My Closing Argument, and This Ain’t Just Rhetoric

Overview: My Main Philosophical Reason I’m Voting For Mitt.

I feel so strongly that Mitt Romney is the right choice for president that I wanted to make one last post, my closing argument as it were, in hopes of convincing that one last undecided voter out there somewhere to vote for Mitt. I wanted to explain why I, and the other authors here at Mitt Romney Central, have devoted such time, effort, emotion, and yes, money, to the cause of electing Mitt. My list of specific reasons why I like Mitt, and my counterarguments to President Obama’s case, are below. But I can sum up why I feel so strongly with this: Barack Obama’s vision for America is inconsistent with that of our founding fathers and our Constitution.

A Limited Government Preserves Freedom

Our government was founded on the principles of self-determination and freedom. Americans were not content to be told by the British government how much they should pay in taxes or what freedoms they were entitled to. So they fought a war to gain their independence. When the founding fathers then set up their own government, at the forefront of their minds was the concern for how to preserve their hard-won freedoms. So they came up with three fundamental ideas about the new federal government: (i) it should be small, split into different branches with checks and balances over each other’s power, (ii) it should share power with, and in fact have less power over citizens’ day-to-day lives than, the states, where the citizens were better represented, and (iii) our most basic freedoms should be enshrined in a Bill of Rights to make absolutely sure the federal government did not violate them. This combination of ideas, they thought, would assure, over time, that the God-given rights they had won back from their government at great cost would be preserved against tyranny.

Obama’s Vision of a Larger Government is Antithetical to Freedom.

In 2008 when Senator Obama talked of “transforming” America and saying “we can do better,” it was clear to me he was talking about fundamentally changing these key principles. He stood for a larger federal government; one that would try and take responsibility for the poor and do more for its citizens. While that may sound nice, having a government undertake that responsibility also means it must become larger, tax more (a government that undertakes to define what’s fair for all its citizens will also try and make everyone pay their “fair share”) and become more involved in our lives, much more involved than the founding fathers intended. A larger government necessarily becomes more difficult to manage, begins to take on a life of its own, and becomes very difficult to control. A larger federal government also means a shift in power from the states, where citizens can more easily control their own destiny. And once people begin to rely on government largesse, cutting the size of that government and its programs, even if the government cannot afford them (witness our overwhelming deficits and the troubles in Europe as it tries to cut back), becomes very, very difficult. People become less willing to give up that security, even if it means a loss of liberty. And they can become accustomed to the idea that the government represents someone else, not them, and that they are owed something by that government (witness appeals from the left that sound like class warfare). As a result, I believe the policies of President Obama reflect a threat to our liberty. Perhaps not immediate. Perhaps only a little. But what he wants to do, at its core, is inconsistent with the intended size and role of our government, which means we will inevitably lose a little, or a lot, of liberty. How much really depends on how much further down Obama’s road we go. And in my view, we’ve already lost too much.

Example: Obamacare.

As an illustration of what I mean, I’ll use Obamacare. It sounds nice to make sure everyone has health insurance. And there are lots of stories of people who can’t afford insurance, and how having it would benefit them greatly. I get that, and I feel for their situation. This is what Obama meant by “we can do better.” He’d like to use government resources to fix these problems. But, just like when you get your first credit card, you need to look beyond the nice things you can buy and decide whether you can really afford it, because that bill will come due at some time. As for the cost in dollars and cents, it’s clear we can’t afford Obamacare. We just can’t. It adds trillions of unfunded government outlays over the next two decades. And once these benefits are offered to citizens it’s very difficult to take them away. In addition, Obamacare has already begun to infringe on our freedoms. At its core it’s the federal government (not the state, which is the principal difference between Obamacare and Romneycare), forcing us to buy a product. Then, because it forces us to buy this product, it must go further and legislate the minimum requirements of this product (or everyone would buy the cheapest version available). That legislation now includes elements some religions find offensive. How’d we get here? By involving the federal government in something it really was never intended by the founding fathers to be involved in: providing health insurance. Further, because the IRS will be in charge of enforcing compliance with the mandate, it will need to know our personal health information. The founders’ vision of limited federal power, with express limits on what the federal government can and can’t do, has been violated by Obamacare. And having the federal government in this position simply poses a threat to our freedom. The founders knew power corrupts, and while we think we can trust the government now, we don’t always know we will be able to. When will it be your religious belief that’s infringed? Or your freedom of speech? This is why the Republicans resist President Obama so much. This is why Obamacare did not get one single Republican vote. This is why Obama’s own budget was rejected by not only Republicans but his own party. And finally this is why Mitch McConnell said it was his goal to make sure Obama only had one term: to try and make sure the damage President Obama does is not long-lasting. Obamacare is a threat to our freedom, and it’s just one example.

This Ain’t Just Rhetoric.

Let me say that this is not just rhetoric. I’m not just making an argument because I want you to vote for Mitt for some other hidden reason. This is why I’m voting for Mitt, and why I honestly believe everyone should. This is what worries me about the prospect of Obama serving another term. He has already made some strides toward “transforming” America into something I believe it was never intended to be. Obamacare was one very large step in that direction. As Vice President Biden said, it was a “[blanking] big deal.” I know the further we go down this road the more difficult it is to go back. I also know the GOP will fight Obama to preserve that liberty, which is likely to result in more gridlock at a time when our government needs to work together. Unfortunately, though, cooperating with the president can mean, and has meant, the loss of some of these liberties, which makes compromise difficult.
(more…)

Impressive Endorsement! Former Prisoners of War Support Mitt Romney

Pictured are glasses and cap of a former POW…
(Photo – Ted Jackson/Times Picayune)

What a great honor for Governor Mitt Romney…

Yesterday, 150 former prisoners of war (POWs) announced their support for Romney:

I am deeply honored to have the support of these American heroes who suffered so much for our nation and her people,” said Mitt Romney. “Our military men and women are America’s best. They put everything—including their lives and their liberty—on the line for our freedoms. When I am president, I will honor their dedication and those sacrifices by ensuring that we maintain the strength of our military, provide the care our veterans need, and build an economy that gives every American the chance to live their dreams.”

“Our nation’s most sacred commitment is to our men and women in uniform,” said Lt. Colonel Orson Swindle, USMC, (Ret.). “But for the last four years, we’ve been letting them down. Too many veterans come home without opportunities for good jobs. Too many of our wounded are seeing the cost of their medical care on the rise. We need new leadership in Washington. That’s why I am supporting Mitt Romney. He not only appreciates the sacrifices the men and women of the armed forces make, he has the experience and the plan to turn this country around. He’ll make sure that none of our bravest come back from war only to face new and sometimes even more difficult battles at home. Our nation is hungry for that kind of leadership. Mitt Romney will provide it.”

The Governor recently paid tribute to America’s prisoners of war and our military missing in action (MIAs) on National POW/MIA Recognition Day (September 21, 2012).

A bouquet of red, white, and blue graces the National Prisoner of War Museum in Andersonville, GA. The site serves as a memorial to all American prisoners of war.
Click on image to enlarge. (photographer unknown)

★ ★ ★

Governor Mitt Romney has a deep respect and love for all who have served or are currently serving in the United States military. He is pictured greeting a group of veterans after speaking at a campaign event, May 29, 2012, in Craig, CO. (Photo – Mary Altaffer/AP)

★ ★ ★

Note: On Oct 17, 2012, Romney announced his Military Advisory Council. You must check out the amazing list of military members serving on his council, including retired General Tommy Franks, who said, “Governor Romney is committed to restoring America’s leadership role in the world. Instead of playing politics with our military, he will strengthen our defense posture by reversing the President’s devastating defense cuts. The fact of the matter is that we cannot afford another four years of feckless foreign policy. We need level-headed leadership which will protect our interests and defend our values with clarity and without apology.” DO read more here.

Every name on the following list of endorsers for Governor Romney represents an individual story of enormous sacrifice and valor in the service of our nation. Each individual spent time imprisoned by enemies of the United States. They’ve lived through horrors I can only imagine. Each truly knows what it’s like to suffer for the USA. They see how the Obama economy is affecting returning soldiers and they’re concerned about our shrinking military, sequestration, care for older veterans, and are very aware of Obama’s ‘apology tour’ and his Benghazi cover-up. These POWs know what is at stake in this election. I’ve linked information to the first 10 patriots and the last 10. Copy and paste any name (include “POW’) and search the internet to learn more about every veteran listed. As you look over the list, take a moment to show respect for these American heroes by reading each name.

Former prisoners of war endorsing Mitt Romney:

Senator John McCain
Rep. Sam Johnson
Captain Ray Alcorn, USN, (Ret.)
Commander Everett Alvarez, USN, (Ret.)
CWO Frank Anton, USA, (Ret.)
Lt. Colonel Tim Ayers, USAF, (Ret.)
Colonel Elmo Baker, USAF, (Ret.)
Lt. Colonel Ted Ballard, USAF, (Ret.)
Colonel Robert Barnett, USAF, (Ret.)
Major Richard Bates, USAF, (Ret.)
Captain James Bell, USN, (Ret.)
Major General John Borling, USAF, (Ret.)
Colonel Ron Byrne, USAF, (Ret.)
Major Peter Camerota, USAF, (Ret.)
Captain David Carey, USN, (Ret.)
Commander Al Carpenter, USN, (Ret.)
Colonel/Chaplain Robert Certain, USAF, (Ret.)
Lt. Colonel Harlan Chapman, USMC, (Ret.)
Lt. Colonel Larry Chesley, USAF, (Ret.)
Commander George Coker, USN, (Ret.)
Colonel James Collins, USAF, (Ret.)
Lt. Colonel Thomas Collins, USAF, (Ret.)
Lt. Colonel James Condon, USAF, (Ret.)
Colonel Ken Cordier, USAF, (Ret.)
Major Joe Crecca, USAF, (Ret.)
Colonel Tom Curtis, USAF, (Ret.)
Captain Samuel B. Cusimano, USAF, (Ret.)
Major J. D. Cutter, USAF, (Ret.)
Continue!

Obama Left Them to Fight Their Guts Out for Seven Hours! (#Video)

In all candor, I actually believe Barack Obama thinks most of us Americans are stupid regarding the decisions he made and his inaction regarding the Benghazi assassinations. Those four Americans absolutely knew help was on the way and that it would be just a matter of an hour or two before they would be rescued. They had no doubt we would answer the call! They knew we would never leave them high and dry. I am furious that the person we grant authority to as commander in chief would leave an American Ambassador and three other great American patriots to fight their guts out for seven hours as he watched through high definition TV screens from a drone!

We will never forget!

Barack Obama, Commander in Chief?


American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Women United: “When the SEALs Called, They Got Denied” (#Video)



American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Standing Their Posts — The Tomb of the Unknowns

The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Arlington Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia (Photographer: Karin Markert)

The following statement is from the Facebook page of the 3d U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) [please LIKE their Facebook page]:

“The Sentinels at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier maintain their vigil even as Hurricane Sandy bears down on the Eastern Seaboard. The Old Guard has guarded the tomb every minute of every day since April 6, 1948. Today will be no exception.”

In the past, the soldiers whose duty it is to guard the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier were granted a pass to stand down in severe storms. To my knowledge, they have never left their post. Hurricane Sandy is expected to be the worst storm to hit this area in our lifetimes. Thank you to Dan Marshall and Dave Anderson for this photograph posted to their Facebook pages.

Note: “Rachelle” left a comment on this post indicating the above photograph was not made during Hurricane Sandy. Based on research she sent, the photograph was made September 2012. I placed a call to Arlington Cemetery the afternoon of 10/29 and spoke to the media relations officer whom I asked whether the guards would remain at their duty stations during Hurricane Sandy. She replied by saying, “Yes sir, they stand guard now and they will remain at their posts the duration of the storm. They stand guard always, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year in all weather conditions.” Thank you to Rachelle for her clarification. While the photograph was not taken during the current storm, it is representative of current conditions under which these men are presently serving at the Tomb of the Unknowns.

Update 1: Please see discussion with Karin Markert in the Facebook and general comments section of this article. Karin is the photographer of this beautiful photograph above. I was informed she is also the wife of the Brigade Commander of The Old Guard.

Update 2: To view photographs of The Old Guard taken Monday, October 29 during Hurricane Sandy, see their Facebook album here.

American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist — Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Obama’s Credibility is Severely Degraded by Battleships and Benghazi

Mr. Obama’s condescending comments in the debate last Monday evoked embarrassment for him as his stature seemed to diminish right in front of my eyes. As if this much younger man with virtually no leadership experience 44 months ago feels so elevated as to lecture a proven, seasoned leader such as Mitt Romney. Mr. Obama’s hubris knows no bounds. The nature of narcissism is such that humility is rarely felt by a man that places high value in the power he thinks he possesses.

The WSJ editorial board published a short column titled, A Game of Battleship? Mr. Obama’s supreme confidence in slamming Governor Romney on the size of the Navy serves to only compound a growing sense among Americans that Obama’s credibility is eroding.

And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we’re counting ships. It’s what are our capabilities.

That was President Obama at Monday night’s debate, rebuking Mitt Romney for noting that the U.S.Navy is the smallest it’s been in nearly a century and may soon get smaller. It would be nice to think the President has been up late reading Alfred Thayer Mahan. To judge by the rest of his remarks on the subject, he hasn’t.

F/A-18C Hornet on Aircraft Carrer Deck (photo source: www.Navy.com)

We mean Mr. Obama’s well-rehearsed jibe that “we also have fewer horses and bayonets” than we did during World War I. This was followed by the observation that “we have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

Yes, Mr. President. And we have fewer of all of those things, too.

Many historians believe that President Reagan defeated the mighty Soviet empire economically; that by building a strong national defense, the Soviet Union was constantly keeping up until it effectively went broke.

When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, the Navy counted 529 ships in the fleet, including 15 aircraft carriers and 121 nuclear submarines. In 2001 the Navy was down to 316 ships, with 12 carriers and 73 subs. In 2011 the numbers were 285, 11 and 71, respectively. On current trajectory, Mr. Romney said, “we’re headed down to the low 200s,” a figure Mr. Obama did not dispute.

The USS Wilbur, a guided missile destroyer with Mt. Fuji in background (photo source; www.Navy.com)

The President is right that the ships the U.S. puts to sea today are, for the most part, much more capable than they were 20 or 30 years ago. But that’s true only up to a point. Aegis cruisers and destroyers responsible for defending their immediate battle space are now taking on the additional role of providing ballistic missile defense. The tasks multiply, but the ships aren’t getting any additional missile tubes.
[...]
Concerns about ship numbers may seem passé. They also seemed passé to many in the late 19th century, which is exactly why Mahan wrote “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History.” If we’ve again become cavalier about maintaining the freedom of the seas, it’s because a powerful U.S. Navy has accustomed us to indifference. Weaken the Navy further, and that’s a luxury we’ll lose.

Ultimately, it is the credibility of the POTUS that allows him to retain authority through reelection. One definition of credibility is “worthy of trust.” The complete erosion of trust was so complete with Presidents Johnson and Carter they lost a second chance to serve (President George H.W. Bush lost mainly because his vote was bifurcated with Ross Perot). It has become most apparent to me and many other Americans that President Obama is no longer worthy of our trust. Daniel Henninger’s weekly column in the WSJ is excellent on this subject: Suddenly, a Credibility Gap:

There have been only two events that could be said to have caused significant movement by voters in the campaign. One was the Oct. 3 Denver debate in which Mitt Romney disinterred political skills that stunned the incumbent and woke up a sleeping electorate. Race on.

The other is Benghazi. The damage done to the Obama campaign by the Sept. 11 death in Benghazi of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American colleagues has been more gradual than the sensation of the Denver debate, but its effect may have been deeper.

The incumbent president has a credibility gap.

The phenomenon of a credibility gap dates to the Vietnam War and the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. The charge then was that LBJ wasn’t leveling with the American people or Congress about Vietnam. The credibility gap was hardly the only thing that caused LBJ to withdraw from the 1968 election, but it eroded support for his presidency.

Vehicle inside the U.S. Consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 11 (photo credit: AFP/Getty Images

Credibility gaps can be unfair things. They generally involve difficult foreign affairs in which presidents possess information and realities never revealed to the general public, presumably for its own good. That may be what this White House believes about Benghazi. But it is also true that only this White House knows why it allowed the Benghazi disaster to drip though the news from September into October, with no credible account of the attack, even as reporters for newspapers such as this one got the story out.

In time it was no surprise that people began to ask: Was the White House hiding something about an event of enormous gravity to protect the president’s candidacy? For much of the American electorate, that would be cause to start marking down a presidency.
[...]
Even by the standards of our celebrified culture, Barack Obama’s personalization of the American presidency has been outsized. He and his political team sought this aura. Hillary and the rest of the cabinet receded, while he rose. In Monday’s debate, Mr. Obama stumbled into a summation of his status: “This nation, me, my administration.” L’etat, c’est me.

Until now, it worked. Despite an awful economy, the president’s likability numbers held firm. Many wanted to believe in this larger-than-life president. His clumsy handling of Benghazi, however, has opened a gap in the president’s credibility…
[...]
It may be that voters think both candidates have stretched the truth, but credibility is the coin of a presidency. The political cost of devaluing that coin is higher for an incumbent seeking a second term and higher still for this one. Two weeks from Election Day, Barack Obama has been shown in Benghazi to be a president with feet of clay. It may well take him down.

Contrast Mr. Obama’s loss of trust or credibility with the following statement made by Governor Romney in Colorado this week when he walked out to speak at a much larger audience than he had expected; as reported in The Ulsterman Report:

“Lord, if this is your will, please help to make me worthy. Please give me the strength Lord.”


American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Romney: More to Gain Than to Lose in Last Debate

Well, the final Presidential debate will be over in less than 24 hours.

I’m sensing a certain level of stress among some Romney supporters in the lead up to this debate. Sure, it’s human nature to feel anxious just before a big event … especially when we are so invested in Mitt’s success. But I’m not nervous one bit, and here’s why ….

Governor (soon to be “President Elect”) Romney has much more to gain than to lose in this debate. It’s Obama that has the tough job tonight. The non-incumbent challenger generally has a low-bar to clear in these debates. They only have to 1) show that they can credibly be Commander-in-Chief and 2) avoid major gaffes. Mitt has shown that he is more than capable of achieving this based on his first two debate showings.

Much of the “who won the debate?” game is about expectations. Obama was widely expected to be a superior debater/communicator, and it was a race-changing event when he lost the first debate so dramatically. This set up debate number two, where Obama had reset his bar down to the floor. As such, many observers felt that he “won” the second debate (by a much narrower margin than the 1st debate, and more on style than on actual issues according to polls). But the President’s “win” was really more of a “most improved” award … we’ve seen no bounce in the polls for him at all.

Conventional wisdom is that Obama is supposed to trounce Governor Romney tonight, since the topic is Foreign Policy. The problem for Obama, is that his supposed foreign policy superiority is already “baked into the cake” of his poll numbers/support. Obama’s problem arises from the fact that his foreign policy successes begin and end with “Bin Laden is dead.” Sure, that’s a HUGE point, but it’s sort of hard to talk about THAT for 90 minutes straight. And no voter is going to change his mind to vote for Obama on this issue. “Hey yeah, Obama got Bin Laden … I had forgotten that. I guess I’ll vote for him now.”

Even those formerly on Obama’s foreign policy team decidedly do NOT see this as a strength for him (be sure to read that scathing rebuke!).

The debate will give Mitt an opportunity to, once again, unexpectedly impress voters on the depth and breadth of his international experience and knowledge. The media have painted him as a lightweight on foreign policy, someone out of his depth. Mitt can and will highlight his substantial foreign exposure through his public, private, and religious experiences.

The wildcard issue for tonight is Banghazi … and not in a good way for Obama.


Despite the President’s higher foreign policy numbers in general, this recent Ohio poll (that was even a +8% Dem sample) showed Mitt UP 49%-47% on the question: “Do you trust Barack Obama or Mitt Romney more on the issue of Libya?” Mitt did miss an opportunity to fully expose Obama on Libya in debate #2. Don’t expect a replay of that tonight …

President Obama — “HORRIBLE FOR HIM”

We all contemplate Monday night’s debate on foreign policy. In the last three weeks, Barack Obama and Joe Biden blamed the intelligence community for “the movie trailer” narrative for a “spontaneous” attack on the Benghazi consulate. How long did you think it would take the CIA and other intelligence sources to correct the record on such a blatant lie? Did Mr. Obama really think we Americans are all so dumb as to believe such nonsense?

In one word, “yes.”

But why? An absolutely crucial element of Mr. Obama’s campaign theme is that al-Qaeda has been largely decimated and rendered ineffective. Why? Because Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden. Following the flawed logic, Americans are to conclude the threat of radical Islamic terrorism is no more. We will therefore give all the credit to Mr. Obama by granting him four more years in The White House.

Mr. Obama: We know your game. We have seen this act before. You can go hide out at Camp David this weekend to spin another web of tales for Monday. We will never forget those who have sacrificed their lives for America.

As we all contemplate Monday’s debate and the authority granted each one of us on November 6, 2012, please watch this short video, especially at second 0.35 when Bill Clinton speaks for Mr. Obama. Bill Clinton’s shameless and disgusting revelation perfectly defines this president and his character:


“Horrible for him”? How reprehensible! But it is all the more “in character” after Mr. Obama’s unemotional and insensitive comments regarding the deaths of four great Americans on 9/11/12 as not “optimal.”

Mr. Obama’s “optimal” reality will be stark the evening of November 6th.


American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

American Exceptionalism — 2012 New Leadership Needed (30-Second Video)

THANK YOU to Special Operations for America for this powerful message!

President Mitt Romney will never bow to any other world leader.



Thank you to Kevin Anderson for bringing this video to MRC.


American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist – Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

Ross Perot Endorses Romney: “WE CAN’T AFFORD OBAMA”

“The fact is the United States is on an unsustainable course,” states Ross Perot in his op-ed today in the Des Moines Register endorsing Mitt Romney. (Photo – Michael Mulvey/USA Today)

In today’s Des Moines Register, legendary Texas businessman H. Ross Perot Sr., who twice ran for President himself as an Independent candidate in 1992 and 1996, published his hearty endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney for President of the United States:

We Can’t Afford Obama

Our country faces a momentous choice. The fact is the United States is on an unsustainable course. At stake is nothing less than our position in the world, our standard of living at home and our constitutional freedoms.

That is why I am endorsing Mitt Romney for president. We can’t afford four more years in which debt mushrooms out of control, our government grows and our military is weakened.

For the past four years, we have squandered one opportunity after the next to turn things around. The longer we delay acting, the steeper the price we will have to pay.

Let’s look at the country as it is now.

The American economy is stagnant. Economic growth is insufficient to create enough jobs for a country whose population is growing. The result is unemployment stuck over 8 percent for every single month of Barack Obama’s presidency. We have 23 million Americans who are looking for work and either can’t find a full-time job, can’t find a job at all, or who have given up looking. That is wrong. It’s not the way America ought to be.

At the same time, and not unrelated, is the extraordinary explosion of federal deficits and federal debt. In the last four years during Obama’s presidency, he’s added around $5 trillion to our national debt, more than any previous president. This was accomplished by successive federal budgets that each ran deficits exceeding $1 trillion a year. It is this massive deficit spending that threatens to undermine our future standard of living. To pay for our government’s massive debts, Washington’s profligacy, our children and grandchildren will be paying interest and principal on the nation’s debt for untold years into the future. That is wrong. It’s not the way America ought to be.

Even as we have engaged in runaway domestic spending, the country has been put on the path to massive cuts in the defense budget. President Obama’s own Secretary of Defense has called the proposed cuts “devastating” to our nation’s security. History teaches that the price of military weakness always exceeds the price of preparedness. And yet at a moment when turbulence is sweeping critical regions of the world, we are increasingly unprepared. That is wrong. It’s not the way America ought to be.

It is for these reasons that I am endorsing Mitt Romney. He has spent most of his career in the private sector. He understands how jobs are created. He understands how government can get in the way of that process. As a president, he would do what this administration has been unable to do, which is reform our federal government, pare it back, and — most critically — keep it from acting as a brake on economic growth.

Equally important, as a governor, Mitt Romney balanced the budget of his state for four straight years without raising taxes. Writing in all caps is called shouting, and that fact is something that deserves to be shouted from the rooftops. I should add that Gov. Romney accomplished this feat while working with a legislature that was overwhelmingly under the control of the Democratic Party in one of the most liberal states in the country. In short, although he is a rock-solid conservative, he knows how to reach across the aisle and make common cause with those with whom he disagrees.

These are leadership qualities that are sorely needed in Washington today. President Obama promised a great deal. He has had his chance. The results are visible for all to see. It is time for a new beginning. It is time for Mitt Romney.

(image and emphasis added)

An anti-Obama political sign is posted along the main street in Hillsboro, Va., near Leesburg.
(Photo – Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press)



Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

Page 1 of 512345