Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Yahoo News Periodic Updates, July 29, 2012

On occasion, I consolidate comments I’d attempted to post in response to articles appearing recently on Yahoo News. I share my comments with you here hoping to reach an audience immune from Yahoo’s periodic attempts to block or censor. My posts are written as if I actually were the US President. As is my usual custom, if I open with a quoted item, that’s from the article itself.
I hope you enjoy all twenty-three of these mini-essays.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ONE:

"My [Romney’s] understanding is the policy of our nation has been a desire to move our embassy ultimately to the capital (Jerusalem)”… Actually, that’s wrong and he knows it – or else he’s simple beyond belief.

His claim that [the timing of] moving our embassy to Jerusalem would be up to “the government of Israel” is jaw dropping. What nonsense! At any time over the past two decades, if the US had quietly asked the Israeli government “Is it okay with you if we move our embassy to Jerusalem and recognize that as your capital?”, the Israelis would have leapt at the chance. Does Romney think we’re so stupid as to believe otherwise?

That’s almost as good as, “I’ll base my foreign policy decisions on what the commanders on the ground have to say.” Talk about the tail wagging the dog – in both cases.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Maybe Romney will bend over backwards to make the Zionists happy by building a summer home for his family in one of the illegal West Bank settlements. OMG, how far will this guy go?”




TWO:

I overheard Romney telling his staff how to vet the VP potentials. He said, “Among other things, be sure they commit to denying their past income tax returns to the public.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“For surely it wouldn’t look too good if his VP was that transparent and he wasn't.”




THREE:

[This is in reference to the shooting in a Colorado theater during a showing of the latest Batman movie.]

"He was diabolical, demonic," [Governor] Hickenlooper said. "… He wanted to take away…”
With all due respect to the Governor, there’s no way he knows anything about what Holmes “wanted [to do].”

As for “diabolical, demonic,” well…of course there is such a thing as demonic possession. And there’s such a thing as government experiments in mind control. And, before the Yahoos beat me up on that last bit, there’s such a thing as just plain crazy. But…given the extent and duration of the gunman’s preparation, I wouldn’t be so quick to label him PLAIN crazy.

As for the mind-control possibility, it might be worth looking into the fact that he was one of six on his campus who got a federal grant in neuroscience. How did he get the grant? Was an interview required? If so, with whom? Was he a participant in any experiments or have contact with researchers who ran secret experimental programs on campus? Does the DOD or CIA have any contracts with this university?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“As far as the Joker is concerned, I think Holmes (especially around the mouth) looks more like the Guy Fawkes mask worn in the movie V for Vendetta.”



FOUR:

“Kenya would get eight ‘Raven’ unmanned aerial systems…” You know what’s going to happen, don’t you? Those Ravens, or at least their technology, will end up in enemy hands. And then they’ll be used against us. This Kenyan connection is just part of the US’s attempt to ingratiate itself with yet another African military. And that’s part of a larger plan to re-colonize Africa. And to think, we have a black president making major contributions to such an effort. The irony!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Africa for Africans. Kick out all foreigners, for they’re up to no good.”




FIVE:

Could there be anything to this rumor: Romney is becoming a tad remorseful about the negative effects of what he did during his Bane years. So he decided to put a plaque on his desk if he beats Obama. No, it’s not the one that says, “The buck stops here.” It’s the one that says, “I would rather lose than win like – that.”

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Remorse rarely runs that deep.”



SIX:

Kim Ding Dang Dong [North Korea’s God King] will never be secure in office as long as others have the power to award him titles (or demote him). He’ll have achieved the highest earthly glory if he can promote/demote himself. [Now there's a goal worthy of pursuit!]

The article, when it mentions “…as he makes key changes to the million-man force,” doesn’t bother to say what those changes are.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I laugh at this silly little punk.”


SEVEN:

It won’t matter if Romney outspends Obama 10 to 1, if (and it’s not that big an “if”) Obama’s ads are creative enough. For instance, some spoofy material with Crispin Glover (or a Herman Munster look-a-like) starring as Mitt. Or maybe Dean Winters doing his shtick as a “Mayhem like me” Romney. Stuff like this can go viral and render as irrelevant the need to spend on advertising.

[Personally, I like the seemingly inoffensive tag line: "He's a Mormon and, yes, it matters."]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Remember: Humor is the key. If you can people to laugh at your opponent, it won’t matter if in reality he can actually walk on water.”




EIGHT:

"Do we believe in an America that is great because of government or… because of free people…?" So asks Romney, to which I answer:

“You can’t really separate the two as polaristically as you’re doing. Government can’t do anything without the support of the people. And people by themselves can’t do anything without rules, without a structure that best focuses their creative energy….”

As for the US being created by “God’s will,” Romney would do well to consider these words from the Declaration of Independence:

“… all men are created equal [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

In short? The Creator endowed us with [God-given] rights, but it was only by means of the “consent of the governed” that our particular form of government was established by “the consent of the governed.” The US might very well have been Divinely inspired and Divinely protected, but it was most certainly NOT Divinely created. Romney, as a quasi-Christian and therefore familiar with the concept of free will, should know this.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“There’s a great deal of danger in speaking imprecisely in an attempt to rouse the rabble, for the rabble becomes drunk with the prospect of being able to egg their leader on to greater depths of folly.”




NINE:

“Harry Reid… has vowed not to put [Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill] to a vote.” Translation? One man can stop the rest of the Senate from voting. I keep telling you, the only way to stop these kinds of tyrannies of the minority (another being the filibuster; and yet another, the presidency itself) is to replace our current Constitution. Google for more info: Cross-Sectional Representation Steven Searle.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Time to move on, people.”




TEN:

"This bill would ... jeopardize the Fed's independence by subjecting its decisions on interest rates and monetary policy to GAO audit”… What you mean, Old White Guy who’s been “serving” for 30 years (term limits, anyone)? The Fed would still be independent but it’s the RESULTS of its decisions that would be audited. Now if We-the-Sheeple didn’t happen to like what such an audit would turn up, then the Fed might be more sensitive to popular pressure the next time it makes its decisions. That, however, doesn’t threaten the Fed’s independence as much as threaten its impunity.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Even though Steny Hoyer is trying mightily to deny transparency, I can see right through him.”




ELEVEN:

[At this point, I’ll insert a shameless self-promotion – that you scroll down to read the blog I posted yesterday entitled, "How I killed the Second Amendment."


To all of the supporters of the Second Amendment (and to the NRA, in particular), I direct this question: Why not lobby for private citizens to be able to own bazookas, RPGs, tanks, fighter aircraft, etc? Don’t we have the right to bear arms? Those are arms, right? If the intent of the Second was to enable citizens, as a last resort (of course), to rise up against a tyrannical central government, we surely can’t do that with low-level shootin’ irons, now can we?

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If our high tech weaponry had existed at the time the Constitution was written, surely Thomas Jefferson et al would have thought nothing of the average citizen being able to keep a bazooka under his bed – just in case – right? Right?”



TWELVE:

Tearless,

I refuse to let the dead (the Founding Fathers) continue to rule the living (that’s us). Too much has changed to make our Constitution meaningful any longer. And, no, merely amending it won’t work. The whole thing’s got to go. I developed, back in 1976, a suggested replacement based on Cross-Sectional Representation. If you’re not too close-minded to do a little reading (gasp!) google these words for more info: Steven Searle Cross-Sectional Representation….
  
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I get a good laugh out of people who claim the Constitution can’t be replaced.”




THIRTEEN:

Cheney is NOW saying he doesn’t “think [Sarah Palin] passed that test…of being ready to take over.” Presumably, Cheney had figured that out from the get go. So why didn’t he come out publicly and condemn the choice before the GOP confirmed her nomination at the convention? Suppose McCain had won and then died in office. Then we’d have someone whom Cheney doesn’t “think” is ready to take over. Or…maybe Cheney didn’t bother to sound the alarm because he knew McCain would lose.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“It must be nice to know such things in advance or not care who ends up taking over.”




FOURTEEN:

[This is my response to Happily Retired, who had written:  “And Oba...manure will go down the history being the most inept, stupid president.”]


Well, Happily Retired, if what you're saying comes to pass, what will that say about the people who elected him - especially if he wins a second term? Aren't we the ones who rallied round the Chief since the end of WWII and usurped the Constitution by embracing the concept hailed by both parties - the Imperial Presidency? Everybody seems too eager to ignore the fact that it’s the Congress that’s supposed to be pre-eminent, which is why that’s the first branch the Constitution defines (under Article I).

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If Obama is, as you claim, so ‘inept, stupid,’ then why hasn’t the House even brought up the possibility of impeaching him?”




FIFTEEN:

[The following is a response I posted to this quote by Thomas Jefferson: “"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ]

@ Speyside_Single_Malt,

… Now let’s turn to the text of the [Second] Amendment itself to underscore how wrong Jefferson is about this:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Let’s reword the Second so it includes what TJ calls “the strongest reason for the people to [bear arms]”:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the STRONGEST REASON being the necessity to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

My question here is (to quote the Declaration of Independence) "self-evident" - but I'll ask it anyway: Why wasn't the "strongest reason" made part of the Second Amendment?

In one of my previous incarnations, I tried to point that out to Thomas Jefferson but – hey – he wasn’t much of one to listen once his mind was made up. Oh well!

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“In his own way, Tom Jefferson could be quite tyrannical himself.”



SIXTEEN:

The Second Amendment is the only one that gives a reason for its being. Once the reason ceases to be valid, the Amendment itself ceases to be valid. [Scroll down to the blog I posted yesterday which explains why this “reason ceases to be valid.”]

To quote the Second:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

… It wasn’t even necessary to repeal it since it had, in effect, language built in that rendered it self-repealing. That being the case, guns and ammo can be regulated like anything else the government has a mind to regulate. Of course the NRA, with its huge redneck following, will insist otherwise. Be that as it may but, Constitutionally speaking, the NRA would be wrong.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“If we had proper oversight, someone along the line could have denied to the Colorado Batman shooter the ‘right’ to build an arsenal.”


SEVENTEEN:

“…much of the public will not truly start paying attention until after Labor Day.” And that’s precisely when (soon after Labor Day, I’m predicting) that Obama will unleash a quick strike against Iranian nuke facilities.

I’ve blogged on this prediction quite extensively, but here I must add one more reason why Obama feels he must do this. As close as this race for president is, Obama realizes that he’s got to do something to prevent the GOP from taking Congress. If he can’t do that, then we’ll have four more years of the Party of No doing everything it can to deny to the Democrats any possible record of achievement as they set their sights on the 2016 election. And this time, knowing they won't face an incumbent or Biden, the GOP will pull out all the stops. You ain't seen nothing yet.

For their part, the Democrats sense that some kind of drastic action is needed to help their nationwide ticket and take the wind out of the GOP/Tea Party’s sails. Hence, the attractiveness of a strike against the Iranian mullahs. Frankly, I don’t see how Obama can resist. Anti-Iranian sentiment in this country is very high, and I can’t see even the GOP base ranting against the President for this hit – which I feel is inevitable. If Obama smacks ‘em good and quickly with no involvement of ground forces, by the time the October debates roll around, Romney will be irrelevant.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“I’m proud to post this prediction using my real name. Actually, I hope I’m wrong but I’ve got an overwhelming feeling I’m not.”



EIGHTEEN:

Back in 2007 when I ran as a third party candidate against Obama and McCain, I made the following pledge: “I will veto any bill presented to me by Congress if it has any provision for any type of aid or loan to Israel or Egypt.” Now, how is that different from this pledge made by Obama on Feb. 23, 2009: “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office?”

Obama’s “pledge” was just another non-binding oral contract made by a politician which, as everybody knows, can’t be enforced in a court of law. My pledge was one of 47 listed in my written contract (the first ever offered by a presidential candidate) which also isn’t enforceable in a court of law.

However, this was also in my contract which makes it enforceable, though still not in a court of law: “If I violate any of the terms of this contract, I will be removed from office by means of impeachment. I hereby affirm, in advance, that I will not defend myself nor authorize any other party to defend me against any impeachment activity in the House or trial by the Senate. I further agree to a speedy trial - within less than 10 minutes, if deemed necessary by the Senate.”

You can’t get much more ironclad than that – especially since I, as an independent president, would be heavily scrutinized by the Dem/Pub Congress for any contractual violation.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“But…as long as the voters kneejerkingly continue to pull the Dem/Pub lever in the polling place, we’ll never get any independents in office and we’ll never get any ‘change you can believe in.’”


NINETEEN:

“We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage”…

No, but we know better than the president of some chicken shack, no matter how much money he wants to throw into the mix.  [Better he throw his money into charitable acts that save lives, yes?] A marriage is a contract, and adults who are not legally impaired) may enter into contracts as an expression of their free will (remember what that is?). We don’t need a patriarch to foist his views upon us as to what is proper or not. That’s so Abrahamic (he’s dead, you know).

People are evolving in terms of how they feel about themselves, how they feel about others, and what kinds of contractual relationships they wish to pursue with others.  Society is (hopefully) trying to keep up with these changes. And this is good as long as people really care about each other. And from what I’ve seen of the gay community, they seem to care more about each other than some of the hardcore fundamentalists who try to force their views on others.

This Dan Cathy guy, who I hope doesn't decide to run for President someday, sounds like another Herman Cain. The day that Chicken Man hears a voice from God saying he should run for president, will be a bad day for…the chicken business.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Fast food and fast theology seem to have this in common – the end result often turns out to be half-baked.”


TWENTY:

We have President Calvin Coolidge to thank for these mission statements:

·       “After all, the chief business of the American people is business.” [I’d like to see that become, “The chief business of the American people is the pursuit of spiritual perfection – that is, to become better people.”]

·       “The man who builds a factory builds a temple. The man who works there worships there.” [I don’t care much for the God of such a man who builds or of such a man who worships – which is why I’m a Buddhist.]

·       “The chief ideal of the American people is idealism. I cannot repeat too often that America is a nation of idealists.” [We have lost any trace of any bit of truth those words might once have conveyed. We have become petty and self-absorbed.]

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“So, who do you want to elect as your High Priest – Obama or Romney?”



TWENTY-ONE:

I hope Romney sticks to his guns - even if some Madam Voodoo managed to conjure up the Gipper Himself in a séance and he were to say, “Mr. Romney, tear down that wall; release those tax returns.” If We-the-Sheeple are so shallow as to let this “issue” sway our vote, then we’re dumber than a ventriloquist’s dummy.

If any law has been (claimed to be) broken, I’m sure Mitt Romney will be more than equal to the task in rebutting any charges.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Frankly? I think there’s a bit of the sadist in too many jealous people who just like to see a rich guy squirm.”




TWENTY-TWO:

·       “…giving help to struggling borrowers is also a legitimate use of eminent domain….” Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is still stealing.

·       “a city or county would sign on as a client of Mortgage Resolution Partners, then condemn certain mortgages.” This sounds like the very definition of conflict of interest.

·       “…so it could pay back the investors who funded the seizure…” Yup, that’s exactly what this is – a seizure.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“So much for due process of law.”




TWENTY-THREE:

“…[George] Will said. "Therefore, [Romney] must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing [his tax returns]." Or maybe Romney just decided to act within his rights by withholding these returns simply because doing so would be within his rights.

There are a lot of Americans who don’t like sharing personal information for the simple reasons: “I have a right to my privacy and it’s none of your business.” I’m starting to doubt George “the Kardashian” Will’s conservative credentials, so maybe he should publish all his tax returns.

"Come on, George, how about it? Eh? Eh? Eh? What are you trying to hide? [nudge, nudge] Come on, man, come clean. Everybody wants to know so, therefore, everybody has a right to know. Isn’t that what you’re saying? Huh? Huh? Come on, man, speak up. I can’t hear you. Say again. What was that? Stop mumbling. Why are you running away? You got something to hide?"

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Will’s statements here just go to confirm my decades’ old belief: When push comes to shove, there really isn’t any such thing as a conservative – just a bunch of conmen serving themselves.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“With only 100 days to go until Election Day, I don’t have much time to stave off the disaster of a Romney/Obama win; hope my campaign catches fire fairly soon."


Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Mitt Romney’s website

We don’t have much to go on in terms of evaluating Mitt Romney, so we’ll have to proceed with the material at hand. I’m referring to a scarcity of written material from the candidate himself. Today I wish to focus on Mitt’s own campaign website. Since that site is, arguably, the candidate’s attempt to put his best foot forward, that should be fair game.

Supporters might claim that Mitt Romney’s two books should also be considered:

The first:

Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games.

The second:

No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.

The second has been revised with new material and a new title:

No Apology: Believe in America.

So…what about these two books, neither of which I’ve read by the way?

The first seems too limited in scope and (this is the deal killer for me) was published by that fascist press, Regnery Publishing.  As for the second, I suppose I’ll get around to at least skimming it, though in all honesty, I find it hard to read about why the United States shouldn’t apologize – at all. Remember: The title is “No apology,” not “The good outweighs the bad” or “Obama apologizes too much.”

As for “The Case for American Greatness” (aka, American Exceptionalism), haven’t we ridden that pony long enough now? For the record, I don’t believe in American Exceptionalism, since that’s been used as a cloak for a lot of very bad behavior on our part. Continually harping on how great we are makes us numb to our faults, which is why I suppose Romney saw fit to claim we shouldn’t apologize – at all.


On to Romney’s Website

For all material from the links cited below, I will insert my own indented comments.



QUOTE:

But I have never seen an enterprise as large, as poorly led, and as badly in need of a turnaround as our federal government.

The USA is not an enterprise nor is its government. Yes, it is “poorly led;” yes, it’s “badly in need of a turnaround.” But Romney doesn’t even broach the single-biggest reason for our dysfunctional government – party politics. My own campaign is based on creating an electoral environment which sends only independents to Congress, doing completely away with the political party system.

Romney can’t broach this subject simply because he’s very much a product of our long-standing, power-center based adversarial system.

[I now skip some material, arriving at this point.]

There are three ways to reduce spending, which combined, will achieve a fiscal turnaround of this size.

First, eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential. There are many things government does that we may like but that we do not need.

Define “we,” White Man.

The test should be this: “Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?” The federal government should stop doing things we don’t need or can’t afford. For example:


·        Repeal Obamacare, which would save $95 billion in 2016.

Oh, that. I’m sure this is one of the first bills Romney will try to push. However, I doubt that same bill will contain provisions that will reform our national health care system. Romney will probably defer, saying something like, “We’ll deal with specific reforms later, after I’ve consulted with experts to obtain proposals. The important thing for now is to kill ObamaCare.”

One proposal that will not be included in any later Romney bill: The proposal to include the insurance industry under the same anti-trust regulatory coverage mandated of all other big businesses.

·        Eliminate subsidies for the unprofitable Amtrak, saving $1.6 billion a year.
     
I’m surprised Romney picks on a rather small target for saving, whereas he could proclaim, “I will not sign any bill into law containing pork barrel provisions benefiting only the constituencies of individual lawmakers.” Oh, wait…that might get Congress riled up against him.

·        Enact deep reductions in the subsidies for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Legal Services Corporation.

Ah, excellent… and true to form for the aspiring President of the one-tenth of 1%. Go ahead, throw the arts under the bus when times are tough. And, better yet, scuttle the LSC which, according to Wikipedia:
QUOTE: The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is a private, non-profit corporation established by the United States Congress. It seeks to ensure equal access to justice under the law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it. The LSC was created in 1974 with bipartisan congressional sponsorship and the support of the Nixon administration, and is funded through the congressional appropriations process. :UNQUOTE.
Heaven forbid we have equal access to the judicial system for those who can’t afford it!

·        Eliminate Title X family planning programs benefitting abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.

By calling PP an “abortion group,” Romney is wielding the knife a bit clumsily and inaccurately – much in the manner of a true back-alley abortionist! The contraceptive services offered by PP, if cut, would add social welfare costs to our budget after the birth rate goes up. That is, unless Romney would prefer not to deal with social welfare and let our quality of life deteriorate for everybody. Yes, “for everybody,” for when the poor are not a budget factor, their plight sooner or later affects all of us.

·        End foreign aid to countries that oppose America’s interests.

And which countries might those be, Mr. Romney? What criterion would you impose? Or will you mention that only after you get elected?

:UNQUOTE.


This paragraph is from my next source: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/afghanistan-pakistan

QUOTE:

Mitt Romney will never make national-security decisions based upon electoral politics.

Why doesn’t Romney come right out and say Obama’s guilty of treason by having made decisions that place our national security at risk based on political considerations? Romney wants the benefit of insinuating treason without having to come right out and say it.

Upon taking office, he will review our transition to the Afghan military by holding discussions with our commanders in the field.

Oh, that tired old promise. Even Obama said he’d consult with the commanders in the field. When Obama said it then and when Romney says it now, the intention is the same – to stroke our military establishment’s ego.

He will order a full interagency assessment of our military and assistance presence in Afghanistan to determine the level required to secure our gains and to train Afghan forces to the point where they can protect the sovereignty of Afghanistan from the tyranny of the Taliban.

And suppose the resulting assessment informs Romney that that point can never be reached? Or that “the level required” for the time required would break the bank?

Withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan under a Romney administration will be based on conditions on the ground as assessed by our military commanders.

And what if those commanders tell Romney that our continued presence, especially in support of the corrupt Karzai regime, will do more permanent harm than good? What if our best intelligence assessment concludes that a return of the Taliban, or of some other Islamist group, to power would actually enhance US security – especially if we offered to work with that regime?

This paragraph is from my next source: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/china-east-asia
QUOTE:

Our objective is not to build an anti-China coalition.

Okay, keep this first sentence in mind as you read the rest. Then you’ll easily see that it is precisely our objective (denials to the contrary) to “build an anti-China coalition.” In the old days, we used to call that “Containment.” In this case, Romney’s not even a very good liar.

Rather it is to strengthen cooperation among countries with which we share a concern about China’s growing power and increasing assertiveness and with whom we also share an interest in maintaining freedom of navigation and ensuring that disputes over resources are resolved by peaceful means. It is yet another way of closing off China’s option of expanding its influence through coercion.

:UNQUOTE.

This is from my next source:

[NOTE: This time, I comment first – Steve.] If you click on this link, you’ll see these words, at the top of the page: “An American Century: A Strategy to Secure America’s Enduring Interests and Ideals.” Immediately beneath is an intimate photo of Romney among a group of about 40 young military officers, shaking hands with one while others applaud. Before I continue, I will repeat my dislike of candidates and elected officials alike using our military as props for photo ops. Have they no shame?

As for the term highlighted above – An American Century – some of you might remember the infamous Project for the New American Century. The think tank of that name lasted from 1997 to 2006, but was heavily influential concerning GOP plans for US world domination. Romney is obviously pandering to those who still long for empire. [What? You think with Cheney out of office those schemes died?]

If you scroll down from the photo mentioned above, you’ll have these choices to click on for more information:


QUOTE:

To learn more about Mitt’s plan, select an issue below:

Afghanistan & Pakistan…An American Century.

Iran… An American Century.

National Defense…An American Century.

Israel … An American Century.

China & East Asia…An American Century.

Russia…An American Century.

Middle East …An American Century.

Latin America…An American Century.

:UNQUOTE.


I inserted ellipsis marks above to indicate images I’m unable to reproduce here – such as silhouettes of countries. In all fairness, though, Romney’s page doesn’t highlight (as I did above) the words “An American Century.” But he might just as well have, you know, just to be sure that the slower among us “get it.”


And now we have this paragraph: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/iran


QUOTE:

Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon.

Mitt Romney is entitled to his personal opinion. However, according to Article X of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, any nation providing 90 days written notice is free to withdraw from that Treaty and pursue its own nuclear weapons building program. In spite of Mr. Romney’s personal opinion.

Should Iran achieve its nuclear objective, the entire geostrategic landscape of the Middle East would tilt in favor of the ayatollahs.

Not really, especially since Israel already has the bomb. Not to mention a sophisticated delivery system made possible with the assistance of US advisors.

A nuclear Iran will pose an existential threat to Israel, whose security is a vital U.S. national interest.

Israel’s security is not a vital U.S. interest. I suppose that saying so will keep AIPAC happy but it doesn’t happen to be the truth. I don’t think Romney has any clue about what the word “vital” really means. For if he did, he’d realize that a world without Israel wouldn’t endanger US security – at all.

As Iran’s ballistic missile capacity improves, it will endanger Europe and eventually the continental United States.

What’s the point in saying that? Every nation in the world has the right to develop missile technology, though I suppose the US will indulge its “right” to suspect that all such missile programs could be covers for evil intentions. So far, thank God, we haven’t gotten around to saying to the nations of the world: “Thou shalt not…”

It will provoke an arms race in which the Arab nations themselves forge ahead with nuclear programs of their own.

And why shouldn’t they? For decades during the Cold War, the US and the USSR had no problem with Mutual Assured Destruction as the best way of keeping each other in check. Never mind that an accident or unintended nuclear exchange could threaten the entire world. But that was okay, since we were the civilized ones. We were the good guys who were so on top of things, nobody need ever have worried.

Also, never mind that we’re still on hair trigger alert and still speak of upgrading our nuclear arsenal. More important than world peace is keeping military contractors happy. Welcome to the world of Mitt Romney, which is the same world as Barack Obama’s.

:UNQUOTE.


Some additional thoughts

After reviewing Mitt Romney’s website, I can only conclude that he could have done much better. He’s a wealthy man with time and resources on hand, so he really has no excuse for something this lame. I read in between the lines to figure this much out:

Vote for me, Mitt Romney, because I’m NOT Barack Obama. As for independents and Democrats who might vote for me, don’t worry about a President Romney caving in to Tea Party pressure. I’ll be more of a centrist than that [wink, wink] because not only do I want to get elected, I’d like to get reelected.”

Romney also talks about the importance of growth but I think the real issue is assuring sustainability. When Romney the businessman enriched one company, that had to mean other companies lost business or at least that the health of the competing companies was not at all a concern of his. As President, though, Romney would have to concern himself with the health of the overall matrix (and not just the part within our borders) and not with scheming on how to enrich part of it at the expense of other parts.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Fairly early on, all tyrants and malefactors tip their hand. And it’s not really that hard to see where they’re coming from.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com