Coast Guard mission to be retained with state and National Guard support

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Department State House Boston, MA 02133 (617) 725-4000 MITT ROMNEY GOVERNOR KERRY HEALEY LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 22, 2006 CONTACT: Eric Fehrnstrom Felix Browne (617) 725-4025 Scott Carr (USCG) (617) 223-8515 Win Danielson (NGMA) (508) 958-3187 ROMNEY, COAST GUARD, NATIONAL GUARD SIGN MMR AGREEMENT Coast Guard mission to be retained with state and National Guard support Governor Mitt Romney, National Guard Bureau Lieutenant General Steven Blum and U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral Timothy Sullivan today signed a historic agreement that will allow the Coast Guard to maintain its presence at the Massachusetts Military Reservation despite the impending loss of a flying mission for the Massachusetts Air National Guard, which operates MMR's airfield. Beyond fulfilling its core missions of maritime safety and security from MMR, the Coast Guard currently provides housing that is open to all MMR tenants, operates the base infirmary and provides MedEvac service to Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard.  The 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended realigning Otis Air National Guard Base and relocating the 102nd Air National Guard Fighter Wing.  In the absence of a flying mission for the 102nd Fighter Wing at MMR, the Coast Guard would, under the terms of the agreement, assume the cost of operating the MMR's runways, which they currently use at no cost. "Thanks to the combined efforts of a resourceful team, the Coast Guard's presence and mission on Cape Cod are secure," said Governor Romney.  "Continued airfield operations are also critical to the readiness and response capabilities of the Massachusetts National Guard as they work to train the Commonwealth's next generation of soldiers." "This agreement ensures that the Massachusetts National Guard will remain ready, accessible and available to answer the calls of the Governor and the President and to respond across the full spectrum of operations from domestic missions here at home to full scale combat operations overseas.  It is right for America, Massachusetts and the Guard," said Lieutenant General Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau. "This Memorandum of Agreement enables the Coast Guard, Massachusetts National Guard and Commonwealth of Massachusetts to open a new chapter on the Massachusetts Military Reservation that allows us to continue our long-standing mutual cooperation and unity of effort with our partners well into the future," said Admiral Sullivan.  "This agreement enables the Coast Guard to most effectively serve mariners, boaters and the general public along the North Atlantic Coast by keeping our aircraft in the optimum staging point in the Northeast for airborne search and rescue and homeland security operations." "I welcome this agreement, which secures the Coast Guard's presence and serves as a foundation for the future of the Massachusetts Military Reservation," said Senator Edward Kennedy.  "We know the special importance of this base to our national security. We're all very grateful for the Coast Guard that patrols our shores and the Air Guard that patrols our skies." "The United States Coast Guard, the National Guard Bureau and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have forged an important alliance for the common good and the security of Massachusetts and our entire country," said Senator John Kerry. "I'm pleased that the hard work of our military leadership has concluded with the successful completion of this uniquely cooperative effort." "The BRAC report gives us real hope for Otis, the Coast Guard, our Air Guard and all the other vitally important missions at the Massachusetts Military Reservation," said Congressman William Delahunt.  "It is a reaffirmation of the critical importance of the base as a regional center for homeland security." Following the relocation of the 102nd Fighter Wing, the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Guard Bureau and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will jointly assume responsibility for base operations and management of the MMR as follows: Airfield Management: Within three months of the departure of the last Air National Guard aircraft, the Air Force will transfer the Otis airfield to the U.S. Coast Guard by means of a permit for its use and for use by others.  The Coast Guard will provide airfield management services at a level necessary to support Coast Guard operations.  Other tenants and state agencies would have access to the airfield on an as-needed basis. Utilities: The Air National Guard will operate and maintain electricity, water and sewer and telecommunications, much of which they currently provide. Emergency Services: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts will facilitate and ensure the maintenance, operation and support of a fully functional fire department at the MMR to provide fire and emergency services to local, state and federal users of the reservation. The agreement signed today will remain in effect for at least two years after the last of the 102nd Fighter Wing aircraft depart the air base, and continued partnership going forward will be dependent upon each party's agreement. For nearly 40 years, the National Guard Bureau, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have been key stakeholders and partners on the MMR.  Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod, Otis Air National Guard Base, and Camp Edwards operate on nearly 20,000 acres of contiguous Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense land and facilities at the MMR.   ###

JACOB WEISBERG'S TIRESOME CONDESCENSION

David French, has a great article here http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/jacob_weisbergs_tiresome_conde.php about "Jacob Weisberg's Tiresome Condescension" David says, "Hold on there, chief. Is it really true that mainstream Christianity and Judaism are acceptable only because we've turned "their myths into metaphor?" "On their face, these claims are pretty fantastic (and Mormons believe them too, by the way). And this illustrates a point we have long made here at EFM: if we evangelicals allow reasoning like this to derail the candidacy of a brilliant, faithful, man of integrity like Governor Romney, is there any assurance -- any assurance at all -- that the very same reasoning won't be turned on us?" This reminds me of a great line from "A Man For All Seasons": William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! It also reminds me of this: First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me. by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945 Jews, Catholics, and Protestants everywhere that want to be judged as individuals not by religious bigotry need to stand up to religious bigots like Jacob Weisberg. Closet religious bigotry is one thing, but Jacob Weisberg is proud of the fact that he is willing to judge people by their religion, as apposed to on an individual basis. If you don't stand up for Mitt right to be judged on his individual accomplishments and characteristics, you will be judged that much more, because of what group you belong to. Click here for the article. ~~~Mike

More great info from slate!

Citgo Petroleum Corporation or Citgo, a subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., the Venezuelan state-owned petroleum company.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/citgo.asp

Slate part II

This from Bandon, "Unfortunately Slate has a large audience. This guy believe it or not is an editor of Slate. This would be plastered all over the MSM for a week if he said similar things about a Muslim, because they believe in the return of the Imams; or a Catholic because they believe in transubstantiation. His logic about time moderating faithful views is flawed in so many ways. What he doesn't realize is that Christians, Muslims, Jews, and most of the world's religions believe in miraculous (he would call them dogmatic, irrational, and absurd) events in the past PRESENT and FUTURE. He made a cowardly attempt to distinguish the Mormon-held miracles from those of other religions."

"Folks, we need to get this on the MSM. Email O'reilly, Hannity, anyone who you think might pick up this story. This guy needs to be fired."

New Montana for Mitt Website

Here is the link:

http://montanansformitt.com.westernromancecompany.com/

Jacob Weisberg of Slate

Jacob Weisberg of Slate

Posted by Mike on 12/21/06

Jacob Weisberg of Slate says the following: "But if he gets anywhere in the primaries, Romney's religion will become an issue with moderate and secular voters—and rightly so. Objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender." http://www.slate.com/id/2155902/ How did Jacob get his Job at slate? Did someone ask him what religion he was, or did someone ask what experience he had? Perhaps someone asked to see his Resume. Jacob Weisberg said, "Such views are disqualifying because they're dogmatic, irrational, and absurd. By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is." Jacob can pre-judge religious people based solely on their religious beliefs? He does not need a Resume. He does not want to look at their IQ, ACT scores, or accomplishments to judge them. All he needs to know is what religion we belong to in order to classify us as "dogmatic, irrational, and absurd". Jacob actually said, "by holding them (these beliefs), someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is." Is that how Jacob Weisberg got a job at slate? They asked him for a Resume, and he said, "don't worry, I'm an atheist". And the head-honcho at Slate, said, "Good, I don't have enough time to look at people's qualifications. I hate Résumé's with all those stupid things like, 'graduated from Harvard Business and Law School Cum Laude. Valedictorian. These don't really mean anything. All I need to do is hear a profession of faith (testimony), or lack thereof, depending on what is fashionable in this day and time. By proclaiming your religious beliefs or lack there of you have told me everything I need to know about you. Welcome to Slate.'" No, I assume that Jacob had to show some qualifications maybe even a Resume. It would have been against federal law for his boss to ask him what religion he was, wouldn't it? Jacob thinks that he should be able to disqualify individuals because of their religious beliefs when they run for president. I wonder if that is how he runs things at slate. Has Jacob ever hired someone who was not an atheist, or is that a pre-requisite at slate? You know, we don't know what is going on over their at slate, but the rest of the world, Jacob, does not just look at a religious litmus test. There is at least some talk of qualifications. If that is all you need in order to be disqualified to be president, if it is that obvious that Mormons do not deserve any respect, no matter how hard they work or what they accomplish, why should they be allowed into college? All Mormons and the other religions that Jacob should be mentioned should be outlawed from college for the reasons that Jacob outlines. He says; "Such views are disqualifying because they're dogmatic, irrational, and absurd. By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is." Sorry Mitt, we are going to have to take away your degrees from Harvard Law and Business school. You are an irrational, dogmatic, and absurd Mormon. You do not deserve them. Jacob says, "By the same token, I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism." Is that so Jacob? If you owned a business would you hire a Mormon? They have obviously proven to you that they are stupid. Do you want stupid people working for you? Do you feel comfortable admitting to the world that you are a bigot? Jacob says that Mitt Romney is an "Elder" in the church. If Jacob would have spent 30 seconds talking to someone from the church, he would have realized that Romney is not an Elder. I think it is great that Jacob wants America to be more like Northern Ireland and Iran were people are judged based on which religion they belong to. I'm glad that Jacob can take a short cut to intellectualism. He doesn't have to debate Mitt Romney, he doesn't have to read the Old Testament, New Testament, or Book of Mormon. He doesn't have to do better in school, on the ACT's, SAT's or in life than Mitt Romney in order to be smarter than he is. All he has to do is reject Mormonism, and therefore he is smarter than Mitt Romney, and deserves more than Romney does, to be president. Forget that Romney balanced the budget without raising taxes; forget that he came up with a new way corralling people away from the emergency rooms and into insurance plans. None of that Matters. Jacob Weisberg is more qualified to be president, in his view, because he is not a Mormon. Then Jacob says about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. It is his only argument that he brings to the table besides that Mormons are too stupid to be president. The rest of his article is him parading around in his naked bigotry. But here is the only argument that he bring to the table and it makes me wonder how he got a job working anywhere, even at slate magazine. He says, "Perhaps Christianity and Judaism are merely more venerable and poetic versions of the same [transparent fraud]. But a few eons makes a big difference. The world's greater religions have had time to splinter, moderate, and turn their myths into metaphor." So according to Jacob every other time there was a religious movement were people left one church and joined another, it was healthy. It was good, because it was a reformation. But when my ancestor, George Laub, who was a Baptist preacher left his church to become a Mormon it was not part of this refining process? He does not think that Mormonism had anything to draw my grandparents to it? It was not a healthy splintering or moderation? Why are all the other new religions good, but Mormonism was bad? Jacob does not tell us. He wants us to judge mitt Romney, without looking at any of the details of his life, and he wants us to agree with him (that religious bigotry towards Mormons is good) without giving us any reason to agree with him. No substance. No reasons to come to his conclusion. No logic. No independent way of judging Mitt. No use of a Resume. No looking at his skills or experience. And Jacob gives us no reason to agree with him, except other religions have been around longer, and for some reason their leaders that started new churches were good, and our leaders were not. We are just supposed to jump to his side without any substance, without any reason besides his self righteous mockery. I would like to see Jacob Weisberg's Resume, and I can get Mitt Romney's resume, and we can see who America thinks is smarter. ~~~Mike This is kind of a rough draft. I got my degree in electrical engineering, and I don't write very well. Could someone who can use words better than me take a stab at this?

Barack Hussein Obama

Obama was right about:

1. Religion
1. Evolution
2. Culture
1. Anti-Intellectualism
3. Education
1. Merit Pay for Teachers
2. Higher Education Standards
4. Crime and Punishment
1. That some crimes deserve the death penalty.
2. Justice Reform
1. We should videotape all capital punishment interrogations. 
   
2. To have been concerned about the difference between punishment for crack and powder cocaine.
3. Obama was better on crime than Trump. 
5. Race
1. To ban racial profiling.
2. The Confederate flag.
6. Virtues
1. Obama was a better person and father than Trump. 
7. Taxes
1. Obama is right to provide tax incentives for corporate responsibility.
2. Tax Havens

Obama was Wrong About

1. Crime and Punishment
1. Obama was wrong to oppose the mandatory death penalty for gang members who kill cops.
2. Obama wants to reward people for breaking the law.
2. Race
1. Obama passed on urban legends that harmed race relations.
3. Politics
1. Republicans
   
2. Obama often mischaracterizes the views of those he disagrees with.
3. Obama was a hypocrite concerning the Clintons.
4. Obama was sometimes stupid in the way he tried to blame Bush for everything.
5. Lies.
4. Business and Economy
1. The free market.
2. Rural Economy.
5. Abortion
1. It is pretty messed up for Obama to have voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
2. Obama is right to reach across the aisle for common ground on abortion. 
6. Education
1. Private Schools
1. Obama is a republican when it comes to his family (sending them to private schools), but wants us to live like democrats (doesn't want us to have vouchers to go to private schools).
2. Obama made the right decision for his kids, but the wrong decision for our kids. 
3. Obama is wrong when he says, "We need to fix and improve our public schools, not throw our hands up and walk away from them."

Belief: Obama Opposed Conservative Supreme Court Nominees

• Reasons to Agree:

  1. Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito

  2. Voted NO on confirming John Roberts

• Reasons to Disagree:

  1. Seen as obstructing qualified nominees for partisan reasons

Belief: Obama Supports Abortion Rights

• Reasons to Agree:

  1. Led Illinois legislature on protecting a woman's right to choose

  2. Supports Roe v. Wade

• Reasons to Disagree:

  1. Opponents argue life begins at conception and abortion ends a human life

Belief: Obama Voted Against CAFTA

• Reasons to Agree:

  1. Concern for American labor standards and jobs

• Reasons to Disagree:

  1. Free trade can stimulate economic growth and development in partner countries

Belief: Obama Opposed Arctic Oil Drilling

• Reasons to Agree:

  1. Voted to ban drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

• Reasons to Disagree:

  1. Limits domestic energy independence and potential economic growth

Belief: Obama Supports Health Care as a Right

• Reasons to Agree:

  1. Expanded health coverage to 85,000 Illinois residents

  2. Advocated for universal coverage

• Reasons to Disagree:

  1. Government-mandated coverage can increase bureaucracy and cost

Belief: Obama Opposes the Death Penalty

• Reasons to Agree:

  1. Led reforms in Illinois on capital case procedures

• Reasons to Disagree:

  1. Some argue capital punishment deters serious crime and delivers justice

Belief: Obama Supports Affirmative Action

• Reasons to Agree:

  1. Endorsed race-conscious policies in education, hiring, and contracts

• Reasons to Disagree:

  1. Critics claim it can result in reverse discrimination

Belief: Obama Opposed Same-Sex Marriage Ban

• Reasons to Agree:

  1. Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage

• Reasons to Disagree:

  1. Some believe marriage should be defined traditionally

Belief: Obama Opposed the Patriot Act Wiretap Provisions

• Reasons to Agree:

  1. Voted NO on extending FBI's roving wiretap powers

• Reasons to Disagree:

  1. Proponents say it enhances national security capabilities

Belief: Obama Opposed Bankruptcy Reform Bill

• Reasons to Agree:

  1. Believed it would harm consumers

• Reasons to Disagree:

  1. Aimed to reduce abuse of bankruptcy system

Belief: Obama Supports Immigration Benefits for Legal Immigrants

• Reasons to Agree:

  1. Supports Medicaid and welfare benefits for legal immigrants

• Reasons to Disagree:

  1. Critics argue it encourages dependency on state resources

Belief: Obama Supports Gun Control

• Reasons to Agree:

  1. Advocates banning semi-automatic weapons

  2. Supports child safety locks and purchase restrictions

• Reasons to Disagree:

  1. Opponents claim it infringes on Second Amendment rights

Belief: Obama Criticized Israeli Policy

• Reasons to Agree:

  1. Willingness to challenge U.S. allies on human rights grounds

• Reasons to Disagree:

1. Risk of undermining strategic alliances in the Middle East