At what Point will we be Honest?

One of the more natural weak aspects of humans is that we are swayed by appearance in today's political world. One of the first factors is "do they have the look"? They have done many studies and concluded that better looking people, with similar work habits and abilities will usually go much further in their careers than an average to homely looking person. It may seem shallow, but it is true.

Robert Bork, by his abilities could have been perhaps the greatest Supreme Court Judge in History. But his looks were so odd that the procedure in choosing him was hampered by his weird looks. The Democrats had the numbers, but America tended to shy away from him because of his looks and demeanor. Had he looked handsome and been a little more "charming", it would have been much harder for the Democrats to stop his nomination. The Package was great inside, but people did not look at that, They could not get past the exterior, which made the slander by the Democrats more believable to the public. They did not care, and America lost out.

In today's society, people are put down mentally if they are overweight, not attractive. The perception is that they are lazy, perhaps less intelligent. Just not as comforting to have around in important positions as a handsome man or beautiful woman.

Only you can decide how deep your rules are for what attracts you. For me it is the track records of people. In doing that you need to take into consideration the circumstances. For example if an athlete runs a very fast sprint time such as in the 40 yard dash. 4.5 seconds is a very good time in the distance. Say this person has continually run a 4.3 dash. Their reputation is of a speed burner. But one week they run a 4.55 and in another competition a few weeks after that they run a 4.5...the consensus all of a sudden is that the athlete is not a 4.3 40 yard dash runner.

However if they took the time to look at what was going on, they would see that it had rained both times, making the track slippery, and thus impeding the runner.

America is a sinking ship. The debt spending is beyond anyone's comprehension. Unemployment is at highs like the great depression. People are losing their homes at all time records. The values are plummeting. Each day it gets worse and worse. It is obvious this is President Obama's economy. Yet all he does is blame someone else. That is not leadership.

The Tea Party marches on. They stand up for America. Their words are to return America back to a country that adheres to the Constitution, which is written to guide it in its daily workings. How it is supposed to be governed. Yet, they do not pay attention to the fact that the runner had to run in adverse conditions. They just proclaim that that candidate is not speed burner they were once proclaimed to be. There is a spot on the runners record, but are not honest enough to see why. They watch everyone like a hawk and when something happens that they do not understand the circumstances, they bury them. Everyone is a Rino.

It gets back to how everything appears on the outside, without realizing what is really going on in the real arenas' and how those arenas are run. They ignore due process, and even understanding it..the pursuit goes on for the eternal perfect beauty.


I support Mitt Romney because against a veto proof legislature he balanced a budget by cutting programs and not raising any taxes.

I support him because he took a state 50th in unemployment to 11th in one term.


I support him because he has always been against Federal Socialized Medicine, and is the first Candidate to say that he will give waivers to all 50 states until ObamaCare can be repealed in the House and Senate.

I support him because he is against Cap and Trade legislation, stating it would be an economic disaster.

I support his mandates as the history tells us the founding fathers used them too. Read Here about the truth.

I support him because he is for drilling in America

I support him because he has a plan to fix the economy.Check it out

I support him because he is strong against Illegal immigration (check it out)

I support him because he fought hard as a pro life Governor( check out his vetoes)

I support him for his Tax record (check it out)


A close look shows a very conservative man who happens to be a great problem solver that is being smeared by the good old boys.

I support him on his desire to help his state with bad Health Care issues. Some of the things he vetoed that would have made it even better were vetoed back and left in. Here are the pros and cons by Mike Sage:

First of all, most people don't know that the MA health care solution wasn't something the government just sat around and dreamed up as an ideal health care plan. It was essentially an emergency solution to a funding shortfall caused by the federal government pulling $384 million out of the MA health care budget.

Drastic measures had to be taken, compromises had to be made on both sides of the political spectrum, and it was a matter of making the best of a bad situation. That being said, here are the pros and cons of the MA plan, as I see them:

Pros:

* It did address the $384 million health care funding shortfall in 2005.

* It did make MA the top state in the nation for percentage of insured citizens.

* It did promote private health insurance solutions, a private sector intiative.
* It did encourage the ability to shop between insurance providers for the best deals.

* Whatever penalties and fees were attached were relatively low.

* A 2010 poll showed that 67% of MA residents were satisfied with it.

* It's never been ruled unconstitutional (versus Obamacare, which has been ruled unconstitutional by two federal appeals judges.)

* It did not involve any sort of a government "takeover" of any part of the healthcare or insurance industries.

* It was designed to be revenue neutral, requiring no taxes be raised.

Cons:

* It included tax penalties for failing to obtain an insurance plan. Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan which was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax, a provision that Romney vetoed, but was overridden on.

* It gave too much authority to the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, also known as the Health Connector.

* It provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level

* The law also partially-subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the federal poverty level.

Many changes were made to the MA health care reform act after Mitt Romney left office. In October 2006, January 2007, and November 2007, bills were enacted that amended and made technical corrections to the statute (Chapters 324 and 450 of the Acts of 2006, and chapter 205 of the Acts of 2007).

Wow! Common sense and a little truth go a long way to clear up misconceptions.

Would a Pro Abortion Governor Do this?

"To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives: "... To those who believe that life begins at conception, the morning-after pill can destroy the human life that was created at the moment of fertilization. "Furthermore, this legislation would make the morning-after pill available to young girls without any restrictions on age... this bill undermines the state's parental consent laws and represents a departure from the public consensus that minor children should not act without parental involvement in these matters." Boston Globe - A letter to legislators on the veto (July 26, 2005) "Romney announced that he would oppose any legislation that would allow for the creation of new human embryos for scientific experiments... "emotional framing of the [embryonic-stem-cell-research] debate is disingenuous for a few reasons, the first being that the governor has presented a compromise position: In a non-ideal (from the pro-life vantage point) but pragmatic compromise move, Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures. But proponents of embryonic-stem-cell research refuse to meet him there. They want it all. "As Romney put it in a press conference on Thursday, ''All of the rhetoric has been, 'We are throwing away embryos - surplus embryos - that could be used for stem-cell research and that makes no sense.'... And now, now that I've said, 'Ok, I support that,' now [the other side says], 'No, that's insufficient. How could you possibly limit it to that?' Well, that's what they've been asking for.'' "In other words, Romney has called their bluff... "Romney has started out of the gates playing it straight. ''I am in favor of stem-cell research. I am not in favor of creating new human embryos through cloning,'' he told the press on Thursday. Whether honesty will be enough to get him a coalition that will support a ban on cloning or sustain a veto of the Harvard wish list remains to be seen. The implications of failure, however, are crystal clear." National Review - Romney vs. Harvard (Feb. 11, 2005)

Glenn and Helen Show - Jan 10, 2007 Romney reviews abortion record the week he left office  (1 minute) Romney  2008 Mitt Romney's Record on Abortion Gives judicial criteria, states record What he will fight for (is in favor of)

"The state Department of Public Health has determined that Catholic and other privately-run hospitals in Massachusetts can opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections, despite a new law that requires all hospitals who treat such victims to provide them with emergency contraception. "The new law, which was passed overwhelmingly by the Legislature this summer over the objections of Governor Mitt Romney, takes effect next week... " ''We're very disappointed that the Romney administration is not honoring the intent of the Legislature, who voted overwhelmingly to protect the health of rape victims," said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts... "The Department of Public Health decision is welcome news for Catholic hospitals who do not provide emergency contraception and feared that the new law would make them do so. (In 2004, NARAL surveyed the 71 hospitals in Massachusetts with emergency rooms and found that one in six did not offer emergency contraception to rape victims. Among the nine Catholic hospitals included in the survey, NARAL found that six did not offer it.) "Judy Mackey, a spokeswoman for Saint Vincent Hospital in Worcester, which does not offer the morning-after pill, said it would have been difficult for the hospital to navigate between state law and Catholic tenets." Boston Globe - Private hospitals exempt on pill law (Dec 7, 2005) “Governor Mitt Romney said yesterday that he will reject the Legislature's bill supporting stem cell research, urging lawmakers to rewrite the measure to prohibit scientists from cloning and to remove a passage that redefines when life begins. “Romney had said previously that he planned to veto the bill, but for now he has decided to return the measure to the Legislature with four amendments... “The move is the latest twist in a battle between Romney and the Legislature over the future of stem cell research in the state. The governor has echoed the hopes of many that stem cell research may one day find treatments for diseases, and he shares the conviction that the research is important to the state, with its heavy concentration of scientists and the biotechnology industry. But the governor has split with a large majority in the Legislature over cloning human cells, something Harvard scientists are planning to do. “Although the Legislature passed the measure by a veto-proof margin, the amendments keep the issue alive and shine a light on what the governor believes are other flaws in the bill, particularly its assertion that life does not begin until an embryo is implanted in a uterus... “In a letter outlining his position, to be delivered to lawmakers today, the governor said the bill would change a 1974 law defining an unborn child as ''the individual human life in existence and developing from fertilization until birth." “In the letter, the governor calls this ''a matter of profound moral and ethical consequence," adding that it ''implicates a much broader array of issues than the relatively discrete question of whether stem cell research should be permitted." ” Boston Globe - Romney urges changes to stem cell bill, Adds amendment to prohibit cloning - May 12, 2005 “Mitt Romney can probably hear his echo when he gathers those who are standing with him on this fight, but that's not stopping him from trying. Instead of an outright veto, on Thursday morning Romney sent back to the statehouse his edits on a bill that would legalize embryonic-stem-cell research and cloning in Massaschusetts. That the bill greenlights experimentation on human embryos — and allows for their creation for this purpose — is devastating enough. But where the legislation gets even worse is in the finer print, where the legislature seeks to change the state's definition of human life. “Since 1974, an "unborn child" in Massachusetts has been "the individual human life in existence and developing from fertilization until birth." Barring a Romney victory on this point, the legislature is poised to change the law to define human life as beginning at the "implantation of the embryo in the uterus." In a letter sent to the legislature this morning, Romney calls this statutory change "completely unnecessary." ... “For legislators who reluctantly signed onto the "therapeutic" cloning go-ahead, influenced by the emotional testimony on its behalf calling the legislation a panacea ("It's about saving lives and helping children."), that's an uncomfortable position — changing the definition of life, on top of everything else. So Romney, sending the bill back now, is giving them another chance to do a little clean-up. “Romney's protests against the bill — in the form of four proposed amendments — otherwise represent his consistent opposition to the cloning efforts in Massachusetts. For instance, in a guaranteed no-go amendment, Romney proposes to ban cloning, striking too much at the heart of the bill to have any mileage, unfortunately. But you can't blame the man for trying. His two other amendments would hold back prospects for “human embryo farming” by prohibiting embryos from being fertilized for research purposes, and limit the compensation women would get from "donating" eggs for research in an attempt to avoid exploitation (women’s selling their eggs as a viable income source)... “To anyone whose been watching the debate, however, Romney has proven to be one of the more clear-thinking and honest pols on this heated topic: Even if his position hasn't been ideal, he has made a valiant effort and shed some light on the opposition's endgame. “Especially for those concerned with the advancement of a cause — protecting the dignity of human life — Romney's actions deserve to be looked at outside of the 2008 periscope occasionally. Romney has engaged himself in taking on human cloning. And though the battle's all but lost in the Bay State at this point, legislatively, pro-lifers who also happen to be cynics or are otherwise ticked off at Romney (for legitimate reasons in some cases, such as his position on frozen embryos or his past remarks on abortion), should consider that he is currently fighting an uphill battle while basically carrying their banner. And he is doing so articulately, with a national audience paying attention (which on stem-cells and cloning, are no small things).” National Review - The Meaning of Life - May 12, 2005 "Besides Romney’s veto of the “emergency contraception bill”, Sturgis said he fought well against embryonic stem-cell research/human cloning, and had tried to veto the legislature’s bill, offering amendments that among other things would have protected the definition of life as beginning at conception." “I certainly could not have written the amendments better than that myself.” (Marie Sturgis, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life) Life Site News - The Romney Report - May 7, 2007 “BOSTON, May 11 - Hoping to make a recently passed bill on stem cell research more restrictive, Gov. Mitt Romney said Wednesday that he would ask the legislature to amend the bill by changing the definition of when life begins and by excluding a type of embryonic stem cell research that he opposes. “The governor said in an interview that rather than veto the bill immediately, he would ask the legislature on Thursday to adopt four amendments. The legislature approved the bill overwhelmingly, by votes of 119 to 38 in the House and 34 to 2 in the Senate, enough to override a veto. “One of Mr. Romney's amendments, seeking to ban the creation of embryos specifically for research, is an argument that he has been making for months... “The other three are new proposals. One would undo the legislature's definition of when life begins... “"To change the definition of when life begins is a very significant moral and ethical change," Mr. Romney said... “Another proposal involves tightening what the governor says is a loophole in the bill's language.” New York Times - New Limits Are Proposed for Research on Stem Cells - May 12, 2005 "Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed a bill Friday that would expand embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts, but the measure has more than enough support in the Legislature to override the governor's veto. "Romney supports research using adult stem cells or leftover frozen embryos from fertility clinics. But he opposes the legislation because it would also allow therapeutic cloning, in which scientists create a cloned embryo to harvest stem cells in hopes of using them to treat and cure disease. "Critics have said the practice amounts to creating human life only to destroy it. " ''It is wrong to allow science to take an assembly line approach to the production of human embryos, the creation of which will be rooted in experimentation and destruction,'' Romney said in a letter to lawmakers explaining the veto. "The Republican governor had appealed to the Democrat-controlled Legislature to amend its original bill and ban the cloning measure. He also urged lawmakers to include language defining the beginning of life as the moment of conception, banning the production of human embryos for other research purposes, and limiting compensation to women who donate their eggs... "Stem cell research has become an issue nationally as well, as a bill lifting limits on stem cell research makes its way through Congress. "The House approved the bill, which does not allow therapeutic cloning, by a 238-194 vote on Tuesday, and the Senate is expected to take it up. President Bush has promised a veto. " ''What our Legislature has done goes well beyond what was done in Washington,'' Romney said." Fox News - Mass. Governor Vetoes Stem-Cell Bill (May 27, 2005) "A number of conservatives also have cheered him on in his war with the state legislature over embryonic-stem-cell research, even though there are differences between his position and the one held by most pro-lifers. The issue first came up last fall, when Democrats offered a bill to permit the cloning of human embryos for scientific research. At a meeting in the governor's office, Harvard professor Douglas Melton described the science. ''I felt uncomfortable,'' says Romney. ''I thought of Brave New World or The Matrix, with hundreds of thousands of little lives being made and then being crushed.'' So Romney announced that he would not support a law that allowed the creation of human life for the purpose of destroying it. He used funds from his campaign account to make his case in radio ads. He did this even though his wife suffers from multiple sclerosis and arguably would benefit from the most aggressive stem-cell research conceivable." National Review - Manitee Mitt (Dec 14, 2005) "Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, said Thursday his administration's new restrictions on stem cell research are aimed at heading off an ''Orwellian'' future. "The state's Department of Public Health this week issued regulations banning the creation of embryos for research purposes." Newsmax - Mitt Romney Warns of 'Orwellian' Stem Cell Research (Aug. 31, 2006) "The next governor will also face pressure to address a Romney administration program that funnels about $800,000 annually into abstinence-only sex education lessons in public schools." Boston Globe - For new governor, divisive issues loom Governor Romney is also an advocate of parental control over what their children are taught in school sex education and has emphasized that in the press: "Governor Mitt Romney, an opponent of same-sex marriage, said: ''Schools under our parental-notification law are required to inform parents . . . of matters relating to human sexuality that may be taught in the classroom and to allow that child to be out of the classroom for that period of the education.'' " Boston Globe - Arrested father had point to make, Disputed school's lesson on diversity - Apr 29, 2005 Note: Governor Romney passed a medical plan that reduces the number of people who receive state funded abortions. His views, including his view of always being against funding of abortions, are listed in the next section (History of views section). Contrary to blogs and campaign claims, he did not fund abortions. His record regarding funding is noted below.

Abortion Funding: With the endless ability to invent and spread rumors, or inaccurately skewed or false stories, there is no way to effectively address every misleading or inaccurate claim. Hopefully most are addressed through the presentation of well documented, accurate information with links to an abundance of original sources, and backed by the assertions of prominent, trustworthy individuals, as done here. However, one inaccurate and misleading claim not addressed above that deserves to be addressed, since many individuals have tried to promote it and it got widespread attention when presidential candidates picked up on it and repeated it, is the following:

Romney Abortion funding record

“The Annenberg Foundation's nonpartisan FactCheck.org just delivered a powerful rebuke to the basic honesty of a McCain mailer used in South Carolina (and defended by Sen. McCain after reporters called it to his attention). “In particular, FactCheck.org called McCain's assertion that Mitt Romney "provided" taxpayer-funded abortions "simply false." “ "Romney never pushed for taxpayer funding for abortions. The state law he signed provided greatly expanded state-subsidized health insurance for low-income residents," Factcheck.org explained. An independent body -- the Commonwealth Connector -- not Romney, decided that abortions would be covered (a move required by two Massachusetts state supreme court rulings).” Townhall.com - article by Maggie Gallagher - Jan 16, 2008 ["Maggie Gallagher is president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (www.iMAPP.org), whose motto is "strengthening marriage for a new generation" and whose unique mission is research and public education on ways that law and public policy can strengthen marriage as a social institution." - marriagedebate.com] So what is the truth of what Gov. Romney did with respect to taxpayer funding of abortions? Romney speaks for himself in response to brazen attacks on the subject by another presidential candidate: “The Massachusetts Citizens for Life just several months ago brought me in and gave me an award for my public leadership on the basis of being pro-life. So the best way you can learn about someone is not by asking their opponent, but ask them, “What do you believe, and what’s your view?” And I am pro-life. And virtually every part of that ad is inaccurate. “I’m pro-life. My positions are pro-life. The idea that, for instance, I’ve been in favor of taxpayer funding of abortion; that’s wrong. I oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. In our state we passed a medical plan that reduces the number of people who received state funding for abortion. So the ad is just completely wrong.” NY Times - Transcript of The Republicans Candidate Debate - Aug 5, 2007

HISTORY OF PRO-CHOICE AND PRO-LIFE VIEWS:

He had vexed the local press with his more conservative views, and as one magazine explained, in that liberal state where democrats are estimated to outnumber republicans by nearly four to one, “There's a complicated dance Republicans [usually] must do to be competitive in Massachusetts... they must never vex the editorialists at the Boston Globe by violating the most sacred liberal taboos, especially the [Globe's] prohibition against nonliberal stands on abortion”. [7] It was in that environment, where he answered attacks and questions in the 1994 and 2002 races, particularly in his answer to a 1994 debate question [8], in which he is often quoted by smear artists. Their representation that he believed in abortion, or has no belief, but just flips and flops, is a mischaracterization that many leading conservatives and evangelicals have refuted. [9] Efforts to mischaracterize him include leaving out relevant parts to quotes, not providing links to full quotes, and excluding pertinent information such as what follows: In the 1994 senate race, he came out and said he was against funding for abortion, "except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother's health." And he received "the Massachusetts Citizens for Life endorsement because he supported parental-consent laws, opposed taxpayer-funded abortion or mandatory abortion coverage under a national health insurance plan and was against the Freedom of Choice Act that would have codified Roe". [10] In his 2002 race, when the legality of partial-birth abortions were being considered, Mitt Romney came out in opposition to those being legal. [11] He also differed from his democrat challenger for governor who "proposed changing state law to let 16-year-old girls end their pregnancies without parental consent" by stating he would veto such a bill. In fact, "none of the major pro-abortion groups would have anything to do with him." [12] What he did say, in a democratic state where most voters wanted the ability to have abortion preserved, was that he would not try to change their abortion laws, which promise he kept. [13]  In fact, his official campaign platform of what he pledged to do with regards to abortion stated "As governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change." [14] Several times he stated that in terms that he will respect, protect or preserve a woman's right to choose, and he expressed the pro-choice viewpoint that people should be able to make their own choice, even in his platform. But he "promised that if elected, I'd call a truce — a moratorium, if you will,... I vowed to veto any legislation that sought to change the existing rules." [15] A pro-life advocate who had spent the last few years directing two programs for a nonprofit pro-life organization stated: “Romney's pledge not to change abortion law was absolutely brilliant. The political realities of Massachusetts make pro-life policy victories virtually impossible in the heavily Democratic legislature. By refusing to change abortion laws, Romney launched a strategic effort to keep the commonwealth from further liberalizing abortion policy, including the age of parental consent proposal.” [16] The California Republican Party Chairman described Romney's approach this way: he has the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. [17] Because of that approach and his personal views against abortion, in 2005, a former campaign staffer said he thought Romney was faking a pro-choice stance but was pro-life. [18] Romney disagreed. [19] Although when he ran as governor in 2002 he again indicated he did not want to be known as pro-choice [20] (as one who described himself as personally pro-life) [20b], he later acknowledged that his position as a candidate was effectively pro-choice, and that he was wrong in taking that position. [21] Although when campaigning to the pro-choice electorate he reiterated his commitment to not to take away their abortion-rights, his position was moderately pro-choice, and he was viewed as a social moderate. [22] And he did want to hold the line on social limits as his platform indicated and his subsequent actions as governor demonstrated. After all, prior to being elected governor, he publicly stated that although abortion is a choice, it is the wrong choice. [23] As Governor, when new pro-abortion laws came along, which would result in or encourage more abortions, he opposed them. [24]  He backed up his pledge to veto any effort to expand access to RU-486, the abortion pill, with the even stronger action of vetoing a bill expanding the use of a morning-after pill. [25] He also created and funded a program to encourage abstinence before marriage, which could effectively reduce abortions. [26] And when he encountered the cheapening of life and the encouraging of funding for abortions to aid stem cell research, he thought seriously on the matter, and his views about abortion deepened, resulting in consistent pro-life actions on stem cell research. [27] And so he was the first republican governor who had served in a liberal state in which he had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage, and yet he has a solid, pro-life, conservative record. There was no flipping, unless one views his deepening conservative views as a flip, which were more moderate than extreme in the amount of shift, and there was certainly no flop! [28] (The sum-total of his shift was saying he personally opposed abortion and that it should have restrictions, but be safe and legal, in 1994, to fighting the expansion of the use of abortion throughout his term in office in 2003-7 and taking solid pro-life positions. As a director at a pro-life non-profit organization stated, he went from being a mildly pro-choice senate candidate to a firmly pro-life governor-- see article in link for reference [16])

FOOTNOTES:

» Full reference material of quotes with links

PRO-LIFE LEADERS STATEMENTS:

Dr. John Willke— • President of Life Issues Institute • Founder, 22 year President- International Right to Life Federation, • Co-founder, 10 year (past) President- National Right to Life Committee "The doctor known as the founder of the pro-life movement has endorsed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination... " “Unlike other candidates who only speak to the importance of confronting the major social issues of the day, Governor Romney has a record of action in defending life,” Dr. Willke said. “Every decision he made as governor was on the side of life. I know he will be the strong pro-life president we need in the White House, Governor Romney is the only candidate who can lead our pro-life and pro-family conservative movement to victory in 2008.”... "Dr. Willke, helped found the National Right To Life Committee and served for 10 years as its president. Dr. Willke serves as president of the Life Issues Institute, Inc., and president of the International Right to Life Federation. "Dr. Willke a physician, had a daily radio program that was carried on over 300 radio stations for 20 years. His one-minute radio comments, entitled "Life Jewels," were carried on over 750 stations in English and 300 more in Spanish. He has written eleven books, and is a lecturer and a frequent television and radio show guest. His works have been published in 32 languages, and he and his wife Barbara have lectured in 76 countries." Newsmax - Oct 22, 2007 (See also the following link for his credentials) http://www.lifeissues.org/willke.html National Right to Life Political Action Committee (PAC) statement: "National Right to Life also appreciates the pro-life position taken in this presidential campaign by former governor Mitt Romney." http://www.nrlpac.org/ - April 2008 (archived page — data on original link expired) Marie Sturgis— Executive Director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life "It’s a view echoed by Marie Sturgis, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, who says, “Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts. His actions concerning life issues have been consistent and he has been helpful down the line for us in the Bay State.” " National Review - Jan 10, 2007 Kris Mineau— President of Massachusetts Family Institute "Mineau is among those Massachusetts social conservatives who are grateful to have had Romney in the statehouse... “For the four years of his administration, Governor Romney provided strong leadership on key conservative social issues — whether it was politically expedient to do so or not.” He tells National Review Online, “I believe Mitt Romney has done an excellent job in defending traditional family values in Massachusetts despite an extremely hostile legislature and judiciary, not to mention an attorney general and secretary of state who both opposed everything the governor stood for.” ... "Mineau is among the signatories of a letter expected to be released on Thursday by a coalition of “organizations dedicated to fighting for the pro-family agenda in Massachusetts.” ... The letter, which organizers provided NRO with drafts of Wednesday night, defends the governor’s record and praises his staff for their commitment to affirming a culture of life, protecting traditional marriage, and defending religious liberty. Among those signing the letter are Harvard University law professor Mary Ann Glendon (who also serves as the president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences in Rome)." National Review - Jan 10, 2007 " “On marriage and cloning, he has provided aggressive leadership as a positive, pro-family governor,” says Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute." National Review - Dec 14, 2005 • Thomas A. Shields— Chairman, Coalition for Family and Marriage • James Morgan— President, Institute for Family Development • Joseph Reilly— President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life • Rita Covelle— President, Morality in Media Massachusetts • Kris Mineau— President of Massachusetts Family Institute • Other Massachusetts pro life leaders An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney (January 11, 2007): “As you know, Mitt Romney became the governor of our state in 2003. Since that time, we have worked closely with him... “Some press accounts and bloggers have described Governor Romney in terms we neither have observed nor can we accept. To the contrary, we, who have been fighting here for the values you also hold, are indebted to him and his responsive staff in demonstrating solid social conservative credentials by undertaking the following actions here in Massachusetts: “Staunchly defended traditional marriage. ... “Fought for abstinence education. In 2006, under Governor Romney's leadership, Massachusetts' public schools began to offer a classroom program on abstinence from the faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Promoting the program, Governor Romney stated, "I've never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventative health practice." “Affirmed the culture of life. Governor Romney has vetoed bills to provide access to the so-called "morning-after pill," which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not "in good conscience allow this bill to become law." ... “All of this may explain why John J. Miller, the national political reporter of National Review, has written that "a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment." “We are aware of the 1994 comments of Senate candidate Romney, which have been the subject of much recent discussion... they do not dovetail with the actions of Governor Romney from 2003 until now - and those actions have positively and demonstrably impacted the social climate of Massachusetts. “Since well before 2003, we have been laboring in the trenches of Massachusetts, fighting for the family values you and we share. It is difficult work indeed - not for the faint of heart. In this challenging environment, Governor Romney has proven that he shares our values, as well as our determination to protect them. “For four years, Governor Romney has been right there beside us, providing leadership on key issues - whether it was politically expedient to do so or not. He has stood on principle, and we have benefited greatly from having him with us. “It is clear that Governor Romney has learned much since 1994 - to the benefit of our movement and our Commonwealth. In fact, the entire nation has benefited from his socially conservative, pro-family actions in office. As we explained earlier, his leadership on the marriage issue helped prevent our nation from being plunged into even worse legal turmoil following the court decision that forced "gay marriage" upon our Commonwealth. “For that our country ought to be thankful. We certainly are.” An Open Letter Regarding Governor Mitt Romney - Jan 11, 2007 (For more info on the letter, read previous entry by clicking here) (For a prominent Massachusetts pro-life leader's statement on Romney, who did not sign the letter, click here) James C. Dobson— Chairman of Focus on the Family "Later in the day [Tuesday, February 5, 2008], Dobson told talk-show host Dennis Prager that he would vote for Romney if the former Massachusetts governor won the GOP nomination" Newsmax - Feb 6, 2008 (archived page — original link expired) "That commitment to not cast a ballot for someone who would end preborn life has not wobbled one whit: certainly not in Dr. Dobson’s indication he could vote for either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, the two candidates who unapologetically championed the pro-life cause" (Citizen Link, a website run by Focus on the Family) Citizen Link - Apr 10, 2008 (archived page — original link expired) » For more quotes from James Dobson, click here Michael Novak— Theologian, author, and former U.S. ambassador “More and more this year, among the other pro-life candidates, I have been attracted by Mitt Romney’s good and cheerful disposition, level-headedness, and unruffable temperament (if there is such an adjective)... The discipline he has shown in his career tells me that he is tough-minded... “I really admire several other Republican candidates for certain special qualities of their own... But I have gradually focused in on Mitt Romney as best representing what I would like to see in a President during the next four years... “I have watched Mitt Romney’s steadiness under fire, and I endorse it.” Townhall - Michael Novak - Dec 17, 2007 "Michael Novak received the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion (a million-dollar purse awarded at Buckingham Palace) in 1994, and delivered the Templeton address in Westminster Abbey." He has received many other awards. "Theologian, author, and former U.S. ambassador, Michael Novak currently holds the George Frederick Jewett Chair in Religion and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C." "His writings have appeared in every major Western language, and in Bengali, Korean and Japanese... Mr. Novak has written some 25 influential books in the philosophy and theology of culture". Mr. Novak is a highly respected Catholic. http://www.michaelnovak.net/Module/Site/Biography.aspx (For more statements by conservative and religious pro-life leaders, click here)

Congressional, Senate vs Governors

One of the more perplexing issues is found in trying to compare the true meanings in a candidates make up when looking at a Congressman or Senator versus the Executive position of a Governor.

The congress and the senate vote. Write legislation, but they mainly vote. You can look at them and say, see, see...they voted the right way or the wrong way. If the bill passes or not, the fact remains their vote either was part of something good, or it was part of something bad. It is there for all of the world to look back upon and see. Their part is much easier than the part of a Governor.

The Governor comes up with ideas and presents them, such as his budget etc. Executive is much different and is in many situations at the mercy of the legislative branch.

People seem to pay a whole lot less attention to the veto's that a Governor makes, than in the end result of what happens. They place everything at the feet of the Governor as if everything is his choice, his baby; and that simply is not true. Due process means eventually he is required to sign a bill after his veto's have become extended. Just like in a gun, it carries only so many shells.

Instead of being a "political cowboy", and running off at the mouth about a person, try getting some facts. Try understanding the situation. Did that Governor agree with signing something?

Did he have vetoes regarding the bill? A veto is not an end all. It doesn't ensure success against bad ideas and laws.Its not unusual to have a bill that has some good things and some bad things. It is very common. Another thing to consider is what type of legislature is it? Is it liberal dominated? Is it GOP friendly? That has everything to do with what happens. A liberal super majority can pretty much pass through what they want to and a Governor is hamstrung as to what he can do once his vetoes have been exhausted.

See how much sense it makes when you understand how things work? It is also why the idea of an excellent Governor who has fought for the right things makes so much more sense as a Presidential candidate than most Senators or Congressmen. They do not have the executive experience that is needed in the highest executive position in the land.   President of the United States.

Right now we have someone that had zero executive experience and was as jr Senator; and the horrible results show what inexperience will do. Of course, his use of failed Marxist policies do not help either. Do some real research. That doesn't include your favorite talk show hosts or websites. Take a look at the situations people are in and what they actually did. You will find in a lot of cases, people lamely labeled Rino's are not that at all. Intellectual honesty versus agenda driven spam. It makes all the difference in the world.

THINK FOR YOURSELF

The next time you use the word Rino, think about this:

Here is an excellent piece that I read and I use my blog here sometimes to have reference points to debate others with actual facts. Here is one of the better blogs I have seen written regarding using the word Rino:

Ronald Reagan: The Original RINO

27 Jun

Braden Pace

By Braden Pace


I recall sitting in one of my economics classes in college, listening to one of my professors tell us that he was going to teach us what it truly means to be a conservative. As a conservative, my ears perked up and I was ready to hear what he had to say on the matter. He asked us “Is George W. Bush a conservative?” My immediate mental knee-jerk reaction was “Of course he is! Bush is pro-life. He’s a tax-cutter. He’s a Republican, for crying out loud.” But I said nothing and listened to my professor point out that while Bush had given America some great tax cuts, he had done nothing to rein in spending. In fact, throughout his administration, Bush never really seemed to see any spending that he didn’t like. I was forced to admit: while Bush had done many things that I agreed with, his failure to address spending made him an economic moderate at best.

Studying into the matter further, I found out that Reagan wasn’t incredibly different in his economic approach. Reagan cut taxes and even managed to increase federal revenue. But in exchange for tax cuts, he failed to lower spending significantly enough to avoid increasing the national deficit. To his credit, this certainly wasn’t something that he was pleased with.

But in today’s current political climate, in which the anti-establishment wing of the GOP and many in the TEA party are decrying the massive deficits (which are far worse than the ones achieved by Bush or Reagan) racked up by President Obama, I begin to wonder: if a candidate with Reagan’s record were running for the Republican nomination for president in 2012, would he be successful or would he be excoriated by those who claim to be “Reagan conservatives?”

Abortion

In 1967, as governor of California, Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, which resulted in approximately two million abortions. Reagan later regretted this decision and became staunchly pro-life in his political career. However, he did appoint Rudy Giuliani, who is pro-choice, as U.S. Attorney. Therefore, an individual like Reagan could not have signed the recent Susan B. Anthony List pledge without violating it. In today’s climate, Reagan would most likely be labelled a flip-flopper by some conservatives for his record on abortion.

Reagan talks taxes during first term

Throughout his administration, Reagan achieved mostly great economic success. In fact, he actually managed to decrease the growth rate of federal spending from 4 percent to 2.5 percent. And overall, the unemployment rate went down from 7.1 percent to 5.5 percent. But unfortunately, the national debt nearly tripled under his administration, which Reagan later referred to as the “greatest disappointment” of his presidency. This begs the question: would someone with Reagan’s record today be criticized for the massive deficits incurred under his administration, in spite of his other important economic achievements?

Mandate for Healthcare?

In the United States,  as mandated by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act with some exceptions, hospitals are legally required to render care to an individual regardless of their legal status, citizenship or ability to pay. This legislation was signed into law by Reagan in 1986. In spite of its fortunate provision for those requiring care, it does create a certain complication for a free market system. From a
strictly economic point of view, this law legally requires a business to render a service regardless of the consumer’s ability to afford said service. The question is: would the noble intentions of a federal mandate be eclipsed by its effect on the free market system in the eyes of the anti-establishment crowd?

Reagan signs amnesty bill in 1986

Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act into law. Among other things, this legislation granted amnesty to three million illegal immigrants. This bill set a precedent that paved the way for bills like the McCain-Kennedy bill, which also would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Would a candidate like Reagan in 2011 be criticized by conservatives for his record on illegal immigration?

RINO or Bridge-builder?

This article isn’t meant to denigrate Reagan or belittle his legacy; far from it! As he is for many conservatives, Ronald Reagan is my favorite president. But one of the great things about Ronald Reagan is that he brought America together. He worked with a Democrat-controlled legislature to lower taxes and usher in a period of profound economic growth and stability.

From the depths of malaise in the Carter administration, Reagan managed to restore optimism and pride in America. He appealed to Republicans and Democrats alike, a characteristic which the Republican 2012 contenders should all note. The targets should be failed policies and troubling agendas, not friends and allies who agree with us on most of the issues. After all, Reagan himself once said that “the person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor.” He also believed in the eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

Someone with Reagan’s record today might be easily stuck with the moniker of “RINO,” meaning “Republican In Name Only.” But if I’m forced to choose between a RINO like Reagan and an Obama like Carter, I think I’ll take my chances with the RINO.

==============
About the author:  Braden is a conservative blogger from Montgomery, AL. He specializes in politics, movies and music.  Follow him on Twitter as @bradenpace, or visit his blog at bradenpace.wordpress.com

This blog was originally found Here.

Isn't  it amazing what some actual facts coupled with some wisdom will do in the arena of reality vs the reality of people living in the land of perfection and fantasy? I hope you think about what this person had to say. In the bible it says that the truth will set you free. What do you think half truths do? The put you in bondage's and lead you to believe things that just are not so.

The Why, and Pro's and Cons' of Massachusetts Health Care

I recently asked Mike Sage of MittWiki page that Mitt said there were good things and bad in the Massachusetts heath care...what were they. This is what he said:

First of all, most people don't know that the MA health care solution wasn't something the government just sat around and dreamed up as an ideal health care plan. It was essentially an emergency solution to a funding shortfall caused by the federal government pulling $384 million out of the MA health care budget.

Drastic measures had to be taken, compromises had to be made on both sides of the political spectrum, and it was a matter of making the best of a bad situation. That being said, here are the pros and cons of the MA plan, as I see them:

Pros:

* It did address the $384 million health care funding shortfall in 2005.

* It did make MA the top state in the nation for percentage of insured citizens.

* It did promote private health insurance solutions, a private sector intiative.
* It did encourage the ability to shop between insurance providers for the best deals.

* Whatever penalties and fees were attached were relatively low.

* A 2010 poll showed that 67% of MA residents were satisfied with it.

* It's never been ruled unconstitutional (versus Obamacare, which has been ruled unconstitutional by two federal appeals judges.)

* It did not involve any sort of a government "takeover" of any part of the healthcare or insurance industries.

* It was designed to be revenue neutral, requiring no taxes be raised.

Cons:

* It included tax penalties for failing to obtain an insurance plan. Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan which was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax, a provision that Romney vetoed, but was overridden on.

* It gave too much authority to the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, also known as the Health Connector.

* It provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level

* The law also partially-subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the federal poverty level.

Many changes were made to the MA health care reform act after Mitt Romney left office. In October 2006, January 2007, and November 2007, bills were enacted that amended and made technical corrections to the statute (Chapters 324 and 450 of the Acts of 2006, and chapter 205 of the Acts of 2007).

Thanks Mike! I get it! Isn't it amazing how much sense the truth makes? Its too bad people just want to point and accuse instead of looking into what happened, what were the circumstances.

It can never happen to America

For some reason people have it etched in their minds that America can never fall. Its' constitution is the greatest governing document ever written. Americans always "find a way". We always overcome.

I would beg to differ. There have been many Governments since the dawn of man that have come and gone. Thomas Jefferson did not think this country would last beyond 70 years. They warned of always having good people in office, and the success of the country would depend on that. Look around. There are many people in office right now that have agendas, do not follow the Constitution, and do not take into consideration the best interests of the people.

What made America great was the individual efforts and commitments to doing what it took to make everything work in the vision that they had for a Country. The founding fathers  probably had an idea that they wanted some type of flag to represent the Country they were forming. But, as great as they were in forming the concepts for this government, rest assured that it is safe to say that none of them could have made that flag.

That is where Betsy Ross came in. She had the talent, ability and experience to be able to not only make that flag but to excel in doing so. Think about this.

You do not hire a lawn guy to rewire the electricity in your home. You do not hire a plumber to repair the bad drywall in your home. Now, if they needed work, they might just be able to give you a long sales pitch on, oh yeah I can do that. They may be very likable people. But more than likely is the fact that you will get substandard workmanship. In the end, you will kick yourself for trying to save a buck.

So you have been warned by the founding fathers. Many claim to be willing to die for this country. But are you willing to take a long look at candidates through proper eyes?
Does the truth matter in issues? Has your candidate proven to be a problem solver?  America is in the middle of a one and done tournament. If  you lose this time, you go home. This time around the damage is so bad that the country is on life support. You know, that plumber you like may well be a great constitutionalist; as maybe your lawn guy. But they are not proven in fixing budgets well over anyones imagination. They have no record of understanding how to repair an economy.

I have heard economists say that 90% of the elected officials have no clue how the economy actually works. Taking a look around at this recession, almost depression; tells me they are right. Well, it is the fault of the people of this country. We were warned about finding good people. But we have become lazy. Every time some plumber gives a great speech about drywall and how beautiful it can be with the right finish, we think that plumber has to be capable of doing the job.
Based on...a speech.

People like to poke fun at the people who supported President Obama, and point to his speech that fooled so many. Speeches that meant nothing really. Created to tickle people's ears. It worked and they hired a plumber to run a nation and what we have to show for it is disaster. The Tea Party was formed to take back America and to reform the GOP.

The Tea Party has done some very good things in awareness to what is going on in America. The onslaught against our freedoms. Many good things, but at the same time they are in search of some sort of perfection in a candidate. They throw around the word Rino as loosely as Ron Paul people use the word Neocon. I watch them support Donald Trump because he goes after the birth certificate issue of Obama. I watch them listen to a great man in Alan West and say that man should be President. Oh really? Based on what? Has he in a government position ever balanced an out of control spending deficit. Has he ever fixed a broken economy? No he has not. So you are hiring a plumber.

I love Michelle Bachman. She is a great woman. She loves this country. In her present position, she has done a wonderful job.  However she has not balanced a budget in the political arena, and experience is a must. She has not repaired a broken economy of which is a huge issue facing the United States. So, I ask you; why would you hire her? Because of her speeches and hard working ability. America is a Rolls Royce that is in a state of needing repair. The engine needs to be rebuilt. Who do you hire? The friendly mechanic, or the technician who specializes in Rolls Royce engines? The Rolls is a big investment.

Ronald Reagan was the greatest President  since the founding fathers. But he was not perfect. The Tea Party tries to paint him as such. But go look at his tax hikes etc. The chinks are there. But the over all accomplishments and leadership is great. Great man.

I can tell you why I support Mitt Romney. Great family man with no scandals. Great leader. His economic record as Governor was great. Look for yourself.from 50th in unemployment to 11th nationally after his term was up. He is proven. He enticed 111 new businesses and created 70,000 jobs in the small state of Massachusetts.

He is against Obama care and will repeal it.

He balanced a 3 billion a year spending deficit by cutting 341 social programs, and no new taxes. All of this with a 85% liberal legislature. Our two biggest needs and he has excelled.

He is against Cap and trade legislature:
“I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control. I do not support radical feel-good policies like a unilateral U.S. cap-and-trade mandate. Such policies would have little effect on climate but could cripple economic growth with devastating results for people across the planet.” -- Mitt Romney No Apology, p. 227   More here in his Video.

He is for the war on terror

He is for securing the borders, illegal aliens issues

He is pro-life

He is against Amnesty. 

His stance on the issues of today.

I know why I support Mitt. I have done a lot of research. I think he is far and away the best candidate. I encourage you to look at all of the candidates and instead of the smear campaigns against them, look and see if this person has balanced budgets of big proportions in a political arena, and been able to fix an economy. If they have not done that, they are not up to the task at hand. We have one President learning on the job and that is a disaster.

Think... make well thought out decisions.
Americas's future depends upon it.