Feb
2
Jim Gilmore on Business-Friendly Governance
February 2, 2010 | Leave a Comment
We recently sat down with former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore and discussed his role in making Virginia America’s most business-friendly state. He discussed what it’s like to transition from the governor’s mansion and the campaign trail back to private industry, and gave Governor Bob McDonnell some advice on how to maintain Virginia’s pro-business legacy and keep Virginia abreast of new and emerging technologies.
Dec
28
Gilmore appointed new President & CEO of the Free Congress Foundation
December 28, 2009 | Leave a Comment
The Board of Directors of the Free Congress Foundation recently appointed me to serve as the new President and CEO of the Foundation. This is to inform you now that I plan to keep in touch, and work with you to further conservative problem solving for the United States. This is an important moment for the nation, and the Free Congress Foundation must be a voice in current public policy discussions.
Dec
23
Watch Jim Gilmore’s interview on C-SPAN
December 23, 2009 | Leave a Comment
Watch Jim Gilmore’s C-SPAN interview here.
Nov
3
Election Day
November 3, 2009 | Leave a Comment
Today is election day in Virginia and New Jersey. I urge our friends who receive this e-mail to vote today for the Republican tickets in those two states. The Patriots Committee is dedicated to fiscal responsibility. We are always ready to offer bi-partisan support for candidates who subscribe to those principles, but today the Republican candidates in Virginia and New Jersey are the best choices.
Oct
30
Governor Gilmore’s remarks on America’s Financial Crisis
October 30, 2009 | 1 Comment
Click below to hear Governor Gilmore’s remarks on “America’s Financial Crisis: What Needs to be Done.”
Governor Gilmore’s remarks on America’s Financial Crisis
Oct
19
Guest Column: Obama’s Russian Embarrassment
October 19, 2009 | 13 Comments
by Richard Brownell
The naïveté of the Obama administration was on full display this past week after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to Russia failed to drum up support for tough sanctions against Iran. Clinton and Obama had hoped that Russia would join the United States in bringing heavy pressure to bear to stop Tehran’s nuclear program. They had been led to believe as much just a few weeks ago by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. But Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Clinton that diplomacy needed to be given a chance to work and that sanctions would be “counterproductive.”
Clinton was clearly disappointed by the about-face, but neither she nor Obama should have been surprised by this development. Russia is interested in reestablishing itself as a global power, and its actions are motivated solely by that goal. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, Russia faces no real threat from it. They do business with Iran. The two countries are strategic partners. Only the U.S., its European allies, and Israel would be at risk. In the unlikely event the U.S. were to go to war with Iran to prevent development of its nuclear program, the price of oil would skyrocket and Russia would be able to cash in on its own huge reserves. They win either way.
Liberal supporters of Obama’s foreign policy agenda, such as it is, maintain this is a simplistic view, but modern Russia is not a complex nation. Their goals are clear, and they are committed to realizing them, U.S. concessions notwithstanding. And by concessions, I am referring to Obama’s September move to scrap the Eastern European missile defense system. Russia had been against the development of a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic since President George W. Bush called for it a few years ago. They believed it a threat to their own nation, though it was explicitly designed to protect Europe from a long-range missile attack from Iran.
Obama said publicly at the time that the system was of no use because Iran was 3-5 years away from developing long-range missiles. We have since learned that the Iranians are much closer to building these missiles than we originally assumed, and we simply have no real idea how long it will be before they are capable of detonating a nuclear device. Recognizing our dangerous lack of knowledge of just what Tehran is up to, wouldn’t it be prudent to proceed with the system anyway?
Obama also stated that the technology just isn’t there yet for effectively deploying the system. This is not accurate, and he was only relying on standard liberal rhetoric that the entire missile defense concept is not technologically feasible. That’s an argument that frankly only a Luddite would embrace. If history proves anything, it is that the human mind is capable of developing whatever gadget is necessary to fill a need. There have been fits and starts along the way to developing a missile defense system, as with any research and development program, but real progress has been made in targeting and deployment in the last decade. For years, liberals have predictably played up the failures and explained away the successes. The failures allow them to argue for reducing funding at precisely the time when more funding is needed to learn from past mistakes and proceed toward a successful system. It’s an interesting little negative feedback loop they have created, and it has slowed the overall progress of the system for decades.
Obama’s public excuses about scrapping the missile defense system and replacing it with some ship-based anti-missile defense in the Mediterranean were only part of the reason behind his actions. He denied this at the time, but it was clear that Obama also hoped to earn points with the Russians by obliquely acceding to their demands to remove the system. His gamble was that by scrapping the system, and irritating our Polish and Czech allies in the process, he would gain Russia’s support in putting the screws to Iran to get that country to give up its nuclear program.
We have now seen that Obama severely miscalculated. Lavrov’s blunt refusal to back Clinton’s call for sanctions against Iran kills the last reason behind Obama’s scrapping the missile shield. Poor strategic thinking and longstanding liberal prejudice against missile defense were also at play here.
Obama’s miscalculation will be an unmistakable blow to American prestige on the world stage. Even if we take him at his word that his decision to cancel the Polish and Czech deployments was not swayed by Russian pressure, the international view that now exists is that America caved to Russia and got nothing in return. And if you need a bigger clue that Obama made the wrong move, consider this: if Dmitri Medvedev, Vladimir Putin, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are pleased with Obama’s call to remove the defense shield and America’s Eastern European allies are upset, then that means that Obama messed up.
Oct
9
Former governor Jim Gilmore to give distinguished lecture
October 9, 2009 | Leave a Comment
James S. Gilmore, who served as governor of Virginia from 1998 to 2002, will give a talk on Tuesday, Oct. 13, 3:30 - 4:30 p.m., as the featured speaker in the BB&T Distinguished Lecture Series on Capitalism, hosted by Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business.
The talk, “America’s Financial Crisis: What Needs to be Done,” will be held at the Inn at Virginia Tech’s Latham Ballroom. It is free and open to the public, no tickets required. Free parking is available at the Inn at Virginia Tech.
A native of Richmond, Va., Gilmore was an attorney, army intelligence specialist, prosecutor, and state attorney general before becoming governor. As governor, he sought to improve education through new academic standards and testing and to provide tax relief to families. His official bio notes: “Governor Gilmore had a solid record of cutting taxes. In the first two years of his administration, he enacted more than a dozen tax cuts, led by the virtual elimination of Virginia’s personal property tax on cars and trucks — the largest tax cut in the state’s history. He also cut income taxes for military personnel living in Virginia, lowered college tuition by 20 percent, and eliminated Virginia’s tax on prescription drugs.”
As governor, Gilmore signed into law the nation’s first comprehensive state Internet policy. He chaired a Congressional commission to study Internet commerce and guided that group to a recommendation that the Internet remain free of taxation.
Another Congressional commission that he chaired, in 1999-2003, assessed America’s terrorism response capabilities. In 2003, he became chairman of the National Council on Readiness and Preparedness, formed in response to that commission’s final report. Gilmore is currently president of USA Secure, a not-for-profit homeland security think tank based in Washington, D.C. He is a former chairman of the board of trustees of the U.S. Air Force Academy and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Gilmore is an alumnus of the University of Virginia, receiving an undergraduate degree in foreign affairs in 1971 and a law degree in 1977.
Oct
5
Is Virginia Purple?
October 5, 2009 | Leave a Comment
By Jim Gilmore
Posted 10/02/2009
Human Events
In 2008, for the first time since 1964, Virginia was carried by a Democratic presidential candidate. Many commentators heralded the vote for Obama as a historic shift, marking Virginia as a “blue” state.
This year, Virginia elects its governor, and most polls show Bob McDonnell, the Republican, with a clear lead. What changed?
Through Obama’s first nine months, Virginians, and indeed all Americans, have had an opportunity to really see and understand the hyper-liberal Obama program. This year’s election in Virginia is a referendum on that program.
Sep
13
5 Things We Need to Know Before the Next Terror Attack
September 13, 2009 | 6 Comments
James S. Gilmore
Published: Fox News.com
How prepared is our country on the state, local and national level for another terror attack? Is the Department of Homeland Security the best vehicle for organizing a national response? What role should our military play? How safe are our borders?
In 1999 while I was governor of Virginia I was asked by the federal government to chair the National Commission on Homeland Security (The Gilmore Commission). The Commission issued five annual reports, three of which were completed prior to the 9/11 attacks. In 1999 the first sentence of our first report described terrorism as a “genuine threat.” We stated that a national strategy to address the threat was “urgently needed.” In 2000, we said the danger of a terrorist attack in the United States was “a serious emerging threat.” Our third report was essentially completed before the 9/11 attack and set out the major initiatives necessary to protect the country.
Now, eight years later, the American people are entitled to a report on how far we have progressed on these initiatives. First, the Commission urged that a national response plan put emphasis on local responders and enabling states to be ready for an attack. The federal government has a key support role in a national emergency but their real duty is to get planning and resources to the local response community. However, the Hurricane Katrina response underscored federal responsibility. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security asserts federal predominance in what should be a state and local response. Where do we stand on local preparedness? Is it also time to assess whether the Department of Homeland Security is the best vehicle for organizing the national response to terrorist threats and natural disasters.
Second, have we settled on the proper role for the U.S. military in such a response? If local responders are not ready, our president will be forced to turn to the military to take over the entire response. This is an exceedingly dangerous threat to the American tradition of not using the our military domestically. The American public needs a report. Have we quietly admitted that the local responders can’t meet the challenge and that martial law is a possibility in a time of crisis? Is this the response plan we want?
Third, our Commission emphasized the danger of an unsecure border. Eight years later the threat from drug gangs and illegal border crossings is greater. We are addressing the dilemma of running an ever richer welfare state while granting benefits to anyone who can get here, legally or not. We already know that gangs break our immigration and drug laws for money. What if the “coyotes” bring in a weapon of mass destruction in return for payment? Are we ready for this possibility?
Fourth, is our public health system ready to deal with a pandemic or deliberate biological attack? The current health debate is about whether we should offer health care to everyone in the United States and who will pay for it. But we also need to know the status of public health planning in case of an attack.
Finally, are we ready for a cyber-attack that might impair much of society and disable our response to an attack? There are constant reports of cyber attacks even from other countries. The public needs to know whether defensive plans are in place and what they as citizens should do if a cyber attack is successful.
In addition to an getting an account of our current preparedness the public needs to be mentally prepared for another attack. A free country can never be totally secure from a determined and well-financed enemy. It is essential that the public not be stampeded by our continuous high-pitched media reporting or by uncertainty about the role of every citizen in another terror attack. Participation and knowledge will inspire confidence in the face of an attack. True public knowledge and peace of mind will minimize the pressure on the government to over-react and diminish our liberties to show “decisive action.”
Although we have started down some dangerous paths, so far, we have come through the global terrorist conflict with our civil freedoms intact. Let’s not let another attack start us back down the path to a situation that leads us to trade our freedoms for security. Public awareness of the threat, planned response, and the role of our citizens will ensure safety and freedom in the challenging years ahead.
Jim Gilmore was governor of Virginia from 1998-2002 and led the Commonwealth’s response to the attack on the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia.
Sep
10
Guest Editorial - The President’s Health Care Plan: Selling Myth as Reality
September 10, 2009 | 26 Comments
by Richard Brownell
President Barack Obama has finally outlined his plan for “reforming” America’s health care system. This comes several months after he first announced the epic initiative and allowed his loyal liberal colleagues in Congress to create a legislative plan that has brought staunch and growing opposition from the American public. True to form, now that Obama’s plan is on the table, he has declared the debate over and called upon Democrats and Republicans to act upon his proposals. But the debate is far from over. In fact, it is time to start the battle anew.
Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress was his last opportunity to regain the high ground in the health care debate. It will likely be remembered more for the real reform proposals that were not included rather than for the fiction that was paraded before Congress and the American people.
For starters, there was no mention about allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines. If the president is sincere about lowering costs, improving flexibility, and instilling competition into the insurance market, this is the single best way to do it. The so-called public option and its newly introduced step-brother, the Health Insurance Exchange, will only complicate matters by injecting unwanted and unwieldy government bureaucracy into the system. And no matter what the president says about the impact of the federal government’s entry into the insurance business, it will ultimately lead to American citizens losing their private insurance coverage. Historically, the government has never competed in any industry; it just takes over that industry. Why should health insurance be any different?
There was a tacit mention about addressing doctors’ “fear of lawsuits,” but in the very next sentence the president rejected the idea of putting caps on malpractice awards. Therefore, he likes the sentiment behind tort reform, but he won’t back tort reform, which is another simple way to reduce insurance costs.
There was a lot of talk, though, about how the costs for the president’s plan are manageable. In fact, he wants us to believe that insuring 47 million Americans and remaking the very fabric of the health care industry will not add any cost to the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office shot that hot air balloon out of the sky weeks ago, but Obama still clings to it. He believes that a few billion in taxes and reducing waste and fraud in Medicaid and Medicare (government programs, by the way) will make his healthcare plan deficit neutral. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the history of government programs knows that this will never happen.
The president also used the opportunity to point the dirty end of the stick at Republicans and insurance companies for stonewalling reform, “fear-mongering,” and so forth. He accused the opposition of not having a viable alternative, which of course is not true. Liberals want the country to believe that GOP solutions don’t exist, because they are the solutions that will put people in charge of their own destiny and allow the free market to operate. With those two elements in place, there is no need for government intervention, and therefore no need for liberals.
We need to continue the fight against the president’s plan by advocating real common-sense solutions. Spreading the message about what reform really looks like will give the American people the health care options we deserve and the costs we can bear.
-
Property Rights