U.S. soldiers run to Kuwait border as combat mission ends in Iraq, Aug 18, 2010
After seven long years and five months, today marks the formal end of U.S. combat troops in Iraq. For us, it is not a day to delve into Iraqi war history, the politics involved, the debate on Iraqi preparedness to govern their nation, or U.S. involvement as Iraq moves forward.
To our courageous U.S. military and all coalition forces who were part of Iraq’s liberation, Mitt Romney Central wishes to say…
Thank you!
★ To the 50,000 troops who remain in an advisory capacity, thank you!
★ To those who will deploy in the future to replace said troops, thank you!
★ To the wounded, thank you!
★ To the disabled, thank you!
★ To the brave families and loved ones who support you, thank you!
★ To the soldiers who gave their lives for freedom, thank you! We honor your memory.
When Johnny [and Jane] Come[s] Marching Home(Lyrics to this song were written when gay meant happy.)
Goodbye Iraq! August 14, 2010
Last US Combat Brigade Leaves Iraq
Your courage, perseverance, sacrifice, and patriotism are forever emblazoned on our hearts.
Former Massachusetts Gov. and potential 2012 White House contender Mitt Romney (R) took a cue Wednesday from Sylvester Stallone when he tweeted: “Stallone is right. US does apologize too much.”
The quote referred to a comment the veteran film star made Aug. 19 to Bill O’Reilly while promoting his new film “The Expendables” in an appearance on Fox News.
O’Reilly opened the segment by referring to a Los Angeles Times review arguing the film taps a vein of “apple-pie patriotism … [that is already] behind the success of a cable news network,” taken to mean Fox.
Stallone denied the film, which he directed, has any intended subtext at all.
“Some people read [into it] that I was maybe putting the focal point on the American intrusion into other countries. You know, ‘We tend to overstep our boundaries.’ I don’t believe that at all.”
“I think America apologizes too much,” he added quickly, as O’Reilly began to reply.
[…]
(my emphasis)
A stroll down Obama memory lane… Shortly after President Obama was coronated, he embarked on his ‘sackcloth and ashes’ tour to apologize for America to the world. To the French, he stated that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe. He went to Prague to proclaim that America has “a moral responsibility to act” on arms control because only the U.S. had “used a nuclear weapon.” He told Londoners that decisions regarding the world financial system were no longer being made by “just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy.” Latin Americans heard our president’s apology when he said that the United States had not “pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors” because we “failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.” Do you remember when Obama gave a full-waist bow when greeting the King of Saudi Arabia? How about his deep head dip to the Japanese Emperor?
Mitt Romney agrees with Stallone. In fact, you may have heard, Romney wrote a 305 page best-selling book entitled No Apology: The Case for American Greatness (released last March):
“This is a book about what I believe should be our primary national objective: to keep America strong and to preserve its place as the world’s leading nation. And it describes the course I believe we must take to strengthen the nation in order to remain prosperous, secure, and free.” ~Mitt Romney
Excerpts from Jedediah Bila’s (Human Events) No Apology review 3/2/10:
In No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Mitt Romney discusses many foreign policy and domestic issues facing America and suggests solutions he believes will lead to a more safe and robust nation. Special attention is paid to national security, economic productivity, education, energy, and cultural fortitude.
[...]
Romney warns against American complacency by outlining the manner in which other nations have, throughout history, declined from greatness. The Ottomans, Spanish, Chinese, and British — among others — serve as potent examples of just how easily a great nation can fall from grace by virtue of such destructive policies as economic and cultural isolation, a withdrawal from the international marketplace, and spending far and above one’s means.
Romney’s declaration that, “We tend to repress the possibility of catastrophic events” is dead on. People tend to see what they feel they can handle, and the rest — despite potentially disastrous effects if not addressed — is often ignored. See our 2008 financial crisis for details.
Romney adeptly expresses America’s need for both “soft power” and “hard power” involvement in the international community. He doesn’t sugarcoat alarming realities with respect to China, Russia, radical jihadists, and Iran. Despite economic challenges, he rightfully prioritizes national defense and criticizes the UN’s “inclinations toward authoritarian regimes.” Romney unapologetically defends updating our nuclear arsenal, developing a powerful missile-defense system, adding a minimum of 100,000 soldiers to the Marines and Army, and pursuing new technologies to combat the likes of cyber-warfare.
Romney also proclaims American exceptionalism, defends the notion that, “The world is a safer place when America is strong,” and praises our hard-working roots. He duly cites welfare without work and entitlement program abuses as threats to the industrious character that birthed our unrivaled success.
Romney gives detailed emphasis on economic productivity, innovation, research and development, reducing taxes on investment, and curbing government’s growing deficits: “We need to stimulate the economy, not the government.”
[...]
All in all, Romney’s book provides a well-organized display of his stand on key issues. His Obama critique is well executed, including commentary on Obama’s abandonment of our missile defense program in Poland and the Czech Republic, his repeated apologies for America, his expansion of our debt, and his September 2009 UN address. Romney’s intermittent anecdotes with regard to business experiences, hands on encounters as governor, and the trials and tribulations of his own family, add a nice personal touch to his policy and statistical explorations.
My two favorite lines from the text include “But for most Americans, the pulse of freedom beats in our very DNA” and “The greatness of America lies not simply in what we have done with our power; it is also informed by what we have not done with our power”
Romney’s No Apology: The Case for American Greatness is a sound expression of his approach to some of our nation’s greatest present challenges.
While in Europe last year, Obama was asked if he believes in American exceptionalism. After thinking about it, he answered that he… did — in the same way that “the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, ”No.”
As for Obama’s comments to the French that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe, this is how arrogant, dismissive, and derisive we’ve been:
It is time for America to pursue the difficult course ahead, to confront the looming problems, to strengthen the foundations of our prosperity, and to secure the sources of our liberty and safety. The sacrifice and hard work will not sap our national energy; they will restore it. I’m one of those who believe America is destined to remain as it has been since the birth of the Republic – the brightest hope of the world. And for that belief, I do not apologize. ~Mitt Romney No Apology p. 34
(my emphasis)
If you haven’t read No Apology, DO. If you have read it, keep it handy. It is THE reference book for getting America back to running circles around the world.
► Jayde Wyatt
Update by Luke: Video of Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Stallone can be found at GOP12
Episode 1: Mitt’s Hope – In an Op-ed at the Washington post Mitt Romney urges the Senate to vote against ratification of the New START treaty signed by President Obama and President Medveved in April. The Op-ed is entitled Obama’s Worst Foreign-Policy Mistake.
Episode 2: The Lugar Menace – Dick Lugar of the Galactic US Senate rebuts Romney’s op-ed calling it a hyperbolic attack.
Episode 3: Romney Strikes Back – Mitt Romney provides “further discussion” to Senator Lugar’s thoughtful critique. In this discussion Mitt outlines eight serious problems with the New START treaty. This time NRO is Mitt’s weapon of choice.
1. New START does limit U.S. missile-defense options. First, New START’s preamble not only references missile defense, it accedes to Russia’s insistence that there is an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. While the Bush administration steadfastly refused to accept this Russian position, the Obama administration bows to it. The statement of interrelationship in the preamble, in addition to the specific missile-defense measures in the body of the treaty, amount to a major concession to Russia.
The treaty’s advocates dismiss the preamble reference as non-binding. But the significance of including missile-defense provisions in an offensive-weapons treaty is not lost on either signatory. Further, the Russians assert that the preamble does indeed constitute a binding limit on our missile-defense program, both in their Unilateral Statement and in subsequent public statements. Gen. Yevgeniy Buzinskiy, who served as the chief of the International Treaty Directorate in the Russian Ministry of Defense during the treaty’s negotiations, insists that any increase in our ABM system could be claimed as a breach of the treaty. Such ambiguity and pressure, and fear of being accused of violating the treaty, could strongly restrain American presidents from aggressively developing and deploying missile defense. The 1972 ABM Treaty provides historical precedent for such a chilling effect: Fearful that U.S. theater-missile-defense systems would be viewed as violating the treaty, we pulled back from realizing the full potential of such systems.
Further, the treaty prohibits our conversion of ICBM and submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers for the launching of defensive interceptors. Such conversions may well not be part of the Obama administration’s current plans, but they could surely be part of a subsequent administration’s. Past missile-defense agency directors and naval planners have objected to precluding SLBM-launcher conversions, capable as they could be of defending America and our allies from diverse and undisclosed locations. Such conversions were prohibited by the ABM Treaty during the Cold War — a treaty from which we have withdrawn — but the Obama administration is consenting to their renewed prohibition by New START. Under its terms, there could be an average of four or more SLBM tubes on each of our strategic submarines that no longer contain ballistic missiles but may not be converted for defensive interceptors, and so are empty.
The sixth agreed statement of the treaty’s protocol suggests that telemetry data on missiles governed by the treaty is not to be used for strategic-missile-defense purposes. In the long term, agreeing to this limitation could prove to have been very short-sighted.
Finally, treaty analysts at the Heritage Foundation have opined that “the most serious threat to missile defense in the New START treaty is contained in the power given to the Treaty compliance forum, the Bilateral Consultative Commission. . . . Missile defense is directly within the purview of the BCC.” Treaty proponents note that substantive changes to the treaty cannot be made by the BCC. But the BCC can — without Senate advice and consent — make changes to the treaty’s definitions and agreed statements, including those involving missile defense. The treaty Protocol assigns to BCC the defining of missile defense and key terms relating to the conversion of ICBM silos for defensive interceptors. An administration that wished to further limit missile defense without the advice and consent of the Senate could do so through the BCC. In the past, under START I, the JCIC, a body comparable to the BCC, did indeed make substantive changes to that treaty’s terms without Senate consent.
Governor Romney is showing himself to be an extremely serious foreign policy buff and potential presidential candidate. We shall continue to watch his career with great interest.
…Will Emperor Obama succeed in his efforts to weaken the USA? Can Mitt Romney defeat Barack Obama in 2012? Tune in next time….
~Nate Gunderson (Thanks, Aaronius for some of the formatting of this post.)
The editors at National Review Online are the latest to back-up Mitt Romney on his op-ed about the failures of the New START treaty. They join former Senator Jim Talent in putting up a very strong defense for Mitt. In fact the wording of the editorial is so focused on Governor Romney’s criticisms of New START it shows it is meant more to prove that Romney is right rather than proving that New Start is wrong, but it accomplishes both at the same time. Romney’s name is mentioned in 8 of the 10 paragraphs in the editorial. Their back-up evidence points are the clearest yet that I’ve read.
It is a great thing to have such a largely read website like NRO coming to bat for Mitt. An unsourced claim on Wikipedia says, “The website receives about one million hits per day—more than all other conservative-magazine websites combined.” (The “dead tree” version has a bi-weekly of 190,000. It is also well known that the website’s editor Kathryn Jean Lopez (affectionately know as K-Lo) is a big fan of Mitt Romney and she was highly vocal proponent of his 2008 presidential bid. You can see from this magazine cover image that the National Review Magazine also endorsed Mitt in 2008. Should Governor Romney run in 2012 I think it’s almost certain that highly valuable endorsement will be coming his way again.
Mitt Romney caused a furor last week when he wrote a Washington Post op-ed opposing the New Start treaty. Democrats and liberal commentators rushed to accuse Romney of bad-faith politics, of ignorance, and of a dangerous extremism. He’ll never get into the Council on Foreign Relations now.
The squealing is a sign that Romney hit his target: New Start is a bad deal for the United States, and the Senate should send the administration back to the negotiating table.
Romney pointed out that the linkage in the preamble of the treaty between strategic offensive weapons and missile defenses could limit our defenses. His critics scoff, It’s just a meaningless preamble. They should tell that to the Russians. The Russians believe that if we increase our strategic defenses, we are in violation of the treaty and that they will be justified in withdrawing from it. Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said, “Linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out in the accord and is legally binding.” Members of the Duma have said the same thing.
[...]
This gets to the crux of the matter: The treaty imposes a mutually agreed upon ceiling (in theory) on both sides, but it forces new reductions only from us. For those in thrall to arms-control theology, this is the product of brilliant negotiation. For anyone who can truly calculate our interests, it’s a travesty. All honor to Mitt Romney for setting out the case against the treaty so cogently. We hope Senate Republicans are listening.
Unrelated side-note: Bill Maher (shudder) would “bet the house” that Romney will win the GOP nomination in 2012 and has even odds of beating Obama. (source)
New START is a non-starter
President Obama’s New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New-START) with Russia could be his worst foreign policy mistake yet.
The treaty would give Russia an even greater advantage in its total number of nuclear weapons. It calls for restraints and reductions on us that would not have to be matched by the Russians. And inexplicably, it limits our ability to deploy an effective missile defense system. As such, it fails to address the looming threats posed by Iranian and North Korean nuclear proliferation.
By all indications, the Obama administration has been badly out-negotiated, as noted yesterday by the National Review. Perhaps the President’s eagerness for global disarmament led his team to accede to Russia’s demands, or perhaps it led to a document that was less than carefully drafted.
Whatever the reason for the treaty’s failings, it must not be ratified: The security of the United States is at stake.
Romney has built his foreign-policy ideology on the notion of American greatness and exceptionalism, interwoven with a hawkish national-security approach; that’s the foreign-policy niche he carved for himself while running for president in 2008 with business and management credentials as his main selling point. The treaty with Russia, and the notion that it proves Obama’s foreign-policy weakness, seems to be the chosen point of entry into foreign policy debate for Romney this year.
UPDATE 2 from Jayde: Baker Spring from the Heritage Foundation spoke with Josh Rogin from FP(Foreign Policy) today (714/10):
[...]On START, Romney is clear in what he wants to happen. “Whatever the reason for the treaty’s failings, it must not be ratified: The security of the United States is at stake,” he said.
That position is shared by his ideological cohorts at the Heritage Foundation, who are starting a nationwide anti-ratification grassroots effort via their new 501c4 group, Heritage Action for America. Romney has been working with this group.
[...]
[Spring] …think[s] the article signals a theme that many Republicans will now use to oppose not only START, but other arms-control initiatives the Obama team has plans to push forward.
“There’s now, in play, two fundamentally different views regarding arms controls in the post-Cold War world,” Spring said. “The question, simply and straight forwardly, is: Is the U.S. going to fashion an arms control policy based on at least the possibility if not the likelihood of a proliferated environment? Or is it going to go back to essentially the tried and true verities of Cold War-style, retaliation-based deterrence as a defining mechanism for what arms controls should obtain, as a fundamental goal?”
Spring acknowledges that his and Romney’s views differ from those of most leading Senate Republicans, including Jon Kyl, R-AZ, and John McCain, R-AZ, two key GOP voices on START. Both Kyl and McCain are keeping their powder dry, bargaining for concessions on missile defense and nuclear modernization before they will say which way they intend to vote.
According to The Hill, Kyl and Vice President Joseph Biden are in negotiations over the treaty now.
Spring says that the basic positions of the two camps of Republicans are the same, but that senators are holding their fire as part of their strategy to get the most concessions possible.
“When you look at the Kyls and McCains of the world, I don’t think there’s at this point in time much difference between their position and where [South Carolina Sen. Jim] DeMint and Romney will be. I think that’s a simple matter of legislative tactics,” said Spring.
Senate sources said that various senators are preparing two types of measures that could impact the START debate, whenever it does get to the Senate floor. One type, an amendment to the resolution ratifying the treaty, would, if passed, force the document to go back to the Russians for another round of negotiations. That could be a ratification killer in a practical sense, by overcomplicating the process until it loses steam.
Another, less controversial way to express concerns would be a statement of reservation that a senator could try to tack on to the treaty. This could allow the GOP to air its complaints while still allowing ratification to go forward.
What’s clear is that the Obama administration is working the GOP caucus hard to try to firm up the eight to 10 votes they will need to reach the 67-vote threshold. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Sen. Bob Corker, R-TN, Tuesday and Defense Secretary Robert Gates went to talk with GOP senators about START as well.
55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama?
The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent.
Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.”
On “too liberal,” 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 21 percent say “well,” 21 percent say “not too well,” and 17 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal.
When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.”
In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday (7/9/10) shows that 26% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17.
Mitt Romney:
“President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their team have failed the American people, and that is why their majority will soon be out the door.”
The BEST sign you are correct on any policy matter: John Kerry disagrees with you.
In response to Mitt Romney’s op-ed that was highly critical of Obama’s New START treaty, Senator John Kerry himself has honored Mitt with his own rebuttal. In his response Kerry twice refers to Mitt as “running for president” and attributes Romney’s alleged lack of fact-checking due to being involved in a foot-race with Sarah Palin. His comments seem to avoid or not sufficiently answer some of the criticisms made by Romney, but instead Kerry want us to dismiss Romney as one who we shouldn’t trust because he is running for President and will say anything to get elected.
Mitt Romney has his back well covered. Former Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, penned his own opinion (at NRO) in response to Kerry’s response to Mitt (you follow?). Senator Talent’s article seems much the opposite, not just in viewpoint. His content offers more fact, less personal presumptions. It’s a very good read.
The weaknesses of President Obama’s New START treaty with Russia are finally starting to surface in Washington. On Monday, Mitt Romney weighed in against the treaty in a Washington Post column. The former Massachusetts governor raised concerns previously aired by Amb. John Bolton (in National Review), by the Heritage Foundation’s Dr. Kim Holmes, and — in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — by former undersecretaries of state and defense Bob Joseph and Eric Edelman.
Yesterday, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), reacted with a column that, after attacking Romney personally, merely ignored or dismissed (rather than disproved) Romney’s objections.
(read more at NRO)
A day after Romney’s op-ed was published he was featured in a video for Heritage to garner signatures for a petition to send to the Senate. You can watch that video by clicking here.
The New START Treaty was signed by President Obama and President Medvedev of Russia in April. It will require 67 votes in the Senate to be ratified.
~Nate Gunderson
Bonus material:
Jim DeMint video from May 18: (h/t BOSMAN)
Given President Obama’s glaring domestic policy missteps, it is understandable that the public has largely been blinded to his foreign policy failings. In fact, these may have been even more damaging to America’s future. He fought to reinstate Honduras’s pro-Chávez president while stalling Colombia’s favored-trade status. He castigated Israel at the United Nations but was silent about Hamas having launched 7,000 rockets from the Gaza Strip. His policy of “engagement” with rogue nations has been met with North Korean nuclear tests, missile launches and the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel, while Iran has accelerated its nuclear program, funded terrorists and armed Hezbollah with long-range missiles. He acceded to Russia’s No. 1 foreign policy objective, the abandonment of our Europe-based missile defense program, and obtained nothing whatsoever in return.
Despite all of this, the president’s New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New-START) with Russia could be his worst foreign policy mistake yet. The treaty as submitted to the Senate should not be ratified.
The Heritage Foundation now has a video featuring Mitt Romney promoting a petition. Watch the video, sign the petition and tell the Senate to reject this dangerously naïve treaty.
Dedicated to electing conservatives this fall, ever-on-the-move Mitt Romney has given the nod to two candidates in the beautiful Mount Rushmore State (South Dakota):
Today, Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC announced the endorsement of the following South Dakota candidates:
Lieutenant Governor Dennis Daugaard: Dennis Daugaard currently serves as Lieutenant Governor of South Dakota, and is now running for Governor. For more information about him and his campaign, visit www.dennisdaugaard.com.
State Representative Kristi Noem: Kristi Noem currently represents District 6 in the South Dakota House of Representatives, where she serves as the Assistant Majority Leader. She is also a small business owner and is now running to represent South Dakota’s Congressional District. For more information about her and her campaign, visit www.kristiforcongress.com.
The PAC also announced that is sending Daugaard a $5,000 contribution toward his gubernatorial campaign, and that it has sent Noem a $2,500 contribution toward her Congressional campaign.
Of his endorsement of Lieutenant Governor Dennis Daugaard’s gubernatorial campaign, Romney said:
“Instead of growing our economy, too many of our leaders are focused on growing the size of government. We need leaders like Dennis Daugaard who will put the interests of hardworking Americans first, and say no to reckless spending and higher taxes.”
Of his endorsement of Kristi Noem’s Congressional campaign, Romney said:
“Far too many of our elected officials have forgotten that service is a key part of public service. A small business owner, and experienced rancher and farmer, Kristi Noem understands South Dakota and its values, and will restore its voice to the U.S. House.”
These endorsements are another in a series of state rollouts of the PAC’s 2010 endorsements, which are aimed at electing conservative candidates who will work to lower taxes and spending, restore commonsense principles to healthcare and get our economy moving again. As part of this program, Romney’s PAC also has announced endorsements in Ohio, Missouri, California, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Nevada, Illinois, Georgia, Texas, Indiana, Idaho, New Mexico, Virginia, Florida, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, and Maine.
LANSING, Mich. — Potential 2012 presidential contender Mitt Romney will be in Michigan next week to help U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra raise money for his Republican gubernatorial bid.
Romney will appear at a July 9 luncheon at the Grosse Pointe Shores home of Robert and Victoria Liggett. Tickets are $200 for the luncheon or $500 for the luncheon and a photo with Romney.
Hoekstra has made one small TV ad buy but has been unable to match the ad blitz by Republican Attorney General Mike Cox.
Romney’s political action committee Strong America PAC already has contributed to Hoekstra’s campaign.
Romney has endorsed candidates in more than half of the states in the country, a methodical approach that serves to flex his financial muscle and cement his status as the frontrunner heading into 2012.
For anyone holding their breath that five members of Team Obama would actually propose something for lasting Arizona border order when they met with Governor Jan Brewer in Phoenix yesterday, you may exhale now.
Phhhht.
Governor Brewer’s word for the sound escaping one’s lips would be ‘disappointment’. Mine feels more like disgust.
After an hour and a half of sitting through White House Security Adviser John Brennan’s power point presentation – with no hard copies to follow or keep for reference, Governor Brewer was clearly frustrated with Obama’s underwhelming response to secure Arizona’s border:
Regarding the impending Obama Administration lawsuit…
“Well, you know I’m very disappointed. I think it’s wrong, but we will meet with them and we will push back. And, we will fight as hard as we can and I believe Arizona will win the lawsuit.”
Here’s how Obama and Napolitano are ‘bringing the hammer down’ on illegal immigration:
► Up to 524 National Guard personnel will be sent to AZ (not the promised 1200).
► National Guard personnel will be implemented in small numbers and fluctuate incrementally.
► National Guard personnel will conduct surveillance and support – not ‘boots on the ground’ apprehension duty.
► National Guard personnel at the peak number of 524 will be available for a limited time.
► 22 miles of existing border fence will be repaired.
► The $500 million originally pledged to Gov Brewer has been changed to $445 million. $310 million will be given to Mexico. Arizona will receive a whopping $135 million.
Phoenix 3TV report:
“No really substantial information was provided that would make us happy or pleased with the discussions today.” -Gov Brewer
White House Picks Critic of Local Immigration Enforcement for Key Role at ICE
Harold Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, has been hired as the Director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of State and Local Coordination.
The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between federal and local officials on the issue.
Harold Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, has been hired as the director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of State and Local Coordination. Starting July 6, Hurtt will supervise outreach and communication between ICE, local law enforcement agencies, tribal leaders and representatives from non-governmental organizations.
[...]
… as a police chief, Hurtt was a supporter of “sanctuary city” policies, by which illegal immigrants who don’t commit crimes can live without fear of exposure or detainment because police don’t check for immigration papers.
He also, during his tenure as Houston police chief, criticized ICE’s key program that draws on local law enforcement’s support.
(emphasis mine)
Obama’s agenda is obvious. He may well have met his match in Governor Brewer.
President Barack Obama will deliver an address on comprehensive immigration reform on Thursday in Washington.
Obama will speak at American University in northwest Washington following a week in which he’s met with key constituencies in the immigration debate.
Obama will speak at noon on Thursday “on the need to fix our broken immigration system through comprehensive immigration reform,” according to a White House announcement.
The president met this week with immigration activists and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss the prospects for reform this year, too.
MittRomneyCentral.com is a pure grassroots website. It is not paid for, endorsed by, or affiliated in any way with Governor Mitt Romney or the Free and Strong America PAC.
MittRomneyCentral.com is a pure grassroots website. It is not paid for, endorsed by, or affiliated in any way with Governor Mitt Romney or the Free and Strong America PAC.
It is a great thing to have such a largely read website like NRO coming to bat for Mitt. An unsourced claim on 
From 
Recent Comments