ET Williams

The Doctor of Common Sense

Blog

by

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

by

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

by

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/

by

Occupy Wall Street Crowd Not Working but Costing the Taxpayer’s Money

The Pelosi Crowd

Costs of the Occupiers
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2011
The trash generated by the “Occupy Wall Street” protests keeps piling up. So do the bills. Liberal media outlets claim the anarchic, anti-capitalist movement is more popular than the Tea Party. But wait until Americans across the country get a full picture of the costs of the aimless occupiers.
In New York City, government officials estimate the month-long siege of Zuccotti Park has now imposed $3.2 million in overtime police costs on the public. On Thursday, as Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office pressured left-wing activists to vacate the park for cleaning, Occupy Wall Street urged sympathizers to flood the city’s customer services lines: “Call 311 and tell Bloomberg not to evict us!”
In Philadelphia, Mayor Michael Nutter told the press that demonstrators outside city hall have incurred $164,000 in overtime public employee costs and $237,000 in regular time. “At the current rate, if Occupy Philly continues to the end of the month, the city would spend another nearly $690,000 on police overtime alone,” the local NBC affiliate reported. “Besides the extra police presence being dedicated to the Occupy Philly protests, other city departments have also incurred costs.”
In Seattle, police have so far billed $30,000 in overtime and the parks department racked up nearly $4,000 in additional costs related to the protests there. Occupiers have blocked traffic, assaulted an officer, and pitched illegal tents. Merchants in the area have been hurt as the riff-raff deter customers. One business owner in Westlake Park, where hundreds of protesters remain camped out, told Seattle TV station KIRO: “There’s definitely fewer people you can identify as people out, just walking through the area.”
Seattle’s pushover mayor, Democrat Mike McGinn, now faces even greater demands from the insatiable mob – which wants a “guaranteed parking
space near City Hall Plaza that allows for around-the-clock parking,” “24-hour access to the first floor of City Hall for restroom access, and a written statement from the mayor approving the protesters’ long-term occupancy of City Hall Plaza.”
In Boston, City Council President Steve Murphy anticipates a $2 million hit to taxpayers if the protests refuse to disband by the end of October. The local Fox affiliate notes the tab represents 8% of the yearly budget for police overtime. “While we’re all sympathetic with
our protesters down there,” Murphy said, “Wall Street isn’t picking up the tab on this thing. It’s the Boston taxpayers.”
When fiscally conservative Tea Party activists held protests over the past two years, they filed for all the required permits and paid for their own power. Occupy Boston, by contrast, neither sought nor obtained any proper permits at any level, according to the Boston Globe. Instead, city and park officials have been cowed into providing them gratis electricity and camp space lest there be “conflict.”
Many of these occupiers are primarily occupied as paid rent-a-mobsters for unions, left-wing think tanks, and the radical Working Families Party. While one collective hand soaks the taxpayers, the other hand is busy soliciting free stuff. Occupy Los Angeles activists took to
Skype on their laptops to solicit donations of iPhones and iPads.
Occupy Wall Street members on Twitter organized an ongoing “#needsoftheoccupiers” drive for everything from batteries and tarps to “gently used” coats and sweaters, wool socks, sleeping bags, and energy bars. Occupy Austin organizers publicized their wish list, including a free barbecue grill, port-o-potties, extension cords, a Bobcat forestry cutter for clearing brush, and network cameras for a livestream.
These are not principled advocates of fiscal responsibility. They are professional freeloaders.
Unlike Tea Party activists who focused like a laser beam on politicians in both parties responsible for redistributing wealth to Big Business cronies by force, the Occupy Wall Street movement is everywhere and nowhere. The entitled Kamp Alinsky Kids are poaching WiFi and trespassing on private property under the guise of “social justice,” but in plain service of themselves.
Their t-shirts and speeches glorify Marxist radicals Che Guevara, Emiliano Zapata, and Chairman Mao. They lionize convicted Death Row cop killer Troy Davis and WikiLeaks collaborator Bradley Manning. They condemn “Nazi Bankers,” Jews, Fox News, the American Legislative
Exchange Council, Wisconsin GOP Gov. Scott Walker, the Koch family, and the New York Police Department (“pigs!”). They promote the illegal alien DREAM Act and 9/11 Trutherism.
They spout bumper-sticker profanities and inanities: “F**k banks.” “Unf**k the world.” “Fuuuuu*k.” “Free education.” “Smash nationalism.”
“People not profits.”
They flash peace signs while celebrity supporter Roseanne Barr calls for beheading financial industry workers and fellow marchers call explicitly for “violent revolution” or for Obama to “Send Seal Team 6” to Wall Street.
Then they huff and puff (preferably in a creepy, uniform chant they call the “human microphone”) that we just haven’t taken the time to understand what they’re all about — as they hawk $20 “Eat the Rich” polo shirts and license their protest photos to Getty Images.
http://michellemalkin.com/

by

Obama and Congress Do Not Want To Save 1.8 Trillion Dollars

TAXPAYERS?
Group Sends $1.8 Trillion in Spending Cuts to Super Committee
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) issued a statement criticizing the deficit reduction plan revealed by President Obama in his speech at the White House Rose Garden. President Obama pledged to veto any plan that lowers the federal government’s deficit and debt without implementing new sources of revenue, or higher taxes. He offered Americans a choice between “crumbling roads and schools” and a plan to raise taxes on corporations and higher wage earners, but did not propose any substantive reforms to entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which together make up 71 percent of mandatory federal spending.

“President Obama continues to perpetrate the myth that America’s staggering deficit and debt are a product of too little revenue,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz, “when even a cursory glance at the federal budget over the last four years reveals that runaway spending is the real culprit. Federal spending as a percentage of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) reached a post-war high in fiscal year (FY) 2009, and is likely to climb even higher if the President gets his way on new stimulus spending, and as taxpayers begin to feel the effects of his massive expansion of healthcare expenditures. The President’s failure to broach the subject of restructuring Social Security, despite longer life expectancies for seniors and dismal financial prospects for the program, is typical of his attempts to grab taxpayer dollars while avoiding difficult reforms.

“Today’s speech reflected a disappointing lack of imagination on the part of the President, who consistently looks to solve problems by throwing more money at them, despite a history of feeble results. It was another insight into President Obama’s attitude toward taxpayers, which treats their hard-earned income as a tool that can be manipulated into aiding an agenda of ever-expanding government. His fictional dilemma between lousy infrastructure and schools or higher taxes revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of recent spending patterns: transportation spending as a percentage of GDP has been increasing steadily since the early 1980s, and education spending has doubled since the 1970s, but unbridled waste and mismanagement have prevented taxpayers from seeing proportionate returns on their investments.

“Spending reductions in an era of sky-high budgets should not be treated as a bargaining chip – they should be the first step toward trimming the deficit and paying down the national debt,” added Schatz. Accordingly, CAGW has sent its Prime Cuts 2011 publication – a compendium of 691 recommendations that would save taxpayers $391.9 billion in the first year and $1.8 trillion over five years – to Congress’ Joint Select Committee, which is preparing a plan to reduce America’s deficit and national debt. Enacting each of the recommendation in Prime Cuts would go a long way toward restoring the federal government’s fiscal solvency and reducing each American’s share of the debt. It would also send the message that the government believes in protecting private wealth, rather than milking it dry,” Schatz concluded.

Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government.

http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2011/cagw-to-pres-obama-are-you.html

by

Holder may need to testify after subpoena in Fast and Furious Investigation.

Eric Holder, Border Patrol, Fast and Furious, Attorney General”Top Justice Department officials, including Attorney General Holder, know more about Operation Fast and Furious than they have publicly acknowledged,” the California Republican said in a statement. “The documents this subpoena demands will provide answers to questions that Justice officials have tried to avoid since this investigation began eight months ago. It’s time we know the whole truth.”
House Committee to Subpoena Eric Holder on ‘Fast and Furious’
Attorney general facing investigation on botched gun-running scandal
The subpoena seeks, among other things, all communications regarding the operation from 16 top Justice officials, including Holder, his chief of staff, Gary Grindler, and the head of the department’s criminal division, Lanny Breuer, as well as correspondence on specific dates to and from the former head of the ATF’s Phoenix field division, William Newell.
It also asks for all documents and communications referring or relating to the murder of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata, including any correspondence outlining the details of Zapata’s mission at the time he was murdered.
Zapata was killed in a drug cartel ambush on a northern Mexican highway with a gun that was purchased in a town outside Forth Worth, Texas. Three Dallas-area men — one accused of buying the gun, his brother and their neighbor — are facing federal weapons charges, although none related to Zapata’s death.
Congressional investigators are also demanding information regarding the investigation into the death of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Two guns found at Terry’s crime scene were linked to the failed operation that allowed more than 2,000 weapons to “walk.”
The subpoena asks for correspondence that Justice Department officials had with the White House about the gun trafficking operation, as well as what information was shared by Justice officials in Mexico.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House oversight committee, sharply criticized Issa for sending the subpoena.
“This subpoena is a deep-sea fishing expedition and a gross abuse of the committee’s authority,” he said. “It demands tens of thousands of pages of highly sensitive law enforcement and national security materials that have never been requested before and are completely unrelated to Operation Fast and Furious. Rather than legitimate fact-gathering, this looks more like a political stunt.”
This second subpoena follows the first one issued in March to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Asked about the development Tuesday, Holder said his department “will undoubtedly comply with them,” noting that Justice officials have already sent “thousands of pages of documents up to the Hill.”
But Holder wouldn’t answer whether he or anyone else at the department knew about the controversial tactics.
Holder addressed the matter at the end of a press conference about an alleged Iran-tied terror plot foiled by U.S. investigators. “What I want the American people to understand is that in complying with those subpoenas and dealing with that inquiry, that will not detract us from the important business that we have here to do at the Justice Department, including matters like the one that we have announced today,” Holder said.
The new subpoena follows a week of back and forth between congressional investigators and Justice Department officials of “who knew what, when.” Under scrutiny was Holder’s testimony from May 3 when he told Issa that he “probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”
Fox News obtained documents addressed to Holder as early as nine months before that, which described the concept of Fast and Furious.
In addition to the congressional investigation being led by Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, is calling for a special counsel to look into the matter.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/12/issa-issues-subpoena-to-holder-in-fast-and-furious-investigation/#ixzz1ab4yEDvQ

http://www.whateverhappentocommonsense.com/