Feeds:
Posts
Comments

The person for which I am now being asked to vote is not even someone I really like but the best of the what’s left. That is not what an election should become. I cannot say I would feel true to my convictions if I gave my vote to any of the other candidates that are running for Office in 2008. I think I may just vote Fred (a write in) anyway because he is the one person running that I truly believe would do a fantastic job. That may negate my vote but at least I will not be voting for someone I do not fully support. I wish thousands upon thousands would do the same just to show what it is we seek from our leader. Instead of just voting for the last one standing just to be true to a party. Instead, to be true to a conviction, true to ourselves. If you are truly convinced that the person for which you vote is the right person to represent you that’s perfect. I am just not believing any of the remaining candidates and they do not stand for the things I hold dear.

Are the rest of you true Fred fans giving your vote away to someone you do not support 100% just because Fred is gone or do you truly support any other candidate?

Just for the record I am not a Hillary fan. I wrote a blog about Hillary and it was misrepresented (or in fairness perhaps it was misunderstood) so I want to make things clear.

I wrote a blog and it is displayed on another site (without permission). Not all of the post was copied and I did not give my consent to copy the blog at all. My point was and is that among the Democrats running for election in 2008 Hillary is the best choice (among Democrats). Fred Thompson was the ONLY candidate worth our vote among the Republican candidates and the Democratic candidates combined. Now that Fred is out of the race, the best person is not an option any longer. In my original post I stated that it would be great to see Fred Thompson and Hillary Clinton as the last two standing. That did not make it into the copied blog version!!

My original blog was to encourage Democrats to vote Hillary ONLY if they would not vote Republican and for FRED. She is the best Democratic candidate running. However, that is a compliment and an insult. If the Democrats win and she is in office I would feel better about her than any of the others running. There are those with the strategy of lining up the the most weak of the opposing party. To me, that does not help either party. In the end that strategy is not good for our country because what if it backfires and you get the weaker person running the country? I know they believe that putting the most vulnerable candidate against the most strong will give them the edge and their party will prevail. I wanted to know that the two best candidates of each party are running at the end. This way, our Fine Country would have the opportunity to be run by the best representing it’s party and in turn our Country. Yes, even if you don’t support the opposing party.

I will not vote for Hillary as I have made my vote clear. With that said, speaking of Hillary, if Hillary became President.. it’s all out there. There is not as much risk…you know what you are getting. You can see through Hillary (example…the way they call her tactics during this election campaign). You know, if Fred had the finances to stay in the race and he and Hillary were the two running against one another in November her campaign tactics would not have worked on him because he has never swayed from his votes, his convictions are firm, and she could not have smeared him. It would have been an excellent battle because it would have been on merit only because he’s the only one that could stand up to any smear campaigns. A true conservative and a true liberal, wow….can you not say it would have been riveting?

Back to Hillary…the other Democrats running are selling something they cannot provide. She’s been there, at least she knows what she is getting into and we know what we are getting if she takes office. We may not like what we are getting but at least we know what we are getting. I feel like with the others running as Democrats they are all too slick, they are not qualified, and I don’t believe they can handle the pressure.

As far as the Republican candidates this is going to be hard. Romney said that they are all such great choices that it will be hard. I don’t believe that. The only good choice was Fred and he’s gone. I was so glad to have a true conservative running, someone honest, someone I can believe, someone who would kick some serious tail. He truly was the only great one running on either side.

The person for which I am now being asked to vote is not even someone I really like but the best of the what’s left. That is not what an election should become. I cannot say I would feel true to my convictions if I gave my vote to any of the other candidates running for Office in 2008. I think I may just vote Fred (a write in) anyway because he is the one person running that I truly believe would do a fantastic job. That may negate my vote but at least I will not be voting for someone I do not fully support. I wish thousands upon thousands would do the same just to show what it is we seek from our leader. Instead of just voting for the last one standing just to be true to a party. Instead, to be true to a conviction, true to ourselves. If you are truly convinced that the person for which you vote is the right person to represent you that’s perfect. I am just not believing any of the remaining candidates and they do not stand for the things I hold dear.

So I got off track from the Hillary blog but it’s my blog. Besides, the whole point was that I was not endorsing Hillary above all Republicans and Democrats running. I was asking people to vote for her if they ONLY vote Democratic and would not even consider a Republican Vote. It would have been great to see Fred and Hillary in the final race Nov 2008. It would have been even more wonderful to see Fred as President. I hope this clears things up. I am a devoted Fred fan.

The Only guy ( Fred Thompson) worth the vote Dropped OUT! Well, my interest in this race just slowed down considerably. Our Fine Country is losing a great guy (the best candidate for the JOB). Now we have to make a choice between those that change their views more often than the wind changes direction. I suppose it will now become choosing the best of the worst. A sad day for our Nation.

What Has our WORLD come to?  Who are they to decide what is ethical or safe enough for my family? NO one but each person can make that choice for their own body and their own family. They say safe but aren’t there the same issues with medicines and other foods that are deemed safe and then RIPPED from the shelves for cancer or liver issues, death, etc. They cannot erase the ethical issues here even if the medical safety were not an issue. I cannot believe that at some point a cloned animal is not going to cause issues as a food source.
They say it’s safe but that does not mean it is good enough for my family. We won’t be buying meat from animals that were produced in a way not created by God the old fashioned way. There’s something wrong with the fact that cloning is being done to living creatures anyway….I will not eat them to make it acceptable. Just because some FDA or official says it’s safe does not mean it is morally right nor does it mean that in five years they won’t come back and say…oh, our mistake, now we know it causes your offspring to mutate or something horrible. Even if nothing goes “wrong” it is still wrong. Another disgusting thing is that they are not even using the clones but the clones offspring in some cases for human consumption. They cannot sell this to me regardless of how far down the genetic ladder they go….a clone is a clone.
The site says the information may not be redistributed so I am giving you the website:

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22667305/

This is an abomination!!!! Organic/Kosher is the only safe way not to eat the clone from farmer scientist’s cow.  

FDA OKs meat, milk from most cloned animals

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/01/15/fda.cloning/index.html

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) — Food from healthy clones of cattle, swine and goats is as safe as food from non-cloned animals, the Food and Drug Administration said in a report released Tuesday.

art.clone.cow.viagen.jpg

Debate has raged around food products from cloned cattle, such as this one produced by the company Viagen.

“Extensive evaluation of the available data has not identified any subtle hazards that might indicate food-consumption risks in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats,” the 968-page “final risk assessment” concluded.

“Thus, edible products from healthy clones that meet existing requirements for meat and milk in commerce pose no increased food consumption risk(s) relative to comparable products from sexually-derived animals.”

But the FDA said it needs more information to determine the safety of meat and milk from cloned sheep. The FDA also concluded that food from newborn cattle clones “may pose some very limited human food consumption risk.”

The purpose of using cloned animals is to improve the overall value of a given herd by creating genetic copies of donor animals, resulting in a herd that produces higher-quality milk and meat.

For years, heated debate over the use of cloned animals for food production has stretched from Congress to cattle farms and dinner tables nationwide. Video Judy Fortin has more on the debate over meat and milk from cloned animals ».

Dr. Stephen Sundlof, director of the agency’s Center of Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, acknowledged the controversy to reporters.

About half of the more than 30,500 comments from the public the FDA has received about the matter have dealt with labeling, he said.

But, he added, agency regulators cannot require cloned products be labeled as such if — as they assert — there is no material difference between them and food produced by conventional methods.

“There’s really nothing for us to label,” he said.

Consumers won’t be able to figure it out for themselves, he said. No test exists that could distinguish meat from a cloned animal from other meat.

Either way, food products from cloned animals or their offspring would not reach store shelves for years, experts said.

But companies could label their clone-free products as such, Sundlof said. In addition, foods labeled “organic” would not contain cloned products.

VOTE FRED THOMPSON 2008.

www.fred08.com

Well, someone asked this week how Joseph Smith died. Here’s the information I have on that question. Great question by the way.

It is said by Mormon historians that Joseph Smith died in a blazing gunfight with his enemies. The documented truth about his death shows :

“…there was… a discharge of three or four firearms…. Joseph sprang to his coat for his six-shooter… he discharged his six-shooter in the stairway… two or three barrels of which missed fire. the History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 617-18

    “Joseph,… dropped his pistol on the floor, and sprang into the window…”

John Taylor: Third Prophet and President of the Mormon Church:  testified that Joseph Smith “snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed died.” (History of the Church, vol. 7, pp. 102-3)

Why did he die:    One of the major reasons that led to Joseph Smith’s death was his order to destroy a newspaper. However, that does not make how he died or the fact that he was killed acceptable, it was just a major contributing factor.

Kenneth W. Godfrey a Mormon Scholar:

“The Prophet’s mayoral order, with the consent of the city council, to destroy the Nauvoo Expositor became the immediate excuse to stamp out his life…. Perhaps in retrospect both Mormons and Gentiles were partly to blame for conflict which developed between then.” (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1968, pp. 213-14) The Prophet’s mayoral order refers to Joseph Smith.

 “Mayor (Joseph Smith) said, if he had a City Council who felt as he did, the establishment would be declared a nuisance before night.… Hyrum Smith believed the best way was to smash the press and pi the type.” (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 441, 445) The establishment was the Nauvoo Expositor

The Nauvoo Expositor was a paper that was run by people who were prominent at one time in the Mormon church but opposed Joseph Smith’s teachings on polygamy and they also were in objection to his political ambitions. The paper showed obedience to the law and high moral standards yet it was rejected by Mormons as a scandalous and vile publication. In an affidavit published in the Expositor, June 7, 1844, Austin Cowles charged that he had seen “a revelation given through the Prophet” which taught “the doctrine of a plurality of wives.” Austin Cowles was called a liar by the Mormon leaders, however eight years after Joseph Smith’s death they published the revelation on polygamy. This revelation can be found in the Doctrine and Covenants in Section 132. The Expositor was shown to have told the truth (but the proof did not come until the revelations where printed in the Church’s own teachings years later). The Expositor was condemned by Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum. The claims of the Expositor were in fact true and  true by the Mormon Church’s own documents as said in Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 by stating the very fact that the Church had earlier denied and the very reason the Church destroyed the press in the first place.

The press was ordered to be destroyed “passed an ordinance declaring the Nauvoo Expositor a nuisance” by the Nauvoo City Council.

 “The Council… issued an order to me to abate the said nuisance. I immediately ordered the Marshal to destroy it without delay.… About 8 p.m., the Marshal returned and reported that he had removed the press, type, printed paper, and fixtures into the street and destroyed them.” (History of the Church vol. 6, p. 432)

B. H. Roberts: Mormon historian:  “the legality of the action of the Mayor and City Council was, of course, questionable,… neither proof or argument for legality are convincing. On the grounds of expediency or necessity the action is more defensible.” (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 432)

Vilate Kimball, wife of Heber C. Kimball: “June 11th. Nauvoo was a scene of excitement last night. Some hundreds of the brethren turned out and burned the press of the opposite party.” Letter published in Life of Heber C. Kimball, p. 340