comMITTed to Romney!

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Governor, you recently got back from a trip to Asia. What were you doing there?

Gov. Mitt Romney: I traveled to Japan, China, and South Korea. Two things from my China trip stand out. First, they will be a more powerful economic competitor than we in America recognize. They are hard working, market oriented, and smart. They even have some lower taxes in some areas than we do. Bottom line: They are competing to win. Second, it is important for us as a nation to reach out to China and to chart out a course that is consistent with a free economy and a free society. This goal must be consistent with our own principles.

We also had the opportunity to go to visit the DMZ when we were in Korea. Imagining what goes on behind that border is one thing — but standing there, staring into North Korea is chilling. Communism and the brutal repression there have exacted an extraordinarily heavy penalty on the people of North Korea and the contrast with the exuberance and prosperity of South Korea could not be more stark.

Lopez: China is, of course, a bit of a human-rights disaster too. Did you have qualms going there at all?

Gov. Romney: I believe in building bridges not walls. We specifically addressed the detention of a Massachusetts citizen, Yang Jianli, with Chinese officials and we asked for special attention and consideration for his early release. Working with China on our own security interests — including the isolation of North Korea — must not be at the expense of our commitment to freedom and basic human rights.

Romney on North Korea

Share on Facebook

Share This

What do you think of this?

I don’t think she makes any sense. She says she wants to “duke it out” but she doesn’t understand why they want to criticize her. Why can’t they speak their mind? They complain about Chris Christie wanting to “take her out”, but then she says she is a big girl and wants to have a contest of ideas. Well, that is what he is trying to do.

What do you think?

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/1122/Poll-Sarah-Palin-can-t-beat-Obama.-But-Mitt-Romney-can

Let the games begin!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Reasons to agree:

1. El Paso, Texas is ranked by an independent-research organization as the safest city in the United States. San Diego came in at number five. The Southwest ranked well overall in the survey which looks at crime rates around the country. Despite being directly next door to Mexico’s deadliest city, Ciudad Juarez, El Paso is ranked number one among cities with populations higher than half a million. The ratings are published each year by CQ Press which, among other things, uses FBI data to compile its list. Last year there were 13 homicides in El Paso compared with more than 2,600 in Juarez, where drug violence is rampant. So far this year there have been 4 homicides in El Paso. Ratings are determined by analyzing violent-crime data, including the incidence of murder, rape, robbery and assaults. Honolulu and New York City ranked second and third safest. Detroit, Mich., where unemployment and poverty are rampant, is ranked as the city with the highest crime rate.

Reasons to disagrees:

1. Perhaps some people have too much fear from illegal immigration, but saying their is nothing to fear is a vast oversimplification, and is actually a demonization of people with very real and legitimate fear. People who live in gated communities, that send their children to private schools, and are not concerned about the price of healthcare might not have any concerns about illegal immigration, but for low and middle class Americans it is a very real concern. Our public school teachers are overwhelmed with kids that don’t speak English, and don’t know our customers, they have to leave in communities with disaffected youth, and go to hospitals that are overwhelmed with people that don’t pay their bills.

2. Allowing millions of people to come to our nation without doing any paperworks poses a very real security issue.

3. Illegal immigrants are no better or worse than any other group of people on the planet. However if they do not speak English, and have a high school education they will have difficulty integrating into our society.

4. America is going to have hard enough time taking care of our own high school drop outs without importing 70 million of them from our neighboring countries.

5. Illegal immigrants have a hard time integrating into our society.

6. Their are many Latin gangs in America including, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sureños, 38th Street gang, Clanton 14, Culver City Boys 13, Fresno Bulldogs, Jheri Curls, Maras (gangs), Nuestra Familia, Varrio Nuevo Estrada, Venice 13.

7. Hispanics have a 20% drop-out rate. (From the Institute of Education Sciences, IES, National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education).

____________________________

Interest of those who agree:

1. The desire to see America grow in size to compete with China.

2. The desire to make America look more like them, if they are Hispanic.

3. The desire for America to be more diverse, if they have liberal guilt.

4. The desire to see America more Catholic.

5. Financial interest if your company would have to move overseas if not for cheap illegal labor.

6. Financial interest if you just don’t like paying your workers very much.

7. Helping the disadvantaged

Interest of those who disagree: %

1. Rule of law (if some people have to come in the legal way, and wait in line, everyone should have to come in the legal way, and wait their turn in line).

2. The desire to not see America become more Catholic.

3. The desire to keep American culture less diverse, or with positive spin more “unified”.

_____________

Books that agree:

1. Please help!

Books that disagree:

1. Please help!

________________

People that agree:

1. Please help

People that disagree:

1. Please help

_______________________

Webpages that agree:

1. Please help

Webpages that disagree:

1. Please help

_______________________

Values that agree:

1. Multiculturalism

2. Ethnic pride

Values that disagree:

1. Rule of Law

2. Ethnic pride

Share on Facebook

Share This

I have started a new website (not a blog). It’s address is: https://sites.google.com/site/yeahneh. The name is sort of stupid, but it comes from “Yeah” and “Neh” as in when you do a voice vote…

So if anyone wants to contribute to it, all I need is your google e-mail address, and you can edit away!

Anyways I want to do a really good job of outlining the major arguments about immigration, as I think it is one of the major issues facing our country. So what I want to do is sort of a wikipedia style group effort of outlining the issues… with that said, I’ll just jump in.

John McCain said: ”It would be impossible to identify and round up all 10 to 11 million of the current undocumented.” He said this in a May 13, 2005 press release titled “Members of Congress Introduce Comprehensive Border Security & Immigration Reform Bill [S 2611].

In the future, I would like to outline all the issues here, but for now we can have a Normal conversation.

Here are some of the reasons that I have heard to disagree with McCain:

1. No one is proposing that we “round illegal aliens up”.

2, Illegal Aliens came to America on their own; they don’t need someone to drive them away

3. You wouldn’t have to get all 11 million illegal aliens to go back, just 1/2 of them in 10 years would be a good start.

4. According to Wikipedia their are 77 million students in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States). Lets be conservative and say that only 1 in 7 of our elementary and secondary students ride a school bus each morning. This means that our local communities all transport 10 million students each morning. Their are buss drivers that are not driving buses each and every summer, and kids that are not going to school. Local communities could run a program that would only last each summer. Whenever illegal immigrants are found, during the operation of normal police work, they could be incarcerated until their is a buss load of them, a buss driver, and a couple of policemen all get to take a field trip to Mexico. If they have legitimate reasons to be in America, they can file the necessary paperwork from their home country.

Interest of those who agree:

1. The desire to see America grow in size to compete with China.

2. The desire to make America look more like them, if they are Hispanic.

3. The desire for America to be more diverse, if they have liberal guilt.

4. The desire to see America more Catholic.

5. Financial interest if your company would have to move overseas if not for cheap illegal labor.

6. Financial interest if you just don’t like paying your workers very much.

Interest of those who disagree: %

1. Rule of law (if some people have to come in the legal way, and wait in line, everyone should have to come in the legal way, and wait their turn in line).

2. The desire to not see America become more Catholic.

3. The desire to keep American culture less diverse, or with positive spin more “unified”.

Well, I got things started, please HELP ME OUT! I think that we can basically set all the arguments about 10 million aside, and until you can convince people that the rule of law is more important than whatever their underlying interest are, we are going to have a tough row to hoe. So that is my next post: The rule of law is more important than compassion for illegal immigrants.

~ Mike

Share on Facebook

Share This

From Mitt Romney, November 3rd:

President Obama could have focused on solving the financial crisis. He did not. He could have endeavored to conquer the looming threats to our future. Instead, he added to them. Now that voters have rejected his first two years in office, the president should not waste this political crisis: He should seize his “Nixon to China” opportunity.

Government is a greater threat to America in 2010 than China was in 1972. Government is smothering the pioneering, entrepreneurial spirit that propelled our economy past those of older, larger nations. Ever higher taxes on small and big business, layers of red tape, onerous labor regulations, and punitive bureaucrats and lawsuits are suffocating U.S. economic vitality. So far, the president and his fellow travelers in Congress have made things worse: If Obama is serious about changing the way things are done in Washington, he must slay the job-killing beast Washington has become.

He must also choke off government’s voracious appetite. Under current law, the federal government’s share of the economy will grow from its 50-year average of 20.3 percent to 26.5 percent by the end of this decade; federal, state and local governments will then constitute more than 40 percent of the economy. At what point do we effectively become a socialist economy, with its associated low growth, low incomes and permanently high unemployment?

And at what point will lenders to our government insist on charging punishingly high interest rates, or stop buying U.S. debt altogether? Congressional Budget Office data indicate that government spending through the next decade will require $12.4 trillion in additional debt, bringing our total public indebtedness to $22.2 trillion by 2020 - about the size of our gross domestic product. America’s debt then will look a good deal like Greece’s debt does today.

Obama’s first instinct is to blame all this on his predecessor’s tax policies. But the $22.2 trillion figure already assumes that Obama will raise taxes on annual incomes higher than $250,000, repealing the so-called Bush tax cuts for the rich. So the $12.4 trillion in new debt is entirely due to government spending and the president’s own tax policies. Spending, Mr. President, is what threatens America’s economy, not tax cuts.

To tame runaway government spending, the president should of course embrace the usual measures: freeze government employment; freeze growth in discretionary spending; veto every spending bill chocked with earmarks; work to regain an effective line-item veto; extinguish ineffective, wasteful programs. But these are just the start.

If the president is to become serious about spending, borrowing and deficits, he must subject government to the two budgeting rules employed by every well-run business and home.

Rule One: Start with the total, don’t end up with it. Decide from the outset the amount that the government will spend for the year. Don’t add up all the program requirements, departmental requests and political wish lists to calculate the total - that’s surrendering, not budgeting. The nation’s 50-year average annual tax burden has been 18 percent of GDP. That’s the right figure for total spending; it may take several years to rein in spending to that level, but it should be the target.

Rule Two: Go where the money is. With entitlement spending about half of all federal spending, the president has no choice but to address Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He should propose less costly progressive indexing for future Social Security beneficiaries - using the consumer price index inflator rather than the wage index for higher-income retirees. Medicaid should be granted in block to the states, giving them flexibility to meet the needs of poor residents in their own ways. Medicare will require reform of health care, making it more like a consumer market and less like a regulated utility. Medicare recipients should also be given better options for private coverage. Regardless of the reforms chosen, the entitlements budget should be subject to Rule One - set a total first and conform the programs to that level. Advocates of this course include the Brookings Institution on the left and the Heritage Foundation on the right.

Finally, don’t let the Bush tax cuts expire. Keeping them will yield revenue at 18.4 percent of GDP in 2020 - higher than the historic tax average. Lower taxes will propel growth, add jobs and produce a larger GDP that can accommodate our spending priorities. And don’t push defense below 4 percent of GDP; with today’s global threats and allies’ diminishing military capabilities, freedom will increasingly depend on American strength.

The president can turn his party’s losses Tuesday into a win for the country. It all depends on the course he sets.

~ Mike

Share on Facebook

Share This