February 9, 2010
The thing about being a career politician is that you have the voting record of a career politician. And what you find may surprise you more than the fact that a man who believes in term limits refuses to step down. So I will go over some of these votes of Ron Paul and to do so I will break them up into categories. The first is abortion.
Abortion
It may surprise many of you that this is one of my topics because Ron Paul is against abortion, but you will shortly see why I picked it.
Ron Paul voted NO twice, once in 1999 (HR 1218) and then again in 2005 (HR 748) to make transporting a minor across state lines in order to get an abortion a federal crime. Here were the provisions for the 2005 vote:
• Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor’s home state waive the parental notification required by that state
• Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
• Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor’s home state have been satisfied
• Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
• Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act
In 2003 Ron Paul voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction and medical research including the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them. (HR 534)
In 2004 Ron Paul voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (HR 1997)
Most of his other votes and positions on this topic fall in line with conservatives, but the ones above do not.
Same Sex Marriage / Civil Rights
Again Ron Paul proclaims to be a Christian so I have to assume that he is against same sex marriage, but he does not vote this way.
Ron Paul voted NO on Constitutional Amendments banning same-sex marriage twice. In 2004 he voted against HJ RES 106, which “Declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Prohibits the Constitution or any State constitution from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon any union other than that of a man and a woman.” In 2006 he once again voted NO on HJ RES 88 which stated the exact same.
On the abortion votes you can make the argument that he was just voting for state rights, but here you see his real intentions (Amendments cannot be unconstitutional). This is where he parts from me and the founding fathers. The founding fathers believed that the Christian faith should be an integral part of our government and our lives. By this vote Ron Paul shows that he does not. This is one of the main differences between conservatives and libertarians. Ron Paul said the following in 2007, “If you believe in liberty, you are a libertarian. The best libertarians we’ve ever had in this country were our founding fathers.” Boy did he get that wrong…at least on some the votes I am pointing out. It also explains why he and his followers believe that anyone who is not a libertarian is (and I quote) “an enemy of liberty”
Along these lines of civil rights, Ron Paul voted NO in 2003 on a Constitutional Amendment that would prohibit the desecration of the American Flag (HJ RES 4). I did not know that making the burning of the American flag illegal was somehow infringing upon someone’s liberties. Aside from not being able to send a particular mass email with a poem, I do not see the downside here.
I would also like to bring up a piece of legislation that Ron Paul did not get an opportunity to vote on, but certainly commented on. This may open some people’s eyes. Ron Paul said he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here was his comment. “If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–it has nothing to do with race relations. It has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.” Interesting.
Crime
First I will say that Ron Paul is against the death penalty. That is something I am sure many people have different opinions on. Personally I do not have a problem with the death penalty, but that is not my main issue with Mr. Paul. There have not been many votes on these types of thing lately (at least that I saw), but here are a few historical ones.
In 1998, Ron Paul voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests (HR 4550)
In 1999, Ron Paul voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime (HR 1501) This included “funding for development, implementation, and administration of graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders, funds for building, expanding, or renovating juvenile corrections facilities, hiring juvenile judges, probation officers, and additional prosecutors for juvenile cases.” The Heritage Foundation has some good research on this area and gives compelling reasons why those who commit adult crimes should get adult time. You should check it out.
In 2000, Ron Paul voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (HR 4690). This legislation would reduce the funding for violent offender imprisonment and give the money to Boys and Girls clubs and drug courts.
And then there is his position on legalizing marijuana and the drug war. This topic probably needs its own post. Let’s just say that the drug-ees of the nation absolutely love this guy. He pushes mis-information on the dangers of marijuana and its effect on society. He also tries to portray that the drug war makes the drug problem worse, which is only true if you selectively choose your facts as many liberals are famous for doing. We have tried to legalize drugs in this country before and anyone who tries to tell you that it worked is not telling you the truth. Since I am mostly covering his voting record I will leave it at that. For now anyways.
Here is one that I thought I should fit in somewhere. In 2003 Ron Paul voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. Not sure what the issue was here.
Gun Control
Once again Ron Paul is pro Second Amendment, but a couple of votes struck me as odd.
On two occasions Ron Paul voted NO on protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits for product misuse. (That means someone shoots somebody and then the victim sues the gun manufacturer because obviously it is their fault) In 2003 (HR 1036) and in 2005 (S 397). It seems interesting especially considering in 2004 he voted YES to restrict frivolous lawsuits (HR 4571).
Campaign Financing
I do not really care if someone wants to give their life savings to a politician, but I would like to know where the politician gets his money from. I think it shows a lot about the candidate so that is why Ron Paul’s vote of NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations bothers me (HR 2316). This vote is especially interesting considering in 2000 Ron Paul adopted the following statement from the Republican Liberty Caucus, “There should be full and timely public disclosure of all the sources and amounts of all campaign contributions upon their receipt.”
National Defense
I have gone into some detail about how Ron Paul is wrong on the Iraq War so I will just go over a few votes to illustrate how wrong he really is. I will take these in chronological order.
First, Ron Paul voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & the valiant service of US troops in 2004. This was really just a political statement. The Resolution made the following points
1. affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq; (anyone who has any knowledge of Saddam and his regime understands this fact)
2. commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein’s regime;
3. commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq’s interim constitution; and
4. commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.
In 2006, Ron Paul voted NO on declaring Iraq part of the War on Terror without establishing an exit date. First, this shows his denial that terrorist organizations were operating and still are operating in Iraq despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I mentioned some of this evidence in my recent discussion on his foreign policy. Denial is a dangerous thing. Second, in a war, you cannot give an exit date that is not based upon conditions on the ground. This is a very basic military concept that Ron Paul as well as many liberals do not understand. It is dangerous to our mission and emboldens the enemy. Consider how hard you would run if you knew you only had to make it another 200 meters versus not knowing how many more miles you have to go. Make sense now?
In 2007, Ron Paul voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days with a completion date of 180 days. First, I would like to point out the dangers of leaving Iraq during this timeframe. This was the time that we were having a hard time in Iraq and was also about the time that Bush (on General Petraeus’ advice) was advocating the troop surge that ended up having tremendous success. Think back on how disastrous Ron Paul’s decision would have been for US and world security if we had left Iraq during their most dire hour. When their security forces could not have held off the extreme elements in Iraq at the time. Ron Paul’s judgment in this case was just as bad as Obama’s rhetoric on the subject.
My second point is just one of ignorance. Maybe our commanders could come up with a re-deployment plan in 90 days but to think it is logistically plausible to re-deploy our troops within 180 days is borderline insane. To give you a perspective…it took us 3 or 4 months to relocate a battalion plus to another location inside Iraq. (4+ battalions in BDE, 4 BDEs in a division…etc). Making political statements with a vote such as this just shows this ignorance and it is also very dangerous. It is reminiscent of other statements by Ron Paul. One such example is a statement by Mr. Paul in 2007 that said we need to stop policing the streets and allow the Iraqis to take over. Well, I was training Iraqi security forces to do this starting back in 2004 so I am either a genius or somebody told me to do it (meaning Ron Paul does not know what he is talking about). Well, I will give you a hint…I am no genius. I will add that we can not just let them take over. These forces have to be prepared.
The last vote I will cover is Ron Paul’s vote of YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq in 2008. First, Bush and his administration were very careful about their statements on affiliations between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Second, evidence supports these claims even if they were made as well as Iraq’s support of numerous other terrorist organizations. Denying this fact does not make it any less true. Third, information from intelligence agencies all over the world agreed with the threat that existed. Decisions were made based upon this intelligence, they were not lies. And lastly, this evidence was not something that was cooked up by “Neocons to start a war” as Ron Paul would say. The issue of Iraq has existed and been discussed for over 2 decades so the only reasonable explanation for such a vote would be if you believed in some type of 2 decade long conspiracy. So does Ron Paul really believe that or did he just make another dangerous politically motivated vote. I will let you decide on that one.
There are many other votes I could cover, but haven’t. Like Ron Paul’s vote to keep Pelosi as Speaker of the House or Ron Paul’s vote to not remove Rep Chalie Rangel from his leadership position (ethics violations and all). That adds a whole other post of questions to the list and I am not sure if I have that much time. So I will let you decide on those. I bring up all of this to show you that Ron Paul does not always represent the things conservatives believe in, which may surprise many. I also bring it up to once again let everyone know that Ron Paul is not running unopposed in the Republican Primary for district 14. There are other strong conservative candidates who are not career politicians who would do a good job. Like I have said before, I have been in contact with two of them. Check out Gerald Wall of Wild Peach and Tim Graney of Katy . Then get out and vote in the primary on March 2nd . I say lets vote out these career politicians, but I will let you decide.
http://thesteadyconservative.com/wordpress/2010/02/09/the-ron-paul-voting-record/
Blog
Obama’s Jobs Act (Just Act like a Leader)
By: Elmer Williams
President Barack Obama started his Bus Tour on today and he came out swinging at the Republicans. According to the Washington Times the President said “We’re going to give members of Congress another chance to step up to the plate and do the right thing. I have just one question, and that is, do the right thing for whom.
He also said in the same story “We’re going to break up my jobs bill … into bite-sized pieces. Maybe they just couldn’t understand the whole thing at once.” This would be the equivalent of saying “I’m going to break down this cyanide into small pieces and maybe you can digest it better”. The problem is not with my digestive system it is with the substance that I am attempting to swallow. You have to wonder what ever happen to common sense.
In the Presidents plan businesses can be sued if found to discriminate against the unemployed in hiring. How the so-called discrimination can be proven is unknown, however I bet the Trail Lawyers are licking their chops at these potential Lawsuits.
The “American Jobs Act” offers Payroll Tax Cuts for Employers which is a good thing. The bad news is that no Employer is going to hire new employees based on temporary tax cuts. There is also “Buy American” in the Bill. People will buy American if we start rewarding and allow American companies to benefit because they are American. We then should place a tax on all imported merchandise. This would encourage “Buy American” not some pep-rally speech.
I thought the Recovery Act was supposed to stimulate the economy but it did not. What just boils my blood with Obama is that every time a crisis comes up he always goes Chicken Little on the situation. “The Sky is Falling the Sky is falling”, but then he turns around and says “we need to past this Bill to put people back to work. There is Democrats who do not agree with this bill. Look what Jim Webb told Politico when he was asked how the President was going to pay for this bill. . “We shouldn’t increase taxes on ordinary income. … There are other ways to get there.”
I can give the President some credit that he is adamant about his failed Policies. When his critics talk about him and criticize him, he simply stays the course. No matter how many times you point out that Marxism does not work. He just remembers back in is college days when he would discuss with his college buddies how good Communism was.
He does not care if his policies work or not. He is more interested in actualizing is core beliefs. How else can anyone explain to me how a man could fail time and time again yet undeterred. He wants you do digest the cyanide and say to him “thank you sir can I have another please”. What Ever Happen To Common Sense in politics?
George Soros could be the Real Reason U.S. in Uganda (Where’s the Anti-War Crowd?)
Posted: October 15, 2011
4:30 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND
After President Barack Obama announced earlier this week that he would be sending American troops into Uganda, WND uncovered billionaire activist George Soros’ ties both to the political pressure behind the decision and to the African nation’s fledgling oil industry.
Soros sits on the executive board of an influential “crisis management organization” that recently recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda to help with operations and run an intelligence platform, a recommendation Obama’s action seems to fulfill.
The president emeritus of that organization, the International Crisis Group, is also the principal author of “Responsibility to Protect,” the military doctrine used by Obama to justify the U.S.-led NATO campaign in Libya.
Soros’ own Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, a doctrine that has been cited many times by activists urging intervention in Uganda.
Authors and advisers of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, including a center founded and led by Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, also helped to found the International Criminal Court.
Several of the doctrine’s main founders also sit on boards with Soros, who is a major proponent of the doctrine.
Unmask the powers behind Obama’s curtain with Aaron Klein’s “The Manchurian President,” autographed at WND’s Superstore!
Soros also maintains close ties to oil interests in Uganda. His organizations have been leading efforts purportedly to facilitate more transparency in Uganda’s oil industry, which is being tightly controlled by the country’s leadership.
Soros’ hand in Ugandan oil industry
Oil exploration began in Uganda’s northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago, with initial strikes being made in 2006.
Uganda’s Energy Ministry estimates the country has over 2 billion barrels of oil, with some estimates going as high as 6 billion barrels. Production is set to begin in 2015, delayed from 2013 in part because the country has not put in place a regulatory framework for the oil industry.
A 2008 national oil and gas policy, proposed with aid from a Soros-funded group, was supposed to be a general road map for the handling and use of the oil. However, the policy’s recommendations have been largely ignored, with critics accusing Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni of corruption and of tightening his grip on the African country’s emerging oil sector.
Soros himself has been closely tied to oil and other interests in Uganda.
In 2008, the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute brought together stakeholders from Uganda and other East African countries to discuss critical governance issues, including the formation of what became Uganda’s national oil and gas policy.
Also in 2008, the Africa Institute for Energy Governance, a grantee of the Soros-funded Revenue Watch, helped established the Publish What You Pay Coalition of Uganda, or PWYP, which was purportedly launched to coordinate and streamline the efforts of the government in promoting transparency and accountability in the oil sector.
Also, a steering committee was formed for PWYP Uganda to develop an agenda for implementing the oil advocacy initiatives and a constitution to guide PWYP’s oil work.
PWYP has since 2006 hosted a number of training workshops in Uganda purportedly to promote contract transparency in Uganda’s oil sector.
PWYP is directly funded by Soros’ Open Society as well as the the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute. PWYP international is actually hosted by the Open Society Foundation in London.
The billionaire’s Open Society Institute, meanwhile, runs numerous offices in Uganda. It maintains a country manager in Uganda, as well as the Open Society Initiative for East Africa, which supports work in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
The Open Society Institute runs a Ugandan Youth Action Fund, which states its mission is to “identify, inspire, and support small groups of dedicated young people who can mobilize and influence large numbers of their peers to promote open society ideals.”
U.S. troops to Uganda
Obama yesterday notified House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that he plans to send about 100 military personnel, mostly Special Operations Forces, to central Africa. The first troops reportedly arrived in Uganda on Wednesday.
The U.S. mission will be to advise forces seeking to kill or capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army, or LRA. Kony is accused of major human rights atrocities. He is on the U.S. terrorist list and is wanted by the International Criminal Court.
In a letter on Friday, Obama announced the initial team of U.S. military personnel “with appropriate combat equipment” deployed to Uganda on Wednesday. Other forces deploying include “a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communications and logistics personnel.”
“Our forces will provide information, advice and assistance to select partner nation forces,” he said.
Both conservatives and liberals have raised questions about whether military involvement in Uganda advances U.S. interests.
Writing in The Atlantic yesterday, Max Fisher noted the Obama administration last year approved special forces bases and operations across the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia.
“But those operations, large and small, target terrorist groups and rogue states that threaten the U.S. – something the Lord’s Resistance Army could not possibly do,” he wrote.
“It’s difficult to find a U.S. interest at stake in the Lord’s Resistance Army’s campaign of violence,” continued Fisher. “It’s possible that there’s some immediate U.S. interest at stake we can’t obviously see.”
Bill Roggio, the managing editor of The Long War Journal, referred to the Obama administration’s stated rationale for sending troops “puzzling,” claiming the LRA does not present a national security threat to the U.S. – “despite what President Obama said.”
Tea-party-backed presidential candidate Michele Bachmann also questioned the wisdom of Obama’s move to send U.S. troops to Uganda.
“When it comes to sending our brave men and women into foreign nations, we have to first demonstrate a vital American national interest before we send our troops in,” she said at a campaign stop yesterday in Iowa.
Soros group: Send military advisors to Uganda
In April 2010 Soros’ International Crisis Group, or ICG, released a report sent to the White House and key lawmakers advising the U.S. military run special operations in Uganda to seek Kony’s capture.
The report states, “To the U.S. government: Deploy a team to the theatre of operations to run an intelligence platform that centralizes all operational information from the Ugandan and other armies, as well as the U.N. and civilian networks, and provides analysis to the Ugandans to better target military operations.”
Since 2008 the U.S. has been providing financial aid in the form of military equipment to Uganda and the other regional countries to fight Kony’s LRA, but Obama’s new deployment escalates the direct U.S. involvement.
Soros sits in the ICG’s executive board along with Samuel Berger, Bill Clinton’s former national security advisor; George J. Mitchell, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader who served as a Mideast envoy to both Obama and President Bush; and Javier Solana, a socialist activist who is NATO’s former secretary-general as well as the former foreign affairs minister of Spain.
Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is the ICG’s senior advisor.
The ICG’s president emeritus is Gareth Evans, who, together with activist Ramesh Thakur, is the original founder of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, with the duo even coining the term “responsibility to protect.”
Both Evans and Thakur serve as advisory board members of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, the main group pushing the doctrine.
As WND first exposed, Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.
Soros’ Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.
Samantha Power, Arafat deputy
Meanwhile, a closer look at the Soros-funded Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect is telling. Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.
WND was first to report the committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.
Also, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect. The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term “responsibility to protect” while defining its guidelines.
The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, was Carr’s founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect.
With Power’s center on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.
Power reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya, widely regarded as test of Responsibility to Protect in action.
In his address to the nation in April explaining the NATO campaign in Libya, Obama cited the doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.
Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of “war crimes,” “genocide,” “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing.”
The term “war crimes” has at times been indiscriminately used by various United Nations-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops who commit alleged “war crimes” overseas.
Soros: Right to ‘penetrate nation-states’
Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article titled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations.”
In the article Soros said, “True sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.”
“If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified,” Soros wrote. “By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.
“In particular,” he continued, “the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.”
‘One World Order’
The Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, meanwhile, works in partnership with the World Federalist Movement, a group that promotes democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power. The Movement is a main coordinator and member of Responsibility to Protect Center.
WND reported that Responsibility doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a “global rebalancing” and “international redistribution” to create a “New World Order.”
In a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, “Toward a new world order,” Thakur wrote, “Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution.”
He was referring to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, “Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions.”
In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.
“The West’s bullying approach to developing nations won’t work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia,” he wrote. “A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train.”
Thakur continued: “Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations.”
Thakur contended “the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of ‘superior’ Western power.”
Why U.S. military in Uganda? Soros fingerprints all over it http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=356321#ixzz1b2eFrYXs
Rush Limbaugh Flip Flops on Mitt Romney
Guy Benson
Political Editor, Townhall.com
Despite my consistent criticism of Mitt Romney for the healthcare law he championed in Massachusetts, and for his seemingly countless — and politically convenient — position shifts on any number of issues, I am somewhat perplexed by some of the attacks against him today. Ask a broad swath of conservatives their opinion of Romney, and more than a handful will describe him as an unacceptable RINO (“Republican In Name Only”) who would scarcely be better than President Obama. I’d venture a guess that quite a few Townhall denizens adhere to this mentality. One major figure who’s sounding the clarion call against Mitt Romney these days is talk show titan Rush Limbaugh, whose talent is prodigious and whose show is unmatched in its entertainment and informational value. Yesterday, Rush warned his massive audience that Romney is no conservative:
“Romney is not a conservative. He’s not, folks. You can argue with me all day long on that, but he isn’t… This isn’t personal, not with what country faces and so forth. I like him very much. I’ve spent some social time with him. He’s a fine guy. He’s very nice gentleman. He is a gentleman. But he’s not a conservative.”
That’s not a vitriolic attack in the least, but it’s certainly an ideological judgment — one that many people share. But what was Rush’s assessment of Romney a few years ago, when he was in a dogfight with John McCain and Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination? Let’s hop into the memory machine and flash back to Rush’s broadcast on Super Tuesday, 2008:
“I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that’s Romney. The three stools or the three legs of the stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives. The social conservatives are the cultural people. The fiscal conservatives are the economic crowd: low taxes, smaller government, get out of the way.”
Following that monologue, Rush posted this headline on his website:
I’m not raising this issue to score “gotcha” points against a guy whose professional successs I admire, whose abilities I envy, and whose work product I enjoy. Rush is absolutely fantastic, and I agree with a large majority of his opinions. I’m just curious what, specifically, about Mitt Romney has changed between February 2008 and October 2011? And don’t say Romneycare. Then-Governor Romney signed that stinker into law nearly two years before Limbaugh — and other born-again Romney critics, including “The Great One,” Mark Levin — served up de facto endorsements in 2008. All the flip-flops are still there, too. I’m genuinely asking. TARP, maybe (even though Romney wasn’t in Congress to vote on it, and has criticized elements of its interpretation)? His lefty-echo demagoguery against Rick Perry on Social Security? Help me out here.
Perhaps the argument at the time was that Romney was the most reliably conservative of the three viable candidates. (As someone who’s never been much of a Romney guy, I didn’t buy into that explanation). I’d also readily concede that the political climate has shifted markedly since 2008, and that the urgent need for conservative reform is much more acute and palpable today than it was back then. I also don’t disagree that there are more conservative alternatives than Mitt Romney in the current GOP field. There surely are. A strong case can be made that there are more conservative viable Republican alternatives to Romney, as well. What I do not understand is how people who swung their support behind Mitt in 2008 because of his triple-barrelled conservatism can turn around and flatly state that Romney “is not a conservative” now. I’ll leave you with this footage of conservative hero Mitt Romney dropping out of the 2008 race, clearing the path for unacceptable RINO John McCain to cruise to the nomination. I was in the room at CPAC when he delivered this speech, and some people were on the brink of tears:
Three years hence, Romney is McCain, and Cain — for the moment, at least — is Romney. Politics is a strange beast, my friends.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/10/14/rush_vs_rush_on_mitt_romney
Nancy Pelosi Says That Taxpayers need to pay for Abortion or Women will Die on the floor
Nancy Pelosi’s abortion comments spark blogger battle
Conservatives on the web were outraged over the Pelosi’s of a House-passed abortion bill.
Close By TIM MAK | 10/14/11 2:07 PM EDT
The blogosphere erupted after the Republican-controlled House passed the “Protect Life Act,” an anti-abortion bill that got internet commentators well off the usual well-trodden topics of the economy and the 2012 election. The legislation is intended to prevent federal funds from being used for health plans that cover abortion services and also mandates health plans not be able to discriminate against health care institutions which morally object to abortion and decline to perform the procedure. Much of the blogosphere controversy centered around remarks by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who claimed on Thursday that the measure would ultimately let women “die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene… It’s just appalling.” Conservatives on the web were outraged over the characterization of the bill. “Nancy Pelosi has taken hyperbolic statements to a new level today with this sound bite,” said Ben Howe at RedState. “In the world of Democrats… affording religious groups the right to not murder babies against their will has become synonymous with leaving dying women on the floor.” “Not quite Pelosi, Republicans simply believe helpless babies shouldn’t be killed in the womb,” wrote Katie Pavlich at the conservative website Townhall. “Ms. Pelosi, what’s appalling is that you want health care providers to have to cooperate with the murder of babies in the womb,” added Tina Korbe at the conservative website Hot Air. President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the bill, something that progressive bloggers have seized upon to argue that the Republicans are wasting time with an effort that will inevitably fail when they should be focusing on jobs. “Demonstrating yet again that Republicans prefer waging a war on women than a war on unemployment, the House passed an anti-abortion bill that appropriately has been deemed the ‘Let Women Die’ bill,” writes a blogger at the liberal Balloon Juice blog. “Let’s just say I’m glad my uterus is in President Obama’s capable hands.” “So what’s this all about? A colossal waste of time to keep the crazy scary base happy… Meanwhile, Speaker Boehner, where are the jobs?” echoes Joan McCarter at Daily Kos. Progressive bloggers said that the passage of the bill in the House was a step backwards for reproductive rights, while conservatives argued that it was victory for religious freedom. “The religious right is making a desperate all-out effort to roll back women’s reproductive rights, and a bizarre fetus-worshipping circus took place today in Congress as the fundamentalist loons put on an emotional ultrasound show for the right wingers about to vote on the falsely named ‘Protect Life Act,’” said a post at the liberal Little Green Footballs. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65987.html#ixzz1arUw9uCV
Obama Starts another War and Not a Word from the Anti-War Crowd
By: Mark S. Smith Associated Press
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Friday he’s dispatching roughly 100 U.S. troops to central Africa to help battle the Lord’s Resistance Army, which the administration accuses of a campaign of murder, rape and kidnapping children that spans two decades. In a letter to Congress, Obama said the troops will act as advisers in efforts to hunt down rebel leader Joseph Kony but will not engage in combat except in self-defense. The White House said the first troops arrived in Uganda on Wednesday. Ultimately, they’ll also deploy in South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Long considered one of Africa’s most brutal rebel groups, the Lord’s Resistance Army began its attacks in Uganda more than 20 years ago but has been pushing westward. The administration and human rights groups say its atrocities have left thousands dead and have put as many as 300,000 Africans to flight. They have charged the group with seizing children to bolster its ranks of soldiers and sometimes forcing them to become sex slaves. Kony is wanted by the International Criminal Court under a 2005 warrant for crimes against humanity in his native Uganda. Obama’s announcement came in low-key fashion — a letter to House Speaker John Boehner in which he said the deployment “furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.” The deployment drew support from Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who has visited the region. “I have witnessed firsthand the devastation caused by the LRA, and this will help end Kony’s heinous acts that have created a human rights crisis in Africa,” he said in a statement. “I have been fervently involved in trying to prevent further abductions and murders of Ugandan children, and today’s action offers hope that the end of the LRA is in sight.” But Obama’s letter stressed the limited nature of the deployment. “Our forces will provide information, advice and assistance to select partner nation forces,” it said. “Although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will … not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense.” State Department officials portrayed the deployment as part of a larger strategy to combat the group that dates to the Bush administration but also includes legislation passed by Congress this year. Victoria Nuland, a department spokeswoman, said the U.S. troops will aid in “pursuing the LRA and seeking to bring top commanders to justice.” The broader effort includes encouraging rebel fighters to defect, disarm and return to their homes, she said. The administration briefed human rights activists ahead of the announcement, and their officials were encouraged. “These advisers can make a positive difference on the ground by keeping civilians safe and improving military operations to apprehend the LRA’s top commanders,” said Paul Ronan, director of the group Advocacy at Resolve. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/14/obama-sending-troops-aid-africa-anti-insurgency/