In reporting from Carrollton, Arkansas, it seems that the ever-diligent Washington Post has managed to find some locals who are still upset with actions of a "Mormon militia" over 150 years ago. The Post reports: On Sept. 11, 1857, a wagon train from this part of Arkansas met with a gruesome fate in Utah, where most of the travelers were slaughtered by a Mormon militia in an episode known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Hundreds of the victims’ descendants still populate these hills and commemorate the killings, which they have come to call “the first 9/11.” Many of the locals grew up hearing denunciations of Mormonism from the pulpit on Sundays, and tales of the massacre from older relatives who considered Mormons “evil.”" The first 9/11 really? What was it referred to for the first 130 or so years? You know, before 2001. I mean what was it called, that bad day in September?
And in it's bringing this bizarre little episode to light, just what might be the main concern of the paper regarding this horrific 150 year old tragedy? Well oddly enough it wonders whether or not this will hurt Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Now does this qualify as a reach, or what? None, and I do mean none, of the active participants involved in our state-controlled media were even the slightest bit interested in looking into anything when it came to the background of Barry. However with Romney everything seems worth investigating. There have been bullying accusations from over 45 years ago and now this bizarre accusation from 150 years ago. The Post article, headlined "Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith tangles with a quirk of Arkansas history," attacks Romney for being a Mormon, because, according to the paper, his coreligionists and ancestors were responsible for "the first 9/11."
The Post, as only it and maybe The New York Times can, blathered on, "There aren’t many places in America more likely to be suspicious of Mormonism — and potentially more problematic for Mitt Romney, who is seeking to become the country’s first Mormon president. Not only do many here retain a personal antipathy toward the religion and its followers, but they also tend to be Christian evangelicals, many of whom view Mormonism as a cult. And yet, there is scant evidence that Romney’s religion is making much difference in how voters here are thinking about the presidential election and whether they are willing to back the former Massachusetts governor." I gotta tell ya something, if these folks from Arkansas are still able to hold a grudge, after 150 years, against a man who wasn't even around then, maybe voting is just a little too complicated for them in the first place.
Because keep in mind here, Romney is 65. So therefore I think we can safely assume that he was not a part of, nor was he responsible for, this 'massacre' in any way, shape, manner or form. Nevertheless, the Post seems to justify the idiocy behind its publication of the story by writing, "Still, Romney's candidacy has prompted some soul-searching in this area, where a historical group estimates that more than half the residents can trace their ancestry back to the wagon train." What kind of imbecilic drivel is that? And everyone, even Romney!, has already apologized for the massacre, anyway. The church has apologized for the incident, and Romney even addressed it during his 2007 presidential campaign in response to a reporter’s question. “That was a terrible, awful act carried out by members of my faith,” he told the Associated Press. “There are bad people in any church, and it’s true of members of my church, too."
So just in case there's anybody out there who might have thought otherwise, I think that most rational people will all be able to agree on the fact that Romney is not now, nor has he ever been, in favor of massacres. Kinda makes you wonder if the Post might have been trying to suggest that Romney is always in favor of a good old fashioned massacre if the opportunity should ever present itself. And as usual, with rags like the Post, you've got to slog your way halfway through the sludge of the article before you learn that it was actually the Mormons who generally faced persecution. "The massacre was an anomaly for the church, because it was Mormons who were more likely to be targeted in the early days of their religion, which was founded in the 1830s and 1840s," the paper concedes. "Mormons had been attacked by mobs and forcibly ejected from states." Hm, imagine that.
No comments:
Post a Comment