stats for wordpress
<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>
 







Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!


On Our Radar – The Romney Millions And The Damage They Have Done

Post image for On Our Radar – The Romney Millions And The Damage They Have Done

by Jean Ann Esselink on August 26, 2012

in Discrimination,Jean Ann Esselink,News

The Republican National Convention was supposed to begin tomorrow, but it looks like Hurricane Isaac has made other plans. And while we’re on the subject of natural disasters, I’d like to suggest to Pat Robertson, Bryan Fischer, and all the religious soothsayers who regularly pronounce everything from spree killings to avian flu as God’s judgment on gays, that I will be expecting them to make a similar announcement blaming Christian Conservatives for the storm. This will be the second Republican Convention in a row to be menaced by a hurricane. It sure appears God is making it clear for whom she would vote – if only she had some state issued picture ID.

Of course I am not serious about politically attuned goddesses or pronouncements from the Teahadi crowd. But there was one particular self-serving promotion offered by Ann Romney this week that had me shouting at the TV. Mitt can call me “small-minded,” and tax-obsessed if he must, but I feel compelled to object to his wife’s characterization of their so-called generosity. Tithing to the Mormon Church is not a laudable deed for which Mitt and Ann Romney should be praised or admired. In fact, I think it should disqualify Governor Romney from holding national office.

This week Queen Ann shook her finger in our faces while she scolded us like naughty children for asking to see the royal taxes. If you saw her performance, there is a high probability it aroused in you a desire to chomp down on that wagging digit like you were channeling  the baby in Lemony Snicket’s. Ann let us know, by royal decree, that they will not be releasing any more tax forms so their enemies can use the information in it against them. Fair enough. But in the very next sentence she insisted we not only take her word they paid their fair share of taxes, but that we also credit them with giving ten percent of their income to the Mormon Church. I am more than happy to ascribe that contribution to them, but “credit” is not a word I would attach to such a gift. I’d go with “blame.”

For years, Mitt and Ann Romney have contributed ten percent of their mega-earnings to the Mormon Church. The Church then used their contributions to defend DOMA and offer gay reparative therapy, and fund Prop 8.  They may want to call it “charity” but Mitt and Ann hurt people; specifically, they hurt gay people. It is important that they not be allowed to hide behind some altruistic notion of the phrase “tithed to my church” like the donation itself is a good thing, regardless of what pain their money caused.

Charitable donations are not the same as tax payments, which the government can use at its discretion. A taxpayer has no choice but to contribute to wars and executions even if he objects to them. But when you give to a Church or a charity, you decide what you want your money to be used for. Mitt and Ann did not choose to save the houses of foreclosed homeowners or provide state-of-the-art prosthetic limbs for wounded vets. Mitt and Ann gave willingly to an organization that has dedicated itself to keeping couples of the same sex from marrying, and denying children, like little Nolan and Ryanne and Jacob (image,right,) who will have their right to a two parent family decided by a judge this week, all the protections and benefits marriage bestows.

The Mormons have done a sprightly song and dance to obscure the amount and the sources of their Prop 8 funding. At one point they claimed no tithing money went to their Prop 8 campaign, only contributions they raised from individual donors. If that is true, then I’m even more curious to know if Mitt Romney was one of those donors, something his tax forms would tell us. But money is fungible. And the Mormons have not claimed that tithing money didn’t find its way into any of their other anti-gay efforts. The Romneys claiming they support the Mormon Church but not its campaign of discrimination, would be like a donor saying he contributed to the KKK’s choir robe fund, but the Klan promised him none of his money would go to buy rope.

I have yet to hear anyone in the news media ask the Romneys if they are bothered by how the Mormons used their money. If someone should dare, I hope they will not accept a generic “I’m for DOMA, one man, one woman.” as a response. Ask what threat a loving couple getting married in California was to their lives in Massachusetts. Pin them down as to why they gave the Mormon Church such staggering sums, knowing they would use it to hurt people who never hurt them. If Governor Romney’s answer is his faith demands it, ask him if as President he will continue to carry out the agenda of the Mormon Elders. Finally, please ask Governor Romney how he can possibly be president of ALL Americans when he actively funds the effort to discriminate against millions of them.

Today, the damage done by the Romney money, is On Our Radar.

 

tncrm Jean Ann Esselink is straight friend to the gay community. Proud and loud Liberal. Closet writer of political fiction. Black sheep agnostic Democrat from a conservative Catholic family. Living in Northern Oakland County Michigan with Puck the Wonder Beagle.

Follow me on Twitter as @Uncucumbered or friend me on Facebook.

Radar Image courtesy of freedigitalphotos.net

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 18 comments }

bsradar August 26, 2012 at 11:14 am

Shocking. Mitt Romney followed his religion.

This one's got legs.

uncucumbered August 26, 2012 at 1:29 pm

I think the damn comment forum must have cut you off. Happens all the time. I bet what you meant to say was – Shocking! Mitt Romney followed his religion… instead of using his judgement and hurt thousands of Americans. If you don't like "using his judgement" we could go with "following his conscience" or "showing his humanity" or "standing up against prejudice"… I could go on all day.

bsradar August 26, 2012 at 2:18 pm

But this doesn;t seem to work logically, uncut.

He in fact did follow his religion, by using his judgement, following his conscience, showing all his humanity, and standing up against prejudice,

He did all these things.

So I guess what you mean to suggest is that Romney was wrong because in all of these things he followed *his conscience, not yours.

I am afraid that, again, is not exactly front page news.

Scott_Rose August 26, 2012 at 2:40 pm

Are you a NOMzi shill?

bsradar August 26, 2012 at 2:47 pm

What's a NOMzi shill, Scott?

A slur against someone whose posts you don't like, but can't refute?

Scott_Rose August 26, 2012 at 12:01 pm

Recently, NOM admitted to guilt in 18 counts of California campaign finance law violations. One of the donations involved in that illegal activity was a secret $10,000 donation Romney made to NOM for Proposition 8, through an Alabama PAC.

uncucumbered August 26, 2012 at 1:32 pm

I found several instances of Romney money being used for anti-gay and anti-choice causes, but thought this initial piece should be "big picture". It is my hope others will flesh out the nuts and bolts of his contributions.

bsradar August 26, 2012 at 2:29 pm

I don't believe Mr. Romney was accused of any impropriety in the matter, Scott.

Do you have any evidence that he was?

As for NOM, they have paid a $49,000 fine to settle the matter, and continue to undergo the most…..ahem……exhaustive scrutiny of their fundraising and contributions

uncucumbered August 26, 2012 at 4:04 pm

My accusation was never than Mr. and Mrs. Romney did anything illegal. My charge is their contributions were immoral, and repugnant, as they made them knowing their money would be used to further discrimination. I don't appreciate you setting up a straw man to knock down. If you want to argue the morality of keeping kids like the ones in today's column without legal security, have at it, but don't announce the pain the Romneys have caused is legal like it is some kind of aha! moment.

bsradar August 26, 2012 at 5:45 pm

I understand you did not suggest any impropriety on the part of Mr. Romney, uncuc, though my question stands directed at Scott, who did.

I think your assertion that Mr. Romney did something morally repugnant and discriminatory in supporting the definition of marriage which has prevailed always and everywhere since the founding ofCalifornia Republic is hghly dubious, and in fact the majority of California voters disagreed with you, in the exercise of their constitutional rights.

Since the question was, explicitly, posed to Scott, your accusation of a straw man is refuted.

I certainly would support any and all laws which would require the placement of adoptive children in homes with a mother and a father.

The moment which seems to decidedly lack any aspect of "aha"", is the observation which is the subject of this nothing-burger essay, which informs us that Mr. Romney legally contributed to the defense of traditional marriage, a matter about which he has been quite plain in his campaign.

LOrion August 26, 2012 at 12:04 pm

SHARING, Jean Ann, Thanks.
Here are a few more ROMNEY tidbits from the twittersphere today.
#DROUGHT RedState Farmers begging for 99% to Bail them out! Why can't they do it on own? Like ROMNEY says they can?

MT @thinkprogress: Romney touts Romneycare: I got "health care for all in my state" http://t.co/D1wIE3Mx / BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!

RT @NancyPelosi:Romney-Ryan plan raises #healthcare costs for CURRENT 65yo Medicare recipient by $11,000 http://t.co/cO2y7eku

bsradar August 26, 2012 at 2:25 pm

Scott, try not to take yourself so seriously.

There are others in the world with views different than your own, and one of the interesting propositions of modern representative government is that all the different viewpoints ought to be heard.

Even the ones Scott Rose doesn't like.

hemlockroid August 26, 2012 at 7:57 pm

Again, a religious article avoids the topic of Mormons being inclusive of Islam and instructed not to 'take sides' in the Israeli/non-Israeli conflict. But Mitt's advocating for a Jewish state? Backing a bombing of Iran on behalf of a Jewish state? Hold Mitt accountable for something for Pete's sake. But its all, 'basic faith' now and the (domestic) human struggle and avoiding the Cat bulldozer camera shots invading homesteads when expanding CBS'/Rupert Murdoch's Jewish Ulster. Too bad because the topic needs ink considering FOX NEWS has stamped Mitt, good-as-Evangelical. It makes Salt Lake look like errand boys for Tel Aviv. Utah papers should be up in arms over mitt's advocacy for an Israel, instead everybody nods fearing their meal ticket might go up in smoke by asserting Mormon creed vs Mitt's foreign policy.And to have Mitt to the Right of Reagan and Thatcher on an israeli bombing of a foreign country, it doesn't fare well for Mitt winning. On yeah, and invade Syria. What a nut. Why Mitt went Heritage Foundation/Evangelical will cost him the election. THERE WAS NO NEED.

bsradar August 26, 2012 at 8:15 pm

Two of the greatest errors of the Republican Party are its supine submission to usury as a foundation of economics, and the truly breathtaking error (courtesy of Darby-innovated Evangelical theology) concerning the identity of the Israel of God.

Once upon a time there was a Democratic Party that viewed abortion as what it is- the most incomprehensibly vast mass slaughter of innocent human beings in human history- and also viewed marriage as what it is- the union of the two complementary genders of our species in long term stable unions from which childfren commonly result and within which they are best nurtured.

Of the two gravely evil Parties, the Republican is the lesser evil, at this time.

GaelicWench August 26, 2012 at 10:00 pm

I disagree re: the Repubs being the lesser evil. There are enough on the right who have said that they would keep the fetus from being aborted, even if it meant the life of the mother was in jeopardy.

Taking a life [the mother] to save another [the fetus] makes no sense in this case. I am against abortion for myself. I do believe, however, that it should be the choice of the woman and her partner – be it man or woman if it applies – to decide the outcome. Even for my daughter would I leave it up to HER to make whatever choice she felt was right for herself……

bsradar August 27, 2012 at 3:56 am

The grave flaw in your argument above is seen in a simple comparison of the number of abortions, versus the number of abortions performed to save the life of the mother.

The grotesque, morally disgraceful, unprecedented industrial mass slaughter of innocent human beings called "abortion", has nothing whatever to do with the vansihingly small percentage of instances where the life of the mother was truly at stake.

Tthese latter cases, technically, are not abortions at all, so long as the death of the child is not directly intended, but is instead the unavoidable outcome of attempts to save the mother.

Abortion is the slavery of our time, except that slavery is a mild offense compared to the truly statanic, truly unspeakable evil of abortion, the blackest and most inexpressibly evil instance of mass murder of innocent human beings in the history of the world.

Do you support abortion?

The slavemongers go into the kingdom of heaven before you.

Scott_Rose August 26, 2012 at 3:11 pm

Exactly how cowardly does a gay-bashing troll have to be, not to use their real name when commenting?

bsradar August 26, 2012 at 5:03 pm

I always attempt to register under my own name, Scott.

Your registration process will not allow me to do this.

As far as I can determine, Scott, none of the posters here use their own names, except for the actual staff members of the blog.

So, again, it seems you are hoist on your own petard here, in two ways:

1. Your own registration procedures deny new registrants the option to post under their own name, rendering your slander above a uniquely effective example of hypocrisy;

2. Your selective outrage renders it an effective example of a hatred for opposing viewpooints which carries more than just a tinge of the sociopathic.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post:

<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>