NYT: Mormons tipped scale in ban on gay marriage, gave 50% of total Prop 8 budget

BUMP

The NYT confirms it. Mormons gave half of the total $40m donations that the bigots at Yes on 8 received. (Hat tip, Rex.)

First off, we learn that the Mormon involvement in Prop 8 was unusually large, even for them:

“We’ve spoken out on other issues, we’ve spoken out on abortion, we’ve spoken out on those other kinds of things,” said Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormons are formally called, in Salt Lake City. “But we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this.”

The California measure, Proposition 8, was to many Mormons a kind of firewall to be held at all costs.

Then we find out that Mormons were 80% to 90% of early volunteers:

Shortly after receiving the invitation from the San Francisco Archdiocese, the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying “the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,” and urging members to become involved with the cause.

“And they sure did,” Mr. Schubert said.

Jeff Flint, another strategist with Protect Marriage, estimated that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.

One lead Mormon gave $1m:

On Oct. 28, Mr. Ashton, the grandson of the former Mormon president David O. McKay, donated $1 million. Mr. Ashton, who made his fortune as co-founder of the WordPerfect Corporation, said he was following his personal beliefs and the direction of the church....

In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.

And then to finally throw in a slur, the top Mormon donor, and son of a former Mormon leader, refers to us as "fruit":

[T]he extent of the protests has taken many Mormons by surprise. On Friday, the church’s leadership took the unusual step of issuing a statement calling for “respect” and “civility” in the aftermath of the vote.

“Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues,” the statement said. “People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal.”

Mr. Ashton described the protests by same-sex marriage advocates as off-putting. “I think that shows colors,” Mr. Ashton said. “By their fruit, ye shall know them.”

Read the rest of this post...

ABC News: Mormons baptized Obama's deceased mother in June of 2008

BUMP.

From Jake Tapper:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints confirmed Tuesday afternoon that someone improperly, posthumously baptized the late mother of President Obama into the Mormon faith.

Last June 4 -- the day after then-Sen. Obama secured enough delegates to win the Democratic presidential nominee -- someone had the president's mother Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995 of cancer, baptized.

On June 11, she received the sacrament.

The White House had no comment.

The baptism and sacrament, which appear on FamilySearch.org, the LDS Church's genealogical site, were first reported by John Aravosis at the liberal Americablog.

The Mormons, however, did have a comment:

Mormon Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said that "the offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related. The Church is looking into the circumstances of how this happened and does not yet have all the facts. However, this is a serious matter and we are treating it as such."

Yeah, I'm sure no one at Mormon headquarters noticed that the woman's husband was named Barack Hussein Obama. She just "happened" to be baptized 13 years after her death, five months before the presidential election. All a big unfortunate coincidence.

Yeah. Um, what to say? That they even have a practice that allows posthumous baptism is disturbing enough. Counter to church policy? Really? Was it counter to church policy when the Mormons kept baptizing Holocaust victims even though they were repeatedly -- for years -- asked to stop. Sounds like lying for the Lord.

To be fair, last year, the Mormons were way too busy trying to pass the anti-gay Prop. 8 in California to worry about anything as mundane as baptizing the dead mother of the Democratic nominee for president (or anyone else's dead relatives.)

And, any comment from the Catholic Church leaders, who cozy up to the Mormons to get money for anti-gay efforts, on how they feel about dead Catholics being baptized?

This is really sick and very twisted. Read the rest of this post...

Mormons baptize Anne Frank AGAIN, for the ninth time

UPDATE: Now that the Romney campaign is arguing that Mitt Romney's Mormonism is a reason to vote for him, let's have an honest discussion about what the Mormons believe and do.  And people can decide for themselves if this is a reason to vote for Mitt Romney.

I'm I'm bumping this post.  Among others.

From Andrea Stone at Huffington Post:

Anne Frank, the Jewish girl whose diary and death in a Nazi concentration camp made her a symbol of the Holocaust, was allegedly baptized posthumously Saturday by a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, according to whistleblower Helen Radkey, a former member of the church.

The ritual was conducted in a Mormon temple in the Dominican Republic, according to Radkey, a Salt Lake City researcher who investigates such incidents, which violate a 2010 pact between the Mormon Church and Jewish leaders.

Radkey said she discovered that Annelies Marie "Anne" Frank, who died at Bergen Belsen death camp in 1945 at age 15, was baptized by proxy on Saturday. Mormons have submitted versions of her name at least a dozen times for proxy rites and carried out the ritual at least nine times from 1989 to 1999, according to Radkey.

How intolerant of Anne Frank to keep saying "no."

I wonder how many times Daniel Pearl will have to go through this. Read the rest of this post...

A word from Brigham Young on Adam's "wives" and how sleeping with blacks will get you killed

BUMP

Now that Mitt Romney has informed us that President Obama's pastoral influences are fair game this election, folks are taking a look at Mitt Romney's religious mentors as well.

And with no further ado, I give you Brigham Young.  (And I checked the quotes on Google, they're real.)

On polygamy:

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269).

Eve was "one" of Adam's "wives," plural:

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken -- He is our Father, and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50).

It's Adam and Eve and Eve and Eve and Eve and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Oh, and this just in: God will kill you on the spot if you have sex with a black person:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290). "In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172). "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).

I'd like to know what influence Mormon racism, which was mainstream during Mitt Romney's life as a young adult, had on his worldview. What did Mitt Romney say when these racist views were being espoused by the Mormon leadership? Did he sit by silently? Is he claiming he didn't attend temple the days that racist views were promulgated?

Mitt Romney thinks that a man's religious influences, and the crazy things said by those influences, are fair game. So be it. Read the rest of this post...

Romney's latest excuse for not releasing taxes: I'm a Mormon

Seriously?

Besides making his Mormon faith now an issue in the campaign, Romney is ignoring both his own recent history of releasing a few years of returns as well as the precedent that his own father set when he released twelve years of tax returns.

Were Mitt Romney and his own father bad Mormons when they previously released tax documents, and if it was fine with their religion before why is it not fine now?  Did the Mormons change their minds in order to influence the 2012 election?

Then again, considering what's already been found in the Bain tax document, the more likely explanation for hiding his returns is that Romney would prefer that voters not know how much he has gamed the tax system. If people saw the full returns, there would surely be even more questions and more unpleasant surprises for voters. The tax filings may or may not be legal (though there is a strong argument that they were not legal), but they're also everything that is wrong about the one-sided tax law written for the Romney Class.

Once again, what is Mitt Romney hiding?  From Salon:

After months stonewalling on releasing more tax returns, Mitt Romney invoked a brand-new explanation for demurring in an interview with Parade magazine set to hit newsstands this weekend: religion. “Our church doesn’t publish how much people have given [to the LDS Church]. This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one’s financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It’s a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church,” Romney told the magazine when asked about his returns, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

Note from John: Well that's interesting. What else won't his religion permit a President Romney to do? It's one thing to invoke your religion in private life, but to suggest that America should change the way it elects presidents because the Mormons don't like it, is quite another. Mitt Romney, in a very real way, is forcing the rest of America to live by Mormon standards - he's telling us that we are no longer permitted to have a full vetting of our presidential candidates because the Mormons don't like it.

As a gay man, I'm accustomed to the Mormon leadership trying to jam its religion down my throat and force me to live my life according to their rules. So perhaps it's not a surprise that now America at large is expected to permit the Mormons to change the rules of our electoral process in order to suit their needs.

Of course, Mitt Romney is lying. This has nothing to do with his being a Mormon, or his father, who was even higher in the Mormon faith than Mitt, would never have released so many years of his taxes when he ran for president.

This latest episode does show one thing: Mitt Romney is desperate to do anything to stop the release of his taxes. If Romney is now invoking his Mormon faith, a topic he's avoided like the plague during this campaign, then his taxes must contain something pretty awful for Romney to now "go there." Read the rest of this post...

Did Romney hide money from the Mormon church?

From Democratic strategist Bill Buck writing at CBS:

But the source coming to Harry Reid for these revelations adds a level of intrigue. Reid just happens to be the highest-ranking member of the Mormon Church in the history of this nation.

It is likely that Senator Reid’s source shares the Mormon religion with Reid and Romney.

That message will not be lost on Romney. If the Bain fortress is not a fortress; if people are talking, Romney knows that trouble lies ahead.

And the motivation for this leak may not be political. It is likely personal and tied to the Mormon Church.

Specifically, if Romney was hiding money from the IRS he may have hidden money from his church.

It is expected that members of the Mormon Church tithe a minimum of ten percent of their incomes. But if Romney was not paying taxes and hiding money, then his disclosure – which itemizes deductions, including to the church – would tip off his actual income to the IRS.

Read the rest of this post...

Top Romney foreign policy adviser endorses Bachmann's anti-Muslim witchhunt

I wonder how Team Romney would feel about an anti-Mormon witch hunt?  Would that be okay too?  Or is religious bigotry acceptable in the Romney campaign only when it's focused on religions the Mormons don't like?

From Think Progress:

Today on Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney’s radio show, Mitt Romney foreign policy adviser John Bolton defended Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) call for the U.S. government to investigate suggestions that government employees — including a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — are affiliated with a Muslim Brotherhood plot to infiltrate the U.S. government.

[Romney foreign policy adviser John] BOLTON: What I think these members of Congress have done is simply raise the question, to a variety of inspectors general in key agencies, are your departments following their own security clearance guidelines, are they adhering to the standards that presumably everybody who seeks a security clearance should have to go through, are they making special exemptions? What is wrong with raising the question? Why is even asking whether we are living up to our standards a legitimate area of congressional oversight, why has that generated this criticism? I’m just mystified by it.

Here's the problem. Some have expressed the concern that Romney will toe the Mormon line and do what his faith wants if he wins the presidency. That would be the same thing Romney adviser Bolton, and Bachmmann (and Limbaugh and Beck) are accusing Muslims of.

So, if Romney adviser Bolton thinks it's okay to ask government agencies to make sure that Muslims in government aren't secretly following the orders of Islam-central, wherever that may be, does Team Romney think it's okay to ask government agencies to do the same with Mormon federal employees? Read the rest of this post...

Romney adviser says Obama doesn't appreciate America's white heritage

Why doesn't Romney simply start running ads saying "Vote Romney, he's whiter."

In an age in which it's apparently okay for Mitt Romney to repeatedly just make stuff up about President Obama, this interpretation of these incredibly inappropriate comments by a Romney advisers is more than fair.  From ThinkProgress:

An adviser to Mitt Romney told a London paper that Obama has not been an effective partner for Britain because he doesn’t “fully appreciate” America’s “Anglo-Saxon heritage.” The racially tinged comments come hours before Romney lands in London for a series of high level meetings and the opening of the Olympic Games.

Jon Swaine of the Daily Telegraph has the story:

In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.

“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have.”

Funny, because America's Anglo-Saxon heritage wasn't very important to the Romney family when they abandoned America and moved to Mexico in order to avoid US anti-polygamy laws (the 19th century's version of the Swiss bank account).  Even Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico.  Not very Anglo-Saxon of him.  Not that I care, but Romney obviously cares - so he needs to explain the contradiction: Does he love America or not?

I don't know about you, but my family never abandoned America.  Romney's did. Read the rest of this post...

Romney says US Olympic athletes didn't earn their medals

Mitt Romney owes all US Olympics athletes an apology.

AP quotes Romney talking to the 2002 Olympic athletes:

"You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power," Romney said after congratulating the athletes. "For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them."

Oh, so it takes a village, Mitt?

Mitt Romney probably thinks our Olympic athletes bought their way into the Olympics the way he did.

Actually AP's overall story is about how Romney is now outright lying about things the President never said, and AP, to their credit, call Romney out for his lies - here's AP:

"Romney continues to hammer Obama over comments taken wildly out of context."

But that doesn't stop the Romney campaign, or the Republican party, from making the lie their number one talking point.  And, of course, what Romney is lying about is almost the exact same quote that President Obama said.  But when Obama said it, it's a sign that he's a communist or something.  But when Romney said it, then what was it a sign of?

It's really scary. We have an entire political party that believes that lying to the American people in order to win a campaign, or any political issue, is not only fair game, but it's the preferable game.

And while AP is to be credited for calling Romney out on this, the media should be asking the Romney campaign, incessantly, on camera, at every campaign stop: "Governor Romney, why are you knowingly repeating a lie about the President?"  That's how the media is supposed to do it's job.  You don't write one piece and say "okay we covered it" when the other guy is making a lie the entire basis of his campaign.  You get in his face and keep asking him why he's lying, as it is a sign of his character.

And in Romney's case, it's also a strategy sanctioned by the Mormons themselves, called Lying for the Lord. From MormonWiki:

Lying for the Lord refers to the practice of lying to protect the image of and belief in the Mormon religion, a practice which Mormonism itself fosters in various ways. From Joseph Smith's denial of having more than one wife, to polygamous Mormon missionaries telling European investigators that reports about polygamy in Utah were lies put out by "anti-Mormons" and disgruntled ex-members, to Gordon B. Hinckley's dishonest equivocation on national television over Mormon doctrine, Mormonism's history seems replete with examples of lying. Common members see such examples as situations where lying is justified.

Read the rest of this post...

Wouldn't it be neat if Romney's VP were an exorcist?

Exorcism by Shutterstock.

Seriously, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal participated in an exorcism in college.  From Tim Murphy at Mother Jones:

No, really. Jindal himself wrote about the experience in 1994 for the New Oxford Review, in an article entitled "Beating a Demon: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare." The short of it is that, while Jindal was an undergraduate, his close friend, Susan, with whom he had maintained a wholly non-romantic relationship, began acting strange. One might attribute this to the fact that she was undergoing treatment for cancer. Jindal assumed she had been possessed. A sample:

Maybe she sensed our weariness; whether by plan or coincidence, Susan chose the perfect opportunity to attempt an escape. She suddenly leapt up and ran for the door, despite the many hands holding her down. This burst of action served to revive the tired group of students and they soon had her restrained once again, this time half kneeling and half standing. Alice, a student leader in Campus Crusade for Christ, entered the room for the first time, brandishing a crucifix. Running out of options, UCF had turned to a rival campus Christian group for spiritual tactics. The preacher had denied our request for assistance and recommended that we not confront the demon; his suggestion was a little late. I still wonder if the good preacher was too settled to be roused from bed, or if this supposed expert doubted his own ability to confront whatever harassed Susan.
...
The crucifix had a calming effect on Susan, and her sister was soon brave enough to bring a Bible to her face. At first, Susan responded to biblical passages with curses and profanities. Mixed in with her vile attacks were short and desperate pleas for help. In the same breath that she attacked Christ, the Bible's authenticity, and everyone assembled in prayer, Susan would suddenly urge us to rescue her. It appeared as if we were observing a tremendous battle between the Susan we knew and loved and some strange evil force. But the momentum had shifted and we now sensed that victory was at hand.

College, right?

The problem for Jindal going forward is that the absolute last thing that Romney wants, as the first-ever Mormon presidential nominee from a major party, is to spend even more time talking about a religious tradition that many Americans view with suspicion.

Kiss that one goodbye. Read the rest of this post...

So Romney's campaign IS about Mormonism

The NYT reports that for prominent Mormons who are bankrolling Mitt Romney's campaign, their support of Romney is about his being a Mormon, and more generally, about helping promote Mormonism in America and across the world.

But this election isn't about Romney's Mormonism, really.

[R]ecords show that roughly two dozen members of Mormon families provided nearly $8 million of the financing for the “super PAC” working to elect Mr. Romney, Restore Our Future, putting them in league with its Wall Street, real estate and energy donors. Prominent Mormons including the JetBlue founder David G. Neeleman and the Credit Suisse chief executive Eric Varvel are on his finance team.

But several of these donors say that their giving has nothing to do with their business interests. And while that is a common refrain among major financial supporters of both parties, in this case the candidacy they are backing represents something bigger as it draws new attention to their religion.

“I think for Mormons, particularly for prominent ones who already feel widely accepted and admired individually, this feels like a chance to also see their church, which they love, accepted and admired institutionally,” said Richard Eyre, a Mormon and a best-selling author who lives in Utah and is a friend of the Romneys.

Bill Marriott, of Marriott fame, explains further about how this election is not about Mitt Romney's Mormonism.

But Bill Marriott, whose family built a single A&W Root Beer stand into one of the largest hospitality companies in the world, said it was not lost on him that Mr. Romney’s pending nomination is a major moment for his fellow Mormons.

“It is a great story, and we want the world to know about our religion,” said Mr. Marriott..."

We want the world to know about your religion too. Read the rest of this post...

Video: Man tells Romney he won't vote for a Mormon

Read the rest of this post...

Will the Mormons invoke God to force "President Romney" to do their bidding?

It's a question raised by a new article over at Buzzfeed in which the Mormon leadership is trying to win a local zoning battle by claiming that God has personally asked them to build a nine-story building that locals say will obstruct the view of the local mountains.

Would God settle for a five story building that wouldn't block the view?  Apparently not.  God's apparently a bit of a real estate queen.

Buzzfeed notes some interesting ramifications for Romney should he win the presidency:

The incident blurs the lines drawn by the Mormon Church itself in regards to when it is willing to assert religious authority in secular matters. The church has long held tightly to political neutrality, and says it only throws its weight behind an issue that it deems to have moral consequence (like same-sex marriage, or immigration). While the church's lobbying to get a construction project approved is unsurprising, some local Mormons were taken aback to see their religious leaders turn a local debate into a test of religious faith.

Critics who worry that a President Romney would be susceptible to such ecclesiastical pressure from his religious leaders will surely see this local controversy as evidence that the threat is real. But Romney has said repeatedly that if elected, he would would not allow his church to sway his governing decisions, and there's never been a suggestion that church leaders had steered his political course.

While I'm sure we'll hear the usual chorus of "that's what they told Kennedy!" Why exactly does that prove that this isn't a real threat this time around?

The Mormons happily throw their weight around in politics when it comes to bashing gays, or in the past keep women subservient - or in this case, even a small zoning matter. And the Catholics have been all too happy to extort pro-choice Democrats into changing their votes on abortion and contraception by publicly denying them communion during election years.

So why is it so unbelievable that a church might not try to get its way when it finally gets one of its own in office? Would we really doubt that a President Santorum, for example, wouldn't be tempted to do exactly what his church tells him to do, if they said that God had personally told them that he needed to follow their orders?

I'd go so far as to say that if you really believe in God, and really believe in your faith, and your religion has the nerve to pull the God card on you, it's not clear how you can say "no" to a request that you believe is from God himself.

And in fact, Republicans cite God about as often as they cite Ronald Reagan when defending their various policy pronouncements.  Hell, Paul Ryan seemed to suggest the other day that God was why we had to repeal Health Care Reform.  But we're to believe that the folks who justify practically every piece of legislation by invoking God won't permit their God, their religion, to influence their policy priorities.  When they already admit is does and has. Read the rest of this post...

Justice Dept. files suit against Mormons trying to tell non-Mormons how to live

Good luck with that.

The "fringe" Mormon sect is accused of "a campaign of intimidation against the unfaithful" to deprive them of their constitutional rights.

Because that's something mainstream Mormons don't do, try to intimidate the unfaithful in an effort to deprive them of their constitutional rights? Read the rest of this post...

"Bias" against a Mormon presidential candidate?

Interesting that no one calls it "bias" when you're against a Republican presidential candidate.

Calling it "bias" suggests that it's a benign characteristic that has no impact on who you are as a person. If someone were a Mormon by birth, and not practicing, then their faith would be benign.  But if someone embraces their faith then is it fair to suggest that their faith has no impact on who they are, how they think, what decisions they would make in life and in office?

If a chief tenet of modern Mormonism is anti-gay advocacy, and you're gay, or know gay people, and don't want a politician in office who is going to make anti-gay advocacy a major part of his governance, then why is it "bias" to vote against him?

I think people of faith, and pollsters like Gallup, are playing a cute game by claiming that their faith is everything to them, but please don't judge them by their faith.  I suspect that if the poll asked how you'd feel about a liberal Democrat Mormon, the poll numbers in support of the candidate would be significantly higher. Read the rest of this post...

Mitt "Major pornographer" Romney now "major gambler" too

It's a funny thing, those Mormons.

They're very good at spending their millions to force other Americans to live under the Mormon religious coda, but when it comes to enforcing their own religious dictats against themselves... the Mormons seem increasingly squishy of late, especially when it comes to the nation's most famous Mormon, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

First there was Mitt Romney's ties to Marriott and their porn business.  Romney was on Marriott's board until he decided to run for president.  Porn is a big no-no to the Mormons, who are basically akin to the religious right in their far right stance on social issues and their exuberance for forcing those of other faiths to live under Mormon rules.

But that didn't stop Marriott from a making a ton of money selling porn in its hotels around the country while Romney was on Marriott's board (it also didn't seem to stop Romney from serving on the board of one of America's top purveyors of pornography).  And Romney continues to make money via his Marriott stock, money which comes in part from Marriott's ongoing porn business.

Romney took so much flak for his ties to Marriott's porn that Marriott kinda-sorta eventually will drop most of their porn but not all of it, eventually, maybe.  Not exactly an unequivocal moral stand by the Mormonest of companies, as noted by this top religious right activist.

And now we find out that Romney's biggest support is none of than Vegas gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson, who has pumped $10 million into a pro-Romney Super PAC, and who reportedly will be giving "limitless" donations to help Romney win in November.

Yes, the Mormon bishop will be getting limitless help from Vegas gamblers.

So to recap, Romney is personally making money from pornography, and the biggest financial support of his run for the presidency is one of America's top gambling moguls.

Then again, we're dealing with a candidate who flip flops on a daily basis on abortion, guns, immigration, Super PACs, Solyndra, stem cells, climate change, the auto bailout, and even catfish.

And who can ever forget this one:

Via NewsOne

Read the rest of this post...

Sununu criticizes CNN for Romney's embrace of birther Trump

Bad CNN. How dare they report the news. Especially when the news makes Republicans look bad. Doesn't CNN know that they're only allowed to report news that makes Democrats look bad?

One day after Donald Trump accused CNN of covering the birther issue in order to boost its ratings, Mitt Romney surrogate John Sununu accused the network of a fixation with the birther issue.

"Why is CNN so fixated on this?" Sununu, the former New Hampshire Governor, asked CNN's Soledad O'Brien. "It's CNN that wants to bring this up. I don't want to bring it up. Mitt Romney has made it clear that he believes President Obama was born in the U.S. You had Donald Trump on last night, and now you are asking the question this morning. It's CNN's fixation."

Sununu also asserted that CNN supported President Obama: "The fact is, this country has a jobs problem, and supporters of the president, like CNN, keep wanting to talk about other issues."

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's news because for a short while Donald Trump was the most famous GOP presidential candidate in the race? And maybe it's news because whiter-than-white Mitt Romney continues to embrace Donald Trump, refuses to criticize Donald Trump, after Trump continues to spout racist birther accusations against an African-American President?  (And it's particularly interesting that Romney is refusing to distance himself from racists when he's a bishop in a faith with a long tradition of racism.)

It's really pretty disgusting that Mitt Romney is now helping to coordinate a counter-attack on CNN - and that's clearly what this is, a coordinated counter-attack - in order to permit Romney's surrogates to continue launching racist attacks on the President. Read the rest of this post...

Why do the Romneys think that Catholics aren't good enough Christians?

Mitt Romney says he's the great defender of the Catholic faith, and chose to wear his "pro-Catholicism" on his sleeve in order to bash President Obama over the recent contraceptive policy controversy.

It's therefore interesting that both Mitt Romney and his son have tried in the past to convert Catholics to Mormonism.  It's not exactly a stellar way to show how much you want to save Catholicism, by wiping it out.

Here's some of what I wrote about in an earlier post:

Mitt Romney's son went to South America to convert Latino Christians away from Catholicism and to Mormonism. Mitt Romney himself went to France in the early 1970s to, again, convert the French from Christianity - Catholicism, again, in their case - to Mormonism.

It's interesting that the Mormons bristle at the suggestion that they are not Christians, yet they do not seem to consider Catholics Christian enough to be exempt from Mormon attempts at conversion. After all, why would Catholics need to be converted to Mormonism, in order to be saved, if in fact we're all Christians?

Those are the kind of questions Mitt Romney would ask of Barack Obama if the Mormon shoe were on the other foot. But no one dares ask Mitt Romney the very type of questions he has himself posed to President Obama.

If Mitt Romney thinks Reverend Wright is fair game - an attack that many consider thinly-veiled racism - then isn't it at least fair to inquire why Mitt Romney and his son believe that Catholics are lesser Christians than Mormons?

I know that when I was in the Russian Far East in the early 1990s, and saw evangelical Christians proselytizing in the local Petropavlovsk airport, apparently to convert the "heathen" Orthodox Christians (of which I am a member) to the "only true" Christianity, I was supremely offended. Not simply that they considered my faith inferior, but that they knew we were Christians, just like they were, yet they still had the nerve to treat us like we were some kind of savage jungle tribe that needed saving.

Now that Mitt Romney has gone on the record as wanting to be president so he can defend the Catholic faith, it's relevant for us to have a discussion of just how good a defender of the Catholic faith Mitt Romney really is.

And judging by his, and his son's, efforts to convert Catholics to Mormonism in multiple countries, Romney's record in defending Catholicism isn't all that great. Read the rest of this post...

Former GOP rep uncomfortable with Romney using birther Trump to raise money

If Mitt Romney can't stand up to Trump and his crazy birther ideas, how will he stand up to the likes of Assad? Romney doesn't show very good morals or decision making if this is the best he can offer during an election cycle. More from Think Progress on the slimy move by Mitt.

NOTE FROM JOHN: Mitt Romney is an outrage-hypocrite.  He gets all hot and bothered when anyone says anything about his being a Mormon - not just when someone says that Mormonism is a "cult", but even about the simple question as to whether Mitt Romney has ever participated in a posthumous baptism in an attempt to steal the souls of dead Holocaust victims.  Romney won't say - he won't even repudiate the practice - and he's offended that anyone would ask.

But boy oh boy, when it comes time to land some low-blows against Barack Obama, Mitt Romney is right there front and center.

First there's Romney's embrace of Trump and his birtherism, and Romney's refusal to say a word about it.  Then there was Romney's gratuitous swipe about Rev. Wright a few months back.  That was even worse than the birther embrace.

Think about it.  Romney thinks that President Obama's embrace of a pastor with what he considers "weird" Christian ideas is fair game in this election.  But what does that say about Mitt Romney's embrace of Mormonism and its ideas?  Why is it off limits to even talk about Romney's Mormonism in anything short of genuflecting adulation, but it's not off limits for Romney himself to criticize President Obama's embrace of Christianity?

Now, the Romney camp could try to argue that it shows a window into President Obama's soul, and brings into question his "judgment" in relying on a preacher with such 'radical' views.

But how is the possibility of Mitt Romney having attempted to forcibly convert the souls of Jewish Holocaust victims, of his embrace of a religion that has been on a virtual jihad against the civil rights of gays, blacks and women over the years, any less a window into Mitt Romney's soul?

It almost seems as if the stronger one embraces one's own religion - i.e., the greater influence your religion has had in determining who you are, and what you will do in life and in politics - the less legitimate it is to inquire about that religion and its influence on you.  Unless it's Mitt Romney questioning Barack Obama's religion and it's influences, then it's okay.

Not to mention, Mitt Romney's son went to South America to convert Latino Christians away from Catholicism and to Mormonism.  Mitt Romney himself went to France in the early 1970s to, again, convert the French from Christianity - Catholicism, again, in their case - to Mormonism.

It's interesting that the Mormons bristle at the suggestion that they are not Christians, yet they do not seem to consider Catholics Christian enough to be exempt from Mormon attempts at conversion.  After all, why would Catholics need to be converted to Mormonism, in order to be saved, if in fact we're all Christians?

Those are the kind of questions Mitt Romney would ask of Barack Obama if the Mormon shoe were on the other foot.  But no one dares ask Mitt Romney the very type of questions he has himself posed to President Obama.

If Mitt Romney thinks Reverend Wright is fair game - an attack that many consider thinly-veiled racism - then isn't it at least fair to inquire why Mitt Romney and his son believe that Catholics are lesser Christians than Mormons?

Mitt Romney has made clear that a candidate's religion, and much worse, are fair for electoral discussion.  Then so be it. Read the rest of this post...

Mitt Romney criticized Obama over Rev. Wright just three months ago

Mitt Romney gratuitously brought up Rev. Wright a few months ago.

Here's the transcript of Romney speaking:“I think again that the president takes his philosophical leanings in this regard, not from those who are ardent believers in various faiths but instead from those who would like America to be more secular. And I’m not sure which is worse, him listening to Reverend Wright or him saying that we must be a less Christian nation.”

So, to reiterate the golden rule: Don't discuss Mitt Romney's religious influences in the Mormon temple, but do discuss Barack Obama's religious influences in a Christian church.

So Christian wackos are fair game. Mormon, less so.

You see, Christian faith is full of wacky crazy with all sorts of wacky beliefs, but Mormon temples aren't.  So please don't mention Romney's Mormonism and his influences, but feel free to take a whack at President Obama's Christianity and his influences.

It's interesting that Romney has a double standard on Mormonism versus Christianity when he claims they're the same thing.

A lot of our friends in the mainstream media have given Romney a pass on the Mormon issue.  They say it's religious bigotry to discuss Mitt Romney's religious influences in Mormonism (though I doubt they'd say the same if his religion were Scientology).  Yet Mitt Romney goes after Barack Obama's religious influences not three months ago, and no one hears a word about it from the media.

And spare us the "Romney was going after the man (Wright) and not the faith (Christinaity)" argument.  So, you mean, it would be okay for us to go after individual Mormon preachers and what they have to say about Mormon teachings, like Jesus having slept with his mother, Jesus being the brother of Satan, about the special underwear Mormons wear, about the way Mormons try to secretly steal the souls of the dead - all of that is okay so long as we link it back to a particular Mormon who made the comments?  So, for example, it would be okay to declare open season on Joseph Smith?

Really?

Romney is trying to have it both ways.

There's a part of me that thinks that Mitt Romney is playing cute with this issue.  It's entirely possible that Romney is bringing up Rev. Wright in order to remind folks about the wacky preacher AND when there's a backlash against Romney for bring up Wright, Romney will simply say, you're right, religion SHOULD be off limits, and voila, Romney takes his Mormonism off the table.

Whatever the justification, Mitt Romney has made one thing perfectly clear: He thinks his Mormonism is relevant to this campaign.

UPDATE: CNN's Roland Martin, who I've disagreed with on some things in the past, agrees that Romney has just put his own faith on the table:

Martin was on CNN this morning along with The Blaze‘s Will Cain, who also had questions about the latest anti-Obama ad that emphasized his middle name: “what are you trying to reinforce there?” Martin interjected that this was precisely “why this is so stupid.” “You can try all day to drudge up Jeremiah Wright,” he warned conservatives, “but you’re now putting Mormonism on the table… you’re not putting on the table how African Americans were treated by the Mormon religion.” Cain agreed that “I don’t think it’s smart to use Rev. Wright as a salacious bullet point again,” but argued that the President’s vision for America in its entirety was a legitimate ground of debate for the election.

Romney just put Mormons' longstanding racism on the table.

Martin is referring to the Mormon's longstanding racism against African-Americans, that only receded in the 1970s after a nationwide boycott. Though there are reports that racism in Mormonism is alive and well even today. This from a recent Washington Post article:

Until 1978, the LDS church banned men of African descent from its priesthood, a position open to nearly all Mormon males and the gateway to sacramental and leadership roles. The church had also barred black men and women from temple ceremonies that promised access in the afterlife to the highest heaven.

As he explored joining the church in 1988, Perkins said he asked Mormons near his Los Angeles home about the racial doctrines. They gently explained that blacks were the cursed descendants of Cain, the biblical murderer, he recalls.

The LDS church has neither formally apologized for the priesthood ban nor publicly repudiated many of the theories used to justify it for more than 125 years.

[A]nother Mormon scripture, The Pearl of Great Price, says, “blackness came upon” Cain’s descendants, who were “despised among all people.”

Pressed by Russert, Romney refused to say his church was wrong to restrict blacks from full participation.

Even under intense pressure from black Mormons, the church has refused to formally repudiate past interpretations of doctrine or scripture that tie spiritual worthiness to race.

It's time to ask Mitt Romney if he was ever told by a religious mentor that blacks were the despised descendants of Cain, and just as importantly, what did Romney say, if anything, in response? Read the rest of this post...