I read Hugh Hewitt’s blog critical of John McCain. Some of the comments posted there left me chagrined.

The media early on attempted to spin Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper, and some conservatives bought it. But it didn’t stick. Why? Because Romney effectively answered the charge and is a believable guy. Apparently he has had some traction with voters because his poll numbers have been steadily rising.

Anyone heard the MSM using the flip-flopper label on Romney lately? Not much anymore. But leave it to some conservatives who have not studied Romney’s record or positions to continue to carry that sad mantra as proxies for the MSM.

Liberal Patriot (an oxymoron) attempts to paint Romney as a hypocrite (and a very poor attempt at that) because he advertises in spanish while supporting English as the official language. This is a “non-sequitur,” and a bad one too.

Informed people understand that passing an English-as-offical-language bill would only mean that the government would be prohibited from printing its forms in anything but English. It would not prohibit you or I or even presidential candidates from advertising in Spanish.

So is Romney really a flop-flopper or a hypocrite? No, but I suspect that the facts don’t matter to many of Romney’s critics. Facts certainly haven’t swayed them thus far.

Hillary Clinton has turned to the American public for help in choosing a song the best represents her campaign for President and, ostensiby, which will be played at the inauguration should she be elected Commander-in-Chief (God forbid!).

You can vote here for the choices available.

The one song which I thought should have been there wasn't, but it's the one I would have voted for--Elton John's "The B*tch is Back." Is there still room for a write-in?

Hate Crime laws are philosophically unsound and violate certain Supreme Court rulings. George Will's column of Sunday, May 13, explains much of my thoughts concerning the evil of hate crime laws. He points out that juries will need the capacity to read minds in order to convict. And he is right.

How is a hate crime determined? Mr. Will points out that hate crimes are supposedly "committed because of, not merely accompanied by" hateful thoughts. How is that to be determined? Unless prosecutors and detectives are mind-readers, the cause will always be uncertain.

The potential for abuse is huge. A few years back a young man was sentenced to 20 years in the Utah State Penitentiary for burning a cross on the lawn of a mixed-race family. Granted, what he did was stupid, wrong, and disgusting, and most likely he was drunk when he did it. But the prosecution was never able to prove hate in his case. The act itself, they argued, was sufficient evidence of hate to justify the additional penalty. So the argument is used to prove itself.

Our system of laws is based in part on the notion that laws modify behavior, which over time modifies thought. An example of this kind of thinking is found in the Supreme Court ruling which upheld the Edmunds-Tucker Act in the late 1800's. The Court ruled essentially that belief is not punishable, but the physical manifestation of belief is. They thus applied a prohibition against polygamy to the Mormons, with the implication that they could believe in polygamy, they just couldn't practice it.

In recent decades, however, there has been a movement to criminalize thought regardless of action. Beginning in the 1960's, the effort to remove unwelcome thoughts from society has grown steadily. Its culmination is seen in these attempts to create legislation against hate. But there numerous problems to be overcome if these laws are to be sound.

• Justice is incompatible with the enforcement of hate crime laws. Justice is supposed to be blind, meaning it is to be equally applied. If we punish one person for committing a crime without hateful intent differently than we punish another person who has committed the identical crime, but with hateful intent, we are violating the principles of justice which do not recognize motive as a crime.
• Hate crime laws criminalize thoughts and beliefs that are unpopular, but may not be hateful. This opens up many religious groups to prosecution merely for believing the statements of the Bible which appear to condemn homosexuality as wrong.
• Hate crime laws create special protections for certain groups of people. When these laws begin to punish religious groups for speaking out against the gay lifestyle, for example, then gays will be afforded special protection by the laws. That violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the principles of Justice. But the reverse will not obtain; religious groups will continue to be persecuted without government protection.
• Hate crime laws are ex post facto laws. If someone commits a hate crime, most likely he or she has held those thoughts or beliefs since before the enactment of the law. Technically, he or she could not be convicted and the law must be overturned because of that one fact. But public pressure for hate crime laws is so great that the legislators will ignore this constitutional prohibition.

But, if we can pass a law which punishes a person for having certain thoughts yesterday, before the law was passed, what is to keep us from passing a law which anticipates the potential for crime in people who have hateful thoughts? Why could we not then punish people for having the thoughts themselves, even before the commission of a crime? Would that not prevent those crimes in the first place? Yes, but doing so would completely turn our justice system upside-down.

These last arguments are the ones which make the possibility of hate crime laws so frightening. The passage of even one such law is a step into a hellish future. Even more concerning is that Congress has not the wits to make these arguments, much less to conceive them.

Frank Pastore writes in his column today that Mormonism is a Christian cult that is historically anti-Christian. He also includes 10 points of Mormon teachings that need to be addressed because of their false nature and their characterization of Mormonism as a cult.

Mr Pastore asks if he is an anti-Mormon bigot for simply asking whether Mormonism is a cult. To this I say no, and I have no problem with him asking the question. But them he attempts to answer his own question with answers that do not come from Mormon theology. I really don't know how much more incorrect Mr. Pastore could be about the teachings of Mormonism and still expect me to keep a straight face. If he is going to expose the "cult" of Mormonism, he might get his facts straight so as to prevent embarrassment when confronted.

#1. "Mormonism is polytheistic..." In one sense we are, in that we believe in the existence of at least three beings who hold the status of "God." In this way, traditional Christianity is also polytheistic, but has attempted to explain its way out of this with the development of the Creeds.

We believe that in the end of times, "whether there be one God or many gods, they shall all be revealed." However there is only One whom we worship. We worship the Father in the name of Christ, as every Christian should.

#2. "...it denies original sin..." Simply, yes. But we cannot find any support for this idea in the Bible, and so we are not inclined to believe it. "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." (2nd Article of Faith)

#3. "...it teaches that both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have physical bodies...." Half of this is entirely false. We nowhere teach that the Holy Ghost has a physical body, not even in the meatier speculations of some of the early writers, of which I am well acquainted (having spent the last 15+ years reading such material). We do teach that God has a body, but that it is an immortal, perfected, spiritual body that cannot see corruption. Jesus Christ has a similar form, but it is distinct from that of the Father.

#4. "...that Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary..." I challenge anyone to find any other way in which a child can be conceived that is compatible with reason and human physiology. The problem here lies not in Mormonism, but in the traditional faiths of Christianity which view the sexual relationship of man and woman as sinful. Oh, and this isn't taught by the leaders of the Church, nor is it included in any of the Sunday School manuals. We don't talk about it just like we don't talk about sex generally. It is a topic which should be held in respect in its sacred context.

#5."...that Jesus was the spirit-brother of Lucifer..." There is nothing other than speculation on the part of a few which lies behind this. I have been in some pretty meaty discussions of this idea with friends, and it is still unsettled and up for debate.

#6. "...that Jesus was a polygamist..." There is nothing here but speculation on the part of a few as well. There is no statement given by any of the Church leaders, old or new, which unquestionably reveals this. I am aware of Brigham Young's statements on the matter. But entertaining the thought for a moment, was not polygamy practiced commonly among the Jews in Christ's day? In fact, it was. It would have been neither uncommon nor unseemly for Jesus to have been the husband of more than one woman. In commenting on the life of Christ, we cannot in honesty impose our values and beliefs on the people of another age and culture. The values we hold today are a product of our culture, not theirs.

#7. "...that Jesus traveled to the Americas during His three days in the tomb..." This is incorrect. While we believe that Christ visited the Americas, we believe that it occurred after his resurrection, after the three days in the tomb. We also believe that he visited other peoples in other parts of the world, and there is some evidence coming to light to support this. We do not believe that the people in America were the only beneficiaries of the resurrected Christ's presence. After all, he came to give his testimony to the world, not to the Jews only.

#8. "...and that every Mormon male will one day become a God ruling over his own planet..." This implies that we believe that only Mormons will share in this destiny and blessing, which is false. There are many Mormon males which will fall far short of receiving such a reward. Being a Mormon does not guarantee your exaltation. There are also some of us who believe that one day, after Christ comes again, the opportunity for exaltation will be extended to any who will fulfill the requirements. But that is just speculation, and not taught by the Church generally.

#9. "...accompanied by multiple wives, just as the God of this Earth, named Elohim – who was once a man – has done here." The multiple wives idea has been rejected for the last 90+ years by the leaders of the Church, just like we have rejected polygamy. Will Mr. Pastore also say that we still practice polygamy?

I notice how Mr. Pastore ascribes the title of "God of this Earth" to one Being, Elohim. This is at odds with his previous assertion that we are polytheistic. Are we or not? He needs to make up his mind.

I am always suspicious of any commentator who uses straw-man arguments to discuss an opponents viewpoints. Mr. Pastore has defined our doctrines in his own terms and then sets them up to be knocked down. It doesn't make for reasonable debate, and until traditional Christians will stop doing this, we will not come to an understanding.

Mr. Pastore has attempted to portray Mormons as exclusivist and elitist, but then he denies us the right to be called Christian. We have always claimed to be Christians, based upon our belief that Jesus is the Son of God, that he was resurrected, and that through Him and his sacrifice mankind can be saved from their sins. I don't see that as an unreasonable claim.

Mr. Pastore also lays out some of the history of the Church, and then uses the story to bolster his claim that Mormonism has always been anti-Christian. The fact is that Joseph came to tell his vision to a pastor he knew, and was told to never repeat it. Joseph never attacked any person for their beliefs until they had first attacked him physically for his. In essence, Joseph tried to share what he believed to be true about Jesus Christ and those who should have been glad to hear it, or at least given it reasoned consideration, instead attacked him verbally and physically, unbecoming of people who called themselves "Christian." Where does the problem really lie?

If the religionists of Joseph Smith's day were truly Christian, and if Mormonism really were anti-Christian, then those who called themselves Christian failed in the basic requirement of Christianity to "turn the other cheek." Mr Pastore says that words have meaning. I agree. Mr. Pastore needs to inquire of himself why he still feels the need to attack the Church as anti-Christian, when his post is so obviously colored with anti-Mormon sentiment.

Newt? Agreeing with John Kerry on environmental issues? Say it isn't so!

The very real concern Conservatives should have regarding the environment is the couching of radical Marxism inside the Green movement. At its foundation, the movement is not about the environment. It is about the control of resources and the means of production and the abolition of private property. In my opinion, it is foolish to negotiate with the environmentalists because they do not come to the negotiating table in good faith.

I like Newt's ideas on a lot of social concerns, and I agree that we should be responsible with the stewardship of the planet  that God has granted us, but I strongly disagree with his direction on this issue.