Who built what?

Who is responsible for success? If something is given, it can be taken away. James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal gives his $0.02. Read the original here.

You Didn't Sweat, He Did
Constructing a sentence is hard work when you're the World's Greatest Orator.
By JAMES TARANTO

Wall Street Journal

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that." If the World's Greatest Orator turns out to be a one-term president, it is likely to go down as the most memorable utterance of his career. Mitt Romney certainly hopes that happens. HotAir.com's Ed Morrissey has highlights of Mitt Romney's response, in a speech yesterday at Irwin, Pa.:

The idea to say that Steve Jobs didn't build Apple, that Henry Ford didn't build Ford Motor, that Papa John didn't build Papa John Pizza, that Ray Kroc didn't build McDonald's, that Bill Gates didn't build Microsoft, you go on the list, that Joe and his colleagues didn't build this enterprise, to say something like that is not just foolishness, it is insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America, and it's wrong.
And by the way, the president's logic doesn't just extend to the entrepreneurs that start a barber shop or a taxi operation or an oil field service business like this and a gas service business like this, it also extends to everybody in America that wants to lift themself [sic] up a little further, that goes back to school to get a degree and see if they can get a little better job, to somebody who wants to get some new skills and get a little higher income, to somebody who have, may have dropped out that decides to get back in school and go for it. . . . The president would say, well you didn't do that. You couldn't have gotten to school without the roads that government built for you. You couldn't have gone to school without teachers. So you didn't, you are not responsible for that success. President Obama attacks success and therefore under President Obama we have less success and I will change that.
I've got to be honest, I don't think anyone could have said what he said who had actually started a business or been in a business. And my own view is that what the President said was both startling and revealing. I find it extraordinary that a philosophy of that nature would be spoken by a president of the United States. It goes to something that I have spoken about from the beginning of the campaign. That this election is, to a great degree, about the soul of America. Do we believe in an America that is great because of government or do we believe in an America that is great because of free people allowed to pursue their dreams and build our future?

There's a website called didntbuildthat.com with a variety of hilarious treatments of the Obama philosophy. Of course, whoever's running the site didn't build that. As he acknowledges, Al Gore did. And hey, remember Julia, Barack Obama's composite girlfriend? At 42, she starts a Web business. Under President Obama, she didn't build that.

Obama may be God's gift to comedy, but Romney is right that the philosophical stakes here are serious. The president's remark was a direct attack on the principle of individual responsibility, the foundation of American freedom. If "you didn't build that," then you have no moral claim to it, and those with political power are morally justified in taking it away and using it to buy more political power. "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama said in another candid moment, in 2008.

This isn't even Obama's only such revelatory comment of the past week. Politico.com reports that the president, in an interview with WTOL-TV of Toledo, Ohio, let the mask slip again when asked about the ObamaCare mandate tax. "It's less a tax or a penalty than it is a principle--which is you can't be a freeloader on other folks when it comes to your health care, if you can afford it," he said.

Of course this is a dodge. The administration claimed that the mandate was not a tax for political purposes but was a tax for legal purposes. Chief Justice John Roberts tied himself in knots to accept the argument Obama is now running away from. Between them, the solicitor general and the chief justice look as if they were too clever by 1.

What's objectionable about Obama's comment, however, is not "tax" or "penalty" or even "principle." It's the way he uses the word "freeloader."

Normally we think of a freeloader as somebody who sponges off others, which in the context of public policy means the government. A freeloader is an able-bodied welfare recipient, or someone who fakes a disability to collect Supplemental Security income, or who waits until his unemployment runs out before looking for a job.

Now, think about how the ObamaCare mandate tax is structured. As Roberts noted in his opinion for the court in NFIB v. Sebelius, "It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. For taxpayers who do owe the payment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status."

The only people who pay the ObamaCare mandate tax are people who make a living. Actual freeloaders are exempt. What Obama calls a freeloader is someone who makes his own money and pays his taxes but does not spend his money in the government-approved way.

The Obama campaign hotly disputes Romney's contention that the president meant what he said. A "fact check" from the Obama-Biden "Truth Team" (formerly Attack Watch) claims that Romney "is taking President Obama's words out of context" to produce "a complete distortion." Here is the full context, as presented by the Truth Team:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

The Team then explains: "The President's full remarks show that the 'that' in 'you didn't build that' clearly refers to roads and bridges--public infrastructure we count on the government to build and maintain."

That's bunk, and not only because "business" is more proximate to the pronoun "that" and therefore its more likely antecedent. The Truth Team's interpretation is ungrammatical. "Roads and bridges" is plural; "that" is singular. If the Team is right about Obama's meaning, he shoudl have said, "You didn't build those."

Barack Obama is supposed to be the World's Greatest Orator, the smartest man in the world. Yet his campaign asks us to believe he is not even competent to construct a sentence.

Now, for something unexpected...

...if there was any question that Bill Clinton was not POTUS's biggest fan, this should settle it. Read the original here.


Bill Clinton Praises Romney's 'Sterling Business Career'
10:44 PM, MAY 31, 2012 

BY DANIEL HALPER
The Weekly Standard

In an interview on CNN this evening, former President Bill Clinton completely undermined President Obama's campaign strategy of attacking Mitt Romney and his record as a businessman. Clinton praised Romney's "sterling business career":

"So I don't think that we ought to get in the position where we say this is bad work, this is good work. I think, however, the real issue ought to be what has Governor Romney advocated in the campaign that he will do as president? What has President Obama done and what does he propose to do? How do these things stack up against each other, that's the most relevant thing. There's no question that in terms of getting up and going to the office, and you know, basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

I don't think this is going to help him...

in the Republican primaries....Read the original here.

Might As Well Have Obama Over Romney « CBS DC
March 22, 2012 10:37 PM
SAN ANTONIO (AP) — Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn’t the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy.

Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast.

“You win by giving people a choice,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. “You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there.”

Santorum added: “If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”

Santorum was referencing Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom’s comment Wednesday that “everything changes” for the fall campaign. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch,” he said on CNN. “You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.”

The remark reignited criticism of Romney as the type of politician who will say or do anything to win.

Romney, who made no public appearances Thursday, issued a statement expressing disappointment “that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican.”

“This election is more important than any one person. It is about the future of America,” he said. “Any of the Republicans running would be better than President Obama and his record of failure.”

Rival Newt Gingrich tweeted: “Rick Santorum is dead wrong. Any GOP nominee will be better than Obama.”

During his speech to employees of USAA, a San Antonio-based insurance and financial services firm, Santorum briefly held up an Etch A Sketch and said his positions don’t change like etchings on the toy, which are erased with a shake. He could be seen fiddling with the toy’s knobs in the intervals between questions from audience members.

Addressing reporters afterward, Santorum lit into Romney for saying “I’m going to run as a conservative.”

“He didn’t say ‘I am a conservative.’ He said ‘I’m going to run as a conservative.’ So what do you do, you just sort of decide what you’re going to be for the elections?” Santorum asked. “No one can accuse me of that. People say, ‘Well, you can’t win because of that.’ No, I will win because of it.”

Santorum said his brand of political authenticity will play well in Texas because “people are looking for someone who is real, someone they can relate to, not someone who can get in front of an audience and say whatever they want.”

The Texas primary has been pushed to May 29 because of litigation over redistricting maps drawn by the Republican-dominated state Legislature. Santorum said he expects to win Saturday’s primary in Louisiana and added, “The race will not be over when Texas comes around.”

“You’ll have the opportunity here, in the state of Texas, to speak very loudly about what kind of leader you want in this country,” he said.

Santorum said he speaks with Texas Gov. Rick Perry before scheduled campaign stops in the state. Perry sought the GOP nomination but left the race in January and endorsed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

“This is an important state for us,” Santorum said. “I’ve already spent a lot of time, I’ve already done a lot of campaign events in Texas. More than anybody else, I suspect.”

(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

How much did you give to charity?

Not sure how relevant it is...but it might go to character. But don't take it from me...that's the pot calling the kettle black. Read the original here.

Obama Gave 1% to Charity, Romney Gave 15%
AP File

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

Romney charitable contributions

Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income
2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73%
2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14%

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/01/24/whos-greedy-obama-gave-1-charity-romney-gave-15#ixzz1kThsCi7k

Who pays taxes?

You always wonder why rich people harp that taxes should be raised. Must be nice to afford lawyers who can give you tax avoidance, regardless of the rate. If they really wanted to put their money where their mouth is, cut a check. At least Ben Affleck was honest in why he didn't want to: "I'm not Jesus Christ of the tax code. I can't completely martyr myself." Now, if only they didn't expect everyone else to be. Read the original here at RWN.

Let’s Call It ‘The American Class Warfare Package’
Written By : Kathleen McKinley

So, Obama’s new plan is the old plan. He hasn’t changed his tune since he told Joe The Plumber that we need to “spread the wealth around.”

From the AP:

President Barack Obama called for $1.5 trillion in new taxes Monday, part of a total 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion.

Obama said, “It’s only right we ask everyone to pay their fair share,”

Really? Because 47% of Americans pay NO federal income tax and “the rich” (top 1%) pay about 40% of all income taxes into the federal government. So, who isn’t paying their fair share? To me a flat tax is the only way to go. Everyone should have “skin in the game,” as Obama likes to say, even if it’s a tiny bit. We all need to be a part of the solution to our fiscal mess. This would be the fair way. The rich would pay a great deal more, so the class warfare guys would be happy, and everyone would pay at least a little bit, which would be fair all around.

But Obama wants to make this about class warfare. He seems to be using the third richest man in the country to do it.

Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

You will be hearing the Buffett/Secretary line over and over. Trust me on that. But, as usual, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Greg Makiw, a professor of economics at Harvard, tells the rest of it:

You might wonder how Mr Buffett managed such a low tax rate. Most likely, it arose because corporate dividends and capital gains are taxed at only 15 percent. But the corporate income that funded those returns was already taxed at the corporate level, where the tax rate is 35 percent. Mr Buffett seems to be ignoring the first round of taxation. Is it possible that the world’s most successful has failed to pierce the corporate veil? (If you want to more reliable data on the progressivity of the tax code, see this old post for numbers from the CBO.)

Even more striking to me is a fact that Mr Buffett did not emphasize: how low his taxable income is. His income of $46 million represents a mere 0.1 percent of his reported net worth of over $50 billion. That is not an impressive rate of return!

Why is it so low? I can think of at least four possible ways investors like Mr Buffet can keep their taxable income, as opposed to their true income, low:
They hold stocks that pay minimal dividends.
They avoid realizing capital gains.
They hold some of their portfolios in tax-free municipal bonds.
They give appreciated assets to charity, getting a deduction for the current market value without ever having to realize and pay tax on the capital gain.
Notice that raising tax rates, as Mr Buffett seems to want to do, would not much affect any of these tax avoidance strategies. Even if tax rates were raised substantially, the tax savvy Mr Buffet probably wouldn’t be paying much in taxes as a proportion of his wealth or as a proportion of his true income.

And the last line is the kicker. Even hypocrites like Mr. Buffet use tax avoidance strategies. When Mr. Buffett writes a check for a few billion to the government out his $50 billion out of the goodness of his heart, instead of hiring lawyers to lower that bill, I can’t take him seriously.

The insane thing about all this is that at time we need jobs, all Obama is talking about is raising taxes.

Mitt Romney sent out this statement and it hits the nail on the head:

“President Obama’s plan to raise taxes will have a crushing impact on economic growth. Higher taxes mean fewer jobs – it’s that simple. This is yet another indication that President Obama has no clue how to bring our economy back. I encourage President Obama to look at my detailed economic plan to create long-term growth and prosperity for our nation. The only way to get our economy moving again is to elect a president who understands how to create jobs and rein in spending – that is why I am running.”

The very short...Bin Laden Bounce

Read the original here.

Obama Loses Bin Laden Bounce; Romney On The Move Among GOP Contenders

By Dan Balz[1] and Jon Cohen[2], Tuesday, June 7, 12:05 AM

The public opinion boost President Obama[3] received after the killing of Osama bin Laden has dissipated, and Americans’ disapproval of how he is handling the nation’s economy and the deficit has reached new highs, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey portrays a broadly pessimistic mood in the country this spring as higher gasoline prices, sliding home values and a disappointing employment picture[4] have raised fresh concerns about the pace of the economic recovery.

By 2 to 1, Americans say the country is pretty seriously on the wrong track, and nine in 10 continue to rate the economy in negative terms. Nearly six in 10 say the economy has not started to recover, regardless of what official statistics may say, and most of those who say it has improved rate the recovery as weak.

New Post-ABC numbers show Obama leading five of six potential Republican presidential rivals tested in the poll. But he is in a dead heat with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who formally announced his 2012 candidacy last week[5], making jobs and the economy the central issues in his campaign.

Among all Americans, Obama and Romney are knotted at 47 percent each, and among registered voters, the former governor is numerically ahead, 49 percent to 46 percent.

Overall, about six in 10 of those surveyed give Obama negative marks on the economy and the deficit. Significantly, nearly half strongly disapprove of his performance in these two crucial areas. Nearly two-thirds of political independents disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy, including — for the first time — a slim majority who do so strongly.

In another indicator of rapidly shifting views on economic issues, 45 percent trust congressional Republicans over the president when it comes to dealing with the economy, an 11-point improvement for the GOP since March. Still, nearly as many, 42 percent, side with Obama on this issue.

The president has sought to point to progress on the economy, particularly in the automobile industry, and to argue that the policies he put in place at the beginning of his term are working. But the combined effects of weak economic indicators and dissatisfaction among the public are adding to the political pressures on the White House as the president’s advisers look toward what could be a difficult 2012 reelection campaign.

Meanwhile, Romney emerges in the new survey as the strongest current or prospective Republican candidate in the 2012 presidential field. Although he is by no means in a secure spot, on virtually every measure, the former governor appears better positioned than any of his rivals.

In contrast, the poll brings more bad news for former Alaska governor Sarah Palin,whose bus tour along the East Coast last week[6] renewed speculation that she might join the race.

Almost two-thirds of all Americans say they “definitely would not” vote for Palin for president. She is predictably unpopular with Democrats and most independents, but the new survey underscores the hurdles she would face if she became a candidate: 42 percent of Republicans say they’ve ruled out supporting her candidacy.

More than six in 10 Americans say they do not consider Palin qualified to serve as president. That is a slightly better rating for the former governor than through most of last year, but is another indication of widespread public doubts about a possible presidential run.

The Post-ABC poll asked Republicans and GOP-leaning independents whom they would vote for if a primary or caucus were held now in their state. Romney topped the list, with 21 percent, followed by Palin at 17 percent. No one else reached double digits, although former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has suddenly shown interest in becoming a candidate, is close, at 8 percent. Without Palin in the race, Romney scores 25 percent, with all others in the single digits.

In another measure of the field, Republicans chose Romney as the only one of a dozen possible candidates they would “strongly consider” for the party’s nomination as opposed to stating that they definitely would not vote for him. He and Palin scored equal numbers of respondents who said they would strongly consider supporting them, but Palin has more than double the percentage who have ruled her out.

Other candidates fared poorly on this count, including former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.), whose campaign got off to a rocky start; Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), a libertarian who has a passionate following but many detractors; and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.), who announced his candidacy on Monday[7].

The Massachusetts health-care plan enacted under Romney remains a potentially serious problem in the former governor’s bid. By nearly 2 to 1, Republicans oppose the plan, with strong detractors far outnumbering solid supporters. But there is some potential for him to frame the matter: Almost four in 10 Republicans expressed no opinion about the state’s program.

Overall dissatisfaction with the GOP field remains high, with as many respondents saying they are unhappy with their choices as say they are satisfied. At this time four years ago, nearly seven in 10 Republicans said they were satisfied with their field of candidates.

In head-to-head matchups with Obama, Palin trails by 17 percentage points, the worst of the six possible candidates tested. The president leads Gingrich and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. by 10 points. He runs 11 points ahead of former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty and 13 points ahead of Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.).

Romney owes his relatively good standing against the president to support from independents. He and Obama garner roughly equal percentages from those in their own parties. But independents split for Romney 50 percent to 43 percent.

The president continues to receive positive marks as a strong leader, but the 55 percent rating marks a low point of his presidency. He gets mixed reviews on empathy and on sharing the same values as respondents.

The telephone poll was conducted June 2-5 among a random national sample of 1,002 adults. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Polling manager Peyton M. Craighill and polling analyst Scott Clement contributed to this report.

References
^ Dan Balz (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ Jon Cohen (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ President Obama (www.whorunsgov.com)
^ disappointing employment picture (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ formally announced his 2012 candidacy last week (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ whose bus tour along the East Coast last week (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ announced his candidacy on Monday (www.washingtonpost.com)

Obama administration shuts out media that allowed Romney Op-Ed

Not really sure what else to say...imagine if a Republican administration that shut out media that allowed a Democrat's op-ed? Read the original here.

White House Shuts Out Herald Scribe

The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney[1] op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news “fairly.”

“I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit.

» Joe Battenfeld: Obama off the deep end[2]

“My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page, which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting US President to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits,” Lehrich wrote.

But Lehrich said the Herald wasn’t purposefully barred from the press pool, saying local pool duty by the Boston Globe was arranged earlier with the White House Correspondents Association. And Lehrich insisted the Herald may yet be allowed into Obama events.

“As we have in the past — including the multiple occasions on which the Herald has supplied local pool reporters — we will continue to consider the Herald for local pool duty for future visits,” Lehrich wrote.

Obama is in town today to raise money for his 2012 re-election campaign. His afternoon speech in the South End’s Cyclorama is open to all media, but only a selected pool can attend other aspects of his fund-raiser. Pool reporters must share all their material with other press. The Herald has been bypassed for pool duty during Obama’s last two visits despite asking the White House to be the local pool reporter.

“Newspapers don’t have to be unbiased to get access. You can’t just let only the newspapers you want in,” said Boston University journalism professor Fred Bayles.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom defended Romney’s March 8 opinion piece:

“That op-ed was about jobs, which apparently is a sensitive subject for the thin-skinned people around the president. The White House may be able to manipulate pool coverage, but they can’t manipulate the fact that millions of Americans are out of work because of President Obama’s failure to create jobs and get our economy moving,” Fehrnstrom said in a statement yesterday.

The administration has a history of controversial clashes with the press.

The White House was seen to be at war with Fox News early in the administration, with its communications director calling Fox an “arm” of the Republican Party, while the president avoided Fox interviews until his health reform proposal ran into trouble. Since losing control of Congress, Obama has sat down with conservative Fox commentator Bill O’Reilly.

In April 2010, Bloomberg’s Ed Chen, president of the White House Correspondent’s Association, met with then-Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to hash out complaints about limitations on the press, saying, “In my 10-plus years at the White House, rarely have I sensed such a level of anger ... over White House practices and attitudes toward the press.”

Last month, a San Francisco Chronicle editor reported the White House threatened to bar Hearst reporters from pool duty after a Chronicle reporter shot video of protestors mocking Obama at a fund-raiser.

Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor who has followed White House-press relations at right-leaning Instapundit.com, said a pattern appears to be developing.

“It’s all about control,” Reynolds said. “At some point this will blow back on them. Most presidents behave in a more refined fashion. Experience has shown that acting presidential is good politics and to their advantage.”

References
^ Mitt Romney (www.bostonherald.com)
^ Joe Battenfeld: Obama off the deep end (www.bostonherald.com)

Hitch is again off his rocker

I'm generally a fan of Christopher Hitchens' writing. Even when he's writing about something that I stridently disagree with, he usually does so with intelligence, thoughtful purpose, and passion. Today's article published in Slate, however, has little of that. Mr. Hitchens questions why Mitt Romney shouldn't be asked about his faith and questions Gov. Romney's assertion that it is un-American to bring up faith as a qualification for the office of President.

The U.S. Constitution is very clear on the issue and answers both questions flawlessly: Article VI states that "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." That does include Mormonism, no matter how personally repugnant Mr. HItchens may consider its tenants or how fickle he considers their positions. He goes on to slander the religion by comparing it to the KKK and to the Nation of Islam, both groups which have religious identities but not religions in their own right.

What's particularly surprising about the issue is that Mr. Hitchens' own religious views as an atheist would be more objectionable to most voters that Gov. Romney's views as a Mormon. We live in a nation where voters would rather have a fundamentalist Muslim or a Mormon as President than an atheist. Instead of trying to stir up religious persecution of a minority group that he finds offensive, he should shut up so as not to stir up further persecution of individuals with whom he shares ideology.

Mitt the Mormon
Why Romney Needs To Talk About His Faith
Fighting Words for Slate

Mitt Romney appears to think that, in respect of the bizarre beliefs of his church, he has come up with a twofer response. Not only can he decline to answer questions about these beliefs, he can also reap additional benefit from complaining that people keep asking him about them. In a video response of revolting sanctimony and self-pity last week, he responded to some allegedly anti-Mormon "push pull" calls in Iowa and New Hampshire by saying that it was "un-American" to bring up his "faith," especially "at a time when we are preparing for Thanksgiving," whatever that had to do with it. Additional interest is lent to this evasive tactic by the very well-argued case, made by Mark Hemmingway in National Review Online, that it was actually the Romney campaign that had initiated the ant-Mormon push-poll calls in the first place! What's that? A threefer? Let me count the ways: You encourage the raising of an awkward question in such a way as to make it seem illegitimate. You then strike a hurt attitude and say that you are being persecuted for your faith. This, in turn, discourages other reporters from raising the question. Yes, that's a three card monte.

According to Byron York, who has been riding around with Romney for National Review, it's working, as well. Most journalists have tacitly agreed that it's off-limits to ask the former governor about the tenents of the Mormon cult. Nor do they get much luck if they do ask: When Rob Schieffer of Face the Nation inquired whether Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is or was or will be in the great state of Missouri, he was told by Romney to go ask the Mormons! However, we do have the governor in an off-guard moment in Iowa, saying that "The [Mormon] Church says that Christ appears and splits the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. ...And then, over a thousand years of the millennium, that the world is reigned in two places, Jerusalem and Missouri. ...The law will come from Missouri, and the other will be from Jerusalem."

It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to hear how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one.

Have to take issue...

Normally, I'm very much a fan of FactCheck.org, a private, non-partisan group which analyzes statements by politicians and determines their veracity. In a recent article on their site, they look at a Mitt Romney ad that talks about immigration. They take issue with two items. The first, their assertion that Gov. Romney's claims of ordering the State Police to enforce immigration laws is misleading, is fine. When Gov. Romney did order the State Police to work with the Federal government to enforce immigration laws, the order came very late in his tenure as Governor and was immediately rescinded by his successor. Their second claim, however, I take issue with.

Governor Romney claims that when he becomes President, he will deny funding to sanctuary cities. FactCheck.org takes issue with this because he did not do that as Governor and claims that this is somehow misleading. Frankly, this is an unfair statement on their part. Gov. Romney never made this statement in order to talk about what he's done in the past; only about what he intends to do in the future. He never gives the impression that he had done the same as governor of Massachusetts, nor that he feels that it is a Governor's responsibility to deny state funding to sanctuary cities; only that he feels it is the President's responsibility to deny federal funding to the same. These are definitely different issues and it is perfectly valid for someone to feel differently about the two different topics.

I'm not saying Gov. Romney isn't flipping on this issue. He very may well be doing so. However, to label it as misleading is unfair.

The real concern I have with Gov. Romney is that his views on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and immigration seem to have dramatically changed in the past two years. It makes it difficult for me to understand where he stands on these issues and where he'd stand if elected. Are the new views on abortion and gay rights just an act to get the nomination? Were his old views on immigration just an act to garner support in Massachusetts? I'm hoping that these were acts, but it's tough for me to think that he's just acting on abortion and gay rights to get a nomination now but has had a revelation about immigration and what he's saying is now what he believes.

Tough Guy on Immigration?
Romney puffs up his record.
FactCheck.org

Mitt Romney casts himself as tough on illegal immigration in a new add in which he says that, as Massachusetts governor, "I authorized the State Police to enforce immigration laws." He doesn't mention that his order never took effect. It came in the closing days of his administration and was rescinded by his successor, as we wrote back in August.

He also promises, "As president, I'll ... cut funding for sanctuary cities." Maybe so, but as governor he took no action against several such towns in his state.

We find Romney misleading on both counts.

"Comply! Or we will be forced to write you a very angry letter!"

Mitt Romney wrote, in the words of fictional "Hans Brix" from Team America, a very angry letter to the United Nations. The contents of which, basically, are vapid charges against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, by calling for the destruction of Israel, Ahmadinejad has committed crimes against humanity; namely, incitement of genocide.

Obviously, Ahmadinejad is a horrifying dictator bent on hegemony not only of the Middle East, but likely as the world as a whole. His government is clearly funding and training anti-American forces in Iraq and is working towards creating nuclear weapons. And, of course, there's that whole funding-of-Hezbollah thing. I tend not to be a fan of those funding attacks whose only purpose is the slaughter of as many innocent civilians as possible. Thus, my humor is not directed towards him.

It is, however, directed towards Gov. Romney because the entire idea of the letter is a joke. Of course, the United Nations is going to ignore it. Of course, Ahmadinejad is going to come to New York, call President Bush the Great Satan, then go have an anti-American tea in Caracas with Chavez. The letter is just simple posturing, trying to attract attention and bolster his credentials as a hawk in the face of new challenges from Fred Thompson.

I'm glad that the useless, worthless gesture for purely political reasons amounted to little more than writing a letter, making copies for the press, and calling a short press conference. it could be worse, though; he could have paralyzed Congress for months in order to make a statement about the war in Iraq.

Romney Calls on U.N. to Bar Iranian President
The New York Times - The Caucus blog

Mitt Romney, a Republican presidential candidate, is sending a letter to the United Nations Secretary General tomorrow, calling for him to bar Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from addressing the General Assembly next week and instead hand him an indictment under the Genocide Convention.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to give a speech at the 62nd annual meeting of the General Assembly, which begins Tuesday in New York. It will be his third visit to the United States, where he is expected to spend two days, before he departs for Venezuela to meet with President Hugo Chavez.

An array of Jewish leaders, political leaders and others, including John Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, gathered last year to call for the United Nations' International Court of Justice to indict Mr. Ahmadinejad for incitement of genocide. They base their argument on his calls for the destruction of Israel.

The specific statute the officials cite falls under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which includes under its list of prohibitions, incitement to commit genocide.

In President Bush's nationally televised speech last week on Iraq, he stressed the need to contain Iran as one of the reasons to continue a robust American presence in Iraq. In an interview about his views about Iraq last week, Mr. Romney also highlighted the influence of Iran in the region as a major source of concern.