December 6, 2007

The Paragraph from ‘The Speech’ That Should Sink Mitt Romney

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:23 pm

I think ‘someone’ is rattled. He — no, they — should be.

Here is the last multi-sentence paragraph from my post this afternoon (bold was in original; italics added now):

I don’t care about what Romney has said, in isolation. I do care about what Romney has done, in comparison to what he has said. What he has consciously, proactively, and cynically done to break the oath he swore to the people of Massachusetts, and before God, while pretending now to be a warrior against the very thing he put into place, makes him objectively unfit to serve as president.

Here is Mitt Romney’s biggest cheerleader (original design by Weapons of Mass Discussion):

Mitt WMD

Here is part of what Mitt Romney’s biggest cheerleader posted a mere three hours later (HT Allah at Hot Air):

Romney’s –Objectively– Great, Great Day

Mitt Romney threw a long ball today and scored. There can be no objective argument against that conclusion.

….. Here are seven of the most influential conservative commentators in the U.S., and their opinions on the Romney success are all aligned with mine. Thus, objectively, the speech cannot be judged as other than an extraordinary success for Romney.

Coincidences?

There’s only one problem. My “objectively unfit” reference relates to Mitt Romney’s objectively inarguable violation of his state’s constitution — the one he swore to uphold before the people of Massachusetts and before God.

Mitt Romney’s biggest cheerleader’s “objective” references, however, are subjective judgments on the success of what many believe was a well-delivered oration.

Perhaps “The Speech” was well-delivered (full transcript here). I’m not going to judge that.

But it was also damning — perhaps fatally so.

This paragraph from “The Speech,” if and when the enormity of what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts is ever fully understood, should — no, must — end his candidacy (bold, obviously, is mine):

“As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political 
religion’ – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the 
Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of 
office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate
 to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no
 one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common 
cause of the people of the United States.”

Strong stuff.

But Mitt Romney swore this oath on January 2, 2003 when he assumed the governorship of the state known as The Cradle of Liberty:

“I, (Mitt Romney), do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.”

Mitt Romney objectively violated that oath by ignoring the John Adams-authored constraints of the state’s constitution when he extra-constitutionally and unilaterally imposed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. In doing so, now in his own words, he failed to “defend the rule of law and the 
Constitution,” and violated his “highest promise to God.”

As noted in this afternoon’s post, this is not arguable.

The extra-constitutional handling of the same-sex marriage ruling is part of a much deeper pattern. There are at least several other examples, some of which are referred to in the Sandy Rios-John Haskins interview excerpts here, of Mitt Romney’s blatant disregard for the rule of law and the constitution he swore to uphold. Others can be found at MassResistance.org’s “The Mitt Romney Deception” collection. I wouldn’t mind elaborating on these other examples further if necessary. But what is covered here and in this afternoon’s post is more than enough for any person with an understanding of the rule of law, the Massachusetts constitution, and the actual facts and circumstances, to conclude that Mitt Romney is objectively unfit to serve as president.

I want to thank Mitt Romney for reminding America today of his solemn obligations. All that remains is for America to know how he failed to keep them.

This would explain why Mitt Romney’s biggest cheerleader, who once would have likely stated his agreement as to Romney’s violation of his oath (not that his agreement or disagreement objectively matters), appears to be quite rattled.

He should be.

And so should his favored candidate.

The NY Times’s Accidental Journalism Reveals the Full Scope of Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Deception, and His Unfitness to Be President

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 4:12 pm

UPDATE, 11PMThe Paragraph from “The Speech” That Should Sink Mitt Romney
REPEAT UPDATEThe Paragraph from “The Speech” That Should Sink Mitt Romney

________________________________________

The New York Times, primarily an agenda journalism newspaper, occasionally engages in actual journalism not by design, but by accident.

A prime example of this was its coverage of how seniors living alone but in less than full control of their faculties were being systematically ripped off by sweepstakes scam artists. The paper’s clear agenda was to portray seniors as helpless victims of ruthless capitalism (as opposed to being victims of people with no ethics).

Oops.

Yours truly noted that the lead information provider to the companies carrying out the senior-bilking scheme was none other that InfoUSA, owned by Vinod Gupta, a major FOB (Friend of Bill Clinton) for years. I further noted, after further research, that InfoUSA’s recently-acquired Opinion Research Corporation had become the official polling organization for CNN, effectively giving a company controlled by an FOB a megaphone to dish out Clinton-spun poll results at will during the rest of the presidential and other campaigns.

Yours truly, and others, connected the dots, but it was the Times that put the dots on the table.

That’s accidental journalism.

In early September, the Times, in what was supposed to be an article somewhat critical of Mitt Romney (“Romney’s Tone on Gay Rights Is Seen as Shift”) over how he has supposedly “fought same-sex marriage,” began its report with the following three paragraphs (bolds are mine):

Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans.

Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue.

“I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.

The caption under the story’s picture reads:

Mitt Romney, who campaigned on Friday in Littleton, N.H., once promised he would not lead a fight against same-sex marriage.

Reporter Michael Luo likely thought that Romney’s current campaign stance against gay marriage and his support of a one-man, one-woman US constitutional amendment would merely advance the popular portrayal of him as a flip-flopper, and would otherwise be relatively harmless.

Oops.

With the dots on the table, others have done the connecting. What we now know is that Mitt Romney promised that he would violate his gubernatorial oath of office even before he took it, and that he carried out that promise.

As I said, accidental journalism.

You see, in Massachusetts, contrary to how Luo wrote it up, court rulings aren’t “obeyed,” because they aren’t orders.

This is not arguable.

In fact, under the Massachusetts Constitution, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) didn’t even have the jurisdiction to take the case, and violated THEIR oaths of office by doing so.

Again, this is not arguable.

Even the SJC, in its Goodridge ruling, acknowledged that it could only advise the state legislature to pass an enabling law within 180 days of its ruling.

The legislature didn’t pass a law, and has not done so to this day.

Enter Mitt “he promised to obey the court’s ruling” Romney.

Even though there was no “ruling” to obey, only a court opinion that the legislature had not enabled into law, Mitt Romney extra-constitutionally, and in direct violation of his oath of office, imposed same-sex marriage in the Bay State.

Please grasp the significance of this: It isn’t that Mitt Romney was weak and simply caved in to pressure, or was misled by “bad advice.” Instead, Romney consciously kept a 2002 campaign promise to the Log Cabin Republicans to (in typical Times mischaracterization) “obey the courts’ ultimate ruling,” and considered that promise more important than the oath he swore when inaugurated as governor to uphold and follow the Massachusetts Constitution.

This is not arguable.

Not that any answer he provides would be credible, but someone should ask Mitt Romney what presidential oath-breaking promises he has made to groups whose last interest is the rule of law.

Yet this is a man who has now been endorsed for president by some of the alleged leading lights of conservatism, even of social conservatism.

This is madness. It must be stopped.

I understand that Romney gave a speech today about his (insert name of his religion) faith.

Understand this. I don’t care that Mitt Romney is a (insert name of religion).

I don’t care about what Romney has said, in isolation. I do care about what Romney has done, in comparison to what he has said. What he has consciously, proactively, and cynically done to break the oath he swore to the people of Massachusetts, and before God, while pretending now to be a warrior against the very thing he put into place, makes him objectively unfit to serve as president.

Our country’s Founders would agree.

And that, folks, is also not arguable.

Couldn’t Help But Notice (120607)

Filed under: Business Moves,Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:34 am

This story about Hillary (“Clinton’s Endorsement List Debatable“) isn’t all that significant in and of itself. The significance is that the usually Hillary lapdog Associated Press is actually willing to run it. Additionally, Google web and news searches appear to indicate pretty heavy coverage.

Mrs. Clinton as “the anointed one” appears to be in serious jeopardy. Yesterday’s Evans-Novak Political Report has this stunner (typos and “grammos” corrected; bold is mine):

Obama leads in the latest Iowa polls, and a victory there would set up a legitimate one-on-one between him and Hillary. It will be difficult for Hillary to recover in the last month. The question now is: Will she beat former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) for second place in the caucuses?

________________________________________

William Rusher: “At Last, the Final Word on Joe McCarthy.” Coming to a college campus near you — In 50 years, if that.

________________________________________

Great point (yeah, it happens once in a while) in this Associated Press piece’s intro, especially in light of the ARM-freeze news:

Homeowners started losing hold of their homes years before spiking foreclosures and the housing slump slammed the economy.

Piece by piece, some gave away their homes by tapping equity to take cash out to pay for cars, weddings and vacations. Others never owned one brick. During the country’s most recent housing boom, the term “homeowner” became a misnomer as lenders offered 100 percent or more home financing to some buyers.

The potential for long-term damage to the mortgage market can’t be underestimated. If there is an ongoing expectation that at the first sign of consumer distress the government is going to intervene with what used to be private contracts, lenders are going to have to put higher rates on their variable and subprime products. This will shut some borrowers out.

_______________________________________

Who said this on July 11, 2007? (HT Captain Ed; bold is mine)

Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons–despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

Answer: Thomas Fingar “one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE (National Intelligence Estimate)” that just downplayed the possibility of Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.

Rush’s reax:

The Israelis think that this is not a correct assessment. So there is not a “consensus,” ladies and gentlemen, in the intelligence community. Frankly, I’d more trust what the Mossad had to say about this than I would trust the 16 agencies.

Yup.

Positivity: Survival Is a Miracle for Ruth

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 7:18 am

From New Zealand:

01.12.2007

THERE is a whiteboard in the kitchen at Ruth Armstrong’s Hastings home.

Across the top reads in marker “weekly schedule so I can achieve my goals”.

Each day is broken up into blocks of time, punctuated with regular slots for rest. Rest is crucial for Ruth. If she doesn’t rest she can get trapped in a cycle of becoming over-excited, over-tired, then bad tempered and confused. She closes her eyes, shutting off from her surroundings so she can focus on her thoughts.

“Some people with a brain injury have inappropriate behaviour and stuff like that,” Ruth says.

“I don’t have that, what I do seem to have, I guess, is a more childlike way of being in the world. Nothing is where it used to be.”

Ruth came off badly in a car crash which has changed her life.

It will be two years ago on December 21 that she took the wheel of the family car and drove to the supermarket from her home in Kereru. Ruth was driving along State Highway 50 just south of Bridge Pa. Another car collided with hers and both vehicles were travelling at least 100kmh.

Ruth was pinned in the vehicle. She was cut out of her wrecked car, while receiving medical care for her extensive injuries.

She was airlifted by helicopter to Hawke’s Bay Hospital. She drifted in and out of a morphine-induced nightmare.

She looked bashed and bruised, says her husband Phil, rough – and not all there.

Her first memory after the crash is looking around the hospital room and taking in her husband, her grown-up children and grandchildren.

“I must have looked pretty awful, I saw the looks on their faces. I was lucky to be alive and I had an awful lot to be grateful for. For them; my husband, my children, their children – the fact I was still here,” Ruth says calmly.

Two busted legs, a shattered arm and a severe head injury kept Ruth hospitalised but she was buzzing.

“It took me about three weeks to get upset about it.”

Rehabilitation tested her optimism. It was tough, re-learning all the things taken for granted, Ruth says.

Walking. Talking.

She describes how a brain injury feels. “It is kind of like a ruined landscape. Somebody has come in and mucked things up.

“It’s like you don’t know how to put things together.”

“I used to go in a straight line, now it takes forever.”

Concentration is key but that’s tiring and fatigue is her enemy. This is the reality of a head injury, the reality of a car crash.

But before you think Ruth struggles, ruing December 21, consider this.

“Amazing, amazing, amazing, things have come out of this,” she says.

The Armstrongs now live in Hastings to be near to her rehab and family and friends.

The desire to first walk to the letterbox, then to the church around the corner has seen her embrace Christianity.

She writes poetry and songs of worship fuelled by the miracle of her survival.

“I couldn’t stop thinking about Jesus. I thought ‘oh no, don’t tell me I am going to become a Christian’,” she says laughing.

“I don’t feel anxious about the big things, and I think that is because of my new faith. Now I have childlike faith. I am very blessed.”

Go here for the rest of the story.