Tag Archives: Romneycare

Personhood USA: Romney Was Not Forced to Provide Free Abortions in Romneycare

personhood_usa

WASHINGTON, May 24, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ — Two of the nation’s leading pro-abortion political groups recently alleged that GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney has endorsed full legal personhood for every human being from the moment our lives begin, at fertilization. In response, Personhood USA was obliged to examine the presidential contender’s record on life issues, and note that Romney was the only Republican candidate not to sign the group’s Presidential Pledge.

In an article appearing in the Christian Post, a group supporting the Romney campaign alleged that, in signing the 2006 Massachusetts Health Care Reform Act, Romney was forced to endorse taxpayer-funded, elective abortion by prior decisions of the state Supreme Court.

However, reporting on a bill signed into law by Romney that expanded access to the “morning after pill,” an October 2005 Boston Globe article quoted Richard Powers, spokesman for the Executive Office of Health and Human Services. “Abortions would not be covered under the waiver. Under a court ruling, they are covered under the state’s Medicaid program only when deemed medically necessary,” he said.

The court opinions verify Power’s statement. Both the 1981 and 1997 decisions instruct the state to pay for what they termed “medically necessary” and not elective abortion.

A new Gallup poll released yesterday finds that those who self-identify as “pro-choice” has fallen to an all-time low of 41%, while those using the term “pro-life” to describe themselves has risen significantly in recent years to a steady 50% of the electorate. The 9 point gap ties as the largest lead for the pro-life movement since the company began asking the question.

“Just as the abortion lobby demands that Obama act as pro-abortion as possible, even filing suit when there is a policy disagreement, the pro-life movement must demand definitive answers from candidates identifying as pro-life,” said Keith Mason, President of Personhood USA. “As advocates for the rights of all people, we are deeply disturbed by the loss of life, and not concerned about currying favor. Our position is clear, candidates who want the votes of America’s pro-life majority can no longer simply say they are pro-life, they must act pro-life.”

Obamacare, the Constitution, and the Founders – What SCOTUS should be debating

As we’re on the last day of arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Obamacare, there are pundits from all sides offering their thoughts on every look, twitch, word, and tone coming from the Justices during the sessions. The vast majority are focused on the elasticity of the Commerce Clause and today in particular, on the lack of a Severability Clause in the current law. While the former is a favorite among left-wing legal analysts and Constitutionalists alike, the latter is the most-likely candidate to become the linchpin that either holds the law in place, or ends its existence.

Choose your painkillers

Choose your painkillers - Eric Norris (CC)


But neither of these even mentions one thing that theoretically should have been the center of the debate from the beginning. Obamacare overextends into the realm of State powers. Over-stretching the Commerce Clause to make it fit was wishful thinking, and hopefully the Justices will point that out. The only Constitutional way the Federal Government really had to enact this reform was through its power of taxation, not the regulation of commerce. For a relatively plain language explanation of this, one needs to look no further than The Federalist Papers, No. 45 to be exact.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

It is not the Constitution. It is arguably, the definitive lobbyist’s playbook on the side of the States adopting the Constitution. Any time anyone suggests that SCOTUS needs to stop legislating from the bench, and stay true to the intentions of the Founders, this collection of documents should be included in the statement.

And in this case, Obamacare is a case of the Federal government overstepping into the realm of State jurisdiction. This is also why comparing this law to the one adopted in Massachusetts is a fallacy. The government of Massachusetts had the right to create that program for the benefit of their residents, as does every other State in the Union if it so chooses. You want healthcare reform, stop crying to Washington for it. It is a State issue, not Federal. Unless, of course, you are willing to take a massive Federal tax hike to pay for it. And yes, this is a little note to the Romney campaign – please feel free to point out what I’ve said here. Romneycare does not equal Obamacare, period.

Republicans Ensuring Obama’s Re-election

As we go further into the primary season I find the Republican Party doing more each day to ensure that Barack Obama gets re-elected in November. The establishment Republican elitists drove Herman Cain out of the running with a smear campaign of innuendo and accusation without one shred of evidence that any of these women were telling any semblance of truth. Truth didn’t matter, evidence didn’t matter; even to Republicans. The point was to drive out any conservative opponent in the running.

Rick Perry, the John Edwards plastic hair of the race, left the Democrat Party when he saw the winds of change bringing a Republican ascendency during the Reagan/Bush ’41 years. Perry isn’t now and never has been a conservative. In-state tuition and a “path to citizenship (amnesty)” for illegal aliens are not conservative positions, despite what Perry might think.

Once Cain had been eliminated Romney and Gingrich turned on each other in a manner befitting true liberals, or “Republican moderates” as the establishment likes to say. Gingrich berates Romney for making money using capitalism as his method. How can he say he is a conservative when he spends day upon day berating someone using the very system conservatives espouse?

Romney’s chief operative in Florida is busy working with Democrats to re-district Allen West out of the House of Representatives; Romney has destroyed the health care system and the economy of Massachusetts with Romneycare, and believes in the individual mandate. Of course, he mitigates the Romneycare issue by saying it is okay for the state but not the federal government to force citizens into purchasing something they don’t want. Gingrich also believes, or says he does, that the individual mandate is acceptable, even preferable. How is either one of them going to run a general election on abolishing Obamacare with these records? Not much of a difference from Obama to me.

Neither Romney nor Gingrich will bring up the issues that matter to We the People. I wonder why not. Gingrich rails at Romney for being a part of Bain Capitol but mentions not one word about Barack Obama having a former Bain executive in his inner circle. Why is this off the radar screen for Gingrich when he makes such a big deal about Romney’s Bain connection? Any mention of the nearly $500,000 in back taxes owed by current White House staff members while Obama rails at the “rich” who “don’t pay their fair share of taxes”? Or how about Timothy Geithner, the king of tax cheats? Not a word from Romney or Gingrich on Geithner either.

Just last week a lawsuit was heard in Georgia, Gingrich’s home state, dealing with the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as president due to his not being a “natural born citizen”, a strategy developed by Republican candidate John Albert Dummett Jr., of California. You haven’t heard of Dummett because the ruling elite, including their propaganda arm FOX News, won’t give him the time of day. Just another annoying conservative; keep moving folks, nothing to see here. A ruling is expected very soon and is expected to keep Obama off the Georgia ballot. I watched the hearing and it was an impressive array of evidence showing that Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject, making our current president ineligible to hold the seat. One of the most significant political stories since Richard Nixon resigned due to Watergate, yet not a word from the two Republican front runners about it. I wonder why.

I keep hearing that Republicans need someone who can oust Barack Obama in November. I don’t seem to ever hear them mention what We the people need, or want for that matter. I wrote a few months ago, when Romney and Perry were “our only hope”, that we need to be careful what we ask for. Replacing Barack Obama with a clone is not the answer to our nation’s problems but that is where we are headed with Romney and Gingrich.

It seems Republicans are running to lose once again. This happened in 2008 with John McCain at the helm. He had the best prospect for election in Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential candidate but his handlers told her to keep quiet about Obama’s connections to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Perceived weakness and a RINO candidate brought defeat and injected Barack Obama into office. I see today’s Republican Party playing the same losing game. They won’t touch Obama’s radical beginnings, the question of his eligibility, or his links to Wall Street money men.

Are the Republicans cowards or are they competing in this race to dissolve the United States of America into a Third World banana republic? I believe it is a combination of both. The party machine, elitist establishment is so afraid of being called “racist” or “extremist” that they refuse to take a stand on anything conservative. Even a dead fish can float downstream and today’s Republican Party is content to be a dead fish. Dead fish is what Romney and Gingrich offer us. Those of us who are willing to fight for freedom are a danger to their little dinghy capsizing in a tidal wave of conservatism and the establishment will do anything to prevent We the People from capsizing their boat. New World Order globalists own the Republican Party and conservatives are a danger to that ownership.

Right now the Republican Party sits back and criticizes Democrats but will not really jeopardize their seats in the back of the bus to stand with those of us who want true liberty to be restored in America. When the winds of change began to blow the way of conservatism during the Reagan years many Democrats wanted to jump on the bandwagon to continue their places of power in congress. Alan Specter is a classic example of this, as is Rick Perry.
Both, along with several others, changed over to the Republican Party and were welcomed with open arms by Gingrich and the Republican leaders in the Senate. I also remember them giving committee chairmanships to Democrats in the name of “civility” and “inclusiveness”. What happened? The Republican Party became almost as Marxist oriented as the Democrat Party. This compromising has led us to where we are now, a Republican Party dominated by “moderates” lacking either the courage or the desire to stand on conservative principles.

If voters compromise and “settle” for Romney or Gingrich our nation will lose our freedom, a freedom given by thousands who have died and suffered wounds in battle after battle against tyranny. If voters are willing to be dead fish and float downstream they will find a swamp of tyranny, despotism, and slavery at the end of that stream. It has happened many times in the past to other nations. France, Russia, Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, and many others have settled for the lesser of two evils only to find that evil is evil and the lesser of those evils sold them into slavery and despotism in the end.

As Neville Chamberlain found out in dealing with Adolph Hitler, appeasement and the compromise of values is always a losing proposition. People say that a third party candidate, or an out-of-the-establishment candidate like Dummett, cannot win so they won’t vote for one. The reason a third party or dark horse candidate can’t win is that too many people would rather take a chance on soft tyranny than stand up for total liberty; they would rather float downstream. We cannot preserve our freedom by floating downstream. Our founding fathers didn’t float downstream, the “Greatest Generation” didn’t float downstream and accept dictatorship from Hirohito and Hitler, and I won’t float downstream and accept dictatorship from Obama, Romney, or Gingrich. I will not accept tyranny from Democrats or Republicans.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
February 2, 2012

GOP Florida Debate: Santorum Wins, Moon Colonists Lose

If Republican voters had only Thursday’s GOP debate in Florida on which to base their votes, Rick Santorum would be our next candidate for President of the United States.  In a debate that was considerably more lively than the Brian Williams-hosted NBC snoozefest last week, Santorum came off as passionate, principled and knowledgeable.  CNN’s Wolf Blitzer moderated the debate and was satisfactory as usual.  Clearly Blitz and the CNN higher-ups were anxious to see Newt and Mitt go after each other on stage.  Goodness knows CNN could use the ratings boost.  They got their wish as the two front-runners spent the first 20 minutes of the debate ripping into each other on various issues, including negative ads and bad investments.  It made for good t.v. and Romney was more animatedthan he’s appeared at any other time in this whole process…but while the Speaker and the Governor were going for the respective jugulars a strange thing happened.  Rick Santorum showed up.  He took every opportunity to point out the uselessness of two big government candidates (as he claims they are) arguing about who is more fiscally conservative and highlighted his extensive knowledge on issues of foreign affairs and threats to the safety of Americans.

Don’t get me wrong – each man on stage had his own moment at times.  Any of these candidates would make a better President than the current Blamer-in-Chief and they all gave adequate reasons why that was true.  However, there was something about the way Romney and Gingrich went after each other Thursday night that came off as..well, petty.  Santorum (and Paul, for that matter) seized the opportunity. As both men were distracted arguing against each other, Santorum made his case for why he thinks he is the candidate with the sharpest contrast to Obama, and therefore most suited to run against him in the general elections.  He laid bare Romney’s greatest weakness – Romneycare; and he chastised Newt on his global warming demons.

As usual, Ron Paul ruled the roost on domestic spending and issues of healthcare.  Ron Paul has a supreme understanding of the disaster of socialized medicine.  He is old enough to remember when medical care was affordable to everyone; he remembers the days when you paid your family doctor when you saw him, from your own wallet, and not through a behemoth third party.  Its Paul’s foreign policy strategy that sinks him as a viable candidate. His “let’s just get to know each better and be friends” approach to despots like Castro and Chavez likely did very little to endear him to Florida voters, many of whom have had direct personal experience with the horrors of the Castro regime.

For the record, I see no problem with discussing issues of space and the race to colonize the moon.  Many people seem annoyed by it, and perhaps rightfully so in the face of the enormous fiscal challenges we are currently facing.  However, I see it as an important discussion.  It speaks to the superiority of American ideas and innovation, something our current President has worked very hard to suppress.  When Newt speaks of going to the moon, he is talking about vision, not practicalities.  I see value in that and so I do not discourage such talk.  I do agree that it is a back-burner issue right now.  We have to ensure there IS an America going forward before we can talk about getting America back to the moon.

Hands down, this debate goes to Rick Santorum.  It’s hard to tell if this stellar debate performance will turn into a bump in Florida for Santorum’s campaign; but if Newt and Mitt have done enough damage to each other in that state, Santorum could gain a surprising turnout come Tuesday’s primary vote.  Florida is a winner take all state, so it seems unlikely that Santorum would win outright, but a strong finish could give the Senator some considerable momentum.  All eyes turn to Florida Tuesday night.  Be sure to check in frequently with Conservative Daily News for up to the minute reporting as the polls close and votes are counted.

Romney's Christmas Gift To Voters: A VAT Tax

Mitt Romney gave an interview to The Wall Street Journal over the weekend, discussing his concepts on tax policy. I think the mere fact that Romney used the tactic of concealing the discussion, not just in a “Friday night news dump” way, but in a Friday-before-Christmas-news-dump, should tell the reader everything they need to know about what Romney had to say on taxes.

So, what did he say, you ask?

In typical Romney fashion, he didn’t say much. From the WSJ interview:

…it’s hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. “I happen to also recognize,” he says, “that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn’t been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you’re gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election.”

This is perfectly in keeping with Romney’s 59-point plan, which I broke down in this post. Not a single point of the 59-point plan could be described as “bold”, “controversial”, or “original”. It’s a plan designed to be the least-offensive to the largest number of people.

Romney’s tax proposal is equally vague and inoffensive:

“What I like—I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions.”

He says this in regard to either a consumption tax or a “true flat tax”.

In other words, he’s playing both sides of the tax debate- some people like consumption taxes, some (like me) like flat income taxation, so Romney says he likes either.

Here’s the interesting part:

He says he doesn’t “like the idea” of layering a VAT onto the current income tax system. But he adds that, philosophically speaking, a VAT might work as a replacement for some part of the tax code, “particularly at the corporate level,” as Paul Ryan proposed several years ago. What he doesn’t do is rule a VAT out.

I think it’s important to pause here and give the reader a refresher on the VAT. I hate to say this, but it’s true: The extent of the average American’s knowledge of the VAT tax can be summed up as “VAT = Europe” and “Europe = Good (for a Democrat) or Bad (for a Republican)”.

I know of no better explanation of the VAT and its dangers than this discussion with Murray Rothbard (via Reason.com, and I highly encourage the reader to read the entire article):

The VAT is essentially a national sales tax, levied in proportion to the goods and services produced and sold. But its delightful concealment comes from the fact that the VAT is levied at each step of the way in the production process: on farmer, manufacturer, jobber and wholesaler, and only slightly on the retailer.

The difference is that when a consumer pays a 7 percent sales tax on every purchase, his indignation rises and he points the finger of resentment at the politicians in charge of government; but if the 7 percent tax is hidden and paid by every firm rather than just at retail, the inevitably higher prices will be charged, not to the government where it belongs, but to grasping businessmen and avaricious trade unions.

While consumers, businessmen, and unions all blame each other for inflation like Kilkenny cats, Papa government is able to preserve its lofty moral purity, and to join in denouncing all of these groups for “causing inflation.”

It is now easy to see the enthusiasm of the federal government and its economic advisers for the new scheme for a VAT. It allows the government to extract many more funds from the public — to bring about higher prices, lower production, and lower incomes —and yet totally escape the blame, which can easily be loaded on business, unions, or the consumer as the particular administration sees fit.

As you can see, it’s no surprise that VAT taxes are instruments of big socialist states.

The question, then, is whether or not Romney is proposing a VAT tax, but avoiding the conservative slings and arrows of such a proposal (by pointing out that Paul Ryan proposed a VAT at one point)?

Jim Pethokoukis believes so:

You can have a value-added tax that is economically efficient and pro-growth but does not have the transparency issues that Norquist and other small-government advocates worry about. Many flat taxers, for instance, like the 19 percent Hall-Rabushka flat tax, a plan which has served as the model for many flat tax proposals. As with the X tax, businesses under a Hall-Rabushka system would deduct cash wages from the cash flow on which they calculate the VAT.

Being a flat taxer, and one who has recommended Hall and Rabushka’s book in a previous post, I have to make a point on this subject: The VAT-like effect of their plan comes from the fact that they propose taxing business expenses, something most flat taxers (in my experience) find objectionable. This is, in fact, my principal disagreement with the Hall-Rabushka plan (and one of my several disagreements with consumption taxes of all forms)- taxing business expenses creates a barrier to entering self-employment, and a barrier to small businesses’ ability to compete against large businesses. There’s no way to make this barrier “gentler”.

By this standard, the Forbes flat tax– which includes a deduction for business expenses- is definitely preferred by the majority of flat taxers I know (though it’s possible there’s a large community of flat taxers somewhere, whom I haven’t met, and who favor taxing businesses in this fashion).

And on the subject of Paul Ryan: I like the man, but I am not a Paul Ryan cheerleader like some others, precisely because some of his proposals aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. Let’s remember that, in addition to propising a European-style VAT, he recently partnered with Ron Wyden (D-OR) to craft a new Medicare proposal, which Dean Clancy aptly described as “Obamacare for Seniors“. Romney’s name-dropping effort shows that Ryan’s name recognition among Republican voters is far greater than his plan recognition.

In sum: Mitt Romneycare used Christmas weekend, when nobody reads or watches political news, to announce- in a vague and weasly way- his support of a VAT tax. And no matter how you slice it, VAT- in any form- is a bad idea.

7 Reasons Why Mitt’s A Misfit

The Republican Establishment is fit to be tied.  Mitt Romney is their guy.  He’s the heir apparent to the Republican presidential nomination.  Next in line.  Experienced.  Well-funded.  Former governor.  Businessman.  Presidential looking.  He is well organized in key primary states.  But, it seems that the Republican electorate is not persuaded.  Mitt can’t seem to convince more than about 25% of Republican primary voters that he’s the right choice.  So what’s the deal?

By all accounts, Mitt Romney has all the traits that the typical Republican presidential candidate typically has.  But, 2012 is not a typical election year.  The American people are fearful and are sounding the alarm.  The Obama nightmare is the beginning of the end.  America is under attack and the enemy is the American President.  Another 4 years of Barack Obama will seal the deal.  Obama’s fundamental remaking of America will have succeeded.  And America as we know it will have ceased to exist.

Republican primary voters are looking for a candidate who will take it to Obama head on.  They’re looking for someone who will articulate a true, conservative vision for America.  With boldness.  Hard truths must be spoken and eagerly defended.  Fresh, creative and big ideas are required.  Americans are ready for tough solutions.  And they are ready to fight for the country that they love.  The fight must be extended beyond the presidency to Congress, state legislatures and local municipalities.  This is an all out culture war for the future of America.  Is Mitt ready for that?

Polls say no.  Here’s why.

#1:  He does not appear trustworthy 

Is Mitt a flip flopper?  Yes, but people are allowed to grow and learn and change their minds.  Although, he has done it an awful lot and on fundamental core issues. Most people’s core beliefs don’t change.  Apparently, Mitt’s can and have.  Often.

 

#2:  He’s got RINO (Republican In Name Only) written all over him 

As the former Republican Governor of one of the most liberal states in the country, Mitt is highly suspect.  Conservative voters, the backbone of the Republican party, are on the lookout for counterfeit conservatives.  To conservatives, RINO’s are no better than liberal Democrats.  They govern the same way.  Because they talk like conservatives and walk like liberals, RINO’s are loathsome to the bulk of Republican primary voters.

#3:  Romneycare 

It’s Obamacare Lite and he simply cannot escape it.  When asked about Romneycare in debates or interviews, Mitt’s answers raise red flags as he sounds more and more like a D.C. politician engaging in D.C. doublespeak.  Americans are in no mood for fast talkers and slick salesmen.  The future of the nation is at stake.  This is serious business.  The electorate is looking for straight talk.

Candidates must jettison their well-honed, practiced answers and talk to the American people from the heart.  Be genuine and authentic.  If you messed up, say so.  But, don’t make excuses and don’t hide behind the 10th Amendment or the voters of Massachusetts.  Romneycare is a failure.  It’s bankrupting Massachusetts.  Man up and own up to it.

#4:  Mitt is a skilled and practiced debater 

In fact, he’s too practiced.  His answers are canned and repetitive.  Robotic.  In fact, Romney is reminiscent of Hymie the robot on the 1960’s “Get Smart” television show.  Stiff.  Unreal.  Looks human, but not the real McCoy.  Having a good answer is important, but communicating and connecting with people is equally important.  Study Reagan.  When he spoke, America listened.  Americans felt like they knew who Reagan really was.  He was genuine and authentic.

#5:  Mormonism 

It’s unpopular to say so, but the fact is that Mormonism remains an issue for Mitt.  75% of protestant pastors view Mormonism as a cult.  It’s a mainstream view within protestant Christian churches.  The unique theology of the Mormon Church and their proclamation that “we are Christians” is a problem for many protestant Christians and makes this an issue that will not go away.

#6:  Mitt can get a little weird 

When pressed and challenged on issues, Mitt Romney can lose his composure and act in strange ways.  His recent interview with Fox News’ Brett Baier is one example.  Baier is one of the most level-headed and fair interviewers in the business.  Yet, Romney became offended when Baier touched on the issue of Romneycare.  Later he told Baier that the tone of the interview was “uncalled for.”  It was just plain silly.  When Mitt got irritated in a debate exchange with Rick Perry, Mitt grabbed his shoulder, a clearly provocative move.  Romney was lucky that  Perry’s Southwest roots didn’t kick in and Perry didn’t grab Mitt’s shoulder, Texas style.  Last Saturday, again irritated with Perry during a debate, Multi-Millionaire Mitt challenged Perry to a $10,000 bet.  Like Rick Perry has $10,000 to burn?  Like any Americans do?  Dumb.

#7:  Mitt’s repeated claim that he’s not a career politician 

Mitt Romney ran for the Senate in 1994, Governor in 2002, President in 2007 and now again in 2011/2012.  He is clearly a politician with high political ambitions.  Claiming that he’s spent his life “in the private sector” ignores the fact that he’s been in the political realm since at least 1994 and, some argue, planning for a presidential run since 2005 during his first and only term as Governor of Massachusetts.

The 2012 election is widely believed to be the most important presidential election in our lifetime.  It’s hard to disagree.  Americans are closely watching the Republican debates.  Social networking sites have changed the political landscape allowing instantaneous sharing of information and fact checking.  The American Electorate is more informed today than at probably any time in history.  If Mitt Romney wants to be the Republican nominee for president, he’s going to have to get very real, very fast.

For the moment, he’s behaving like a typical politician.

And that’s exactly what Americans do not want.