In an article titled “ Rick Santorum for President ,” conservative authoress Michelle Malkin throws her support behind the former Pennsylvania senator. Malkin argues that Santorum would be the best choice for the GOP and she does this by citing his political record. However , lest she be written off as a shameless Santorum shill, she also makes sure to point out that like the other Republican candidates, he has some shortcomings. Malkin begins by highlighting Santorum’s conservative credentials: his opposition to TARP, the fact that he didn’t “cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008,” that he is not among the GOP nominees (i.e. Romney and Gingrich) who supported the bailouts and he didn’t have to “obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did.” Furthermore, Santorum “strongly opposed the auto bailout,” the Freddie and Fannie bailout, “porkulus” bills, and he “ clearly and forcefully ” opposed individual health care mandates. He also voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted “Yes” to drilling in ANWR, and, unlike some of the other GOP candidates, he never “dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren , Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi ,” as Malkin puts it. “Santorum is strong on border security , national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement,” Malkin writes, “Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed .” Another feather in his cap: unlike Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) and the former Speaker of the House, Santorum hasn’t attacked Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital with, in the words of Malkin, “ contemptible Occupier rhetoric .” However, as mentioned in the above, Santorum also has some shortcomings. “As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects,” Malkin writes. Santorum “lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives” and he was a ” go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era,” according to Malkin. “He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey,” Malkin continues. “I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul,” she writes. So, why isn’t she writing an article titled “Ron Paul for President”? Because, according to Malkin, the Texas congressman is a “far-out, Alex Jones-panderer” on foreign policy, defense, and national security. Malkin writes: If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul. What about Mitt Romney? Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassacor John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t changed for me in 2012. Should we even ask what she thinks of Newt Gingrich? Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn. I’ve been making this point for years and have chronicled his dalliances with leftists as long as anyone in the conservative blogosphere. Many grass-roots conservatives were awakened to Newt’s double-talk and double-dealing during the NY-23 race . Inconvenient truth: Newt’s transgressions are not from decades ago. It’s not ancient history. It’s here and now. Readers of this blog know the truth: It’s not just “the GOP establishment” that’s repulsed by Gingrich’s combination of moral baggage and K Street/Beltway culture of corruption. It’s the very grass-roots that Gingrich’s cheerleaders purport to represent. Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer. It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.” For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine. Therefore, given that two of the four remaining GOP candidates are, in her eyes, part of “the machine,” and that she finds Paul’s stances on foreign policy and national security inadequate, this leaves her with one option: the former senator from Pennsylvania. “Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them,” Malkin writes.
See the rest here:
Michelle Malkin: ‘Santorum for President’
If you missed tonight’s Republican debate, the 18th of this cycle, and featuring questions on sugar subsidies, the Terri Schiavo decision from 2005, “Why didn’t the Bush tax cuts work?” and what the candidates fear about the presidency . . . you won! Full report in tomorrow’s Morning Jolt . . .
Read the rest here:
What You Missed Monday Night
Another fine essay from Barry Rubin, at Pajamas Media , ” Are You Left-Wing or Right-Wing? Hopefully, I’m Honest-and-Accurate Wing “: I ran into an older, retired Israeli colleague who is a fine scholar in his field. We hadn’t met for 25 years and agreed to have coffee in a nearby Tel Aviv cafe. In the ensuing conversation I learned some key things about why current
Official White House photo The Land of Obama Make-Believe by Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate Copyright 2012 Where did President Obama go after killing off thousands of Keystone XL pipeline construction and manufacturing jobs? Why, Disney World, of course. Sabotaging work is hard work for Goofy and his pals. And where’d he head after that? Why, up to Manhattan for more high-priced campaign fundraisers charging up to $38,500 per partier. The business of wining and dining politically connected donors ain’t child’s play, you know. Obama touted a White House foreign tourism initiative on Thursday with Cinderella’s castle as his backdrop. “America is open for business,” he proclaimed chirpily to the rest of the globe. Tell that to the Keystone managers in Canada whom Obama and his State Department rebuffed — after years of planning and review — in order to appease militant environmentalists and Hollywood celebs. The Animatronic Divider robotically lambasted Republicans for pushing him to make a decision this week. But Senate and House Democrats issued the sharpest rebukes to White House obstructionism: “President Obama’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline is a major setback for the American economy, American workers, and America’s energy independence,” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said. “The rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is a missed opportunity to drastically turn this economy around. This pipeline would have created thousands of new jobs and helped to ensure our energy independence,” Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., lamented. “This delay is just playing politics with American jobs and American energy security,” Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, pointed out. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle scratched their heads as the job-snuffer-in-chief bolted to Orlando’s fantasyland to promote economic growth. But there’s no more fitting place on Earth for the man whose escapist administration occupies the land of make-believe and no consequences. (Bonus moment: Obama got to shake hands with Mickey Mouse, who infamously turned up on a Florida ACORN voter registration form in 2008. Constituent outreach at its most surreal.) On the very same day he quashed Keystone, Obama released his first campaign ad of 2012 — hyping his stellar record on energy jobs. It’s Opposite Day at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 365 days a year. Even more comically, the ad touted his exemplary ethics record by quoting a moldy three-year-old endorsement from left-leaning Politifact. And as bipartisan Capitol Hill outrage over the half-billion-dollar Solyndra solar stimulus bust mounts, Obama had the nerve to sprinkle his inaugural campaign spot with — wait for it — solar panels. Instead of supporting new infrastructure jobs in America through an energy independence-enhancing project that has bipartisan legislative support on Capitol Hill, the president flew to Disney World to peddle looser visa restrictions in China and Brazil by executive order . He also will expand the Visa Waiver Program (a security loophole-ridden program that was suspended temporarily after the 9/11 terrorist attacks) to speed foreign travel. In case anyone needs reminding, it was the relentless drive of the tourism industry and kowtowing State Department bureaucrats that led to the Bush-era Visa Express Program, which relaxed visa policies, eliminated in-person consulate interviews and opened the door to the 9/11 hijackers. Brazil is just the latest base for al-Qaida and other Islamic jihadi groups. It does not consider Hezbollah or Hamas terrorist groups, and it disbanded its anti-terrorism force in 2009. The Visa Waiver Program and other efforts to expedite the tourist visa process also pose continuing security risks because — as the Government Accountability Office itself admitted last year — there is still no comprehensive, systematic way to track the 70 million-plus foreign visitors who enter the country on tourist and other short-term visas. Indeed, half of the nation’s estimated 20 million illegal aliens are visa overstayers. How many of the new Disney foreign tourists whom Obama is touting as America’s economic salvation will fail to return to their home countries after their Obama World visas expire? We’ll likely never know. And Team Obama doesn’t care. In his opening campaign ad salvo, Obama accuses his opponents of being “untethered to facts.” But this is an administration that believes lowering visa standards and risking homeland security to pump up Disney foreign tourism is a better path to economic recovery than supporting direct American job creation and enhancing energy security. Like the Disney characters he posed with this week, our cartoonish president is wholly untethered to reality.
Read more:
The Land of Obama Make-Believe
The White House is sending President Obama to a familiar place: the land of make-believe. He’ll be at Disney World on Thursday to push for relaxing tourist visa requirements in the name of boosting the economy. From the Orlando Sentinel via William Amos: President Barack Obama will visit Walt Disney World during a planned trip to Orlando on Thursday, according to a White House aide. There, he will “unveil a strategy that will significantly help boost tourism and travel,” the aide added. Details on that strategy were not disclosed. But it would be hard for Obama to pick a locale that’s better known than Disney for a tourism announcement. The resort giant in Orlando has four theme parks that collectively draw more than 45 million visitors a year. It doesn’t appear, however, that he’ll get much love from local politicians. Aides to U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said the Florida Democrat was unlikely to attend because the office “got word too late” of the visit and had meetings planned in other parts of the state. And Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer is scheduled to be in Washington that day for a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. While the details of the announcement are still unknown, there’s one topic at the top of the political wish list for Central Florida’s tourism industry: Visa reform. The tourism industry has been pushing Congress and Obama to make it easier for visitors from emerging nations such as Brazil, India and China to come to the U.S. as tourists. In Brazil, where citizens have a reputation for loving Orlando’s theme parks, there are four consulate offices to conduct the required in-person interviews for people who want a visa to visit the U.S. That means families could have to travel several hundred miles before they are even approved to travel to the U.S. In case anyone needs reminding, it was the relentless drive of the tourism industry and kowtowing State Department bureaucrats that led to the Bush-era Visa Express program — which relaxed visa policies, eliminated in-person consulate interviews, and opened the door to the 9/11 hijackers. Brazil, may I remind you, is just the latest base for al Qaeda and other Islamic jihadi groups; it “does not recognize Hizbollah or Hamas as terrorist groups and disbanded the Federal Police’s anti-terrorism service in 2009.” We never learn , do we?
Go here to see the original:
Obama heads to Disney World to push looser visa policies
During an appearance Sunday on ABC’s This Week , Republican candidate for president Texas Rep. Ron Paul hastily interjected before interviewer Jake Tapper could even finish asking about claims that the congressman supported conspiracy theories in regards to the September 11 attacks. “TAPPER: One of your former close aides recently said that you, quote, ‘engaged in conspiracy theories, including perhaps the 9/11 attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time.’ So have you ever expressed in front of anyone… PAUL: Now, wait, wait, wait, wait. Don’t — don’t go any further on that. That’s complete nonsense. TAPPER: It’s nonsense? PAUL: Just stop that. TAPPER: Not true? PAUL: Yeah, no. I did not — I never bought into that stuff. I never talked about it. TAPPER: OK. PAUL: About the conspiracy of Bush — of Bush knowing about this? No, no, come on. Come on. Let’s be reasonable. TAPPER: OK. PAUL: That’s just off-the-wall.” There have been questions raised in the past on whether Paul is sympathetic to so-called “9/11 Truthers,” and conspiracy theories on the attacks. The latest claims came from former Paul staffer Eric Dondero, who accused Paul of engaging in 9/11 conspiracies, being Anti-Israel and an isolationist, among other allegations in a stunning post on Right Wing News last week. CBS had reported that during a campaign stop last month, Paul said Bush administration officials were gleeful after the 9/11 attacks, for it gave the White House a pretext to invade Iraq. “Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq,” CBS reports Paul told a group of mostly young backers in Iowa on December 8. On Sunday, Paul appeared ardent in disassociating himself from any links to 9/11 conspiracy theorists. ABC Video: video platform video management video solutions video player
The rest is here:
Ron Paul Forcefully Denies Ever Supporting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
The diligent crew at NewsBusters has uncovered an outrageous post by the left-wing blog “Daily Kos” asserting that North Korea is in fact no worse than South Korea or even the United States. The article, entitled “North Korea & Hysteria, Madness,” written by Niccolo Caldararo – an adjunct professor of anthropology at San Francisco State University – complains that “the Western media wallows in the exotic and North Korea has been the clown of the 20th century.” He goes on to claim that North Korea is merely “brought forward for comic relief now and then or pasted up as a ‘paper tiger,’ to scare voters before elections or as a distraction for other important news.” NewsBusters’ Tim Graham writes that, to hear the professor tell it, the capitalist imperialists are licking their chops after the death of Kim Jong Il: “Let’s face it, North Korea is ripe for capitalism, there are millions of potential workers who will work for near nothing. The hope is that the regime will crumble like the Soviet Union and give way to massive investment opportunities.” Arguing that North Korea is “no less responsible toward its own citizens” than South Korea or America, Caldararo writes: While North Korea may behave in a strange fashion at times, its political history is no less responsible toward its own citizens than the history of the South [Koreans], especially the recent history that was dominated in the 1960s to 1980s by dictatorial regimes that practiced torture and mass arrest. While we hear of starvation and torture in North Korea, these are far less well documented than the recent history of the South. As for the nuclear weapons issue, we should also recall that the USA has been the only country to use nuclear weapons, and we used them on civilians. If the world is to be afraid of the use of these weapons by a renegade nation, one should look at the definition of the word in the context of the Bush Administration waging war in violation of international law and by the use of evidence it knew was tainted. We cannot expect a world of law and respect after such behavior. The professor believes that “ignorance and fear” is what drives judgement of North Korean action and even went on to quote Cicero, stating, “There can be no peace without justice.” Caldararo also argued that the communist regime was actually brought on by America: The specific kind of leadership and government North Korea has today is the result of its history, and especially its most recent history with America. We must consider that from the end of W.W.II until 1987 South Korea was a brutal dictatorship. Its prison camps and torture chambers were filled with not only political prisoners but also ethnic minorities and religious objectors, in fact, anyone who dared to challenge the injustice and corruption of the regime. All this time South Korea’s government had the full support of the USA. North Koreans remember this horror and base part of their posture to the USA on this history… NewsBusters points out that when several commenters disagreed with Caldararo about his stance on North Korea, the professor arrogantly dismissed them as uneducated: “I love how people think they know what is happening in countries they have never even visited.”
