Mitt Romney Guilty Of A Hate Crime

Yes, I am absolutely serious about the implication in the title of this post.

I was scrolling through my twitter feed about lunchtime here, after doing some work, and found this exchange between two people I follow, Carrie Johnson and Dan Froomkin:

Well, after reading the article Froomkin referred to in his tweet, an AP report on an Amish hate crimes conviction handed down today, I thought there were clear parallels with Mitt Romney’s known pattern of misconduct. Here is the key gist of the AP report on the Amish hair cutting hate crime:

Sixteen Amish men and women were convicted Thursday of hate crimes including forcibly cutting off fellow sect members’ beards and hair…….A federal jury found Samuel Mullet Sr. guilty of orchestrating the cuttings of Amish men’s beards and women’s hair last fall in attacks that terrorized…

Hmmmm, where do I remember a completely similar, in every way, violation of a human individual’s sanctity and rights to individualism and free expression, not to mention of course, forced hair cutting, under the Constitution of the United States? Oh, yes, it was from the once and always juvenile and self entitled Mitt Romney:

Many of today’s principals would be likely to throw the book at a student who pinned down a classmate and clipped his hair, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney did as a high school senior in 1965.

Romney was not disciplined at the time. If such an attack happened in the public schools of 2012, it would probably lead to suspension and might also be referred for expulsion, a number of local school leaders said following a Washington Post report of the incident involving Romney.

Yes, one would hope that “today’s principals” might treat the brutish otherism and hatred of Willard “Mitt” Romney a bit different today. But, seriously, the same intellectual, moral and character deficits that are present now, were present to any competent mind then. Mitt Romney’s hate crime conviction worthy act was not mere misguided words, as so many engaged in at during those times, but instead it was a violent and injurious physical felonious assault. You can call it partisan to say this, and you would be a bloody ignorant and simpering fool to do so. I trust most of you in the national, main stream media, who actually have the time and claimed IQ to actually read this and react intellectually.

This is the “intellect” and “mind” that now seeks to lead the, still, most powerful nation on earth? Mitt Romney would be headed to federal prison if past were but falsely discarded prologue.

Mitt Romney is now, and always has been, a self important, self entitled, brutish chameleon that blithely does whatever he wants, and is willing to say whatever it takes, to get over on others. That is not a leader; it is the mark of a congenitally entitled power mad, craven, flip flopping, and hollow shill.

It is the mark of a man who is a pliable and troubled soul in need of counseling, and the antithesis of a leader for the enlightened and informed free world. Which also kind of explains Mr. Romney’s craven and supremely self serving attempt to try to capitalize on the death of US ambassador Chris Stevens while the event was still very much in play as an United States foreign relations interest.

That is not the mark of a leader, it is the mark of a cowardly lout. Such was, and is, the best the GOP had to offer in their self proclaimed can’t lose year of destiny.

For any halfway informed citizen, and certainly for the supposedly intelligent members of the political press, the foregoing are some things you ought to consider and report. To report a false horserace that is serving to yourself (as Romney always is to himself) is one thing; but to ignore facts in craven servitude thereof is yet another. I know leading members of the press will see this, where will you go? Have you even the small balls to follow on?

There are choices in the political landscape. They may be constrained to where it is a choice between the lesser of two very much evils. That is indeed the choice before the nation today. The problem is the evils are painted as equal, and that is a lie.

Where will the national press go? I think I know, and I suspect it is to feign ignorance. But just to make the stakes clear, if the national press covered the facts and results of Matthew Shephard, and now are willing, through AP or otherwise, to report on the Amish hair cutting hate crime, then YOU NEED to make the analogy to the current man who is guilty of the same effective conduct and hate crime, and who now seeks to be elected President of the United States.

Really, it is the least you can do national press. Can you keep up national press? Can you truly exercise your duty of fair reportage and duty to the American people? Can you? Show your work.

Can the major media pick up on the resolute similarity, and absolute analogy, of these cases? I am not sure the national media has that root awareness, nor public responsibility in their bones.

It will be interesting to see where the national press really stand. I have no illusions of intelligence in that regard. We shall see.

Gosh, silly me, for condoning, much less expecting, such honesty.

[Impossibly perfect graphic by the one and only twolf. Seriously, twolf is our friend; follow him!]

20 replies
  1. JTMinIA says:

    > “Sixteen Amish men and women were convicted Thursday of hate crimes including forcibly cutting off fellow sect members’ beards and hair…….A federal jury found Samuel Mullet Sr. guilty of orchestrating the cuttings of Amish men’s beards and women’s hair last fall in attacks that terrorized…”

    I, for one, find the idea that someone named Mullet might be found guilty of a crime involving hair to be quite encouraging. But I may be missing the point (as usual).

  2. masaccio says:

    The campaign reporters can’t remember where they were yesterday. They sure as hell aren’t going to remember that assault and draw an analogy. If they could think, they’d have real jobs.

  3. tejanarusa says:

    Wow, indeed, Kelly. I get here too seldom lately, but yup, the headline/tweet drew me in…and now I get it.

    Absolutely. Love your description, bmaz, of Mitt as a “cowardly lout.”
    And chameleon..see his pandering to the Miami “latino” crowd with his tale of his “Mexican” father, and his acceptance of government aid. Flip! Flop!

    There’s a reason he’s so often called a robot. Really seems soulless.

  4. GeoffCN says:

    bmaz, I appreciate your point and would appreciate even more a “brief” comparing the Ohio and the Romney cases on the law/facts.
    I have learned many things from your legal analysis on this blog and believe the media could draw from your brief, as they have the opportunity (and balls).
    Department of Justice press release ->
    PACER Case Summary
    United States of America v. Mullet et al
    Date filed: 12/20/2011
    Date of last filing: 09/20/2012
    Defendant -> Freeman Burkholder (10)
    Count: 1 Citation: 18:371.F Offense Level: 4
    18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy
    Count: 2 Citation: 18:249.F Offense Level: 4
    18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(2) and 2 Hate Crime
    Count: 1s Citation: 18:371.F Offense Level: 4
    18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy
    Count: 2s Citation: 18:249.F Offense Level: 4
    18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(2) and 2 Hate Crime Act
    Defendant Custody Status: Released

  5. Roman Berry says:

    “Yes, I am absolutely serious about the implication in the title of this post.”

    I beg to disagree with your level of seriousness. In the age of Obama, anything that purports to be “serious” yet focuses attention on Romney shenanigans while ignoring current Obama horrors is a lot of things but serious it is not. If this is what passes for liberal at this stage, we are doomed. You are aiming at the wrong target.

  6. bmaz says:

    @Roman Berry: Well, no, I do not think that level of accountability will prevail. Nor have I any illusion that any other level of DOJ as the actual purpose of their job, as opposed to self serving cover your ass craven bullshit. But that is who DOJ is now, and has been for a couple of decades. I have seen others pitch a company based, factually incomprehensible, dishonest at heart, theme. I call bullshit.

  7. greengiant says:

    Thanks for the reset bmaz. Mitt the bully had flown off the radar.
    I really have to wonder why Romney got the support that he did. What were they thinking? I don’t know what toxins are doing this, but at 65 I have to wonder about brain fog and dementia as well.
    Is Romney the GOPs the ends justify the means? Anything to win the POTUS? Or is the Romney campaign designed for failure?

  8. Peterr says:

    @bmaz: Two thoughts . . .

    (1) What’s the SOL on conspiracy to commit aggravated haircutting? How about practicing barber-y without a license?

    (2) sniff sniff . . . I agree.

  9. bmaz says:

    @Peterr: Hmmmm, for the federal hate crime, five years under the general statute of limitation. There would likely be a state statute of limitation too, in Michigan 6 years.

    BUT if the victim was under age 18 for any degree of sexual conduct or assault with intent to commit sexual conduct or any sexually abusive activity or material to minor, the statute is 10 years from the date of offense or when the victim turns 21 years old, whichever is later.

    The victim is now deceased and the statute run no matter how you look at it. There is, however, no statute of limitation on moral opprobrium for men seeking to rule the 47% they clearly disdain, disrespect and are willing to hate on.

  10. lefty665 says:

    “It is the mark of a man who is a pliable and troubled soul in need of counseling”

    NO. Troubled? Perhaps, but not likely. Pliable? HELL NO. Highly manipulative!

    To use DSM language:

    Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is described by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV-TR), as an Axis II personality disorder characterized by “…a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.” In the vernacular that is a sociopath/psychopath.

    There are also some Dems who fall into that category if you know what the meaning of free fire Tuesday is, is is…

  11. bmaz says:

    @greengiant: I do not think designed for failure. But, being closer to the age you describe than I would like to admit, yes, I think your “ends justify the means” and “anything to win” suggestions are exactly right.

    Mitt, flaws and all, was the GOP best shot at taking out Obama. If the GOP had put forth a serious voice like Huntsman I might have had to think very hard about how I will vote. But that is not Romney, and it is not the GOP in the modern age. I am far from an Obama fan, but the choice is, painfully, crystal clear.

  12. lefty665 says:

    @bmaz: @bmaz:

    Nice frame bmas. I too “am far from an Obama fan, but the choice is, painfully, crystal clear.”

    I would croak before voting for Mittens. But with 20% unemployed, NDAA, free fire Tuesday’s, state secrets, Beef Hollow Rd, cuts in SS & Medicare (support of Bowles-Simpson – they’re in there along with the Grand Bargain), etc, etc, how in good conscience can one vote for O?

    I too am an old fart. I’ve voted in every election starting with the Hump vs Slippery. By voting this time I endorse the evils (they’re not lesser, they’re full grown) of the last 4 years, and, worse, encourage more. OTOH, I can’t stand the thought of not voting, maybe.

    By voting I forfeit standing to object to the further evils of O when someone can say “What are you bitching about? You voted for the SOB”. Until now I could take refuge in “Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”. I fear I begin to see some sense (surely coincidence) in the Duhbya mangllary, “I won’t be fooled again”.

    Help please, this ain’t no fun.

  13. Eric Hodgdon says:

    Yes, today’s scholastic rulers wield a mighty stick while claiming to be against violence, yours not theirs. One-year for slapping the hat off of the head of a fellow student who repeatedly violated college Code! ( both parties were over 40 )

    It’s not enough for half the class to file complaints while the student disrupted the class, on average, once a minute for 3 hours, 4 days a week, for 16 weeks. Then, the student challenges another student to “step outside.” But these are acceptable examples of behavior, even though they violate the Code!

    Then administration personnel use childish “procedures” claiming to be due process protections at the same time. And of course, the college “President” and the local “Regent” eventually file to get a restraining order upon the student who was simply defending his right to an orderly classroom.

    Such is the “law” in the Tarnished Silver State.

Comments are closed.