GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Stupid to consider Mitt Romney a Patriot?

by

Remember back to the days of the George W. Bush administration when comparing the President of the United States to Hitler was considered an expression of patriotism while questioning someone’s patriotism was considered the mother of all sins?

A Facebook friend who joined 180 others in sharing this picture didn’t just question the presumptive Republican nominee’s patriotism, but implied that people were stupid for believing that accomplished executive to be a patriot.

The man who created this image engages in the same type of behavior his ideological allies accused (mostly inaccurately) Republicans of engaging in in the Bush era.

Not just that, he shows a terrible ignorance of the Mormon faith.  Mitt Romney didn’t flee to France to avoid military service; his church required him to engage in missionary work. He was fulfilling a religious duty.*

This man may not speak for the Obama campaign or the Democratic National Committee, but his work is just a taste of the type of attacks those folks will be making against the former Massachusetts governor.

*UPDATE: Shared this post with a Mormon friend who wrote about the missionary work:

It’s not required, it’s strongly advised, but it is a volunteer opportunity. From the beginning, young men and young women (especially young men) are asked to plan and prepare to serve a mission for the church. Men at age 19, some go a little later, and women at age 21. You (or your parents) pay for the oppotunity to serve a mission- if you go to lds.org they may have specific information about what being a full time missionary consists of. You pay for your own food, housing, etc. It’s apretty powerful thing to get 19 year old boys to dedicate 2 years of their lives to serving God.

So, we see a liberal mocking the man’s religion — and questioning his patriotism.

Comments

  1. What’s interesting is that the left holds Mitt Romney responsible for the actions of his ancestors a hundred years ago; but Obama can’t be held responsible for anything he is doing himself in the present time.

  2. Also, interesting double-standard that Mitt Romney’s foreign links make him unpatriotic, while Obama’s childhood in Indonesia, college-era adventures in Pakistan, and claiming to be born in Kenya to advance his literary career just make him hip and exotic.

  3. Also, Warren Buffett has gutted scores of American Companies, keeping their brands while exporting their manufacturing operations to foreign countries… but he’s a hero to the left; one of the ‘good capitalists’ because he supports tax increases on other people. And when they whine because a small part of Mitt Romney’s money is invested abroad… well, guess what… it’s *his* money you socialist pig, not yours! He can do with it what he wants. Is Obama squandering billions of taxpayer dollars to enrich his bundlers (e.g. Solyndra) more patriotic than Mitt Romney for investing internationally?

    So much ignorant rage in one picture; but that’s the modern left for you.

  5. Yeah, spending three months in Vietnam and hyping minor injuries to ditch out early, disparaging and lying about his fellow warriors, gigoloing himself to a rich widow, parking his yacht in another state to avoid taxes… How dare any question the great John Kerry.

    John Kerry was an exemplary patriot and his running mate an exemplary husband and father.

  6. It’s a matter of public record that John Kerry viciously slandered a generation of American veterans. Further, it’s arguably true that he did so for venal motives.

    The weight of evidence also suggests that he got the majority of his medals on the basis of false or exaggerated documents, whose content he likely authored for the purpose of obtaining said medals. And then a few years later he threw away his medals (that’s another matter of public record), except a few years after that, he decided he wanted them again so he got special favors from the Navy to re-issue them.

    One of Kerry’s central stories about himself that he had told his audiences over and over for years – namely, the time in 1968 when he travelled into Cambodia on a CIA mission while listening to President Nixon lie on the radio that Americans weren’t in Cambodia – was proven a complete lie. Starting with the fact that Nixon wasn’t President in 1968. Continuing with the fact that he served in a Navy unit far away on the coast, that would never have been (and never was) tapped for such a mission.

    And finally, Kerry nearly brought the odious (even though he may be innocent) John Edwards within a heartbeat of the Presidency.

    Can a pathological liar, even one who did serve in Vietnam, really be a patriot? I ain’t saying he can’t. I’m leaving it as a question.

    Just to set the record straight, as they say.

  7. But for what I came to say in a more general way… It’s always half-funny, half-creepy to see American leftists suddenly stress questions of patriotism and military service. Combine patriotism and socialism, and you have… National Socialism.

  9. I always enjoy pointing out to my lib friends who voted for Kerry, that they voted for an admitted war criminal over a (falsely) accused war criminal.

  10. I said before, if they get down and dirty, we should too. Rev. Wright is ancient history and should be off the table. More importantly is Obama´s confession of drug abuse. I think we should wonder if he snorts in the Oval Office and can we trust a man in the White House making decisions while on a high?

  11. What’s interesting is that eight years ago the right got away with convincing a good chunk of the American public that John Kerry wasn’t a Patriot.

    Is it just me, or can we ALWAYS count on cinetwit to get it wrong?

  12. Speaking as a member of the LDS church, I have to say it’s quite a stretch to say that Mitt Romney’s religion makes him unpatriotic. This is a church that has as official doctrine that the founding of this nation was essential to the restoration of the gospel. We believe that the US constitution is divinely inspired. The purpose of life on earth is explained by LDS doctrine as our Heavenly Father giving us the freedom to choose to follow him or not. Liberty is the central tenet of the faith and it is very much in line with the principles and values that this country is founded upon.

    In the early days of the church, Mormons were persecuted and chased across the plains, even had the state of Missouri issue an extermination order against them. Today, we have radical voices from Native American tribes and “black liberators” seeking restitution for slavery. Mormons could easily harbor resentment against this country for the hardships they experienced simply for joining a religion that was unfamiliar to many. But they don’t. They’re some of the most patriotic people in the nation. Visit Utah during the 4th of July, and you’ll find people who have more reverence for this nation’s birth than you could ever find at any given DNC event.

  13. #6: “It’s a matter of public recordopinion … Kerry viciously slandered a generation of American veterans. Further, it’s arguably true that he did so for venal motives.” FIFY

    In this case venal =’s its antonym: standing up for what you believe is true.

    Silver Star – How many times did his commanding officer flip-flop on events? And why should William Rood be trusted?
    Bronze Heart/Third Purple Heart – I suppose he didn’t deserve it, if you couldn’t earn it from friendly fire. And, hey, let’s not listen to the guy he actually saved.
    First Purple Heart – Let’s take it away, because of hearsay

    1968 Mission – Nixon was President Elect. And, main accuser John O’Neil has admitted to being involved in covert Cambodian missions which also make him … a war criminal by his own definition.

    “It’s always half-funny, half-creepy to see American leftists suddenly stress questions of patriotism and military service.” Yeah, I thought it was half funny half crappy when I as an American leftist had my patriotism questioned by others around me when I didn’t get behind the government-led military as we shocked and awed our way into Iraq. It may have not been called National Socialism, but it certainly reeked of it. War Criminal: Party of How Many?

    Your pathological liar question is based on unproven personal testimonies and bias, which neutralizes the foundation of your query rendering it unanswerable. The only thing I can address is that I agree with you ILC that John Kerry had horrible taste in running mates and that in it of itself made me question the core of his leadership abilities. Nobody’s perfect, but what a glaring error that was.

    But, then, we’ve had … Dan Quayle … Sarah Palin …

    And to a lesser extent … Joe Biden …

    A completely different beast … Dick Cheney

    Come to think of it, wisely chosen running mates are a rare breed. The last one I can think of that was a decent choice was George Bush … 32 years ago. Yikes. (I don’t know enough about Lloyd Bentsen to have an opinion. How about Jack Kemp?) Not sure if the system is set up to give us two winners on one ticket on a consistent basis. Hopefully, Romney will make things interesting this Summer and actually choose someone worthy.

  14. However seared he was, Kerry’s spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry’s shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry’s spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere “between” Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been “near Cambodia.” But the point of Kerry’s 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was “in Cambodia,” as he had often said he was. If he was merely “near,” then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech.
    …
    Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry “on one occasion crossed into Cambodia,” on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry’s campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry’s own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley’s book says: “The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side.” His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry’s final mission.
    …
    After his discharge, Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Once, he presented to Congress the accounts by his VVAW comrades of having “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks.” Later it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by impostors who had stolen the identities of real GIs, but Kerry himself was not implicated in the fraud.

    link [emphasis mine]

    MR. KERRY: Well, I have often talked about this subject. I personally didn’t see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, these acts are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the applications of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.

    link[emphasis mine]

    I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh’s points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.
    — John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 22, 1971

    Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    — U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 45, Section 953: Private correspondence with foreign governments

    I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry.

    — Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

    But hey Vince, don’t let his own words get in the way of your support of a liar and war criminal. Keep smearing Sarah Palin and Dan Quayle instead.

  15. In this case venal =’s its antonym: standing up for what you believe is true.

    No, it isn’t. It’s standing up for what you know to be FALSE.

    Now, why would you do that? Maybe because you love the attention (you’re speaking to Congress and the media is giving you huge coverage) which makes you famous, helps you score rich heiresses, advances your political career, etc. Kerry indeed went on from that point (1971) to have a political career, stay in the limelight and court heiresses. Whoda thunk?

    TL got a key quote, and some of its context:

    After his discharge, Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Once, he presented to Congress the accounts by his VVAW comrades of having “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks.” Later it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by impostors who had stolen the identities of real GIs, but Kerry himself was not implicated in the fraud.

    The thing is, Kerry knew that his own unit (the Swift Vets) had *not* engaged in such behavior. In other words, Kerry knew that what he was saying was contrary to his own experience. In other words, Kerry knew (on some level; or should have known), that what he was saying was untrue.

    There are always some tragic war crimes in every war, but with the U.S., they are exceptions and contrary to mythology that Kerry helped create, the rate of such crimes in Vietnam was not much higher than in other wars. Kerry knew that on some level, and went for the myth-making anyway. That makes him a liar.

  16. By the way: in O’Neill’s book, it’s clear that Kerry was widely considered a loose cannon, not a great guy. There is a story in which Kerry did abuse some villager a little bit or burn his hut or something (I have forgotten the details) – and the rest of the unit looked askance at it. A couple of them may have helped Kerry get a third Purple Heart as a way to get rid of Kerry (3 was sort of a ticket back to the States).

  17. And one should simply notice the obvious here.

    Any accusation of misbehavior against the United States is immediately taken by Snatchy and the Obama Party as gospel truth that the United States is an evil, racist, horrible hellhole full of depraved people that should be shamed and forced to pay huge reparations to everyone else.

    In short, Snatchy and his Obama Party have demonstrated time and again that they have nothing but hate and contempt for the US and want to see it punished.

    What should we call that?

  18. TL: on the Cambodia thing, it’s worth noting that Kerry told the story to audiences at least 10 times over the years (maybe more) as something “seared” into his memory, and that Nixon was President in the earlier tellings. But the story is anchored in 1968, and Nixon wasn’t President until 1969. After someone pointed that out to Kerry, he dropped Nixon from the story. But it was still false for the other reasons you quoted.

    This photo shows that Kerry wasn’t exactly popular in his unit – and shows who the Swift Vets for Truth were, i.e., other guys in the same unit: http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=SwiftPhoto

  19. 1968 Mission – Nixon was President Elect.

    Which means that Nixon would NOT have been the one on the radio at that point, taking questions on the factual matter of whether the U.S. military or other agents were involved in Cambodia.

  21. And finally: Dick Cheney was a pretty good Vice President overall. I would have been fine having him as President; same with Sarah Palin. So no, they’re not in the same category as proven pathological liar John Edwards.

  22. Well, not finally. There is the matter of Kerry never having actually released his military service documents to the public. Kerry released them only to 3 carefully selected reporters, who then told the public what THEY thought the public deserved to know. That’s not the same thing at all.

    What could Kerry be (still – to this day) hiding? A former Navy lawyer built a circumstantial case that Kerry’s original separation was not honorable: http://horse.he.net/~swiftpow/article.php?story=20041101085140465

    Kerry’s honorable separation letter is dated something like 1978, the Carter administration. If his original separation was dishonorable unjustly; that is, as McCarthyism or something – why would Kerry not trumpet it to the skies? Liberals love that kind of story.

    As to this:

    hey, let’s not listen to the guy he actually saved.

    The guy was underwater for much of the battle. IIR the details correctly, he was thrown into the water, during a firefight. He would keep his head underwater to avoid the enemy shooting him. But most of the fire was American, e.g., the boats laying suppression fire on the riverbanks. When it was over, the boats picked up anyone in the water, following standard practice. The nearest boat was moving to pick the guy up (might have been Thurlow’s boat, and him telling this story, but again, I’d have to refresh my memory). Violating standard practice, Kerry sped his boat to cut off the other and make the pickup. The point is that the battle had ended. Veterans talk about “the fog of war”, people thinking that one thing was happening when it was really something different. If I were thrown off a boat in a firefight, and keeping my head underwater as much as possible (except to breathe of course) while listening to gunfire, and probably in no small distress, then I might believe well and truly that the guy who picked me up had “saved my life”… even though what really happened was that my life was already saved, the battle was over, there were a bunch of people coming to pick me up, and the one who did it was a jackass who hot-dogged in order to gain the credit of it. Fits Kerry’s pattern. But hey, let’s not listen to the people who were actually there at the battle.

  24. Now, why would you do that? Maybe because you love the attention

    Does he ever! It’s why Howie Carr (Boston Herald columnist) has always referred to him as ‘Liveshot’; whenever there’s a camera around, Mr. Reporting for Duty is sure to get his cosmetically altered kisser in front of it.
    I lived most of my life just across the Charles River from where Senator War Hero had his Beacon Hill digs, and the stories (most of them vetted as TRUE) about him paint him as a grade-A major league d***head.

  25. I admit that what I think or feel is a bit plebeian. However, with the attempt to smear GW Bush as a draft dodger and the established fact that Bill Clinton was a draft dodger and that Al Gore got a Senator’s son careful treatment and that John Kerry turned against the military in the 70’s and again in the Iraq war……..

    I was repulsed by the whole business of his “reporting to duty” schtick at the national convention and all the war hero crap as what he had to offer the country. (Oh, yes, he claimed to be smarter than Bush. “I’ll do it better and smarter.”)

    When the whole charade turned into a food fight over Kerry’s “right” to be an accredited military icon, I completely shut down on the man. Now I can not bring myself to do any “who shot John” in this thing. I was intensely involved in the Kerry-Fonda era and the rancor and hatred they helped heap on the morale of our troops in the theater and the troops returning home.

    Those Genghis Kahn and taking trophies of body parts references still turn my stomach. But then Kerry returned thirty years later to smear our troops in Iraq with breaking into homes in the dead of night and paralyzing women and children with fear, it was deja vu all over again.

    Only a warped peacenik naif would vote for a Commander-in-Cheif with such a visceral disdain for the men and women who serve to protect our country and our freedom.

    I would ask anyone who is still hung up on John Kerry to research his record and to show what he has done for our military and our country. I am unaware of any piece of legislation he has authored or promoted that could be considered foundational or important in any measure. And how long has he been ensconced in the Senate?

    Picking the Kerry scab is about as important as opening a hearing on whether John Wilkes Booth made it to Paraguay and is bunking there with Hitler and Anastasia.

    Poor John Kerry. They picked Gore, Edwards and Biden over him for the chucklehead spot. How do you suppose that makes him feel? “Hey, Barack, pick me, pick me!”

  26. (Oh, yes, he claimed to be smarter than Bush

    Yet IIRC, he never released his college records either. Why? Were his Yale grades lower than Bush’s?

    Obama-Kerry… that would be a trip. It could be the “All hidden records, All the time” ticket.

  29. Thanks for your eloquence, Helio. You seem to have an infinitely greater perspective on the matter. I appreciate your ability to argue (and entertain as well) without involving yourself emotionally. I hope that comes with time.

  30. Boy Cinesnatch, is that bending over backwards. Mind you don’t snap yourself in two. You’re praising content that included this, after all:

    Only a warped peacenik naif would vote for a Commander-in-Cheif with such a visceral disdain for the men and women who serve to protect our country and our freedom.

    Doesn’t sound like Kerry is much of a patriot, there. But unless you want to litigate the Kerry matter further, I will happily let that quote stand as ‘the last word’.

  31. Except I have to correct myself, about the Rassman incident. I got the gist right (that Kerry’s part wasn’t noble; there was no enemy fire when he cut off another boat to ‘rescue’ Rassman). But not the details. View this documentary, featuring the officers who were there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-lgCHTjd4I&feature=relmfu

    Key points:
    – March 12, 1969: Thurlow’s boat took 3 bullet holes from a separate (unrelated) incident.
    – March 13, 1969: 5 boats. Column of 3 on the left, led by PCF-3 under Dick Pease. Column of 2 on the right, led by PCF-94 under John Kerry.
    – A mine went off under PCF-3, disabling it.
    – One of the boats fled the scene. The others stayed to assist PCF-3.
    – You’ll never, ever guess which boat fled. Hint: John Kerry.
    – When Kerry fled, the lurch of the boat threw his own crew member, Rassman, into the water. 2 others also thrown off some boat, I’m not sure which boat (possibly PCF-3).
    – With the men in the water, the remaining boats laid suppression fire on the left bank in case it was an ambush, for 40-60 seconds. However, no fire was returned. There was no enemy fire.
    – Thurlow was PCF-43, went to aid PCF-3. (Corrects what I said above. I mis-remembered Thurlow’s role.)
    – PCF-23 under Jack Chenowith, went to pick up the men in the water. Got two of them. Moving to get the third (Rassman), when cut off by PCF-94 (Kerry) returning.
    – Kerry met up with the other skippers, claimed to be wounded; had a rag wrapped around his arm, but no visible blood anywhere.
    – Because of this wound (whether real or feigned), PCF-23 (Chenowith) took Kerry to a Coast Guard cutter.
    – March 13 evening: An after-action report (dated March 14) was submitted, from the cutter. It could only have been submitted by Kerry (or someone taking his dictation).
    – The report claimed that PCF-94 (Kerry) had run a gauntlet of 5000 meters (3.2 miles) of enemy fire starting from PCF-3’s area, and that Kerry rescued Rassman under fire. The multiple eye witnesses of the documentary say that is totally false, and point out that there were no casualty reports from any of the boats, except as related to the mine hitting PCF-3.
    – On the basis of that report alone, Kerry was awarded a Bronze Star.

  32. – The other skippers did not submit reports because Kerry assured them that he’d taken care of it, and they had no reason yet to think he could submit a false report. (This, I remember from a different interview.) They moved on to other things.

  34. ….when Kerry detonated a grenade in a rice bin, apparently for fun.

    Maybe he was just hungry and thought that was the fastest way to cook it!