27 Comments

Mitt Romney…what can I say?


When Al Gore was running for president he ‘spooked’ me. I never could explain why, but the idea of him leading the country was, well, it gave me the willies. But you know what, Romney ‘spooks’ me even more! 

How can anyone hoping to lead a nation say such stupid things!?

quote,

WASHINGTON, DC — In an interview with ThinkProgress today, former Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge criticized the charge, made by Mitt Romney, that President Obama “sympathizes” with those who attacked and killed four Americans in Libya.

Romney said in a press release last night that “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” (When the U.S. Embassy in Cairo first addressed the situation, no attacks had yet occurred. The first comment from the embassy on the issue was to condemn religious incitement.)

Romney is finding few defenders for his charge, even among fellow Republicans. Buzzfeed spoke with a senior Republican foreign policy hand who said that Romney was “just trying to score a cheap news cycle hit” and now it’s become an “utter disaster.” Top Republicans in Congress are also refusing to echo their presidential candidate’s in press releases. (source)

In case you don’t get it, the statement issued by the US Embassy in Cairo (not from the White House) was issued HOURS before the Embassy was attacked in hopes of preventing things escalating into violence. But according to Romney it was issued afterwards in RESPONSE to the attack!  

Jimmeny Christmas, what a nut! Al Gore ain’t looking so bad today…. 

27 comments on “Mitt Romney…what can I say?

  1. A number of commentators are noting that this charge by Romney is a very serious departure from a LONG tradition of pulling together after an attack on our nation. His response wasn’t even thought through. It was just a simple knee jerk response of “here is one more thing to blame Obama for”. But is this surprising? With divisiveness forever reaching new heights, this is the logical end point and it will be deeply satisfying to our worst enemies. But there are so many life long Republicans that are DEEPLY disturbed over this turn of events that it may prove to be just one more liability for Romney by election time.

    If this can happen when a handful of Americans are killed on foreign soil, one has to wonder what the Republican response would have been when 3,000 Americans were killed on AMERICAN soil IF the Dems had employed the same strategy. Even though there is even now still evidence of negligence on the part of the Bush administration during that period, Democrats have had enough self control to avoid any attempt to plaster the blame on George Bush. Libertarians have not been so kind, but Democrats, at least the ones in high places like Romney occupies, have been loathe to try to stamp the blame on Mr Bush. In the light of 9-11 and the Dem response, Mr Romney’s attack on the president looks very petty, very opportunistic and very ill conceived.

    In the case of Libya, that nations leaders have ALREADY expressed their profound shock over the attack in Libya. There is suspicion on their side at this point that leftovers from the Ghadaffi regime may have committed this crime as revenge for US support during their revolution and that the movie may have simply been a diversion. In any case, Mr Romney should have had sense enough to at least keep his mouth shut until after the dust settles.

    The bottom line of course is that God is in control and, ultimately, the man he chooses will be our next president. He gives wisdom to the humble and turns the arrogant into fools. Everything that happens, happens because He allows it to happen to fulfill his purposes on this earth. The outcome is in His hands and we can all rest in that.

    • George you’re right, it shouldn’t be surprising. I think what shocked me the most was even after being made aware of his flub, Romney still held a press conference this morning and double-downed on his accusation. It felt like i was watching (and listening to) a mentally deranged person! It was that weird.

  2. When the attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages under Jimmy Carter failed, candidate Ronald Reagan expressed support for the President and grief for the dead soldiers. Here are my thoughts:

    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-continuing-mockery.html

    • Wonderful article Rick! I hope everyone here will follow the link and read it.

      I read the comments also and totally agree with one commenter who said,

      It’s been said that tragedy draws out the true character of people.

      It sure does…and did in this case.

  3. Funny how this site has left the basics of belief and become so political is nature. When it’s about Christ it is solid but when tainted with the bent of political opinion it misses the mark by a long shot……………..

    • solar, no one has left their beliefs or their faith…but because politics has become so deeply entangled with American Christianity, it cannot be ignored. It MUST be looked at and discussed.

      I understand how it may bother some people, but i have to post what i believe are topics which need to be shared. You can always just ignore them my friend…

    • Unfortunately a certain political party in this country has CHOSEN to thoroughly mix politics and religion. It would be splendid if that were not the case and we could then just focus on purely issues of faith instead. But when you have candidates pandering to religous pressure and religious groups pandering to political pressure, that becomes difficult to do.

  4. Mitt Romney has no integrity. He shows no respect for anyone or anything.

    He’s fine with the idea of using anything and anyone for his goals — which are his own self-promotion. Nothing else.

  5. Romney was commenting on the statement issued by the Egypt embassy before the news of the attack in Libya and he was 100% correct in what he said.

    Obama’s statement today essentially agrees with the statement given by our embassy in Egypt. His first instinct is to criticize the private expression of speech by a US citizen.

    “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants,” Obama said.

    “efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” – expresses the belief that “offensive” speech is not protected by the 1st amendment. Other nations have already adopted that standard and we may not be far behind

    • Romney was commenting on the statement issued by the Egypt embassy before the news of the attack in Libya and he was 100% correct in what he said.

      Steve i deeply respect you but on this i totally disagree.

    • Steve, I too respect you greatly, but I do deeply disagree with your position on free speech. The speech in question is not simply offensive and THAT is the problem. There should be ABSOLUTELY NO LIMIT on offensive speech. On THAT ISSUE I agree with you. But … speech that risks lives has LONG been restricted. You cannot, for example, yell out something in a public venue that causes mass panic. If you do and someone is injured or dies as a result, the law WILL hold you responsible. If you call an ambulance as a prank and that ambulance collides with another vehicle, you WILL be held responsible. When you have a reasonable expectation that your speech is going to cause injury to any innocent third party, you SHOULD be held responsible, end of story. That is what the term INFLAMMATORY is all about. If YOU directly knowingly cause someone’s passions to become inflamed such that they cause injury to someone else, you should be held accountable. NO ONE will go out and commit something like this if you write a book or make a movie explaining in a scholarly way why Mohammed was a theological heretic. Those kinds of books are out there everywhere. There are ways to do it responsibly and safely. What this film maker has done reeks to high heaven of the Westboro Baptist Church approach. In fact, it was NO SURPRISE that they were among the first to pick up on the story and, of course, support the film maker passionately. This is not about free speech. This is about malicious and irresponsible speech that endangers the very lives of potentially large numbers of other innocent human beings and it should be treated just like that person yelling “fire” in the crowded theater. There is no moral difference between the two situations. None what so ever. There IS, however, a HUGE political difference in that the film maker had a fairly obvious political axe to grind and thus was able to suck in a number of naive supporters on the basis of THEIR political inclinations. This fim was DESIGNED to promote the political interests of Israel at ALL costs, and now innocent Americans are paying THAT COST.

      I would, of course, qualify the above by saying that thankfully, at this point, no blood APPEARS to have been shed as a result of that movie. I say this because the attack in Libya is currently believed to have been perpetrated by Al Qaeda by both the US and Libyan governments. But that fact does not mean that all sorts of mischief should be allowed under the excuse of “free speech”.

    • “His first instinct is to criticize private expression of speech” I really think that’s an unfair charge. These kind of incidents happened during Bush II tenure. The responsibility of governments is to cool passions. And that was what the first statement from the Cairo embassy was trying to do. See Bush criticizing a general’s remark on foreign soil no less. Was he accused of sympathizing with attackers then?

      http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/world/bush-says-he-disagrees-with-general-s-remarks-on-religion.html

      Bush apologizes to Iraqi PM over Quran shooting incident
      http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=101752

      There are many more. Was he trying to cool passions with those words or he was sympathizing with the attackers like Romeny charged yesterday? He was basically accusing the man gross betrayal. But I think he was trying to play to a swath of the public that consider the president a muslim. It was a charge that was logical if you believe that.

    • Amen. Of course Bush apologized! And it was the right thing to do. I didn’t look it up but im willing to wager other past presidents have apologized for incidents as well.

      But at some point in the last 4 years, its now apparently become un-American for a president to apologize for anything!

      There are many more. Was he trying to cool passions with those words or he was sympathizing with the attackers like Romeny charged yesterday? He was basically accusing the man gross betrayal. But I think he was trying to play to a swath of the public that consider the president a muslim. It was a charge that was logical if you believe that.

      I believe Romney knew exactly what he was doing and saying and to ‘whom’ he was directing it to: that group of nuts out there who still swear our president is a muslim. If anyone needed confirmation of that look how fast Sarah Palin jumped on Fox news to defend (and agree with) Romney.

  6. While I have a LOT of moral issues with the Democratic party from their overt support of unconditional right to abortion to their overt support of gay marriage, some of Mitt Romney’s assertions, including this one, are examples of areas where I have extreme difficulty with the Republican agenda.

    The Bible tells us in Psalm 20.7 “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.” Republicans, for all their lip service to God, just don’t seem to get that. They often quote Teddy Roosevelt’s famous “carry a big stick” motto, but they almost always leave out the “speak softly” part. When it comes to Islam, everything they say and do has a very obvious “in your face” quality to it. It is as if the sooner they can incite a war, the better. Where in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, is that concept promoted? I am NOT arguing that government should be “biblical”. What I am saying is that those who DO argue that government should be “biblical” seem to want to pick and choose which aspects of government should be constrained by biblical principles and which should not.

    Republicans seem to have this morbid fascination with Islam. While their opposition to it IS biblical, they always seem to forget about the part that reads “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.” Instead, everything ends up being a very fleshly contest of who can muster up the most testosterone. For me, this is the underlying bedrock of Mitt Romney’s response to the middle east attacks on our diplomats.

    • You quoted one of my favorite scriptures George, “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the Lord our God”.

      Republicans, for all their lip service to God, just don’t seem to get that.

      No they don’t. There may actually be born again Christian individuals within the number of elected officials of the republican party, and the same can be said about the democratic party, i don’t doubt that at all. But in my humble opinion most (if any) of them don’t show the least bit of spiritual fruit which testifies to the fact they believe God is in control or that they trust in anything other then their own fleshly ability to change anything. This is why, in recent years, i turn a deaf ear to all their empty words about ‘God and Morals’. I admit it…i was one of those who for years felt i was supporting God’s plan or agenda by voting Republican. I truly did. When they talked about God and country i listened. And i believed them. Can’t really say what my wake-up call was exactly. But one day it just dawned on me that they were using God and His name and, i had (willingly) allowed myself to be deceived. It left me feeling sick.

      When it comes to Islam, everything they say and do has a very obvious “in your face” quality to it. It is as if the sooner they can incite a war, the better. Where in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, is that concept promoted? I am NOT arguing that government should be “biblical”. What I am saying is that those who DO argue that government should be “biblical” seem to want to pick and choose which aspects of government should be constrained by biblical principles and which should not.

      I agree. They give the impression they always need a ‘flesh and blood’ enemy to fixate upon. They view too many people as “the others” or “them”, if you know what i mean.

      Recently i read a piece titled The Innocent Nation. Believe it was included within a book i own. I’ll check. It was so interesting George, for it pointed out how we in America have been led (by frankly, the republican party) to falsely believe what ever we do, if its torture, land-grabbing, wars and/or invasions of other nations, etc. we are always ‘innocent’. That our reasons for any action taken against another people(s) or nation is warranted because its sanctioned by God. The author is correct. Its true. We have been conditioned to believe we are always the ‘righteous’ ones in our actions or inactions. And the Church in America, since allowing itself to be invaded by politics and politicians, has bought into this lie, lock stock and barrel. We too, the Church, ‘sees’ Islam or all Muslims as enemies. Not as lost in need of Christ, but hated, mortal enemies. The same can be said for the manner in which homosexuals are seen.

      I’m sorry, but this is not the way Jesus expects us to see or treat others. Least its not the way the Jesus I know wants me to act. And if im wrong, then i’ve been following another ‘Jesus’ for over 32 years, and really am deceived and without hope.

      Forgive me for it appears i got somewhat off topic. You’re right,

      Republicans seem to have this morbid fascination with Islam. While their opposition to it IS biblical, they always seem to forget about the part that reads “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.” Instead, everything ends up being a very fleshly contest of who can muster up the most testosterone. For me, this is the underlying bedrock of Mitt Romney’s response to the middle east attacks on our diplomats.

      Romney has went so far to the right, in order to appease his radical base, the governor he once was along with the moderate stands he once took, has disappeared. Listening to him, i sometimes wonder if he even knows who he is anymore.

  7. The Scriptures never give license for free speech. Our speech must be seasioned with salt and reflect the character of Christ. Since when did apologizing become a sin? I also condemn carnal attempts to incite sinners rather than win them to Christ.

    • Good message Rick! As followers of Christ we should always allow the Spirit to guide our responses to others and words. I’m the first to admit i don’t always do that, but its something we should be striving to do.

      I as thinking while reading all the comments above about free speech, and it seems to me that even if living in a nation where ‘free speech’ or private expression of speech, is considered a ‘right’ all citizens possess, there should be some responsibility or accountability. As George pointed out there can be,

      malicious and irresponsible speech that endangers the very lives of potentially large numbers of other innocent human beings

      Is that really free speech or is it something else?

      A few months ago i posted something written by A.W. Tozer titled The Dangers of too Much Liberty.

      quote,

      Freedom is priceless. Where it is present almost any kind of life is enjoyable. When it is absent life can never be enjoyed; it can only be endured. Though millions have died in freedom’s defense and though her praise is in everyone’s mouth, yet she has been tragically misunderstood by her advocates and sorely wounded in the house of her friends.

      I believe this can be also be specifically applied to free speech, for that also is,

      “…tragically misunderstood by her advocates and sorely wounded in the house of her friends.”

      Tozer goes on to say,

      “Freedom is liberty within bounds”

      And i believe the same goes for free speech or freedom of expression.

      The desire for unqualified freedom caused the fall of Lucifer and wrought the destruction of the angels that sinned. These sought freedom to do as they willed, and to get it they threw away the beautiful liberty that meant freedom to do the will of God. And the human race followed them in their tragic moral blunder.

      To anyone who bothers to think a bit it should be evident that there is in the universe no such thing as absolute freedom. Only God is free.

      Think about this and apply it against the often heard excuse of ‘im only exercising my right of free speech’,

      Unqualified freedom in any area of human life is deadly. Too much liberty weakens whatever it touches. Every man in a free society must decide whether he will exploit his liberty…

      And isn’t that what individuals are doing, exploiting their liberty and freedom of speech when they promote (as George put it) “malicious and irresponsible speech that endangers the very lives of potentially large numbers of other innocent human beings”

      Isn’t that what the crazy Florida pastor was doing when he publicly advertised he was going to burn the Koran, or what the creators of this video have done? And in both cases lives were lost.

      When a few fools constantly abuse freedoms folks, it is all who may possibly pay the price, by some day losing those very freedoms.

  8. Aside from the potential for loss of life, one has to wonder what the monetary cost will be for all this unlimited access to free speech? How much is it ultimately going to add to our national debt? And how much is it ultimately going to add to our tax bills? And the key supporters of these free speakers are the strident anti-tax, anti-debt crowd? That … leaves me speechless!

  9. Came across an interesting article today which says;

    The Guardian has confirmed that the filmmakers are closely affiliated with Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.

    quote,

    Did an inflammatory anti-Muslim film trailer that appeared spontaneously on YouTube prompt the attack that left four US diplomats dead, including US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens? American officials have suggested that the assault was pre-planned, allegedly by of one of the Jihadist groups that emerged since the Nato-led overthrow of Libya’s Gaddafi regime. So even though the deadly scene in Benghazi may not have resulted directly from the angry reaction to the Islamophobic video, the violence has helped realize the apocalyptic visions of the film’s backers.

    Produced and promoted by a strange collection of rightwing Christian evangelicals and exiled Egyptian Copts, the trailer was created with the intention of both destabilizing post-Mubarak Egypt and roiling the US presidential election.

    As a consultant for the film named Steve Klein said: “We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen.”

    Continued here: Inside the strange Hollywood scam that spread chaos across the Middle East

  10. OK, let me try this again.
    I don’t have a problem with anything Romney said but that’s not the point I was making.
    I am not endorsing either candidate or political party.
    I understand that the Bill of Rights is not Holy Writ but the work of fallen men.
    I agree that with rights come responsibilities.
    I understand that many today seek freedom FROM responsibility.
    I understand that as a Christian there are certain things that we should not say.
    I know that having the freedom to say something and the wisdom whether or not to say it are two different things.
    I find the video and the actions of Terry Jones to be disgusting, reprehensible, and in no way reflective of true Christian evangelism.

    My point is this:

    I defend free speech even when that speech is offensive because once you accept the idea that speech should be restricted based on its ‘offensiveness’ to some person or group our ability to preach the exclusiveness of Christ will effectively come to an end. I believe that is the end game for all of this.

    The true gospel is offensive to unbelievers. When we preach the truth someone will always claim to be offended. Homosexuals and Muslims are using this tactic already to stifle opposition to their lifestyle and religion. Muslims in some cases have used the alleged offensive speech as an excuse to riot and murder.

    This is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater which has always stood as a logical exception to free speech. Offense is always in the eye of the beholder. It is entirely subjective. Speech that offends you may not offend me. If Muslims are offended by a video or by Terry Jones it is because they have chosen to be offended. If they use that as an excuse to riot and murder, they are fully responsible, not the speaker.

    Finally I am not suggesting a political solution to this problem. I am simply suggesting that the death of free speech will come to us in this manner. The wedge will be ‘offensive’ speech and almost everyone will agree that something must be done. Then one day after you’ve spoken the gospel message to a friend or coworker or neighbor, don’t be surprised when you are hauled before a court because that person was offended by your message.

    • Finally I am not suggesting a political solution to this problem. I am simply suggesting that the death of free speech will come to us in this manner. The wedge will be ‘offensive’ speech and almost everyone will agree that something must be done. Then one day after you’ve spoken the gospel message to a friend or coworker or neighbor, don’t be surprised when you are hauled before a court because that person was offended by your message.

      Amen, yes i can see how that could happen Steve. The line between someone only exercising freedom of speech and the exercising of that freedom resulting in criminal acts or possibly the death of others, is murky. This is why i quoted Tozer words,

      “Freedom is liberty within bounds”

      And to me this is the problem: today in America, there are no self-imposed bounds. Some people are (now) taking this liberty and without thought of possible consequences, abusing it.

      Again, Tozer is correct,

      Every man in a free society must decide whether he will exploit his liberty…

      Those who are, without weighing the consequences, severely abusing the freedom of speech today are (in my opinion) being used by the enemy to set-up a scenario in which ALL freedom of speech will be lost. We as Christians need to recognize this. And we need to call them out and publicly distance ourselves from them: Especially when these tools of satan are operating under the banner of Christ and Biblical Christianity. And Steve, many of them are doing just that. This man, Steve Klein, a professing Christian, who has been the ‘voice’ out there speaking on behalf of the video in question made, in my opinion, a shocking statement,

      “We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen.”

      Of course he did!…as did those who wrote, produced and directed this video. They knew there was a good possibility the video could end up causing riots or even deaths. As did that crazy “pastor” in Florida know his highly publicized burning of the Koran could do the same. The point is they either didn’t care or (God forbid) were actually counting on it producing a tragedy.

      You said you’re not suggesting a political solution to this problem. Brother, there is no political solution short of new laws being enacted limiting freedom of speech.

      Its a heart condition. An evil heart, one never touched by the Spirit of God, will ultimately always abuse freedoms. This is what we are seeing today.

  11. Let it be known that regardless of who says what, things will get worse, much worse.

    • Rick i totally agree.

      My prayer is for continued strength to stand, for not only myself but all those in Christ, as we face what is surely coming.

  12. Unbelievable😦

    Media for Christ Company, Allegedly Behind ‘Innocence of Muslims’

    Media for Christ, a Christian nonprofit organization based in Duarte, Calif., took out a film permit for the production of Desert Warriors (*the video in question), according to spokesmen at Film LA, Inc., and the office of the County of Los Angeles.

    “The International Media is crowded with many topics that do not bring glory to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” says Media for Christ on its its MySpace page. “The Lord has given me the vision for Media for Christ so we could proclaim the peace of Jesus through an effective Christian media that would positively touch everyone. In June 2005 by the grace of God Media for Christ was established to become the light that shows Jesus Christ to all human beings.”

    So those at Media for Christ believed this film/video was going to “bring glory to the name of Christ” and “show Jesus Christ to all human beings”? Really?

    Unbelievable!

  13. The lost are lost because they refuse to believe in Jesus as the incarnate Son of God, not because of defects in their moral character. If this film were REALLY an attempt to “preach the Gospel”, it would be a message proclaiming the good news of Christ, NOT a malicious attack on the character of particular heretic who is revered by a large percentage of the world’s population. Genuine efforts to preach the Gospel must be protected under the Constitution’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion doctrines, but attempts to shelter non-qualifying speech under these doctrines will only undermine them for all of us who cherish them. And that is EXACTLY what is happening in cases like this. This fiasco is a poster child for those who want to limit our religious freedom in America, and anyone who SUPPORTS these sorts of malicious projects with free speech arguments is ACTUALLY putting our rights at risk whether they realize it or not. All our rights are going down the tubes because the foolish among us are defending the Terry Jone’s of this world with free speech arguments. That is like trying to defend Al Capone in the fear that if the government locks him up, they will probably lock me up too. For a long time now, liberals have approached law with exaggerated legalism wherein no common sense is applied to the judicial process. Now conservatives are joining them in this realm as well. There is no longer the wisdom of Solomon, but rather the whole legal system in our country is totally mechanical, and great injustices are the inevitable end result of a judicial system without a moral compass.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Rooted and Grounded In Christ

Teaching Sound Doctrine & Glorifying Christ

Music from Broken Chords

Down in the human heart, crush'd by the tempter, Feelings lie buried that grace can restore; Touched by a loving heart, wakened by kindness Chords that were broken will vibrate once more. From the Hymn "Rescue the Perishing" by Fanny J. Crosby

Lead Me

"Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it fully."

I Was a Teenage Dispensationalist

It's the end (of the end) of the world as we know it...

Disrupting Culture

A blog by Dr. Jonathan Welton

%d bloggers like this: