Tag Archives: Romney
This is the song that is hated so much by Democrats that it is kept out of Democrat run schools as if students who like the song are terrorists and altogether un-American.
It’s pro-life, pro-family, pro-American, honors the military, praises God (especially sinful for the Democrats), and upholds freedom (treason for the Democrats). Anyway…
The words about freedom — “The flag still stands for freedom, and they can’t take that away” — might be tweaked to say — “The flag still stands for freedom, we’ll fight to-keep it that way” — with “to-keep” sung on one beat.
What think ye? I mean, obviously, freedom in America is going down the tubes. And don’t think that Romney is a sure win on Super Tuesday. So…..
I’m thinking that a week before Super Tuesday would be good for a re-release.
It doesn’t have to be a record. Just a YouTube video.
Go for it, Lee!
- I got the impression that Romney’s foreign policy amounts to a laudable desire to help other nations develop peacefully, and to otherwise take a non-military leadership role in taking out islamicist death mongers in Iran/Syria and in other regions.
- I got the impression that Obama’s foreign policy amounts to placing an emphasis on women’s rights at home and abroad, whatever the emergency of the day around the world happens to otherwise be. Women’s rights, of course, for Obama, means abortion, etc.
Am I wrong?
So, here we are… The Al Smith Dinner is upon us and Obama will get his Photo-op that may well win him the election.
If you want to know what I think about Cardinal Dolan’s invite to Obama, check out this post, which went a bit viral when I put it up.
His Eminence has an opportunity to rescind, what with Obama’s insistence on persecuting the Church during the debate the other day. The HHS abortion mandate stands. This will be catastrophic for freedom of religion in America.
Since things have changed for the worse since the invitation was first offered, I suspect, I hope, that instead of rescinding the invitation, the Cardinal will rescind the policy of having no dialogue on that evening, and provide an instruction about religious freedom and the evils of abortion to both candidates.
Even better, instead of saying anything, it would be great if the Cardinal would turn down the house lights for 33 minutes to show this video. That’s all that’s needed:
UPDATE: Both spoke. The difference is between day and night. In case you missed it:
Nevertheless, I stay with my original critique. Romney brought up the Obamacare abortifacient mandate. Obama chose to rest with his anti-religious freedom statement in the debate the other day. Obama couldn’t care less about religious freedom, and has already succeeded in making the issue seem less serious than it is simply by showing up at the dinner. That’s all he had to do. His trouncing by Mitt means nothing. The mandate doesn’t seem so un-American anymore. Too bad, that.
At a townhall-style campaign event in Ohio on Wednesday, Mitt Romney was asked by a voter about his views on Barack Obama’s “attack on religious freedom.”
Religious liberty, our first freedom of those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And the president and his administration said they are going to usurp your religious freedom by demanding that you provide products to your employees, if you’re the Catholic church, that violates your own conscience.
And so whether it’s a Catholic businessperson or the Catholic church itself they’re being told what they have to do that violates their religious conscience. That attack on religious freedom I think is a dangerous and unfortunate precedent.
And I know we’re not all Catholic in this room. Many presumably are. But I feel that we’re all Catholic today. In our battle to preserve religious freedom and tolerance and freedom in this country, it is essential for us to push back against that.
Romney received a 20-second standing ovation.
“Say it again!” yelled a member of the audience as the applause subsided.
“I will say it again,” Romney replied. “That’s one more good reason to get rid of Obamacare. And I’m going to get that done the first day I’m in office.”
After he received another standing ovation, Romney said, “Now, you’d think I’d have started with that. That’s the line I should have started with, right?”
Romney’s remarks on religious liberty begin at the 7-minute mark in this video.
[But there are other things on that video. Listen to the whole thing, right to the end.]
Meanwhile, for hilarious (however sad) visual commentary on Obama and his insult to American businesses, see this incedible post at SanctePater. Yikes!
Comments on this are welcome. Help this hermit to understand! Hermits vote!
19 June 2012 UPDATE: http://www.cc2w.org/ Who to vote for? Romney=Obama=a vote for crimes against humanity (or is it true that Romney is pro-life?)
So, here’s the website: http://www.cc2w.org/ (you’ve seen their great video). However, I’ve got a question: Who do we vote for?
Mitt Romney created the contraceptive/abortifacient mandate and Obamacare, both of these men reject the Constitution on freedom of religion.
Is it a matter of voting for vice presidents instead of presidents? Don’t vice-presidents just go to state funerals?
Two quotes from Evangelium Vitae of Blessed Pope John Paul II:
(1) When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a “tyrannical” decision with regard to the weakest and most defenceless of human beings? Everyone’s conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. [EV 70]
(2) In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”. [EV 73]
So, basically, it’s a crime against humanity to vote for Romney or Obama as that is a direct vote for total war on children in the womb by these totally cowardly, anti-American, abusers of power out to harm children. Is one really better than the other? Really? Tell me why…
UPDATE: JAG noted that there’s a rather ferocious discussion going on over at FreeRepublic, as Mark re-posted this over yonder. As soon as one group of opinions appears to be holding sway, another disembowels them, and vice-versa. Interesting.
UPDATE: One commenter was a bit upset with me, I guess?! Does this mean that Romney has a better foreign policy?
UPDATE: If both have a mania to attack children in the womb, if both promote homosexual ”marriage”, if both trash freedom of religion, if both therefore attack freedom of speech, what’s the use of calling one a commie or not? Do we really know Romney’s foreign policy?
Sure, paragraph 73 of Evangelium vitae of Blessed Pope John Paul II also stated that one may vote, for instance to pass legislation further restricting abortion though not eliminating it altogether, so that, analogously, if there were two pro-abort candidates, but one less so that the other, it would be permissable to vote for the candidate who is less of a pro-abort than the other. However, with these two, I don’t see much difference.
What happened to the Tea Party? What happened to “Throw the bums out!” ? Is Newt a viable contender, or is he just posturing to be vice-president? (as if that would change anything…)
19 JUNE 2012 UPDATE: LifeSiteNews reprinted the following article just some hours ago. Is it true? Let’s have some discernment. This is a bit longish, but very important: Continue reading
Here are their positions on some major issues important to conservatives based on their actual records in government or past boasts.
|Advocated that abortion s/b safe & legal in America||y||y||n|
|Defended Roe v Wade as settled law||y||y||n|
|Advocated for abortion for underage girls without parental approval with judge’s ok||y||y||n|
|Supported planned parenthood||y||y||n|
|Introduced $50 taxpayer funded abortion||y||y||n|
|Supports homosexual agenda||y||y||n|
|Better for homosexuals than Ted Kennedy||y||y||n|
|Ok with homosexuals in Scouts||y||y||n|
|Ok with homosexuals in military||y||y||n|
|Supported and still supports global warming hoax||y||y||n|
|Supports gun control (so-called “assault weapons” ban)||y||y||n|
|Supports amnesty for illegal aliens (by any other name it’s still amnesty)||y||y||n|
|Is undeniable father of RomneyCare||n||y||n|
|Is undeniable grandfather of ObamaCare||n||y||n|
|Still boasts that RomneyCare is great!||y||y||n|
|Still boasts that RomneyCare is a “conservative solution”||n||y||n|
|Still believes RomneyCare is constitutional||y||y||n|
|Still believes individual mandate ok at state level||y||y||n|
|Believes state forcing individuals to buy health insurance is a conservative idea||n||y||n|
|Believes compulsory health insurance with mandates and penalties s/b imposed on all states at state level||n||y||n|
|Believes compulsory health insurance at state level is constitutional (states rights)||?||y||n|
|Believes the state has constitutional power to force you into a private contract against your will for no other reason than you live there||y||y||n|
|Supports government “stimulus” spending claims more is necessary||y||y||n|
|Believes personal income tax should be cut drastically (15% flat tax)||n||n||y|
|Believes corp income tax should be cut drastically (12.5% corp rate)||n||n||y|
|Believes capital expenditures should be 100% expensed in first year||n||n||y|
|Believes capital gains tax should be eliminated||n||n||y|
|Believes estate tax (death tax) should be eliminated||n||n||y|
|Believes federal government must be drastically cut per constitutional limits||n||n||y|
|Believes unconstitutional federal functions like education should be returned to the states and people per tenth amendment||n||n||y|
|Believes social security/medicare s/b phased out/privatized/returned to states and people||n||n||y|
|Believes everyone at EPA should be fired and start over as an agency to look for solutions/not hinder industry||n||n||y|
|Believes the constitution restricts the government from infringing on inalienable rights||n||n||y|
|Appoints/supports/cowers to liberal activist judges||y||y||n|
|Will challenge activist judiciary||n||n||y|
|Believes in founding principles and has best conservative record to back it up||n||n||y|