Tagged: homosexuality

Breaking Down the Hedge (#5)

And now, the newsletter you’ve all been waiting for… Breaking Down the Hedge (#5) – Mitt Romney Edition! Let me preface this edition by stating that I am unequivocally opposed to Barack Obama. However, I also reject the notion that I must therefore give my consent to the election of Mitt Romney.

 

Image: Wikimedia Commons

 

Romney

1. Romney’s Positions on War

Quote:

A President Romney will ensure our country has the missile defenses and nuclear deterrent that our national security requires.

Source: A Clear Choice: Military Decline vs. Military Deterrent (MittRomney.com)

Quote:

Together we will restore our military might and ensure that America can defend and protect our interests, our allies, and our people, both at home and abroad

Source: Military Advisory Council (MittRomney.com)

Quote:

Third, the United States will apply the full spectrum of hard and soft power to influence events before they erupt into conflict. Resort to force is always the least desirable and costliest option. We must therefore employ all the tools of statecraft to shape the outcome of threatening situations before they demand military action. The United States should always retain military supremacy to deter would-be aggressors and to defend our allies and ourselves.  If America is the undisputed leader of the world, it reduces our need to police a more chaotic world.

Among these actions will be to restore America’s national defense.  I will reverse the hollowing of our Navy and announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from 9 per year to 15.  I will begin reversing Obama-era cuts to national missile defense and prioritize the full deployment of a multilayered national ballistic missile defense system. I will order the formulation of a national cybersecurity strategy, to deter and defend against the growing threats of militarized cyber-attacks, cyber-terrorism, and cyber-espionage.
I will enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region. I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination. And I will again reiterate that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.
I will launch a campaign to advance economic opportunity in Latin America, and contrast the benefits of democracy, free trade, and free enterprise against the material and moral bankruptcy of the Venezuelan and Cuban model.
I will order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military to secure that nation’s sovereignty from the tyranny of the Taliban.  I will speak with our generals in the field, and receive the best recommendation of our military commanders.  The force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully is a decision I will make free from politics.
Source: Remarks On U.S. Foreign Policy (MittRomney.com)
Quote:
I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.
My Take:
A brief analysis of these statements reveals that Mitt Romney believes:
  1. We need to greatly increase the presence and strength of the United States military
  2. The U.S. military should be in foreign countries
  3. The U.S. should have entangling alliances with other nations
  4. The United States should be involved in the economic policies of other nations
  5. We need nuclear arms to keep us safe
  6. It is the job of the United States to “police the world”
  7. Preemptive action is acceptable
  8. It is acceptable to continue violating the Constitution once a precedent has been set.

Now, let’s compare and contrast these positions with those of modern-day General Authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, men whom we revere as prophets and apostles, and other wise men of note.

First, let’s hear from Ezra Taft Benson, who quotes George Washington and Thomas Jefferson:

Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to “uplift” their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies. This point was made clear by the wise father of our country, George Washington:
I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under them selves; and that if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration. — George Washington (1732-1799) Letter to James Monroe (25 Aug. 1796)

President Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, while discussing what he deemed to be “the essential principles of our government,”(3) explained that as far as our relations with foreign nations are concerned this means:
Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none. . . (March 4, 1801; Works 8:4)

I believe these quotes make it obvious that several of Mitt Romney’s positions were not shared by this Apostle (later Prophet), or the some of the most prominent of our Founding Fathers; specifically, points 2, 3, 4, and 6, above. Click here to read United States Foreign Policy by Ezra Taft Benson, in its entirety.
In Mitt Romney’s Remarks On U.S. Foreign Policy, quoted in part above, he also states the following:
This is America’s moment.  We should embrace the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell, not wave the white flag of surrender, nor give in to those who assert America’s time has passed. That is utter nonsense. An eloquently justified surrender of world leadership is still surrender.

I will not surrender America’s role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President.

How does this view square with that of Ezra Taft Benson?
Already, I can hear the chorus chanting “Isolationism, isolationism, he’s turning back the clock to isolationism.” How many use that word without having the slightest idea of what it really means! The so-called isolationism of the United States in past decades is a pure myth. What isolationism? Long before the current trend of revoking our Declaration of Independence under the guise of international cooperation, American influence and trade was felt in every region of the globe. Individuals and private groups spread knowledge, business, prosperity, religion, good will and, above all, respect throughout every foreign continent. It was not necessary then for America to give up her independence to have contact and influence with other countries. It is not necessary now. Yet, many Americans have been led to believe that our country is so strong that it can defend, feed and subsidize half the world, while at the same time believing that we are so weak and “inter-dependent” that we cannot survive without pooling our resources and sovereignty with those we subsidize. If wanting no part of this kind of “logic” is isolationism, then it is time we brought it back into vogue.
The “chant” of “isolationism, isolationism” has been a trendy one for years among those who have a desire to push America into progressive Socialist schemes. They contend that any traditional policy is “backwards,” that we must move “forwards.” Sound familiar? The accusation is that we would seek to seal up our borders and ignore the world, as Communist China once did. As Elder Benson described above, however, this “isolationism” is a complete work of fiction. We can continue to trade and otherwise have intercourse with other nations without moving our invading forces into their lands and telling them what they can and cannot do; without establishing enemies; without making their wars our own. Accusations of “nationalism” also abound, and they are also addressed in Elder Benson’s address, linked to above.
I would be remiss if I did not provide one more quote from that article, however; a quote from a former Senator:
Senator Robert A. Taft clearly explained our traditional foreign policy:
Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country. It was the policy of the free hand. (A Foreign Policy for Americans, p. 12)
Wait, what?!? The American people would be protecting their own liberty if they would stay out of other nations’ wars? Oopsies. There go points 2, 3, 4, and 6, again.
We’ve heard plenty from Ezra Taft Benson, who else can we seek guidance from? How about President Spencer W. Kimball?

In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had—in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition most repugnant to the Lord.

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many).

I believe this statement is in direct conflict with Mitt Romney’s points 1 and 5, above, which state that he believes we must continue to increase our military presence and armaments, and flex our might in the faces of all nations as a “deterrent” to war. These positions are in obvious conflict with not only the teachings of the prophets, but, as Pres. Kimball pointed out, they also conflict with the teachings of the Savior, who loved all men, including Communists, Iraqis, and Iranians. Click here to read the rest of President Kimball’s talk, The False Gods We Worship.
In addressing point #8, above (Mitt Romney’s decision to violate the Constitution on Obama’s coattails), I provide several articles further down the page.
The only point that has not been addressed is #7, which states Mitt Romney’s belief that America should participate in preemptive war. For this, I would like to call 3 Nephi 3:19-21 to the stand:

19 Now it was the custom among all the Nephites to appoint for their chief captains, (save it were in their times of wickedness) some one that had the spirit of revelation and also prophecy; therefore, this Gidgiddoni was a great prophet among them, as also was the chief judge. 20 Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands.

 21 But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.

In contrast, Mitt Romney believes that it is the duty of America to allow or disallow other nations from amassing arms, even as we ourselves do, and that we should invade their lands and enter into war when asserting our demands upon them. Does this have anything to do with “the liberty of this country” that Elder Benson/Senator Taft/Gen. Washington stated should be the sole determinant in decisions of war? Has anyone “come against us?” Why are we seeking to “fall upon them in their own lands” when this has been specifically forbidden? Those who reverence Romney because of his previous service as a Stake President would do well to ask themselves this question. Are we ever justified in ignoring the counsel of the Lord? Is there a reason The Book of Mormon was “written for our day?”
Again, Elder Benson sums it up best, in his 1967 General Conference talk, Trust Not in the Arm of Flesh:

In the Book of Mormon the prophet Nephi exclaims: “O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.” (2 Ne. 4:34.)

Prophesying of our day, Nephi said, “. . . they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.” (2 Ne. 28:14.)

Precepts of men or principles of God

Yes, it is the precepts of men versus the principles of God. The more we follow the word of God, the less we are deceived, while those who follow the wisdom of men are deceived the most.

Increasingly the Latter-day Saints must choose between the reasoning of men and the revelations of God. This is a crucial choice, for we have those within the Church today who, with their worldly wisdom, are leading some of our members astray. President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., warned that “the ravening wolves are amongst us from our own membership and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep’s clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the Priesthood. … We should be careful of them.” (The Improvement Era, May 1949, p. 268.)

I believe that Mitt Romney is a man of “worldly wisdom” who has been “taught by the precepts of men” and is continuing to propagate false belief systems. Judging by his own words, as we must, he is not a man who is “wise, honest, and good” (See D&C 98:10). Follow the words of the prophets and the scriptures and you will not be deceived.

2. The Constitution Hanging by a Thread and the “White Horse Prophecy” (Latter-day Conservative)

Read the article here.

Quote:

I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. But it will not be saved in Washington. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church — men and women who will subscribe to and abide the principles of the Constitution.

My Take:

In BDH#4, I discussed several popular, ridiculous, reasons many Mormons give for supporting Romney. The real issue is that people are expecting someone else to save our country and our Constitution. According to Ezra Taft Benson, however, and per the partial quote above, that is not what is going to happen. In order to save America, YOU are required to do what is necessary, and you cannot delegate that responsibility. While this article begins with a discussion of a popular unconfirmed prophecy, much of the ensuing discussion is quite important to understand. I highly recommend that you read this one in full. Hopefully, people will be inspired to put down the inappropriate expectations they have towards Romney, and begin to make the necessary personal changes that will bring America back in to favor with the Lord, or, at the very least, bring His protections upon themselves when His promised wrath is unleashed.

3. Christ and the Constitution (Latter-day Conservative)

Read the article here.

Quote:

The Lord is displeased with wickedness, and he will help those who oppose it. But he has given all of us freedom to choose, while reserving for himself our final judgment. And herein lies the hope of all Christian constitutionalists. Why? Because the fight for freedom is God’s fight, and free agency is an eternal principle. It existed before this world was formed; it will exist forever. Some men may succeed in denying some aspects of this God-given freedom to their fellowmen, but their success is temporary. Freedom is a law of God, an eternal law. And, like any of God’s laws, men cannot break it with impunity. They can only break themselves upon it. So as long as a man stands for freedom, he stands with God. Therefore, any man will be eternally vindicated and rewarded who stands for freedom.

Men receive blessings by obedience to God’s laws, and without obedience there is no blessing. Before the final triumphal return of the Lord, the question as to whether we may save our constitutional republic is simply based on two factors: the number of patriots and the extent of their obedience.

That the Lord desires to save this nation that he raised up, there is no doubt. But that he leaves it up to us, with his help, is the awful reality.

My Take:

This talk, by then-Apostle Ezra Taft Benson, describes the divinity of the united States Constitution, and our responsibility to and for it. You will notice, once again, that nowhere does he mention electing that right guy who will save America. Instead, he points out steps that we, YOU and I, must take, personally, IF America is to be saved. Mitt Romney has openly and publicly proclaimed his support for heinous federal programs which have temporarily denied Americans and others their God-given freedoms. In specific, Guantanamo (which he wants to “double”), the PATRIOT ACT, and the NDAA (See The Definitive Romney).

4. It’s the Economy, Stupid!

In another break from our usual format, I would like to address another popular cause that is getting people behind Mitt Romney: the economy. He has, of course, been quite successful, as far as worldly wealth is concerned. It is theoretically possible, although doubtful, that Mitt Romney could improve the economic situation in America. One reason this is doubtful is that Mitt Romney has continually expressed public support for the Federal Reserve, and its minions, who run an unConstitutional operation that is enslaving the American people for generations to come, even expressing his opinion that Ben Bernanke s “doing a good job.” Hmmm.

My question is this: Is it really “the economy, stupid?”

This approach implies an approach that I simply cannot get behind: that the mere possibility that Romney could improve the economy is due cause to ignore all of the other reasons NOT to support him. For instance, does a longshot chance at economic improvement negate Mitt Romney’s support of Guantanamo, and his desire to “double” it? Will you increase the amount of torture and inhumane treatment of other human beings in order to make a quick buck? What about Iran? Is the spending power of your dollar worth the destruction of another country, the lives of hundreds of thousand, even millions, of their countrymen, not to mention your own?

Like I said, this is not a concept I can get behind. Besides, if Mitt Romney can’t see the evil that the Federal Reserve is and does, then there is little  hope that anything would change, even if he could do something.

5. Obama and Romney: War No Matter Who Wins Election (InfoWars)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Once again emphasizing there is no fundamental difference between Obama and Romney when it comes to attacking Iran, the American Jewish Committee has published the answers to a questionnaire sent to the candidates.

From the Jewish Telegraphic Agency website:

“I am prepared to use all elements of American power” to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Obama said in the questionnaires released Oct. 18 by the AJC, “including a political effort to further isolate Iran, a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition, an economic effort that has imposed crippling sanctions, and a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.”

Romney’s response was nearly identical:

“I will press for ever tightening sanctions on the regime, acting multilaterally where we can and unilaterally where we must, and leave no doubt in the mind of the regime’s leaders that the military option remains on the table.”

My Take:

This, of course, follows on the heels of the 8 points, listed above.

6. Can God Protect us From Nukes?: The Rationale for Preemptive War (Mormon Chronicle)

Read the article here.

Quote:

The questions we face are these. Have times changed and are the technologies so different that the example of the righteous Nephite prophets and generals is not relevant to our day? Should we or should we not act preemptively if we “know” an enemy is about to attack using weapons of mass destruction. What if we are wrong for striking them? What if we get nuked?

My Take:

This is an excellent article, that discusses this topic in-depth. Given Mr. Romney’s desire to increase America’s nuclear armaments, and disallow other nations to have any, this is an appropriate discussion.

7. Foreign Policy and the Golden Rule (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.

Quote:

What would Jesus have done if he were in the audience at the January debate between GOP presidential contenders in South Carolina? Surrounded by a group comprised heavily of evangelical Christians, the candidates fielded questions on foreign policy. All but Ron Paul advocated increased military intervention. Newt Gingrich suggested that the approach to those he labeled “America’s enemies” was, simply: “kill them.”

Mitt Romney doubled down on the comment. “Of course you take out our enemies, wherever they are,” he said. “These people declared war on us. They’ve killed Americans. We go anywhere they are, and we kill them.”

To consistent applause, the barbaric call to invade, bomb, sanction, and occupy foreign lands was welcomed by this predominantly Christian crowd with open, eager arms.

My Take:

It is amazing to watch the decidedly un-Christian approach our supposedly Christian nation has taken to war. It seems that it is only the godless of our nation who are calling for peace. And yet, what was the message of Christ? “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” (Matt. 5:44). Yup, that sounds like constant war to me…

8. Joseph Smith, Habeas Corpus, Mitt Romney, and the 2012 NDAA (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.

Quote:

A “writ” is merely an official mandate by a legal authority, and a “writ of habeas corpus” is one which demands that a prisoner be released from an unlawful detention when insufficient cause of evidence exists to hold him. Habeas corpus allows a prisoner to have his case reviewed by a judge to determine if the executive authority is holding him with just cause.

In another portion of his address, the prophet stated:

The constitution of the United States declares that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be denied…. If these powers are dangerous, then the constitution of the United States and of this state are dangerous; but they are not dangerous to good men: they are only so to bad men who are breakers of the laws. So with the laws of the country, and so with the ordinances of Nauvoo: they are dangerous to mobs, but not to good men who wish to keep the laws.

And finally:

You speak of lawyers. I am a lawyer too; but the Almighty God has taught me the principle of law; and the true meaning and intent of the writ of habeas corpus is to defend the innocent and investigate the subject. Go behind the writ and if the form of one that is issued against an innocent man is right, he should [nevertheless] not be dragged to another state, and there be put to death, or be in jeopardy of life and limb, because of prejudice, when he is innocent. The benefits of the constitution and laws are alike for all; and the great Eloheim has given me the privilege of having the benefits of the constitution and the writ of habeas corpus…

My Take:

Mitt Romney’s support of the PATRIOT ACT and NDAA, which both remove the rights of American citizens to due process, habeus corpus, protection from unlawful search and seizure, protection from wrongful imprisonment, and many more, is in stark contrast to both the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the Lord Himself, in D&C 101:

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

 78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

 79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

 80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

9. No End to the “War on Terror,” No End to Guantánamo (The Future of Freedom Foundation)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Moreover, with a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the justification for holding men at Guantánamo would also vanish, and the government would have the opportunity to return to the detention policies that served everyone perfectly well before the 9/11 attacks: prosecuting those involved with alleged terrorist activities in federal court, and holding soldiers as prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Conventions, and freeing them at the end of hostilities.

That, however, is too sensible a suggestion for those who, rather than accepting bin Laden’s death as the logical end of a decade of “war” that has been both ruinously expensive and morally and legally disastrous, and that has also led to a chronic loss of life, want exactly the opposite: a springboard for an even bigger “war on terror,” and a cynical excuse to keep Guantánamo open forever.

My Take:

All that stuff about “the rights and protection of all flesh” and “it is not right that any man should be in bondage” kinda goes out the window, apparently. We’re America! We get to keep people in jail forever, torture them, and our president can kill them if he wants! “Who is the Lord that I should know him?” (Moses 5:16)

Related articles:

Bringing torture back: Romney wants to waterboard again (PressTV)

10. Church Leader Says: “Military in Almost Complete Control of Government” (Mormon Chronicle)

Read the article here.

Quote:

I regret to say, indeed I am almost ashamed to say, that at the moment, our military branches seem in almost complete control of our own government.  They appear to dominate Congress, and under the circumstances, we may assume they are in sufficient control of our foreign relations to be able to set the international scene. To us who do not know, it looks clear that we are today getting the same sort of propaganda of half-truths, told in the same evasive ways, with equivalent hints and dark forebodings that preceded the last war.  We are not justified in doubting, on the facts, we have, that we of the United States are, for the first time in our history, under a real threat from our military arm, and that if the plans of the militarists carry, we shall become as thoroughly militarized as was Germany at her best, or worst.  Certain it is we are being generously dosed with that sovereign narcotic, which designing militarists have in the past always administered to their peoples, the doctrine that to ensure peace we must maintain a great army and gigantic armaments.  But this ignores, indeed conceals, the unvarying historical fact that big armies have always brought, not peace, but war which has ended in a hate that in due course brings another war.

My Take:

Pres. J. Reuben Clark gave this address in 1947, but it is obviously still relevant in our own day, if not more so! Given Mitt Romney’s proclivity for war and military might, I thought it only prudent that we should be reminded by a prophet of the Lord that war does not bring peace!

11. Romney: The Boy Scouts should admit homosexuals (LifeSiteNews)

My Take:

Having served as a Stake President, Mitt Romney is no doubt well aware of the LDS Church’s stance on homosexuality, of the fact that the LDS Church is the largest supporter of Boy Scouts of America, and of their stance against homosexuals serving in close proximity with young boys. Alas, this has obviously not stopped him from forming an opposite opinion and expressing it publicly. To me, this would cause doubts as to whether I should count his Church leadership service as a mark in his favor, and as being something that automatically makes him trustworthy. To be sure,, I do not hold that sort of opinion towards him, but many do, and I hope they will rethink their position.

12. Romney And Bain Boosted Agriculture Giant Monsanto In Spite Of Toxic Past (Think Progress)

Read the article here.

Quote:

The Nation’s investigative report has uncovered how Mitt Romney personally helped Monsanto shed its string of toxic chemical-related scandals and reinvent itself to dominate American agriculture. Monsanto, an early Bain & Company client, was so impressed with Romney that they started bypassing his superiors to deal with him directly. Romney’s close relationship with then CEO John Hanley prompted his boss to create Bain Capital to keep Romney from leaving and taking their largest consulting client with him.

My Take:

GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) have been making the news lately, as the public becomes more aware of their existence and the serious health threat they pose. In California, there is a proposed bill that would make companies notify the public of GMO’s in their products via product labeling. So, in light of this recent surge in interest in GMO’s, I thought this little tidbit was interesting. Monsanto is the world’s leading proponent and manufacturer of GMO’s. They have been planting GMO crops next to organic/normal crops which then become contaminated by the GMO breed. Then, Monsanto has sued the farmers for patent infringement for having their patented crop on their property. And – most shockingly – they have won nearly all of these cases! They created Agent Orange, which was used in Vietnam, and which they told the world was tested as safe for humans, but which turned out to cause all sorts of health abnormalities and even deaths. Oops. No worries, though! Mitt Romney saved the day by helping everyone forget about all that stuff! That’s the kind of thing that gets you the White House!

13. Texas delegates planning floor mutiny over RNC rule changes (Yahoo! News)

Read the article here.

Quote:

On Monday morning, at a meeting of more than 100 Texas delegates and alternates at the Saddlebrook Resort 20 miles north of Tampa, one topic got the crowd more fired up than any other. Delegate Melinda Fredricks read aloud a letter condemning recent changes to the national Republican Party’s rules that would allow the GOP presidential candidate to veto and replace state delegates.

Mitt Romney’s campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg proposed the rule last week

My Take:

Back in August, I posted an article, entitled Was the Republican Convention Romney’s Defining Moment?, in which I discussed the RNC rule changes, undeniably created to keep Ron Paul out of contention for the candidacy. I speculated about what this might tell us about Mitt Romney’s character. Specifically, I said:

…this all boils down to one of the following options:

  1. Romney knew about these underhanded tactics ahead of time, and supported them, either actively or passively. A poor show of character.
  2. Romney did not know in advance, but even after finding out, accepted the win it provided him. Another poor show of character.
  3. Romney did not know in advance, but now that he knows about it, he will soon be calling for a proper vote. The only choice for a man of character.

In the article, I mentioned, and linked to, an interview in which Mitt Romney states that he “would not comment on it,” and he “really hasn’t looked at [it].” In light of the above disclosure – that it was his very own campaign lawyer who proposed the changes makes these claims very hard to believe! In fact, I don’t believe it.

14. Why an Obama Re-Election May Be Best for the Cause of Liberty (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.

Quote:

This plea has been the unanimous outcry of Romney supporters desperate for additional votes to see him succeed. “Support and vote for Mitt Romney,” writes the op-ed’s author, “or help Obama complete his transformation of America into a nation that violates every principle you claim you embrace.” Or, as one Facebook commenter said, “How does voting for someone who can’t possibly win actually help the cause of liberty?”

There is an assumption in these comments that a Romney presidency would be better for the cause of liberty than an Obama presidency. I’m going to argue the opposite. In other words, I’m going to now suggest why an Obama re-election may be the better option, in the presidential race, for the overall long-term success of the cause of liberty.

Where were all the jealous guardians of freedom during the Bush years? Where was the enraged right—the Constitution-loving conservatives who opposed Bush’s policies as much as they do Obama’s now, which are largely an extension of everything Bush did during his presidency?

The answer? They were almost entirely silent, content to go on with their daily lives confident that because a Republican was in control, they need not pay much attention. Still worse, many praised Bush for his efforts, calling him a man of God, a prayerful individual, the “Commander in Chief” looking out in all cases, and at all times, for America’s best interest!

If Romney is elected, I predict that much of the tea-party faction in American politics will once again grow silent. These same individuals who praised Bush, and who now have boiling blood when talking about what Obama is doing, are praising Romney as a man who can “fix” Washington and upon whom the future success of America now solely depends. So, imagine the next eight years of more big government Republicanism with a silent conservative base largely ignoring the continual constitutional atrocities inflicted by one of their own.

Consider the alternative, though. Let’s say that Obama is re-elected for four years. The conservative base remains enraged with blood boiling, recognizing that in order to combat the popular progressivism they’ll need to field a far better candidate in 2016 to ensure that nobody like Obama ever has another chance to impose the evil that he has during his two terms. Along the way, new media educational initiatives have found fertile ground in this active, angry, aware group of citizens, who over the four years realize the inconsistency of conservatism and embrace libertarianism. They stand better prepared, ready, and willing to ensure that the next nominee for the Republican party is one worthy of support, both by general Republican voters and the libertarian/independent wings as well. They swoop into 2016 with a strong candidate, strong principles, and a platform worthy of support. They have plenty of material to use as contrast to show why their vision is far, far better than what the previous eight years has brought, and they achieve electoral success.

My Take:

While I do not hold out the same optimism that Connor apparently does about the 2016 elections, I completely agree with him about what has happened with the so-called Conservative and Republican constituency. When they aren’t being whipped into a frenzy by the fear-mongering mainstream media and TV and radio pundits, they have nary a thought in their heads as to the Constitutionality of their elected representatives’ actions.

15. Romney and Obama are Not Much Different

Quote:

My whole view – and I’ve said this on air – Mitt Romney’s views are closer to Barack Obama’s than they are to Thomas Jefferson’s and he presents just a slightly different version of big government. In fact, in the defense policy he might actually be worse than the President because he seems to be itching to start a war with Iran. In terms of domestic policy, he contemplates additional borrowing, maybe a little less than the President has borrowed. If the President is re-elected he might bring us to $20 trillion in debt by 2016; Romney might bring us to $18 trillion in debt by 2016. Either of those federal debts would be unsustainable

Source: Judge Napolitano on the Virtues of Private Justice (The Daily Bell)

Quote:

Republicans are being told that they have “no choice” but to vote for Romney because otherwise they will get another four years of Obama.

This “lesser of two evils” theme comes out every four years.  We are told that we “must” vote for a horrible candidate because the other guy is even worse.

Well, millions of Americans are getting sick of this routine.  Perhaps that is why it is being projected that as many as 90 million Americans of voting age will not vote this year.

Yes, Barack Obama has been so horrible as president that it is hard to put it into words.

But Mitt Romney would be just like Barack Obama.

Those that are dreaming of a major change in direction if Romney is elected are going to be bitterly, bitterly disappointed.

The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate….

Source: 40 Points That Prove That Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate (End of the American Dream)

My Take:

If you actually believe that you are being given a real choice between the two major presidential candidates, you need to wake up. I highly suggest you read the article just quoted, and consider the 40 points they present. Our elections have become a charade.

16. Why Ron Paul Republicans Won’t Vote for Romney (Connor’s Conundrums)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Throughout this presidential campaign cycle, media pundits and competing candidates have been quick to label Ron Paul and his supporters as unrepresentative of the GOP. “I don’t think Ron Paul represents the mainstream,” said Mitt Romney just days before the Iowa caucus in January. “I’m working harder than anyone to make sure he’s not the nominee.”

That statement would repeatedly prove itself true over the following eight months as Romney’s lawyers and surrogates worked multiple angles to unseat elected delegates who supported Ron Paul, change convention rules to minimize the influence of such delegates, and frustrate their goals in sparking any change or controversy. As if it couldn’t get any worse, Romney’s campaign and the RNC scripted the convention itself so that no mention of Paul’s delegate vote was made, and the result of an important vote was pre-determined to be read from the teleprompter by the chairman.

One can imagine how disenfranchised and frustrated Paul supporters have felt in recent weeks with the GOP. Treated like enemies, it’s a bit jarring to hear so many insisting that they should see Romney and his campaign as friends. But that’s exactly what is happening.

My Take:

Stab us in the back and then shake us by the hand. I’m thinking no. BTW, love the candid Romney quote! Gotta love someone who can tell the truth and lie about it all at the same time! But he was a Stake President. He would never lie! Oh, the naivete.

Also, from the article:

But let’s be clear—this isn’t just about campaign strategy and thuggish convention practices. The real reason why Ron Paul supporters aren’t lining up to help “defeat Obama” by voting for Romney is that they see little substantive difference between the two. There are myriad superficial differences, to be sure, but on foreign policy, civil liberties, the war on drugs, and a litany of domestic issues, there is no distinguishable contrast between candidates. Ron Paul’s crowd doesn’t get very excited over trading lots of big government for a little less big government.

17. Is a Vote for Ron Paul a Vote for Obama, or the Product of a Disenfranchised Right? (Huffington Post)

Read the article here.

Quote:

In the end, though, we have meaningful questions to ask: are third-party voters betraying the Republican Party, or are these voters a product of the Republican Party betraying the ideals of small government? And, even if Ron Paul were to swing the election, is it possible that conservatives and libertarians are so disenfranchised that their symbolic votes of displeasure have become more important than winning a race to the White House?

My Take:

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against both Obama and Romney, and not in favor of either. It is a vote in favor of the Constitution.

18. The False Left-Right Paradigm

One thing that every American needs to be aware of is the fact that we are all being manipulated by being pitted against each other. Ever since I woke up to the false paradigm, I have started listening to what is being said on “both sides of the aisle” and I have found that there are elements of truth on both sides, but spun in a way that causes the people to be divided. If we will only listen to each other, and discuss facts, we can come to the whole truth.

One way that this division is being fabricated is by stirring up contentions with emotionally-charged headlines. When you see things that make your blood boil, step back and ask yourself if it was intended to create that reaction within you. For instance, the recent headlines about 50 Crazy Things That Obama Supporters Are Threatening To Do If Romney Wins. Again, this happens on both sides of the so-called aisle. That article is from InfoWars.com. On the “Left” they are being force-fed articles like Romney “47 Percent” Fundraiser Host: Hedge Fund Manager Who Likes Sex Parties and SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters. Trouble is, the two sides never hear any of the bad stuff about their own candidate; only the opposition. It is difficult to conceive how such a situation could perpetuate on its own. Therefore, someone is controlling which information goes to which crowd. This, of course, is enabled through the media pundits, as no one listens to representatives of both sides, so they only get the one side of the story that is meant for them. And, voila! Instant division! This process is enabled via the world media monopoly.

19. Romney Is a Liberal (Lew Rockwell via InfoWars)

Read the article here.

Quote:

One knows more or less what four more years of Obama will bring, but Romney seems harder to figure out. He looks nice enough and does have a photogenic family. He probably would manage the economy a bit better than the present administration and would please the Right and center by probably appointing (but who knows!) less left-leaning judges to the federal courts than those favored by the Democrats. But this guy changes his positions the way Beyoncé switches her hair styles. Even worse, his supporters have been so conditioned to hate Obama that they don’t even notice.

My Take:

First of all, notice the reference to the economy. The foolish belief that Romney can and will change something. Next, notice the last line. This is a tacit admission that even the “Right” are being brainwashed in order for their candidate to pull the wool over their eyes, just as other “conservative” and “Christian” presidents have done in the past.

20. This Is Insanity! (Chuck Baldwin Live)

Read the article here.

Quote:

I believe Albert Einstein is credited with saying, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Using that definition, it would appear that many of our so-called “conservative” friends are insane. Every four years, they accept a phony conservative Presidential candidate and expect somehow that they are going to achieve a different result. They never do. Either the phony conservative loses because he is virtually indistinguishable from his Democrat opponent (i.e., John McCain), or after being elected while campaigning as a true conservative, he governs as a big-government neocon, and the course of the country changes not one iota (i.e., George W. Bush). This election year is no exception.

The GOP has nominated a man who has governed as a big-government liberal in one of the most liberal (if not the most liberal) states in the union: Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Furthermore, on virtually every issue one can think of, Governor Romney has flip-flopped more often than a fish that just landed in the bottom of a boat.

My Take:

Chuck Baldwin is a man who loves the Constitution, and who is not fooled by political shenanigans. I believe this quote speaks for itself.

21. Harry Reid: Mitt Romney is not the face of Mormonism (Salt Lake Tribune via LDS Living)

Read the article here.

Quote:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he agrees with a fellow Mormon who wrote recently that Mitt Romney has “sullied” the LDS faith and that the GOP presidential candidate is “not the face of Mormonism.”

My Take:

Funny thing is, neither of these men are “the face of Mormonism.” When people say they are going to vote for Romney because he is LDS, I always point to Harry Reid and say, “So is he.” That shuts ’em up. C’mon, people. Think for yourselves.

22. Romney Knows Nothing About the Constitution

My Take:

When it comes to the Constitution, that document inspired of God, Mitt Romney is on record saying quite a few things that make me cringe. For one thing, he never references it in his decision making, as demonstrated in the above video. Particularly disturbing in this video is Romney’s assertion that “you sit down with your attorneys and they tell you what you have to do” when it comes to obvious, straightforward Constitutional issues, like getting approval from Congress to go to war.

23. OBAMA “WINS” 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2 WEEKS IN ADVANCE! WHAT???!!!!!! (OCT 23, 2012)

My Take:

Just in case you thought your vote actually counted…! And don’t try to convince me that they were just running a “test.” #1, you don’t run tests on live television; professionals have separate workstations for that. And #2, you don’t run tests with real information! Even web designers use “Lorem Ipsum” text when they make website mock-ups! Don’t be stupid, and don’t be fooled.

And that, my friends, ends this week’s Breaking Down the Hedge newsletter. Please share this information with all of your friends and family! The election is only a week away! May God bless us all as we strive to do what is right, and may He bless America as we all repent and return to Him and to the Constitution!

Advertisements