Category Archives: Objectivism

The Times of Israel gives itself over to Israel bashing filth

Dutch patience with the Netanyahu government is running out | Jaap Hamburger | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/dutch-patience-with-the-netanyahu-government-is-running-out/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=27675e3a5e-2013_07_14&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-27675e3a5e-54475017

….”But it does share a point of view — and quite fairly, in my opinion — which sees Israel as by far the strongest party in the conflict, creating more responsibilities and possibilities, more so than the Palestinians, to ensure a peace agreement. And, above all, Israel is an occupying force, which binds it to international obligations to end the occupation.”…

If you wish to grasp why Objectivists use the word altruism as a by word for evil this is a textbook case of what they mean by that word. The strong are to make “peace” with genocidal maniacs because the genocidal maniacs are (thank god) weaker than their targets. I have no doubt that a similar view is shared by psychopathic scum in our own country,indeed I recall that once several years ago on the Tavis Smiley show Rep.Charlie Rangel characterized the war in Iraq as a case of the Pentagon “picking fights with nations weaker than our own”. Of all the various arguments against going to war in Iraq that is one of the most bizarre.

Why is this depraved filth being published in a periodical carrying the name of Israel? One cannot,(not “should not”) ,CANNOT make peace with those who are determined to wipe out your country. One can permit them to slaughter your citizens while pretending that good is evil & evil good as this brazen psychopath does in this piece of intellectually dishonest garbage ,but one cannot make “peace” with such barbarians. For the record I supported the withdrawal from Gaza on the deluded hope that peace might somehow result. Unlike the various frauds (Friedman etal ) I was sincere ,they professed to wish to “see” what would happen,they did,& the more the Palestinians demonstrate that they do not want peace the more brazenly they & Israel’s other enemies become. Sadly given our insane nihilistic world none of this is at all surprising to me any longer.

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Cultural Nihilism, Current events, Israel, Objectivism

The Times of Israel gives itself over to Israel bashing filth

Dutch patience with the Netanyahu government is running out | Jaap Hamburger | Ops & Blogs | The Times of Israel

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/dutch-patience-with-the-netanyahu-government-is-running-out/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=27675e3a5e-2013_07_14&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-27675e3a5e-54475017

….”But it does share a point of view — and quite fairly, in my opinion — which sees Israel as by far the strongest party in the conflict, creating more responsibilities and possibilities, more so than the Palestinians, to ensure a peace agreement. And, above all, Israel is an occupying force, which binds it to international obligations to end the occupation.”…

If you wish to grasp why Objectivists use the word altruism as a by word for evil this is a textbook case of what they mean by that word. The strong are to make “peace” with genocidal maniacs because the genocidal maniacs are (thank god) weaker than their targets. I have no doubt that a similar view is shared by psychopathic scum in our own country,indeed I recall that once several years ago on the Tavis Smiley show Rep.Charlie Rangel characterized the war in Iraq as a case of the Pentagon “picking fights with nations weaker than our own”. Of all the various arguments against going to war in Iraq that is one of the most bizarre.

Why is this depraved filth being published in a periodical carrying the name of Israel? One cannot,(not “should not”) ,CANNOT make peace with those who are determined to wipe out your country. One can permit them to slaughter your citizens while pretending that good is evil & evil good as this brazen psychopath does in this piece of intellectually dishonest garbage ,but one cannot make “peace” with such barbarians. For the record I supported the withdrawal from Gaza on the deluded hope that peace might somehow result. Unlike the various frauds (Friedman etal ) I was sincere ,they professed to wish to “see” what would happen,they did,& the more the Palestinians demonstrate that they do not want peace the more brazenly they & Israel’s other enemies become. Sadly given our insane nihilistic world none of this is at all surprising to me any longer.

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Cultural Nihilism, Current events, Israel, Objectivism

Does this idiocy merit a response? /Answering Michael Lind’s Question: Why Is No Country Libertarian?

http://www.openmarket.org/2013/06/13/answering-michael-linds-question-why-is-no-country-libertarian/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Openmarketorg+%28OpenMarket.org%29

…..”Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

“…….

RRD: “If this women’s suffrage stuff is so great how is that no nation on earth has ever given women the right to vote before now” ;that or words to that effect were no doubt spoken by an anti-suffrage Swede in 1718,similar “arguments” were made about freedom from the monarchy,religious freedom,emancipation from slavery a reduction of anti-Semitism & hatred of gays,& virtually every other right or positive development  that “civilized” countries now take for granted. It is hardly rational to say “this is not,& is without precedent ,therefore this should not be”. And is this same argument to be made against gay marriage by Mr.Lind? Or does he simply apply this ludicrous standard to economic freedom? No doubt Lind would oppose the promethean who first seized control of fire on the grounds that it was unprecedented. And what is this “21st century” drivel? Or are we back to the:”that which comes later is automatically progress & therefore good” absurdity? Was Nazi Germany an “improvement” on the Weimar Republic? Was the end of reconstruction and the return of lynchings an “improvement” on reconstruction? What of the dark ages? Was the rise of Islamic fundamentalism an improvement on the Shah’s Iran?
Note that this argument is never made by liberals against their own proposals,quite the contrary,if their proposals fail disastrously ( like the  housing projects) it is simply evidence that we need more “bold persistent experimentation” not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with their  proposals.
Nor is it true that the repeated failure of socialist states proves that socialism can never work. It proves that socialist regimes have failed repeatedly & therefore implies that such proposals should be looked at with skepticism at the least ,but in and of itself alone it does not prove that no valid argument now or in the future can ever be made for socialism.

But if Lind’s nonsense is the best argument that can be made ,then the intellectual battle against capitalism is dead & the enemies of freedom can only prevail through ignorance & inertia.

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Objectivism, Politics

Obama seeks repeat of Clinton’s failed deal with S&W,except with Wal-Mart

White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings – The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_print.html ….”

One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.

“…. RRD : For those who are new to this, Clinton tried a similiar scheme with S & W ( Smith & Wesson) ,the “thinking” was that they would pit “good” ,”responsible” gun manufacturers like S & W against “bad” gun manufacturers,then the “bad” ones would be sued,& the “good” ones would cut deals with the Federal government. What could possibly go wrong? What went wrong was that gun owners boycotted S & W into bankruptcy ;literal bankruptcy. No other gun manufacter made a deal with the federal government after that. Let those who think that pragmatism is practical take note of that,(& I include the GOP in that group). Now Obama & co. think that they can do the same thing with Wal-Mart. If the managers of Wal-Mart are ,in fact ,considering this,then what Wal-Mart ‘s managers should ask themselves is this: why would people patronize a business that helps to violate their rights? Incidentally this is yet another example of why gun owners should spread their business around to a number of local shops rather then concentrate their purchases at one major national chain: if your local gun shop goes under because Wal-Mart undercut them in price,you will be at the mercy of Wal-Mart’s corporate decisions. We “hang together” or we will be seperately hanged.

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Law, Objectivism, Politics, Second Amendment

A sense of life is not a substitute for explicit knowledge. Values which one cannot identify, ….are not in one’s control. One cannot tell what they depend on or require, what course of action is needed …

A sense of life is not a substitute for explicit knowledge. Values which one cannot identify, but merely senses implicitly, are not in one’s control. One cannot tell what they depend on or require, what course of action is needed to gain and/or keep them. One can lose or betray them without knowing it.

“Don’t Let It Go,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 210

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sense_of_life.html

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Objectivism, Politics

Obama is not Mcgovern,he is more dangerous

How Obama is,& isn’t different from previous Democrats. Hercule Poirot once remarked that the difference between murder and attempted murder is not moral,it is that the attempted murderer is incompetent,whereas the murderer was successful. In this analogy Bill Clinton would be the attempted murderer and Obama would be the murderer. Some time ago I had a argument with someone who was urging us to vote for Romney. He was arguomg that,essentially,Obama would destroy the United States. (fn1) I responded to this by noting that Republicans had been proclaiming that “this time it’s different” at least since Bill Clinton vs Bush. They made the same argument against Clinton and against Kerry that they have made against Obama. I also noted that I knew some friends who had spelled Clinton with a K as “Klinton” to indicate that he was a Communist back during his reign. To this he replied that I was ”committing a horrendous injustice” against Bill Clinton, since Clinton “backed down” and “listened”. To this, I in turn responded :”No I really do not think that I have committed a ‘horrendous injustice” against Bill Clinton by saying that he is morally no different from Obama,Clinton proposed Hillarycare,and he wanted to install backdoors into our computers and into our phones via the Clipper chip. Cowardice is not a virtue,the fact that Clinton was not as driven,and as ruthless, and as competent as Obama made him less dangerous than Obama,but there was no moral distinction between the two”. And it was that very last sentence that gave me pause,not because I was in doubt as to whether there was a moral distinction between the two,but because I had inadvertently named the main,real,distinction between Obama and Clinton,and between Obama and Kerry and between Obama and Dukakis,hell for that matter between Obama and Mcgovern. Why do we call the Health Care bill Obamacare,instead of calling it Mcgoverncare,or Dukakiscare,or Clintoncare,or Kerrycare? “Why that’s obvious,Obama passed it” Exactly,for decades Democrats have lusted after a bill that would destroy private insurance and who passed it? Why did Obama not back down? For that matter,why did Obama get elected? Yes Bush and Mccain contributed to his victory,but Obama not only won, he won by large margins,at least part of this was due to the ruthlessness of David Axelrod (who should not be underestimated in 2012,see David Mendell’s: Obama from Promise to Power), but part of the reason was simply due to the fact that Obama is a charismatic demagogue. (Charismatic to me? No. To his followers,yes,even now when many have become disillusioned,one need only show up at a moderately liberal campus to see that some people, particularly women, still swoon over the man) And once Obama was elected,he was evidently prepared to sacrifice the House to ram through Obamacare,(hell if the claims about Fast & Furious are true,then he was willing to cause Americans to die to enact gun control). This is not ”Jimmy Carter’s second term”, Jimmy Carter,Clinton,Kerry etc were buffoons by contrast,(to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh) Nor is Obama Peter Keating. Long ago,back in 2008 ,Robert Tracinski remarked that Obama was a chamelon ”like Peter Keating”,that statement,though wrong,was at least somewhat understandable in 2008. This is not 2008. There is no justification for that belief now,none,(and so far as I know, Mr.Tracinski himself jettisoned that belief around 2009) Can you picture Peter Keating ramming through Obamacare? Comparing Obama to Keating,or Obama to Clinton ,is as absurd as comparing the Republican Guard of Iraq to the Revolutionary Guard of Iran because “just as people told us that the Republican Guard was fearsome,and it wasn’t,so they are now crying wolf about the Revolutionary Guard”. Ask the Israeli soldiers who fought both the PLO and Hezbollah in Lebanon whether Hezbollah–which was trained by the Revolutionary Guard–was “no different” than the PLO . Morally they weren’t. Hezbollah,however,at the height of the conflict,nearly inflicted a one-to-one casualty ratio against the IDF. They were that well disciplined,and that tenacious. They are not buffoons,and in the political realm,neither is Obama. People sometime forget that the last time the boy cried wolf, there was an actual wolf. And speaking of the Islamic Republic of Iran,those who see no difference between Romney and Obama on foreign policy should note that it is Obama, and not Romney,who has leaked operational information which could cripple the one program–the cyberwarfare program–that has slowed down Iran’s nuclear program. If that program is defeated, Israel will be forced to stage a strike alone,and absent American support, (indeed against ”American” opposition),it will be unlikely to succeed.

Who is Leaking About Cyberattacks? « Commentary Magazine

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/04/who-is-leaking-about-cyberattacks/

Also see

Obama, Gospel and Verse – NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/opinion/26brooks.html

Should that occur we may face a nuclear first strike on the United States, or on Israel. But Romney won’t stop Iran? Perhaps not,but I doubt that he will be trying to sabotage Israel’s efforts,Obama by contrast,IS DOING THAT RIGHT NOW. There is absolutely no reason why we must vote for Romney in 2016,certainly not if he betrays us,but it will take time to build up a alternative to the current choice of evils that we are offered. But back to Obama. Far from being Keating,if I had to name a Atlas Shrugged character that he is most like,it would be–at a minimum– Walter Breckenridge,& at worst,one of the Starnes heirs, or Ellsworth Toohey,or Floyd Ferris. ( And yes I am quite serious) Footnotes: fn1. I doubt that Obama will destroy the U.S., indeed the only possible way that I think that he could reasonably do so would be if he declared martial law after a terrorist attack ,or a nuclear first strike,and attempted to impose an Alien and Sedition like bill,that could be the trigger for massive civil unrest ( a “civil war” of a kind,though of “The Troubles” variety rather than the American Civil War) But I regard this as a improbable scenario.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Objectivism, Politics, US National Security

Why I will now vote for Romney in the 2012 election (after opposing him, previously) Obamacare must be repealed,a third party will take time to build

I have previously passionately argued  against voting for Mitt Romney ,even if Obama won as a result (though I also doubted that Romney could win). I had considered voting for Gary Johnson, or for skipping the Presidential ballot and just voting for Republicans in the House and Senate.

I have changed my position and will now vote for Romney in 2012 .

My  reasons are as follows:

1. The court betrayed us by upholding Obamacare. The only remaining option for repealing this obscenity is to get Romney into office and a Republican Senate into power .
”But Romney won’t repeal it?”
We were able to prevent any Republican defections on Obamacare in 2009 by means of applying massive political pressure,if we do so again,then there is a slim, but reasonable,chance that we will succeed in pressuring the GOP into repealing Obamacare.
This is not some open ended thing where it does not matter if it is repealed in 2012 or in 2016. Once the ”benefits” kick-in, in 2014 then it will become exponentially more difficult to repeal it.
But to do so will mean that we cannot accept the “lesser of two evils” as a standard,where we will vote for any Republican,even if he supports keeping parts of Obamacare.
Imagine what the result would have been in 2009, had we called the Republicans and told them “You must not pass Obamacare,do you hear! But we’ll vote for you anyway”.

We would have lost all leverage .

This is not “practical”,it does not “buy us time”. It accelerates the decline,since the Democrats will set the standard, and the Republicans will know that we will vote for them irregardless of what they do.

You think I’m mistaken?

You think that the Republicans are ”good fellows, who just need a philosophy?”

But they have a philosophy: it’s a combination of mee-toism/second handedness (”what will the pundits say”), pragmatism (” we have to violate free market principles to save the free market”), & altruism (”people are hurting”)
And as to the claim that Republicans won’t take the voters for granted, let us look at one of the “well meaning but confused folks” who just need to be given a shot of courage;Mike Murphy on Sarah Palin :

“Most pundits thought I was wrong. Look at the crowds she can draw, I was told.
She “excites the base.”Phooey. Every presidential election
year brings forth some new nugget of conventional
wisdom from the media elite that totally misses the real
picture. Last year, the big wrong idea was this notion
that base voters have somehow become the new swing
voters. We are now told the party base – those voters who will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it – must be carefully appealed to, romanced and appeased.Under that funhouse reasoning, Palin was an inspired pick.Unfortunately for McCain, the actual swing voters, the independents who do determine the winner of the election, didn’t buy into this fantasy at all.”

To go forward, GOP must snap out of its Sarah Palin spell – Daily News

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.428766

Or as Mccain snickered: “where will they go”.

No,if we are to actually slow down this monstrosity then we must draw certain red lines:

1. Repeal Obamacare,completely

2. Oppose Cap and Trade.

3. Defend the U.S.

4. Oppose censorship.

If a candidate does not actually do any of these things, then we must be prepared to vote him out of office.

We must also work to have a fallback plan should Republicans betray us. We must look into the Libertarian Party as a possible alternative,or perhaps create a new party to replace the GOP (a “teaparty party” perhaps?) .

“But third parties can’t succeed!”

Google:”the Whigs”.

However neither a third party nor the Libertarian Party can win in 2012.

It will take time to build up a alternative.

I therefore would offer this advice (HT to Stephen Bailey)

Unless you live in a solidly red or blue state, vote for Romney.
If you live in a solidly red or blue state vote for Romney,Johnson,skip the presidential part of the ballot etc ,use your own judgement.

The U.S. has a electoral college system,it DOES NOT matter who gets the most votes. The election is determined by who wins enough electoral votes. If you live in one of the deepest red states, your state will go for Romney whether you vote for Romney,Johnson,Obama, John Galt,or stand on your head or don’t vote in the Presidential election at all. The same holds true for solidly blue states. (But make sure that your state IS actually solidly red or blue,check Realclearpolitics )
If you live in anything less than a solidly red or blue state ,vote
for Romney. And even if you live in a solidly red state ,you should attack Obama online ,and speak with any of your friends in swing states,and present the reasons I’ve given here for why they should vote for Romney . Do not lie,just explain your reasoning .

I plan to address this at greater length in future posts.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Obamacare, Objectivism, Politics

Argument from Intimidation — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/argument_from_intimidation.html ”Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. But a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.” “The Argument from Intimidation,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 143

RRD: I should note that I believe that it is possible to say something that is–in its effect–a argument from intimidation, but to do so without a malicious intent.

Leave a comment

Filed under Objectivism

Dead Girl’s chemotherapy was delayed due to Doctor’s fear of prosecution under abortion law in Dominican Republic #womensrights

Dead Girl’s chemotherapy was

image

delayed due to Doctor’s fear of prosecution under abortion law in Dominican Republic RRD: A 16 yr old girl is dead from leukemia.Her chemotherapy, which may or may not have saved her life, was delayed due to her Doctors’ fears that they would be criminally prosecuted under the Dominican Republic’s anti-abortion law A Co-sponsor of the bill has argued that the bill applies only to abortion & not to medical treatment. Save a life, or break abortion laws? http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/world/americas/dominican-republic-abortion-teen/index.html?c=&page=0 ”Bautista Rojas Gomez, the Dominican minister of health, has publicly indicated he favors chemotherapy over protecting the pregnancy, but doctors are still reluctant to act for fear of prosecution. Pelegrin Castillo, one of the architects of Article 37, says the constitutional ban does not prevent doctors from administering the treatment. It does, however, prevent them from practicing an abortion in order to treat the patient with chemotherapy. “It’s an artificial debate,” Castillo said. “What we have clearly said is that in this case doctors are authorized by the constitution to treat the patient. They don’t have to worry about anything. They have the mandate of protecting both lives.” Groups rail the Dominican Catholic Church for abortion ban – DominicanToday.com http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/local/2009/4/23/31774/Groups-rail-the-Dominican-Catholic-Church-for-abortion-ban In that regard, the Dominican Gynecology and Obstetrics Society Wednesday warned that the number of maternal deaths will increase considerably, with the approval of the article that bans the interruption of pregnancies. The entity’s president, Aldrian Almonte, said the current figure of 160 deaths for each 100,000 live births per year will increase, because doctors would be reluctant to proceed from fear of being charged in cases where they must decide on the interruption of a pregnancy to preserve the mother’s life. “Those deaths are product of the unsafe abortions. I would like of the honorable legislators to tell me what are we going to do before the presence of a woman with severe preeclampsia or eclampsia, convulsing in any emergency room around the country, what must we do, see her die to protect ourselves from the repercussions that article 30 stipulates?,” he said.” Chemotherapy starts for pregnant teen http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/world/americas/dominican-republic-abortion/index.html?c=&page=0 Teen at center of abortion debate dies http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/18/world/americas/dominican-republic-abortion/index.html?c=&page=0 ”The teen died from complications of the disease, said Dr. Antonio Cabrera, the legal representative for the hospital. “They have killed me, I’m dead, dead. I’m nothing,” her mother said. ” She was the reason for my existence. I no longer live. Rosa has died. Let the world know that Rosa is dead.” The patient was 13 weeks pregnant. Her body rejected a blood transfusion and did not respond to the chemotherapy, and her condition worsened overnight, Cabrera said. She then suffered a miscarriage early Friday, followed by cardiac arrest, and doctors were unable to revive her”

image

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Human rights, Objectivism, Politics, Religion, Womens Rights

What is Paul Ryan’s stance on abortion? #tcot #tlot #teaparty #p2

PolitiFact Wisconsin | Obama says Ryan supports banning all abortions

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/17/barack-obama/obama-says-ryan-supports-banning-all-abortions/

”From his first campaigns, in 1998 and in 2000, Ryan has said he supports an exception to any abortion ban for when the life of the mother is at risk. Abortions in such cases are rare, but they do occur.

The Obama campaign argues Ryan has been inconsistent on that point, saying Ryan does not back that exemption in cases involving a procedure known as “partial birth” abortion. Indeed, Journal Sentinel stories from 1998 quoted Ryan as clearly opposing a “life of the mother” exception in “partial-birth” abortion cases.

There is another, more recent, piece of information to consider.

Ryan is among 64 House Republicans who co-sponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act, an anti-abortion bill that declares that human life shall be deemed to begin at fertilization, and should be protected from that point.

The legislation, which has stalled, reflects the budding movement — endorsed by Ryan — to enact “personhood” rights for the unborn.

It would weaken the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision by “giving back the right to individual states to outlaw abortion,” according to Gualberto Garcia Jones, legal analyst for Personhood USA.

Some legal observers, such as Harvard University’s I. Glenn Cohen say, that the measure’s declarations — the right to life “is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person” and “every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood” — can be read as hostile to the life of the mother exception” ….

RRD:Politifact is not always accurate, so this should be taken with a grain of salt.
One other point: ”life of the mother” is a higher hurdle than ”health of the mother”.
It is also vague: how much of a danger does Ryan believe there must be? 2% risk of death? 60%?

Another site:

Paul Ryan on the Issues

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/

”Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011) Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005) Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004) Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother�s life. (Oct 2003) Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003) Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002) Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001) Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001) Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000) Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999) Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003) Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006) Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008) Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010) Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011) Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011) Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011) Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)”

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Objectivism, Politics, Womens Rights