What Makes Mitt Run?

by Richard H. Frank

Following the Michigan and Arizona Republican Primary elections and listening to the marked differences between the speech given by Rich Santorum and Mitt Romney gave rise to the question posed in this blog.

Once again Rick Santorum recited the litany of his family history with special emphasis on the role played by his mother.  He could not help himself as he took the occasion to throw barbs at the primary winner, Mitt Romney.  Then, as scripted, he recited the self-indulgent history of his 20 years as a Washington insider in Congress and the list of initiatives, some failed, that made him the only candidate that can defeat Barack Obama in November of 2012.

Compare Santorum’s speech to Mitt Romney’s for focus and substance and the differences are glaring.  Romney talked about the challenges facing our nation including the massive deficit, real unemployment, energy policy and the path to achieving a brighter future for our children and grandchildren.  The focus  of his speech was on solutions to our nation’s problems and not on disparaging his opponents in the race to secure the Republican Presidential nomination.

As I listened to both men speak and thought about why Mitt Romney was pursuing the nomination the question in my mind was “What makes Mitt run?”

First, let’s look at what it is not:

  • Not Money.  Mitt Romney could retire and never work another day in his life yet earn over 25 times the President’s salary annually without lifting a finger.
  • Not Power.  Mitt Romney accepts the  premise that the “Constitution” is the ultimate law of the law and imposes specific limits upon the Executive Branch of our Government.  Additionally, his spiritual beliefs stemming from his Mormon upbringing place the ultimate power with God Almighty and not with a mere mortal.
  • Not Ego.  Mitt Romney has never placed himself among the Aristocracy or the political elite in our  Country.  He has answered the call to service when necessary for his Church and for his Country.  He is criticized for having achieved success and wealth, not through inheritance but through possessing a brilliant intellect and a good old-fashioned hard work ethic.

Those people that know Mitt Romney personally and have dealt with him on a personal level describe him as down to earth and not possessing an egotistical bone in his body.

That brings me to consider “What  is it that makes Mitt run?”  The answer came to me in the form of an inspirational plaque that adorned my office for many years.  The plaque defined “winners and losers.”  I believe Mitt Romney to be a “winner” that possesses the qualities that exemplify a true leader.

Consider the following when assessing Mitt Romney:

  • The winner is always part of he answer; the loser is always part of the problem.
  • The winner always has a program and plan; the loser always has an excuse.
  • The winner says “Let me do it for you;” the loser says “That’s not my job.”
  • The winner sees an answer for every problem; the loser sees a problem for every answer.
  • The winner says “It may be difficult but it is possible; the loser says “It may be possible but it is too difficult.”
  • When a winner makes a mistake, he says “I was wrong.”; When a loser makes a mistake , he says, “It wasn’t my fault.”
  • A winner makes commitments and keeps them; a loser makes promises
  • Winners have dreams; losers have schemes
  • Winners say “I must do something;” losers say “something must be done.”
  • Winners are a part of the team; losers are apart from the team
  • Winners see possibilities; losers see problems
  • Winners believe in win-win; losers believe for them to win someone must lose.
  • Winners choose what they say; losers say what they choose.
  • Winners make it happen; losers let it happen.

And probably the most important characteristic when arguing which candidate is either the most conservative or the most electable to consider is:

  • Winners stand firm on values but compromise on petty things; losers stand firm on petty things but compromise on values.

Mitt Romney possesses a genuine love for this Country and an abiding respect for the values and principles upon which it was founded.  He certainly has no materialistic or egocentric need to become President of the United States of America.  One may wonder why anyone would endure the scrutiny and abuse they and their families are put through in pursuit of the Office.

I believe by any measure Mitt Romney to be a “winner” whose DNA has been engraved with an abiding love for God and Country.  He is a man who sees a nation in decline due to false ideology and therefore must instinctively rise to confront and solve the problems that menace our Republic.

He is not by nature a “political animal” that goes along to get along.  As President I believe he will bring a breath of fresh air to the White House and begin to resolve the hateful ideological divide that exists in Washington, D.C. for the good of the nation.

“Winners and losers” is a metric we should use when assessing every candidate seeking to represent us and our individual views in our Representative Republic.”  He is not cool, possesses no “rock star” qualities, sings about as good as the rest of us, and obviously is not the best speech maker in the world, but he is as good as it gets for a candidate to become my President.

Obama’s Anti-Life Policies and Generation Y’s Admiration

by Jayne D. Frank

Recently after debates and speeches from the GOP candidates focusing on President Obama’s efforts to impose his pro-abortion policies on churches and religious-based organizations, I saw many tweets and other comments from younger voters saying “What’s this all about?” or “He did not.”  What they were referring to are the candidates’ reminders that then Senator Barack Obama voted for “Infanticide” – the Bill which would not sustain life for babies born alive after an abortion attempt.  So these young voters need to be reminded of this man’s lack of a morality by reading the article below:

AUGUST 22, 2008 7:30 A.M.

Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide
More important to protect abortion doctors than “that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it.”By Andrew C. McCarthy

‘ There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.

No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”

Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.

But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.

The record, however, doesn’t lie.

Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.

The child had lacked the good grace to expire as planned in an induced-labor abortion — one in which an abortionist artificially induces labor with the expectation that the underdeveloped “fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” will not survive the delivery.

Stanek encountered another nurse carrying the child to a “soiled utility room” where it would be left to die. It wasn’t that unusual. The induced-labor method was used for late-term abortions. Many of the babies were strong enough to survive the delivery. At least for a time.

So something had to be done with them. They couldn’t be left out in the open, struggling in the presence of fellow human beings. After all, those fellow human beings — health-care providers — would then be forced to confront the inconvenient question of why they were standing idly by. That would hold a mirror up to the whole grisly business.

Better the utility room. Alone, out of sight and out of mind. Next case.

Stanek’s account enraged the public and shamed into silence most of the country’s staunchest pro-abortion activists. Most, not all. Not Barack Obama.

My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.

Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.

But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.

The shocking extremism of that position — giving infanticide the nod over compassion and life — is profoundly embarrassing to him now. So he has lied about what he did. He has offered various conflicting explanations, ranging from the assertion that he didn’t oppose the anti-infanticide legislation (he did), to the assertion that he opposed it because it didn’t contain a superfluous clause reaffirming abortion rights (it did), to the assertion that it was unnecessary because Illinois law already protected the children of botched abortions (it didn’t — and even if it arguably did, why oppose a clarification?).

What Obama hasn’t offered, however, is the rationalization he vigorously posited during the 2002 Illinois senate debate.’

The images described by these nurses should have remained in the minds of every American, but young people seemed to have forgotten.   They also say that the notion that there are “death panels” in Obamacare is a farce.  However, what is not contested, is the language in Obamacare that people will get health care under Medicare, based on the “cost justification” which takes into consideration a person’s age and condition to determine if they will receive the needed procedures to save their life.  Fetus or Elderly – you are not safe in Obama’s vision of the perfect America, because you are not productive and will not be able to participate in paying “your fair share.”

As incredulous as it is, young voters, as well as his supportive African-American base, seem to be frozen in an adulation for this man, often looking at him as a Rock Star.   In his new singing debut, you actually saw people shivering as he sang to his audience.

I know that Generation Y and the blacks in America do not keep on top of what is happening in this country to a large extent, and that is a shame, for November, 2012 will once again ask Americans:  Do you want a President that loves his country, governs and protects all Americans (both unborn and elderly), will get out of the way of private enterprise so that jobs will be created, will uphold  his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and most of all, will not lie to the American people every time he stands before his teleprompters and cameras?  The choice is obvious – Obama must be a one-term President.

I have a Job – “I’m on Unemployment”

by Jayne D. Frank

The reality of the burden and consequences of Congress once again extending unemployment insurance benefits without any concurrent cuts to pay for these benefits, hit me as I encounter everyday examples of its abuses.

My husband and I were lucky to winter in Florida for a few months this year.  Our home is in a large modest neighborhood made up of  people who live and work to eek out a meager living having little or nothing in the way of assets or the “typical” middle income trappings resulting from their labors.  They do with less and they drive cars much older than the median age of cars in this country.  Since my husband and I worked and contributed for over 75 years between us in careers that demanded up to 70-80 hour work weeks, I see this segment of the Florida population, and their struggle for survival, as an example of “everything that is wrong with Obama’s policies.”

Further, I ache for the immediate implementation of Newt Gingrich’s policies which he indicated would give citizens “unemployment insurance in exchange for the participants getting training to qualify them for a real private -sector paying job.”

Yesterday, I ran into a neighbor who used to be employed full time at Wal-Mart, often working  late or long hours, and my husband and I thought his goal was to work his way into a position of  management at this company.  So dissappointed was I when we ran into him and asked “Do you still have a job?”  His answer was “Yes, I have a job – I am on unemployment!”  When asked why he was unemployed, he said he was given “warnings” by management, and eventually lost his job.  Undoubtedly he has been on unemployment for most of the past 2 years that we have not seen him.  Saying “There is nothing out there” we immediately knew that he is not pursuing any full time employment because there is no urgency in his voice and it is obvious that he is enjoying his days filled with doing nothing so long as he remains on the dole.  Later that day our postal delivery person asked me if he is still working because he obviously gets benefit checks and checks for “on-the-side-employment that he is not claiming.

Florida itself, with a 9% stated unemployment rate (probably much higher in reality) is filled with other examples of people squandering their unemployment benefits.  When I was fully employed and not retired, the only time you saw people on the street was during lunch time.  Today in Florida, it is like “lunch time” or a Saturday every day of the week with young people milling about in flea markets, gathering at eateries to chew the fat, at guns shows or festivals, or filling the bars starting at 3:30 to party and play with their friends.  These people don’t have mortgages or other fixed payments, so much of every single dime taxpayers “give” them goes into these activities with very little going to purchase food or other necessities.  Florida’s Governor was right to want to require “drug testing” for acceptance of continued benefits as drug use is also prevalent here.

When my husband and I were in our careers, finding yourself on “unemployment” was embarassing to us.  Surely if you were given a “warning” one time by an employer, you took heed of the warning and never let it happen again because of your need to keep your job.  The one time I found myself on unemployment for two months because of a headquarters move, I spent every waking hour calling, sending resumes and contacting employers in person to find something to put me back in the ranks of the employed.  There is none of that now  – no resumes, no cold-calling and very often you can go down the street and find signs in businesses yards advertising for “jobs available” or “now hiring.”  The work ethic that we grew up with just doesn’t seem to be there any longer.

Wake up Congress and Americans!  If this was an insolated case of fraud and abuse, it would be one thing, but our Country is going the way of Greece – we are broke and cannot keep governing with our hearts and forking over money to people that refuse to find employment or get retrained in our community colleges.  You have no problem telling your kids “No” or “We are broke” when they ask for candy or playthings.  Say “NO” when it really counts for the survival of our country! We are fast approaching a country of “takers” and not “makers”, and President Obama’s intended fiscal policies are feeding that entitlement thinking.

What is Happening at Fox News?

by  Richard H. Frank

For many Americans, myself included, Fox News represented a breath of fresh air with their “fair and balanced” representation of the news of the day.  Compared to the national syndicated network programs seen on ABC, NBC and CBS we were able to view and hear about events on Fox News that were sanitized and excluded from other broadcasts for political correctness or ideological reasons.

With the advent of the Glenn Beck show, Fox News reached a new high for service to the public by educating generations of individuals that possessed no conception of this nation’s founding.  Moreover, that program provided the impetus to the “Tea Party Movement” largely as a spinoff from Beck’s 912 initiative.

Arguably the results of the 2010 midterm election and the “shellacking” according to President Obama, received by the Congressional Democrats  can be largely attributed to Mr. Beck and his followers.  However, somewhere along the way Fox News management decided Mr. Beck was becoming too extreme in his religious leanings and opposition to the secular influences in Government.

We may never know what prompted Glenn Beck to leave Fox News but one cannot help but surmise that management at the cable network viewed his political beliefs as falling outside the bounds of “fair and balanced.”

If you were to look back and observe the not so subtle changes in the Fox philosophy I believe a pattern exists and is marked by the departure of specific individuals at the network.  One of the best examples of “fair and balanced” coverage of the news was presided over by Brit Hume as the Bureau Chief of Fox News.  His skill at analysis and moderating panel discussions gained him the enduring admiration and respect of the viewing audience.

Today, under Brett Baier, the same format at 6pm has lost much of its intrinsic value and degenerated into a high-class “coffee clutch” with the possible exception of Charles Krauthammer.

The “fair and balanced” debates, now present on virtually every Fox Segment, except for O’Reilly,  are reminiscent of the arguing seen on the Jerry Springer show of past decades where the participants talk over each other and spew the same old political talking points day after day, hour after hour.

February 14, 2012 marked the low point in my estimation, with the news of the cancellation of “Freedom Watch” on the Fox Business channel.  Judge Andrew Napolitano hosted this hour-long excursion into the bowels of our Constitution and exposed the politics of manipulation and distortion of that document by present-day politicians.  The Judge was branded as a Libertarian and overtly in support of Ron Paul thus violating the “fair and balanced” premise of Fox News.

The truth is that Judge Napolitano is an avid “Constitutionalist” who believes in the strict interpretation of the language contained in the Document.  He stands firm against judicial activism and manipulation of the powers enumerated for the separate branches of Government.  He believes that Government should serve the people and not people serving the Government.  He believes the “Declaration of Independence” and “Bill of Rights” set the premise for what our Government must be and the Constitution restraints that keep that Government from becoming tyrannical usurping the Power of “We the People.”  That message is not just Libertarian – it is American!

His message is delivered passionately and boldly taking issue with both political parties whenever they infringe upon the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator.  His message of “Freedom” and his presentation is among the most fair and balanced to be found in American broadcast news.

Yet, because of political correctness, fear of Government reprisal or some unknown force applied to Fox Management, his First Amendment right of free speech has been eliminated from Fox News.

On one of his final broadcasts, Judge Napolitano lays out a scenario of “what ifs” wherein he paints a picture of our  Federal Government, out of control, infringing upon every aspect of American life.  His message for freedom ends with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:  ”When the People fear the Government, we have Tyranny – when the Government fears the People we have Freedom.”

My question to Fox News is, what are you afraid of?

The Poison Pill within Obamacare

by Richard H. Frank

To quote the words of Nancy Pelosi “We will have to pass the Bill to find out what’s in it.”  The more we learn the more sinister and onerous the truth about the “Affordable Health Care Act” becomes.

Unfortunately, political double speak and the noise created by debating the minutia throughout this monstrous document, tend to hide the basic unconstitutional premise upon which the law is founded.  The Government cannot force individuals to purchase something they do not want.  Moreover, the latest mandate placed upon private insurance providers to pay for contraceptive and abortion services they do not cover is a direct infringement upon the freedom of every American.

If Government can mandate contraceptive and abortion services where will it all end?  Remember, what Government gives, Government can also take away as Thomas Jefferson warned.  Under any form of socialized medicine, or Obamacare, the bureaucracy decides what treatment and for whom a treatment will be provided.

In answer to a question as to “If a woman’s 80-year-old mother could receive a life-saving procedure under Obamacare,” President Obama answered that in some instances taking a pill might be the appropriate treatment.  Bureaucrats making decisions about medical treatment is just one step closer to euthanasia for the elderly and infirmed. Just what pill might they think is appropriate?

What we have already learned about Obamacare is that a premium is placed on the life of those considered “contributors.”  Individuals between 20 and 55 years of age will take preference in receiving scarce or costly procedures over the unborn, the very young and the elderly.

The moral compass of many in our state legislatures and Congress has been lost.  The value placed on human life has been diminished to a point where “The Great American Holocaust” has taken 10 times the number of lives through abortion than  did the Nazi’s attempt at genocide against the Jews during WWII.

What has this great nation become when Government defines “rights” that favor political ideology over those unalienable rights bestowed upon every human being by our Creator.

I fear for this nation should we continue along a path that places economic value upon life and diminishes and excludes the very mention of God in the public arena.

The Soul of Barack Obama Revealed in His Own Words!

By: Richard H. Frank

As author of this blog, I cannot take credit for the content of this post. However to the anonymous person that researched the following goes my sincere thanks for exposing the soul of the President.

A Coil of Rage —

The character of any man is defined by how he treats his mother as the years
pass …. need I say more about this person below other than there is no
character, no integrity; but, there is a ton of attitude and arrogance that
defines his shallow past and hollow future….. I rest my case….

I bought and read Obama’s book,Audacity of Hope.  It was difficult to read,
considering his attitude toward us and everything American.  Let me add a phrase
he used to describe his attitude toward whites.  He harbors a “COIL OF RAGE”; his
words, not mine.


Everyone of voting age should read these two books by him: Audacity of Hope and
Dreams From My Father.  Don’t buy them; just get them from the library.

From Dreams From My Father:
“I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began
to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”

From Dreams From My Father :
“I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity
against my mother’s race.”

From Dreams From My Father:
“There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of
herself, maybe and white.”

From Dreams From My Father:
“It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty
to the black masses, to strike out and name names.”

From Dreams From My Father:
“I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own.
It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all
the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois
and Mandela.”

And FINALLY ………….. and the most scary:

From Audacity of Hope:
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly

America’s Constitution in Tatters!

by Richard H. Frank

Over the past three years America has witnessed Barack Obama’s unrelenting assault upon our Constitution.  His campaign promise “to fundamentally change America” can only succeed if the limitations on the power of the Federal Government (Article II, Section 8) are obliterated.  He and his Administration have used every parliamentary, judicial and executive fiat to circumvent the Constitution.

Obamacare, if upheld by the Supreme Court, will embolden his majesty to usurp even more power to the Executive Branch of Government and further his agenda to transform this nation into a European Socialist society dependent on government for survival.

His latest attempt to subvert the First amendment by forcing Catholic and other religious organizations to provide “birth control”” and “abortion services” to their employees is a direct assault upon the religious freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.

Fearing a backlash from Catholics in the November 2012 election he has retrenched and altered his position where  religious institutions that refuse to provide these services will be exempted; however, their insurance providers will be compelled to pay for the service wherever supplied.

Since when can Government compel a private company to pay for a service they otherwise would not provide?  Isn’t this no different than the  Government mandate to purchase health insurance or be subject to a fine?

Should these edicts not be challenged and left to stand just where will the money come from to pay for these services that private insurers are compelled to cover?  The  answer is simple.  We will all pay for them in the form of increased premiums to cover contraceptive services provided to others.

Sooner or later, the private insurance industry will be destroyed and employers will discontinue coverage forcing everyone into a government single-payor system which was Obama’s stated goal.

So what’s next on Obama’s agenda?  How about extorting $25 billion from the largest mortgage banks under the guise of helping persons unfairly foreclosed upon and/or subject to unfair lending practices.

Extortion has become a major weapon in Obama’s arsenal for waging war against the private sector economy and in particular the financial industry.  $20 billion from BP associated with the Deepwater Horizon  disaster now followed by $25 billion from the banks with no explicit plan on how these funds are to be administered.  The housing crisis shows no sign of recovery and Obama’s prior three programs to assist in home loan modifications have been total failures.

Also, don’t think for a minute the banks will not increase fees on the rest of us to recover the $25 billion.

The housing crisis was caused by Government and rest assured Obama will take credit for rescuing thousands from foreclosure during the coming campaign.  He will certainly leave out that ultimately these costs will be borne by all of us.

Obamacare, taking over the auto industry, appointing Czars having no accountability or congressional oversight and using executive fiat to circumvent Congress are all actions taken with the sole purpose of trampling the Constitution.  His failure to pass Cap and Trade through legitimate legislative means has resulted in the imposition by Government agencies of rules and regulations aimed at suppressing exploration of America’s natural resources, namely:  oil, coal, and natural gas.

A President that has declared war on several states, insulted religion in particular Christianity and is anti-free enterprise, has laid the foundation to eliminate the 10th Amendment thereby clearing the path to domination by the Federal Government.

Those of us that believe in our  “Declaration of Independence” and “Constitution” must work to defeat Barack Obama in 2012 and return this nation to the principles upon which it was originally founded!