Connor Boyack is scheduled to discuss his book “Latter-day Liberty” on “Freedom Watch” with Judge Napolitano on Fox Business Network tonight Dec. 14. The show airs at 8 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Mountain Time.
For the M* review of “Latter-day Liberty,” click here.
The mainstream media is beginning to wake up to the likelihood that Ron Paul will do very well, if not win, in the Iowa Republican caucuses. Remember, Iowa is a caucus, not a primary, which means voters must be willing to go to the local town hall and hang around for at least an hour to case their vote. Having participated in a caucus, I can tell you that undecided voters are likely to be swayed by passion, which Ron Paul voters do not lack. And Ron Paul is more popular with Democrats and independents than the megalomaniacal Washington insider, Newt Gingrich.
If Ron Paul wins Iowa, which I believe he will, he goes into New Hampshire with tremendous momentum. Right now, the likelihood of a close race in New Hampshire is very good. What happens next? Nobody really knows, but Ron Paul needs to be considered a player in the Republican race, not the wacky also-ran of Republican elite fantasies.
The purpose of this post is to make the case for voting for Ron Paul and also take a stab at describing what a Ron Paul presidency will look like. Full disclosure: four years ago, I thought Ron Paul was a crazy isolationist. I was a big Mitt Romney supporter in 2008. But I no longer believe Mitt Romney will make the reforms necessary to make a difference for the country. In the meantime, I have listened to hundreds of hours of Ron Paul speeches via podcasts. I have read several of his books and the books of his favorite economists and philosophers (Mises, Bastiat, Rothbard, Hayek). And of course I have read his economic plan, which balances the federal budget by 2016 and is, in my opinion, the only serious plan being proposed by any of the presidential contenders. Please read on.
…read this disgusting article on Catholic Online titled (and I am not making this up): “Newt Gingrich to restore faith in presidency with faith in God.”
Yes, the serial adulterer and monomaniacal Gingrich is better than Romney because….
Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and despite that religion’s generally positive public and moral image, some classical, trinitarian Christians have difficulty with the Mormon Church’s claim to being a Christian religion. Perhaps because of that, they are having difficulty reconciling themselves to the notion of a Mormon president.
For orthodox or classical Christians, those who adhere to the ancient Creeds of the Christian Church, it is a matter of religious integrity. They admire the moral integrity of Mormons and stand with them on many “social” issues. However, they wish that the LDS Church would be more honest about their theological beliefs.
Although Mormons publicly proclaim their Christianity (they even refer to their church as The Church of Jesus Christ), they are widely felt to be outside the orthodox view of the Christian faith. While Mormons seek to make this a debatable subject, it’s perception is what matters most, and some within America’s Christian community may not be ready for a Mormon president. For others, it does not matter at all. For example, Catholics and Mormons have worked together on many important social issues, including the defense of marriage and the defense of unborn human life.
Meanwhile, Gingrich, the dishonest, insider politician who compares himself to Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt (without irony) is a “breath of fresh air.” I would not believe this article if I had not read it with my own eyes. n/t to Mike Parker for linking this article on Facebook.
This was too rich not to share. A Bloomberg reporter speculates that if Romney loses the presidential race he’ll become president of the Church.
Ultimately, it isn’t hard to see Romney, whose fervor for the Mormon faith runs deep, becoming president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. When he was in his 30s, Romney was bishop of his congregation and president of the Boston-area church. He would be the most visible leader of the fast-growing and controversial denomination since Brigham Young.
Age wouldn’t be a barrier for the 64-year-old; the current president is 84, and it’s not uncommon for Mormon presidents to be in their 90s. The prohibition against smoking, drinking and other transgressions leads to a longer lifespan, it would seem.
For me, the biggest mystery of the “Twilight” books and movies has always been why anybody would want to read the books or see the movies. The sheer awfulness of the writing, and the painfully bad acting and dialogue in the movies, leave me wondering why people don’t burn the books and run screaming from the theaters.
I read the first book and saw three of the movies after being begged — literally — by my teenaged daughters to do so. I picked up the second book in the Twilight series and simply could not bring myself to read it. But I have been informed of the plots in breathless tones over the last few years, so I am pretty familiar with the whole Twilight thing.
Over the weekend, again after much begging, I saw “Breaking Dawn,”and it really was a whole new level of unrelenting horribleness. In addition to bad acting, bad special effects, near-R-rated sex scenes and piles of blood everywhere, the movie was really, really dull. I could just see the director telling the actors, “look at each other meaningfully. Show us you care!” The actors were like zombies without any fresh meat — hopeless, helpless plodding people walking on autopilot, pleading for the whole rotten experience to be over.
So, the scene of grown women proudly saying they love the whole “Twilight” experience and actually bragging about it caused some real alarm. Is this finally the real sign that the Apocalypse is here, intelligent older women lusting after young hotties and not being ashamed about it?
And then I had an epiphany. I now know why so many women love “Twilight.”