Is Mitt Romney Severely Conservative?

* Try Moderately Severe, or Severely Moderate!

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

Mitt Romney told a gathering of conservative leaders and activists Friday that he is severely conservative, or something. “I was a severely conservative Republican governor,” Romney told the audience regarding his time in office, pointing out his support of traditional marriage and abstinence education. Sure Mitt and maybe God resides near a star called Kolob. Hey, I’ll send you a quarter so you can call someone who gives a flip!

Now being far more conservative than Mitt, I’m not so certain that government should even be dabbling in matters of marriage and education. Thus, Mitt’s entire premise, in and of itself, isn’t all that conservative. The often heard proclamation, “Get the government off my back, and out of my way,” is a severely conservative position, while Romney’s idea of conservatism is nothing but a weak watered down sound bite.

Although it may be true that Romney never worked a day in Washington, his signature Massachusetts health care law, or as Rick Santorum coined it, “the stepchild of Obamacare,” made it all the way to the top. Do we really want the guy who invented Obamacare presiding as chief executive over the nation? Lack of tangible experience, and being the inventor of the vilest piece of legislation ever, are precisely why Romney should be written-off.

It’s interesting that the only 2012 Republican candidate mentioned in the Reagan Diaries is Newt Gingrich. There was no mention of a severely conservative Mitt Romney at all. But of course, back then Mitt was busy roaming the earth proclaiming that, “There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God,” or something.

And what was that idea of young Gingrich that Mitt claims Reagan so disliked, again? Oh yeah, according to pages 123 – 124 of the Reagan Diaries, Newt’s idea for addressing the 1984 budget deficit was to “freeze the budget at the 1983 level. Gosh, what a horrible idea! But Mitt is so severely conservative that he’s been bashing Newt over this horrid, 30-year-old, position for month’s now.

Although Romney has publicly proclaimed that he will “repeal Obamacare,” a quick review of the U.S. Constitution failed to locate any passage granting the President of the United States the authority for repealing any law. And even worse, one of Romney’s advisors went on record stating, “We’re not going to do repeal …” Is telling conservatives that you will do something that you know you won’t, in any way severely conservative?

Romney has also come out recently in support of indexing the minimum wage, to rise automatically to keep pace with inflation. So is allowing the government to fix wages (i.e. price fixing), instead of allowing market forces to control the economy a severely conservative position?

Finally, Romney’s position on illegal immigration is for the government to sit back and rely on self-deportation. Even though Romney’s own grandparents and great-grandparents self-deported from the United States to Mexico, in the 19th Century, it wasn’t like they weren’t being chased by the U.S. Marshal and a host of deputies. Far from being severely conservative, Mitt’s reliance on self-deportation isn’t even mildly conservative, it’s at best lukewarm.

  • Is bashing young Newt’s idea of freezing the federal budget at the 1983 level a severely conservative position?

  • Was advocating for and signing Romneycare into law in some way severely conservative?

  • Is publicly stating he will repeal Obamacare, while privately planning not to repeal it a severely conservative design?

  • Is supporting the indexing of the minimum wage a severely conservative position?

  • Is relying on illegal immigrants to deport themselves somehow severely conservative?

I would say that Mitt Romney is severely something, but it’s not conservative. Maybe he’s severely moderate, or suffering from a moderately severe case of Amnesia, but whatever he’s got, I want nothing to do with it.

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!” So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.” ~ Revelation 3:15-17

Related:

A Defining Moment

Mitt Romney’s Defining Moment | Indexing the Minimum Wage

Is Mitt Romney a Liberal?

By: Larry Walker, Jr.

As Economist Thomas Sowell relays, in his piece entitled, A Defining Moment, “Mitt Romney has come out in support of indexing the minimum wage law, to have it rise automatically to keep pace with inflation.”

But according to Dr. Sowell,

“We have gotten so used to seeing unemployment rates of 30 or 40 percent for black teenage males that it might come as a shock to many people to learn that the unemployment rate for sixteen- and seventeen-year-old black males was just under 10 percent back in 1948. Moreover, it was slightly lower than the unemployment rate for white males of the same age.”

You may read the full text at Jewish World Review.

So what happened? Liberals imposed a series of minimum wage laws, virtually assuring today’s devastating rates of black teenage unemployment. So is Mitt Romney a Liberal? I can’t say for sure, but he’s most definitely not a conservative.

That’s right, lie to us Mitt. For we must defeat Obama at all costs – even if that means deceiving and destroying the Conservative movement, in the process. Will a real conservative please stand up and challenge this walking disaster before it’s too late?

Will Mitt Romney Repeal Obamacare?

* Does a President have that authority?

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

In his Nevada victory speech, Mitt Romney once again publicly declared, “I will repeal Obamacare”. How so? Will Willard Mitt Romney single-handedly repeal Obamacare?

Although I am in favor of repealing Obamacare, and replacing it with a free-market solution, the last time I checked the Constitution, I wasn’t able to locate any passage granting the President of the United States the sole authority for repealing any law. Frankly I’m tired of hearing the same old false promise over and over again.

The truth is that in order to repeal or amend any federal legislation, Congress is required to follow the same procedures used in passing any new legislation. In other words, a new bill must be introduced by Congress either repealing or amending the existing law, and then it must pass both Houses of Congress, before being signed by the President.

So although the currently Republican controlled House of Representatives would favor repeal, the Democratic controlled Senate would not. And unless the Republican Party is able to win the presidency, along with a substantial majority in the Senate, while maintaining its present majority in the House; Mitt Romney won’t be repealing anything (i.e. He won’t be signing any repeal legislation.). As far as I’m concerned it’s just words.

What’s disheartening is that while Romney has made this bold proclamation publicly, literally hundreds of times, offstage as Ben Domenech notes in his Transom, Mitt Romney’s advisors have now advised him to support not repealing Obamacare. Norm Coleman, an advisor to Romney, went on record saying:

“We’re not going to do repeal. You’re not going to repeal Obamacare… It’s not a total repeal… You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president… You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.”

Now I took Romney’s ridiculous blurb about fixing any holes in the safety net that exists for the very poor, for whom he is otherwise unconcerned, as a joke. Thanks Mitt, for keeping the very poor out of the way, and in everlasting poverty [sarcasm]! But his ongoing pandering plea to conservatives, that giving him the nomination will somehow empower a president Romney to repeal Obamacare, or any other law, is outright dishonest.

It’s hard to see how Romney’s practice of discrediting Newt Gingrich, alienating hundreds of thousands of Reagan conservatives in the process, can aid in the party’s winning or maintaining substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, let alone winning the presidency. I haven’t heard Romney mention anything about that. All I’ve heard him ramble on lately is what he will do by his lonesome, whether or not it’s reasonably possible, or even constitutional.

But aside from that, in the remote possibility that Republicans were able to win substantial majorities in both Houses along with a Romney presidency, what would a Romney Administration replace Obamacare with? Wouldn’t we just wind up with fifty state-run Romneycare’s?

Talk is cheap. Dishonesty is worthless.

That’s right, lie to us Mitt. For we must defeat Obama at all costs – even if that means deceiving and destroying the Conservative movement, in the process. Will a real conservative please stand up and challenge this walking disaster before it’s too late?

Mitt Romney’s Pro-Immigration Rant

* Leading with the chin. *

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

Mitt Romney argued haphazardly, in the January 26th GOP Debate, that he is pro-immigrant, because his father was born in Mexico. Ah, so that’s it. He shouted, “Mr. Speaker, I’m not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico…” That little proclamation was worse than his implication that Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts somehow help create jobs in America. When I heard the former, my first thought was, ‘what does that have to do with being pro-immigrant’? And upon hearing the latter, I laughed out loud.

Was Romney’s father a Mexican immigrant who waited in a long line to cross the U.S. border “legally”? Well, not exactly. I believe Mitt’s grandparents sprinted across the border twice; once as felony fugitives of the United States government, and the second time to escape a band of Mexican marauders. So it sounds more like a matter of self-deportation followed by an act of forced-deportation than anything else.

Frankly, I would have countered Mitt with, “And why don’t you explain to us all exactly how your father came to be born in Mexico, since you chose to go there?”

And what could Mitt say?

I mean, come on! When we think of American immigrants, we think of men and women who journeyed from afar seeking liberty, and a better way of life. But that’s not exactly the story of the Romneys.

Actually, Mitt Romney’s father George was born in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico. This may mislead one to the assumption that his parents were down there doing some kind of missionary work when he was born, right? But, that’s not exactly the way it went down. So how did Mitt Romney’s father come to be born in Mexico?

The Romneys wound up in Mexico due to an act of self-deportation from the United States. And although it may be true that the Romneys immigrated from the U.S. to Mexico in the 1800s, fleeing as fugitives and likely forfeiting their rights to U.S. citizenship in the process, it would be false to imply that his father was ever an immigrant to the United States. That is, unless the Romneys actually did forfeit their rights to U.S. citizenship. And you know what that would mean.

The fact is that when Mitt Romney’s great-grandparents fled the U.S. for Mexico in the 1800s, they were actually “felony fugitives” of the United States government. And when they returned to the United States in 1912, they were running for their lives from Mexican Revolutionaries, who also despised the practice of polygamy. One could make the case that the Romneys re-entered the U.S. illegally, more so than that his father was a bona fide legal immigrant.

How Self-Deportation Works

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. The act was designed to target the Mormon practice of plural marriage and the property dominance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Territory.

In 1882 the Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, was passed by the United States Congress replacing the Morrill Act. This was part of what by then was a 20 year struggle by the US government to curb the LDS practice of plural marriage in Utah Territory and other locations in the American West. Among other things, the law made the practice of polygamy a felony and disenfranchised polygamists. As a result, over a thousand Latter-day Saint men and women were eventually fined and jailed. Some were sent as far away as Michigan to fulfill their terms.

The Edmunds Act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked polygamists’ right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office. Wow, that’s deep!

The Edmunds Act was later replaced by the Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887. The new act prohibited the practice of polygamy and punished it with a fine of from $500 to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years. It also dissolved the corporation of the LDS church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000. The act was enforced by the U.S. marshal and a host of deputies.

So to be straight up about it, Mitt Romney’s great-grandparents were polygamous Mormons who fled with their children from the United States to Mexico because of the federal government’s opposition to polygamy. Mormon genealogical records, among the most detailed and complete of any religion, show that two of Mitt Romney’s great-great grandfathers, Miles Romney and Parley Pratt, had 12 wives each. His grandparents, American born Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt, immigrated to Mexico with their polygamous parents as children, were married in 1895 in Mexico, and lived in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua, where Mitt’s father George was born on July 8, 1907.

When the Mexican Revolution broke out in 1910, the Mormon colonies were endangered in 1911–1912 by raids from marauders. The Romney family then fled Mexico and returned to the United States in July 1912, leaving their home and almost all of their property behind. Mitt’s father George would later say, “We were the first displaced persons of the 20th century.”

Hogwash! The Romneys weren’t displaced, but were rather the first self-deported American citizens of the 19th century, and perhaps the only such in all of U.S. history. That is to say, they self-deported from their native country, after refusing to follow U.S. law for nearly two decades. And then were subsequently run out of Mexico by a group of well armed patriotic Mexicans. So if anything, the Romneys were self-displaced.

Is this why Mitt Romney is so passionate about the idea of self-deportation? I mean after all, out of every other presidential candidate, he would know a little more on this topic than anyone else, and certainly more than he lets on. I would contend that if Mitt Romney is somehow pro-immigrant, it has nothing to do with his legacy, but rather all to do with saying what voters seem to want to hear. But all this voter wants to hear is the truth.

That’s right, lie to us Mitt. For we must defeat Obama at all costs – even if that means deceiving and destroying the Conservative movement in America in the process. Will someone please stand up and challenge this walking disaster before it’s too late? When your opponent leads with the chin, that’s when you go for the jugular. And someone needs to do just that, because it’s starting to smell like 2008 all over again.

I honestly can’t get with Mitt Romney’s background anymore than I could ever get with the current abandoned anchor-POTUS’. If Romney is the best that conservatives can produce, good luck to you all with that. I would rather stake my last dollar on the real deal, even if it means defeat. I don’t know where you stand, but for me it’s principle over politics.

“When a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution, he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited.” ~ Sen. Jacob Howard

Also see:

Polygamy Prominent in GOP Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney’s Family Tree

——————————————-

FAIR USE NOTICE: “Hope n’ Change” Cartoons may be freely reposted for non-profit use without additional permission, but must contain the full header, author’s name, and copyright information. Material from “Hope n’ Change” Cartoons may not be collected, printed, or sold in any form without specific permission from the author – who may be, for all you know, a bloodsucking parasitic lawyer just aching to file a lawsuit, take your life savings, and leave nothing more than your dried and desiccated carcass like a dead mayfly on a windowsill.

Video | Newt Gingrich Delivers Keynote, Gets Cain’s Support

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

Last night, GOP Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich delivered an inspirational keynote speech at the Palm Beach County Republican Party’s 2012 Lincoln Day Dinner.

Congressman Allen West led off by defining the American value of equality of opportunity. Then Chairman Sid Dinerstein explained that scarcely any of the jobs created under the Obama Administration were full-time jobs, that nearly every single one of them has been part-time.

Next, Palm Beach County Republican Party Trustee Gay Hart Gains clarified the characteristics of the ideal presidential candidate, and declared that Speaker Gingrich is the one. And then, before Gingrich would take the microphone, former Presidential Candidate Herman Cain delivered a surprising, official and enthusiastic, endorsement for Newt Gingrich as President of the United States.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=303980-1

It’s interesting to observe how many Conservatives continue to sit on the sidelines, focusing on things that really don’t matter, while others have made their stand with the anti-Reagan, Massachusetts moderate. At some point, all must make a choice. Will it be the Conservative, the Moderate, or the Socialist?

Conservative Envy | Romney vs. Gingrich

* Round 15: GOP Debate

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

The first three minutes of the January 19th CNN-GOP Debate was such a crock that I turned it off and caught up with the highlights later on. In one less notable tirade, Mitt Romney exclaimed, “Mr. Speaker, you talk about all the things you did with Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Revolution and the jobs created during the Reagan years and so forth. I mean, I looked at the Reagan diary. You were mentioned once in Ronald Reagan’s diary. And in the diary he says you had an idea in a meeting of young congressman, and it wasn’t a very good idea, and he dismissed it. That’s the entire mention.”

Well first of all, the book is entitled, “The Reagan Diaries”, not the Reagan Diary.

Secondly, the meeting Romney referred to was concerning what at the time was considered to be a “horrendous” budget deficit.

As Reagan relays, on page 123, Newt’s idea for addressing the deficit was to “freeze the budget at the 1983 level”. Gosh, what a horrible idea!

Reagan penned that the idea was “tempting”, not that it was an outright zany notion. He went on to say that Newt’s idea, although tempting, would “cripple” his proposed defense program.

Actually there’s a little more to the story than that.

Reagan said he was worried that an across-the-board freeze on spending, with the exception of defense, would cause every special interest group to demand the same.

So in a sense, Reagan was willing to let the deficit spiral out of control, rather than take up that fight. Do you disagree?

We all know what happened subsequently. That’s right, by the 1990’s our nation would face a much more serious budget problem. One which would be combated with higher taxes. That is until this notion was finally quashed by the Gingrich Revolution.

So if nothing else, at least Romney inspired those with curious minds to pick up the Reagan Diaries for a badly needed refresher. And in retrospect, perhaps Newt’s idea wasn’t so bad after all, especially in light of our current fiscal crisis.

To be fair, George Romney was mentioned twice, on pages 249 and 415. Each mention was a short little blurb about his being the head of some kind of “volunteer initiative”, or something. Seriously, that’s the entire mention. Read it for yourself.

So what was Romney’s point? That his father got mentioned twice, for some trifle; while Gingrich was only mentioned once, regarding the most important issue of this era? Man, was that dumb!

Or was Romney trying to say that being mentioned twice in the Reagan Diaries is superior to once? If that’s the case, then what are we to make of the fact that Mitt Romney wasn’t mentioned at all?

If you ask me, this was just another anemic Romney exchange, worthy of the response it received — none. Perhaps Romney was signaling that he would never go for a spending freeze, under any circumstance. Who can decipher his reasoning? Nevertheless, he came off as one suffering from a classic case of Conservative Envy. Consequently, Romney is going down.

Sources:

The Reagan Diaries, pages 123, 249, and 415.

Quotation from: Real Clear PoliticsRomney To Gingrich: “You Were Mentioned Once In Ronald Reagan’s Diary”.

Newt Gingrich on Amnesty | In his own words

Updated: During the CNN GOP National Security Debate on 11/22/2011, Newt Gingrich recommended a comprehensive approach to address illegal immigration. Just for the record, what Mr. Gingrich really said about Amnesty follows:

Mr. Gingrich said that any such plan must (A) start with securing the border, then (B) establishing a guest worker program, and finally (C) setting up a board to review the status of each person here illegally. Such a board would distinguish between those who recently came here, and those who are more established. He said that those who recently came here, who don’t have family ties, or are otherwise not established, should be sent home. While those who are established, who have been here for 25 years or more, who have children and grandchildren in America, who belong to churches, who have obeyed the laws, and who have paid their taxes, should be allowed to stay legally, but not automatically granted citizenship. For the latter, he recommended using something similar to the Red Card Solution, which would be used as a form of identification, to grant legality, but not as a path towards citizenship.

The Krieble Foundation’s Red Card Solution is a proposal which would allow companies to recruit workers from Mexico. The Red Card would permit workers to enter America, and would allow employers and immigration authorities to track them. It would aid in enforcement of immigration laws, with less intrusion by the government. According to the Krieble Foundation:

“It’s a simple solution. Private employment agencies would be allowed to open offices in foreign countries, and authorized to issue temporary non-citizen worker permits. The permits would be “smart cards” with a microchip that includes a photograph, fingerprint or other biometric identification data, and information needed so that border agents, police, and employers could swipe the card and know who the holder is, where he works, where he lives, who issued the permit, when it expires, and any other required information. Employment agencies would be licensed by the government and would be required to run criminal background checks before issuing non-citizen worker permits, much like gun shops do today. Employers would simply post jobs with employment agencies like they do today. Best of all, the program would be funded by user fees, not taxpayers.”

Gingrich also recommended that H1 Visas be granted with every graduate degree in math, science and engineering, to encourage foreign students to stay in America.

For the most part, I concur.