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.

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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

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.