Friday, April 06, 2012
Flashback 2008 – A Documentary Suggests Voter Fraud and Crime Propelled Obama to the Presidency – Fear and Loathing from Chicago to NY to Hollywood
Hillary Clinton on Day 1 of the DNC Denver Convention - image MN. Public Radio
HT to Hillbuzz.org’s: “Bill Clinton Knew Obama was Ineligible” a simple blog post from a Chicago Blog with a twist – former Clinton Supporters, professional politico’s, who are often entertaining, however, bring issues to the forefront that are largely ignored by the media in general. That’s the question posed on Hillbuzz – why are the mainstream media not picking up on this story? The allegations made within the post, would, by any standards of what is known as journalism in America (Most often biased by politically progressive journalists (if one will), and their editors, and owners of the news organizations), be given barely a look, or most likely filed under “nothing to see here, move along” (See Howie Carr, WRKO – who’s line was co-opted for this post).
The post then refers on to a an article on World Net Daily:
“Hollywood Producer Heard Bill Clinton Say Obama Ineligible”, which for World Net Daily might not be considered an unusual headline, however, the video that supports the article, and the individuals involved in the documentary, compels one to ask a few questions as to the validity of the claims made and why, if these claims were true, Hillary Clinton is not now the President and Barack Obama is not now living in a cell block, along with what must have been conspirators at the highest levels of, for lack of a better phrase, organized political crime.
The documentary, under production by the group “We Will Not Be Silenced 2008” gives little indication that there is more to the documentary than voter fraud, which, is a part and parcel of American Politics, and has been for centuries (See or View: “Gangs of New York”.) It is in certain states, almost a given, that the dead will vote, bags of ballots will be tossed into the Harbor, and the Democrat incumbent will win the election. Those states that most often come to mind: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois , with Massachusetts and Illinois most likely vying for a tie for first place based on corruption, and arrests of high ranking state positions on a regular basis. However, to put that into a national context takes a bit of doing – the plan: Knock out Hillary Clinton to ensure that Barack Obama becomes President.
The documentary interview shown below is from World Net Daily – the producer is not a “nobody”, rather has obviously endangered her career by engaging in this project, given the overall progressive climate in “Hollywood” – or what some refer to as the “West Wing”. But what of the claims made in this video, ranging from death threats to a conspiracy to elect an individual who was not eligible to be president?
Watch the video; it is chilling in the implications of the raw, criminal power behind a major political party.
If these allegations are true, or even hold a drop of water, there are questions raised as to who else knew of the political machinations and criminal for that matter that would make one man president over an infinitely more qualified woman?
Who held the evidence? This would have taken place during the Bush Administrations watch – therefore, the Department of Justice under the Bush administration surely would have known something was afoot, and if so, to what end would they allow this to take place?
There was a call made to this blogger, in June of 2008, during the end of the primary that was gives some credence to the films premise. An acquaintance who worked for past presidents, of both parties, contacted this blog with the following: A relative married to an FBI agent in Albany New York had evidence that would end the campaign of Barack Obama, that they were dying to release this evidence but had been told to wait – in July, leading to the convention and the contact called again, this time to asked not to dig any deeper than I might have into the claims made – I insisted I did not as it was not as it was hearsay. They then suggested that the FBI in Albany would not release the documents, period. That certain members were under threat for the safety of their lives and families, and that this extended to the Governor’s office of New York and beyond to Chicago – I suggested that it would be best to drop it and not speak about anything further. At the time, it was filed under an acquaintance in a high profile and stressful job, just taking time out to have a bit of a breakdown.
Then memory was jogged when Hillbuzz released their post via Facebook. Of course, the aforementioned is still hearsay – but it does bring up questions, as to why, a couple considered the most powerful in the world, or the U.S. at the very least, would allow themselves to be bullied by their own party into not releasing information on a political opponent? We they also threatened or was it merely a non-story, designed to start those rumors that might call into question the legitimate qualifications of a presidential candidate and the opposition? Again, what of the GOP? Apparently not ostriches when it comes to running Presidential campaigns, they would have more political intelligence at that point, than perhaps any other campaign, given their access to the administration of George W. Bush, or at least one would think that the DOJ would have at least shared – that did not happen.
If true, it means that both political parties were involved and to what end? Obviously, on the Progressive side of the aisle, they would have a first duly elected Socialist to the highest office I the land. On the GOP side, they would have know that historically the Carter policies would not work, and they would win the House, possibly the Senate in the midterms (2010) and as the economy dissolved, and scandals broke left and right from 2010 to 2012, the GOP nominee of choice would handily be elected.
Very Machiavellian, could both groups, or even one of those groups really pull this off? To this mind, yes, on a local level, or state level for that matter (think Gangs of New York, updated to Gangs of Chicago, Gangs of Boston) but to go national, it would have to include that mindset in each and every state, and include: Gangs of Super delegates. It is intriguing to say the least, even if it came from WND, it does raise a few questions, especially when correlated with what one might have thought to be an overstressed and imaginative acquaintances paranoid delusions – one might owe that acquaintance an apology.
The most pressing question however is: Why now, and to what end? The polls (Gallup) taken over the course or four years, see the President as one-term, the angst regarding his policies can be felt in households containing voters from all political ideologies, and come November, it is more than likely that there will be a new President of these United States. To what end? If true, it would mean, as a feminist, that the party that purportedly is pro-woman, took the opportunity to oust the most qualified woman on U.S. soil, in the history of Presidential politics, and did so by intimidation and what one might characterizes as “mob-like” tactics. It would have broader implications of course, but that would have been the crux of it – also, there would not have been a question of a strong challenger in 2012 – as one can bet the house a Clinton President would have had strong approval ratings – as she is a centrist.
That is a few of the questions that arise.
However, it could all be chalked up to angry supporters of a political family that was, in every way, shape and form, robbed of the opportunity to compete via the option of the Super Delegates.
Thursday, April 05, 2012
Obama’s Campaign against Supreme Court – Seen as Risky by Some – How This Ruling will Help the GOP, Public Opinion and a One Issues Opponent.
Is this what Obama has left to Campaign On? photo's Telegraph UK and magnificentbastard.com
Just last week, President Obama questioned the authority of the Super Court, as the Court heard arguments on whether or not to find the President’s Health Care Bill unconstitutional. The fact that it appeared as if the court was not exactly on the side of the Administration in the first three days, and the horrid and stumbling presentation by the Administrations lawyer, it was, as reported an indication that the Court would, in all likelihood, strike down the law as unconstitutional – which is their job. The law itself, is not widely supported by the general public – polling data shows that support for the bill is lacking 46% strongly oppose the Act, while support for the act is at 36%(WTSP). In fact, the decision to even vote on the bill brought about a series of contentious town hall meetings, and demonstrations that apparently have been forgotten, or more to the point ignored, it was after-all only the Tea Party. That same Tea Party was responsible, in part, for huge Democrat losses in the house in 2010, and it was fueled by the public’s desire to get rid of “Obama care.”
Now, the President has decided, since that is the only legislation that he can claim as a ‘legacy” to his Presidency, that he is going to fight back like a Conservative – He’s suggesting that the court refrain from being “judicial activists” by adhering to the Constitution. Granted that’s a somewhat simple explanation of the President’s issue with the Court – more to the Point, he has warned the Court to uphold his law, as they are not elected, and in an obvious attempt at goading the Court into upholding the law, he took them to task over remarks in the initial hearings. The Court will decide sometime between now and June 24th.
According to reports, the President may have taken a risk on this one, as voters see the Court in a more favorable light than other institution – say Congress, the Senate and yes, the Office of the President (Bloomberg). In a series of polls by a variety of pollsters, finds a shift in the public’s view of the courts, specifically during the period of 2008-2010 and 2010 forward – in that period, the support for the Court to follow the Constitution rather than use it as a guideline for legislating from the bench, has risen.
Which may be why the White House is now under “damage control” according to Reuters News Service, the spin on this one, is that the President “"did not mean and did not suggest that ... it would be unprecedented for the court to rule that a law was unconstitutional. That's what the Supreme Court is there to do," Carney said.” (Reuters)
Obviously, the White House is counting on a nation that does not watch the news, read the news or otherwise, go online – It was obvious he was warning the Court not to be activist and not to follow the Constitution, rather defer to Congress. He apparently ignored the whole Separation of Powers suggested by the Framers of the Constitution and something every student of the nation should understand, never mind a Harvard Law School Grad.
This smacks of desperation – however, it may, in the end, be a good thing for Obama if the Bill is found to be invalid by the Court – otherwise, he runs the risk of having to campaign on Health Care Reform, which is not overly popular (see polling), That said, the whole Health Care Bill fiasco aside, the President then would have to run on his Economic, Foreign Policy and Domestic Policy performance, where he a) cannot blame Bush, although he will try, cannot blame Congress (he already tried that – see 2010), and will have to stand on his own record. No matter how the media and the White House are going to attempt to spin and re-write very recent history, the facts are there, and the footage available to run in campaign ads opposing Obama’s re-election. In April, the price of gasoline at the pump continues to rise, and as a resultfood is now costing more (inflation) and that affects not only the “very rich”, or the “middle class” but those who’s EBT cards can no longer keep up with the rising costs of food. As the unemployment rate is steady at 8 to 9% depending on the month and the reporting, and not including underemployment nor those who have simply given up looking for work and no longer have benefits available – the aforementioned immediate misery of the general public is palpable. If one thinks they are going to blame George Bush, think again. It might be worth a shot, but the former President has not been in the driver’s seat, so to speak for the past four years, and the proverbial “buck” stops in Obama’s office.
With “Obama-Care” off the table, it also removes the onus of “Romney-Care” from the campaign, giving the former Governor of the State of Massachusetts, and Businessman Mitt Romney, a break – he has the tools that he needs to make a distinction between the way he managed Massachusetts (by working with the Democrats in the State Legislature and Senate (there really was no choice, as he was vastly outnumbered), and balanced the budget, and so on and so on – the debate, should Obama be competitive, would have to fall on questions more mundane: like the cut of the two contenders jean’s - which one might “wear it better”? (See UK Article Obama Jeans vs. Gordon-Brown Chinos’.
Seriously, those are the type of questions most American’s want to know – not: how are you planning to get us the heck out of this mess? What if, however, most American’s really want to know who is going to stop the insanity, which one of the two men at the podium (assuming it is Romney) would be best equipped to get the jobs back into the nation, cut down the inflation, and pump up private industry in order to move the nation forward? One has to understand that government money does not come from the government, and there is only a finite number of “rich people” left to support Obama’s programs, whhile the so-called middle class is being forced in to the lower classes, and the lower classes see no way out – it comes down to the question of “Who is going to help me put food on my table?” – With four years to prove himself in that regarded, the President has spent his time crafting a piece of legislation that, upon review, could be dismantled in a heartbeat – one can best the house, the Administration never thought it would be heard by the Supreme Court this soon, and now, the Campaign must find a new angle. Any suggestions?
Posted by Tina Hemond at 5:34 AM
Labels: Advantage to GOP if Ruling of Court Kills Obamacare - Romney in Jeans versus Obama in Jeans, Obama Campaign Against Supreme Court
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
Romney Wins Wisconsin, Maryland & D.C. – Wisconsin Dems Accuse Romney of Buying Votes with Sandwiches!
GOP Candidate Mitt Romney - image ABC News Radio Online
From the New York Times: GOP Candidate, Mitt Romney, has won three additional primary contests: Wisconsin, Maryland and D.C., giving Romney a total delegate count (including super delegates) of 655 to Rick Santorum’s 278, Newt Gingrich’s 135 and Ron Paul’s 51. The win in Wisconsin was the closet for Romney’s nearest competitor, Rick Santorum, with 98% of the votes reported, Romney at 42.5% to Santorum’s 37.6 – Ron Paul came in third at 11.7 % with Newt Gingrich rounding out 4th at 6.1% of the vote, the Maryland and D.C. (where Santorum was not on the ballot), were both won handily by Romney.
The win in Wisconsin, according to the Democrat Party of Wisconsin, was accomplished by Team Romney through bribery! Apparently, Romney, along with Wisconsin Congressional Representative, Paul Ryan(R), purchased votes by handing out submarine sandwiches at a local restaurant in a campaign event ABC News dubbed the complaint: “A Cold-Cut Case”, bringing home the pettiness of politics as usual. That said, Wisconsin State Laws prohibit the distribution of items worth more than $1.00 to either persuade or dissuade individuals from voting (ABC News), however, in the sub-shop in Wisconsin, those getting sandwiches, may or may not have been intending to vote, in today’s economy, it may have been a welcome free-lunch. In 2008, the Obama Campaign was prevented from handing out box lunches to poll-workers, (Appleton Post Crescent) which is slightly different than handing out sandwiches at a campaign event, even if the candidate is urging those in attendance to go out and vote. Those working at the polls have access to ballots, and anyone with common sense would not draw a straight line between handing out sandwiches to random individuals who may or may not vote and handing out lunches to those in charge of the polling place. Apparently, that is not the case with ABC News or the Appleton Post Crescent!
It is evident, from the articles that followed these last three GOP primaries, that Team Obama (including some in the Press), are gearing up with, what amounts to, pettiness, in an attempt to downplay the GOP candidates, with the main focus on Romney as the front-runner. (See Real Clear Politics: Obama Instructs Journalist on How to Report His Positions (includes video)) A perfect example is Politico’s Mah-velous Mitt vs. Out-of-Touch Obama”, a satirical post spoofing Mitt Romney’s use of the word “marvelous”: “But what was the president saying about Mah-velous Mitt? I think he was saying Romney was the kind of guy who uses wimpy words, a man insulated from the rough and tumble of real life and out of touch with real Americans due to his vast wealth.”. The article ends with the AP’s point of view that the President is becoming “combative” and “stinging” (Politico), which, in a real world sounds a tad like school-yard bravado from a news organization(s) which obviously have a favorite.
Of the two top GOP candidates, however, the one who has taken the biggest beating from the press has been Rick Santorum – so far. Santorum has been up in “Google News alerts” since he began to surge with wins in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota – being painted as a right-wing, religious zealot, similar to the treatment the Press gave 2008 candidate Mike Huckabee. Santorum, who, like Huckabee, has a solid political record that does not reflect his religious choices, has been hammered by the left press over his personal choices as a Catholic – his case has not been helped by the usual GOP “establishments’” desire to have a nominee immediately following the Iowa caucus – generally a moderate, rather than a Conservative.
What to watch for: The ridicule of Romney by the press, no matter how apparently mundane, as the reality of supporting a Carteresque Obama re-election campaign has set in, and Romney edges closer to the nomination. This may have worked in 2008, with a weak candidate in John McCain, who was much less vigorous (kindly put) compared to the candidate Obama, and was battling both a lack of enthusiasm by the conservative wing of the Republican party, as well as a badly damaged Republican brand. Post 2010 may see conservatives, once-again, holding their noses to vote for a candidate, however, the environment is slightly different, and in the long-run, compared to President Obama, Romney or for that matter, anyone, would be an option. In other words, it will “take a miracle” for the President, even with a little help from his friends in the press, to pull this one off.
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
President Obama Warns Supreme Court On Overturning His Health Care Reform Law – Lawmakers Not Elected – Complaining About the Separation of Powers?
Chief Justice John Marshall - President Obama takes History and the Court to Task - image westliberty.edu
President Obama has warned the Supreme Court, ahead of their pending decision on the Constitutionality of his major body of work as President, the national health care reform act, that they are not elected, rather appointed justices, (Wall Street Journal) which is stating the obvious.
His complaint to the Justices pre-decision, rings somewhat hollow coming from a Harvard Law Review student – in effect, the President should have known better and be fully versed in the Separation of Powers brought to bear by the framers, and by the Marshall Court’s decision to bring balance to the rights of the Legislative and the Executive Branch – a key feature of the U.S. Government that any high school student taking a History Overview class should be well aware.
The Separation of Powers, Article III of the U.S. Constitution as define by Chief Justice Marshall:
'So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
''If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.'' To declare otherwise, Chief Justice Marshall said, would be to permit a legislative body to pass at pleasure the limits imposed on its powers by the Constitution.”
Suppose, he said, that Congress laid a duty on an article exported from a State or passed a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law or provided that treason should be proved by the testimony of one witness. Would the courts enforce such a law in the face of an express constitutional provision? They would not, he continued, because their oath required by the Constitution obligated them to support the Constitution and to enforce such laws would violate the oath. Finally, the Chief Justice noticed the supremacy clause, which gave the Constitution precedence over laws and treaties and provided that only laws ''which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution'' are to be the supreme laws of the land.”
The president’s chief complaint to the Justices follows that a the body of legislatures duly elected, passed a bill that was a) not popular with the general public, and b) the only body of work which can be cited categorically as belonging to his presidency, by a majority. However, if one looks to the original intent, of the Marshall decision, it was to prevent exactly that from occurring (See Above: should the Court not have the ability to oversee the laws passed by the Congress (and signed by the Executive Branch (the President, it would allow Congress to impose laws on the people that were clearly not Constitutional.)
It is the framework of the Separation of Powers to which this nation holds - that no one branch is subject to supremacy but that all are under a system of Checks and Balances to protect the populace from overreaching and burdensome legislation.
Does the Health Care Reform Act meet that test?
It was passed in a rush on in late December, the Democrats literally held the Congress in Session, the bill was not only lengthy, often incomprehensible, with little time for anyone to read the entire bill prior to the vote to pass the legislation – it was a purely politically motivated act. Had the Democrats worked to seriously craft a bill that would have not have not passed muster should the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution be remembered. It was, immediately - and by those causal students of the Constitution to the legislators who opposed, ostensibly for political purposes, but one must give credence to the possibility that, be they Democrat of Republican, one might actually consider the Document of the constitution (or the guidelines for running our Government as set forth by our founders), to be inviolate.
Clearly the President should have known better, and now he complains, yet does not know the outcome of the decision? Is his “pre-emptive” warning to the Supreme Court to rule in his favor (or in Favor of upholding the Mandate a bit premature – that is of course, unless he is certain that his largest body of work will not pass Constitutional muster. The later is most likely.
Should the law be struck down, any portion, it will all fall. This due to the fact that the law was written without a Severability Clause, something either missed in the haste to push the legislation through the Congress, or intentionally included. Intentionally? Yes, in case the Court would at some point be a more liberal to moderate court, one filled with justices who felt that the Constitution was just an archaic guideline to be manipulated or changed at will with the times – the progressive school on the Constitution. Justices of this ilk are installed in Circuit and District Courts, as well as several who sit on the Supreme Court, most notably two appointed by the President himself. However, who would have thought that the people would stand up in twenty seven states and counting and quickly file cases with the Supreme Court to hear the matter on the basis of the Constitutionality of the Bill? Surely not the President, apparently, he never saw it coming.
It is less to do with politics, from the right to the left, and more to do follow the intent of the law as it has been written. It has been known since was discovered to be in violation of the Commerce Clause, that the Bill itself did not contain a severability clause, which would have allowed certain elements to stand on a case by case basis. Therefore, whatever the Justices Decide, will have an impact on the American Public, depending upon whether one is an individual who believes the Government should have more power over the people by mandating they purchase a good, item or service, against their will, or face penalties’, or whether, that mandate may not be in the best interest of the general public.
It would also behoove the President to note that although the Supreme Court Justices are not Elected, he is, along with all the Democrats who were coerced in a process that began in December and ended in March of 2010 and complicit in signing the Law – to recall the election of November 2010. It was an election that was historic in proportion as to the losses of many of those members who passed that bill. The Democrats who pushed that legislation through against the will of the people, are not appointment, therefore, they were fired.
In having read the legislation, in its entirety, which is mind-boggling boring, yet full of areas that are either unclear or obviously lending to bigger government, more oversight of the people by the government, and the power of the government over the people to fine them should they not comply and purchase what the government demands. It is clearly in violation of the Commerce Clause, a first-year law student who is aware of the historical significance as well as legal precedents set by the Marshall Court would know better.
It is simply an overreach of the Congress, and should those Supreme Court Justices rule on the side of the Constitution, the Law Simply will not stand. Suddenly, the President and his calls against judicial activism (or his definition of judicial activism, which is when Justices actually follow the Constitution, as directed), if acting in a bipartisan manner. For decades, regardless of whether the appointees were made by Republican or Democrat Party Presidents, there have been decisions questioned, by Conservatives no less, on the fact that a Justice – redrafted legislation or upheld legislation contrary to the principals of the Constitution, from the bench. One cannot have one’s cake and eat it too.
It is the arrogance of the Executive Branch, however, to lecture the Supreme Court that appears to be missing from this discussion. The fact that the President feels that the Congress, His Congress, and His Legislation who spent more than half of his term of office crafting a bill, that bill should trump the rights of the Judicial Branch. It is the politics in play, not the care of the people, nor the rule of law, but simply an election year. The President faces several strict constructionist (those who adhere to the tenets of the Constitution), and therefore, is most likely showing bravado in the face of a loss, considering the time spent on that bill, rather than on other issues of import, it will leave him without a legacy. However, in some opinions, that legacy is one which he might be better off without, and perhaps he should, if the decision is to overturn the legislation, thank Justice Roberts and his Court for saving him from a legacy of embarrassment.
Monday, April 02, 2012
The Attacks on Mitt Romney Begin from the Left – Financial Holdings to His Mormon Faith – As The Republican Candidate Move’s Closer to the Nomination
Mitt Romney questioned on faith - Photo: Gingrich, Romney pre-debate national anthem- Romney sings through each one (fortunately the mic is off - no offence to Mitt Romney but he cannot sing) - image Politico.
From the Salt Lake City Tribune: “Romney May Win a Lot of Delegates This Week” is a synopsis of the weekend’s events, including remarks made on the Sunday news shows, specifically New Gingrich’s statement on Milwaukee radio station WTMJ (Romney) "will probably" get the 1,144 convention delegates he needs to win the nomination, but added that Romney still has to earn it.”
Going into the primaries this week, Connecticut, Maryland and Wisconsin, all friendly to Romney, it will come as no surprise should Romney handily win this last round of April GOP primaries, specifically against his chief rival, form Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum. Santorum is expecting to do well in two upcoming primaries: North Carolina and Nebraska – noting that a protracted primary is a good thing for the GOP, citing that the protracted primary between then-Sen. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton resulted in the "best candidate" for the Democrats.
As the nomination (according to the press) is almost wrapped up (some may see that differently), the left has started to dig into anything and everything possible regarding Mitt Romney as the GOP Nominee. It is no secret that the GOP primacy to date, has been rather ugly, coming from all of those running – ads run against Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum by Ron Paul’s Campaign and Romney’s PAC were brutal, while the same is true in the nature of rebuttal ads by Gingrich’s PAC and the Santorum Campaign. It is a question of airing all the dirty laundry beforehand and as it turns out, those clips and quips, although “shocking” to some in the GOP, may not have the great impact that has been anticipated. This is mainly due to the short attention span of the pubic, and the fact that only a small percentage of the population actually is aware of what has been taking place within the GOP primary process. The maximum audience for a televised debate was in the 7 million viewers’ range, a drop in the bucket compared to a national vote total. Therefore, it is imperative, as times is on the side of all parties concerned, to find other reasons to insinuate and attack the front runner – and these are thinly veiled attempts.
An article in the Examienr, suggests that Mitt Romney’s ownership of stock in Goldman Sachs, which firm allegedly had an invested in a sex-trafficking company, somehow makes him complicit. The article goes on to cite the fact that the Bush administration gave the firm TARP monies, as if that somehow confirms the GOP line of complicity. That said, never once is it mentioned in the article that the firm was a major contributor to Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign in fact, the 2nd largest corporate contributor (Open Secrets.org). The non-story to start a story by the Examiner is exactly that. However, this is more in line with what one would expect the left to attack, Mitt Romney as the “Wealthy Guy” or “Mr. 1 Percent”, while ignoring the fact that President Obama also is not hurting for cash.
What one does not expect, especially in this era of the politically correct, is an attack on Romney’s Religion: From Christian News Today comes a piece entitled “A Mormon American, Brought to You by Mitt Romney which goes in-depth into the doctrine of the Mormon Church, and names prominent Republican’s who are Mormon, and most notably absent? The Senate Majority Leader: one Democrat Harry Reid. The article presented on the auspices of being “Christian” is specifically rounded on the conversations from a “Mormon Feminist”, who had had discussions with Mitt Romney in Massachusetts as he was running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy.
This Mormon Feminist is a professor at Suffolk University, the article referred to in the Christina News Today article, focuses on a pro-abortion stance which was framed as a “ruse” to get elected. However, upon researching the subject, an article found on www.scoop.co.nz suggests that Romney’s pro-life stance was the problem. He, as a member of the church, tried to convince a woman to carry her child to term, the leftist feminist was outraged: the Title says it all: “Bishop Romney's Sadistic Anti-Abortion Counseling”. To clarify Bishop before anyone’s panties are in a bunch, the article does state that a Bishop in the Mormon Church is similar to lay clergy in the Catholic Church. Therefore, what we have here is a “Christian” article referring to a college professor who is left of center, taking umbrage with Romney for not supporting abortion! If this article were written by a left-of center secular driven blog, one might not give it a second glance, however, it was written from a “Christian” perspective, and that Christian Perspective had no problem with the source being a pro-abortion – anti life feminist.
The crux of the article in its totality was that Romney would rule the nation through the Mormon Church, similar to the migrated articles and questions regarding Romney’s rival Rick Santorum taking his marching orders from the Pope, and so and so forth. It is the most ludicrous of all types of attacks on candidates regardless of faith. It is clearly a case where the religion (or denomination in some cases) has been co-opted by political ideology.
One merely has to look at the Catholic Church in America to understand that voting bloc is basically Democrat, regardless of the pro-abortion stance. (However, the Church is flexing its muscles a bit in regards to issues of Life.) A recent article regarding Ted Kennedy’s widow, Victoria is a prime example: She was to receive an honorary degree from a Catholic College in MA, which was rescinded due to her stance on pro-abortion and gay marriage – she was outraged (as well as the commenter’s on the Boston Globe Website.)
What it does boil down to, in all reality, it matters not what brand on religion, one subscribes to, be it a politician or a school bus driver, it is a guarantee of the Constitution that no religion will be made primary, and that all religions are a matter of choice in our nation. Unless of course, someone wants to run for President, then the dangers of religion are brought to the forefront. Would it not be best to have a President that has some moral reference, rather than one who was non-religious? One who subscribed to the school of self – such as a Hitler, or Stalin? The fact that it is the left who is using the “religion” card, is what is most telling, even the fact that it is shrouded in a “Christian” news service piece, is somewhat disingenuous – one sees Pontius Pilate washing his hand – as if the party/pilot has nothing to do with the slander.
Expect more creative attacks from the left, as Romney nears the nomination. The more he is seen, and his personality is found to be less stiff than previously reported, that he has a sense of humor, that he is Presidential, and stands before the American people roundly attacked by his GOP opponents in the race, with a ready answer to each, it leaves the left little to go on – in retrospect, his record as Governor of Massachusetts as compared to the President’s will yield little, and the Obama Health Care plan, may be a non-issue after the Supreme Court finalizes it’s decision on constitutionality of the law. Therefore, the campaign will be about the President’s Record – something the GOP and the Romney Campaign are more than ready to take on, being well-financed, and battled tested.
Posted by Tina Hemond at 5:41 AM
Labels: Mitt Romney 2012, Negative articles on Relgiion leave out Prominent Democrats, Romney Mormon Attacks Begin from the Left, the Democrats Attacks on Romney