Nine Basic Differences
Between
RomneyCare & ObamaCare by Matt Moody, Ph.D.
Although the
Massachusetts Healthcare Law is nicknamed "RomneyCare," to be fair to
Mitt Romney, the law was not shaped entirely according to his
recommendations.
For example, Governor Romney vetoed eight portions of RomneyCare to include an Employer Mandate, which were eventually all overridden by the a Democrat-dominant State Legislature. Also, from the day it was established in 2006, what has become of mandatory healthcare in Massachusetts is a function of what the present Governor and Legislature have made of it.
Nine Differences Between ObamaCare and RomneyCare
1) The bill called "ObamaCare" is 2700 pages long, and RomneyCare was only 70 pages in 2006. So there are 2,630 more pages of differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare.
|
|
2) RomneyCare was uniquely designed for Massachusetts, but ObamaCare is a one-size-fits-all mandate imposed upon all states, regardless of each state's needs and economic conditions.
3) ObamaCare expands the size and power of federal government beyond the "few and defined" powers delegated by the Constitution, thus diminishing State powers; in comparison, RomneyCare invokes "numerous and indefinite" powers to mandate that citizens be insured, thus preventing some from "gaming the system" — where free-riders were formerly getting government to pay for medical bills when they could afford to buy insurance in the first place.
4) One Trillion dollars is needed
to fund ObamaCare — 500 Billion in higher taxes & 500 Billion
borrowed from Medicare. In contrast, taxes were not increased to fund RomneyCare, nor were funds borrowed from Medicare.
|
 |
5)
RomneyCare was enacted only after Mitt Romney balanced the state
budget; whereas, ObamaCare was enacted during a time when Barack Obama
and a Democrat-dominant Congress didn't even try to balance
a budget and didn't even propose a budget, but engaged in massive
federal spending, unprecedented in the history of the United States.
6) RomneyCare is constitutional by virtue of the "numerous and indefinite" powers reserved to the States via the 10th Amendment to the Constitution; ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it overreaches the limited federal powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
7) In a June 2011 GOP Presidential Debate sponsored by CNN, Mitt Romney said that "if people don't like it in our state, they can change it." In contrast, Barack Obama has consistently resisted the repeal of his healthcare bill, even when the majority of Americans want to repeal ObamaCare.
|
|
 |
8) Mitt Romney passed Massachusetts Healthcare with bipartisan input and support; in comparison, Barack Obama imposed ObamaCare upon Fifty States using a partisan approach that largely excluded input from Republican Senators and Congressmen — and continues to exclude input from "We the People."
9) While the majority of
Americans don't want Obama-Care, the majority of citizens in
Massachusetts support RomneyCare. According to a 2011 survey by Harvard School of Public Health and The Boston Globe, 63% of Massachusetts residents support the 2006 health law, while 21% say they oppose it.
|
The
Massachusetts Health Care Plan is in place because the citizens of
Massachusetts wanted it in 2006, and still want it in 2011. Mitt Romney
applied business solutions to make it happen without raising taxes.
While a clear majority like the law, nevertheless, any citizen of
Massachusetts who doesn't like RomneyCare has 49 other options to break
free of the Massachusetts healthcare mandate.
For the 21% of Massachusetts
citizens who don't prefer RomneyCare, moving to another State to escape
perceived government oppression only works when 49 other States have
constitutional power to create their own unique "experiments"
in governance. Thus, when a limited Federal Government steadily morphs
into a dominating Central Government, constitutionally-defined
Federalism slowly erodes. James Madison succinctly described the
principle of Federalism with these words:
The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.
Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. |
|
The
opposite of Federalism occurs when Americans have an overreaching
central government that, in the words of Virginia Attorney General, Ken
Cuccinelli, "seeks to plan and control virtually
every aspect of our lives and our economy, from health care, to energy,
to automobile manufacturing, to banking and insurance." When "We the People" look to central government to take care of every problem, the power and importance State governance is diminished — which is the opposite of Federalism.
Here's how Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis described Federalism:
It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system
that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.
In Erie
Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), Justice Brandeis wrote the opinion for a
6-2 majority; Brandeis ruled that there is no such thing as a "federal general common law"
in cases involving diversity jurisdiction (interstate lawsuits). This
Supreme Court decision overturned Swift v. Tyson (1842) — precedent law
which had been in place for 96 years.
|
 |
This
landmark ruling meant that federal courts must apply the law of the
State where the legal injury occurred. This High Court decision
strengthened the sovereignty of States, and reversed a trend toward
centralizing government power.
As established by the Founding
Fathers through the United States Constitution, federal government was
intended to be limited with "few and defined"
powers. But in direct defiance of Original Intent, ever since the New
Deal, federal government has gradually grown larger and larger, gaining
more and more power — that's not Federalism, that's not what the Founding Fathers put in place.
Why RomneyCare Is Constitutional and ObamaCare is Unconstitutional
Some pundits write about Governor Romney's "magic act" — where Romney campaigns against an ObamaCare bill that is supposedly identical to the law in Massachusetts. PolitiFact.com
reports that the two bills have strong similarities, but the biggest
difference is being ignored! — the Constitutional Difference.
Mitt said in March 2010 interview, “People often compare Obama's plan to the Massachusetts plan. They’re as different as night and day.” Romney's right! Especially when one deems a Constitutional Bill as "day" and an Unconstitutional Bill as "night."
At the level of legislation,
RomneyCare and ObamaCare could be identical to the "t," and still
ObamaCare would be Unconstitutional because Article 1, Section 8
does not empower federal government to install a HealthCare Mandate
for all 50 States; in contrast, the 10th Amendment does empower State
governments to do virtually anything that a majority of State citizens
want, and will vote for.
One reason why many Americans
perceive RomneyCare to be a problem for Mitt Romney in the 2012
Presidential Election is because they may not understand the meaning of
the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, State Police Powers, and Federalism.
Sweeping aside second-hand spin
from ideologues, name-callers, and haters, the question of
Constitutionality for RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare is best answered by . . .
surprise . . . the very words of the Constitution, augmented by other
wise words from the Founding Fathers.
Mandate (n.) from Latin mandatum "commission, order," and within the context of elections, mandate is "implicit approval of a policy as conferred by voters to winners of an election."
Mandate (v.) from Latin mandare "to order, commit to one's charge," from manus "hand"
(as in manual) + dare "to give" — literally "to give into one's hand."
The word "mandate," shares the same etymological root as the words "command" and "mandatory."
So a mandate is a required rule, regulation, or law that people must
follow or face consequences — for if there were no consequences
attached, a mandate would have no "teeth" to cause people to conform to a mandatory rule, regulation, or law.
All laws that carry
consequences for failure to obey ARE "mandates." The United States is a
nation of laws. American citizens are required to obey laws, and if they
choose not to obey those laws, then Governments mandate (require) consequences — legal constraints that make those laws mandatory.
Mandates are mandatory commands via laws legislated by authority, and enforced by consequences.
Every State is swimming in mandates: States mandate that children and teenagers must attend school. States mandate that those who drive cars must purchase liability insurance. States mandate that people can't rob banks, steal cars, or commit murder without facing mandatory consequences.
WHY do States establish mandates?
Some Libertarians view most
mandates as infringements upon Liberty. In most cases, a mandate will
protect a higher Liberty in exchange for giving up a lower Liberty. For
Example: Governments mandate speed limits along the roads we travel, and
such speed limits increase our Liberty to travel safely. Governments
mandate that you and I cannot steal from a neighbor, and such mandates
increase our Liberty to own property and enjoy our property, and NOT
have it stolen.
Mandates are NOT made to
oppress the People, but to protect Higher Liberties. Further, every
Mandate is established by the approval of the People, else that Mandate
will ultimately be changed via Voting and Elections.
Why is it Constitutional for States to enact such broad mandates? To answer this question, we must examine the words of the Constitution and of our Founding Fathers.
|
|
 |
|
The Constitution delegates to the federal government "few and defined" powers — also called enumerated powers — as set forth in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. The federal government can legislate mandates, but can only do so constitutionally within the constraints of the "few and defined" powers that have been "delegated" by the Constitution.
In contrast to the federal governments limited powers, the Constitution of the United States has explicitly delegated "numerous and indefinite" powers to the States through the 10th Amendment. With State governments having numerous and indefinite powers beyond the federal government's enumerated powers, who then, will check State governments from abusing such broad powers?
ANSWER: We the People possess the power to check governments from abusing and usurping power.
|
|
 |
For the People to "secure" inalienable rights of life, liberty & happiness, the Declaration of Independence affirms that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed."
It's the People who empower governments, and it's the people who change governments:
"That whenever any form of
government is destructive of these ends [Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government."
|
We the people possess the power to check abuses of government. Thomas Jefferson said:
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Why is RomneyCare Constitutional? By virtue of powers delegated by the Constitution, the 50 States have numerous and indefinite powers to legislate mandates to secure inalienable rights. And any time citizens of Massachusetts don't want RomneyCare, they can institute new Government to change it.
Articles claiming that RomneyCare
is an "albatross around Mitt Romney's neck," focus on similarities
between ObamaCare and RomneyCare at the level of legislation, and skip
the Constitutional question. The faulty logic goes like this: If
ObamaCare is bad, then RomneyCare is bad too — because they are essentially the same (in terms of the individual mandate and other legislative details).
As to sameness, please reread the Nine Differences listed previously, and then realize the bottom line: RomneyCare is Constitutional because States have "numerous and indefinite" powers; whereas, ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it overreaches the limited federal powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Why the ObamaCare Mandate is Unconstitutional
ObamaCare is Unconstitutional because the 2,700 page bill is not
just about Affordable Health Care for all Americans; instead, ObamaCare
is an enormous usurpation of power that pushes far beyond the limited,
enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the
Constitution.
To justify ObamaCare, the federal government must find authority to do so in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution — wherein the federal government is delegated enumerated powers that are, as James Madison described, "few and defined" in contrast to State powers that are "numerous and indefinite."
In both the Virginia
and Florida Lawsuits against Obama-Care, the federal government has
tried to find justification for the Obama-Care Mandate in three clauses
from Article 1 Section 8 — the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper
Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.
Here's why each of these clauses fail to justify the ObamaCare Mandate.
Commerce Clause
The Federal Government
has tried to justify ObamaCare through the "Commerce Clause." Here's
how the United States Constitution describes that power:
The Congress shall have Power — To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Here is why invoking the Commerce Clause
fails: It is clear that "doing nothing" is NOT an act of commerce. Thus
"doing nothing" cannot be regulated by the Federal Government via the
Commerce Clause. In contrast, if the act of "doing nothing" on the part
of some citizens, impacts Life, Liberty, and Happiness with a State,
that State can legislate Mandates for the benefit of all State
residents.
But the federal issue is not that easy: One Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich, raised a question of "undercutting"
in regard to regulating Interstate Commerce. Hence the question arises:
Will an American citizen's choice to NOT purchase a good or service
(health insurance) have an effect upon Interstate Commerce that "undercuts" a broader regulatory scheme of Interstate Commerce?
But this question jumps the gun! The "act of
non-commerce" that is alleged to undercut a broader regulatory scheme,
is a commerce question originated/created by the ObamaCare Mandate, in
the first place. This means, that the Federal Government is both
attempting to originate/create a situation of commerce by law (mandating
everyone to buy insurance), and then turning around and declaring: "we
must now regulate the commerce we have originated/created."
In other words, the constitutional regulation
of "Commerce . . . among the several States" is Commerce that the States
originate/create; thereafter, the Federal Government has constitutional
power to regulate that State-Initiated Commerce.
So even if "doing nothing" does have an effect
upon the regulation of Interstate Commerce, this legal logic leap frogs
over the prior question, a question that the Supreme Court has never
ruled on: Does the Federal Government have the constitutional power in the first place, to require individual citizens to purchase a product or service — can the Fed force citizens to buy health insurance?
According to the Federal Judges who have
ruled in the Virginia and Florida Lawsuits against Obama-Care, the
answer is "no!" — the Commerce Clause does not justify the regulation of
non-commerce among the States — acts of non-commerce originated/created
by the ObamaCare Mandate in the first place.
Necessary & Proper Clause
The Federal Government has tried to justify Obama-Care through the Constitution's "Necessary and Proper Clause," which grants Congressional powers that are not necessarily enumerated powers but always directly buttress an enumerated power. In an 1819 Supreme Court decision, Justice John Marshall wrote that Congressional Authority via the Necessary and Proper Clause, while broad, "its authority is not unbridled." Thus Congress has only power to enact laws that are "within
the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate,
which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but
consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are
constitutional." The Necessary and Proper Clause states:
The Congress shall have Power — To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Notice that Congress is empowered to make "necessary and proper" Laws specifically to carry "into Execution the foregoing Powers" — referring to the limited, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. In
other words, mandating that a person must buy health insurance needs to
be justified, in the first place, by the few and defined powers listed
in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. So the Necessary and Proper
Clause can only be invoked as one of the enumerated powers is also
invoked. That is why Judge Henry Hudson ruled as he did in the Virginia Lawsuit against Obama-Care.
Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the Obama-Care mandate “is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.” (p. 24)
"If a person's decision not to purchase health insurance at a
particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic
activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically
an attempt to enforce such a provision under the Necessary and Proper
Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution." (p. 19)
General Welfare Clause
The Federal Government has tried to justify the Obama-Care mandate via the "General Welfare Clause,"
a clause that is embedded within Congressional Taxation Power. But to
invoke the General Welfare Clause, the Government must first establish
that the "penalty" for not buying Health Insurance — the very "penalty" spoken of in the 2700 pages behemoth called Obama-Care — is really a tax, and not a penalty.
While the Federal Government does have taxation power via Article 1 Section 8, here's the problem:
In the effort to pass
ObamaCare through Congress, President Obama and the authors of
Obama-Care played politics with words; trying to distance themselves
from the perception of higher "taxes," the President, the Obama-Care
authors, and Democrat Senators and Congressmen all called the monetary
assessment for failure to purchase health insurance a penalty — and not a tax!
This is precisely why Judge Henry Hudson pointed to the historical record of "pre-enactment representations," where both the "Executive and Legislative branches" consistently called the "penalty" for failure to purchase healthcare insurance, a "penalty" and not a "tax." Thus, Federal Judge ruled that the General Welfare Clause has no force.
NEVERTHELESS, even if the penalty were deemed a
tax, there is still a huge Constitutional problem this virtually
impossible to overcome: All federal taxes, save income taxes, must be assessed proportionally according to State populations — this is called a "Capitation" Tax.
| |
Friday, January 20, 2012
Nine basic differences between Obama Care and RomneyCare
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Mitt a flip flopper? Not so fast there...
Fact-Checkers Blast Bret Baier and Democrats – The Charge of Romney’s “Flip-Flopping” is Greatly Exaggerated
by Ben
Last week Governor Romney was interviewed by Bret Baier of Fox News. In the interview, Baier said, “You have been on both sides of some issues. . . .There is video of you changing your position on a whole host of issues from climate change to immigration to abortion to gay rights to health care.” Romney replied “Well Bret, your list is just not accurate. So, one, we are going to have to be better informed about my views on issues and, two, it’s good to see the ads from the Democrats are being seen here at Fox.”
This testy exchange drew a lot of news coverage last week and so the “fact-checkers” at FactCheck.org, Politifact, and the Washington Post decided to do some research to find out who was right and who was wrong. For those who may not know, fact-checkers are organizations that are not affiliated with any political party or candidate. The goal of these fact-checkers is to provide the public with unbiased, independent research on claims being thrown around in the media.Well, the fact-checkers did their analysis of this interview and, even though I generally like Bret Baier, there is no other way to describe it but as a huge embarrassment for Mr. Baier.
The fact-checkers found that Romney has been very consistent on the topics Baier listed. Lets look at the topics mentioned by Baier one by one and see what the fact-checkers concluded.
1) Climate Change - After the Democrats ran an ad last month showing a supposed change in Romney’s position on the cause of global warming, the fact-checkers at the Washington Post concluded there was “No Flip Flop” saying:
The statements in question were made just months apart, and as far as we can tell, Romney’s policies on global warming did not change. A Romney spokesman said immediately following the speech in question that “Governor Romney’s view on climate change has not changed. He believes it’s occurring, and that human activity contributes to it, but he doesn’t know to what extent.”* he is also against cap and trade
We try not to play gotcha. Given that his spokeswoman immediately restated the position that Romney originally expressed, we are inclined to believe he did not change his position, especially since his book “No Apology” (page 227) also made clear that he believed that “human activity is a contributing factor.”
2) Immigration – The people at FactCheck.org concluded that there was “No Flip Flop” in Romney’s position on immigration. Here is their analysis:
“The DNC ad claims that Romney flip-flopped on immigration, showing clips from the presidential debate on Oct. 18 in Las Vegas. The ad shows Romney saying, “I don’t think I’ve ever hired an illegal in my life,” followed by another clip from the same debate in which Romney says, “We hired a lawn company to mow our lawn, and they had illegal immigrants that were working there.” The ad omits the next sentence from Romney’s debate response, in which he says, “And when that was pointed out to us, we let them go.”3) Gay Rights – FactCheck.org also concluded “No Flip Flop.” Here is the analysis done by the folks at FactCheck:
It was an embarrassment for Romney, but not a flip-flop.
As we wrote when the debate first aired, there is no evidence that Romney knowingly hired illegal immigrants.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy since has been overturned. When Romney was asked about it in a Republican presidential debate on June 13, he said, “I believe that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ should have been kept in place until conflict was over.”4) Health Care Reform – Did Romney want RomneyCare to be a “model for the nation?” – All three fact-check organizations looked into this claim and all three found that Romney has not flip-flopped in regard to this claim. The conclusion from Politifact is here, the FactCheck summary is here, and the Washington Post article is here. It is very clear to those who have taken the time to investigate this issue that Romney has never changed his position in regard to health care reform. For those in the press to continue repeating this falsehood shows a true lack of journalistic integrity. Romney has always spoken in favor of state-led initiatives where the each state is free to adopt whatever policies will work best for that particular state.
Are those comments in direct conflict with what Romney said his 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Club? Not really. He said in 1994 that he “ultimately” would like to see gays and lesbians “being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.” And we see no evidence that he’s retreated from that carefully hedged position, much as his recent comments may have disappointed gay-rights advocates. Currently Romney is saying the timing was still not right to change the policy, while the nation was at war. That’s less forceful language than he used in his letter to the Log Cabin Club, but to qualify as a flip-flop he would have to say he no longer favors seeing gays serve openly at any time.
5) Abortion – Romney freely acknowledged all the way back in 2007 during his first presidential run that he changed his position with regard to the government’s role on abortion. As Romney said during the interview, many other leaders of the pro-life movement such as Ronald Reagan also changed their position on abortion during their careers. The story of Romney’s conversion to the pro-life movement can be read here.
As I have said before, the press (including Mr. Baier) has gotten lazy in regard to Romney. All too often they claim “flip-flop” when in fact there is none. No wonder Romney got testy during the interview and expressed afterwords that he was dissatisfied with the direction of the interview. I think Bret Baier owes Romney an apology for misstating Romney’s views. As the fact-checkers show, Bret Baier was clearly incorrect when he said Romney had changed his position on a “whole host of issues” from climate change to immigration to abortion to gay rights to health care.
Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday has an interview scheduled with Romney on Dec. 18. Let’s hope that Wallace does a better job than Baier of researching the facts before he starts asking questions.
Any comments on some of the misconceptions you have seen in the press? What do you think is the most common misconception people have about Romney
The Story
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Ronald Reagan was not for the Brady Gun Bill!!! Was He??
Yesterday there was a conversation with a well meaning man. Its odd how when we place someone such as Ronald Reagan as a standard bearer for something like a conservative movement how things get lost. Its like JFK. What did he really do? He chickened out of the Bay of Pigs. He moved us out of Turkey to appease the Russians, so they would remove the Missiles in Cuba. There was no great stance he took. They knew he was weak when they met prior in a World Summit. That is when Russia decided to advance to begin with. Yet somehow Kennedy was remembered as great, with no accomplishments to speak of.
Well the person was Anti-Romney and came out and stated Romney was for the Brady Gun Bill. Another person stated that Ronald Reagan was too. Well that got shot down, no Ronald Reagan was never for that. Oh yeah?
Why I am for the Brady Bill
by Ronald Reagan (written in 1991)
"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.
It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.
I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.
Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.
Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.
Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.
Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.
This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.
Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
Here is the online URL Click Here.
My point is this. We place people on standards. Yet we do not closely and honestly look at the why people do and support things. Usually people have a good reason. Ronald Reagan gave you his reason and Mitt Romney would give you his too if you were so inclined to really want to know. President Reagan did not have a lobbyist twisting his arm to come to his conclusion. I am sure Mitt Romney does not either.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Romneys Achiles will be Mormonism and not RomneyCare
In the general election, Mitt Romney will not have any issues really with the Health Care of Massachusetts. If anyone looks into it, they find it was the brain child of the Heritage Foundation. A conservative group. They will also find that it an attempt to try and find a solution to a 484 Million dollar deficit in the state health care.
An attempt at a state level to insure the 8% that were uninsured that caused these big issues financially in the state. They will also find that the veto proof House and Senate of the state added some things to the Bill which Mitt Romney vetoed as he saw they were not good. In turn he was vetoed back. As of 2010, 68% of the state still likes what they have, imperfect as it is. Originally it was only 1% of the state budget and did not have any new taxes to pay for it. Two amendments were added the year after Mitt Romney left.
State mandates are constitutional, and were used by the founding fathers. It is called states rights. In this health care plan there is no attack on private heath care. It really should not even be an issue. If Obama Care were not an issue nationally, then this would not even be brought up. They are clearly two different birds altogether. Not even close. Yet to the misinformed, it is an issue. But one that with some intellectual honesty can be understood.
This nation was formed by men with a basic Christian approach. Many had a faith in God and many also had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ by faith. The problem with Mormonism is they totally portray Jesus as someone other than the Christian Jesus. The Christian Jesus is God and always was God. The Christian God was always God. That is not so with the Mormons. Their God was once a man. Their Jesus was conceived by their God and a Goddess. It gets really troubling, the more you read from the founders of their faith. It is in essence what Christians call a Bible based Cult.
This has nothing to do with the ability of Mitt Romney to Govern. It did not affect him one iota as a Governor. What he did as Governor was remarkable against a veto proof legislature. I find it sad that people think because he governed in a liberal state, he must be a liberal too. That's like saying if you live in a area where people are mostly liberal, then you must be also. Is that fair to you? It's not fair to you either. He has had a remarkable record in business and he had a very conservative record as a Governor.
Before I go any further, despite what I am going to share, I still believe Mitt Romney will beat Barrack Obama. Mitt has style, grace and is focused. He has much fire and saves it for the right time.
If you do not think Mitt is conservative, go look at his 844 vetoes. They are all conservative.
Worried about his choices for Supreme Court? One of the great conservative legal minds of all time, Robert Bork endorses him. Has no doubt he would nominate conservatives. As Governor he did not get that Chance.
Worried about Guns? The NRA endorses him and laws he worked on actually made it easier for good law abiding citizens to get them and harder for criminals.
Pro Life? Look at his vetoes. He fought hard for pro-life.
Illegal Immigration? He defunded sanctuary cities in his state and is for enforcing federal laws. He is against Amnesty. What more would you want?
Federal Mandates like Obama Care? He is against federal mandates and is for repealing Obama Care. He believes these issues must be decided on in a state to state basis.
Cap and trade? He is against it. He says it is a financial disaster and there is no ways to measure how much Man affects the climate.
Is he big Government? Well he cut 341 social programs to balance a state deficit with no new taxes. Cutting Programs is downsizing Government. He has a plan out there to cut 500 billion in spending right away and is looking into more. He wants an amendment that America can not deficit spend anymore.
He took his state in one term from 50th in unemployment to 11th. He brought in 111 new businesses and created laws to help those already in business. He has a 169 page plan to fix the American economy that works within the system we have in place. It has been lauded by economists.
Isn't he a career politician or a Washington Insider? No. he is a career businessman. Jim DeMint, known as Mr Conservative states that Mitt Romney is not an insider.
Jim DeMint also says Mitt Romney is a doer and not a talker. Isn't that what this country needs? listen to this one too.
I am a born again believer. I study Christian Apologetics. If Mitt Romney pushed Mormonism, I would not vote for him, even though he is far and away the most accomplished and most qualified ever to run for President of the United states. But Mitt Romneys faith is private to him and because of that I have no problem voting for him.
He is a very moral man. Great leader, great problem solver. Wonderful family man. I believe, extremely conservative. I think he would be a great person to sit down and talk to. Much to learn from him. He is the smartest man in this race and also humble.
But, the Mormon Faith will be a battlefield.Most Mormons sadly have no idea who the founders were and what they were really all about. Here are some links as to why. They will be used against him. He can not side step them without renouncing his personal faith. It will be tough. I know he will handle it with extreme grace.
For Obama it will be easy pickings on this one:
Brigham Young comments about blacks
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
"In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110)
Can you say wow? Furthermore here are the issues with the Mormons and Christians:
These are things that will upset the Christian World. The Christian Jesus is not Lucifer's brother. The Christian Jesus was not married. The Christian Jesus was not born in Jerusalem. There are many things. If I can find them, Obama will. Obama has no real claim to any faith, although most of us believe he is a Muslim.
Then one of the favorites for sure is going to be the Racism. Here is a link on the History of Racism in the Mormon Church. Its not Pretty Click Here.
The list just goes on and on.
In the Bible a Prophet of God, in order to be recognized has to be 100% correct. The Main Prophet of the Mormon Church has some of the most ludicrous failed Prophecies ever. Ones that can never happen. Here is a doozy:
Brigham Young said he had never given any counsel that was wrong.
"I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161).
Brigham Young said you are damned if you deny polygamy.
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269)
Brigham Young said you can't get to the highest heaven without Joseph Smith's consent.
"...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289).
Brigham Young said that God the Father and Mary 'do it.'
"When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 218). "The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood -- was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115). Note: the late Bruce McConkie who was a member of the First Council of the Seventy stated "There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events..." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742).
Brigham Young said that Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Spirit.
"I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).
Brigham Young taught that Adam was God.
"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken -- He is our Father, and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50).
Mitt Romney has my vote. He is a great man and a great leader. He is the right person for the job. It is unfortunate that he has been raised in this faith that to the outside world reads more like a comic book gone astray than a real belief system. That's why they call it a cult. He does not push this and it has not affected him in Governing, nor in the business world. Maybe Obama will not want to push these issues, but all the information is there to cause problems. Mitt is far and away the most accomplished and qualified to turn this mess around.
An attempt at a state level to insure the 8% that were uninsured that caused these big issues financially in the state. They will also find that the veto proof House and Senate of the state added some things to the Bill which Mitt Romney vetoed as he saw they were not good. In turn he was vetoed back. As of 2010, 68% of the state still likes what they have, imperfect as it is. Originally it was only 1% of the state budget and did not have any new taxes to pay for it. Two amendments were added the year after Mitt Romney left.
State mandates are constitutional, and were used by the founding fathers. It is called states rights. In this health care plan there is no attack on private heath care. It really should not even be an issue. If Obama Care were not an issue nationally, then this would not even be brought up. They are clearly two different birds altogether. Not even close. Yet to the misinformed, it is an issue. But one that with some intellectual honesty can be understood.
This nation was formed by men with a basic Christian approach. Many had a faith in God and many also had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ by faith. The problem with Mormonism is they totally portray Jesus as someone other than the Christian Jesus. The Christian Jesus is God and always was God. The Christian God was always God. That is not so with the Mormons. Their God was once a man. Their Jesus was conceived by their God and a Goddess. It gets really troubling, the more you read from the founders of their faith. It is in essence what Christians call a Bible based Cult.
This has nothing to do with the ability of Mitt Romney to Govern. It did not affect him one iota as a Governor. What he did as Governor was remarkable against a veto proof legislature. I find it sad that people think because he governed in a liberal state, he must be a liberal too. That's like saying if you live in a area where people are mostly liberal, then you must be also. Is that fair to you? It's not fair to you either. He has had a remarkable record in business and he had a very conservative record as a Governor.
If you do not think Mitt is conservative, go look at his 844 vetoes. They are all conservative.
Worried about his choices for Supreme Court? One of the great conservative legal minds of all time, Robert Bork endorses him. Has no doubt he would nominate conservatives. As Governor he did not get that Chance.
Worried about Guns? The NRA endorses him and laws he worked on actually made it easier for good law abiding citizens to get them and harder for criminals.
Pro Life? Look at his vetoes. He fought hard for pro-life.
Illegal Immigration? He defunded sanctuary cities in his state and is for enforcing federal laws. He is against Amnesty. What more would you want?
Federal Mandates like Obama Care? He is against federal mandates and is for repealing Obama Care. He believes these issues must be decided on in a state to state basis.
Cap and trade? He is against it. He says it is a financial disaster and there is no ways to measure how much Man affects the climate.
Is he big Government? Well he cut 341 social programs to balance a state deficit with no new taxes. Cutting Programs is downsizing Government. He has a plan out there to cut 500 billion in spending right away and is looking into more. He wants an amendment that America can not deficit spend anymore.
He took his state in one term from 50th in unemployment to 11th. He brought in 111 new businesses and created laws to help those already in business. He has a 169 page plan to fix the American economy that works within the system we have in place. It has been lauded by economists.
Isn't he a career politician or a Washington Insider? No. he is a career businessman. Jim DeMint, known as Mr Conservative states that Mitt Romney is not an insider.
Jim DeMint also says Mitt Romney is a doer and not a talker. Isn't that what this country needs? listen to this one too.
I am a born again believer. I study Christian Apologetics. If Mitt Romney pushed Mormonism, I would not vote for him, even though he is far and away the most accomplished and most qualified ever to run for President of the United states. But Mitt Romneys faith is private to him and because of that I have no problem voting for him.
He is a very moral man. Great leader, great problem solver. Wonderful family man. I believe, extremely conservative. I think he would be a great person to sit down and talk to. Much to learn from him. He is the smartest man in this race and also humble.
But, the Mormon Faith will be a battlefield.Most Mormons sadly have no idea who the founders were and what they were really all about. Here are some links as to why. They will be used against him. He can not side step them without renouncing his personal faith. It will be tough. I know he will handle it with extreme grace.
Jesus Christ
- The Jesus of Mormonism
- Physical conception?
- Born "at Jerusalem"?
- Was Jesus Married?
- Unique priesthood
- Lucifer's brother
- Atonement at Calvary or Gethsemane?
- LDS Christmas Story
For Obama it will be easy pickings on this one:
Brigham Young comments about blacks
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290).
"In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110)
Can you say wow? Furthermore here are the issues with the Mormons and Christians:
Then you have the contradictions between the Mormon doctrine and the book of Mormon:
The Book of Mormon vs. Mormon Doctrine
| |||||||||||||||||
| So how does this work? | |||||||||||||||||
The list just goes on and on.
In the Bible a Prophet of God, in order to be recognized has to be 100% correct. The Main Prophet of the Mormon Church has some of the most ludicrous failed Prophecies ever. Ones that can never happen. Here is a doozy:
- All Nations would be involved in the American Civil War - "Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; 2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. 3
For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern
States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the
nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon
other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and
then war shall be poured out upon all nations," (Doctrine and Covenants 87:1-3). See context
- This is clearly another false prophecy since all nations did not get involved in the American Civil War.
There are many nice and moral Mormon people. Many have no idea the real background and history of their belief system. The sad part is that whenever you point out things from their own founders writings they say they are being persecuted and that you are a liar and hater. The Mormon Church's founders hated Christianity. The quotes you can find from them is once again, easy to find, and in their own publications.
Look here:
Does Mormonism Attack Other Religions?
by Matt Slick
Mormons do not like it when their Church is labeled a cult by Christians. This bothers them and they want desperately to be accepted as Christian by the Christian community. The Mormon church spends a great deal of time and money on public relations with the aim of portraying a loving, family-oriented, non-condemning Christian denomination. But Christians react to this and cite the great differences in doctrine between Mormons and Christians and continue to pronounce the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a non-Christian cult.
The battle continues and Mormons try to claim that they do not go around condemning other religions like "anti-Mormons" do. They say they are forgiving, tolerant, good Christian people who don't have anything against anyone. They claim they are being more Christ-like.
Their desire for a good image is understandable. But the question remains. Does the Mormon church condemn other religious systems? The answer is definitely, "Yes." Let's look at Mormon writers and see what they have said.
Joseph Smith said . . .
(Regarding Joseph Smith's alleged first vision where celestial personages appeared to him.) . . .) "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . ." (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 5-6)."What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 270.)(In questions directed to Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. . .)
First -- "Do you believe the Bible?"
If we do, we are the only people under heaven that do, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do."
Third — "Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?"
Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (Teachings, page 119.)Brigham Young said. . ."But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong," (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, 1855, p. 171).John Taylor said . . ."We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense.... Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, 1858, p. 167)."Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, 1863, p. 127).James Talmage said . . ."A self-suggesting interpretation of history indicates that there has been a great departure from the way of salvation as laid down by the Savior, a universal apostasy from the Church of Christ," (The Articles of Faith, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, p. 182).Bruce McConkie said . . ."With the loss of the gospel, the nations of the earth went into a moral eclipse called the Dark Ages," (Mormon Doctrine, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, Utah, p. 44).Joseph Fielding Smith said . . ."Again, following the death of his apostles, apostasy once more set in, and again the saving principles and ordinances of the gospel were changed to suit the conveniences and notions of the people. Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness," (Doctrines of Salvation, page 266).The Book of Mormon says. . ."And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth" (1 Nephi 14:10)."And when the day cometh that the wrath of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose foundation is the devil, then, at that day, the work of the Father shall commence. . ." (1 Nephi. 14:17).The Doctrine and Covenants says . . .
When the Mormon missionaries come to the door and do their "gospel" presentation, they mention an apostasy and the need for a prophet, their prophet, to restore the true Teachings of Jesus. Of course, these ‘restored' teachings are completely false."Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face" (Doctrine and Covenants, 112:23).
Nevertheless, the Mormon church clearly condemns other religious systems. Those Mormons who complain about poor treatment should familiarize themselves with their teachers' words.
Brigham Young said you must confess Joseph Smith as a prophet of God in order to be saved.
"...and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is Antichrist," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 312).
Brigham Young said his discourses are as good as Scripture.
"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95).
Brigham Young said he had never given any counsel that was wrong.
"I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 161).
Brigham Young said you are damned if you deny polygamy.
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269)
Brigham Young said you can't get to the highest heaven without Joseph Smith's consent.
"...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289).
Brigham Young said that God the Father and Mary 'do it.'
"When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 218). "The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood -- was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115). Note: the late Bruce McConkie who was a member of the First Council of the Seventy stated "There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events..." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742).
Brigham Young said that Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Spirit.
"I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).
Brigham Young taught that Adam was God.
"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken -- He is our Father, and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50).
Mitt Romney has my vote. He is a great man and a great leader. He is the right person for the job. It is unfortunate that he has been raised in this faith that to the outside world reads more like a comic book gone astray than a real belief system. That's why they call it a cult. He does not push this and it has not affected him in Governing, nor in the business world. Maybe Obama will not want to push these issues, but all the information is there to cause problems. Mitt is far and away the most accomplished and qualified to turn this mess around.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Comparing Bush to Obama
I found this interesting. President Bush inherited a Recession. Unemployment was at 7.1% when he took office. Then the 911 disaster. Yet he dug us out and had us at 4.5% unemployment until when? When the Democrats took over the House and Senate. That was the beginning of the downfall. Here is a good article.
A Chronicle Of Obama’s Failures
As the Presidential campaign season begins, it is important
to reflect on President Obama accomplishments after his first two years.
Rather than rehash all his achievements and failures, a simple chart
can be more effective in telling the story.
*In the chart above the monthly gains in jobs listed in the thousands the parentheses means minus for Obama. We have averaged losing over 128 thousand jobs nationally a month while he has been in office. In contrast we gained almost 60 thousand jobs a month in President Bush's Presidency.
Compared to President Bush, President Obama’s annual
budget deficit is 7.5 percentage points worse on average. Under Obama, average monthly unemployment is 4.1 percentage points higher than unemployment under President Bush. Average monthly housing starts are 66% lower under Obama. Average annual food stamp participation has increased 63% from 22.7 million to 37.0 million. In January 2001, when President Bush took office, the monthly participation rate was 17.2 million. By January 2011, food stamp particpation reached a high of 44.2 million under President Obama.
President Obama, the first American President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for “hope” rather than any substantive accomplishments, also added another conflict to the two he inherited from his predecessor.
Under President Obama, daily crude oil prices have been 41% higher on average and the average weekly retail gasoline price has been 25% higher than prices during the Bush administration.
Do you miss President Bush yet?
*In the chart above the monthly gains in jobs listed in the thousands the parentheses means minus for Obama. We have averaged losing over 128 thousand jobs nationally a month while he has been in office. In contrast we gained almost 60 thousand jobs a month in President Bush's Presidency.
Compared to President Bush, President Obama’s annual
budget deficit is 7.5 percentage points worse on average. Under Obama, average monthly unemployment is 4.1 percentage points higher than unemployment under President Bush. Average monthly housing starts are 66% lower under Obama. Average annual food stamp participation has increased 63% from 22.7 million to 37.0 million. In January 2001, when President Bush took office, the monthly participation rate was 17.2 million. By January 2011, food stamp particpation reached a high of 44.2 million under President Obama.
President Obama, the first American President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for “hope” rather than any substantive accomplishments, also added another conflict to the two he inherited from his predecessor.
Under President Obama, daily crude oil prices have been 41% higher on average and the average weekly retail gasoline price has been 25% higher than prices during the Bush administration.
Do you miss President Bush yet?
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Conservative activist Christine O’ Donnell appeared on Hannity (FOX News) last night to announce her endorsement of Mitt Romney:
O’Donnell backs Romney
(CNN) – Christine O’Donnell, a tea party favorite who ran an unsuccessful U.S. Senate bid in 2010, announced her support Tuesday night for Mitt Romney, a GOP presidential candidate lacking fanfare among the conservative grassroots movement.Note: I appreciated hearing O’Donnell mention Romney’s support for her and others running for office a little over a year ago. No one in the current line up of GOP hopefuls worked harder than Governor Romney to support conservative candidates in the months leading up to the 2010 mid-term elections. He was often a lone, untiring figure criss-crossing the country, pulling his suitcase through airports to ride coach, racking up miles and wearing out shoe leather to get to another rally. His Free and Strong America PAC donated thousands of dollars in support of those who shared his conservative values and his enthusiasm to take back congress was a great help to many.
“It is my hope that my endorsement of Gov. Mitt Romney will cause others to give him a second look,” she said in a statement.
The social conservative … said she was throwing her weight behind Romney because she finds him trustworthy and as someone with “conviction to do the right thing regardless of opposition.”
In an apparent knock against GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich, O’Donnell praised Romney’s experience in the private sector and said the nation needs a president who is not a “Washington insider” or “who hasn’t been playing the game for the last three decades.”
…O’Donnell pointed to his [Romney's] support for her and other candidates who rode the 2010 tea party wave, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
Romney’s statement:
“Christine has been a leader in the conservative movement for many years,” said Mitt Romney. “Christine recognizes that excessive government threatens us now and threatens future generations, and I am pleased to have her on my team.”(emphasis added)
Announcing her support, Christine O’Donnell said, “For me, this endorsement comes down to trust. I am endorsing Governor Romney because I trust him to do the right thing. He has the strength of conviction to do the right thing regardless of opposition. America needs a president who is not a Washington Insider. America needs a president who hasn’t been playing the game for the last three decades. America needs a president who can turn our economy around, put Americans back to work, and will lead with stability, integrity and the values that we hold dear. I am confident Mitt Romney will be that president.”
O’Donnell’s background:
Christine O’Donnell has been a leader in the conservative movement for many years. O’Donnell has been an advocate for various conservative causes and campaigns during this time. In 2010, she was the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware.
Monday, December 5, 2011
4 Reasons why Conservatives need to rethink Gingrich
Four Reasons Why Conservatives Should Think Twice About Gingrich
The former speaker has some good qualities, but conservatives should remember his past transgressions.
November 30, 2011 - 12:32 am
With the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement
of Newt Gingrich as well as Gingrich’s rise in the polls, the former
speaker has the momentum in the race for the White House, but is this a
good thing?
Speaker Gingrich has many commendable points. He’s skilled at crafting conservative policy proposals and he is an accomplished debater and proponent of conservative ideas. Gingrich also deserves credit for working with President Clinton to pass welfare reform, and some credit for the balanced budgets that existed prior to 9/11. Conservatives remember Gingrich fondly for leading the GOP to victory with the Contract with America.
However, things did not go so well once Gingrich was in office. His troubled tenure from 1995-99 (which he at one point compared to being prime minister) as well as his post-speakership career raise several red flags that conservatives would be wise to consider:
1) Big Spending and Earmarks:
While Gingrich was speaker, Congress and the president balanced the budget. This did not come about through hard choices, but rather through a booming economy. As the information age dawned and the dotcom boom began, government coffers surged with revenues.
As part of the balanced budget agreement, Congress put in place spending caps. With the surge of revenue, Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott decided to break the spending caps that had been put in place in the balanced budget agreement and increased federal spending. This practice was continued under Gingrich’s successor, Dennis Hastert. The predictable result of the Republican Congress’ profligacy on spending was that once the dotcom bubble burst and economic growth slowed, the only way that Congress could afford to continue the increases they’d made in the good years of the economy was to run up deficits.
Gingrich’s speakership was dealt a telling blow as a result of his ineptness in negotiating the FY1999 budget which was passed a month before the 1998 elections and increased spending without delivering any major tax reductions. Then-Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) said voters complained to him that nobody read the bill and “the president (Clinton) got virtually everything he wanted.”
One part of Gingrich’s legacy that remained long after he left was the expanded role of earmarks in congressional politics. Gingrich doubled the number of earmarks in Congress and his office sent out memos encouraging the use of earmarks for protecting vulnerable members of Congress. The number of earmarks would eventually increase to 14,000 per year and would lead to the end of the Republican majority. While the greatest excesses did not occur during Gingrich’s speakership, the first steps toward the Republican train wreck of 2006 were taken during Gingrich’s tenure.
If conservatives want lasting victories, they need to survive politically and communicate to the public well. During the government shutdown in 1995-96, Gingrich and the House Republicans failed to formulate an effective response to the Democratic message. Gingrich’s inexplicable statement that President Clinton failed to give him proper seating on Air Force One to a state funeral for Yitzhak Rabin only made the problems worse. Gingrich’s approval rating shrunk to a toxic 20% in the polls as a result of this failure.
Gingrich’s speakership led to a historic lack of confidence from Republican leaders and the rank and file. In 1997, nine Republican members of the House refused to support Gingrich’s re-election to the speakership and the GOP leadership rallied barely enough votes to keep Gingrich in office. In July of that year, Gingrich faced a coup from his top lieutenants that collapsed due to incompetence. After the 1998 elections, Gingrich was forced to step aside.
Gingrich does not shy away from being a Washington insider. He responded to criticism of his work for Freddie Mac and the Washington insider label by stating that we need to elect someone who knows how Washington works in order to change Washington.
Conservatives have reason to be wary of this idea for a number of reasons, not the least of which is Gingrich’s flawed record as speaker, suggesting that his success at changing Washington has been slipshod at best, and that his career tendency has been to go along rather than address tough issues when called for.
In an October debate, while Gingrich lauded Herman Cain for proposing his 9-9-9 tax plan, Gingrich cautioned, “Change on this scale takes years to think through if you’re going to do it right.” It’s worth noting that sixteen years ago, Gingrich appointed Cain to Jack Kemp’s tax commission and since then several other tax reform commissions have been appointed. How many more years do we need to “think through” tax reform until we actually do something significant? It is standard Washington tactics to kick big issues down the road for others to deal with, and Gingrich is too big a part of that system to change it.
Newt Gingrich threw himself into backing liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava while conservatives and tea party groups were rallying around Conservative Doug Hoffman. Gingrich scolded conservative activists for backing Hoffman. Hoffman, for his part, is forgiving of the whole thing and urges Republicans not to hold Gingrich’s action against him. While this is kind of Mr. Hoffman, conservatives would do well to ignore the advice because Gingrich’s belligerent defense of Scozzafava is part of a larger pattern of key betrayals of conservative interests.
While Gingrich was speaker, he and the NRCC were notorious for backing liberal Republicans over conservatives. For example, in 1997, Gingrich recruited liberal state Assemblyman Brook Firestone and supported him over conservative Tom Bordonaro in a special congressional election. Primary voters in the district rejected Firestone as well as Gingrich and company’s attempts to play kingmaker.
In addition to endorsements for liberal Republicans, Gingrich has been more than willing to endorse liberal causes. Among examples of this are the famous ad of him sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi calling for government action to address climate change and his letter in support of Bush’s immigration reform, which many conservatives labeled amnesty. When Gingrich opposes conservatives, he tends to do it in a very dramatic way that’s very belligerent to conservatives who disagree with him.
Conservatives betting on Gingrich have to hope that something has changed Gingrich over the past thirteen years that will transform him into someone who can not only talk about conservative ideas, but can implement conservative solutions. Given the totality of the Gingrich record, this is a bad bet.
Adam Graham is a contributor at Race42012.com and host of the Truth and Hope Report podcast. His personal site is Adam's Blog. He is author of novel, "Tales of the Dim Knight," from Splashdown Boo
Speaker Gingrich has many commendable points. He’s skilled at crafting conservative policy proposals and he is an accomplished debater and proponent of conservative ideas. Gingrich also deserves credit for working with President Clinton to pass welfare reform, and some credit for the balanced budgets that existed prior to 9/11. Conservatives remember Gingrich fondly for leading the GOP to victory with the Contract with America.
However, things did not go so well once Gingrich was in office. His troubled tenure from 1995-99 (which he at one point compared to being prime minister) as well as his post-speakership career raise several red flags that conservatives would be wise to consider:
1) Big Spending and Earmarks:
While Gingrich was speaker, Congress and the president balanced the budget. This did not come about through hard choices, but rather through a booming economy. As the information age dawned and the dotcom boom began, government coffers surged with revenues.
As part of the balanced budget agreement, Congress put in place spending caps. With the surge of revenue, Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott decided to break the spending caps that had been put in place in the balanced budget agreement and increased federal spending. This practice was continued under Gingrich’s successor, Dennis Hastert. The predictable result of the Republican Congress’ profligacy on spending was that once the dotcom bubble burst and economic growth slowed, the only way that Congress could afford to continue the increases they’d made in the good years of the economy was to run up deficits.
Gingrich’s speakership was dealt a telling blow as a result of his ineptness in negotiating the FY1999 budget which was passed a month before the 1998 elections and increased spending without delivering any major tax reductions. Then-Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) said voters complained to him that nobody read the bill and “the president (Clinton) got virtually everything he wanted.”
One part of Gingrich’s legacy that remained long after he left was the expanded role of earmarks in congressional politics. Gingrich doubled the number of earmarks in Congress and his office sent out memos encouraging the use of earmarks for protecting vulnerable members of Congress. The number of earmarks would eventually increase to 14,000 per year and would lead to the end of the Republican majority. While the greatest excesses did not occur during Gingrich’s speakership, the first steps toward the Republican train wreck of 2006 were taken during Gingrich’s tenure.
2) Dysfunctional Leadership and Failed Communicator:
If conservatives want lasting victories, they need to survive politically and communicate to the public well. During the government shutdown in 1995-96, Gingrich and the House Republicans failed to formulate an effective response to the Democratic message. Gingrich’s inexplicable statement that President Clinton failed to give him proper seating on Air Force One to a state funeral for Yitzhak Rabin only made the problems worse. Gingrich’s approval rating shrunk to a toxic 20% in the polls as a result of this failure.
Gingrich’s speakership led to a historic lack of confidence from Republican leaders and the rank and file. In 1997, nine Republican members of the House refused to support Gingrich’s re-election to the speakership and the GOP leadership rallied barely enough votes to keep Gingrich in office. In July of that year, Gingrich faced a coup from his top lieutenants that collapsed due to incompetence. After the 1998 elections, Gingrich was forced to step aside.
3) Washington Insider:
Gingrich does not shy away from being a Washington insider. He responded to criticism of his work for Freddie Mac and the Washington insider label by stating that we need to elect someone who knows how Washington works in order to change Washington.
Conservatives have reason to be wary of this idea for a number of reasons, not the least of which is Gingrich’s flawed record as speaker, suggesting that his success at changing Washington has been slipshod at best, and that his career tendency has been to go along rather than address tough issues when called for.
In an October debate, while Gingrich lauded Herman Cain for proposing his 9-9-9 tax plan, Gingrich cautioned, “Change on this scale takes years to think through if you’re going to do it right.” It’s worth noting that sixteen years ago, Gingrich appointed Cain to Jack Kemp’s tax commission and since then several other tax reform commissions have been appointed. How many more years do we need to “think through” tax reform until we actually do something significant? It is standard Washington tactics to kick big issues down the road for others to deal with, and Gingrich is too big a part of that system to change it.
4) Betraying Conservatives on Key Issues:
Newt Gingrich threw himself into backing liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava while conservatives and tea party groups were rallying around Conservative Doug Hoffman. Gingrich scolded conservative activists for backing Hoffman. Hoffman, for his part, is forgiving of the whole thing and urges Republicans not to hold Gingrich’s action against him. While this is kind of Mr. Hoffman, conservatives would do well to ignore the advice because Gingrich’s belligerent defense of Scozzafava is part of a larger pattern of key betrayals of conservative interests.
While Gingrich was speaker, he and the NRCC were notorious for backing liberal Republicans over conservatives. For example, in 1997, Gingrich recruited liberal state Assemblyman Brook Firestone and supported him over conservative Tom Bordonaro in a special congressional election. Primary voters in the district rejected Firestone as well as Gingrich and company’s attempts to play kingmaker.
In addition to endorsements for liberal Republicans, Gingrich has been more than willing to endorse liberal causes. Among examples of this are the famous ad of him sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi calling for government action to address climate change and his letter in support of Bush’s immigration reform, which many conservatives labeled amnesty. When Gingrich opposes conservatives, he tends to do it in a very dramatic way that’s very belligerent to conservatives who disagree with him.
Conservatives betting on Gingrich have to hope that something has changed Gingrich over the past thirteen years that will transform him into someone who can not only talk about conservative ideas, but can implement conservative solutions. Given the totality of the Gingrich record, this is a bad bet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)