listen here

Choose from 5 Gift Options with a minimum donation of $35

Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

At 19 Mitt Romney Demonstrated for the Draft

Daily Mail – by Graham Smith  They say every picture tells a story.

A newly-unearthed photograph showing Mitt Romney demonstrating in favour of the Vietnam War draft might leave the presidential candidate feeling somewhat embarrassed.

The veteran Republican, then 19, can be seen picketing an anti-war sit-in at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, in 1966.

Mr Romney will no doubt be proud of his younger self taking what was at the time a very unpopular stance.

However, he might grimace at his clean-cut appearance and preppy wardrobe.

Taken at the height of the swinging Sixties, Mr Romney holds a sign declaring ‘Speak Out, Don’t Sit In’ as, alongside like-minded individuals, he proclaims his support for Lyndon Johnson’s ever-expanding draft.

But, in a marked contrast to the relaxed  dress sense associated with that decade’s youth movement, he is wearing smart white slacks, a white buttoned-up shirt and a dark blazer.

A newspaper clipping headlined ‘Governor’s son pickets the pickets’ states: ‘Mitt Romney, son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, was one of the pickets who supported the Stanford University administration in opposition to sit-in demonstrators.’

The photograph was taken on May 20, 1966, shortly after a group of students had taken over the office of Stanford University President Wallace Sterling.

They were protesting at the introduction of a test designed to help the authorities decide who was eligible for the draft.

Mr Romney was one of approximately 150 conservative students who counter-picketed the sit-in.

Carey Coulter was one of the demonstrators alongside Mr Romney that day. He told ‘We were there to get an education and these people holding the administration hostage was antithetical to that.

‘Mitt walked up to me and said that he had some experience with the press, and that he would handle the press for me if I wanted him to. I said fine, because I was busy running the demonstration.

‘I don’t recall ever seeing him again.’

The press experience to which Mr Romney referred no doubt came from witnessing how his father, George, dealt with the media.

George Romney headed American Motors before becoming Michigan governor in 1963, a position he held for six years before being appointed Secretary of Housing and Urban Development by Richard Nixon.

Ironically, he later had a change of heart and turned against the Vietnam War.

His pro-war son, meanwhile, never served in south-east Asia because his status as a Mormon missionary exempted him from the draft.

The GOP hopeful spent just one year at Stanford before heading to France for 30 months of missionary work.

He had already met his future wife Ann in 1965 when he was 18 and she was 15. The couple married in 1969 and have five sons and 16 grandchildren.

Mr Romney went on to earn millions as a business consultant and venture capitalist.

Mitt Romney - center

After co-founding private equity firm Bain Capital in the late 1970s, he helped launch the Staples office supply chain, as well as buy Domino’s Pizza.

His public career began in 1999, when he was recruited to take over the 2002 Winter Olympics after scandal and financial deficits threatened the Salt Lake City games.

In 2003, he took over as governor of Massachusetts after a campaign in which he cast himself as a moderate on abortion, gay rights and stem cell research. He had sounded many of the same themes during an unsuccessful 1994 U.S. Senate race against Democrat Edward M Kennedy.

He chose not to seek a second term and instead turned his sights to the White House.

He lost the 2008 GOP nomination to John McCain and has been plotting his latest presidential nomination ever since.

But a record of changing positions on social issues including abortion and gay rights has left many conservatives questioning his sincerity.

Mr Romney oversaw a health care law enacted in Massachusetts that is similar to Barack Obama’s national health overhaul, which conservatives despise.

He has also struggled to allay some sceptics of his Mormon faith.

His extreme wealth – the Romneys are believed to be worth between $190million and $264million – allowed him to invest more than $40million of his own money in the 2008 race.

It recently emerged that Mr Romney has plans to quadruple the size of his $12 million California home.

The 64-year-old filed an application in San Diego, California, to bulldoze his 3,009-square-foot oceanfront mansion in La Jolla and replace it with an 11,062-square-foot property.

A campaign official said that the GOP hopeful was planning the expansion as the home he bought three years ago ‘is inadequate for their needs’.

The Romneys’ official primary residence is a town house outside Boston. They also own a $10million vacation home on the shore of Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire.

The couple sold the 6,400-square-foot home in Belmont, Massachusetts, where they raised their children, in 2009 for $3.5million.

In addition, their 9,500-square-foot ski lodge in Deer Valley, Utah, fetched $5.25million last year.


This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to At 19 Mitt Romney Demonstrated for the Draft

  1. Edward Frye says:

    Mitt is another OBAMA in sheeps clothing. A vote for him just means more of the same or worse. Never trust a Wallstreet tycoon. Why do you think they call them Brokers? They get into office and you are Broker than when they started.

  2. Dave says:

    He probably had another sign stashed somewhere nearby supporting the sit in just in case he might suddenly change his mind as is often the case with this character. Now, I’m not saying that changing ones mind is necessarily a blemish upon ones character. We all have a change of heart from time to time. However, there are those that have made a career out of it for the benefit of personal advancement as he has as is well documented throughout his public life. Needless to say that can be a dangerous proposition when considering an individual such as this for the most powerful office in the land when the prospects for war surround us nearly on a daily basis all over the world. To even define it as dangerous is putting it mildly. More like fatal.

    • Angel-NYC says:

      Wait. I take that back. I didn’t want to push the RED Button.

      • Dave says:

        Yeah. Exactly. I don’t want this guy around any of those kind of buttons as he’s bunkered down well below the land surface with his cohorts and family along with enough provisions to last a lifetime.

        • Brian says:

          One question:

          Why would anyone wealthy enough to live as he pleases and where he pleases find living “bunkered down well below the land surface with his cohorts and family along with enough provisions to last a lifetime” interesting? Where is the logic in that line of thought?

          Just curious.

          • Dave says:

            (imo) For the same reason why anyone wealthy enough to live as he or she pleases as well as where he or she pleases would choose to seek out the office of the President. In a word, power, and all that that implies. The qestion is how that power is used, or as is more often the case, abused. As to whether he would actually find that to be a desired existence or interesting, only he can answer that though I would doubt that his answer would lend itself to be a favorable one. I would imagine that it would be more like a necessary consequence of a necessary action that had to be taken in his thought process.Though I would be wary of taking any answer given by him to heart, for he’s prone to flip flop at a moments notice if it serves his purpose. Afterall, he’s a player in lower manhattan and that’s what they do everyday so it’s hardly a surprise that his behavior is what it is. What should be of concern to us all is that he, as well as other potential nominees (with the exclusion of R.Paul, thankfully) have stated during debates that war is a definite option in keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The difference with Romney is that he has a penchant for being a flip floper so his position today may change tomorrow only to change back next week and he’s very clever about it. It’s a bit like a sleight of hand with him. They’re all guilty of it, in some measure, once again with the exception of R.Paul. He has a guideline to operate by under the Constitution so flip floping is not an option for him. He’s the only sane choice in the group (imo).

          • Brian says:

            It seems to me that you are describing the thought process of a covert high IQ psychopath. If this sort of individual actually considers the destruction of human civilization as we know it an acceptable event because he can then crawl into a luxurious cave for the rest of his life what other conclusion is there?

            In addition, if these people are actually that pathological and they control all the wealth and resources of the world how can any rational person actually entertain any notion of stopping them from doing whatever they please?

          • Angel-NYC says:

            Nah, more like he’ll have an “OOPS! I changed my mind” moment. For my part, I was making a sick joke about the danger of his flip-flopping. Of course he wouldn’t rationally choose to live in an underground bunker. But hey, he’s covered if he messes up.

          • Edward Frye says:

            There is plenty of danger in his flip-flop. There is even more danger if he should obtain the Presidency.

          • Dave says:

            Well Brian I’m not very educated in the science of the human brain so I don’t know. You sound more in depth in that dept. than I am. Psychology was not one of my stronger of studies in school. It would just seem to me that someone who is on record of changing their position on a multiple of issues as often as Romney has over the course of his public life is questionable to hold the office of the potus. It just sounds to me like that is a sign of instability for whatever the reasons or motivations are. Coupling that with statements he has made of supporting preemptive military actions on foreign soil for what he percieves to be a problem and a threat to our security (which I don’t but then what do I know) are concerning to me. I wonder if someone such as this truly understands what the potential ramifications of such actions might be or has their sheltered existenece via the money tree disabled them from giving it the proper consideration it truly deserves. I don’t know. Maybe it would never happen. Then again, maybe it would. Now I’m sounding like a flip flopper. I did get a good chuckle out of Angels’ comment and then began to think of it more seriously. Perhaps I’m taking this way to serious by elevating it to this level. It wouldn’t surprise me since I know I’m very capable of doing just that, or so I’ve been told.

          • Edward Frye says:

            We have to try. Good will overcome evil. Everyday more and more people around the world are waking up to what is going on. Giving in is giving up and surely humanity and our children will suffer for it. Remember our Constitution is loaned to us by our children. It’s up to us to see that it is there for their children. We also owe them a balanced budget. The debt should not be passed on to the next generation. People should not suffer at the expence of power, greed, and control. Others want life and peace for their children just as we do. Since 1967 I’ve been all over the world, in the military and out of the military. People just want to live in peace and you can’t bomb the hell out of them, distroy their homes and families and expect them to love you for it.

          • Edward Frye says:

            Very strong point, and so true. He is nothing more than what we already have.

          • Edward Frye says:

            The Globalist agenda is population reduction, order out of chaos. The President and Legislation do as their told in order to push the agenda closer to their goal. You have to understand the mentality of these people. Most of them have more money than could be spent in several lifetimes. Their goal is power and complete control, that’s what they feed on. It’s like drug addiction to them. They look on us as if we are sub-human, or cattle so to speak. We are expendible as a resource to their cause at any cost. They will take shelter, shelter they have had built with our tax dollars and they have enough suppies to wait it out. They really don’t care about the masses only themselves. If they cared we would be a much more advanced civilization by now. There would be no world hunger or shortage of energy. Together as human beings we can stop this evil. We simply have to stand our ground and make the right choices.

          • Dave says:

            You are right E.F. in that we do have to try. I was really struck with your words of having been around the world, in and out of the military and how people just want to live in peace. They want what we want. All over the world I believe that to be true. To live in peace and have the opportunity to prosper and provide for their own. More and more people are awakening as you say to the cause and effect of this social injustice… and at the very least that is a good begining. Peace to you and yours.

          • Edward Frye says:

            Thank you, Love and Peace to you and yours also.

    • Edward Frye says:

      I strongly agree. Newt is one of them and so is Obama. They go where they get paid to go.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *