comMITTed to Romney!

Some Democrats are privately expressing their anger towards Hillary Clinton because they believe she is trying to sabotage Barack Obama’s campaign in order to elect John McCain this
year and then for her to run again in 2012. The ruthless ambition of that woman is breath taking to observe. Let’s make sure we do everything in our power to keep the Democrats out of the White House in 2008!

~~John Cronin~~

http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/05/13/strong-superdelegate-backlash-
growing-against-clinton/

Brent Budowsky THEHILL.COM

Behind the scenes, there is now a very substantial anger growing among many senior Democrats and superdelegates towards Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) staying in the race while playing what many Democrats privately now believe is the race card.

The feeling is that the only reason Hillary remains in the race is to use certain remaining states to make the “working-class white” argument that many Democrats, a number of whom have been supporting Clinton, find deeply offensive.

This gives credence to those who believe that Hillary wants to elect Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) so she can run in 2012.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Romney has said that we should help threatened Islamic states with public schools.What do you think? This is what I was able to come up with:We should help threatened Islamic states with public schools.Reasons to agree:

1. Choice is good.
2. School choice is good.
3. If we use money helping countries become stable and provide for their citizens, we won’t have to defend ourselves against angry people who are full of hate, with nothing to loose, who want to kill us.
4. Competition is good.
5. People who won’t allow parents to have educational choices are trying to advance an agenda with our children.
6. People who won’t allow parents to have educational choices are trying to brain-wash our kids. They are trying to advance ideas outside of a competitive marketplace. They want a monopoly were only they can decide what children learn.
7. Many madrasahs teach violent jihad.
8. If parents had a state-school choice, fewer people would be taught to hate.
9. Parents should have a choice of sending their kids to public school, or private school.
10. Many Islamic countries only have religious schools.
11. Parents should have public schools.
12. We would only focus on places were madrasahs teach violence. Religious schools are fine, but people should have a choice. It’s alright to be practical and have rules that promote non-violent schools, and discourage support to violent schools. Hillary Clinton gave a speech about this, saying that it was wrong to have vouchers that go to private schools, because if you give money to Catholics, you would then have to give money, in her world, to white-supremacist. This is where layer-type-people prove that they have no common sense. This is an example of a larger problem, when you view the world from behind a law school, like Hillary Clinton. The best book that talks about the way that Hillary and Obama look at the world is a book called; “The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America”. If everyone read this book, no one would vote for Obama or Hillary.

Reasons to disagree:

1. Americans will give those who don’t like us reasons to be cynical, if we are seen as saying how great religious schools are, if they are from our religion, but trying to shut them down if they are from someone else’s religion.

Click the video below to see the way lawyers see the world:

Share on Facebook

Share This

I’m not trying to say that if Clinton had been president after 9-11, that he would have gone into Iraq. Clinton did say that; “Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons”. And Clinton actually did go into Iraq in “Operation Desert Fox”, saying; “Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,”Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors. Click here for more.But I’m not trying to say that Clinton would have gone into Iraq in the way that “W” did. I’m just trying to say that now we know that: The Clinton Administration was wrong to dismantle the military.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.

Share on Facebook

Share This

Saturday, January 26, 2008
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 10:58 AM
I admire Donald Rumsfeld. The former two-time Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff and Congressman is also a former naval aviator and a very successful private sector executive. Rumsfeld’s life has been defined by public service of the highest sort. His leadership in the war, from the moment he went towards the crash site on 9/11, was defined by a relentless focus on the enemy, a focus so extraordinary that it made him a political liability and a target for every grouser inside the Pentagon and every critic of the war–for whatever reason– outside of the building. His conflicts with State are still only dimly understood, and the mistakes in Iraq though always assigned to him will be found in time to have had many fathers.

Only small-minded people think Rumsfeld is other than a great American and patriot, though of course a contrroversial one. He continues to deserve the respect and thanks of the American people.

I thus wonder whenever Senator McCain snarls out “Rumsfeld”as he does in debate after debate if others beside me find it unsettling and off-putting that there is so much venom there? Rumsfeld was an opponent of McCain’s and as a result the contempt the Arizona maverick has for the former SecDef is complete, but it is also unseemly and not in the best traditions of American politics, especially when Rumsfeld has left the field.

I have written before that part of Reagan’s greatness was Reagan’s graciousness, displayed always to both friends and foes provided they were fellow Americans or allies of Americans. If Senator McCain’s campaign continues beyond Super Tuesday, I hope he can adopt this part of the Reagan legacy towards other great Americans who, like himself, have always had the best interests of the country at heart even as they took positions that made them unpopular and sometimes wrong.

Charlie Rose - Donald Rumsfeld

For more go here:

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

Share on Facebook

Share This