GITMO, THE AMERICAN GULAG - DEVALUES U$ JUSTICE

 

By

Joseph Chez

 

February 15, 2013

Consider if you will what the consequences would be for the nation and to the rest of the world, if US currency would only have the assigned monetary value, only within its borders and only have value for American citizens? Certainly, such scenario would be inconceivable at best, because, such policy would make the American monetary system unworkable in a global symbiosis. Better yet, this make-believe portrayal could only be considered as appropriate by foolish individuals having a deficit-understanding of the profound consequences such policy would have, domestically or internationally, right?  Yet, that is exactly what the Bush Administration implemented immediately after the 9-11 terrorists attack on US soil.  However, the policy devaluation scheme was not done with the US dollar – it was done with the judicial system. 

The American judicial system, although not perfect, was designed to strive to reach the highest ideals and standards of the rule of law. In theory, as originally envisioned, the American judicial system was to become a beacon to the world and guarantor of civil liberties to all its citizens, or anyone within its jurisdiction.  Therefore, just like the American dollar, if the American people expect its currency to have the full faith and credit of their government, at home or internationally, in-like circumstances, such premise must also apply to its judicial system. 

However, the question must be asked, why did the United States of America decided to house presumed culprits of 9-11 outside its borders and to this day, has kept them imprisoned at a concentration detention camp at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base – in Cuba?

 After 9-11, the national discussion turned - not on self-reflection, why it happened or what we as a nation did to deserve it?  Instead, President Bush, standing on the rubble of the twin towers, took to the bullhorn and promised - not that the perpetrators would be brought to justice, but that justice would come to them.  Semantics aside, it is clear that the Bush Administration desired affect was to punish the presumed perpetrators, but not render justice under a US court of law.

 In fact, at the height of the aftermath of 9-11, the collective anger focused on profiling the would-be culprits, namely Muslims – from anywhere. This is because US intelligence did not have a clue as to which group or country was the source of the malevolent act against the US.  Thus, it is noteworthy to remind ourselves that we “shocked and awed” the world on March 19, 2003 when the US attacked Iraq, a nation that had no connection in the 9-11 attack. And yet, the mastermind of 9-11, Osama Bin Laden, finally took credit for the attack in 2004.  But, never mind the small details; the US Government under the Bush Administration dredged the Middle East with a wide net and captured hundreds of suspected terrorists.  And just as the facts for justifying a war against Iraq were sketchy, so was the basis on which the US Government rounded off suspected terrorists.   In most cases, suspects were turned in by anonymous individuals who were paid a handsome dollar amount for deliverance of would-be terrorist.  In more regrettable cases, names of presumed terrorist were expunged from captured individuals, while under the extreme duress of torture. No need to mention rendition…!

The rule of law notwithstanding, the Bush Administration based its approach to the 9-11 pay-back by establishing The War on Terror: wanted, capture them and hang them. Never mind the legal system or international norms, when the country was in a hanging mood and was even receptive to eroding Constitutional protections for its own citizens.   Accordingly, the Bush administration came up with extra-judicial measures to simply avoid the reach of US law. Thus, in order to circumvent jurisdiction of US courts, the Bush Administration framed the argument that captured terrorists did not deserve due process under US law as that should only apply to US citizens. 

 Originally, captured 9-11 suspects were housed at various countries (CIA black sites) for reasons of enhanced interrogations – until, there was international condemnation which questioned the legality of such detention methods. In response the Bush Administration opened a detention camp at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (GITMO) in Cuba, to house the 9-11 presumed guilty. Why Guantanamo? Simply, because the Bush Administration and the conservative wing of the country clamored that US law was meant for American citizens only.  However, they assumed right, that if detainees were to be brought to the mainland, US courts’ jurisdiction would unquestionably apply. There was also the fear that if tried under the full protection of the law, perhaps, the evidence for detention would be so sketchy – that they would be set free.

 Further framing the argument that 9-11 detainees were not privileged to be tried under US courts, the Bush Administration held that these individuals were simply not covered under the Geneva Convention rules of war because they were terrorists and not soldiers of any recognized country or government.  The Bush Administration thus labeled the detainees, “enemy combatants” in reference to being considered unlawful combatants.

At first, detainees at GITMO were imprisoned incommunicado, held without charge, tried or convicted.  That’s because the Bush Administration was not interested in providing due process.  Instead, the neo-con cadre at the White House asserted that the courts did not have jurisdiction over the detainees.  Moreover, the country was in no mood to recite Miranda Rights in a time of war.  Soon however, few brave progressives began to stick out their necks to defend human rights and the rule of law.  It was obvious to many liberals, that civil liberties were taking a hit under the Patriot Act, conveniently veiled as part of national security.  But, as court challenges reached the Supreme Court, in Rasul v. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court held that indeed, US courts did have jurisdiction over 9-11 detainees.  Still, the Bush Administration agreed to provide a semblance of judicial process; however, it would not be under a civilian court of law or have the legal mechanisms necessary to successfully challenge their detention.  This gave way for the creation of “Combatant Status Review Tribunals, a sort of administrative hearings conducted under the Pentagon’s military judicial umbrella.  However, the “hubris” after 9-11 was so extreme, that Congress conceded to every assertion from the Bush Administration, so in 2005, legislation, the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) was passed and it stripped US courts from any statutory jurisdiction over detainee legal challenges.  Further, it limited the appeals process, and allowed for the formation of a quasi-legal system under military commissions.  In essence, this allowed the Bush Administration to deny Guantanamo detainees the full protection of US law.

In 2006, when the US Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld attempted to re-impose jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions, Congress once again put in place further restrictions for detainees by enacting the Military Commissions Act of 2006, thus amending its previous Detainee Act and giving the Bush Administration further latitude in the formation of military commissions.  The new legislation also limited detainees from having access to federal courts. In sum, the Bush Administration succeeded in minimizing the value or jurisdiction of American jurisprudence over anyone suspected being a terrorist, but more specifically, for those already under detention at GITMO.

It is noteworthy to mention that in 2008, the Supreme Court finally held in Boumedene v. Bush, that “alien enemy combatants” and Guantanamo detainees did have a constitutional right to a habeas petition from a federal court.  And yet, very few detainees at Guantanamo have been tried to this day – for fear that whether under a military commission or under the scrutiny of a civilian court, few would be found guilty.

As the American public became war-weary and hostile against government privacy intrusion, coupled with international skepticism of US moral direction, it was clear the nation needed change.  Consequently, Sen. Barack Obama became president in January 20, 2009 as he promised to restore the moral compass of the country, reset foreign policy, end the Iraq war, and close Guantanamo Bay detention camp, inter alia. 

Today, detainees are no longer mentioned by the label, “enemy combatant” and torture is not the official modus operandi.  However, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp remains open and continues to house yet-to-be-tried alleged terrorist.  In fact, much of the Bush Administration’s War on Terror infrastructure remains in place.  Some methodology or labeling may have changed but in reality, any meaningful change is de minimis.  Regrettably, the standards of minimizing due process for detainees are status quo ante (same as before).

Therefore, denying due process under US law for anyone simply because the person is a suspected terrorist, not a US citizen or is held in detention offshore – is simply irrational, but may also discredit our judicial system and profoundly devalue what makes the US the great democracy it purports to be.  And just like we guarantee the value of the US dollar, with the full faith and credit of the nation, so too, must we guarantee justice for all who may be under US jurisdiction, in the same breath and essence under the rule of law.

In closing, I submit to you that regardless if the Republican held House is perceived as obstructing the closing of GITMO, or blocking detainee trials in US courts, President Barack Obama can no longer defend the indefensible; he is the Commander-in-Chief and he can and must do the right thing; by closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and allow those held in the American gulag to be tried in a court of law.  We must not forget that injustice to one is injustice for all.  So Mr. President, your word is the value of your legacy, and how we judge others, is the value of the country.  

Last thing, the premise of my argument in no way supports what 9-11 culprits did, but instead, I want to highlight the concerns of many, that if we allow our Constitutional protections to be devalued – we may loose the unalienable rights which were constituted in the Declaration of Independence which underscores that all men are created equal.

March, 8, 2013
PS:  I originally published this article with the Daily Kos on March 1,2013. Previously however, I had contacted the White House to get information as to when President Obama was to close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay - but my inquiry was dismissed.

When I posted this article with the Daily Kos and on twitter, the article was  sent to the White House.
This week, the nation became aware of Bin Laden's son-in-law being under US custody  and not placed at Guantanamo but brought to the US mainland to be tried in a US court of law.  This is CHANGE and justifiable.

AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL NOT AS STRONG

American support not as strong as Israel wears on its lapel.

By

 

                                                                      Joseph Chez

December 5, 2012

If one could percolate all of the conflict in the Middle East, the 9-11 attack on US soil and civil liberties Americans have lost as a result of the fabricated #WarOnTerror , one could see at the bottom of the strainer, the remainder source of the world’s problems, including our own, and that is: our involvement as main arbitrator of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the blind support US gives Israel, and the footprint we have in every repressive regime or kingdom in that part of the world.  The facts notwithstanding, the recent vote at the United Nations favoring the Palestinians cause, truly places the US on the world stage, however, the king now stands naked before the eyes of the world – alone and isolated. So what will happen next to US and Israel?

On November 29, 2012 State Dept Sec. Hillary Clinton officially commented that the UN Vote was “unfortunate and counter-productive.” But just a day after, at a dinner in her honor, she was more sincere; she lambasted Israel for having been “insensitive” to the Palestinian needs – diplomatic language for being “treacherous.”  In the meantime, during the UN vote, it is said that at the Knesset, the Likud and nationalist leaders were somewhat put-off, and were even sarcastic at the UN vote they felt was meaningless.  

Thus, brushing off their shoulders for what had just happened, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu along with his closest political right wing supporter, Foreign Minister Abigdor Lieberman, announced Israel would began building new settlements outside the E1 area, i.e., building east of Jerusalem, in the area within West Bank proper.  Additionally, the Israeli government immediately issued a public briefing stating it would also be confiscating Palestinian funds from several sources.  These would be some of the several responses the Israeli government would do – and more.  Thus, one can just imagine what Israel was contemplating, after having come out unscathed from a barrage of rickety-rockets from Hamas and with full official support of the European Union and the United States of America, Netanyahu’s regime must have felt untouchable. Moreover, their “Iron dome” was almost impenetrable and this perhaps gave the Israeli government a sense of invincibility.

However, to the surprise of Israel, most of the European nations voted in support of the de facto state of Palestine, with the exception of the Czech Republic.  In fact, they even expected Germany to vote no, but instead, Germany abstained. Nonetheless, despite the overwhelming rebuke, Israel remains unrepentant and unapologetic.

The United States on the other hand, officially remains supportive of Israel’s approach to negotiated peace talks between the two parties.  However, the Obama Administration realizes that both Israel and the US are now lumped together as a team that is isolated from the rest of the diplomatic world.   But, unlike Israel, the US is realistic and recognizes the UN vote was a diplomatic disaster.

For Israel, its modus operandi will remain status quo ante (same as before).  But, is it wise for Israel to continue kicking the can down the road – as Likud party leaders refer to, of their policy of peace talks with the Palestinians?  Can their overconfident attitude and robust US endless supply of weaponry guarantee Israel’s peace and security? The answer is NO – as a great number of nations were so deliberate in their UN vote. Moreover, the dynamics in the area have changed and they do not favor Israel.  Also, keep in mind that Netanyahu’s hope for US president, Mitt Romney, lost – and Republicans, the staunch religious political support for Israel, also lost.  And of greatest concern to Israel, is that 70% of American Jews voted for President Obama and not for the Republican candidate who made Israel’s support the hallmark of his campaign.

So, what these facts in American politics say is that support for Israel may not be as prominent and solid as Israel wears on its lapel.  In fact, the American people may well be fickle, but, they can also be just as pragmatic. Thus, support for Israel can officially change if Israel were to remain obstinate.  Already, criticism of Israel is coming out of previously whispering conversations – the taboo no longer a social constraint.  

Therefore, the most obvious and reasonable  course of action for Israel is to stop the intransigency and undergo UN supervision of peace talks, with the end goal, of adhering to existing UN resolutions  which call for Israel to retreat back to 1967 borders.  Additionally, the US must step back and allow the UN to take the lead in peace negotiations, but it should also not stand in the way in any UN Security Council resolution favoring a Palestinian state, or condemning Israel if the case may arise. For as long as Israel understands that the US can or will use its veto power at the Security Council, Israel will have no incentive to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians or adhere to international law requirements.

Already, several European nations such as France and England, are recalling their ambassadors in Israel for consultations. In diplomatic gesture, it is a slap in the face for Israel, but also for its benefactor, the US.  Many other nations may also follow suit.  In sum, what we do will determine who we are and what we stand for.  Thus, in the face of international scorn we must not stand with the status quo.

 

United Nations approves Palestinian bid, a step before statehood

 

United Nations approves Palestinian request despite deliberate US/Israeli obstruction.

By

Joseph Chez

 

November 29, 2012

It is inconceivable that the role-model of democracy in today’s modern world, the United States of America, has systematically stood in the way of Palestinians creating their own recognized state under the United Nations Charter. Since 1948, when Israel declared itself a nation, the U.S. was first to give recognition to the Jewish state, followed by the Anglo mother-country, the United Kingdom, whose Parliamentary Balfour Declaration became the blueprint for a Jewish homeland,
but also made
it possible for the roots of today’s Palestinian/Israel world issue.

At the behest of the United Kingdom which then had control of much of Arabia, on November 29, 1947 the United Nations passed a resolution partitioning Palestine in what was envisioned to become two states living side by side: one; the state of Palestine; and two, a homeland for a Jewish state.  However, Arabs/Palestinians who lived in what was then known as Palestine in Trans-Jordan, were given no voice to object to Palestine being partitioned and a major portion of their land, be given to Jews – primarily emigrating from Europe. Thus began the conflict in which Palestinians began to fight the British and Jews, who they saw as occupiers.  However, the fractured nature of Arab clans and coupled with facing a heavy hand of a foreign army, Arab/Palestinians could not successfully fight the well-armed British and/or the zeal of Zionist emboldened to establish a Jewish state.  

 

On May 15, 1948, as the  British Mandate was about to end, Jewish settlers declared their independence from British rule and by de facto became a recognized nation, primarily by the say so of England  and its sibling, the United States of America.  Palestinians still living within the new Jewish state, fearing for their lives, fled the area. Thousands more who chose to remain were either killed by Jewish settlers or were forcibly expelled from their own homes and  property - becoming refugees in the thousands - in neighboring Arab lands.

 

However, it must be noted, that as a consequence of the British Balfour Declaration and subsequent UK sponsored United Nation’s partition resolution, Arab objection and conflict against a perceived intrusion of a Jewish state, has continued to this date.  Regrettably, even though the 1947 UN Partition Resolution was to create two states, only Israel has since acquired “state” status while the apportioned Palestinian lands became occupied by Israel. 

 

To this date, Palestinians living in what is quasi recognized Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza, have lived under occupation and in virtual life in prison. And yet, much to the displeasure of the community of nations, against the subjugation of Palestinians by the Jewish state, numerous UN resolutions have been passed requiring Israel to abide by International Law and to end the occupation – but to no avail. Israel has thumbed its nose at the numerous UN resolutions and has kept a tight grip on the freedoms of Palestinians. This situation of course could not have happened if it were not for Israel’s mighty American benefactor, whose veto power at the UN Security Council has systematically killed any chance of dispute against Israel.  Accordingly, since Palestine has never acquired state status, Palestinians have had no standing before the jurisdiction of the United Nations. In fact, it has been the diplomatic strategy of England, the United States of America and Israel, to keep Palestinians from acquiring any form of recognition from the United Nations. This is because if Palestine has no state status, it can not bring its grievances before the world body. Thus, Palestine as a stateless occupied land - will remain in limbo.

 

Increasingly however, nations of the world have begun to recognize the malevolent actions of the state of Israel, despite the relentless and successful campaign by the United States, England and Israel to discredit Palestinian grievances or, label any angry Palestinian reactions, as those of terrorist. So I am reminded of a recent CNN interview of an Israeli government functionary who was attempting to explain the terrorist acts of Hamas in Gaza, as a mutual threat to the freedoms of Israelis and Americans… For which the CNN reporter asked of the Israeli: “so what would you do, if you were under occupation?”

 

A greater question is what’s in it for the U.S. in giving cover for the misgivings and lawlessness of the state of Israel? Why stand in the way of Palestinians achieving statehood? The answer is simple but still, enigmatic. There are three ways in which to approach this question; religiously, politically or of economics:

 

As absurd as it is stupid, the US describes itself as a Judeo-Christian nation and thus, bound by such dogma, Christians have evangelized US foreign policy.  Yes, the Christian ethos is so strong in current politics that government cannot ignore the biblical damnation if it does not come to the aid of Israel. In fact, many American believers now describe themselves as Christian Zionists, committed to the security of Israel. (The siege of Jerusalem will also be against Judah …All who lift it will surely hurt themselves… Zechariah 12:1-14)

 

Politically, American Christians have become a feared block of voters which pick and choose politicians. The once comical “Jesus freaks” or “moral majority” are no longer the laughing block but instead, have permeated into every corner of public life. It is no wonder thus, that expressing allegiance to Christian values is the American litmus test. To this end, Christians demand a forceful presence in Congress, but also preach politicians for an unquestionable mighty arm force, for the greatness of the country and for the defense of Israel.  Additionally, Jewish Americans also have a dynamic influence in American politics.  So strong is their reach, that Congress dares not cross certain boundaries when it concerns Israel. AIPAC you may say - gives politicians life or oblivion.  In addition, Israel has played the religious angle to its favor.  We now know that AIPAC/Israel recruited GW Bush for president and delivered – if he were to only take out Saddam Hussein, a mortal enemy and imminent threat to Israel. More currently, AIPAC/Israel also lobbied for would be US President, Mitt Romney, if he were to also, attack Iran.  Interestingly, Mitt’s Mormonism had him rooted in biblical ties with Israel. So what happened with Barack Obama winning the presidency? He vowed to the same litany of, in defense of Israel.

 

Economically, the U.S. consumes one third of the world’s hydrocarbons even though it has one sixth the world’s population. Conveniently, the Middle East is awash in petroleum, thus giving the US a need for controlling interest of the oil spigot in the region. Presently, Saudi Arabia is considered the number one oil producing nation, and of course, the mighty one and only extracting oil company in Saudi Arabia is ARAMCO (ArabAmericanCompany).  However, through out the region there are also many other nations rich in oil in which the US has a footprint. Regrettably, many of the Middle Eastern nations have royal families or worse, dictatorial regimes which keep much of the oil profits but keep their population in check. To this end, the U.S. is in a tight spot and reverts to propping up those repressive regimes in order to keep the oil flowing – to the US. Needless to say, the region is imminently important to the economic well being of the nation.  But why watch Israel’s back? Geo-politically, Israel is positioned strategically in the region for the US to intervene in the event of oil disruption from competitor nations or would be aggressors.  Moreover, the US has the most influential industrial military complex, framed in such a way that it becomes a revolving door for massive weapons systems to be sold to the Pentagon, retiring generals becoming CEOs of military/aero space companies, generals becoming lobbyist in Congress, Congress buying more weapons systems, the Pentagon unnecessarily decommissioning weapons systems and then transferring those systems to Israel, and thus, resulting in Israel pressuring Congress for more military hardware aid.  Congress therefore, feels the heat from AIPAC/Israel and approves more weapons systems ordered by the US military complex. One might then ask, if the US Congress and the American military complex truly have the security interest of the country in mind, or if it is plain dollars and nonsense – in defense of Israel?  

 

Regardless, the US feels compelled to embrace the social, political, religious and military ties that bind the US with Israel. Israel on the other hand, fully understands this American weakness and exploits the American tightly-wound religious/political undergarment and does not miss the opportunity to squeeze the Americans where it hurts, at their option and at the appropriate time. 

 

Consequently, as the world becomes impatient with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, sectors within the community of nations want the United Nations to resolve the Palestinian/Israeli issue, although governments are keenly aware that the United States and England have a disproportionate influence in world affairs and within the UN, for which resolution after resolution against the occupying state of Israel, goes down to defeat.  Moreover, the United States of America has forcefully assumed the role of arbitrator concerning the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.  The Europeans on the other hand, have followed in such endeavor, but have demurred to the process as set by the United States and England.  Thus the question rises; why would Israel’s benefactor lead the discussion in arbitration in this critical matter and isn’t there a conflict of interest?

 

To avoid the conflict of interest perception, The United States and Israel have done the obvious, i.e. to propose a series of peace talks between the parties in order to achieve the goal of a two state solution – in theory. Accordingly, the US has sponsored a number of prominent peace talks in which the two parties are urged to resolve the issues and ultimately come up with a suitable and mutually peaceful two-state arrangement.  The folly of such conceptual trap however, is that Israel’s vision is to keep the land they have occupied, as they assert, that it is the promised land given by God to the Jews.  And by God, they aim to keep it that way.  Thus, the Camp David Accord of 1978, the Madrid Talks in 1991, the Oslo Accord in 1993, The Taba Agreement 1n 1995, the Wye River Memorandum in 1998, Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum of 1999, the Camp David Summit in 2000, and the most recent in 2003 being the Quartet of the UN, US, EU and Russia - promoting the Road Map for Peace talks – have all been framed to give the illusion of progress, although requiring the Palestinians to meet certain unattainable goals before Israel would agree to give up any occupied territory. Thus it was foreseeable that each and every agreement has failed as it was designed to do so.  Furthermore, the United States has consistently argued that it is not for the United Nations to resolve the issue but that the two parties must mutually agree to a resolution – which is the same recipe for failure.

In as much as the world has caught on to the Israeli/US deception, Palestinians have realized that peace negotiations with Israel is but a hoax and therefore, have decided to go the route of United Nations recognizing Palestine as a state.  However, the US and Israel continue to argue that the only way for a two state resolution, is not through the UN but to go back to the peace table and both parties reach agreement.  But, since the Palestinian Authority sees no viable peace alternative with Israel, on this date of November 29, 2012, Palestinians will have made their bid for elevated status before the United Nations General Assembly.  At the same time, Israel’s government has threatened to annex Samaria and Judea if Mahmoud Abbas makes the bid before the UN. Worse, the current Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman has also threatened to do away with any and all Palestinian government officials, as it has been the unofficial Israeli government policy to assassinate Palestinian leaders.

 Today, history is at a crossroads, but even in the last minutes of the Palestinian presentation before the United Nations, the United States, at the behest of Israel, continued to discourage Palestinians from having the United Nations intercede in the process of Palestine gaining recognition as a future state.

 Thus, this date of November 29, 2012, the United Nations with an overwhelming majority of 138 nations voting in favor of Palestinians, to 9 abstaining or against, voted to grant Palestine elevated status, a closer step before acquiring full nation status. And yet, the question remains why the United States of America, the role model it portrays to be, has chosen to side on the wrong side of history?

 

Republican Party's aims to privatize public services

October 31, 2012


Mitt Romney, the Sara Palins, conservative Republicans, Tea PartyNJs, and low information individuals would have you believe that a market-based government - better yet - a completely privatized society would make for a better world. Never mind, that in the preamble of the United States Constitution and within the core of the revered document, the intent of government as conceived by framers of the Constitution, government was to exist generally "to provide for the common defense .. and promote the general welfare." Therefore, the question must asked; why Republicans continue to promote a take over of a public government and institute in its place, a market\-based society in which government does not exist and a capitalist entity would entirely rule over the lives of the citizenry?  And what is it that these individuals do not understand about society in general, in which church, state and commerce are completely separate concepts, in spite of the intrinsic symbiosis?

Oh yes, the Whig Party in early American History was the party of the rich-land owners and powerful businessmen who favored a market-oriented economy and robust industrialization.  Sound familiar? Yes, it was the Whig/Republican Party, who then opposed Andrew Jackson's populous democracy which promoted for a more egalitarian society.  Today, the same bunch of con-artist continue with their malevolent drive to have a capitalist oligarchy rule over the masses.

In this 2012 presidential election,  Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate has called for the dismantling of FEMA - better yet, privatize it.  However, when asked today about his previous statements regarding FEMA, he gave no answers - but instead, kept bagging old-canned food from pantries of  Mormon families.

Super Storm #Sandy should give any one pause about considering privatizing the role of the federal government or give such responsibility to each of the 50 states. Remember, E Pluribus Unum is better than out of the many, we profit.

I urge you to vote for President Barack Obama - 2012!

Joseph Chez

DESPICABLE JOHN H. SUNUNU

                       

                                                  DESPICABLE JOHN H. SUNUNU

One of the hallmark traits of the Republican Party campaign for this 2012 presidential election has been its fervent animus and despicable campaign modus operandi.  Republican operatives are depicting President Obama as a socialist, communist, not a true American, or that his is a Muslim. However, one can argue that in political campaigns, it can get down and dirty. Besides, this type of crud campaign tactics is not new to American politics. But, is President Obama being portrayed differently? The a answer is yes.

Finding the most craven characterization of Republican dirty tactics truly does fail me, but, it is clear to me that President Obama is unfairly being thrashed not because of his politics but because of his perceived non-anglo profile.  During the primaries, outright racist placards were common amongst the Tea Party following. But still, today, coded words or phrases from the mouths of GOP operatives fill conservative radio talk shows as well as on TV.

What is not acceptable to me or to many other reasonable Americans, is the cowardly turn-a-blind-eye from the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney.  In fact, Mitt Romney himself through innuendo, has questioned the President's US citizenship, but denies that was his intention.  However, it appears that he gives consent for others to insight the animus malus from those prone to embrace racist and/or intolerant views.  One such Mitt Romney surrogate is former governor of New Hampshire and President Bush Sr. chief of staff, John Henry Sunnunu.

Republican, John H. Sunnunu, has recently been rabid in his rhetoric when attempting to portray President Barack Obama. But just recently, in reference to General Collin Powell's endorsement of the President, Sunnunu slithered into craven politics by suggesting the endorsement was because of race. 

Mitt Romney and John H. Sununu, your principles can only be described as DESPICABLE AND NOT WELCOMED.

Joseph Chez
Oct. 28, 2012

 

A Mormon GOP Candidate #MittRomney notwithstanding, the VP debate tonight is more about politics.

 

In the Vice Presidential candidate debate for this 2012 election, two catholic boys will be duking it out in the debate. And although, the politics will be about American issues, the essence behind each party's philosophy will be constructed through their religious values.  Interestingly, both VP candidates are Catholic, and yet, each represent the great divide within the Catholicism credo. VP Joe Biden of course, is the Liberal or progressive wing of the church, while Paul Ryan, the Republican, overtly pushes its conservative gospel. 

 

 

The Liberal/Progressive Catholics believe in freedom of conscience, thus, are pro-choice.  The Conservative Catholics, such as Paul Ryan, promote a conservative/evangelistic approach to family values, such as asserting to be anti-abortion.  Furthering the rift in the Catholic gospel, is that Liberal Democrats who choose to label themselves as Catholic, actively promote providing economic assistance and health care for the poor and the needy, while conservative Catholic Republicans, preach for a personal responsibility of meeting one's needs and strongly want government to impose regulations against women wanting to choose to abort. Furthermore, Conservative Catholics, who label themselves as Republicans, do so based on one issue; the issue of abortion. However, many go further, such as Paul Ryan, who object to government assistance to the poor.

 

Even within the church, bishops are countervailing the work of Catholic nuns who promote social justice - as well as freedom of conscience.

 

Thus, the question must be asked: Which group would Jesus support?

 

 

 

Official response to mitt Romney from big bird

Mr. Mitt Romney, 

My friends through out the nation, if not the world, have been in touch with me, asking me if I will be voting for you this coming 2012 presidential election. 

Let me say, that in this last presidential debate with you and president barack obama, you mentioned my name and that of pbs and that we would be on your chopping block if and when you were to win the election to become president of the united states of America.  Surprisingly, this topic was the only negative position you publicly took during the debate, because your other positions seemed calculated and were viewed as moderate.  In fact, all of your other positions were perceived as new and improved. This explains why president obama seemed to have been caught off-guard; from your willful deception.  

Furthermore, your party’s platform is very extreme and frankly, an affront to the well being of the nation, a real threat to the future of education and foremost in my book, your social values will take us back to the dark ages.   

However, I understand why pbs or myself are an imminent threat to the intellectual deficiency of your political following.  After all, pbs is known to explore the outer boundaries of knowledge and human experience, while your political party simply wallows in mythical political and religious lore. 

So yes, I believe that if you were to become president, you would defund PBS and specifically target my audience; the little American kids who have learned the alphabet from a fun and tolerant point of view.  On the other hand, your republican brethren will continue to increase funding for little hunters of America or American kids for the exploitation of fossil fuels. But what's troubling, is that your political brethren will also attempt to bring into the classroom, religious assertions which are in contradiction with today’s science and reason.

Accordingly, it is my position that you are not fit to be president of this great nation, but granted, you do have a keen sense of mutating your political credo.  Thus, may I suggest that you contact the center for disease control, as you would be a prime specimen in the study of pathogen mutation.   

In closing, I’d like to mention that your demeanor during the debate was certainly viewed as robust. In like circumstances, let me give you mine … this is for you mitt!

Yours tweety, 

Big bird

 

Cc: kids of America and president barack obama.

 

 

Mitt Romney, the Mormon Bain Capital front man - NEXUS

Mormon Church, Bain Capital or a multi-national corporation in disguised?

We are all familiar with the old adage of “follow the money”, right? Not with the Mormon Church or with Mitt Romney. In fact, the Mormon Church can be likened to a financial labyrinth that no one can ever find the exit.  One can argue that the Mormon Church is masquerading itself as a religious order, but in reality, it is a shadowy multi-national corporation worth in the tens of billions of dollars.  And someone wanting to unveil the mystery of the deep and clandestine financial empire of the church, a quantum mechanics scientist would be more likely to unravel the inside universe of subatomic particles. However, in the Mormon quantum business physics, if you scratch the surface, you will only find buckyballs within buckyballs – and endless shell companies where one will never see the business-God particle.

Today, the Mormon Church is knee-deep in cash and actively involved in real estate, securities, businesses, land holdings, publishing, TV, radio stations and countless other business enterprises, plus, subsidiaries within shadowy companies – all under a nut shell that no one can penetrate.  In fact, the Mormon Church conducts business world-wide, but is also the largest private land owner in the United States. Moreover, the Church has annual revenues in the billions of dollars, which derive from the steady contribution of church members, dividends, trust and of course, from investment income.  Fortune 500 pegs the wealth of the Mormon Church within ten points from the top 100 richest companies. However, how much wealth or income the church receives or has in acquisition, is truly an educated guess, as the Church has refused public review of its finances since 1959.

It’s a fact; the IRS does not have the wherewithal to delve into the business dealings of the Mormon Church as it is sanctioned pursuant to IRC Sec. 501(c)(3) giving Federal tax exemption to religious groups or non-profit organizations.  In addition, Church following is a behemoth curtain which would stand in the way of any government agency or any individuals wanting to peek. 

According to an ABC News report by Mark Mathews and Brian Ross, Mitt Romney, as a Mormon leader and head of the giant equity firm of Bain Capital, he “carved” his church a juicy slice of lucrative business deals, thus providing the church with millions of dollars worth of stock, stock, stock…!  Why the emphasis you may ask? Well, the concern of every American is with the higher tax bracket for the working poor as opposed to the very wealthy, especially those whose income derives from dividends or capital gains, such as with Mitt Romney, who end up paying less in taxes per capita – or nothing at all.

Stock contributions to LDS church, donations or tax scam?

However! Little known to the rest of the American public is, that contributing tithes to the Mormon Church by its members is not only a practice, it is a requirement  – preferably, in the form of stock. Why? Very well known to Church officials  is that stock donations provide for a more favorable tax treatment for the donor. Under IRS rules, an individual gifting stock to a tax-exempt organization or church will receive a tax deductable donation credit against the full value of the holding (value of stock), thereby also exempting the capital gain of the stock and the gain is also not taxed.  This greatly gives tax advantage to the donor but it also overwhelmingly helps the church by receiving capital gains which are untaxed. Therefore, having this latitude or IRS loophole, a fundamental question must be asked; why would the Mormon Church not be inclined to invest in businesses owned or controlled by the church, in which company owners or members of the same church, would be forced or urged to give contributions to the church in the form of stock – whereby, company stock and capital gains would go untaxed? The advantage to the church is that it gets more revenue.

Mitt Romney and Bain Capital - business prowess or church connections?

Candidate Mitt Romney has made it its hallmark that he is a successful businessman and that he understands and can fix the national economy.  He touts his credentials from his alleged start-up of his business and success of his venture and asset management company, Bain Capital. However, what is not widely known is that he was not instrumental in the start up of the company or perhaps the success of the businesses he claims to have managed or owned.  Instead, it is believed that men in black suits approached Mitt and was offered a leading position in a new business venture –where any and all decisions would be made by those men in black, driving cars with Utah license plates. He was not to know where the new venture capital came from or where it would ultimately end.  We do know of course, that by coincidence, his companies consistently contributed stock offerings to the Church of Latter Day Saints. We also now know, that he has untold holdings or cash stored in offshore accounts.

 Thus, the question remains as to whether many of his alleged assets and resources truly belong to Mitt Romney or owns them by proxy? That is still not clear and he is not talking.  In fact, now as the presumptive Republican nominee, he does not give interviews to the press freely and refuses to answer to questions about his business connections.  When he does appear on Fox News however, candidate Mitt Romney is cuddled with softball and leading questions, which only amount to lighting up the mythical little shinny city on the hill.  And yet, the unknown about Mitt Romney’s finances and connection to the Mormon Church agenda remains elusive.  

In sum, what is troubling about Mitt Romney and the connection with the Mormon Church is that he is known as changing his stripes as with the wind changing direction.  The American public does not know if Mitt Romney controls Mitt or if he would be a president that would be manipulated by extreme interest, either in Wall Street, Salt Lake City or from the Knesset in Israel.  The stakes are too high and the gamble too risky if Mitt Romney was to be elected.

This much we do know; he would provide for more loopholes to Wall Street, help the  very rich, he would arm the military to the teeth and place missile systems umbrellas through out, but, he would also cut much needed social programs.  In fact, he has made a promise that he would make the US military force so powerful, that no one would dare challenge.  Which coincidentally, the Mormon Church evangelical agenda is one which will make it the most prominent religion in the world.  So just imagine, if Mitt Romney was to become President, is in collusion with church agenda, and is given the reigns of US military power, would he not place the country into an apocalyptic course? 

Keep in mind, that Mitt Romney has also resurrected the cold-war with the Soviet Union, a system of government which no longer exist, but has also marked Red China as our mortal enemy.  So, what are we to expect from a man whose stripes can change as the wind blows.  Would he work for Wall Street, Zionism or would he legitimize the Mormon Church as the most powerful religion in the world – in which no one would dared question?  

NOSIS: Donald Trump, the consummate opportunist now BIRT...

NOSIS: Donald Trump, the consummate opportunist now BIRT...: By Joseph Chez April 27, 2011 Donald Trump is increasingly becoming unbearably repugnant. Regrettably, the Trump crest was known for el...

Mitt Romney, A Trojan Horse of the Nephite Clan

MITT ROMNEY,

The Trojan Horse

Of the Mormon Nephite Clan.

May 17, 2012

By

Joseph Chez

 Should a Mormon be elected to the Presidency of the United States of America, or of any other religion for that matter? What about a religious Trojan horse?

 In this country, the practice of religion or the absence of its practice, is constitutionally    

protected. Accordingly, politicians seeking public office should not be vetted for practicing religion or the absence of religion in their personal lives. And yet, the country describes itself as one nation under God. Further, a great majority of the population believes that this nation is inherently a Judeo-Christian nation and nothing else. And for many evangelicals in the South, Mormonism is considered a cult rather than a legit Christian church. 

However, increasingly, the nation judges any would-be politician by its Christian credentials, but unduly disqualifies any politician at the least indication of belonging to a church outside the perimeter of the Judeo-Christian norm.  Let’s say, Islam, non-believers or, Mormonism?

 The 2012’s presidential race now has two viable presidential candidates; one, the incumbent President Barack Obama, who is not well liked by conservative Christians because of his questionable Christian ties – but perhaps more, because of the color of his skin; and the other, Mitt Romney, a white individual described as severely conservative and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints – a Mormon.

Separation of church and state:

Thus, the question remains, as to whether religion should be a valid credential for eligibility for public office?  Should it matter? I argue, not really, however ... Religion should not have anything to do with matters of the state. And in fact, we should all be in defense of separation of Church and State. Why you may ask? Perhaps framers of our Constitution knew history, by which it teaches us that religion will encroach into matters of the state and eventually will decimate the powers of the state. A prime example was the Roman Empire, as was in the past.  Presently, we are reminded of Iran or Israel whereby extreme messianic precepts rule over a conventional society.

However, while I strongly believe in the separation of church and state, or the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, it is imperative that the nation must have consideration of the religious values of any would-be candidate for public office. It is important that we not disqualify anyone for membership of a specific religion, but that we do consider whether a politician’s religious values will permeate into public office – and thus, affect the greater society.  We should not elect a president who may believe an ethnic group is less than human or less than other ethnic groups. We should not elect a politician who may believe that women must remain under raps of a veil or burka. We should not elect a president whose religious creed does not accept natural diversity in matters of human condition, such as sexual orientation or equality in same-sex marriage.  We should not elect a president, who may believe that according to his/her religion, that Jewish people are God’s chosen people, and that for such reason, we must put all of country’s resources at their disposal.  And we must not elect a president who believes in a modern day crusade of spreading sanctimonious values around the world under the veil of democracy, religion or the mighty dollar.  In sum, we must be careful that public servants not weave the teachings of their religious credo with directives of public office interest.  

Bible vs. Book of Mormon:

So what about Mitt Romney, member of the Mormon Church, or LDS? To this date, Mitt Romney has publicly stated that his religion should not be an issue or that his religion will not dictate his decisions as a public servant. Okay, but what about the nature of Mitt Romney’s religion? Is it a cult or religion? I would argue that a cult which is defined by its unorthodox or extreme practice, as opposed to conventional religion, which may have a more subdued practice, is well, a matter of perception.  I have read the Bible, the Koran, and the Talmud and these books of folklore, are more legend than fact. More bluntly, these teachings are as anachronistic as petroglyphs writings in a cave.  The Book of Mormon on the other hand, is clearly more recent revelations of fantasy and representation of haunting religious experiences in the heartland of North America, by a crazed polygamist named Joseph Smith.

But, within the context of reality and why the precepts of Mitt Romney’s religion should be a fundamental consideration in electing or repudiating the candidate, let me say that the Church of the Latter Day Saints is enshroud with prejudice, deception and conspiracy.  

For your consideration, LDS teachings:

Thus, be thy witness that Joseph Smith, founder of the LDS, personally saw the son of God at the shores of the Mississippi river while he was cleansing the mud off his feet in the murky waters of the river.  As time lapsed, a lizard, or perhaps a salamander, named moroni, transformed into an angel and gave Joseph the spirit of God’s prophecy written in golden plates. And as Mormons, followers of Joseph Smith traversed the prairie of North America; they crossed into another man’s country, Mexico, and called it their promised land.  Now established in Zion, known to all as Utah, Mormon brethren continued with the practice of polygamy – having as many wives as men would wish for. But did women have any choice in the matter? Apparently, it was written that they must obey the laws and ordinances of their gospel.

Joseph, now himself a prophet, provided the translation of the golden plates, the Holy Scripture parable to the Christian Bible. Thus according to LDS scripture, Mormons were Nephites, descendants from the First American named Lehi, who left Israel 600 B.C. for America. Regrettably, Lehi’s children split into 2 warring peoples; one, a kind-hearted and white-skinned, called Nephites. The other, were the Laminites, who were brown-skinned and marauding in nature. Kinda like cowboys, Indians and manifest destiny. Truly, Mormonism embodies the culmination of manifest destiny and ultra-nationalism. 

• “By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from what Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land America is a promised land into them.” (Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith, pg 17)

Thus, whereas color of skin determined familial lineage and degree of goodness of heart, LDS members were not allowed to intermarry. Black people until recent times were not allowed as members of the church. However, even though today, the church officially does not sanction racial prejudice, its teachings cannot escape its inherent inference of distinction amongst peoples.

Philo-Semetic or a Judeophilia Trojan horse doctrine?

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints see themselves as direct descendants from the house of Israel, primarily from the Menashe and Ephraim tribe and by all aspects, inherently in line to inherit the lands of Israel.  The Church core teachings allege that their forefathers came to “America” from the lands of Israel and were the “First Americans.” At the same time, Mormons also enshrine in their gospel, the return of Jews back to Israel – in preparation for the second coming.

The Mormon Church also asserts, that as early as 1841, ten years after the official establishment of the Church, Joseph Smith sent Orson Hyde, an elder of the church as emissary to what is now Israel, and that he proclaimed then, that the “time was near when he will bring them upon their own land which he gave their fathers by covenant.”  Thus the church takes credit in the inception and ultimate formation of the State of Israel in 1948. Accordingly, the Mormon Church has a sharp affinity to the Jewish culture, interest and respect for the Jewish people and no less, they see themselves as pivotal in the current affairs of the State of Israel.

Today’s Mormon following is perceived as staunchly supportive of the State of Israel and yet, paradoxically, the Church is actively involved in affairs contradicting the interest of the State of Israel.  The controversy is that while officially, the church gives all its support for Israel’s domestic and foreign policy, Mormon Church officials covertly have been financing Arab groups in the US and in the Arab world. No less, LDS Church officials serve as advisors to the PLO Representatives at the United Nations – in consternation of Jewish groups such as the Anti-Defamation League or the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee.  Even some Israeli officials believe that the Church is out to discredit Israel.  For many Orthodox Jews living in Israel, Mormons are seen as a direct threat to their religion and the future of the Jewish state. Why the concern? It is not a secret at the Vatican or in Salt Lake City, that there is a wide-held belief that Jews were cursed because they rejected the gospel of Jesus and pointed the finger at him for crucifixion.

No less, what also feeds concern for Jews in the United States and Israel is the relentless religious fervor for which Mormons are known for; they have a mission, and that is to convert everyone – including all Jews wherever they are. 

• Once chief theologian and apostle for the Mormon Church, Bruce R. McConkie preached in reference to Jews, that “so it will be… until they repent and come into him – and only then - when they believe in the book of Mormon and turn to Joseph Smith.”
• LA Times article Feb 2012 resurrected the controversy of the Mormon Church practice of baptism by proxy and post-mortem by which it has been Mormon Church practice to baptize all Jews and others who are not Mormon, either in absentia or post-mortem. Some of the most baptized have been Jewish Holocaust victims or survivors, President Obama’s mother, and even the late Adolf Hitler.

More to the Jewish consternation is that the Mormons have arrived in Israel – perhaps to stay.  Already, there is a Brigham Young University Center in Jerusalem, but a temple is in the works.  The Mormon Temple to be built will be one which will rival the Temple of King David. 

 The Mormon Church’s reflection on the destruction of Jews for not becoming Mormons: “just retribution” (for the Jews and) “the true Jews (Mormons) will build the promised temple whose functions and uses will be patterned after the house of the lord in Salt Lake City.” (Bruce R. McConkie)

• In the Mormon Missionary manual, it states that “the greatest success will be to reform Jews and the religious inactive.”

To this day, Jews as well as other established religious orders within Israel, have a precarious relationship with their new neighbors – the Mormons.  And yet, the State of Israel has embraced the support it gets from the Mormon Church and the Republican Candidate Mitt Romney.  Unlikely allies no less, but the need is symbiotic.

Republican Mitt Romney, now the presumptive nominee of his party, has staunchly proclaimed blind allegiance towards the defense of Israel in a recent appearance before AIPAC, but also publicly stated in the media. In fact, he makes no bones, that if he were to become President of the United States, he would attack Iran’s nuclear capability or at least, help Israel accomplish such mission. An unimaginable thought that has the potential of unleashing apocalyptic consequences for the Middle East as well as in the heartland of the United States of America.

Adding to the concern, is that Prime Minister of Israel, who has recently solidified his coalition within the Knesset, may now find the support within his government and would-be US republican President, Mitt Romney, to continue Israel’s preoccupation with the destruction of any would-be enemy in the region. Already, Israel continues to be criticized by the world body for its state-sponsored assassinations, rendition, illegal Palestinian occupation and administrative detention of any would-be critic of Israel. The tangent of all this, is that Benjamin Netanyahu, PM for the State of Israel, and Mitt Romney, presumptive republican nominee, are rather closed friends – since they both worked closed together in Wall Street. Which by the way, connects this thesis of Mormon malevolence with a financial empire of the LDS Church enshroud with secrecy and deception.

Mormon Church, Bain Capital or a multi-national corporation in disguised?

We are all familiar with the old adage of “follow the money”, right? Not with the Mormon Church or with Mitt Romney. In fact, the Mormon Church can be likened to a financial labyrinth that no one can ever find the exit.  One could argue that the Mormon Church is masquerading itself as a religious order, but in reality, it is a shadowy multi-national corporation worth in the tens of billions of dollars.  And someone wanting to unveil the mystery of the deep and clandestine financial empire of the church, a quantum mechanics scientist would be more likely to unravel the inside universe of subatomic particles- which as of yet, it has not been done.  In the Mormon quantum business column, if you scratch the surface, you will only find buckyballs within buckyballs – and endless shell companies where one will never see the business God particle.

Today, the Mormon Church is knee-deep in cash and actively involved in real estate, securities, businesses, land holdings, publishing, TV, radio stations and countless other business enterprises, plus, subsidiaries within shadowy companies – all under a nut shell that you cannot penetrate.  In fact, the Mormon Church conducts business world-wide, but is also the largest private land owner in the United States. Moreover, the Church has annual revenues in the billions of dollars, which derive from the steady contribution of church members, dividends, trust and of course, from investment income.  Fortune 500 pegs the wealth of the Mormon Church within ten points from the top 100 richest companies. However, how much wealth or income the church receives or has in acquisition, is truly an educated guess, as the Church has refused public review of its finances since 1959.

It’s a fact; the IRS does not have the wherewithal to delve into the business dealings of the Mormon Church as it is sanctioned pursuant to IRC Sec. 501(c)(3) giving Federal tax exemption to religious groups or non-profit organizations.  In addition, Church following is a behemoth curtain which would stand in the way of any government agency or any individuals wanting to peek. 

According to an ABC News report by Mark Mathews and Brian Ross, Mitt Romney, as a Mormon leader and head of the giant equity firm of Bain Capital, he “carved” his church a juicy slice of lucrative business deals, thus providing the church with millions of dollars worth of stock, stock, stock…!  Why the emphasis you may ask? Well, the concern of every American is with the overtaxed bracket for the working poor as opposed to the very wealthy, especially those whose income derives from dividends or capital gains, such as with Mitt Romney, who end up paying less in taxes per capita – or nothing at all.

Stock contributions to LDS church, donations or tax scam?

However! Little known to the rest of the American public, is that gifting or contributing to the Mormon Church by its members, it is a huge practice of making donations – preferably, in the form of stock. Why? Very well known to Church officials and church members is that stock donations provide for a more favorable tax treatment for the donor. Under IRS rules, an individual gifting stock to a tax-exempt organization or church will receive a tax deductable donation credit against the full value of the holding (value of stock), thereby also exempting the capital gain of the stock and the gain is also not taxed.  This greatly gives tax advantage to the donor but it also overwhelmingly helps the church by receiving capital gains which are untaxed. Therefore, having this latitude or IRS loophole, a fundamental question must be asked; why would the Mormon Church not be inclined to invest in businesses owned or controlled by the church, in which company owners or members of the same church, would be forced or urged to give contributions to the church in the form of stock – whereby, company stock and capital gains would go untaxed? The advantage to the church is that it gets more revenue.

Mitt Romney and Bain Capital - business prowess or church connections?

Candidate Mitt Romney has made it its hallmark that he is a successful businessman and that he understands and can fix the national economy.  He touts his credentials from his alleged start-up of his business and success of his venture and asset management company, Bain Capital. However, what is not widely known is that he was not instrumental in the start up of the company or perhaps the success of the businesses he claims to have managed or owned.  Instead, it is believed that men in black suits first approached Mitt and was offered a leading position in a new business venture –where any and all decisions would be made by those men in black driving cars with Utah license plates. He was not to know where the new venture capital came from and where it would ultimately end.  We do know of course, that by coincidence, his companies consistently contributed stock offerings to the Church of Latter Day Saints. We also now know, that he has untold holdings or cash stored in offshore accounts.

Thus, the question remains as to whether many of his alleged assets and resources truly belong to Mitt Romney or owns them by proxy? That is still not clear and he is not talking.  In fact, now as the presumptive Republican nominee, he does not give interviews to the press freely and refuses to answer to questions about his business connections.  When he does appear on Fox News however, candidate Mitt Romney is cuddled with softball and leading questions, which only amount to lighting up the mythical little shinny city on the hill.  And yet, the unknown about Mitt Romney’s finances and connection to the Mormon Church agenda remains elusive.  

In sum, what is troubling about Mitt Romney and the connection with the Mormon Church is that he is known as changing his stripes as with the wind changing direction.  The American public does not know if Mitt Romney controls Mitt or if he would be a president that would be manipulated by extreme interest, either in Wall Street, Salt Lake City or from the Knesset in Israel.  The stakes are too high and the gamble too risky if Mitt Romney was to be elected.

This much we do know; he would provide for more loopholes to Wall Street, help the  very rich, he would arm the military to the teeth and place missile systems umbrellas through out, but would also cut into much needed social program.  In fact, he has made a promise that he would make the US military force so powerful, that no one would dare challenge.  Which coincidentally, the Mormon Church evangelical agenda is one which will make it the most prominent religion in the world.  So just imagine, if Mitt Romney was to become President, is in collusion with church agenda, and is given the reigns of US military power, would he not place the country into an apocalyptic course? 

Keep in mind, that Mitt Romney has also resurrected the cold-war with the Soviet Union, a system of government which no longer exist, but has also marked Red China as our mortal enemy.  So, what are we to expect from a man whose stripes can change as the wind blows.  Would he work for Wall Street, Zionism or would he legitimize the Mormon Church as the most powerful religion in the world – in which no one would dared question?  

Beware the ides of religious fervor and Mitt Romney – the Lehi prophet of the Nephite clan.