What a steaming pile of mealy-mouthed clap trap. What happened to the strong hard as nails pro-life, pro-Liberty conservative Jeff Head that I used to admire and respect. Romney is a fricken compulsive LIAR!! He’s a Keynesian!! Has no respect for individual liberty whatsoever. Can you spell socialized health care? I can: R-O-M-N-E-Y-C-A-R-E!! That and his belief in man-made global warming, his penchant for gay rights, his desire to provide comprehensive immigration, his Keynesian economic policies, his total disrespect for the Declaration and the Constitution will destroy what’s left of our Liberty!!
I’m still here, Jim and just as hard as nails as I have always been.
I believed Reagan when he said he changed...I will give Romney that same consideration. But it is trust and verify. If he gets into office and proves different, then I will cease all support for him in an instant...I have a hard enough time supporting him in the least in any case.
But the voters are leaving me, given my serntiments as stated above, with no other choice. I voted for Santorum here in Idaho.
As it is, I believe we absolutely have to have the House and Senate anyway, and if we do, I believe they will force Romney to fulfill the promises he is making now.
I know there is absolutely no chance of that with Obama. He will double down on his marxism, continue to pile on the debt with a will and will drive this nation into bankruptcy, insolvency and chaos on purpose in order to try and create his marxist command economy out of the ashes. This is his plan and he is on course to accomplish it.
Just as hard as I will work to get the House and Senate, for my kids and grandkids sake, I simply cannot stand by and ignore that race and allow Obama that immediate opportunity unopposed by my own efforts.
Obama has simply taken our victories in 2010 and side stepped and ignored the constitution despite our gains. He will double down on that in his second term.
As I said, it is a gut wrenching decision...but I cannot be any part of handing the presidency to Obama. I will work equally hard to ensure that our House and Senate are shored up...but will also do all I can to see Obama defeated.
I pray daily, for God in Heaven’s help and wisdom in all of this. We must all work our hardest according to the homnest, sincere, and moral dictates of our conscience and then “wait upon the Lord,” for His hand to be revealed and for His support...because we need it.
It’s my hope that He will grant it to this Republic once again, as He has so oft done in the past...despite our miscues as a nation. The principle of which, IMHO, is:
The abortion Holocaust
http://www.jeffhead.com/abortion/abortiontruth.htm
You mention Mitt buying the liberal schpiel on global warming. I agree.
But does it not bother you that Newt actually sat down, and did an ad with Nancy Pelosi, no less, that spouted the exact same liberal viewpoint on global warming?
The nomination is not even set yet and Jeff is promoting the LDS inc candidate. Clearly, Jeff is doing his part to aid the White Horse prophecy of the lying peepstone sexual predator of married women who founded Jeff’s religion. If I am not mistaken, Jeff also believes himself to be a high priest int he order to which Jesus Christ is the ONLY living High Priest. ... Is that right Jeff, are you a melchizedek LDS inc high priest? Your loyalty to LDS inc regardless is showing, Jeff.
No wonder JimRob responded to this post of Mormon Jeff Head by saying "What a steaming pile of mealy-mouthed clap trap. What happened to the strong hard as nails pro-life, pro-Liberty conservative Jeff Head that I used to admire and respect."
Jeff Head wants us to judge RomneyCare on the basis of the Bay State being a liberal state & looking @ what Romney vetoed overall in that state. Even if we conclude that RomneyCare was some sort of "given" -- as Jeff contends -- how about looking at what Romney could have vetoed to dilute the abortion impact of RomneyCare...but refused:
By April 12, 2006 when RomneyCare passed, this was no longer an issue of Romney having to do or say something to get elected or even govern (as Jeff insinuates -- "though it is clear Romney took liberal positions to get elected governor, and then to govern there")...nobody in 2006 was forcing a gun to Romney's head to remain pro-abortion.
Via RomneyCare, Mitt expanded abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. Assessment: (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?" How could this be other than what JimRob concluded: "Romney is a fricken compulsive LIAR!!").
Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could have exercised veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).
Well, to hear-tell directly from Mitt and Ann Romney over the past two campaigns (Mitt, Aug/2007 & Ann, Fall, 2011), why the Romneys were supposedly never pro-abortion! Look @ the chart below for Mitt Romney's Aug 2007 interview with Chris Wallace...and Ann Romney's Fall 2011 interview with Parade Magazine:
| YEAR | Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney | Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life' | |
| Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth | “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...”my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007) | So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've “never changed” re: abortion and that they've “always been pro-life,” but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: “I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice”...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was “always for life.” | |
| 1994 (Campaign) | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should SUSTAIN and support it, and I SUSTAIN and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet” | Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007) | |
| December 2007 vs. November 2011 (Pro-treating offspring as research refuse late in previous POTUS campaign vs. now claiming 'never changed...always pro-life' | December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!" | In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side) |
He took very carefully worded positions when he ran of personally being against those things though promising to "support the law." I would not have even tried and played such games with such fundamental issues, but he did and they have resulted in this very understandable problem he has...and deserves... (Jeff Head, post 818)
He did no such thing...Let's look @ the chart above to review what language Romney used when he ran for Senate in 1994:
I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should SUSTAIN and support it, and I SUSTAIN and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
Shame, double shame and triple shame upon the integrity of Jeff Head!
He of ALL people SHOULD KNOW how strong of a word it is for Mormons to say they "sustain" something? Why? Because that is the exact word used that Mormon grassroots & leaders are told to act toward their "living 'prophet'" -- to "sustain" him...!!!
”In the LDS context 'sustain' has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: 'Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand.' At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says 'any opposed may manifest it', and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand. To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run. We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down....Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining...Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said: “The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected” -Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said: “To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective” -Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28 When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in 'sustaining'. When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of 'sustaining' can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he 'sustains' a law..." Source: http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2006/12/mormons-against-romney-analyze-romneys.html
...though it is clear Romney took liberal positions to get elected governor, and then to govern there, he did change and flip-flop on most of them when running for the GOP nomination. As he would have to. He is saying and supporting most of the right things now... [Jeff Head, post 818)
Romney "flipped" to "pro-life" Nov of 2004;
"flopped" by saying @ a press conference that he was keeping the "status quo" of abortion in MA May of 2005 & followed that up with his taxpayer-funded abortion program & Planned Parenthood open doors of RomneyCare in Spring 2006;
Then he "flipped" "pro-life" again in most of 2007...
...until he "flopped" on the Katie Couric show Dec of '07 -- saying 'twas "OK" for parents to give up their offspring to "research"
Now he's "flipped" for the third time in less than 7.5 years!!!!
You not only can't trust Mitt Romney, you can't trust Mormons like Jeff Head...they'll say anything...
What happened is one Mormon supporting another hoping to fulfill the White Horse prophecy