Tag Archives: mitt romney

Is Mitt Romney Trying to Avoid Having to Admit to Massive Tax Fraud?

Is Mitt Romney Trying to Avoid Having to Admit to Massive Tax Fraud?

Dave Lindorff

A lot of theories have been put forward to try and explain why Romney has allowed his campaign to become bedeviled by charges of tax dodging, but what if what he is hiding is felonious tax fraud?

Okay, so he’s taken the legal option of delaying filing his 2011 taxes, which every taxpayer is entitled to do without penalty and without having to give any explanation until October 15 this year (I agree it’s a little weird when a super-rich guy who pays accountants by the dozen does this, but hey). The nagging question though is why he hasn’t just responded to the demand that he release two years of tax returns like John McCain did in 2008 by simply releasing his 2009 tax filing, along with the 2010 return he already released?

The answer may well be that 2009 was the year that the Treasury Department decided to offer an amnesty from prosecution for tax fraud to any of the tens of thousands of millionaires who were known or suspected to have illegally hidden income abroad in the Cayman Islands or in Swiss banks — a felony, but one that people thought they’d never be caught at.

That year alone, some nearly 30,000 people, many of them no doubt prominent in society, politics and business, and customers of the finest accounting firms, reportedly voluntarily came forward to the IRS to admit that they had hidden some of the estimated $100 billion in income that crooked rich Americans have for years been secreting away in banks overseas. Under the terms of the program, they were able to just report their fraud, pay the taxes, penalties and interest on the money and then walk away scott free, with no charges and with their returns kept confidential by the agency.

That is, unless they decided to run for national office, where the expectation is that they have to release their income tax returns to the media for inspection.

Did Romney use a 2009 IRS tax amnesty to escape being caught in a giant multi-year tax fraud?Did Romney use a 2009 IRS tax amnesty to escape being caught in a giant multi-year tax fraud? The 2009 tax return he won’t release has the answer.

As journalist Matthew Yglesias has written in Slate, “Romney might well have thought in 2007 and 2008 that there was nothing to fear about a non-disclosed offshore account he’d set up years earlier precisely because it wasn’t disclosed.”

But the scandal that exploded around Swiss megabank UBS, where a whistleblowing employee released some of the names of wealthy Americans who were being allowed to use the bank’s privacy protections to hide their income from the IRS, caused many of America’s super-rich, fearing the worst, to rush for an amnesty offered by the IRS, which was more interested in collecting the money than putting a lot of the country’s toniest people behind bars. The floodgates opened when the US sued UBS demanding the full list of tax criminals from the bank, and then offered an amnesty to those who came forward voluntarily, reported their fraud to the IRS, and paid the required interest and penalties.

Given Mitt Romney’s known predilection for avoiding taxes, it’s hard to imagine him not having taken advantage of the Swiss tax dodge, particularly when so many other people of his class were doing it. Hiding income overseas was, back in the early years of this gilded century, the thing to do–the stuff of mirthful asides over cognac at the Club after a bracing game of golf or polo.

But explaining paying lower taxes than your maid or gardner to the public is one thing. Explaining deliberately committing massive tax fraud is another. Plenty of Americans have gone to the slammer for years for defrauding the IRS of mere five-figure sums. Most Americans live in a deliberately cultivated fear of the IRS, worrying that they made some mistake on a form or missed a filing deadline, and yet the wealthiest Americans, thanks to the 2009 and subsequent amnesties or partial amnesties, have routinely gotten away with massive fraud, just having to pay penalties and interest, as if they had just inadvertently filed late or made a math error.

None of this is proof that Romney is guilty of felony tax fraud, of course. On the other hand, it is curious that John McCain would have gone for the loopy lady from Wassilla and rejected Romney as his running mate back in 2008. Mitt was seriously in the running as a candidate for the job of VP on the McCain ticket at one point, and the UBS scandal broke right when McCain was picking his running mate. It seems logical that McCain’s vetting team would have asked Romney if the scandal might touch him. Maybe they ruled him out of contention when they got the answer.

In any case, running for president is not for sissies, and there is no presumption of innocence in politics. If Romney did not commit tax fraud back in 2008 and earlier, and did not avail himself of the IRS’s 2009 tax amnesty program, he should have to prove it by releasing his 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxes, and, if the 2007 and 2008 filings turn out to have been belatedly corrected, he should have to show the original filings too.

No doubt the Obama campaign has figured all this out, which would explain why they are offering Mitt Romney a deal that says: “You release five years of your taxes, and we’ll shut up” about demanding even older ones.

It remains to be seen whether conservative and right-wing and libertarian Americans, famous for their loathing of taxes, will decide that Romney is simply doing what they’d all like to get away with doing, and give him a pass on all this tax dodging, or whether they will become so incensed at the idea of this richest of presidential candidates in history cheating on his taxes that they will demand that he prove he didn’t do it before he can have their vote.

Meanwhile, if Romney did commit tax fraud courtesy of a Swiss bank arrangement, and he stonewalls it through the campaign weeks ahead, he runs a huge risk that someone will leak the information. After all, federal employees have to realize that four years of a Romney/Ryan administration will be brutal on their job security, benefits and working conditions. And right now Obama is the boss of the federal government, with his own appointees at Treasury and the IRS.

Stay tuned.

SOURCE

Jon Stewart mocks ‘rich’ Romney while outpacing him in wealth

Jon Stewart mocks ‘rich’ Romney while outpacing him in wealth

By Sally Nelson –

In 2009 and 2010, ‘Daily Show’ host Jon Stewart bought these two lakefront mansions in Red Bank, New Jersey for $3,800,000 and $3,200,000.

Comedy Central host Jon Stewart regularly bashes American multimillionaires for their wealth while ignoring the awkward fact that he’s one of them.

Though Stewart distances himself from the “one-percenters” and bellows over their extravagance, his bank accounts bear all the marks of the “multi, multi, multi, multi millionaires” he mocks. The 49-year-old Stewart, born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz, makes more than 300 times the median American salary, owns three luxury homes and sometimes doesn’t pay his taxes.

In January Stewart exploded on-air over Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s income level. “That’s almost — that’s almost $57,000 a day!” he gushed.

But Stewart’s own income level brings him and his wife Tracey approximately $41,000 a day. The celebrity income-handicapping website Celebrity Net Worth lists his annual salary as $15 million and estimates his net worth at $80 million.

While $80 million doesn’t yet put Stewart into the same wealth bracket as Romney, he is already on pace to be richer than the former Massachusetts governor when he reaches his age.
Ads by Google

At his current earning rate, The Daily Show host’s net worth will be $320 million by the time he turns 65 — Romney’s current age. And that total doesn’t include increases in property value or other assets Stewart might accumulate.

And then there are the houses. When Arizona Sen. John McCain ran for president in 2008, he was criticized for not knowing how many houses he owned. (The answer: seven.) Stewart is well on his way to McCain country, with three opulent mansions whose combined value is $12.8 million.

He doesn’t technically own those homes: Using a trick mastered by countless one-percenters, the properties were purchased by private trusts. Stewart’s trusts are named after his pets.

The super-wealthy often make big-ticket purchases through trusts in order to protect their other assets from lawsuits, diminish estate tax liability, and avoid public scrutiny.

The satirist started his real estate empire in 2005 when The Stanley Monkey Trust — named after his cat Stanley and one of his pit bull terriers, Monkey — purchased a two-story Manhattan penthouse for $5.8 million.

That deluxe apartment in the sky spans 6,000-square-feet and has 40 windows, a 600-foot terrace, and a 1,200-foot private roof, the New York Observer reported in 2005.

Another legal entity, The Shamsky Monkey Trust, purchased two more houses in 2009 and 2010. (Shamsky, named after 1969 “Miracle Mets” outfielder Art Shamsky, is Stewart’s other pit bull terrier.)

The lakefront mansions Stewart bought in 2009 and 2010 are in Red Bank, New Jersey. They cost him $3,800,000 and $3,200,000 and — for reasons TheDC was unable to determine — are next door to one another.

Online real estate search engines show that the Shamsky Monkey Trust also owns a $675,000 house in North Haven, New York. Public records indicate that Stewart’s older brother, Lawrence Leibowitz, lives there.

Read more: SOURCE

Election Predictions and All That Rot

Why 2012 election predictions are rubbish: Fear the Black Swan!

Custom Search

You want to know who’s going to be the next president of the United States? Happy to oblige.

Just tell me who’s going to win Ohio. No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. And only one Democrat has done it—JFK by a whisker—in the past 50 years.

Or tell me what will happen to real personal income growth in the third quarter of 2012.

Or tell me what the jobless rate will be in the fall, since (all together now), no incumbent since FDR has been re-elected when the unemployment rate has been higher than 7.2 percent.

What’s that? You can’t do that because it’s only April?

That doesn’t stop an army of soothsayers — including ones at Yahoo! — from offering up formulas to calculate, with scientific precision, the shape of the November vote. As common-sense guides, they make sense: incumbents and incumbent parties suffer when the economy is bad; a deeply divided party has a hard time winning a general election. As “laws” with the predictive capacity of knowing when ice melts … not so much. (Back in 2000, the most trusted academic models of the election forecast a comfortable-to-overwhelming Democratic popular vote victory based on the glowing economy; what we got was an effective tie).

I received an early lesson in caution after boldly predicting that John Lindsay would win the White House in 1972. Even stronger lessons were provided over the years by the appearance of a hugely influential factor in Presidential elections: the Black Swan.

The term comes, not from that Natalie Portman ballet movie, but from a best-selling book in 2007 by Nassim Nicholas Taleb that examines our persistent “ability” to ignore the potentially huge effects of unlikely, random events. Given what happened a year later–when we woke up on a mid-September day to find the financial universe on the brink of collapse–the book seemed prescient. In political terms, “Black Swans” have shown up often enough to make even the boldest soothsayer hold his tongue.

Think back to 1960, when Republicans could still compete for the black vote, and when an influential figure like Martin Luther King Sr. endorsed Richard Nixon out of concern about a Catholic in the White House. Then, on October 25, King’s son was arrested on a bogus parole-violation charge and transferred to a rural state prison where, his family feared, his life might be endangered. After John Kennedy called King’s wife, and Robert Kennedy called the governor of Georgia (and after Richard Nixon’s efforts to have the Justice Department intercede were ignored), King was released, and his father announced he was transferring his “suitcase full of votes” to Kennedy. On Election Day, black voters were crucial to Kennedy’s razor-thin margins not just in Illinois (8,000 controversially counted votes), but also in Michigan, New Jersey and Missouri.

Or consider 1968, when Hubert Humphrey had closed the once-cavernous gap between himself and Richard Nixon. With days to go before Election Day, the United States and North Vietnam were very close to an agreement on peace negotiations. Thanks to the intervention by Anna Chennault, an unofficial but well-connected Nixon campaign emissary, the South Vietnamese government balked. Had that deal been concluded by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, there’s good reason to think that Vice President Humphrey would have won the election.

Go back to the last days of the 2000 campaign, and the disclosure of a drunk-driving arrest of a young George W. Bush. Karl Rove maintained that the story cost Bush the popular vote by keeping a few million evangelicals away from the polls. And for Democrats, that butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County will always be a Black Swan of pterodactyl-sized proportions.

Or look again at the financial collapse of mid-September 2008. I’m skeptical of claims that John McCain could have won that contest under any circumstances, given the financial resources of Barack Obama’s campaign and the country’s unhappiness with President Bush. Without question, though, the fear of economic meltdown meant a shift in the tenor of the campaign, one that that redounded in Obama’s favor.

Not every late-breaking event changes the outcome of an election. John Kerry believed that the release of an Osama Bin Laden video just before the 2004 election cost him the White House; I lean more toward a superior get-out-the-vote operation in Ohio by the Bush campaign.

And it’s not that fundamental things don’t apply. If you think in terms of probabilities rather than predictive certainty, the fall economic data is a sound guide for placing bets.

But until someone can take a quick trip into the future and tell me how Ohio’s going to vote, I’ll say no sooth.

SOURCE

Romney Campaign Notes that Obama as a Boy Ate Dog Meat*

Romney Campaign Notes that Obama as a Boy Ate Dog Meat*

Much has been made about Mitt Romney, in 1983, putting his family dog Seamus in a kennel on top of his roof and driving from Boston to Canada, with said canine Seamus making his displeasure known in a rather scatological way.

Democrats have signaled they have every intention of making sure the American people — especially dog-lovers — know the tale. In January, senior Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod tweeted a photo of the president and Bo in a car, with the snide observation: “@davidaxelrod: How loving owners transport their dogs.”

The Romney campaign signaled Tuesday night that they are not about to cede any ground when it comes to a candidate’s odd past with man’s best friend.

And the Obama campaign shot back, with a spokesman suggesting the Romney team was attacking a child, since the Obama act in question took place when he was a kid.

The Daily Caller noted that in President Obama’s best-selling memoir, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” the president recalls being fed dog meat as a young boy in Indonesia with his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.

“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy),” the president wrote. “Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.”

After his mother married Soetoro, Obama lived in Indonesia from 1967 until 1971, from roughly the age of 6 through 10.

The discovery that the president had eaten dog meat prompted wise-cracks on twitter (hashtag — #ObamaDogRecipes) and this tweet from Romney strategist Eric Fehrstrom, who re-tweeted Axelrod’s original message with a different take on the picture of the president and Bo.

“@EricFehrn: In hindsight, a chilling photo,” he wrote.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt tweeted in response: “@BenLaBolt What’s the next attack @EricFerhn and the RNC will surface on a 6-10 year old?”

Democrats and supporters of the president’s forcefully took to twitter Tuesday night and Wednesday morning to challenge the notion that Obama as a boy eating food given to him by his stepfather could be compared to actions Romney took as an adult. Republicans pushed back, saying that the dog-eating tale underlines how any discussion of dogs at a time of massive unemployment, with troops in harm’s way, is silly.

The Seamus story was discussed again Monday when Ann Romney told Diane Sawyer that “the dog loved” traveling that way. “He would see that crate and, you know, he would, like, go crazy because he was going with us on vacation. It was to me a kinder thing to bring him along than to leave him in the kennel for two weeks.”

Certainly kinder than eating him. Or so the Romney campaign’s argument now goes.

SOURCE

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss: Mitt Romney’s Top Campaign Contributors….are the same as Obama’s Top Campaign Contributors

Mitt Romney (R)
Top Contributors

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors – like EMILY’s List and Club for Growth – make for particularly big bundlers.

Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $126,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250
The Villages $97,500
Vivint Inc $80,750
Marriott International $79,837
Sullivan & Cromwell $79,250
Bain Capital $74,500
UBS AG $73,750
Wells Fargo $61,500
Blackstone Group $59,800
Citigroup Inc $57,050
Bain & Co $52,500

SOURCE

The Mormon Plan for America and The Rise of Mitt Romney

The Mormon Plan for America and The Rise of Mitt Romney

Written by Ed Decker, www.saintsalive.com

From the book: The Man Who Would Be God

This is just a peek inside this important chapter
The very ethos of the Mormon faith is built around the anticipated return of Jesus to Independence, Missouri, for his thousand-year millennial reign. It is here that he will assign godhood to the worthy. However, it cannot take place until the U.S. Constitution falters and is saved by the LDS church. The nation will become a Mormon theocracy. Mitt Romney has raised Mormon speculation that this may be the time and that he may be the one to lead the way as both U.S. President and LDS high priest.

Almost 30 Years ago, the late BYU Professor and LDS author Cleon Skousen founded the Freemen Institute [later to be called The National Center for Constitutional Studies]. The name came from the Book of Mormon

And those who were desirous that Pahoran should remain chief judge over the land took upon them the name offreemen; and thus was the division among them, for the freemen had sworn or covenanted to maintain their rights and the privileges of their religion by a free government. Alma 51: 6-7

Skousen joined forces with Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority on some major political issues late 70s and early 80s and I was prompted to study out both the public and the LDS insider position on government, the constitution. [LDS say it is a divine document from the hand of God] Using that research, I produced a Study called “The Mormon Plan for America”.

When George Romney, Mitt’s father, made his aborted run for President in 1968, there was a lot in internal LDS talk about the last days prophecies that the US constitution would hang by a thread to be saved by the elders of the LDS church. Many felt that the day had finally arrived for the actual “Kingdom of God” to be established.

This pure form of theocratic, prophet led government would prepare the way for the ushering in of the millennium, the time when Jesus would return to earth, sit in his temple in Missouri to reign over the earth, with the center of His government operated as the “Kingdom of God” on earth.

The actual background for all these whispered conversations came from much of the historical documents of the church and the speeches of many of the early church authorities.

It goes something like this. Joseph Smith implemented a program called the United Order in the church… It was a plan of sharing… everything in common, all properties and wealth turned over and owned by the church and dispersed by the Brethren to the people on an as needed basis with a requirement for good stewardship or loss of use.

It was called the “Kingdom of God.” It was people living as God ordained under the United Order. However, it failed.

It was later determined that it could only work when both the secular and ecclesiastic functions operated under one authority… An LDS prophet ruling over a theocratic government where eternal commandments like the United Order and plural marriage and blood atonement would function within “The Kingdom of God”

That Theocracy would come into existence when the US Constitution would hang by a thread and the Mormon elders would be there to save it and the country and thereby usher in The Kingdom of God, the prophesied Mormon theocracy.

On December 7, 1968 Elder Hugh B. Brown presided over the groundbreaking of the LDS Washington D.C. Temple. It was dedicated in November 1974 by the prophet, Spencer W. Kimball.

The unique thing about this temple that struck me as singularly important was the design and furnishing of a large room on the upper floor. A photograph of this room is in the film, The Godmakers. It was set to house a presiding governing body.

It is my own personal belief that it was designed as the place where the theocratic government of God would conduct its business, with the prophet in His place of authority.

Now we jump ahead 40 years to 2007… and the 2008 Presidential election. A whole generation has passed and the son of George Romney has risen to the top of the list of Mormons who would qualify to take that run at the Oval Office and perhaps be in the right place as President or Vice President as the Constitution hangs by that foretold thread… and be there to call upon the elders, the Brethren to save the nation and soon usher in the “Kingdom of God.”

Far fetched… I would agree that I sound like a man shouting fire in a theatre, but, as you will read, I am talking about valid LDS end-times teachings…

You will also see that Mitt Romney has been raised and trained for this day. His family has been in the church for generations. He is the great grandson of polygamists Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt.[1]

Mitt Romney is a Temple Mormon, a High Priest, and as such he has sworn blood oaths of sacrifice, obedience and consecration to the church and the “Kingdom of God.” His perfect obedience to these laws will allow him to become a god in the next life, the literal father of the peoples of a new and different earth. He is truly a Presidential candidate with an actual, definable god complex.

On February 12, 2007, as Mitt Romney announced that he would run for the office of President, he commented in a USA Today, article, Will Mormon faith hurt bid for White House? By Jill Lawrence, that…

… It is not his job as a presidential candidate to educate people about his church. “I’m running for a secular position,” he said in an interview. “I subscribe to what Abraham Lincoln called America’s political religion. The Constitution and the rule of law are the highest promises I would make in taking the oath of office.”

Mitt Romney’s LDS understanding of the U.S. Constitution and its divine role in the end times is not that of the average American.

Mitt Romney is a nice looking man, successful in the business world, with core values of family, church and faith. He does not smoke, drink or even touch coffee or tea. He has been married to the same woman for decades. He seems like the cure for dealing with the corruption of our national leadership. What could possibly be wrong in having such a man as our President? Let’s look at some of the reasons his presidency could be the end of America as we know it.

I recently searched through my files and have resurrected and updated the research paper, The Mormon Plan for America. That information is part of what I share below.

Some Extremely Grave Questions

Let me re-introduce you to a portion of one chapter in my book, The God Makers, co-authored with Dave Hunt.[2] It is a part of Chapter 16: The Hidden Kingdom. I suggest that you buy the book and read the entire story. It will shock you even more than what I will reveal here. It is a hidden kingdom that lurks beneath the placid surface of public Mormonism. It is this LDS “Kingdom of God” that former Governor, Mitt Romney has sworn blood oaths of obedience to in the LDS Temple ritual. The Late Apostle and LDS theologian, elder Bruce. R. McConkie described the Mormon temples as “Holy sanctuaries wherein sacred ordinances, rites, and ceremonies are performed which pertain to salvation and exaltation in the kingdom of God are called temples.”

There are several purposes to be achieved in the temple by worthy Mormons. First, they learn the secret/sacred signs, tokens, handshakes necessary to pass by the sentinels and enter the Celestial glory where they will become gods and goddesses and people new earths like this one.

Second, they receive sacred undergarments to wear for their protection while on earth, a secret new name by which they will be called from the grave and then swear obedience to certain laws that will govern their membership, obedience to the prophet and their behavior while on earth.

Mitt Romney’s temple experience was no different when he first received his “endowments” in preparation for his 30 month stint as an LDS Missionary.

The Law of Sacrifice

One of several temple oaths was his oath of Obedience to the Law of Sacrifice, in which he vowed,

“As Jesus Christ has laid down his life for the redemption of mankind, so we should covenant to sacrifice all that we [I] possess, even our [my] own lives [life] if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God.” [3]

The “execution of the penalty” for ‘disobedience at the time Mitt Romney took out his “temple Endowments” was demonstrated by

“by placing the thumb under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by drawing the thumb quickly across the throat to the right ear, and dropping the hand to the side”[4].

It is hard to imagine that well-educated Mormon men of such political stature like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah or Senator Harry Reid of Nevada could bring their thumbs to their throats and swear a blood oath that they will ‘suffer’ their throats slit from ear to ear should they not “sacrifice all that [they] possess, even [their] own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God, as defined by the Mormon prophet.

These LDS oaths are taken directly from the rituals of Blue Lodge Masonry, the source of much of the LDS Temple rituals. It is no wonder, since the first 5 presidents and prophets of the LDS church were Masons.

These high level Temple Mormons clearly know that this Mormon “Kingdom of God” is, in reality, a Mormon one-world government, a theocracy, soon coming to America, that will be run by the strong arm of the Mormon Brethren, headed up by the only true prophet of God on earth. However, it is clear that they did swear such an oath.

The Law of Consecration

The other significant oath Mitt Romney has sworn to obey is the Law of Consecration. In the LDS temple ritual, the officiator says to the temple ‘patrons’,

We are instructed to give unto you the Law of Consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in connection with the Law of the Gospel and the Law of Sacrifice which you have already received. It is that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents and everything which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

All arise. (All patrons stand.) Each of you bring your right arm to the square.

You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

Each of you bow your head and say “yes.”
PATRONS: Yes.

Now we can see and understand the spiritual positioning of elder Mitt Romney beginning on that first day and reinforced with every temple visit thereafter. Let’s go back to Chapter 16 of my book, The God Makers, ”

Secrets of the Hidden Kingdom of God

Mormon leaders call their empire the “Kingdom of God.” However, their “God” is an extraterrestrial from Kolob, definitely not the God of the Bible; and the “Zion” to which their spirit-brother-of-Lucifer Jesus Christ will return to reign is Independence, Missouri.

Most Christians believe, as the Bible declares, that Christ will return to Jerusalem, Israel, to establish His millennial kingdom, whereas Mormons believe that they must establish a worldwide Mormon kingdom dictated from their Missouri base in order to make it possible for Christ to return.

Therein lays a great difference, which is why the Mormon hierarchy, beginning with Joseph Smith himself, has always had worldwide and absolute political power as its goal.

Mormon historian Klaus J. Hansen has written,

“The idea of a political kingdom of God, promulgated by a secret Council of Fifty, is by far the most important key to an understanding of the Mormon past.”[5]

Mormon writer John J. Stewart has said:

“The Prophet established a confidential Council of Fifty, or “Ytfif,” (Fifty spelled backwards), comprised of both Mormons and non-Mormons, to help attend to temporal matters, including the eventual development of a one-world government, in harmony with preparatory plans for the second advent of the Saviour”.[6]

Let’s jump ahead to the section called: Some Extremely Grave Questions

Mormonism seems as American as apple pie, and Mormons seem to be the perfect citizens with their close families, high morals, patriotism, Boy Scout programs, Tabernacle Choir, and conservative politics. A Los Angeles Times article implied that Mormons have recently gained the image of “super-Americans . . . [who] appear to many to be ‘more American than the average American.” [7]This may explain why such a high proportion of Mormons find their way into government. Returned LDS missionaries have “the three qualities the CIA wants: foreign language ability, training in a foreign country, and former residence in a foreign country.”[8] Utah (and particularly BYU) is one of the prime recruiting areas for the CIA. According to BYU spokesman Dr. Gary Williams, “We’ve never had any trouble placing anyone who has applied to the CIA. Every year they take almost anybody who applies.”[9] He also admitted that this has created problems with a number of foreign countries, who have complained about the “pretty good dose of [Mormon] missionaries who’ve gone back to the countries they were in as Central Intelligence agents.”[10]

This may at least partially explain the reported close tie between the Mormon Church and the CIA.[11] A disproportionate number of Mormons arrive at the higher levels of the CIA, FBI, military intelligence, armed forces, and all levels of city, state, and federal governments, including the Senate, Congress, Cabinet, and White House Staff. Sincere and loyal citizens, most of them may be unaware of the secret ambition of The Brethren. What could be better than having such patriots as these serving in strategic areas of government and national security?

Unfortunately, as we have noticed in every other area of Mormonism, the real truth lies hidden beneath the seemingly ideal image of patriotism presented by Mormons in public service. In fact their very presence in responsible government positions, particularly in agencies dealing with national security, raises some extremely grave questions that were expressed in my following letter mailed to the LDS Brethren in Salt Lake City. I also published it as an open letter in the Salt Lake Tribune.

The Mormon Oath of Vengeance Against this Nation

An open letter to:

The President, First Presidency and members of the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

August 21, 1980

Gentlemen:

I was recently reflecting that although the actual blood oath and the oath of vengeance were removed from the Temple ceremonies sometime after 1930, you gentlemen [listing ten of the above] are of an age to have received your own endowments prior to their removal, and therefore, are still under these oaths.

I am particularly interested in your personal position on your oath of vengeance against the United States of America. As you recall, the oath was basically as follows:

You and each of you do solemnly promise and vow that you will pray and never cease to importune high heaven to AVENGE THE BLOOD OF THE PROPHETS (Joseph and Hiram Smith) ON THIS NATION, and that you will teach this to your children and your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

Have you officially renounced this oath? Or are you still bound by it?

If you have not renounced it, how can you presume to lead four-and-one-half [now over six and a half million Americans] million people [US citizens] under item 12 of your Articles of Faith and still be bound to call upon heaven to heap curses upon our nation? (“We believe in being subject to Kings, Presidents, Rulers and Magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”)

If you have renounced it, how can you justify having sworn such an oath in the most holy of holy places on this earth, before the sacred altar of your omnipotent God, and then renounce it? Gentlemen, I call upon you to repent of this abomination and proclaim to both the Mormon people and to the people of the United States of America that you renounce that oath and all it represents.

I also call upon all members of the Mormon Church who hold office in our government, serve in the Armed Services, work for the FBI and CIA who have gone through the Mormon Temple and sworn oaths of obedience and sacrifice to the church and its leaders (above), to repent of these oaths in the light of the obvious conflict of interest between their pledge of allegiance to the USA and their higher loyalty to a group of men who are sworn to seek vengeance against this great nation.

Sincerely,

(Signed) J. Edward Decker

cc: President J. Carter

Mr. Ronald Reagan

No response was received to this letter. The Brethren are so powerful that they are immune to criticism and feel no need to explain themselves or account to anyone for these actions. The Mormon Church already packs a political punch far out of proportion to its size. The Wall Street Journal explained how, in spite of the Constitution separation between Church and State, public schools in Utah are used to instill Mormonism in young minds. It mentioned political reapportionment, airline deregulation, the basing of the MX missile and the ERA as political issues affected by the power of the Church. For example, when the Church opposed the MX for Utah, those plans were immediately dropped by the federal government. The same Wall Street Journal article quoted the following statement from J.D. Williams, a University of Utah political science professor:

There is a disquieting statement in Mormonism: “When the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done.” To me, democracy can’t thrive in that climate. They [Mormon politicians] don’t have to be called to Church headquarters for political instruction. They know what they’re supposed to do. That’s why non-Mormons can only look toward the Mormon Church and wonder: “What is Big Brother doing to me today?”[12]

A Disturbing Possibility

While the election of a Mormon President seems unlikely, it is highly probable under the present swing toward conventional morality and conservatism that a Mormon could one day become a Republican vice-Presidential nominee. This is especially true when one considers the growing cooperating between Mormons and Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell and groups like the Moral Majority. With the power, wealth, wide influence, numerous highly-placed Mormons, and large voting block under their virtual control, The Brethren have a great deal to offer a Republican Presidential candidate. Let’s assume that a Mormon Vice-Presidential candidate is on the winning ticket, and thereafter the President dies in office or is assassinated, causing the Mormon to succeed him as President of the United States.

There is every reason to believe that the new President would immediately begin to gather around him increasing numbers of zealous Temple Mormons in strategic places at the highest levels of government. A crisis similar to the one which Mormon prophecies “foretold” occurs, in which millions of Mormons with their year’s supply of food, guns, and ammunition play a key role. It would be a time of excitement and zealous effort by the “Saints” to fulfill Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s “prophecy”:

The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.[13]

Not only does Mormonism predict the “saving” of America, but the precedent for an attempted takeover by force or subterfuge through political means has been set by the founding “Prophet” himself. In 1834 Joseph Smith organized an army and marched toward Independence, Missouri, to “redeem Zion.” In spite of a humiliating surrender to the Missouri Militia that proved his bold “Prophecies” false, the “Prophet” later formed the “Nauvoo Legion” and commissioned himself a Lieutenant-General to command it. Lyman L. Woods stated:

I have seen him on a white horse wearing the uniform of a general. . . .

He was leading a parade of the Legion and looked like a god.[14]

Joseph Smith was not only ordained King on earth, but he ran for President of the United States just before his death, at which time Mormon missionaries across the country became “a vast force of political [power].”[15] Today’s Church leaders are urging Mormons to prepare themselves for the coming crisis in order to succeed where past “Saints” have failed. A major article in the LDS Ensign magazine about being prepared included this oft-repeated warning reminder:

The commandment to reestablish Zion became for the Saints of Joseph Smith’s day the central goal of the church. But it was a goal the Church did not realize because its people were not fully prepared.[16]

Going back to our hypothetical crisis, what Mormons unsuccessfully attempted against impossible odds in the past they might very well accomplish with much better odds in this future scenario. Under cover of the national and international crisis, the Mormon President of the United States acts boldly and decisively to assume dictatorial powers. With the help of The Brethren and Mormons everywhere, he appears to save America and becomes a national hero. At this time he is made Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Mormon Kingdom of God, while still President of the United States. There is no provision in the Constitution to prevent this.

With the government largely in the hands of increasing numbers of Mormon [and Masonic] appointees at all levels throughout the United States, the Constitutional prohibition against the establishment of a state church would no longer be enforceable. Mormon prophecies and the curse upon the United States government in revenge for the blood of Joseph and Hyrum Smith would seemingly have been fulfilled. In effect, the United States would have become a theocracy exactly as planned by The Brethren, completing the first step in the Mormon takeover of the world. LDS President John Taylor boasted of it 100 years ago:

Let us now notice our political position in the world. What are we going to do? We are going to possess the earth . . . and reign over it for ever and ever. Now, ye Kings and Emperors help yourselves if you can. This is the truth and it may as well be told at this time as at any other. There’s a good time coming, Saints, a good time coming![17]

A More Likely Scenario

While the above presents an extremely disturbing possibility, it may seem highly speculative and improbable. There is another scenario, however, which is equally disturbing and much more likely. It arises from the fact that Mormonism is actual part of something much larger.

We have already noted that the “revelations” that Joseph Smith received, far from being unique, were in fact very similar to the basic philosophy underlying many occult groups and secret revolutionary societies. Thus far in history, these numerous occult/revolutionary organizations have remained largely separate and in competition with one another.

If something should happen to unite them, and at the same time their beliefs should gain worldwide acceptance, a new and unimaginably powerful force for world revolution would have come into existence. There is increasing evidence of a new and growing secular/religious ecumenism persuasive enough to accomplish this unprecedented and incalculably powerful coalition.

It could be the means of creating the one-world government that has not only been the long-standing hope and plan of The Brethren and many other occult/revolutionary leaders, but is increasingly gaining a wide acceptance through New Age networks as the only viable option to a nuclear holocaust and/or ecological collapse. [End of quote from The God Makers, Chapter 16.]

Let’s review this once more from the top before we thread Mitt Romney’s bid for the Presidency into the mix.

Mormonism Teaches That:

The Constitution will hang by a thread, to be saved by the Mormon Church.

Will the Constitution be destroyed? No, it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, “The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from destruction.” It will be so. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses [JOD] Vol. 7, page 150).

…And when the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the “Mormon” Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it. (Brigham Young, JOD, Vol. 2, page 317).

…We shall spread abroad, and the day shall will come – and this is another prediction of Joseph Smith’s – I want to remind you of it, my brethren and sisters, when good government, constitutional government, liberty will be found among the Latter-day Saints, and it will be sought for in vain elsewhere…… The day will come when the constitution and free government under it will be sustained and preserved by this people. (George Q. Cannon, JOD, Vol 23, page 104).

The Mormons will usher in a Theocracy, or “The Kingdom of God”, directed by the Lord’s Prophet (LDS).

With the restoration of the gospel and the setting up of the ecclesiastical Kingdom of God, the restoration of the true government of God commenced. Through this church and Kingdom, a framework has been built through which the full government of God will eventually operate. … The present ecclesiastical kingdom will be expanded into a political kingdom also, and then both civil and ecclesiastical affairs will be administered through it. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 338).

Brigham Young confirmed that when the LDS Kingdom of God was in control, the American flag would fly above us.

When the day comes in which the Kingdom of God will bear rule, the flag of the United States will proudly flutter unsullied on the flag staff of liberty and equal rights, without a spot t sully its fair surface; the glorious flag our fathers have bequeathed to us will then be unfurled to the breeze by those who have power to hoist it aloft and defend its sanctity. (Brigham Young JOD, Vol. 2, page 317).

The Mormons will possess the whole earth and reign over it. As the Civil and Religious laws become one, the “United Order” will become the “Kingdom of God”.

Verily I say unto you, my friends, I give unto you counsel, and a commandment, concerning all the properties which belong to the order which I commanded to be organized and established, to be a united order, and an everlasting order for the benefit of my church, and for the salvation of men until I come— (D&C 104, verse 1).

The poor will be exalted and the rich made low. All property, including liquid assets will be deeded to the “kingdom” (Church), all money turned in. Some property will be conditionally ‘deeded’ back for us to “manage” as is deemed necessary for each man.

This is spelled out in the Doctrine & Covenants 42:

28 Thou knowest my laws concerning these things are given in my scriptures; he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out.

29 If thou lovest me thou shalt serve me and keep all my commandments.

30 And behold, thou wilt remember thepoor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.

31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.

32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.

33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.

34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;

If a man shall transgress this law, it shall ALL be taken from him, without recourse. All this is for the benefit of the Church. He who sins against this shall be cursed and delivered over to Satan. Lands shall be gotten by purchase or by blood when there is a problem in obtaining it. Every Mormon in the world swears an oath of obedience to the Law of Consecration and the Law of Sacrifice… in the Temple rites. They are bound by blood oath to honor their word.

Let’s look at the portion of the Revelation, Doctrines & Covenants 104, given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, April 23, 1834, concerning the United Order, which set this in its spiritual place.

1 Verily I say unto you, my friends, I give unto you counsel, and a commandment, concerning all the properties which belong to the order which I commanded to be organized and established, to be a united order, and an everlasting order for the benefit of mychurch, and for the salvation of men until I come—

2 With promise immutable and unchangeable, that inasmuch as those whom I commanded were faithful they should be blessed with a multiplicity of blessings;

3 But inasmuch as they were not faithful they were nigh unto cursing.

4 Therefore, inasmuch as some of my servants have not kept the commandment, but have broken the covenant through covetousness, and with feigned words, I have cursed them with a very sore and grievous curse.

5 For I, the Lord, have decreed in my heart, that inasmuch as any man belonging to the order shall be found a transgressor, or, in other words, shall break the covenant with which ye are bound, he shall be cursed in his life, and shall be trodden down by whom I will;

6 For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things—

7 And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand.

8 Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives.

9 Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption.

10 And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you.

11 It is wisdom in me; therefore, a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall organize yourselves and appoint every man his stewardship;

12 That every man may give an account unto me of the stewardship which is appointed unto him.

13 For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.

14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.

15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.

16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.

17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.

18 Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.

Is Socialism The United Order?

In a speech by this title, given at the LDS April 1966, General Conference of the Church, Mormon Elder and one of the governing Brethren of the church, Marion G. Romney, of the Council of the Twelve Apostles [and an uncle to Mitt Romney] had this to say about this United Order that Joseph Smith claimed came directly from God for the administration of properties and possessions.

Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of the Lord and not my words. The United Order, the Lord’s program for eliminating the inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly possessions as stewards accountable to God.

On January 2, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Church was under obligation to care for the poor. (See D& C 38.) Later he said:

“I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth …and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine. But it must needs be done in mine own way….” (D& C 104:14-16.)

On February 9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what his way was. (See D& C 42.) In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2) stewardship.

To enter the United Order, when it was being tried, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a “covenant and a deed which” could not “be broken.” (D& C 42:30.) That is, he completely divested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church.

Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his original consecration, the object being to make “every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” (D& C 51:3.)

This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs.

The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse from which stewardship’s were given to others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.

These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying principles of socialism reveal similarities and basic differences.

The following are similarities: Both (1) deal with production and distribution of goods; (2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities; (3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in private capitalistic industrial system.

Now the differences: (1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and
acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order. Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness. (2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.

One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, “You don’t need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn’t come into the United Order.” (Documentary History of the Church. Vol 7,pp.412-413.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

What Have We Learned?

Basically, what we glean from Elder Marion Romney is that the United Order is a theocratic form of socialism. That, as a system, it can only operate properly under the Law of Consecration, as a function of the “Kingdom Of God” as understood in the context of the authority of the only true church on earth… the Mormon Church.

Mitt Romney understands this as a function of his Mormon upbringing, training, BYU Education, Temple worthiness and his LDS Priesthood [both Aaronic and Melchizedek… as an elder and High Priest].

He also is the nephew of the very General Authority and Apostle of the church, Marion Romney, who taught the doctrine from the pulpit to the entire church at the General Conference in 1966.

In his defense, I do not believe that Mitt Romney is overtly plotting such an LDS “New World Order.” I am certain it is not even in the back of his mind as he runs for office. However, as you have clearly seen, it is in his spiritual DNA, in his blood, in his roots and in his temple obligations.

In a TV interview the weekend following his 1007 announcement, he said:

“his Mormon beliefs would not handicap his run for the Republican presidential nomination.

“I’m not running for pastor in chief,” Romney told ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” Sunday. “I’m running for commander in chief.” The interview with the candidate and his wife Ann was videotaped earlier.[18]

In the announcement, itself, Romney stated that the USA needed transformation.

“Mitt Romney wants transformation. How do we know? The former Massachusetts Republican governor used the word ‘transform’ or a variant no fewer than 13 times in his presidential announcement Tuesday…. “So when he said on Tuesday, ‘If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now,’ Romney was accurately describing the need to overhaul the doddering status quo in health care, education and homeland security – just for starters.

“He was also correct when he added, ‘I do not believe Washington can be transformed from within by a lifelong politician.'”[19]

Remember, Mormonism Teaches That:

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. Satan gets a great victory when we disagree or “do our own thinking”.[20]

The Church Prophet has the right to identify how the Lord would have us vote and who would dare disobey?

“Now, does the office of the President of the Church embrace the right to identify for the whole membership of the church, and all the peoples of the world for that matter how the Lord would desire that we vote on certain matters? Certainly it does! Who would dare to proscribe God?”[21]

When the prophet speaks, the debate is over.[22]

All LDS administration is done by direct Revelation from God[23]

When the Mormon leaders speak, we are to obey and believe, even if our scientific knowledge says otherwise.[24]

God can (and often does) change his mind from revelation to revelation.

“That is modern revelation. May I repeat? Modern revelation is what President Joseph Smith said, unless [then] President Spencer W. Kimball says differently”[25]

If you are told by your leader to do a thing, DO IT! None of your business if it is right or wrong.[26]

LDS Prophet (from 1985 to 1994), Ezra T. Benson proclaimed:

The Prophet rightly should be in politics… after all, we do need God in Government.

The Prophet is above all humanity, above all scripture, above all the other prophets, above scientific knowledge and Must Be Obeyed.

Sometimes, in American politics, we are asked to focus more on the platform than the candidate, because we can trust the party and the candidate’s advisors to keep the candidate on the ‘straight and narrow’ as best they can.

In Mitt Romney’s case, his oath of office has already been sworn in a sacred LDS Temple ceremony. That oath is to the Mormon Plan for America and it will supersede any oath of office as President.

And it doesn’t really matter in the LDS scheme of things if Mitt Romney does not make it to the Oval Office, or even the office of Vice President. This Mormon Plan for America has been in the shadows for over 160 years. The Brethren believe it is their birthright, their purpose, their destiny to usher in the purification of the earth for Christ’s return.

They did not give up on the plan when Joseph Smith failed in his bid for the Presidency, nor did they give up when George Romney withdrew his bid. They will rejoice if Mitt makes it, but if not, they will merely look ahead to the one who will usher in the “Kingdom of God” in the soon coming future. Meanwhile, they will continue to prompt their people to file for every level of public office, to be ready when the wonderful fulfillment of prophecy comes.

[FOOTNOTES)

VISIT OUR MORMONISM FOCUS PAGE

RELATED PRODUCT

bookofmormon

THE BIBLE VS. THE BOOK OF MORMON DVD

“The Book of Mormon claims to be ‘a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible.” Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon declare themselves to be ancient, historical, and reliable rules of faith—the very word of God.

“These claims have historically been taken on faith. But is there any evidence to support them one way or the other? Is it even possible to ‘test’ a rule of faith? More to the point, is there any basis for placing one’s faith in the Bible or the Book of Mormon?

$17.95 BUY DVD / MORE INFO.

FOR FURTHER PRODUCTS ON MORMONISM CLICK HERE

Footnotes:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney

[2] Harvest House Publishers; Rev Upd Su edition, November 15, 1997

[3] http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/temple_ritual.htm

[4] IBID

[5] Klaus J. Hansen, Quest for Empire, The Political Kingdom of God and the Council of Fifty in Mormon History, pp. 55-56.

[6] John J. Stewart, op. cit., p. 204.

[7] 35 Los Angeles Times, Apr. 5, 1980, Part 1:1, p. 1.

[8] Kostman et al, op. cit.

[9] Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 1, 1981

[10] IBID

[11] Kostman et al, op. cit.

[12] The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 9, 1983, p. 16.

[13] Journal of Discourses, vol.. 7, p. 15.

[14] Hyrum L. Andrus, Joseph Smith, the Man and Seer, p. 5.

[15] John J. Stewart, op. cit., p. 209; Hyrum L. Andrus, Joseph Smith and World Government, op. cit., p. 54.

[16] The Ensign, Jan. 1979, “To Prepare a People,” p. 18.

[17] Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 230.

[18] UPI Staff, United Press International, February 19, 2007 WASHINGTON

[19] Romney’s Campaign Of Transformation, J Pinkerton, Newsday Thursday, Feb 15, 2007

[20] Improvement Era (Official LDS church magazine), June 1945, p. 345.

[21] LDS Stake Bulletin, Renton Washington Stake, Fall, 1976.

[22] “The Debate is over”, President N. Eldon Tanner [1st Counselor to the Prophet, The Ensign, August 1979, First presidency Message.

[23] Ensign, May 1978, page 64.

[24] Elder Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, Volume 5, page 83

[25]Elder S. Dilworth Young, BYU Fireside May 5, 1974

[26] President Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, page 32.

You can order the book at www.saintsalive.com or at Amazon
Last Updated on Monday, 24 October 2011 19:15

(article source)

SOURCE

Ron Paul Placed Second in New Hampshire Presidential Primary……..The Democratic Presidential Primary

Ron Paul Placed Second in New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary

On January 12, the New Hampshire Secretary of State posted election returns on his web page from the January 10 presidential primary. It is the custom in New Hampshire to count write-ins in the Democratic presidential primary received by all candidates who appeared on the Republican presidential primary ballot, and vice versa. No tally is made for write-in candidates who were not on any party’s presidential primary ballot.

The returns for the Democratic primary can be seen here. Ron Paul received 2,273 write-ins in the Democratic presidential primary, so he placed second in that primary behind President Obama, and ahead of the other thirteen candidates whose names were printed on the Democratic ballot. No one will ever know how many write-ins Hillary Clinton received, since her votes weren’t tallied because she wasn’t on any 2012 primary ballot in New Hampshire. But, the total number of write-ins for people who weren’t on any primary ballot, in the Democratic race, was only 759, so obviously Clinton received a smaller number than 759. Mitt Romney placed third in the Democratic primary, with 1,808 write-ins. Thanks to Robbin Stewart for this news.

SOURCE

Will There Be A Citizenship Eligibility Challenge For Romney?

Will There Be A Citizenship Eligibility Challenge For Romney?

The worn out race card has been used by the sycophants who support Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barack Dunham to crush any discussion regarding his eligibility. Race baiters in the corrupt, disgraced media who wear their socialist ideology like a badge of honor continue to chant “birthers” are all racists because Obama/Soetoro is black. They conveniently forget Barry’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham was white. The correct racial definition is half Caucasian, half Negro. But, none of that matters to the gangsters who prop up Soetoro or the useful fools who proclaim his brilliance.

Nor do any of the liars for hire in the media playing the race card ever bring up the very first ballot challenge in 2008. Leo Donofrio, an attorney in New Jersey, raised the first concerns regarding citizenship when he filed to keep Obama/Soetoro off the ballot. The other two candidates in Leo’s case were John McCain and a foreign national who was obviously ineligible. No mention is ever made of Leo’s case against McCain not being constitutionally eligible.

Was this challenge to Obama/Soetoro’s citizenship unanticipated? I don’t believe so. Leo filed his papers in October 2008; you can view all of them here. The powers behind the scenes began to grease the wheels shortly after Soetoro became a state senator in Illinois. By February 2008, chicanery was underway as this relatively unknown with no paper trail to his life makes a bid for the White House. There were obviously people with a lot at stake who knew there was a problem with Barry’s citizenship and tried to cut it off before it became an issue:

In February 2008, Democrats (and one Republican) began pushing legislation on the issue of citizenship:

“…on February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).
“Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find….
“Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511. On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a “natural born citizen” in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
“One has to wonder – what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a “natural born citizen”? Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?”
McCain was drug into the conspiracy so everyone looked fair: What is good for a RINO is good for whatever his real name is.

If you read Leo’s documents, he addresses the issue of McCain’s ineligibility;see this page.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant an oral hearing on Leo’s case. An endless stream of lawsuits have followed over the years. Of course, none of this would have happened had the Outlaw Congress done their job, January 9, 2009 and stopped the electoral college vote. The controversy was raging full steam by then regarding Obama/Soetoro’s constitutional eligibility, yet not one member of Congress, not Michelle Bachmann, not Ron Paul, not one single member of Congress had the courage to stand up, invoke house rules and begin a legitimate investigation.

There will be a hearing, January 26, 2012, in the State of Georgia to keep the usurper off the ballot. The plaintiffs have won the first round: Judge Malihi refused Obama’s Motion to Dismiss. We shall see if he has the courage to do what will send shock waves throughout the world: If Soetoro isn’t constitutionally eligible now, he wasn’t in 2008. Translated: the Oval Office has been empty since George Bush left. Usurper means someone who has usurped the office, but does not legally occupy it. Soetoro cannot be impeached. I sincerely wish people would understand that if a successful impeachment happened, it would set one of the worst legal precedents in our history.

I have no candidate preference for president in 2012, so there is absolutely no bias on my part in bringing up the problem with Mitt Romney. As an old warrior activist going on 21 years, I know what they all stand for and what they won’t stand up for. Constitutional eligibility doesn’t have anything to do with political party loyalty. It has to do with the supreme law of the land and upholding the law so our republic doesn’t turn into complete lawlessness and anarchy.

Any candidate, Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Independent Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party – you name it – cannot expect to put a candidate on the ballot for president if that candidate isn’t eligible under the Constitution. It doesn’t matter if that candidate is a person of color, Caucasian, Asian or Hispanic. The only thing that matters for ballot qualification is constitutional eligibility. Will we see Romney held to the same standards as the effort to expose Soetoro for the fraud and liar he is?

But, Mitt Romney was born in America, right? He was born on March 12, 1947 in Detroit, Michigan. That is not in dispute. But, what is in dispute is his father’s citizenship at the time Willard was born with the exact same situation with Obama/Soetoro.

While I don’t entirely trust Wikipedia, they at least get part of it right regarding Mitt Romney’s father: “Romney was born to American parents in the Mormon Colonies in Mexico; events during the Mexican Revolution forced his family to move back to the United States when he was a child.”

Mr. George W. Romney, was elected Governor of Michigan. Because there was talk George W. might run for the presidency, his citizenship eligibility came into question and because it extends to the child at the time of birth, there is now question regarding Willard (Mitt) Romney:

Mitt Romney’s, father George W. Romney, Not A Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America, and was NOT, eligible for the Office of President, by Pinckney G. McElwee of D.C. Bar.)

Congressional Record (House) June 14, 1967

“I find no proper legal or historical basis on which to conclude that a person born outside of the United States could ever be eligible to occupy the Office of the President of the United States. In other words, In my opinion, Mr. George Romney of Michigan Is Ineligible to become President of the United States because he was born In Mexico and is, therefore, not a natural-born citizen as required by the United States Constitution.”

Thus, we have the same situation as with Obama/Soetoro: A father born in a foreign country who never became a U.S. citizen. Several people have been doing some serious research on this:

“The big question is thishow did George and Gaskell Romney get their US Citizenship back if they still had it at all? If Gaskell (son) and Miles Park Romney (father) who were both Mexican citizens how could they transfer US Citizenship to George Romney? Mitt Romney, however, may be a birthright baby because he fell under the 14th Amendment (I doubt they were under the jurisdiction of the US) but it is absolutely clear that Mitt Romney is NOT a Natural Born Citizen unless he can prove that George Romney gained citizenship from naturalization prior to Mitt’s birth in 1947. I have found no records showing this to be the case.”

And: Mitt Romney, Barack Obama vs Natural Born Citizenship and the Constitution

Of course, anyone who has done a few hundred hours of reading research on this issue fully understands how the Fourteenth Amendment has been twisted to suit political agendas, i.e., the myth called “anchor babies.”

The real legal question is this: Romney’s father was born in Mexico. Under their Constitution, he was a Mexican citizen.

Mexican Constitution – Chapter II

Article 30. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
A. Mexicans by birth are:
I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents:
II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
Was that still his status when Mitt was born?

Obama/Soetoro’s father was a Kenyan national visiting the U.S. He was a British citizen. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948,Obama/Soetoro/Dunham was born with dual citizenship and forever ineligible to run for president.

There was a darn good reason why those who birthed this republic did not want foreign influence in the White House and why the words ‘natural born citizen’ were put into the Constitution.

Leo Donofrio has continued to post several excellent pieces of research on this as well as attorney Mario Apuzzo. Despite all the wailing, name calling and outright lying by Soetoro’s co-conspirators in the media and the ignorant in Congress, nothing can change Obama/Soetoro’s dual citizenship status. Here are two of Leo’s most recent posts:

Newly Revealed Evidence Establishes That President James Madison’s Administration Required Citizen Parentage To Qualify Native-Born Persons For U.S. Citizenship

Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda

From Mario Apuzzo’s web site: The Citizenship Status of Our 44 Presidents. At the bottom of that piece, see:

“Are people born to our military out of the country (such as McCain) considered to be born on US soil ?? I think Vattel thought so but we were not building an overseas empire at the time our constitution was written so we may not have considered this in our use of the term “natural born citizen”. Atty Apuzzo please clarify for me – Phil Stone

“John Sidney McCain III was born on August 29, 1936 in Colon Hospital, Colon Panama, according to the Panama Canal Health Department not in the Panama Canal Zone, which is authenticated by Donald Lynn Lamb representing the Panama Railroad Company with authority over the Hospital in Colon; and according to the Hay-Banau-Varilla Treaty of November 18, 1903 that has 26 articles in which the two pertinent to the status of the city of Colon under that Treaty refer to the Convention for the Construction of a Ship Canal says that the Colon Panama, the birth city cited on McCain’s 1936 long form birth certificate where he was witnessed being born, and where his parents resided, Colon, Republic de Panama, is not part of the Canal Zone, quote: ARTICLE I The United States guarantees and will maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama. ARTICLE II The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE CITIES OF PANAMA AND COLON and the harbors adjacent to said cities, WHICH ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONE ABOVE DESCRIBED, SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS GRANT ” and therefore, McCain is not a natural-born Citizen as he was not born on U.S. Territory or the USA and is not eligible for the Presidency with the U.S. Constitution Article II Section One Clause 5″

And: Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

We shall see what happens at the hearing in Georgia, Jan. 26, 2012. I pray Judge Malihi will be able to withstand the pressure because should he find for the plaintiffs, Barry Soetoro will not be on the ballot in 2012 and the whole world will know he isn’t constitutionally eligible in 2012 and neither was he in 2008.

If you are unfamiliar with the ballot challenge in Georgia:

Attorney Van Irion on behalf of David Weldon Files Blistering Opposition to Defendant’s(Obama) Motion to Dismiss in Georgia Ballot Access Challenge

The Motion to Dismiss filed by Obama/Soetoro’s big money attorneys has been denied. A miracle in itself. The judge in the three cases moved (I am happy about) to grant the motion to sever the cases. Which means, Weldon will have his hearing on Jan. 26, 2012, presented by Van Irion.

Worldnetdaily has a new article on it doing a very good job in explaining, so I’ll just give a link. It details the difference in the plaintiff’s cases:

In late October 2011, Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation also filed two lawsuits – against the DNC. Since the DNC is a private entity, there is no question of standing or immunity:

No Certification Without Verification

“On 10/25/11 Liberty Legal Foundation joined with Presidential candidate John Albert Dummett Jr. to file two simultaneous lawsuits against the Democratic Party. Both lawsuits request injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election. Without such a certification from the Party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election. (Tennessee TN Complaint) (Federal DNC Complaint).

Ron Paul believes Obama is the president:

“Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul has cleared the air on where he stands on questions surrounding the “natural born” status of US President Barack Obama by saying he never paid it any mind, and that prospective presidential candidate Donald Trump is desperate for attention in bringing it up.” Never paid the serious question of constitutional eligibility for a presidential candidate?

Michele Bachmann trumps The Donald, declares birther dispute ‘settled’

“On ABC’s “Good Morning America” this morning, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, tea partyist and possible GOP presidential rival to Donald Trump, was shown a certified copy of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. She declared the matter “settled:” Well, fiddley dee!”

For those sincerely interested in learning more on the issue of natural born citizen because Obama/Soetoro just might have company regarding ballot qualification – Mitt Romney:

Dr. and Professor Herb Titus, Esq. states: Born In Hawaii Does Not Make Obama Natural Born Citizen – YouTube

“Dr. Herbert W. Titus, Esq., is of counsel to the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. Prior to his association with this firm, Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals. Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.”

Obama Cannot Be A “Natural Born Citizen” Under Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) by Mario Apuzzo

Republican Leaders Are Protecting Obama and Subverting the Constitution

“Republican leaders and elected officials maintain a protective shield of silence and disinformation about Obama’s personal history, his Constitutionally illegal Presidency, his crimes, and his anti-American and reprehensible behavior, to hide their own complicity in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people. Winning the 2012 election and maintaining their personal power and privileges have become more important to the Republican leadership than the integrity of the Constitution and the political health of the nation.”

Was Baby Virginia Sunhara’s (Of Hawaii) Identity (birth certification registration number) stolen? Lawsuit filed, January 3, 2012.

Is Romney constitutionally eligible as a natural born citizen?

Do you think the Democrats will make this an issue? If they did, it would come right back to their candidate, Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham.In April 2011, a couple of weeks before Obama/Soetoro released his official forged birth certificate, Mitt Romney declared Mr. Cool didn’t need a birth certificate because his mother was born in America. Romney declared his complete ignorance on the issue – or – he was covering in the event his citizenship becomes an issue. This piece is full of such propaganda, one can only refer to it as bird cage liner: Romney to Trump: Obama Doesn’t Need a Birth Certificate. Perhaps Mitt Romney is terrified his own citizenship eligibility will be looked at more closely and find himself the target of real constitutionalists who believe the supreme law of the land is more important than a candidate or party.

Will Republican presidential candidates (the ones not kissed and blessed by the global elites) makes this an issue? Where there’s this much smoke, there’s bound to be fire.

SOURCE

The Use and Abuse of History

It’s hard to believe Thursday night’s debate did much to alter the dynamics of the 2012 GOP presidential race. And it’s unlikely Saturday’s Ames straw poll will do so either, though it will begin to winnow the field.

History suggests that the race—absent an intervention—is predictably headed toward a showdown between 2008 runner-up Mitt Romney and Texas governor Rick Perry.

In the last five GOP nominating contests without an incumbent Republican president, the runner-up from the preceding competitive cycle has won four times: Reagan in 1980, Bush in 1988, Dole in 1996, and McCain in 2008. The only break in the pattern was George W. Bush in 2000, when the attraction of next-by-birth trumped the principle of next-in-line.

By this precedent, and with Mike Huckabee choosing not to run, Mitt Romney will be the nominee in 2012. Romney’s campaign strategy is premised on this precedent holding. And he may well be right. He currently leads in fundraising and in the polls.

On the other hand, you can look at the history this way. In non-incumbent races over the last seventy years, the GOP has nominated a New York governor (1944 and 1948), a former supreme military commander (1952), a vice president from California (1960 and 1968), a former governor of California (1980), a vice president from Texas (1988), the Senate majority leader (1996), and a governor from Texas (2000). The only non-big job/big state nominees were two Arizona senators, Goldwater (1964) and McCain (2008), and they were prominent figures in the party who had toyed with running or had run for president before. On this model, the longest-serving GOP governor from the largest red state, Rick Perry of Texas, is the kind of nominee the Republican party likes to choose.

So history suggests a Romney-Perry showdown for the nomination. The legacy candidate vs. the big state candidate. And the polls have the two of them as the frontrunners.

Should Republicans yield to history, and resign themselves to a Romney-Perry choice? They could do worse. And it’s true that all experience has shown that Republicans are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Or, here in the 21st century, is it Republicans’ right, and their duty, to throw off such precedent, and to welcome new champions for our future security and prosperity?

But they can only be welcomed if they step forward.

SOURCE

Mitt Romney says ‘corporations are people

Mitt Romney says ‘corporations are people’ at Iowa State Fair

?After what was widely considered an unfocused and bloated campaign in 2008, Republican Mitt Romney is returning to the presidential sweepstakes with a more tightly knit team that he hopes will keep him on point.

By Philip Rucker,

DES MOINES — Mitt Romney’s visit to the Iowa State Fair on Thursday might have been the best debate prep session he could have hoped for.

Romney’s appearance at the fair’s soapbox grew unusually testy when a few angry people heckled the Republican presidential candidate over his declaration not to raise taxes. They urged the campaign front-runner to increase taxes on the wealthy to help fund such entitlement programs as Social Security and Medicare.

Romney explained that one way to fulfill promises on entitlement programs is to “raise taxes on people,” but before he could articulate his position on not raising taxes, someone interrupted.

“Corporations!” a protester shouted, apparently urging Romney to raise taxes on corporations that have benefited from loopholes in the tax code. “Corporations!”

“Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said.

Some people in the front of the audience shouted, “No, they’re not!

“Of course they are,” Romney said. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”

The heated exchange prompted an attack from Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with taxation of railroad properties. The decision was instrumental in laying the foundation for modern laws regarding corporate personhood, ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons. For its opinion, the Court consolidated three separate cases:

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
California v. Central Pacific Railroad Company
California v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company


“Mitt Romney’s comment today that ‘corporations are people’ is one more indication that Romney and the Republicans on the campaign trail and in Washington have misplaced priorities,
” she said in a statement, calling the comment a “shocking admission.”

There were other tense moments in Romney’s 20-minute appearance at the fair. People interrupted the former Massachusetts governor with chants of “Wall Street greed!” Some in the audience tried to shout questions over Romney, and he at times shouted back.

“Hold on a moment, let me speak! Hold on a moment!” he said.

“You get to ask your question, I get to give my answer and if you don’t like my answer you can vote for someone else,” Romney said.

At one point, Romney poked fun at the hecklers, saying: “My guess is they won’t be voting for me.”

The hecklers were far outnumbered by Romney supporters, nearly 300 in all, who cheered over the heckling. For Romney, the exchange was a rare unscripted and impassioned moment that his advisers said helped him demonstrate to voters that he has the stomach to fight.

Romney was the first of several candidates scheduled to speak at the Des Moines Register soapbox this week. He stood in a short-sleeved shirt and casual pants, his left leg propped on a bale of hay, and delivered a stump speech that was more fiery than typical.

“The nation as a whole is really struggling,”
Romney said. “And part of that reason is we’re led by a man who’s a fine fella, but he’s out of his depth and doesn’t understand how the economy works.”

Romney argued that he does, given his 25 years of private sector experience.

“Sometimes I wonder whether [Obama] takes his political inspiration from the social Democrats of Europe,” Romney said. “I don’t think Europe is working there. I sure don’t think Europe will work here. I happen to believe that we got it right and they got it wrong. I believe in freedom and opportunity, American-style.”

SOURCE