kyleandkelly.com

THE GARDEN OF FORGIVENESS

TENTATIVE SITE, 608 Vine, Chillicothe, Missouri 64601

Dedicated to all those who seek peace, mercy, or understanding, for any reason. In general, this is to be a beautiful yet quiet place for people to find within themselves the ability to forgive others, and let go of hate, animosity, or anger of any type.

In memory also, of those who participated in, were effected by, and/or died in, the Haun’s Mill Massacre, October 30,1838. Because of the involvement of our early Chillicothe City Fathers, this site is to be dedicated in hope that peace, healing, and reconciliation will grace our area in honor of the memory of the lives affected from this tragic episode in our early American history. May all sides be understood fairly and honestly so that no act or life may be seen to have been in vain, merely understood and learned by. This area is to be set aside solely for the purpose of quiet meditation and serious reflection.

Site to be maintained by a blind Trust.

My perspective is that both honest and ethical mormons and non-mormons alike should be uncomfortable with religious leaders who innapropriately use thier positions and callings to apply pressure to the political process. Missouri is a place where a nucleus of people with high ideals and standards have long focused thier attention. If we were able to gaze into the crystal ball of the future, I believe we would see such a nucleus working legally, quietly, and effectively towards finding ways to better our world in economic, spiritual, technilogical, environmental, political, social, and physical realms. Not only the Mormons have seen Missouri to be a place of enormous future growth for humanity, but other groups as well have tuned into this coming wave of advancement. What is the price to qualify to participate in the realms of a Johnathan Livingston Seagull? If there is any substance to my perspective, I believe the price might be different for each and every person.
Jeff Foli

Since my excommunication, the Mormon church, via its leaders, is using the arguement that my excommunication was legitimate because they have spent money combatting certain political issues in the past. They try to muddle the issue and confuse people so as to minimize their guilt. The fact that they went above and beyond mere suggestion and decided to resort to threat was a line illegally crossed. Churches do in fact, often suport or oppose many issues, but to cross the line into threat, intimidation, and coersion of members is innappropriate. Can you imagine the Mormons getting up at the pulpit and threatening thier members if they were to vote or support certian candidates or issues? They do not do this openly, but they do this exact thing in cliendestine meetings behind closed doors. I was excommunicated for exposing this fact which they term, “disparging church leaders”. I forgive them openly for what they have done to me, but I hope to God, they do not continue with this kind of action with others. They sometimes do not respect the delicate line between church and state. They have got away with it with me, because of their power and influence, but I do not believe, the citizens of Missouri will ultimately put up with this, as the Mormons become more numerous in Missouri. The mass exodus and return of the Mormons to Missouri is inevitable, and could once again prove to be deadly if the clash of cultures once again ruptures. Curiously, this tragic possiblity happend in Missouri at Hauns Mill, when the people of my City attacked the Mormons, because civility broke down. It again occured in southern Utah on September 11, 1857, when the Mormons, in retaliation for what happened here in Missouri, attacked a waggon train of non-Mormons and murdered 120 men, women, and children. Are we blind as to why and how these types of things happen. For Gods sake, please let us learn the lessons of history enough as to not need to repeat them in other days, and in other ways. They Mormons today, will see this type of thing as an impossibility, but if you ask them if thier leaders told them to do terrible deeds, many would, without reservation, quickly aswer, YES. The programming is strong, and has many ggod aspects, but in the wtrong circumstance, this type of blind obedience could be very deadly. The day will come, when Missouri’s elected offices and legislatures will be dominated by Mormon influence. Possibly by that time, the political power and cultural influence will be virtually unstoppable. My desire was to stop this kind of action right up front, but that did not happen. Don’t get me wrong, the Mormons are generally very excellent people, but in certain critical cases, it has been proved to be spiritually deadly to go against their political agendas.
Jeff Foli
Former Mayor of Chillicothe, Missouri

As follow up, to remain a Mormon, pressure was applied to me to distance myself from my public exposure of the fact that I had been pressured to kowtow to the self-serving Mormon agenda. I respected their input in the beginning, as they told me directly that they would oppose my legislative initiative. What is challenging is that I did not kneel to their suggestion, so they ratcheted up their rhetoric with direct threats of excommunication. It is also obvious that had I not exposed these facts public ally, I could have continued on as a normal card carrying Mormon, even though I had written dozens of letters expressing my displeasure at their illegal tactics. Sadly, as councilor to Gordon Hinckley, there is no doubt President Thomas S. Monson participated in the breaking of Federal law regarding tax exempt status and the non-compulsive requirements of legislative issues. Let’s hope these types of actions are never acted out again, and if I need to be the sacrificial lamb so that these things cease, then I believe my acts were important enough to protect the innocent against power and corruption.

Ungrounded in Reality!?

Good Grief! So just how much did the Republicans rise in the polls after this debate? Nothing. This was a one sided debate. CNN had a plant from Clinton's campaign in the audience who asked questions and then they denied they even knew he was working for the Clinton campaign (yeah right). The questions asked avoided most big issues and were over all worthless. Contrary to what some liberal progressives want, I don't think the President deserves to be asked questions with tons of props, backdrops and a lot of instruments and showmanship. They should be given the issues and asked to speak on them simply and plainly. If I want entertainment I'll watch the Colbert Report. But CNN and YouTube turned the whole debate into an even less relevant version of the Colbert Report.

So, just what issues of substance were revealed? I still want to know. I would love to see exactly what issues the Republicans were out-gunned? How the heck is a presidential candidate supposed to answer a song/question with a banjo asking to be cleared of their parking ticket? Get freakin real. The only person who could possibly think this is a good use of a presidential candidates time would have to be a secular progressive or at least someone who cares little about politics in the first place.

I don't know where you pull your line of reasoning from. Truly, I would love to know. To most people who pay attention to politics, it really doesn't matter what medium is used if the questions asked are completely irrelevant. That is exactly what happened. Youtube is a wonderful technological achievement. But the issue is whether the Republicans would benefit from being in this debate. The answer grounded in REALITY is obviously no. Show where any one candidate actually brought themselves up in the polls or distinguished themselves from their opponents because of it. Again, I'd love to know. You can stick up for the YouTube format all you want. It has TONS of potential. But I want to stick to the issue. There was no way ANY of that potential came out in the debate. Which is why that debate was a complete waste of time.

Attack my comments all you want, there still aren't and facts proving anything worthwhile was achieved at the YouTube debate other then embarrassing CNN.

Opinions thoroughly ungrounded in reality: "unlikely at this point more then [sic] a couple dozen people actually tuned in." "Snubbing this debate would have done far more good." "...Despicably one sided debate." One sided? Aw, poor Republicans, clearly overwhelmed and outgunned by user-submitted videos. If the candidates seeking nomination are so fragile, the party is in deep, deep trouble.

And then we have this gem: "if nothing of any substance is revealed, then efforts are completely wasted." Unfortunately the same could be said for your comment.

Were there problems with the question screening? Yup. Does that negate the format or make it a waste of time for the Republicans? Hardly. The problem here was CNN as the moderator, not YouTube as the debate format.

Well, well well,

The Youtube debate turned about to be a spectacular waste of everyones time. Snubbing this debate would have done far more good then wasting the publics time being forced to listen to it. Of course it seems unlikely at this point that more then a couple dozen people actually tuned in in the first place. It just goes to show you, one can raise a big stink all they want. But if nothing of any substance is revealed, then efforts are completely wasted. The Cooper Scooper should be down right embarrassed for hosting such a worthless debate and despicably one sided debate.

RULE OF LAW FROM THE PULPIT?

Will Mitt Romney be his own man if elected, or would he be controlled by Religious Leaders?

I hope it is not the case, but if my story is any indication, religious leaders will take Mitt Romney aside as needed and help him remember just where his ultimate loyalties lie. I, as well as Mitt Romney, have made sacred agreements to support the interests of Gods future kingdom, as we see it. But are individual religious interests and National interest necessarily the same? In the case of a President Mitt Romney, is what is good for the Mormon people, equally good for all the citizens of the USA?

The possibility was bore out in 2003, while serving my second term as Mayor/CEO of the City of Chillicothe, Missouri. On February 9, I was taken into church offices and verbally threatened, by President and Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley via Stake President, and attorney, Detlif Lehnardt in a private meeting, with excommunication if I did not write every Missouri State Legislator and rescind my recently proposed Legislation to the Missouri House of Representatives. I believe Federal Law (Tax Code Title 26 section 501) states that a Church cannot engage in such activity. Whether or not President Hinckley actually said this is in question, however, President Lehnardt had no problem invoking his name as the originator and force behind it. Needless to say, I disobeyed, because in good conscience, I did not believe I could legally be denied due process.

Bubs Hohulin, current Missouri State Representative, and at that time, email assistant for Senator Carl M. Vogel of the Missouri Senate told me that I should listen to Gordon B. Hinckley. The fact that the law had been broken didn’t matter. Where in our loyalties does the rule of law rank? Is it possible to serve both our religious institutions and political institutions honorably and simultaneously without compromise, or does one always take precedent over the other? Let’s hope Mitt Romney is his own man, and whether he is elected or not, I hope for the good of the country, that religious leaders with agendas will stop trying to control our political process behind the schemes or from the pulpits.

Jeffery Curtis Foli
Former Mayor
City of Chillicothe, Missouri
1999-2003

660-247-1700

Yes, it's not your grandfather's party, but you are missing the point. From the next to last paragraph on savethedebate.com:

"Once a generation of voters is lost like this (just think of the New Deal or Reagan Generations) they are extremely difficult to get back."

Similarly, once a label (elitist) sticks for a generation, it's extremely difficult to change. Especially when the party does something (like blowing off a YouTube debate) that reinforces the label in the minds of a certain demographic.

Democrats refusing a foxnews debate may be a red herring for this string. But the idea still stands. I'm still looking for sources that say the Republicans took a huge hit in the poles because they didn't participate in the YouTube debate. Besides, it looks like they caved to pressure anyways and have rescheduled it. I guess the right wing is techno savy after all. I must vot

As for the elitism argument, just because you call something fact doesn't make it so. The many that perceive Republicans to be so are almost always Democrat. The same way Republican party faithfuls always seem to label the dems as big on raising taxes and bigger government which isn't always true. The 10's of millions of rednecks in this country vote almost unanimously Republican. Not exactly a segment of the population who vocally approves of elitism. But the most important point here is the present Democratic party comparison to FDR. Do I really need to start making comparison in ideology between FDR and Jimmy Carter or Clinton? I hope not. It's not your daddy's (or grandfather's) party anymore. Let's not forget that the very group of people labeled as elites are almost always members of the media, professors and Hollywood liberals. Not really proponents of conservatism.

"Criticizing the Republicans for not going all out on the YouTube debate is ridiculous." Ed, a number of hard-core Republicans would beg to disagree with you. From savethedebate.com, "as Republicans, we believe this is a serious mistake."

This post is about the Republicans and the YouTube debate, so try to stay on topic. The Democrats and Fox News are a red herring.

As for the perception of elitism: the Democrats, with FDR at the lead, staked out a populist position during the Great Depression. The Republican party has struggled with the perception of elitism ever since.

That perception is a matter of historical fact; I'm not saying that the Republicans are elitist, simply that many perceive them to be. I think I'm on pretty safe ground making that statement.

Criticizing the Republicans for not going all out on the YouTube debate is ridiculous. Especially when not all the terms of the debate were agreed upon before the candidates were required to give their input. If you were really worried out debate fairness you would be reporting on why the Dems refused to do an official, well planned, well publicized debate by the highest rated news network on TV (FOX). All three front runners refused the debate but not one was willing to answer why. There were no scheduling conflicts and it would be VERY difficult to argue how in the world Brit Hume is not an amazing and fair news anchor. YouTube my butt. The Dems are the ones who consistently refuse to answer even the most obvious and simple questions. Now there's a real problem that should be playing a much bigger role in this election. The only people that think the Republican party has an elitist problem are hardcore Democrats. George Bush deserves a lot of criticism, but I'd absolutely LOVE to see someone backup how he could possibly be seen as an elitist.

I'll leave you with the last word! (At least between us - perhaps someone else will dare to jump in).

Two frontrunners among the officially declared in national polls. Fred Thompson and Gingrich don't count because neither have officially declared. But you are right that McCain is running ahead of Romney, so I'll amend... "two of the top three candidates in national polls."

Yes, all the Democrats participated.

As to the headline and comments being misleading, I don't think so, and for the following reasons:

The question mark and the open-ended possibilities it implies (i.e., that some might not snub the debate).

The comment about the Republican Party as a whole was that it had an image problem with being perceived as elitist. That's an issue broader than the YouTube debate and has been since the New Deal swung a socio-economic group to the Democrats. I fail to see how that's misleading...

Greeks are just Hawaiians wannabees. Funny Utube/MySp quote. I don't know if mom would (not?) know that much though. It is certainly a generational thing as well as something (a medium) that is not going to go away like the hula hoop. I think all candidates should be looking to exploite it, not harass it!

Two front runners? What poll? What state? Using the same source you use (USA Today), I find the 8/2 poll from Gallup showing Guil. (out) - 28%; Thom. (in) 19%; McCain (in) 18%, Rom. (out) - 7% and Guingrich (Neutral) 7%. Without counting Paul, you have 35% "out" and 37% "in". My point only was - and still is - that your headline "Republican Snub UTB debate?" and comments ("the Republican Party") seems a bit misleading. Maybe I missed the question mark though! I'd be better with "Some Republicans Snub Utube debate" or better "Some Republicans Thinking about Snubbing YouTube debate". Did all the Dems participate?

Several points:

<ul>
<li>The two who "sort of rejected" the idea also happen to be the two frontrunners, so that weights their rejection a little heavier.</li>
<li>USA Today has some interesting updates on the situation, including the news that some concerned Republicans have started a petition drive at Savethedebate.com to encourage candidates to participate.</li>
<li>Romney apparently doesn't know the difference between MySpace and YouTube, which probably doesn't help the situation: "YouTube is a website that allows kids to network with one another and make friends and contact each other."</li>
<li>I wish I could find the actual interview with Mitt; the Washington Post makes it seem like Mitt isn't a fan of the YouTube format in general and the snowman quip was thrown in to excuse his general discomfort with the idea. Once again, it's about him seeming to toss the baby (YouTube-driven debates) out with the bathwater (the occassional silliness).</li>
<li>George Stephanopoulos: Or the other reason his last name is so long is because he's of Greek descent :-)</li>
</ul>

The account that I read (CNN) said 2 had agreed and that the others were looking for dates (neutral). Only 2 had sort of rejected in Romney and Guillane. If true, your tease still seems misleading. And as to the Snowman thing, yesterday I heard a network guy - think it was Geo Stephanaupagus (motto: I must be Hawaiian cause they didn't know when to stop on my last name) who said that he (Geo) found the Snowman unprofessional and understandable that Mitt did not want to repeat that (certainly not word for word but what I understodd him to be saying). I think Geo has a hard time hiding his Dem roots so I was surprised that he lended support. Regardless, I would be VERY surprised if this does not happen - though the format almost certainly will evolve.

We'll see what happens; I'm less optimistic that the other Republicans (i.e., everyone other than McCain and Paul) will get on board.

There are eight or nine Republican candidates at this point, which means roughly 75% of the candidates had not yet agreed to the debate. If not "in mass", than it's at least a solid majority.

While there is some whiff of "old guard" (not to be confused with Right Guard), Mitt Romney's comments about the snowman seem more elitist; paraphrased, "I'm better than that." True, the snowman may have been overboard, but by rejecting the format outright ("I'm not a fan") he's lumping a slew of thoughtful, well-presented questions in with Mr. Snowman. Dismissing those questions as beneath him is where the elitism rears its ugly head.

Agree with Katie, Josh and Kyle. ... at least I know I do with Katie! I guees I lack enough information to make the call on the 2nd. This was the first I had heard of the "controversy".

I took a quick look and it seems that Kyle's post mislead me a bit - it sounds like the Republican party in mass rejected the idea. What I read was that 2 (McCain and Paul?) had accepted the idea and that 2 were less sure (Gulianne? because of a "scheduling conflict" and Romney because of he was uncomfortable with the level of maturity he saw in some questions in the Dem Utube debate - the snowman re global warming). I bet this happens but there will be some more talking and tweaking first. I agree that the Republicans cannot ignore this popular form of government by the people and would appear "old guard" (would not go so far as elitist) to youth in particular.

My values are hopefully first and foremost those of Christ (as I know Josh's are). I think we ought to be thoughtful and radical independents; I do not think Christians should ever be big party members (on either side) nor always vote with the single switch (Rep or Dem) - even if I end up voting straight ticket (not sure I ever have), I pull the levers one by one and do not vote for anyone I have no knowledge of.

I have to agree that this was a BAD move by the Republicans. It makes them look like they are scared of technology and it alienates the younger generation. If you want us to vote, then do things that appeal to us. I have Republican values, but it is looking like it will be Dems for me in 08.