Tag Archives: Pro-Family

Paul Ryan’s views on foreign policy and social issues

Rep. Paul Ryan
Rep. Paul Ryan

We all know that Paul Ryan is conservative on fiscal issues. He’s the man with a plan to stop overspending and solve the debt problem. But where does he stand on other issues?

Here’s an article from the liberal Washington Post about Ryan’s foreign policy views.

Excerpt:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) gave a speech Thursday to the Alexander Hamilton Society in Washington. If one is looking for clues as to Ryan’s interests beyond chairing the House Budget Committee, a speech, as he put it, to “a room full of national security experts about American foreign policy” would merit attention.

…Ryan delivered an above-the-fray talk on the subject of American uniqueness (a less loaded term) and the myth that American decline in inevitable. He posited, “Our fiscal policy and our foreign policy are on a collision course; and if we fail to put our budget on a sustainable path, then we are choosing decline as a world power.”

Ryan contends that the debt crisis is not a bookkeeping problem or even simply a domestic problem; it is about maintaining our status as a superpower and about American values.

[…]He plainly is not with the cut-and-run set on Afghanistan. “Although the war has been long and the human costs high, failure would be a blow to American prestige and would reinvigorate al-Qaeda, which is reeling from the death of its leader. Now is the time to lock in the success that is within reach.” Nor can he be accused of wanting to “go it alone.” “The Obama administration has taken our allies for granted and accepted too willingly the decline of their capacity for international action. Our alliances were vital to our victory in the Cold War, and they need to be revitalized to see us through the 21st century.”

As for China, he bats down the idea that we should go along to get along… He’s clear that China has “very different values and interests from our own.”

And finally on defense spending, he rejects the sort of penny-pinching isolationism of Jon Huntsman or Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.).

According to On The Issues, he’s solid on military spending:

  • Rated 22% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record
  • YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill
  • YES on deploying SDI
  • YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan
  • YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses
  • YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts

He’s solid on counter-terrorism:

  • NO on Veto override: Congressional oversight of CIA interrogations
  • NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad
  • YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent
  • YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight
  • YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant
  • YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad
  • YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms’ warrantless surveillance

And supports military intervention against Islamic terrorists:

  • Strengthen sanctions on Syria & assist democratic transition
  • Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program
  • YES on authorizing military force in Iraq
  • YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date
  • NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days
  • NO on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq

I agree with him on all of that. But how is he on social issues?

Excerpt:

Ryan, the top Republican on the Budget Committee who has a strongly pro-life record, talked about the place social issues have in the election in an interview with CNBC last week.

“We will agree to disagree on those issues,” Ryan said last Monday on CNBC. “But let’s rally around the tallest pole in our tent

Ryan also released a statement today that LifeNews.com received saying pro-life issues are not on a list of menu items that have to be given up during the election season.

“Healthy debate should take place within the Republican Party on specific policies, but it is a false choice to ask which natural right we should discard

“All planks – economic liberty and limited government; keeping our nation secure; championing America’s founding truths and the dignity of every human person – are rooted in same timeless principles, enshrined in our Founding and the cause of our exceptionalism,” Ryan added. “The American family must remain at the core of our free society, and I will remain ever-vigilant in its defense.”

Conor Sweeney, a top Ryan spokesman, told LifeNews.com today that Ryan doesn’t agree with the “truce” on social issues Barbour and Daniels have advocated.

“Paul Ryan rejects the false choice that our natural rights to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ are a menu of options,” he said, adding that Ryan has been “calling upon his colleagues to defend the sanctity of life.”

He also pointed to comments Ryan made in a Weekly Standard interview rejecting the “truce” language and putting him outside the Daniels-Barbour circle.

“I don’t see it quite the same way [as Daniels],” Ryan said in June, “we don’t need to ask anybody to unilaterally disarm.”

“I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” Ryan continued. “You’re not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they’re unavoidable, and I’m never going to not vote pro-life.”

Here’s his voting record on pro-life issues:

  • Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record
  • Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance
  • Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion
  • Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans
  • Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization
  • Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood
  • Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment
  • YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion
  • YES on banning partial-birth abortions
  • YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad
  • YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes
  • YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info
  • YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life
  • YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime
  • YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions
  • NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research
  • NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines

And he is also a strong defender of traditional marriage:

  • Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance
  • YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
  • YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage
  • YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman
  • YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation
  • NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes

Tough on crime:

  • Rated 30% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes
  • YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime
  • NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.
  • NO on expanding services for offendors’ re-entry into society

Favors school choice:

  • Rated 8% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes
  • NO on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences
  • NO on $40B for green public schools

And an increased role for families and churches:

  • YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations
  • YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks
  • NO on instituting National Service as a new social invention

So definitely not just a fiscal conservative. He’s conservative across the board. And STRONGLY so.

Female readers of the Wintery Knight blog may now swoon.

Where does Paul Ryan stand on foreign policy and social issues?

Rep. Paul Ryan
Rep. Paul Ryan

We all know that Paul Ryan is conservative on fiscal issues. He’s the man with a plan to stop overspending and solve the debt problem. But where does he stand on other issues?

Here’s an article from the liberal Washington Post about Ryan’s foreign policy views.

Excerpt:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) gave a speech Thursday to the Alexander Hamilton Society in Washington. If one is looking for clues as to Ryan’s interests beyond chairing the House Budget Committee, a speech, as he put it, to “a room full of national security experts about American foreign policy” would merit attention.

…Ryan delivered an above-the-fray talk on the subject of American uniqueness (a less loaded term) and the myth that American decline in inevitable. He posited, “Our fiscal policy and our foreign policy are on a collision course; and if we fail to put our budget on a sustainable path, then we are choosing decline as a world power.”

Ryan contends that the debt crisis is not a bookkeeping problem or even simply a domestic problem; it is about maintaining our status as a superpower and about American values.

[…]He plainly is not with the cut-and-run set on Afghanistan. “Although the war has been long and the human costs high, failure would be a blow to American prestige and would reinvigorate al-Qaeda, which is reeling from the death of its leader. Now is the time to lock in the success that is within reach.” Nor can he be accused of wanting to “go it alone.” “The Obama administration has taken our allies for granted and accepted too willingly the decline of their capacity for international action. Our alliances were vital to our victory in the Cold War, and they need to be revitalized to see us through the 21st century.”

As for China, he bats down the idea that we should go along to get along… He’s clear that China has “very different values and interests from our own.”

And finally on defense spending, he rejects the sort of penny-pinching isolationism of Jon Huntsman or Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.).

According to On The Issues,he’s solid on military spending:

  • Rated 22% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record
  • YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill
  • YES on deploying SDI
  • YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan
  • YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses
  • YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts

He’s solid on counter-terrorism:

  • NO on Veto override: Congressional oversight of CIA interrogations
  • NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad
  • YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent
  • YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight
  • YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant
  • YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad
  • YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms’ warrantless surveillance

And supports military intervention against Islamic terrorists:

  • Strengthen sanctions on Syria & assist democratic transition
  • Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program
  • YES on authorizing military force in Iraq
  • YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date
  • NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days
  • NO on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq

I agree with him on all of that. But how is he on social issues?

Excerpt:

Ryan, the top Republican on the Budget Committee who has a strongly pro-life record, talked about the place social issues have in the election in an interview with CNBC last week.

“We will agree to disagree on those issues,” Ryan said last Monday on CNBC. “But let’s rally around the tallest pole in our tent

Ryan also released a statement today that LifeNews.com received saying pro-life issues are not on a list of menu items that have to be given up during the election season.

“Healthy debate should take place within the Republican Party on specific policies, but it is a false choice to ask which natural right we should discard

“All planks – economic liberty and limited government; keeping our nation secure; championing America’s founding truths and the dignity of every human person – are rooted in same timeless principles, enshrined in our Founding and the cause of our exceptionalism,” Ryan added. “The American family must remain at the core of our free society, and I will remain ever-vigilant in its defense.”

Conor Sweeney, a top Ryan spokesman, told LifeNews.com today that Ryan doesn’t agree with the “truce” on social issues Barbour and Daniels have advocated.

“Paul Ryan rejects the false choice that our natural rights to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ are a menu of options,” he said, adding that Ryan has been “calling upon his colleagues to defend the sanctity of life.”

He also pointed to comments Ryan made in a Weekly Standard interview rejecting the “truce” language and putting him outside the Daniels-Barbour circle.

“I don’t see it quite the same way [as Daniels],” Ryan said in June, “we don’t need to ask anybody to unilaterally disarm.”

“I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” Ryan continued. “You’re not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they’re unavoidable, and I’m never going to not vote pro-life.”

Here’s his voting record on pro-life issues:

  • Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record
  • Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance
  • Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion
  • Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans
  • Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization
  • Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood
  • Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment
  • YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion
  • YES on banning partial-birth abortions
  • YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad
  • YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes
  • YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info
  • YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life
  • YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime
  • YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions
  • NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research
  • NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines

And he is also a strong defender of traditional marriage:

  • Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance
  • YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
  • YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage
  • YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman
  • YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation
  • NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes

Tough on crime:

  • Rated 30% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes
  • YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime
  • NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.
  • NO on expanding services for offendors’ re-entry into society

Favors school choice:

  • Rated 8% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes
  • NO on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences
  • NO on $40B for green public schools

And an increased role for families and churches:

  • YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations
  • YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks
  • NO on instituting National Service as a new social invention

So definitely not just a fiscal conservative. He’s conservative across the board. And STRONGLY so.

Female readers of the Wintery Knight blog may now swoon.

A social conservative’s evaluation of Tuesday’s election results

New York

First, social conservatives lost the special election in New York’s 23rd district.

Excerpt:

Doug Hoffman, the upstart third-party Conservative candidate for the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district, conceded defeat to Democrat Bill Owens early Wednesday morning.

The final tally showed Owens beating out Hoffman by 4,000 votes, 49 percent to 45 percent. On social issues, Owens has identified himself as “pro-choice” regarding abortion, but on marriage, he indicated that he favored President Obama’s position: against same-sex “marriage,” but for civil unions.

[…]While polls on the eve of election-day showed Hoffman having pulled ahead by at least five points, Scozzafava’s weekend endorsement of Owens after the implosion of her own campaign, which had the blessing of national GOP leaders, may have proved the game-changer.

Scozzafava has close ties to the labor unions – her husband is a labor organizer – and channeled that on-the-ground support into Owens campaign. The Albany Times Union reports that powerful New York unions poured in hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose Hoffman.

That’s a lost seat in the House of Representatives. And labor unions opposed the socially conservative candidate.

Maine

Next, social conservatives won against same-sex marriage in Maine.

Excerpt:

Maine voters handed traditional marriage supporters a major victory Tuesday night after rejecting a same-sex “marriage” law that the state government approved six months ago.

Though signed by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, the law never went into effect, and remained in limbo after the success of the ballot initiative calling for a people’s vote.

Had the law been upheld, Maine would have been the sixth U.S. state to allow homosexual “marriage,” after Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

As of early Wednesday, the law was defeated 53% to 47%, despite polling data leading up to the vote showing the race in a dead heat.

[…]Same-sex “marriage” has now lost in all 31 states in which the question has been put to a popular vote.

Traditional marriage is the view that children should be raised by their own mother and father in a stable marriage. Same-sex marriage denies that children should have a right to be raised by a mother and father biologically related to them. See my previous post to understand why people oppose same-sex marriage. And here’s my case for the pro-life position.

Virginia

Social conservatives were elected as governor, lieutenant-governor and attorney general in Virginia.

Excerpt:

Virginia’s state elections saw a sweep for pro-life candidates into the state’s highest offices. Pro-life Republicans captured the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general by wide margins.

Pro-life Republican Bob McDonnell handily beat his pro-abortion Democratic opponent Creigh Deeds. Election night returns showed McDonnell cruising to victory, garnering 59 percent of the vote to Deeds’ 41 percent with 99 percent of precincts reporting in.

[…]Pro-life Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, a Republican, also handily won re-election with 57 percent of the vote, to 43 percent for his pro-abortion Democratic challenger Jody Wagner, with 99 percent of precincts reporting.

[…]Pro-life Republican Ken Cuccinelli also beat out his Democratic and pro-abortion challenger Steve Shannon for the office of attorney general, 58 percent to 42 percent with 99 percent of precincts reporting.

[…]”The Virginia Society for Human Life looks forward to working with all three of these stalwart pro-life leaders, as well as pro-life members of the State Senate and House of Delegates, to enact laws that will safeguard the right to life of unborn children and support their mothers, and protect older people and those with disabilities from denial of lifesaving medical treatment, food and water.”

Great news for social conservatives.

New Jersey

A pro-life, pro-family Republican was elected as governor of the strong Democrat state of New Jersey.

Excerpt:

Incumbent Democrat Gov. Jon Corzine conceded defeat last night to pro-life, pro-family Republican Chris Christie in New Jersey’s governor’s race.

Christie fought a hard-won battle against the incumbent Corzine and third-party candidate Chris Daggett, winning 49 percent of the vote. Corzine, whose bid for re-election received huge assistance from President Barack Obama, who personally campaigned for him in New Jersey, came in second with 45 percent of the vote, with Daggett trailing in third with six percent.

resident Obama had attempted to rally support behind Corzine by tapping into the popularity that garnered the President 57 percent of the vote in New Jersey in 2008. However neither Obama’s personal charisma, nor Corzine’s outspending Christie by almost 3-1 – $30 million to $11.5 million – could save the incumbent governor from defeat in an election that mainly turned on the economy and job stagnation, crippling fees and taxes (especially sky-high property taxes), and fiscal irresponsibility in Trenton that has run rampant during Corzine’s tenure.

[…]During the brutal campaign fight, Corzine, who was endorsed by abortion-provider Planned Parenthood, had attacked Christie in ads for the latter’s support of a constitutional amendment banning abortion and his opposition to embryonic stem-cell research.

Corzine is a big proponent of embryonic stem-cell research. However, New Jersey voters, frustrated with the state’s failure to close a $3 billion budget gap, rejected in November 2007 a $450 million ballot initiative to support a project that would have funded embryonic stem-cell research facilities. The setback was a political humiliation for Corzine, who had broken ground for the Christopher Reed Pavilion in October with the words “to the future,” only to have the voters shelve the project a month later.

Christie, on the other hand, received a critical endorsement from New Jersey’s foremost pro-life GOP Congressman Chris Smith. The pro-life leader’s approval for Christie, who admitted at the beginning of his campaign that he used to describe himself as “pro-choice” until the birth of his own children led him to embrace the pro-life position, was followed by the endorsement of New Jersey Right to Life.

[…]Both of Christie’s challengers, Corzine and Daggett, indicated that they would sign a bill legalizing same-sex “marriage” if given the opportunity.

So again, Barack Obama campaigned on behalf of the anti-life, anti-marriage Democrat candidate, but the Republican pro-life, pro-marriage candidate won the election. Social conservatism is as real to me as fiscal conservatism or foreign policy conservatism, so I am overjoyed that social conservatives won elected offices in 3 out of 4 states that voted for Obama, who is anti-life and anti-family.