From the 2007 article: Romney caught a bit of flack...because he spent nearly 10 years on the Marriott board and yet never tried to reverse the company's policy of providing pornography on demand, something J.W. "Bill" Marriott Jr., defended in a 2000 letter as being economically important...For a presidential candidate who has railed against pornography, this is not entirely insignificant. Even if the subject never came up at a board meeting, one can argue that at least part of the $25,000 plus stock he was paid annually for his board membership came from the money some hotel guests paid for access to the films.
Update since '07: Romney rejoined the Marriott board from '09 to '11...making it about a dozen years as serving on its board.
Besides Romney being deemed the "inevitable" GoP candidate, why is this story particularly relevant now?
Because we see other Mormon sources trying to "remake" Romney & mold him into an entirely different image...See for example this recent (last week) Mormon mag piece -- Surprise: Romneys Weakness is Actually His Strength -- where somebody who also contributes articles to the DesNews (as well as Meridian Mag) writes:
Most of us Meridian Readers know something that most Americans have not figured out yet. When voters figure it out, they are in for a big surprise. And a happy one! It has to do with a certain THING.
It is the thing a lot of them say is the reason they are for Santorum instead of Mitt ..
It is the thing that they say makes them unenthusiastic about Romney ..
It is the thing polls reveal as perhaps his main weakness .
The surprise is that that THING, is actually Mitts greatest strength. The thing is called by many different names but is always the same thing:
The thing is Personal morality and values which is the reason primary voters give for preferring Santorum to Romney.
The thing is Faith and Family which is Santorums theme and logo which he uses to try to separate himself from Mitt.
The thing is a core of beliefs that the media keeps saying they cant find in Romney.
What we have at this point is Romney winning with the practical voters who respect his management and financial ability and think he can fix the economy; and Santorum winning with the idealistic voters who want someone with principles, morality, faith and family, and a core.
Personally, we believe that Santorum is a family oriented person of faith. But this is a similarity and not a contrast with Romney. The irony is that the man who right now is losing the family and values vote is a faithful husband of 42 years, a Mormon Stake President, a devoted father of five highly moral sons, a man who worked for a dollar a year to save the Olympics, and someone who has probably given more time and money to charity than any Presidential candidate in history.
Of course, this author-couple (the Eyres, who are Lds), have to 100% ignore Romney's...
...$ gleanings from the porn industry...
...and Romney's commitment to encouraging parents to give up their offspring to "research" & get taxpayers to pay for govt-funded abortions. [More on this on a later post]
So, here was Marriott, offering its rooms as the "theater of choice" to the film distributor, On Command Corporation. And even more recently, what has On Command Corporation, which has since become LodgeNet, offered as titles for Marriott? According to this article -- Marriott Boycotted Over Porn -- published in Oct, 2009: The groups [AIDS Healthcare and Pink Cross Foundations] organized a "porn-in" last night at the Marriott on Figueroa Street downtown to launch the boycott. As we speak, the organizations contend, some businessman in a dark Marriott room somewhere across America is watching Just Explicit Sex, Naughty Office Workers, Mothers Do It Better, or Daddy's Girl Takes it All -- titles they say are offered by the chain, titles that feature condom-free sex.
Now these were no conservative groups boycotting Marriott. In fact, they apparently showed some of these titles as part of their "boycott." The article says it all: "Marriott is certainly not alone among major hotel chains that promote and profit off the sale of unsafe, condom-less adult films to their hotel guests," AIDS Healthcare Foundation president Michael Weinstein states. "However, we want to highlight the brazen hypocrisy--the Mormon Marriott's moral masquerade--of such a so-called family-oriented hotel chain profiteering off adult films that endanger the lives of the performers acting in them."..Former porn actress Shelley Lubben...founded the Pink Cross Foundation to help "victims" of the industry -- the talent -- "recover." Pink Cross claims that, while HIV might be under control in the industry, chlamydia and gonorrhea rates among performers are ten times those of 20- to 24-year-old in Los Angeles County. "I fully support the campaign to require condoms in all porn production, and believe putting public pressure on middlemen such as the Marriott--latter day purveyors of porn who are profiting richly off the depiction of unsafe sexual activity--can only help the health and safety of performers who are forced to work in unsafe and hazardous work conditions every day," Lubben states.
What can we conclude from all of this?
(1) That a porn prostitute and her allies -- all of whom want "condom-correctness" in the part of the porn industry they still endorse-- are more riled up over some aspects of the porn industry and its distributors (i.e. Marriott Hotel chain) than so-called "conservatives" like!!!
(2) While the Lds Church-owned Deseret News took Mitt Romney to task almost five years ago for his board member connection to porn-laden Marriott, note that the Mormon leaders in this way were hypocritical: IOW, while the "journalistic" side of the Lds church took a swing @ Mitt, how did the Lds church itself approach this issue? (Why, they promoted Marriott owner Bill Marriott within the church hierarchy of leaders -- assigning him to be an Area Seventy and a member of the Lds Church's Sixth Quorum of the Seventy -- among the top 70 leaders in the Church. This, despite the fact that the Marriott hotel chain has been in this porn biz for at least 20 years now...tho it announced last year that it was slowly phasing that industry out of its umbrella operations)
(3) I haven't seen FR Romney supporters or other conservative Romney supporters publicly critique Romney for being a long-standing (briefly interrupted) Marriott board member -- tying him to the porn industry. Seems to me that the porn industry has become part of the Republican "Big Tent," the conservative coalition, and is more acceptable to many FReepers than it is to ex-porn prostitutes who still "high fives" much of the porn industry!
Imagine you're a "devout Mormon." You've been offered cozy occasional directorship position for a local theater for $25,000 per year.
You find out that the theater shows family-rated fair. But there's a "back entrance" for their XXX showings. You also find out they give $ to Planned Parenthood.
Would you, as an alleged "devout Mormon," continue to take the position knowing that a portion of your salary comes from their porn industry intake? What would you feel knowing that this theater's $ goes to the largest child-killing organization in the world (Planned Parenthood)?
Well, that's Mitt Romney for you. He's done the exact equivalent of the above!!!
Oh...and Mitt's additional tie-in to ensuring Planned Parenthood has been funded? Well, look who's boycotted Marriott due to $ gifts to Planned Parenthood:
Life Decisions International
Pornography is the least of our worries
From my post #1: And here -- just last week -- we had a Mormon couple (the Eyres) who wrote in a Mormon mag (Meridian) that: The surprise is that that THING, is actually Mitts greatest strength. The thing is called by many different names but is always the same thing: The thing is Personal morality and values which is the reason primary voters give for preferring Santorum to Romney. The thing is Faith and Family which is Santorums theme and logo which he uses to try to separate himself from Mitt. The thing is a core of beliefs that the media keeps saying they cant find in Romney. What we have at this point is Romney winning with the practical voters who respect his management and financial ability and think he can fix the economy; and Santorum winning with the idealistic voters who want someone with principles, morality, faith and family, and a core. Personally, we believe that Santorum is a family oriented person of faith. But this is a similarity and not a contrast with Romney. The irony is that the man who right now is losing the family and values vote is a faithful husband of 42 years...
Tell me...what kind of a supposed "values" candidate shows THE pro-abortion track record below???
|YEAR||Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney||Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life'|
|Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth||Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romneys Planned Parenthood Donation||Ann Romney, 2011: In the past youve said hes changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; weve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)|
|Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth||Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007)||So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've never changed re: abortion and that they've always been pro-life, but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was always for life.|
|Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate||"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)||"'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"|
|1994 (Campaign)||"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support sustain ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word sustain for support for their own prophet||Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007)|
|1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001||(a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/ann-romneys-planned-parenthood-donation/">Ann Romneys Planned Parenthood Donation (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakies house and that she clearly remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts||2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)|
|2002-2004||I will preserve and protect a womans right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard (Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?||Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)|
|2005||May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!||What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, Ive had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action Ive taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine|
|2006||April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).||"As governor, Ive had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action Ive taken as the governor that relates|
|Early 2007||On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?||Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life: "I am firmly pro-life I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!|
|Summer 2007||"I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"||Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?|
|December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life'||December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"||In the past youve said hes changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; weve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)|
Obama will use this against Romney if Willard is the candidate chosen by the GOP.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
Romney is Rotten and here's more info.