Showing posts with label Incest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Incest. Show all posts

Thursday, July 08, 2010

R.J. Harris for Congress, part 1


At first I thought that I ought not to endorse R.J. Harris. Its not that he’s not a good candidate, but, since I am an officer in the Republican Party, there might be some rule against endorsing a challenger to an incumbent in the primary. (The reason why I think there is such a rule is that Ron Paul said once that he could not endorse such challengers, but this rule may be a Texas rule or something that Ron had agreed to in exchange for some concessions. As you can see from the above video, Rand Paul is not restrained from making such an endorsement.) But now I don’t give a rat’s behind about that. I’m not going to give up my right to freedom of speech for some lousy “yes man” position. Come November, I’m not even going to hold back on endorsing third party candidates.

It’s interesting to see the logo of the Oklahoma Republican Party in back of R.J. in the above video. The field of the stars is red and the lower portion of the elephant is blue. First, they put the stars upside down to look like Satanists, and then they put them in the red field to look more like Communists. These changes seem to mirror the direction that the Republican Party has taken over last fifty years.

There are ton of reasons not to vote for Tom Cole. Cole said he believes that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest on a 2004 general candidate survey, but on a 2008 Oklahomans for Life candidate survey he selected the response indicating that abortion should be legal “[o]nly to prevent the death of the mother”. I have noticed that candidates tend to say one thing to one audience and another to another audience. Whether this is the case with Cole, a genuine change of mind, or just a flip-flop, I don’t know. But one thing is for sure, Cole lied when he check the box “[I support] Prohibit[ing] public funding of abortions and of organizations that advocate or perform abortions.” He did vote for a bill which funded abortions. R.J. is right about this.

H.R.3010 (enrolled, 109th Congress), Title V, section 508(b) states, “Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as restricting the ability of any managed care provider from offering abortion coverage...” Therefore the money can (and was in fact) appropriated to Planned Parenthood through this bill which Tom Cole voted for. Furthermore, the same bill states in section 508(a):

“The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion--(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.”

Thus, not only does the bill fund abortion indirectly by funneling money to abortion providers, but the money can be used to fund abortion directly, albeit in rare circumstances.

And Tom Cole did vote for the bailouts. What rip off that was!

When Harris says that Cole voted for “Nancy Pelosi’s Stimulus Package” he is not talking about the stimulus bill which passed at the beginning of Obama’s alleged presidency. Cole voted no on H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Cole in fact cosponsored a bill to rescind all unobligated stimulus money. “Nancy Pelosi’s Stimulus Package” is the 2008 bill in which the government just handed out money to everybody (up to $600 per person). George W. Bush signed this bill into law. But I agree with Harris that this was a bad bill. (It is a redistribution of wealth as well as a windfall for the bankers who earn interest on the money that had to be borrowed to pay for it.) The way that Harris worded his statement is a little deceptive. But Cole did in fact vote for the bill (see here and here).

Cole also supported expanding government control over healthcare (not Obama’s bill, but Bush’s Medicare expansion). Not only this, but he supports using American tax dollars to fund distribution of contraceptives in Africa. He supports federally funded welfare programs.

As of 2004, Cole did NOT support a withdraw of troops from Iraq. He said, “The U.S. must be victorious in Iraq. Our long-term interests will be strengthened by a free and democratically governed Iraq. I support President Bush's efforts to advance liberty and the war on terror.” He has no problem with pre-emptive strikes against nations which have committed no crimes against the United States or its citizens, wasting our efforts when we could be concentrating on catching the real criminals. What a waste of lives and money. (Cole was not elected to Congress until after they voted for the unconstitutional “Authorization of the Use of Military Force” in Iraq in 2002.)

Finally, he supports the continued involvement of the United States in world organizations like the U.N., WHO, NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT which are dismantling our national sovereignty piece by piece.

This post is getting to be a little too long so I will discuss Mr. Harris’ positions on the issues next week. For more on Tom Cole's dismal record, click here. To read the post in this series, click here.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

On Abortion, Where Do They Stand?


I have read some things about Fred Thompson that make me not want to vote for him. In 1994 he said that he believed that abortion should be legal in the first trimester of the pregnancy and other statements which seemed totally pro-choice. He now says that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and he would leave it up to the states to decide the law. But the right to life is guaranteed by the Constitution which should not be superseded by the states. As recently as this year he said that he would not vote for a law that would “criminalize a young woman” for choosing to have an abortion. He has said that he would not use abortion as a “litmus test” when selecting Supreme Court justices. I have not seen anything that would indicate that he has changed his mind about this. He has said recently that he believes that abortion should legal in cases of rape and incest and that he would not be in favor of either an amendment to the Constitution to ban abortion or to ban gay marriage.

If both an abortion doctor and a woman who is to receive an abortion conspire to murder the unborn baby, then they are both guilty. It is unacceptable to only punish one of the guilty parties. Anyone who consents to the abortion is guilty and should be punished just as if he or she did the same thing to any other innocent person. There should be equal protection under the law as the Constitution says. The National Right to Life’s endorsement of Fred Thompson means nothing at all to me.

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=57977

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Fred_Thompson

http://www.principledpolicy.com/?p=114

John McCain voted for federally funding embryonic stem cell research. I read that he believes that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest.

Mitt Romney used to be for legal abortion and special rights for homosexuals. He says he has changed his mind about these issues, but he still believes that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. He is a Mormon and their Prophet (the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) recently made a proclamation that it is acceptable for Mormon women to have abortions in cases of rape, incest, and certain birth defects.

Rape is a horrible thing, but only the rapist should punished, not the innocent child. Such a child is no less of a person than any other baby. I have decided that I will never compromise on this when I vote. A candidate must be 100% pro-life.

Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo are the ones who believe that all abortions should be illegal. Duncan Hunter favors a Constitutional Amendment that would explicitly say that personhood begins at conception. Ron Paul and (I think) Mike Huckabee favor leaving it up to the States. I’m not sure of what Tom Tancredo’s exact position is on this.

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=1657#Result

http://www.principledpolicy.com/?p=110

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=17030

http://www.teamtancredo.com/issues.php

http://senate.ontheissues.org/Tom_Tancredo.htm

I saw one debate in which Tancredo and Paul said that they would not necessarily support whoever becomes the Republican nominee. But the rest of the candidates basically said that they would (even if it is Rudy Giulliani!!!???). The way Sam Brownback said this was particularly nauseating—thank God he dropped out.