This is the GOP Presumed Nominee Who Won't Release His Taxes

Thanks to my son for the picture.  When you hear the saying 'a picture is worth 1,000 words,' believe this is one that fits that saying.

Nice to know you can own a horse your wife rides and take it off the income tax but then most of America cannot afford to own a horse so that doesn't apply to us.  How many more tax credits has he taken over the years and is the 'real' reason he does not want us to see his income taxes?  It was good enough for his Father to show taxes but not for the son?  Obviously Mr. Romney is not a chip off the old block because I don't remember anyone ever using the word 'arrogant' when referring to George Romney.

Republicans went after John Kerry in 2004 for not releasing more than two years of his taxes but lo and behold he had released many more years as a US Senator.  Talk about feeling dumb that was one of those OOPS moments.  Now Romney wonders why the Democrats and FINALLY a few Republicans want him to release his tax returns?

Are Republicans going to wake up that they have a very flawed candidate or is all the money for the campaign going to win out?

Romney Advisor Ed Gillespie defends Romney by using the word "Retroactive" for his Retirement from Bain

In the past, I thought Ed Gillespie was a pretty smart guy -- not any more.  To go on national TV and give that 'retroactive' bunch of Bravo Sierra about when Romney retired from Bain which means he had nothing to do with Bain from 1999 to 2002 defies the belief of anyone with common sense.  

My son sent me a comment that was sent from a friend of his that sums it up nicely:

"Reasonable from someone who believes you can be baptized in absentia after you die."

How do you answer that?  You don't.  I remember when I read his wife's Dad was an atheist but a year after his death, the Romney family had him baptized into the Mormon which gave me the creeps but not as much as when the Mormon Church made Anne Frank a Mormon.  What kind of religion does things like that?  Like I said creepy!

How did Romney convince the Republican hierarchy that he was the best man for the job?  Was it because they were broke and had no money for a convention and campaign which has been rectified by Romney and his other millionaire/billionaire pals and their Super PACs.  Everything about this election shows that the powers at be of the Republican Party are bought and paid for by the wealthy.  They made sure they sufficiently demonized Obama even if they had to lie so the base would vote for Romney without questions being asked.  Could be a fatal mistake because I am not the only one who has taken the blinders off.

When you realize that members of Congress who take an oath are holding up legislation to keep jobs from being created to make Obama look bad, you get a bad feeling that a lot these people you thought were honest and honorable are not.  They are bought and paid for by lobbyists and the big donors like the Koch Brothers.

Sunday night on the net you are starting to see comments about Romney needs to pull out of the race and Republicans need an open convention.  I cannot imagine Romney doing that but his lies on Friday night followed up by the bizarre Gillespie interviews should disqualify him and his team from ever being part of a Republican campaign.  They are dishonest and must think we are a bunch of idiots to swallow what Romney is selling.  There are more documents coming forward like the one from Bain in 2002 that named him the head that was filed in MA.  I resent that they would try to pull the wool over our eyes and expect us to swallow what Romney has to say when he went on TV to five networks and LIED or he LIED to the MA Ethics Commission in 2002 and to the SEC.  Take your pick because whichever it is he LIED.

Believe Romney is so used to getting his way he never considered the fact that when he told people that Bain was not a subject for discussion that they would listen to him.   That is the same arrogance that sent Romney to the networks on Friday night lying on the air thinking he could shut the door but it opened it wider as Michael Steele said.

Republicans have a choice.  They can continue down the path nominating a liar or they can wake up and tell him to take a hike because Romney has done himself in with his aversion to the truth but like he said if he told the truth on what he wants to do he never would be elected.  Maybe you could also add that if he told the truth about Bain, he never would have been nominated.  Gingrich and Perry tried to tell the truth about Romney and in the process got taken out by the far right who are aligned with Romney which frankly makes no sense unless it is true they are controlled by the Koch Brothers.

I still cannot believe Gillespie did this.  Pretty bad when you have to go to a liberal site to get the truth.  It is like the roles have been reversed and as a conservative I resent the conservative media covering for Romney and his pals when they know the truth:

Romney Adviser: Romney Not Responsible For Bain Because He ‘Retired Retroactively’By Adam Peck 

on Jul 15, 2012 at 10:20 am

Romney and Gillespie

Ed Gillespie, a senior campaign advisor for Mitt Romney, appeared on Meet the Press this morning to answer questions about Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, and unveiled a new excuse for why Romney should not be held responsible for the company’s actions during a time in which he remained CEO and president: 

GREGORY: He was still financially linked to Bain. And of course, a lot his fortune is due to his time with Bain. Even when he was on leave, does he stand by the business decisions that were made by the firm he created?  

GILLESPIE: He actually retired retroactively at that point. He ended up not going back to the firm after his time in Salt Lake City. So he was actually retired from Bain. 

Throughout the primary season until just last week, the Romney campaign stood forcefully by their assertion that Romney “retired” from Bain Capital in February of 1999. But with the release of previously unreported SEC documents last week which suggest that Romney in fact retained the titles of CEO and chairman well into the new century, the Romney campaign has struggled to adequately answer voters’ questions.

Gillespie was also questioned about whether Romney supports the business practice of outsourcing jobs overseas, a favorite tactic of Bain Capital. Gillespie was noncommittal, instead stating that Romney believes businesses should be free to do as they see fit. 

Gillespie also tried to paint Romney’s decision to release just two years of tax returns as transparent. “The fact is, Governor Romney has put out already 2010, and will put out 2011 before this election. So, very transparent,” he told Gregory. 

Update

Watch video of Ed Gillespie’s remark: 

Update 

Gillespie made a similar claim on CNN: “He took a leave of absence and in fact, ended up not going back at all and retired retroactively to February 1999 as a result.”

Mitt Bain Capital Document Lists Mitt Romney As 'Managing Member' In 2002

How are Romney and his Romneybots going to spin this one?  Romney has backed himself into a corner and frankly couldn't happen to a better person.

Are the leaders of the Republican Party going to be dumb enough to nominate Romney after the evidence is piling up that Romney's visit to the five networks on Friday night to say he had nothing to do with Bain after 1999 was an outright LIE?  One of the anchors Friday night said they believed that Romney doing his act Friday night on Bain along with not releasing tax returns was going to cause more investigation and that is exactly what has happened.  Michael Steele said basically the same thing.

Was Michael Steele undermined at the RNC so he could be taken out and put a Romney loyalists in his place to make sure Romney got the nomination?  That would go along with the modus operandi of this group of Romney people who have completed a hostile takeover of the Republican Party with the help of the Koch Brothers and others.  Don't recognize today's Republican Party who could care less about the middle class or poor as they pander to the wealthy donors and hold up legislation that would help the economy.

Had to wonder when I saw he had his retirement from Bain backdated to 1999 if there wasn't something suspicious.  But people like me didn't have a clue about Romney who I said he was unethical as I have been told many times.  There is only one problem -- opposition research from 2008 when a lot of us worked for other candidates.  I am proud to say that I was member of the Rudy team before he was taken out by the far right -- same far right who has now teamed up with Romney who was as a liberal for MA Governor in 2002.  He is the perfect chameleon candidate who changes depending on the audience.  That same Romney who in 2001 was head of Bain when they invested in a company that disposed of  'aborted fetuses' per Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Beast.  The usual comeback is that Sullivan is a liberal but he has the evidence and unlike some Republican journalists this time around, he is not making it up.  It has been out there waiting for the media to investigate.

What has happened to honesty and integrity in the Republican Party this election and looks like back in 2010?  From the Congressional Republicans holding up bills that might make Obama look good, to lying that they were working with the President, and turning into pretzels to support Romney for President early on which made no sense, it makes you wonder about anything the GOP is saying today.  What happened to the GOP backbones?  Are they so entrenched with the wealthy that when a member of leadership, Cantor, bets against the US Treasury to make money that he doesn't get a reprimand.  What kind of Majority Leader bets against the US?  But then he is the same one who donated money to an organization trying to take out incumbents including some TX Republicans who won big.  This is a microcosm of today's Republican leaders who put party and big donors ahead of the American people.  Why should any of us be shocked that they refuse to take action on Romney?

Republicans are going into the fall election most likely with an outright liar heading the ticket which brings back memories of John Kerry who Republicans savaged for lying which they should have and I was one who was thoroughly disgusted with his lies.  He couldn't tell the truth about his time in Vietnam and Romney cannot tell the truth about his time at Bain.  Why?  We can go for a trifecta and ask what is in the drinking water in MA that causes their politicians to lie because Sen Scott Brown (R-MA) keeps talking all these imaginary phone calls he gets from Democrats and world leaders.  He was poised to keep his seat before his foot in mouth took over -- now it is toss up.

The Alabama Governor, Robert Bently, along with NRCC Chair Pete Sessions have called for Romney to release his tax returns.  Michael Steele did the same on Friday night, Bill Kristol has joined the chorus, and we expect that chorus to get louder.  What is Romney hiding that he was so arrogant to say only two years of tax returns was enough when his Father released many more?

Huffington Post authors have discovered one more piece of evidence to add to the pile -- this one from Bain itself in 2002 -- is that going to be another lie according to Romney and his surrogates?

A corporate document filed with the state of Massachusetts in December 2002 -- a month after Romney was elected governor -- lists him as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors, LLC "authorized to execute, acknowledge, deliver and record any recordable instrument purporting to affect an interest in real property, whether to be recorded with a Registry of Deeds or with a District Office of the Land Court." 

Yet Romney told the Feds in August 2011 in his federal disclosure that he retired from Bain on Feb 11, 1999, but we know that retirement was backdated to 1999 AFTER he won the Governorship of MA in 2002.  That was confirmed this morning by a Romney spokesman saying that it was a retroactive retirement to 1999 and Romney didn't have anything to do with Bain.  Lies keep mounting up because he told the MA Ethics Commissions when trying to get on the ballot for Governor that he had taken a leave of absence from Bain to work for the Olympics but has been reported he took numerous trips back to MA to participate in Board Meetings, Thanksgiving, etc.  Yet Romney goes on TV Friday night and says he had nothing to do with Bain after he left for the Olympics in 1999.  Is he lying now or did he lie on documents earlier.  Going out on a limb here and say he is lying now.  Doesn't have to be a big limb to support that one.

How many of you would like to take a retroactive retirement and get paid for it?  Bet most would but you see we are not wealthy so those rules don't apply to all of us.

If he thinks any of this is going away, he needs to think again.  For the good of the Republican Party he could come clean with his lies, pull out of the race, and allow the Republican Party to have an Open Convention but that would take honesty and integrity along with ethics which are missing with Mitt Romney.  In the meantime the Chairman of the RNC Priebus and others who orchestrated this crooked primary process need to resign immediately.  They have disgraced the Republican Party with choosing Romney as the nominee.  Anyone who thinks the primaries were fair haven't been reading where one state was proportioned and another wasn't, or missing ballot boxes, dead voters, multi-state voters, turning people away from voting in caucuses or running a shadow GOP in NV for starters when they didn't like the person who was elected to head the GOP at the Convention for starters.  How about the debates where the RNC Chair scheduled and picked the moderators and kept people out of the debates that might show up Romney like former Gov of NM Gary Johnson.

Only hope for the Republican Party in November is to have an Open Convention IMHO!  If they go down the road with Romney and his lies and arrogance, expect collateral damage to the GOP Congressional races in November.  I am not enjoying seeing what Romney and his supporters have done to the Republican Party along with the Koch Brothers and their meddling, but I am enjoying the mess Romney has gotten himself in after what he has done to candidate after candidate to fulfill the Mormon prophecy of becoming President.  He didn't even follow his Father's lead who I believe was an honorable person who did release tax returns.  Doesn't phase his son as he is always right and the anyone who questions him is called names by his surrogates like socialist, communists, traitor, and the list goes on.

I put my principles over my Party so no way do I support or vote for the MA liberal Romney who has a problem with the truth and if people don't like it, don't talk to me because I could less.  I will not vote for a candidate who I know to be unethical who has no integrity just because there is an (R) behind their name.  Not happening.

Mitt Romney Bain Capital Document Lists Him As 'Managing Member' In 2002
Ryan Grim and Jason Cherkis
Posted: 07/15/2012 9:36 am Updated: 07/15/2012 10:40 am

WASHINGTON -- Add another document to the pile of evidence contradicting Mitt Romney's continued insistence that he ended his active role with Bain Capital in early 1999, part of his long-running effort to avoid responsibility for the company's activity, related to outsourcing and bankruptcies, during the years that followed. 

A corporate document filed with the state of Massachusetts in December 2002 -- a month after Romney was elected governor -- lists him as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors, LLC "authorized to execute, acknowledge, deliver and record any recordable instrument purporting to affect an interest in real property, whether to be recorded with a Registry of Deeds or with a District Office of the Land Court." 

In August 2011, Romney told federal authorities, as part of the financial disclosure process, that he "retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee [for the 2002 Winter Olympics]. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."

Bain Capital Investors is a Bain Capital entity. 

Previously reported evidence shows that Romney was listed as the CEO, chairman and president of the company after 1999 in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; took a six-figure salary; signed corporate documents related to major and minor deals and attended board meetings for at least two Bain-affiliated companies. The state document was filed two and a half years after Romney now says he retired from the company, demonstrating his deep and ongoing connection to the firm. 

The mountain of evidence that Romney had a connection to the firm after 1999 leaves him with two possible explanations, neither of them political appealing: Either Romney was officially in charge of the company but took no actual responsibility for it, or he was involved then and is either lying or shading the truth now. 

The latter has its obvious drawbacks, and the former doesn't paint Romney as a portrait of stand-up leadership. President Barack Obama over the weekend seized on Romney's attempt to shed responsibility for the company he officially ran, arguing that a U.S. president doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing when he's responsible for what happens on his watch.
"Ultimately, I think, Mr. Romney is going to have to answer those questions because if he aspires to being president, one of the things you learn is you're ultimately responsible for the conduct of your operations," Obama said in an interview with the District of Columbia's WJLA-TV. 

It's a line of attack Obama employed with deftness against his Republican opponent in 2008, when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suspended his presidential campaign to address the financial meltdown. 

"Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time," Obama said then, rejecting McCain's request to postpone debates. "It’s not necessary for us to think that we can do only one thing, and suspend everything else." 

On Friday evening, Romney responded to the barrage of Bain reporting and attacks by the Obama camp by scheduling a raft of interviews with major media outlets, during which he repeated his claim that he had had nothing to do with Bain after 1999. 

Source:  Huffington Post

Sullivan: He's Drowning Not Waving (Pro-Lifers will not be Happy!)

Update 07/13 6:56pm: Was in financial control through 2002.

Official documents have revealed that Mitt Romney remained in control of Bain Capital until 2002, three years longer than he has previously claimed. Romney has said that he left the firm in 1999 in order to be chief executive of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics. However, his signature remains on documents through 2002, when he finalized a 10-year severance deal with Bain that was retroactive to 1999. Despite Romney's focus on his Olympic activities during those three years, he has been shown to have had managerial control over five new investments during that time. He also remained in control of 100 percent of the company and earned money as a Bain "executive" during that time. 

*******

Today as I have been visiting various websites about the problem with Romney's story when he left Bain, found Sullivan's piece with links to other comments the most complete. Is Romney's whole premise for not detailing that he was at Bain through 2002 when he actually did head Bain because of the following:

he (Romney) was responsible for investing in a company that disposes of aborted fetuses, and signed a filing for that particular company, you can see why he doesn't want to defend 1999 to 2001 in practice. It would destroy him with the pro-life base.

Is this the fact he has been hiding from 2001 and doesn't want the base of the Republican Party to find out.  Too late now as it is out in the open but will it make any difference to those Republicans with blinders on who will vote for any Republican candidate no matter who it is.  Today is the perfect example of his pandering and not understanding the pro-life community by saying Condi Rice who is pro-choice is a finalist for Vice President that was leaked to Drudge.  Now does it mean Rice is being used to take Bain off the front pages on the internet which is not working, or he is trying to play up to blacks who are not buying anything he says after his visit to the NAACP.  I have emails from the pro-life community saying if Rice is the VP nominee, don't vote for Romney.

Is the Republican Party which has maintained a very pro-life stance set to nominate a candidate that was responsible for investing in a company that disposes of aborted fetuses?  Sure looks like it but that is okay as he is wealthy and the RNC won't have to put out as much money for the candidate.  Question is if the RNC Chairman is really pro-life or gives lip service?

I said months ago I couldn't believe the GOP was poised to nominate a pro-choice person who now is considering another pro-choice person, Condi Rice, to be his VP.  I don't want to hear anything about Romney's pro-life stance because it is pandering pure and simple but unfortunately the pro-life community bought into it saying the stance he took as MA Governor doesn't pertain today.  The fact this his campaign would even consider a pro-choice person says all any thinking person needs to know.


Is Rick Santorum going to campaign for Romney in PA after this and the question would be "WHY" as he really is pro-life? 


All the Romney lies are starting to catch up with him on Bain, and he is not even the nominee.  There is plenty more waiting because the Democrats probably have more on Romney now then the other candidates did in 2008.  The big question is whether the GOP can survive a Romney candidacy.

If I was a Democrat consultant, I would be salivating at this news that Romney as head of Bain invested in a company that disposed of aborted fetuses.  Shows he was never really pro-life IMHO!  I cannot fathom investing in a company that did that.  Makes me ill and I admit that I am not an ardent pro-lifer.  I am one of those people who doesn't believe I have a right to make a decision for someone else just myself.  I don't walk in their shoes and definitely do not want to see the days of the backroom abortions come back.  This company invested in by Romney while he owned Bain really does creep me out.

How many more lies is Romney going to tell because it just keeps going and going?  He may be the most dishonest Presidential candidate to run which says a lot.  The lies are stacking up and the ones about Bain are huge because he either lied to the SEC he was in charge, lied to the Ethics Commission of MA to get on the ballot to run for Governor, or he is lying now.  Throw a dart!

Still cannot get over that he owned Bain 100% and appointed himself as the CEO, Chairman of the Board and President of Bain because we had been led to believe it was formed by a group of partners from other companies.  Who is telling the truth?  One thing for sure is that it is not Mitt Romney who has trouble with the facts and the truth.  This is why so many of us have called him Democrat-lite -- he acts like one.  This is also another reason that Gingrich and Santorum went after Romney so hard but the RNC and others made sure their voices did not drown out the chosen one of the establishment Republicans -- Mitt Romney.

Bain: He's Drowning Not Waving, Ctd

Andrew Sullivan

July 13, 2012

My take on this morning's developments here and here. But even the WaPo concedes that Romney cited his active Bain business ties from 1999 on in 2002 under oath to help establish residential eligibility to run for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. And Kessler admits that Romney's sworn testimony on this contradicts his legal SEC filing, and several filings Romney made as CEO in the period in question. Steve Kornacki tries to glean what Romney was thinking by keeping his ties to Bain and Bain acquisitions while off in Utah:

[I]t makes all the sense in the world that he would have held on to his leadership titles at Bain and planned to return after the games. For most of the time he was in Utah, politics was not a realistic option for Romney’s immediate post-Olympic career. And because of this, it makes all the sense in the world that Romney would have remained apprised of Bain’s activities while in Utah and maintained some level of engagement, even if he wasn’t directly involved in the company’s day-to-day activities.

How Kevin Roose frames the story:

Romney, during his leave of absence, looks to have been a Potemkin CEO, in charge without actually being in charge. Does that mean, per the Obama campaign, that Romney can be "blamed for bankruptcies and layoffs from Bain investments" until he formally left Bain in 2002? In a legal and political sense, certainly. By keeping his titles and Bain shares during his leave of absence (probably in the hopes that he would return to Bain after the Olympics), he allowed himself to be kept on the hook for anything, good or bad, that the firm did while he was off in Salt Lake City.

Seems pretty clear to me - unless Romney wants to argue that being the CEO of a company doesn't mean you have any actual responsibility for it, which is a little troubling for a potential president's future accountability, don't you think? In fact, it sounds like Rumsfeld's view of being defense secretary. Weigel's take:

Sure, Romney's name appeared on Bain's SEC filings. But he didn't make Bain's decisions. He only benefited financially from them. Now you see why the Obama campaign thinks it can drag this out over weeks and months. Explaining why Romney himself wasn't really CEO during his leave of absence (when he was trying to save the American Olympics, for Pete's sake!) involves explaining some complicated corporation-fu. In the meantime, the Obama campaign can use "outsource" in every other graf of its press releases, and ignore the Fact-Check squads.

Allahpundit yawns:

One of the ironies of this story is that Romney’s opponents already have a way to tie him to Bain’s post-1999 record, irrespective of whether he quit day-to-day operations at the time. Remember this NYT piece from last December describing how Romney’s retirement deal with Bain granted him a share of profits on deals made through 2009? He was still receiving some of those profits last year because some of the deals hadn’t wound down yet. If the touchstone here is Romney making money off of Bain’s work rather than Romney directing Bain’s operations, then Democrats don’t need the Globe story.

But Romney was paid a salary as well - for a job he has said both that he didn't do in any way and subsequently that he did, while running the Olympics. That's the issue. Only one of Romney's stories can be true, and one of them was under oath. And if he really didn't do anything, then the issue is Romney's possible perjury in 2002 and 2011. The Republicans once impeached a president who committed perjury. Are they now going to nominate someone who did it as well - and insist it's no big deal? Or does it all hinge on what the meaning of CEO and "sole owner" is? Josh Barro looks at the bigger picture:

[R]eally, what Mitt Romney was doing in 2000 is beside the point. Romney founded one of America's leading private equity firms. What private equity does is take underperforming firms and make them more profitable, sometimes by closing facilities and sending operations overseas. If he can't defend Bain's 1999-2002 record on the merits, he can't defend its record from 1984 to 1999 either.

He can defend it in principle. But when it means he was responsible for investing in a company that disposes of aborted fetuses, and signed a filing for that particular company, you can see why he doesn't want to defend 1999 to 2001 in practice. It would destroy him with the pro-life base.

Here's a question worth asking, say, Kathryn Jean Lopez and the Catholic hierarchy: do you really support a candidate who invested in a company that disposed of the corpses of countless unborn children? Is that what your pro-life movement has really culminated in?

Bloomberg Business Week: How the Mormons Make Money

What is wrong with the Republican Party to have Mitt Romney as the nominee when he is/was a Bishop in the Mormon Church, donates millions to the Mormon Church and according to lifelong Mormons he is going to fulfill a prophecy of the Mormon Church by becoming President.

How does the Mormon Church afford to build this mega mall and still remain tax exempt?  Do they have their money buried in the Cayman's as well like Mitt Romney so not to pay tax?There is something about the Mormon Church and Romney being so attached that worries a lot of us if he became President.  When you read about the Mormon Church, you discover that Mormons first obligation is to the Mormon Church.  For such a small number of members how did they accumulate such wealth when they say none of the tithing goes to these projects.  They have spent double for the mall compared to what they have spent for charity purposes:

$1 billion to charitable causes in the 23 year time span between 1985 and 2008

The Mormon Church you learn has money invested around the world.  How did such a small Church in comparison to others get so much money?  We have not heard the end of this with more people starting to take notice and investigate just how a Church can build a mall overseen by the head of the Church and still remain tax exempt.  Talk about a pretzel, there should be a pretzel statue for how the leadership of the Church turns into pretzels while protecting their non-profit status.  Mitt Romney has opened up a can of worms with his candidacy.  Is he only running to fulfill the Mormon prophecy or something else?

Then we have this gem about how the Romney lies are not lies:

On June 13, psychoanalyst Dr. Justin Frank took to the Time Ideas blog to pen an article entitled, “The Root of Mitt Romney’s Comfort With Lying.” According to Frank, these supposed falsities can be blamed upon Mormonism. 

“But this pattern of lying and not acknowledging it, even when confronted directly, has persisted and led me to look for other sources of Romney’s behavior and of his clear comfort with continuing it,” Frank writes. “I think much of this comfort stems from his Mormon faith.” 

But it doesn’t end there, as he also points out Romney’s alleged lies and analyzes how Mormonism apparently allows for these infractions to take place. Frank goes on to claim that faith traditionally takes first seat with Mormons and that adherents allow it to, often times, trump fact. Here’s some more of his analysis:

I found myself discussing this situation with several colleagues, and we agreed that Romney doesn’t lie. Let me repeat: Mitt Romney doesn’t lie. He is telling the truth as he sees it — and truth it is, the facts notwithstanding. This is not simply a case of Hamlet arguing about point of view, saying, “For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” This is about a conflict between evidence and faith. There is a long tradition in the Mormon belief system in which evidence takes second place to faith. Examples abound, as when two Mormon elders who were questioned about the inconsistency in passages from the Book of Mormon said, “We know the Book of Mormon is true and that it contains the Word of God even in the face of evidence that appears contradictory,” according to The Mormon Missionaries by former Mormon Janice Hutchison. Thus there are no lies, only faith-based certainty that translates as truth for which no apology is needed, since what was said was not a lie.

If you are sufficiently confused that a lie to everyone else is not a lie to a Mormon, join the crowd.  Is this why he lies so much and he definitely does lie when you go back and check history of Mitt Romney.  In fact, he did this week when he said he didn't bring people to the NAACP Convention which was corrected by Lt Governor Carroll (R-FL) who was asked to attend with 200 other blacks at the request of Romney.  They also provided the standing ovation for Romney at the end of the speech not the members of the NAACP.  He also said he talked to black leaders at the NAACP but he only talked to his own supporters not leaders of the NAACP.  Might be easier to say when he tells the truth because he cannot even get the stories right about when he left Bain which is a company he owned 100% and was Chairman of the Board, CEO, and President in SEC filings until late 2002.  In a speech he said he was with Bain 25 years which would have him leaving in 2002 not 1999 he claims now.  More coverage on that in a separate article.  Don't want to confuse anyone too much.

My recommendation:  Don't buy a used car from a Mormon!

How the Mormons Make Money
By Caroline Winter on July 10, 2012 

Late last March the Mormon Church completed an ambitious project: a megamall. Built for roughly $2 billion, the City Creek Center stands directly across the street from the church’s iconic neo-Gothic temple in Salt Lake City. The mall includes a retractable glass roof, 5,000 underground parking spots, and nearly 100 stores and restaurants, ranging from Tiffany’s (TIF) to Forever 21. Walkways link the open-air emporium with the church’s perfectly manicured headquarters on Temple Square. Macy’s (M) is a stone’s throw from the offices of the church’s president, Thomas S. Monson, whom Mormons believe to be a living prophet. 

Mega Mall to the Right Built by the Mormon Church

On the morning of its grand opening, thousands of shoppers thronged downtown Salt Lake, eager to elbow their way into the stores. The national anthem played, and Henry B. Eyring, one of Monson’s top counselors, told the crowds, “Everything that we see around us is evidence of the long-standing commitment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Salt Lake City.” When it came time to cut the mall’s flouncy pink ribbon, Monson, flanked by Utah dignitaries, cheered, “One, two, three—let’s go shopping!” 

Watching a religious leader celebrate a mall may seem surreal, but City Creek reflects the spirit of enterprise that animates modern-day Mormonism. The mall is part of a sprawling church-owned corporate empire that the Mormon leadership says is helping spread its message, increasing economic self-reliance, and building the Kingdom of God on earth. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attends to the total needs of its members,” says Keith B. McMullin, who for 37 years served within the Mormon leadership and now heads a church-owned holding company, Deseret Management Corp. (DMC), an umbrella organization for many of the church’s for-profit businesses. “We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” 

McMullin explains that City Creek exists to combat urban blight, not to fill church coffers. “Will there be a return?” he asks rhetorically. “Yes, but so modest that you would never have made such an investment—the real return comes in folks moving back downtown and the revitalization of businesses.” Pausing briefly, he adds with deliberation, “It’s for furthering the aim of the church to make, if you will, bad men good, and good men better.” 

It’s perhaps unsurprising that Mormonism, an indigenous American religion, would also adopt the country’s secular faith in money. What is remarkable is how varied the church’s business interests are and that so little is known about its financial interests. Although a former Mormon bishop is about to receive the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, and despite a recent public-relations campaign aimed at combating the perception that it is “secretive,” the LDS Church remains tight-lipped about its holdings. It offers little financial transparency even to its members, who are required to tithe 10 percent of their income to gain access to Mormon temples. 

The Mormon Church is hardly the only religious institution to be less than forthcoming about its wealth; the Catholic Church has been equally opaque throughout history. On the other hand, says historian D. Michael Quinn, who is working on a book about the LDS Church’s finances and businesses, “The Mormon Church is very different than any other church. … Traditional Christianity and Judaism make a clear distinction between what is spiritual and what is temporal, while Mormon theology specifically denies that there is such a distinction.” To Latter-day Saints, opening megamalls, operating a billion-dollar media and insurance conglomerate, and running a Polynesian theme park are all part of doing God’s work. Says Quinn: “In the Mormon [leadership’s] worldview, it’s as spiritual to give alms to the poor, as the old phrase goes in the Biblical sense, as it is to make a million dollars.” 

Mormons make up only 1.4 percent of the U.S. population, but the church’s holdings are vast. First among its for-profit enterprises is DMC, which reaps estimated annual revenue of $1.2 billion from six subsidiaries, according to the business information and analysis firm Hoover’s Company Records (DNB). Those subsidiaries run a newspaper, 11 radio stations, a TV station, a publishing and distribution company, a digital media company, a hospitality business, and an insurance business with assets worth $3.3 billion. 

AgReserves, another for-profit Mormon umbrella company, together with other church-run agricultural affiliates, reportedly owns about 1 million acres in the continental U.S., on which the church has farms, hunting preserves, orchards, and ranches. These include the $1 billion, 290,000-acre Deseret Ranches in Florida, which, in addition to keeping 44,000 cows and 1,300 bulls, also has citrus, sod, and timber operations. Outside the U.S., AgReserves operates in Britain, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil. Its Australian property, valued at $61 million in 1997, has estimated annual sales of $276 million, according to Dun & Bradstreet. 

Read Much More at Bloomberg Business Week

Romney Speaks to NAACP and House Republicans Vote for the 33rd Time to Repeal "Obamacare"

Do you remember when the Republicans used to make fun of Clinton/Gore for busing supporters to their events and then Gore when he ran against George W. Bush?  It was a Democrat deal where their supporters would get a free lunch and be bused to the events.  Lo and behold, it is no longer a Democrat ONLY deal as Mitt Romney has co-opted the Democrats by:

Even Later Update, 10:58pm: And Roland Martin of TV One's Washington Watch, tweeted earlier today: "Romney bussed in about 200 supporters, including a number of African Americans, including Fla Lt Gov Jennifer Carroll."

Turns out those black leaders Romney touted he spoke with at the NAACP to Fox News were all people he brought in so he could get applause which is Democrat lite but then Romney has stacked his Town Halls including in 2008 with fellow Mormons and planted questions.  The people at the NAACP Convention were respectful of Romney for showing up but it looks like that respect was a one-way street.  Romney went on to say he knew he would be booed when he used 'Obamacare' instead of the real title 'Affordable Health Care Act' so why did he use that term which many blacks consider a slur against Obama?  Was it really so he could show the right how conservative he was to go into the NAACP and used Obamacare knowing he would get booed as has been alleged?  Sure looks like it after he had this to say at the fundraiser he attended after the event:

"If they are looking for free stuff, look to the other guy" (Mitt Romney, 7/11/2012)

With that statement, he is slandering blacks like they are all lazy who belong to the NAACP which is not the case.  It is the oldest Civil Rights organization in America -- don't always agree with some of their leaders and what they have to say or support, but also am not dumb enough to think they are all looking for free stuff.  Bet the Romney reception at the NAACP Convention after the facts have come out would not be close to the same as he received yesterday.

As a Republican and former party office holder, I find Romney and the people surrounding him an embarrassment and their tactics offensive and disgusting but then many of us have considered Romney Dem-lite from Day One.  The days of Ronald Reagan Republicans have come and gone when we could expect a large number of blacks to vote for the Party that gave them their civil rights.  That party has been replaced by a lot of former Democrats from the south and other places who decided to become Republican to get elected.  It is not a good fit for those of us who believed in working across the aisle for all Americans not just a select few rich donors and lobbyist we see today who have bought and paid for some Republican members of the Congress now.  Looks like a lot of this goes back to Abramoff and has gotten worse.  They are acting like Democrats.  When I see Republicans accusing Democrats of what they are doing, I cringe because that is an old Democrat tactic.

For more details on the Romney speech to the NAACP from the perspective of people who were there, please visit MSNBC

Did you know that Republicans in the House have voted 33 times to repeal and replace the Affordable Healthcare Law?  There is one slight problem -- there is no replacement.  Last night, the word came out that 1/3 of all major votes in the House since Republicans took over have been to repeal and replace the Affordable Healthcare Law so 33 times the Republicans in the House have lied since there is NO replacement?

I have to admit that I burst out laughing at the clip of Democrat Congressman Al Green from Texas last night on the floor of the House who said his district had demanded he read the original bill and the replacement bill before voting.  He went on to say he was now going to read half of the replacement bill -- silence -- then he was going to read the other half -- silence and then the whole replacement bill -- silence.  The look on his face was worth a 1,000 words:

Have to give it up to Cong Green for his comments. This is one of those it doesn't make a difference which party, it is just funny and humor always wins when it is showing the truth. Makes the House Republican leadership look stupid and inept.  We have some on our side like Mike Pence who I could see doing similar if the rolls were reversed.  

This would be even funnier if it wasn't highlighting on the floor of the House the total disregard by the Republican leadership for the truth about a replacement bill.  Integrity seem to be missing from a lot of people on both sides of the aisle in Congress today which many of us are finding despicable and frankly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind for members of Congress.  How did we get such unethical people elected that used to be honest before they started making their millions while members of Congress?  Doesn't anyone question where all that money comes from when some could barely rub two cents together when elected?  It is both sides of the aisle who are for sale to the highest bidder not just one side.  Maybe the calls for anyone tainted by the Abramoff scandal to resign should have been heeded.  There is an Ethics Committee in the House that has trouble actually going after members for being corrupt no matter who is in charge.  

In a conversation this week with other Republicans, we all came to the same conclusion that the honest members of Congress are vastly outnumbered by those in the hip pocket of lobbyists and big donors on both sides.  I got in a disagreement with someone earlier this year who said 'kick them all out and start over' because I have two honest Senators.  He was right for the most part and I told him so yesterday.  When you have a candidate running who has numerous offshore accounts along with many other wealthy people who cost the US Treasury a $100,000,000,000 (yes it is $100B in lost tax revenue a year) with their offshore accounts, it makes you wonder where are the ethical people in this Country?  It doesn't look to be in politics.

On the radio on the way back from Denver on Monday, heard someone suggest that a new bill be put into law that NO former members of Congress can be a lobbyist -- make them go HOME when their time is up.  That may be the best recommendation for a new law I have heard in years.  I would also extend it to the high ranking military and civil service who retire and go to work for major defense contractors who then lobby members of Congress.  

Then there was the guy who said that he was never for term limits for Congress but has changed his mind since so many members of Congress consider it a permanent job today.  Dr. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said when he was elected to the US Senate, he would voluntarily only serve two terms.  Wish we had more Dr. Coburns and less Harry Reid's or Orrin Hatch's who have been there way too long. 

Have a great day and my sympathies go out if you are in a battleground state and are getting bombarded with ads from both candidates.  Might make some people decide to get a DVR, record their shows, and watch later with NO commercials.  This could be a boon for the makers of the DVR which is optional with cable and satellite.  I would highly recommend you get one until after the election if you like to watch TV.

Robert Reich: The Truth About Obama's Tax Proposal (and the Lies the Regressives Are Telling About It)

Over the years I have not always agreed with Robert Reich but one thing I will say on his behalf is that he is not afraid to go after members of both parties.  When a Democrat steps out of bounds, he pounces on them the same as Republicans.  Didn't know who he was until Monicagate and then we all learned how honest he was.

When I read this, a lot of what I have been questioning began to make sense.  My comprehension level is pretty high but what the Romney Republicans were against the Obama Tax Proposal, it set off the BS meter.  Then it clicked.  We have been fed a narrative on Obama that the leaders of the Romney Republican Party wanted us to believe in order to vote for Romney over Obama.  Note that I said vote for not 'support' Romney.  This is not even close to being about voting for Romney but ousting Obama.  That is not how you win elections and is flat out stupid.  Many Republicans warned the RNC and other leaders in 2008 that it would be the last election they would vote for a candidate they didn't like.  Now that same leadership thinks those people are now going to vote for Romney in 2012 because they believe they have sufficiently demonized Obama?  My bet is that it is not going to happen.

When you take off the blinders you realize this is an honest proposal and the comments coming out of Romney Republican leaders that this will be a huge tax hike on small business is a LIE!  The only small business owners affected earn over $250,000 a year and anything over the $250,000 will be taxed at the Clinton tax level which Romney praised yesterday.  That amounts to 3.3% of small business owners a far cry from most small business will get a tax hike being touted by the Romney Republicans.  BTW someone forgot to tell him that Clinton raised taxes not lowered them.  Obama has signed laws that lowered taxes and fees 17 times during his Presidency.  You don't hear that out of the Romney Republicans that accuse him of being the biggest liberal tax and spend President ever.  It is simply not true.  When Obama has a plan to cut Government, the Republican House tosses it out right away.

President Reagan worked with then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill from MA to get bills passed that would help all Americans not just the wealthy.  Reagan was about helping those who needed help not some fat cat Wall Street types who could care less about anything but their bottom line and how much richer they can become who Romney favors who seem to all be wealthy white guys like the Koch Brothers.

It seems that the bought and paid for Romney along with some Republicans who are speaking out are more worried about the rich getting a tax hike when the vast majority of jobs are created by small business not the wealthy who for the most part have sent jobs overseas including Romney when he was head of Bain.   Guess he is now using the Democrat tactic of accusing your opponent of what you are doing even if it is not true.

When Rick Santorum said that Romney was the worst person in America to be the Republican nominee, he wasn't kidding.  He was 100% correct.  Everyday you understand even more how right he was.

The Truth About Obama's Tax Proposal (and the Lies the Regressives Are Telling About It)

Robert Reich 

Posted: 07/10/2012 11:19 am 

To hear the media report it, President Obama is proposing a tax increase on wealthy Americans. That's misleading at best. He's proposing that everyone receive a continuation of the Bush tax cuts on the first $250,000 of their incomes. Any dollars they earn in excess of $250,000 will be taxed at the old Clinton-era rates. 

Get it? Everyone is treated exactly the same. Everyone gets a one-year extension of the Bush tax cut on the first $250,000 of income. No "class warfare." 

Yet regressive Republicans want Americans to believe differently. The editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal say the president wants to extend the Bush tax cuts only "for some taxpayers." They urge House Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for "everyone" and thereby put Senate Democrats on the spot by "forcing them to choose between extending rates for everyone and accepting Mr. Obama's tax increase." 

Pure demagoguery. 

Regressives also want Americans to think the president's proposal would hurt "tens of thousands of job-creating businesses," as the Journal puts it. 

More baloney. 

A small business owner earning $251,000 would pay the Bush rate on the first $250,000 and the old Clinton rate on just $1,000. 

Congress's Joint Tax Committee estimates that in 2013 about 940,000 taxpayers would have enough business income to break through the $250,000 ceiling -- and, again, they'd pay additional taxes only on dollars earned above $250,000.  

All told, less than 3 percent of small business owners would even reach the $250,000 threshold. 

A third lie is Obama's proposal will "increase uncertainly and further retard investment and job creation," as the Journal puts it. 

Don't believe it. 

The real reason businesses aren't creating more jobs is American consumers -- whose purchases constitute 70 percent of U.S. economic activity -- don't have the money to buy more, and they can no longer borrow as before. Businesses won't invest and hire without consumers. Even as executive pay keeps rising, the median wage keeps dropping -- largely because businesses keep whacking payrolls. 

The only people who'd have to pay substantially more taxes under Obama's proposal are those earning far in excess of $250,000 -- and they aren't small businesses. They're the fattest of corpulent felines. Their spending will not be affected if their official tax rate rises from the Bush 35 percent to the Bill Clinton 39.6 percent. 

In fact, most of these people's income is unearned -- capital gains and dividends that are now taxed at only 15 percent. If the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, the capital gains rate would return to the same 20 percent it was under Bill Clinton (the Affordable Care Act would add a 3.8 percent surcharge).

Funny, I don't remember the economy suffering under Bill Clinton's taxes. I was in Clinton's cabinet, so perhaps my memory is self-serving. But I seem to recall that the economy generated 22 million net new jobs during those years, unemployment fell dramatically, almost everyone's income grew, poverty dropped, and the economy soared. In fact, it was the strongest and best economy we've had in anyone's memory. 

In sum: Don't fall for these big lies -- Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cut "only for some people," small businesses will be badly hit, businesses won't hire because of uncertainty this proposal would create, or the Clinton-era tax levels crippled the economy, 

A ton of corporate and billionaire money is behind these lies and others like them, as well as formidable mouthpieces of the regressive right such as Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal editorial page. 

The truth is already a casualty of this election year. That's why it's so important for you to spread it. 

ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

Republican Candidate Mitt Romney to Fundraise in London during the Olympics

Olympic athletes have been training years to take center stage in London for the Olympics.  That same Olympics where politics is checked at the door for two weeks or so I thought.  I was wrong -- the anointed one of the Republican wealthy donors, Mitt Romney, has decided to fundraise in London during the Olympics. Must admit the words I would like to use are not words I would put on a website.

This is beyond tacky but is also an affront to the Olympic movement which is about the athletes not some politician who wants to raise money on the backs of the athletes by taking advantage of the Olympics to fundraise for his campaign.  Already thought he was an arrogant jerk who is all about himself -- this shows that to be true.  Have never been so sick and tired of a candidate and his campaign as I am with Romney.

Didn't help with all the campaign commercials for Romney in Colorado when I was there for over a week returning last night.  The number was way over the top funded by the Americans for Prosperity (Koch Brothers) and frankly in poor taste.  Colorado has had the worst wildfires in their history and then the storms brought flooding along with some mud/rock slides where the mountainsides have lost their vegetation due to the fires.  Who wants to watch the same negative Romney ad which seems to be the only thing he can do?  Rain was coming down in torrents at my daughter's with flooding on the street almost up to my bumper and the ad before the news was the negative Romney ad that had been running all day. Must admit I thought the Obama ads were much better but maybe it was because there were less.  At least not all his ads were negative like Romney's.  I am so happy that I do not live in a Battleground state.  If I NEVER see another Romney ad, it will be too soon.

How did Romney take over the Republican Party which seems to be a hostile takeover from people I have talked with who are furious at the powers at be in the GOP and especially Karl Rove who is rumored to be the mastermind?  This is the perfect example of why Romney should never have been the nominee.  The people from Great Britain and the Olympic Committee are not going to be happy that he is now fundraising during the Olympics and bringing politics right into the Olympics.

Read his list of people hosting this and ask yourself why is anyone supporting Romney?  If I hear one more Republican tell me that he is better than Obama, then they are refusing to see just how bad a President he would be as he was so secretive as the MA Governor shutting himself off from the legislature.  Do they honestly think that he would be different and that anyone but the Mormon Church and huge donors could control him?  Not happening -- he is bought and paid for by the Mormon Church and the huge donors who are going to want payback.  Look what happened when Obama went after Wall Street bigwigs -- they turned on him and went to the vulture capitalist Romney.

The people who are turning into pretzels to support Romney must be cringing about now when they find this out and look at the sponsors.

Romney to fundraise in London during Olympics 

By EMILY SCHULTHEIS |
7/10/12 9:53 PM EDT 

Via the Boston Globe, Mitt Romney will take advantage of his time across the pond for the Olympics with a pair of London fundraisers:

On the eve of the Olympic Games, Mitt Romney is planning two separate fundraising events in central London hosted by a variety of banking industry officials, according to copies of the invitations obtained by the Globe. 

The events involve a reception – at a cost of $2,500 per person – and a high-dollar “private dinner with Governor Mitt Romney” that will cost from $25,000 to $75,000 per person. Both events will be held at a location in “central London” that has not yet been named. 

The Globe reported last week that Bob Diamond, who resigned as chief executive of Barclays bank, was no longer co-hosting one of the fundraisers. 

But still among those hosting the events is Patrick Durkin, a registered lobbyist for Barclays, which has been at the heart of a rate-fixing scandal. Durkin, who has been a top Romney bundler, is one of seven chairs for the reception and among the 13 co-chairs for the dinner.  (my bold)

Others involved in hosting the events are Dwight Poler, managing director at the European branch of Bain Capital, the firm Romney founded; Raj Bhattacharyya, managing director at Deutsche Bank; and Dan Bricken, a managing director at Wells Fargo Securities. 

Among the others involved are Woody Johnson, the owner of the New York Jets; Eric Varvel, the chief executive officer of Bank of Credit Suisse; and Gregg Lemkau, who is the Goldman Sachs head of mergers and acquisitions for Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia-Pacific.

Source:  Politico 

Happy 4th of July

This will be my last post for the next week as it is family time all next week in Denver to celebrate the 4th of July.  Wanted to leave you with this song by Aaron Tippin, Where the Stars and Stripes and the Eagle Flies, which is one of my favorites.

Have a wonderful 4th of July and remember what a great country we live in that you are able to go out and make dumb statements as part of freedom of speech and people like me can call the statements dumb, stupid, inappropriate, biased, etc.  No one Party has all the answers and in the end it is more important to understand we are all Americans who come from different backgrounds and origins with different ideas.  


In our family we have ancestors who were here before the Revolutionary War in Virginia, ones who came here in the early 1800's from Great Britain, then in the late 1800's/early 1900's through Ellis Island from Italy and France and have a grandson whose great grandparents came Mexico on his Mom's side.  People all over this great Country can trace their roots all over the world.  We truly are the melting pot of the World and need to realize that we all contribute to making this a great County and no one group has all the answers.    


The ability to work together is what makes us great and why it is so important that office holders at all levels start realizing that we become stronger when we work as one instead of being the party of the 'my way or no way crowd' which we see more and more.  No one Party has all the good or bad ideas or are going to win on every issue.  I would say both sides when they lose in Congress or at the Supreme Court are the worst examples of sportsmanship I have ever seen.  What happened to the days when they fought like cats and dogs and went out to dinner together.  That was the Party of Reagan on our side and the Tip O'Neill's, David Boren's, and Sam Nunn's on the Democrat side.  Now we have the Party of 'my way or no way' on both sides.  


The oaths of office talk about America and our Constitution not a political party.  Both sides need to start putting America and all its people first ahead of Party or ideology -- we as citizens need to make sure they represent all of us or defeat them in the next election.  


Presidential Oath:

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Congressional Oath:


The current oath was enacted in 1884:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Supreme Court:

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

This 4th of July is a great time to celebrate our heritage that allows us to live in the greatest Country in the World -- The United States of America!  God Bless and have a fantastic 4th of July as we celebrate the birthday of our great Nation.

Daring to Defer -- Chief Justice Roberts Showed the World Why He was an Excellent Choice

UPDATE 7:10 p.m., 29 June:  Today showed how out of touch the Republican right has become with their lies and now their attacks on the Chief Justice.  I thought Rubio was brighter then what we saw today out of him in his efforts to elect Romney who is the Father of Romneycare.  The CBO has come out with the facts that do not match the rhetoric from the right.  I honestly thought Republicans were more honest then what I saw with their rhetoric today.  Romney lied about people losing their insurance which is different even from what Cantor said.  Romney lied all day about healthcare according to even some Republicans and by the CBO.  It is disgusting.  The GOP has no replacement alternatives only about repealing.  The people who believe the rhetoric of the Republicans today, need to check the facts.

*******

Yesterday showed how fortunate we are that President Bush named John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  Among all the ranting and raving plus two cable news networks blowing the decision by not reading the ruling, the Chief Justice made the right decision to make the individual mandate a tax not part of the commerce clause.  The ruling also "curtailed the power of the federal government to bludgeon states into accepting a costly expansion of Medicaid" which you did not hear out of the mouths of conservatives yesterday.  


Romney saying he would repeal Obamacare on his first day in office came off as the biggest hypocrite in the Country when his bill Romneycare was the basis for the individual mandate in Obamacare and according to the Florida AG Pam Bondi, he planned to mandate Romneycare in every state.  But there he was yesterday saying he was going to repeal Obamacare on his first day in office.  Someone needs to tell Romney as President you have no power to repeal a law.  This is not an Executive Order which is very hard to repeal but is bill that became law and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.  When he said repeal and replace, all I could hear in my mind was he wants him name with Romneycare on the bill instead of the word "Obama" so he can take credit.


Don't like the rhetoric from either side about how the Court rules for Conservatives or Liberals when it rules on the law.  Some rulings that I haven't liked, I discover later on that the ruling followed the law and the original bill was badly written like in Campaign Finance Reform.  


Some of the remarks from conservatives were so far over the top that I couldn't believe what I was hearing like it was the worst day since 9/11, Fox News and CNBC say it is going to ruin the economy but the stock market didn't agree, and then we have Romney going out saying it was going to add $1.75 trillion to the deficit when the CBO said it is not even close.  That is just a few snapshots in some of the most over the top rhetoric ever.  This coming from the same party who in the early 90's wanted a universal healthcare bill with individual mandates -- short memories on the part of Republicans.  


This article about the Chief Justice is the very reason I have such tremendous respect for John Roberts that he doesn't rule on ideology but on the Constitution which showed when he took the individual mandate from the commerce clause and said it was a tax.  It is a tax with no enforcement.  Wonder what some Republicans are thinking today that rushed out to the microphones to demand repeal without reading the ruling?  The words they used were over the top.  If the opinion would have been reversed, you would have seen the same type words out of Democrats castigating the court for being too conservative and bowing to the big donors of the Republican Party.

We have too many members of Congress who have been there for way too long and some new ones who forget their represent America first and Party second.  We have been watching the Senate work more across the aisle in the last few months to get good bills passed.  Isn't it time that the House did the same and answered to their constituents not the special interest groups who are demanding they vote a certain way or they will defeat them.

We have a group of members in the House from both sides who are more interested in running out to the microphones at every opportunity instead of actually working for all of us which is the job they are sent there to do.  Their job is  not to work for the NRA, the Koch Brothers, anti-illegal immigration lobby, Chamber of Commerce, Unions, Soros, etc. -- their job is to work for what is best for all the American people and stop this 'my way or no way' that has become a trademark of the far left and the far right.  What about the rest of  Americans who feel disenfranchised by both political parties and their leadership?  Don't we count?

UPI Photo/Roger L. Wollenberg

Umpiring: John Roberts

Daring to Defer 

For Chief Justice John Roberts, embracing judicial modesty means finding limits in everything—including the role of the Supreme Court. 

By James Oliphant Updated: June 29, 2012 | 9:34 a.m.
June 29, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. 

At the dawn of the week, liberal critics of John Roberts’s Supreme Court had the knives at the ready. In their minds, a twofer—the Court upholding Arizona’s punishing immigration law and striking down some or all of President Obama’s health care overhaul—would confirm what many have grown to suspect: The justices are hopelessly, and predictably, fractured along partisan lines, with the Court now just another divided institution in an era replete with them. 

But you make assumptions about the high court at your peril. The justices largely invalidated the Arizona law, and Roberts himself saved the health care law, breaking from his conservative brethren in unprecedented fashion to join with the Court’s liberal wing to preserve the bulk of the Affordable Care Act. 

In doing so, the chief justice may have demonstrated that he is the jurist that his many admirers thought he was in 2005, when President Bush nominated him. Remember that bit during his confirmation hearing about judicial modesty, about how a justice should be “an umpire”? Those words seemed to ring hollow in the wake of decisions such as Citizens United. Now, Roberts seems to have applied them in two disparate instances, surely disappointing legal conservatives who believed that their movement had gained unstoppable momentum, but reminding observers that most cases at the corner of First and Maryland are decided between the margins, not in them. 

You can sense Roberts’s deft efforts throughout the health care opinion to find a result consistent with his conservative principles, one that mollifies the law’s detractors and its supporters. Both sides ended up with something. The opinion struck down the individual mandate under the commerce clause, but upheld it under Congress’s power to tax. (Woe to news organizations such as CNN that went live after reading just the first few pages of the 190-page-plus ruling.) The Court also curtailed the power of the federal government to bludgeon states into accepting a costly expansion of Medicaid. 

Embracing judicial modesty means finding limits in everything. In that regard, Roberts’s majority opinion goes out of its way to assert that, yes, there is a point at which Congress cannot regulate the everyday actions of Americans, reproaching that body in a manner that likely hasn’t been done since the days of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Moreover, as Roberts points out in the decision, Congress’s power to tax comes with inherent limits; the government can’t use it to compel behavior (such as purchasing health insurance), but instead only to sanction.
For a jurist such as Roberts, however, just as important is identifying the limits on the Court itself as a functioning branch of government. 

Roberts is committed to the notion that courts shouldn’t overturn the actions of democratically elected legislatures. Indeed, doing so is the kind of “judicial activism” that conservatives have historically deplored. The inestimable Linda Greenhouse, the longtime New York Times Court correspondent, predicted the result in the health care case, pointing to language that Roberts wrote in a dissent to the Court’s holding earlier this week that states can’t hand out life sentences to juveniles without a chance of parole. Courts, Roberts wrote, “must presume an Act of Congress is constitutional”—and he noted that a “heavy burden” exists for “those who would attack the judgment of the representatives of the people.” 

“He really does believe that if there’s a possible way to read a statute to preserve its constitutionality, the Court should find a way to do it,” says Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. 

As a longtime Washington litigator and a former U.S. deputy solicitor general, Roberts is a full-fledged member of the establishment, which makes him particularly ill-suited to lead a conservative insurgency. He works in subtler ways—but his familiarity with the levers of power means that he should never be underestimated. 

Even though many conservatives are bemoaning the health care ruling, Roberts’s ensuring that the individual mandate will now be rebranded as a tax not only hands the GOP some new ready-to-go talking points but it also means that voters can perhaps express their resistance with greater clarity at the ballot box, rather than at the courthouse steps. Remember, the Obama White House was never comfortable during the health care debate with labeling the requirement to purchase insurance as a tax because of the term’s negative implications. It’s a lousy sell. 

“As long as Congress can acknowledge something is a tax,” Adler says, “then we can let the political process work.” 

It will be tempting in the short term to look at the decision, see Roberts aligned with the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, and wonder whether the chief was briefly possessed by the spirit of a predecessor, Earl Warren. But Roberts knows what he’s doing. In a week when Justice Antonin Scalia’s screed from the bench about illegal immigration made the Court particularly susceptible to the charge that it has become an agenda-first body, Roberts’s move was a means to reassure an increasingly skeptical public that the justices really do try to solve problems in a principled way. He reasserted the importance of courts’ deferring to the will of legislatures, something that should resonate with conservatives, in particular. He helped set limits on the power of the commerce clause and Congress’s spending powers. And he ensured that if President Obama wants to rescue his health care law from the threat of repeal, he will have to defend it as a tax.\ 

All in all, not a bad day at the office. 

This article appeared in the Saturday, June 30, 2012 edition of National Journal.