‘New’ Republicans Behind Paul Ryan’s Political Rise

By Michael Collins Piper

No media report on the selection of Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as Mitt Romney’s running mate has noted its real significance. The first-ever candidate on a national ticket of his generation to emerge from Congress—the exception being Barack Obama, who served in the Senate—Ryan spent his entire adult life, beginning at age 19, immersed in the inner circles of the “new” Republican Party.

This one subtle nuance says much about Ryan, who, as a high school senior, was voted “biggest brown-noser.” In fact, Ryan’s entire career has been sponsored by high-level, hard-line pro-Israeli forces that—at the time Ryan first became involved in politics—were just beginning to make their heavy-handed presence felt in the GOP. Until that time, the Republican Party had largely been indifferent to the demands of the Israeli lobby, with some GOP leaders actually (on occasion) standing up to that lobby.

 
 
 

Ryan’s first political stint came as an intern for then-Senator Bob Kasten (R-Wis.), who—in prior service in the House—was associated with the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS), a bloc of House Republicans led by then-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). The group’s leaders publicly proclaimed their determination, in the words of then-Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), to make the GOP “America’s new internationalist party.”

COS members were outspoken advocates for Israel and actively worked to advance the interests of Israel, once even frustrating an effort by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Thomas Moorer to force Congress to launch an inquiry into Israel’s murderous 1967 attack on the USS Liberty.

Later, Ryan went to work for Weber at a “think tank” called Empower America founded by Weber after he left Congress. Empower America was so much a front-line force promoting Israeli interests and the globalist agenda to the point that Ryan’s sponsor was named to the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (where he is a member of its board) and served as chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), on whose board he still serves. Critics view NED as an influential force advancing American imperial meddling around the planet.

Ryan then went back to Capitol Hill, where he was legislative director for then-Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). Although Ryan had, by that point, left Brownback’s office, Brownback received unwanted attention when AMERICAN FREE PRESS revealed in an international exclusive that Brownback entered into an agreement with Israeli lobby forces to institute legislation to curtail criticism of Israel by professors and students on American college campuses. Brownback did this by threatening to cut federal funding to colleges that permit such exercise of free speech. Brownback even spoke of setting up a tribunal to enforce the censorship.

Considering all of this, it is no surprise that preceding Romney’s selection of Ryan as his running mate, two major journals with long-standing ties to pro-Israeli neoconservative circles—The Wall Street Journal (published by Zionist billionaire Rupert Murdoch) and The Weekly Standard (founded by Murdoch and still edited by neoconservative power broker William Kristol)—urged Romney to select Ryan. That both publications are closely allied with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a longtime friend of Romney—points further toward the Zionist origins of Ryan’s rise to the top of the GOP pyramid.

Rep. Ryan’s Voting Record

The following votes from the 111th and 112th Congresses provide a good overview of the voting record of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who was recently picked by presumed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to be his running mate. Ryan has transformed himself into a fiscal conservative, who introduced a plan that severely cut the federal budget of unconstitutional programs such as funding for public broadcasting. He is also a fervent internationalist, who advocates increasing the U.S. military budget.

8/2/12—YES—Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2012 (H.R. 6233), which provides aid to farmers hurt by the recent heat wave. It passed the House but was sent back to committee when the Senate passed a different version.

8/1/12—YES—To extend certain tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003, and for other purposes (H.R. 8), which extended the Bush tax cuts for all Americans. It passed the House.

7/31/12—YES—District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803), which would have effectively outlawed abortion in the nation’s capital. It failed in the House.

7/25/12—YES—Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2012 (H.R. 459), which would have allowed government auditors to audit the Fed. It passed the House and is currently pending in the Senate.

7/19/12—NO—The House voted on this day, 247-167, to freeze the war budget for 2013 at the 2012 level of $518B. A “Yes” vote would have cut $1B out of the budget.

5/9/12—YES—An amendment to a multi-agency appropriations bill that would have barred the Justice Department from interfering in state voter ID requirement laws. The amendment passed in the House but died in the Senate.

4/27/12—YES—Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2011 (H.R. 2096) that would have allowed government more control over the Internet. It failed in the Senate.

2/17/12—NO—Payroll-Tax Cut allowing workers to contribute 4.2% of their pay to Social Security, down from the standard 6.2%. It passed the House.

12/14/11—YES—Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Human Rights Act of 2012 (H. Res. 750).

4/7/11—YES—The House passed H.R. 910 by a vote of 255-172 legislation that bars the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating so-called greenhouse-gas emissions and challenges claims behind climate change.

3/21/10—NO—The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 1), commonly referred to as Obamacare.* It passed the House and Senate and was signed by the president.

*Romneycare vs. Obamacare: Is There a Difference?

By Pete Papaherakles

Mitt Romney has come under criticism for opposing the healthcare overhaul known as Obamacare. Critics point to the fact that, as Massachusetts’s governor, Romney was the first in the country to pass a universal care plan, which is called Romneycare. Democrats say that there is no substantive difference between the two.

Both plans use taxpayer dollars to subsidize people who can’t afford to buy insurance on an exchange. Romney’s plan gives more money to fewer people, while Obama’s gives less money to more people. Both plans require employers to provide insurance, but Obama’s plan punishes companies with harsher fines. Both plans let children stay on their parents’ plans until they are 26-years-old. Both plans require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and prohibit them from rescinding coverage retroactively. Both cover preventive care, although one uses a deductible and the other a co-pay.

Some analysts, however, say there are differences between Obamacare and Romneycare, and the biggest relates to taxes. Obama has to raise $1T in taxes or borrowing over the first 10 years to cover the cost of the federal healthcare law.

The state law Romney signed didn’t force the state to raise taxes, but it did cost more than originally predicted.

Another difference was that Romney’s bill,which was only 70 pages, was a state solution to a state problem. Obama’s 2,074-page bill is a big government one-size-fits-all plan, which does not take into account each state’s concerns, such as vastly different debt levels and number of uninsured citizens.

In his book, No Apologies, Romney writes: “My own preference is to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model if they choose, or they could develop plans of their own.” Romney has said that on his first day as president, he would issue a waiver to all 50 states, allowing them to opt out of Obamacare. This waiver would allow states to postpone the implementation of Obamacare while Romney works with Congress to formally repeal the bill.