FIRST SHOT
Obama Supporters Threaten To Kill Romney If He Wins Election
Obama supporters are also flooding Twitter with threats to assassinate Mitt Romney if he wins the presidential election.
Obama supporters are talking about their plans to provoke violence and mayhem if Obama loses, aggrieved at fears that Mitt Romney would take away government handouts.
However, it seems that threats to assassinate Romney are proving just as popular on the social network as threats to riot.
Obama supporter putting out death threats against Mitt Romney are becoming extremely common.
While the Secret Service routinely investigates Americans for criticizing Obama, in one recent case vowing to investigate a man who hung an empty chair from a tree in his garden in reference to Clint Eastwood’s Republican Convention speech, or even merely making a political You Tube video, there is no indication that any of the Twitter users who made these threats will be investigated by anyone.
And yes, first it was Obama backers threatening post-election violence and riots if Obama is unsuccessful in securing a second term.
For a while now, there has been talk about race riots if President Barack Obama is not re-elected.
A lot of Obama supporters are seething with racial grievances, in many cases brought on by the constant use of the "race card" by this administration against anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies.
But riots after an American election? Well yes, it has happened before in our ancient history. But no, it has not been a part of America for over a hundred years. Today we pride ourselves on setting an example to the world be showing how power can be transferred peacefully.
With the real possibility that President Obama may lose the election, now some of his supporters who are threatening riots and violence should he be defeated in November. If that happens we would lower ourselves in the eyes of the world.
And yes, if this is true that there are those who really want to riot in the streets over an American election, then it shows just how much trouble Obama is really in.
Since their first debate when Mitt Romney took the president to task, Obama’s media image of superiority has been shaken to its core.
In that first debate, Obama was shown to be an incompetent leader. But worse, he was shown smirking like an arrogant man whose disdain for being questioned was all too obvious.
Some feel his disdain for free market Capitalism has failed him. His efforts to depict our economic system as one filled with greed and self-serving Americans stepping on each other to reach the top has failed him miserably.
This has not helped the president's desire to start a cultural war in America. One that would indeed get him what he said he wanted, "to change the very fundamentals" of our nation.
This has led Obama having to rethink his tactics to achieve his desire to install a socialist system in the United States. Jobs don't fit into his plan to show the horrors of Capitalism. Traditionally, socialist have used hard economic conditions to push their communist agenda.
I can't help but wonder if Obama has really wanted to revive the economy. With a weak economy, he would be better able to achieve his social agenda.
In 2008, he said we needed to improve our aging infrastructure of questionable bridges and pot-hole laden roads. Instead of America's aging infrastructure, we are only now finding out that his record setting Stimulus Program money was mainly spent on social programs pushed by the EPA, ObamaCare, Planned Parenthood, and people like George Soros.
The ObamaCare provisions that would have required religious institutions to cover contraception in their health insurance plans, regardless of some faith-based teachings that oppose certain forms of birth control, is a direct attempt for government to manage religious doctrine that they don't agree with.
After the anger, the White House response was to announce it would amend the rule and require insurers to offer contraception at no charge, rather than force religiously affiliated employers to pay for the medication.
Obama's desire to override religious freedoms in order to further his own agenda was blatant. And yes, despite the Obama administration's attempt to appease Catholics who his policies would have directly effected, the original Obama policy of interfering with religious doctrine was evidence of Obama’s view of the world around us.
It is one in which he believes that the government knows what's good for us and we better like it. That in a nutshell is his ideology. And yes, it is an effort of imposing his ideology on America.
Specifically, on a religious theology that does not agree with the government stance on abortion. It tested our moral code. And yes, it made Americans see a United States government with a desire to force us and our faiths to bend to the demands of the government.
Obama has a different sort of religious belief system, if at all. It seems more based on his socialist ideology than one found in the Christian faith.
And yes, it must be frustrating for him. I'm sure he must get angry over others questioning his motives and agenda.
His angry is the second debate performance had his followers panicking. And yes, some are demanding that blood flow in the streets should he lose the election. One writer said it appears that "hope and change have given way to rage and fury."
Last weekend, thousands of pro-Obama Twitter account users vowed to start a race war if Obama is not re-elected. Many pledged to burn down homes and shops.
Full of obscenities and racist language against whites, the tweets reveal the radical left’s anti-democratic, bully nature for all that it is.
“If Obama don’t [sic] win lets [sic] start a riot so Romney know [sic] what he’s getting himself into,” wrote one. Another tweet stated: “If Romney wins im [sic] goin [sic] on a rampage.”
There were countless such threats, most of them much more vile, graphic and chilling.
After the second debate, there was an explosion of tweets calling for Romney to be killed if he wins in November.
“Already planning my attack,” said one. “Somebody should assassinate Romney,” wrote another.
But wait, what do you mean you haven't heard about this? Could it be that the mainstream media has out and out refused to mention this?
Well, the reason is simple that they aren't. It would show in stark, irrefutable detail the intolerance and hatred of many liberals.
Contrary to that myth, violence has been an overwhelming part of socialism’s rise to power. It is said that Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, and even Hugo Chavez - a socialist that Obama congratulated on his recent election - together slaughtered tens of millions to install their socialist ideology.
History shows us that in America, well it has been predominantly the left and not the right that has engaged in heinous acts. But yes, Timothy McVeigh who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City is the obvious exception.
It has been radical leftist groups such as the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, the Una bomber, and of course Eco-Terrorists and the Occupy Wall Street movement who have used violence to try to push their anti-Capitalist anti-American agenda.
But just imagine for a moment if the situation were reversed and three weeks prior to the election, thousands of Romney supporters threatened to not only riot, but also assassinate the president should their candidate lose.
Can you imagine the national uproar, the media attention, the call for troops and beefed up security?
Can you imagine what the New York Times or Democratic talking heads like Chris Matthews and the classless liberals on The View would say?
They would call for statements from Romney, the Republican Party, and maybe even Rush Limbaugh to disavow those comments. And yes, Romney and the Republican Party and Rush would do just that.
But just as we saw when leftist protesters called the death of George W. Bush doing the protests a few years ago, there is only silence from Obama, the mainstream media, and the Democrat Party.
Since the birth of the Tea Party, the liberal media have desperately sought to portray the movement as racist and extremist. Even Obama has stated that the Tea Party is "racist".
Signs at Tea Party rallies comparing Obama to the Joker were denounced as menacing. Several placards stating that Obama’s big-government policies equaled the Soviet hammer and sickle were deemed incendiary. Many liberals to this day, without a shred of evidence, continue to say that the "n-word" was used against Obama and black members of Congress at a rally just prior to the passage of ObamaCare.
For nearly four years, the press corps has peddled one overriding narrative: Opposition to Mr. Obama is based on white people being racists.
Because of this, it should come as no surprise that by relentlessly injecting the race card, Democrats and the liberal mainstream media have sown the seeds of widespread fear and loathing among swaths of Obama supporters.
Just recently, the Obama campaign’s co-chairman, actress Eva Longoria, made her brilliant case for President Obama by saying, “I have no idea why any woman/minority can vote for Romney,” her tweet read. “You have to be stupid to vote for such a racist/misogynistic” individual.
As I said in my articles chronicling the Democrat Party Legacy of Racism & Segregation: Part One,
the left in America has worked relentlessly to get people to believe the lie that Republicans are racists and segregationist.
And yes, I agree with one writer who said that the liberals on the left are trying to paint Mitt Romney as the second coming of that racist George Wallace. Though they fail to mention is that George Wallace was in fact a Democrat, it's no wonder Obama supporters want Romney dead.
Knowingly or not, I see Obama and the Democrats as inciting their supporters to commit murder!
Threats to assassinate President Obama would be dealt with immediately, with Mitt Romney proving just as threatened on the social network - I'm hoping someone takes this serious and doesn't treat it as they did the threats against George W. Bush.
Twitchy first reported on the death threats last Sunday but a deluge of new ones have flooded in since, including the following;
“I swear if Mitt Romney becomes president, I’m gonna be the one to assassinate his ass!!!”
“im telling you if romney gets elected somebody gon have to take a L and A. assassinate romney and ryan or B. obliterate the WH w/ them in it.”
“If Romney becomes president , hella people gonna try to assassinate him.”
“Soo Romney said black folks are free loaders n basically tryna get us back to slavery…..I will personally Assassinate dat mf.”
“If Romney Get Elected Somebody Gotta Assassinate Him” Me Duh Nigha ??”
“If Romney Get Elected Somebody Gotta Assassinate Him.”
“F*ck Romney ima assassinate.”
It is important again to stress that these are not newly created fake accounts, they are owned by people who have made thousands of previous tweets.
While some Twitter users later backed away from their threats, others seemed genuinely serious. View a selection of screenshots below.
President Obama, his administration, and the liberal media, have needlessly fanned the flames of racial division in American. When it became apparent that economics would not work, the Obama administration has tried to break America along racial, gender and class lines.
Now is the time for the ominous to be addressed. Obama and other Democrat leaders, and yes the culpable mainstream liberal press, should step forward and denounce these threats of violence right now.
If they have any decency at all, they would do so immediately.
SECOND SHOT!
What's With CNN's Soledad O’Brien Campaigning For Obama?
Before getting into the main story. I have to say that I used to be one of Soledad O’Brien's fans.
No kidding. That was when O'Brien worked as a local reporter for San Francisco NBC affiliate KRON. At KRON, she was a reporter on "The Know Zone."
O'Brien was featured on a regular segment of the Discovery Channel program The Next Step. She was the "Sun Microsystems Infogal."
She and her co-host made high tech almost sound understandable. It was a great show, and yes she was real good doing that.
In recent years, she has worked at CNN. And just as a point of record, I haven't watched CNN very much since Clinton was in office. In those days, CNN was so bias that it was pretty well known as the Clinton News Network.
I guess things haven't changed all that much at CNN. Different democrat president, yet same liberal bias.
A few days ago, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was on Monday’s "Starting Point" on CNN.
Now it is real well known that America's Mayor doesn't like to be pushed. So yes, I really wasn't very surprised when Mayor Giuliani pushed back at CNN morning anchor Soledad O’Brien who seem to have taken her talking points from the Obama administration.
While talking about the Libya terrorist attack that the Obama administration was initially trying to pass off as a "spontaneous reaction" to a goofy anti-Islam YouTube video, the words 'cover-up" came into the conversation.
When O’Brien started insisting that the word "cover-up" was going too far, and then started asking her assistant Miguel for all the Obama transcripts while talking to Mayor Giuliani - as if that would intimidate the Mayor into changing his stance - he asked, "Man, am I debating with the president's campaign? I mean, the defense of the president is overwhelming."
And yes, he was right because it was so obvious.
Giuliani simply did not accept the notion that if the Obama administration had any smarts that they would believe that the terrorist attack on Libya erupted out of a spontaneous demonstration over an old YouTube clip uploaded from California.
Mayor Giuliani thought U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice should have known this public-relations line would come back to haunt her before she ever mentioned it on five different Sunday network news shows.
"Susan Rice goes on television four days later - I was on CNN with her that morning. Says it was a spontaneous demonstration," he said. "I knew it wasn't. I'm not part of the administration; I knew it wasn't the day after. And she had to know it wasn't. They were saying it wasn't, [yet] the national security adviser said it was a terrorist plot.”
On September 16th, Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif said he believes Al Qaeda is responsible for the deadly attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
The Libyan President said it was "preposterous" to think attack was "spontaneous protest."
Reports came out that Libyan president Mohammed el-Megarif were at odds with Obama and Susan Rice. He said the attack Benghazi that killed the American ambassador was planned well beforehand. His statements on this topic firmly contradicted the Obama administration's version of events.
"The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous," President Mohammed el-Megarif said in an interview on NPR. "We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate."
The Libyan president added, "The intention was there from the beginning, for it to take this ugly barbaric, criminal form."
President Mohammed el-Megarif claimed evidence showed that some elements of Ansar al-Sharia, an extremist group in eastern Benghazi, were used as tools by foreign citizens with ties to al-Qaida to attack the consulate and threaten Libya's stability.
The Libyan account of the horrific events, however, contradicts what the Obama administration was saying.
"Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo," the American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said on ABC's This Week.
"In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated," Rice said that yet that was not true.
The Obama White House was trying to say that protests in Egypt on that Tuesday were over a video that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud - and that in the process protesters killed the 4 Americans.
"We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo," Rice said. "And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there."
But this was not true! It was a pre-planned attack just as President Mohammed el-Megarif claimed it was. Why the Obama administration tried to cover it up by saying it was a reaction to a YouTube video is that big question?
Can it be simply because they want American voters to believe that there has been no terrorist attacks while Obama has been in office? Is that the same reason that the Obama White House tried to play down the terrorist attack in Fort Hood by Army Major Nadal as merely a case of "workplace violence"?
Was it, especially when Nadal launched his attack in the same fashion that Muslim terrorists customarily launch their attacks - by yelling "Allah Akbar"? Why is it so important to Obama and his surrogates to say that no terrorist attack has taken place even when it is so obvious that one has?
That interview with Mayor Giuliani, CNN's Soledad O’Brien aired more of the administration spin on things. She defended them fervently saying, "So the White House now is basically saying the State Department dropped the ball, the State Department is looking and saying - listen, I'm just telling you how it goes - and they're saying there's Intel issues."
With that Mayor Giuliani shot back, "Who put Susan Rice on? The State Department? Or the political people? It was a political appearance on CNN. So what they're really trying to do is they're trying to run out the clock. They're going to have this investigation; the investigation will be after the debate, after the election is over, so what they're trying to do is cover up this scandal as much as possible."
That's when O’Brien really started to protest saying "Calling something a cover-up kind of takes it a further step, don't you think?"
"No, wait a second," Giuliani replied. "There was - a statement was made, including by the President of the United States, that this was due to this terrible movie about Mohammad."
Then O’Brien got really passionate about things and argued, “But he actually didn't say it. The verbatim, the actual verbatim of what he said, he did not say it was something other than that, but it was mentioned. But he did not succinctly say, ‘This was due to a movie.’ Miguel, why don't you pull all these transcripts for me? We have them all in the back room, we can just pull them out."
Giuliani insisted, "There was information both in the State Department and the White House that it wasn't [a protest]. There was no protest in advance. This sounds like a cover-up. I mean, if this weren't a Democratic president, I think all of you people would be crazy."
There's plenty to make a journalist be very careful about how he or she parse words - especially when defending Obama - but Soledad O'Brien doesn't seem to want to hear facts. Like a lawyer defending her client - in this case Obama - she believes what she believes and no amount of evidence is going to change her defense of President Obama.
It is almost a matter of what the definition of is "is" when O'Brien says that "he did not succinctly say, "This was due to a movie." In fact, he does say it after everyone else in his administration gets it out there as what took place.
On September 13th, Hillary Clinton issues a statement saying, "There is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence."
White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted, "The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie."
On September 14th, when the bodies of Stevens and three Americans arrive at Andrews Air Force base, President Obama made mention of the video. Both Obama and Clinton criticized the video for prompting the attacks.
Hillary Clinton said, "We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with."
Carney denies the White House was aware of "any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent." "The story is absolutely wrong," he says. "That report is false."
On CNN's own "State of the Union" program on September 16th, UN Ambassador Susan Rice announced, "let's recall what has happened in the last several days. There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government, and it's one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It's been offensive to many, many people around the world. That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against Western facilities including our embassies and consulates."
Rice was even clearer in misstating the problem on CBS's "Face the Nation," when she said, "What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.".
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appears on five Sunday talks shows and says the attacks were spontaneous eruptions over the anti-Islam video, saying, "This was not a pre-planned, premeditated attack."
President of Libya's general National Congress Mohammed Magarief contradicts the Obama administration, saying there is "no doubt that this (attack) was pre-planned, predetermined."
It was on September 18th that President Obama said that this was due to a movie.
It was when Obama appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman and is asked by the host if the attack was an act of war. "Here's what happened. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here … a shadowy character who has an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammad and Islam ... so this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world."
CNN's Soledad O'Brien acted as though it would have been tough to locate something President Obama precisely said on Libya, when in fact it wasn't.
On September 20th, in an interview with Univision Town Hall, President Obama is asked whether the attack was the work of terrorists?
He says his administration is still investigating the attack and cannot say for certain. Then the president said of Libya, "I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
It seems O'Brien was disinterested to find out the facts. But then again, why let that stop her from
defending Obama?
On October 17th, it was reported that she decided to twist the facts during an interview with John Sununu.
John Sununu served as the Governor of New Hampshire and later White House Chief of Staff under President George H. W. Bush. He is a Republican who at 73 years of age doesn't take being toyed with.
She quickly found out that out when he wasn't going to give her a pass when she tried using so-called "facts" that weren't facts at all.
First, she tried tried to imply that Mitt Romney erred during Tuesday night's debate when he called out Barack Obama over the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
Barack Obama was interviewed by Univision and asked if the attack was terrorism. He said "I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”
A few days later on The View, he was asked if it was a terrorist attack and gave the same response. Obama also made a speech to the United Nations and never once mentioned that the attack was an act of terrorism. And yes, Obama did mention the Internet video six times.
So why is all this important? Because during the debate, Obama made it sound as if he stated it was a terrorist attack the very next day which he knows very well that he didn't do.
During the debate, Candy Crowley's behavior was obviously bias. And yes, it was wrong when she sided with Obama over that issue.
After the debate, Crowley admitted she was wrong:
As the moderator in Tuesday night's presidential debate, she appeared to side with President Obama on the question of whether he called the Libya strike a terror attack from the start. She later conceded that Mitt Romney was "right" on the broader point - that the administration for days insisted it was a "spontaneous" act.
So Romney was right. We all know he was right. For days and days, Barack Obama and his team perpetuated a lie. The murders were never about an Internet video.
And yet, that's what he kept saying. And yes, at the debate, he tried to say he didn't say that.
Even though those are real proven facts, there are Obama supporters like Soledad O'Brien who continue to spin the tale that no it didn't happen that way.
John Sununu wasn't going to let her spin the facts while talking with him, and he didn't.
O'Brien defense of Obama is too obvious to be anything else but her way of throwing her support behind the president.
And by the way, after the interview, O’Brien joked that she interprets Sununu’s demeanor during the interview as evidence of him hitting on her.
I haven't watched her for a long time, but now I know that I haven't missed much.
THIRD SHOT!
Eva Longoria tweets offensive Romney remarks, lies about it, then blames Twitter - Now one liberal wants her off Obama campaign team!
Liberal commentator Alan Colmes calls for Eva Longoria's resignation as co-chair of Obama campaign
As a top liberal commentator Colmes calling for Eva Longoria's resignation from President Obama's reelection campaign following her retweet of a vulgar message aimed at Mitt Romney is a big deal.
"I think she should resign from the campaign or be asked to resign as co-chair because I don't think it reflects well on the campaign," Alan Colmes said Thursday on Fox News Channel's 'American Live.'
Colmes gave his opinion after Eva Longoria retweeted a follower on Wednesday who called the Republican presidential candidate a "tw*t" (the word that rhymes with "swat").
“I have no idea why any woman/minority can vote for Romney. You have to be stupid to vote for such a racist/misogynistic tw*t,” the tweet, which Longoria retweeted, read.
After sending the nasty message to her 4,462,095 followers, Longoria took some heat, and took to Twitter on Thursday morning to explain.
"Is anyone else's twitter bugging out? There are things in my timeline I didn't retweet today. Hmmm? Standby trying to fix!" she tweeted.
But later on Thursday, Longoria appeared to come clean and take responsibility.
"I use Twitter as a platform for all Americans and their opinions. Sorry if people were offended by retweet," she wrote. "Obviously not my words or my personal view. I respect all Americans #FreedomOfSpeech."
It's ironic how Eva Longoria has put herself on the same level as another wealthy Democrat Obama supporter Bill Maher who called Sarah Palin a "c*nt" (the word that rhymes with "hunt").
Classless is classless, they are two of a kind.
FOURTH SHOT!
The View takes shots at Ann Romney about religion, military, abortion after playing softball with Obamas
And talk about classless women. I know it's not surprising, but you would think those ladies would have more class than they show the public.
They are a classless group! Most seem to whore themselves for the Democrat Party, and I guess that's OK in Hollywood and New York. But wow, do they make it obvious.
It is a shame though. they make no pretense of being polite or impartial. They just hate everything that is not liberal or Democrat. And yes, they do it with zeal.
How they can stay on the air is unknown to most. They are horrible.
Ann Romney was asked her thoughts on abortion by host Barbara Walters shortly after they exchanged pleasantries and Walters reiterated an invitation for Mitt Romney to appear on the daytime talk show.
Whoopi Goldberg barely let Ann Romney settle into her seat on ABC's "The View" before pouncing on the first lady hopeful, asking why Mitt Romney didn't serve in Vietnam and if the couple is prepared to console families of fallen soldiers if voted into the White House.
Unlike a recent joint appearance on the show by President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama during which questioning ranged from how romantic is the president to the couple's anniversary, the show's five hosts skipped the softball questions and got right into red meat — including military service, abortion and the Romneys' Mormon faith.
When the Obamas' appearance aired on Sept. 25, the panel stuck to questions about the First Couple's 20th wedding anniversary and whether or not President Obama is "romantic," though they did query Obama lightly about the murder of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, which the president declined to characterize at the time as an act of terrorism.
Romney, 63, clad in a red dress and gold jewelry, was initially scheduled to appear with her husband, who backed out citing a scheduling conflict, according to host Barbara Walters.
But his wife deftly deflected her husband's description of the female clutch as "sharp-tongued," saying the candidate called the women "sharp and young."
Moments later, Goldberg asked Romney if her husband's Mormon faith precluded him or their five sons from serving in the military and whether the Romneys would be prepared to console relatives of fallen U.S. soldiers.
What an ignorant question! She is as dumb as most suspect. If not dumb, than obviously she is ignorant of the fact that many Mormons serve in the military and the faith does not bar them from doing so.
While I was in the Marine Corps, I served with Marines who were Mormons.
To ask her such a question is unthinkable. Can you imagine if Ann Romney looked at Goldberg and said, "That's like asking me if being Black would stop men and women from serving and consoling relatives of our fallen! Sort of a dumb question really." - but she didn't.
“What I know is I am here to reflect the character of the person I know."
- Ann Romney, appearing on "The View"
“He was serving his mission and my five sons also served [on] missions,” Ann Romney replied. “We find different ways of serving.”
Asked how she would explain to relatives of the fallen soldiers that her sons did not serve in the U.S. military, she continued, "I would say it’s the hardest thing that a president and a first lady can do. We have the most extraordinary fighting men and women and we have to be grateful for them.”
Walters grilled Romney on abortion, and stem cell research, but noted she is not the one running for office.
“I am pro-life and I’m happy to say that,” said Ann Romney when asked by Walters if her thoughts on the issue changed like her husband of 43 years. “When a decision came across his desk to use embryos for experimentation, he could not have, on his conscience, created human life for experimentation.
“The most important thing we can do is have respect for each other in this dialogue. This is a tender, tender issue.”
Following Walters’ initial question on abortion, co-host Joy Behar asked Ann Romney about women’s access to contraception, prompting Romney to say: “I would love if you could get my husband on the couch, Joy.”
Romney continued: “What I know is I am here to reflect the character of the person I know. Every decision he will make … [will be based on] is this is the best thing for America to go forward? I think I know where his heart is.”
Romney’s appearance was part of the show’s “Red, White and View” campaign, which highlights political topics and has made the show into an unexpected daytime battleground with the election less than three weeks away.
The interview then took a lighter turn, as co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck asked Romney’s son, Josh, who was sitting in the studio audience, if he had any political aspirations.
He does not, he said, and added it was difficult seeing his father go through the rigorous election season.
Josh Romney also downplayed reports that his brother Tagg told a radio host that he wanted to “take a swing” at President Obama.
“It’s hard in this process to see your Dad get beat up,” Josh Romney said. “So you take it pretty personally. I assure you [Tagg] didn’t mean it.”
Since Ann Romney was grilled in a sort of Inquisition, in contrast what does Michelle Obama get?
How about love and adoration!
And no, I'm not going to go to describe what took place when Michelle Obama and the president appeared on “The View” last month. The ladies of The View fawned all over the Obamas.
Of course the President did address the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.
Though he refused to say it was a "terrorist attack," he did warn people to ignore the “terribly offensive” anti-Islamic video that sparked unrest throughout the Middle East - at least that was the story at the time.
President Obama’s appearance on The View took place as world leaders convened for the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Later he was criticized for making time for the appearance but not hosting meetings with world leaders at the United Nations, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The difference in how people are treated on that show is absolutely sickening. And yes, absolutely classless!
Story by Tom Correa
