Ann Romney has shown that she would make the ideal first lady, (perhaps the next presidential elections can make that happen). That fact is no more evidence by her stance on stem cell research. Watch this video illustrating her willingness to put her principles before personal gain.
It takes a person of rare character to look beyond themselves in a time of intense suffering, and that is exactly why Ann Romney’s story is so encouraging and inspiring. As the story shows, it’s not like she takes MS lightly or that the disease isn’t terribly frightening. She also knows that other people matter — even unborn people she may never meet or know. But what makes this extraordinary is that she takes this intellectual and moral conviction, and translates it into action — supporting a husband who opposes a form of medical experimentation that could conceivably relieve her own suffering.
And why does Ann have such strength of character? Why is she able to deny herself and seek what is right and true at (potentially) great personal cost? Is it because she has a faith that places other values over the self? Is it because she serves a God and Savior that gives her eternal hope — that comforts her with the knowledge that the world we see is not all there is?
As the debate swirls over whether … Mitt and Ann are Christians or members of a cult, I would just like to show the video below again and again — and then remind their detractors of a declaration in a book that both evangelicals and Mormons hold dear: “By their fruits you shall know them.”
Mitt himself is no exception. According to CNN on February 19, 2007 Mitt “defended his opposition to most embryonic stem cell research despite its scientific promise to cure diseases like multiple sclerosis that afflicts his wife, Ann.”
I thought this article by Jeff Fuller at iowansforromney.blogspot.com was absolutely superb. It is titled “Romney Never a Liberal … No, not even close.” The article features Romney’s 1994 campaign flyer. Compare for yourself how he lined up against Kennedy.
Click here for the front side and here for the back side of the flyer.
As Romney’s 1994 campaign flyer illustrates, he has never been a “liberal” or a “flip flopper.” No, the record shows that he’s been a strong conservative on many issues for many years. Click here for Romney’s response to his critics.
Here are some other links that show Romney’s conservative record:
1. Letter from those who worked with Mitt personally – click here.
2. Romney’s response to the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court’s decision to prohibit bans on gay-marriage – click here.
To contribute to Mitt’s Campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.
“It’s a time for action … I believe in the people of America … A free American people are the source of this country’s great strength.” Those are a few quotes from Mitt’s first TV advertisement which people in Florida, Iowa, South Carolina, Michigan, and New Hampshire heard. Check it out:
To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.
On November 18, 2003, four of the seven justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court made it unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage. Since that day, Mitt Romney has consistently fought to preserve the institution of marriage.
In an article to the Wall Street Journal entitle One Man, One Woman: A citizen’s guide to protecting marriage, Mitt wrote:
No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage. There are lessons from my state’s experience that may help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts.
In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken. Contrary to the court’s opinion, marriage is not “an evolving paradigm.” It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.
Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.
Because of marriage’s pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation.
It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships.
So, what to do?
• Act now to protect marriage in your state. Thirty-seven states–38 with recent actions by Ohio–have a Defense of Marriage Act. Twelve states, including Massachusetts, do not. I urge my fellow governors and all state legislators to review and, if necessary, strengthen the laws concerning marriage. Look to carefully delineate in the acts themselves the underlying, compelling state purposes. Explore, as well, amendments to the state constitution. In Massachusetts, gay rights advocates in years past successfully thwarted attempts to call a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This cannot happen again. It is imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state constitution.
• Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature’s job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens. If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them, and stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power. It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.
With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That’s wrong.
• Act at the federal level. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage. Sometimes we forget that the ultimate power in our democracy is not in the Supreme Court but rather in the voice of the people. And the people have the exclusive right to protect their nation and constitution from judicial overreaching.
People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue: traditional couples, gay couples and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is not a matter of semantics; it will have lasting impact on society however it is ultimately resolved. This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect.
Furthermore, on June 22, 2004, Mitt testified before the US Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the sanctity of marriage. He wrote, “With the inauguration of same-sex marriages, a plethora of legal and regulatory issues are now arising.” For example, “[t]hese issues will not be confined to Massachusetts alone. Our state’s borders are porous. Citizens of our state will travel and may face sickness and injury in other states. In those cases, their spousal relationship may not be recognized, and it would be likely that litigation would result. Massachusetts residents will move to other states, and thus issues related to property rights, employer benefits, inheritance, and many others will arise.”
“It is not possible for the issue to remain solely a Massachusetts issue; it must now be confronted on a national basis. We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, blocks judges from changing that definition and then, consistent with the principles of federalism, leaves other policy issues regarding marriage to state legislatures. The real threat to the states is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage in order to impose their will on the states, and on the whole nation.” Click here to read the entire speech.
On June 2, 2006, Mitt wrote to every US Senator requesting that each of them vote to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. He wrote, “Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.” Click here to read the entire letter.
Mitt has also urged his own state legislatures to allow the people to vote on a marriage amendment. In fact, he got 170,000 residents of Massachusetts to sign a referendum that would put the marriage amendment on the ballot. The ballot initiative would’ve allowed the state’s citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. The legislature refused to address the issue and thus violate the Massachusetts Constitution. Here is Mitt’s reaction:
On November 19, 2006, Mitt addressed a rally at the Massachusetts State House and called on the legislature to vote on a marriage amendment. Here is his speech:
Overall, I agree with Maggie Gallagher who hailed Mitt Romney as “a brave man.” America needs a President who is willing to protect and defend the traditional family. America needs Mitt Romney.
To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.
It is true that Mitt Romney has changed his position on abortion. I believe, however, that his conversion was genuine.
Mitt explains that several years ago, as Govenor of Massachusetts, he was faced with a tough decision regarding stem cell research. That experience caused him to reexamine where he stood on the issue of abortion. In this video Mitt explains the events that influenced his conversion.
Since that experience, Mitt has been unwavering in his support for the pro-life movement. For example, on January 1, 2007 (the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade), Mitt released a statement saying, “We must create a culture of life where the weakest and most innocent among us are protected. … While there are well-meaning people on both sides of this debate, no one can deny that when hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed every year, it should be a major concern for a nation as great as ours. If we commit ourselves to promoting a culture of life, I believe that one day our nation’s laws may reflect what is in our hearts.”
According to his official website www.mittromney.com website, Mitt has stated, “I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.” (Boston Globe, Mitt Romney Editorial, July 26, 2005)
Click below for more information on Mitt’s pro-life stance.
According to Deborah White at www.about.com, Barack Obama recently stated, “I am absolutely determined that, by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country. There’s no reason why we can’t accomplish that.” You can read Obama’s entire speech by clicking here.
His rival John Edwards has also recently advocated for universal health care. Click here to read a posting titled “Edwards, No Match for Romney. Edwards has stated, “it is more important to invest in universal health care … than to reduce the budget deficit.” Edwards’ government takeover plan would be funded by taxing individuals who make over $200,000 a year.
According to Robert Portman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, taxing individuals who make over $200,000 would only generate about $30 billion in revenues a year. Edwards’ estimates, however, that it would cost between $90 and $120 billion a year for the government to provide universal health care. Where is the rest of the $60 to $90 billion going to come from? Probably you and me. Click here here to view Portman’s interview on Charlie Rose regarding President Bush’s 2008 Budget and John Edwards’ government takeover plan.
According to Foxnews, “[i]n 1993, as first lady, Clinton led her husband’s calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation’s health care system.” Her government takeover plan ultimately failed.
You see the Democrats’ approach, the government takeover approach, still doesn’t solve the health care problem. Yes, everyone gets covered but it doesn’t reduce the costs of health care. Instead, it shifts the costs from one place (high insurance premiums) to another place (high taxes). We end up still paying a ton of money for health care.
And we all know that when there’s a government takeover, the costs go through the roof. Mitt said it best when, quoting someone else, he stated: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait till it’s free.”
Americans don’t need a government takeover, we need to change the market and reduce costs and at the same time give 46 million uninsured people a chance to take personal responsibility and obtain health insurance.
Click on these three YouTube Video’s to watch Mitt express his views on universal health care:
According to www.mittromney.com on February 7, 2006, Mitt delivered a major policy speech at the Detroit Economic Club. Below are the mainpoints of his speech.
Governor Romney’s Five Factors That Accelerate Growth And Assure Economic Leadership: Watch this video on youtube where Mitt explains his position.
- Skilled, Educated, Motivated People
- Free Trade, On The Level
- Capital And Savings
- Innovation And Technology
- Consumer Freedom
Governor Romney’s Five Braking Factors That Decelerate Economic Growth: Watch this second video on youtube where Mitt explains his position.
- Excessive Taxation And Spending
- Excessive Regulation
- Excessive Burdens On Business Activity
- Excessive Health Care Costs
- Excessive Energy Costs
Governor Romney’s Initiatives To Ensure America’s Continued Economic Growth:
- Making the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts Permanent
- Reforming the Tax Code
- Tax Free Savings
- Fiscal Discipline
- Regulatory Relief
- National Tort Reform
- Fuel Efficiency
According to our friends at www.californiansforromney.com “The Club’s President, Pat Toomey, highlighted Governor Romney’s call for permanent tax cuts, tax reform, spending discipline, regulatory relief starting with the reform of Sarbanes-Oxley, and tort reform as solidly pro-growth.”
“Governor Romney outlined today an economic platform that is, generally speaking, very pro-growth despite the surprising limit he suggests for tax-free savings,” Toomey said. “As the governor develops the specifics of his economic policies, we hope he will boldly build upon the limited government, free-market policies he discussed today.”
“The other presidential candidates should follow Governor Romney’s lead and propose similar, if not more extensive, measures to protect American taxpayers and promote continued economic expansion.”
Mitt’s record shows that he is serious about taxs cuts. Not only did he NOT raise taxes as Govenor of Massachusetts (while at the same ELIMINATING its decifit) but most recently, he was the first Republican Presidencial candidate to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Click here to view a related article entitled “Decrease the National Deficit and Generate a Surpuls by 2012 by Cutting Taxes.”
To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to learn more about his stance on important issues, please visit www.mittromney.com.
It seems that many people feel that the success of Bush’s new strategy in Iraq depends on PM al-Maliki’s ability to crack down on the insurgency. As noted in One Last Shot, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to cap the number of troops because (1) they believe that Bush’s new strategy has been tried and failed in the past and (2) that PM Nouri al-Maliki doesn’t have what it takes to win.
2008 presidential hopeful George Pataki recently visited Georgetown University to deliver a speech titled “A Way Forward in Iraq.”
Here are a few excerpts from Pataki’s speech taken from the Wall Street Journal: “I don’t think there is anyone who has said that what we have to do is hold the Maliki government’s feet to the fire,” Pataki said. “Let’s make them take the actions that they can take [toward a stable government].”
“You have people now saying ‘No, no surge.’ You have some saying, ‘Yes, the surge is a solution.’ I’m saying: the surge if. And the ‘if’ is that the surge … is to achieve the broader goal of a stable, representative Iraqi government — yes, if in fact that government is a partner, and more than just a wordsmith partner but to the extent it is a capable and effective partner in achieving that goal. We can’t make the Iraqi institutions of government function. We can help them to have a climate where they can make them function.”
It seems that many people are very skeptical about the Prime Minister’s ability to pull this off.
What do you think? Does Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have the ability to bring stability to Iraq?
Perhaps the following article, videos, audio feed, and transcript will inspire faith in the man.
Audio: Maliki’s Address to US Congress on July 26, 2006 http://www.npr.org
Transcript: Maliki’s Address to US Congress on July 26, 2006 http://www.npr.org
To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to find more news on current events and information on Mitt Romney’s stance on important issues, please visit his official website at www.mittromney.com.
Click the link below to watch Mitt Romney’s speech at the Herzliya Conference in Israel. In the speech he declares how the civilized world should stop Iran.
Here are excerpts of his speech taken from www.herzliyaconference.org:
“I am glad to be in Israel again, in a country I love with people I love. It’s been ten years since I was last here. The country has changed. It is a lot greener with a lot more trees, and also has more highways. However, I was struck by how vibrant the economy is. As someone who worked in the private sector, I am impressed with Israel’s resilience.”
“The world has also changed. Unfortunately, many have not caught up with the strategic paradigm. Many years ago, the Arab-Israeli conflict was looked at as a regional conflict that dragged on, but it was not looked at as part of a global threat. September 11th should have changed that. Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not mollify the Jihadists. It has been the oldest most radical front of the Islamic jihad in the world. This has not been about borders. This is about the failure for them to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. … “
“The focus in the United States is on Iraq now-a-days. This has been a painful time for the U.S. as of late with as many deaths of our soldiers as we have had. With as many mistakes as the U.S. has made, we are committed to making every effort for success in Iraq. There are some Congressional leaders arguing that the President is not allowed to authorize more forces in Iraq – this is not true.”
“The heart of the Jihadist threat is Iran. Iran’s leaders and ambitions represent the greatest threat the world has seen since Communism and Nazism before that. Ahmedinijad is a horrible leader as he denies the Holocaust, but his main purpose of denying the Holocaust is to deny the state of Israel. He is testing the waters to see who responds. This threat would take on a new dimension if they were allowed nuclear power. This could be the tipping point of development and proliferation of nuclear weapons.”
“We need to dispense with three wishful lines of thinking. 1) We hope that Iran’s weakening economy will end the leadership. 2) It is possible to live with a nuclear Iran – thinking that Iran, once being allowed to join the nuclear club, will act responsibly. 3) There is deterrence, like their was in Soviet Russia, but the Russians were never suicidal. This cannot be said for a regime that celebrates martyrdom. …”
“Attempting to defeat totalitarianism in the last century did not always show that the west would win. We were afraid of major losses. We did not lose though. In the current conflict, we can lose only by not lifting a finger to help ourselves. It is time for the world to speak three truths: 1) Iran must be stopped; 2) Iran can be stopped; 3) Iran will be stopped!”
To read Mitt’s entire speech click here. You can also read Newt Gingrich and John Edwards’ speeches by clicking here for Gingrich’s and here for Edwards’.
To contribute to Mitt’s campaign or to find more news on current events and information on Mitt Romney’s stance on important issues, please visit his official website at www.mittromney.com.
Posted by idahoansformitt 
Posted by idahoansformitt 
Posted by idahoansformitt 