Thursday, January 25, 2007

Romney on Iran

On Tuesday, Governor Mitt Romney addressed The Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference in Israel. It was one of his first prominent Foreign Policy speeches. He was the only probable presidential candidate to attend the conference and make his speech in person (others addressed the group by satellite). In the speech, he outlined his ideas on Iran:

Governor Romney's Five Step Plan of Action to Prevent a Nuclear Iran: (as prepared)

"First, we must continue [to] tighten economic sanctions. Our model should be at least as severe to the sanctions imposed on Apartheid South Africa. We should demand no less from the international community today…. (…)

"Second, we must impose diplomatic isolation of Iran's Government. Ahmadinejad should not be provided the trappings, respect, and recognition of a responsible head of state as he travels. In fact, when former Iranian President Khatami traveled to Boston last year to lecture at Harvard University, I denied him state police security for his visit. The real question is: why was he invited in the first place? Ahmadinejad is even more strident than Khatami. He should neither be invited to foreign capitals nor feted by foreign leaders. This would have important symbolic significance, not just to Ahmadinejad, but to the people of Iran. (…)

"Third, Arab states must join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states can do much more than wring their hands and urge America to act. They should support Iraq's nascent government. They can help America focus on Iran by quickly turning down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict – stopping the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hizbullah…thawing relations with Israel…and telling the Palestinians they must drop terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist.

"Fourth, we must make it clear that while nuclearization may be a source of pride, it can also be a source of peril. The military option remains on the table. And further, nuclear material that falls into the hands of terrorists would surely provoke a devastating response from the civilized world.

"Fifth, our strategy should be integrated into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world. I agree with our friend, former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, that a central purpose of NATO should be to defeat radical Islam. I believe this has two critical dimensions. The first is an unquestionably capable military. This will mean a greater investment by the United States as well as other nations. The second is a global partnership which includes NATO and other allies. Its mission would be to support progressive Muslim communities and leaders in every nation where radical Islam is battling modernity and moderation. This Partnership for Prosperity should help provide the tools and funding necessary for moderates to win the debate in their own societies. They need secular public schools, micro credit and banking, the rule of law, adequate healthcare, human rights, and competitive economic policies. In the final analysis, only Muslims will be able to permanently defeat radical Islam. And we can help."

He concluded his speech saying:

“In those previous global wars, there were many ways to lose, and victory was far from guaranteed. In the current conflict, there's only one way to lose, and that is if we as a civilization decide not to lift a finger to defend ourselves, our values, and our way of life.

“It is time for the world to plainly speak three truths:

One, Iran must be stopped.

Two, Iran can be stopped.

“And three, Iran will be stopped. [Applause]

“Thank you so much.”

In response to the speech Ronald Lauder, former US Ambassador to Austria, said:

"I just want to say that you have heard one of the most comprehensive, direct, clear strategies on Iran. I must say I have heard many different statements on Iran. This was as good as it gets, as straight as it gets, and I for one am very, very much impressed. I think Governor Mitt Romney has it all together."

You can watch the conclusion on video here.

This is truly one of the best Iran policy speeches I have heard… from anybody (let alone an exploratory candidate. I liked it.

That is all.


Saturday, January 06, 2007

Same Sex Marriage: Re-Framing the Issue to take back the moral high ground

In response to Malach the Merciless and his rather odd rant about Gay Marriage on the Wand of Wonder (another blog to which I occasionally contribute)


First of all, Massachusetts did not make gay marriage a law. A panel of judges decided to interpret the constituion in such a way to allow marriage between two partners of the same sex. They left it up to the elected body to amend the constitution to clarify it (as was proper). The legislature (which seems to have become more and more radical over time) has balked and refused to even consider the amendment. So, Romney did something else allowed by the constitution: he went to the people.

It doesn't matter who the 170,000 signatures were... they were in favor of constitutional action so that Boston didn't become the homosexual Las Vegas. The funny thing about democracy is: the majority still has a say.

As for the Gay Marriage issue, it is not a matter of civil rights. Same-sex marriage should not be framed as an adult civil right... because marriage is about family and child rearing. Studies over and over show that for a child to develop properly, he needs the influence of both a Mother and Father. Same-sex couples have been successful parents, but statistically they are no more effective than single-parent households at raising well-adjusted children.

So, legalizing Gay marriage is not just about civil rights. It is about protecting a centuries-old successful instituion that has been the basis of society... um... forever. This is not about descriminating against people who choose to practice homosexuality. It is about protecting the fundamental group unit of society (according to the Universal Declration of Human Rights): THE FAMILY. And, it is about protecting children by not legalizing and accepting a less-effective form of child rearing.

As for your reference to the civil rights movement for African Americans, that issue was not decided by the courts. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was past overwhelmingly by both parties. Opposition to the act was regional (with a majority of both Republicans and Democrats in the south). It WAS decided by popular vote. And, so far, the same-sex marriage issue has been decided by a majority of states that have brought a measure to the ballot... decided in favor of traditional marriage.

The problem with secular humanists these days is that they haven't been able to convince the masses that they aren't raving idiots. They sit in NY and LA and DC and MA and assume that everybody agrees with them. Well, I'm sorry: a loud minority is still a minority.

I'm sure you dislike Romney on this issue... but I can't agree with him more. I am all for basic human and civil rights for people who practice homosexuality. But, I will also stand firm that marriage is a basic and fundamental unit that should not be diluted or broken. Not only do I agree with what Romney was doing in Massachusetts, I agree with the way he frames the arguments: in terms of Child rights.

I'm glad the MA legislature finally fulfilled their duty and voted on it. If you hate the law, get out and try to convince people WHY you are right. But, don't go after Romney because he walks the walk.

That is all.


Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Why Donate to a Political Candidate?

Dear Fans and Friends,

Today, my personal favorite to become the next President of the United States of America took his first campaign steps. He filed with the FEC for an "exploratory committee". What is an "exploratory committee"? It is just a way for a candidate to raise money while he waits to make a big public announcement.

Now, I invite you all to do something very important: Donate Money to Mitt Romney for President

Yes... money is a precious thing for all of us. But, I'd like to tell you WHY I think we should donate to good political candidates. Each of us has a right to vote every election in a ballot box. But, who chooses the person who makes it on that ballot? Such decisions come in Primary Elections. And, to win a Primary election, you need money. Money lets a candidate buy TV time to express his or her ideas to more people. It lets him travel to listen to voters so he can represent him fairly.

For a citizen, donating money to a Political Candidate is an opportunity to VOTE for that candidate, long before everybody else does. You can say: "This is the man for the job." And, a donation helps him get on that ballot and into the job.

Now, I really think that Mitt Romney is THE man for the job. Unless something crazy happens, I think he has a chance to win. And, no man deserves it more.

So, as your friend and trusted omniscient, I invite you to visit Mitt Romney's Fundraising Website and make a donation to his campaign. Now matter how rich or poor you are, the maximum you can donate to a candidate during a campaign is $2,100. Considering Bush '04 raised almost $275 million in individual donations (each under $2000 at the time), it is important to get many people involved.

It is easy:
1) Go to
2) Fill in your contact information.
3) In the section "Were you referred by a friend?" click on the "Yes" button and type 285000 (that is my donor number... so I get credit for referring you to Mitt)
4) Using your credit card, pick an amount you would like to donate to the Mitt Romney campaign.

Don't fret if you can't donate $2,100... because every dollar makes a difference. Donate as much as you can.

I promise you that the return on this investment will be worthwhile. You have my guarantee!

That is all.

Horatio the Fundraiser... who believes in a candidate for the first time in his life!

PS: If you want to learn more about Mitt Romney, you can now visit his official campaign website: for more detailed information on who he is and what he believes. I think you'll like what you see!!