Thursday, June 14, 2012


 According to the February 2012 Vanity Fair article, for Mitt being a Mormon is a duty where he accepts a code of conduct that places extreme value on families, heterosexual families, where men and women have their own defined roles.  He is comfortable around family and close Mormon friends, he is much less so among non Mormons especially those he does not know well, in a strict social order, and it’s us and them. That puts even those he has worked with for years, including co workers,   political aides, outside the bubble.  He therefore has many admirers but few close friends. For those outside his inner circle Mitt comes across as all business, colleagues at work are there to do the work not bond.
He has little patience for idle chatter, or small talk, he does not crave social interaction, often displaying little interest in knowing who people are or what makes them tick. He is not interested in people’s personal details or their kids or spouses said a former aide.
He was considered the Imperial Governor of Massachusetts with ropes that curtailed access to Romney’s office, the elevator settings also restricted access to his office. The tape on the floor told people   exactly where to stand during events. This was the controlled environment that he personally created. It was said that among legislators, he had no idea what their names were, because he was so far removed from the day to day operations of state government.    

In a front page story in The New York Times on May 20, 2012, Writer Jodi  Kantor writes, When Romney embarked in his first political campaign race in 1994, ( Romney continues to maintain that he is not a politician) he also slipped into  a humble new role in the Mormon congregation he once led. On Sunday mornings he stood in the sunlit chapel here teaching Bible classes for adults. Leading students through stories about Jesus and the Nephite and Lamanite tribes.  (Not familiar with the Nephite and Lamanite tribes?  I’m not surprised). The Book of Mormon as translated by Joseph Smith from the golden plates, narrates the history of an ancient Hebrew tribe, headed by a prophet named Lehi, who was an Israelite of the tribe of Manasseh who led his family out of Jerusalem, six hundred years before the birth of Christ. They journeyed to North America by boat that they were instructed to build by God. That during the voyage Lehi dictated revelations which were written onto metal plates which were later buried in the new world. The party of men, women, and children along with their animals settled down in their new community and lived peacefully until they  began quarreling when Lehi  chose his younger  son, Nephi  to lead the tribe, which caused friction with his older brother, Laman,  resulting in the tribe splitting into two rival groups, the Nephites and the Lamanites.

The  Nephites are described as fair skinned and upstanding , while their  bitter rivals, the Lamanites are described as a lazy people, full of  bitterness, whose behavior was so  adverse to  God’s will  that he cursed the whole  lot of them with dark skin to punish them .    

According to the Book of Mormon, shortly after the resurrection of Christ, Jesus visited North America to share his new gospel with both tribes persuading them to stop being antagonistic towards one another.  The tribes lived peacefully for several hundred years then the Lamanites, reverted to their prior deviant heathen behavior. The  Tension  between the two  tribes , escalated  into war around 400 A.D. which ended with  the  Lamanites  slaughtering  all 230,000 Nephites , (without leaving a trace of their ever having existed).  The Lamanites became the Native American but their past as a Hebrew Tribe was purged from their memory.
The Nehite/Lamanite history is accepted as truth by Mormons, although secular archeologists and historians have found no external evidence to corroborate the account given of Nephite history as given in the book of Mormon.   In 1996 The Smithsonian Institute issued a statement addressing claims made in the Book of Mormon , stating the text is primarily a religious text  and that archeologists affiliated with the institution found  “no direct connection between the archeology of the new world and the subject matter of the book.”

All religions require a leap of faith but do not require a person to be so gullible as to accept a fact that can be disproved or is unreliable or based on a disreputable source. To accept such facts and give them credence is to bring one’s own reasoning into question.
 Here’s a con man with a great pick up line, (God has chose you as my next plural wife and if you refuse or object you will be dammed forever). What 16 year old in their right mind could resist such a smooth line? This is the same individual who after being convicted of defrauding an individual by pretending to look at a stone and  finding  buried treasure, reports that an angel, informed him that he had been chosen to reveal a new and  the  only true and religious church,  because all the  other religions had gotten it wrong . He said that while in the woods an angel told him about buried gold plates, which contained   what he termed reformed Egyptian writing. Conveniently he was able to translate the plates by looking at a stone inside of a hat which was the same method that he had previously used to defraud people.

He spins a tale of the two Hebrew tribes sailing to North America from Jerusalem in a homemade boat.   That God appeared in the new world and requested the factions to live together peacefully  but in spite of God’s request war broke out among them, which resulted in one tribe completely slaughtering the other, 230,000 individuals without leaving a trace that they ever existed.

 Compound this with the fact that this individual from the inception of his new religion announcement has a revelation from a deity that plural wives or polygamy is one of the commandments that he is to follow.  That this individual keeps this to himself and practices the doctrine of plural marriage in secret before revealing it to an inner circle, which also practice it in secretly for years before finally  announcing it  to the remainder of the members.

 Add to this the Mormon Beliefs that that eternal life means becoming a God through exaltation and living in the celestial Kingdom with God, which only perfect sinless married Mormons can do.  Marriages must take place in the Mormon temple to gain the Celestial   Kingdom, but only selected church members may be allowed entrance to the temple. A local church grants admission to the temple (A “temple recommend”) to only those members who are tithing 10% of their income, and who agree that the President of the church is Prophet, Seer, and Revelator among other requirements. It is estimated that only 10 to 30 % of members have a temple recommend.
Finally add  the requirement that Mormons are required to wear at all times under their clothing   except while bathing sacred under garments , usually a two piece tight fitting undergarment  with symbols over both breasts, the navel and right knee which is supposed to bring protection to the wearer. 

 Top all this by the fact that although the church requires it’s members to be totally honest in their dealings with others, the church leaders disingenuously deny that Joseph Smith was ever convicted of fraud or disorderly conduct and that he and Brigham Young ever practice polygamy and to this day have not admitted their participation in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
This is the Mormon Church. It is what it is, but for an individual who is running for the presidency of the United States and potential leader of the free world, to accept and practice this doctrine without question may explain why he is unable to relate to the common everyday man and why he has no qualms about earning money at the expense of others or excluding others who are considered unworthy of participation.  If you contributed 10% of your income to your church, which they used to build a temple, would you allow yourself to be excluded while the elite are permitted entrance?  Does this sound like the George Orwell, Animal House slogan “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others?”

As the Vanity Fair article pointed out, he follows the code it is us versus them.   Mormons do not have paid full time clergy. Members in good standing take turns serving in leadership positions. Those called to serve as stake Presidents, bishops (all men) or leaders of local wards,  are fully empowered as agents of the church, and carry great authority. Romney’s first major role in the church was as a counselor to the president of the Boston stake.
 His responsibilities grew and he became a bishop and finally stake president of Boston, where he was forced to deal with resentment among progressive Mormon women in regards to their subservient status within the church.  Mormonism is male-dominated, women only serve in certain leadership roles and never as bishops or stake presidents.  A women’s group called Exponents ll, was formed to deal with the challenges of being a women in the male-led faith. Mitt demonstrated his rigidity and strict adherence to Mormonism in his role as a church leader.

 Romney as stake president was asked to call a meeting where issues could be discussed.  Romney was forced to strike a balance between those local expectations and the dictates out of Salt Lake City. Some believe he artfully reconciled the two, praising him as an innovative and generous leader who was willing to make accommodations, while others considered him a product of a hidebound, patriarchal Mormon culture, inflexible and insensitive in delicate situations and dismissive of those who didn’t share his perspective.   His leadership was not so rosy for everyone, clashing with women he felt strayed too far from the church beliefs and practice.  To them he lacked the empathy and courage that they had known in other church leaders.
 One of them was, Peggie  Hayes, who was raised in Boston with her mother and siblings and  had baby sat for Mitt and Ann’s children before her mother moved to Salt Lake City.  At age 18 she left Salt Lake to move to Los Angeles where She was married, had a child, and thereafter divorced, and relocated back to Boston, with her three year old. She worked as a nurse’s aide to support herself and child before again becoming pregnant.  She worked for Mitt who at that time had become bishop, earning some money while she organized their basement, as well as doing odd jobs for some other church members.  One Day, Mitt called to say he wanted to come over and talk. When he came over there was small conversation before Romney said something about the church’s adoption agency. At first, Hayes believed there was a misunderstanding but then Romney’s intention became clear, he wanted her to put the child she was expecting up for adoption. When she said that she had no intention of doing this he said “well that is what the church wants you to do, and if you don’t, then you could be excommunicated for failing to follow the leadership of the church.

The 23 year old felt threatened because this was saying that she would not be saved or ever see the face of God.  Romney would later deny that  he had threatened the young lady with excommunication but she felt that his message was clear.  After the child was born he required serious surgery at nine months. The bones in his head were fused together restricting the growth of his brain.   Scared and needing emotional and spiritual support Hayes, looking past their prior uncomfortable conversation called Romney and asked him to come to the hospital to confer a blessing on her child. Hayes was expecting Romney but instead he sent two other people who she did not know.  She was crushed because she needed him. It was very significant that he did not go.  Hayes decided that she was finished with the Mormon Church.

In the fall of 1990, the women’s group Exponent ll published an unsigned essay by a woman who had five children and some years earlier found herself facing an unplanned sixth pregnancy She could not bear the thought of another child, but the Mormon Church makes few exception for abortions such as when the health of the mother is seriously threatened, or when the fetus will not survive beyond birth. But even under those e circumstances the church does not automatically justify an abortion.  Then the woman was informed by her doctor that it was discovered that she had a serious blood clot in her pelvis, but with some risk to her life, she might be able to deliver a full term child whose chance for survival they put at 50 percent. One day she was visited in the hospital by her bishop later identified as Romney, though she did not name him in her essay. As your bishop he told her my concern is with the child. She felt that as an active dedicated worker and member of the church who was hurt and helpless with fear, trying to maintain her psychological equilibrium that his concern should have been with her. The women told Romney that her stake president had told her that of course you should have this abortion and then recover from the blood clot and take care of the healthy children you already have. She said that Romney told her “I don’t believe you. He wouldn’t say that, I’m going to call him”, and left. The women wrote that what she felt bad about was at a time when she was in need of nurturing and support from spiturial leaders, she got judgment, criticism, prejudicial advice and rejection.

The final anti women incident reported in Vanity Fair is an incident by a member of  Exponent ll , who had not been able to visit a temple because prior Mormon  regulation forbid entrance to anyone who had married a non Mormon . When the rule was changed she wanted to visit a temple outside of Washington to take out endowments, a sacred rite that commits Mormons to a lifetime of faithfulness to the church. She had never entered a temple before and was thrilled at the chance to affirm her dedication to a faith she had grown up with and grown to love.  She was eager to go but first she needed permission from her bishop and stake president.  After what she described as a lovely interview with her bishop and meeting with Romney’s counselors, she went to see Mitt. Despite Romney’s unwillingness to allow some changes when they met in 1993 and the clashes they had had over the church’s treatment of women, she believed she was in god standing with him. He said  I suspect that if you’ve gotten through both of the interviews there is nothing I can do to keep you from going to the temple. She responded, well why would you want to keep me from going to the temple? Mitt answered; well I don’t understand why you stay in the church. She asked him whether he wanted her to answer the question and he said, no, actually, I don’t understand it, but I also don’t care. I don’t care what you do. But I can tell you one thing; you’re not my kind of Mormon. With that he dismissively signed her recommendation for the visit and let her go.  She was deeply hurt. Although she and Mitt had their differences, he was still her spiritual leader and she hoped he would be excited over her yearning to visit the temple. She said she felt kicked in the stomach.  

Romney follows the strict Mormon code of conduct in which men and women have strict defined traditional roles. Women’s role is in the home, working outside the home is frowned upon.  In trying to sound like he valued a women’s opinion, Mitt said that he asked his wife, Ann for information on Women’s issues. When a democratic spokes woman said that Mrs. Romney had not worked a day in her life, the Republicans quickly struck back, saying that as a mother with five children Ann Romney had a full time job.  What the spokes woman meant to say of course, was that Ann Romney had never had an outside 9 to 5 job where she had to account to someone else and be responsible for earning a paycheck. This is not something that Mitt would ever allow her to do, even if she wanted to do so.

Mitt as indicated above has very rigid feeling about a woman’s place.  When he was asked about the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act, the first law that President Obama signed after his inauguration (allows equal pay for equal work, between men and women), Mitt said “I wouldn’t repeal it.”   Well that was nice of him. 

Romney’s  exclusive association with  members of his church  has  to some extent deprived him of common sense and not prepared him to deal  with  everyday  contacts with non Mormons  as has been shown by his remarks and behavior.   
From time to time he tries to act like a regular guy although he has no idea of how to do it.  In New Hampshire during the primaries, during a photo op with some waitresses at a café, with waitress on both sides of him he suddenly  laughed and lunged forward as if one of the waitress  had goosed him, and the waitress self consciously chuckled  and then repeated  this charade several times as if this was cute, or the thing to do.  When giving a speech in Detroit, wanting to avoid the auto bailout issue he was making off the cuff remarks and said, “I love the Lakes not just the great lakes but the small ones and I love the trees, they are all the same size.” He wants to portray himself more patriotic then the common man and has ended some speeches by reciting the words to the song “America. “  When he was asked what was his favorite vacation spot, he mentioned Paris, not saying that he had been there for 2 years doing missionary work but instead while on vacation.

There is no shortage of Romneyisms which demonstrate how out of touch he is in being unable to communicate unscripted.   He is clumsy and awkward in statements that draw attention to his wealth.  Who can forget his offer to bet $10,000 with Rick Perry, during a debate?

Who can ignore, Ann Romney wearing a $2000 tee shirt or Mitt having a home built in La Jolla California with an elevator for his cars. There is also Ann's dressage hobby where her horses costs $100,000 each. Mitt has claimed $77,000 on his income taxes for costs of transporting these horses.
Mitt wanted to show support the U.S. Auto industry and said “I drive a Mustang and a Chevy Pickup and my wife drives two Cadillac’s”.

 While at a NASCAR event he was asked if he was a fan and said, “I’m not as knowledgeable as some of the fans, but I know some NASCAR owners,”
 He said that he was not concerned about the poor because they have a safety net.  He tries to demonstrate a folksy persona, saying a man shouldn’t run for office if he needed to win to pay the mortgage

 In Mississippi he announced to a crowd, I’m learning to say y’all and I like grits. He added, “Strange things are happening to me
Laughingly he said that he could not understand how college age voters could supports democrats. He repeated this saying how can college kids vote for democrats? He never had to worry about student loans so he really doesn’t understand.  His college education at Stanford and Harvard were paid by his father. The reduced interest rates on student loans are due to expire in July and if they are not extended and allowed to expire, the interest rate will double.  His solution is to tell the college students during his speeches to be sure to shop around for their student loans. The Republican members in congress have said that will not extend the reduced interest rates and Mitt has not made any comments on the issue.

Recently when J.P. Morgan Chase reported a loss of two billion dollars in dealings that mirrored the same shady lending procedures that led to the 2008 Wall Street crash, Mitt said it was ok since it was private sector money, not federal money. The losses have now grown to 7 billion but Mitt has not made further comments.  He did not take into consideration how this affects the stock market and it’s investors as a whole, especially now with Europe as well as the U.S. struggling to regain an economic footing.
Who can forget Mitt speaking to teachers and saying the size of class rooms doesn’t matter. Maybe he was confused and was arguing the age old conundrum, size doesn’t matter. The teachers were too polite to challenge him, but common sense should tell you that a teacher has more control of a class room when they are teaching 26 instead of 40, but if you don’t have common sense  or just don’t plain care, it might not strike you as being relevant.  I’m sure that in his private school in Michigan did not have huge class sizes.

Romney’s former foreign policy advisor, Richard Grenell, who is openly gay, was forced to resign after pressure was put on Romney by a conservative radio talk show host, Bryan Fischer who claimed credit for the resignation. However Fischer then mocked Romney for succumbing to the pressure, saying how is Romney going to stand up to the Chinese or to Putin if he can allow himself to be pushed around and intimidated. The complaint about Grenell was that a gay marriage proponent in the Romney foreign policy shop was untenable. The Romney plan was evidently to muzzle him until he resigned was the worse possible way that this issue could have been handled. It guarantees that the issue will not go away, especially now that President Obama has personally endorsed same sex marriage. 

Romney cold rigid thinking is best illustrated by the story all of you have heard of occurred in 1983 when Mitt and the family were on a 12 hour trip in the family station wagon stuffed with suit cases, and his five sons. The family dog however, an Irish setter was inside of a dog carrier strapped to the roof, (Mitt had created some kind of a wind shield to make the ride more comfortable for the dog. Good old Mitt he thinks about everything. The only thing that caused the party to pull over was that the dog had relieved himself, with a brown liquid streaming down the rear window.  Good old Mitt pulled into a gas station, hosed down the vehicle, the dog and the carrier, strapped them back onto the roof and they continued on the remainder of the 12 hour drive. Common sense is what’s missing here. Why not put the luggage on the roof in one of those special carrier instead of subjecting the dog to ongoing torture from the howling wind that could be expected from such a ride.  Maybe it didn’t occur to Mitt,   after all it was just a dumb animal and it would take common sense.

A tenet of the Mormon faith is that its members have to be totally honest in their dealings with others and in touting his record as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt has misrepresented his successes by omitting key factors.  A January 9, article in the Los Angeles Times, by Michael Finnegan  states that by  Romney’s  account , his record as governor  shows how cutting  taxes and cutting spending spurs economic growth and takes credit for vetoing more than 800 spending items passed by the Legislature, wiping out unneeded programs, cutting taxes 19 times ,and building a $2 billion rainy day fund, while balancing the budget. He conveniently omitted the fact, that  the legislature overrode most of Romney’s spending cuts , State Spending rose by 22%  on his watch which , nearly doubling the rate of inflation. He increased corporate taxes and state fees by $750 million a year, outstripping the tax cuts.  

A major  focus of  Romney’s presidential campaign is that he is from the private sector and knows how to cut costs  and balance the budget and  has used his  term as governor as proof. The truth of the matter however is that Romney in his rigid, unwavering manner vetoed allocations for state police and local sheriff’s department.  He deleted spending on suicide prevention, emergency food aid job training, higher education, treatment for gambling addiction, and services for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence on his simple rationale that the state couldn’t afford it.  His rigid thinking could not compartmentalize that the state could not afford to let these vital functions go unfunded without injuring society as a whole. He was reluctant to engage with the Legislature in reaching compromises, making lesser efforts than his Republican predecessors to work with the opposition.

 During his initial 18 months as  Governor of Massachusetts,  Mitt  spent considerable time hammering out a  sweeping climate change plan to reduce the state’s green  house gas emissions, according to a Los Angeles Times article of June 13,2012, written by Neela  Banerjee and a New York Times edtorial of June 17th, 2012. However it appears that he did not completely understand the possibility of the climate change impact. He would make statements like “Climate change is occurring, and while the United States has the resources to handle it, but low- lying poor countries like Bangladesh would suffer greatly.” His cabinet members would look at him, like “what?” Romney pushed to close old coal fired plants, and encouraged the development of  renewable energy  and contain sprawl, steps similar to some President Obama has taken. But as he prepared for his run at the presidency he made an about face,  and now expresses doubt about climate science like the majority of his party. His official web site has no mention of environmental policy, except for reining in the Clean Air Act and the EPA.  It was almost as if a switch was flipped, a  true Etch A Sketch moment.

If elected, would you like to bet 10 thousand dollars over which position Mitt would take on climate change, especially since his top energy donors such as the Koch brothers are from the fossil fuel, coal and natural gas industries which are pouring hundreds of million dollars into Mitt's campaign to defeat President Obama.

In an article in the Los Angeles Times on June 24, 2012, written by Doyle McManus it states that Mitt wants to reduce the deficit and his formula for doing so is to decrease federal spending overall including medicare,while also lowering taxes, however he has said that at the same time he will increase defense spending massively by more than 50 % over current levels, which could mean almost two trillion in additional military spending over the next ten years,while at the same time balancing the budget. Even Houdini would have difficulity accomplishing this, it's just not realistic, but the Mittster thinks he can pull the wool over the voters eyes and promise whatever, to get elected. When questioned about his numbers his spokes person said that Mitt is serious about this goal but hasn't specified a date for reaching it. Good talking point, please give us a call when you come up with some specific details. That's Mitt for you, always kidding around, except this is serious business for you and me. 

On Thursday, June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued it's long awaited decision in Human Health Services vs, National Federation of Independent Businesses (affordable health care) and in what will known as a momentous day in the history of our country, Chief Justice John Roberts stepped away from Justice Kennedy and the three stooges, Scalia, Alito and Thomas and joined with the more enlightened members of the court to uphold the individual mandate of President Obama's signature piece of legislation. The present supreme court has one of the lowest approval ratings (25%) with the American People who have seen their rulings to be politically motivated and not based on objective legal analysis and Chief Justice Roberts position is a step in the right direction in reversing this perception. The ruling is a victory for the white house but more important a victory for the American People, especially the 33 million people not previously covered by health insurance.

The Republican Party who did not vote or ever support health care reform has been quick to condemm the decision and vow to reapeal or replace the law citing the expected costs and questioning, how health care would be paid for. That's an easy answer, as stated above the Mittster has stated that he plans to increase military spending  by 2 trillion dollars over the next ten years. Why has no one questioned that? If we have 2 trillion to spend on defense, we can certainly afford to pay for the health and welfare of our citizens.

On the issue of immigration, during the Republican primaries, Mitt said he favored"self deportation" for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants who live and work in this country.  After President Obama  made the announcement on June 15, 2012 that he was halting deportation for some illegal immigrants. Specifically those who were brought here as children before the age of 16, had lived here for 5 years, were currently in high school, had a high school diploma or GED or in college or served in the military, did not have a criminal record and were under the age of 30, giving them an opportunity to apply for deferred action on deportation and for work permits which would be valid for two years and renewable. When Mitt was questioned about this he said he would support legislation that would allow some of those immigrants to stay, but refused to say whether if elected, he would countermand this executive order.

In a speech on June 21, 2012 to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, (NALEO) Mitt said that he would put in place his own long term solution that would replace and supersede the president's temporary measure. Again he was vague on the specifics except to say his his immigration plan would include a high tech fence and would not include a path to citizenship except for military service. This is the same Mitt who opposed the Dream Act and said that as president he would repeal it.
That's Mitt for you. This is the best he could come up with, 6 days after the president announced his plan on June 15, 2012.  All you can say about Mitt is that he is not too swift in time or rhetoric.  

It's seems like Mitt can't even rely on his own party for support. On June 14, the RNCLatino .com site posted a stock photo of what they thought were Latino children only to have it later pointed out to them that the children were Asian. The stock photo from Shutterstock tags the photo with keywords like, "Asia," "Asian", "Japanese" and "Thailand." You can be sure that the RNC is committed to presenting this site to Latino voters, as soon as they find out what they look like.

This is the true Willard Mitt Romney, a disingenuous, flip flopping vanilla, mom wearing  jeans individual, who at one time was proud to be pro choice because that was the platform his mother ran on in her bid for the U.S. Senate. He has once again demonstrated his  convoluted thinking process which prevents him from discerning and making decisive thoroughly conceived decisions and instead panders to any and all of his supporters, especially the higest bidders.
His latest flip floppin Etch A Sketch moment is the switch of now calling the individual mandate of the Affordable HealthCare Act a tax, whereas he previously called it a penalty. The Republican base however quickly siezed on the issue that  the individual mandate was a tax on the middle class. Five days after the ruling Mitt has finally joined his base and now calls the mandate a tax. However he insists that his mandate in his Rommneycare bill in Masschusetts is a penalty because he argues that states can legislate a penalty even if the federal government is unable to do so. The Mittster must have been absent when they discussed this in his con law class at Harvard.  Stae and Federal legislation are both subject to challenges of constitutionality, so if the federal mandate is a tax then the Masschusetts mandate is also a tax.

In a July 5, 2012 interview with Jan Crawford of CBS, Ann Romney who had accompanied the Mittster, indicated that a female candidate might be selected for his running mate as Vice President. Mitt agreed and said this was being considered. Mormonism, is a male dominated organization and women are never given leadership positions, so it appears that the Mittster is once again pandering to get the female vote. This will come to haunt him, when he fails to select a female candidate.

Are you ready to put him in charge of our country?



No comments:

Post a Comment