Left-Wing Site Unearths Video of Romney... Talking Like a Conservative; UPDATE: Romney Responds
by
John Nolte
17 Sep 2012
**UPDATE: ROMNEY RESPONDS:
Via Romney Communications Director Gail Gitcho:Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy. As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government, including the record number of people who are on food stamps, nearly one in six Americans in poverty, and the 23 million Americans who are struggling to find work. Mitt Romney’s plan creates 12 million new jobs in four years, grows the economy and moves Americans off of government dependency and into jobs.***
Brace yourselves; here comes another phony media rampage against Mitt Romney.
You can already see the media-future bubbling up on Twitter as the usual suspects in the mainstream media chuckle with glee over how they're going to use leaked videos from a closed-door fundraiser to destroy Their Precious One's opponent, Mitt Romney. Naturally, the videos are already posted on sites like "Mother Jones" -- and others that are specifically designed to create the memes the corrupt media latches onto in order to pound away at Romney and distract from Obama's disastrous policies in the Middle East and domestically.
So, just as the media did last week with Romney's perfectly valid criticism of Obama and the Cairo Embassy apology, it looks as though we're in for another week-long stink of media-manufactured outrage.
But over what, exactly ?
Over a conservative talking like a conservative and laying out facts.
When I saw these videos, my first thought was, "Gee, I wish Romney would talk this way on the campaign trail."
That sentiment is especially true for the video the corrupt media is going to pretend to be the most outraged over:
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT: There are 47% of the people who will vote for the President no matter what. Alright, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims, who believe government has the responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing.Well, gasp and egads.
FACT: 47% of tax-filers in this country pay no federal income tax.
That's not 47% of Americans, mind you; that's 47% of people who file federal income taxes.
That's not only a fact, it's a crime.
Why should anyone who qualifies to file a federal tax return get away with paying zero federal income taxes?
Why should 47% of tax-filers have no investment whatsoever in their government? READ MORE
NECESITA DINEO TEMPORAL? BANCO SOCIAL...$500 a 2 meses...Rápido
Hoy es el Día de la Constitución de Estados Unidos
Durante más de cien años, los progresistas han intentado persuadir a los americanos de que los tiempos han cambiado y, por lo tanto, nuestros documentos fundacionales (especialmente la Declaración de la Independencia y la Constitución) deben evolucionar para satisfacer las necesidades de una sociedad en
desarrollo. Esta noción de una “constitución viva” es naturalmente predominante en los círculos intelectuales, pero también se ha filtrado en nuestros debates diarios y en la manera de pensar acerca de la Constitución.
Si los tiempos han cambiado tanto, entonces debemos preguntarnos (especialmente este 17 de septiembre, Día de la Constitución), ¿por qué vale la pena celebrar su día o siquiera preservarla?
Por un lado, celebramos y preservamos la Constitución porque organiza coherentemente la estructura de los asuntos gubernamentales y “es el acuerdo que formalmente constituye al pueblo americano”, como afirma el experto de Heritage Matthew Spalding. Pero la Constitución no es digna de elogio simplemente porque enumere instituciones particulares (como el Poder Ejecutivo, el Poder Judicial o los estados).
Para comprender la importancia de la Constitución y su valor, podemos recurrir a su gran defensor, Abraham Lincoln. Para Lincoln, el objetivo de la Constitución no era que la ensalzaran. Al reflexionar sobre las enseñanzas de Proverbios 25:11 que dice: “Como manzana de oro con figuras de plata es la palabra dicha como conviene”, Lincoln describe los principios americanos establecidos en la Declaración de la Independencia como la manzana de oro, mientras que “Estados Unidos y la Constitución, son las figuras de plata, posteriormente enmarcadas a su alrededor”. Aunque la figura de plata es efectivamente hermosa y buena, “la figura fue hecha para la manzana y no la manzana para la figura”. De este modo, lo que hace que la Constitución sea digna de preservarse son los imperecederos principios de la Declaración de la Independencia que la Constitución garantiza.
Con toda seguridad, los hábitos de la vida cotidiana americana han cambiado desde 1787. Pero una economía global, los avances tecnológicos y las mujeres en la población activa no convierten la Declaración de la Independencia en algo cuestionable ni hace falta una nueva Constitución. A pesar del actual ataque a la Constitución, los americanos no dejan de recurrir a este venerable documento en busca de guía. Después de todo, según las palabras de Calvin Coolidge, existe un carácter definitivo en los principios de Estados Unidos:
“Si todos los hombres son creados iguales, eso es definitivo. Si están dotados con derechos inalienables, eso es definitivo. Si los gobiernos derivan sus justos poderes del consentimiento de los gobernados, eso es definitivo. No hay avance, no hay progreso que se pueda hacer más allá de estas propuestas. Si alguien desea negar esa verdad o su sensatez, la única dirección en la cual puede proceder históricamente no es hacia delante sino hacia atrás, hasta la época en la cual no había igualdad, ni derechos individuales, ni gobierno del pueblo”.Este Día de la Constitución, recordemos y conmemoremos los principios que han hecho de este documento, la Constitución más exitosa que se haya escrito en la historia.
INVEST UP TO $5,000 @ 6 Ms...10% RETURN GUARANTEED! BANCO SOCIAL
Video: Republican Mitt Romney lambastes 2-state solution
Photo: Jason Reed / Reuters
US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney
questioned the feasibility of the establishment of a Palestinian state
in the West Bank, according to video footage published Tuesday by US
magazine Mother Jones.
"I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard," Romney said at a $50,000-per-plate fundraising dinner on May 17. "One is the one which I've had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish."
Romney then launched into a hypothetical scenario in which Israelis allow the Palestinians to establish a state in the West Bank but are then forced to contend with unsolvable security and border issues.
It is "maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank," he said, repeating an oft-cited Israeli security concern alleging that an opposing Arab army in the West Bank could cut Israel in half horizontally in a matter of minutes. "And now how about the airport?" he asked.
Romney said that the Palestinians would demand full control over its own borders, and suggested they could open access to military armaments. "And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel."
Concluding that the Palestinians remain "committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel," the US presidential candidate endorsed a strategy of maintaining the status quo. "You move things along the best way you can," he said. "You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem."
Turning to Iran, Romney cautioned on the danger of allowing the Islamic Republic to obtain nuclear weapons capability. Using another hypothetical scenario, Romney imagined Iran giving Hezbollah "a little fissile material," ordering the proxy to take it to Chicago, and then blackmailing the US over foreign policy issues. "We really don't have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon," he said.
Ahead of elections in November, US President Barack Obama has been repeatedly attacked by his Republican challenger for "throwing Israel under the bus," both vis-à-vis the Palestinians and Iran. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been actively pressing the US president to "set red lines," which Obama rejects, and which is threatening to become a wedge issue in US politics. Netanyahu recently took his position to the US airwaves, giving interview with CNN and NBC calling for a US guarantee against Iran.
"I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard," Romney said at a $50,000-per-plate fundraising dinner on May 17. "One is the one which I've had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish."
Romney then launched into a hypothetical scenario in which Israelis allow the Palestinians to establish a state in the West Bank but are then forced to contend with unsolvable security and border issues.
It is "maybe seven miles from Tel Aviv to what would be the West Bank," he said, repeating an oft-cited Israeli security concern alleging that an opposing Arab army in the West Bank could cut Israel in half horizontally in a matter of minutes. "And now how about the airport?" he asked.
Romney said that the Palestinians would demand full control over its own borders, and suggested they could open access to military armaments. "And of course the Iranians would want to do through the West Bank exactly what they did through Lebanon, what they did near Gaza. Which is that the Iranians would want to bring missiles and armament into the West Bank and potentially threaten Israel."
Concluding that the Palestinians remain "committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel," the US presidential candidate endorsed a strategy of maintaining the status quo. "You move things along the best way you can," he said. "You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem."
Turning to Iran, Romney cautioned on the danger of allowing the Islamic Republic to obtain nuclear weapons capability. Using another hypothetical scenario, Romney imagined Iran giving Hezbollah "a little fissile material," ordering the proxy to take it to Chicago, and then blackmailing the US over foreign policy issues. "We really don't have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon," he said.
Ahead of elections in November, US President Barack Obama has been repeatedly attacked by his Republican challenger for "throwing Israel under the bus," both vis-à-vis the Palestinians and Iran. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been actively pressing the US president to "set red lines," which Obama rejects, and which is threatening to become a wedge issue in US politics. Netanyahu recently took his position to the US airwaves, giving interview with CNN and NBC calling for a US guarantee against Iran.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario