Why Mitt Romney Endangers American Lives

Four Americans are dead in Libya, including the U.S. ambassador to the country, after a rocket attack that came amidst protests against a cheesy, poorly produced, anti-Prophet-Muhammed film that was filmed in the United States and went viral in the Muslim world.

While the rest of the country mourned the dead and decried the act of violence, Mitt Romney went on the attack, accusing President Obama of apologizing to terrorists.

What actually happened is far different.

The American embassy in Cairo, feeling the heat from Muslim reaction to the film, distanced themselves from the film, stating in a tweet: "U.S. Embassy condemns religious incitement." That caught some flack for seemingly going against the right to free speech. They later wrote, "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Now, the American embassy is doing exactly what its supposed to do. It is not the embassy's job to explain "sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me," to a populace that for decades was thrown in jail or murdered for proclaiming unpopular beliefs. It is the embassy's job to smooth things over. Their job is to avoid violence in the interest of maintaining diplomacy. The filmmakers certainly had the "universal right" to make their film, however, free speech is not without consequences. If you're Michael Richards and do stand up, and respond to African-American hecklers with liberal use of the n-word, you'd better get ready for the backlash. And as we know, unflattering portrayals of Mohammed (who, according to the Muslim religion, isn't even allowed to be represented in a positive image), often result in protests, which lead some extreme factions to violence.

It's simple cause and effect--insult Mohammed, incite violence. No one's saying violence is the appropriate response to hate speech. We're just saying, it happens. So if you don't want people to die, you should probably resist the urge to insult the prophet.

Now, lets say someone in this country does decide to insult Mohammed. It's their right, sure. But the U.S. government shouldn't be insulting Mohammed, the same way they shouldn't insult Jesus, or Moses, or any other religious leader. The problem is, when an American citizen's insult travels around the globe (the way Pastor Terry Jone's Koran burning did, or the way our soldiers pissing on the Koran did), America's enemies use it as a weapon against America. "See!" they tell their followers. "This is America. Not the home of the free, but the home of hate. They hate Islam! They want to destroy you!" They publicly screen that crappy anti-Mohammed video, and say to those inclined to listen, "This is what America is about! This is what America represents!" They take the action of one individual or one small group and use it to represent what America is all about.

To respond to those extremists, it is necessary for a representative of the United States to stand up and say, "No, this isn't what we're about. We believe in free speech, and that means, sometimes, one of our citizens says or films something idiotic and offensive, like the hit ABC show 'Bachelor Pad.' But we as a country also believe in the freedom of religion. And we believe that it is irresponsible, and wrong, to use one's right of free speech to denigrate and shame another person's freedom of religion."

That's what the embassy said. That's what Hillary Clinton said: "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

It's a statement aimed at refuting what the extremists say-- that the actions by a very few represent the feelings of the greater whole. It condemns violence, while making it clear that perceived cause of the violence--religious intolerance--is not what America represents. In short: "What the extremists tell you is a lie."

Mitt Romney, clearly, does not believe this. Instead of standing up for the majority of Americans who don't think all Muslims are terrorists, he's standing up for the few that do. Instead of telling the world that this hateful, anti-Islam video doesn't represent the best of America, he's saying to the world that it does. Hate, according to Mitt Romney, is America's greatest export. And he's damn proud of it.

"It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," Romney said.

Except, well, of any of the American representatives commenting on this attack, it's Romney who gives the terrorists what they want. Instead of telling the extremists, "Your justification for this violence is bogus," he's AGREED with them. He's saying America doesn't have to distance itself from the film the extremists used as an example of America's intolerance. Rather, he's arguing that America should defend and support what the film had to say! It's free speech, so Romney will stand by it to the bitter end, even if that speech was made by an Egpytian Coptic Christian with a criminal history who clearly intended for the film to cause violence.

As far as the international stage is concerned, it seems that Romney and Obama have very different ideas about how a President should behave. While Obama believes a President should show America is better than what its enemies say it is, Romney believes a President should show America is EXACTLY what its enemies say it is.

You decide which is better. You decide which action really sides with the terrorists.

Obama vs. Romney: Convention Speech Proposals

The Republican National Convention and Democratic National Convention are now over, and as Brian Williams reminded NBC viewers tonight, there are 60 days left before the Presidential election. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have delivered their longest speeches to date, presenting their best pitch to the nation.

But that's the thing. Both speeches were a lot of talk. A lot of rhetoric, patriotism, jokes, bluster, criticism of the other party that, depending on your viewpoint, could be deemed more opinion than fact. Truth is, while I might listen to every word, lets face it... a lot of Americans just get caught up in the whirlwind of language.

So I took the text of both the RNC and DNC keynotes, and cut out the patriotism, the bluster, the vague promises, the long-winded biographies, and biased lines about the other party’s views. I took out the things they promised NOT to do (because it's easy to say what you won't do, what you WILL do instead is a harder question to answer.) I was also careful to take out everything that seemed like more of a statement of principle or belief rather than a statement of definitive action. Because ultimately, despite wildly different belief systems, what happens in the next four years will come down to ACTIONS, not words. What actions do Romney and Obama find so important that they felt the need to mention them so clearly in their most important speech?

Behold, the specific, actionable proposals made by each candidate in their convention speeches--in their own words--edited only for grammar and readability.

Obama:

-Cut taxes for middle-class families and small businesses. 

-Reward companies that open new plants, train new workers and create new jobs in the United States of America. 

-Open new acres for oil and gas exploration.

-Invest in wind and solar and clean coal.   

-Commit to Israel’s security and pursue peace.

-Use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work rebuilding roads and bridges; schools and runways.

-Reform the tax code so that it’s simple and asks the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on incomes over $250,000. 

Romney:

-Take full advantage of North American oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables.

-When it comes to the school your child will attend, every parent should have a choice.

-Reduce taxes on business. Simplify regulations.

-Repeal Obamacare.

-Protect the sanctity of life.

-Honor the institution of marriage.

So there you have it. It seems a lot simpler once you get rid of the fluff, no?

Both Romney and Obama want to increase the amount of energy produced in the U.S., but Obama believes renewable energy should be a large part of that, Romney believes that traditional energy resources like coal, oil, gas and nuclear power are the only way to go--he pointedly mocked the fight against global warming.

Obama wants to reduce taxes on the middle class while raising taxes on people making over $250,000. Romney wants to reduce taxes on businesses.

Obama wants to reward companies that keep jobs in America (presumably through tax breaks or incentives). Romney wants to "simplify regulations," which, while vague, indicates that he's up for repealing current laws intended to protect the environment, assure public safety, or limit potential fraud or financial abuse-- laws that might hurt a company's profit margin.

Obama wants to use money saved by ending the wars to "nation build" at home and thereby stimulate construction jobs. Romney wants to save money by ending "Obamacare." While he says he'll replace it, in this speech he's vague about what that replacement will be.

Obama made it a point to say commitment to Israel and the peace process must not waver. Romney made it a point to promote a voucher program to give families a choice of which school to send their child to.

Finally, Romney was very clear and emphatic near the end of his speech when he spoke on social issues. A law against abortion (although he did not say whether it would contain an exemption for rape victims or anything else). A law against gay marriage.

These are the things the candidates were most unequivocal about... and they seem a good indicator of what actions they would take while in office.