http://www.theonion.com/articles/new…ate-rep,27371/
New Breeding Program Aimed At Keeping Moderate Republicans From Going Extinct
February 13, 2012 | ISSUE 48•07
A rare moderate Republican is safely tranquilized before being brought to his breeding pen.WASHINGTON—Saying the now critically endangered species of politician is at high risk for complete extinction within the next 10 years, Beltway-area conservationists announced plans Monday for a new captive breeding program designed to save moderate Republicans.
According to members of the Initiative to Protect the Political Middle (IPPM), centrist Republicans, who once freely roamed the nation calling for both economic deregulation and a return to Reagan-era tax rates on the wealthy, are in dire need of protection, having lost large portions of their natural terrain to the highly territorial Evangelical and Tea Party breeds.
“Our new program is designed to isolate the few remaining specimens of moderate Republicans, mate them in captivity, and then safely release these rare and precious creatures back into the electorate,” said IPPM’s Cynthia Rollins, who traces the decline of the species to changes in the political climate and rampant, predatory fanaticism. “Within our safe, enclosed habitats, these middle-of-the-road Republican Party members can freely support increased funding for public education and even gay rights without being threatened by the far-right subgenus.”
Working within a narrow three-election-cycle window to reverse the decline before extinction becomes imminent, political conservationists told reporters they have already begun the arduous process of tracking down members of the elusive breed of sensible, non-reactionary public officeholders, which a generation ago was one of the most plentiful GOP species in existence.
IPPM officials also said that while there is no guarantee they will ever be able to restore the moderate-Republican population to its once-teeming levels, “every effort must be made” to forcibly breed the species and at least keep it alive in the Midwest and Northeast, where its chances for survival remain highest.
“Last week we shot Gov. Mitch Daniels with a tranquilizer dart from a blind we’d set up near the Indiana Capitol, and we plan on mating him very soon with a senator we trapped up in Maine,” said IPPM reproductive expert Gabriel Burke, adding that forced breeding of centrist Republicans in captivity is a humane, carefully regulated procedure designed to simulate mating in the wild. “While captive specimens tend to be wary around each other at first, once they sense they’re both opponents of labor unions yet also willing to make tough compromises on collective bargaining rights, the sexual ritual begins almost instantly.”
Added Burke, “In fact, one of our specimens, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, has already been mated with five or six other regional lawmakers in the past week alone.”
Though hopes for the captive breeding program remain high, many leading political conservationists note the number of optimal habitats for moderate, freethinking Republicans across the country has shrunk drastically, with studies showing the species may never again be able to recover in areas where it has been totally eradicated, such as the South and the GOP caucus in the House of Representatives.
As they continue to search for nonextremist conservatives with the vaguest ability to compromise on social issues like abortion in cases of rape and incest, IPPM officials acknowledged they may be fighting a race against time.
“The most difficult task we have is preserving members of this disappearing breed before the desperate need for votes forces them to begin parroting borderline racist anti-immigration ideologies and accusing their opponents of being socialists,” tracker Phil Gandelman said. “We thought we had captured and tagged a truly exemplary specimen a few weeks ago, but when we studied the creature more closely, we realized it was just John McCain.”
“The poor little guy was so far gone we had to put him out of his misery,” Gandelman added.
Representatives for the IPPM said they hope their current effort will prove more successful than past attempt to propagate moderates by crossbreeding highly liberal and extreme conservative politicians, which ended in tragedy when Vermont senator Bernie Sanders was physically mauled and torn apart by Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS).
Daily Archives: February 14, 2012
Obama cutting our nuke arsenal by 80% while taking us to war
Feb 14, 8:51 PM EST
US weighing steep nuclear arms cuts
By ROBERT BURNS
AP National Security Writer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned.
Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Barack Obama’s 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.
No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations.
The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.
A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.
Obama has often cited his desire to seek lower levels of nuclear weapons, but specific options for a further round of cuts had been kept under wraps until the AP learned of the three options now on the table.
A spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, said Tuesday that the options developed by the Pentagon have not yet been presented to Obama.
The Pentagon’s press secretary, George Little, declined to comment on specific force level options because they are classified. He said Obama had asked the Pentagon to develop several “alternative approaches” to nuclear deterrence.
The U.S. could make further weapons reductions on its own but is seen as more likely to propose a new round of arms negotiations with Russia, in which cuts in deployed weapons would be one element in a possible new treaty between the former Cold War adversaries.
Stephen Young, senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which favors nuclear arms reductions, said Tuesday, “The administration is absolutely correct to look at deep cuts like this. The United States does not rely on nuclear weapons as a central part of our security.”
Even small proposed cuts are likely to draw heavy criticism from Republicans who have argued that a smaller nuclear force would weaken the U.S. at a time when Russia, China and others are strengthening their nuclear capabilities. They also argue that shrinking the American arsenal would undermine the credibility of the nuclear “umbrella” that the United States provides for allies such as Japan, South Korea and Turkey, who might otherwise build their own nuclear forces.
The administration last year began considering a range of possible future reductions below the levels agreed in the New START treaty with Russia that took effect one year ago. Options are expected to be presented to Obama soon. The force levels he settles on will form the basis of a new strategic nuclear war plan to be produced by the Pentagon.
The U.S. already is on track to reduce to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2018, as required by New START. As of last Sept. 1, the United States had 1,790 warheads and Russia had 1,566, according to treaty-mandated reports by each. The treaty does not bar either country from cutting below 1,550 on their own.
Those who favor additional cuts argue that nuclear weapons have no role in major security threats of the 21st century, such as terrorism. A 2010 nuclear policy review by the Pentagon said the U.S. nuclear arsenal also is “poorly suited” to deal with challenges posed by “unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons” – an apparent reference to Iran.
It’s unclear what calculus went into each of the three options now under consideration at the White House.
The notion of a 300-weapon arsenal is featured prominently in a paper written for the Pentagon by a RAND National Defense Project Institute analyst last October, in the early stages of the administration’s review of nuclear requirements. The author, Paul K. Davis, wrote that he was not advocating any particular course of action but sought to provide an analytic guide for how policymakers could think about the implications of various levels of nuclear reductions.
Davis wrote that an arsenal of 300 weapons might be considered adequate for deterrence purposes if that force level was part of a treaty with sound anti-cheating provisions; if the U.S. deployed additional non-nuclear weapons with global reach, and if the U.S. had “hypothetically excellent,” if limited, defenses against long- and medium-range nuclear missiles.
In 2010, three Air Force analysts wrote in Strategic Studies Quarterly, an Air Force publication, that the U.S. could get by with as few as 311 deployed nuclear weapons, and that it didn’t matter whether Russia followed suit with its own cuts.
New U.S. cuts could open the prospect for a historic reshaping of the American nuclear arsenal, which for decades has stood on three legs: submarine-launched ballistic missiles, ground-based ballistic missiles and weapons launched from big bombers like the B-52 and the stealthy B-2. The traditional rationale for this “triad” of weaponry is that it is essential to surviving any nuclear exchange.
As recently as last month the administration said it was keeping the triad intact under current plans, while also hinting at future cuts to the force. In the 2013 defense budget submitted to Congress on Monday, the administration proposed a two-year delay in the development of a new generation of ballistic missile submarines that carry nuclear weapons. That will save an estimated $4.3 billion over five years.
In congressional testimony last November, the Pentagon’s point man on nuclear policy, James N. Miller, declined to say what options for force reductions the administration was considering. Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s strategic forces subcommittee, unsuccessfully pressed Miller for key details about his policy review. As recently as last month Turner said in an interview that he feared the administration was bent on cutting the force.
In his written testimony at a Nov. 2 hearing chaired by Turner, Miller made it clear that the administration was making a fundamental reassessment of nuclear weapons requirements. In unusually stark terms he said the critical question at hand was “what to do” if a nuclear-armed state or non-state entity could not be deterred from launching an attack.
“In effect, we are asking: what are the guiding concepts for employing nuclear weapons to deter adversaries of the United States, and what are the guiding concepts for ending a nuclear conflict on the best possible terms if one has started?” he said.
Nuclear stockpile numbers are closely guarded secrets in most states that possess them, but private nuclear policy experts say no countries other than the U.S. and Russia are thought to have more than 300. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that France has about 300, China about 240, Britain about 225, and Israel, India and Pakistan roughly 100 each.
Since taking office Obama has put heavy emphasis on reducing the role and number of nuclear weapons as part of a broader strategy for limiting the global spread of nuclear arms technology and containing the threat of nuclear terrorism. That strategy is being put to the test most urgently by Iran’s suspected pursuit of a nuclear bomb.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NUCLEAR_WEAPONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
S&P report says Iran will disrupt Strait of Hormuz, pushing oil to $150
Russian Army Chief: Decision On Iran Attack To Be Made By Summer
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Nikolai Makarov says that a decision by the U.S. and Israel on whether or not to launch a military attack on Iran will be taken before the summer.
“Iran, of cause, is a sore spot. Some kind of decision should be taken, probably nearer to summer,” Makarov told RIA Novosti.
He added that Russia has created a new crisis center that receives information regarding Iran in real time.
Discord between the Obama administration and Israeli leaders over the timing of a planned strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has characterized the build-up to war.
Newsweek reported yesterday that Mossad boss Tamir Pardo made a secret visit to officials in the United States earlier this month to determine what the consequences would be if Israel bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities without first receiving the green light from Washington.
Pardo had a number of questions, including: “What is our posture on Iran? Are we ready to bomb? Would we [do so later]? What does it mean if [Israel] does it anyway?”
Meanwhile, the ratings agency Standard & Poor’s has issued three reports that predict Iran will engage in “low-level provocation” in response to sanctions by disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil choke point that Tehran has repeatedly threatened to close.
“Iranian authorities could disrupt supplies of oil from the Persian Gulf by imposing tanker inspections or boarding merchant ships in its territorial waters, supporting oil prices because markets would increasingly view armed conflict as “a real, if remote, possibility,” the report stated.
This would be beneficial for oil-producing states in the region such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain, notes the report, because such tension would push the price of oil to $150 a barrel.
Israel blamed Iran for two attacks yesterday targeting cars belonging to the Israeli embassies in New Delhi, India and Tbilisi, Georgia. Iran has denied having any involvement in the attempted bombings in which the wife of Israel’s defense attache was injured, saying they were false flag attacks launched by Israel itself to “tarnish Iran’s friendly ties with the host countries.”
A man thought to be an Iranian national was also maimed by his own bomb today after throwing a grenade at a taxi in Bangkok. When police attempted to apprehend him, he then threw another grenade which bounced off a tree and blew both of his legs off.
A “senior Israeli official says Thai police believe incident was botched terror attack,” reports Haaretz, though why the man chose an unknown Bangkok taxi driver as the target of his “terror attack” and what this has to do with Israel has not been properly explained.
http://www.infowars.com/russian-army-chief-decision-on-iran-attack-to-be-made-by-summer/
U.S. carrier crosses Hormuz amid rising Gulf tensions
(Reuters) – A U.S. aircraft carrier strike group sailed through the Strait of Hormuz Tuesday more than a month after Iran warned a different carrier — USS John C. Stennis — not to return to the Gulf as Iranian navy boats sailed by.
Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, used for a third of the world’s seaborne oil trade, if Western moves to ban Iranian crude exports cripple its energy sector.
Tuesday aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln — part of the Bahrain-based U.S. Fifth Fleet — sailed through the strait of Hormuz with the Cape St George destroyer cruising behind.
“If you listen to the (Iranian) rhetoric … you might think that there are some tensions,” Admiral Troy Shoemaker, commander of the carrier strike group nine, told Reuters.
“We obviously pay attention to that as we go through but I think we are conducting the transit as part of our normal business … Our intention is to keep it professional and routine.”
Iran is at loggerheads with the West over its disputed uranium enrichment program. It says its nuclear program is for generating electricity.
The United States, like other Western countries, says it is prepared to talk to Iran but only if Tehran agrees to discuss halting its enrichment of uranium. Western officials say Iran has been asking for talks “without conditions” as a stalling tactic while refusing to put its nuclear program on the table.
The commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf region said Sunday Iran had built up its naval forces in the Gulf and prepared boats that could be used in suicide attacks, but the U.S. Navy could prevent it from blocking the Strait of Hormuz.
Military experts say the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet patrolling the Gulf – which always has at least one giant supercarrier accompanied by scores of jets and a fleet of frigates and destroyers – is overwhelmingly more powerful than Iran’s navy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/us-usa-iran-hormuz-idUSTRE81D1PE20120214
Heightened Security in US Over Iran Threat
Feb. 14, 2012
With Iran allegedly striking out at Israeli citizens and Jewish targets around the world, Israeli and American security officials in the U.S. are on high alert.
“We expect it and we are ready,” one senior Israeli official told ABC News.
Israeli officials told ABC News that the level of personal security on high-ranking Embassy officials as well as other, lower profile officials in the U.S. is at its highest in at least five years, a response to what they called “a coordinated series of attacks.” When Israeli officials travel to and from events, ABC News has observed a notable increase in the security presence.
PHOTOS: Covert War? Iran vs. the West
Federal officials told ABC News that there is so far no specific intelligence of any threat to Israeli interests in the U.S. They also noted that in cities like New York and Washington, D.C., “the targets are much harder” than in countries like India, Georgia and Thailand, where Iran has allegedly attacked or attempted to attack in the past two days. But they also added that Iran can be “belligerent.
Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University in D.C., agreed that the recent incidents in India, Georgia, Thailand and Azerbaijan have “all the hallmarks of a concerted campaign” that could extend to U.S. soil.
“The recent attack on a Saudi official in Washington shows a willingness to attack in the United States,” said Cilluffo. “This could be an indicator of a much broader campaign and it is right to take precautionary measures.”
Those measures include routine sweeps of cars, residences, and consulates around the country, as well as the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
In New York City, where fixed police posts at the Israeli consulate have been a feature for years, additional sweeps of residences and cars are being performed in conjunction with New York City Police Department Bomb Squad members and members of other specialized police units.
“The NYPD adjusts its counterterrorism posture to include information about events overseas,” said Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne. “That’s why the public may have noticed increased NYPD presence in recent weeks at Israeli government facilities and synagogues, although there has been no specific threat in New York.”
In Philadelphia, police have issued awareness bulletins asking members of the patrol force to stay vigilant. That city also maintains a permanent presence at Israeli facilities.
In Los Angeles, officials said they have been watching Israeli facilities for weeks now and have stepped up their physical security and intelligence monitoring.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/heightened-security-us-iran-threat/story?id=15592451#.TzsOrPk8eCE
Judge Andrew Napolitano Signs Off From The Last Episode Of Freedom Watch
by Frances Martel | 10:17 pm, February 13th, 2012
Judge Andrew Napolitano closed his show, Freedom Watch, tonight with the same message of awareness of civil liberties and adherence to the ideals of the founding fathers he did every night since the show went on the air in summer 2010– except this time, it was the last time the show would air a new episode. Starting this month, Freedom Watch will be replaced by reruns of The Willis Report.
Judge Napolitano ended with an interesting statistic on the American Revolution– not that many Americans supported it at the time. In fact, only about a third of them did. “The founding fathers risked their lives, their fortunes, and their honor,” he noted, “[but] they were not saints, and originally their cause was not popular.” He noted that their government was not the sort around today, the kind that regulates “the water pressure in your shower to the size of the toilet in your home to the thickness of the leather in your shoe.” “Defending freedom– everyone’s freedom, whenever I can,” he signed off,
I had been following Freedom Watch since it was a web-only series whose guests were almost all in-house talent, when it was the sort of cable news space where opposing same-sex marriage was called a “socialist” point of view and, more than anywhere else on cable news, Rep. Ron Paul and his wing of the American right were welcomed as allies, not potential traitors. At the same time, the diversity of guests was impressive– from Arianna Huffington to Sarah Palin to Julian Assange, and all got treated just as fairly. Tonight, Freedom Watch– along with Follow The Money later in the night– leave this world for the Cable News Network in the Sky, to rest alongside Crossfire, Hannity & Colmes, and The Situation with Tucker Carlson. Judge Napolitano will still be a presence on the Fox networks– as will, likely, many of his regular guests– but nonetheless, the show will be missed.
Watch Judge Napolitano sign off (via Fox Business) below:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-judge-napolitano-sign-off-from-the-last-episode-of-freedom-watch/
Supremes told Arizona law repels ‘invasion’
WND EXCLUSIVE
Supremes told Arizona law repels ‘invasion’
Identifying illegals ‘consistent’ with goals of both state, federal constitutions
Published: 15 hours ago
author-image by Bob UnruhEmail
A brief filed today with the U.S. Supreme Court argues that Arizona’s contested state law allowing law-enforcement officers to ask about the legal status of people they encounter is justified because of the virtual “invasion” of the state by outsiders.
“As provided in the Constitution, the power to repel against invasions was … granted to both the federal and the state governments,” stated the brief filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch.
“This action is consistent with the notion that the federal and state governments are both sovereign bodies within the United States,” the brief explained. “Furthermore, the state of Arizona, with its general police power, a power the Founding Fathers intentionally did not give to the federal government, surely has the power to protect the health, safety and welfare of those residing within its borders.”
At issue before the high court is HB 1070. It was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer in April 2010, only to have the Obama administration sue three months later to block it from taking effect. Oral arguments are pending before the court.
According to documents in the case, the cost of illegal immigration into the United States is estimated at some $100 billion, and state and local governments bear about $80 billion of the load.
The Obama administration, which contends regulating immigration is the job of the federal government not the states, also filed lawsuits against similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco earlier said a judge was right to halt enforcement of the Arizona law. Among the blocked provisions are a requirement that all immigrants carry immigration registration papers, one making it a criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to work in the state and another allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.
Klayman noted that Arizona’s passage of the act sought to enforce federal immigration laws by enabling state officers to verify the immigration status of people suspected of being in the country illegally.
The Freedom Watch statement said the Obama Justice Department has “miserably failed” in securing the borders of Arizona and other states.
The group said Arizona was left with no choice but to take charge when faced with the invasion of tens of thousands of illegal aliens, some carrying guns and running drug cartel operations.
Klayman explained that the state has the authority.
He said states are granted the right to defend in the case of a “large scale invasion” and also when there is imminent danger.
“The state of Arizona faces a serious danger from the drug cartels and smugglers crossing over from Mexico. Thousands are killed near the border every year by the drug cartels, and there is an immediate danger of these crimes crossing over into the United States.”
Klayman pointed out that the state of New York has approved authorization for officers to “shoot down airplanes in order to defend against terrorist threats.” But he noted the Obama Justice Department “has chosen not to file suit against New York.
“President Obama, much like he did with Obamacare, is trying to ram its non-existent immigration enforcement policies down the throats of the American people and will stop at nothing to further illegal immigration to pander to elements of the electorate. This lack of enforcement is intended to benefit him and his Democratic Party during the period leading up to the 2012 elections,” said Klayman.
“With Congress and the executive branch unwilling or unable to provide for additional defenses of the southern border, Arizona is left with no choice but to act. It is clearly within the power of a state to provide for the safety of its citizens.”
Freedom Watch was filing on its own behalf.
The American Center for Law & Justice said it also filed a brief in the Arizona case.
“Our argument is clear: Arizona has the constitutional authority to implement policies to protect its borders and citizens – policies that mirror federal immigration law and incorporate federal standards,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.
“Because of the federal government’s inaction in dealing with illegal immigrants, Arizona passed and signed into law S.B. 1070, a constitutionally sound measure that is consistent, and does not conflict, with federal law. This case is being closely watched by many states facing similar concerns as Arizona. It’s clear that nearly 60 members of Congress and more than 65-thousand Americans understand that Arizona’s law is not only proper, but permissible under the Constitution as well. We’re hopeful the high court will reach that conclusion.”
The ACLJ brief alleges a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit should be reversed “because it exalts administrative ‘priorities and strategies’ over Congress’s clear and manifest intent to welcome state involvement in the enforcement of federal immigration law.”
The brief argues the appeals court decision “sets up an untenable conflict between congressional immigration policy and administrative ‘priorities’ that the separation of powers doctrine requires the administration to lose.”
The ACLJ simply said Arizona was right.
“Although states may not pass laws setting immigration policy, they may pass harmonious laws that further Congress’s purposes. Because S.B. 1070 is fully consonant with federal immigration laws, mirroring their standards and definitions, it is not preempted. The Ninth Circuit’s decision to the contrary is based on conjured conflicts that have no basis in statutory language or other congressionally established immigration policy.”
The ACLJ represents dozens of members of Congress: Trent Franks, Jim DeMint, David Vitter, Robert Aderholt, Michele Bachmann, Diane Black, Marsha Blackburn, Mo Brooks, Paul Broun, Michael Burgess, Dan Burton, Ken Calvert, John Culberson, John Duncan, John Fleming, Bill Flores, Randy Forbes, Virginia Foxx, Scott Garrett, Phil Gingrey, Paul Gosar, Ralph Hall, Lynn Jenkins, Walter Jones, Jim Jordan, Mike Kelly, Steve King, Adam Kinzinger, John Kline, Doug Lamborn, Jeff Landry, James Lankford, Robert Latta, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Don Manzullo, Kenny Marchant, Tom McClintock, Jeff Miller, Tim Murphy, Sue Myrick, Alan Nunnelee, Joe Pitts, Ted Poe, Mike Pompeo, Ben Quayle, Phil Roe, Dana Rohrabacher, Dennis Ross, Ed Royce, Jean Schmidt, David Schweikert, Lamar Smith, Cliff Stearns, Lynn Westmoreland, Ed Whitfield, and Rob Woodall.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/supremes-told-arizona-law-repels-invasion/
Obama’s come up with another reason to have a party at our expense
Has any other President ever hosted a jam session to celebrate anything?
Obamas to Celebrate Black History Month with Mick Jagger
Updated: Tuesday, 14 Feb 2012, 10:25 AM EST
Published : Tuesday, 14 Feb 2012, 9:22 AM EST
WASHINGTON – Mick Jagger is going to the White House. He will be part of a celebration of the blues for Black History Month at the White House next Tuesday.
Jeff Beck, B.B. King, Buddy Guy and Keb Mo will also perform.
President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama will attend.
The show will stream live on the White House web site at www.whitehouse.gov/live .
It will run on PBS stations beginning February 27.
Read more: http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/entertainment/obamas-to-celebrate-black-history-month-with-mick-jagger-021412#ixzz1mNT9vfGu
It’s no secret Santorum is a serial hypocrite
Drudge: “Paul: Time to Take Down Santorum’s Disguise”
Submitted by Barracuda_Traderon Mon, 02/13/2012 – 17:31
44 votes
Red State: “What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like”
**Links with actual bills and dates**
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-governme…
I’m not going to personally attack Rick Santorum or his wife who opted to sue her chiropractor for $500,000 because she gained weight.
Senator Santorum was stumping for a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice suits.
Whatever.
It’s no secret Santorum is a serial hypocrite.
“Do as I say, not as I did”
But Santorum’s voting record is overwhelmingly inconsistent with the campaign propaganda that comes out of his mouth.
He is not remotely a conservative or a defender of freedom. He is a big government, “Show-me-the-money” LOBBYIST. Period. End of story.
★
Defense and Foreign Policy
Voted for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
Voted against requiring the President to certify that the CWC is effectively verifiable.
Voted against requiring the President to certify that that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China, and all other countries determined to be state sponsors of terror have joined CWC prior to submitting the instrument of ratification.
Voted for the START II Treaty
Voted to allow the sale of supercomputers to China.
Voted to ban antipersonnel landmines
Voted against increasing defense spending offset by equivalent cuts in non-defense spending.
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.
Voted to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea
Voted to weaken alien terrorist deportation provisions. If the Court determines that the evidence must be withheld for national security reasons, the Justice Department must still provide a summary of the evidence sufficient for the alien terrorist to mount a defense against deportation.
Voted against delaying the India Nuclear until the President certified that India had agreed to suspend military-to-military exchanges with Iran.
Voted against the Conventional Trident Missile Program
Nominations
Voted for Richard Paez to the 9th Curcuit (cloture)
Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge
Voted for Richard Holbrooke to be Ambassador to the UN
Voted for Margaret Morrow to be District Judge
Voted twice for Marsha Berzon to the 9thg Circuit
Voted for Mary McLaughlin to be District Judge
Voted for Tim Dyk to be District Judge
Voted for James Brady to be District Judge
Labor
Voted against National Right to Work Act
Voted against Real of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages
Voted for Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor
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 against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.
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.
Voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.
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.
Voted for anti-gun juvenile justice bill.
Reform
Voted for funding for the legal services corporation.
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.
Voted for a McCain amendment to require State and local campaign committees to report all campaign contributions to the FEC and to require all campaign contributions to be reported to the FEC within 24 hours within 90 days of an election.
Immigration
Voted against increasing the number of immigration investigators
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens
Voted to give SSI benefits to legal aliens.
Voted to give welfare benefits to naturalized citizens without regard to to the earnings of their sponsors.
Voted against hiring an additional 1,000 border partrol agents, paid for by reductions in state grants.
Taxes
Voted against a flat tax.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
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 against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
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.
Welfare
Voted against food stamp reform
Voted against Medicaid reform
Voted against TANF reform
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion
Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000. Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.
Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.
Waste
Sponsored An amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million
Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Project (WA)
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 to for a $2 million earmark to renovate the Vulcan Monument (AL)
Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry
Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a state’s highway allocation
Voted to allow Market Access Program funds to go to foreign companies.
Voted to allow OPIC to increase its administrative costs by 50%
Voted against transferring $20 million from Americorps to veterans.
Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.
Voted against requiring a uniform medical criteria to ensure asbestos claims were legitimate.
Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.
Spending and Entitlements
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an 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.
Health Care
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 allow consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.
Education
Voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing
Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
Voted against requiring courts to consider the impact of IDEA awards on a local school district.
Energy
Voted to allow the President to designate certain sites as interim nuclear waste storage sites in the event that he determines that Yucca Mountain is not a suitable site for a permanent waste repository. Those sites are as follows: the nuclear waste site in Hanford, Washington; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; Barnwell County, South Carolina; and the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.
NEA
Voted for taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Voted against a 10% cut in the budget for National Endowment for the Arts.
Bankruptcy
Voted for a Schumer amendment to make the debts of pro-life demonstrators not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
★This partial list does not even include his support for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, (Bigger than Obama care) http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=902 FIVE debt ceiling increases, funding the bridge to nowhere, refusing to redirect earmark allocations to disaster relief along the Gulf Coast post Katrina, etc
★Club for Growth today rendered an opinion on U.S. Rep. Ron Paul’s charge that Rick Santorum is a “big government, big spending individual.”
Verdict: Mostly true.
From Club for Growth analysis:
During a particularly touchy exchange at the ABC News debate, Paul attacked Santorum for being a “big-government, big spending individual.” To back up this claim, Paul offered four substantive examples: that Santorum voted to raise the nation’s debt limit five times, that Santorum voted against “right to work” laws, that he voted for No Child Left Behind, and that he voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit.
Research shows that all four substantive allegations against Santorum are true.
http://www.revolutionpac.com/2012/01/club-for-growth-confirm…
★Rick Santorum: Top-tier on Most Corrupt Member of Congress list 2 years running
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/rick-s…
http://www.dailypaul.com/213706/time-to-take-down-santorums-disguise
Get ready for $5 a gallon gas
9:29 a.m. EST, February 14, 2012
American motorists have seen the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline rise above $3.50 a gallon on just three occasions, but it has never happened this early in the year. Analysts say it’s likely a sign that pain at the pump will rise to some of the highest levels ever seen later this year.
In 2008, average gasoline prices had hit inflation-adjusted records nationally by the summer, but they didn’t climb above $3.50 a gallon across the U.S. that year until April 21, according to the AAA Fuel Gauge Report. It happened again last year, but not until March 6.
But $3.50 a gallon gasoline is already here in 2012, weeks before refineries typically shut down for springtime maintenance, and weeks before the states switch from their less expensive winter blends of gasoline to more complicated and pricier summer blends.
“This definitely sets the stage, potentially, for much higher prices later this year,” said Brian L. Milne, refined fuels editor for Telvent DTN, a commodity information services firm. “There’s a chance that the U.S. average tops $4 a gallon by June, with some parts of the country approaching $5 a gallon.”
Today, for example, the national average stands at $3.511, up from $3.480 a week ago, according to the AAA report, which gets its figures from prices compiled by the Oil Price Information Service.
The average in Pennsylvania is even higher: $3.63. According to GasBuddy.com, the cheapest gas in the Allentown area as of Tuesday was $3.49, at USA Gas on West Tilghman St.
There are plenty of reasons for the high prices, and lots of reasons to fear a big price spike in the spring, said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for OPIS.
“Early February crude oil prices are higher than they’ve ever been on similar calendar dates through the years, and the price of crude sets the standard for gasoline prices,” Kloza said, later adding, “We’ve lost a number of refineries in the last six months (to permanent closure). Some of those refineries represented the key to a smooth spring transition from winter-to-spring gasoline.”
Some cities, like Los Angeles and New York, are already closing in on $4 a gallon, said Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst for GasBuddy.com.
The current national average is also 38.3 cents a gallon higher than the old record for Feb. 13, which was set last year.
Phoebe's Detention Room 