Romney Article..
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/de ... Romney.htm
notice the google advertisements!
LDS Freedom Forum
Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
Mitt Romney
by WYp8riot » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:07 pm
"The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment"
-J Smith
www.LibertyCatechism.com
-J Smith
www.LibertyCatechism.com
-
WYp8riot
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:56 am
- Location: WYOMING
Pursuit of tyrannical power
by lundbaek » Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:07 pm
Mitt Romney's pursuit of tyrannical power, literally
The candidate's answers to key questions of executive power are beyond disturbing.
Glenn Greenwald
Dec. 23, 2007 | In yet another superb piece of journalism, the peerless Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe submitted to the leading presidential candidates a questionnaire asking their views on 12 key questions regarding executive power. Savage's article accompanying the candidates' responses makes clear why these matters are so critical:
In 2000, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not asked about presidential power, and they volunteered nothing about their attitude toward the issue to voters. Yet once in office, they immediately began seeking out ways to concentrate more unchecked power in the White House -- not just for themselves, but also for their successors. . . .
Legal specialists say decisions by the next president -- either to keep using the expanded powers Bush and Cheney developed, or to abandon their legal and political precedents -- will help determine whether a stronger presidency becomes permanent.
"The sleeper issue in this campaign involves the proper scope of executive power," said Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law professor.
All of the leading Democrats -- Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Clinton, Richardson and Obama -- submitted responses, as did Mitt Romney, John McCain and Ron Paul. Refusing to respond to the questions were -- revealingly -- Giuliani, Thompson and Huckabee. Significantly, if not surprisingly, all of the candidates who did respond, with the exception of Romney, repudiated most of the key doctrines of the Bush/Cheney/Addington/Yoo theories of executive omnipotence, at least for purposes of this questionnaire. I'll undoubtedly write more about those responses shortly.
But by far the most extraordinary answers come from Mitt Romney. Romney's responses -- not to some of the questions but to every single one of them -- are beyond disturbing. The powers he claims the President possesses are definitively -- literally -- tyrannical, unrecognizable in the pre-2001 American system of government and, in some meaningful ways, even beyond what the Bush/Cheney cadre of authoritarian legal theorists have claimed.
After reviewing those responses, Marty Lederman concluded: "Romney? Let's put it this way: If you've liked Dick Cheney and David Addington, you're gonna love Mitt Romney." Anonymous Liberal similarly observed that his responses reveal that "Romney doesn't believe the president's power to be subject to any serious constraints." To say that the President's powers are not "subject to any serious constraints" -- which is exactly what Romney says -- is, of course, to posit the President as tyrant, not metaphorically or with hyperbole, but by definition.
Each of the questions posed by Savage is devoted to determining the extent of presidential power the candidate believes exists and where the limits are situated. On every issue, Romney either (a) explicitly says that the President has the right to act without limits of any kind or (b) provides blatantly nonresponsive answers strongly insinuating the same thing.
Just go and read what he wrote. It's extraordinary. Other than his cursory and quite creepy concession that U.S. citizens detained by the President are entitled to "at least some type of habeas corpus relief" -- whatever "some type" might mean (Question 5) -- Romney does not recognize a single limit on presidential power. Not one.
And even with regard to his grudging allowance that American citizens should have "some type of habeas relief," Romney -- and only he -- implicitly endorses Alberto Gonzales' bizarre claim that -- despite the clear language of Article I, Section 9 -- "nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus" (Question 9). Under this twisted Romney/Gonzales view, the right of habeas corpus -- which Thomas Jefferson described as "one of the essential principles of our government" and "the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution" -- is not constitutionally guaranteed to Americans but can be revoked at any time, for any reason.
In every area, Romney explicitly says that neither laws nor treaties can limit the President's conduct. Instead, displaying the fear-mongering cowardice that lies at the heart of Bush/Cheney Republican power, Romney described the root of his view of the world this way: "Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive."
Romney recited that cowardly platitude -- what has now become the shameful flagship of the Republican Party -- in response to being asked whether the President has the power to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants even in the face of a law that makes it a crime to do so. At its core, the defining principle of the Republican Party continues to be a fear-driven repudiation of the American ethos as most famously expressed by Patrick Henry, all in service of keeping the citizenry in fear so the President can rule without limits.
These are just some of the powers which Romney -- and, among the respondents, Romney alone -- claimed the President possesses, either by explicitly claiming them or refusing to repudiate them when asked directly:
* to eavesdrop on Americans with no warrants, even if doing so is in violation of Congressional law (Question 1);
* to attack Iran without Congressional authorization, even in the absence of an imminent threat (Question 2);
* to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops (Question 3);
* to issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass laws enacted by Congress (Question 4);
* to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified where said treaties, in his view, "impinge upon the President's constitutional authority" (Question 8)
Even more disturbing were the specific questions Romney refused to answer. When asked if the President has the right to use "interrogation techniques" that Congress, by law, has prohibited in all circumstances, here is what Romney said (Question 7):
A President should decline to reveal the method and duration of interrogation techniques to be used against high value terrorists who are likely to have counter-interrogation training. This discretion should extend to declining to provide an opinion as to whether Congress may validly limit his power as to the use of a particular technique, especially given Congress's current plans to try to do exactly that.
Mitt Romney is running for President and proudly refuses to say if he would obey the law regarding torture. Worse, he's citing national security as an excuse for refusing to answer the question. He's not even President yet, and he's already insisting that it's too Top Secret for him even to participate in the debate over the President's duties to abide by the law. Even considering where our country has been taken with these matters, that's an astonishing assertion -- that the Terrorists will win if Mitt Romney expresses his views on whether the President must obey the law.
Underscoring his authoritarian mentality, Romney refused to say that there was even a single "executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that [he] think[s] is unconstitutional" or even that there were any which were "simply a bad idea" (Question 10). In Romney's view, the Leader has not erred at all. Rather, this is the caricature of a response he gave to that question:
The Bush Administration has kept the American people safe since 9/11. The Administration's strong view on executive power may well have contributed to that fact.
Romney perfectly expresses the driving view of our GOP-dominated political culture over the last seven years, as profoundly un-American as it is Orwellian: You are in grave danger of being slaughtered by Terrorists. The only thing that matters is that your Leader protect you. In order to be safe, you must place your blind faith and trust in the Leader. There can be no limits on the Leader's power -- not even ones you try to place on him through your representatives in Congress -- otherwise you will be in severe danger and might even lose your freedoms.
In a Washington Post Op-Ed this morning, historian and George Washington biographer Joseph Ellis labels Dick Cheney's quest for limitless presidential power "historically myopic" and writes:
Your opinion on the current debate about how much power the executive branch should have will be significantly influenced if you read the debates about the subject in the Constitutional Convention and the states' ratifying conventions. For it will soon become clear that the most palpable fear that haunted all these debates was the specter of monarchy.
Although one would not have thought it possible, a Mitt Romney presidency, by his own description, would remove us still further from those core principles. Romney isn't running to be President, but to be King. Anyone who wants to dispute that ought to try to distinguish the fantasies of power Romney is envisioning from those the British King possessed in the mid-to-late 18th Century.
The candidate's answers to key questions of executive power are beyond disturbing.
Glenn Greenwald
Dec. 23, 2007 | In yet another superb piece of journalism, the peerless Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe submitted to the leading presidential candidates a questionnaire asking their views on 12 key questions regarding executive power. Savage's article accompanying the candidates' responses makes clear why these matters are so critical:
In 2000, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not asked about presidential power, and they volunteered nothing about their attitude toward the issue to voters. Yet once in office, they immediately began seeking out ways to concentrate more unchecked power in the White House -- not just for themselves, but also for their successors. . . .
Legal specialists say decisions by the next president -- either to keep using the expanded powers Bush and Cheney developed, or to abandon their legal and political precedents -- will help determine whether a stronger presidency becomes permanent.
"The sleeper issue in this campaign involves the proper scope of executive power," said Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago law professor.
All of the leading Democrats -- Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Clinton, Richardson and Obama -- submitted responses, as did Mitt Romney, John McCain and Ron Paul. Refusing to respond to the questions were -- revealingly -- Giuliani, Thompson and Huckabee. Significantly, if not surprisingly, all of the candidates who did respond, with the exception of Romney, repudiated most of the key doctrines of the Bush/Cheney/Addington/Yoo theories of executive omnipotence, at least for purposes of this questionnaire. I'll undoubtedly write more about those responses shortly.
But by far the most extraordinary answers come from Mitt Romney. Romney's responses -- not to some of the questions but to every single one of them -- are beyond disturbing. The powers he claims the President possesses are definitively -- literally -- tyrannical, unrecognizable in the pre-2001 American system of government and, in some meaningful ways, even beyond what the Bush/Cheney cadre of authoritarian legal theorists have claimed.
After reviewing those responses, Marty Lederman concluded: "Romney? Let's put it this way: If you've liked Dick Cheney and David Addington, you're gonna love Mitt Romney." Anonymous Liberal similarly observed that his responses reveal that "Romney doesn't believe the president's power to be subject to any serious constraints." To say that the President's powers are not "subject to any serious constraints" -- which is exactly what Romney says -- is, of course, to posit the President as tyrant, not metaphorically or with hyperbole, but by definition.
Each of the questions posed by Savage is devoted to determining the extent of presidential power the candidate believes exists and where the limits are situated. On every issue, Romney either (a) explicitly says that the President has the right to act without limits of any kind or (b) provides blatantly nonresponsive answers strongly insinuating the same thing.
Just go and read what he wrote. It's extraordinary. Other than his cursory and quite creepy concession that U.S. citizens detained by the President are entitled to "at least some type of habeas corpus relief" -- whatever "some type" might mean (Question 5) -- Romney does not recognize a single limit on presidential power. Not one.
And even with regard to his grudging allowance that American citizens should have "some type of habeas relief," Romney -- and only he -- implicitly endorses Alberto Gonzales' bizarre claim that -- despite the clear language of Article I, Section 9 -- "nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus" (Question 9). Under this twisted Romney/Gonzales view, the right of habeas corpus -- which Thomas Jefferson described as "one of the essential principles of our government" and "the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution" -- is not constitutionally guaranteed to Americans but can be revoked at any time, for any reason.
In every area, Romney explicitly says that neither laws nor treaties can limit the President's conduct. Instead, displaying the fear-mongering cowardice that lies at the heart of Bush/Cheney Republican power, Romney described the root of his view of the world this way: "Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive."
Romney recited that cowardly platitude -- what has now become the shameful flagship of the Republican Party -- in response to being asked whether the President has the power to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants even in the face of a law that makes it a crime to do so. At its core, the defining principle of the Republican Party continues to be a fear-driven repudiation of the American ethos as most famously expressed by Patrick Henry, all in service of keeping the citizenry in fear so the President can rule without limits.
These are just some of the powers which Romney -- and, among the respondents, Romney alone -- claimed the President possesses, either by explicitly claiming them or refusing to repudiate them when asked directly:
* to eavesdrop on Americans with no warrants, even if doing so is in violation of Congressional law (Question 1);
* to attack Iran without Congressional authorization, even in the absence of an imminent threat (Question 2);
* to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops (Question 3);
* to issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass laws enacted by Congress (Question 4);
* to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified where said treaties, in his view, "impinge upon the President's constitutional authority" (Question 8)
Even more disturbing were the specific questions Romney refused to answer. When asked if the President has the right to use "interrogation techniques" that Congress, by law, has prohibited in all circumstances, here is what Romney said (Question 7):
A President should decline to reveal the method and duration of interrogation techniques to be used against high value terrorists who are likely to have counter-interrogation training. This discretion should extend to declining to provide an opinion as to whether Congress may validly limit his power as to the use of a particular technique, especially given Congress's current plans to try to do exactly that.
Mitt Romney is running for President and proudly refuses to say if he would obey the law regarding torture. Worse, he's citing national security as an excuse for refusing to answer the question. He's not even President yet, and he's already insisting that it's too Top Secret for him even to participate in the debate over the President's duties to abide by the law. Even considering where our country has been taken with these matters, that's an astonishing assertion -- that the Terrorists will win if Mitt Romney expresses his views on whether the President must obey the law.
Underscoring his authoritarian mentality, Romney refused to say that there was even a single "executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that [he] think[s] is unconstitutional" or even that there were any which were "simply a bad idea" (Question 10). In Romney's view, the Leader has not erred at all. Rather, this is the caricature of a response he gave to that question:
The Bush Administration has kept the American people safe since 9/11. The Administration's strong view on executive power may well have contributed to that fact.
Romney perfectly expresses the driving view of our GOP-dominated political culture over the last seven years, as profoundly un-American as it is Orwellian: You are in grave danger of being slaughtered by Terrorists. The only thing that matters is that your Leader protect you. In order to be safe, you must place your blind faith and trust in the Leader. There can be no limits on the Leader's power -- not even ones you try to place on him through your representatives in Congress -- otherwise you will be in severe danger and might even lose your freedoms.
In a Washington Post Op-Ed this morning, historian and George Washington biographer Joseph Ellis labels Dick Cheney's quest for limitless presidential power "historically myopic" and writes:
Your opinion on the current debate about how much power the executive branch should have will be significantly influenced if you read the debates about the subject in the Constitutional Convention and the states' ratifying conventions. For it will soon become clear that the most palpable fear that haunted all these debates was the specter of monarchy.
Although one would not have thought it possible, a Mitt Romney presidency, by his own description, would remove us still further from those core principles. Romney isn't running to be President, but to be King. Anyone who wants to dispute that ought to try to distinguish the fantasies of power Romney is envisioning from those the British King possessed in the mid-to-late 18th Century.
-
lundbaek
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
by Proud 2b Peculiar » Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:45 pm
WHOA..
Ok I maintain my position Alma 46 through Helaman 6 is happening all together in rapid acceleration.
At least it is my prayer that it is.... I HOPE that there are enough Freemen to make a difference. I am tired of King men.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_Nar91LbjI
I hope all Americans go running to the "Moroni's" of our day.
Ok I maintain my position Alma 46 through Helaman 6 is happening all together in rapid acceleration.
At least it is my prayer that it is.... I HOPE that there are enough Freemen to make a difference. I am tired of King men.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_Nar91LbjI
I hope all Americans go running to the "Moroni's" of our day.
Righteousness Exalteth a Nation
-
Proud 2b Peculiar
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5631
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:12 pm
- Location: American Fork, Utah
by Proud 2b Peculiar » Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:53 pm
Lundbaek do you have a link? I am not finding it on google.
Righteousness Exalteth a Nation
-
Proud 2b Peculiar
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5631
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:12 pm
- Location: American Fork, Utah
by lundbaek » Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Mitt Romney's pursuit of tyrannical power, literally
Sunday December 23, 2007 03:52 EST
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html
These are just some of the powers which Romney -- and, among the respondents, Romney alone -- claimed the President possesses, either by explicitly claiming them or refusing to repudiate them when asked directly:
* to eavesdrop on Americans with no warrants, even if doing so is in violation of Congressional law (Question 1);
* to attack Iran without Congressional authorization, even in the absence of an imminent threat (Question 2);
* to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops (Question 3);
* to issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass laws enacted by Congress (Question 4);
* to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified where said treaties, in his view, "impinge upon the President's constitutional authority" (Question 8)
Sunday December 23, 2007 03:52 EST
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html
These are just some of the powers which Romney -- and, among the respondents, Romney alone -- claimed the President possesses, either by explicitly claiming them or refusing to repudiate them when asked directly:
* to eavesdrop on Americans with no warrants, even if doing so is in violation of Congressional law (Question 1);
* to attack Iran without Congressional authorization, even in the absence of an imminent threat (Question 2);
* to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops (Question 3);
* to issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass laws enacted by Congress (Question 4);
* to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified where said treaties, in his view, "impinge upon the President's constitutional authority" (Question 8)
-
lundbaek
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
by Proud 2b Peculiar » Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:32 pm
Ah you have to have membership to read it.. that explains why I didn't find it.
Righteousness Exalteth a Nation
-
Proud 2b Peculiar
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5631
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:12 pm
- Location: American Fork, Utah
by lundbaek » Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:42 pm
I am beginning to feel more sorry for Mitt Romney than disappointment, frustration or anger.
He has been caught supporting homosexual agendas, and dancing around the many statements he has made regarding the issues of abortion and homosexual leaders of the Boy Scouts. His comments have often changed based on the audience of the moment.
More recently Mitt Romney opined that the president now only needs to consult with lawyers before initiating military action.
But probably his most troublesome blunder for Latter day Saints was, or should be, his statement that "I don't know that he (God) has spoken to anyone since Moses and the bush or perhaps some others."
Fortunately for Mitt, most LDS voters are totally oblivious to these blunders.
He has been caught supporting homosexual agendas, and dancing around the many statements he has made regarding the issues of abortion and homosexual leaders of the Boy Scouts. His comments have often changed based on the audience of the moment.
More recently Mitt Romney opined that the president now only needs to consult with lawyers before initiating military action.
But probably his most troublesome blunder for Latter day Saints was, or should be, his statement that "I don't know that he (God) has spoken to anyone since Moses and the bush or perhaps some others."
Fortunately for Mitt, most LDS voters are totally oblivious to these blunders.
-
lundbaek
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
by HeirofNumenor » Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:49 am
He has been caught supporting homosexual agendas, and dancing around the many statements he has made regarding the issues of abortion and homosexual leaders of the Boy Scouts. His comments have often changed based on the audience of the moment.
I recall reading an interview with him about a year after the 2002 Winter Olympics, when he was asked why he would someday run for Pres from Mass., and not Utah.
His answer was something like:
"Even though I am a conservative republican, I couldn't get elected in Utah. Some of my positions aren't conservative enough for Utah."
Or was it
"I am too moderate for/not conservative enough for Utah"?
Years ago...
"Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know...What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
-
HeirofNumenor
the Heir Of Numenor
- Posts: 4266
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:15 pm
- Location: UT
by Proud 2b Peculiar » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:06 am
interesting.
A little bit on strategy...
Wyoming was about to choose their delegates... as they were getting ready to vote, at the last minute bus loads of Romney supporters arrived ... about 80 Mitt's at each place....
They were from other places. While legal in some states, still wrong in my opinion.
So, these REP card holders show up, find out which delegates are for Mitt and vote for them. Only those that LIVE there can be delegates, but those that Don't can vote for them.
Delegates decide it all for the people in September 2008 at the national caucus.
They are bound by the voice of the people for ONLY the first round in the Majority of the states, and the second in a handful, but after the first round, they can vote however they want.
There has never been a majority for any candidate on the first round.
So after the first, there is a lot of "hospitality" going on to try to sway you to vote, among other things.
PLEASE... get involved in your precincts, counties. Become a delegate where you are. Find out what you need to do and do it for your state.
It does have a cost, but maybe those who need help can get those that support to raise funds if needed. Most things are ok cost wise, until you make it to Nationals, then that costs a lot!
Those national conventions are a big show, just like the music world, and any other advertising and marketing... I did not sign contracts for my music because of this "false appearance" that I saw all the time.
A little bit on strategy...
Wyoming was about to choose their delegates... as they were getting ready to vote, at the last minute bus loads of Romney supporters arrived ... about 80 Mitt's at each place....
They were from other places. While legal in some states, still wrong in my opinion.
So, these REP card holders show up, find out which delegates are for Mitt and vote for them. Only those that LIVE there can be delegates, but those that Don't can vote for them.
Delegates decide it all for the people in September 2008 at the national caucus.
They are bound by the voice of the people for ONLY the first round in the Majority of the states, and the second in a handful, but after the first round, they can vote however they want.
There has never been a majority for any candidate on the first round.
So after the first, there is a lot of "hospitality" going on to try to sway you to vote, among other things.
PLEASE... get involved in your precincts, counties. Become a delegate where you are. Find out what you need to do and do it for your state.
It does have a cost, but maybe those who need help can get those that support to raise funds if needed. Most things are ok cost wise, until you make it to Nationals, then that costs a lot!
Those national conventions are a big show, just like the music world, and any other advertising and marketing... I did not sign contracts for my music because of this "false appearance" that I saw all the time.
Righteousness Exalteth a Nation
-
Proud 2b Peculiar
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5631
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:12 pm
- Location: American Fork, Utah
Get involved!!
by joelfarm » Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:58 pm
Good point, 'LoveChrist' as to getting involved. I cannot imagine the dedication of all the supporters of all the candidates, out in the snow trying to spread all their diverse messages. This brings me to my point-
As we have seen earlier in this post, Mitt Romney has been said to be a bit 'totalitarian' in nature. 'Just a reminder from the debate of September 5, 2007:
"And I hear from time to time people say, hey, wait a second. We have civil liberties we have to worry about. But don't forget, the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive, and that's what we're going to have to do." - Mitt Romney
I know this sounds great to those who call themselves conservatives nowadays, but really this is a blatant justification of authoritarianism/totalitarianism. Indeed, it was the underlying (if sometimes unspoken) justification for every authoritarian or totalitarian government action in history.
If the right to be kept alive by the government is the single most important civil liberty, then there are no other civil liberties. If the government's primary job is keeping people alive, then anything which can be potentially perceived as dangerous to life can be prohibited: "dangerous" speech, "dangerous" press coverage, the habeas corpus rights of "dangerous prisoners" held without trial, "dangerous" property rights like the right to buy or sell "dangerous" products (ie, guns, drugs, cigarettes, McDonald's, etc.). And this says nothing of the socialist implications of Romney's statement, since the "right to be kept alive" by the government necessarily implies that the government must provide its citizens free healthcare, free food, free water, and free anything that would tend to lengthen an individual's life.
As we have seen earlier in this post, Mitt Romney has been said to be a bit 'totalitarian' in nature. 'Just a reminder from the debate of September 5, 2007:
"And I hear from time to time people say, hey, wait a second. We have civil liberties we have to worry about. But don't forget, the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive, and that's what we're going to have to do." - Mitt Romney
I know this sounds great to those who call themselves conservatives nowadays, but really this is a blatant justification of authoritarianism/totalitarianism. Indeed, it was the underlying (if sometimes unspoken) justification for every authoritarian or totalitarian government action in history.
If the right to be kept alive by the government is the single most important civil liberty, then there are no other civil liberties. If the government's primary job is keeping people alive, then anything which can be potentially perceived as dangerous to life can be prohibited: "dangerous" speech, "dangerous" press coverage, the habeas corpus rights of "dangerous prisoners" held without trial, "dangerous" property rights like the right to buy or sell "dangerous" products (ie, guns, drugs, cigarettes, McDonald's, etc.). And this says nothing of the socialist implications of Romney's statement, since the "right to be kept alive" by the government necessarily implies that the government must provide its citizens free healthcare, free food, free water, and free anything that would tend to lengthen an individual's life.
To make a mistake is human, to continue to make that SAME mistake is insanity.
-
joelfarm
captain of 10
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:58 pm
- Location: rural North-central North Carolina
by lundbaek » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:00 pm
We have many LDS friends in other countries who have been watching the campaigning and asking me questions about Romney's chances of getting the nomination. The other day I composed and sent this reply.
I and many other LDSs consider Mitt Romney a poor second choice for President. Please read what I have taken the trouble to write and paste here, and share it with any one who has even half an interest in Mitt Romney becoming our next president.
It has been stated to the effect that: "Even if you disagree with some of Romney's political positions, consider what it would mean to America’s youth and future if someone of his competence, principles and character occupied the Oval Office." Principles and character ? - Hogwash.
1.) Yes, he believes in God. But.... Perhaps Mitt Romney's greatest error, at least in the eyes of concerned Latter day Saints, was or should be, his statement that "I don't know that he (God) has spoken to anyone since Moses and the bush or perhaps some others."
http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.as ... 018d03bf31
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A comment by presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is raising some eyebrows here in Utah.
Romney was asked about God and, in essence, whether God speaks to him or to LDS Church leaders.
This interview between Romney and a Boston TV station aired in early December.
His comments about the LDS Church didn't cause too much of a ripple back east.
But here in Utah, they seem to raise questions about his view of how the LDS Church was founded.
In a lengthy interview with one of Boston's most prominent journalists, Mitt Romney was asked the following:
"Should God speak to you and ask you to do something that might be in conflict with your duties as president or should he speak to your Prophet who would speak to you - how would you make that decision, how would you handle that?
To which Romney responded: "I don't recall God speaking to me. I don't know that he has spoken to anyone since Moses and the bush or perhaps some others."
But this answer appears to contradict one of the foundations of the LDS church.
In the Church's First Vision, a young Joseph Smith is visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ.
Smith hears one of them say, "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"
And if, as Romney suggests, that God hasn't spoken to anyone for thousands of years, then what happens to the LDS Church's belief in direct revelation from God to the Church's prophets?
Revelations such as the one in 1978 that blacks could hold the priesthood.
Contacted by ABC 4 News, Romney's campaign issued the following statement:
"Governor Romney is very proud of his faith and he endeavors to live by it."
We also asked the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for a comment about Romney's statement.
But the Church politely declined our request."
End of news article. The Salt Lake Tribune published a similar story on this.
Consider what it would mean to LDS youth if they heard him say that "I don't know that he [God] has spoken to anyone since Moses and the bush or perhaps some others." If a Church General Authority ever made a public statement like that.....or even a missionary in a street meeting.....
2.) This article by an LDS investigative reporter, and similar reports in the media, should cause one to question:
Just what is "Romney - Hero or Bum? " Please read the whole article.
http://www.massnews.com/2002_editions/0 ... mney.shtml
We received this story from Utah in early April but thought we should wait and see. We now believe it should be run at this time.
Romney, the 'Cover-the-Road' Politician
Will conservatives support his stands on abortion and homosexual Scout leaders?
David M. Bresnahan is an award-winning investigative journalist and author who lives in Utah, is LDS, and was formerly with WorldNetDaily.
By David M. Bresnahan
June 18, 2002
Mitt Romney has enthusiastic support from the people of Massachusetts in his race for governor of the Bay State, but has he turned his back on the values and beliefs of his church for political gain?
Some have called him a moderate, or middle-of-the road politician. In reality Romney has practiced a "cover-the-road" method of winning support from everyone by giving answers that please many on both sides of the issues.
Romney's had a choice of returning to Massachusetts to pursue elected office there, or to take advantage of his presence in Utah. He is a member of the predominant Utah faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and he is at the peak of his public acclaim as the savior of the 2002 Olympic Games. It would at first glance seem to be an ideal time to pursue a political career in Utah.
The actual choice was made over three years ago when he accepted the challenge to save the Olympic Games. Some of his closest supporters at that time made it clear he would return to Massachusetts and would never run for office in Utah. Even one of his detractors made the same claim at that time. It is now obvious that they all knew what they were talking about.
Never Win in Utah
Romney knew then that he could never win a campaign for any office in Utah, where 73 percent of the people are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and have very strong family values. There is no compromise on issues such as abortion and homosexuality for the vast majority of voters, which is the reason Romney knew he could never win an election in Utah.
Utahns believe that abortion on demand is always wrong, and that it is only to be considered if the life of the mother is at stake. Even then, many would choose sacrifice if it would save the life of the child. Homosexuality is considered to be a sin, and the LDS people of Utah believe they should love the sinner and hate the sin.
Romney is a member of the very small minority in his church who oppose these teachings. He takes a different stand on both issues. He knows he would fight a constant battle explaining his politically motivated positions if he stayed in Utah. He does not want moral values to the be focus of any campaign.
Romney is a master politician and public relations expert. He was asked to speak to a luncheon gathering of LDS public relations people who were preparing more than a year in advance of the Olympic Games for handling the anticipated requests for information they expected would come from the media of the world. Romney spoke about his public relations manipulations during his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign against Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Romney was candid about the methods he and his staff used to shape the views and thinking of the people, but he was defeated by his own faux pas and by the master manipulator, Kennedy. When he finished his presentation he excused himself from lunch and departed. The next speaker was Elder Henry B. Eyring of the LDS Church Twelve Apostles.
Eyring made it clear, in a very nice way, that the methods described by Romney were not the methods to be used by the LDS Church Olympic volunteers gathered in the room. He wanted to be sure those present were not thinking that Romney was delivering a message on how the Church should manipulate the media of the world. Indeed, those volunteers, and many hundreds more, ultimately served the needs of 1,333 members of the world media who came to the News Resource Center of the Church during the 2002 Winter Olympics. That was done without using the tricks described by Romney to manipulate the press and the public.
Members of the media were simply given the information and materials they asked for so they could file their stories. There was no effort to manipulate those stories by the public affairs volunteers.
Dances Around Issues
Romney has been carefully trying to dance around the many statements he has made regarding the issues of abortion and homosexual leaders of the Boy Scouts. His comments have often changed based on the audience of the moment.
What he cannot escape are the responses he made on those issues at an October 25, 1994 candidate debate between himself and Kennedy. He was clear and to the point. His answers were surprising, considering that he has been a prominent leader within the LDS Church in Massachusetts and he has been on the Board of Directors of the Boy Scouts of America.
Romney said that he is in favor of homosexual leaders for the Boy Scouts, and he believes every woman should have a right to chose whether or not to have an abortion.
During the debate, Sally Jacobs of the Boston Globe asked: "Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren't you responsible for discouraging it?"
Romney tried to please both sides with his answer, stating that he has strong personal beliefs, but adding that he doesn't want to impose his beliefs on others. So he is pro-choice but doesn't use those words to describe his stand.
"One of the great things about our nation, Sally, is that we're each entitled to have strong, personal beliefs. And we encourage other people to do the same. But, as a nation, we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Row v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, we should sustain and support it. I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. And my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign," said Romney.
Homosexual Leaders for Scouts
During the same debate he was also asked a very direct question about whether he supports having homosexual leaders for the Boy Scouts. His church sponsors more Boy Scout units than any other sponsoring group in the nation, and his church leaders have stated that they will drop their sponsorship if the Boy Scouts accept homosexuals as leaders.
Tovia Smith of Boston University radio station WBUR asked: "Mr. Romney, you say you're a moderate on social issues. One who will defend abortion rights, equal rights for women, for blacks, and for gays. In fact you say you will do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy. You also sit on the national executive board of the Boy Scouts of America, which has an exclusionary policy banning gay members. Do you support that policy, and if not have you ever done anything as a board member to oppose it?"
Again, Romney tried to answer in a way that would please the vast majority of listeners. He didn't take the middle of the road, but instead tried to cover the entire road by the very nature of his response.
"I have let my views be known," said Romney. "I have been to one board meeting now of the Boy Scouts of America board (as of 1994). I believe that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
It was that last statement that would come back to haunt him time and time again. Romney believes that "all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
That is a view which is in direct opposition to his church and to the BSA national policy. Romney showed his colors during the Olympics when he made it clear that the Boy Scouts would not be a part of the Olympics as they had traditionally been throughout modern Olympic history. There would be no Scouts in uniform for the public or press to see. Romney wanted no complaints from the homosexual community or the world press.
In every past Olympics, regardless of host country, the local Scouts have participated in some way -- in uniform. In fact, some of the past Olympics even used Scouts in uniform to present the awards to the Olympians.
However, Romney had no problem with including homosexuals as part of the Olympic Games. In fact, he went out of his way to include them in a way that would gain him significant support from that constituency. Remember, Romney knew three years ago that he would return to Massachusetts after the Olympics.
Hid Scouts from View
Romney was very careful to eliminate the Boy Scouts from view. He appeased them by permitting Scouts to perform litter cleanup of Olympic sites before the Games began, and to help with putting up and taking down of security fences. All out of view of the public and the media. He also very cleverly made sure the homosexual activist community were invited to participate in the Olympics in a meaningful way that they would brag about.
The homosexual website Gay.com from the United Kingdom did that very thing on January 30, just before the games began. An article read by homosexuals all over the world proclaimed: "Winter Olympics First To Welcome Gays."
"The Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, next month will be the first to open its arms to the gay community. Organisers [sic] of the 2002 Winter Olympics have actively gone out to get the gay community involved. The Salt Lake Olympic Organising [sic] Committee (SLOC) invited two members of the community, Michael Marriott and Laura Milliken Gray to the group's 'Volunteer Work Group' to get gays involved.," the article reported.
The story went on to quote homosexual Olympic volunteers about what a very positive experience they were having, and the involvement of the homosexual community.
"Gay men and lesbians are volunteering their time at the games, opening their homes for the families and partners of Olympic athletes, and are serving on a SLOC committee. Our community has arrived and has taken its place at the table," Marriott told the website reporter.
Romney's campaign in Massachusetts was carefully planned and orchestrated from the beginning of his work in Utah three years ago. Romney knew exactly what he was doing, and his entire campaign will be a masterful political triumph.
Everything needed for victory is in place. Support from key constituent groups who have tremendous ability and power to get their people out to vote, along with vital financial donors are all lined up and ready to go -- with enthusiasm.
No promises were made during the Olympics by anyone. Romney is far too clever for that. He knows that if he makes friends those friends can then be called on when the time comes. And now the time has come. Calls and personal visits are being made to ensure those friends are now his political supporters.
It is likely that the majority of Christians of all denominations, including the LDS faith, will vote for Romney at the polls. It is likely conservatives will embrace him. Everyone loves a winner, and many will put their arms around him as he continues to manipulate with his Clinton-like "cover-the-road" politics. He has charmed and will continue to charm the voters of the state.
More importantly, Romney has won over the press. They are always ready to pounce if he slips and falls, but unless that happens he will most certainly be the next Governor of the Commonwealth.
An archive of Bresnahan's work can be found at http://InvestigativeJournal.com, and he can be contacted at David@InvestigativeJournal.com.
Consider what it would mean to LDS youth if they knew of his past support for homosexual agendas and gay scout leaders.
3.) Romney has expressed and demonstrated disdain for the US Constitution.
While Governor of Massachusetts, he proposed and initiated a state mandatory health care program that deprives citizens of their agency in deciding whether to participate or not. The plan is just plain Socialist. This program requires use of tax money taken from citizens to pay for helath care of others. Ezra Taft Benson used to call that "legalized plunder". Mandatory insurance is particularly unjust to those who don't want it, such as those who use alternative medicine, and because it forces them to pay for the medical needs of others. (Ref. http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html , "The Proper Role of Government." by Ezra Taft Benson)
Perhaps the most egregious statement Romney made was his answer to a question about the president seeking authorization from Congress to attack Iran. He responded: "You sit down with your attorneys and [they] tell you what you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress." WRONG! In a serious violation of the US Constitution, the Congress has abrogated its responsibility and allowed the president to make that decision. When Romney was asked if he needed authorization from Congress, Mr. Romney replied: "You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do." WRONG AGAIN ! The US Congress and only the US Congress has the responsibility to declare war under the US Constitution, not the president, with or without input from lawyers. The idea of going and talking to attorneys shows either ignorance of or disdain for the US Constutiton. He needs to just open up the Constitution and read it?!! The president is not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress.
His statement to the effect that the US President should consult with lawyers before going to war shows ignorance or disdain for the very clear requirement in the US Constitution that it is the job of the Congress to vote on and delcare war.
Unfortunately, probably at least 90% of American LDS voters haven't a clue about these things themselves. They seem to think that because he believes in God and has held responsible positons in the Church and in the business world that he is God's gift to the USA.
What we need in the White House is a president who will do his level best to get the USA back onto the "constitution track", as Cleon Skousen used to call it. Our FedGov is not a business. It is an enforcement agency, established under the direction of the Lord, which He "suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles" for the purpose of "...supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, [and] belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.". and justifies us "in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;"
For what it's worth, a while back I asked a son of Cleon Skousen who he thought his father would vote for if he were still alive. Without hesitation he replied "Ron Paul". During that "debate" in which Romney "forgot" about the responsibility of Congress to declare war, Ron Paul spoke up and told him that one opens the Constitution and reads it and does what it says....that it is the job of Congress to decide on and declare war, not the presidents.
If Mitt Romney were to get the republican nomination, I and many other LDSs will vote for the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party candidate. Romney will not get my votes, short of personal revelation from the Lord.
I and many other LDSs consider Mitt Romney a poor second choice for President. Please read what I have taken the trouble to write and paste here, and share it with any one who has even half an interest in Mitt Romney becoming our next president.
It has been stated to the effect that: "Even if you disagree with some of Romney's political positions, consider what it would mean to America’s youth and future if someone of his competence, principles and character occupied the Oval Office." Principles and character ? - Hogwash.
1.) Yes, he believes in God. But.... Perhaps Mitt Romney's greatest error, at least in the eyes of concerned Latter day Saints, was or should be, his statement that "I don't know that he (God) has spoken to anyone since Moses and the bush or perhaps some others."
http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.as ... 018d03bf31
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A comment by presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is raising some eyebrows here in Utah.
Romney was asked about God and, in essence, whether God speaks to him or to LDS Church leaders.
This interview between Romney and a Boston TV station aired in early December.
His comments about the LDS Church didn't cause too much of a ripple back east.
But here in Utah, they seem to raise questions about his view of how the LDS Church was founded.
In a lengthy interview with one of Boston's most prominent journalists, Mitt Romney was asked the following:
"Should God speak to you and ask you to do something that might be in conflict with your duties as president or should he speak to your Prophet who would speak to you - how would you make that decision, how would you handle that?
To which Romney responded: "I don't recall God speaking to me. I don't know that he has spoken to anyone since Moses and the bush or perhaps some others."
But this answer appears to contradict one of the foundations of the LDS church.
In the Church's First Vision, a young Joseph Smith is visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ.
Smith hears one of them say, "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"
And if, as Romney suggests, that God hasn't spoken to anyone for thousands of years, then what happens to the LDS Church's belief in direct revelation from God to the Church's prophets?
Revelations such as the one in 1978 that blacks could hold the priesthood.
Contacted by ABC 4 News, Romney's campaign issued the following statement:
"Governor Romney is very proud of his faith and he endeavors to live by it."
We also asked the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for a comment about Romney's statement.
But the Church politely declined our request."
End of news article. The Salt Lake Tribune published a similar story on this.
Consider what it would mean to LDS youth if they heard him say that "I don't know that he [God] has spoken to anyone since Moses and the bush or perhaps some others." If a Church General Authority ever made a public statement like that.....or even a missionary in a street meeting.....
2.) This article by an LDS investigative reporter, and similar reports in the media, should cause one to question:
Just what is "Romney - Hero or Bum? " Please read the whole article.
http://www.massnews.com/2002_editions/0 ... mney.shtml
We received this story from Utah in early April but thought we should wait and see. We now believe it should be run at this time.
Romney, the 'Cover-the-Road' Politician
Will conservatives support his stands on abortion and homosexual Scout leaders?
David M. Bresnahan is an award-winning investigative journalist and author who lives in Utah, is LDS, and was formerly with WorldNetDaily.
By David M. Bresnahan
June 18, 2002
Mitt Romney has enthusiastic support from the people of Massachusetts in his race for governor of the Bay State, but has he turned his back on the values and beliefs of his church for political gain?
Some have called him a moderate, or middle-of-the road politician. In reality Romney has practiced a "cover-the-road" method of winning support from everyone by giving answers that please many on both sides of the issues.
Romney's had a choice of returning to Massachusetts to pursue elected office there, or to take advantage of his presence in Utah. He is a member of the predominant Utah faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and he is at the peak of his public acclaim as the savior of the 2002 Olympic Games. It would at first glance seem to be an ideal time to pursue a political career in Utah.
The actual choice was made over three years ago when he accepted the challenge to save the Olympic Games. Some of his closest supporters at that time made it clear he would return to Massachusetts and would never run for office in Utah. Even one of his detractors made the same claim at that time. It is now obvious that they all knew what they were talking about.
Never Win in Utah
Romney knew then that he could never win a campaign for any office in Utah, where 73 percent of the people are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and have very strong family values. There is no compromise on issues such as abortion and homosexuality for the vast majority of voters, which is the reason Romney knew he could never win an election in Utah.
Utahns believe that abortion on demand is always wrong, and that it is only to be considered if the life of the mother is at stake. Even then, many would choose sacrifice if it would save the life of the child. Homosexuality is considered to be a sin, and the LDS people of Utah believe they should love the sinner and hate the sin.
Romney is a member of the very small minority in his church who oppose these teachings. He takes a different stand on both issues. He knows he would fight a constant battle explaining his politically motivated positions if he stayed in Utah. He does not want moral values to the be focus of any campaign.
Romney is a master politician and public relations expert. He was asked to speak to a luncheon gathering of LDS public relations people who were preparing more than a year in advance of the Olympic Games for handling the anticipated requests for information they expected would come from the media of the world. Romney spoke about his public relations manipulations during his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign against Sen. Ted Kennedy.
Romney was candid about the methods he and his staff used to shape the views and thinking of the people, but he was defeated by his own faux pas and by the master manipulator, Kennedy. When he finished his presentation he excused himself from lunch and departed. The next speaker was Elder Henry B. Eyring of the LDS Church Twelve Apostles.
Eyring made it clear, in a very nice way, that the methods described by Romney were not the methods to be used by the LDS Church Olympic volunteers gathered in the room. He wanted to be sure those present were not thinking that Romney was delivering a message on how the Church should manipulate the media of the world. Indeed, those volunteers, and many hundreds more, ultimately served the needs of 1,333 members of the world media who came to the News Resource Center of the Church during the 2002 Winter Olympics. That was done without using the tricks described by Romney to manipulate the press and the public.
Members of the media were simply given the information and materials they asked for so they could file their stories. There was no effort to manipulate those stories by the public affairs volunteers.
Dances Around Issues
Romney has been carefully trying to dance around the many statements he has made regarding the issues of abortion and homosexual leaders of the Boy Scouts. His comments have often changed based on the audience of the moment.
What he cannot escape are the responses he made on those issues at an October 25, 1994 candidate debate between himself and Kennedy. He was clear and to the point. His answers were surprising, considering that he has been a prominent leader within the LDS Church in Massachusetts and he has been on the Board of Directors of the Boy Scouts of America.
Romney said that he is in favor of homosexual leaders for the Boy Scouts, and he believes every woman should have a right to chose whether or not to have an abortion.
During the debate, Sally Jacobs of the Boston Globe asked: "Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren't you responsible for discouraging it?"
Romney tried to please both sides with his answer, stating that he has strong personal beliefs, but adding that he doesn't want to impose his beliefs on others. So he is pro-choice but doesn't use those words to describe his stand.
"One of the great things about our nation, Sally, is that we're each entitled to have strong, personal beliefs. And we encourage other people to do the same. But, as a nation, we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Row v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, we should sustain and support it. I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. And my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign," said Romney.
Homosexual Leaders for Scouts
During the same debate he was also asked a very direct question about whether he supports having homosexual leaders for the Boy Scouts. His church sponsors more Boy Scout units than any other sponsoring group in the nation, and his church leaders have stated that they will drop their sponsorship if the Boy Scouts accept homosexuals as leaders.
Tovia Smith of Boston University radio station WBUR asked: "Mr. Romney, you say you're a moderate on social issues. One who will defend abortion rights, equal rights for women, for blacks, and for gays. In fact you say you will do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy. You also sit on the national executive board of the Boy Scouts of America, which has an exclusionary policy banning gay members. Do you support that policy, and if not have you ever done anything as a board member to oppose it?"
Again, Romney tried to answer in a way that would please the vast majority of listeners. He didn't take the middle of the road, but instead tried to cover the entire road by the very nature of his response.
"I have let my views be known," said Romney. "I have been to one board meeting now of the Boy Scouts of America board (as of 1994). I believe that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
It was that last statement that would come back to haunt him time and time again. Romney believes that "all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
That is a view which is in direct opposition to his church and to the BSA national policy. Romney showed his colors during the Olympics when he made it clear that the Boy Scouts would not be a part of the Olympics as they had traditionally been throughout modern Olympic history. There would be no Scouts in uniform for the public or press to see. Romney wanted no complaints from the homosexual community or the world press.
In every past Olympics, regardless of host country, the local Scouts have participated in some way -- in uniform. In fact, some of the past Olympics even used Scouts in uniform to present the awards to the Olympians.
However, Romney had no problem with including homosexuals as part of the Olympic Games. In fact, he went out of his way to include them in a way that would gain him significant support from that constituency. Remember, Romney knew three years ago that he would return to Massachusetts after the Olympics.
Hid Scouts from View
Romney was very careful to eliminate the Boy Scouts from view. He appeased them by permitting Scouts to perform litter cleanup of Olympic sites before the Games began, and to help with putting up and taking down of security fences. All out of view of the public and the media. He also very cleverly made sure the homosexual activist community were invited to participate in the Olympics in a meaningful way that they would brag about.
The homosexual website Gay.com from the United Kingdom did that very thing on January 30, just before the games began. An article read by homosexuals all over the world proclaimed: "Winter Olympics First To Welcome Gays."
"The Winter Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, next month will be the first to open its arms to the gay community. Organisers [sic] of the 2002 Winter Olympics have actively gone out to get the gay community involved. The Salt Lake Olympic Organising [sic] Committee (SLOC) invited two members of the community, Michael Marriott and Laura Milliken Gray to the group's 'Volunteer Work Group' to get gays involved.," the article reported.
The story went on to quote homosexual Olympic volunteers about what a very positive experience they were having, and the involvement of the homosexual community.
"Gay men and lesbians are volunteering their time at the games, opening their homes for the families and partners of Olympic athletes, and are serving on a SLOC committee. Our community has arrived and has taken its place at the table," Marriott told the website reporter.
Romney's campaign in Massachusetts was carefully planned and orchestrated from the beginning of his work in Utah three years ago. Romney knew exactly what he was doing, and his entire campaign will be a masterful political triumph.
Everything needed for victory is in place. Support from key constituent groups who have tremendous ability and power to get their people out to vote, along with vital financial donors are all lined up and ready to go -- with enthusiasm.
No promises were made during the Olympics by anyone. Romney is far too clever for that. He knows that if he makes friends those friends can then be called on when the time comes. And now the time has come. Calls and personal visits are being made to ensure those friends are now his political supporters.
It is likely that the majority of Christians of all denominations, including the LDS faith, will vote for Romney at the polls. It is likely conservatives will embrace him. Everyone loves a winner, and many will put their arms around him as he continues to manipulate with his Clinton-like "cover-the-road" politics. He has charmed and will continue to charm the voters of the state.
More importantly, Romney has won over the press. They are always ready to pounce if he slips and falls, but unless that happens he will most certainly be the next Governor of the Commonwealth.
An archive of Bresnahan's work can be found at http://InvestigativeJournal.com, and he can be contacted at David@InvestigativeJournal.com.
Consider what it would mean to LDS youth if they knew of his past support for homosexual agendas and gay scout leaders.
3.) Romney has expressed and demonstrated disdain for the US Constitution.
While Governor of Massachusetts, he proposed and initiated a state mandatory health care program that deprives citizens of their agency in deciding whether to participate or not. The plan is just plain Socialist. This program requires use of tax money taken from citizens to pay for helath care of others. Ezra Taft Benson used to call that "legalized plunder". Mandatory insurance is particularly unjust to those who don't want it, such as those who use alternative medicine, and because it forces them to pay for the medical needs of others. (Ref. http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html , "The Proper Role of Government." by Ezra Taft Benson)
Perhaps the most egregious statement Romney made was his answer to a question about the president seeking authorization from Congress to attack Iran. He responded: "You sit down with your attorneys and [they] tell you what you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress." WRONG! In a serious violation of the US Constitution, the Congress has abrogated its responsibility and allowed the president to make that decision. When Romney was asked if he needed authorization from Congress, Mr. Romney replied: "You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do." WRONG AGAIN ! The US Congress and only the US Congress has the responsibility to declare war under the US Constitution, not the president, with or without input from lawyers. The idea of going and talking to attorneys shows either ignorance of or disdain for the US Constutiton. He needs to just open up the Constitution and read it?!! The president is not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war by the US Congress.
His statement to the effect that the US President should consult with lawyers before going to war shows ignorance or disdain for the very clear requirement in the US Constitution that it is the job of the Congress to vote on and delcare war.
Unfortunately, probably at least 90% of American LDS voters haven't a clue about these things themselves. They seem to think that because he believes in God and has held responsible positons in the Church and in the business world that he is God's gift to the USA.
What we need in the White House is a president who will do his level best to get the USA back onto the "constitution track", as Cleon Skousen used to call it. Our FedGov is not a business. It is an enforcement agency, established under the direction of the Lord, which He "suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles" for the purpose of "...supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, [and] belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.". and justifies us "in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;"
For what it's worth, a while back I asked a son of Cleon Skousen who he thought his father would vote for if he were still alive. Without hesitation he replied "Ron Paul". During that "debate" in which Romney "forgot" about the responsibility of Congress to declare war, Ron Paul spoke up and told him that one opens the Constitution and reads it and does what it says....that it is the job of Congress to decide on and declare war, not the presidents.
If Mitt Romney were to get the republican nomination, I and many other LDSs will vote for the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party candidate. Romney will not get my votes, short of personal revelation from the Lord.
-
lundbaek
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Thank You, lundbaek
by joelfarm » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:28 pm
for such a sad, but accurate and concise representation of Brother Mitt. It was so dis-heartening to see the reaction of fellow Saints Tuesday as well as the voting trends in Nevada and other results thus far. Mormons from now on can not hold the claim of being "proud to be peculiar" at least when it comes to voting for President. No, we are now guilty of the same lemming mentality that affects minorities, feminists, subsidy slaves and every other leech sucking at the body of America.
I really dispare that it has come to this point in history. That I would not even contemplate voting for a fellow Saint for the highest office in the land. My, how life takes some strange and wonderous paths. It is only through my faith in the Lord and His promises to us all, that I continue on. While I will contiue to pray for a different outcome, let us all strengthen our stocks for the Latter Days.
I really dispare that it has come to this point in history. That I would not even contemplate voting for a fellow Saint for the highest office in the land. My, how life takes some strange and wonderous paths. It is only through my faith in the Lord and His promises to us all, that I continue on. While I will contiue to pray for a different outcome, let us all strengthen our stocks for the Latter Days.
To make a mistake is human, to continue to make that SAME mistake is insanity.
-
joelfarm
captain of 10
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:58 pm
- Location: rural North-central North Carolina
by a-train » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:37 pm
I was so glad to hear the we had a member running until I saw him in the debates. Ron Paul is the man Mitt should be.
Where do you live joelfarm? I served in the Raleigh, NC mission.
-a-train
Where do you live joelfarm? I served in the Raleigh, NC mission.
-a-train
-
a-train
captain of 100
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:10 pm
- Location: Kansas City - The Real Zion
by lundbaek » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:51 pm
I think one's perspective of Mitt Romney, of Ron Paul, of the other candidates, of our "awful situation", of 911, etc, depends on many factors besides intelligence and even spirituality. So many, in fact, that I'll not attempt to come up with a comprehensive list. One of my favourite expressions is "Everybody's cerebral computer is wired differently and programmed differently."
My suspicions of foul play within our own FedGov go back at least to the late '40's and took off from there. (Ref. my first post on my personal introduction thread.) Once my suspicions were aroused, I always had an untrusting eye open for further events detrimental to our country, and I began to see patterns leading to a deliberate effort within our country to weaken it and give continual quarter to our avowed enemies. At some point I became aggressive in my own investigations of certain events that sickened me. Fortunately, certain people were appreciative of my interests and friendly and courteous in talking and visiting with me, even when I was interrupting their personal lives to question them. That these events were leading to the destruction of our constitutional republic and the establishment of a socialist dictatorship, national, then regional, then worldwide in scope, I did not see until the '70's. So, I sometimes marvel that so many of us have come to such similar conclusions via so many obiously different routes.
So whence cometh my perspective of Mitt Romney? I lived many years in or near Boston. My mother worked for the FedGov in her later years. I once stuffed envelopes for JFK. Some family members were active in using the political system to further their own interests at the expense of other tax payers. I think I came away with a pretty good idea of what it takes to get elected to government office in Eastern Massachusetts. After I joined the Church and began hearing the political admonitions of Presidents McKay and Clark and Apostle Benson, I became more acutely aware of what we hopefully recognize as the proper role of government and the deviation of our FedGov from it. When Mitt Romney came along, I wondered how any LDS could woo a majority of Massachusetts voters without violating some constitutional and moral principles. It didn't take long for me to find out, expecially with family and school friends still living in and near Boston. Take it from an old improper Bostonian, one does not go very far in Massachusetts politics without ignoring certain moral and constitutional principles. In other posts I have given examples of Romney's deviant actions and statements. And I even used an LDS investigative reporter as a source, although that was not hardly necessary to convince me.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
My suspicions of foul play within our own FedGov go back at least to the late '40's and took off from there. (Ref. my first post on my personal introduction thread.) Once my suspicions were aroused, I always had an untrusting eye open for further events detrimental to our country, and I began to see patterns leading to a deliberate effort within our country to weaken it and give continual quarter to our avowed enemies. At some point I became aggressive in my own investigations of certain events that sickened me. Fortunately, certain people were appreciative of my interests and friendly and courteous in talking and visiting with me, even when I was interrupting their personal lives to question them. That these events were leading to the destruction of our constitutional republic and the establishment of a socialist dictatorship, national, then regional, then worldwide in scope, I did not see until the '70's. So, I sometimes marvel that so many of us have come to such similar conclusions via so many obiously different routes.
So whence cometh my perspective of Mitt Romney? I lived many years in or near Boston. My mother worked for the FedGov in her later years. I once stuffed envelopes for JFK. Some family members were active in using the political system to further their own interests at the expense of other tax payers. I think I came away with a pretty good idea of what it takes to get elected to government office in Eastern Massachusetts. After I joined the Church and began hearing the political admonitions of Presidents McKay and Clark and Apostle Benson, I became more acutely aware of what we hopefully recognize as the proper role of government and the deviation of our FedGov from it. When Mitt Romney came along, I wondered how any LDS could woo a majority of Massachusetts voters without violating some constitutional and moral principles. It didn't take long for me to find out, expecially with family and school friends still living in and near Boston. Take it from an old improper Bostonian, one does not go very far in Massachusetts politics without ignoring certain moral and constitutional principles. In other posts I have given examples of Romney's deviant actions and statements. And I even used an LDS investigative reporter as a source, although that was not hardly necessary to convince me.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
-
lundbaek
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: Mitt Romney
by lundbaek » Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:30 pm
Now I hear from a 2nd hand source that Mitt Romney is backing McCain.
-
lundbaek
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: Mitt Romney
by buffalo_girl » Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:54 pm
-
buffalo_girl
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3713
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:40 pm
Re: Mitt Romney
by Proud 2b Peculiar » Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:46 pm
Wolves and snakes playing for the VP position
Righteousness Exalteth a Nation
-
Proud 2b Peculiar
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5631
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:12 pm
- Location: American Fork, Utah
Re: Mitt Romney
by lundbaek » Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:28 pm
Now I just heard it on the TV. I cannot believe that Romney has respect for McCain, as he apparently has said. Or am I hearing things? What do you folks make of this? I guess it's no real surprise to me.
-
lundbaek
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:48 pm
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: Mitt Romney
by HeirofNumenor » Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:06 am
Yep, it was in this morning's paper that he would endorse McCain...
Either he is believing the hype that he has a shot in 2012 if the dems win and economy tanks utterly/another attack, or else the PTB have gotten to him...
Okay, so he could also be incredibly naive (after all, most LDS can't bring themselves to believe secret combinations mean more than street gangs, Mafia, or the Clinton administration)....but I doubt it.
Either he is believing the hype that he has a shot in 2012 if the dems win and economy tanks utterly/another attack, or else the PTB have gotten to him...
Okay, so he could also be incredibly naive (after all, most LDS can't bring themselves to believe secret combinations mean more than street gangs, Mafia, or the Clinton administration)....but I doubt it.
"Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succor of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know...What weather they shall have is not ours to rule."
-
HeirofNumenor
the Heir Of Numenor
- Posts: 4266
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:15 pm
- Location: UT
Re: Mitt Romney
by buffalo_girl » Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:14 am
I'll say it once again.
Romney impresses me as not being very conscious of the ways of the world. Perhaps his wealth has protected him from the 'real' power brokers. He has lived out his life in a fairy-tale Mormon bubble. I believe he is naive, but also not very bright. He is subject to flattery, easily influenced by those he perceives to be important personages. He wants to run with wolves although he is probably more like a Westie terrier - you know, the white Scotch terriers.
He may have been offered a VP position. The big boys need to sweeten McCain a bit for us voting dupes. It really is all about manipulation and psy/ops. We simply 'react' like so many amoeba being prodded by the 'big eye' which continually peers at us through the microscope.
It won't matter whether he is President or Vice-President because all those on the ticket - excepting Ron Paul - are on a leash, at heel to their Masters. The real wolves are invisible.
I would have hoped Romney had more strength of character and spiritual maturity. Perhaps I'm wrong and he is a 'Moroni' incognito. He doesn't seem to know the doctrine very well though. sigh....
Romney impresses me as not being very conscious of the ways of the world. Perhaps his wealth has protected him from the 'real' power brokers. He has lived out his life in a fairy-tale Mormon bubble. I believe he is naive, but also not very bright. He is subject to flattery, easily influenced by those he perceives to be important personages. He wants to run with wolves although he is probably more like a Westie terrier - you know, the white Scotch terriers.
He may have been offered a VP position. The big boys need to sweeten McCain a bit for us voting dupes. It really is all about manipulation and psy/ops. We simply 'react' like so many amoeba being prodded by the 'big eye' which continually peers at us through the microscope.
It won't matter whether he is President or Vice-President because all those on the ticket - excepting Ron Paul - are on a leash, at heel to their Masters. The real wolves are invisible.
I would have hoped Romney had more strength of character and spiritual maturity. Perhaps I'm wrong and he is a 'Moroni' incognito. He doesn't seem to know the doctrine very well though. sigh....
-
buffalo_girl
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3713
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:40 pm
Re: Mitt Romney
by Stephen » Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:17 am
...with Mitt as vice....we'd get WWIII (via McCain) and the persecution of the saints in short order (via Mitt).......and some of you thought that we lost the chance of persecution when Mitt withdrew.....sillies. 
Now we might have the chance for the LDS to cast their vote for the best of two evils!
Now we might have the chance for the LDS to cast their vote for the best of two evils!-
Stephen
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:24 pm
- Location: Folsom California
Re: Mitt Romney
by ChelC » Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:47 am
It is beyond odd that he would argue so much with McCain in the debates and then endorse him. Just shows that an endorsement means nothing. Probably Mitt's way of jabbing back at Huck.
All I know is that this election cycle is depressing, and yet I have more peace about my role than ever before. Probably because my hands feel a whole lot cleaner.
All I know is that this election cycle is depressing, and yet I have more peace about my role than ever before. Probably because my hands feel a whole lot cleaner.
"We can seek for the bad in others. Or we can... extend to others the understanding, fairness, and forgiveness we so desperately desire for ourselves. It is our choice; for whatever we seek, that we will certainly find."
-Pres. Uchtdorf
-Pres. Uchtdorf
-
ChelC
The Law
- Posts: 6170
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:04 pm
- Location: Utah
Re: Mitt Romney
by SwissMrs&Pitchfire » Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:34 am
I believe he is naive, but also not very bright. He is subject to flattery, easily influenced by those he perceives to be important personages. He wants to run with wolves
That reminds me of a quote by Joseph F. Smith I read this morning about satan.
Harold B. Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, edited by Clyde J. Williams, p.335
It is applying knowledge of the things of God that saves us. What is the knowledge that saves us? It's the knowledge of the things of God. To enforce that thought, President Joseph F. Smith said this: "Satan possesses knowledge, far more than we have, but he has not intelligence or he would render obedience to the principles of truth and right. I know men who have knowledge, who understand the principles of the Gospel, perhaps as well as you do, who are brilliant, but who lack the essential qualification of pure intelligence. They will not accept and render obedience thereto. Pure intelligence comprises not only knowledge, but also the power to properly apply that knowledge." (Gospel Doctrine [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939], p. 58.)
Now, then, we assume from that that one has not attained to that essential knowledge that saves until he has been able to intelligently apply it, having made it a factor in his life; he then has taken the essential step towards the preparation for eternal life. BYU Devotional Address, 15 November 1949
"The rich can only get them (keys, signs, words, etc...) in the temple, the poor may get them on the mountaintop as did Moses." Joseph Smith HC 4:608
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5946
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:34 am
- Location: Driven
Re: Mitt Romney
by Proud 2b Peculiar » Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:11 pm
wow.. I smell the smoke from that burning!
Righteousness Exalteth a Nation
-
Proud 2b Peculiar
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5631
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:12 pm
- Location: American Fork, Utah
Re: Mitt Romney
by AussieOi » Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:13 pm
How about we just consider the fact he is, and always was, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
NO true member of the Lords church goes into unholy places and enters into unholy practices to minister to the wicked.
Likewise Romney. At some point, shouldn't we just accept him as the sum total of his ACTS, his WORKS, not just what we might speculate his intentions are to explain, rationalise or justify his counter gospel ACTS?
Are we giving the likes of him the benefit we don't offer Judas perhaps?
I see betrayal of gospel instruction in regards to freedom, law, constitution.
NO true member of the Lords church goes into unholy places and enters into unholy practices to minister to the wicked.
Likewise Romney. At some point, shouldn't we just accept him as the sum total of his ACTS, his WORKS, not just what we might speculate his intentions are to explain, rationalise or justify his counter gospel ACTS?
Are we giving the likes of him the benefit we don't offer Judas perhaps?
I see betrayal of gospel instruction in regards to freedom, law, constitution.
I am not a Mormon
-
AussieOi
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4675
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Mitt Romney
by Mark » Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:25 pm
I see betrayal of gospel instruction in regards to freedom, law, constitution.
I see someone who reads way to many intrigue novels and is letting his fears get the best of him. I'm not referring to Bro. Romney here either. Cheers mate.
You are a true nothing Mark.
-
Mark
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5147
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:16 am
Re: Mitt Romney
by Proud 2b Peculiar » Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:34 pm
I think I must be reading that same great novel, called the Book of Mormon.
Righteousness Exalteth a Nation
-
Proud 2b Peculiar
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5631
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:12 pm
- Location: American Fork, Utah
Re: Mitt Romney
by AussieOi » Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:36 pm
Mark wrote:I see betrayal of gospel instruction in regards to freedom, law, constitution.
I see someone who reads way to many intrigue novels and is letting his fears get the best of him. I'm not referring to Bro. Romney here either. Cheers mate.
I see someone who reads way to many intrigue novels and is letting his fears get the best of him. I'm not referring to Bro. Romney here either. Cheers mate.[/quote]
Ah Mark you always crack me up.
Intrigue novels……….fear………what to make of it?
Hey Mark, was that your first post on this thread? Pretty ordinary if it was. More like a snipe wasn’t it? Innuendo? Accusation? Intrigue……ironic or fitting?
But come on, you can do better than that!!!!! You are usually at least reliable to be consistent in your drunkards of Ephraim stuff, you know, excusing all acts by white men in suits because its really the nasty plotting Russians and Chinese who are really out to get us. Perhaps Romney is just another of these well meaning Drunkards of Ephraim?
Never mind Romney supporting policies and those who would take our freedom to protect us. All we need to be wary of are the Babylonians who want to subject us to exploitation and bondage. (As if we aren’t doing a good enough job of it ourselves.)
Like the Vietnam war propaganda. “we lost because they wouldn’t let us win” yeah, that’s it. I was watching a re-run of Rambo the other night, and when John is finally penned up he blurts it all out in a cathartic moment with his handler. “they never let us win”. And so, I got to thinking. 3 hundred million tonnes of bombs dropped on Vietnam and Cambodia. More tonnage in 6 months than in the entire 2nd world War. Agent Orange, My Lai, Death squads. M16s and M60’s, B-52’s. 50,000 dead American boys dying for more US big business. (We can’t argue that they were saving us from Communism…the domino theory, because we lost, the Communists won, and well, they stopped there didn’t they, we shored up Suharto in Indonesia, killed 500,000 Indonesian Communists, let them annex West Papua and end of communist south eastern expansion, Vietnam was unnecessary after all).
So yeah, that’s right, they didn’t let us win. All that I just mentioned was posturing, the dummy run, the REAL ordinance was in the hangars at Bragg, and Linley and so on.
And so likewise our problems today. Its not US/ U.S who are to blame for the destruction which will/ may/ might even come from the Russians and Chinese, the Babylonians. It’s them. And our leaders are good men, but they are drunk, asleep at the wheel.
Like the Zoo-keeper. Lets say he’s a drunk. He beats his wife, abuses his kids, spends his pay on booze and has gambled the house away. He teases the animals in the Zoo, he pokes the monkeys, he starves them, he prods them with a taser, then one day in a drunken stupor he pulls the cage down and surprise surprise they go for a wander find him asleep under a tree and, being hungry, they eat him. Lets back up to the bit where I said “Like the Zoo-keeper.” Yep, all his family need to worry about are the monkeys. It’s all the monkeys fault. They’re the real enemy. Even though he is abusing us we need to keep him because he’ll protect us from those monkeys.
So back to Romney. Perhaps he is a good guy in disguise. Perhaps all he needs to do is be given a free hand and then he can win. Maybe he’s at home now saying “dang, all those good pro gospel things I want to do they won’t let me do it”….or, maybe, just maybe, he’s part of the problem, just another gadiantons taking his share of the spoils thinking he’ll share some spoils with us too. Maybe he’s even more sinister than that?
I’m the one saying lets just accept what we can see right in front of us, with our eyes. Who no the other hand is playing the intrigue line, peddling the fear angle?
I am not a Mormon
-
AussieOi
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4675
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Mitt Romney
by SwissMrs&Pitchfire » Mon Feb 18, 2008 10:03 pm
You're reading that too Charity?! Great read that one, loads of intrigue.
"The rich can only get them (keys, signs, words, etc...) in the temple, the poor may get them on the mountaintop as did Moses." Joseph Smith HC 4:608
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 5946
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:34 am
- Location: Driven
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group and Linode. | FAQ | | The team
FeedNewsAll forumsNew TopicsActive Topics2008 ElectionsMitt Romney
LDSFreedomForum.com does not necessarily agree with all content on this forum. This is not an official site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The views and content on this site reflect only the opinions and teachings of the authors of the respective content contained herein.
