Religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man toward God. — Gouverneur Morris, signer of the Constitution

Other Romney Advisors More Portents of a Liberal Administration

June 4, 2012   ·   By   ·   0 Comments

AllahPundit at Hot Air has a very informative contribution.

Remember when I pointed out (after having pointed out all of Mitt “RomneyCare” Romney’s liberal proclivities for the past year) that Romney’s choice for his spokesman of an open homosexual who wants to undermine marriage was a portent of the kind of liberal administration we could expect from a Romney Administration?

It seems Richard Grenell isn’t the only liberal Romney wants in his administration.

From Hot Air:

Remember, under ObamaCare states have a “choice” of either introducing their own exchanges — subject to federal regulations, natch — by 2014 or letting their citizens participate in the new federal exchange when it finally comes online. If you’re a Republican governor who opposes O-Care, the obvious move is to do nothing. By creating a state exchange now, you’re legitimizing Obama’s pet boondoggle before Republicans in Congress get a serious crack at repealing it and burdening yourself with a program that may yet be micromanaged by federal regulators even if the mandate is struck down by the Supreme Court.

What a pity South Dakota’s “Republican” governor and “Republican” legislature couldn’t figure this out. Anway…

Hot Air points out something Rush Limbaugh was talking about earlier today, that Romney has tapped Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt to help him set up his administration, and Leavitt just happens to believe in these state-level ObamaCare boondoggles.

Hot Air quotes Ben Domenech at Ricochet:

One can argue about the merits of an exchange absent Obamacare’s rules, regulations, authority shifts, price controls, and taxpayer funded subsidies. But the overwhelming majority of conservative policymakers understand that Obamacare’s exchanges are nothing more than delivery mechanisms for massive taxpayer-funded subsidies and bureaucratic regulations from Washington. What’s more, states which avoid implementing exchanges may be able to avoid the implementation of Obamacare almost in its entirety…

What’s most concerning about all of this is not that Romney selected one of the few Republicans in the country who backs implementation of Obamacare’s exchanges.

“Republicans” are selling out our freedom about as fast as the Democrats are; about the only difference is that these “Republicans” are putting on the sad face and pretending they don’t like this spit on our Constitution and boots on our freedom.

And don’t ever forget that despite all his bogus bloviating, Romney forced virtually the same raw deal as ObamaCare on the people of Massachusetts; the only difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare not being the inefficient and expensive damage to the health care system, but simply that he didn’t violate the U.S. Constitution to bring the people of Massachusetts under the heel of socialized medicine.

Limbaugh also mentioned today that another Romney advisor, Glenn Hubbard, believes in sticking it to the rich and spreading the wealth like another Marxist you and I know.  Why in the world would a “Republican” buy into this Marxist class envy garbage?  Is it really too much to ask to expect a Republican to treat ALL Americans the same and not demonize someone for being successful?

The 2012 election has provided the best chance we’ve had in years to elect a real Republican instead of some faker pseudo-liberal RINO.  Yet it seems most Republicans were stupid enough, gullible enough, desperate enough (to get rid of Obama), or culpable (with the liberals in the Democrat Party) enough to buy the “only Romney can beat Obama” bilge.

Whether you’re heading over a cliff at 80 MPH or going over the cliff at 50 MPH, either way, you’re going over the cliff. The fact that some “Republicans” want to take us over the cliff of liberalism a little slower than the liberals with a “D” after their name does nothing to send a tingle up my leg, just as a little poison in my food doesn’t make me feel better than having a lot of poison in my food. No matter how you look at it, liberalism is poison to the American way of life, a cancer on our republic.

Once again I have to ask myself: With “Republicans” this stupid, who needs Democrats to ruin the country?

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year veteran of the United States Air Force, a public writer for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for nearly 20 years, including a Tea Party leader and organizer since 2009. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Bobs website
Print Friendly

If you enjoyed this article, please consider leaving a comment below (subject to the comment guidelines listed at the bottom of the article), sharing it to Facebook or Twitter or another social media site, subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader, or have a daily digest of the latest American Clarion articles delivered to your email inbox each morning..

Featured Articles


Getting the Taxpayers Off the Union Hook

Robert Romano

Limited taxpayer resources are not to be bargained with, and certainly not by politicians and the unions that then simply funnel the money back into their political coffers. It is hard to think of a more corrupt practice in our Republic. For government to keep its legitimacy, it must maintain the consent of the governed, and that will not happen while taxpayers are viewed as mere conduits to transfer their hard-earned money to corrupt union bosses and politicians.


Geological Dating Methods Built on Unreliable Assumptions

Bob Ellis

This video shows a fairly detailed description of radiometric dating and the assumptions behind this method of measuring radioactive decay in geological samples in an attempt to "date" or determine how old the sample is. We know that certain elements are radioactive, and that as those radioactive elements decay, they change from one element into another. The idea is that if the decay rate is constant, you should be able to tell how old a sample is--in addition to several other assumptions. But do these assumptions stand up under scrutiny, much less the test of time?


Helium Points to a Young Earth

Bob Ellis

This is an interesting presentation by Dr. Russell Humphreys, given at the 2003 International Conference on Creationism, dealing with helium retention in zircons. Based on what we think we know about geological decay rates and helium release, there is far too much helium in the rock samples studied for them to be millions of years old. At best, they can only be about 4,000-14,000 years old.


The Story of the Chevy Volt

Bob Ellis

See the interesting story of a Marxist takeover of an auto industry, and the resulting *#!%@ yielded by the "help" this Marxist gave to car production. And don't forget about the astronomical cost to the taxpayer. It would be a hilarious story...if it weren't true.


EPA Spying on Farmers With Drones

Bob Ellis

I have a military background of both law enforcement and counter-terrorism, so I understand the need for using all the tools at your disposal to identify and stop terrorists from inflicting harm on Americans. But allowing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) flying military drones over farms in Nebraska and Iowa, trying to catch farmers violating environmental wack regulations?


Other News

Other Commentary

Featured Blogs

Like American Clarion

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964

Switch to our mobile site

NewMedia blog