Hatch: Obama camp will 'throw Mormon church' at Romney [opening Ldsism...not throwing tis enough]

Politico ^ | April 4, 2012 | David Catanese

[Colofornian]

FARMINGTON, Utah -- Sen. Orrin Hatch predicted President Obama's campaign team would use Mitt Romney's Mormon faith against him in the general election.

Speaking to a group of GOP delegates at a campaign stop Tuesday, the six-term Republican incumbent warned, "You watch, they're going to throw the Mormon church at him like you can't believe."

Asked to elaborate in an interview later, Hatch fingered campaign adviser David Axelrod and White House aide David Plouffe as the masterminds who would insert the issue into the campaign.

"Let me tell you something. The Obama people have some of the best political consultants in the country and they don't get there because they're always wonderful people. They're very tough. I have respect for them. They're very tough. I've met with Axelrod, he's the best there is in the business. Plouffe, you've got to say he's one of the best. And there is nothing they won't do," Hatch asserted.

Hatch went even as far to say he thought the duo had already played the religion card against the likely GOP nominee, but failed to point to any evidence of it.

On Monday, Romney was confronted by a Ron Paul supporter with a question about whether he agreed with a passage in the Book of Mormon that describes cursing African Americans. Clearly annoyed, Romney answered with a swift "no" and moved on.

SNIP

"You can find some pretty outlandish statements by some of our early leaders that we've all had to live with from time to time..." Hatch told the gathering of delegates in this town about 20 minutes north of Salt Lake City.

SNIP

[Colofornian]

Also, some of us seem to have a knack for compiling the evidence as to who and what Obama is in a manner which can be easily passed along.

By all means...shine any & all lights on the dark corners of Obama. I favor that. [Not enough Obama exposers as there is]

You see...tho...one of the reasons I choose other venues to convey content on Islam is because I don't see a lot of Muslims hangin' 'round FR. They just have ne'er been here in my yrs of posting.

All speakers know they need to customize their message to an audience.

So as you continue to convey stuff re: obama...who (on FR) are you trying to convince? We know conservative Lds hang around FR...some as FREEPERs; some as lurkers. There's also plenty of Romneybots on the loose on FR...including some "latter-primary day converts"...

Do you think there's potential Obama voters on FR who need to be convinced not to support zero? Who are you targeting with your posts?

[Colofornian]

Ask yourselves if you would rather have a Mormon or a Muslim as President of the United States. The rubber meets the road here.

You've got some bad assumptions here...

First of all...Obama had some Muslim primers as a kid...now prove (don't assume) that Obama is a Muslim.

I also have absolutely no doubt that Obama caters to Muslims. (Quite prove-able)...But do us a favor: Please prove Obama IS a Muslim. C'mon. Prove it. Don't just cast out gossip and make us conservatives look bad to the rest of the world -- that we don't ever back up what we say with documentation. Prove it. Stop being a gossip-monger. Prove it.

Second bad assumption: You think this is a two-person race...

Are most POTUS races two-person races? (Yup)
Are a lot of sports two-team contests? (Yup)
Is that the way 2012 POTUS race is sizing up to be? (Nope...it's sizing up to be a ONE-man race)

WHY do I say that? I explain this in a LOT more detail below...but if you want to know in a nutshell, here it is: (Write it down; or commit it to memory)...

The fact is...IF Romney is nominated...that means we'll have TWO liberal candidates running for POTUS.

Sorry...but we DON'T have enough LIBERAL voters in this country to support TWO liberal candidates!!!! Comprende????

If you think this is going to be one of those 40-something% to 40-something percent races...think again!!! Because, in order for that to happen, it would mean that we would need about 85-90% of all voters to vote liberal & vote socialist in this election!!!!!!

What? You think that's going to happen??? BAD ASSUMPTION!!!

(Keep readin' if you're interested in the 'details'):

If I was a forecaster -- and if I told you now that...
...one candidate would get 46% of the vote;
...another candidate would get 32%-33% of the vote;
...a protest candidate of some sort would get 13% of the vote;
...and the minority party candidates (green party, etc.) would get 8-9% of the vote...
...does that sound like a two-person race to you?

Sports Analogies to explain this:

Some sports fans who didn't have a dog in the hunt were pullin' for both Louisville & then Kansas to upset Kentucky in the NCAA basketball tourney...But neither of those teams had the offense to pull past Kentucky. Still, those fans wanted to "root" for the underdog. Their rooting didn't change a thing. It didn't make the games any closer. The underdogs still lost by significant margins.

Even those who weren't "botfans" of either Louisville or Kansas could have urged as many people as possible to "root on" these underdogs...No matter...

The analogy is simple: If Romney + a "protest" candidate still get less than Obama, it really won't matter who you voted for [romney or the protest candidate]. Why? Because they are BOTH statistical losers!!!

Not only is romney an atrocious candidate, but his racist background with the Mormon church is THE worst choice to match up vs. Obama...and don't assume that by the time the MSM & Obama dems get done with Romney expose' after expose' that Romney will be a viable candidate by the end of October.

(I firmly believe the polls then will bear that out)

It's really not that Obama is like some unbeatable Olympic competitor...I don't think he can capture more than 46% of the vote...But if you reviewed a lot of Olympic events...say speed skating...or some track events...there's times when the coaches put a competitor in there that's really not so competitive vs. the front-runner.

That's what we have in a non-viable candidate like Romney.

You -- or a few other FREEPERs "rooting" for Romney with your singular votes won't get Romney into even capturing 1/3rd of the popular vote. If I had to guess right now...
...Romney would get 'round 32%...perhaps some tenths over that...
...a third-party "protest" candidate (not sure who) may draw 13%...[Let's face it, do you REALLY expect 90%+ of the country would vote for A liberal???]
...Obama -- 46%
...Minority-party candidates (green party, etc.) would split the other 8-9%

If Romney won't even be able to capture 1/3rd of the nation's vote, how can you or others blame some conservatives who won't vote for him???

What do I base some of these figures on?

(a) Ya gotta understand that RIGHT NOW, the GoP ONLY has 29% of all registered voters...
...& almost half of them are NOT Romney supporters...
...another probable 25-30% of them won't vote for Romney no matter what...[And most of these won't vote for Obama, either]

That means that only about 1 in 5 registered voters will vote for Romney -- as Republicans.

(b) Most Dems aren't going to vote for Romney...
(c) Six to Nine % of all registered voters (who aren't Republicans) would rather support a green party or constitutional party candidate or some small party...

(d) What segment of the registered-voter pie does that leave? Independents, who are about 1/3rd of all registered voters...All Obama would need to do is to capture about 42% of Independent voters, and he has that 46% of the vote I mentioned above.

So you think that Romney -- after the MSM & Dems get done with him -- will be able to grab more than a quarter of registered Independents? (I don't think so)

And even if he could, getting 1/3rd of the Independents would probably only give him 35-36% of the overall vote; getting 1/2 of the Independents would probably only give him 41-42% of the vote...

He won't win.

So why waste your vote
and your reputation
and your FREEPER credibility
being his personal apologist????

[ETL]

Do you think there's potential Obama voters on FR who need to be convinced not to support zero? Who are you targeting with your posts?

I'm providing potent and convenient ammo for anyone who needs it to convince their friends, acquaintances or relatives as to the communist nature of BHO. ie, help them 'make the case'. Also, and perhaps more importantly, I'm providing damning evidence for the Useful Idiot libs and other assorted know-nothings (Mainstream Media, uninformed public school or college "educators") that are surely checking out these threads as to the same. Much of my material "pros" like Hannity and Limbaugh either don't know or don't get into enough. For example, the "Black Liberation" connection between Obama's "reverend" Wright and Bill Ayers's Weather Underground, also the New Black Panther Party. All advocate(d) communist-revolutionary "Black Liberation". Wright of course does so through his phony-baloney 'church' via James Cone's communist Black Liberation Theology.

There are so many things they never get into, most likely because they don't know themselves, such as the collaboration between the Black Liberation Army and the Weather Underground. I've never heard that talked about in any of the popular media. See my FR Home/Bio page for much more on that (Brinks triple murder, robbery, etc). In fact, Hannity very rarely even described the Weather Underground as being Communist. He only referred to them as "domestic terrorists". Bad enough, but it misses a major component of what was going on then and today.

Another example would be the Communist Party USA's open support for Obama and his "Change", "Transformation" agenda. I was the one who went into their site and dug those pieces up. Mark Levin spoke about one of them on his radio program within an hour of my first posting it as a thread here (a year or so ago). However, he gave the credit to American Thinker who had posted in on their site roughly half an hour after my (FR) posting. I knew I was their source because Levin used an identical comment that was added to my title, precisely, "Communist Party loves Obama". Also, the CPUSA piece was over a month old at the time and somewhat 'buried' on their site by the time. Yet they and he discussed it within a mere hour of my posting it here? A highly unlikely "coincidence". However, the mention of the identical personal comment nailed it.

Among other examples of things not seen or heard many other places is Farrakhan's sentiments for Castro and Mao. The Nation of Islam is another "Black Liberation" communist front movement like Wright's phony church. Both are entirely Communist-concocted 'religions'.

In short, education and wide exposure are our best weapons. Many Obama supporters, and/or Democrats in general, simply aren't aware of these things. The more the info is posted, the more likely it is that others will pick it up and share it, regardless of who gets the credit. I'm much more concerned that it gets out rather getting credit for it. No one knows who I am anyway. I apologize for the rambling. It's past 4AM here in NY. Can't sleep due to medication I'm taking for a badly infected tooth. In any case, I hope I at least made SOME sense. :)

[greyfoxx39]

I repeat...why not start your OWN thread on Obama? FReepers don’t visit the Religion Forum for the kind of posts you are making. You are wasting your time here.

[Caipirabob]

Thanks for the response. I never really considered the issue of faith in non-support of romney. I wouldn't support him simply because he's an open socialist posing as a republican. The mechanism behind his wealth is irrelevant, he imposed socialist policy once in power.

The research of the faith came up because my son and I felt it necessary to learn more of a group of people we have occasional interaction with and now might control the White House.

The GOP wants to lose this election. It's openly obvious now and we must resist, kicking and screaming to no end.

We cannot permit them to nominate romney or we are over.

Romney will be destroyed via hundreds of 30 second sound bytes on sections from the book of mormon. Doesn't matter what we know, it's the people who didn't research and never will who will be lead by these attacks to form a negative opinion.

Those who do research will find little to counter the attacks. Much of the attacks will be shown to be based on fact.

It will be the end of romney's campaign. The institutionalized discrimination of the church is too much, too recent, too incorporated into the doctrine to be hidden and completely, totally indefensible.

[Caipirabob]

I will try an experiment. I have a friend I call "my professor" of nearly 10 years who's recently told me he's black. After I asked him "When did that happen?" he said he always considered himself black. His black skin should have been a clue for me but his name is Latino so whatever. We'll have to explore the issue in the future over several bottles of rum, if we ever get it.

Anyways, I'm absolutely certain he's not familiar with this doctrine and what it says. I want to see how he reacts when I ask him to read it (and he will.) Then I want to hear what he thinks about romney after that or the book of mormon.

He's a genius and no one I know who has met him disputes that. If anyone will dig into an issue and uncover facts, he will. We can ask him to be our "barometer" for the coming storm this fall. Will it be springtime for romney or will he get blown away?

I'll contact my pal within the week, if not I know I'll see him in the next 10 days so maybe I'll put together a vanity post on it.

He deserves to know either way.

[ETL]

I repeat...why not start your OWN thread on Obama? FReepers don’t visit the Religion Forum for the kind of posts you are making.

To have a discussion of Obama and religion and NOT get into his communist "Black Liberation Theology" is about as stupid and time wasting as it gets.

[ETL]

In other words, the door should be slammed in his face if he even TRIES to talk about Romney’s or any other GOP candidate’s religion. This is why I provided some key details about it. Stuff you won’t read or hear about even from Hannity or Rush.

[Elsie]

“Where is the hope? I meet millions of people who feel demoralized by the decay around us. The hope that each of us has is not in who governs us, or what laws we pass, or what great things we do as a nation. Our hope is in the power of God working through the hearts of people. And that’s where our hope is in this country. And that’s where our hope is in life.”

—Charles Colson

[Colofornian]

I will try an experiment. I have a friend I call "my professor" of nearly 10 years who's recently told me he's black. After I asked him "When did that happen?" he said he always considered himself black. His black skin should have been a clue for me but his name is Latino so whatever. We'll have to explore the issue in the future over several bottles of rum, if we ever get it. Anyways, I'm absolutely certain he's not familiar with this doctrine and what it says. I want to see how he reacts when I ask him to read it (and he will.) Then I want to hear what he thinks about romney after that or the book of mormon. He's a genius and no one I know who has met him disputes that. If anyone will dig into an issue and uncover facts, he will. We can ask him to be our "barometer" for the coming storm this fall. Will it be springtime for romney or will he get blown away? I'll contact my pal within the week, if not I know I'll see him in the next 10 days so maybe I'll put together a vanity post on it. He deserves to know either way.

Good experiment...

Here's the verses you need to show him:

Note: The Mormon church has only changed one Mormon "scriptural" verse on race since its 1978 "change."

No other of its racist verses have been altered or repudiated. They still stand "on the books" as "sacred" representations of the view of the Mormon gods. To review these rather disturbing Mormon "scriptures," click on these three links:
* Mormon Racism as doctrine, not merely folklore or tradition
* "Renounce and Repudiate": Will Republicans Hold Romney to Obama Standard?
* Pro-Rick Santorum pastor slams Mitt Romney’s religion [post #55 by Tennessee Nana...a post, btw, where TN challenges a Mormon about these verses -- but the Mormon doesn't respond]

Obviously many of these verses overlap within these three sources...but you can cut & paste them together...Also...on the 2nd link above, go directly to the original article...as it was excerpted for a 300-word count...and some of the words were elipsed...

[Colofornian]

To have a discussion of Obama and religion and NOT get into his communist "Black Liberation Theology" is about as stupid and time wasting as it gets.

You know, ETL, what surprises me re: this thread is what I don't see among FREEPER responses to your posts!

Please allow me to take the time to explain:

Here in these various thread posts, you discuss Obama and...
* Rev. Wright/black liberation theology (post #12)
* Rev. Wright/black liberation theology (post #13)
* Rev. Wright/black liberation theology (post #14)
* United Church of Christ church Obama attended -- and its black liberation theology (post #25)
* Your comment that "Obama is not a Muslim, or a (legit) Christian." (Post #36) -- tho you also pointed out on another thread yesterday re: Obama's early Islamic influence Obama's early Islamic influence [post #7]
* Your response to Lurk's comment "if Obama’s "religious" connections don’t get the same scrutiny, it’s not pertinent." (post #38)
* Rev. Wright/black liberation theology (post #87)
* A generic comment about discussing a GOP candidate's religion (post #88)

Now why do I highlight this? Because REPEATEDLY -- as in THOUSANDS of FREEPER posts -- we "Flying Inmans" have seen something along the following...which I'll categorize into three FREEPER groups:

#1 There's the "laissez-faire" FREEPER approach to Romney's Mormonism: "I don't care about Romney's religion...It doesn't bother me what Romney's religion is...it's his [X, Y, Z] in his track record, etc."

#2 There's also the FREEPER "scolders": "Thou shalt NOT focus on religion. I'm not electing a pastor-in-chief. Stick to politics. Stick to the economy (like poster Night Hides Not says in post #15] Let's keep religion hermetically sealed!"

#3 And then there's those who up the ante and just start accusing as the self-appointed "bigot patrol" -- and they toss out the "b" labels like a good liberal tactic...[Who cares about the content discussion]

IOW...we see from the laissez-faire FREEPERs mentioned above all kinds of caveats and qualifiers; from the scolders plenty of chastisement over our refusal to "properly" "compartmentalize" worldviews; and from the "bigot" accusers all kinds of zealous intensified presentations of the "thou shalt not critique religious expressions" -- all as they critique our religious expressions! [Go figure that self-refutation out!]

My Question to THEM??? Where are these posters either on this thread -- or all of the other dozen or so threads you've dumped this same info within an 8-day span [perhaps more threads going back further???]??? [For those so interested to see all the threads ETL is putting this info out...look below the asterisk line] I'd like to know: Where are they in responding to your posts?

My questions to them -- not to you ETL:

* If Obama's big govt social utopia and social issues and driving-the-economy into the ground is where we need to put the emphasis, why no lectures that YOU, ETL, should stick to non-religious issues re: Obama?
* If we're supposed to compartmentalize all candidates' religion and religious leanings -- including Obama's -- as the compartmentalizers have scolded us over & over & over again, where are they to properly scold you into attempted silence?
* Finally, where's the self-appointed "bigot patrol" when you need them? How many times have they hurled that word at people on these threads...for dare mentioning Romney's other-worldly worldviews! Why haven't they entered this thread to call you a "bigot," ETL? [Not that I think you're one]

You see...what surprises me is the sheer lack of consistency conservatives have on these issues. If these are such key "convictions," they should apply them evenly across the board -- whatever stripe the candidate is...

But they don't...which tells me they are dual-faced...hypocritical.

Also...wonderin' why other posters on this thread -- haven't come under fire yet for bringing up Obama's religious ties...
Like...
...EagleUSA & Irish Eyes tries to link Obama & Islam (posts #3, #79)
...Poster Jersey117 astutely realizing that "That means obama’s “Muslim faith” and his 20 years of black liberation theolgy indoctrination are on the table." (post #47)
...Or Gil4 also mentioning Obama's black liberation theology (post #58)

*******************************

ETL 'making the rounds' commenting upon Obama's past "religious ties" in the past week or so:
* Black Liberation Theology/Rev. Wright comment [post #11]
* Black Liberation Theology/Rev. Wright comment [post #15]
*Black Liberation Theology/Rev. Wright comments [posts #16 and #17]
*Black Liberation Theology/Rev. Wright comments [posts #24 and #27]
*Black Liberation Theology/Rev. Wright comment [post #86]
*Black Liberation Theology/Rev. Wright comment [post #7]
*Black Liberation Theology/Rev. Wright comment [post #5]
*Black Liberation Theology/Rev. Wright comment [post #75]
*Black Liberation Theology/Rev. Wright comment [post #12]
*Black Liberation Theology/Rev. Wright comments [posts #16 and #20]
*Black Liberation Theology/Rev. Wright comment [post #37]

So, ETL...in light of the above...[both your series of postings AND my comments about the laissez-faire/scolders/& bigot patrol]...gotta ask you: Exactly how many FREEPERs have called you on the carpet for discussing Obama's past religious ties?

WE as commentators on Mormonism (Flying Inmans) get called on the carpet regularly for discussing a candidate's religion. Surely, you have repeatedly...right? [Or do I hold out too much hope for the non-hypocrisy of hundreds of FREEPERS?]

[ETL]

Are you feeling ok? You went through an awful lot of trouble to basically say nothing. Nothing sensible that is.

[Graybeard58]

If Obama does that, his Muslim faith is fair game.

Obama doesn't claim to be a muslim, he "claims" Christianity, I personally believe he's a worshiper of self. Bishop Romney, on the other hand embraces every aspect of his cult and denies nothing.

[Graybeard58]

Your number 82 is the best explanation of the way things are, not the way we want them to be, that I've seen yet. With Romney as the "R" candidate, Obama's reelection is inevitable. No ifs ands or buts.

[kevao]

The media’s been taking it easy on Romney, hoping he’ll get the nomination. Once he gets the nomination, just wait for all the stories about “magic underwear” and such to come out. Romney will be a laughingstock by election day.

[Caipirabob]

Thanks, I’ll forward that to him. I’m pretty sure he’ll just read the whole thing. He’s one of those guys. Eats books like candy and could probably do the whole thing over a weekend.

[kevao]

Mr. Romney, is it boxers, briefs, or magic underwear?

[jersey117]

I don’t view Mormonism as a religion of hate. Black Liberation Theology teaches to hate whites and jews. Islam just wants to kill us all.

[Colofornian]

I don’t view Mormonism as a religion of hate

To accuse ALL Christians in the world as being "apostates" -- as BOTH Mormonism & Islam do [Muslims call Christians "infidels"] -- is the equivalent of the attempt to "eliminate" any & all Christians under the umbrella of the Protestant, Catholic & Orthodox churches.

It's worldwide "scorched earth" religio-politics.

It's an attempt to dig the biggest spiritual graveyard in the world & place ALL of Christianity there as spiritually dead.

What you don't seem to comprehend -- on Easter week of all weeks -- is that Muslims who kill Christians...those in Christ will rise & live again.

But Mormonism, upon keeping people entangled in spiritual death on this earth, wind up never living...for eternity. That's what the bible also calls the "second death."

Jesus clearly said NOT to fear those who can kill the body; but to fear the One who has the power to place somebody in hell.

Those who only respect the body-slaughterers -- and fail to respect what the Creator of that body says about where our ultimate cultural priorities are to be -- wind up ALWAYS putting physical considerations...usually their own...first.

[Gil4]

There is no denying that the Mormon teaching on race is and will be a problem for Romney.

Here is a good summary from catholic.com:

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/whats-the-real-story-on-mormon-beliefs-and-race

This is what it said about the 1978 developments:

---

Dated June 8, 1978, and released the following day, President Kimball’s “Official Declaration—2” (as it is now called in the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants) came after “extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple.” He presented the changed doctrine to his counselors, the Twelve Apostles, and other leaders, who approved it unanimously. The day has come, he said, when the Lord now grants to “every faithful, worthy man in the Church . . . the holy priesthood . . . [and] the blessings of the temple.” The declaration was presented to the general membership and ratified pro forma on September 30, 1978.

Though this opening of the priesthood to all races moved the Mormon Church into a less racist position regarding its practice, Mormon teaching remained unaltered. The new “revelation” did not change the previous Mormon teaching that people are born black because of their sins in the pre-existence.

---

That definitely clarified some things for me. I’m still having a hard time seeing how “people are born black because of their sins in the pre-existence” is more offensive than “white people are the devil...right now,” although both are at least somewhat offensive.