Tag Archives: Republican Party

Speaker candidate Kevin McCarthy vows to repeal Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood

Well, this is unexpected good news.

The Daily Signal reports.


House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy further separated himself from outgoing Speaker John Boehner Tuesday night, vowing to fight to the end for conservative policies if he takes the chamber’s top seat.

Fox News’ Sean Hannity pressed McCarthy hard on conservative frustration that accelerated Boehner’s demise, repeatedly pointing to the House’s failure to unravel Obamacare despite holding majorities in both chambers and its “power of the purse” authority.

“You voted 50 times to repeal Obamacare, but there’s a constitutional power you guys have that you don’t use, and it seems all Obama has to do is mention, ‘We’re going to shut down the government and blame Republicans,’” Hannity said.

McCarthy promised a different course should he clinch the speakership in October.

He committed to pursue the string of battles conservatives have waged against congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama, including defunding Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, and executive “amnesty” and stopping the Iran nuclear agreement.

He did not detail specifics but said he would lead the fight with a “strategy” and a greater inclusion of the conservative lawmakers who helped topple Boehner from the speakership.

“Every Republican should have a voice here, and that’s going to be the fundamental difference: I believe in the bottom-up strategy,” McCarthy said.

This is not the first report I heard about his outreach to the most conservative Republicans when he was majority leader. Even the so-called Freedom Caucus that forced the more liberal Boehner to resign seemed to be OK with the conservative credentials of Kevin McCarthy.

The ultra leftist New York Times has more in this article from June 2014, when they were writing about his role as majority leader:

When he was the leader of Republicans in the California State Assembly — an ideologically diverse group of lawmakers often choleric toward both Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democrats who controlled the Legislature — Kevin Owen McCarthy was known as the guy who could help bring a bill across the finish line. Gently, almost as if no one could see it.

[…]Politically obsessed (Mr. McCarthy is known for lugging the 1,883-page Almanac of American Politics to read on his almost weekly flights back to California) and manically social (he cannot seem to eat dinner in Washington with fewer than eight guests), Mr. McCarthy is likely to be more focused on deal-making and elections than on pushing proscriptive policy from on high, as Mr. Cantor did.

[…]He keeps in close contact with other Republicans through phone calls, dinners and a strategically placed basketball hoop in his office that encourages drop-ins. “He understands how important family is,” said Representative Renee Ellmers, Republican of North Carolina. “If our spouses are coming to Washington, he wants you to know he has an open door for them, too.” He has the same policy for lawmakers who want to air a grievance, and has a good ear for knowing what their requirements are, reasonable or not, to get to yes on a bill.

So, he’s not primarily a policy guy or a news media guy, he’s a consensus builder. He seems to know how to talk to lots of people and get legislation passed. He seems to be very friendly with everyone, even Democrats. He’s had to work with Democrats a lot. And he comes from a modest background. The only question is whether he wants to pass what the conservative wing of the party wants. What the grassroots voters want. His statements on Hannity make me optimistic.

Trump gets 5% in straw poll of informed voters at Values Voters Summit

Texas Senator Ted Cruz
Texas Senator Ted Cruz

I was actually thinking of going to this annual Washington conference of value voters, because the speakers line up so closely with my values. You might think that it’s all social conservatism, but this is actually a really good place to find good talks on the free market system, as well as peace through strength foreign policy.

Anyway, they took a poll of the values voters, and Ted Cruz won:

Sen. Ted Cruz won the Values Voter Summit straw poll for the third year in a row on Saturday, a strong showing of support from evangelical voters for his 2016 presidential bid.

The firebrand Texas senator won a whopping 35 percent in the poll of summit-goers, ahead of runner-up Ben Carson’s 18 percent. That margin is significantly wider than last year, where he edged out Carson by just 5 percentage points.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.) took third with 14 percent, followed by Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) with 13 percent. Real estate magnate Donald Trump finished a distant fifth with 5 percent.

Carson won the event’s poll for vice president, his second consecutive win for that category.

Family Research Council Action president Tony Perkins announced the results Saturday afternoon to applause from the conference’s attendees. Perkins’ group organized the three-day event.

Eight GOP presidential candidates took to the summit stage in order to make their case to the religious conservative audience—Cruz, Carson, Trump, Rubio, Huckabee, as well as Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Rand Paul (Ky.), and Gov. Bobby Jindal (La.).

The results confirm Cruz, Carson and Huckabee’s strength among religious conservative voters. Each rely on the voting bloc as a core piece of their electorate, but the huge win for Cruz is likely encouraging considering recent polls showing the senator outside of the top tier with evangelicals.

But the figures are surprising for both Rubio and Trump. Rubio’s finish shows him continuing to make gains with religious conservative voters as he rises in national polling. But the result is a disappointment for Trump, who had led with evangelicals in two recent polls.

The Values Voter Summit though is Cruz country and several conference-goers mentioned his name first as the person they trust most on issues important to social conservatives when interviewed by The Hill during the event.

[…]A handful of candidates didn’t attend the summit—Jeb Bush, Govs. Chris Christie (N.J.), John Kasich (Ohio) and Carly Fiorina.

The ones that didn’t attend are, not surprisingly, the same ones I marked as social moderates. Better than a Democrat, not as good as real conservatives like Jindal or Cruz.

Anyway, Cruz’s speech was awesome:

And his list of Day One promises was also amazing.


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) electrified conservatives at the Values Voters Summit in Washington on Friday as he laid out plans for his first day in the White House.

Cruz vowed to rescind all of President Obama’s “illegal and unconstitutional executive actions,” said he would order the Department of Justice to prosecute Planned Parenthood, instruct the DOJ and Internal Revenue Service to end religious persecution of citizens, “rip to shreds” the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran and move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

Upon each declaration, Cruz received huge applause and a standing ovation.

“That’s just day one,” Cruz said. “There are 365 days in the year, four years in a presidential term, four years in a second term. By the end of eight years, this ballroom is going to be a whole lot bigger. By the end of eight years, there will be a whole lot of reporters and journalists who have checked themselves into therapy.”

And if the idea of connecting with socially conservative voters is appealing to you, be sure to go to FRC.org and subscribe the daily and weekend podcasts. These podcasts are my favorites, along with The Weekly Standard podcast.

My original list of favorite candidates in the 2016 GOP primary:

  1. Walker
  2. Jindal
  3. Perry
  4. Cruz
  5. Rubio

I really hope Jindal, Cruz or Rubio can take this thing, because I don’t want to have to be promoting someone I am not excited about.

Scott Walker campaign leaders sign up with Marco Rubio

Florida Senator Marco Rubio
Florida Senator Marco Rubio

Story from the Weekly Standard.


Four members of Scott Walker’s Iowa campaign are now aligning with Marco Rubio. With the Wisconsin governor exiting the presidential race Monday, the Walker campaign’s network of activist supporters in the early primary states are free to endorse other candidates.

In Iowa, three county chairs and a university student leader are now supporting Rubio, the Florida senator. Melody Slater of Lee County, Matt Giese of Dubuque County, and Alan Ostergren of Muscatine County, have all shifted their support for Rubio.

“While I am saddened by the news of Governor Walker’s campaign ending, I am proud to join Senator Rubio’s team. His conservative, positive vision is exactly what this country needs,” said Slater in a statement to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

“Senator Rubio has the vision and ideas that are needed to lead us into the new American century,” said Giese. “I’m looking forward to serving on Senator Rubio’s Iowa team.”

“Marco’s optimistic vision for the 21st century is exactly what our country needs. In the coming months, I look forward to helping Marco win the Iowa caucuses,” said Ostergren.

In addition, Brittany Gaura, an Iowa State University student who co-chaired Iowa Students for Walker, is also endorsing Rubio. “As much as I support Governor Walker, I know it is a critical time in this nation’s history. I am supporting Marco for the positive vision and strong leadership he will bring to America’s future,” she said.

Rubio has also picked up support from the chairman of Walker’s New Hampshire campaign as well as an early supporter of Walker’s in South Carolina.

Well, many of you sent me messages on Facebook and Twitter about the sad news that Walker, my #2 candidate, had dropped out of the race. This is a huge loss for America, since Walker’s plan to reform public sector labor unions would have changed the direction of the country, given how labor unions donate so much money to Democrat candidates.

So where do I stand now? My favorite candidate is Bobby Jindal, then Ted Cruz, then Marco Rubio. That’s strictly on conservative principles and conservative achievements. Rubio is the most electable, but I am angry with him for flirting with amnesty. However, he has repudiated his involvement with that movement. I would be happy with any of these three candidates.

These candidates are not conservative enough for me

These candidates are Republicans, but they are too liberal on fiscal issues:

  • Jeb Bush (amnesty)
  • John Kasich (Medicare funding, big government)
  • Mike Huckabee (he is a tax and spend Democrat)
  • RIck Santorum (not conservative enough)
  • Christie (DREAM act, Medicare funding)
  • Carly Fiorina (DREAM act, illegal immigration)

These candidates are Republicans, but they are too liberal on social issues:

  • Rand Paul (crime, abortion & marriage)
  • Jeb Bush (way too liberal on gay marriage and gay activism)
  • Carly Fiorina (civil unions, religious liberty)
  • Chris Christie (marriage)
  • Lindsay Graham (liberal on abortion, marriage, SCOTUS judges)
  • John Kasich (abortion, marriage and religious liberty)
  • Carly Fiorina (soft on crime)

These candidates are Republicans, but they are too liberal on national security and foreign policy issues:

  • Rand Paul (naive isolationist, wrong on every national security and foreign policy issue there is)
  • John Kasich (he is John Kerry)
  • Ben Carson (Iraq war opposition)
  • Chris Christie (has a national security problem re: Muslims and CAIR, Iraq war opposition)

Donald Trump is not a Republican, he is too liberal on every single issue there is, regardless of his clown-talk. His unstable shrieking is just a baby squealing for attention, understanding nothing and with no awareness of facts. He is a nobody, and should not even be running for President.

House Republicans pass bill to defund Planned Parenthood

I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this study
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I support these two pro-life bills

Actually there are two bills. The first Republican bill blocks Planned Parenthood from getting federal funds, because they harvest organs from born-alive babies. The second Republican bill holds Planned Parenthood criminally responsible for born-alive abortions. The Democrats are opposed to both defunding Planned Parenthood and preventing born-alive abortions. So this is a real battle.

Anyway, let’s see the first story, from Life News

It says:

The House of Representatives voted today for legislation that would temporarily de-fund Planned Parenthood while an investigation continues into it s sale of aborted babies and their body parts.

The House voted 241 to 187 for the bill with 239 Republicans voting for the bill to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business and 3 Democrats joining them. Three Republicans voted against the defunding bill while 183 Democrats voted against it. Republican Steve King of Iowa vote present.

Rep. Diane Black, a Tennessee Republican who is the pro-life lawmaker sponsoring the legislation and a nurse for more than 40 years, sponsored the legislation. The bill would freeze Planned Parenthood funding for one year while Congress conducts an investigation into its sales of aborted babies. The House vote would follow one the Senate had weeks ago, which saw Senate Democrats filibuster and block legislation to revoke $550 million in taxpayer funding. The Senate is expected to vote soon on a second attempt to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

A new Congressional report finds that de-funding the Planned Parenthood abortion business — even for one year — would save “several thousand” unborn babies from the nightmare of abortion. The report also finds de-funding Planned Parenthood would save the federal government $235 million.

During the debate, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy spoke on the House floor in defense of innocent human life and urged his colleagues to put a moratorium on Planned Parenthood funding in light of its barbaric practices.

“So if we know that this organization performs hundreds of thousands of abortions per year and we know that women have access to other sources for care, the question is, should we force taxpayers to fund a business that spends its money aborting 327,653 children per year?  Should we force taxpayers to fund an organization whose barbaric practices, as vividly shown in those videos, disregard and devalue the sanctity of the most innocent human lives?” he asked.

He added: “There is no reason—absolutely no reason—that we must choose between funding women’s health and compelling taxpayers to support abortion.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) talked about how Planned Parenthood is not in the business of women’s health care and is really just an abortion company.

[…]“In the history of Planned Parenthood, they have never, ever, ever done one mammogram, because they are not certified to do mammograms. They bring people in and refer them out to get their mammograms. So, for those of us –like in my case, three daughters and a wife of 37 years –look, I want good women’s healthcare. So, let’s fund it,” he said. “But, let’s give it directly to the facilities that will do the mammograms and not Planned Parenthood – for them to take their cut.”

President Barack Obama has already threatened to veto the bill.

Hillary Clinton also spoke out in favor of for-profit organ-harvesting from born-alive children.

After today’s House vote to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business, Hillary Clinton took to twitter to adamantly defend taxpayer funding for the abortion company.

The second bill is even stronger than the first. It will hold Planned Parenthood responsible for performing abortions on born-alive babies.

Life News reports:

The House of Representatives today approved a pro-life bill that would hold the Planned Parenthood abortion business criminally liable for harvesting body parts from aborted babies who are technically still alive.

The center for Medical Progress has released 10 videos catching and exposing Planned Parenthood officials selling aborted babies and their body parts. One of the most shocking videos caught the nation’s biggest abortion business harvesting the brain of an aborted baby who was still alive.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by pro-life Congressman Trent Franks would make failure to provide standard medical care to children born alive during an abortion a federal crime.  It would also apply stronger penalties in cases where an overt act is taken to kill the abortion survivor.

[…]Congressman Chris Smith implored the House to pass the bill.

“Undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress have again brought into sharp focus that some babies actually survive abortion,” the New jersey congressman said.

“Dr. Savita Ginde, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains says ‘sometimes we get—if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure—they are intact…’  that is, Madame Speaker,  born alive. Breathing, crying, gasping for air. One fetal tissue broker describes on the video watching a ‘fetus …just fall out.’ And left to die.”

“We have a duty to protect these vulnerable children from violence, exploitation and death. Humanitarian due diligence requires that born alive babies be taken to a hospital to obtain care and enhance prospects of survival,” Smith added. “Abortion clinics have no incentive whatsoever to save the child. Abortion clinics do not have neonatal intensive care units—they are in the business of killing babies, not saving them.”

“The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504), authored by pro-life champion Trent Franks simply says any child who survives an abortion must be given the same care as any other premature baby born at the same gestational age.  This legislation builds on the landmark Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 authored by Steve Chabot by adding important enforcement provisions,” he concluded.

The House voted 248 to 177 for the bill with 239 Republicans voting for the bill and 5 Democrats joining them. No Republicans voted against the pro-life bill while 177 Democrats voted against it. One member voted present.

A pro-life Senator says he will introduce the Senate version of the bill on Monday. Senator Ben Sasse told LifeNews.com that he will introduce companion legislation in the Senate when Congress resumes its work on Monday.

He said: “If this isn’t the most non-controversial sentence in American politics, it’s time to check our national conscience: newborn babies must receive care and attention. Societies are judged by how we care for the vulnerable and surely anyone with a heart— regardless of where they stand on the abortion debate— should be able to agree that our laws should protect newborns. I’m grateful that a bipartisan majority of the House stood up for babies and I look forward to introducing companion legislation in the Senate next week.”

Despite passage of the bill, the Obama administration says President Barack Obama would veto the measure.

Every time stories about how Obama will veto pro-life bills comes out, it makes me think of all the “Christians” who voted for him in 2008 and again in 2012. What will happen to them when God gets his hands on them? It was known during the election of 2008 that Obama had voted against a ban on born-alive abortions four times as a State senator in Illinois. I just think about how God will deal out punishment to the “Christians” who voted for him. Will he be most angry with them for voting for him for whatever reason? (e.g. – skin color or welfare, etc.) Or will he be most angry with their pastors for misleading them? Or will he be most angry with the national news media (e.g. – MSNBC) for refusing to inform the people about their chosen leftist candidate? Slavery and murder are serious crimes. There is plenty of blame to go around.

The bottom line is clear though… not everyone who comforts themselves with the idea that “God is love” will find God loving on that day.

Is Carly Fiorina conservative? How can you tell if a candidate is conservative?

Carly Fiorina outperforms at first GOP primary debate
Carly Fiorina outperforms at first GOP primary debate

A lot of my friends are getting very excited about Carly Fiorina, and some of them are wondering why she is not on my list. Well, it’s because this is the primary season, and I am looking for someone who 1) is as conservative as me, and 2) has got achievements at advancing a conservative agenda. The key point being that just because a person is outraged at Planned Parenthood cutting into live-born babies, that isn’t the same as being pro-life through all 9 months of pregnancy, except for the case where the life of the mother is threatened.

To take one example, her view of religious liberty is not as conservative as mine, but it isn’t horrible either. Here she is on the Hugh Hewitt show explaining her view:

HH: And let me close our conversation by throwing a hard one at you. There’s a Kentucky county clerk today. She’s refusing to issue licenses to same-sex marriage couples. She’s in comtempt of court in essence. What would your advice be to her?

CF: First, I think that we must protect religious liberties with great passion and be willing to expend a lot of political capital to do so now because it’s clear religious liberty is under assault in many, many ways. Having said that, when you are a government employee, I think you take on a different role. When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government. And, while I disagree with this court’s decision, their actions are clear. And so I think in this particular case, this woman now needs to make a decision that’s [about] conscience:  Is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid for by the government in which case she needs to execute the government’s will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to severe her employment with the government and go seek employment elsewhere where her religious liberties would be paramount over her duties as as government employee.

HH: You don’t counsel that she continue civil disobedience?

CF: Given the role that she’s playing. Given the fact that the government is paying her salary, I think that is not appropriate. Now that’s my personal opinion. Others may disagree with that, but I think it’s a very different situation for her than someone in a hospital who’s asked to perform an abortion or someone at a florist who’s asked to serve a gay wedding. I think when you’re a government employee, you are put into a different position honestly.

That’s a view that I can vote for if she is the Republican candidate, but not a view that I prefer when we are still in the GOP primary election. There are better candidates who have stuck their necks out further to champion causes I care about, like religious liberty and natural marriage.

I took a look at Carly’s record using this “On the Issues” web site and was surprised to see that Carly advocates positions more to the right than expected, but still to the left of my favored candidates. She is definitely a Republican, and her stated views are “good enough” for me to enthusiastically support her against any Democrat.

She’s definitely more conservative on same-sex marriage, taxes, abortion, gun control, health care, energy policy than I thought, but not quite as conservative as Jindal, Walker, and Cruz on some of those issues. The only real red flag I saw was supporting the DREAM Act. But she is definitely a Republican, and much more so than people like Romney, Kasich, McCain,, Lindsay Graham.

I really wish that more Republican voters would look at sites like On The Issues, and other sites that grade conservatives like Club for Growth, National Taxpayer Union, the National Rifle Association, and the National Right to Life Committee (PDF), in order to see who the best candidates are from their actions – not from their words during debates, campaign ads, campaign stump speeches, etc. Even a libertarian site like the Cato Institute, which embraces immorality on social issues, has good ratings of governors on fiscal issues (PDF). A person is defined by how they engage in enterprises, not by what they say when asked. Where do you put your money and time? What have you fought for? What have you achieved? You can’t judge a candidate by words and how the words are stated in campaign ads, campaign speeches, or debates – although debating and speaking are important for winning in the general election.

So, where do I stand? I am looking for conservatives who have won long, drawn out fights to get conservative reforms passed. That’s why Carly Fiorina is not on my list of candidates – because I have not seen her leading and achieving in the areas I care about. Her stated views are conservative enough, but now is the time for me to push for the candidates I really want. I have nothing bad to say about her, though, and will support her if she is the GOP candidate. But for now, I’m pushing for Jindal, Walker, and Cruz. I am also OK with Rubio, mostly because, like Santorum, he is so good on foreign policy.