comMITTed to Romney!

All of a sudden the wire services have real news about Mitt Romney again. It’s starting to remind me of the lead up to the primary season. Not that active yet, but Mitt’s working on it.

~~John Cronin~~

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_romney_cheek_visa_1

BOSTON - Mitt Romney has asked Chinese officials to restore the visa of Olympic speedskater Joey Cheek so he can attend the Beijing Games.

Cheek’s visa was pulled Wednesday, hours before he was to leave for Beijing.

Cheek, a gold medalist in the 2006 Winter Games, wasn’t going to China to compete, but to support 70 athletes trying to call attention to the genocide in Darfur. The athletes are hoping to convince governments such as China’s to exert pressure on the Sudanese leadership.

Romney, a former Republican presidential contender and 2002 Winter Olympics chief, dictated a letter to his staff Thursday during a layover on his own trip to China.

He’s asking Chinese President Hu Jintou and Premier Wen Jiabao to restore the visa in consideration of his support for Beijing’s Olympics bid and the “numerous courtesies” he says he extended Chinese officials in Salt Lake City

Share on Facebook

Share This

It’s stories like the one below that make me a Republican. Even with all our faults, we don’t come close to the level of hypocrisy that the Democratic Party achieves on a regular basis.

The disgraceful hounding of eight Marines, serving their country under life and death circumstances, by the craven Congressman Murtha, as a purely partisan political ploy in the 2006 election, is another reason why I will NEVER vote for a Democrat.

Any party that will sink this low to keep their shameful and now disgraced organization in power, deserves the unmitigated contempt of the American electorate.

~~John Cronin~~

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=298857066210197

Justice: The latest Haditha Marine to be exonerated is considering suing Rep. John Murtha for calling him a cold-blooded killer. Will Barack Obama be a character witness for saying Murtha knows his stuff?

If you hadn’t heard, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani is the seventh of the Haditha 8 to either be acquitted or have charges dismissed regarding the deaths of civilians in the town of Haditha, Iraq, on Nov. 19, 2005.

Mainstream media and liberal Democrats, if that’s not redundant, are more preoccupied these days with protecting the rights of terrorists, even Osama bin Laden, to habeas corpus and other rights of U.S. citizens they were trying to kill. That has replaced Abu Ghraib and Gitmo as their cause celebre.

Now that Haditha hasn’t turned out to be the Iraqi My Lai they hoped for, they have no time for the innocent Marines, either to comment or apologize. The Los Angeles Times, during a slow period in the barrage of charges, asked in a headline, “Whatever Happened To The Iraqi My Lai?”

Well, the crime never happened, the guilty were found innocent and the lynch mobs dispersed.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Here’s wishing all of our service personnel a wonderful Memorial Day weekend. Thank you for your selfless service to your country. Thanks also to your families who support your service by their prayers and unheralded sacrifices. Godspeed to all of you and may you return home safe and sound!

~~John Cronin~~

“Duty, Honor, Country” — those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Share on Facebook

Share This

I’m updating and bumping this post to highlight an update below. This story is gaining major traction.

From the San Francisco Chronicle on 2/18/2000:

“I hate the gooks,” McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. “I will hate them as long as I live.”

As you can see from my picture, I am Asian by heritage (specifically Korean). I immigrated (legally) with my parents when I was four months old. They had two suitcases, a baby, and hope for a better life for themselves and their future children and grandchildren. We have lived the American dream.

Growing up, I heard stories of what life was like during the Korean War. My parents and grandparents fled down the Korean Peninsula to make it past the Pusan Perimeter with North Korean Communist troops at their backs. Their generation reveres General Douglas MacArthur and loves the United States of America for the brave sacrifices made in the defense of liberty and freedom. These were not small sacrifices: 36,516 American dead, 92,134 wounded, 8,176 MIA, and 7,245 POW in only 3 years.

John McCain was one of 2,459 POW/MIAs from the Vietnam war. I honor his service. I am thankful for his sacrifice in a way that only someone who understands all too well that were it not for the United States and men like John McCain, I would likely be digging trenches for Kim Jong Il in a labor camp or dead instead of sitting here writing this blog post in the comfort of my home here in Silicon Valley.

I can only imagine the pain inflicted upon John McCain and his fellow POWs by his North Vietnamese captors. I can understand his hatred for these evil men. I don’t judge him for his emotions when he remembers his experience.

At the same time, I am dismayed by a United States Senator and Presidential candidate’s use of the racial slur “Gook.”

Despite being called out on it by the media and Asian American advocacy groups, he refused to apologize. He claimed that he only uses it in reference to the specific North Vietnamese who were holding him captive, as if this should make it okay.

What an individual former POW says in the privacy of his own home, or amongst his personal friends is their business. What the most famous Vietnam POW in America says to the public using the MSM’s megaphone aboard his campaign bus is not just his business. It’s America’s business.

If John McCain had been beaten and robbed by a couple African American gang-bangers, would he be justified in announcing aboard his campaign bus that he hates niggers? Or what about a couple ’spics or wetbacks? Would it be okay as long as he clarified that he was only referring to those individuals who had robbed and beaten him?

Of course not. Words have meaning no matter how many caveats you put around them. The backlash from black or hispanic groups would have been fast, furious, and justified.

I don’t believe that he is a racist. I believe that he is angry and it is a deep seeded anger which has been refined in the fires of hate deep inside his soul for decades. Nonetheless, a man of John McCain’s position and stature using this kind of language sends the message across the country that racial slurs have an acceptable role in our national public discourse. He is contributing to the coarsening of America and validating the some of the worst instincts of the ignorant among us. Afterall, if it is acceptable for John McCain can use the word “Gook” why should anyone else or society at large be held to any higher standard?

*******************************************

UPDATE: This story is getting major traction. Here’s McCain’s response from the San Francisco Chronicle via Jonathan Martin at the Politico:

“I’m not going to waste my time,” a visibly tense McCain said when reminded of his quotes in the column. “You can say what you want. I’m proud of my record, my service with my comrades. And if anyone has any criticism of that, I can only say I stand on my record and my Silver Star, my three Bronze Stars and my Distinguished Flying Cross.

Huh? What do his medals and commendations have to do with his use of a racial slur? This is the classic McCain response to anything he doesn’t want to discuss…become indignant and hide behind his military service.

Please help Mitt get the nomination. Make a donation to his campaign today.

Share on Facebook

Share This

I’ve pointed out Romney’s comprehensive policy statement “Strategy for a Stronger America” in previous posts.

One of the nice things about this document is that it provides the text to a number of Romney’s major speeches. I spent some time reading the text of these speeches and was struck by how powerful and well thought out they are. They are worth reading.

Below is the text of the speech Romney delivered at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

“The mainstream media is surprised that we’re here. They wrote our obituary last fall. Course, they’ve written our obituary before: after Watergate, after the 82 midterm elections, after Iran-contra, and after Bill Clinton’s election. The truth is that their wishful thinking reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, I predict that we’ll be around a lot longer than . . . say, newspapers.

“No, conservatism is alive and well. And it is needed more than ever. America faces a new generation of challenges, critical challenges. Today is similar in many respects to what we faced as a nation 30 years ago, looking at the menacing face of communism.

“In fact, 30 years ago, in this very conference, one man stood up and told America what was needed. It was conservatism, a new coalition of conservatives that would lead to a brighter future for the nation. Ronald Reagan said this: ‘What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority.’ And here is where he said that this conservative alliance would lead: ‘I have seen the conservative future, and it works.’

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Much has been made of the feud between Huck and Rush. Pundits wondered if Rush was going to have an impact since he’s on vacation between now and the Iowa Caucuses on 1/3.

Read into it what you will, but the entire left column of his homepage today features the following stories:

- Rush responds to Gov. Huckabee
- Huckabee campaign chairman Ed Rollins trashes Rush instead of debating conservatism
- Governor Huckabee forces attack El Rushbo
- Callers reacto to Huckabee attacks on Rush
- Democrats want Mike Huckabee
- Identity politics and the Hucksters
- Gov. Huckabee sounds like Perot

Quoting the ancient general and warfare theorist, Sun Tzu, “Ouch…that’s going to leave a mark.” (just kidding…about the Sun Tzu part, I think it was Don Corleone)

Contrast this with what else Rush has featured on his website today:

- Mitt Romney’s Inspiring Speech (with links to the video and the text)

Recall that after the 1st debate, Rush called Romney “Reaganesque.” The high praise from El Rushbo keeps on coming. Rush has steadfastly clarified that he does not endorse in the primaries, but with “non-endorsements” like these, who needs endorsements?!

Complete transcript from Rush after the jump…

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

From an interview with Hugh Hewitt:

You know, it was not a speech about electoral politics, presidential or otherwise. And it was also certainly not about Mormon theology. And if it had been, I would have written a very different kind of response. It was a magnificent speech, Hugh, and I was personally moved by it. He was addressing, as you said, the issue of who we are as a people, and what the source of our strength has been. And it’s directly related to our spiritual commitment since the days of the founding fathers. He was passionate when he delivered it, and he looked into the camera, at one point, I think he choked up. And it was just a very well-delivered, well thought out speech about the American people. And I loved it.

Share on Facebook

Share This

One of the more common criticisms I am seeing of The Speech in the liberal press and the liberal blogosphere, is in regards to Governor Romney’s assertion that “freedom requires religion.”   In response to those criticisms, I would like to point out some basic realities about our system of government.  Our founding fathers recognized that their experimental republic, which offered unprecedented freedoms to individuals, was doomed to failure unless there was some form of “public virtue” which would guide the actions of free people, outside the constraints of an oppressive government.  This invisible hand of public virtue has been, and always will be, rooted in the People’s belief in a Divine Creator to whom we are all answerable at some level.   

Without this kind of guiding, centering principle upon which people would govern themselves, our founders believed, the experiment in liberty would soon unravel in anarchy and debauchery as people pursued their own self interest.  

But alas, 230 years later, the fabric of our government and society is starting to show signs of unraveling, at least around the edges, and it is in part because many segments of our society are no longer guided by some form of religious belief; there is nothing there to check the self-interest or to give moral clarity to choices that may be justified in the context of “freedom” and “liberty,” but nevertheless, lead to profoundly negative implications for society as a whole.  

For example, the family-harming, morally decadent plague of hard pornography, and the more subtle “soft pornography” that saturates movies, TV, and much of pop-culture, causes families to splinter, and babies to be born out of wedlock.  The result?  Burgeoning welfare rolls, poverty, and crime.  But our cherished constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, allow this to occur.  However morally distasteful the media may be, and however unfortunate the indirect consequences of its influence are, our society allows it, because of the sacred freedoms we are guaranteed in our Constitution.

I am not suggesting that such harmful aspects of our society be proscribed by law.  Far from it.  I am suggesting, instead, that something has to check behavior that is otherwise harmful to a self-governing society as a whole.   The answer is not governmental “legislation of morality.”   The answer comes back to the concept of public virtue, or personal moral guiding principles.  In the absence of such moral guiding principles provided by belief in a Divine Creator, there is nothing to check the inclination of human beings to use their freedoms to embrace things that are harmful to society.  Over time, the pursuit of such unchecked self interest would lead to an eventual lapse of all societal norms, where large segments of the populace, in the free pursuit of their own self interest, would trample on the rights or security of others.  Those being harmed would then likely turn to government, seeking security and protection in some form, even being willing to sacrifice some of their own freedoms and liberties for “protection” from the evils around them.  Thus, freedom would slowly be eroded away until tyranny would be the order of the day. 

Perhaps I am painting a dismal picture here, but it seems completely logical to this writer, that tyranny always has been, and always will be, the end result for a free society who refuses to govern its own behavior in moral ways.  That is why religion, and the public virtue it engenders, is so vital to maintaining freedom.  

Those who castigate Governor Romney for pointing this out to us may be sadly doomed to suffer the eventual tyranny that can result from a society who turns a blind eye to these basic fundamentals of our system of government.  We are extremely fortunate to have in Governor Mitt Romney, a candidate who firmly understands these realities and who will govern as president in such a way as to promote public virtue.  He will do this not only by example, but by keeping the public discourse on a plane where the role of religiously-motivated public virtue can once again be openly discussed in appropriate ways so as to ensure that our sacred freedoms are never, ever eclipsed by tyranny.

Share on Facebook

Share This

As I sat in the auditorium listening to Governor Mitt Romney give his historic speech on “Faith in America,” I noticed that the girl next to me was not clapping. She sat with a somewhat skeptical look on her face each time applause erupted from the audience. Toward the end of the speech she began clapping, first lightly and then with a slight amount of vigor. On the next to last line, when the audience rose to their feet in a standing ovation, the girl also rose to her feet although her expression still lacked enthusiasm.

I was intrigued. After the speech I asked to speak to her. Her name was Rachel Dohman. She graduated from Texas A&M in August of this year. She majored in History, although the details of her degree were drowned out in the bustle of the crowd. She wasn’t sure if she was going to vote Democrat or Repulican in the coming election and she wasn’t sure who she would support. She did state, “Well, I voted for Bush. The current one.”

Then I asked about the speech. Rachel said she thought it was “um, good.” When asked about her lack of enthusiasm, she replied that she believed in religious freedom but that she felt the seperation of church and state was important. She said she didn’t “know how much influence [religion] should have” in public life.

When asked what in the speech might have struck a sour note with her, she talked about the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegience and the slogan “In God We Trust” stamped on money. While she was not personally offended by these, she was sensitive to the fact that other Americans were offended by them.

Asked what she liked about the speech, she expressed her enthusiasm for religious freedom for everyone. Indeed, she applauded after the line,

“In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day.”

And again after Romney stated,

And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion–rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.”

She applauded and stood with the crowd after Romney reminded them of the First Contintental Congress praying together in spite of their differing faiths,

“And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God…they founded this great nation.”

Rachel was also impressed by Romney’s “faith in the American people that they won’t judge him for his faith.” Although, she knew that some people would reject Romney simply because of his religious beliefs, she felt that most Americans would judge the candidates on issues and not religious prejudice. That said, she was surprised by the positive reception the speech recieved. She knew that Texas was very conservative and Christian and she wasn’t sure how a Mormon would be recieved there.

As Rachel turned to leave, I thought to ask one last question: Did she consider herself a “religious” person? She seemed a little uncomfortable but told me she had been raised Baptist. She’d been turned off by the experience but has recently begun “exploring” her faith. She stressed that she “believe[d] in God and everything.” She has been attending an Episcopal church lately but was mostly, well, “exploring.”

With that I thanked her. Rachel smiled and left the auditorium.

Share on Facebook

Share This

TO THE MILITARY SERVICE MEN & WOMEN WHO VISIT THIS SITE: See request at the end of this post.

At the end of the debate last night, I recalled a great article I read earlier this year, written by a USMC officer. Before I give my opinion as to why this article below came to mind, consider my thoughts on John McCain:

1) In all sincerity, I am personally grateful for his incredible service to my nation, 2) he epitomizes every attribute of “hero”, a word overused today, and 3) I consider him a military expert.

Those who know me well know that when it comes to our men and women of the armed forces serving our nation, my emotions are close to the surface. Our family lives next to the largest USMC base in the U.S. and we bump into the wonderful Marines and their families all the time in local stores, restaurants, and parks.

But frankly, and as my kids would say, I am so over John McCain! I am tired of hearing John McCain tell Americans and presidential candidates how he is the only person who knows how to be “commander in chief” of the armed forces by virtue of his distinguished military career. I may be wrong in my perception here, but he has this, my-experience-as-a-never-give-up-naval-aviator-officer-POW-never-let-the-troops-down attitude that obviously comes across as condescending to his peers. In my opinion, aside from the drawback of being a Washington, D.C. bureaucrat, he often comes across as a single-issue candidate. We have had many great presidents in this country who never served in the military, many of whom were far better leaders than presidents with prior military experience. And the more McCain thinks he is superior to his peers, the angrier he appears! As a leader, he is a plodder.

Well guess what? Governor Romney, as an experienced, tough leader, is multi-faceted and is skilled in the art of executive leadership in ways that John McCain can only dream of. There is absolutely no question in my mind that Mitt Romney would be a far superior leader in every way that Americans demand of a competent President. When considering every character and leadership trait of those on that stage last night, not one person has the experience, depth of skills, or talent comparable to Governor Romney. Period.

The following article was published March 16, 2007 at UnionLeader.com

[emphasis is mine]

By MICHAEL MOFFETT
Another View

JOHN MCCAIN is one of my heroes.

Read Robert Timberg’s account of McCain’s prisoner of war experience in “The Nightingales’ Song” and try not to be moved.

Like so many of my fellow veterans, I enthusiastically supported McCain’s 2000 Presidential bid, which saw him win a decisive victory over George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary.

Sen. McCain remains one of my heroes. But I now believe former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the man who should serve as our next commander in chief.

The reasons are many, and they include the impressive analysis of the international situation that Romney articulated after his trip to Asia earlier this year. I expect that as the months go by, many of my fellow veterans will join me in supporting a Romney candidacy in 2008.

No prospective President can come close to offering the diverse record of executive leadership that Romney can.

While McCain has been doing important work in Congress for many years, Romney has run a successful billion dollar business, saved the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, and served as the Republican chief executive of one of the country’s most Democratic states. His exemplary record of accomplishment is too lengthy to begin to mention here, but as Americans learn more and more about this extraordinary man they will increasingly like what they see.

There is no substitute for executive leadership experience — a background that one just can’t get in our national legislature, where McCain has but one of 535 votes.

While a senator can lead in different ways, it’s less clear where McCain might lead us, based on so many statements and actions over recent years.

Take some of his sponsored legislation — like the proposed McCain-Kennedy bill which revisits earlier mistakes on dealing with immigration.

It was Ted Kennedy’s support for the 1965 bill that helped create many of the problems we have today. And the 1986 “reform” simply set the stage for current flood of illegals across our borders.

Or the McCain-Feingold bill. This misplaced effort at campaign finance reform has split Americans and the Supreme Court, while expanding federal regulation and abridging First Amendment freedoms.

There are folks who place great faith in expanding government. They’re called Democrats.

Our Republican standard bearer should be someone who remains true to our important principles of limited government while celebrating individual responsibility and personal liberty.

Mitt Romney is such a person.

Romney’s challenge is to better inform Americans about who he is. I expect that he will make it clear he is a man of strong faith, and most will see we share the same values and vision for our country. His wonderful Reaganesque communication skills should enable him to explain his positions on all issues. And most importantly, his true record of achievement needs to be made clear to Americans in the face of the inevitable obfuscation that marks our political process.

There’s plenty of time for this. And when the dust settles next year, I believe that Americans — veterans and non-veterans alike — will embrace this remarkable man to be our next commander in chief.

John McCain will always remain a hero. But Mitt Romney should be our next President.

Michael Moffett is a professor at NHTI-Concord. He is a member of The American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Moffett served as a Marine lieutenant colonel infantry officer during Desert Storm and later served on Gen. Tommy Franks’ operations staff at United States Central Command.

(the top photograph of Governor Romney was made by Lieutenant Colonel Martin Moerschell, USAF, via Department of Defense)

To our military men and women serving in America and abroad: We know many of you are visiting this site from places like Kuwait, Iraq, the Philippines, Afghanistan, etc. If you would like to submit a statement as to why you have decided to support Governor Romney for President, please send the email statement to me directly from your military email address, with permission to publish the statement, and I will post it in this blog. If you wish to remain anonymous, I will honor that as long as you send the email from your military email address. Please provide information about yourself such as rank, line of service (Army, Navy…), current service location, hometown, name, etc. Send me a photograph if you like and I will post it as well.

Most of all, on behalf of this blog’s contributors and all Romney supporters and visitors to this site, we honor you. We thank you for your service and the sacrifices you and your families are making for us. God bless you during this Thanksgiving and Christmas season. You are in the personal and family prayers of millions of Americans.

Please pass along my email address to those with whom you serve who would like to submit a statement as to why they plan to support and vote for Governor Romney as our next Commander in Chief. Please submit your statement and photograph (optional) to —–> vic.lundquist@gmail.com

~ Vic

“We sleep peacefully at night, cradled by the big strong hands of America.”

– Val Saintsbury

“Our great modern Republic. May those who seek the blessings of its institutions and the protection of its flag remember the obligations they impose.”

– Ulysses S. Grant

Share on Facebook

Share This

The Democrats want to take your baby and offer birth-control to your 12 year old. This is a statement ready made for good, old-fashioned propaganda except for one thing. It’s true and it has already happened.

Just last week the Anaya family of Omaha, Nebraska filed a lawsuit against the state health department director and two people who oversee the newborn screening program. The Anaya’s had religious objections to having their newborn son undergo a state-mandated blood test. Nebraska, like 3 other states in the country, has no provision for parents to opt out of the test. So earlier this month, a judge signed an order and sheriff’s deputies entered the Anaya’s home and forcibly took the 5 week-old infant. The baby was not returned to his family until the state received the results of the test, six days later.

This story comes just on the heels of the controversy over the King Middle School Health Center decision to offer contraceptives to students who admit to being sexually active. While a parent permission slip is needed to use Health Center services, doctors are not required to notify parents if a child seeks help for sex, drug, or mental health issues.

The health care system of our nation has become a major issue among presidential candidates. The Democrats are falling all over themselves promising bigger and more lavish government health plans than the one before. John Edwards has already proposed that every person in the US be required to attend a health check-up once a year. If they can take a baby from his home for a required blood test, what will they do to an adult who misses his government-mandated annual check up?

Even some of the Republicans seem to want in on the action of proposing to fix health care problems. Earlier this year Governor Rick Perry of Texas signed an executive order mandating that all girls from the sixth grade up be given vaccinations against cervical cancer. (A parental opt-out was included in the mandate.)

In my estimate, his position on health care is one of Mitt Romney’s biggest weaknesses. He speaks with glowing pride of his accomplishments with the health care of Massachusetts. And with some reason. In the first place, he worked with a Democrat controlled state legislature and he was able to implement the plan without raising taxes. In the second place, his approach shows a new train of thought about the problem of governments role in the health care process.

However, the answer to any problems with the health care of this nation are not going to be fixed by more government involvement. If they are to be fixed at all, it will need to be with less government regulations and restrictions. Much of this is tied up in the tax code. The way that health insurance is bought and sold in this country revolves around the tax benefits, or penalties, associated with it. Changing these laws so that the health insurance market can operate in a more traditional marketplace setting would be a great advantage to the American people.

I do not pretend to be an expert on health insurance or taxes. But this seems to be pretty apparent. In the first place, health insurance purchased through an employer is purchased with “before-tax” dollars. This means that taxes are not deducted from the money going to pay for your health insurance. Should you purchase health insurance from another source, the money is considered taxable income and the government expects a percentage of it.

In the second place, as your salary goes up, so does your tax rate. Not only your personal tax rate, but also the taxes that the company who employs you is expected to pay on your behalf. So it is in the company’s interest to pay you less cash and, instead, offer you benefits that are not subject to taxation. This, in essence, raises your salary without raising your taxes. In the instance of health care, however, it limits you to whatever plan or plans your employer wishes to offer.

Naturally, overhauling the tax code is messier work and more difficult to explain to voters than simply promising that no matter what the government will make sure they have health insurance. But as Romney points out, making promises without explaining the costs rings hollow in the ears of the American people.

In this case, the cost will not just be in money and increased taxation, but in the quality and availability of health care for everyone. We have examples of socialized medicine readily available for study in Canada and in the UK. In both countries, wait times for routine procedures are ridiculously long and delays for life-saving treatments cost people their lives. People from these nations with serious illnesses are coming to the US in large numbers because they cannot depend on the government system at home to give them the kind of care they need to save their lives and restore their health. To paraphrase a famous quote: to implement the same policies and expect different results is insane.

But most of all, allowing the government control, any control, over our health care system means giving up personal freedom. The freedom to care for our health and the health and well-being of our children according to our own desires and beliefs.

The Anaya family is not seeking any money in their lawsuit against the State of Nebraska officials. Instead, they simply want to make sure that none of their children can be taken from them again for following their religious beliefs. And for that matter, none of your children either.

Additional Reading:
Journalstar
MSNBC
Rush Limbaugh

Share on Facebook

Share This

Audience response is measured in the Republican debate in New Hampshire.

Question: “Governor Romney, what would you like to say to the voters out there tonight about your faith, about yourself, and about God?

Key: Yellow: Independents | Red: Republican | White: All Viewers | Pink: Women Voters | Blue: Men Voters - provided by wmurtv

Share on Facebook

Share This

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

I’ve seen this one show up on a number of blogs, but in case you haven’t seen it elsewhere, please take a look.

Freedom isn’t free…this video shows us the cost. Never forget…

- David

Share on Facebook

Share This

It’s not Memorial Day yet in California. I hope this video helps us all keep our lives in perspective and remember the sacrifice of our soldiers.

- David

Share on Facebook

Share This