Democrat & Former Clinton Aide Endorses Romney, Rips Obama

Post-debate analysis in October gave Mitt Romney high marks for his descriptions of bipartisan work as governor and for his promises of bridging the divide created by President Obama who rarely meets with members of Congress now.

Gigi Georges (Photo: From Linkedin public profile)

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton’s former Senate state director, Gigi Georges gave a strong endorsement of Governor Romney. Another Democrat crosses the line to run from Barack Obama. Her endorsement also carries a terse rebuke of President Obama as a failure:

“For most of my life, I’ve been an active Democrat,” said Gigi Georges. “I am proud to have worked for President Bill Clinton and then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and, during that time, I saw firsthand what can be accomplished by strong, bipartisan leadership. I know what it means to work across the aisle on issues that are important to the American people. And that’s why I am supporting Mitt Romney. Governor Romney has a plan to restore the prosperity this country deserves and expects. He will work with people of good will no matter what their party, and he will pursue the policies that are in the best interest of our country, no matter who proposes them. That’s what President Obama promised to do four years ago. But like so many of his promises, bipartisan cooperation is just another one he has broken. We can’t have four more years of failed policies and two parties that can’t work together. We need the change Mitt Romney is offering.”

Governor Romney gave a brief statement in a press release when he announced Ms. Georges’ endorsement. Also, this website wrote this of her: “Apparently she is not aware of Romney’s War on Women.”

Photographer Unknown

Click here to continue reading

The Cover-up Underway by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is Far More Serious than the Cover-up of Nixon’s Watergate

We will never forget these four men who sacrificed everything for America.


I think every American should see this video. Please listen carefully to what Ambassador Bolton says here.

President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are doing everything within their sphere of authority and power to obfuscate and bury the facts surrounding the assassinations of four great Americans on September 11th in Libya. Their motives are quite simple. Their number one objective in the next three weeks is to stall the release of facts until after the election. Pure and simple. I honestly believe they couldn’t care less what the families of these courageous men feel or think. It is completely political to them.

Please watch this short video clip up to minute 4:45. I think this video clip contains more truth in one place than we saw over weeks of hearings during the Watergate cover-up and subsequent investigations. As Americans, we simply cannot allow this travesty of truth to occur on our watch. I cannot tell you how incensed I feel about these duplicitous individuals who only care about their political futures! Here are some of the highlights from the video:

  • 1:05 Bolton: “Vice President Biden really crossed the line in the debate” on this issue.
  • 1:20 Bolton: “Ambassadors are the personal representatives of the President of the United States! They cover all our agencies overseas and they are all presidential appointees.”
  • 2:44 Bolton: “Hillary Clinton’s own department was in real time communication with the consulate and knew what was going on at the consulate.” (She feigns ignorance!)
  • 4:20 Bolton: “This was a high threat mission that…Even the Red Cross had withdrawn due to the threat level…” Hillary Clinton certainly should have known what was going on at this mission well ahead of September 11th.

PLEASE watch this video and tell your friends. I strongly believe every American should see this and know how our leaders cannot be trusted any longer as they all scramble to cover-up simple truths and facts:

Here is what we know about the Libyan consulate assassinations on September 11th:

  • Messrs. Obama and Biden will never take responsibility for any failure of theirs. By default, they blame the Dept. of State and the U.S. intelligence community for security failures at the consulate. It fits their four-year pattern of deflection at every turn.
  • Five days after the attack, Ambassador Rice was adamant that the attack started as a protest to a YouTube movie trailer created last summer.
  • No intelligence expert was ever aware of a spontaneous protest, at the consulate, based on a video.
  • Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. security personnel in Libya, numerous times had requested of the Dept. of State heightened security at the consulate prior to September 11th and were denied every time.
  • Secretary of State Hillary Clinton states categorically that she had never been aware of any requests for additional security at the consulate and she blames the U.S. intelligence community.
  • Nobody wants to allow Ambassador Rice to disclose who told her to publicly report that the attacks started as a simple protest to a movie trailer.
  • COVER UP: One or more of the following entities is directly involved outright in this cover-up: 1) The White House, 2) The Dept. of State, and/or 3) the intelligence community (I seriously doubt the intelligence community is part of this cover-up and I think they will soon leak information to the press that will directly implicate 1 and 2 by way of retribution).

I honestly believe that what we are witnessing at the highest levels of the United States government is a cover-up far more serious than that of President Nixon’s Watergate and I strongly believe the facts, as they become widely known in America, will end Hillary Clinton’s chances to ever become POTUS in the future.

The men and women involved in this cover-up will do whatever they can to stall and hinder the congressional investigation until after the election.

Nobody was killed in the Watergate break-in.

American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist — Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Mitt Romney vs. Health Care: “The Bottom Line . . . Mitt Romney Stands Strongly Against ObamaCare; Will Work Towards and Sign a Repeal of ObamaCare as Our Next President”

Part 3 in a developing series of in-depth analysis by Dr. Jeff Fuller (See part 1 and part 2)

I was saving this to be the final part in this series, but Romney’s comments over the weekend in New Hampshire made it instantly timely and relevant to this on-going discussion.

Politico got the headline right, “Mitt Romney’s Prescription for ObamaCare: Repeal it.”  I recommend reading or watching Mitt’s speech to the Carroll County GOP group in their entirety, but some specific comments stick out: 

Obamacare has to be repealed and the other programs have to be made sustainable. . . . If we re-shape each of these programs today, and repeal Obamacare, we can honor our promises to seniors, and protect our economy as well. . . .  At every turn, he and his fellow liberals sought to seize more power for Washington.  And in that cause, nothing was more misguided and egregious than Obamacare! 

Living in New Hampshire, you’ve heard of our healthcare program next door in Massachusetts. You may have noticed that the President and his people spend more time talking about me and Massachusetts healthcare than Entertainment Tonight spends talking about Charlie Sheen [link to part 1 in this series documenting all the “attention” Mitt’s been getting from the White House on Health Care].  Our approach was a state plan intended to address problems that were in many ways unique to Massachusetts.  What we did was what the Constitution intended for states to do—we were one of the laboratories of democracy. 

Our experiment wasn’t perfect—some things worked, some didn’t, and some things I’d change. One thing I would never do is to usurp the constitutional power of states with a one-size-fits-all federal takeover. 

I would repeal Obamacare, if I were ever in a position to do so.  

My experience has taught me that states are where healthcare programs for the uninsured should be crafted, just as the Constitution provides. Obamacare is bad law, bad policy, and it is bad for America’s families.

Can Romney be trusted to keep this campaign promise?  Some skeptics will never be satisfied, but I challenge any reader to point out an actual instance where Romney broke his campaign promises as Governor of Massachusetts (should be pretty darn easy to do for someone who flips and flops with the political winds, eh?).  Yes, Romney has a record of keeping campaign promises and can be trusted to keep this one.

And Romney’s been consistant in his opposition to ObamaCare and calling for it’s repeal.  Immediately after passage, Romney called for it’s repeal, citing procedural and substantive reasons:

America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse of power. President Obama has betrayed his oath to the nation — rather than bringing us together, ushering in a new kind of politics, and rising above raw partisanship, he has succumbed to the lowest denominator of incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends. He promised better; we deserved better.

He calls his accomplishment “historic” — in this he is correct, although not for the reason he intends. Rather, it is an historic usurpation of the legislative process — he unleashed the nuclear option, enlisted not a single Republican vote in either chamber, bribed reluctant members of his own party, paid-off his union backers, scapegoated insurers, and justified his act with patently fraudulent accounting. What Barack Obama has ushered into the American political landscape is not good for our country; in the words of an ancient maxim, “what starts twisted, ends twisted.”

His health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today.

In May 2009, as Obama and congress were barrelling towards a health care reform bill, Romney offered 6 points of advice in an op-ed, the last of which was:

Center reforms at the state level. Open the door to state plans designed to meet the various needs of their citizens.  Before imposing a one-size-fits-all federal program, let the states serve as “the laboratories of democracy.”

In a very informative and extensive interview Romney held with Human Events Online in July 2009, headlined as “Romney Attacks ObamaCare” he says of the President’s plan:

It’s filled with so many defects it’s hard to know where exactly to begin.  . . . President Obama, out of an apparent desire to score a victory, is not willing to give health care the deliberative process it deserves. . . . [And he says regarding the “public option”] It’s a bad idea and should be rejected.

Romney also penned an Op-Ed in the USA Today in July 2009 entitled “Mr President, What’s the Rush?”

Fast-forwarding a bit, on April 7th 2010, at  the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College in Manchester, Romney said:

Had they brought the federal bill to my desk when I was governor, I’d have vetoed it,” . . .  ”We solved a problem in the state with a state answer,” Romney said. “We didn’t have the federal government come in and intrude on the rights of states.” . . .  Romney said the federal government created its plan without learning from Massachusetts or any other state. “It shouldn’t have been put in place without experimentation,”

Jumping back to the last presidential election primary, in Jan, 2008, all of the major GOP nominee’s (including Romney) were against a federal healthcare plan:

Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson are all opposed to health care reform measures that incorporate universal coverage.  Tax breaks, high deductible plans, consumerism - all are fine, but no GOP presidential candidates support universal coverage.

Even waaaaaay back in 1993-4, Romney was against a federal “Government Takeover of Health Care” . . . which, at the time, was known as HillaryCare.  For completeness sake, Romney also opposed HillaryCare 2.0 in 2007.

Recent headlines are starting to see the forest for the trees.  In an article titled “Voters: ‘RomneyCare’ not fatal” New Hampshire’s Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley wisely opined:  

“People get it. … They know he is opposed to Obamacare. That’s the bottom line.”

I would only add to the “bottom line” that, not only is Romney opposed to ObamaCare, he will work towards and sign a repeal of the law as one of his first actions as our new President.  You can take that one to the bank.

UPDATE:  Two weeks after this posting, Romney has upped the ante on his rejection of ObamaCare and his willingness to fight for it’s repeal.  In a brief National Review Online Op-ed on March 22nd entitled “If I Were President: ObamaCare, One Year in” he brought up a new angle that I hadn’t considered:

If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.

As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are “laboratories of democracy.” They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another. Of course, the ultimate goal is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs. But since an outright repeal would take time, an executive order is the first step in returning power to the states.

Powerful, pragmatice leadership, with both experience and foresight.  That’s what our country needs in the White House, and that’s what Mitt Romney has in spades!

-Jeff Fuller, M.D.
*Stay Tuned: Future installments will address topics of 1) Federalism, 2) Mandates, 3) Whether or not RomneyCare is a “success”, and 4) a head to head comparison of RomneyCare vs ObamaCare.  Previous installment titles:  “Mitt Romney vs. Health Care: ‘The Problem’ (Or is it?)“and “Mitt Romney vs. Health Care: Why RomneyCare Makes Mitt the BEST Nominee to Face Obama

Mitt Romney, the Tea Party, Hillary Clinton, GOP Dissension, and the RINO Label

I’m a self-proclaimed Tea Party member. It is my understanding the Tea Party movement consists of an ever-growing group of concerned citizens who protest rampant spending in Washington, and the misuse of federal power over individual liberties. I’m happy to be a part of that group.

No doubt, the Tea Party is a force to be reckoned with — evidence of this is witnessed everyday as more and more Tea Party-backed candidates rise to victory in their primary battles. Long-time GOP veterans are ousted (a la Bob Bennett) from their cozy seats while young blood Republicans fervently step in to fill their shoes. For the most part, its a beautiful thing to behold.

My Brother Luke at a SLC Tea Party Rally

I’ve gone to local Tea Party protests; I listen to an occasional Glenn Beck episode; I’ve gone door-to-door as an advocate for conservative principles, I’ve wished I had the money to hit up a National rally; heck, I’ve even listened to and liked some Mama Grizzly speeches. I know, I know, I could certainly do more …but I figure that’s a pretty decent level of activism for a twenty-something, newly married, full-time employee.

I can attest that many of those who write for this site (Team MRC), are gun toting, Bible carrying, freedom loving patriots. We’ve constructed the protest banners; we’ve worn the goofy colonial hats; we’ve marched the marches of the conservative crusade. We’ve been there, done that.

I bring up my/our involvement with the Tea Party movement not to boast, but to illustrate a strange phenomena that is happing to many fellow Mitt Romney backers within the Tea Party: Estrangement.

Somewhere along the line, the notion was adopted, mostly among liberal media but more recently among fellow conservatives, that Mitt Romney represents solely the moderate, ‘establishment’ core of the Republican party: the Bush loyalists; the staunch GOPers. I won’t deny that Gov. Romney’s appeal is wide, and it certainly may spread to the more moderate branch of our party, but I refudiate the absurd conception that his base of support exists only in that branch. I see obnoxious headlines all the time now that predict Romney’s demise, tracing it all back to how he’s the GOP’s supposed ‘next in line’, but the Tea Party backlash will impede him from gaining wide Republican support. Just today, an article from NPR calls Mitt Romney ‘the Hillary Clinton of 2012‘ - destined to fail due an uprising in the party’s fringe…

Baloney. Mitt will never be the ‘man’ that Hillary Clinton is.

As conservatives, we’ve gotten so caught up in the day-to-day mud slinging that we’ve lost site of our principal goal: to take our country back! My concern is that the primary benefactor of all this may be the very thing we all wish to deter: the advancement of Obama’s liberal agenda.

Somewhere amidst the dust up of GOP in-fighting, the Democrats are grinning. They watch- entertained - as we are preoccupied with assigning destructive labels to our own party leaders, and dividing ourselves into far too many factions of Republicanism. “My candidate endorsed the eventual primary winner WAY before yours did!” — “Why is your guy/gal silent on this hot-button issue?” — “Why wasn’t your candidate a speaker at THIS convention?!” — “RINO this, RINO, that!”

I recognize the need for purification [giving the boot to those whose ideas are stale, whose interests are no longer with their constituents], but everyone’s vision of perfection is different - and in the end, rather than coming out of the refiner’s fire without blemish, our party instead suffers a serious case of dirty dissension.

Now, it isn’t my intention to have everyone unite around my choice for the Republican nomination (assuming that he decides to run). I do, however, offer up a suggestion that we come together under the umbrella of conservatism, and reject none that seek shelter from the tempest of progressivism. For what it’s worth, the contributors of this site have tried to maintain respectful discourse with other camps, applauding our guy when he represents us well, and keeping our target on the opposition.

Mitt Romney Not a Rino

So in exchange for the respect we’ve given you, before you go labeling ‘Mittens’ as a ‘RINO’ and speculating his downfall, remember this: Mitt Romney is a true conservative. He has a record of success in family, education, career, and government. He is an honorable husband, father, and grandpa. He is not a lifetime politician. He owes no favors. He has profound concern for the future of our Republic. He is devout in his service to God and fellow man. He is money savvy and charitable with his self-earned wealth. He is visionary and innovative. He is an economical wizard; a turnaround expert in a country that needs a turnaround.

Flip through a copy of Romney’s ‘No Apology: the Case for American Greatness’. You’ll quickly see that the man has a deep love for our country and his plan for a greater America mirrors the ideals that most Americans hold dear.

-Aaron Gundy- Follow @AaronGundy on Twitter

Election Fraud: Did Obama Steal the Election from Hillary Clinton? Warning for Mid-Terms 2010

With just 113 days until the crucial mid-term elections, are Americans confident the election process will be honest and fair?

The New Black Panther voter intimidation case, recently dismissed by the Department of Justice, is generating renewed interest in a revealing documentary made in 2008 by lifelong Democrat Gigi Gaston.  Entitled We Will Not Be Silenced, it outlines how Obama stole the election from Hillary Clinton. Exposing Obama machine tactics, many used at caucus meetings, it reveals improper registrations, padding caucus numbers, flooding caucuses with overwhelming Obama supporters, claiming Clinton caucus members weren’t ‘on the books’, voter and poll watcher intimidation, threats, turning away Hillary Clinton voters at the door, electioneering at precincts, etc.

From Gaston’s website We Will Not Be Silenced:

This documentary is about the disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign. We the People have made this film. Democrats have sent in their stories from all parts of America. We want to be heard and let the country know how our party has sanctioned the actions of what we feel are Obama Campaign “Chicago Machine” dirty politics. We believe this infamous campaign of “change” from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote, which is, of course, all documented in “We Will Not Be Silenced.”

“We Will Not Be Silenced” is about the people who fight back by simply telling their stories: Teachers, professors, civil rights activists, lawyers, janitors, physicists, ophthalmologists, accountants, mathematicians, retirees - all bound together by their love of America and Democracy. They will tell us their experiences and how they feel betrayed by their own party. They will discuss how their party has disenfranchised them and how, when they saw and reported multiple instances of fraud, everyone turned a blind eye. Rather than support and protect the voices and votes of its loyal members, the DNC chose to sweep this under the rug by looking the other way, or using ceremony and quasi-investigations to assuage angry voters. It is our opinion there never before has been such a “dirty” campaign; the campaign that has broken the hearts and spirits of American voters, who once believed in the Democractic voting system.

We Will Not Be Silenced Part 1:

We Will Not Be Silenced Part 2:

The plot thickens… Do not miss watching Part 3 here and Part 4 here.

Let’s not forget Obama’s $800,000 campaign donation to ACORN to generate thousands of bogus voter registrations during the last election. (They’re now called Community Organizations International and are in the process of renaming local organizations in hopes we’ll forget who they are and what they do.)

Reports of ‘faked-up’ poll results in favor of Obama was another tactic used to persuade voters.

 Are we ready to take on the Obama machine? The thugs that orchestrated this travesty two years ago are entrenched and more determined than ever. They will alter tactics to fit the situation. We need continued media involvement. We must notify local and state election officials that a substantial number of honest, well-trained citizens (with video cameras) will be needed at every voting precinct to help ensure fairness and the rule of law. So much is riding on this election; we’ve still got time to get ready – but not much. Integrity in the election process and our right to participate fairly in representative government must not be bullied away.

A Mitt Bit of Christmas, Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen

Oh, the irony. As Obama deplaned in global-warmed Copenhagen this morning, he was enveloped in freezing temperatures and four inches of blizzard-produced snow.

By Christian Wienberg (

“Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight.

Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.”

Denmark has a maritime climate and milder winters than its Scandinavian neighbors. It hasn’t had a white Christmas for 14 years, under the DMI’s definition, and only had seven last century. Temperatures today fell as low as minus 4 Celsius (25 Fahrenheit).

DMI defines a white Christmas as 90 percent of the country being covered by at least 2 centimeters of snow on the afternoon of Dec. 24.

Even more ironic, just a few hours before the storm roared in, Hillary Clinton, in an effort to put a smiley face on the poorly organized, chaotic Climate Conference, offered the following: 

Climate change threatens not only our environment, but our economy and our security. This is an undeniable and unforgiving fact.

The only undeniable and unforgiving fact is that the only thing heating up is tempers among global warming proponents:

“One thing many of these protestors share is a suspicion for capitalism, corporations, and so-called market mechanisms for cutting carbon emissions.” – Reporter Holly Williams, Sky News,  Copenhagen

Do we want these people telling us how to live?

A Mitt bit of Christmas (Dec 17, 2021):

Tim Pawlenty yesterday became the first potential 2012 GOP candidate to visit the first-in-the-nation primary state (unless you count Haley Barbour’s visit last summer). But Mitt Romney wins the “all-important” Christmas card race. His card, with two color photos of his huge family, hit mailboxes yesterday.

I’d love to have a Romney family Christmas card delivered to me! Speaking of deliver, the singers on our Fifth Day of Christmas video, do just that. Here’s Celtic Woman singing Carol of the Bells:

Ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky, the flying cloud, the frosty light;
Ring in the love of truth and right, ring in the common love of good.

Ring in the valiant man and free, the larger heart, the kindlier hand;
Ring out the darkness of the land, ring in the Christ that is to be.
~ Lord Alfred Tennyson

Hillary, Bosnia, CBS, Mt. Everest, Schuster, Mobs…

What do these things have in common?  They are all prime examples of politicians inventing their own memories for political gain.

The Drudge report links to a YouTube clip from a CBS report unraveling Hillary’s claim that she was essentially a one-woman combat battalion landing in Bosnia.  My only complaint with the piece is that CBS comes out singing na-na nana naaa.  Anything that buoys the shamed CBS news team is not a good thing.
This isn’t the first time.  You might recall Hillary down under in the 90s claiming that she was named after famed explorer Edmund Hillary who climbed Mt. Everest.  Problem is, Hillary was a nobody until he accomplished that feat in 1953, quite a few years after Mrs. Clinton was born.
If I recall, Hillary’s fellow New Yorker, Senator Schumer, had another moment like this, conjuring up in his mind the angst he felt watching the congressional mob hearings via boob tube as a child.  Problem is the boob Schumer was watching at that point was his mom’s… (forgive the crassness)… he was 8 weeks old.
There’s something in the water up there…

Hillary’s Debate

John Edwards is a great attack dog. He just happens to be fighting for the wrong side. I’ve got to hand it to him, though, on this ad about Hillary’s debate performance:

Jim Geraghty also makes this point about the difference between Hillary’s and Mitt’s responses after taking fire at the debates:

Thought that popped in my head… could you imagine if Mitt Romney played the ‘Mormon card’ the way Team Hillary has played the ‘gender card’ in the aftermath of the debate?

It’s unthinkable. He’d be mocked and ridiculed mercilessly as a guy who couldn’t handle a real debate.

Mitt Romney gets slammed from all sides in the debates, particularly the most recent one, and he knows why: He’s leading in Iowa and New Hampshire (and close in South Carolina); he’s the guy Rudy needs to beat someplace early, he’s the guy Fred needs to falter, the guy Huckabee needs to catch up with, the guy McCain wants to see knocked out. Congratulations, you matter now; this means it’s time to duck, brace for impact, and demonstrate an ability to get up off the mat.

Family Values: Romney or Clinton

This is an easy win for Romney:

“One of the ways that you help instill, if you will, family values is by having a White House be a place that demonstrates family values,” the Massachusetts Republican said in a response to a question at a New Hampshire house party about how he would instill family values as president.

“And, you know, I think during the last Clinton presidency, the White House did not demonstrate that in a way that was helpful to our nation’s culture,” Romney added.

No serious person would dispute this notion. The personal behavior of White House occupants directly affects the nation. Indeed, I think we can easily trace the “my private life is private” syndrome of public officials trying to hide unseemly behavior to Bill Clinton. Of course not all people are serious, which is why the CNN article quotes a response from the Clinton campaign that tries to shift the focus from family values to character:

Responding to Romney’s comments, top Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson said, “Hillary Clinton needs no lessons on character from a man who switches his positions on a daily basis.”

Does this mean that Clinton doesn’t dispute the charge on family values, but instead will defend her character? Does it mean she values consistency more than morality? Perhaps she is willing to defend her own honor before her family’s? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by any of it. It reminds me of Grampa Simpson trying to defend Homer from allegations of being a communist:

Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.

“Let’s Talk About Communitarianism”

People are talking about Hillary’s recent “Mississippi Comments.”

Jonathan Martin at Politico wonders why none of the GOP nominees are making any statements about it: “Would seem like the perfect opportunity to score some points about her being a liberal elitist looking down her nose at a Southern state, right?”

It truly would be a good opportunity for Mitt Romney or the others to take Hillary to task on being a snob, but what everyone seems to be missing is the word “Communitarianism.”


“I think Iowa poses a special burden, or a special obstacle to me because when you look at the numbers, how can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That’s not what I see. That’s not the quality. That’s not the communitarianism, that’s not the openness I see in Iowa.”

I had never heard this word before, so looked it up.

Wikipedia’s first paragraph describing it says: “Communitarianism as a group of related but distinct philosophies began in the late 20th century, opposing individualism while advocating phenomena such as civil society. Not necessarily hostile to social liberalism or even social democracy, communitarianism emphasizes the interest of communities and societies over those of the individual.”

Sounds like Communitarianism is Hillary’s new word for Communism.

This woman is scary.

And the fact that she made this statement and so easily used this word “Communitarianism” and everyone is caught up in her snobbiness and have totally (as far as I can see) missed the real heart of her message is very troubling to me.

Any thoughts on this? Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?

P.S. Does anyone think this would be the makings of a good ‘Hillary Attack Ad” ad for Mitt?