"Mitt Romney: The Bishop Whose Familial Legacy Includes Polygamy!"

It's time to Break It Down!

As Willard Mitt Romney continues to hone his relentless and inexorable assault on the GOP Presidential nomination, the consensus is rounding into the notion that it really is a foregone conclusion that Governor Romney will eventually claim the big prize, i.e., his Party’s title of nominee.  Consistent with his nearing the wrap-up of the preliminary festivities, in fact, if not in practice, there will be an every increasing focus on Mitt the man.

This post will be brief, in part because I am on the road, but also because there will be many future opportunities to discuss Mr. Romney.  Moreover, while I will introduce for some, and expound upon for others, a couple of underexposed facets of the Romney family history, allow me to be clear, neither of these issues projects as a major talking point for the coming fall campaign between Governor Romney and President Obama.  Moreover, I do not suggest that they should be elevated to such a level.  However, when they just happen to get pushed out as part of some broader conversation, you can say to your self…or to whoever may be listening, “I knew that!”

It is fairly common knowledge that the former Governor is member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the LDS Church and, more commonly referred to as the Mormon Church).  In fact, the Romney family has a long-standing history of involvement in the Mormon Church.

Ok, so you knew that.  But did you know, Mr. Romney held the title Bishop, in the Mormon Church?  Probably not, but back in the 80’s while heading Bain Capital, Romney also led a local Mormon ward (congregation) in Arlington, Massachusetts.  In LDS parlance, Bishop analogous to pastor in other churches.  In the management of the Mormon Church, its pastoral leaders are not paid, and continue to maintain their “regular” jobs. 

Contemporary news accounts often refer loosely to Romney’s past role as a former church leader in the Mormon Church.  This post is not intended as a slam; but rather seeks to put a finer point on precisely what that term meant.  While church leader sounds rather nondescript, the fact is it is a characterization that should be translated literally.  In essence, he led the local congregation, and eventually assumed responsibility for several congregations in the region.  Certainly, this is not a factoid that is likely to influence whether you vote for Romney; but any dossier would be incomplete without that piece of information.

Another interesting, though non-critical Romney point of reflection concerns his familial ties, not just with the Mormon Church, but with the practice (now frowned upon by the LDS Church), of polygamy.  The United States has labeled polygamy a felony since the Edmunds Act (also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882) was signed into law on March 23, 1882.

In the broad sense, this seems a casual connection at best.  However, it is somewhat more than that.  At least two of Mr. Romney’s forebears were practicing polygamists.  His great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney had five wives; his great-great-grandfather, Parley Parker Pratt practiced plural marriage and had twelve wives.  In addition to multiple spouses, Pratt had thirty children, and 266 grandchildren.  In 2011, Pratt's living descendants were estimated at between thirty and fifty thousand.

The historical convergence of Mormonism and polygamy is worth a longer look than I will take in this post.  But there is one morsel that I simply had to include.  You will undoubtedly recall Jon Huntsman; former Utah Governor, and an early casualty in the GOP dash for the Party’s nomination.  In addition to being Mr. Romney’s Great-great grandfather, Parley Parker Pratt is Mr. Huntsman’s great-great-great grandfather.  What a man, what a man!

Certainly, each and every American President has his own unique story.  Undoubtedly many are just as, if not more compelling as Mr. Romney’s.  President Obama’s comes to mind immediately.  And rest assured he will be the focus of future posts.  But for today, it’s all about Mitt.  Of course, that is not to be confused with all there is about Mitt.  Consider this a brief introduction to “Mitt Romney: The Bishop Whose FamilialLegacy Includes Polygamy!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/campaigns/in-boston-mitt-romney-evolved-in-mormon-leadership-some-churchwomen-say/2011/11/17/gIQAMOoWjN_story.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-03-28/mitt-romney-mormon-bishop/53836844/1

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/53711549-80/romney-mitt-stake-bishop.html.csp

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/5421/how_(not)_to_understand_romney%E2%80%99s_time_as_an_lds_bishop/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/mitt-romney-mormon-bishop_n_1386592.html

http://romneyandmormonism.wordpress.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Park_Romney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Anti-Polygamy_Act_of_1882

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romney_family

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wilcken_Romney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

http://www.irr.org/mit/sacred-lon-br.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parley_P._Pratt

Party Like Its 1865: A New and Improved Southern Strategy!

It's time to Break It Down!

A long time ago, in a land far, far away, Americans engaged in a Civil War.  It was perhaps, despite what detractors of President Obama’s current term on office say, the most tumultuous 4 years (1861-1865) in American History.  Students of great civilizations know that when such civilizations fall, it is often due to internal failures, stresses, and pressures, rather than to external forces.

During the American Civil War, the fight, for all intents and purposes was over the secession of the Confederacy; an effort by, what was at first, seven Southern slave states, to effectively opt out of the United States government.  Those seven states, the initial signatories of the ConfederateConstitution were:

1. South Carolina
2. Mississippi
3. Florida
4. Alabama
5. Georgia
6. Louisiana
7. Texas

After the Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter in South Carolina, President Lincoln called for troops from each state to recapture Sumter, and other American property.  This in turn led to the defection of four additional states:

1.      Virginia

2.      Tennessee

3.      Arkansas

4.      North Carolina

Since this is not a post about the Civil War, I’ll fast forward to 1865.  Jefferson Davis served as (the only) President of the Confederate States of America.  The Union won; General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant, and the era known as Reconstruction began.  That’s a story deserving a post of its own.  Maybe I’ll double back and pick that up some day.

At this point I will segue by discussing briefly the significance and implications of political party affiliation…then and now.  Then, Republicans had the distinction of advocating against the expansion of slavery.  The country was still growing; continuing to add states.  Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to cap slavery by limiting it to those states in which it was already legal.

That, in and of itself, is a particularly important point.  Aside from the fact that that it was a Republican who held the position, the more important take away from this stand is President Lincoln was not voicing opposition to slavery; a point in keeping with the mantra he would eventually state…that his interest was in saving the Union, and if he could do so without fighting the War, and leaving slavery in tact in its current dimensions, that is what he would have done.

Alas, the slave states were not so amenable.  Slave holders viewed the matter as one of economics.  Limiting their ability to expand slavery into more states as the country grew was, in their estimation, an unfair limitation on the ability to expand their wealth.  Though few think of it this way, in a very real, though Abraham Lincoln is considered a great President, rightfully, his signature accomplishment, preserving the Union, unfolded the way it did, largely because of slave holders’ refusal to accept having their economic opportunities limited by fiat.  Indeed it was their intransigence that led to the War, and their losing it that led to not only the reclamation and preservation of the Union, but also the dissolution of the institution of slavery.

I realize this may be an uncomfortable subject for some, so I’ll get on with it.  The anger, disappointment, and sense of loss that accrued from the Civil War experience led to a state of being that, not surprisingly resulted in the South aligning itself against the Republican Party.  Consequently, it was understood, the South was solidly Democratic in its voting patterns, well into the 20^th Century.

That tide began to turn in 1948 when the Democrats, at the behest of Hubert Humphrey, added a civil rightsfor blacks platform at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. In pressing the measure for passage, Humphrey, then Minneapolis Mayor, said that, “the time has come for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states’ rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!”

The measure eventually passed, but not without vigorous opposition from Southern Delegates.  Led by South Carolina Governor Strom Thurman, three dozen Southern Delegates walked out of the Convention.  In the short-term, the response to this “affront” was the creation of the States’ Rights Democratic Party, familiarly known as Dixiecrats.

The formal actions of this new party were short-lived, but there were long-term consequences of adding the civil rights platform.  The American Civil Rights Movement and the CivilRights Acts of 1964, and 1965 effectively sealed the deal, in terms of reframing the calculus of American political parties.  Southern whites defected from the Democratic Party en masse, and their absence was largely and quickly offset by the arrival for blacks, particularly as voting rights measures guaranteed them the right to vote.

This synopsis is surely a CliffNotes version of the relevant events.  Nevertheless, the events as noted provide an environment in which Southern whites exploited racism and fear to win elections.  Depending upon ones perspective, the strategy was successful.  Without question, it led to the realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party.  But that success did come with a cost.

A fact forgotten by some, and not known to others is, for many years, blacks, to the extent they were permitted to be politically engaged, supported the Republican Party.  Obviously, Lincoln and his position on slavery, measured as it was, influenced greatly how blacks viewed the party.  When Hubert Humphrey tacked a civil rights addendum onto Harry Truman’s Presidential Platform in 1948, he effectively jump-started a domino effect that re-wrote the social contract between blacks and the American political process.  By the end of the 20^th Century, it was common for up to 90% of blacks to vote Democratic in National elections. In fact, the situation deteriorated to the point that the GOP attempted to fashion a re-set.  In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized for his party's use of the Southern Strategy in the previous century.

Fast-forward to the present time.  Two days ago, in Monday’s edition of the Washington Post, editorial writer Charles Lane penned a piece the paper titled Return of the ‘white man’s party’?

He begins by referencing the Reconstruction era, when the Democratic Party was known as the “white man’s party.”  The racial designation has been previously explained.  The single-sex reference was applicable because, of course, at the time, women could not vote.  Just as obvious, that is not the case today.  In fact, chances are, more women than men will be voting in the next election.

Mr. Lane noted not only the propensity of white men to vote GOP, but also cited what he called “the Democrats’ reliance of women and people of color.”  While I could nitpick his word choice, which seems to suggest white men mad a proactive choice to select the GOP, Democrats are at the mercy of, and merely hoping to elicit support from women and blacks.  In actuality, as I have suggested, both Parties, by their actions have chosen their destiny, as it relates to who constitutes their principal constituencies, or in the case of the GOP, constituency.

Lane even acknowledges a variety of causes, including:

• The white backlash against civil rights
• The resulting long march of Southern whites from the Democratic Party to the GOP
• The defection of white ethnic “Reagan Democrats” in the North
• The GOP embrace of conservative positions on abortion & other social issues, which alienated women
• A Democratic policy agenda that favors not only affirmative action but also more spending on health care and education (areas in which large numbers of women & minorities are employed)
• The residential “big sort” into like- minded neighborhoods
• Race-conscious re-districting
• The rise of a Latino population & the battle over illegal immigration

This post does not portend the outcome of the November election.  Rather it purports to highlight a simple line of demarcation.  Between now and November 6^th, there will be myriad twists and turns, many designed to recalibrate the demarcation that projects white men on one side of the line, and women, blacks and Latinos on the other.  How those efforts will turn out is anybody’s guess.

For now, what is certain is, the more things change, the more they say the same.  Oh for sure, the name of the individual “Party of preference,” has changed (been reversed), and the geographic area is different (expanded from just the South), but once again, white men are separating themselves from the pack.  They have fashioned the GOP into a “Party Like Its 1865: A New and Improved Southern Strategy!”

I’m done; holla back.

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Humphrey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant

Stand Your Ground: Licensed to Kill!

It's time to Break It Down!

For over six weeks now, the media has engaged the nation in a spirited discussion of the merits and challenges of the law commonly known as “Stand Your Ground”(SYG).  The catalyst for this expository discourse is the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman on February 26^th.  I addressed this topic directly in post three weeks ago, and I will not rehash the specifics of that case.

In these few moments my focus is on the relationship, correlative or coincidental, between “SYG” laws, and increases in the homicide rate.  Intuitively, one might be led to think a measure that permits and validates the use of deadly force, in instances when one fears for his or her life, might lead to more people shooting folks in close quarters…which in turn may lead to more those folks dying of gunshot wounds…hence, an increase in homicides.

By and large, proponents of these measures subscribe to the notion that guns don’t kill people; criminals do.  Of course that notion allows for the rapidly expanding exception which includes the cases of the people whose rights these proponents support; “people who kill the criminals they fear are threatening their lives by attacking them.”

Mr. Zimmerman shot Martin in Sanford, Florida, near Orlando.  Florida led this movement, adopting SYG in 2005.  Since then, various forms of the law have been adopted in 32 more states, according to the Associationof Prosecuting Attorneys.  This proliferation has been heavily influenced by a campaign led by the NationalRifle Association (NRA) and the AmericanLegislative Exchange Council (ALEC), both of which continue to push the issue.  The measure has currently stalled in several states, due to fallout from the Martin case.

The American psyche reeled from fallout emanating from the attacks of September11, 2001, and was further alarmed by the lawlessness depicted across Florida and in New Orleans after Hurricanes Frances and Katrina in 2004 and 2005, respectively.  This perfect storm state, so to speak, left countless Americans susceptible to the Siren’s Song of the Gun Lobby.  With those disconcertingly uncomfortable moments as a backdrop, the nation found itself ripe for the message that expanding the Castle Doctrine (A man’s home is his castle, briefly speaking), was a good idea; SYG was just the ticket.

It has been seven years since Florida enacted the SYG law.  During the ensuing years, in Florida, and in other states that adopted similar laws, the measure has become an effective defense for an increasing number of people who have shot others, according to state records and media reports.

There is a healthy debate about the laws effect on crime rates.  Dennis Baxley, author of the Florida version of the law, claims the crime rates in Florida have dropped significantly since 2005 when the law was enacted, and 2012.  However, while that is true, a more in depth look at the matter reveals crime rates in Florida, as in the rest of the nation, have been dropping steadily since before 2000.  Moreover, the decline did not accelerate due to SYG.

Nationally, studies suggest a variety of factors have led to the decline in crime, including:

• High incarceration rates
• Less use of cash
• Legalization of abortion (fewer poor young people)

In concert with the alternative reasons for falling crime rates, critics of SYG have pointed out a number of causes for concern about the law.  Some of them are:

• Criminals will use the law as a defense for their actions
• More people will carry guns
• People will not feel safe because anyone can use deadly force to settle a conflict
• Misinterpretation of clues will lead to use of deadly force when there is no threat
• Racial & ethnic minorities will be at greater risk because of stereotypes

So how do the facts square with intuition and inference?  I’m glad you asked!  According to data supplied by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and FBI statistics, justifiable homicides have tripled in Florida, and other states have experienced similar increases.

During the five years preceding the adoption of SYG, Florida prosecutors declared “justifiable” an average of twelve killings by private citizens per year.  In the five years following the law’s enactment, that number increased to 36, or a 300% increase.  In the event you wondered, it should be noted the increase in the number of people shot by police is comparable to the increase by private citizens.

Not surprisingly, opinions regarding whether there is a direct correlation vary, depending on the position of the analyst.  The state of Florida and the Florida prosecutors association have declined to assert a direct correlation.  However, the state’s public defender’s association and a number of advocacy groups that oppose the law have drawn just that specific connection.

Beyond Florida, The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, a national group, argues that SYG is not just a technical expansion of the Castle Doctrine, the ancient legal concept that allows property owners to defend their homes, but rather a barrier to prosecution of genuine criminals.

As Steven A. Jansen, the group’s vice president put it, “It’s almost like we now have to prove a negative – that a person was not acting in self-defense, often on the basis of only one witness, the shooter.”

At this point, in response to the query “How to the facts line up with my pre-judgment,” I am inclined to view the correlation as substantial; in fact direct.  As I see, the heading “Stand Your Ground: Licensed to Kill,” is Dead On (pun intended)!

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/stand-your-ground-laws-coincide-with-jump-in-justifiable-homicide-cases/2012/04/07/gIQAS2v51S_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford,_Florida

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Castle%20Doctrine.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#North_Carolina

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/09/1082023/-Florida-Justifiable-Homicides-Tripled-Since-Stand-Your-Gound-Law-Enacted

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/05/justified-homicides-up-25-percent-since-states-passed-stand-your-ground-laws/

Three Primaries, Three Victories: A Clean Sweep

It's time to Break It Down!

Palm Sunday was three days ago, Good Friday is two days from now, and the coming Sunday will be Easter.  Meanwhile millions of students are enjoying a well-earned Spring Break.  Well, regardless of whether they earned it, no doubt they are enjoying it.  As such, in keeping with my practice, I will lighten up a bit in this week’s post, in recognition of the holiday.

As you probably know, last night Governor Romney took the next “next step” in securing the nomination of the Grand Old Party (GOP) for the 2012 Presidential Race.  His victory speech was notable, as much for words he did not utter as for those he did.  In his continuing effort to tout his advantage in business acumen, relative to President Obama, Romney characterized POTUS’s policies as those of a “Government-Centered Society.”  But terminology aside, that is not new.  He defaulted quickly to now familiar talking points, recalling the trite “community organizer” nomenclature. 

However, in attempting to define his focus anew, he was careful to omit three key words that he now apparently considers passé.  Those words were:

1. Santorum
2. Gingrich
3. Paul

None of that, however, is the focus of this post.  No, quiet as it has been kept Democrats are executing a parallel nomination process.  Well, parallel in a manner of speaking.

The fact is the President, even though he has no opposition in most states, is still on the ballot, and is candidate for his Party’s nomination.  Or he was!  Like Governor Romney, President Obama, also swept primaries in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Wisconsin yesterday.  In so doing, he secured the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2012.

The Democratic process is structured so that 2,778 delegates are required to seal the nomination.  At the end of last night’s tallying, President Obama had amassed 2,854 delegates, including 2,160 Pledged Delegates, and 694 Superdelegates,according to the CNNElection Center Tally.  The President announced his re-election bid April 4, 2011.  So in almost symmetrical fashion, Mr. Obama clenched the nomination just one day shy of the one year anniversary of having announced his bid to seek another term.  He will formally accept the nomination during the 2012 Democratic National Convention, which will convene in Charlotte, North Carolina  the week of September 3rd.

By the way, even though the Republican Party has clearly signaled that Governor Romney will be its nominee, eventually, it appears likely if current rhetoric holds, that the nomination process will continue for a while, at least.  Rick Santorum has his home state primary, Pennsylvania, coming up, but he insists he will compete strongly in, and perhaps win Texas, North Carolina, and several other states.

While some theorize Mr. Santorum’s campaign would lose any semblance of gravitas were he to be beaten in his home state’s primary (April 24^th), based on the former Senator’s rhetoric, he has no such concerns or ambivalence.  In fact, he continues to insist he is determined go at least to Texas, where the Primary does not occur until May 29^th.

By that calculation, it is unlikely the race will terminate before June.  Of course, considering the most recent successful Presidential candidate clinched his Party’s nomination June 3^rd (2008), such a possibility may not be so foreboding.  Certainly a solid counterpoint to all the concern expressed about the lingering nature of the GOP Primary process is that the battle between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama actually served to hone Mr. Obama into a more battle-tested candidate, and a tougher opponent for SenatorJohn McCain.

The structure of the GOP Primary Process requires that the successful candidate attain 1,144 delegates.  After last night’s primaries, Mr. Romney has earned 655 delegates according to a New York Times Delegate Tally.  At this point, none of Mr. Romney’s opponents has any chance to reach the magic number before the 2012 Republican National Conventionin Tampa, which starts August 27^th.  Rick Santorum appears to be hoping for a brokered Convention; the only scenario in which he could walk away with the nod.

Despite frequently trying to channel Ronald Reagan, and referring to himself as the Party’s only “true Conservative” candidate, most observers outside Santorum’s brain trust, publicly give the Senator virtually not chance to pull that rabbit out of his…hat.

For now, “Three Primaries, Three Victories: A Clean Sweep” merely describes the latest accomplishment for Governor Romney; but it flatly symbolizes the next level for President Obama.  I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/candidates/1918?hpt=hp_t1

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/03/breaking-obama-clinches-democratic-nomination/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/03/leading-presidential-candidate-to-clinch-nomination-tuesday/

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?t=172846&f=20&view=unread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101489616

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/11024143

http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ahZzfmJyZWFraW5nbmV3cy13d3ctaHJkcg0LEgRTZWVkGLTe0wcM/2012/04/04/president-obama-clinches-democratic-presidential-nomination-by-winning

http://thinkmuch.us/politics/breaking-obama-clinches-democratic-nomination-0032166/

http://www.nairaland.com/139338/obama-clinches-democratic-nomination/8

http://inagist.com/all/187340790039724033/

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Democratic_National_Convention