Monday, January 9, 2012

Mitt Romney’s – The Mormon Chronicles - Mitt Romney was a '60s protester who protested protesters - McCain calls Romney “President Obama” -The abysmal incompetence of the non-Romneys - Obama to Congress: I will decide what is constitutional - Is there not one ethical, courageous Democrat? - The End of Porn? - 3rd Graders Given “Slavery” Math Homework -Debbie Wasserman Schultz, either still screwing Obama or just the Dumbest Woman In Congress - It’s Not Just Solyndra: Solar Energy Sagging

I’m gonna keep saying it till it sinks in, America will not vote for a Mormon, if Mitt is the nominee Obama is guaranteed the White House

Ken Starr: Can I vote for a Mormon?

For Romney, Mormon question rears its ugly head in Iowa - The Washington Post
New polls in Iowa suggest Romney’s Mormon religion continues to be a sticking point among all-important evangelical Christians there. And that’s bad news for a Romney campaign that is trying desperately to prevent Newt Gingrich from scoring a big victory in the state’s caucuses.
It would be an insult to GOP hopeful Mitt Romney if his Mormon faith becomes 'the elephant in the room'  

The plot to kill Mitt Romney’s campaign 

Just when things were finally looking good, a pro-Newt casino magnate dumps millions into an effort to ruin him 
The biggest development in the Republican presidential race doesn’t have much to do with the New Hampshire primary. It’s the news, reported late Sunday night by the New York Times, that a pro-Newt Gingrich Super PAC has received a $5 million donation from Sheldon Adelson, a casino mogul and close Gingrich ally, and is pouring the money into a South Carolina advertising campaign aimed at taking down Mitt Romney.

The ads will apparently portray Romney as a job-destroying corporate raider and feature interviews with people who lost their jobs when Romney’s venture capital firm took over their companies. This poses two threats to Romney, an immediate one in the GOP primaries and potentially a longer-term one, with Democrats itching to caricature him the exact same way in a fall campaign.

At the moment, Romney has maneuvered his way into an enviable position in the GOP race. His razor-thin Iowa victory last week has elevated his national poll numbers to levels he failed to attain for all of 2011 and helped push him to a commanding lead in South Carolina, a state where he finished a distant fourth in 2008 and where his moderate past, Northeast roots and Mormon faith are all seen as particularly problematic.

Mitt Romney: “Damn, It Feels Good To Be A Mormon” 
- FitsNews.com
First of all, all we care about is whether Romney would be true to taxpayers … and odds are he wouldn’t be. As for being true to his faith and his family, that’s cute … but it’s certainly not a compelling reason to vote for (or against) a candidate for elected office. Meanwhile as for his promise to be “true to our country,” wouldn’t Romney have to take an oath to that effect before taking office?Talk about pablum, people.

Anyway, the word “Mormon” never appears in Romney’s mail piece … yet the mainstream media (which is working harder than Romney’s own campaign to secure the nomination for him) is praising the guy like the ghost of JFK just gave him a “Profiles in Courage” award.

“The mailer signals that Romney is willing to confront questions about Mormonism head on in South Carolina, where his frontrunning campaign is now competing aggressively in hopes of delivering a knockout blow against his conservative rivals,” writes CNN’s Peter Hamby.
In fact, the original headline of Hamby’s piece was “Romney Embraces Mormon Faith In South Carolina Mail Piece.”

Huh?

How on earth is a mail piece that doesn’t even mention the word Mormon a “head on” confrontation of the issue?

Mitt Romney's Electability: Lying is Not a Welcome Virtue for Presidential Candidates - International Business Times 
Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney, in all probability, will lose the electability edge he has over his Republican rivals if he doesn't learn to get his stories right. His latest blunder - getting caught lying by his rivals - is the last thing that should happen to any electable candidate. 
Romney was caught contradicting himself on policy issues. He was caught turning 180 degrees in his stands on abortion, employment and other issues over a period of time. Although it should be noted that while consistency is a virtue Americans expect from their presidential candidates, changes can be pardoned to some extent - as opinions and stands could change over time.
Romney, in an NBC/Facebook debate, made a futile attempt to defend the advertisements attacking Newt Gingrich, which were made by a super Political Action Committee (PAC). In the process he ended up contradicting himself.

At the debate, Gingrich criticized Romney for the advertisements. Romney first denied he had seen a particular ad attacking Gingrich, released by a super PAC backing him; seconds later, however, viewers saw him giving a point-by-point description of the advertisement.
There can be only two possible explanations.
It could either be Romney lied when he said he had not seen that particular advertisement or he has some sort of paranormal capability to help him describe that which he has never seen.

Deroy Murdock: "Romney's Tax Hikes Should Worry Taxpayers"

 Looking Back...

The abysmal incompetence of the non-Romneys - Michelle Malkin

Mitt Romney’s chronic flip-flopping political career is teeming with reasons to oppose his nomination — from his support for racial preferences, to government funding of abortion, liberal judges, global warming enviro-nitwittery, TARP, auto bailouts, the Obama stimulus, gun control, and of course, individual health insurance mandates that presaged Obamacare.
Instead of focusing on his long political record of expedience, incompetent non-Romneys have morphed into Michael Moore propagandists — throwing not just Bain Capital under the bus, but wealth creators of all kinds who take risks in the private marketplace.
We’re screwed.

Internal Affairs: Mitt Romney was a '60s protester who protested protesters

By the Mercury News
I would have never have guessed that GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney was a '60s protester.
But he was -- and at Stanford of all places.
Actually, he was a counterprotester, protesting a protest. Yes, those were confusing times.
It was 1966, when Romney was a 19-year-old Stanford freshman. Romney and his friends were unhappy that 15 anti-war students had occupied the reception area of the university president's office to protest new Selective Service requirements that affected students' draft deferments.
So the young Romney rallied to the administration's defense, joining the crowd with a sign saying, "Speak Out! Don't Sit In!"
I found that logic a bit fuzzy. Isn't sitting in, well, speaking out? But, hey, the kid was only 19. We'll give him a break.
In any case, it turns out Romney wasn't exactly an opponent of deferments. He got one himself.
As a Mormon missionary, he took a "ministerial deferment" from the draft -- and served his time, not in Vietnam, but in France.

Opinion: '67 speech in strange S.F. shows Romney's dad was the more courageous


Missed Opportunity - The Daily Beast Dec 6, 2007
What Mitt Romney didn't say was more interesting than what he did.
Mitt Romney's speech on faith and freedom was well written, well delivered and contained some nice rhetorical flourishes. I personally found little in it with which to disagree. But it was hardly a speech for the ages. To my ear it was a political speech in the narrowest sense, aimed at reassuring evangelical primary voters, especially in Iowa, who are wary of his Mormon faith.

Once again Romney asserted his belief in Jesus Christ as "the Son of God and Savior of mankind." And he went on to acknowledge obliquely that what his church means by that "may not be the same" as other faiths. Evangelicals probably wanted more, but Romney wisely avoided parsing differences. Fair enough.

But the most obvious omission was Romney's failure to follow up on his promise to "offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my presidency, if I were elected." True, he did tell us—as he had to—that he would not allow the authorities of his church to "exert influence on presidential decisions," that "I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office," and again that "I will serve no one religion…" But there was absolutely nothing in his speech that told us what he would bring from his Mormon faith to benefit his responsibilities as president. None of the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, has been good at answering that question either. But why promise what you do not intend to deliver?
All About Mormons Episode 0712 Original Air Date: Nov 19, 2003

McCain calls Romney “President Obama”


*******
2008 - LDS Mormon Mitt Romney on Blacks Priesthood 

He wept? Really!? Seriously!?

*******
How The Racist Mormons View Blacks
*******


*******

Via Strange Politics and Moonbattery

*******

Obama to Congress: I will decide what is constitutional 
Election season is here, and you might think President Obama would be going out of his way to show voters that he can be trusted with the powers of the presidency. But you would be wrong. Just a few days before Christmas, Obama served notice to all Americans that he will continue to abuse executive privilege by seeking new ways to vilify gun owners and further his anti-gun agenda.
Congress placed a provision in the $1 trillion omnibus spending bill for 2012 designed to bar the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from using any of its $30.7 billion taxpayer funds to “advocate or promote gun control.” However, upon signing the bill into law, President Obama issued a caveat of his own:
I have advised Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.
In other words: “Congress may pass laws, but I decide which of its laws are constitutional and which I can simply choose to ignore.”

*******
Racist Shit:

3rd Graders Given “Slavery” Math Homework

  'If Fred Got Two Beatings Per Day…' Homework Asks

ATLANTA-Third grade students in Gwinnett County, Ga., were given math homework with references to slavery and beatings. A spokesman for Gwinnett County, Ga. claims that the questions were made to incorporate social studies into the math curriculum.One math problem was “Each tree had 56 oranges. If eight slaves pick them equally, then how much would each slave pick?.” Another read “If Frederick got two beatings per day, how many beatings did he get in one week?”
ABC News reports:
“Something like that shouldn’t be embedded into a kid of the third, fourth, fifth, any grade,” parent Terrance Barnett told WSB-TV. “I’m having to explain to my 8-year-old why slavery or slaves or beatings are in a math problem. That hurts.”
“In this one, the teachers were trying to do a cross-curricular activity,” Gwinnett County school district spokeswoman Sloan Roach said.
*******
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz Gets Slapped Down By Chris Wallace (Video)  - Gateway Pundit
Let’s face it, She’s not the brightest bulb in the room. Chris Wallace destroyed Wasserman Schultz yesterday on FOX News Sunday. The radical DNC Chair tried to persuade the host that Obama had no responsibility for his failed Solyndra venture.

IT’S NOT JUST SOLYNDRA: Solar Energy Sagging.

******

Is there not one ethical, courageous Democrat? - Red State

Is there not one ethical, courageous Democrat?
The Obama administration’s actions in the recent past have by any measure set new records for cynicism and hypocrisy. Obama the Senator (c. 2006) and Obama the Presidential candidate (c. 2007-2008) repeatedly espoused positions that Obama the President (c. 2009-2012) has not only declined to endorse but dramatically repudiated. Pre-election Obama was going to reset international relations (oops), close Gitmo (oops), shrink the deficit (OMG, OOPS!), and swear off Presidential signing statements (oops, oops, and oops). The best of intentions and all that, right? Since then, Obama has abandoned positions with – well, with abandon.

But the unmitigated gall he showed last week in the brazen, unconstitutional power grab exemplified by the lawless “recess” appointments of three NLRB directors as well as the head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau belongs in the chutzpah hall of fame.
I am no longer surprised when this administration does something of which I disapprove, no matter how strongly. But this posting is not about why – or even whether – those were poor decisions. Others at this site (see here, here, and here) and elsewhere have thoroughly and convincingly explained why Obama’s actions were unconstitutional. What does surprise me – indeed, alarms me – is the deafening silence, if not downright approval, from the Democrat side of the aisle in the face of these outrageous actions.
********
 Other Stuff:

Despite what the left would like you to believe, our tax system is not rigged to favor the rich.

The mystery of government is not how it works, but how to make it stop.

As we saw last week with Obama’s announcement about military spending cuts, entitlements are beginning to crowd out the American military.

Obama is facing an uphill re-election battle and on track to receive only 43% of the vote in a two-man race, according to an election model by IHS Global Insight.

Another example of ridiculous government regulations.  Ever heard of a whooping crane?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

May I suggest something to you? Mitt Romney is dangerous because he is a white latino. Yes, I said it. Mitt Romney is dangerous because he is a white latino. Latino people are VERY racist, fascist, they only truly care about their own group when they are in any position of power. They are trying to make Mitt Romney, (a white latino mexican) and Marco Rubio (An anchor baby cuban) President and VP. Why? Because in order to further destroy america and tear down our border you need latino supremacy. Mitt Romney will open our border destroying the security and sovereignty of our country completely and employing millions of mexicans over legal residents and legal US citizens. Both Rubio and Romeny would support this because they are both latino and they care most about their own people. They will throw legal people and us citizens under the bus to help their latino peoples. Black and white people are always called racist, but noone ever says a word about how racist and fascist latino people are. Its not a good idea to put a white supremacisr in power, not a good idea to put a black america hater in power (Obama) and its certainly bad news if a latino supremacist gets in power.