Thursday, October 13, 2011

What About Mitt Romney for President? (Part 1)

"Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the state’s abortion laws....Romney made similar assurances to activists for gay rights and the environment, according to people familiar with the discussions, both as a candidate for governor and then in the early days of his term."
Romney’s Religion: The Most Scrutinized Doctrines of Mormonism
If Mitt is the GOP Candidate, We Must Prepare for All Inquiries
Kelly O'Connell
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Regarding the 2012 presidential election, it is extremely important for Conservatives to prepare pro-actively for attacks. For instance, if Mitt Romney truly is the presumptive GOP nominee, well then we must familiarize ourselves with the most frequently criticized elements of Mormonism. Even if this enquiry into an honorable man’s religion is against our instincts. This is so because most Americans simply don’t know LDS theology, and the element of surprise can be used against the GOP.
For if history has taught Conservatives anything, it is that the perceived weaknesses of our candidates, fairly portrayed or not, will become fodder for the mainstream media. An example being the late Christopher Hitchen’s dyspeptic article, Romney’s Mormon Problem; Mitt Romney and the weird and sinister beliefs of Mormonism.
Undoubtedly the good works of the Mormon faith are remarkable, but Mitt will be at the mercy of the reaction of the ignorant to the more controversial parts of his beliefs. This is not to suggest that Romney could never become a great president because of his beliefs, but simply that his religion might cost him the opportunity. For this reason, this brief outline of LDS belief, especially of the more controversial elements is presented.
I. Brief Introduction to Mormon History
In 1820, Joseph Smith, a young man of 14 years old living in Manchester, New York, was visited by God and Jesus. who informed him every Christian denomination was an abomination in their eyes. Here writes Smith in his autobiographical Pearl of Great Price, a portion of the Book of Mormon.
I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight; that those professors were all corrupt…
In 1823, an angel named Moroni revealed to Joseph the existence of certain golden plates of ancient language, and where they were buried in a hill. The angel came in a vision, explaining many things about the true nature of God. In 1827, the plates were translated from Reformed Egyptian, becoming the basis for the Book of Mormon, a history of the North American continent. This included the exploits of a lost tribe of Jews, sent here by God to create a remnant for the Second Coming of Christ, becoming known as the “Latter Day Saints” as a continuation of earlier biblical saints.
Smith attracted a group of followers who mimicked his polygamous lifestyle, and were driven from town to town, deeper and deeper West as their practices made them anathema to everyday Americans. Finally, Joseph Smith was arrested for destroying printing press used to defame the Mormons in Carthage, IL. Here Smith was jailed, yet when an angry mob stormed the jail Smith used a smuggled gun to fight back, but was shot dead. He died a religious martyr, according to his followers. Brigham Young then brought the group to Utah where they established world headquarters of the LDS empire.
II. Most Common Criticisms Leveled at the Latter Day Saints Church
A. Continuing Revelation
The most persistent criticism of the Mormon church is their belief that the works of Joseph Smith represent a continuation of the canon of scripture. Christians point to the work of the early church in establishing this position by way of the condemnation of Montanus, whose ideas were officially censured in the 2nd century AD. The Heresy of Montanism is described by Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, in part, as being “It asserted, above all, the continuance of prophecy, and hence it went generally under the name of the nova prophetia.”
Smith’s output of scripture included the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. His followers claim the power of the works, as well as the LDS Church’s remarkable vitality and growth prove the accuracy of Smith’s vision.
B. Joseph’s Smith’s Character
Joseph Smith’s critics complain that he was a dishonest character. Is this correct? His naysayers say he was prosecuted and convicted of running a confidence game, according to NY state court records. Claims one source,
NORWICH—County historians have rediscovered historical records proving the founder of the Mormon Church was arrested on several occasions while living in Chenango County. These include legal bills from separate charges filed against Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, now the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). The religious founder, the bills show, was arrested three times in the county between 1826 and 1830 for cases involved Smith’s involvement in “glass looking,” or searching for treasure, and “being a disorderly person.”
Mormons respond that such criticism is based upon biased history motivated by prejudice or jealousy.
C. Jesus of Mormonism
The Christ of Mormonism is superficially at odds with the Biblical personality, admits the head of the church:
“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak’” (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7).
The Jesus of Mormonism is the brother of Satan. Ensign, the official magazine of the LDS church says:
On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers… But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother.
Further, the Mormon God is neither a Trinity, nor monotheistic, as the next section explains. But Mormons respond that one cannot expect a previous revelation to agree exactly with subsequent ones, or there would be no point to further revelations.
D. Polytheism & Human Godhood Evolution
Critics say Mormonism is technically a polytheistic religion, as Smith reveals in his Book of Abraham translation, part of LDS scripture, in chapter 4:3-4:
And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light. And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness.
Another source describes LDS beliefs on the gods:
The Mormon Church teaches a plurality of Gods. They believe God the Father (Elohim) was once a man on a separate world who attained godhood. He then had many spirit children with his wives, the oldest one being Jesus. According to LDS beliefs, we were all Elohim’s spirit children before our carnal existence. Therefore, Jesus is our eldest brother. As former LDS Prophet Brigham Young taught: “How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity.” Therefore, the number of gods is practically limitless.
Deeper teachings in Mormonism also promote the idea that obedient Mormons can evolve into gods as McKeever describes:
“Although it is not found in any of Mormonism’s Standard Works, an expression which precisely defines the LDS teaching that men can become Gods was coined by fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God! According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation ... They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).”
Mormons dislike discussing this issue, and refuse the term “polytheist” for their religion. Instead they point out that there is only one God in this world, which is all we need to acknowledge. But we can be sure the topic will be raised repeatedly during a Romney election.
E. Polygamy
Famously, Mormons historically practiced polygamy, a notion championed by founder Joseph Smith, despite his first wife deserting him for the activity, according to Todd Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness, The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith. The practice made Mormons notorious to their “gentile” neighbors, one reason the sect repeatedly relocated in its early years. In fact, Abraham Lincoln ran with a “Defense of Marriage” plank in his platform for president, and later encouraged the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, meant to shut down LDS plural marriage in the Utah Territory.
The LDS Church teaches that obedient Mormons will evolve into godhood in the afterlife where they may take multiple wives for heavenly marriages. Says the introduction to LDS scripture Doctrine & Covenants Section 132:
“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives “
While the LDS no longer officially practice plural marriage, many offshoot sects still engage in this lifestyle, as notoriously reported in places like Colorado City, Utah. More importantly, Mormons teach that polygamy will again be allowed for Mormons in the afterlife. But defenders claim that all the prophets of the Old Testament were polygamists. Further, that since the LDS have changed their official stance on polygamy, the criticism no longer applies.
F. Pre-existence & Spirit Babies
Mormon doctrine teaches that humans lived in a pre-existant state, being produced in celestial marital relations as “spirit babies.” The official Mormon scholarly publication Journal of Discourse, stated in Vol. 4, p. 218: ”We were first begotten as spirit babies in heaven and then born naturally on earth.” This teaching also indicates that Mormons believe intercourse will continue in the next life.
Mormon apologists claim teachings such as these nowhere directly contradict any Scripture.
I. Racism & Children of Cain
Mormonism historically taught dark skin is the “Mark of Cain,” being a curse put upon Blacks for the rebellion of their forefathers in the pre-existence. Joseph Smith did not have a high view of Blacks, stating “Had I anything to do with the negro , I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization.’” Brigham Young especially had an extreme bias against Blacks. He stated ““But let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332)” Young also claimed,
This people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are…You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.
The LDS Church stood to lose their IRS tax exempt status in the 1970s for discrimination, but before this could happen, the Mormon Prophet had a revelation in 1978 that Blacks could attain the highest heaven, and not just as servants but ordained priests. Yet, the teaching has deep roots, as LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie further explains:
Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions impose(d) on them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God, and his murder of Able being a black skin…Noah’s son married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood…the negro are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concern(ed)...” (Mormon Doctrine, 527-28; 1966 orig. ed).
The LDS Church can fight back and claim that all of America used to be racist slave-holders and obnoxious bigots, so why pile on the Mormons? Especially, since they have come so far so quickly on race relations. But does this open the door for Obama’s very race-oriented supporters to claim Romney’s church has a despicably racist history?
J. Book of Abraham
The Book of Abraham, along with DNA studies of American Natives, have become the bĂȘte noire of the modern LDS church. This is because the language code of the famed Rosetta Stone was cracked, allowing ancient Egyptian to be properly translated. This then made possible Joseph Smith’s own translation to be tested.
And what did Joseph Smith claim his Egyptian papyrus named the Book of Abraham said? He stated the Egyptian words and figures depicted Abraham and Joseph of the Bible. Yet when trained Egyptologists studied the documents, this was not verified. Instead, it turned out the papyri were very ordinary Egyptian funerary documents, fragments of the Book of the Dead. This flew in the face of the LDS teaching that the Mormon Prophet can translate accurately any language, living or dead.
According to one Egyptologist, a typical comparison between Young’s work and theirs went something like this:
Joseph Smith said that Facsimile No. 1 was of a bird as the “Angel of the Lord” with “Abraham fastened upon an altar,” “being offered up as a sacrifice by a false priest. The pots under the altar were various gods “Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, Pharaoh,” etc.
In reality, this is “an embalming scene showing the deceased lying on a lion-couch.”
These facts are passed off as the debate between philologists over the definitions of obscure foreign word definitions. It is hard to know how the public at large, many of them hearing details on this for the first time, will react.
K. Lost Tribe & DNA
The Book of Mormon describes voyages to the Americas by ancient Israelites in 2 Nephi 1:9:
Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; ; [The Americas] and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves.
In other words, Joseph Smith taught native Americans are descended from the Twelve Tribes of Israel. But does science back up this claim? Unfortunately not, according to geneticist Simon G. Southerton in his Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church. Southerton states studies of mitochondrial DNA of Native Americans conclusively prove the Mormon claim of descent from Israeli immigrants is unsupported by DNA evidence. The LDS lost many adherents as a result.
This debate can be claimed just an argument between scientists. But what will an increasingly sceptical public think after hearing these points pounded over and over?
Mitt Romney could be the best candidate in the entire 2012 race. And yet, if his backers do not understand Mormon doctrines, or are not prepared to defend these to a skeptical mainstream media and American electorate, the race might be lost before it’s even begun.
Kelly O’Connell hosts American Anthem on CFP Radio Sundays at 4 pm (EST).
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell
Kelly can be reached at:
Stop the Romney Coronation
The Romney nomination will become a conservative nightmare turned reality
Jeff Crouere
Thursday, January 12, 2012
With one caucus and one primary completed, there is a stampede of media analysts and Republican operatives rushing to proclaim Mitt Romney as the de-facto Republican nominee. Despite the fact that only a fraction of the delegates have been chosen and voters in 48 states have yet to cast a vote, there is a definite push to call this political ballgame early.
Why the rush to coronate a nominee? A prolonged primary battle will not harm Romney or whoever wins the nomination, it will only make the GOP nominee stronger. A hard fought Democratic Party campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2008 certainly helped Barack Obama become a better candidate.
In contrast, Republicans have not seen a vigorous nomination contest since the epic 1976 race between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, the GOP favors establishment candidates who have previously lost and are running for the second or third time. Republicans like to clear the field for the candidate that insiders believe has earned a spot at the top of the ticket. This flawed strategy has given the party two nominees who were major losers: Bob Dole and John McCain.
Thus, we enter the 2012 contest with a front runner, Mitt Romney who lost in 2008 and never stopped running for President. With a massive war chest and a plethora of party leaders pushing for his nomination, the Massachusetts flip flopper has plenty of momentum. Media analysts and commentators are already claiming that the race is over and the country will be subjected to a Romney versus Obama race this fall.
At this point, it is way too early to end this primary contest. Voters in the South clearly think differently on most issues than the more liberal electorate in Iowa and New Hampshire. Usually, a moderate candidate like Romney would not do well in a conservative state like South Carolina; however, voters will be influenced by media coverage painting Romney as the eventual winner. Voters like to side with a winner and not “waste” their vote. Romney will also have a huge financial advantage and a Super PAC ready to spend $7 million touting his candidacy.
As we enter South Carolina, the moderates are united behind Romney and the conservatives are split among the other candidates. The Tea Party does not have a unified voice, so there is division among the right leaning candidates. The longer this continues, the better the result for Romney. To improve their chances of defeating Romney, the conservatives should unite behind one candidate. Gingrich, Santorum and Perry need to meet and decide which candidate is the strongest one to move forward.
If Romney is the nominee, Democrats will be delighted. They know that Romney is the weakest candidate they can face in the general election, regardless of the media spin. In fact, Democratic operative Donna Brazile admitted this secret on ABC after the network’s Republican debate last Saturday night.
If Romney is the nominee, Republicans will not be able to challenge Obama on the issue of socialized medicine. Romney’s Massachusetts plan was the inspiration for the Obama healthcare disaster. Two of Romney’s advisers helped Obama craft his plan.
Under Romney, taxes increased by $730 million in Massachusetts, so he will not be able to make the anti-tax argument. While Romney was Governor, Massachusetts suffered from anemic economic growth, the fourth lowest in the country. Romney supported liberal judges and cabinet appointments. He espoused liberal positions on major issues and was a self proclaimed “progressive” who did not want to “return to Reagan Bush.” These liberal positions, the flip flopping, and the controversy over his tenure at Bain Capital make Romney an inviting target for Obama and the Democrats.
The Republican electorate in this country needs to spend much more time contemplating whether they are ready to nominate a candidate as liberal as Romney. Although he is sounding conservative themes today, his record is spotty at best. His conversion is one of convenience not of principle.
Romney needs to be completely vetted and more Republicans need a chance to express their opinion. The nomination process should not be dominated by just a few states that do not represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. If the process is shortcut by media pressure or big money, the vast majority of GOP voters across this country will be disenfranchised.
Just one year ago, the Tea Party was celebrating a major victory in the mid-term elections. Today, Mitt Romney is getting ready for his coronation, even though he does not represent the Tea Party or the conservative Reagan wing of the Republican Party.
In the interest of the conservative movement, the remaining conservative candidates need to unite and set aside their personal interests.
There needs to be consolidation on the right to give Romney a run for the money. Otherwise the drumbeat that it “is over” will continue and the Romney nomination will become a conservative nightmare turned reality.
Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Fri. and 10:00 p.m. Sun. on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. For more information, visit his web site at E-mail him at 
Will There be a Citizenship Eligibility Challenge for Romney?
By: Devvy Kidd
January 7, 2012
The worn out race card has been used by the sycophants who support Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barack Dunham to crush any discussion regarding his eligibility. Race baiters in the corrupt, disgraced media who wear their socialist ideology like a badge of honor continue to chant "birthers" are all racists because Obama/Soetoro is black. They conveniently forget Barry's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham was white. The correct racial definition is half Caucasian, half Negro. But, none of that matters to the gangsters who prop up Soetoro or the useful fools who proclaim his brilliance.
Nor do any of the liars for hire in the media playing the race card ever bring up the very first ballot challenge in 2008. Leo Donofrio, an attorney in New Jersey, raised the first concerns regarding citizenship when he filed to keep Obama/Soetoro off the ballot. The other two candidates in Leo's case were John McCain and a foreign national who was obviously ineligible. No mention is ever made of Leo's case against McCain not being constitutionally eligible.
Was this challenge to Obama/Soetoro's citizenship unanticipated? I don't believe so. Leo filed his papers in October 2008; you can view all of them here: 
The powers behind the scenes began to grease the wheels shortly after Soetoro became a state senator in Illinois. By February 2008, chicanery was underway as this relatively unknown with no paper trail to his life makes a bid for the White House. There were obviously people with a lot at stake who knew there was a problem with Barry's citizenship and tried to cut it off before it became an issue:
In February 2008, Democrats (and one Republican) began pushing legislation on the issue of citizenship:
"...on February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).
"Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find....
"Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511. On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a “natural born citizen” in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
"One has to wonder — what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a “natural born citizen”? Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?"
McCain was drug into the conspiracy so everyone looked fair: What is good for a RINO is good for whatever his real name is.
If you read Leo's documents, he addresses the issue of McCain's ineligibility; see this page:
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant an oral hearing on Leo's case. An endless stream of lawsuits have followed over the years. Of course, none of this would have happened had the Outlaw Congress done their job, January 9, 2009 and stopped the electoral college vote. The controversy was raging full steam by then regarding Obama/Soetoro's constitutional eligibility, yet not one member of Congress, not Michelle Bachmann, not Ron Paul, not one single member of Congress had the courage to stand up, invoke house rules and begin a legitimate investigation.
There will be a hearing, January 26, 2012, in the State of Georgia to keep the usurper off the ballot. The plaintiffs have won the first round: Judge Malihi refused Obama's Motion to Dismiss. We shall see if he has the courage to do what will send shock waves throughout the world: If Soetoro isn't constitutionally eligible now, he wasn't in 2008. Translated: the Oval Office has been empty since George Bush left. Usurper means someone who has usurped the office, but does not legally occupy it. Soetoro cannot be impeached. I sincerely wish people would understand that if a successful impeachment happened, it would set one of the worst legal precedents in our history.
I have no candidate preference for president in 2012, so there is absolutely no bias on my part in bringing up the problem with Mitt Romney. As an old warrior activist going on 21 years, I know what they all stand for and what they won't stand up for. Constitutional eligibility doesn't have anything to do with political party loyalty. It has to do with the supreme law of the land and upholding the law so our republic doesn't turn into complete lawlessness and anarchy.
Any candidate, Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Independent Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party - you name it - cannot expect to put a candidate on the ballot for president if that candidate isn't eligible under the Constitution. It doesn't matter if that candidate is a person of color, Caucasian, Asian or Hispanic. The only thing that matters for ballot qualification is constitutional eligibility. Will we see Romney held to the same standards as the effort to expose Soetoro for the fraud and liar he is?
But, Mitt Romney was born in America, right? He was born on March 12, 1947 in Detroit, Michigan. That is not in dispute. But, what is in dispute is his father's citizenship at the time Willard was born with the exact same situation with Obama/Soetoro.
While I don't entirely trust Wikipedia, they at least get part of it right regarding Mitt Romney's father: "Romney was born to American parents in the Mormon Colonies in Mexico; events during the Mexican Revolution forced his family to move back to the United States when he was a child."
Mr. George W. Romney, was elected Governor of Michigan. Because there was talk George W. might run for the presidency, his citizenship eligibility came into question and because it extends to the child at the time of birth, there is now question regarding Willard (Mitt) Romney:
Mitt Romney's, father George W. Romney, Not A Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America, and was NOT, eligible for the Office of President, by Pinckney G. McElwee of D.C. Bar.)
"I find no proper legal or historical basis on which to conclude that a person born outside of the United States could ever be eligible to occupy the Office of the President of the United States. In other words, In my opinion, Mr. George Romney of Michigan Is Ineligible to become President of the United States because he was born In Mexico and is, therefore, not a natural-born citizen as required by the United States Constitution."
Thus, we have the same situation as with Obama/Soetoro: A father born in a foreign country who never became a U.S. citizen. Several people have been doing some serious research on this:
"The big question is this…how did George and Gaskell Romney get their US Citizenship back if they still had it at all? If Gaskell (son) and Miles Park Romney (father) who were both Mexican citizens how could they transfer US Citizenship to George Romney? Mitt Romney, however, may be a birthright baby because he fell under the 14th Amendment (I doubt they were under the jurisdiction of the US) but it is absolutely clear that Mitt Romney is NOT a Natural Born Citizen unless he can prove that George Romney gained citizenship from naturalization prior to Mitt's birth in 1947. I have found no records showing this to be the case."
And: Mitt Romney, Barack Obama vs Natural Born Citizenship and the Constitution:
Of course, anyone who has done a few hundred hours of reading research on this issue fully understands how the Fourteenth Amendment has been twisted to suit political agendas, i.e., the myth called "anchor babies."
The real legal question is this: Romney's father was born in Mexico. Under their Constitution, he was a Mexican citizen.
Mexican Constitution - Chapter II
Article 30. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
A. Mexicans by birth are:
I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents:
II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
Was that still his status when Mitt was born?
Obama/Soetoro's father was a Kenyan national visiting the U.S. He was a British citizen. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama/Soetoro/Dunham was born with dual citizenship and forever ineligible to run for president.
There was a darn good reason why those who birthed this republic did not want foreign influence in the White House and why the words 'natural born citizen' were put into the Constitution.
Leo Donofrio has continued to post several excellent pieces of research on this as well as attorney Mario Apuzzo. Despite all the wailing, name calling and outright lying by Soetoro's co-conspirators in the media and the ignorant in Congress, nothing can change Obama/Soetoro's dual citizenship status. Here are two of Leo's most recent posts:
Newly Revealed Evidence Establishes That President James Madison's Administration Required Citizen Parentage To Qualify Native-Born Persons For U.S. Citizenship:
From Mario Apuzzo's web site: The Citizenship Status of Our 44 Presidents:
At the bottom of that piece, see:
"Are people born to our military out of the country (such as McCain) considered to be born on US soil ?? I think Vattel thought so but we were not building an overseas empire at the time our constitution was written so we may not have considered this in our use of the term "natural born citizen". Atty Apuzzo please clarify for me - Phil Stone
"John Sidney McCain III was born on August 29, 1936 in Colon Hospital, Colon Panama, according to the Panama Canal Health Department not in the Panama Canal Zone, which is authenticated by Donald Lynn Lamb representing the Panama Railroad Company with authority over the Hospital in Colon; and according to the Hay-Banau-Varilla Treaty of November 18, 1903 that has 26 articles in which the two pertinent to the status of the city of Colon under that Treaty refer to the Convention for the Construction of a Ship Canal says that the Colon Panama, the birth city cited on McCain’s 1936 long form birth certificate where he was witnessed being born, and where his parents resided, Colon, Republic de Panama, is not part of the Canal Zone, quote: ARTICLE I The United States guarantees and will maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama. ARTICLE II The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE CITIES OF PANAMA AND COLON and the harbors adjacent to said cities, WHICH ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONE ABOVE DESCRIBED, SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS GRANT …” and therefore, McCain is not a natural-born Citizen as he was not born on U.S. Territory or the USA and is not eligible for the Presidency with the U.S. Constitution Article II Section One Clause 5"
And: Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen:
We shall see what happens at the hearing in Georgia, Jan. 26, 2012. I pray Judge Malihi will be able to withstand the pressure because should he find for the plaintiffs, Barry Soetoro will not be on the ballot in 2012 and the whole world will know he isn't constitutionally eligible in 2012 and neither was he in 2008.
Attorney Van Irion on behalf of David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Defendant's(Obama) Motion to Dismiss in Georgia Ballot Access Challenge
The Motion to Dismiss filed by Obama/Soetoro's big money attorneys has been denied. A miracle in itself. The judge in the three cases moved (I am happy about) to grant the motion to sever the cases. Which means, Weldon will have his hearing on Jan. 26, 2012, presented by Van Irion.
Worldnetdaily has a new article on it doing a very good job in explaining, so I'll just give a link:  It details the difference in the plaintiff's cases:
In late October 2011, Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation also filed two lawsuits - against the DNC. Since the DNC is a private entity, there is no question of standing or immunity:
"On 10/25/11 Liberty Legal Foundation joined with Presidential candidate John Albert Dummett Jr. to file two simultaneous lawsuits against the Democratic Party. Both lawsuits request injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election. Without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election. (Tennessee TN Complaint) (Federal DNC Complaint).
"Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul has cleared the air on where he stands on questions surrounding the “natural born” status of US President Barack Obama by saying he never paid it any mind, and that prospective presidential candidate Donald Trump is desperate for attention in bringing it up." Never paid the serious question of constitutional eligibility for a presidential candidate?
Michele Bachmann trumps The Donald, declares birther dispute ‘settled’
"On ABC’s “Good Morning America” this morning, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, tea partyist and possible GOP presidential rival to Donald Trump, was shown a certified copy of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. She declared the matter “settled:” Well, fiddley dee!"
For those sincerely interested in learning more on the issue of natural born citizen because Obama/Soetoro just might have company regarding ballot qualification - Mitt Romney:
Dr. and Professor Herb Titus, Esq. states: Born In Hawaii Does Not Make Obama Natural Born Citizen - YouTube
"Dr. Herbert W. Titus, Esq., is of counsel to the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. Prior to his association with this firm, Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals. Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota."
Obama Cannot Be A “Natural Born Citizen" Under Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) by Mario Apuzzo:
"Republican leaders and elected officials maintain a protective shield of silence and disinformation about Obama’s personal history, his Constitutionally illegal Presidency, his crimes, and his anti-American and reprehensible behavior, to hide their own complicity in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people. Winning the 2012 election and maintaining their personal power and privileges have become more important to the Republican leadership than the integrity of the Constitution and the political health of the nation."
Was Baby Virginia Sunhara's (Of Hawaii) Identity (birth certification registration number) stolen? Lawsuit filed, January 3, 2012:
Is Romney constitutionally eligible as a natural born citizen?
In April 2011, a couple of weeks before Obama/Soetoro released his official forged birth certificate, Mitt Romney declared Mr. Cool didn't need a birth certificate because his mother was born in America. Romney declared his complete ignorance on the issue - or - he was covering in the event his citizenship becomes an issue. This piece is full of such propaganda, one can only refer to it as bird cage liner: Romney to Trump: Obama Doesn't Need a Birth Certificate: Perhaps Mitt Romney is terrified his own citizenship eligibility will be looked at more closely and find himself the target of real constitutionalists who believe the supreme law of the land is more important than a candidate or party.
Do you think the Democrats will make this an issue? If they did, it would come right back to their candidate, Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham.
Will Republican presidential candidates (the ones not kissed and blessed by the global elites) makes this an issue? Where there's this much smoke, there's bound to be fire.
17 Reasons Why A Vote For Mitt Romney Is A Vote For The New World Order
The American Dream
03 January 2012
Once again, the Republican Party is being tempted to vote for "the lesser of two evils". A lot of Republicans are actually considering voting for Mitt Romney because they have bought the lie that he has "the best chance" of defeating Barack Obama in 2012. But just because he is the Republican candidate that is most like Barack Obama does not mean that he has the best chance of defeating him. The truth is that no self-respecting Republican should ever vote for Mitt Romney. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the New World Order. Romney comes from the financial establishment, he is being showered with money from the financial establishment and he supports all of the goals of the financial establishment. This year, millions upon millions of dollars are being funneled into Romney's campaign and into pro-Romney organizations. The New World Order is literally trying to buy the 2012 election for their dream candidate. Romney would be the ultimate Wall Street puppet, and if you cast a vote for Mitt Romney you are playing right into the hands of the financial elite.
If you do not believe that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the New World Order, just consider Mitt Romney's positions on the issues....
#1 The Federal Reserve
To the financial elite, there is no more important financial institution in the United States than the Federal Reserve, and Mitt Romney is a huge supporter of the Federal Reserve.
During one Republican debate, Romney actually tried to explain to all of us why "we need to have a Fed".
Not only that, Mitt Romney has stated that he is not really concerned about what is going on over at the Federal Reserve. Mitt Romney has publicly stated that he is "not going to take my effort and focus on the Federal Reserve".
That kind of talk is music to the ears of the financial elite.
Also, Romney fully supported the reappointment of Ben Bernanke as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve despite his absolutely horrific track record.
#2 Money From The Bankers
Mitt Romney is getting far, far, far more money from Wall Street bankers than any other Republican candidate.
In a recent article entitled "The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Trying To Buy The 2012 Election", I detailed how numbers compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show that Mitt Romney is getting more money from the employees of the "too big to fail" Wall Street banks than all of the other Republican candidates combined.
The following is an excerpt from that article that shows how much money employees of those banks (and their spouses) gave to various candidates for president during the first 9 months of 2011....
Mitt Romney: $813,300
Barack Obama: $198,874
Tim Pawlenty: $101,515
Rick Perry: $58,900
Jon Huntsman: $28,250
Ron Paul: $13,104
Herman Cain: $2,715
Michelle Bachmann: $1,500
Newt Gingrich: $1,250
Even though Romney's poll numbers have been in the mid to low 20s most of the time, employees of the big Wall Street banks gave him $813,300 during the first 9 months of 2011 and they only gave $105,719 to the rest of the Republican candidates that were still in the race at the end of the third quarter combined.
#3 The Wall Street Bailouts
During the last financial crisis, Mitt Romney was a very enthusiastic supporter of the Wall Street bailouts.
Back in 2009, Romney delivered a speech in which he made the following statement about bailing out Wall Street....
"I know we didn’t all agree on TARP. I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses. For free markets to work, there has to be a currency and a functioning financial system."
During the Wall Street bailouts, gigantic mountains of money were transferred from the pockets of U.S. taxpayers into the hands of greedy Wall Street bankers.
Wall Street would definitely like to have someone in the White House who will bail them out once again when the next great financial crisis strikes.
#4 Health Care
Republicans are supposed to be against Obamacare, and yet millions upon millions of them plan to vote for someone that came up with the plan that Obamacare was based upon.
Barack Obama has admitted that much of his health care plan came directly from what Mitt Romney did up in Massachusetts. In fact, a recent MSNBC article brought to light some new information about the relationship between Romneycare and Obamacare....
Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as “Obamacare.”
The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts.
Conservatives all over the country have been loudly denouncing the individual health insurance mandate in Obamacare, but Mitt Romney has had the gall to claim that the individual health insurance mandate that he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts was based on "conservative principles".
So how has Romneycare worked out for residents of Massachusetts?
Well, according to the Daily Caller, health care costs and health insurance premiums have gone up dramatically in Massachusetts....
Since the bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent. Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit percentage increases in their premiums.
That doesn't sound good.
Romney now says that he wants to "repeal" Obamacare, but what he means by repeal may not be what you and I mean by repeal.
Someone should ask Romney what he meant when he stated that he wants “to eliminate some of the differences, repeal the bad, and keep the good” in Obamacare.
#5 Free Trade
One of the key goals of the New World Order is to create a one world economic system. That is why so many of our politicians continue to push "free trade" even though tens of thousands of U.S. businesses and millions of U.S. jobs have gone overseas.
Of course Mitt Romney is a huge advocate of the "free trade" agenda.
The following quote comes directly from the Romney campaign website....
Access to foreign markets is crucial to growing our economy. We must reassert American leadership in international negotiations, follow through on commitments we have already made, and push aggressively for advantageous new agreements.
But the results of this "free trade" agenda have been absolutely nightmarish for the United States. According to U.S. Representative Betty Sutton, America has lost an average of 15 manufacturing facilities a day over the last 10 years. During 2010 it got even worse. That year, an average of 23 manufacturing facilities a day shut down in the United States.
In all, more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have permanently closed down since 2001.
Globalism is ripping our economy apart a little bit more every day, and if Romney is elected the globalist agenda will only accelerate.
#6 Taxes
The New World Order loves to extract taxes from the American people. It was not a coincidence that the Federal Reserve and the individual income tax came into existence at nearly the exact same time nearly 100 years ago.
During his time as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney significantly raised taxes. The following is an excerpt from a CBS News article....
Mitt Romney's Harvard MBA and gold-plated resume convinced many business leaders he would follow in the tradition of corporate-friendly Republicans when he was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2002.
Within three years, some had a vastly different opinion, after Romney's efforts raised the tax bill on businesses by $300 million
That same article also notes that Romney jacked up "fees and fines" on Massachusetts taxpayers substantially during his tenure as governor....
Romney and lawmakers also approved hundreds of millions in higher fees and fines during his four years in office.
Many in the Massachusetts business community were quite disgusted with Romney by the end of his term. Peter Nicholas, the chairman of Boston Science Corporation, says that "tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney."
#7 Government Spending
The New World Order loves big government and big government spending.
And let there be no doubt - Mitt Romney is a big spender when it comes to government money.
Government spending in Massachusetts increased significantly under Mitt Romney. This was especially true for the last two budgets passed under Romney. In fiscal year 2006, government spending in Massachusetts increased by 7.6 percent. In fiscal year 2007, government spending in Massachusetts increased by a whopping 10.2 percent.
#8 Global Warming
It turns out that Mitt Romney is a believer in the theory of man-made global warming. In fact, Al Gore recently praised Mitt Romney on his blog. In a post entitled "Good for Mitt Romney -- though we've long passed the point where weak lip-service is enough on the Climate Crisis", Al Gore lavished the following praise on the former Massachusetts governor....
"While other Republicans are running from the truth, he is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party"
Not only that, it is also very important to remember that while Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts became the very first state to pass a law to regulate carbon emissions.
#9 Cap And Trade
If Mitt Romney becomes president, he is going to cram the radical green agenda right down our throats.
While campaigning for president in 2007, Mitt Romney said that he would fully support a global "cap and trade" carbon tax scheme as long as the entire world goes along with it....
“I support Cap-and-Trade on a global basis but not the USA going alone. I want to do it with other nations involved and on a global scale.”
#10 Illegal Immigration
Mitt Romney is very, very soft on illegal immigration. Back in 2007, Mitt Romney made the following statement....
“But my view is that those 12 million who've come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here”
Of course that will only encourage millions more to come here illegally, but Mitt Romney does not seem too concerned about that.
#11 Gun Control
One of the key goals of the New World Order is to disarm the American people, and Mitt Romney has been a huge supporter of gun control laws. When he was running for governor in Massachusetts, he made the following statement....
"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts- I support them...I believe they help protect us, and provide for our safety."
#12 Abortion
Mitt Romney has a long record of supporting the population control agenda of the global elite.
He claims that he is "pro-life" now, but Mitt Romney also once claimed that he was more "pro-choice" than Ted Kennedy.
Not only that, Romney once forced Christian hospitals and Massachusetts taxpayers to subsidize abortions in the state of Massachusetts. You can see evidence of this right here.
If he becomes president, Romney will be just like George W. Bush - a president that gives lip service to the pro-life crowd but that does next to nothing to actually stop abortion.
#13 The Pharmaceutical Industry
Just like the banking industry, the pharmaceutical industry is almost completely dominated by the New World Order. And the pharmaceutical industry has been absolutely showering money on Mitt Romney.
According to the CDC, the percentage of Americans that say that they have taken a prescription drug within the last 30 days has risen to almost 50 percent.
If Mitt Romney becomes president, it will be a new "golden age" for the pharmaceutical industry and that number will likely go even higher.
#14 The TSA
It recently came out that very elderly women are being strip-searched by TSA agents at U.S. airports, but Mitt Romney continues to fully support the TSA.
So if Romney becomes president we will continue to have to endure incredibly dehumanizing searches before we are allowed on to our flights.
#15 The Homeland Security Apparatus
Mitt Romney has stated repeatedly that he wants to make "homeland security" even stronger.
I have previously written about how Bush and Obama have turned America into a giant prison where virtually everything we do is watched, monitored, listened to, tracked and recorded in order to keep us all "safe".
Well, Romney believes that all of this is necessary as part of the "war on terror", and if Romney becomes president he will almost certainly push the envelope even farther.
#16 Guantanamo Bay
Mitt Romney has publicly stated that he would like to double the number of prisoners in Guantanamo Baby.
Just check out what Romney said during one Republican debate....
Now we're going to -- you said the person's going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there.
Some people have said, we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo.
#17 NDAA
Barack Obama just signed a law which allows the U.S. military to arrest American citizens on U.S. soil, detain them indefinitely and ship them off to Guantanamo Bay for endless "interrogation" sessions. Mitt Romney has not taken a position against this horrible new law.
The truth is that if you look at the history of what he has done (not what he now says), Mitt Romney is virtually a clone of Barack Obama.
If the 2012 election is Romney vs. Obama, it really does not matter which one of them wins. Either one of them would do the bidding of the New World Order.
But millions of Republicans are being fooled. They don't realize that Romney will say just about anything to get elected.
Mitt Romney's wife, Ann Romney, once made the following statement about her husband....
“He can argue any side of a question. And sometimes you think he’s really believing his argument, but he’s not.”
So how do we know if he is telling the truth now?
The following is an epic video which demonstrates very clearly how dramatically Mitt Romney has flip-flopped over the years....
Sadly, most elections in America are not determined by the voters.
Rather, most elections in America are determined by money.
Republican candidates spent more than $10 million on television and radio ads in Iowa in the month of December alone.
Those ads have a huge impact on voters.
So who is spending the most money?
Well, according to a recent article in the Des Moines Register, pro-Romney forces are spending the most money even though Romney is not even really campaigning in Iowa....
Together, Romney and the super PAC going to bat for him had over half the ad buys in Iowa in December among the spending the Register examined.
If you can believe it, one pro-Romney "super PAC" actually spent $2.85 million in Iowa during the month of December.
$2.85 million can buy quite a bit of propaganda.
Sadly, in federal elections the candidate that raises the most money wins about 90 percent of the time, and Mitt Romney has raised far, far more money than the other Republican candidates have.
It would be nice to stick it to the establishment for once, but the reality is that it is really hard to go up against a candidate that is backed by millions upon millions upon millions of dollars.
But even if Mitt Romney only wins 30 or 40 percent of the delegates during the nominating process, that is still going to make it nearly impossible for any other candidate to win the nomination before the Republican convention.
In a previous article, I described how the new Republican voting rules are going to make a "brokered convention" much more likely....
The key is that most Republican primaries and caucuses will now allocate delegates using a proportional system rather than a "winner take all" system. Back in 2008, John McCain did very well in early "winner take all" primaries and wrapped up the Republican nomination very, very quickly. Nothing like that will happen in 2012. In fact, if the field remains crowded it is going to be very difficult for any candidate to accumulate more than 50 percent of the delegates by the time the Republican national convention rolls around.
If Mitt Romney wins more than 50 percent of the delegates during the primary season, the Republican establishment will let him have the nomination of course.
But if he is unable to do so, the Republican establishment will move heaven and earth to make sure that a candidate that they do not like does not accumulate more than 50 percent of the delegates.
Either way, the Republican establishment is going to do everything that they can to end up with a candidate of their choosing to go up against Barack Obama.
So can a miracle still happen?
Of course it can.
But just realize that it is going to take an all-out effort to overcome the power of the establishment.
A half-hearted effort simply is not going to get the job done.
Romney hit for hypocrisy on green energy venture capitalism
Romney called the fund a “springboard for the commonwealth by focusing on job creation in the renewable energy sector.”
Steve Milloy
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
It took less time than we thought.
In commenting about Mitt Romney’s Orange County Register op-ed yesterday hitting the Obama administration for playing (and failing) at venture capitalism, we noted:
While we obviously agree with Romney on this point, we shudder to think of what deep dark government-venture-capitaling Romney might have engaged in as Massachusetts Governor.
Twenty-four hours later, we’ve learned from Politico that:
But Romney is a private-sector venture capitalist by vocation, and during his tenure as Massachusetts governor he set up a program almost exactly like the ones he’s now denouncing.
In 2003, Romney launched the Massachusetts Green Energy Fund, a $15 million project aimed at providing “an opportunity to capitalize on two emerging trends: the growing level of investment interest in clean energy and the importance of Massachusetts’s academic and corporate R&D in forming clean energy technology companies,” according to its website.
At the time, Romney called the fund a “springboard for the commonwealth by focusing on job creation in the renewable energy sector.”
And it is in the nature of venture funds that some of their projects fail. That’s why the private sector funds can get such high returns, and why some energy projects seen as having a huge public upside — from nuclear to solar — have convinced government officials to back them.
And so while Romney has criticized Solyndra on the campaign trail as a major failure of the Obama administration, his Green Energy Fund invested in several companies that have since failed or not lived up to expectations.
Of the six companies listed in the fund’s portfolio, three are either struggling or have shut down completely. The fuel cell company CTP Hydrogen, for example, closed its doors in 2008 and laid off most of its 10-person staff. Protonex Technology Corporation recently delisted from the London Stock Exchange, laying off a third of its employees and shuttering its Colorado location. And Konarka Technologies, Inc., is staying afloat but its slow progress and growth have prompted questions about its viability.
For Konarka, which received $9 million in grants and $1.5 million in loans from the state in 2003, the only products on the market so far are a solar bag and solar umbrella. The company intends to eventually produce solar power-generated material that would be used in roofs or walls.
Candidates that live in glass houses …
It's Romney's Record, Not His Religion
By Coach Dave Daubenmire
October 13, 2011
You mark my word; the Republican insider’s are going to do everything they can do to feed us Mitt Romney. They are not interested in reforming government; they are only interested in maintaining their power.
Four years ago the same gaggle of power-brokers served us up John McCain. Make no mistake about it; in the end, the Republican Establishment will once again choose the Republican candidate. They will parade us through a series of made-for-television-entertainment-shows called debates, fanning the fames with post-debate analysis, providing play-by-play descriptions of the “campaigns,” while all the while the “men behind the curtain” are directing the money, and ultimately the power, to THEIR hand-picked candidate.
Herman Cain will get his turn on the stage, as did Bachmann. This makes for good TV and gives the appearance of a “people-elected” candidate, but it is all theatre. Follow the money. The man with the most money will likely be the winner. The Establishment controls the money.
Since the election of 2008 Mitt Romney has been the odds-on-favorite to carry the Republican banner in 2012. The “obvious front-runner” Romney has not been able to rise above 25% in the polls even though he leads in name recognition and organization.
The picture is clear; the rank and file Republicans do not want Mitt Romney…just like they did not want
John McCain in 2008.
Americans love to support someone they think has been unduly attacked. Watch folks rally around Hank Williams Jr. Remember how they ran to the defense of leftist Juan Williams when fired by PBS, and how the “sympathy vote” has propelled countless others to power.
Mitt Romney and his supporters are after the sympathy vote. Just as folks voted for Obama in 2008 to prove they were not racist, Romney is hoping the same effect will occur when his Mormonism is attacked. “Conservatives” will want to prove that they are not bigoted against other religions.
And we are taking the bait. It is a straw man, Romney’s religion, and not nearly as important as his record.
Let me stop right here a second. I am sick and tired of religious labels. President Obama says he is a
Christian; Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claim the Name of Jesus. So did Bill Clinton. Honest Mormons don’t scare me nearly as much as dishonest Christians do. I would rather vote for an honest atheist than a phony Christian. Jesus spoke about wolves in sheep’s clothing. Jesus said “those who are not against us are for us.” Be careful of labeling and voting for labels. Often you end up voting for a wolfe.
I will never vote for Romney. Not because of his religion…but because of his record. If we do not wake up and speak up NOW, the Republican Establishment is going to try to serve up as the candidate this fake-Conservative, fake-Christian candidate.
My friends Gregg Jackson and Steve Deace have been on the front lines of exposing the Romney record. I credit them with what I am about to share with you. The record will show that Mitt Romney is not a conservative and that his policies are closer to those of Barack Obama than they are to Ronald Reagan.
Here are the facts about Mitt Romney from Gregg Jackson’s website:
To Romney and the many high profile “conservative” pundits and “Christian” leaders who either endorsed or
support Mitt Romney for president in 2012 (Jay Sekulow, Mark DeMoss, Richard Land, Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Tony Perkins, Tom Minnery, Jim Bopp, Stu Epperson) and who claim Romney is a “pro-family” “pro-life” and “limited government” “conservative,” I ask you the following questions:
1. How can Romney be “pro-life” when 3 years after his supposed “pro-life conversion” he signed $50 abortions into law as part of his socialist healthcare plan that was endorsed by Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Planned Parenthood?
2. How can Romney be “pro-marriage” when he is unilaterally responsible for the illegal and unconstitutional implementation of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts?
3. How can Romney be “pro-family” when he boosted funding for homosexual and transgender “education” starting in kindergarten?
4. How can Romney be “pro-family” when he opposes a ban on homosexual scoutmasters?
5. How can Romney oppose the gay agenda when he promised the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans he would not oppose “gay marriage” in return for their endorsement?
6. How can Romney claim to oppose ObamaCare when Romney himself signed the forerunner for ObamaCare (Romneycare which includes $50 tax subsidized abortions) into law which has been a total failure?
7. How can Romney claim to be “pro-tax cuts” and “pro-limited government” when as governor he opposed the Bush Tax Cuts (for which he was lauded by Barney Frank) and raised taxes and fees by a billion dollars which has decimated the Massachusetts economy?
8. How will Romney be expected to appoint conservative judges if elected president when as governor he passed over Republican lawyers for three quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he faced and nominated 2 open homosexuals?
9. How can Romney claim to stand for religious liberty and freedom of conscience when he supports passage of state level Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would force churches and other religious organizations to hire homosexuals and transvestites or face criminal fines and prosecution?
10. How can Romney claim to be a man of virtue and integrity when he consistently tells so many outright and easily disprovable lies? (”I saw my father march with MLK” “I've been a hunter pretty much my whole life” “The NRA endorsed me” etc…
I would posit that not even a “good Mormon” could vote for Mitt Romney. He is dishonest and even Mormons do not approve of dishonesty.
It matters not to me the religion of the candidate. I am more concerned with the record. He looks good, he debates well, he seems like a nice guy, but he is dishonest.
He is dishonest about his record. He is dishonest about what he believes. I am sick and tired of dishonesty being accepted in our leadership.
Does anyone know what Romney REALLY believes…on anything? Haven’t we just been through four years of that?
But Romney is a conservative. Right…right.
At this time four years ago the leaders in the poll for the Republican nomination were Rudy Giuliani and Fred
Thompson. Because Rudy was repugnant to the base, and Thompson was little more than an actor, the Establishment could not force feed either “company man” to the American people. When the “trial balloon” candidates burst they turned to Establishment insider McCain, stuck in fourth place with 13% of the vote, to carry the torch.
Get the word out on Romney. He cannot be the torch bearer. But the Establishment knows it and you will soon see a subtle shift to the perfect insider.
You may think I am crazy but the man to beat in the 2012 Republican race is Newt Gingrich. He will be palatable to the base that will be fearful of Romney.
Gingrich V Obama in 2012. I am not endorsing Newt. I’m just telling you how I see it.
That’s the way the big boys are going to play it. They will not entrust you with the picking of the president.
Power over principle…that is the name of the game. Mr. Newt in 2012. You heard it here first.
“Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain…” The Wizard of Oz.
Romney Rounds Up Backing Among Key G.O.P. Donors
By Nicholas Confessore and Ashley Parker
Published: October 6, 2011
Mitt Romney appeared on Thursday to be rapidly consolidating support among some of the Republican Party’s most sought-after uncommitted donors, who have joined Bush administration veterans and other stalwarts of the Republican establishment in backing him as the Republican field settles.
Those who have committed to Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, include James B. Lee Jr., the vice chairman of JPMorgan Chase, who raised more than $500,000 for Senator John McCain in 2008; Paul Singer, the hedge fund founder and conservative philanthropist; and John A. Catsimatidis, the New York businessman and supermarket magnate.
“As all Americans would agree, ‘It’s the economy, stupid,’ ” Mr. Catsimatidis said Thursday. “Romney is smart enough, business-savvy enough, and has common sense to fix the economy.”
All three were among the top supporters of Gov. Christopher J. Christie of New Jersey, whose decision this week to forgo a presidential bid set off a furious lobbying campaign by Mr. Romney and his supporters to lock down Mr. Christie’s backers, many of them leading Wall Street figures.
Jim Nicholson, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and former veterans affairs secretary, will also assist Mr. Romney, as will Ray Washburne, a Dallas real estate and restaurant entrepreneur who was the top fund-raiser for Tim Pawlenty’s presidential campaign.
And Mr. Romney has also picked up the support of two Republican financiers who once supported President Obama: Daniel S. Loeb and Clifford S. Asness, both outspoken hedge fund managers who in recent months have sharply criticized the president and his fiscal or regulatory policies.
“Mitt Romney grasps how a free economy works, and doesn’t think our current problems come from job-killing A.T.M.’s and evil rich people,” Mr. Asness wrote Thursday in an e-mail. “Nor does he think the solution is more stimulus, regulation and class warfare.”
The shift of many establishment donors and officials to Mr. Romney signals the rapid realignment of the Republican field in recent days, with few, if any, other candidates likely to enter the race. The support of these donors — several fund-raising events are already in the works for the coming weeks — could prove critical as Mr. Romney seeks to head off a strong challenge by Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who commands a deep-pocketed network of Republican donors of his own.
Mr. Perry’s campaign announced this week that he had raised more than $17 million during his first weeks in the race, a figure that aides to Mr. Romney have said he is unlikely to match. And Mr. Perry, unlike other Republican rivals to Mr. Romney, shows every sign of being able to raise enough money to finance a long primary campaign.
Two of Mr. Pawlenty’s former Florida campaign co-chairmen, Justin Sayfie and
Slater Bayliss, also endorsed Mr. Romney, his campaign announced Thursday. And Mr. Romney has recruited veterans of George W. Bush’s administration for his national security and foreign policy advisory teams. They included Michael Chertoff, the former secretary of homeland security; Michael Hayden, the former head of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency; and John Lehman, a former member of the 9/11 Commission.
In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Sayfie said he had been disappointed by Mr. Perry’s performance in recent Republican debates and impressed by Mr. Romney’s.
“Another factor in my analysis was I want to support a candidate who has the absolute best chance to defeat President Obama in the general election, and in my mind, Gov. Mitt Romney, I think he’s the best general election candidate for our party,” Mr. Sayfie said.
Mr. Perry has rolled out his own endorsements in recent days, many of them state lawmakers, members of Congress and local conservative leaders in states like Florida, Arkansas and New Hampshire. Some major Republican donors and bundlers remain uncommitted, like Kenneth C. Griffin, a Chicago hedge fund manager whom Mr. Romney has courted, and Steven A. Cohen, also a prominent hedge fund manager.
Nor have all of Mr. Christie’s supporters migrated to Mr. Romney: Gary Kirke, a businessman who was among a group of Iowa Republicans who traveled to New Jersey this summer to urge Mr. Christie into the race, signed on with Mr. Perry on Tuesday.
Bernard Marcus, a co-founder of Home Depot, is also undecided. A spokeswoman said Mr. Marcus thought that Mr. Romney, Mr. Perry and Herman Cain, the pizza executive, were all “great candidates.”
Politics and Religion
By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of "The Rise of Tyranny" and "Global Censorship of Health Information"
October 17, 2011
The charge by Robert Jeffress, the Senior Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, that Mitt Romney is “not a Christian;” that “Mormonism is not Christianity;” and that Mormonism is “considered a cult” is indicative of a degree of intolerance antithetical to the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and, moreover, an opinion born of ignorance.
Mormonism is indeed a Christian faith: Are not all who proclaim Jesus Christ to be their Savior and who adhere to his teachings appropriately called Christian? The term Mormon is ascribed to those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Church of Jesus Christ considers: (1) Jesus Christ the head of the church and teaches its members that Jesus is the messiah, the only begotten son of God; (2) that Christ is the prophesied messiah of the Old Testament (Jehovah) and created the earth at the direction of Heavenly Father; (3) that Christ was the only perfect, truly sinless human to live upon the earth; (4) that Christ made an ultimate sacrifice for mankind, atoning for the sins of the world through his suffering at Gethsemane and his crucifixion on Calvary Hill, making it possible for man, a sinner, to return to God free of spot through the intercession of Christ; (5) that Christ suffered, died, and was resurrected from the dead; (6) that he reigns in Heaven at the right hand of Heavenly Father; (7) that Christ will return to earth in a second coming at which time there will be a final battle between Satan and his minions and Christ and the saints, the dead will be resurrected, Christ will have a millennial reign, all will be judged, and there will be a final establishment of Heavenly order; (8) that the teachings of Christ are paramount; and (9) that true prophecy can be discerned to be such only if it is in complete conformity with the teachings of Christ. There is in this faith nothing but Christianity, all consecrated to and in fulfillment of the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the Mormon church is officially named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. While other Christian faiths have doctrinal differences with the Church of Jesus Christ, it is beyond peradventure of doubt that the members of that church are Christians and that
Mormonism is Christianity.
The members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints include in addition to the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon, which is by title and content another testament of Christ, complementary to and not in derogation of the Old and New Testaments. To declare people who hold Christ and his doctrines the essence of their religion to be non-Christian renders the term Christian nonsensical or, perhaps, schizophrenic (meaning that only some who believe in Christ may be designated Christians rather than all who do). The Church of Jesus Christ also believes fundamentally in free agency: in the right and power of each person to exercise freedom of choice, albeit recognizing that choices in violation of the commandments and teachings of Christ will be addressed on Judgment Day. That commitment to free agency as a part of God’s plan ensures that Mormons are not members of a cult, if by cult one means mind control by religious leaders. There is in the Church of Jesus Christ no theocracy, no presumption of the church as having jurisdiction or power over the functioning of civil governmental authority.
I think it prudent for intelligent people to reject the pronouncements made by Pastor Jeffress. We should recognize, as the nation largely did over five decades ago, that such commentary endeavors to divide people based on religious intolerance and would, if followed, lead to a destruction of that comity and respect for others’ religions that is inextricably a part of our First Amendment. We are free in no small measure because we are free to choose the religion of our preference and to practice that religion according to its dictates, so long as we do not violate the equal rights of others.
On September 12, 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy, then running for President of the United States, confronted similarly ignorant and bigoted comment in a speech he delivered to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association at the Rice Hotel in Houston, Texas. Critics mused that Kennedy would be a servant of the Vatican if elected and that the Pope would effectively run America. With characteristic wit and intelligence, Kennedy put those charges to rest in the following passages:
But because I am a Catholic and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For, while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew -- or a Quaker -- or a Unitarian -- or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim -- but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice -- where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind -- and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, both the lay and the pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe -- a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it, its occupancy from the members of any religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty (nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so). And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test -- even by indirection -- for if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.
I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none -- who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require him to fulfill -- and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in -- and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a ‘divided loyalty,’ that we did ‘not believe in liberty’ or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened ‘the freedoms for which our forefathers died.’
Mitt Romney would do well to echo Kennedy’s pronouncements in addressing the scurrilous charge of Pastor Jeffress. It is worth noting that unlike some ministers who have tried to insinuate themselves into power by endeavoring to influence the decision making of certain American presidents, none was either the Pope or any President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Indeed, such action would be inconsistent with the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That church long ago adopted Articles of Faith (which confirm the primacy of Christ and his teachings). Those articles are the basic tenets which describe the belief structure of the church. The twelfth article of faith of the Church of Jesus Christ calls on its members to be subservient to, and not in opposition to, the rule of law. That twelfth article reads: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Ironically, were the intolerance for religious plurality that Jeffress preaches mirrored by a President of his choosing, we would indeed see a real threat to the nation and, in particular, to the First Amendment.
One More Thing About Mitt Romney...
Alec Baldwin, actor
06/ 4/2011
Twitter, the ultimate form of social networking in this ADHD world of ours, is not without its pluses. But at times, I sense some (myself included) are not quite prepared for the rapid fire, press conference-like exchange of opinion and lame repartee that can, by turns, overwhelm that particular site. Perhaps Twitter is best for promotional purposes. I don't really know just yet.
But apropos of my Twitter-izing about Mitt Romney and the GOP field of candidates, let me add this addendum. I did not write that Romney is a Ken doll. He is anything but. And the sooner Democratic political operatives agree on that, the better for Obama. I referred to that iconic retail figure to highlight those types that are lean of frame and square jawed, like Romney, who seem to hold the public's attention more easily. Something starkly visual that either aids a candidacy or rarely hurts it. Especially where the candidate is a male. Comments about Sarah Palin's beauty were punted around in the political media, but it was a double-edged sword that cost as much as it benefited. Especially with other women, oddly enough.
Romney is a serious challenge to Obama. He is wealthy, so he can pay for his own helicopter to his kid's ballgame. He lacks any of the abjectly feral, political hit man quality of, say, Gingrich. He is a decent speaker, and will only improve if his GOP handlers are as Pygmalionesque as they have proven in the past.
More importantly, Obama is still someone that many Americans have chosen to withhold their deepest feelings of admiration and affection for, in spite of the fact that he got bin Laden's scalp, contributed to saving the US auto industry (at least for now), and coughed up his birth certificate to silence all of that Swift-boating, election-nullifying trash out there. He appears to be a very bright, sober, hard-working, deeply caring man. A husband and father.
Obama is lean of frame and square of jaw and loves his country, too. Obama and Romney even share some opinions on matters of urgent domestic policy. Yet, in some people's eyes, Obama lacks something.
I wonder what that could be?
Also See:
Will Rick Perry be the Next President?
23 August 2011
Will Michele Bachmann be the Next President?
22 August 2011