Critics of Senator Santorum’s Economic Plan are entitled to their Own Opinions but not their Own Facts

A considerable number of conservatives have expressed criticism at Rick Santorum’s manufacturing plan. Incidentally, many of them have a horse in the race – someone other than Santorum - and that’s pretty understandable and perfectly fine. It’s still a free country where people may publicly disagree with the president and anyone else they so much as desire. When taking someone’s plan to task, though, it would be most beneficial to be factual especially if attempting to promote a rival candidate. If one’s disagreement is full of falsehoods and non-factual information then not only won’t they be successful in convincing many that their argument is correct, they present themselves to the public as possibly uninformed and more likely to be purposely misleading.

For those unfamiliar with Santorum’s "Made in America" Plan it is one portion of his economic plan and is in itself a lengthy and detailed plan. The Plan includes but is not limited to pushing for a balanced budget amendment, removing unnecessary burdensome regulations, granting permission to increase of energy production, providing authorization for the Keystone Pipeline, simplifying the tax code, reducing taxes to the Reagan-era pro-growth top tax rate, and completely eliminating the corporate income tax for manufacturers from 35% to 0%. For the complete details please check out the link provided above.

It is the last item I’ve mentioned – the elimination of the corporate income tax for manufacturers - at which many have expressed their opposition and for a variety of reasons. I’ve decided to review the criticisms and then explain the facts surrounding this one aspect of Santorum’s economic plan, since lots of untruths are circulating.

A popular argument is the notion that Santorum is playing class warfare by favoring one group over the rest of the country. A second misconception which has circulated widely is that his plan favors big unions. A third criticism often put out is that the problem manufacturers face is not increased taxes but burdensome regulations and that Santorum’s plan doesn’t address it. A fourth claim is that this is a minor tinkering of the tax code which will result in nothing but increased taxes in another sector to make up for the loss in federal income.

All of these complaints appear quite serious, except that none of them are based on the facts.

Firstly, Santorum’s plan is unrelated to class warfare. Class warfare is pitting the poor against the rich, employees against employers, and so forth. Class warfare is usually achieved through placing a strong emphasis on the bounty others have and comparing it to the state of those who have less in order to create strong emotions of envy and unfairness in those with less. The politician then promises to punish those better off – such as taxing the rich guys – while extending help to the little guy via handouts aka tax-cuts/tax credits by spending other people’s money in order to “make things fair.”

Secondly, Santorum’s plan doesn’t turn employees against employers or anything of a similar nature. It simply eliminates the corporate income tax for manufacturers of all sizes and stripes as an incentive for manufacturing companies which have left the USA and gone to countries with fewer burdensome regulations and lower taxes to return to American shores. His plan will once again make the USA a country where it is financially worthwhile to manufacture goods rather than making them elsewhere and then having the goods shipped over. The elimination of the corporate income tax for manufacturers thus benefits the owners of manufacturing companies in order to benefit the overall economy of the US. The economy will receive a much-needed boost since the creation of many businesses will lead to the employment of millions who’ve previously watched their jobs be shipped overseas.

Santorum has put forward an actual plan (and not a twitter hash-tag like Newt’s 2.50) for a sector of the economy that’s crumbling and shrinking at a time when million are unemployed and many have despaired of finding a job. Santorum has also clearly explained why manufacturing requires additional reductions over local retailers and other companies who will also watch their taxes being cut. This is because your local pharmacy isn’t disappearing to China and neither will your grocer. It is manufacturing and jobs that are disappearing from this country and in order to be competitive with the rest of the world one has to look at the global rate and adjust accordingly.

This is the exactly what Obama and the left so strongly oppose; the trickle-down theory which keeps government out of the lives of the people.

Those who describe Santorum’s plan as pro-Union have portrayed his plan as though he were out to specifically favor union workers/bosses over the rest. This is completely untrue and those using this argument are either uninformed or purposefully misleading. The only method for unions to benefit from Santorum's plan is if they are successful in signing up more workers into their membership. This may occur since Santorum’s plan will lead to a greatly increased number of American workers, yet is far from guaranteed to happen since Santorum has also promised as a president to push for “right-to-work” on a national level.

Even if unions do increase their membership levels, then that in its own right will be proof of the success of Santorum’s plan. It will provide clear data that removing government from the picture has led to business owners hiring many workers, thus creating a considerable number of new jobs and new union members. This may indirectly lead to benefit unions but so be it if that’s one of the results of an improved economy and millions of new jobs. Unlike Democrats who only seek to benefit specific voting blocs and political donors, Santorum is out to create equal opportunity for all Americans.

Manufacturing currently costs over twenty percent higher in the USA than in other countries excluding labor costs because of regulations and taxes. This has caused and continues to cause many manufacturers to flee the country. Those who attack Rick’s plan to eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers as a worthless solution while explaining that the key to increasing manufacturing is cutting regulation, have proven that they are unable to walk and talk simultaneously. The argument displays their ignorance and lack of research in a day and age when information is available at one’s fingertips. Or worse yet, some are attempting to purposely omit Santorum’s heavy focus on regulation, somehow thinking that if they ignore it then it doesn’t exist.

For the sake of those truly uninformed, here’s a link to a video in which Rick Santorum speaks to voters in which he labeled the removal of all unnecessary regulations as Step Number One and only then continued to Step Number Two which is the reduction of the manufacturing tax to zero.

Additionally, Santorum is the only GOP candidate to have opposed from the start the burdensome regulations the government enforced on the people based on the bogus global warming facts. His support for increased energy production through additional drilling, nuclear energy plants, and all other forms of safe energy had never wavered. Newt and Romney, though, supported government regulation - as recently and to the far extreme as having supported Obama’s Cap & Trade.

As for the last misinformed case against Santorum’s plan, his Made in America plan does indeed eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers. In today’s topsy-turvy world where Obama “cut taxes” for people who pay no taxes, cutting taxes is seen as the government sending (back) a check to people/companies and thus thought of as a federal expense. This is not the case here and whenever true tax cuts occur. Tax cuts aren’t refunds. They simply allow the company to keep more/all of the money which they’ve earned. As for the government making up the money they’ve received until now through the raising of taxes of other groups, Santorum’s plan includes tax cuts for ALL as can be viewed here. He thus won’t raise the taxes of another group because he’s cutting everyone’s taxes.

The question of how the government will manage with fewer taxes is null and for two reasons: Firstly, lower taxes leads to increased government revenue since it jumpstarts the economy. Even though manufacturers will pay zero % on corporate income tax, the tremendous growth of newly employed people who will pay the new lowered rate of taxes, will lead to considerable federal income.

Secondly, and equally importantly, a large focus of Santorum’s economic plan is to cut government spending with five trillion in the next five years thus reducing the amount the government will require to operate. Santorum plans to shrink continuously the size of government while working with all states to accept a Balanced Budget Amendment. Newt supporters who use this argument of “how will the government manage with reduced funding” when discussing Santorum’s plan is pretty ironic when considering their applause for Newt for similarly saying that he’ll cut taxes and reduce government expenses to match the money that comes in.

Santorum has had the guts in the past to create actual reform – he had written the successful welfare reform – and continues to present actual details in the actions he will take. He doesn’t just throw platitudes and empty promises, but addresses all the issues facing this nation including but not limited to the economy. Santorum focuses on the importance of energy Independence, the need to bring jobs back to America, and so much more including the freedom –grabbing Obamacare. The success of his campaign therefore isn’t hinged solely on the price of gasoline as Newt’s is, or the unemployment levels, as Romney’s is. He can successfully battle Obama on every topic since he’s the only one who provides the contrast to Obama we so desperately need. 



 

Values, Morality, and G-d Given Rights are Winning Issues

Santorum has put forward an economic plan, a path to increase our energy, and his views on foreign policy. There’s one plan which he hasn’t put forward, as the others have, and I commend him for that. It’s the type of plan he had fought against in blue Pennsylvania both as a Senator and as a congressman. That plan consists of sweeping moral values under the carpet because it’s not too popular especially amongst the youth and thereby bidding goodbye to a normal society.

Santorum had been extremely outspoken on the conservative view of social issues during his representation of the state of Pennsylvania, he did not lose his seat because of social issues. He lost his reelection run for the Senate – after winning twice – because of his strong support for Bush on the Iraqi Surge and his calls for serious sanctions on Iran before they become nuclear. The Democrat Party pounced upon the vehement anti-war and anti-Bush emotions at the time and spent millions upon millions in ads against Santorum depicting him as a lover of war and warmonger. Indeed, many Republicans had lost their seats that year, including Rick Santorum who represented a purple/blue state. As an aside, since his warnings about Iran had gone largely unheeded, Iran is now mere months away from amassing nuclear arms and the world is currently deep in debate whether or not to bomb Iran.

Many conservatives are concerned that if one speaks in defense of moral values than it is impossible to win. This is inherently false. Firstly, speaking of social issues doesn’t mean the candidate ignores all other issues. Santorum has a great economic proposal, discusses it far more often than he does of social issues, and released a powerful video last week in which he makes the speaks directly to the voters explaining why they should support him for economic reasons.

Secondly, many are making the argument that Gingrich is every bit a social conservative as the former senator from Pennsylvania and that they therefore both carry “the same historical advantage “social conservatives have proven to have. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case with Newt. Newt Gingrich had melted the phone-lines of Republican candidates in 2010 warning them to not dare mention they support a single conservative social issue. This is in exclusion of Newt’s past lack of values and morality in his personal life and his fuzzy political record regarding social issues. Keep in mind as well that Newt served as a representative of a conservative district within a conservative state while Rick Santorum represented a blue state.

Newt’s advice and position on social conservatism has thus placed him at a historical disadvantage as explained by Jeff Bell in the link provided above. Bell proves that including social issues in one’s campaign agenda has proven throughout the last hundred years of American history to serve as an advantage to Republican presidential and congressional candidates. From 1932-1964 social topics were off the table, and Republicans won only 2 out of 9 presidential elections and had control of Congress for only four years. Comparatively, from 1968 when social conservatism became alive again, Republicans won 7 out of 11 presidential elections. Far more states support social conservatism than states that don’t. Read the entire article for additional surprising information.

The left and media desire to silence the conservative voice on social issues and have therefore resorted to the use of force against morality. They’ve passed hate-crime legislation so they can threaten conservatives who dare to speak out against immorality and have turned to courts and legislation to redefine marriage. They’ve thus forced through the legalization of gay marriage even in states where the people have voted against it, thus proving they don’t care what the people truly desire. They are now attempting to make contraception the new civil-liberty rights as though women are unable to purchase it on their own and are helpless if their employers don’t cover for their irresponsible and/or immoral behavior.

Santorum had said he wanted to throw up when listening to Kennedy’s phony separation of church and state speech in which Kennedy misinterpreted the true intentions of the founding fathers. Indeed, thanks to Kennedy’s revised definition, the liberals have been able to force their ideology upon the American people such as banning all religion from all public arenas including the mention of G-d’s name in public schools.

Lastly, If the last hundred years of history in is country is not enough to sway your belief that social issues are a detriment, or you dismiss it as merely coincidental, here’s proof from the last couple of years. Think of liberal California which is the bastion of liberalism. Despite their liberalism, the people of California have spoken out against their legislators and supported proposition eight which overturned the legislation which legalized gay marriage.

Here’s an even more recent example and one which I’ve experienced from up-close.

I am an Orthodox Jew from Brooklyn and live near NY9 of which the disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner was forced to resign. Both parties chose candidate to represent them in a district where the GOP hadn’t won a nomination in close to hundred years and was sure to lose once again. If this was the case when they put forth polished politicians, then it was certainly a given if an unknown candidate without any charisma, money, or political experience were to compete. Yet, this is exactly the type of guy the GOP had put forth for they had no-one else willing to run; a non-politician with limited money, no professional smile, and absolutely zero experience in running a campaign.

The Donkey Party, on the other hand, handpicked an Assemblyman who was an experienced fundraiser, had many political connections, and loaded with charisma. To top it off, the Democratic candidate was a Jew and NY9 is a district where 33% of its voters are Jewish. It was thus clear to all from the start that Weprin, the Democrat candidate, was heading to a landslide victory.

However, one seemingly minor item went unnoticed to the Democrat party heads in their nomination of their candidate. They were surely aware of it, but didn’t dream of the effect it would have on the voters. Weprin, the Democrat candidate, had voted several months earlier to legalize gay-marriage in New York. Prior to the vote in the Assembly, Weprin had stood up and addressed the Assembly. He said that he asked his Rabbi if he would officiate a wedding between a Jew and a gentile, to which his Rabbi replied, “Absolutely Not.” Weprin then used this to “prove” that just as no law would enforce his or any religious leader to do the above until now, the current law won’t mandate any religious leaders to act against their belief. Weprin finished off in expressing pride on his vote for this “civil rights” bill and encouraged others to throw their support behind it as well.

Listen closely, my fellow conservatives. The election between Turner and Weprin took place last year. It came on the heels of the success of the Tea Party in 2010 which was instrumental in obtaining many seats in Congress through the focus on the economy and Obamacare. The Republican candidate in NY9, Bob Turner, could’ve chosen to focus on the economy –as was actually expected of him. Instead he chose to also spend considerable focus on something Gingrich said we dare not touch in 2010 especially in non-conservative districts; social issues. And as is now known to all, Bob Turner is currently the Congressman for NY9 and is actually gearing up to run for the Senate since his seat is disappearing due to redistricting.

Social issues have proven time and again to help conservative candidates, not the other way around despite the media attempts to spin it as such. And to repeat once again, supporting moral values is NOT a contradiction to being a fiscal conservative, correct on foreign affairs and many other issues.

In addition to social issues, Santorum shared the conservative viewpoint in his opposition against amnesty, TARP, government mandates, government take-overs, and phony global warming-turned-climate change to name a few. Although Newt now speaks the conservative talk, his record shows he’s walked the liberal walk in all of the above.

G-d desires morality. No religion in the world’s history except the liberal religion has proclaimed that marriage is anything else but between a man and woman/women. Thanks to liberalism many school children are now taught against their parents’ will that same-gender marriage is equal to traditional marriage!!

Why would someone who believes in a G-d who runs every aspect in the world want to throw morality under the bus simply because it has become unpopular amongst some? Why wouldn’t you stand up and support a candidate who respects morality and isn’t afraid to defend G-d’s will in public? All we need is the courage to stand up for what’s right and you’ll be pleasantly surprised that a majority of the country still respects a moral society.

A Call For Unity! Washington Caucus this Saturday is our last chance to slam Romney prior to Super-Tuesday!

Romney has received a boost last night after having won Arizona and his home-state Michigan and he appears to be heading into Super Tuesday which takes place next week with a renewed momentum.

There is though one more election prior to Super Tuesday - during which ten states vote. The state of Washington will be holding their caucuses this Saturday, March 3rd, and if Romney loses the state, his momentum won't have a chance to grow before being knocked off its feet.

Conservatives have been split from the start of the primary over who they desired as the GOP primary. Some supported Rick Perry, others supported Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or some other individual which chose not to run. Voting for any of the above except for Santorum or Newt might provide the voter with a momentary feeling of satisfaction. However, that satisfaction will be extremely fleeting if the candidate who is viewed by all as the most anti-conservative wins the voters home-state, and even more so if that victory consists of a small margin.

The only ones left in the race who can still overcome Romney during the primary itself, are Newt and Santorum. The majority of conservative voters are now split between the two with each of them taking turns in rising and falling only to rise once again. It is okay to disagree over which one of the two is better suited to take on Obama or for the role of the presidency and it is also perfectly fine to long for a candidate who is no longer/never had been in the race. 

However, we've got to be realistic about the current situation and take positive action in the areas it can have an effect. An overwhelming majority of conservatives agree to the necessity of taking down Romney and it is still possible to achieve this goal.

In addition to his ultra-liberal record, endless flip-flops, and outright lies, his nasty and vicious bullying simply has got no room in our party. All of us, and especially Rick Perry supporters, haven't forgotten Romney attacking and trashing Perry for speaking the truth about social security by calling it exactly that which it is; a Ponzi scheme. Neither have any of us forgotten, most of all of course if you supported Herman Cain, of the sudden mysterious women popping up one after another with harassment claims against the then-front runner Cain.

These are two quick examples from the start of the campaign which have become somewhat covered up in our memories due to the dozens of additional bully tactics the Romney team has engaged in against Newt and Santorum.

The most recent poll taken of the state in Washington was taken by PPP Polling during 2/16-2/19 - prior to the elections in Arizona and Michigan. The poll results had Santorum leading Romney with 11% with Santorum having received the support of 38% while Romney received 27% and Newt got 12% of those polled. Romney's numbers have likely improved somewhat since he's won two states this Tuesday and it's crucial to prevent him from winning this one last state before Super Tuesday.

If conservatives will put their differences aside for just this one day and State and unite behind Santorum so that the results of the Washington caucuses this Saturday are "a Romney Defeat," it will send an extremely powerful message to the GOP establishment. It will show them that we are serious in wanting our voice and message represented and that if they wish to force a liberal RINO upon us they will be forced to sabotage the conservative candidate by spending an average of 15 million dollars in every single one of the 50 states (39 to go)! Even after pouring all that money into negative attack ads and phony oppo research, they are far from guaranteed that they'll be able to secure enough delegates - and the nomination - for their candidate Romney, as we've seen in South Carolina, Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota.

I therefore plead of all of you, fellow conservatives, to do all that is in within your power to ensure a Romney defeat this Saturday. Please contact all your friends, family, and acquaintances in the state of Washington using twitter, email, Facebook, and good old-fashioned phone calls and ask them to vote for Santorum in order to stop Romney's momentum prior to Super Tuesday. Tell them that conservatives across the entire nation have their eyes turned upon them and are counting on them to provide Romney with the shellacking that he deserves. The voters of Washington may be the ones who will ultimately be credited in the crushing of the establishment and the return of the party to the hands of the people.

United in one purpose we greatly outnumber the establishment. We can do it and we gotta do it. Vote for Santorum in Washington and send the GOP establishment and Romney team a powerful punch which they'll never forget! 



 

Steve Deace’s False Analysis on the Rick Santorum Campaign

It’s pretty hilarious to watch Newt’s most ardent supporters spin the primary in every angle possible in a desperate attempt to provide Newt’s dying campaign with some much-needed oxygen.

Steve Deace is an Iowan talk-show host whose endorsement for Newt Gingrich prior to the Iowa caucus was seen as the ultimate signal of an upcoming Newt victory. Steve had spent the weeks prior to the caucus pumping Newt via his radio show, weekly columns, interviews and social media. On twitter, his daily predictions the last week before the caucus showed an increasingly strengthening of Newt and weakening of Santorum with Romney leading the pack despite it having been obvious at that point to most of us that we were witnessing a Newt decline and a Santorum rise.

Steve Deace is also the talk-show host who had helped undermine Herman Cain’s credibility at a time when there was no evidence against him. Steve accused him of having said inappropriate comments to his staff yet refused to disclose what those comments were. His claims caused Cain significant damage since this was a prominent conservative speaking out against a fellow conservative.

Steve had written an analysis on the state of the primary on Townhall titled Michigan: Mitt Romney's Waterloo? Most of the article consists of the valid reasoning that Romney must win Michigan since it’s his former home state and his father had been a popular Governor there, or else. A Santorum win, he wrote, will deliver a “mortal wound to Romney’s Candidacy while also taking a giant step towards eventually securing the nomination for [Santorum].” Indeed, Michigan ending up as Romney’s Waterloo is a very possible outcome if Santorum wins.

The remainder of his article, though, was quite puzzling and incomprehensible except when taking into consideration that he’s probably attempting to create a positive spin for Newt. He argues that Michigan “is likely Santorum’s one and only chance to win the nomination” and that if Santorum fails to lock in a victory it once again opens the window for Newt just as Newt’s failure in Florida opened the window for Santorum in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado.

Furthermore, Steve blamed Newt’s failure in Florida after his victory in South Carolina on the ten-day span between the two primaries, arguing that Newt didn’t have enough time to orchestrate a rise. Santorum, on the other hand, has a full three weeks between his previous victories and the Michigan primary and he can use this time to put forth a strong campaign.

Steve’s reasoning is seriously flawed and for several reasons:

Firstly, a Romney victory in Michigan is extremely crucial, as Steve himself pointed out, because this is a state he’s been expected to win without any difficulties at all. He grew up there and his father was a beloved Governor. A Romney loss would be his Waterloo because it should be and is so difficult for any other candidate to beat Romney in his own hometown.

So if it’s usually impossible to beat a candidate in his hometown and a Santorum victory would be a stunning upset, then how can a Santorum loss in Michigan suddenly become a Santorum Waterloo? It isn’t Santorum’s home state and Santorum doesn’t have the many advantages Romney does. There were no expectations for Michigan to go to anyone but Romney.

Secondly, Newt’s landslide loss in Florida hadn’t come because of a lack of time and if one wants to blame the clock then he clearly had too much time. Newt had surged into Florida after his South Carolina and led Romney with double digits. If the elections had been three days later he would’ve probably continued his momentum ride from South Carolina and won Florida.

However, he instead faced a ten-day interim during which the Romney attacks and personal fire exchanged between the two camps caused his favorability to drop with each successive day and ultimately led to his defeat. Just as there was time to fall, there was time to rise. As an aside, we are now almost two weeks post Santorum’s three stunning victories and he’s still leading over Romney in Michigan.

Thirdly, Newt’s loss in Florida, although it weakened his campaign, was not the act had caused his stunning plunge. Newt poll figures in Nevada, which voted a few days after Florida, hadn’t changed much from before the Florida primary to afterwards. Newt ended up coming in a strong second in Nevada, as predicted, despite his Florida loss.

Newt’s reaction to his Nevada loss, though, had resulted in a mass exodus of conservative support. Instead of graciously admitting defeat and congratulating Romney, he called a press-conference the midnight after the Nevada primary where he ranted against those suggesting he leave the field (a suggestion which was born because of his strange decision to hold a press-conference and not a speech). He appeared ready to explode and his manner was almost suicidal. Americans were disgusted and turned off by his tantrum and chose to abandon Newt because of his own actions.

Unlike Newt, Santorum has stuck to the issues of the day and kept his cool and dignity at all times. A Santorum loss in Michigan won’t be seen as a failure of Santorum and a signal to turn to Newt once again. Everything is possible including another Newt rise. However, if Newt rises it won’t be a direct result of a Santorum loss in Michigan. A Santorum loss in Michigan will rather be understood in the context that Romney won his home-state where he had many advantages and is the case the majority of the time.

The stronger Santorum will do in Michigan, the stronger he will appear. If Romney barely ekes out a victory in his hometown, that will hint at the strength of Santorum, the weakness of Romney, and nothing about Newt.

Rick Santorum = a Carbon Copy of Barack Obama! Except ...

I’ve noticed many folks have been comparing Rick Santorum to Barack Obama and other pro-life Democrats.

Such a comparison is worthy of “the weirdest claim made yet against Rick Santorum” award. They seem to have forgotten that there are no true pro-life Democrats for even Democrat “staunch pro-lifer” Bart (Mark) Stupak had agreed to put his pro-life stance aside in order to provide Obama with the final vote for Obamacare. Those who compare Santorum to Democrats like Obama have also obviously not watched this video in which Senator Santorum fought against federal funding for partial-birth abortion in 1998.


Social issues aside, let us see just how similar Santorum is to Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. We all agree that to beat Obama one must be able to draw a strong contrast between their record and Obama’s. Is Santorum able to do that?

Let’s check it out:

TARP - Government Bailouts

Rick Santorum had opposed TARP right from the start. He didn’t merely pay lip-service in opposition, but railed out against it several months later in ’09 at CPAC.

TARP had received support not only from then-candidate Obama but also by a majority of the GOP establishment including Newt and Mitt. Santorum also opposed Obama’s stimulus, the auto bailout, and the Fannie-Freddie bailout.

Needless to say, Obama is the King of the Bailouts.

Next.

Government Reform – Reducing Spending and Dependency on Government

In the 1990s, when he was only a freshman Senator, Rick Santorum was a leading author on the bill that completely overhauled the country’s welfare system.

Yes, you read that right. As a Congressman, Santorum had started the fight for welfare reform in the House, and once in the Senate he combined forces with his old buddies, actually wrote the bill, and successfully fought the left and ensured its passage. To give credit when credit is due, Newt who was speaker of the House at the time, voted in support of the bill.

Santorum also voted for the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996 that started the process of ending direct farm subsidies. When Congress decided that it couldn’t live up to that promise, it voted to re-establish the subsidies in 2002 with the Farm Security Act, a bill that Santorum rightly opposed. Santorum voted for a balanced budget amendment and a line-item veto in 1995.

Santorum strongly believes in a bottom-up economy and in keeping government out of the private sector in most cases.

Obama obviously strongly opposes all reform to the federal government since, as we all know, he wants us all dependent on government for our health-care and every-day needs. He has successfully vastly increased the number of individuals collecting unemployment, Medicaid, and Food Stamps.

Okay, they clearly differ on role of government. All right, let’s try something else.

Health Care Mandates – Obamacare

Oops! Here’s a video from Rick Santorum in 1994 where he clearly and passionately spoke against government mandating individuals into buying health-care or anything else for that matter. This is a direct quote from Rick Santorum spoken in 1994 when health-care mandates were on the table;

“I think what the role of the federal government is to provide opportunity for everyone to get what they want, to live their dreams and not to dictate what everybody should have.”

Sounds like Obama to you? Not to me. Let’s also remember that in 1994 both Newt and Romney amongst many other Republicans had heavily supported and pushed for health-care mandates.

Still convinced he’s a carbon copy of Obama at least in some way? Let’s continue!

Global Warming Hoax

The entire Democrat Party has adopted “saving the environment from us bad people” as the reason they’ve been created, and many Republicans have also fallen for the hoax including … Mitt and Newt once again. Newt in a debate with John Kerry actually took the more liberal position than Kerry, arguing that government intervention is necessary in order to effectively regulate the environment while Kerry wanted the private sector to do it!

Rick Santorum, though, is included in the minority of people who had always opposed global warming, as is Rush Limbaugh and many other prominent conservatives. His record shows he’s always voted against it. As the years go by, increasingly more information keeps on surfacing which prove that global warming was a hoax from the start, and even a decade or two ago one was able to see the truth if they searched for it.

Barack Obama and his henchman in the EPA are still in the belief that the polar bears will die if you don’t use their energy-saving light-bulbs.

Polar opposites indeed.

However, Santorum MUST have something in common with Obama; I’ve seen folks here on Red State say so! All right; let’s move on!

Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

Hmm. Santorum opposed Bush’s amnesty plan, something a majority of the GOP establishment had supported, and had received an A+ rating for his stance against Amnesty. Newt, no longer in the Congress, attempted to convince members of Congress to vote for it.

Obama’s stance? In 2010, during the mid-term primaries, Obama sneakily whispered to Latinos that they should punish their enemies on November 2nd. He also believes he’s done all he can to secure the border according to original Republican demands, and that Republicans won’t be satisfied until he puts a moat filled with alligators at the U.S.-Mexican border.

We covered all the major issues of the day, and they don’t seem to agree on anything!

Oh, wait!

National Security

Surely they think the same in regard to the defense of this country? Umm, Obama wants to cut our nuclear heads to a number lower than that of China. He has bowed and apologized to all our enemies, while alienated and insulted all of our allies.

What about Santorum? Rick Santorum has warned about Iran over a decade ago and is very clear with who our enemies are and who our friends are. He doesn’t think Ahmadinejad will love us if we’d only bow a bit deeper and understands the importance in keeping a positive relationship with our allies like Great Britain, Canada, and Israel.

Sorry, strike that one out as well.

Perhaps they are similar in position on the next vitally important topic? Let’s see!

Energy Independence

Obama is doing all he can to create jobs yet refuses to allow the Keystone Pipeline to go into effect due to environmental concerns. Never mind that we already have numerous pipelines running beneath our grounds for many years. Who cares that it would employ tens of thousands of unemployed Americans? What difference does it make to Obama that it would help lower the price at the pump or that we’d be less reliant on foreign oil from hostile countries?

Where is Rick Santorum in this picture? Rick Santorum’s grandfather worked in a coal mine in Pennsylvania and Santorum speaks strongly about the importance for energy independence for the multitude of reasons involved. Santorum is aware of the dangers in being reliant on foreign oil which funds terrorism. He is also highly attuned to the need of manufacturing good here in the US, and explains that energy creation has been and can be once again a major source of jobs.

He’d therefore grant permission to execute the Keystone Pipeline immediately and also increase permits for Hydraulic fracturing, offshore drilling, onshore drilling, and everything else that will help us become energy independent and isn’t really dangerous; not “liberal/environmental-style” dangerous.

What’s left?

War against Terror

Obama refused to credit the surge in Iraq for its success even when directly questioned about it and the facts were clear to (almost) all. In Honduras, President Obama joined Chavez and Castro in siding with the bad guys. In Iraq and Afghanistan he provides timetables that fit his political calendar ignoring the advice of his generals who are on the battlefield.

Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and helped oust our decades-long ally Mubarak who helped keep the region stable in the name of Democracy yet looked the other way when Iranian protestors pleaded for freedom from Ahmadinejad.

On the flip side, Rick Santorum supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan from the start and expressed strong support for the surge which Obama and Newt opposed. He warned of the dangers of allowing terrorist reaction go unanswered and warned about the threat Al Qaeda poses to the U.S. several months prior to 9/11. He criticized Obama’s handling of Iran and Egypt as appeasement for terrorism and stifling of Democracy.

Sorry but I raise my hands in defeat. Santorum is the direct opposite of Obama and not at all similar to the Democrats. Those who have made this silly comparison have also called Obama a socialist and the worst president ever. Making such a comparison minimizes all the bad Obama has done, for it leads one to think that perhaps Obama not so bad-after all … he’s like Santorum.

False.

Leon H. Wolf from Red State and many others have also been greatly bothered by Santorum’s lack of executive experience in comparison to Romney’s 4 years of Governor in Massachusetts. Executive experience is truly an important asset to any candidate but in this scenario it needs a bit of closer inspection. Romney ran for Senate and lost. He then ran for Governor, won one term, and didn’t run for reelection since he knew he wouldn’t win. He was an executive but not a very successful one.

Rick Santorum ran for the House, and won twice. As a freshman and newcomer to the House, Santorum was appalled at the level of corruption taking place, and he together with six others stood up and exposed the actions of senior members of BOTH PARTIES in what become known as the “Gang of Seven.” Compare Santorum’s actions to that of the over three hundred others who either took a part in the corruption or turned a blind eye towards it. Santorum then ran for the Senate and won twice as a conservative in the blue state of Pennsylvania. In the Senate he took the initiative and led the fight against the left in many scenarios including stopping funding for partial-birth abortion, reforming welfare, and reforming social security.

Rick Santorum is human, has made mistakes in the past, and isn't perfect. No one is. However, after reviewing all of the above, it is clear he provides the strongest contrast to Barack Obama and I wish to go as far from Obama as possible. This therefore leads me to support Rick Santorum in the primary and definitely in the general election.




 

A Social and Fiscal Conservative Sends Shockwaves from the Heartland

The political scene is packed with pundits and predictors who despite being wrong most of the time don’t pause their endless flow of predictions across the media waves, which unfortunately influence the votes of many Americans who tune in to the news for a couple of minutes a day and form their decision based on their meaningless gibberish.

An overwhelming majority of these pundits have pounced upon Rick Santorum as incapable of going forward immediately after his stunning Iowa victory. Did their declarations come after having foretold the Santorum victory for months and weeks prior to the Iowa caucus? Quite the contrary; these political pundits actually foretold Santorum would come in somewhere towards the bottom and would drop out right after Iowa. Despite the results having been the polar opposite of their punditry, they continued to spew their worthless predictions.

Overblown egos had led to bold-faced demands to Santorum he should drop out of the race in the hope it would boost Newt’s campaign, despite no proof that such action would yield their wished-for results. To their utter disappointment Senator Santorum hadn’t accepted their lovely advice and just look at the mess they have now landed in, face-down! Rick Santorum has won Minnesota and Missouri with landslide victories!

In Missouri, Santorum won with 55.2% while Romney came in a full thirty points behind Rick at 25.3%. In Minnesota, a state Romney won in 2008, with 88% precincts counted, Santorum won with 45%, Paul came in a distant second with 27.1% while Romney squeaked in at third with merely 16.9% of the votes. To top off the night-turned-morning, Santorum surprised everyone with an unexpected sweep in Colorado, another state Romney had won in 2008 and which he was expected to win once again. Santorum won with 40.2% while Romney received 34.9%. His victory in Colorado has brought the total states he’s won to four out of eight, while Romney won three and Newt won one.

Who is Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum grew up near the coal mines in Pennsylvania where his grandfather was a miner and understands the struggles of the everyday American. He served in the Congress for a total of 16 years, first two terms in the House and then twelve years as a Senator. As a freshman Congressman, Santorum was shocked at the level of corruption amongst both parties specifically in relation to the housing market, and together with six other Congressman, brought the information out to the public. They were dubbed the "Gang of Seven" for their courage, honesty, and refusal to let matters continue to slide downhill.

Rick Santorum is the only one, of the candidates left standing, who can and does provide a clear contrast to Barack Obama on all the major issues.

He has never bought into the nonsense named Global Warming. Despite having hailed from a liberal state, he opposed overbearing government regulation and intervention which were deemed crucial to the safety of the planet based on those bogus facts. He has also opposed government bailouts including TARP from the very beginning, and not simply when campaigning as a Tea Party Conservative. During the 1990’s, when many conservatives including Newt and Romney championed for health care mandates, Rick Santorum had stood up in Congress and denounced the concept of government mandates, arguing for the rights of each individual to make their own decisions.

Santorum is also the only candidate who has never wavered on family values no matter who the audience was or what was at stake. He had his very name disgraced because of his strong conservative social views and risked his career defending the lives of the unborn. One can actually credit his fearless defense of conservatism for causing his loss in 2006 since the Democrat’s turned their entire arsenal at him precisely because of his constant outspoken championship of conservatism. Yet, he hasn’t backed down or regretted taking a stand for conservatism. Quite the contrary, he continues to do so with his head held high.

In short, Rick Santorum is a proud representative of the conservative viewpoint on all major issues we wish to challenge Barack Obama including Obama’s trademark legislations - Obamacare, government bailouts, government takeovers, and Cap & Trade. Santorum also provides a clear contrast to Obama’s endless choking environmental regulation, stifling energy policies including the denial for the Keystone Pipeline, first-class insulter of our allies and apologist to our enemies.

This is the case, and would be so, even if he wouldn’t have won with landslide victories this night. His victories, though, highlight the strong positives he brings to the table, since he focused throughout his campaign strictly on substance and the issues.

It just so happens to be that Rick Santorum is also the only candidate currently in this race who is a conservative and has remained staunchly loyal to conservatism during his representation of the purple/blue state of Pennsylvania. We can therefore be confident with a President Santorum that he won’t engage in any rash moves which will contradict conservative principles even if he will come under extreme pressure and badmouthing of the Democrats. He’s already been there and remained rock strong in defense of conservative values.

Obama’s entire three years has been an endless play of pitting poor against rich, ethnic groups against one another and so forth. With Rick Santorum on the Republican ballot, his fight against the rich will fall flat, for Obama’s income exceeds that of Rick Santorum’s. Additionally, Santorum’s amazing ability to unite with average blue-collar hardworking Americans, as he’s proven repeatedly in liberal Pennsylvania, will help him carry the crucial swing-states one must win in a presidential election. He’s won Iowa in the primary and can carry it in the general, and is polling best against Obama in the important swing-state Ohio. He is also the only one on the Republican side who can make Pennsylvania turn red again after having gone blue in every election since 1988. He is also polling extremely well in many other crucial swing states.

Yes, Santorum has lost his reelection in 2006 in Pennsylvania, but he has also won two statewide elections, in 1994 and 2000, despite PA having gone blue in every presidential contest since 1988. Santorum’s strong support for Bush’s War on Terror was a major cause for his loss, for anti-war protests were reaching its peak.

There’s still a long road ahead, although a clear shift has taken place this night. Santorum ran on a conservative platform and has shown that conservatism is quite popular amongst Americans across all spectrums. He has also proven capable of winning the heartland of America including swing states which are crucial in the general election. We may still look back at this night as the turning point in the primary in more ways than just one.

Newt Gingrich, Are You Willing to Eat Your Own Words?

Newt Gingrich has been strutting across town with an over-sized ego ever since his rise in the polls in December. He had declared himself the definite winner of the GOP primary and the only one who can defeat Obama before the primaries had even begun! Then, despite having come in fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, Newt Gingrich and his team have demanded conservatives to unite around his campaign since he was the only one who could beat Romney and Obama. This was prior to having won a single victory!

Here's the question for Newt Gingrich; if he would truly want to promote conservatism, why hasn't he acted upon his words after the first two states had voted, in which he came in below Santorum?

Hot Air has done a great job highlight the hollowness and falsehood of Gingrich for pretending to seek a united front for the sake of conservatism when he's obviously demanding it solely to benefit himself:
 

Oddly, Gingrich didn’t appear as principled on the subject of conservative consolidation when Santorum won Iowa and Gingrich finished fourth, nor when Santorum narrowly edged Gingrich for fourth place in New Hampshire. If he was concerned about a conservative sacrificing to make sure a conservative alternative had the strength to beat Mitt Romney at that time, Gingrich didn’t pull a muscle leaping out of his chair to volunteer. Needless to say, neither has Santorum, who told Gingrich in response to run his own campaign.

After his desperately-needed victory in South Carolina, Newt sharply increased his descending tone to Rick Santorum despite Santorum having also won an equal number of states so far; 1. He then floated into Florida after his South Carolina victory promising a "final knockout." We now know how that turned out, and who was the recipient of a "knockout."

Newt though hasn't acknowledged his own weaknesses which have led to his loss. Instead, he upped the heat against Santorum an additional notch higher and blamed Santorum for his own failure! Additionally, Newt couldn't bring himself to congratulate Romney in his concession speech(repeating from actions in Iowa) while pretended Santorum was now out of the picture, although he couldn't be any further than the truth.

"It is now clear that this will be a two-person race between the conservative leader, Newt Gingrich, and the Massachusetts moderate, and the voters of Florida made that clear," Gingrich said following his landslide loss in Florida. Gingrich ignored the fact that the other two candidates in the race - Ron Paul and Rick Santorum - chose not to run aggressive campaigns in the state.

Newt has also failed to recognize that while he has come out ahead of Santorum in Florida, Santorum came out ahead of Newt in New Hampshire. They've thus both won one state and come out higher than each other in one other state. Coming out stronger than Santorum in Florida has made Newt equal, not greater than, Santorum.

Although Newt is desperate for Santorum to back out of the race and for Santorum supporters to throw their support behind his campaign, neither of the above will happen in the near future, and his repeated aggressive requests for both won't change the facts.

Firstly, Santorum has never made winning Florida a goal, as Newt had, since it's a winner-take-all and knew he won't win. Instead, he's focusing on the upcoming elections where he's polling extremely well. He's already been to several states in the last few days and he's got a full schedule today in Colorado.

Secondly, the claims that Santorum's broke it utterly false; the Santorum campaign confirms it raised $4.2M in January and unlike the Newt campaign, has no debt. Additionally, Foster Freiss is supporting Santorum and plans on giving him significant help moving forward. “I believe Rick Santorum will become one of the front-runners very soon,” Foster Friess, a major donor to the Red White and Blue Fund, said during his interview with Bloomberg Television.

Furthermore, a new PPP poll had been released yesterday, and the results are quite astounding. Although Newt pretends that if Santorum backs out then Newt has got the nomination in his pocket, the results are pretty shaky. If Gigrich himself backs out though, the nomination does seem to go pretty strongly for Santorum. Santorum polls far stronger against Romney in a two man race than does Newt solely against Romney. The reason this is so, is because Santorum is the second choice for an overwhelming majority of Newt supporters (and also for Romney supporters) while the reverse is not the case.

Here's the info directly from the PPP poll.

In Missouri, held a week from today, Santorum has a 63-21 favorability spread to Gingrich’s 52-32, Romney’s 46-36, and Paul’s 28-57. On the actual primary ballot, for which Gingrich did not qualify, Santorum leads with 45% to Romney’s 34% and Paul’s 13%. In the caucus, in which Gingrich can compete, Santorum falls to second at 28% behind the former speaker’s 30% and ahead of Romney’s 24% and Paul’s 11%. Head-to-head, Gingrich would defeat Romney in the state, 43-42, but Santorum would, 50-37. That is because Santorum’s supporters only go for Gingrich by eight points over Romney, but Gingrich’s vote for Santorum by 28 points. In Ohio, which will be held on Super Tuesday (March 6th), Santorum’s favorability rating is 59-24, compared to Romney’s and Gingrich’s 47-37 and Paul’s 31-52. The primary is a three-way race between Gingrich (26%), Romney (25%), and Santorum (22%), with Paul at 11%. Gingrich would top Romney, 42-39, but Santorum would, 45-38.

In other words, here's how the two different two-man races would look like:

-In Missouri Santorum leads Romney 50-37 and in Ohio Santorum leads 45-38.
-In Missouri Gingrich leads Romney 43-42 and in Ohio Gingrich leads 42-39.

And remember that Gingrich isn't even on the ballot in Missouri.

Can anyone remind me again which candidate is demanding the other to bow out of the race and which one says that everyone has a right to run?


You will also want to read my article which appeared this week on the American Thinker.

Will Conservatives Raise the White Flag for Character and Morality in the 2012 election?

The Conservative Movement has always prided itself as the conscience of America which stands up for character, morality, and constitutionalism. Conservatives were therefore disgusted with President Bill Clinton's actions in the White House, outraged at Barack Obama's participation in Jeremiah Wright's church, and Obama's friendship with terrorists like William Ayers.

We are now in the midst of a GOP primary where conservatives are given the choice to choose amongst several candidates to represent them in the future. We've got to choose someone who can serve as a role model for the conservative movement, whose record, ideas for the future, and values mirror those of our own. And if no one is an exact spitting image of The Conservative, we've got to go for as close to the original as we can get.

Several days ago, Rick Santorum's young daughter was rushed to the hospital with double pneumonia, and he rushed there as well. Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and many many others showed that they are men or women of character and morality. They personally or publicly expressed their support for the Santorum family during their difficult hours and asked people to offer prayers for Bella Santorum.

One individual was missing from the list, and glaringly so. Newt Gingrich was busy running from radio show to TV show, intent on selling himself to Floridian voters. Despite Santorum having cancelled most of his events in Florida due to his daughter's condition, Gingrich thought it was an opportune time to loudly hint to Santorum to back out of the race and to ask Santorum supporters to vote for him.

How audacious! What a chutzpah! Besides for the fact that all polls have clearly illustrated that if Santorum wouldn't be in the race Newt would still be far behind Romney (since Santorum voters split equally for the two) why couldn't Newt contain himself from his shameful calls on the day the other candidate was attending his sick daughter? Nor did he find it necessary to express prayers and support? Is such behavior a model for conservatism? Has he got no decency?

In truth, though, we shouldn't be surprised. After all, what can one expect from a guy who cheated on two wives? This is a guy who served as a "historian for Freddie Mac" and whose contract clearly involved talking to members of Congress yet sees no wrong with it. In fact, he challenged his opponent, Romney, for having had bonds in Freddie and Fannie without mentioning that he too owned stocks and profited from them both!

Newt has palled around with and praised Al Sharpton as though Al isn't a first-class thug whose hands are dirtied with the blood of over a dozen innocent individual, but a guy worthy of respect.

Defenders of Newt, which side have you taken during the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Which side have you taken in the argument about Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers? Conservatives had said they opposed Clinton's actions and Obama's past not because they were Democrats, but because they lacked morality and character. Now is the time that conservatives can prove they've spoken the truth in the past and weren't merely engaged in petty political slandering as the left is known to do.

Say no to immorality, flip-flopping inconsistency, lack of character and lack of values.

Stand up for character, consistency, conservatism, values and morality.

There is only one candidate who conservatives can support with a clear conscience and without engaging in a shameful abandonment of conservative values and a leftist-style double standard!

Vote for Rick Santorum!!

There is another Option for Floridians besides for Mr. Right-Wing Social Engineering

Below are several excerpts of an article I've written which appears today on American Thinker.

... 

Teaming up with even one liberal in order to promote a single aspect of liberalism is usually reason enough for conservatives to dump and despise a candidate. Newt has palled around with, teamed up with, and praised the vile Al Sharpton as one who "did a lot of good things" despite Sharpton having organized riots which resulted in the deaths of at least a dozen innocent individuals. And Newt's chummy behavior with a liberal like Al wasn't a one-time occurrence. He's joined a whole lot of liberals, including Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Arne Duncan.

Yet, contrary to the norm, Newt isn't despised for his love of liberals and their big-government ideas.
...

Regarding his vote under Carter in support of the creation of a Department of Education, Newt can't say that he was merely following the will of the conservative voters in Georgia, whom he supposedly represented. Nor can he throw back at the Georgians his vote as speaker for an additional 3.5 billion dollars for the Department of Education, which was the largest single increase that department has ever received. Ditto for his Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989, co-sponsored with Nancy Pelosi, which declared that climate change is "a major threat to political stability, international security and economic prosperity." Similarly, Newt's co-sponsoring the 1987 Pro-Fairness Doctrine was the result not of pressure from his constituents, but instead of his own big-government beliefs.

Even after he resigned, Newt spent hours persuading and cajoling fellow Republicans to vote for government-expansion bills. He supported individual mandates as late as May of 2011, Bush's amnesty for illegals in '04, government intervention to control global warming, and TARP, to name a few. In 2003, Newt demanded that "[e]very conservative member of Congress should vote" for Bush's prescription drug bill despite the fact that it added $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Prior to the 2010 midterm elections, Newt melted the phones of conservatives to ensure that social issues wouldn't be discussed.
...

There is another candidate whose record is far more conservative than the others despite having represented a purple-blue state. He didn't flip-flop his positions to please voters or garner media attention; instead, he remained true to his family and ideals because of inner convictions. He was and is a proud pro-lifer and a supporter of traditional marriage, lower taxes, and smaller government. He actually listened to the voices of those who sent him to Washington prior to voting and didn't originally support amnesty for illegals or federal action to curb global warming, as Newt and Romney have. And unlike Newt, this candidate actually supported some Tea Party conservatives over RINOs in the 2010 primaries.

This candidate is none other than Rick Santorum, who, as a newcomer to Congress, joined six others and fought corruption in both parties in what became known as the Gang of Seven while Newt -- the old-timer -- said nary a word. Rick Santorum has never linked hands with the left to destroy conservatism or grow liberalism, as Newt has. As a freshman in the Senate, it was Rick Santorum who led the fight for welfare reform and has been credited for its success, and it is Rick Santorum who continues to champion for entitlement reform. On the flip-side, although Newt supported welfare reform in the House, he also led the successful fight against entitlement reform, and again, he expressed his ardent support of Medicare in Florida this past week.

Newt can best be characterized as the Rod Blagojevich of the Republican Party: a smooth talker wearing a righteous mask who loves attention and makes a lot of noise. When removing his outer layer, though, one discovers a corrupted, immoral individual who has never met a liberal idea he hadn't tasted, liked, and then clothed in conservative clothing.

Three states have held primaries/caucuses so far, and three separate candidates won, so the race is still wide open. Floridian voters, cast your ballots wisely.

Please click here  To read the entire article.