Tag Archives: Romney
Rather then put up my usual side by side, I am providing the links to the candidate’s websites so you can read from them directly. Learn what they stand for and make your own decisions.
Reason.TV did a man (and woman) on the street interview session during the DNC on the matter of being pro-choice. As you will see, “pro-choice” only applies to what women want to do with their bodies as it relates to reproductive choice, and has nothing to do with choice on other matters. In reality, the issue should be couched in the term “pro-abortion” but that seems to ugly, right?
Chiding Mitt Romney in her speech at the Democrat National Convention this week, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts declared that “Corporations are not people. People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick, they cry, they dance. They live, they love, and they die. And that matters, because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people.”
Let’s first take a look at the definition of “people.” According to Merriam-Webster, “people” is defined as “human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.”
A body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession
Collins World English Dictionary and The Free Dictionary Online
(Law) a group of people authorized by law to act as a legal personality and having its own powers, duties, and liabilities
A body politic or corporate, formed and authorized by law to act as a single person, and endowed by law with the capacity of succession; a society having the capacity of transacting business as an individual.
A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
Romney, a Harvard MBA and JD (earned simultaneously) was absolutely correct when he stated that corporations are people. Don’t mess with Mitt!
Just a side note, Warren states that corporations don’t have hearts, I think meaning that they don’t feel or have passion the same way human’s do. Let’s take a look at two individuals often associated with “big business,” the Koch Brothers. Often the target of Democrat ire, and part of the “big corporation- big business” that liberals like to demonize as being cold, cruel, heartless- yeah, here is a list of donations made by the Koch Brothers:
New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell: $15 million
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: $25 million
The Hospital for Special Surgery: $26 million
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center: $30 million
Prostate Cancer Foundation: $41 million
Deerfield Academy: $68 million
Lincoln Center’s NY State Theater: $100 million
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $139 million
Corporations giving to charity are far too many to list. The following account for only a very small fraction of both in-kind and in cash giving, but represent “big-pharma” and corporations that are too often demonized by the liberal left: “Big-pharma” Pfizer, Merck, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Eli Lily gave a total of $5.5 billion in 2010. Microsoft gave $500 million, Walmart $446 million, and Staples, one of the Bain success stories, gave $19.8 million, and the list goes on. I would say that corporations do have heart, but that’s just me.
MA Governor Deval Patrick chided Mitt Romney on his record indicating that “household income was declining” during Mitt’s term. Again, no need to let the facts get in the way of the story.
According to the US Census Bureau data the record tells a different story. In 2002, the year before Romney took the reins in the governor’s office, the Median Household Income in MA was $51,085. When Romney left office, the MHI was $59,930, or 1.17 times the 2002 level.
Median Household Income (source: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi)
Governor Patrick made the claim during his DNC speech on Tuesday that under Romney, “Massachusetts was 47th in job creation.” However, according to the W. P. Carey School of Business jog growth tracking, Romney’s track record paints a considerably different picture. In the year prior to Romney coming into office, 2002, MA ranked 50th in the nation for job growth. In his first year in office, 2003, MA rose to 46th; in 2004 49th; in 2005 46th; and in 2006 31st.
Just a side thought, as the Obama campaign continues to blame our current economic woes on Bush-era policies, using that same ideology we should credit Romney-era policies for the three years following his term in office where MA was 24th in 2007 and 17th in 2008 and 2009. I’m just saying.
During his DNC speech on Tuesday, Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts, condemned Mitt Romney for education cuts that were “deeper than anywhere else in America.”
Well, good for Mitt, because amid those cuts, and during his governorship, Massachusetts rose from 5th place in 2002, the year before he took office, to 1st in 2005 and 2006, Romney’s last two years in office. As they say in the Marines- “Oorah!”
A relative of mine recently referenced an article on addictinginfo.org in which the statement is made “There are no liberals calling for conservatives to leave the country. That’s Republicans.” Clicking the link found on “That’s Republicans” takes us to an article on alternet.org titled Allen West Apparently Wants the Majority of Floridians to Leave America. In this article, Allen West is quoted as saying
“This is a battlefield that we must stand upon and we need to let president Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and my dear friend, the chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain’t on the table. Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, and take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America. Yeah, I said hell.”
I want to respond to alternet.org, addictinginfo.org, and my relative with a story that I hope will give meaning to what Allen West declared, something with which I agree.
For whatever reason, John found himself struggling and unable to make a decent living in the city in which he lived. Frank, a relative, had always been inviting and cordial, and extended an offer for John and his family to come and stay in his home. He had done very well and lived in a spacious home, and John and his family were welcomed with open arms. All Frank asked of John was that his family abide by the rules he had established for his home so as to maintain order, and that John and his adult children find work, pay rent, and provide food for themselves, and they were welcome to stay.
One day, one of John’s children decided that she really didn’t like one of the rules of the house, and staged a protest. It was fairly innocuous, and nothing really came of it. Not much later, another of John’s children decided that he also did not like that same rule, and the son and daughter decided to protest together, this time a little louder. Frank was generous and wanted to be tolerant, so he decided that a slight change in the house rules was okay and would not cause a big stir.
A few months passed, and another of John’s children, an adult child, decided that she no longer wanted to work and stated that Frank, as the wealthy owner of the house should provide her with food and shelter despite the fact that her father, John, was making money, albeit not much. Frank, not wanting to make a fuss, acquiesced and met the adult daughter’s demands. Seeing that his children were able to get Frank to make changes to the house rules and even get Frank to feed them without requiring anything in exchange, John decided that he, too, wanted to demand a change in the rules.
Pretty soon Frank and his wife realized that the home they were now living in had very little resemblance to the home they founded for themselves when they were first married. Fifty-percent of his money was going to support John and his family, and the demands made to change house rules resulted in Frank, his wife, and their children living in a home society that demanded tolerance from them, but gave very little tolerance in return. John and his family’s demands had changed the face of Frank’s home, it seemed almost beyond notice.
Frank and his wife are now faced with two choices:
1) They can continue to acquiesce to the demands of John and his family, and who knows what future demands might be made, or
2) They can advise John and his family that they are no longer welcome in the house and that they need to find some other place to live, a place where the house rules are more in line with the demands John and his family have made