is, the women were married and cohabiting with their husbands, who mostly were faithful Mormons, when Smith married them…Eleven of Smith’s wives were between ages 14 and 20, nine were in their 20s, eight were in Smith’s own peer group of 31 to 40, two were in their 40s and three in their 50s. ~ Joseph Smith’s Wives, the Salt Lake Tribune, 13 December, 1997

Muhammad was cut from the same cloth, for amongst his many wives his favorite—Aisha—was married to him when she was 6 and he waited a full three years before consummating the “relationship”.

Both religions acquired new male proselytes by appealing to their loins but while Smith promised godhood with an eternal harem of goddesses, Muhammad promised an eternal erection to be used on both virgin girls and young boys [Surah 52:20-27].

OK, to be fair, the ever-lasting woody was added by subsequent Islamic theologians like Al-Suyuti but muslim men have become quite attached to it for some reason (seems rather uncomfortable to me).

Apparently, Smith was so enamored with Muhammad’s style, he vowed to be just like him.

If the people let us alone, we will preach the gospel in peace.  But if they come on us to molest us, we will establish our religion with the sword.  We will trample down our enemies and make it one gore of blood…from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. I will be to this generation a 2^nd Muhammad, whose motto in treating for peace was “the Al-Qur’an or the sword.”  So shall it be with us — “Joseph Smith or the sword!”

A reference to this speech can be found in Smith’s “History of the Church” (Volume III, p. 167) but a more complete and devastating account is to be had from Fawn Brodie’s No Man Knows My History, pp. 230-231.  Smith made this public proclamation just as the “Mormon War” was starting to heat up.  Perhaps he had taken inspiration from Muhammad’s claim:

I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay tribute.  If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me. ~ Bukhari Volume I, p. 13

Sadly, the good folks from the “Show Me” state didn’t think so and he was exiled from Missouri and ended up in Illinois where he created his own little fiefdom in a town he named “Nauvoo” [Hebrew for “to be beautiful”].  Smith’s utopia quickly devolved into strife, envy and jealousy compounded by some extraordinary religious doctrine and political intrigue.  It ended with Smith being imprisoned by Illinois governor Thomas Ford in the county seat of Carthage along with his brother Hyrum.  It was there that a black-faced mob executed Hyrum and shot Smith multiple times as he jumped from a window, falling dead in the street in June of 1844.

For Muhammad, al Tabari claims that a conquered woman tried to poison him in vengeance for the torture and murder of her family but Bukhari’s Hadith state that a Jewish woman succeeded in poisoning the Prophet.  Certainly, in either case, the words of a different Prophet ring true; All who live by the sword shall die by the sword.

9/11 TRUTH

But Smith’s abject demise set the stage for another tragedy.  Mormons again looked to relocate and centralize in one geographic area, this time following their new president—Brigham Young—to the great state of Utah.  It was here that they intercepted a wagon-train of Arkansas pilgrims.  In their paranoia and perverse doctrines they chose to waylay and annihilate the entire caravan down to only the youngest of children, at one point, entering the Arkansas defenses under a false flag of truce to facilitate slaughtering them.  Known as the “Mountain Meadow Massacre”, the siege culminated with that bloodbath in 1857…on September 11^th.

Is it fair to connect Mitt Romney to this past and culture?

—You bet.  He has embraced it enough to rise to authority within the Mormon Church and you can be damn sure that, once the Republican primary has concluded, the entire Democrat/media machine will be talking about it.  They’ll need to fill all the empty time they have ignoring the past of the Manchurian Messiah of Mystery: Barack Hussein Obama.

Starting with his presidential campaign through all 57 states (excluding Alaska and Hawaii), those of us not hypnotized by the corporate-controlled media knew something was awry with the good Savior.  Ah, sorry… “Senator.”

In rare unsupervised, untelepromptered moments, a different Obama emerged such as the one whom NY Times columnist Nicholas Christoff interviewed:

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent.  In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

The Chosen Messiah must remain on script…even before some 6^th graders.

While Katie Couric was busy schooling us with condescending tone “for the record” that “he’s Christian”, Saint Barack was going out of his way to blot out the Name of Jesus Christ and mock the Bible.

Barack was probably thinking “with friends like this” when Muammar Gadhafi stated that he was a muslim from Kenya who studied in Islamist madrassas.  I’m sure the former head of Libya was thinking the same thing as he was being brutally and publicly murdered at the culmination of his friend’s 8-month long non-war on his country.

Perhaps the media felt the war was unworthy of the name when so-called Tea Party lawmakers like Marco Rubio were going out of their way OK’ing its unconstitutional execution by diverting attention from the American effort with the apparent insult that the British and the French did all the hard work.  Somehow, I don’t think Barack was insulted.

Certainly, the gravity was lost on most everyone over the fact that the rash of silly bowings of the representative of the most powerful nation in the world began when Obama met one of the most revered men in all Islam: the keeper of Mecca and Medina—the king of Saudi Arabia.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might even claim that the masters behind the puppet began to cover his faux pas by having him bow to every emperor and mayor he met.

Good thing I’m not.

Doing the job other American journalists wouldn’t do, Islamist watchdog Robert Spencer was surprised to catch the Supreme Leader in Cairo appearing to quote the Quran about “coming together” but actually inciting knowledgeable muslims to jihad!

I might’ve felt cowed into believing the more-PO’d-than-perky Katie about the Obama family dedication to Christian services…if they ever went to church.  I guess once they lost the unique experience of a “church” that gave the pulpit to the likes of Louis Farrakhan, gave precedence to Hamas terrorists, called the Secretary of State “Condoskeeza” Rice, and made it “comfortable” for muslims to attend, the Obamas probably lost the desire to find a new one.

Certainly, the thought of Mr. Obama being elected for another four years to finish what he started is a chilling one…if we even get that far.

THE SILVER SPOON ALTERNATIVE: ALREADY CHOSEN FOR YOU

So where does that leave us?  Will Mitt Romney save the day?

If you’re a bit cynical about the never-ending cycle of Republicrats and Demicans, I’m afraid the answer is a resounding “NO!”

It would appear that there is a Ruling Class that has a death-grip on the throats of Americans and they’re not about to allow an outsider to loosen it.

Vanity Fair did an interesting piece on the background of Romney, how his well-to-do, 3-time-governor-of-Michigan father also ran for the presidency and how son-of-Romney was living out a pre-planned destiny: “His whole life,” said John Wright, a close family friend, “was following a pattern which had been laid out by his dad.”

Although I consider Ron Paul’s “China-is-Iran-is-America” foreign policy downright childish, he clearly sees and articulates all of our most dangerous problems up front, while most other politicians either ignore or willfully obfuscate them (dare we call it “treason”?).  Perhaps that’s one of the reasons I was so disappointed when his level-headed son, Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) “happily” endorsed son-of-Romney highlighting that very thing, “Both our dads ran for the presidency.”  Sean Hannity found it hard to contain his Machine-sponsored glee, but I (and many other supporters) was less than enthused.  I do understand that he was making a calculated move to back away from what appeared to be a losing campaign his father was running in order to gain vital concessions with the presumptive winner, but is this the best way to save America?

Only time will tell.