Jump to content

Photo

Rick Santorum


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,959 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 08 February 2012 - 09:32 AM

Rick Santorum

Support for Pro-Abort Christine Todd Whitman

In 1997, Santorum campaigned for the abortion promoting governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, CFR member and former EPA administrator (2001-2003). Governor Whitman has deep associations with radical abortion supporting groups; Republicans for Choice and The Republican Majority for Choice. In fact, Whitman is even an active proponent of partial birth abortions. In January 2008, she was named a co-chair of the globalist new age Aspen Institute's Health Stewardship Project. The former head of the Aspen Institute, new age environmentalist Maurice Strong, has membership in the following organizations, but this does not include the entire list:

Senior Advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
Senior Advisor to World Bank President James Wolfensohn
Chairman of the Earth Council (Agenda 21/Sustainable Development)
Chairman of the World Resources Institute
Co-Chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum
member of Toyota’s International Advisory Board

He is also a long time member of the Futurist Society (which Newt Gingrich belongs to as well as Newt’s long time friends Alvin and Heidi Toffler).

Posted Image
Advertisement

According to her bio on the Whitman Strategy Group website, Whitman has the following affiliations:

Director, Americans Elect (corporations promoting presidential candidates for corporate benefit)

Co-chair, National Smart Growth Council (Agenda 21)
Member, governors' board of the Oquirrh Institute
Board of Directors, S. C. Johnson and Son, Inc.
Board of Directors, Texas Instruments
Board of Directors, United Technologies
Board of Directors, Millennium Challenge Corporation (sustainable economic growth)
Board of Directors, Council on Foreign Relations
Honorary Board, Republicans for Environmental Protection

In June 2008, Whitman was named chair of the Water Policy Institute.

The bottom line is...why would a so-called social conservative ever support a woman like Whitman who is anathema to Santorum's spouted beliefs? Or is she?


Support for Radical Abortionist Senator Arlen Specter

In 2001, Senator Santorum actively campaigned for pro-abort Senator Arlen Specter instead of pro-life congressman Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. Santorum had previously endorsed Specter in his short-lived campaign for president in 1996. Specter had previously supplied Santorum with key political staff for his successful run in 1994. Specter of course changed from a left-wing Republican to a left-wing Democrat hoping to retain his seat.

Specter has never been a conservative. He served as assistant counsel for the Warren Commission investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy and helped devise the "single bullet theory," or "magic bullet theory" as it's called by critics.

Specter's opposition to Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987 is seen as an important factor in the nomination's failure.

In April 2009, Specter switched parties giving the Democrats a 60th vote in the Senate when Al Franken was declared the winner in Minnesota and sworn in after court challenges in July 2009.
Specter put that vote to good use casting the 60th vote for cloture on Obamacare in late December 2009. Having enabled Obamacare to proceed to a full vote, Specter cast the 50th vote for Obamacare (guaranteeing passage because Biden could cast a tie breaker).

Santorum claims he had to support Specter's Senate race because Specter was the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and could see to it that the skids were greased for President Bush's Supreme court nominees. All but 22 Democrats voted to approve Roberts.

Specter supports LGBT rights. He voted to prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and was a co-sponsor of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Specter is opposed to same-sex marriage, but is also opposed to a federal ban and supports civil unions. Specter also voted in favor of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress.

Specter voted 50% of the time with the Democrats when he was a Republican and 90% of the time when he became a Democrat. Thanks to President Bush and Santorum, Arlen Specter is responsible for giving us the draconian Obamacare legislation.

Why would "Mr. Pro-Life" strongly campaign for a rabid pro-abortion candidate against a strong pro-life candidate?


Santorum and Planned Parenthood

The following is from the New American article which appeared January 17, 2012 entitled, Santorum Voted to Subsidize Abortion, Planned Parenthood, by Alex Newman.

Posted Image

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) received $487.4 million in tax dollars over a twelve-month period and performed 329,455 abortions. Santorum's votes to indirectly fund (through title X family planning) abortion provider Planned Parenthood clinics makes him a partner in crime of the ungodly murder of the innocent unborn. "Mr. Pro-life" voted to have innocent Americans placed into the PP vegi-matic laboratories and enthusiastically campaigned for pro abortion Arlen Specter against the more conservative Pat Toomey. Rick may mistakenly believe that his votes to indirectly fund Planned Parenthood can be hidden from Christians that march for life, but they can't.


Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!




Enter Your E-Mail Address:


Santorum has also voted for legislation that is being used to federally prosecute peaceful pro-life protesters who demonstrate outside of abortion clinics. He also argued that he voted for the unconstitutional appropriations — used for terminating pregnancies, lobbying against pro-life legislation, handing out birth control, and litigating to keep abortion legal — because they were part of bigger spending bills he supported. Santorum also voted for the Democrat-sponsored “Freedom of Access to [Abortion] Clinic Entrances Act,” legislation purportedly making it a federal crime to “interfere” with a person seeking to terminate a pregnancy. As critics warned at the time, the bill has been used with increasing frequency to prosecute peaceful protesters.


Mathew 7:16-17 states, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."


It is not by their words, but by their actions we are to judge these politicians, and thus in effect we are to be "fruit inspectors."


http://www.newswithv...kelleigh144.htm



#2 1John2:15-17

1John2:15-17

    It Is Well With My Soul

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
231
Excellent
  • LocationNear Cleveland, Ohio

Posted 09 February 2012 - 08:49 PM

Oh yeah, we want this guy.....NOT!

#3 "I am chief"

"I am chief"

    1 Tim. 1:15

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts
908
Excellent

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:38 PM

25 full quotes on abortion
.
  • Gingrich's abortion stances compared to Santorum's. (Jan 2012)
  • States have the right to ban contraception, but shouldn't. (Jan 2012)
  • No abortions even in cases of rape; one violence is enough. (Aug 2011)
  • I've not only taken the pledge; I've taken the bullets. (Jun 2011)
  • FactCheck: Under 1/4 of pregnancies end in abortion, not 1/3. (May 2011)
  • FactCheck: No, female suicide & crime not worse under Roe. (Feb 2011)
  • Plan B morning-after pill is abortion, and dangerous. (Sep 2006)
  • Exception for rape & incest ok, even though they take a life. (Sep 2006)
  • Partial birth abortion is not used only for abnormalities. (Apr 2006)
  • Scientifically, an embryo is human from moment of conception. (Apr 2006)
  • 93% of abortions are post-conception birth control. (Apr 2006)
  • Partial birth abortion allows killing baby if only toe is in. (Apr 2006)
  • There is no federal right to privacy. (Apr 2003)
  • Responsible stem cell research doesn't destroy embryos. (Aug 2001)
  • Protect any child born alive from botched abortion. (Jun 2001)
  • Partial birth abortion should shock your conscience. (Dec 1995)
  • Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
  • Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
  • Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
  • Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
  • Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
  • Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
  • Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
  • Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
  • Supports the Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge. (Jan 2012)


No abortions even in cases of rape; one violence is enough
Q: In June, you said, "I believe that any doctor who performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so." You would allow no exceptions for cases of rape and incest?
SANTORUM: You know, the US Supreme Court on a recent case said that a man who committed rape could not be killed, could not be subject to the death penalty, yet the child conceived as a result of that rape could be. That to me sounds like a country that doesn't have its morals correct. That child did nothing wrong. That child is an innocent victim. To be victimized twice would be a horrible thing. It is an innocent human life. It is genetically human from the moment of conception. And it is a human life. And we in America should be big enough to try to surround ourselves and help women in those terrible situations who've been traumatized already. To put them through another trauma of an abortion I think is too much to ask. And so I would absolutely stand and say that one violence is enough.
Source: Iowa Straw Poll 2011 GOP debate in Ames Iowa , Aug 11, 2011


I've not only taken the pledge; I've taken the bullets
Q: [to Santorum]: You are staunchly pro-life. Gov. Romney used to support abortion rights until he changed his position on this a few years ago. Should this be an issue in this primary campaign?
SANTORUM: I think an issue should be looking at the authenticity of that candidate and looking at their record over time and what they fought for. You can look at my record. Not only have I been consistently pro-life. I've not just taken the pledge, I've taken the bullets to go out there and fight for thi and lead on those issues. And I think that's a factor that people should consider. A lot of folks run for president as pro-life and then that issue gets shoved to the back burner. The issue of pro-life, the sanctity and dignity of every human life, not just on the issue of abortion, but with respect to the entire life, and the dignity of people at the end of life, those issues will be top priority issues for me to make sure that all life is respected and held with dignity.

ROMNEY: I'm firmly pro-life




Exception for rape & incest ok, even though they take a life
Q: Are you in favor of Plan B, the morning-after pill?
CASEY: I’m in favor. I think what emergency contraception is contraception, not abortion.
SANTORUM: It is an abortifacient in certain circumstances. If the egg has been fertilized and the pill is taken, it does cause an abortion. It’s inconsistent with his previous position and violated his principles. Q: If you believe that life begins at conception, then why do you support exceptions for rape, incest, and life of mother?
SANTORUM: Yeah, I would vote for things like that.
Q: But it’s the taking of a life.
SANTORUM: The Hyde Amendment allows rape, incest, life of the mother. That is the common ground we could get, and I would support that.
Q: But by your standards, it’s the taking of a life.
SANTORUM: It is, there’s no question it’s the taking of a life. But it is an attempt for me to try to see if we can find common ground to actually make progress in limiting the other abortions. So yes, that’s what I would do. Source: <a href="http://www.ontheissu...enate_2006.htm" style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); ">PA 2006 Senate Debate, Tim Russert moderator , Sep 3, 2006


Partial birth abortion is not used only for abnormalities
In 2003, Sen. Hillary Clinton [commented] about the anatomically correct drawings I used to demonstrate the partial birth abortion procedure:
CLINTON: The visual aids show a perfectly formed fetus, and that is misleading. We should have a chart that demonstrates tragic abnormalities.
SANTORUM: Do we consider a child that may not live long, or may have an abnormality, to be less of a child? Don't those who are not perfect don't even deserve the opportunity to live?
CLINTON: Does the Senator's legislation make exceptions for serious life-threatening abnormalities?
SANTORUM: No, if--
CLINTON: That is the point.
SANTORUM: If you want to create a separation in the law between those children who are perfect and those children who are not--
SANTORUM: If a child is not perfect, that child can be aborted under any circumstances. But if that child is perfect, we are going to protect that child more. The Americans with Disabilities Act says we treat all of God's children the same



93% of abortions are post-conception birth control
When you hear an abortion supporter argue his or her position, nowhere do you hear that a baby's heart can be seen beating at three weeks. They appear to exhibit a whole range of typical baby behavior and moods.
Almost never do I hear about what is being chosen, other than the sterile words "terminating pregnancy." Nowhere do you hear that over 93% of abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies who were not the victim of rape or incest, which means that in the vast majority of cases abortion is actually post-conception birth control.
The advocates of abortion, like Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League, teach that if you have to say anything about what is in the womb you should use dehumanizing terms like "product of conception," "embryo," & "fetal tissue." Or, if you must, fetus. Thanks to a lot of help from their allies in the news and entertainment media, they have turned the child in the womb into a NOBODY, and therefore "NOBODY gets hurt."

Edited by 1Tim115, 09 February 2012 - 10:51 PM.


#4 DennisD

DennisD

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 989 posts
70
Excellent
  • LocationPasadena, MD (From Utica, NY)

Posted 10 February 2012 - 12:07 AM

<a name="Candidates" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); text-decoration: underline; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; ">Posted Image Rick Santorum on Civil Rights Posted Image Click here for 25 full quotes on Civil Rights OR other candidates on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights.
  • I agree with hearing gay ideas but disagree with some. (Jan 2012)
  • Marriage is a federal issue; we need one definition, not 50. (Jan 2012)
  • Right to gay sex implies right to bigamy, incest, & adultery. (Jan 2012)
  • No polygamy; no gay marriage. (Aug 2011)
  • Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell; punish behavior. (Jun 2011)
  • Same-sex marriage is unprecedented social revolution. (Apr 2006)
  • Marriage Protection Amendment is last resort, but needed. (Apr 2006)
  • Affirmative program for minority business-building. (Apr 2006)
  • Leave marriage definition to state legislatures & the people. (Jul 2004)
  • Same-sex marriage takes us away from purpose of marriage. (Jul 2004)
  • Homosexual orientation ok; but homosexual act are sodomy. (Apr 2003)
  • Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
  • Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
  • Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
  • Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
  • Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
  • Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
  • Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
  • Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
  • Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
  • Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
  • Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
  • Rated 25% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
  • Issue a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks. (Dec 2005)


#5 "I am chief"

"I am chief"

    1 Tim. 1:15

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts
908
Excellent

Posted 10 February 2012 - 08:48 AM

Santorum also voted for the Democrat-sponsored “Freedom of Access to [Abortion] Clinic Entrances Act,” legislation purportedly making it a federal crime to “interfere” with a person seeking to terminate a pregnancy. Kelleigh Nelson


I'm not pushing Santorum but according to the voting record of then Representative (1991-1994) Santorum, he voted NO. That is, he voted against the bill becoming law. I know little about "Kelleigh Nelson" at NewsWithViews.com but she needs to get her facts straight.

This is only one claim debunked out of those from the OP above however, once I kill a rat I'm sure I'll find multiple droppings.

Edited by 1Tim115, 10 February 2012 - 08:49 AM.


#6 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,959 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 12 February 2012 - 06:08 PM

THE PHONY RIGHTWING


By Kelleigh Nelson
February 12, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Rick Santorum, Part 2

"I believe there are more instances of abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations ..." -James Madison

Many of you who read my articles and write me wonderful letters and even take the time to send me gifts have actually become wonderful cyber friends. Because so many of you have requested these articles on the GOP candidates, I've had to dredge through their backgrounds and their voting records for documentation. It has not been an easy task, and I'm always relieved when I'm finished with writing about another one of these traitorous leaders. In the previous article on Santorum, the research was on his somewhat hypocritical pro-life stance. In this article we'll be looking at his voting record and fiscal policies. The articles on Rick Santorum will be three parts.

Rick Santorum has the dubious distinction of being one of the most corrupt politicians in America, and one of the most corrupt senators in his brief so-called ‘representation’ of Pennsylvania–when he didn’t even live there. His rhetoric may be that of a conservative, but research shows he's closer to the communist Santorum clan in Italy than they or we know. Perhaps the acorn hasn't fallen far from the tree.

No Child Left Behind

January, 2012 marks the 10-year anniversary of the day Bush signed NCLB into law in Hamilton, Ohio. By his side were the leaders of the education committees in Congress, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, the bipartisanship duo that made this horrible Act possible. Rick Santorum voted for and strongly supported legislation that doubled the size of the Department of Education and he was a big supporter of NCLB who joined with Kennedy to push passage of this Act.

This legislation, which passed 381-41 in the House and 87-10 in the Senate in January 2002, is accompanied by the largest dollar increase ever in federal education aid. Education Week, 1/9/02, describes the No Child Left Behind Act as follows: "The mega-measure is accompanied by the largest dollar increase ever in federal education aid. The Department of Education's overall budget will rise by $6.7 billion in fiscal 2002, to nearly $49 billion." The legislation, although pretending to terminate the highly controversial Goals 2000 and the School-To-Work (STW) legislation passed in the nineties under President Clinton and initiated in the eighties under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Sr., actually continues the totalitarian agenda because all states have implemented the requirements of Goals 2000 and STW.

On her website Charlotte Thompson Iserbyt , the brilliant education researcher and former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education, has a wonderful article exposing the truth about this horrid legislation. A quote from it states:

Although Pres. Bush, according to a Washington Times article by Bill Sammon, 1/9/02, said in regard to the education bill he signed that "Parents will have more information about the schools and more say in how their children are educated . . . from this day forward, all students will have a better chance to learn, to excel and to live out their dreams." Pardon me, but this is a plain lie, and a lie embraced by Mass. Senator Ted Kennedy and others (like Rick Santorum John Boehner) supporting this legislation as well. How can parents have a say in how their children are educated when the federal government is mandating testing of children's attitudes and values? (Sixty percent of the test items on National Assessment of Educational Progress - NAEP are attitudinal.) Bush's mandate for testing will of course call for a mandated federal curriculum since one can't test what one hasn't taught. What tiny bit of local control remained prior to this legislation will be swept away. School superintendents and good teachers are already complaining about having lost control. Even the New York Times has problems with Leave No Child Behind. It bragged that the more than 1000-page giant education bill will "dramatically extend the federal role in public education" and, indeed, is "a breathtaking intrusion of the federal government on states' control of education."

Rick didn't stop there, he voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing, and to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.

Second Amendment

Senator Santorum has a mixed record on the second amendment. He claims he's staunchly pro-second amendment. However, in the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped for life, law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist.

He voted for a bill in 1999 disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns… but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows. And then he voted with gun-controlling Democrats Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Frank Lautenberg to mandate locks on handguns in 2005. (S Amdt 3230 Gun Lock Requirement Amendment)

Worst of all, Rick Santorum has a storied history of bailing out anti-gun Republicans facing reelection. Santorum came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate.

Santorum also flip-flopped here by voting FOR Title: Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill and then he voted against S1805 – Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill. In 2004, Senator Santorum voted for legislation to require child locks on all weapons. That same legislation contained the Gun Free School Zone Act. That legislation made it illegal to be in possession of a firearm on school grounds.

Senator Santorum has repeatedly supported Project Exile. Project Exile was a federal program started in Richmond, Virginia in 1997. The project was designed to shift the prosecution of illegal technical gun possession offenses from state courts to federal court, where they carried a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in federal prison under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968.

Santorum Voted to require pawn shops to do background checks on people who pawn a gun. Voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device. Voted for a Federal ban on possession of “assault weapons” by those under 18. Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools. Voted for anti-gun juvenile justice bill. Sounds to me like Rick Santorum made a lot of unconstitutional deals.

Posted Image
Advertisement

Fiscal Responsibility

Rick Santorum voted five times to raise the debt ceiling adding trillions to the debt and stated, "I am no longer a deficit hawk, I had to spend the surpluses." (The Hill, 2/5/03). While in office, Santorum voted to spend taxpayer money to fight AIDS globally, to help underprivileged children in third world countries, to pay off debts owed to the US by other nations and to combat political instability in Sudan. Where is any of this allowed in our constitution?

On Welfare alone he voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two year. Santorum voted against both food stamp and Medicaid Reform, and voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.

He voted to increase welfare programs such as Healthy Start. Such social-welfare spending projects are not typically associated with the concept of Republican conservatism, or at least they didn't used to be. He also strongly supported the largest hike in welfare entitlement spending in history (prior to Obamacare) – Medicaid Part D and Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs. This was the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon B. Johnson, creating $16 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. This was George W. Bush’s free prescription medicine program, virtually socializing the pharmaceutical industry which is now being funded by ever increasing prescription drug prices to consumers. Santorum was quite happy to vote to enrich the industry from which he had received so many campaign contributions. In fact, Santorum was such a favorite of GlaxoSmithKline that, following the loss of his senate seat, executives wrote, “The defeat of [Santorum] creates a big hole we need to fill.” The leaked memo is evidence that unprincipled politicians, like Santorum, can still be bought and sold in the USA.

Santorum cosponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act with John Kerry. Other backers included Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. This Act would have forced all business owners to accommodate the religious practices of all their employees. Rick believes if companies don't cater to the different faiths of their employees, then they should be compelled by law to do so.

From Wikipedia, "This legislation has garnered the diverse support of various religious groups including, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Council of Churches, the North American Council for Muslim Women, the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Council on American Islamic Relations, B'nai B'rith International, the American Jewish Committee, Agudath Israel of America, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other groups." Can you imagine the cost to small businesses? No true fiscal conservative would sanction this type of law with the variety of so-called religions today.

His Tax Increases alone would disqualify him as a fiscal conservative, but truly across the board he is a big government spender. He voted to increase tobacco taxes (a sin tax) four times. He voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for this same amount in an increase to student loans. He voted twice for internet taxes. Santorum voted against the repealing of the Clinton 4.3 cent gasoline tax increase.

The Senator voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies a new entitlement. He voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt, and then he voted for giving $18 billion to the IMF! Of course paying off the debt (at $5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years didn't appeal to him either. He actually voted to raise the debt ceiling five times!

On Immigration, the Senator voted against hiring an additional 1,000 border patrol agents, paid for by reductions in some state grants. Subsequently, the border patrol was cut even further and when I wrote to my Senators, Lamar Alexander wrote back to me that he would send my letter to Homeland Security and they would answer me. (Was that a threat Senator?) I have yet to hear a word and I comment about it in every letter I write to Alexander, but back to Senator Santorum. He voted against increasing the number of immigration investigators and voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the "earned income" tax credit before becoming citizens! Excuse me, but this is blatant redistribution of wealth and to illegal aliens who have not contributed to society.

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) benefited from Santorum's vote for taxpayer funding of same. He also made sure he voted against a 10% cut in the budget for the NEA. Why would Santorum, as a Catholic, vote for funding the NEA when they feel a crucifix in a jar of urine is art? This is a social conservative?

On Free Trade, Rick made the right choice and voted against NAFTA in 1993, but in subsequent votes he voted yes for the Oman, Morocco, Singapore, Chile, and Australia FTA as well as CAFTA. He voted yes to the Trade Authority as well as to normal trade relations with China.

Posted Image

HOW SANTORUM VIEWS GOVERNMENT

Rick Santorum made this statement, "One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in the cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I'm aware of where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."


Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!




Enter Your E-Mail Address:


Well now excuse me Rick, but isn't that what America was founded on, INDIVIDUALISM? Are you saying you prefer Obama's form of collectivism and communitarianism? Sure does sound like it since you and Hillary Clinton are the only two people who are directly attacking the "pursuit of happiness." You are no constitutionalist, fiscal conservative or small government politician...you are exactly the opposite.

In the final article on Rick Santorum, we'll look at his Defense and Foreign Policy record as well as his connection with pedophile Jerry Sandusky, how he's treated veterans, the "K Street Project," and the ways politicians like Santorum become quite wealthy.


http://www.newswithv...kelleigh145.htm



#7 "I am chief"

"I am chief"

    1 Tim. 1:15

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts
908
Excellent

Posted 12 February 2012 - 09:33 PM

"Second Amendment
Senator Santorum has a mixed record on the second amendment. He claims he's staunchly pro-second amendment. However, in the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped for life, law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist."

Here's another one where Ms. Nelson is letting the facts run away from her. The below was an ammendment to the Omnibus Spending Bill for FY 1997. In other words the appropriations bill would have stalled in congress or the senate if the amendment wasn't allowed. Then Ms. Nelson would probably have said Santorum held up a spending bill just like the democrats are doing now. I believe she has a personal problem with Santorum.


The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.

Granted it was a cheap shot by the democrats attempting to hold another spending bill hostage but appears to be another cheap shot by Ms. Nelson too.

I'm not going to search through all her allegations, two errors is enough for me. I don't know that I would post what Nelson has to say, it seems suspect at the best and nearly liable at worst.

Edited by 1Tim115, 12 February 2012 - 09:33 PM.


#8 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,959 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 13 February 2012 - 08:21 AM

"Second Amendment
Senator Santorum has a mixed record on the second amendment. He claims he's staunchly pro-second amendment. However, in the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped for life, law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist."


Here's another one where Ms. Nelson is letting the facts run away from her. The below was an ammendment to the Omnibus Spending Bill for FY 1997. In other words the appropriations bill would have stalled in congress or the senate if the amendment wasn't allowed. Then Ms. Nelson would probably have said Santorum held up a spending bill just like the democrats are doing now. I believe she has a personal problem with Santorum.


The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.

Granted it was a cheap shot by the democrats attempting to hold another spending bill hostage but appears to be another cheap shot by Ms. Nelson too.

I'm not going to search through all her allegations, two errors is enough for me. I don't know that I would post what Nelson has to say, it seems suspect at the best and nearly liable at worst.


I dont' see this as an error. Men of principle should stand firm against such moves by the enemy. It's the fact that most are willing to compromise when it comes to similar situations that these tactics are used and are successful. Time and again I hear a politician proclaiming they "had to" pass something bad, wrong or even wicked because it was attached to something else. Truth be told, if everyone who says they are against such were to refuse to vote such matters through, this practice would soon die out.

This author, as far as I know, doesn't have an issue with Santorum, they have written similar articles on the other candidates as well.

#9 "I am chief"

"I am chief"

    1 Tim. 1:15

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts
908
Excellent

Posted 13 February 2012 - 12:20 PM

"Second Amendment Senator Santorum has a mixed record on the second amendment. He claims he's staunchly pro-second amendment. However, in the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped for life, law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist."

Here's another one where Ms. Nelson is letting the facts run away from her. The below was an ammendment to the Omnibus Spending Bill for FY 1997. In other words the appropriations bill would have stalled in congress or the senate if the amendment wasn't allowed. Then Ms. Nelson would probably have said Santorum held up a spending bill just like the democrats are doing now. I believe she has a personal problem with Santorum.

The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons. Granted it was a cheap shot by the democrats attempting to hold another spending bill hostage but appears to be another cheap shot by Ms. Nelson too. I'm not going to search through all her allegations, two errors is enough for me. I don't know that I would post what Nelson has to say, it seems suspect at the best and nearly liable at worst.

I dont' see this as an error. Men of principle should stand firm against such moves by the enemy. It's the fact that most are willing to compromise when it comes to similar situations that these tactics are used and are successful. Time and again I hear a politician proclaiming they "had to" pass something bad, wrong or even wicked because it was attached to something else. Truth be told, if everyone who says they are against such were to refuse to vote such matters through, this practice would soon die out. This author, as far as I know, doesn't have an issue with Santorum, they have written similar articles on the other candidates as well.


I took the time to find the voting records (nice site!)...
Santorum voted with the majority of republicans in both the Senate and House, here are the numbers...
Senate
..........................Yea..........Nay............Not Voting............Present
Republicans.......50.............3....................0.........................na
Democrats..........22............24...................1.........................na
Total...................72............27...................1

House
Republicans......202...........24....................8.........................1
Democrats.........168..........13....................18........................0
Total..................370...........37...................26........................1

My question to Ms. Nelson is why does it appear she has singled out Santorum? The voting record above shows that the majority of a House and Senate dominated by Republicans voted for this bill. I'm growing more and more suspicious of the lady with each fact I uncover. I wonder if she is paid by the Romney, Paul, or Gingrich organizations? As far as "men of principle" it appears there were none.

Gingrich voted for it, Paul was out of office at the time, of course Romney failed to beat out Ted Kennedy for the Senate. There is no way Santorum's vote would have made a difference and I didn't take time to check all the other amendments in this bill. But it appears Ms. Nelson is again picking out things which would be labeled "nit-picking."

#10 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,959 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 13 February 2012 - 07:25 PM

"Second Amendment Senator Santorum has a mixed record on the second amendment. He claims he's staunchly pro-second amendment. However, in the 90s, he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, which stripped for life, law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouses wrist."

Here's another one where Ms. Nelson is letting the facts run away from her. The below was an ammendment to the Omnibus Spending Bill for FY 1997. In other words the appropriations bill would have stalled in congress or the senate if the amendment wasn't allowed. Then Ms. Nelson would probably have said Santorum held up a spending bill just like the democrats are doing now. I believe she has a personal problem with Santorum.

The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons. Granted it was a cheap shot by the democrats attempting to hold another spending bill hostage but appears to be another cheap shot by Ms. Nelson too. I'm not going to search through all her allegations, two errors is enough for me. I don't know that I would post what Nelson has to say, it seems suspect at the best and nearly liable at worst.

I dont' see this as an error. Men of principle should stand firm against such moves by the enemy. It's the fact that most are willing to compromise when it comes to similar situations that these tactics are used and are successful. Time and again I hear a politician proclaiming they "had to" pass something bad, wrong or even wicked because it was attached to something else. Truth be told, if everyone who says they are against such were to refuse to vote such matters through, this practice would soon die out. This author, as far as I know, doesn't have an issue with Santorum, they have written similar articles on the other candidates as well.


I took the time to find the voting records (nice site!)...
Santorum voted with the majority of republicans in both the Senate and House, here are the numbers...
Senate
..........................Yea..........Nay............Not Voting............Present
Republicans.......50.............3....................0.........................na
Democrats..........22............24...................1.........................na
Total...................72............27...................1

House
Republicans......202...........24....................8.........................1
Democrats.........168..........13....................18........................0
Total..................370...........37...................26........................1

My question to Ms. Nelson is why does it appear she has singled out Santorum? The voting record above shows that the majority of a House and Senate dominated by Republicans voted for this bill. I'm growing more and more suspicious of the lady with each fact I uncover. I wonder if she is paid by the Romney, Paul, or Gingrich organizations? As far as "men of principle" it appears there were none.

Gingrich voted for it, Paul was out of office at the time, of course Romney failed to beat out Ted Kennedy for the Senate. There is no way Santorum's vote would have made a difference and I didn't take time to check all the other amendments in this bill. But it appears Ms. Nelson is again picking out things which would be labeled "nit-picking."


This article is referring specifically to Santorum, which is why the focus is on Santorum. The author also wrote articles on the other candidates and in those articles the focus was upon the specific candidate the article was dealing with too. The articles dealing with the other candidates are along the same lines as this because, as you point out, they tend to flock together and fly the same wrong direction.

#11 "I am chief"

"I am chief"

    1 Tim. 1:15

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts
908
Excellent

Posted 13 February 2012 - 10:07 PM

John, if she attacked the others with lies and inaccuracy as she did Santorum then I understand who her presidential hopeful is; She must want a repeat offender for president in 2012.

I forgot to mention that last item I checked on 2nd Amendment rights, "Lautenberg Gun Ban," that is, The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban; she said, "he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban," is false. He voted to pass the Omnibus Spending Bill and if the truth were to be known, like most of those 3 inch stacks of dead trees they call bills, Santorum never read it and had no clue the Dems buried an amendment limiting the 2nd Amendment.

This government is too far out of control, I think I'll become a Tea Party member. At least the politicians heads turn around when they hear someone say, " I'm a representative of the Tea Party grass roots organization." Although I don't know how long it will keep the poli-ticks fearful of sucking America's blood dry. There I go rambling when I know good and well my Savior doesn't want me to be so concerned.

#12 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,959 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 14 February 2012 - 08:01 AM

John, if she attacked the others with lies and inaccuracy as she did Santorum then I understand who her presidential hopeful is; She must want a repeat offender for president in 2012.

I forgot to mention that last item I checked on 2nd Amendment rights, "Lautenberg Gun Ban," that is, The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban; she said, "he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban," is false. He voted to pass the Omnibus Spending Bill and if the truth were to be known, like most of those 3 inch stacks of dead trees they call bills, Santorum never read it and had no clue the Dems buried an amendment limiting the 2nd Amendment.

This government is too far out of control, I think I'll become a Tea Party member. At least the politicians heads turn around when they hear someone say, " I'm a representative of the Tea Party grass roots organization." Although I don't know how long it will keep the poli-ticks fearful of sucking America's blood dry. There I go rambling when I know good and well my Savior doesn't want me to be so concerned.

I've not yet seen any lies. The fact remains, whether a politicians votes for something specifically because they support it, because they want something it's attached to to pass, or because they failed to do their duty and read what they were voting on, they are still responsible for what they do and don't vote for.

These articles were begun last year in an attempt to help voters look for the best candidate to support rather than just voting for another politician who might not do things exactly like Obama but would continue to go that direction anyway. The only reason Santorum wasn't addressed earlier was because of his lack of showing. The author has stated they only finally wrote an article on Santorum because of his showings and people asking for an article.

Pointing out the truth of any of the candidates, whether Bachamann, Paul, Perry, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman or another, is not an endorsement of Obama, it's a warning in most cases that what we are given as an alternative isn't much of an alternative at all.

Again, had Christians and conservatives took a serious look at the GOP candidates last fall and chose to support the best candidate of the bunch and to back them fully from then on, they could ensured that candidate won the nomination.

Instead, like most other voters, they looked on the surface and bounced back and forth between candidates based upon daily polls and the latest debate outcome, while continually looking for Mr. Perfect.

#13 "I am chief"

"I am chief"

    1 Tim. 1:15

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts
908
Excellent

Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:33 AM


John, if she attacked the others with lies and inaccuracy as she did Santorum then I understand who her presidential hopeful is; She must want a repeat offender for president in 2012.

I forgot to mention that last item I checked on 2nd Amendment rights, "Lautenberg Gun Ban," that is, The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban; she said, "he voted to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban," is false. He voted to pass the Omnibus Spending Bill and if the truth were to be known, like most of those 3 inch stacks of dead trees they call bills, Santorum never read it and had no clue the Dems buried an amendment limiting the 2nd Amendment.

This government is too far out of control, I think I'll become a Tea Party member. At least the politicians heads turn around when they hear someone say, " I'm a representative of the Tea Party grass roots organization." Although I don't know how long it will keep the poli-ticks fearful of sucking America's blood dry. There I go rambling when I know good and well my Savior doesn't want me to be so concerned.

I've not yet seen any lies. The fact remains, whether a politicians votes for something specifically because they support it, because they want something it's attached to to pass, or because they failed to do their duty and read what they were voting on, they are still responsible for what they do and don't vote for.

These articles were begun last year in an attempt to help voters look for the best candidate to support rather than just voting for another politician who might not do things exactly like Obama but would continue to go that direction anyway. The only reason Santorum wasn't addressed earlier was because of his lack of showing. The author has stated they only finally wrote an article on Santorum because of his showings and people asking for an article.

Pointing out the truth of any of the candidates, whether Bachamann, Paul, Perry, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman or another, is not an endorsement of Obama, it's a warning in most cases that what we are given as an alternative isn't much of an alternative at all.

Again, had Christians and conservatives took a serious look at the GOP candidates last fall and chose to support the best candidate of the bunch and to back them fully from then on, they could ensured that candidate won the nomination.

Instead, like most other voters, they looked on the surface and bounced back and forth between candidates based upon daily polls and the latest debate outcome, while continually looking for Mr. Perfect.


So far she told to obvious lies both pointed out above. I'm just the messenger.

#14 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,959 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:49 PM

So far she told to obvious lies both pointed out above. I'm just the messenger.

Maybe I'm just dense right now (I do have a head cold) but I don't see the lie.

In any event, Christians should first ask if there are any born again Christians running for office. If so, they should get the first look to see what their positions are. When the season started there were at least three born again Christians running for the GOP nomination; Bachmann, Cain, Paul and Perry.

Did Christians look at their records, meet with them and determine to give one of them support from beginning to end? No! Out of the gate most seemed to be supporting Bachmann but then the media really began attacking Bachmann and weak-willed Christians (and conservatives) pulled away from her. With the trumped up entry of Perry many jumped on his bandwagon only to quickly jump back off once he came under fire. Cain was the next one to get the tacit support but when he came under assault he was dumped too. Few gave Paul a real look at all.

Then Christians see what they should have seen coming for months, Romney winning. Romney appeard to win Iowa, he won New Hampshire and then some Christian "leaders" finally decided to get together to try and decide upon a candidate to endorse. This after Bachmann and Cain were already out of the race and Perry was too wounded to recover and Paul had already been demonized.

What was left by then was either getting behind the liberal Mormon Romney or behind one of the big government Catholics, Gingrich or Santorum.

Considering the sorts we the people keep electing to office, both the White House and congress, why does anyone really expect anything good to come from an election any more? We had Republican presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush One and Bush Two in office during my lifetime and the country continued in the wrong direction under each one. We had Democrat presidents JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton and Obama in my lifetime and the country continued in the wrong direction under each one.

During those years there have been times when either the Dems or Repubs controlled both the White House and congress. During those times the country continued in the wrong direction. There have been times when opposite parties controled the WH and congress and the country continued in the wrong direction.

Countless unconstitutional agencies, departments and programs have been put into place during these years and no matter which party came into power afterwards, they didn't bring them to an end.

Who is running for president today that will do things any differently?

#15 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,959 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 15 February 2012 - 09:17 AM

Santorum “severely wrong” on TEA Party

by Joel McDurmon on Feb 15, 2012

“If you liked what the feds did to the housing market, wait till you see what they can do for your marriage.”
So writes Gene Healy at Reason.com after reviewing Rick Santorum’s 2012 campaign promise to “re-direct funds within HHS, so it can create public/private partnerships … for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood.”
And this is just the beginning as the writer judges the surging Saint to be the “arch-nemesis” of liberty:
In a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg last summer, Santorum declared, “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”
In that regard, Santorum has a pretty impressive record. By voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, he helped give President Obama the power to micromanage the nation’s schools from Washington; and by supporting a prescription drug entitlement for Medicare, he helped saddle the taxpayers with a $16 trillion unfunded liability.
Santorum voted for the 2005 “bridge to nowhere” highway bill, has backed an expanded national service program, and his compassionate conservatism has the Bono seal of approval: “On our issues, he has been a defender of the most vulnerable.”
Rick Santorum: He’s from the government, and he’s here to help.
While I do not agree totally with Healy on all matters, he is absolutely correct to criticize Santorum in these regards. We’re talking about a guy who openly disavows the TEA party and its influence:
In that same talk in Harrisburg, he said, “I’ve got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”
And yet self-identified TEA party conservatives are rushing in where only big-government tyrants dare to tread:
Santorum needn’t have worried: In this year’s contests, he’s regularly drawn more support from Tea Party voters than Ron Paul, who has been described as the “intellectual godfather of the Tea Party movement.”
Exit polls show Santorum beating Paul among self-described Tea Party supporters in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, trailing him only in independent-heavy New Hampshire and Nevada.

http://americanvisio...ng-on-tea-party

Edited by John81, 15 February 2012 - 09:18 AM.


#16 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,959 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 15 February 2012 - 09:36 AM

Santorum IS “big government conservative,” says Red State

by Joel McDurmon on Feb 11, 2012

Erick Erickson of RedState.com rightly complains, “I’m rather tired of all the people who don’t like Romney trying to claim Rick Santorum is not a big government conservative, or not a pro-life statist. I would support him before I would support Romney too, but I have no intention of giving up ideological and intellectual consistency in the name of beating Mitt Romney.”
So, Mr. Erickson and friends did some digging for a couple days:
I and some friends, none of us Romney fans, have set about exploring Santorum’s record since Wednesday morning. Here now is a non-exhaustive list of what we have found. It does not even include his support for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, debt ceiling increases, funding the bridge to nowhere, refusing to redirect earmark allocations to disaster relief along the Gulf Coast post Katrina, etc.
This is not the record of a man committed to scaling back the welfare state or the nanny state. Had he been up for re-election in 2010 instead of 2006, this is the record of a man who the tea party movement would have primaried. The only real justification for supporting him now is he is not Mitt Romney, but I still believe we can do better.
See for yourself.
Here are some highlights from the much longer list they provide on their site:
NEA
Voted for taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts. . . .
Defense and Foreign Policy. . . .
Voted to require that Federal bureaucrats get the same payraises as uniformed military.
Voted to allow food and medicine sales to state sponsors of terror and tyranical regimes such as Libya and Cuba.
Voted to limit the President’s authority to impose sanctions on nations for reasons of national security unless the sanctions were approved by a multilateral regime.
Voted against requiring Congressional authorization for military action in Bosnia. [Pro-Clinton!]
Voted to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea. . . .
Nominations. . . .
Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge . . .
Voted for James Brady to be District Judge
Labor
Voted against National Right to Work Act. . . .
Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding
Voted for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Voted for Job Corps funding
Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization. . . .
Voted for minimum wage increases six times here here here here here and here
Voted to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board.
Voted to exempt IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws. [!!!] . . .
Guns
Voted to require pawn shops to do background checks on people who pawn a gun.
Voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device
Voted for a Federal ban on possession of “assault weapons” by those under 18.
Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools. . . .
Reform. . . .
Voted twice for a Congressional payraise.
Voted to impose a uniform Federal mandate on states to force them to allow convicted rapits, arsonists, drug kingpins, and all other ex-convicts to vote in Federal elections.
Voted for the Specter “backup plan” to allow campaign finance reform to survive if portions of the bill were found unconstitutional.
Voted to mandate discounted broadcast times for politicians. . . .
Taxes
Voted against a flat tax. . . .
Voted twice for internet taxes.
Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies. . . .
Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.
Waste. . . .
Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion
Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
Voted to increase NIHnding by $700 million. . . .
Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry. . . .
Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.
Spending and Entitlements
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies a new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt. . . .
Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against a bill to allow consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.
Education. . . .
Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion. . . .
Energy
Voted to make fuel price gouging a Federal crime.

http://americanvisio...-says-red-state

Edited by John81, 15 February 2012 - 09:36 AM.


#17 "I am chief"

"I am chief"

    1 Tim. 1:15

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts
908
Excellent

Posted 15 February 2012 - 11:34 AM

Much better reporting by this guy. He left out the two lies Ms. Neslon had listed.

I'm still voting for Paul in the primary Mar 6. I have to vote my conscience before God.

#18 Invicta

Invicta

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,482 posts
561
Excellent
  • LocationWhitstable, Kent, England

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:31 PM

I had a programme called Dateline on the news channel today and they were discussing the US elections and though I wasn't actually watching it, at the end one of the participents said. Why has such a great party got so many extreme right wing nutcases who don't have a chance of beating Obama?

#19 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,959 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 18 February 2012 - 07:45 PM

I had a programme called Dateline on the news channel today and they were discussing the US elections and though I wasn't actually watching it, at the end one of the participents said. Why has such a great party got so many extreme right wing nutcases who don't have a chance of beating Obama?

The liberal socialists in America today are so brash that even those are barely moderate right wing are labled as extreme. The liberal socialists have gained such a hold in America they no longer are willing to tolerate anyone beyond a step or two to the right of them. Even during the last elections when the liberal Hillary Clinton was competing against the liberal socialist Obama during the presidential primaries, many on the left actually attacked Hillary as being too far to the right!

So we have candidates today who are called conservatives, extreme right wing even, that only a few decades ago wouldn't have been considered any kind of conservative. Newt, Mitt and Rick are all big government liberals yet because they are not as far left liberal as the liberal socialists, they come under attack as right wing extremists.

#20 "I am chief"

"I am chief"

    1 Tim. 1:15

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,424 posts
908
Excellent

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:43 PM

I had a programme called Dateline on the news channel today and they were discussing the US elections and though I wasn't actually watching it, at the end one of the participents said. Why has such a great party got so many extreme right wing nutcases who don't have a chance of beating Obama?


Dateline is part of NBC and MSNBC which are both ultra liberal and God hating. I only listen to them to find out what the wrong perspective is. They would be funny if they had not deceived so many people into believing a lie. Also, they are owned by General Electric (GE). Obama appointed Jeff Immelt, The General Manager of GE as leader of his Job's Council for business and economic policy development. Immelt is moving one of his medical business for xray to China investing in personal development and building technology centers there. So MSNBC is buddy-buddy with Obama.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500