Romney Lost – I Told Ya So!

By: Toddy Littman

It took me a day to get to a point of writing this.

You see, I was this voice in the wilderness during the primaries, often beaten down by republicans and so-called conservatives (much like Stacey Dash was beaten down by democrats for supporting Romney), for saying that Romney couldn’t win.

The reason is that difference must be shown, an absolute contrast seen for a choice to be made, and Mitt Romney doesn’t offer that especially on the issue of trust. Take what Romney said in 2002 when running in Massachusetts:


This is pretty big, and let’s pretend I was a republican and not a Conservative, for, to be sure, all those republicans (the “so-called conservatives” I mentioned above), did not find this video to be enough, or viewed the video as why Romney can work with democrats, can be a truly bipartisan President. For me, it was a statement that he’s unable to be a Conservative, and true Conservatives only began to look at Romney due to the absolute 110% accuracy of his 47% comment, which was made far into the campaign. It was impressive to us for a man to be that accurate thinking on his feet in a high pressure situation before those he’s attempting to get money from for his campaign, and was nowhere near as denigrating as Obama, during a fundraiser in his first campaign, when he said that people are clinging to their guns and religion in a derogatory, backwards manner.

In any event, I wrote an article regarding how the National Black Chamber of Commerce who, during the 2008 primaries wrote an article asking if Romney is a racist, that is answered with more questions, then reversed their position during the 2012 primaries based on Romney’s father, George Romney, being a Progressive, the man Mitt Romney campaigned for at age 15. Here is the opening to that article that, to this Conservative, says it all:

“I posed this question in an article written back in December 2007. I left it “open ended”. Lately, now that there is another presidential race going on interested people are starting to uncover this old article and make it contemporary. This is troubling to me so I guess I should put closure to the whole matter. First, let me answer the question: No, Mitt Romney is not a racist. As I researched history, over the years I have come to find that the opposite is the case. The Romney Family has a legacy of pro-civil rights, progressive activism and an understanding of how poverty and inequality can hurt people.”– My article citing this and many other portions of the article from the National Black Chamber of Commerce, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.208.

Now, though I don’t trust the mainstream media, there remains this little article from ABC News that explains something no Christian could ever vote for:

“Former Gov. Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann, gave an $150 donation to the abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood in 1994, at a time when Romney considered himself effectively “pro-choice,” the Romney campaign confirmed today.” — http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3157749&page=1

And lastly, Reason Magazine, a Libertarian publication, had an article from 2007 that I will not quote here because the subject matter is sexual abuse of children, a subject that needs to be discussed very delicately, as it should never achieve any sort of promotion, referenced in the footnote of this article which was written long before the 3rd debate but accentuates, almost prophetically, Romney’s positions that night, http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.217.

Now that I’ve set forth my reasons I knew Romney couldn’t win, even though Obama’s people didn’t even bring up this last point, here’s the logistical issue: Bain had never been vetted during the primaries.

While Republican after Republican argues against any talking about Bain, claiming it is an attack on Capitalism, especially when done by Newt Gingrich, and claiming also that this is expected from the left, to Progressively turn a knife in the stomach of the Conservative who wants a full disclosure, these same Republicans claim “the primaries vet the candidates, and help them perfect their debating skills.” Stupid Republicans turning Conservatism away from their platform; turning away the vetting of Romney; turning away from having a far right candidate because, apparently, they subscribe to appealing to the Left by being somewhat Leftist, by being Progressive, while at the same time claiming that the dependency that Progressivism promotes is detrimental to the very people Progressives claim they are are helping. Hypocrisies of these sorts are not something the People, and never the generals amongst the Progressives, will miss. But they won’t bring it up to you, oh Stupid Republicans, they won’t challenge this and help you learn of the mistake, and instead will work some outside angle that amplifies the meaning of this to those to whom they target their message.

Please understand, oh Stupid Republicans, that by assuming an attack on Bain as an attack on Capitalism, Romney wasn’t vetted, and this is an appearance of something to hide and exploitable, particularly when it also appears the party was out to hide it too. How better to amplify this effect than talk about how Romney isn’t discussing his plans until after the election? And how much more effective is this with ads explaining how under Romney’s running of Bain there were many people that lost jobs, that some of the companies went out of business, that Bain made promises they didn’t keep, and, lastly, that Bain was responsible for the death of a man’s wife? And if you’re thinking, “he sounds like a Liberal with all this, these are all lies,” I sure do, because this is the very strategy Obama used. You Stupid Republicans left Bain as a mystery for the Progressives to define, and they pounced on this with everything they had. This is a classic case of Soros’ Reflexivity principle being used successfully during an election.

The failure of addressing Bain during the primaries, and further, making it a subject not to be discussed throughout the campaign, is to leave Bain an undefined commodity. While Romney could nullify the negative ads against his character by merely showing up at the debate and not being the monster described, it remains that by not having ever discussed Bain, and Stupid Republicans always attacking, with party support, anyone that tries to question Bain, that Romney could not nullify Obama’s Republican-enabled capacity to define Bain merely by posing the myriad unanswered questions.

Thus, it doesn’t matter what’s true of what Obama, or the PAC’s supporting him, said because you Stupid Republicans handed Obama the authority to make the case of first impression of what Bain is, and establish a persistent negative about Romney as the election outcome, even below McCain and Palin’s performance, shows.

Republicans seem to have applied the Union rule of Tenure and merit by time, assuming “it’s Romney’s turn,” and immediately acted to silence all opposing views, I contend they even used Rick Santorum to accomplish this task, his sudden dropping out of the primaries handing Romney the nomination was rather suspicious, especially since the excuse used was something his daughter had done before. Now if this seems heartless, let it pass. It is heartless to place the lives and dreams of the American people in jeopardy for the sake of party, and exploit your daughter’s illness in use as an excuse for party as well.

Now maybe it was just that the Stupid Republicans were hoping that belief and Prayer would beat a Chicago originated and schooled career politician, who has an innate appeal to the growing population of what once were minorities, and, according to the “demographics” is elected solely because his skin color is closer to theirs.

I blamed the people in 2008’s loss because Obama accentuated redistribution of wealth, now he has a record of failure and willingness to encroach on State’s rights as well as Individual Liberty, so I could blame the people again. But no, I blame every single Republican who parroted the talking point, “attacking Bain is attacking capitalism,” making a mockery of the primary process for the sake of their party and not giving a damn about nominating someone for the sake of their country. These were the very same Republicans who said “get in line and vote for Romney” or attacked every effort to have a genuine discussion of who would be best to go against Barack Obama, and did all they could to silence and discourage, waging war with the very Conservatives they needed to have vote for the nominee if the Stupid Republicans wanted to beat Barack Obama, apparently oblivious to the fact our vote is no less important than theirs. It is interesting how they adopt collectivist union styled tactics when the true Conservatives see through their fake Conservative nominee whose government-run healthcare solution in Massachusetts is the very model for Obama’s Affordable Care Act, Obamacare.

Thank you Republicans for making sure the Conservatives in this nation suffer by your incompetence, blind belief, and failure to embrace the conservative movement that saved your party’s hindquarters in 2010.

To be clear, a Massachusetts Liberal with an R next to his name should never be President for they offer no real difference to the ruling party and President, and that means no real difference to the nation as a whole. A simple solution to the equation is arrived at by the voters in this situation: that whatever the people are suffering will persist anyway under the New Guy. The re-election of Socialist Barack Hussein Obama unequivocally demonstrates the application of this solution by the American People.

And I made a decision that I think every Conservative, irrespective of party, has to arrive at, and I believe we need to make sure the Republican Party knows this decision is non-negotiable before all future elections: If you put up a candidate who I cannot vet without being attacked, and who resembles their opponent so much that difference, and thereby my conservative values and voice, are lost, I will register as a Republican and vote for the opposing party candidate every single time as you’ve nullified my vote by the candidate you’ve chosen and want to force down my throat. Thus there is no difference in who I vote for, for neither of them represent me and I see no reason to change course and amplify false hope amongst the American people.

Thus, Conservatism did not lose in the election of 2012, but Progressive-Light Round 2 (after McCain) lost with emphasis. Will the Republican party descend further into insanity and try this a third time in 2016? Let’s hope not.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman


The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 11/09/12

The Watcher’s Council

Make that 12…

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match-up.

There’s an old saying that murder will out. And to combine it with another frequent heard saying of our own time, many times it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup that gets you in trouble.

This week’s winner, Bookworm Room’s A foreign policy/war powers law establishes that the unnecessary deaths in Benghazi were Obama’s responsibility, is an excellent summing up of what happened and didn’t happen in Benghazi. According to the exit polls of the recent election, a one hour photo-op touring the devastation of Sandy on the Jersey Shore and Governor Chris Christie’s man crush, served to create a story for the media that knocked Benghazi off the headlines and made Barack Obama appear presidential again to the point that up to 42% of the voters in the exit polls say it affected their vote. Here’s a slice:

Here’s what didn’t happen in Benghazi on September 11, 2012: Despite advanced warning of the attack, and despite urgent, detail rich phone calls from the CIA/former Navy SEAL operatives under attack, and despite real time video feeds of events unfolding on the ground,* no one came to help. No one came to help the 30-odd people trapped in the embassy, no one came to help Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, and no one came to help Glen Doherty and Lance Woods as they rescued those trapped people and then spent seven terrifying hours on the roof of the administration’s CIA outpost, holding off an al Qaeda affiliate’s attack before they were finally killed.

During this long night, Obama seems to have hung out a bit watching events before going to bed in preparation for a campaign junket to Las Vegas. (One Las Vegas paper does not appreciate that effort.) The next day, the administration started playing the blame game. First, Obama and his shills blamed a 14-minute nothing of a video. To add verisimilitude to an otherwise unconvincing narrative, the government ignored the First Amendment, arranged for the video maker to be arrested for exercising his right of free speech and, seven weeks later, keeps him imprisoned. (And yes, he was ostensibly jailed for a parole violation, but I think we all know that the way he was treated was a farcical overreaction that can only be explained as part of a larger cover-up.) Just so you know, they do the same kind of thing in China, which is not blessed with a First Amendment.

When the video story fell apart, Hillary said events in Benghazi were her responsibility (although she was careful to blame unnamed subordinates for the actual security failure). Interestingly, neither the administration nor the media demanded her resignation or even an investigation. When the Obama administration started to turn its knives on Bill Clinton for allegedly giving bad campaign advice, Hillary leaked that, well, no, really, she’d done everything she could to increase security, but nobody (read: the White House) would let her.

With the State Department pushing back, the next obvious culprit was the CIA — especially once we learned that Woods and Doherty had begged the CIA for help. The media and the White House were thrilled. Thrilled, that is, until General Petraeus said that no one on his watch had refused help. Suddenly, all eyes (except, of course, for mainstream media eyes) were back on the White House.

Next up for blame? The Pentagon, of course. Leon Panetta lamely explained that “Golly, it was dangerous out there and the military never sends its troops into danger, don’t you know.” Panetta’s excuse was ridiculed by people who care and accepted as the God’s honest truth by the mainstream media. The White House again heaved a sigh of relief.

But then, darn it, Lance Woods’ father refused to slunk back into the night. Instead, he told a few home truths: Obama was a cold fish, Hillary lied again about the video, and Joe Biden . . . . Well, there really aren’t words for a man who walks up to a bereaved father and makes vulgar remarks about his dead child’s anatomy. The MSM kept silent on this one too, but enough people (plus Fox, of course) were agitating that the story suddenly started to spread — and that despite the media’s by now quite valiant efforts to ignore it to death:

This isn’t going to go away.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Michelle Malkin with Obama gets his “revenge,” but conservatives must stand tall submitted by Joshuapundit. It’s a piece written after Tuesday’s election and reminds us that principles remain all important. Do read it.

Okay, okay… here are this week’s full results. Only Simply Jews and The Independent Sentinel were unable to vote, but neither was subject to the mandatory 2/3 vote penalty:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!


ICLA Calls For International Monitors At Protests In Western Europe

Hat Tip: Aeneas Lavinium

Vienna, Austria

Freedom of assembly, freedom of association:

New challenges in Western Europe

Supplementary Human Dimension Implementation Meeting,

Hofburg, Vienna, November 9th 2012

For decades, it has rightly been assumed that with regards to freedom of assembly and freedom of association, no major problems existed in the OSCE participating states west of Vienna. This was true as concerns state intervention and control, and is to a certain extent still so. However, in several states new radical movements have emerged, movements that violently interfere with the fundamental rights of other citizens, to great extent with impunity from law enforcement. In order to neutralize this undermining of fundamental freedoms, new responses are required.

The Annotated Agenda outlines the fundamental commitments of OSCE participating States:

The freedom of every person to assemble in a peaceful manner and the right to associate are intrinsic to democratic societies and expressly recognized in OSCE human dimension commitments, as well as all major international human rights instruments.

To most citizens of democratic societies, this appears self-evident. However, problems arise when radical groups take it upon themselves to decide which citizens have this right, and which do not.

In practical terms, threats, intimidation and assaults against peaceful assemblies have taken place in several European countries over the last few years. An incomplete list of examples:

  • Copenhagen, Denmark, January 10th 2009: A pro-Israel demonstration was disrupted by Palestinian groups shouting anti-Semitic slogans referring to mass killing of Jews.
  • Bolton, England, March 20th 2010: A street rally by the English Defense League against radical Islam and Shariah law was attacked by radical leftists from UAF (Unite Against Fascists). British police made 74 arrests in their effort to protect the demonstration.
  • Stuttgart, Germany, June 2nd 2011: A street event highlighting the plight of persecuted Christians in Africa was attacked and kept from taking place by a crowd of hundreds carrying a variety of left wing banners. German police did not protect the event effectively.
  • Stuttgart, Germany, June 4th 2011: The Abacco Hotel was attacked with paint and stones as their premises had been rented for an event by the German political party DIE FREIHEIT.
  • Tower Hamlets, England, September 3rd 2011: A planned EDL march was banned by the authorities due to political pressure. The replacement standing demonstration was harassed by extremists, who also attacked a coach leaving the event. At least 16 were arrested.
  • Aarhus, Denmark, March 31st 2012: A demonstration against Islamic Sharia law was assaulted by Antifa and immigrants group, held at bay only by a massive police effort.
  • Solingen, Bonn, Germany, May 1st & 6th 2012: Campaign events held by the political party Pro NRW were assaulted by Muslim groups, but proceed under heavy police protection.
  • Nuremberg, Germany, June 16th 2012: A street event by the political party DIE FREIHEIT got continuously harassed by opponents, aided and abetted by police passivity.
  • Munich, Germany, July 14th 2012: A street event held by DIE FREIHEIT got assaulted by left wing extremists, again aided by permissiveness of the German police.
  • Walthamstow, England, September 1st 2012: UAF leftwing extremists and Islamists attacked a demonstration held by the English Defence League. Police lost control of the situation.
  • Munich, Germany, September 11th 2012: A discussion about Euro-Islam was to be held at a local restaurant, but the owner was forced to cancel due to massive telephone threats.
  • Malmö, Sweden, October 27th 2012: Participants of a public lecture featuring Dutch MP Geert Wilders were assaulted and pelted by eggs by Antifa groups. Swedish police justified their passive attitude with a reference to the attackers also having “Freedom of expression”.

The methods employed by the radical groups does seem to have systematic objectives and follow certain patterns. In particular, these methods are worth noting:

  • By means of escalating otherwise peaceful street events and political campaigns to street battles, ordinary citizens are intimidated from attending such events.
  • By making intimidation and violence the norm for public events, organizers are forced to take such developments into account, rendering it significantly more difficult to organize and publicize such events, in particular for small groups with limited resources.
  • By engaging in violence against street events, radical groups force the issues of their opponents out of the press, which routinely reports only of ‘clashes’, not of the issues that organizers of street rallies sought to highlight. This is detrimental to the democratic process.
  • Intimidating and attacking unrelated supply companies and premise owners is another unlawful strategy employed by radical groups to stifle their opponents and undermine the freedom of assembly otherwise guaranteed by our laws.
  • The radical groups are actively preparing for and seeking confrontation with police at these events, apparently having as a secondary aim to present themselves as victims of police brutality, in spite of these groups being the attacking part and the real source of violence.

Politically, the issues most frequently targeted by the radical groups appear to be discussions about immigration, Islam and national self-determination.

The Annotated Agenda further stresses the importance of freedom of assembly:

Peaceful protests often play an important role in expressing public concerns, reducing the risk that conflicts escalate into violence and providing an opportunity for dialogue with authorities.

On paper, the situation for freedom of association and assembly has seen no major change over the last years, but the reality in our cities is unfortunately different. Small organizations facing numerically superior violent forces in the streets are now reluctant to hold what would otherwise be low-key street events about issues that matter to them. The prospect of possibly facing street violence acts as a severe deterrent to entirely peaceful and democratic organizations, and hampers the democratic process as it has been unfolding over the last decades.

It is worth noting that current laws are usually sufficient to deal with these problems. For example, Article 78:2 of the Constitution of Denmark makes it mandatory for the authorities to dissolve organizations working by means of violence and/or other illegal means. The problems listed in this paper can to a great extent be resolved through proper and just enforcement of existing laws.

As outlined in the Annotated Agenda, this is a positive obligation for participating States:

Yet the main principles underpinning this right are explicit: there should be a presumption in favor of holding assemblies, and the State has a positive obligation to protect peaceful assembly.

Further, the obligation to protect the messages of events is mentioned:

While the freedom to assemble may be subject to reasonable restrictions, these may not interfere with the message communicated by the assembly […]

As an example of how this this principle is ignored, it was openly violated by German authorities in Düren, Northrhine-Westphalia on May 8th 2012, where the police protection rendered the actual event largely invisible to citizens in the streets, negating its intended purpose.

It is the recommendation of the International Civil Liberties Alliance that the OSCE participating States pay more attention to the politically motivated intimidation and violence, in order to protect freedom of association, assembly and the democratic process. Quoting the Annotated Agenda:

To support participating States in the implementation of their freedom of peaceful assembly commitments, ODIHR has monitored public assemblies in 11 OSCE participating States in 2011-2012.

ICLA recommends that OSCE institutions increase this activity:

As the problems for freedom of assembly are increasing, in particular in participating States west of Vienna, ICLA urges OSCE to significantly increase its monitoring activities in these countries. Neutral monitoring and reporting is urgently needed in order that peaceful citizens can safely exercise their right to freedom of assembly, as stipulated in OSCE principles.

ICLA recommends participating States the following:

  • That public events properly registered with the authorities are always granted sufficient and neutral police protection to ensure that the events can proceed according to plan, without the organizers or participants having to fear violence prior, during or after the event.
  • That law enforcement agencies increase their efforts to quickly and accurately identify the source of violence at public events, in order to actively and immediately deal with any threats, that the protected events may proceed as planned.
  • That organizations participating in such events, as shown by their flags, logos et cetera, be held legally responsible for the disorder taking place under their banners.
  • That threats and violence against organizers and/or their partners, suppliers etc. be treated as politically motivated and persecuted more effectively under the law.