Old Lies About Romney Make a Come Back with Populists…Time to Slap Them Down (AGAIN)…

By The Snark Who Hunts Back and The Conservative New Ager

Paul Ryan

The look on our faces every time these anti-Romney lies keep coming back.

So recently we’ve been seeing a string of complaints coming out the less intelligent, less thoughtful, and more populist/progressive quarters of the Right once again attacking Romney. And the problem is that the vast majority of these arguments boil down to two problems. The first problem is that they’re trotting out the same complaints that they used 4 years ago and were shown to be utterly without fact, basis, or sanity 4 years ago…and the second problem is that if you had a candidate to actually put up you would be singing their praises and not attacking the only competent candidate there is.   But the clearly the kind of people who prefer populists and progressives are the kind who like to repeat lies that have already been struck down, we might as well cover why these lies are horseshit once again…

Romneycare

So the first thing that all small minded people claiming to be conservative like to point to is Romneycare. They claim it’s the origin of Obamacare. Continue reading

Advertisements

2012 – Conservative New Ager: I didn’t settle for Romney, I support Romney…let me tell you why…

Because Romney is clearly about to officially announce his candidacy for the 2016 election, I thought it was time to bring back a post from 2012 that my friend at the Conservative New Ager wrote.

Now I will be honest I had a lot of preconceived notions about Romney coming into this. Back in 2008 he seemed to hype the Olympics more than Bain, which didn’t win me over. Plus back then I was working 60-80 hours a week, plus trying to get Republicans and Reincarnation finished so I probably relied a little too much on media assessments and didn’t do my own research. That was my mistake, and my opinions have clearly suffered for it. Not that supporting Romney back in 2008 would have made much of a difference, but I now feel a little dumb for some (not all, but some) of the jabs I’ve taken at him in this blog.

So unlike Paul supporters whose argument boils down to “Drugs, and I’m a coward and don’t want to go to war, and the Gold Standard!” (as if they know anything about that) and Gingrich supporters whose argument boils down to “Uhhhh…uhhhh…he’s not Romney, and he did a few conservative things, once, many years ago….uhhhh….what affairs?”  I will give you reasons.

So in no particular order….

via I didn’t settle for Romney, I support Romney…let me tell you why….

Santorum, the Marxist who called himself a conservative

So we all know Santorum doesn’t understand why he lost and that he loves to continue the liberal lie that Romney wasn’t a good candidate and the delusion that he in any way, shape, or form is electable.  But what about his economic ideas?  Well, they’re possibly the only thing worse than his self-assessment.  Now honestly a waste of oxygen like Santorum would probably not be worth the time I’m about to spend on him, and he’s not, but the problem is that while he himself has no chance of ever getting into power, the fact is that his is a walking symbol of everything wrong with the Republican Party—unlike a real conservative he has risen to prominence by claiming to be a conservative, and his ideas have nothing to do with being a conservative, but you hear them in the words of other idiots within the party (former governors from Arkansas and Alaska come to mind) but Rick states these errors in logic and ideas so clearly (because he’s more clueless than most) so he makes an easy target.  The point here is that Rick Santorum isn’t the problem, he’s an annoying idiot who at most does the conservative movement a little PR damage, the real danger are is his ideas which regrettably have made some inroads with the Populist factions of the party—these ideas need to be shown to be to the lies they are, confronted, and ripped from this party, this nation, and this world before they do more harm.

via Santorum, the Marxist who called himself a conservative.

This is what defeated us?

 

Obama supporters vs. The Constitution

There was no triumph in his face, no elation, only the still intensity of contemplating the enormity of the smallness of the enemy who was destroying the world. He felt as if, after a journey of years through a landscape of devastation, past the ruins of great factories, the wrecks of powerful engines, the bodies of invincible men, he had come upon the despoiler, expecting to find a giant – and had found a rat eager to scurry for cover at the first sound of a human step. If this is what has beaten us, he thought, the guilt is ours.

– Rearden, Atlas Shrugged

Iran Has a Death Wish…or it Would if Romney Had Won.

So sometime on November 1st, Iranian jets fired twice on an American drone that was doing surveillance in the Persian Gulf, which, in case you didn’t know it, is NOT in Iranian airspace.

Iran, whose soldiers are just as incompetent as one would expect, missed the drone…both times.

Under normal circumstances (well, is having a competent president with a backbone really that normal anymore?), let me rephrase, under REAGAN circumstances this would not have happened.

Of course, under REAGAN circumstances, the incident in Libya would not have happened either, because the terrorists (yes, I just said that. Say it with me Obama, T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T-S, that’s what they are) would have been over in less than an hour, with Marines and the CIA storming in to protect our consulate.

But the real issue here is A.) that clearly sanctions against Iran are NOT working as Obama has claimed and B.) what is America planning on doing about it.

Well.

The Pentagon announced the incident as the administration imposed a new round of financial sanctions against Iranian officials and entities. They marked the first sanctions since President Obama’s re-election Tuesday. According to the Treasury Department, the move was “related to the Iranian government’s human rights abuses, its support of terrorism and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”

Oh yay, more sanctions in response to an act of war.

I’m sure Iran is terrified.

You know what really bothers me about this?

The fact that we are just now hearing about this, 7 days after it happened. In this world of 24/7 news, that takes a concerted effort from someone, either the White House or CNN themselves, keeping the news quiet.

Why would they do that?

Well it wouldn’t exactly do wonders for the Messiah in Chief if, 5 days before the election, Iran attacked us and the voters found out.

The whole thing makes me rather sick.

Unlike the attack in Benghazi, which was not directly carried out by Libya’s military (as far as we know now),  this WAS an act of war by Iran. Their military fired on our drone, for no reason.

Obama, this is on you. You got re-elected, because apparently the level of intelligence in this country is slipping, so what are you planning to do about this?

Maybe play another round of golf?

I feel confident…and exhausted.

I am confident that Romney is going to win this and in January we will be watching the Inauguration of President Mitt Romney.

I will be at the polls tomorrow and I will cast my vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the men can bring our country back from the downward spiral that President Obama has put us in.

This is the most important, most exciting, most exhausting, election that has happened in my lifetime and, god willing, it will be the most important one of my lifetime.

I’m not really sure I can deal with such a stressful election season again.

Just remember to

ERMAGHERD! PAUL RYAN WANTS RAPISTS TO HAVE PARENTAL RIGHTS!

Well that’s apparently what liberals would like us to believe.

Anyone with a working brain is, I trust, automatically skeptical of such a claim…as you should be.

It’s not true.

I recently received a message on tumblr from a liberal who appeared to be very smug. They wrote “What if I told you” and linked to this article “Nightmare: 31 States Allow Paternal Rights for Rapists”.

Now the websites tagline is “Progressive: Politics to Pop Culture” so we can already tell this is A.) completely biased and B.) lacks any semblance of actual journalism already.
(Before you respond that I am also biased, remember that I don’t recommend you believe me with no further questioning…which is why I link to legitimate research and news so that you can start your own research.)

Okay, so this article is a hatchet job that provides no facts. Half of the links to ‘proof’ in their article lead to either articles on their own website (which also have no real facts to back them up) and the rest of the links (3 others) have to do DIRECTLY with a case that they cite where the mother won her court case, even though the rapist DID petition for parental rights.

The article (and none of the links) even tries to give us a percentage of woman who are A.) petitioned for parental rights by their rapists or B.) A percentage of rapists who are actually granted these rights.

My thoughts on that are of course that this is because the B part of that equation would be about 0% since the idea that any reasonably sane judge would grant custody or visitation rights to a felon and a registered sex offender (of which a rapist would be both) is absolutely ludicrous.

The article is actually so very bad that I’m going to have to take most of it apart piece by piece, which is something I think my readers enjoy.

In the midst of all the outrage over Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments, Missouri resident Shauna Prewitt waded into the war zone. The victim of a brutal rape, Prewitt later gave birth to a daughter borne of that encounter. When her rapist later filed for custody of her child, Prewitt’s nightmare became frighteningly worse. This courageous woman shared her experience with the rest of America; she is not alone:

“Prewitt says that if she knew then what she knows now about the laws in 31 states thatgrant men who father children via rape visitation rights that are equal to those that other fathers also enjoy, she might not have chosen to keep her child.

“My attacker sought custody of my daughter, but thankfully I got lucky and his visitation rights were terminated,” Prewitt says. “But I’m not sure I would have made the decision I did had I known I might be tethered to my rapist for the rest of my life.””

Okay, so you are saying that a convicted rapist petitioned for parental rights and were denied…that’s not ‘luck’ that’s just common sense on the judge’s part.

This section is curiously lacking in any sort of statistic on how many women this happens to and how often the rapist succeeds…that just might be pertinent.

What does this have to do with Todd Akin’s comments? The idea that there can be “legitimate rape” because the woman was not impregnated during that vile act, and conversely, the notion of “false rape” when it results in pregnancy, is mind-blowingly frightening.

I must be missing something, but when did Akin claim that a pregnancy resulting from rape made it a ‘false rape’?

Regardless, most Conservatives saw Akin’s comments for the stupidity they were (he’s far better than his opponent regardless) so attempting to pin his comments on conservatives in general is just ridiculous.

For a victim to be forced to bear the child of the man who sexually assaulted her, and in many cases also drugged, abducted, terrorized, battered, disfigured, pummeled, shot, or stabbed her is unimaginable. While the sponsors of HR-3 will insist that such a victim was never raped, since alas, there is a pregnancy; these legislators also tell the perpetrator that he, by default, cannot be considered a rapist. In such a world, Ms. Prewitt would have had no grounds upon which to terminate the visitation of the rapist bastard who fathered her child.

Okay…so Akin was in on creating HR-3. However if you actually read the bill, like I actually did, you will find that it has no restrictions on women being raped having an abortion.

Nor does it change the definition of rape or say that women who get pregnant ‘weren’t really raped’ because they got pregnant. Now you just reaching the territory of stupid. Nor have the legislators in question tried to say that ‘if you get pregnant, then your rapists isn’t actually a rapist’.

So, yeah…she would still have grounds, except in the fantasy world you are constructing which has nothing to do with reality.

It’s nice how you never link to the text of the actual bill you are badmouthing, you just make up what you think is in the bill and feed it to your readers. Fact checking might help you.

What are we to take away from Prewitt’s experience? Consider that 31 states have not yet adopted special laws that restrict the ability of rapists to assert their custodian and visitation rights to a child born through rape. These 31 states effectively grant men who father children via rape visitation rights that are equal to those that other fathers also enjoy.

Okay, so maybe we should have a law that says ‘no felon or sex offender may petition for custodial rights of children’, but the states you are criticizing to NOT ‘effectively grant men who father children via rape visitation rights.’

What the state laws allow is for them to petition the court for those rights.

Remember earlier when I said that the idea that judge would grant such a person custodial rights was ludicrous?

Remember when you never gave us any statistics on how often this is attempted or how often it succeeds?

HR-3’s “legitimate rape” and “forcible rape” language would nullify the laws of the other 19 states for all of the reasons given above.

HR-3 uses no such language. Did you even read the bill?

After all, HR-3 says no such father could be a rapist – and fathers have rights.

HR-3 says no such thing. Did you even read the bill?

Data shows that roughly 27% of all American women faced with Shauna Prewitt’s circumstances make the decision to have and raise the baby; roughly 47% give birth but put the baby up for adoption.

Ooh! This looks like a buildup to some actual statistics on how many rapists petition and succeed in petitioning for custodial rights!

In the world of HR-3, the 26% who opt to have an abortion would be criminalized.

Whoops….no, just more fantasy world.

In point of fact, HR-3 actually say:

‘Sec. 306. Non-preemption of other Federal laws

‘Nothing in this chapter shall repeal, amend, or have any effect on any other Federal law to the extent such law imposes any limitation on the use of funds for abortion or for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion, beyond the limitations set forth in this chapter.

which means, for those with less reading comprehension, that this bill does not change the law on abortion at all. All it does is say that federal money cannot be used for abortions, except in the case of:

‘Sec. 308. Treatment of abortions related to rape, incest, or preserving the life of the mother

‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, and 303 shall not apply to an abortion–

‘(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

‘(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

So actually…this law doesn’t change anything for women who have been raped or have lives that are being endangered by the pregnancy.

To escape an imminent jail term, women would be forced to have their rapist’s baby

No, just stop.

and face the likelihood of being tethered to him for life.

Really, stop. Your fantasy world is not amusing anymore. You really need to live in reality.

Likewise, any rapist-father, now legally classified as non-rapist under Akin/Ryan law, could withhold consent to adoption as the unwed biological father and insinuate himself into the lives of mother and child.

No, they are still considered rapists. HR-3 has nothing to do with the definition of rape or defining what constitutes a rapist, a felon, or a sex offender is.

As previously stated, the rapist could attempt any of these things, but a judge would throw out the requests nearly as fast as they were made, HR-3 has NOTHING to do with this.

Consider the psychological aspects of rape: it is about domination, humiliation, control, and brutal degradation. For such a man to have controlling interests in the life of a child spawned by his brutality is heinous and reprehensible.

Oh look, we agree on something. This may be the only truthful thing you’ve said in this entire piece of crap.

Still has nothing to do with HR-3.

Legislation that would open the doors of victimized women to their attackers and give them free reign to manipulate, control, and to exert psychological torture indefinitely is downright barbaric.

Yes, yes it is.

Good job, you managed two correct (if obvious) statements in this article.

Still had nothing to do with HR-3.

Consideration should also be given to children fathered through acts of incest, and pedophilia; these two are often interrelated. In such instances, the Akin/Ryan law could grant indisputable custody to men who already have a sexual predilection for children, and would place the children of the children they raped squarely under their control.

No, no it wouldn’t.

HR-3 says NOTHING about protecting rapists or pedophiles.

In fact, it protects federal funding for abortions in one two cases at all.

‘(A) an abortion–

‘(i) in the case of a pregnancy that is the result of an act of rape or incest, or

‘(ii) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy.

HR-3

Great job at trying to poison the well though. I’m sure most of your liberal readers won’t bother to research this bill and will run around claiming that they have and that it protects rapists and bans abortions, but we both know that’s not true.