Romney Has Zero Percent Support From African Americans In New NBC/WSJ Poll

Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2921325/posts Browse · Search

News/Activism Topics · Post Article

---

Skip to comments.

Mediaite ^ | August. 21, 2012 | Meenal Vamburkar 

Posted on Tue Aug 21 2012 21:43:52 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) by Free ThinkerNY

A new NBC/WSJ poll out Tuesday shows President Barack Obama with a four-point lead over presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney. But as is often the case with polls, some of the more interesting numbers were in the details. For example? Romney snagged zero percent of African-American voters.
Among key demographics, the poll noted that Obama had a lead over Romney. The most stark being when it came to African Americans: 94 percent to 0 percent. Via NBC:
Looking inside the numbers, Obama continues to lead Romney among key parts of his political base, including African Americans (94 percent to 0 percent), Latinos (by a 2-to-1 margin), voters under 35-years-old (52 percent to 41 percent) and women (51 percent to 41 percent).
His lead among those groups isn’t surprising, but hard for the number zero not to catch a person’s attention.

(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...

#The Party of Legitimate Rape

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Romney, Marriott And Son Of Boss ---- For Dummies

Peter J Reilly, Contributor

I focus on the tax issues of individuals, businesses & more

Follow (120)

TAXES 

|

 

8/08/2012 @ 10:04PM |4,030 views

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/08/08/son-of-boss-for-sons-of-you-know-if-marriott-did-it-did-romney/

2 comments, 2 called-out

+ Comment now

73

33

7

9

0

Now that the question of Mitt’s knowledge of Son of Boss deals has been raised by CNN, I thought it might be a public service to explain Son of Boss deals. A lot of commentators seem to think that they are too hard to understand, but I don’t think so.  I’ve told my friends at Dogs Against Romneythat they might not want to bother filling in the beagles and the mastiffs , but I think the border collies and the poodles are ready for it. 

Basis

I have previously explained Son of Boss using the ill fated tax shelter of EMC founder, Richard Egan, who got into the game in its waning days.  His advisor, Stephanie Denby, commented on the beauty of the deals:
Secondly, some of the transactions focus on generating basis as opposed to capital loss. Basis is more discrete [sic] and less likely I believe to cross the IRS radar screen.

Romney Has A Duty To Exploit Every Tax Loophole? Horse Feathers!Janet NovackForbes Staff

Romney Returns - Could Son Of Boss Deals Be Worrying Him?Peter J ReillyContributor

Richard Egan Estate Subject to 40% Penalty on Doomed ShelterPeter J ReillyContributor

Supreme Court Has Taken Ammunition From IRS In Son Of Boss Cases - Time To Fix Bayonets ?Peter J ReillyContributor

We are taxed on income, not gross receipts.  That means that when you sell something you get to deduct your basis.  In its simplest manifestation basisis the amount of money that you paid for something.  You buy something for five dollars and sell it for six, your income is a dollar.  Of course it can be more complicated if you acquire assets in other ways, such as by gift or inheritance or in a like-kind exchange. The important point though is that when you sell something the higher your basis the less your gain or the greater your loss. 

 Once you own something though it is kind of hard to increase its basis.  If it is a partnership interest you increase your basis by the income that flows through to you, so your gain will be less if you sell the partnership interest, but that is like hitting your head against the wall because it feels so good when you stop.  If it is a tangible asset, you could spend money to improve it, but that doesn’t really feel that satisfying.  Of course, if it is an appreciated asset, you could die, but that is kind of extreme.  The way that the designers of the Marriott deal came up with involved combining two things each of which is only slightly complicated – short sales and the formation of a partnership.  Here is a link to the decision if you want to follow along, but I’ll try to break it down for you.

Short Sales

When I was a kid, my father used to tell me jokes.  There was a problem though.  He worked on Wall Street.  He did not have a particularly lucrative career (He was a senior order clerk) but he had a Wall Street sensibility to him .  So the jokes that he told me were incomprehensible to an eight year old.  One of them that I finally got when I was about thirty, was his little ditty about short sales “He who sells what isn’t hissen, buys it back or goes to prison.”  The important tax principle is that the proceeds of a short sale are not gross income.  You recognize gain or loss when you close the short sale.

Partnership Formation

When you put stuff into a partnership, the partnership’s basis in the stuff is your basis in it.  You increase your basis in your partnership interest by your basis in the stuff you put in.  Another important principle is that your share of the liabilities of a partnership is part of your basis in the partnership.  If you increase your share of the liabilities it increases your basis, but if it decreases it reduces your basis, just as if you took out cash.  Your basis can never go below zero.  If a loss allocation would drive it below zero, the loss is suspended, but a liability decrease, like a cash distribution, will cause you to recognize gain.  If you put leveraged property into a partnership and the liability shifts away from you or is paid down by the partnership, you may end up recognizing gain.

Now you are ready to do your Son of Boss deal.  Here are the steps:
Marriott International sells short two-year Treasury notes and invests the proceeds in five-year Treasury notes. Marriott International, as a limited partner, and a third party, as the general partner, form a partnership.Marriott International contributes the five-year Treasury notes, subject to the short-sale obligations, to the partnership and the general partner contributes some cash. The partnership obtains additional assets and subsequently sells the five-year Treasury notes and closes the short sale obligation on the two-year Treasury notes.

Marriott International transfers its partnership interest to another Marriott subsidiary.

No gain or loss is recognized on the transfer, but the partnership-interest transfer results in a technical termination of the partnership which causes a deemed distribution of the assets to each partner and a re-contribution of the assets to a new partnership. 

The tax basis of the assets takes on the “outside” tax basis of Marriott International’s interest, i.e., the value of the five-year Treasury notes Marriott International contributed to the first partnership, which value is not reduced by the short-sale obligation.

The remaining additional assets later are depreciated or are sold, and Marriott International recognizes the resulting tax losses.

I always had a hard time understanding these deals, because of my training as an accountant.  You can’t get the damn thing to work without an unbalanced entry.  Essentially though the money that Marriott got for the short sale allowed it to buy something that it had basis in.  Marriott argued that the obligation to cover the short sale was not a liability as defined by Code Section 752.  So even though it didn’t really have to come up with any money out of its own pocket, it had basis in the partnership interest.  The rest of the maneuvers are a little technical, but essentially the free basis gets shuffled around until it is actually used.  In Richard Egan’s version of the deal EMC stock was contributed to the partnership that had been created. The IRS and the Court’s didn’t put it the way a confused accountant would – “Ok, I have a debit, now what the hell am I supposed to credit ?”, but they essentially got to the same bottom line -

The initial short sale, which generates the cash proceeds, and the subsequent covering transaction are “inextricably intertwined,” because under Regulation T the proceeds are chained to the obligation to close the short sale. Thus, the proceeds of the first step in the short sale transactions are also subject to the uncertainties of closing the short sale.  In short, if contribution of the proceeds of the short sale increased the partners’ outside basis, the contribution of the obligation to return the Treasury notes that had been sold short required a decrease in the partners’ outside basis.

I never ran into these deals in their heyday.  If I had I would have scratched my head, but I might have bought into it because of the letters from the tax attorneys who are supposed to know this stuff better than I do even if they don’t know a debit from a credit.  So I would not be shocked if Romney did one of these deals for himself.  Presumably the statute of limitations would be closed.  That didn’t stop Tim Geithner from paying for his mistakes though.  If Romney did do a Son of Boss deal, it really does not tell us anything about him that we do not already know, but if we want to hold him to the Geithner standard, he should pay regardless of the statute of limitations.
You can follow me on twitter @peterreillycpa.

Forum Post: Is Mormon one percenter Harry Reid Running Interference for Mormon One Percenter Mitrt Romney?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/is-mormon-one-percenter-harry-reid-running-interfe/

Posted 8 minutes ago on Aug. 8, 2012, 1:20 a.m. EST by fiftyfourforty (829)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Things are not always what they seem. Before Reid opened his mouth the issues were really aboutpossible Romney criminality. 1- Had Romney tried to evade taxes illegally with UBS in Switzerland? a- Could be resolved by revealing his 2009 and 2010 returns completed including the absent to this day Foreign Bank Account Reports. That would settle when he let the IRS in on his Swiss account. The IRS had nailed UBS and forced them to fork over the names and account numbers of US tax evaders in 2009. These evaders were given an opportunity to confess, take a penalty and avoid possible prison time. The FBAR would resolve whether or not Romney was a caught criminal who took a deal.
2- His Individual Retirement Account. Complete tax returns for the past ten years would explain how he parlayed a $30,000 annual contributions into a pile up to $100,000,000! This would take incredible skill and luck, or it would take illegal "self dealing."
http://www.keystoneprogress.org/blog/2012/07/patriotic-millionaires-demand-mitt-romney-release-tax-returns.html "Patriotic Millionaire and former Google Software Engineer David desJardins (CA) says:
"Mitt Romney owes a detailed explanation to the American public about how he got $100 million or more in his IRA, without illegal self-dealing. The Individual Retirement Account is a tool for Americans to save for retirement, something most Americans desperately need. If Romney took advantage of quasi-legal manipulations to use his IRA instead as a vehicle for hiding hundreds of millions of dollars from the IRS and avoid paying even the low 15% rate on his income, we should know how he did it and whether it was legal, or not.""
3- Did Romney vote in Massachusetts while not a resident of that state? Some people suspect that. He claimed to be living in his son's basement in Mass. while running the Utah Olympics. Interesting.
"Patriotic Millionaire and Co-CEO of eScription Paul Egerman (MA) says:
"Why doesn't Governor Romney want Americans to see his tax returns? Perhaps, he wants to hide the truth about how little in taxes people like Mitt Romney and me have paid on many millions of dollars of income. Or, perhaps he wants to hide the way that he's used paper losses to get refunds on prior years' returns. He needs to release at least 10 years of returns. Governor Romney should also come clean and release at least the past ten years of his Massachusetts state "
http://arrestmittromney.blogspot.com/2012/07/daily-kos-blogger-makes-case-for.html
MITT ROMNEY IS A FELON. ARREST HIM.
I'll be quick about this. On August 12, 2011, Mitt Romney filed this report with the Federal Election Commission. On the 27th page it states: Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active rolewith any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.
This statement is false. A lie.
As Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshal reported on July 10th, Securities and Exchange Commission filings show Romney listed as the CEO, president, and sole owner of Bain capital. You are not "retired" if you are the CEO and president of a company. Other SEC docs indicate that Mitt Romney drew a salary of "over $100,000" for being CEO of Bain. That, by definition, is not being retired. These SEC documents also state that Romney's "principal occupation" was being the CEO of Bain Capital. That, by definition, is not being retired.
Being CEO and President is not having" any active role" or not being involved "in any way". If you are the sole owner of a private entity, you are legally responsible for that entity. You are "involved" in that entity. Had Bain Capital participated in an illegal action, Mitt Romney would have been held financially and possibly criminally liable for that action.
Even with this just this evidence, Mitt Romney ought to be arrested for lying to a federal agent. A crime that carries a penalty of 5 years maximum in prison.
More beyond the cover for those who seek it.
But for all the legal twisting and squirming that Mitt's surrogates have been doing to protect him from the legal jeopardy that he put himself in- they cannot escape the fact that Mitt Romney, in sworn testimony to Massachusetts election officials, stated that he served on the board of the LifeLike corporation and returned to Massachusetts to serve in that capacity after he left "retired" in 1999 to save the Olympics. Presumably and almost certainly, he served on its board because he owned shares in the company through his ownership of Bain Capital.
That by definition is "being involved" in a Bain Capital entity. Even he served on LifeLike's board in the capacity of an individual investor (and not in his Bain capacity), he would still be "involved" with this Bain entity as an individual investor.
There is much, much more evidence out there to contradict Romney's claim (which came today in the form of Ed Gillespie's PREPOSTEROUS claim that Mitt Romney "retired retroactively" from Bain Capital. But that's not what this blurb is about. This blurb is about arresting Mitt Romney.
Either he lied to the SEC and state of Massachusetts in the early years of the past decade, or he lied to the FEC on August 12, 2011. Mitt Romney from the information available to us, is guilty of a federal crime. He needs to go to court to defend his innocence. Now, I'm not suggesting anyone attempt a citizen's arrest of Mitt Romney (the Secret Service would quickly stop you). What I'm suggesting is that we start asking questions of the FEC and Justice Department. Perhaps we should start by phoning in, and asking the FEC these questions:
1) Has the FEC investigated the discrepancies between Mitt Romney's FEC filing in 2011 and Bain's SEC filings in the early 2000's?
2) If the FEC has not begun an investigation (or the person on the phone won't state whether they have or not) ask whether this person knows about these discrepancies.
3) If they do not know, inform them of the discrepancies by stating: "In the early 2000's Bain Capital listed Mitt Romney as their owner and CEO, who drew a salary of over $100,000. Yet in 2011, Mitt Romney filed a document with the FEC stating that he retired from Bain in 1999. It appears likely that Mitt Romney lied to the FEC in 2011. The FEC should investigate these discrepancies."
4) If they do know of the discrepancies, ask why they have yet to launch an investigation, and state that they should launch an investigation.
I believe we should start a political and organizational movement to give the government the political will to arrest Mitt Romney. I should state upfront that I don't necessarily want to lead that movement, but I am willing to lend my voice and limited knowledge of politics to it. I will also add that the Obama campaign is absolutely NOT the correct vehicle to express this frustration through or toward. Asking a sitting president to call for the arrest of his political opponent looks weak and in the long run could set a dangerous precedent. I believe the correct vehicle for this movement is the Occupy movement. Think about it. A wealthy member of the 1 percent believes he is above the law and would have us sit idly by while he clearly and flagrantly violates the law. If Joe poor man lies to the DEA during a drug bust, he goes to jail- even if he was just a witness to the illegal activity. However, if Mitt Romney lies to the FEC just because he wants to be president, he goes on scott-free, possibly to the presidency. We should at least expect the people running to lead us to be truthful.
If we don't demand some type of justice here, then what are we about? What is this nation about? Would it be lies, and justice for everyone but the privileged?
That is all.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://jezebel.com/5925455/is-mitt-romney-a-race-baiting-felon-possibly
The Boston Globe isn't the first media outlet to point out that it sure looked like Mitt was fibbing about leaving Bain Capital in February 1999, but it's getting more attention this time, since they've got the Bain Capital documents to prove it and it looks like that little lie might actually be a big felonious whopper. According to the Globe, although Mitt Romney states on his federal financial disclosure forms that he left the company before the Y2K panic came and went, the company's filings with the SEC tell a different story — they show that Romney was listed as Bain's CEO until 2002. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed [after 1999] by Bain Capital state he remained the firm's "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president." Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney's state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain "executive" in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings. So, why does this matter? First, it shows that it sure looks like Romney was actually involved in activities that the GOP Presidential candidate has disavowed — that thing about the fetus disposal company, layoffs and downsizing and outsourcing of jobs — even though the paper trail shows that his income as a CEO was, according to a former Bain employee, suspiciously low. For Romney's sake, let's hope that this all gets sorted out, because according to FactCheck, if Romney had falsified federal financial disclosure forms, he's got some 'splaining to do. Because that's a felony.

---

So Harry Reid perhaps changes the subject from overt criminality to run of the mill ordinary one percenter within the letter of the law tax avoidance. Clever.

Occupy Wall Street Year One

 http://s17nyc.org.

Check out Adelsongate to get up to speed on Republican ethics

http://adelsongate.blogspot.com/

Prediction: Romney Will Not be the Republican Nominee

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/prediction-romney-will-no_b_1684234.html
Prediction: Romney Will Not be the Republican Nominee Posted: 07/18/2012 4:42 pm
Darrell Issa , Mitt Romney , Tim Pawlenty , Cayman Islands Accounts , Retroactive Nominee , Amnesty , Michelle Bachmann , Swiss Bank Accounts , Politics News
No one who has received amnesty for a serious crime, such as tax evasion, can be president. One would think that someone for whom the clear implications are that he has received amnesty, but will not release exculpatory documents, also cannot be president.
As the press has been focused on what we now know as Romney's "retroactive retirement", that does not help him escape clear responsibility for his outsourcing strategy anyhow, I have tried to shine a light on the clearest, cleanest, unspinnable, problem with Romney's finances -- amnesty for his Swiss accounts -- suggesting that the Republican leaders, who dislike him anyhow, could not abide such a fatally-flawed nominee.
But, all I had on my side was logic. Why would he have closed only the Swiss Account when the Cayman/Bermuda accounts are also abusive tax havens, and he left those alone? Why would Romney have bothered to close the Swiss account at all? I deduced that what was special about his Swiss Account was the amnesty program allowed by the IRS. I also surmised that it was amnesty, more than anything else, that would keep him from releasing earlier tax returns.
Now, through investigative reporting, there is highly suggestive evidence that the logic was not wrong. Romney failed to disclose the documents he filed with the IRS in 2010, the year he has already released, that detail his Swiss Account holdings.
Hence, I am now prepared to go beyond my suggestions that the Republicans would not give him the nomination to a firm prediction: Romney will not be the 2012 Republican nominee for president. (He may be the "retroactive 2008 nominee" as Darrell Issa, who also cannot run for higher office due to his shady past, suggests).
Who will be? Before Romney is forced to withdraw, he will make a Vice Presidential selection, as an attempt to make it seem that his nomination is just rolling along, and is inevitable.
That person will have been fully vetted, (including his/her tax returns!).
I predict, therefore, that the Republican nominee for president will be the person Romney selects as his VP.
How ironic if that turned out to be T-Paw, who dropped out after losing to Michelle Bachmann in Iowa, (and whom Lawrence O'Donnell picked all along) becomes the 2012 Republican nominee for president!
+++++++++++
Pawlenty? Bring him on! http://www.transportationissuesdaily.com/conservative-blogger-to-pawlenty-what-about-the-minn-bridge-collapse-on-your-watch/
Conservative Blogger to Pawlenty: What About The Minn. Bridge Collapse On Your Watch? Posted on May 26, 2011 by Larry Ehl Share on twitterShare on facebookShare on bloggerShare on googleMore Sharing Services Conservative blogger Nicole Gelinas of The National Review suggests that Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota must “explain to the American public what he learned from the collapse of the I-35W bridge into the Mississippi in 2007. The bridge fell down at the end of Pawlenty’s first four years as the ultimate person in charge of the state’s infrastructure.” (Link to story.)
Gelinas notes that Barry LePatner, a top construction lawyer, wrote the following about the bridge failure in his 2010 book, Too Big to Fall:
“Yet there should be no doubt that inadequate funding was a key factor in MN/DOT’s decisions not only to call off the planned retrofitting of the bridge but also to forgo nondestructive testing that would have revealed the full extent of fatigue cracking on the bridge. And it was inadequate resources for remediation that led to the decision to put off until 2022 the deck replacement that would have added redundancy to the bridge. Moreover, it was not until after the I-35W Bridge fell into the Mississippi and killed 13 people that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty gave up his previously unshakable opposition to raising the state’s gasoline tax, thus providing needed revenues for the financial starved MN/DOT.” Pawlenty should answer these questions, Gelina suggests:
Does he agree with LePatner’s assessment? (LePatner has previously helped write such potboilers as Structural and Foundational Failures: A Casebook for Architects, Engineers, and Lawyers.)
Does the former governor think that the bridge collapse was preventable, or should Americans expect such tragedies to occur without warning from time to time?
If the collapse was preventable, who or what should have prevented it?
Does Pawlenty wish that he had done something differently, as governor, in terms of prioritizing spending in the state budget to make money for infrastructure, and then making sure that the infrastructure money was spent well?
Was the I-35 tragedy a wake-up call for Pawlenty to pay more attention to aging infrastructure in his state? If so, how did he wring something positive out of the disaster?
What are Pawlenty’s suggestions to Congress on a new transportation-funding bill?
The National Review is widely read within Republican circles, and reporters are always looking for some possibly-controversial issues to raise. So it’s probably only a matter of time before Pawlenty gets some of these questions from an enterprising reporter.

Arrest Mitt Romney

http://arrestmittromney.blogspot.com/

Republican Sugar Daddy Sheldon Adelson "Approved Prostitution" in his hotel Martin Bashir and William Cohen, MSNBC tiptoe around Adelson prostitution bombshell

It looks like they don't want to mention that Adelson is under investigation by Chinese police as well as the US Department of Jusitce and the Securities and Exchange Commission for prostitution and organized crime connections in his Macau hotel.. Go to

www.nomormonpresidentnomittromney2012.blogspot.com and learn more!


DCCC: Scott DesJarlais and Chinese Prostitution?
News release from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:
Foreign Chinese prostitution money is allegedly behind the groups funding Congressman Scott DesJarlais's (TN-04) Republican Majority.

The Associated Press reported that Sheldon Adelson - the single largest donor to Congressman Scott DesJarlais's House Republicans - allegedly "personally approved of prostitution and knew of other improper activity at his company's properties in the Chinese enclave" of Macau, China. Recently, Senator John McCain said that Adelson is "injecting millions of dollars in Chinese 'foreign money'" by contributing to Republican campaigns.

"What will Congressman Scott DesJarlais do when his Chinese prostitution money comes from billionaire Sheldon Adelson?" said Jesse Ferguson of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "House Republicans like Congressman DesJarlais are fighting tirelessly to protect billionaires like Sheldon Adelson who make fortunes overseas and Adelson is now the largest single donor to Congressman DesJarlais's Republican Majority. It's past time for Congressman DesJarlais to reject the support of these groups funded by foreign money from a Chinese prostitution strategy."

Billionaire Adelson has given $5 million to Speaker Boehner's Congressional Leadership Fund Super PAC, pledged $5 million to Leader Cantor's Young Guns Network Super PAC, given $70,800 to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and has committed at least $20 million into Karl Rove's American Crossroads. Earlier this year, ABC News found that Adelson's company "has been under criminal investigation for the last year by the Department of Justice and the Securities Exchange Commission for alleged bribery of foreign officials."

BACKGROUND
Sheldon Adelson Approved 'Prostitution Strategy': Fired Former Sands Executive. "The fired former chief executive of Las Vegas Sands Corp.'s Macau casinos alleges in court documents revealed Thursday that billionaire Sheldon Adelson personally approved of prostitution and knew of other improper activity at his company's properties in the Chinese enclave." [AP, 6/28/12]

Adelson Gave $5 million to Speaker Boehner's Congressional Leadership Fund Super PAC. [Politico, 4/15/12]

Adelson Pledged $5 million to Leader Cantor's Young Guns Network Super PAC. [Huffington Post, 6/16/12]

Adelson Committed $20 Million to Karl Rove's Crossroads. [Huffington Post, 6/16/12]

Adelson has already given $70,800 to the NRCC as well. [CQMoneyline, accessed 6/28/12]

John McCain: Adelson is injecting Millions of Foreign Money into Politics. "John McCain (R-AZ) said Thursday that casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is indirectly injecting millions of dollar in Chinese 'foreign money' into Mitt Romney's presidential election effort. 'Much of Mr. Adelson's casino profits that go to him come from his casino in Macau, which says that obviously, maybe in a roundabout way foreign money is coming into an American political campaign,' McCain said in an interview on PBS's News Hour. [Foreign Policy, 6/15/12]

Adelson's Company Has Been Under Federal Investigation. "The casino company run by the principal financial backer of Newt Gingrich's presidential bid, Sheldon Adelson, has been under criminal investigation for the last year by the Department of Justice and the Securities Exchange Commission for alleged bribery of foreign officials, according to corporate documents." [ABC News, 1/27/12]

Posted by Tom Humphrey on July 2, 2012 at 5:47 PM |

Comments
Is this alleged prostitution forced or willing?

Posted by: Steve Tapp at July 2, 2012 10:53 PM

Post a comment

"Pro Life" hypocritical liar "Mitt The Mormon" Romney made money from fetus disposal.

The problem here isn't disposal of aborted fetuses-- the problem is "who is Mitt Romney?" As a Mormon Romney believes that whatever serves his Mormon religion is the truth, not the other way around. Mitt Romney believes that he is the realization of con man prophet Joseph Smith's White Horse Prophecy which predicted Mormon rule for America. What financial gain accrues to Romney also is sacred to the Mormon Church as he tithes to the cult (and more) in order to assure that once he dies he becomes a god of his very own planet with his very own bevy of multiple wives.

Mitt Romney On Abortion 2006 he supports women

s right to choose and will never flip flop on it- it's a principle he learned from his own mother!

What's your position on abortion? "I'm pro life."

Newt Gingrich Goes To Utah- The Great Debate with Romney, Obama, Sheldon Adelson and Nina Ninety Nine

Lying Mormon Glenn Beck Busted By Whoopi Goldberg and Barbara Walters

The Difference Between Mitt Romney and John F. Kennedy (Other than the fact that Kennedy served his country in wartime while Mitt Romney ducked out of the draft.)

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,388354,389581

The DIFFERENCE between Kennedy and Romney (and it is a biggie)...

is that Catholics do not require their privileged rank-and-file members to repeatedly re-enact a secret ritual in which they solemnly covenant the following:

"LAW OF SACRIFICE"
"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will sacrifice your time, talents and all you may now or hereafter become possessed of to the upbuilding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."'

"All bow your heads and say yes."

PATRONS: "Yes."


"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 this, (The Officiator holds up a copy of the Doctrine and Covenants again.), the Book of 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."
(endowment ceremony, 1984-1990)

Mormons do. Mitt Romney went through the temple ceremony as early as 1966, so he most certainly solemnly covenanted both agreements with Mormon God. We all know that to a TBM, "God trumps Government" any day of the week. The implications of that are much different than they were with Kennedy's mere membership in the Catholic church.

Mormons Lie. Here's a whopper about their magical underwear caught and corrected.

Lie, dissemble, deflect hard questions.....

An exchange about magical Mormon Underwear that was posted on Occupy Wall Street's dot Org forum. It does not represent the thinking of Occupy Wall Street by the way, just the thinking of some users of its forum.

As to be expected a Mormon tries to lie about the magical underwer but is put straight.

-] 0 points by oogway (1) 7 months ago

I'm a mormon and I can tell that there are too many misunderstandings here. If you have just a little of judgement, you'll see that everything cited above is completely out of context.

For exemple, the 'magic underwear'. What the hell is that crap of magic underwear? We just call them garments, and they are not magical at all, nobody in the LDS Church believes that. I WEAR IT, so I can speak with property about it.Every religion has clothes that have special religious meaning...just look at a catholic priest, how does he dress? For sure that black thing has some special religious meaning...I don't know what is that meaning, but I'm not going to start to call it "magic black overcoat" or whatever. The jews have special clothes like the kippah (the little hat) and other things, the muslims and so on. For the mormons, the undergarment symbolizes our priesthood and the covenants we made with god, like the baptisms. It's a symbol, just a symbol, and is not magical or bulletproof...I can't believe that there are so many people who believes that thing! It's absurd. Guys, go check the official websites...there are thousands of FAQs there...Our clergy is 100% voluntary...our bishops work as businesman, mailmans, in the army, in banks, in big4s (like me) and so on...would it not be weird if I went to work with a religious clothe? That's why we use it bellow our clothes...

It amazes me how many people believes those ridiculous myths like the 'magic underwear'...hahahaha...it's absolutelly childish!!

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (1375) 7 months ago

You "can speak with property about it" What the hell does that
mean?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 2 points by alouis (1530) from New York, NY 7 months ago

Cult lingo?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 0 points by oogway (1) 7 months ago

Sorry, english is not my native language and that phrase would make sense in my language. Sorry.

I wanted to say that I really know what I'm talking about because I'm a mormon for a long time and I wear the undergarments, I know exactly what is its purpose and meaning. And again, the whole thing about the 'magic underwear' is completely absurd. Really, when people talk or ask me about this I tell them "dude, do you really believes in this fairy tale?".

Myth, fairy tale.

Oh, one last thing: the same is true for the other things mentioned in the post...

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 2 points by alouis (1530) from New York, NY 7 months ago

Yeah, right. The Mormons never practiced polygamy, never restricted black people in their church, never mandated racial segregation where they wield secular power, and keep no secrets from outsiders. Next case...

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by alouis (1530) from New York, NY 7 months ago

http://1857massacre.com/MMM/lyingforthelord.htm

(Mormon missionaries being instructed in evasion and dishonesty.) Thanks for "the milk". http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110429222408AAFS9cb

mag·ic/ˈmajik/ Adjective: Used in magic or working by magic; having or apparently having supernatural powers: "a magic wand". Noun: The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

So, by this definition, yes Mormons do believe in magic underwear. Mormons will tell you that they are a reminder of their beliefs, and that is true, to a degree. They are told in their Mormon temples that they represent the clothing given to Adam and Eve by god after they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden to be a protection from evil.

This is what Mormons are told when they are given the underwear in the Mormon temple.

Brother _, under proper authority, the garment placed upon you is now authorized [for and in behalf of _, who is dead], and is to be worn throughout your life. It represents the garment given to Adam when he was found naked in the garden of Eden and is called the garment of the holy priesthood.

Inasmuch as you do not defile it, but are true and faithful to your covenants, it will be a shield and a protection to you against the power of the destroyer until you have finished your work on the earth.

Mormons who tell you that it is not for protection either forgot what they were told (which is understandable since a lot happens at once in there and it is hard to remember it all) or they are not telling the truth. But either way, the truth is that is that yes they do have magic underwear.

http://www.ldsendowment.org http://www.ldsen

"