OpinionTrending Commentary

Romney-Obama: Two Speeches, Two Views

Despite recognition by virtually everyone but the Oval Office that the White House trumpeted anti-Islamist video trailer has next to nothing to do with violence in the Middle East, and that it is simply a re-election distraction ploy that deflects blame from Obama’s failed foreign policy; in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly Barack Obama continued to blame the video for Mid-East riots and violent demonstrations.

Obama used that narrative as the backdrop for saying there is “No speech that justifies mindless violence.  There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents” and “No video that justifies an attack on an embassy”.  Obama also said that the video “is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.”


How is the exercise of free speech by an American an insult to America?  Is Obama ever going to make a similar statement about artists who dip Crucifixes in urine?

Obama also said “I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that.”

So Obama recognizes that UN member states do not share American views on the protection of free speech by the U.S. Constitution.

What is Obama doing about it?  Recognizing that Islamists will continue to launch military assaults upon American embassies and consulates around the world while he continues to lay the blame at the feet of Americans exercising their right to free speech?

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, giving an address before the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual conference, made the case for the inherent strength and endurance of the private sector and the dignity derived by individuals reaping the rewards of their own labor.

“That must be at the heart of our effort to help people build economies that can create jobs for people, young and old alike. Work builds self-esteem. It transforms minds from fantasy and fanaticism to reality and grounding.  Work will not long tolerate corruption nor quietly endure the brazen theft by government of the product of hardworking men and women.”

Romney said if he wins the White House, he will “remind the world of the goodness and bigness of the American heart.  I will never apologize for America. I believe that America has been one of the greatest forces for good the world has ever known.  We can hold that knowledge in our hearts with humility and unwavering conviction.”


Two candidates for one high office offer distinctly differing world views.

Obama’s view is to preach moral equivalence while shrinking from defense of the U.S. Constitution and the God given rights it protects for all Americans.

Romney’s is to stand up for America and its economic system while celebrating the prosperity and good America has both created and symbolized for over two centuries.

Does the distinction need to be drawn more clearly?


Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Related Articles


  1. The distinction between the two candidates could not be any more clear. The president preaches an old and tired policy that has been espoused by Woodrow Wilson and every progressive president since then. Their quote would make Pres. Kennedy spin in the grave: “ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you”.
    We simply cannot expect to reelect Pres. Obama can see anything different in the economy. It will get worse. What the president simply doesn’t seem to understand is that wealth can be grown the pie can be made larger and we can all have our share. His redistribution of wealth policy is an abject failure. In every country where it’s been tried the pie has effectively been shrunk. How soon we forget that in Stalin’s Russia when he co-opted the country’s farms the farmers failed to produce as much as they did when they were working for themselves thus leading to a great famine which killed more people in the Soviet Union than Hitler did during the Holocaust.
    I strongly urge you to avoid another Holocaust in the United States and vote Pres. Obama and his Chicago thugs out of the White House. And please don’t say “oh it can’t happen here…” Four more years of Pres. Obama will make the wealth flee out of this country and seek other places where you can get an honest return for your investment!
    Good article Michael!

    1. Actually the economy is improving and the booming economy of the 1990’s was proof that a stable middle class is essential to growth. Who, exactly, is supposed to pay the bulk of taxes? The middle class? It has to come from somewhere especially considering our country’s infrastructure (roads, etc) is failing. Obama is not a socialist. Please look up the definition. Won’t matter. He’s leading in every imaginable poll. It’ll be fun watching the tea party moan and wail when it happens.

      1. Who is supposed to pay the bulk of taxes? The top 5% currently pay 40% of the revenue to the IRS. The top 10% pay 70% of the revenue to the IRS. Meanwhile, 47% of the people pay ZERO income tax.

        The “rich”, those who invest in and/or start new businesses…the ones who HIRE middle class workers, are in the top 5-10% who pay the overwhelming bulk of taxes. Tax them more, and they’ll move their money to Hong Kong or somewhere else with a more favorable tax rate.

        Then, revenues to the IRS go DOWN, not up, investments in America shrivel up and unemployment increases, leaving the middle class to suffer.

        Great plan…NOT!

      2. BTW, the economic growth in the 1990 happened AFTER the Republican House and Senate cut the capital gains tax rates…and Democrat Bill Clinton signed it into law.

        Tax revenues to the IRS rose, the economy boomed, and unemployment bottomed out.

        THAT was a good plan. However, the capital gains tax rate reduction happened because of Republicans. Clinton gets the credit because he was in the White House.

        Facts are stubborn things.

Back to top button