A BINDER-FULL OF WOMEN? How to Unravel the Romney Ramble

Now that the 2012 general election is passed we have a chance to free up space in our craniums to focus on matters that are ongoing. Now we can even isolate topics that emerged from the debris of the debates. We can isolate topics that were not sufficiently topical for in-depth discussions because of the center-stage concerns about the economy, but are nonetheless too vital to ignore.

One of such topics was the idea of "A Binder-full of Women", a tongue-in-cheek comment made by the Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney about equal rights and pay for women in the workplace. There are two issues to consider from the comment: 1) to what extent was the statement colored by the governor's religious beliefs? And 2) can a man really separate his religion from his politics?

In general, the comment may be considered in the context of how society tends to marginalize some of its citizenry; since it is a historical fact that women, for example, often reaped the bane of such marginalization in the home and workplace. Renown feminist activist, Gloria Steinem, in her heyday made the point that: "No man can call himself liberal, or radical, or even a conservative advocate of fair play, if his work depends in any way on the unpaid or underpaid labor of a woman at home, or in the office."

Today, the social gap between the sexes is narrowing; to the extent that even in a recent presidential debate a woman sat in the high chair as moderator. But it is well known that the marginalization of the fairer sex is not only socio-political, but theological as well.

Hence, it is largely within a theological framework that the statement should be weighed; considering governor Romney's Mormon worldview; and with particular consideration to how women function within the system compared to their male counterparts. Howard P. Kainz, Professor Emeritus at Marquette University, in his article titled, Mormon and Christianity: Asking the Right Question, offered that, "Mitt Romney... is not only bishop in the LDS church but a High Priest of the highest echelon (the 'order of Melchizedek).'"

Indeed, it is difficult to separate ones religion from ones politics and the main issue that juxtapose the governor's religion with his politics is the Mormon fundamental belief system and the role women play in it. Though with good intention, to say "a binder-full of women" is to use a term that is marginalizing; and in this context may be received mainly according to how women are marginalized in the movement.

To unravel the undercurrents of the statement it is necessary to examine 1) the dominance of the priesthood, 2) the ideological or covert practice of polygamy and, 3) the inseparable connection between the priesthood, polygamy, and celestial marriage.

First, the dominance of the priesthood. Although much of what may be known to outsiders about Mormonism is shrouded in secrecy, the male-dominated priesthood itself is no secret, since it forms the bedrock of the Mormon culture. With little or no distinction between clergy and laity (pastor and parishioner) Mormon men hold an ordained priesthood with absolute authority over both spiritual and temporal issues.

It is considered their divine appointment to preach, prophesy, heal, baptize, and speak for God -their counsel to be respected and adhered to as tantamount to the voice of God. This authority begins at age twelve where a boy is assigned to the (lesser) Aaronic order of priest, then after age eighteen is inducted into the (higher) Melchizedek order of priests.

To see the extent to which women are marginalized within the system, one must understand that it is found that a pubescent boy of thirteen, as an Aaronic order of priest, is seen to be more qualified to give counsel to his mother than the mother at any age to give counsel to him.

When biblical Old Testament scripture is used in conjunction with the Book of Mormon to justify this practice it takes the priestly authority to an even higher level. A Protestant Christian is often swift with the Pauline outcry, "We're no longer under law, but under grace."

Second, the ideological or covert practice of polygamy. When it comes to the teachings and practice of polygamy (plural marriage) the LDS (Latter Day Saints) today express the view that they no longer sanction polygamy and its members no longer practice it, although there are still elements of the doctrine in its theology.

As late as 1904 after the practice was legally abolished 1890, President Joseph F. Smith (nephew of the founder), explains that, "The doctrine is not repealed, the truth is not annulled, the law is right and just now as ever, but the observance of it is stopped." Concurring with the Mormon belief that polygamous celestial marriage will continue in heaven, he remarked in his book, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol 2, p. 67 that "My wives will be mine in eternity."

It is not hard to believe that the overt practice of polygamy is no longer tolerated today. It doesn't fit well with contemporary political expediencies. When it comes to change the movement has a lot in common with other religious movements like Seventh Day Adventist (SDA), Salvation Army, Church of God, etc. that began about the same time in modern history. The early nineteenth century was an era of religious daring and pioneering. And all these movements have gone through radical changes in their doctrines over the years.

LDS, along with other movements has experienced rifts, and fragmentations with their memberships --members siding with whichever dissenting leader they choose. But with each group holding on to varying interpretation of the core beliefs, the Mormon core belief of polygamy is indeed a diehard value.

It is insightful that it is stated in their articles of faith that, "We claim the privilege of worshipping the Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (mormon.org/articles of faith -#11)

Even though the practice of polygamy is outlawed today, the LDS priesthood honors the practice ideologically and theologically, if not covertly, perhaps with many amongst them pining after the 'the good old days' when a house full of women was the norm.

Third, the inseparable connection between the priesthood, polygamy, and celestial marriage. It would seem the triple connection is a means to an end. With the core belief that God was once a man, it follows, according to this theology, that man is destined to become god. Integral to this theology is that God after being spirit at first, He then underwent a successful probationary human experience on earth from which He gained the right to the exalted position of Almighty God who rules over the planets and universes.

Since a man is expected to follow a similar path to the afterlife, this is where the Mormon doctrine has its deepest significance. Unlike Pauline theology which says that all the saints are joint heirs with Christ, the Mormon view is that a woman cannot gain salvation unless married to a holder of the priesthood. And since all Mormon male members are priests, the idea of female members needing and wanting to be married to one is intrinsic to the church's theology.

The temple ordinance of sealing "celestial marriages" (eternal marriage), represents, for women a doorway into the afterlife where such marriages is expected to survive death, and be perpetual throughout eternity. Hence, the logic of plural marriages is that the more wives, the greater the possibility of male children, and the greater the number of male children, the higher the possibility of many more gods to populate the planets throughout eternity.

Admittedly, the idea of man becoming god is not exclusive to Mormonism. The Worldwide Church of God, which began about a century later also promoted a similar gospel of profundity, but have changed in recent decades. And judging from the information on their website, the Mormons are changing as well. To the average person looking for a church, the articles of faith appears to be main-stream fundamental Christian doctrine. But as always one cannot judge a book by its cover.

It is to the future that society may look to see how much of LDS core doctrine can be masked in order to be validated within a fundamental Christian worldview. And when it comes to religion vs. politics, the truth is that in America religion has always been a part of politics. But the rule of thumb is discretion and subtlety. The idea of "a binder-full of women" was rife with subtlety. But not subtle enough to escape the scrutiny of the curiosity it inflamed.

______________________________________________________________

Ken McCarty Bird is an author and speaker, award-winning poet, and consultant on neuromuscular health issues. The two most recent titles of his four books are, Somatic Sensibility and Caribbean Spell. Ken can be reached at (727) 388-3424 or drbird@caredimensions.org. website: http://www.caredimensions.org/

Discover the Healing Attributes of Poetry!

More than just a collection of poems, Caribbean Spell compiles the richness of thoughts gleaned from the lush and pristine landscape that cuddles a moment of reminiscence. As a well-crafted selection, the author's ingenuity helps the reader relive treasured moments and etched them in the recurring cycle of endless remembrance. That the reader is carried into the intrigue and suspense of the poem right from the start, is what makes Caribbean Spell worth having.Make Caribbean Spell a treasured gift for your friend or family.

View the original article here

Sandy Beats Up Romney - How Climate Change Changed the 2012 Election

In the 2012 presidential election, climate change was not a prominent agenda issue for either President Obama or Governor Romney-until Hurricane Sandy washed ashore. The topic never came up in the presidential debates. President Obama did not mention it because he was accused of promulgating regulations that had stymied business expansion and slowed recovery from the Great Recession. Governor Romney did not mention it because he had been an advocate of a proactive government policy on global warming while Governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007). However, during the brutal Republican primaries, Romney reversed his position to appeal to the ultra conservative Tea Party Republicans. He did not want to call attention to that reversal during the general election.

Just before the election, the populous East Coast saw a live Climate Change Production named Hurricane Sandy. Millions of New Englanders lost power-some for weeks. According to FOX Business (Smith 2012) insured property losses exceeded $20B and economic damage exceeded $50B-exceeded only by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

In contrast to President's Bush's lackadaisical and incompetent response to Hurricane Katrina, President Obama responded quickly and forcefully. In the aftermath, the mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, endorsed Obama for President. Bloomberg asked conservative pundits, Tea Party Congressmen, and other climate change skeptics to explain two hurricanes and a freak October snowstorm in a single year to his suffering constituents. The Republican Governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, stood at the President's side and enthusiastically thanked him for the help of the federal government.

In contrast, the 2012 hurricane season was devastating for Governor Romney. First Hurricane Isaac interfered with the Republican National Convention in Florida where he was nominated; then Hurricane Sandy made him look opportunistic regarding his reversal on the climate change issue, while she made Obama look presidential--on the ground, at the scene, being hugged by a grateful Republican governor.

Still conservative businessmen, like the Koch Brothers, and the philosophical brethren in Congress, whose elections they finance, deny the reality of climate change. Under the fear mongering banners of job losses, double dip recession and oppressive government regulations, they assert that one super storm, such as Hurricane Sandy, does not prove global warming. They are right, of course. In any context, one event cannot prove a pattern. However, Hurricane Sandy was more than an isolated event. The melting of the Arctic ice cap is not a one-summer phenomenon. It has been progressing with increasing speed as the climate has been warming for decades. In November, the National Climate Data Center reported that October 2012 marked the 332nd consecutive month that global land and ocean surface temperatures were above the 20th century average for that month. In 2007 ships actually began crossing the Arctic Ocean through the "Northwest Passage"-the shortcut to the Far East that Columbus tried to find 500 years ago.

Hurricane Sandy's destructive power was accentuated by the one foot rise in sea levels that has resulted from the gradual melting of the Arctic ice cap. So even in the unlikely case that Sandy was a random meteorological event, the extent of damage must be laid at the feet of global warming.

There has been international consensus on climate change for over a decade-except in the United States. According to a Brookings Institute poll (Borick et.al. 2011), in 2010, 80 percent of Canadians believed that global warming was a serious concern. In contrast, only 58 percent of Americans felt that way. A longitudinal term Gallup poll (Newport 2010) of Americans showed an even more dramatic public opinion shift away from concern with global warming. Between 1998 and 2010 the number of Americans who felt the "seriousness of global warming is greatly exaggerated" rose from 30 percent to 48 percent.

The Koch Brothers efforts to diffuse the issue of the effects of carbon dioxide emissions succeeded-at least until Hurricane Sandy. Koch Industries has huge investments in coal production and in oil production and the pipelines to deliver it. They funneled grant money to a few scientists, like Richard Muller at the University of California-Berkeley, to dispute the reality of global warming, or at least dispute the impact of human activities on changing temperatures. Thus, they prevented a 100 percent scientific consensus. Because it appeared that scientists disagreed, American citizens had an easy way to deny climate change and avoid life style changes.

However, in mid 2012 Professor Muller reversed his position because, as he said in a July 28th New York Times Op-Ed, his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project had just determined that the earth was getting warmer and that human activities were to blame. A few months later, Professor Muller (with Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels) wrote "The Frackers Guide to a Greener World." In their November 11th Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, they laud natural gas as the green answer to global warming because it produces less greenhouse gases than oil or coal and the U.S. has lots of it. The Koch Brothers are probably still happy with "their man in academia;" they are heavily invested in the new natural gas boom.

Scientists, and those political leaders who took science seriously, had concluded that the earth was warming almost a generation earlier (Gore 1992). Ecologists understood that small increases in average worldwide temperatures would ripple across physical and biological processes in the ecosystem. They understood that some of those changes would gather momentum and cascade rather than attenuate with time and space.

The climate has changed in both directions in the past. Some scientists have postulated that a major warming resulted from the carbon dioxide and methane in dinosaur flatulence (Khan 2012). When the planet was very warm, vegetation grew across polar regions. When the dinosaurs went extinct, carbon dioxide and methane levels dropped as more carbon was stored in vegetation and less carbon dioxide was released. by herbivores.. As the earth cooled, the uneaten vegetation was preserved in permafrost and was covered by accumulating snow--which compressed into vast ice sheets. The white snow reflected the suns rays to further cool the planet. Now as the earth again warms the ice melts, the darker organic matter is exposed and attracts more heat from the sun. As the permafrost melts, the organic matter is exposed to oxygen and rots--producing carbon dioxide, which warms the climate which thaws the permafrost even more quickly which releases even more carbon dioxide--reinforcing the process. All the while, melting of the ice caps causes the sea levels to keep rising, giving Hurricane Sandy (and her successors) more punch at the levies and a knock out punch at Romney--a presidential candidate who had chosen to deny her cause.

References:

Borick, C., E. Lachapelle and B. Rabe 2011 "Climate Compared: Public Opinion on Climate Change in the United States and Canada," Issues in Government studies #39, Brookings Institute

Gore, A. 1992 Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Barnes and Noble: New York, NY

Khan, A 2012 Los Angeles Times May 8

Muller, R. 2012 "The Conversion of a Climate Change Skeptic." New York Times July 28

Muller, R, and M. Daniels 2012 "The Frackers Guide to Greener World," Wall Street Journal Nov. 11

Newport, F. 2010 "American's Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop," Gallup Politics Mar. 11

Smith, S. 2012 "Super Storm Sandy Hits ETFs," FoxBusiness Nov. 19

Lowell Klessig has explored a broad range of academic disciples. He took courses in 45 departments, in 8 colleges at 2 universities. He received a BS in Biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a MAT in Molecular Biology at Vanderbilt University, a MS in Sociology and a Ph.D. in Environmental Management and Resource Planning from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Dr Klessig taught at Northland College, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and throughout Wisconsin as a Natural Resource Specialist, Extension Service, USDA. Concurrently, he also served as Executive Director of the Wisconsin Rural Leadership Program (now Leadership Wisconsin).

He has studied nature and culture in 54 countries. He has lectured on "Social Sustainability" to a variety of audiences on three continents.

In addition to two books and articles in professional journals, Dr. Klessig has authored numerous non-technical publications for adult audiences. He has written a monthly column for a Midwestern newspaper, does occasional magazine features and has written OP-EDs for newspapers in several states.

In retirement, he lectures as an Emeritus Professor of Human Dimensions of Natural Resource Management, writes social commentary, farms (has for 32 years), manages woodland, travels, serves on local government and non-profit organization boards and ice fishes.

View the original article here

How and Why Mitt Romney Became Winner in First Presidential Debates 2012

On Wednesday, on the first contest of the 2012 Presidential Election, Romney won, Obama lost.

After the debate, 67% were with Romney, 25% with Obama. How and why the winner won the debate? There may be plentiful reasons, not only one. Let's seek some of vital reasons:

1. He handled the format: For better or worse, moderator Jim Lehrer mostly let the applicants sort out the controversy themselves, basically broaching wide subjects and enabling the applicants fight it out on their own conditions - with almost-endless rebuttals. This structure privileged Mitt Romney. His strategy went into the controversy with an attack attitude (as most applicants who are behind do), and by enabling all those rebuttals, Lehrer provided Mitt a chance to perform. He did. Obama was not as focused on fighting, which works less well when there is so much back-and-forth.

2. Obama appeared frazzled: He did not have an Al-Gore-sighs time, but Obama was clearly not having local plumber on stage. His head was down when Romney was discussing, his reactions were stopping at times, he often nodded her head (as if displaying approval) or smirked when Mitt Romney was discussing, and he even admitted some factors to Mitt Romney on issues like lack reduction and not being a "perfect" president. None of these were by themselves huge minutes (as Gore's sigh was), but the totality recommended an applicant who was not really comfortable. And he was not.

3. The state policies of preemption: Mitt realized going into the controversy that he was going to be assaulted for increasing taxation on the middle-class (according to an oft-cited study) and favoring the rich, so what he did was preemptively guarantee that he would not increase taxation on the middle-class, duplicating that over and over and indicating that it's Obama who would increase taxation on the middle-class. He also made a point to highlight the poor (think: "I'm not worried about the very poor"). By setting the conditions of the tax cut controversy, Mitt Romney balanced out the profits that Obama might have been able to make on a class issue that forms suggest Obama is successful.

4. Obama did not get his big discussion factors in: If you would have informed us before the controversy that Obama would discuss the auto bailout and Osama bin Packed only once and would not discuss Bain Capital or Romney's "47 percent" feedback at all, we would have informed you were insane. Yet that is exactly what occurred. Obama seemed susceptible with not interesting too much with his rival, but the controversy was all about interesting with one another, and Obama did not even sign-up the biggest strikes on Mitt Romney.

5. The Hopes were low: There happens to be reason the strategies spend so a while decreasing aims for the debate; objectives matter. And forms revealed that, going into the controversy, the American public, by a large edge, expected Obama to win. With the bar relatively low for Romney, it was that much easier to clear. It is not to say Romney did not have a excellent controversy. He did. But applicants will always be evaluated on a bend, and Romney defeats the bend.

6. Mitt Romney prevented a stumble: Romney's strategy has been colored by the periodic gaffe which shows the applicant to be out of touch or simply uncomfortable. There were a couple questionable minutes on that depend (Big Fowl, anyone?), but the GOP nominee's performance was mostly gaffe-free. Without a "47 percent" or "I'm not worried about the very poor" time, Mitt allowed for the post-debate research to focus on other things, which is what he needs.

Romney's growing Latino problem: Two new forms launched Wed revealed Obama taking at least 70 % of the Latino elect - strengthening an unpleasant pattern line for Conservatives.

View the original article here

Romney and Obama: Election Issues - Who Will Win the Election? - Who Will Be President?

Romney and Obama! This is of primary interest this fall. Who will win the election? Who will be President? What are the main election issues that are involved?

As a lawyer, I know that nailing the issues of a situation is vitally important. We know if we don't win the main issues, we lose our case. It's the same in politics as in the courtroom: the things people are most affected by are the main election issues of the campaign.

We all know that charisma, charm and likeability play too big a role in politics. It's often the one who smiles the most, shakes the most hands, and gives the best speeches who wins the election - national, state or local. Ability often plays a lesser role. But issues don't. Both Romney and Obama must nail the election issues.

America: Back to the Basics

I wrote a book with the above title. I wrote it for the Bush vs. Dukakis election of 1988. My slogan was, "Campaigning for America, not for political office." It was a book about getting back to the basics of a Constitutional, moral, ethical, caring America.

I tried to revive John F. Kennedy's slogan from 1960: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." I got on many radio and T.V. talk shows, and lots of people wanted to talk about this. So it was well timed for a political election. People knew we were getting too far away from a moral, Constitutional America.

Romney's 47% Remark

The news is telling us that Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, made a remark about 47% of the people in the U.S. not paying federal income taxes, and being too dependent on the U.S. government for support.

I feel this will be one of the major issues of the 2012 election.

What Can My Country Do For Me?

Sadly, JFK's words of 1960 have been put into dry-dock, and they have been changed to say, "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you."

We have a different America today than we had in 1960, or even in 1988 when I wrote my book. Unemployment compensation, and other temporary assistance programs are necessary. People get in hard times and need a helping hand for a period of time.

But sadly, there are many, many people with their hand out trying to grab anything they can get. And I don't just mean beggars on the street corner.

The issues for many people will be, "Which candidate can give me the most?" - "Which candidate will benefit me the most?" It has been said many times that more and more people are tuned into radio station WIIFM: 'what's in it for me?'

This mode of thinking will be a primary issue in the 2012 election. If they get their say, it will drive America further downhill. We will be given more and more assistance, and we'll become addicted to it even more.

What Can I Do For My County?

In case you haven't noticed, America needs help. We are very rapidly heading for a crash we will not be able to recover from. Our founding fathers predicted this if we ever let government get out of control and become too big. This is the situation today.

Many people just what to see it get bigger with their WIIFM thinking.

Those of us who don't subscribe to this must get out and vote in November, and we must urge everyone we know who is like-minded to do the same. There is not much we can do about what is happening, but we can vote. "The power of one" is still the name of the game.

We live in the greatest nation on earth. But she may not remain so if we don't act. Romney and Obama: what are the election issues? Who will win the election? Who will be president? Who will be the best president for America? We are the judge, but we must issue a ruling and vote.

Roger Himes, The Lawyer, Business Coach: http://www.rocksolidbusinesscoach.com/ - and The Gospel Life Coach: http://www.thegospelcoach.com/. Also read daily Tweets on Twitter from the Gospel Coach: Twitter dot com -- /TheGospelCoach

View the original article here

Romney Beats Obama 55-36 in Physician Election Poll

Physicians overwhelmingly support Republican challenger Mitt Romney by 19 points over President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, according to a new poll.

In a 3,600-physician survey that was administered last month, 55% of respondents said they'd vote for Romney, whereas just 36% said they'd choose Obama, according to a poll from physician staffing firm Jackson & Coker.

Doctors who preferred Romney are more likely to be male and retain an ownership stake in their practices. Specialties that skewed toward Romney include anesthesiology, ophthalmology, surgery, and radiology.

Not surprisingly, dissatisfaction with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - one of Obama's signature legislative achievements - ran high among physician supporters of Romney. Romney supporters were more likely to favor a "repeal-and-replace" approach to the ACA, according to the survey.

"The ACA without tort reform... is discriminatory to doctors," said one respondent. "If we are going to be governed by consumer laws, then we should have all the protection that any business and free enterprise receives including unionization, collective bargaining, and ability to fix our prices for services not by the government."

In contrast, Obama physician supporters were more likely to be female and employed by a hospital or health system. Psychiatrists, pediatricians, and addiction medicine physicians also were more likely to support Obama.

"Affordable, high-quality healthcare, including education, lifestyle adjustments, and preventive measures, must be available to all persons living in this country," said another respondent. "We cannot afford to have a significant underclass of sickly people unable to participate fully in our economy."

Among physicians, the split between more conservative practice owners and more liberal employed doctors was the subject of a 2011 New York Times article that noted the evolving political views of those in the medical profession.

"There are no national surveys that track doctors' political leanings, but as more doctors move from business owner to shift worker, their historic alliance with the Republican Party is weakening," the article noted.

For example, the American Medical Association supported the ACA, a significant change for a group that opposed "almost every major health overhaul proposal for nearly a century," the Times reported.

In the Jackson & Coker survey, here's how survey respondents self-identified their party affiliations: 35% Republican, 24% Democrat, 26% Independent, 6% Libertarian, and 7% unaffiliated.

Fifteen percent of the survey's respondents said they voted for Obama in 2008 but planned on switching their vote to the GOP this year. Among those physicians, the ACA and Obama's leadership style were the most frequently cited reasons for the change.

The survey was emailed to more than 133,000 physicians and yielded a response rate of 3%, according to Jackson & Coker.

View the original article here

The Romney Alternative

The rapidly unfolding episodic drama of Romney's private statements about the 47%, his newly released tax documents, and details about Bain capital are a continuing reminder of just how wrong this guy is for ordinary Americans.

It would seem to me that a person that wants to be president shouldn't be condemning almost half of America as non-taxpaying freeloaders that 'dependent on government'. In a very real sense we all depend on government to take care of little things like roads and bridges, police, fire and national defense, to name but a few of the benefits we all enjoy. Additionally he and his super rich supporters have been very busy for the past 40 years or so corrupting government to do their bidding at the expense of honest hardworking Americans.

Romney pays a lower tax rate than many middle-class families because of a set of complex loopholes and tax shelters only available to those at the top, yet he and his super rich tax cheat supporters begrudge and criticize those of us that haven't achieved their exalted state of eminence. On top of that he still wants to give multimillionaires an additional $250,000 tax cut at the expense of middle-class taxpayers who will see their taxes go up.

Let's do some fact checking on Romney's claim. According the Tax Policy Center, 46.4 percent of American households paid no federal income tax, so while Romney's statement may be factually true, let's take a look at who these people he's calling 'dependent on government' actually are. According to the tax policy center, nearly two-thirds of households that paid no income tax did pay payroll taxes, and most of those people also pay some combination of state, local, sales, gas and property taxes.

Tax policy center data also tells us that more than half of those not paying income taxes have incomes less than $16,812 per year, 29.2 percent are tax filers earning between $16,812 and $33,542, and 12.8 percent are those with incomes between $33,542 and $59,486. In short most of the people he and his rich friends are complaining about are the working poor, students, the elderly and disabled. Romney and his rich pals remind me of Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol saying to America 'If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population'.

It is interesting to note also that other data from the tax policy center shows that 78,000 tax filers with incomes between $211,000 and $533,000 paid no income taxes; 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million paid no income taxes, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million paid no income taxes. The dirty rotten moochers! Is Romney including these folks too?

What is truly deceptive and contemptuous about Romney's hyperbole is that the 47% he refers to that don't pay taxes are also dependent on government handouts, which is not only misleading, but totally inaccurate. The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services reports that only about 8% of the total population receives some form of government assistance and 1.7% receive most of their income (50% or more) from government programs.

During the course of researching this article, it is rather disturbing to note that nowhere did I find the distinction between non-taxpaying Americans and those receiving direct government benefits mentioned. This is a major distinction that should be made clear by the media analyzing Romney's statement. Not only is this difference significant, it proves how little Romney acknowledges the majority of ordinary Americans. Looking at the breakdown of non-taxpaying Americans in the tax center data, most of the 47% Romney dismisses are really potential supporters. How much more proof do you need that Romney is just an elitist rich country club candidate?

The truth of the matter is that special interest meddling has created a tax code of inequality riddled with loopholes that favor some over others. For the most part the 1% at the top keeps winning and the 99% keeps losing. Most of the inequities in the tax code would only get worse for the middle class if Romney were to get elected. It is already an outrage to ordinary Americans that capital gains are subject to a federal tax rate of 15 percent, while ordinary income is subject to the top rate of 35 percent.

The three decades after WW II when the top tax rate was 70%, the U.S. economy grew faster than it has since the tax cuts of George W., but most of the gains have been making the rich richer while middle class wage earners have stayed the same or fallen. Tax revenues are down to a record low of 15% of the total economy, the lowest in 60 years, causing budget deficits and cuts in public services at all levels of government. All of which can be traced to the nefarious machinations of country club elitists duping America into going along with their scheme to make government their private tool at the expense of our very survival.

Another example of Romney's lack of integrity is the claim that he is a successful business leader that knows how to fix the economy. The latest revelations about the private equity firm Bain Capital that Romney founded sheds light on this claim. I'm just an ordinary working class slob that punches a time clock, so the concept of this type of business model is a stretch for me to wrap my brain around.

My research in following the story only confirms my suspicions. Private equity firms like Bain are not businesses in the traditional sense of producing tangible products or providing services that have real value or economic benefits. The way Bain makes money in simple terms is by finding economically vulnerable companies to take over and stripping them of as much capital as possible and transferring the money to offshore investments.

News reports and documents released tell us that Romney is not so much a business builder as much as a business vulture that scavenges the wealth created by legitimate companies by gaming the tax code, employing sophisticated tax avoidance strategies and creating foreign paper companies know as blockers to hold investment funds.

Last but not least, Romney has released more tax documents. In an attempt to pacify the calls of those of us that want the public to see the real Romney, he and his campaign have released a summary of his effective tax rates for the past two decades, leading us to still conclude he has something to hide. At this point releasing his full returns, in my view isn't necessary anymore. With the information we have about Bain, his own words and affiliations, it should be clear to the average middle class American that Romney is as the president put it, an out-of-touch millionaire bent on helping the wealthy.

America is broken and only you can fix it. Find out how at http://www.fixingtheus.com/

View the original article here

Mitt Romney Can't Catch a Break From the Liberal Socialist Op-Ed Writers of the NYTs

It is interesting how attacking the liberal socialist media gets during election season, it's as if they think this is their time to shine, their time to prove self-worth, and validate themselves to their left-leaning readership audience. It's just too darn bad with all that word-smithing style and grace, and tricky little sentences that they actually reveal to those in the know exactly how little they understand. Okay so, let's talk shall we?

The New York Times had an interesting Op-Ed on September 20, 2012 titled; "It Takes One to Know One," by Nicholas D. Kristof which was in response to Mitt Romney's comment about how 47% of those on the government dole who voted for Obama were not going to switch political sides and vote for him in the 2012 elections as long as they think President Obama will keep that money flowing to them. Mitt was right. Mr. Kristof stated however in his Op-Ed piece;

"As I watched a video of Mitt Romney scolding moochers suffering from a culture of dependency, I thought of American soldiers I've met in Afghanistan and Iraq. They don't pay federal income tax while they're in combat zones, and they rely on government benefits when they come back."

Well, that's all well and good that it "reminded" him of soldiers, but that has nothing to do with what Mitt Romney was talking about, so whereas, Kristof may have an abundance of imagination and massive amounts of white matter connecting his brain to various experiences and thoughts, he has completely voided his argument by that first sentence, and led the reader astray.

More so, because President Obama was supposed to bring all those soldiers back as soon as he took office, that's what he promised, one could actually make a similar charge with the Commander in Chief and actually me more correct. I hope the American People and the Obama Voters in 2008 remember that - or has the economic stress of American citizens blocked their short term memory - that happens and we know that to be a neurological fact.

Still, why is it that the Op-Ed writers in the New York Times take a topic and twist and contort it into something it isn't? Well, it's because they feel it there job to trash any Republican candidate at the earliest possible convenience, hoping that they can change what happened into some sort of "gotcha" politics of perceived and created reality.

Indeed, there has been one after another hit pieces, op-eds, in the New York Times over this issue, and not one is able to discuss the issue without taking what Mitt Romney said out of context and merging their version of what they wish he had said so they could attack him into their own little mismatched court of public opinion misdirection hit pieces. That's why.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.

View the original article here

Dems Prematurely Replace "Blame Bush" With "Blame Romney"

Has Mitt Romney sewed up the 2012 election and begun issuing policy pronouncements via the Office of the President-Elect? That's what you'd think to hear mainstream news commentators tell it.

Witness the media uproar over Romney's absolutely true, courageously firm observation that President Obama's State Department is more interested in sparing the feelings of Muslim terrorists than standing up for American values.

Rather than evaluating and refuting his charges; rather than critically reexamining Obama's approach; rather than considering the repercussions of the President's conciliatory stance toward our enemies; liberals... blamed the crisis on someone who doesn't even work for the government.

Rachel Maddow cried that we were in the middle of a tense, hair-trigger confrontation requiring suave diplomatic prowess, and that Romney may just have sent rioting protestors over the top.

Newsflash, MSNBC hosts: Rioting protestors were already over the top-literally, in the case of the embassy walls they scaled and the black Al Qaeda victory banners they hoisted after tearing down and burning American flags in Egypt and Libya.

Muslim fanaticists don't need an excuse to wreak havoc against the West. A few boilerplate conservative statements by an American presidential candidate don't rouse them from a stance of tranquil tolerance to one of prickly outrage. They're already perpetually in a state of prickly outrage.

Rioters didn't require a shoddy 14-minute YouTube film trailer to cause mayhem on September 11. They were already sufficiently motivated to murder American ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and drag his body through the streets. Even the Obama administration now admits that Stevens' murder was a terrorist attack, and new evidence suggests that Al Qaeda was behind it.

But by liberals' calculation, the real policy-driver, the de facto Commander in Chief, the actual mover and shaker who's screwing up the Middle East, is an unemployed father of five struggling to keep even with Obama in the polls.

Consider the essence of Democrats' "Blame Bush" strategy, which they initiated at the height of the 2008 presidential campaign season and have continued right up through August's lousy job numbers. Remember that their approach did not merely take Bush to task for things he did wrong. Most conservatives will happily rattle off a laundry list of complaints about Bush, from his expanding government entitlement programs to his failing to win the Iraq War early and decisively enough.

No, "Blame Bush" was the catchall excuse Democrats evolved to protect Obama from unflattering comparisons to the far more experienced Republican candidate Senator John McCain, and from criticism of his handling of the economy and international relations once President.

Obama wasted four years spending the country into oblivion; but when we failed to recover from the recession, Democrats blamed Bush for leaving him an economy much worse than was imaginable by anyone, including liberal economists we were supposed to trust regarding the restorative effect of Obama's stimulus bill.

Obama spent four years bowing and scraping before our enemies; but when he pledged to sit down and talk with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, and Iran responded by defying the international prohibition on continuing its nuclear weapons program, Democrats blamed Bush for creating a hostile negotiation environment.

If Mitt Romney is elected president, Democrats' strategy will transition from blaming everything on Bush to blaming it on Romney, as though Obama's four-year stint in the White House left no trace.

But I don't know anyone who anticipated that Democrats would be desperate enough to start blaming the unelected Romney for Obama's failures.

Of course the real culprit behind the foreign policy debacle in Libya and Egypt is not Romney but Obama. It was Obama's State Department that failed to adequately secure the breached embassies ahead of 9/11, despite warnings of attacks; failed to deploy Marines to secure the premises; released from Gitmo a detainee involved in the attacks; fell all over themselves to issue apologies for Americans' trampling on Muslim sensibilities; harassed the director of the trailer for making the video, Pastor Terry Jones for promoting it, and Google and YouTube for hosting it; and spent four years denying that America stands for any particular virtues that are superior to those of any other country.

Mitt Romney's Libya statement-like his 47% "gaffe" earlier this week-provided a badly needed kick in the pants to a nation accustomed to four years of Obama. Romney's clarification of the situation in Libya and Egypt constituted the proverbial wakeup call: "The first step in realizing our country is weak under Obama is realizing we have a problem."

But who will Democrats blame Obama's failures on for the next four years if Romney loses?

Previously published in modified form at Red Alert Politics

View the original article here