Extra! Extra! Romney’s Backbone Discovered!
UPDATE: And for the Doubting Thomases and John McCains among my readers, here’s some corroboratory detail from Andrew Bostom (just in case you thought “hideous freedom-blighting and misogynistic ideology of sharia” was hyperbolic):
http://pjmedia.com/blog/abedin-family-journal-promoted-muslim-brotherhood-views/
* The current (April/May 2012) issue of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs journal (JMMA) features two essays, introduced with lavish praise by Editor Saleha Abedin, which champion, unabashedly:
* The global hegemonic aspirations of major 20th century Muslim Brotherhood jihadist ideologues, such as the eminent Muslim Brotherhood theoretician, Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), and Abul Hasan Nadwi (d. 1999)
The more expansive application of Sharia within Muslim minority communities residing in the West, with the goal of replacing these non-Muslim governing systems, as advocated by contemporary Muslim Brotherhood jihadist ideologues, Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Tahir Jabir al-Alwani.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/see-no-sharia/
The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), one of America’s largest mainstream Muslims organizations, made an open declaration in its ICNA Member’s Hand Book, calling for the (re-)creation global Muslim Caliphate and the imposition of Sharia law in America.
A hopeful sign, but not conclusive. Both candidates have to secure their respective bases. It’s possible that Mitt has simply become fluent in Pidgin Conservative.
Mitt is a RINO. When was the last time a RINO actually stood up to the left or muslim extremists?
And the answer is: almost never. Don’t look for Mitt’s State Department to look any different than Zero’s. He may not keep Clinton on but its unlikely he’ll tag a John Bolton for the job.
When was the last time a RINO actually stood up to the left or muslim extremists?
Watch it, everybody! This is a trick question. No RINO has ever spoken the hard truth about Moslems. I refer you to Dubya’s famous words, “Islam is a relgion of peace.” Also, watching Bolton tiptoe on eggshells on Greta when the nature of Islam comes up, which is hardly ever, reminds me of Mitt squirming in his seat and giving an evasive answer on the same show to the question of whether Prez Hussein is a socialist. Of course he is; but it would be untoward to recognize that obvious truth. Politesse trumps politics (at least the now rare reality-based politics).
A critical test comes later today when the Muslim Public Affairs Council holds an inquisition, er, “press briefing” to demand that Romney denounce Rep. Michele Bachmann…
Going all the way back to Banu Nadir, there can be no backbone when it comes to Moslems. This is cuz Islam has the Jihad, a romantic and noble term that implies personal violence, as in murder and maiming, and more important the permeating threat of the same.
Yes, Michelle has such a backbone, but unfortunately she was diagnosed as clinically insane by Chris Matthews and other deeply concerned news entertainers. So she doesn’t count.
I think you are dead wrong. Bolton is solid and Romney likes solid people around him. There is absolutely no reason I’m aware of to tag Romney with the RINO label, at least in the foreign policy arena. I predict Bolton as Secretary of State if Mitt wins.
I hope you are right and I’m wrong. I remain doubtful. We shall have to wait and see. John Bolton would be my pick for SecState if I were the next Prez.
To say that Mittins has never shown any RINO properties is akin to saying the State of Mass. is Republican territory. Socialist medical care for that State is only the tip of the iceberg. Don’t get me wrong, ABO is the only way to save the America we knew. Mitt’s veto’s of republican legislation can and will be easily overridden by the more than 2/3 majority of the senate.
I would have thought that the Muslim Public Affairs Council and Huma Abedin would welcome an open transparent investigation to prove their innocence. An honest person or organization has nothing to fear from a close examination and does not need to fight to conceal its activities and beliefs. If, however, they kick and scream to prevent a close scrutiny then they certainly have something to hide.
I’d like Romney to either ignore the demand altogether or just say “No.” Starve the bastards of oxygen.
Just saying no gets my vote.
It is the Leftist game to throw up successive piles of known crap, in faux outrage, and then demand responses from their opponents.
(This is also a full blown strategy of Islamists, in America and around the world.)
The best response is not to play. Or a “go pound sand” attitude.
The “Islamist strategy” is also known (to me, from 1st hand experience) as the “mother-in-law strategy”. It goes something like this: “You’re guilty. I just know you’re guilty. Yesterday, you said XYZ, and today you’re saying ZYX, so you just have to be guilty. Prove you’re innocent! See, you can’t …!”
It’s practically an unbeatable strategy. The more you argue, the guiltier you look. If you don’t argue, just shut up, you’re also guilty. Either your words will be twisted beyond recognition even as you speak them, or your silence will.
Your best chance is to calmly state the facts and “leave”. Next time, again; and again, and again….! That doesn’t guarantee success as “she” really doesn’t want your story, preferring always her own “truth”, no matter what. It IS more likely to convince, however, any “third party listeners”, should there be any not taken in by the vociferous spin.
That’s the best you can hope for, the only thing you can do. Believe that. It’s how this game works.
So, that’s what Mitt must do: simply restate the facts known to him, followed by a sincere “draw your own conclusions”. Unlike in a real “mother-in-law situation”, there ARE unbiased third party listeners, of whom many will see through the game. — Good luck!
Actually, if the person is out-of-line even bringing the matter up (such as your mother-in-law doing so in your house), the correct response is to say, “Either sit down and shut up or leave.”
“Not part of my campaign”?
Do t you guys get it ?
Romney HAS TO GET ELECTED first before he can investigate this.
He has to get the kindly ill informed “undecided” to vote for him!!!!!!
Please stop bashi g Romney! Instead go out there and find ways to WAKE UP your neighbors!!!
Elect first investigate later? Isn’t that kinda like: “We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It”.
Well, no. To perform an investigation implies the authority to do so, so getting elected first is the proper sequence of events. In the case of Pelosi, as Speaker, she talked a lot of nonsensical crap to the Citizens and her fellow Congress-critters, so as to not have any scrutiny of that Obamacare Abomination.
YES. They made an amusing but terribly inaccurate [see:http://goodbadugly.coldfusionvideo.com/?p=165 musical called “1776″ which did feature some gold nuggets about “issues”. One of those was a supposed exchange between John Adams (played brilliantly by William David Daniel) and Ben Franklin. I have to paraphrase the dialogue:
THE ISSUE: Should the fiercest supporters of independence abandon their demand for THE END OF SLAVERY IMMEDIATELY, in order to appease the Southern States to whom slavery was a way of life. The South demanded this compromise from the North–the question was, would the North acceed to this demand.
FRANKLIN TELLS ADAMS: Independence, John. That has to come first. Without Independence we have nothing.
ADAMS: If we continue to allow this evil practice history will never forgive us.
FRANKLIN REPLIES: But by then we’ll be long dead and it won’t matter. First, independence, and then we can address other issues.
ROMNEY, AND HIS SUPPORTERS KNOW THIS. O’Tyrant will DO and SAY ANYTHING to distract this republic from the true issue of the day: “FIRST, GET O’BASTARD OUT OF OFFICE, THEN WE CAN ADDRESS OTHER ISSUES.”
So, us peons cannot investigate anything? I must have missed that memo.
Take this in contact of the article, please. Thanks.
Exactly! Unfortunately there are those on the right that want Obama to win. I know that may be a shock, but from simple observation it is true. I think they believe that if Romney is elected it will forstall the ‘revolution’ they seek. What they don’t understand is this is not 1776 and the revolution is not going to be waged in the streets against a distracted and foreign power like Great Britain. If it were to happen it would be like the Civil War times ten. And they will loose, forever. They don’t understand that this is a much more difficult battle; a battle of will, wisdom and words and prayer. It is much more difficult to fight and won’t be fought as easily as a battle with guns. It is not a battle against ‘flesh and blood’ but against ‘power and principalities’.
Yes, Romney must get elected. He is an imperfect candidate but you go to battle with the soldier you have in the times and against the enemy you did not choose. It has always been thus. Then you pray…a lot.
“Yes, Romney must get elected. He is an imperfect candidate but you go to battle with the soldier you have in the times and against the enemy you did not choose.”
You are assuming he is your soldier. He is not. Oh, he’ll make the economy better, but do not expect him to properly deal with the existing systemic problems. He’ll treat the symptoms, not the disease. Relief from the symptoms is nice, but the disease is still fatal. We are running out of time.
“Time. Ask me for anything but time!” – Napoleon Bonaparte
Also Napoleon: “Space I can recover; time never.”
Yeah, and in 2008 some conservatives wanted BHO to get elected because they were indulging in a bit of Magical Thinking: “If BHO gets elected, he’ll be just like Jimmy Carter, which will guarantee that whoever runs against him in 2012 just exactly like Ronald Reagan!” Seriously. They really and truly believed BHO would (magically) cause a new Ronald Reagan to( magically ) appear in American politics. That BHO would be far worse than JEC could ever fantasize about being never crossed their minds , I am sure. A bit of a cautionary tale for those who believe it ever makes since to vote for the worse of two evils….
Just like with Harry Reid and his accusations, it is up to Huma Abedlin to prove her innocence.
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
I hope you didn’t mean that. This is America – where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Lets not play the game of the left where you are guilty until proven innocent.
I think he meant that we should simply throw that back in their faces, and see how they like it.
Works for me.
Not when it comes to security clearances. There one’s questionable past and associations are sufficient to raise suspicions. And unless those suspicions are resolved, one is not put into positions of trust. There is no presumption of innocence. Unless, it appears, one is friends with the Clintons.
KY You are wrong because we are writing on a blog and NOT in a court of law. Harry Reid is a GD Liar!! I do not have to prove it-I am not in court. I think the GOP pundits should go into full blown put up or shut up mode regarding the muslims in government issue. They will get PC blow back-but just keep saying “prove they arent radicals” PACs could do some serious damage with commercials going after Harry and Nancy…then stating it as a fact that Obama is right in bed with them-and all the dirty deals-lies-and slander.
Precisely! — Never forget that Michelle Bachmann’s assertions are supported by evidence, Harry’s — as MB’s and CAIR’s — are not. Thus the first corollary of Ockham’s razor is applicable: “That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence”!
Ms. Abedin’s position is not one of guilt or innocence, rather of (recent) past associations and activities supporting Bachmann’s point of view which, stripped to its essence, maintains that she should never have been placed in such a position of potentially conflicting interests in the first place. Her personal or professional integrity is not, in this case, the principal issue, nor seriously under attack. Basically, it is being asserted that her presence would be of the nature of “a risk we don’t have to take”.
Probably, there are quite a few more such risks at State, though less visible. This deserves some closer scrutiny. The issue of Mitt’s tax returns is raised as a distraction, a smoke screen. Typical Harry Reid ploy!
Mitt’s soundbite response should be ” When I’m hired she’ll be fired.” Then watch his poll numbers jump as the media and the Left wail in protest.
Which “she” are you proposing that Romney fire: Abedin or Bachmann?
I assume you mean Abedin but the “she” is vague.
It is not within the President’s power to fire a member of Congress, therefore, Bachmann is not even a valid solution to that question.
For those who paid attention to the story, it’s clear that the “she” is Abedin’s boss, Hillary Clinton.
“Romney HAS TO GET ELECTED first before he can investigate this.”
Well … if Romney is true to himself and “says what he believes” then he’ll give ‘em a straight answer just like the truthful answer he gave the Brits regarding the Olympics. The purpose of this challenge to Rolmney is to instill fear; nothing more … it’s a bully tactic that works to cower even our PC generals. I’m hoping and praying that Romney will be civil and direct if questioned; and that he simply tells it like it is. Huma Bedin is an MB operative; as are the rest of the Caliphate Cabal in our government, including the weak-kneed little sneak – Rep. Ellison. Please Mr.Romney, don’t play politics here – our country is drowning in PC but the tide of fear is turning and this may be pivotal in toppling the “Dreams” of “imposing” Sharia in this country. We’ll see who has the biggest set of family jewels; Bachmann or Romney.
Benefits of electing Romney: Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Tim Geithner, Janet Napolitano, Ray LaHood, Kathleen Sebelious, Steven Chu, David Axelrod, Jay Carney, and last but certainly not least, Barack Obama, will all get pink slips.
You forgot Lisa Jackson. Quite possibly the worst offender of all.
Don’t forget Hilda Solis at Labor. She needs to be on the next broomstick out of town.
This is one case where Mitt can have his cake and eat it too.
All he has to say is that he is not familiar with the person in question, so he cannot comment on the allegations. He respects Michelle Bachman, and he supports her right to speak her mind.
And… (hat tip to Independent Thinker), this issue will be moot once he’s in office because Clinton will no longer be SecState.
Then he simply refuses to answer all questions about whether Bachman is right or not.
Rinse, repeat as necessary.
Perhaps he should defer to Rep. Allen West (FL)? This seems to be an appropriate response….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MZx38i6iYs
(if it doesn’t come through, google “Allen West video CAIR” and it should pop right up.)
So far as he believes anything with deep conviction — like many he seems to use his faith as cover for lack of subtlety, to pick a neutral word — he may believe he’s a uniter, a natural born leader who can save us from ourselves. When the Going Gets Tough Call for Mitt… and get a flip-flop.
Odds favor a deep finesse or a bureaucrat’s response (like some on this thread) and he’ll leave Bachmann dangling. By all means hope for more, but many will still think of an invertebrate slithering across the floor.
We do not need a uniter, it’s far too late for that.
Bryan Fischer had interesting comment on this ‘backbone’… Ahem.
Romney AWOL on Chick-fil-A, wrong on the Boy Scouts
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/120806
“…Governor Etch-A-Sketch, to borrow spokesman Eric Ferhnstrom’s colorful metaphor, appears to morphing once again on social issues, back to the social liberal he was when he was governor of Massachusetts.
Exhibit A: Romney has doubled down on his criticism of the Boy Scouts for excluding homosexuals as scout leaders.
This is stupendously wrong-headed on the governor’s part, since social research has revealed that homosexuals sexually offend against minors at exaggerated rates.
In fact, according to research published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, they are ten times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.
Gov. Romney’s position, if adopted by the BSA, would put the sexual innocence of untold numbers of young boys at risk.
It is truly an unconscionable position for a self-described “severely conservative” candidate to take, particularly in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State.
Well, sooprise, sooprize, sooprize! Now that he’s got the nomination sewed up, he’s tacking back to the left!
Well! Who woulda thunk it???
Oh, anybody with a half-ounce of common sense.
Mr. Mallone has it right. Mitt Romney is NOT our soldier.
In Romney’s mind, he is severely conservative….just like in Rachael Maddow’s mind.
With all due respect, until and unless there is a peer-reviewed examination of the artifact in question to prove it is not a hoax; we remain in the realm of the theoretical.
See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hoax/
At the very least, assuming the purported spinal column is viable for transplant; a tissue sample should be injected subcutaneously to see if it provokes antibodies in Mitt to reject it. This would rule out any reimplantation.
I will believe it, when I see it.
Ione @ #6:
I rather suspect that the “revolution” you refer to will come whether or not Obama is re-elected. If Romney is elected, it IS more likely to remain political instead of on the other side of the Clausewitzian “=” sign. Do I trust Romney? No. Do I think that he will do more than slow the movement to the Left a bit, maybe? No. Will I vote for him anyway? Yep. Exactly because if Obama is re-elected [by hook or by crook, and these ARE Democrats we are dealing with] or if elections are cancelled; we will move to the other side of that “=” sign right smartly.
I have no illusions about him, and I will not invest him with any false virtues to try to make myself feel better about what I must do.
Subotai Bahadur
This I can respect.
The feeble-minded who are talking about Romney as if he’s the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan need to be put away in homes with nice activities and pleasant young men in white coats to keep them out trouble and friendly nurses to wipe the drool from their chins.
I too, have no illusions about Gov. Romney. Frankly I have no illusions for any ‘so called’ leaders, in or out of politics. That goes for Congressmen and radio talk show stars alike. I also believe that it is going to take a whole lot more than a singular man elected to President of the United States to right the ship. It is going to take more than elected leaders at all levels. It is going to take every man, woman and child involved in every level of service from religion,school to business and media working as hard as they can to change the culture so that there is good soil to plant in. The soil itself has been poisoned and you can plant all the seeds or plant full grown plants in bad soil and they will die. Electing one man at the top of the government is important but it is not a cure all. Even Ronald Reagan probably couldn’t fix things right now. So no, I don’t think Mitt is the cure; changing the culture is.
Romney will be his usual MIA when we need leaders that will stand up against the Fabulists.
Romney will be his usual MIA…
Here’s a short list of items Mitt is keeping his mitt shut about:
1) Obama’s lawless governance (EPA, welfare, immigration, etc.); is the law no longer important enough for Mitt’s commentary?
2) Nixon’s scandal was real. Burglary is a felony, and so is covering one up. Fair enough, so how about unsecured taxpayer loans to made a failing private company, Solyndra, that appear to have been made as payback one of his bundlers?
3) His aunt living here on the dole and badmouthing Infidel America as thanks; does the inevitable charge of racism scare Mitt from cashing in on this rich target? Or would that be “Islamophobia?”
4) The accepted analysis of the poor economy ignores 3 years of zero interest rates. Hey Mitt, if there’s no cost to be paid for zero interest, why don’t all nations have zero interest all the time? If there is no reason, then the true state of the economy is even worse than Obama’s results show.
5) Speaking of 3 years, how’s the socialist controlled Senate coming on that legally required annual federal budget?
6) Mitt, can we please hear you talk about Q6 instead of Q3? Q6 is the only true comparative rate, and 15% ain’t pretty. Mitt, do you wanna get elected?
7) Where’s the criticism of Obama’s handling of the Arab spring? The feminists and globalists would be enraged at the real news on that. Me, I’m enraged that a Supreme Court justice lauded a new Moslem constitution as superior to ours.
This is a very incomplete list, only a fraction of what the “opposition” party could, and should, be exploiting. But, Mitt is maintaining silence on these and other issues cuz he’s a RINO, and the job of any good RINO is to lose, or if he can’t get that done, then to keep the globo-socialist trend in place until the mainstream can get a true believer back into the driver’s seat. It took the accident of 9/11 to force Dubya to stay in the White House an extra four years.
Communists like 5 Year Plans….so no need for a new budget every year.
The Muslim World League [is] a “Saudi-financed global propagation enterprise by which the Muslim Brotherhood’s virulently anti-Western brand of Islamist ideology is seeded throughout the world, very much including in the United States.”
Why not just write “Saudi-financed enterprise by which the Muslim Brotherhood ideology is seeded throughout the world, including in the United States”? Though I’m sure Mr. McCarthy’s intentions are beyond reproach, it’s always better to stick to the facts. That way, there’s likelihood that you might be taken for a propagandist and fear-monger.
Full Interview: Mark Levin talks to Andy McCarthy about Bachmann, McCain, and Muslim Brotherhood
http://www.therightscoop.com/full-interview-mark-levin-talks-to-andy-mccarthy-about-bachmann-mccain-and-muslim-brotherhood/
Mark Levin had Andy McCarthy come on the show tonight to discuss the Muslim Brotherhood and the attacks on Michele Bachmann by McCain and others who are standing on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood. It runs 21 minutes but it’s a great interview and well worth your time
Andrew McCarthy is, of course, one of PJM’s own.
“UPDATE: And for the Doubting Thomases and John McCains among my readers”
I think given that Marco Rubio joined John McCain in stabling Michele Bachmann and America in the back and siding with the Muslim Brotherhood, that should be “Doubting Marcos and John McCains among my readers.”.
Romney flunked the spine test last week when he refused to comment on CFA appreciation day. Really, would it have been so hard to come out in favor of the First Amendment? Who was he afraid of offending? The Folsom St. Fair crowd? They’d sleep with a member of the opposite sex before they’d vote GOP.
When the Occupy idiots began their stinky vigils, there was no shortage of Dems defending them (although they later shut up). They praised a bunch of smelly hippies but Romney can’t side with a bunch of ordinary, law-abiding Americans who supported free speech?
I’m still ABO, but that really irritated me.
Indeed.
We have to remember we’re dealing with a moderate Republican, a make nice, don’t rattle the chinaware type. Usually they are meat for the leftist machine, we have to hope that Romney takes off the gloves, Obama and the Dems are a target rich environment, a gift.
well let me guess.
He’ll dodge the issue.
This issue has nothing to do with an election. It is the intentional act of ocircumventing required due diligence. This is an unforgivable act. At the level of government this has occured is an act of treason.
There just seems to have been too much treason that has happened in the highest tier of our government. Who is doing anything about it? The treason statute was updated 1/3/2012. These are the opening paragraphs:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five
years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and
shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having
knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals
and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same
to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the
governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is
guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to
overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the
United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force
the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the
execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize,
take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the
authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
All three of these have been breached in some way by our top public officials and leaders. There are certain crimes that only the federal government may prosecute. These include customs offenses, offenses involving federal tax matters, and crimes of espionage and treason.
Who is taking action?