[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WbQe-wVK9E]

The Obama campaign has produced a new video establishing some clear reasons for a second presidential term. I am so happy that I am on the right side of history on this one.

Also, my car and its accompanying bumper sticker is now famous... check out Democratic Underground for more on this historic occasion.

Post by Joseph M-

Firstly, Romney has furthered his position in the race for the nomination; according to NPR, after the Wisconsin primary, he is no longer being referred to as the "likely" nominee, but the "almost certain" Republican nominee.  He is taking on Obama now, and Santorum appears to be an April Fool's joke after all.

And in other news, some guy named Brett Hatch read from the Book of Mormon at a Mitt Romney campaign rally yesterday, and he followed up his reading with a doctrinal question (about racism in the Church) that Romney refused to answer.  I will let you read the link below in case you didn't already see it all over the web.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/mormon-question-sparks-tense-moment-during-mitt-romney-town-hall/

Nothing new here; more of people trying to understand and define Mormons in a way that gets America to vote for someone else - (Ron Paul in this case).  But I would like to add this: Mr Hatch, if you want to question Romney about racism, you might want to first look at your own candidate, dear old Mr. Paul.  He had a little racist newsletter problem a few years back that you might not have heard about.  Besides, there are a lot more logical reasons for Romney to lose your vote than anything written in the Book of Mormon; feel free to search this site (or the whole world wide web) to discover what some of those might be.  But alas, you support Ron Paul; logic may not be your strong suit.

One interesting thing did occur after Romney refused to get into the specifics of Hatch's question: he spoke about his time serving as a bishop or stake president, (he used the term "pastor" so I can't say for sure which calling he referenced.) He used his church service to explain that he has counseled with many who were struggling in his congregation, and that therefore he is in touch with real people and real Americans.

See this article from the Huffington Post about Romney's experience as bishop.

I appreciate that serving as bishop and stake president affords one the opportunity to rub shoulders with the common man, despite someone's wealth.  However, given what he is saying now, I don't know that Romney really understands everyday Americans.  I acknowledge that Romney-care showed a nice mix of sensitivity for those lacking insurance and business-sense in that an individual mandate was put in place to support it.  But isn't  that a thing of the past?  Now we have Romney saying things like, "I'm not concerned about the very poor.  We have a safety net there."  Maybe we have a whole new Romney like everyone is saying, and just as his days of health care reform are over, so are his days of being bishop.  He is a shaken Etch-a-Sketch; he needs to do a little more than talk about being bishop to prove he understands everyday Americans.

Post by Joseph -

Did I even spell that right?  The Supreme Court of the United States of America heard oral arguments about the Affordable Care Act today - specifically the individual insurance mandate.  And the questions came hard and fast from the conservative justices on the Court.  In fact, somebody even posed the age-old question: if we allow the federal government to require individuals to require people to purchase health insurance, "what else can it not do?"  Can it not then require people to buy broccoli?  (And of course this was Scalia with this inquiry - although some people might have guessed Clarence Thomas; but alas, he has a policy not to ask any questions during oral arguments.  And I can sympathize.  When I am around people talking and sounding real smart, sometimes I don't like to say anything either.)  But Scalia's broccoli question puzzles me somewhat, considering that the same question has been asked for the past two years and was even posed on Fox News a few days back.  What I mean is this: at the very least, couldn't Scalia have been original and used a different example, like carrots?  Seriously, is broccoli the only healthy vegetable out there? Or does Scalia have stock in Green Giant?  Maybe he was hoping for an Etch-a-Sketch-style surge on Wall Street.

What is also interesting is that the Obama administration's lawyer had to answer the question straightforwardly: "No, that's quite different. That's quite different," Donald Verrilli said.  "The food market, while it shares that trait that everybody's in it, it is not a market in which your participation is often unpredictable and often involuntary. It is not a market in which you often don't know before you go in what you need, and it is not a market in which, if you go in and -- and seek to obtain a product or service, you will get it even if you can't pay for it."

But all joking aside, I am following this story more than what my health insurance plan allows.  We have come too far and fought too hard for this victory to have it taken away by some conservative judges.  Checks and balances haven't seemed this fair since the Supreme Court voted Bush into the oval office in 2000.

Here are two links about today's proceedings:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2017846888_apussupremecourthealthcare.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-considers-main-constitutional-question-in-health-care-law/2012/03/26/gIQAkyKWdS_story_1.html

Some bad news for Romney this week: after winning in Illinois, one of Romney's political aides made an etch-a-sketch gaffe that seems a little too close to the truth, (and this is just one more in a series of Romney gaffes). Also, another southern state (Louisiana) went for Santorum last night.  But it's not all good news for Santorum either.  He is still far behind in the delegate count, and Wisconsin looms on the horizon.  Meanwhile, the American people as a whole seem to be realizing what many of us have known all along:  Obama deserves that second term.  And with that, one might assume that the Obama campaign has something to smile about.

In an interview with BET about her stint on the current season of Dancing with Stars, Gladys Knight was asked about another famous Mormon, Mitt Romney, and whether or not she thought he should be president.  She answered with this:

"Not now.  I have to be honest with you; it's not about your faith, even if the church itself in its structure is perfect, the people in it are not.  That's not to say he's not a good person, don't get me wrong.  But I would not vote for him just because he is Mormon. I want to know what he is going to do for the people.  I want to see the compassion.  I want to talk about something else besides the money.  I know how hard it is to send two kids to college when you ain't got nothing. I know people may not think of me in that way, but this business gives you ups and downs.  ... I am a Barack Obama fan, from head-to-toe, always have been.  He's not perfect; nobody is going to be that way.  Until you sit in that office, at that desk, don't tell me what you're going to do because you are going to come in and have some of the same problems as he did."

Thanks to John for posting this on the Mormons for Obama facebook  group

The Obama campaign released the film, "The Road We've Traveled," directed by Davis Guggenheim, as of 8:00PM EST today.



Lets us know what you think...

Looks like this is your last chance to get a free bumper sticker courtesy of the Obama Campaign.  Dont be sad...you can always get one from us by clicking here and spending a few bucks.

[caption id="attachment_635" align="alignleft" width="300"] Cover of Newsweek for June 5, 2011[/caption]

Post by Joseph -

Super Tuesday is over, Santorum took Kansas yesterday, and Romney got Wyoming (and Guam and the Virgin Islands); he continues to inch closer to Republican nomination - line upon line, precept upon precept.  And in order that I might contradict my last post, I offer up this post script:

While it might seem less likely that I'll have the opportunity to be offended by the Republicans for picking Santorum over Romney, ultimately I wish that the Romney candidacy was done or that it had never happened altogether.  This Mormon moment is going on for an eternity, and I feel a tremor in the Force.

Mostly, I don't like the scrutiny.  With Romney in the spotlight, the news media is looking to report on anything and everything about the Church; seriously, if there is anything sensational, ugly, or that will make a good report or newsworthy (or not) they seek after these things.  Check out Friday's op-ed piece in the Huffington Post that asks, "Is Mormonism a Cult?" The good old days of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics are gone, back when the Church had published ideas for stories on Mormons for the media to use when reporting about the Church.  Now the talking points have given way to the Mormonism: Getting it Right feature, and Mormonism 101 which includes a FAQ section that addresses many of the queries about Mormonism, (i.e., "Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will 'get their own planet?'")  Personally, I would prefer directions from the brethren that sounded something like "duck and cover!" "drop and roll!" "hold on tight!" or other words of wisdom from a Tornado Survival Guide.

This oversaturation of Mormon stories in the news and popular culture leaves me feeling defined, boxed-in, stereotyped, and judged.  My discomfort is increasing with each new online article or blog post, and I am patiently awaiting the day when I become desensitized to it all (or just give up and grow horns).  I acknowledge again that Mormons make a tempting target.  The policies of apparent discrimination makes it so; but seriously, The Book of Mormon Musical?  (And I have it on good authority that it contains catchy tunes, colorful sets, and profanity throughout.)  Of course, the South Park guys are equal-opportunity offenders, and Mitt Romney's campaign can't be blamed for The Book of Mormon Musical, only thanked.  But it feels a little bit much right now.

A couple of media storms have arisen in the past few weeks that illustrate my point; these concern baptisms for the dead, and the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood.

Baptisms for the dead have continued to be a problem in the Church due to the continued overzealousness of some genealogically-minded Latter-day Saints that feel inclined to submit the names of people such as of Anne Frank, Daniel Pearl, Elie Wiesel's parents and other Holocaust victims for proxy baptisms.  See my previous post.  And before I even heard the Church leaders' letter that was to be read in Sacrament meetings today, I first heard a report about it on NPR.

And then my former mission president (and BYU professor), Randy Bott, offered an explanation to a Washington Post reporter about the Church's ban on blacks receiving the priesthood.  The Church immediately condemned it in an issued statement.  Well, I don't feel I need to say much about the ban or the 1978 reversal; here is the link to the original Washington Post article, and this is the Church's response as reported in the Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune.  Additionally, some Mormon bloggers at By Common Consent have already thoroughly examined the issue and posted their many comments, condemnations, and analyses on their website; they lined up like members of a Utah firing squad, uncertain who had the real bullet in their barrel, but took aim President Bott and fired their guns anyway.  Their posts can be found here and here and here and here and here and here.  I especially liked what this guy had to say  - he's southern, and I can relate.

But my point is that a lot of this news coverage seems to miss who we really are as Latter-day Saints.  For example, I enjoy explaining proxy baptisms for the dead.  To me, this rite and all the research that goes into it, shows a deep compassion for one's ancestors and a commitment to them in a real tangible way.  I am reminded of some branches of Buddhist practice that call for the male relatives of a deceased person to become monks and spend time in the monastery so that they can obtain merit vicariously for the departed.  This merit is then transferred in a ceremony in hopes that it will improve the station of the loved one in their next life.   Therefore, I realize I could take the opportunity to correct the misperceptions, but with so much information on the Church and its doctrines suddently available, why would someone even feel the need to ask a Mormon for clarifications at this point? (And why would someone feel the need to talk to LDS missionaries if they just heard them singing on Broadway for three hours?)

Additionally, all of the criticism of President Bott does not represent him in the way that I experienced him as a mission leader.  I love this man; I loved his enthusiasm, compassion, and insight.  He did away with "junior-senior companions," (we needed to learn to share responsibilities equally); he never talked about baptismal statistics, (this obscured the real purpose of missionary service); and he consistently followed Joseph Smith's declaration, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." As an instructor, he was incredible.  He gave us the parable of the devil tree, his retelling of the David and Goliath story, and a clearer existential understanding of life and death.  I remember going to him as a struggling "green" missionary, feeling somewhat alone and isolated, and he saw to the heart of my concerns almost instantly.  His counsel was right on the mark, and I remember it almost word for word.  I don't feel I should forget this, regardless of the Post article and the assertion by some that President Bott has taught these ideas for years at BYU.

Thus, I refuse to define my former mission president by this public relations debacle.  I know that I don't wish for a lone action on my part to solely characterize me.  President Bott does not equal his statement made to the Post reporter, just like the Church is not just the pre-1978 ban on blacks receiving the priesthood.  But I realize that this happens often in life and popular media; we define people by their most provocative action or a prominent occurrence, and all else becomes insignificant: Kitty Genovese was defined by her murder, Richard Jewell by doing his job, and Thomas B. Marsh by cream off the top of the milk.

I miss the days of my youth in the south when nobody really knew the Mormons; I could be the one to tell them who we are and be the first point of contact.  Then I had control of how I was defined and understood.  So let it be over quickly.  Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations have pulled Mormonism into the 21st-century spotlight like a handcart across the plains of America, and I am feeling pretty tired.  Not even a hit Broadway musical could have ever done it this well.

Looking for an update on the status of the GOP delegate count?  Try checking out the Wall Street Journal's page!

Post by Joseph M -

And so it continues...

As if it wasn't bad enough that Rick Santorum decided to criticize Obama's faith, Mitt Romney decided he needed to do the same thing yesterday.  My guess is that Romney saw Santorum's tactics as the straight and narrow path toward better poll numbers, and he demonstrated this today when he parroted Santorum at a campaign rally, claiming that Obama has "fought against religion" and has a "secular" agenda.  See the article here:

 http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-obama-fought-against-religion-222645762.html

The Christian Right is at the heart of Romney's free-fall in the polls.  They don't like him because he's a flip-flopper; they don't like him because he's Mormon.  And Santorum seems at least smart enough to capitalize on this weakness.  He is the last standing alternative to Mitt Romney, and so he says what the Evangelicals want to hear; his comments about Obama's "phony theology" and his stand against prenatal screenings are just empty rhetoric meant to woo the Christian Right of the Republican party.  He knows that Arizona and Michigan are week away, next is Washington, and Super Tuesday is afterwards, (we so excited) and he has a chance to win big.

I thought Romney wouldn't go this route considering that Mormons are told that they aren't Christian all the time.  But this isn't the first time Santorum has done this.   He claims that if you are a liberal, you can't be 'religious' and you certainly aren't Christian.  (See link below where in 2008 Santorum claimed that there is no such thing as a liberal Christian).  So Sorry Eric, you do not exist.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/rick-santorum-obama-christianity_n_1291645.html

Both Romney and Santorum are on a roll (holy rollers).  They've found a cadence for the religious campaign stumping, and they can only go down from here.  The Crusades 2.0 are just beginning.

Here are Santorum's latest comments on Monday as reported on MSNBC's The Last Word:

"I don't know if you've been listening to the president, the secretary of state, and other members of the cabinet, when they talk about freedom of religion... They don't say that anymore.  They talk about freedom of worship; well, you folks all know there's a big difference between freedom of worship and freedom of religion.  Think about what I just said.  We have leaders of this country who are now narrowing the view of what religious liberty is in the first amendment."

What does this even mean?  Never mind that President Obama just talked about the importance of protecting "religious liberty" on February 10th at a news conference.  Regardless, it seems that using the term "freedom of worship" broadens the view of religious liberty.  Many people lead spiritual lives but are not connected to a specific religious institution.  Many people follow a moral or value-system but are not believers in a God.  So what of them?  Shouldn't their right to worship be valued, protected, and recognized?

I think Joseph Smith said it best, and Romney and Santorum might learn something here:

Articles of Faith 1:11 - We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Amen to that.