Would YOU like to save more on taxes? Mitt - show us how!

Dear Mr. Romney:

I am an American taxpayer.  Like you, I feel that while taxes are a necessary obligation, it only makes sense for one to minimize their personal tax burden.   You have implied that over the years you have done nothing inappropriate in organizing your tax returns.   Clearly, you have been successful in mitigating the highly-complicated tax code to do so, and I would list this as one of your talents in moneymaking, given that you are obviously an American success story in finance.

It pains me though, that you seem to be extremely reluctant to share your wisdom with the American people - the people you wish to lead as President of the United States.   As a leader is it not an obligation to lead through example?   Wouldn't we ALL benefit from learning from your expertise and experience on the matter of tax preparation?   I realize that my financial issues and concerns do not come close to the complexity that you suffer in preparing your taxes, but given that it is the dream of every American to prosper as you have, I'm certain that I would benefit from a greater understanding of how one should manage what money that have, and how to best use the existing tax code to retain as much of it as possible.

Would you please explain to me (and to all of us) why it is so important for you to not share what you know when doing so would influence us to support you more?   I would like to learn more so as to be a better American; who better to learn it from than a person who wants to be my leader?

Dear Mr. Romney

At this point six witnesses to the assault on John Lauber have not only placed you at the scene, but have identified you has the leader of the mob.   All six not only remember the event, but also speak to how revolted they are at having either taken part in the action, or how they didn't attempt to stop it from happening.

Yet you - after laughing it off - claim that you can't "recall" the event taking place.

I have to ask: do you think that someone who experiences such memory lapses is qualified for a leadership position where recall of facts is critical?

Do you think that perhaps your inability to recall the event AT ALL might be due to psychological stresses concerning your actions that have caused you to block those memories?   Shouldn't you undergo an evaluation to determine the degree to which this problem might impair your ability to lead the entire country?

Given your other histories of incidents where you appear to lack empathy for other living things (e.g., the incident with your own dog, Shamus), how can you convince us that you will be able to lead a country full of people with diverse believes, values, and situations that do not match your own?

Or - ought we conclude that "I don't recall" is just a code phrase for "I'm too weak-willed and craven to admit that I did something that was reprehensible, I can't apologize to someone who is now dead, and I lack the intrinsic moral fortitude to come clean decades later"?    Considering that the position you seek has the requirement that you must be believable to heads of state, why should we place you in a position where other countries will constantly be wondering if you're not being honest with them in negotiations? 

To quote Joseph N. Welch: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Dear Mr. Dolan:

I was rather stunned by your response concerning the Ali Forney Center.



You were given the invitation to visit the center, to talk to the homeless clients.  You were given the opportunity to publicly minister to an entire group of people, to hear their stories, to possibly help provide answers to their questions.

Instead, you ignore all of that and just threw away the opportunity to write a testy response that neither addressed the situation nor seemed to demonstrate any of the core values your religion claims to support.

Was it a lack of reading comprehension of the original letter, or a demonstration of complete and absolute hubris on your part that you chose to completely ignore the fundamental issue in a vain attempt to "make it all about you?"   Is it beyond your abilities to recognize that your pride is getting in the way of your role as a church leader?   Do you think that Jesus would've have written the letter you did?   Honestly?

I find it interesting that the church defines "Seven Cardinal Sins" and that one of its own cardinals can commit several of them so easily and publicly.

Why are you such a poor representative for your faith?

Ann Romney...

I understand you don't consider yourself rich.

Could you answer two questions for us?

1) How much more would you need to become rich?

2) How much would you need to lose to consider yourself poor?

Dear Pat Robertson...

Your claim that the reason for the recent tornadoes is that the people living in the affected area didn't pray enough to influence the Almighty to prevent the carnage.

I don't understand - by making this claim (and also claiming that God speaks to you, and you speak for him) you're suggesting that God is petty and vengeful requiring attention through prayer so much that he would destroy people's lives indiscriminately if he didn't get sufficient supplication - which really violates the idea that "God is Love"- to the point where the hypocrisy required would make it impossible for a "perfect" god to exist.

Is that what you really believe?   That God isn't omnipotent but commits many cardinal sins either because he can't help himself, or that he simply chooses to sin?

So Rush Limbaugh...

Despite having been married to four different women, you have not been able to have a single child.

Are you?

1. Using Birth Control
2. Impotent
3. Infertile
4. Homosexual
5. Still a Virgin?

 Please let us know...

For Pope Palpatine

This week you came out against fertility treatments and all pregnancies that involve ANYTHING other than direct conception.   This pronouncement raises MANY questions since the reality that such treatments have had viable successes consequently raises questions about their effect on Catholic dogma...

I have to ask:  what is the religious status of all CHILDREN who ARE the product of fertility treatments, or surrogate pregnancies?

Are they human?   If "natural" consummation within marriage is the ONLY way to have children in the eyes of the Church, aren't you implying that the product of any other process are abominations?   Does your rhetoric concerning the sanctity of life apply to them or only to "real" babies?

Are they eligible for salvation?  If they were not produced in the ONLY allowed way,  then are they also outside the minimal conditions for being welcomed into the Church?   If not - where is the dividing line?   Given that DNA splicing has already become a nascent field, you are rapidly reaching the point where fetuses might become the product of more than one source of DNA (in order to avoid horrible life-threatening diseases like Tay-Sachs).   Under what exception would the Church allow those fetuses salvation if they - by your own definition - not permissible pregnancies?

After birth, should they damn their parents as sinners?   How should other family members react to their existence?  

Where do Caesarian sections fit into this ruling?   After all that's not a natural method of delivery and technically would be contrary to God's plan - under the rhetoric used against interfering with pregnancies in the case of abortion, shouldn't the Church ALSO be taking a strong stance against methods of delivery that are similarly "not natural" leaving the mother/child subject to God's will even if the delivery might endanger the life of either or both?   Presumably one could argue that God was "claiming" them then, and interfering with the death is a violation of God's plan.   If INSTANTIATING life is "science playing God" aren't Caesarian birth likewise "science playing God"?   If not - where is the dividing line whereupon medicine is no longer allowed to interfere?

If children borne of artificial means in turn have children - even by completely "traditional" methods - are those children also tainted with incompleteness owing to their unholy DNA?   How many generations are required before they are permitted salvation?

If someone has in-vitro fertilization and then regrets it owing to their religious beliefs, is abortion of the non-natural fetus permitted since it is actually not the product of Church-permitted conception?

For that matter - if someone who is technically virgin is implanted with fertilized eggs without causing subsequent anatomical loss of virginity, are the products of such a "virgin birth"?   How does that impact other Catholic canon?

Anti-marriage zealots

When you state that you support a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, do not you realize that you're implicitly admitting that a constitutional right TO marriage equality exists?  

Why else attempt to BAN it?

Om, nom nom NOM...

Brian Brown:

When Massachusetts gained marriage equality, you complained that using the judiciary to uphold fundamental unalienable rights was "activism", and said that extension of equality (which is an entirely impossible concept) needs to be done through the legislature.

When New York gained marriage equality through the action of the legislature, you complained that this was inappropriate, and that it should be done through referendum (even though that's not possible in New York).

With the odds mounting that at least ONE of the upcoming referendums on marriage equality will actually come down on the side of marriage equality - what do you plan to do then?    Will you be so dishonest as to suggest that that state's judiciary block marriage equality?

Also, shouldn't you rectify your campaign donation issues with the state of Maine (and all of the other states) before entering into the fray with this current referendum?

So - Callista Gingrich...

What is YOUR opinion on "open marriages?"

After all you were the mistress back when Newt allegedly asked wife #2 to have an open marriage so as to maintain a relationship with you.

Are you against them - then when did this change of heart take place?

Are you for them as you must have been then (it would be impossible to claim that you didn't KNOW Newt was married)?   Was this discussed when planning your marriage?    Do you have veto power on any of the potential dalliances that Newt seeks to undertake or does he basically have carte blanche when it comes to acting on his open marriage?

Given that his previous open marriages seem to always spawn a divorce and re-marriage, why does it apparently not concern you that wife #4 isn't (aliready) waiting in the wings?


Your experience with this issue would be extremely helpful to many people dealing with relationships where infidelity might become (or is already) an issue.   So, PLEASE help us with your thoughts and guidance!

So - Willard...

... did you REALLY think that everyone who was around in 2002 would have completely forgotten your lame attempt to swing GLBT votes?   

OK - after this weekend's GOP "debate"

...   where do I POSSIBLY begin?

Perhaps the single follow-up question:   Gentlemen - do you think that we're absolute IDIOTS?   Really?