comMITTed to Romney!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Share on Facebook

Share This

From here:

Jun 3, 2008

On May 8, 2008, Gov. Mitt Romney and his wife Ann were awarded the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty’s Canterbury Medal for “Courage in the Defense of Religious Liberty.” Mr. Romney’s 18-minute acceptance speech, before friends and supporters of the Becket Fund at the Metropolitan Club in New York, focused on the need for religion in a free society.

The Canterbury Medal is awarded annually to the public figure who “resolutely and publicly refused to render unto Caesar that which is God’s.” Past recipients include Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel, Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School and current U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See and Charles Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

For previous posts on 2008 Canterbury Medal Dinner, click here.

Watch Part I of Gov. Romney’s acceptance speech here:

Share on Facebook

Share This

For the first time since Super-Tuesday, Romney had an interview with Hugh Hewitt. Click here to select the Romney interview.

Share on Facebook

Share This

This videos…

mocks this video…

Obama says, “Yes we can”… Yes we can what?

Images are from : http://markcronan.livejournal.com/

From HotAir:

Beware the cult of personality in all its forms.

From Wikipedia:

From Wikipedia:

A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships but can be found in some democracies as well.

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders.

Background

Throughout history, monarchs were almost always held in enormous reverence. Through the principle of the divine right of kings, rulers were said to hold office by the will of God. Imperial China (see Mandate of Heaven), ancient Egypt, Japan, the Inca, the Aztecs, and the Roman Empire (see imperial cult) are especially noted for redefining monarchs as god-kings.

The resurgence of ancient Greek democratic ideas in Europe and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries made it increasingly difficult for monarchs to preserve this aura. However, the subsequent development of photography, sound recording, film and mass production, as well as public education and techniques used in commercial advertising, enabled political leaders to project a positive image like never before. It was with these circumstances in the 20th century that the best-known personality cults arose.

Purpose

Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and he becomes treated as a benevolent “guide” for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as that of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Not all dictatorships foster personality cults, however, and some leaders may actively seek to minimize their own public adulation. For example in Cuba public images of Fidel Castro are rare, and a personality cult around Castro is not encouraged officially, although images, posters, and billboards of Che Guevara abound. Even in the totalitarian regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia the image of Pol Pot himself was rarely seen, though in the latter’s case this was merely to perpetuate the image of a faceless, invisible, omnipresent state leadership.^{[citation needed]}

Examples from totalitarian regimes

The criticism of personality cults often focuses on the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Josip Broz Tito, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il-sung and his son Kim Jong-il. During the peak of their reigns, these leaders were presented as god-like and infallible. Their portraits were hung in homes and public buildings, and artists and poets were instructed legally to produce only works that glorified the leader and their political movements. Other undemocratic leaders with such cults include leaders such as Eva Peron of Argentina and her husband Juan. The term cult of personality comes from Karl Marx’s critique of the “cult of the individual” - expressed in a letter to German political worker, Wilhelm Bloss. In that, Marx states thus:

From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me… Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute.

Nikita Khrushchev recalled Marx’s criticism in his 1956 “Secret Speech” denouncing Stalin to the 20th Party Congress:

Comrades, the cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person. . . . One of the most characteristic examples of Stalin’s self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his Short Biography, which was published in 1948.^[1].

This book is an expression of the most dissolute flattery, an example of making a man into a godhead, of transforming him into an infallible sage, “the greatest leader,” “sublime strategist of all times and nations.” Finally no other words could be found with which to lift Stalin up to the heavens.

We need not give here examples of the loathsome adulation filling this book. All we need to add is that they all were approved and edited by Stalin personally and some of them were added in his own handwriting to the draft text of the book.

Journalist Bradley Martin documented the personality cults of North Korea’s father-son leadership, “Eternal (formerly Great) Leader” Kim Il-sung and “Great (formerly Dear) Leader” Kim Jong-il.^[2] While visiting North Korea in 1979 he noted that nearly all music, art, and sculpture that he observed glorified “Great Leader” Kim Il-sung, whose personality cult was then being extended to his son, “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-il.^[2] Kim Il-sung rejected the notion that he had created a cult around himself and accused those who suggested so of “factionalism.”^[2] A US religious freedom investigation confirmed Martin’s observation that North Korean schoolchildren learn to thank Kim Il-sung for all blessings as part of the cult.^[3]

Former President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan is another oft-cited cultivator of a cult of personality.^[4][5][6] Niyazov simultaneously cut funding to and partially disassembled the education system in the name of ‘reform,’ while injecting ideological indoctrination into it by requiring all schools to take his own book, the Ruhnama, as its primary text.^[7][8] During Niyazov’s rule there was no freedom of the press nor was there freedom of speech. This further meant that opposition to Niyazov was strictly forbidden and “major opposition figures have been imprisoned, institutionalized, deported, or have fled the country, and their family members are routinely harassed by the authorities.”^[9] Additionally, a silhouette of Niyazov was placed on the screen of all television broadcasts^[10] and statues and pictures of him were ‘erected everywhere.’^[11]. For these, and other reasons, the US Government has gone on to claim that by the time he died, “Niyazov’s personality cult…had reached the dimensions of a state-imposed religion.”^[12].

University of Chicago professor Lisa Wedeen’s book, “Ambiguities of Domination” documents the cult of personality which surrounded late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Numerous examples of his glorification are made throughout the book, such as displays of love and adoration for the “leader” put on at the opening ceremonies of the 1987 Mediterranean Games in Lattakia Syria.

References

1. ^ The Cult of the Individual. Retrieved on 2007-05-24.
2. ^ ^{a b c} Bradley K. Martin. Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty. ISBN 0-312-32322-0
3. ^ Thank You Father Kim-Il-Sung. Retrieved on 2007-12-09.
4. ^ Government of the United States of America. March 2002. Report on Turkmenistan. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/
5. ^ International Crisis Group. July 2003. Central Asia: Islam and the State. ICG Asia Report No. 59. Available on-line at http://www.crisisgroup.org/
6. ^ Shikhmuradov, Boris. May 2002. Security and Conflict in Central Asia and the Caspian Region. International Security Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/
7. ^ International Crisis Group. July 2003. Central Asia: Islam and the State. ICG Asia Report No. 59. Available on-line at http://www.crisisgroup.org/
8. ^ Soucek, Svat. 2000. A History of Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. ^ Government of the United States of America. March 2002. Report on Turkmenistan. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/
10. ^ Eurasianet. 2007. The Personality Cult Lives On, Residents Take It In Stride. Available on-line at http://www.eurasianet.org/
11. ^ BBC. December 2006. Obituary: Saparmurat Niyazov.Available on-line at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6199021.stm
12. ^ United States Commission on International Freedom. 2007. Turkmenistan: Ending the Personality Cult. Available on-line at http://www.uscirf.gov/mediaroom/press/2007/january/20070103Turkmenistan.html

See also

• Anax
• Apotheosis
• Big Brother
• Charisma
• Charismatic authority
• Cult of Personality (song)
• Dictator
• Emperor
• God-King
• High King
• King of Kings
• Monarch
• Propaganda

Jihadism, like the cult of personality that follows Barkak Obama, is a youth movement, that promises change from the existing world order. Change, in and of itself, is not good. Cobra Commander can promise change. Karl Marx wanted Change. There was a stalinist youth movement. All the “cool” kids liked Stalin. Hitler had a youth movement. Sexy actresses liked Hitler. People will distort what I am saying. Obama is nothing like Stalin. Obama is nothing like Hitler. Obama may be good for our country. Obama might take us down the right path. But being popular with young, attractive, popular people does not mean that his policies are good. What are my greatest fears with Obama? We have a good country, with a balance of powers. We have the Judicial, legislative, and executive branches. But the founding fathers were concerned with about passions of the moment.

Could we in America have an elected official have a “bad” cult of personality? I think we are drifting that way. President Washington didn’t want anyone’s face on our money, and we didn’t put anyones face on our money, until the 1900s. Wouldn’t that tick you off, if you were George Washington? He specifically asked us not to put anyones face on the money, and we go and put HIS face on our money! Then in 1913, we think we know better than the founding fathers how to elect people to congress, and we decide that both houses of congress will be “baby kissers”.

We already have a cult of personality with the presidents on our money, two houses of baby kissers, MTV & “Rock-the-vote”, celebrities who never graduated from high-school (let alone college) thinking that they should tell us how to vote…

I can see the cult-of personality when you can’t criticize Obama without being called a racist. It’s the dumbing down of our culture. It’s symbolism over substance. “We have the opportunity to truly transcend color this year by treating Barack Obama exactly the same we treated Michael Dukakis.”

Obama said he is a uniter, but he brought his daughters for 20 years to a church that damns the United States of KKK. He had the most liberal voting record in the senate. He was more liberal than Dennis Kucinich. It is scary to have a guy who is more liberal than Dennis Kucinich as president, whom you can’t criticize without being called a racist. But you can critisize him with some people. Not everyone calls you a racist, but they do not treat him equally. For instance, Obama said he had been to all 57 states. If Bush had said that, it would have been on every news channel. But it is not “cool” to make fun of Obama. Until now. YES WE SHALL!

Share on Facebook

Share This

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today announced that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will deliver remarks on John McCain’s behalf at an event hosted by the Lancaster County GOP on Thursday, April 10^th, 2008.Thursday, April 10, 2008LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA

WHO: Governor Mitt Romney

WHAT: Keynote Speech

WHEN: Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. EDT
Press Set Up Time: 6:15 p.m. EDT*

WHERE: Willow Valley Resort and Conference Center
2416 Willow Street Pike
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602

Here is one take on the Dean comment about Romney.  Allahpundit is great at getting attention by saying over-the-top red-meat comments, and calling people, who try to use their Brain, practice law, graduated at the top of their Harvard Class like Mitt Romney and Hugh Hewitt stupid. Allahpundit also calls Dean Barnett stupid, but agrees with him when he criticizes Romney. Ed Morrissey from hot air is likes Mitt much more than Allahpundit (who ever the hell that is). My concept of Allahpundit is that he is a guy that lives at home in his parents basement, weights 300 pounds, and has never gone on a date. But I may be wrong. He may be a smart guy, who has actually accomplished something in his life, but his analysis is so one-sided, and incomplete that I have to question his ability to function in the real world.Let’s have a brain storm of the aspects of Mitt Romney that Allahpundit left off. “Won” more debates than any of the other republican candidate. Romney also accomplished more in school than any of the other candidates. Romney accomplished more in life than any of the other candidates. Romney did not have a son try to sneak on to a plane with a handgun, or hang a stray dog from a tree and stone it to death. Romney did not pardon 11 convicted murderers. Romney did not pardon 1,033 convicted criminals. He never said, like the pastor Mike Huckabee said, that he wanted to shove a flag-pole up the butts of those who questioned the use of the confederate flag. So yes, Allahpundit, your guy is much better than Romney.When Romney crossed the isle and worked with democrats on Health Insurance, he actually accomplished something the reallocated expenses more efficiently and helped his country, instead of the problems that McCain Feingold free speech bill, and the McCain Kennedy immigration bill. Mitt Romney was the only MBA with real world business experience. Yes Bush had an MBA but graduated at the bottom of the class, while Romney had an MBA graduated at the top of his Harvard Law and Business and BYU English classes, and again I saw: Romney was the first MBA with real-world business experience. Bush’s dad gave him a base-ball team to run. Democrats would have loved running against someone who actually accomplished something with healthcare.So yes, Allahpundit who-ever the heck you are, you do have a list of things that people might not like about Romney, but are you really too stupid to consistently, time after time, fail to acknowledge any points that would tend to disagree with your pre-determined position?Exit question. How long will people read the insane ramblings of someone who has never as far as I know ever accomplished anything in his life, doesn’t go by his real name, doesn’t take credit for what he writes, has probably never been published off the internet (all of this is conjecture based on my impression of his writing, but I may be way wrong), and tries to comment on the world around him, but refuses to acknowledge any points that go against his pre-determined conclusion.Exit question #2: Your exit question was: “Aren’t you glad we get to run against Obama instead of Bill Richardson? Bullet dodged” Yes a bullet was dodged. Look at Bill’s accomplishments, and background vs. Obama. And if you were serious in saying that you are glad we did not have to run against Bill, do you realize that liberal bloggers view your words with the same suspicion that you view coming from the good Dr. Dean?Dean may have been lying to the cameras. I don’t know, and neither does Allahpundit, no matter how much smarter than you he pretends to be. But I can think for myself, and Mitt Romney was the best presidential candidate. I’m not sure who will be the best vice presidential candidate, but Mitt would have been an awesome chief executive.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Issues / Keeping Americans Safe

Mitt Romney has said that Bill Clinton was wrong in dismantling the military. What do you think?

Reasons to agree:

1. Clinton decreased military personnel by 500,000.
2. Clinton decreased military spending by about $50 billion a year.
3. Under Clinton the U.S. Army lost four active divisions.
4. Under Clinton the U.S. Army lost two reserve divisions.
5. Under Clinton the U.S. Navy lost almost 80 ships.
6. Under Clinton the U.S. Air Force saw its active personnel decrease by 30 percent.
7. Under Clinton the Marines’ personnel dropped by 22,000.
8. We need more troops than we have in order to win a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is about the size of Military that we should have. Weather Bush 1, Clinton, or Bush 2 were right or wrong in their actions in Iraq, we need to have the capacity to win the war that Bush 2 tried to fight. It was wrong for the Clinton administration to dismantle the military.

Send me an E-mail for me to add your reasons to agree or disagree.

1. Making it look like Bill Clinton was a bad president, so that independents won’t vote for democrats in the future.

Interest of those who disagree:

1. Making it look like Bill Clinton was good president, so that independents will vote for democrats in the future.

1. Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America’s Long-Term National Security, By Robert Patterson
2. Reckless Disregard: By Robert Patterson
3. Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years; By Richard Lowry
4. High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton; By Ann Coulter
5. Year of the Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash; By Edward Timperlake, William C. Triplett, William Triplett, II

Share on Facebook

Share This

In 1996 Obama filled out a questionnaire that said he:

• opposed parental notification on abortions. He amended this to say that he might possibly support it for 12- or 13-year-olds, but no older.
• Flatly opposed the death penalty, a position later denied ever having.
• Supported bans on the sale, possession, and manufacture of guns, again a position he denied ever taking.

To learn more go here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/31/politico-obama-lied-about-survey/

Share on Facebook

Share This

Governor Mitt Romney has said that good teachers should be rewarded for their hard work and dedication to the important cause of educating our children.

I would like to hear your reasons to agree or disagree, until then here are my Reasons to agree with Romney:

1. People need motivations.
2. We may have to pay our best teachers more to teach in our highest-need schools.
3. If you do well in other jobs, you get paid more. Why shouldn’t good teachers get paid more?
4. It is hard to figure out who is a good employee in all jobs. Sometimes people get advanced in other jobs because they do better, but sometimes they get paid more because they kiss-up to their bosses. But over-all paying good employees more works pretty well.
5. Sure, it may be hard to determine who is a “good teacher” but everyone wants to teach art, or English, because these are touchy-feely, and fulfill human needs. We have a lack of qualified math and science teachers, so we should pay those who have math or science backgrounds more.

Issues / Raising the Bar on Education

Share on Facebook

Share This

Issues / Raising the Bar on Education

Governor Mitt Romney has said that when parents and kids are free to choose their school everyone benefits.

I would like to hear your reasons to agree or disagree, until then, here are my Reasons to agree with Romney:

1. Competition and choice in Educational opportunities – whether it comes from private schools, charter schools, or home schooling – makes traditional public schools better and improves the quality of Education for all of America’s kids.
2. Public schools have no motivation, besides doing the right thing, to do a good job. Sure people want to do the right things, but people don’t stick to diets, they cheat on the spouses, and watch too much TV, even when there is a direct reward or punishment that would seem to motivate them. A lot of teachers are great people, but they are no better than the rest of us, and the rest of us often need economic incentives to do what is right. Good schools will attract more kids, and will be able to charge more money, and pay better. Competition will help schools all schools do better.
3. Bethtopaz: “Just go into any DMV and you will see what government control does to quality and motivation to excel and offer the best customer service.”
4. There will not be any hidden costs.
   
5. People might be able to make up problems that they think might happen, but you can find a problem with any plan. The most important question is: “Will this do more good or more harm”. A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled. Our children are too important to let good ideas die, just because people like brainstorming possible problems.
6. Someone said that private schools were used in the south as a way to segregate. I don’t know if this is true or not, but this is strange logic. By this logic, it is wrong to use any tool, that has once been used by bad people. By this logic, we should not go to any schools, because Nazis also sent their children to schools. The only valid question is if vouchers today would lead to segregation, and the whole purpose of vouchers is that they give poor children the opportunity to choose their schools, just like rich people. Vouchers lead away from segregation.
7. Some say that vouchers would hurt the community, because the way kids go to school now, is based on their location. All the kids from the same neighborhood now go to the same schools. But this the typical liberal way of looking at the world: we know better how to raise your kids than you do. Liberals get an idea in their mind of what leads to ideal communities. They think that for some reason having everyone from a certain area going to the same school will help create a sense of community. Sure. There are times when a sense of community might help a child, or neighborhood, but going to a better school, might also help children. Feeling involved, and empowered might help parents. Their are a lot of complicated decisions, and republicans and libertarians want to empower the individuals.
8. It is best to trust individuals to make decisions for their own lives.
9. Just because it is not practical for everyone, does not mean it is not practical for anyone. It is a simple matter of respecting parents rights, that if you are going to help them with education, and they live equally as close to a catholic school and a public school, the parents should be able to send their kids to whichever one they want.
10. If parents had a choice as to which schools their kids would go to, newspapers, magazines, and other publications that parents read would find ways to evaluate these different schools. If parents had a choice as to which school to send their kids, there would be more interest in education in general. Right now we spend more time thinking about what type of toilet paper to buy, then we think about were to send our kids to school, because we don’t have a choice of were to send our kids to school.
11. Bookstores don’t hurt libraries, and even if they do, it doesn’t matter, unless you work for the library and don’t want to work for a bookstore. The important thing is people have a choice of where to go, and that they are able to read books.
12. Its wrong to say; “don’t use my tax money to fund private and home schooling”. Why should you have the right to tell parents where to send their kids?
13. Catholic schools do better than public schools.
14. Choice is good.
15. School choice is good.

Learn more:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_choice

Share on Facebook

Share This

Governor Mitt Romney has said that it is not the proper role of the federal government to tell parents, teachers, kids and local authorities what to teach or how to run their schools.

I would like to hear your reasons to agree or disagree, until then here are my Reasons to agree with Romney:

1. It is just too tempting for fascist on both sides of the political spectrum, to try and hoist their indoctrination on the nation. It is better to leave the decisions up to individuals, and local authorities who are motivated by local concerns of raising good children, instead of putting our children’s future in the hands of people with grand ambitions of shaping the future of millions of people. If power really does corrupt, then we should break up the power of educating our children into thousands of different pieces, so that the motivation of raising one’s own children has a better chance of fighting against the people who dream of power, and a world shaped after their own dreams. Education politics is often viewed as between a fight between the right and the left. The founding fathers were able to side-step these fights, by creating a balance of power, were people with ambition would fight it out and not really get anywhere, and not be able to take issues hostage for their own glory. In a similar way we should favor local actors, who dream of their children’s future, in the fight between local concerns and the national powers of those in congress, and national organizations like the NEA, who dream of creating the world after their own ideas.

Issues / Raising the Bar on Education

Share on Facebook

Share This

Governor Mitt Romney has said that closing the achievement gap in our schools is the civil rights issue of our time.

I would like to hear your reasons to agree or disagree, until then here are my Reasons to agree with Romney:

1. Sure, if you want to pay for your kid’s education, you can spend all you want, but it is not fair that the government should spend more on kids from high property tax areas than they do on low property tax areas. If the government is going to pay for education, the quality should be the same for all kids.
2. Education is the thing that will most help those who’s civil rights have been trampled in the past.
3. The best way we can make up for the poor way we treated blacks in the past, is by assuring their kids get a good chance to succeed. People don’t need a handout, they just need to be be given the same chance as everyone else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achievement_gap

Issues / Raising the Bar on Education

Share on Facebook

Share This

We must strengthen our military by increasing the size of our military by 100,000 troops and dedicating at least four percent of our gross domestic product to defense. We must transform our domestic civilian international efforts to meet a new generation of global challenges and ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement efforts are able to address threats before they reach our shores.

CHALLENGE: After President George H.W. Bush left office, in 1993, the Clinton Administration began to dismantle the military, taking advantage of what has been called a “peace dividend” from the end of the Cold War. We took the dividend, but we did not get the peace.

Meanwhile, we lost about 500,000 military personnel and about $50 billion a year in military spending. The U.S. Army lost four active divisions and two reserve divisions. The U.S. Navy lost almost 80 ships. The U.S. Air Force saw its active personnel decrease by 30 percent. The Marines’ personnel dropped by 22,000.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “They took the dividend, but didn’t get the peace. It seems that we had come to believe that war and threats and evil men were gone forever. As Charles Krauthammer observed, we took a ‘holiday from history.’” (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The George Herbert Walker Bush Presidential Library, 4/10/2007)

CHALLENGE: In our civilian agencies, a more pervasive problem exists: bureaucratic inaction. Today, there is no unity among our international nonmilitary resources. There is no clear leadership and no clear line of authority. Too often, we have to struggle to integrate our nonmilitary instruments into coherent, timely, and effective operations.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “We removed barriers to unify efforts across the services. This included establishing ‘joint commands’ with individual commanders fully responsible for their geographic region…Our non military resources enjoy no such jointness, no such clear leadership, no such clear lines of authority and responsibility. Too often we struggle to integrate our military and civilian instruments of national power into coherent, timely and effective operations.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The George Herbert Walker Bush Presidential Library, 4/10/2007)

CHALLENGE: During the Clinton Administration, our intelligence community was critically weakened. The CIA workforce was slashed by almost 20% and recruitment was reduced dramatically, undermining effective human intelligence. Unfortunately, Washington’s response has focused on creating a new, expanded and duplicative bureaucracy in the Directorate of National intelligence.

The Romney Plan: A Stronger military. We must increase the size of our military by 100,000 troops. In addition, we should increase to at least four percent of our gross domestic product to defense. This kind of investment will make up for critical gaps in the modernization of our equipment, personnel and health care efforts. However, as we invest in our military, we must ensure that funds are used to address critical needs of the men and women of our Armed Forces, not political or contractor interests.

1. Transform And Strengthen Our Domestic Civilian International Efforts To Meet A New Generation Of Challenges. Building on the Goldwater-Nichols military reforms of the 1980s, we need to ensure that our civilian instruments of national power have the ability to build joint efforts among our civilian agencies and empower Regional Deputies with clear lines of authority, sufficient budgets and the responsibility to develop and execute regional plans and strategies. We must also constantly challenge bureaucratic “group think” and revitalize our national security structures so we have the capabilities needed to meet 21st century challenges.
2. Strengthen Strategic Planning. Many of our civilian national security and foreign policy structures were created decades ago. Today we need strengthened capabilities to strategically integrate all elements of national power. National Security Council staff must be empowered and accountable for reaching out to divergent viewpoints and challenging policies and proposals.
3. Protect The Homeland. While there has been much emphasis on protecting facilities and responding to attacks, a key priority must be prevention. Today, protecting the homeland must begin far from home. intelligence and law enforcement efforts able to address threats before they reach our shores must be a priority for U.S. and international action. This will demand new U.S. capabilities, stronger international alliances and integration of our federal actions with international, state and local efforts.

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “We need to increase our investment in national defense. This means adding at least 100,000 troops and making a long-overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense. We are going to need at least an additional $30-$40 billion annually over the next several years to modernize our military, fill gaps in troop levels, ease the strain on our National Guard and Reserves, and support our wounded soldiers. The next president should commit to spending a minimum of four percent of GDP on national defense.” (Governor Mitt Romney, “Rising To A New Generation Of Global Challenges,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007) GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “We need to fundamentally change the cultures of our civilian agencies and create dynamic, flexible, and task-based approaches that focus on results rather than bureaucracy. … For every region, one civilian leader should have authority over and responsibility for all the relevant agencies and departments, similar to the single military commander who heads U.S. Central Command.” (Governor Mitt Romney, “Rising To A New Generation Of Global Challenges,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007)

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: “The key to effective homeland security, in my view, is intelligence, finding the attackers before they attack, gathering and analyzing tips, monitoring suspects, wiretapping, surveillance, all of the tools associated with intelligence work. It’s aided measurably by the Patriot Act, perhaps our most effective new tool. It is also dependent on effective delineations of responsibilities between and among federal agencies, across federal and state lines and state and local lines.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Remarks At The National Press Club, 7/14/2004)

More »

Share on Facebook

Share This

Transcripts for Hughs’s Show

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Christopher Hitchens analyzes the problems with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

Click on the link above, it is a must read.

What do you think about this part?

“…The same about something I keep on mentioning, not just in my capacity as an atheist, but as a secularist, I don’t think the candidate to the presidency of the United States should go to ethnic based Churches with a sort of partly rock and roll liturgy and a partly pro-Qaddafi and pro-Farrakhan theology. I just think that ought to disqualify you…”

Hitchens didn’t like Romney for much the same reason, but at-least he is consistent. I know who Farrakhan is, but I do not know who Qaddafi is unless they are talking about the guy in the middle east.

I agree with Hugh. I think where you go on Sunday should not matter. But this thing with Barak lets us find out who the phonies are on the left: Those people who only have problems with the religious practices of republicans

Share on Facebook

Share This

Mitt Romney has said that we should help threatened Islamic states with the rule of law. Do you agree?

Reasons to agree

1. We can send lawyers to states Islamic states that are threatened threatened, to share ideas, and best practices/
2. Many threatened Islamic states, have a ruling class that does not follow the same laws that it’s citizens do. Some countries do not have any checks and balances. We can help intellectuals in these countries think about how they want to structure their society.
3. We got rid of England and started a new country. Iraq is in the process of getting rid of Saddam, and baathist. We learned from threat thinkers before our time, we should be translating some of the wittings of the founding fathers into Islamic languages, to see if anyone likes them.
4. There are lots of ways we can help threatened Islamic states with the rule of law.

Exit question: What are ways that we could help with the rule of law, besides sending lawyers, and cops over their to talk to them?

Share on Facebook

Share This