So What Did Mitt Have to Say?


And here is the main event; His Governorship Mitt (give the dog some air) Romney. He is making all the right noises, talking about “freedom” and how, if he’s elected he will use the Constitution as his guide and the Declaration of Independence as his compass.

Hey, Mitt, the Constitution? It’s not a guide, it is the law of the land! No word yet from him about the Second Amendment or what unconstitutional gun laws he will work to repeal. Although Wayne brought up Fast & Furious, nothing from Mitt about gunwalking, hundreds of dead Mexicans, Brian Terry or Jaime Zapata.

Blathering still about economic freedom and religious freedom, and how, if elected he will repeal ObamaCare. You know, the gov’t healthcare program based on RomneyCare?

He’s mentioning the 10th Amendment and how it reserves for the citizens the rights that it doesn’t grant government. Hunh? Since when does government have rights?

. . . oh, wait, he’s talking about the Second Amendment . . . that it’s language is so plain that even liberals can’t attack it directly. Nothing about the fact that this is a G-d given, individual, civil and human right. So, Mitt, what about that Assault Weapons ban you signed in Massachusetts? And the Clinton era AWB that you supported? Those are hunky-dory, right?

Oh, he did bring up Fast & Furious; nothing about Brian Terry or Jaime Zapata but he did thank the NRA for pushing the story and pushing for Holder’s resignation or termination (job termination; go away Secret Service). Hmm, I wonder what Mike Vanderboegh and David Codrea think about that?

And now he’s saying that he’ll enforce existing laws and not pass new ones to burden lawful gun-owners. So I guess all those existing laws don’t burden us? All those infringements on that which shall not be infringed are again, hunky-dory?