Matter of Time

Posted by Raquel on Mar 2nd, 2010 and filed under 2010 Election. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Slowly but surely evidence is surfacing to substantiate the claims made in my article “Congress, Abortion, and District 19” written two weeks ago today. I covered the story of Republican Nan Hayworth, current darling of the Republican Party and 2010 contender for New York’s Congressional District 19. Nan Hayworth has what I call “baggage” – and because of this – will be unable to gain the favor of primary voters and secure the Republican and Conservative Party nominations.

Unfortunately for Nan Hayworth, her husband, Scott Hayworth, is an OB/GYN doctor, and by virtue of his profession, three significant problems have emerged:

1.  Hayworth admits to having performed abortions in the past;

2.  He is CEO of Mount Kisco Medical Group (“MKMG”), a clinic that performs abortions, despite stating at this blog that “MKMG is not an abortion clinic”; and

3.  Hayworth is part of a political action committee that supports pro-abortion candidates.

The main issue becomes: If Nan Hayworth was elected to the United States Congress, will she be advocating on behalf of the abortion lobby as a payback to the many abortion doctors that have directly or indirectly donated to her campaign?

Just yesterday, YouTube poster “ ocogop” showed his/her disgust with the Republican’s choice of candidates in a little over one minute, devastating clip that communicates some of the damaging details surrounding Scott Hayworth. View video here.

NewsCopy.com Editor Bob Fois confirms that abortions are taking place at MKMG, and opines that despite all fingers pointing to the Hayworth campaign in the negative, the people who need to know, or need to say they know, are nowhere to be found:

Sources have told News Copy that evidence exists proving that Dr. Hayworth does run an OB/GYN clinic that performs abortions.  The issue is not expected to go away anytime soon but no accountable claim by a candidate or organization has surfaced.

Bob Fois suggested that I “follow the money” if I want to learn the truth. Indeed, a second and closer look at the individual donors to the Hayworth campaign led me to further question the credibility of the Hayworth’s. (Source: CampaignMoney.com).

Out of the 15 doctors that donated individually to the Hayworth campaign, seven including Scott Hayworth work at the Mount Kisco location – Building 90. Five of the seven donors are OB/GYN doctors with their practice limited to gynecology – what this means is that women who want to bring their pregnancy to term are not being treated there – and although I do not have concrete evidence to support this assertion yet, it seems Building 90 is the abortion site of the MKMG clinic.

The Republican Party has some nerve trying to push a candidate whose husband is as closely related to the abortion industry as Scott Hayworth is. The argument that Nan is the good enough candidate because she has the most money to spend, is not nearly enough to put my morals and ideals aside, and it is this precise disregard of the People’s values that has the tea party folks so disappointed. They want Mr. Smith Goes to Washington not The Manchurian Candidate.

There are so far four other candidates pursuing the Republican and Conservative Party’s nomination in District 19. None having the same abortion industry connection as Hayworth and all claiming to be pro-life, surely, the respective Parties have options.

Although the NYS Conservative Party has not issued an official endorsement, I can say with complete confidence that Party Leaders will not support Nan Hayworth, even though Conservatives oftentimes, just like their Republican counterparts, use the close enough strategy in their attempts to win at all costs– Hayworth baggage, however, is proving to be too heavy.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, is still balking at the idea that a pro-life candidate can win in New York, and are still being weighed down by motives to retain power and make money, instead of standing on principle and moving from there.

In Hollywood, any publicity is good publicity, but in the brutal world of politics, politicians are held to a higher standard. Since elected officials are just a microcosm of the public’s wants and needs, it should reflect the morals and ideals of the populace.

Hello Mr. Ed Cox, I have another message for you:

District 19 deserves better. They deserve a candidate that represents their values. Nan Hayworth is closely related to the abortion industry – an industry that is antithetical to freedom and makes its living tearing apart tiny infants in the womb. My prediction is that the Hayworth ship, being weighed down by too much baggage, will sink and sink hard – it’s only a matter of time.


70 Responses for “Matter of Time”

  1. Way to go Raquel! I for one do NOT want to exhaust energy and money helping any candidates that are just simply “good enough”. It’s time to take a stand. It’s not just about winning…it’s about winning the right way! Keep exposing the facts and let the people decide.

    By Maverickgirl on Mar 2, 2010

  2. We await Robert Hornak’s apology.

    By Alice L. on Mar 2, 2010

  3. You confirm what my source in the district has told me.

    By Alice L. on Mar 2, 2010

  4. Thanks Alice, I’m not surprised!

    By Raquel on Mar 2, 2010

  5. thank you Raquel! When are these stupid politicians going to wakeup????????/// It seems that neither the republicans or the democrats care about what the people are saying!

    By PBob on Mar 2, 2010

  6. You tell ‘em, Raquel.

    By Mitchell Langbert on Mar 2, 2010

  7. Raquel,

    Simply repeating unverified statements doesn’t make them true. And Fois stating that abortions are taking place somewhere doesn’t make it true either. Move on.

    http://www.AppalledAtHall.com

    By Appalled on Mar 2, 2010

  8. I’m very sorry to see that you are still pushing grist for the rumor mill. While making the story seem updated, all you really have done here Raquel is rewrite all your past assertions with no new evidence. It appears you are really starting to grasp at straws.

    For example, you state, “Hayworth is part of a political action committee that supports pro-abortion candidates.”

    Well, they also support pro-life candidates. So what can we assume from that? Do you have any clue on what basis the donations were given? From my research it appears they were trying to influence the healthcare reform legislation. Hardly an ignominious objective.

    The, “If Nan Hayworth was elected to the United States Congress, will she be advocating on behalf of the abortion lobby as a payback to the many abortion doctors that have directly or indirectly donated to her campaign?”

    More assumptions based on assumptions. You assume these are abortion doctors. You assume they gave contributions on something other than their personal friendship with the Hayworths, and you assume she has any interest in the politics of abortion. A pretty big reach there, you must admit.

    The you said, “NewsCopy.com Editor Bob Fois confirms that abortions are taking place at MKMG”

    In fact, Bob made the exact same claim as you, that there are rumors and alleged sources claiming that MKMG is an abortion facility. He offered no evidence, other than speculation.

    If you have any actual evidence of anything I would welcome it. As would your other readers, I’m sure.

    Until then, pushing a rigid anti-abortion platform for the republican party (like your pal ocogop would enforce), one that would not only drive people like me from the Party, but would also exclude people like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, is not going to help us win a majority anywhere this coming year.

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 2, 2010

  9. Wrong, Appalled. I am appalled that you are not appalled! My source in that district (who actually votes there and is a Republican) tells me much about the Haywards – and it is not positive, either.

    By Alice L. on Mar 2, 2010

  10. “I’m very sorry to see that you are still pushing grist for the rumor mill.”

    I don’t make up these things. I am only reporting what is unfolding.

    “…they also support pro-life candidates. So what can we assume from that?”

    The records indicate that at the rate of 81% the referenced PAC donates to “pro-choice” Democrats.

    “You assume these are abortion doctors.”

    Yes, I indicated it is an assumption (for now).

    “Bob made the exact same claim as you, that there are rumors and alleged sources claiming that MKMG is an abortion facility. He offered no evidence, other than speculation.”

    The difference here is I believe Bob Fois and you don’t.

    “…pushing a rigid anti-abortion platform for the republican party (like your pal ocogop would enforce)…is not going to help us win a majority anywhere this coming year.”

    Hayworth’s husband is about extreme as it gets, so I disagree that my position is rigid. I also disagree that a pro-life platform hurts the Party in their efforts to win.

    For the record, I have no idea who “ocogop” is, and he/she is not my pal.

    By Raquel on Mar 2, 2010

  11. Appalled at Hall,

    Let’s suppose that just one of the assertions contained in my series to expose Nan Hayworth is true.

    Can you argue why a Republican should vote for Nan Hayworth when there is a relationship to the abortion industry?

    And, if a candidate’s position is “pro-choice”, is it not fair to question why so, if the voter considers themselves pro-life?

    By Raquel on Mar 2, 2010

  12. Raquel,
    You are basing your opinion on a series of unverified facts, “reporting” them as news and expecting the rest of us not to challenge you.

    A Republican should vote for Nan because they believe in her cause and not discount her as a candidate over one single issue such as abortion.

    Your statements of exaggeration are not consistent with the facts.

    Appalled

    By Appalled on Mar 2, 2010

  13. Appalled,

    Either what I am reporting is true or false. I do not besmirch you for challenging my commentary and my positions, in fact I welcome it!

    However, I admit that what I have presented so far are facts based upon my view of reality, and I’m not sure you present a convincing case that my facts don’t add up.

    I have been receiving a lot of positive support for telling this story.

    By Raquel on Mar 2, 2010

  14. “I don’t make up these things. I am only reporting what is unfolding.”

    And what is new from your post from 2 weeks ago? What has unfolded? Other than Bob restating that he has “sources” but no evidence. Once again, if you can’t provide some actual evidence, then you ARE just making it up.

    “The records indicate that at the rate of 81% the referenced PAC donates to “pro-choice” Democrats.”

    Yes, in 2008 after the dems took control of congress and Obama was elected. When the republicans were in control of congress, they got the majority of funding. You are taking that one fact out of context and using it to try prove something that it doesn’t.

    “Yes, I indicated it is an assumption”

    How can you assume that and then build an entire case against Nan based on that assumption? Don’t you think that goes too far?

    “The difference here is I believe Bob Fois and you don’t.”

    No, I don’t believe Bob’s anonymous sources. It is not first hand information he is spreading. And let’s not forget that Bob does have his own agenda here. His motives are far from pure. And Bob can also be far too trusting of his “sources.” This wouldn’t be the first time they turned out to be wrong.

    “Hayworth’s husband is about extreme as it gets”

    Again, you are basing this on assumptions about what he does and is involved in, based on ZERO evidence other than his profession, association with a medical pac (that appears far more concerned about healthcare reform than abortion), and his personal/professional relationships with other doctors.

    Also, I did not say you were rigid. What I was trying to say was that some people like your friend ocogop (and I said that euphemistically) are trying to impose a “rigid anti-abortion platform for the republican party” that is counter-productive to the Party at large and would exclude not only people like like, but Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. Do you really want a Party that drives out all the pro-choice members?

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 2, 2010

  15. “I admit that what I have presented so far are facts based upon my view of reality,”

    No, there are facts and there are opinions. Facts don’t change based on ones “view of reality.” What you have presented are a bunch of conclusions you have drawn based on a lot of “if” scenarios, partial truths and associations. You are still seriously lacking in facts.

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 2, 2010

  16. Abortions are done at the Mount Kisco Medical Center. As CEO, Dr. Scott Hayworth and his wife Nan profit from abortion. Also, it has been confirmed that Nan Hayworth’s husband in recent years has still been performing abortions.

    As more than one reader has observed here and on News Copy, Hayworth’s response and Nan’s lack of response is Clintonesque.

    How the message has (or hasn’t) been carried becomes a bigger issue than the message itself.

    Last time I checked, the 19th Congressional District had demographics amazingly close to the principles of the Republican National Committee’s platform. Frankly, it might be the most Republican Congressional District in New York — more than many upstate districts.

    So the bigger issue here is whether Republicans want to appear out of touch with the people or adequately reflect the will of the people.

    I personally believe the answer is simple.

    People gravitate to a public servant who is comfortable in his or her skin, on the issues that matter to people. Whether abortion matters to you or not, there’s a bit too much fear and self-loathing associated with Hayworth’s candidacy.

    Perhaps she isn’t what she says as a candidate, either on the second amendment rights or “green” initiatives …

    … People get a sense of a candidate on their own.

    I am sure Nan Hayworth means well. But the will of the people in the 19th seems less important than her own agenda — and THAT should concern Republican leaders.

    By Bob Fois on Mar 2, 2010

  17. Robert, I said my facts are based on “my perception of reality” to illustrate the point that your “facts” are based upon your perception of reality, which in this case, in my point of view, wrong.

    You are arguing semantics with me.

    You can do better than that by explaining why a candidate with such abortion ties should gain the support of pro-lifers in the district.

    I have clearly set forth why they should not.

    By Raquel on Mar 2, 2010

  18. Bob, you are still wicked with your pen. However, after parsing your statements, you fail to make your case.

    “Also, it has been confirmed that Nan Hayworth’s husband in recent years has still been performing abortions.”

    The only time it appears this may be true is in the very rare case where a mothers life was in danger. Something ANY obgyn would do to protect the life of their patient. Any that wouldn’t would be in violation of their hippocratic oath. Hayworth doesn’t “profit” from abortion, he has delivered over 2000 babies, so it seems clear he profits from bringing life into the world. If you beleive MKMG is an abortion provider, show me one advertisement where they offer the service. Show some proof other than this conspiracy theory-style argument that there is something mysterious going on behind closed doors. I feel like we’re debating area 51, and not a medical facility.

    “Hayworth’s response and Nan’s lack of response is Clintonesque.”

    Really? I think he has been pretty straightforward in responding to these malicious attacks. And she is right not to get dragged off message by this BS. Frankly, she shouldn’t be judged by her husband anyway. She should be allowed to stand on her own two feet as a candidate and judged on her own merits. This tactic is rather sleazy.

    “there’s a bit too much fear and self-loathing associated with Hayworth’s candidacy.”

    Again, really? You base this on what? I mean, it sounds really bad and makes a great soundbite. But has no relation to anything in reality I’ve seen anywhere.

    And here is the creme de la creme: “I am sure Nan Hayworth means well. But the will of the people in the 19th seems less important than her own agenda”

    What agenda is that? Judging by past elected officials, Nan seems perfectly in tune with the people of the 19th district. Other than maybe your cabal of anti-abortion zealots (and I say zealot with the greatest of affection). You can not control the candidates of the republican party based solely on abortion, Bob, as much as you seem determined to.

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 2, 2010

  19. “You can do better than that by explaining why a candidate with such abortion ties should gain the support of pro-lifers in the district.”

    Establish any abortion ties and then we can discuss them in context. Until then, I will not speculate on what ties may or may not exist.

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 2, 2010

  20. “Establish any abortion ties and then we can discuss them in context.”

    Robert, you’re kidding right? No abortion ties, huh?

    By Raquel on Mar 2, 2010

  21. When it comes to the issue of abortion, something I know from present scientific evidence to be the ending of a life, I am reminded of the rhetorical arguments made by Naomi Wolf — who neither pretends to be pro-life or pro-choice.

    Wolf has denounced “fanaticism” toward abortion rights.

    Wolf warns that the pro-choice movement has “developed a lexicon of dehumanization” and she instead urged feminists to accept abortion as murder and defend the procedure as it is — rather than how they want to spin it.

    The reality check here for politicians who don’t want to say “pro-abortion” is that they never stake out a stand that they actually believe in — and there is a disconnect with the voters.

    A generation of Republicans have learned this lesson the hard way, leaving cross-sections of the electorate uninspired and doubting the integrity of candidates. It’s not the be-all and end-all issue. But why make it a credibility gap while running for office? Afraid someone won’t vote for you?

    The punchline is that it is also just another reason why a pro-abortion voter may not even trust Hayworth, since she’s dancing around the language. It does cut both ways.

    The problem with Nan Hayworth will be the same problem Sue Kelly faced in 2006 and prior elections. Abortion is an issue the Democrats use to pull out THEIR base, not the Republicans.

    A candidate who is conflicted on an issue as important as abortion in a congressional district as conservative as the 19th undoubtedly will fail to inspire an important cross-section of Republican voters.

    And Naomi Wolf is right. If you believe abortion is necessary, you must simultaneously accept murder as necessary and emotionally process what you’re advocating. When you cease acknowledging life, you dehumanize many other things in society and one’s individual life.

    In politics, we make compromises but we should at least be honest with ourselves about the nature of that compromise. The problem here is that Hayworth’s strategy on abortion is to disregard it as important. It may all be thrown back to the states soon enough but just openly tell us you believe in abortion rights — rather than dance around it.

    By Bob Fois on Mar 2, 2010

  22. It hard to believe I would respond to this rehash of innuendos, so I am not going too, but I do have a few comments.

    As you all know at the end of these sentences, my name is Carl Svensson. Unfortunately, I do not “know” everyone who has commented on this subject but I do know who Alice and Bob are. I posed a question earlier as to why folks on the ‘net’ hide their idenities, and to date, I have not received an answer from anyone who follows this practice. Can anyone help me in this regard?

    I think that I should state what might not be obvious from my earlier comments: I am “pro-life”. I just wanted to set the record straight in this regard. Raquel knows how I feel about this subject.

    Raquel wrote: “I admit that what I have presented so far are facts based upon my view of reality.”

    Facts are facts, or they are not.

    Raquel wrote: “Either what I am reporting is true or false.”

    True, but at this point we do not know what are facts or not.

    Raquel has written such things as:

    “Current darling of the Republican Party…The Republican Party has…. The Republican …

    All comments such as these are not facts. The GOP is a non-living entity so how can it have a “current darling” for example.

    Unfortunately, millions of “other writers” make the same mistakes. Now if she had said, “elements of the Republican Party, that would be acceptable to everyone I would wager.

    I should note that in the end, the Republican Party will not decide who the GOP candidate will be, but the Republican rank and file.

    Raquel also implied that the 19th CD was one of the more Republican congressional districts in the state. The fact is the 19th CD has a Democrat enrollment advantage, and that at a minimum, the 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 25th snd 26th districts have a Republican enrollment advantage, as does the 1st and 3rd districts.

    So how many of the 29 NYS Congressional Districts have GOP Congressman? If you guessed 2 out of 29 you would be right!

    Let’s make a wild assumption, and say that Dr. Hayworth wins the GOP primary. You might not know that the pro-life Hasidic Community of Kiryas Joel “controls” the Independence Party nomination fir the 19th CD, and that this line supplied John “abortion with no exceptions” Hall with 5% if the vote.

    And let’s say that the Conservative Party opts for someone else other that the GOP nominee. If you are guessing the “we” end up with a “pro-abortion candidate” you would probably be right, and he almost certainly support everything that “we” oppose.

    And, if we had a “pro-life” candidate who wins the 19th Congressional District, what precisely do you think he could do to change the status quo in New York and the nation?

    Carl Svensson

    By Carl Svensson on Mar 2, 2010

  23. Carl,

    With regard to the “facts” issue, you are arguing semantics just like Robert, instead of refuting the points I have made.

    Is it a fact that Dr. Scott Hayworth has done abortions in the past? I say yes.

    Is it a fact that Dr. Scott Hayworth is CEO of a medical clinic known in pro-life circles to be an abortion facility? I say yes.

    Is it a fact that there’s a money trail of abortion doctors contributing to Nan Hayworth’s campaign? I say yes.

    You make the point that the Democrats have advantage in enrollment numbers in District 19. I contend a couple of things: 1. And? and 2. Who cares?

    Pro-life Republicans got elected in Queens County with a Democrat enrollment advantage in some places 4 to 1, yet, Halloran, Koo, and Ulrich suceeded in their bid to sit on the NYC Council.

    Again, I think this election cycle is different, and the tea party folks will make a bigger difference than you think.

    “Unfortunately, millions of “other writers” make the same mistakes. Now if she had said, “elements of the Republican Party, that would be acceptable to everyone I would wager.”

    You’re right Carl, I am usually a little more careful. Obviously not all Republican Leaders think alike.

    “Let’s make a wild assumption, and say that Dr. Hayworth wins the GOP primary. You might not know that the pro-life Hasidic Community of Kiryas Joel “controls” the Independence Party nomination fir the 19th CD, and that this line supplied John “abortion with no exceptions” Hall with 5% if the vote.”

    Interesting point and I’m happy you shared this important piece of information, however, Republicans and Conservatives outnumber the Independence Party, and I’m not about to let a small faction dictate who is the best candidate for the job.

    “And, if we had a “pro-life” candidate who wins the 19th Congressional District, what precisely do you think he could do to change the status quo in New York and the nation?”

    It’s about principle. It’s about knowing that as a country if we fail to protect the most weakest members, who are we protecting?

    Pro-life candidates support pro-life measures in Congress. Popular pro-life officials advocate pro-life legislation. We are much better off with a candidate who is pro-life — that’s how I see it.

    By Raquel on Mar 2, 2010

  24. Bob, your Naomi Wolf story is interesting but has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. Furthermore, you don’t get to set the rules by which we all play. You dislike the term “pro-choice” but that describes the position held by many people, including myself. Pro-abortion implies an entirely different mindset, but perhaps you can’t see the difference.

    “The reality check here for politicians who don’t want to say “pro-abortion” is that they never stake out a stand that they actually believe in — and there is a disconnect with the voters.”

    Really? Most voters dislike abortion but think it should be kept legal. So where is the disconnect? Not to mention that every poll shows abortion to be at the bottom of the list of priorities for Americans. For most people this is a non-issue. Most view your radical position on abortion to be disconnected with the priorities of the country.

    “The punchline is that it is also just another reason why a pro-abortion voter may not even trust Hayworth, since she’s dancing around the language.”

    Great spin there Bob. I applaud your creativity. You should seriously write fiction.

    Ah, last time I checked she said she was pro-choice. Where is the dancing? That says plenty.

    “If you believe abortion is necessary, you must simultaneously accept murder as necessary and emotionally process what you’re advocating. When you cease acknowledging life, you dehumanize many other things in society and one’s individual life.”

    It’s not murder if it is done within the limits of the law. It is the lawful ending of a life that in most cases is unable to support itself, therefore not entitled to the same rights as the mother.

    Carl, thanks for chiming in you make some good points.

    As someone with a lot of experience in blogging, I will try to answer your question. Some people can’t be open for many reasons. Some have an agenda that would be obvious if people knew who the commenter is. Some like to be able to attack and insult people personally without having to take responsibility. Some like to start/spread rumors just to see how much traction they gain. Some are just too insecure of their opinions and need to remain anonymous. It is an interesting situation. Most people are rather transparent when you see the patterns over and over.

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 2, 2010

  25. Raquel, thank you, thank you, thank you for finally laying out your case. Now we can look at it point by point.

    1. “Is it a fact that Dr. Scott Hayworth has done abortions in the past? I say yes.”

    You say yes? Based on what? Hayworth says he does not perform abortions. Your belief does not make it a fact, except for the fact that you believe it. Hardly proof. One anonymous blogger claims, and I don’t know if this is true, that Hayworth has admitted to doing some emergency abortions to save the life of the mother. That may be true, being in his position I would assume it to happen on occassion. That does not make him an abortion doctor, but rather one who takes the well-being of his patient and his hippocratic oath seriously.

    2. “Is it a fact that Dr. Scott Hayworth is CEO of a medical clinic known in pro-life circles to be an abortion facility? I say yes.”

    Oh the tangled web we weave. Yes, it is a fact that he is CEO of a medical clinic. Nothing else is a fact, other than certain people believe something to be so. Again, if this is an abortion facility, they must be advertising somewhere, or do something to attract patients. Find the proof.

    3. “Is it a fact that there’s a money trail of abortion doctors contributing to Nan Hayworth’s campaign? I say yes.”

    It is a fact that doctors associated with Scott Hayworth have contributed to his wife’s campaign. Are they abortion doctors? This is far from established. In fact that facility has hundreds of doctors with as varied a list of specialties as you’ll find anywhere. Those contributors are just as likely, if not more so, to be podiatrists or orthopedists.

    According to their website, “Mount Kisco Medical Group is comprised of over 200 primary care and specialty physicians including experts in 30 specialties and subspecialties.”

    That hardly sounds like an abortion clinic.

    “Pro-life Republicans got elected in Queens County with a Democrat enrollment advantage in some places 4 to 1, yet, Halloran, Koo, and Ulrich suceeded in their bid to sit on the NYC Council.”

    Only Ulrich is pro-life. Halloran and Koo are both pro-choice. Ulrich also has the distiction of being in the one heavily italian-catholic district in Queens.

    “I’m not about to let a small faction dictate who is the best candidate for the job.”

    Here I agree with you 100%. Let’s see who comes out on top, and if it is Nan Hayworth that will say a lot.

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 2, 2010

  26. Robert — I know you have said you are reading my posts — but I have mentioned these things over and over again.

    I am not the only one who knows that Scott Hayworth has performed abortions, he has admitted it himself, although claims he is not performing them now.

    Google Nan Hayworth on Abortion, and you will see a whole slew of people reiterating the same points.

    You’re in la la land if you believe Scott Hayworth has not performed abortions.

    Proof or concrete evidence of MKMG performing abortions will be forthcoming, trust me. Just note that me and Bob Fois are not the only ones saying this.

    “Only Ulrich is pro-life. Halloran and Koo are both pro-choice.”

    Halloran himself told me he was pro-life, and Koo was listed as taking a pro-life position in a Nassau County pro-life Newsletter, a position they don’t take lightly, so I highly doubt they got it wrong.

    By Raquel on Mar 2, 2010

  27. Thanks for a great job, Raquel! There are very good candidates available who respect unborn life–we don’t need self-serving candidates like Nan Hayworth–

    By Florence on Mar 2, 2010

  28. After some careful research, I found Republicans in Westchester and Putnam who could supply me with the evidence and witnesses to answer most of the questions posed in this forum.

    But as a number of people have already observed, Dr. Scott Hayworth relied on a Clintonesque approach to couch/spin his statement.

    Surveys of doctors, statements by employees of the Mount Kisco Medical Group and analysis of the facility (as Raquel already discussed) have verified most of the points concerning abortion on Dr. Hayworth’s watch as CEO.

    To counter Robert’s reaction to Naomi Wolf’s long-respected studies on the “dehumanization” of the rhetoric — and its psychological impacts — it is important to remember that Ms. Wolf is neither pro-life nor is she an opponent of abortion.

    The rhetoric/spin about abortion is deceptive, as Naomi Wolf points out, it is often a way to soften or sweeten what can actually be a traumatic experience for a woman.

    There is also a big difference between a candidate who talks about this issue, out of any direct context, and someone whose livelihood (and daily activity) involves performing abortions.

    Hence, the expression “blood money” from many Republicans and Conservatives who are naturally repulsed by the thought of a candidate having no qualms taking money from a abortion provider.

    But, worse, Dr. Scott Hayworth’s language wanted to hide the reality and his wife Nan Hayworth does not want to say a word.

    I could talk about Aquinas and the dark art of omission, something politicians always practice, but I won’t bore you all with that treatise.

    More important, it is how Nan Hayworth defers to omission that is “business as usual” in Congress and Albany — precisely what New Yorkers and Americans don’t want from their public servants.

    Finally, my own analysis of the numbers finds that a pro-life Conservative Republican can actually do better in the 19th Congressional District than a candidate unwilling or unable to meet a broader and more diverse cross-section of voters.

    P.S. — It’s not just abortion that’s the problem here.

    By Bob Fois on Mar 3, 2010

  29. Bob, you are the one being Clintonesque here, twisting words and using rhetoric to try to prove what you can’t. If you now have some evidence that MKMG is operating as some sort of a secretive abortion clinic, you know my email. Send it over. Or just send me an ad where they advertise that service. Funny how nobody wants to address that simple challenge.

    My reaction to Naomi Wolf was that it is irrelevant for purposes of this discussion, other than you don’t like the term “pro-choice” and especially are bothered when I say “pro-choice conservative.” This is semantics, when you debate the terms instead of the substance. But when you don’t have facts, well, you know how that line goes.

    “There is also a big difference between a candidate who talks about this issue, out of any direct context, and someone whose livelihood (and daily activity) involves performing abortions.”

    Really? Now you’ve gone to that level, with all else failing. “Blood money?” are you joking? Is there no depth you won’t sink to in this discussion?

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 3, 2010

  30. “…just send me an ad where they advertise that service. Funny how nobody wants to address that simple challenge.”

    Ever heard of word of mouth? MKMG doesn’t have to advertise to perform abortions — it’s an irrelevant point.

    If you are correct Robert, than all of these people telling me and Bob that abortions are done at MKMG, that many of the donors to the Haworth campaign are from MKMG, that Scott Hayworth has performed abortions in the past, that someone at MKMG is doing abortions now is a made up rumor meant to deride a “pro-choice” candidate, simply because they are “pro-choice” having nothing to do with a possible connection to the abortion lobby.

    The problem here is that your premise is wrong. I wouldn’t put so much effort in what you are touting, because it dampens your credibility, when it turns out you’re wrong. But time will tell, won’t it?

    By Raquel on Mar 3, 2010

  31. Halloran is pro life and so is Koo. They were both attacked by Planned Parenthood. Robert, call your office! Halloran will be attending our Bridge to Life function on March 21st.

    By Alice L. on Mar 3, 2010

  32. Hornak – “pro choice conservative” – there’s an oxymoron if there ever was one!

    By Alice L. on Mar 3, 2010

  33. “Ever heard of word of mouth? MKMG doesn’t have to advertise to perform abortions — it’s an irrelevant point.”

    Word of mouth? Are you serious? This isn’t a hair salon or a hot plastic surgeon. Nobody is showing off their work. If they don’t advertise, or do something concrete to attract customers, then they won’t be getting them.

    But if your claim is true, that they have this thriving abortion business promoted by word of mouth, then it should be easy to find testimonials or some kind of statement from clients who were satisfied with their abortions.

    This is not an irrelevant point, it goes to the heart of the matter. If MKMG is an abortion clinic, how do they attract customers? Planned parenthood and other abortion providers advertise. Why wouldn’t they?

    I’m not sure I understand your second paragraph in your last comment. As for rumors, I can’t tell you why people believe what they do. I can’t tell you why so many people are 9/11 truthers. What I do know is there is a lack of evidence to support all the conclusions you are drawing about Scott Hayworth, and by extension Nan Hayworth.

    I don’t deny that doctors from MKMG gave Nan contributions. So what? They work with her husband, why should that be so shocking. They have a personal/professional relationship. Wouldn’t it be odd if the people who worked with her husband didn’t contribute? Then people like Bob would say say her own friends don’t support her.

    I don’t know if Scott Hayworth EVER performed an abortion. You stated in a previous exchange that almost every obgyn does at some point. Does that exclude every obgyn and their wives from running for congress as a republican?

    I’ll repeat this again, to which nobody has responded yet, if he did it as emergency measure with the mothers life in jeopardy, then it is clearly understandable and consistent with his hippocratic oath. Who would want an obgyn who sees his patients life threatened and says, “sorry you need to terminate the pregnancy but I won’t do it.”

    “The problem here is that your premise is wrong.”

    What premise do you think I am operating under? My only premise is that if you are going to make these kind of accusations, and draw multiple conclusions, based on other conclusions, that you should have some proof, other than the most circumstantial of loose associations.

    “it dampens your credibility, when it turns out you’re wrong. But time will tell, won’t it?”

    Nice way to try to turn the tables, but it is really your credibility on the line here, isn’t it? I am not the one making the accusations. I am the one asking for the evidence to support the conclusions you have drawn. When you have it, we can further discuss what conclusions the evidence supports, which ones it doesn’t, and what the relevance of those supportable claims is. Until then, you should either build your case with evidence (Bob’s say-so is not evidence), or just find a candidate to support. Let the best man or woman win. And then, yes, time will tell.

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 3, 2010

  34. Robert you are barking up the wrong tree.

    Pro-lifers like me all across the state STUDY this issue. We know where the abortions are being done, we know who is performing them. On this issue, I am much more reliable than you.

    There is a group of “prayers” who go to Mount Kisco once a month since the early 90s to pray for the women and their babies who are being duped into believing the abortion lie (In front of building 90 I might add), but they’re not standing outside St. John’s Hospital on Queens Blvd. because they don’t do abortions there.

    Again, abortion is not as popular as you might think and it doesn’t compare to a simple procedure like a hair cut.

    I stood outside an abortion facility in Queens on Austin Street, I watched women come and go, I prayed, I counseled, I provided emotional support, I saw first hand.

    This place did not indicate “abortions” on front door, although it indicated a whole host of services.

    Clearly it’s embarrassing to be an abortionist but also to be the victim. Don’t be so insensitive — comparing abortion to a haircut — you are really starting to look silly.

    By Raquel on Mar 3, 2010

  35. Raquel, Robert look silly because he is silly. He insists on backing this Hayworth woman and has even misrepresented the position of Halloran and Koo. They both received right to life endorsements and Halloran received PAC help also. Robert is a minority of one.

    By Alice L. on Mar 3, 2010

  36. Thank you Raquel.
    Don’t waste your time with Robert. He seems to be grasping at straws.
    Any candidate, whose husband is a OB/GYN, is automatically suspicious and no matter what song they sing the truth may not be presented to voters/supporters. Better to be rid of Nan than risk anything.

    By Ruth Raabe on Mar 3, 2010

  37. “Pro-lifers like me all across the state STUDY this issue. We know where the abortions are being done, we know who is performing them.”

    Great, then you should easily be able to provide the evidence of your research so that we all can clearly see what you see.

    How many abortions? Elective or emergency? How many of the over 200 doctors are involved? These are questions your studies should reveal.

    “Again, abortion is not as popular as you might think” and “Clearly it’s embarrassing to be an abortionist but also to be the victim.”

    That is exactly my point. Which doesn’t support your “word of mouth” theory. If I were a pregnant woman and wanted an abortion, how many friends would I have to ask before I found one that could or would give me a recommendation.

    “Don’t be so insensitive — comparing abortion to a haircut — you are really starting to look silly.”

    Uh, I wasn’t comparing abortion to a haircut, I said that was what you were doing with your rather silly “word of mouth” claim. And you clearly contradict this as I point out above.

    “Any candidate, whose husband is a OB/GYN, is automatically suspicious”

    Thank you Ruth for confirming what I said previously. This is all a prejudice based on the fact that Nan is pro-choice and her husband is a suspicious obgyn, who in addition to bringing over 2000 new lives into the world, absolutely must be killing some babies as well.

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 4, 2010

  38. With all due respect Robert, you have no idea what you are talking about, but you insist on having the last word!

    Your uninformed analysis is what it is — uninformed — people like me who are informed will never be convinced by your crass reasoning, they don’t make sense to us.

    We’re on the ground in and around the area of Mount Kisco, WE KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING THERE.

    People like you who pay little attention to the suffering hearts of women or their precious infants in their womb, and are quick to summon “liberty” as an excuse for arbitrarily ending the life of such infant, actually look like idiots in our eyes, sorry!

    Like I said Robert, you are barking up the wrong tree, try debating something you know something about, and maybe you can be more persuasive.

    There is no question that Scott Hayworth has done abortions, he admitted it. I do not need anyone to come forward, and I WILL NOT appease you with confidential informants, just to prove my point.

    Clearly, my point has been made.

    The issue is this: Concerning the OB/GYN doctors that contributed to the Hayworth campaign,I want to know whether those doctors are abortionists making accepted donations paid for with BLOOD MONEY.

    And since Nan is the one running for Congress not me, then she will have to explain whether funds are coming from abortion doctors, and what kind of impact that would have, were she to be elected.

    It’s a fair and simple question, either answer it without embarrassing yourself or insulting anyone, or take your uninformed spin elsewhere.

    By Raquel on Mar 4, 2010

  39. It’s not about having the last word Raquel, it’s about having a discussion. But, wow, you really slammed the door on that!!

    I’m only trying to ask questions to get you to prove your attacks. It seems the only response I will ever get is that my reasoning is crass and you just know better. I appear to be totally uninformed about simple matters of logic. I’m sorry I just can’t take your word for this. But I guess I am just an idiot so forgive me.

    “Concerning the OB/GYN doctors that contributed to the Hayworth campaign,I want to know whether those doctors are abortionists”

    Which ones are obgyn’s? They have over 200 doctors with specialties all across the board. Can you be specific on the numbers?

    “I do not need anyone to come forward, and I WILL NOT appease you with confidential informants, just to prove my point.”

    That’s the problem here Raquel, why all the secrecy? Why does this need to be based on “confidential informants.” This in not the mafia. Nobody is being threatened. Abortion is a legal activity. This all just doesn’t add up.

    And of course you refuse to respond to my point about any abortions done, either in the past by Scott Hayworth or anyone else at MKMG likely were emergency abortions to save a mother whose life may have been in danger. Or perhaps you don’t differentiate. I do. And most people do. You should clarify this point.

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 4, 2010

  40. Robert shut off discussion when he made personal attacks against me (as usual) and attacked the Hayworth opponents as a “fringe group”. I am still chuckling over his “growing pro choice conservative” comment. All one of him.

    By Alice L. on Mar 4, 2010

  41. Good discussion! Raquel is doing fine work overall digging and getting the questions out. That said, I think she would agree we must draw a line between suspicion and rumor and isolated facts that can be used to draw erroneous, unfair conclusions and the use of a body of solid evidence to draw more solid conclusions. There’s nothing wrong with airing and sifting through suspicion and rumor. And it’s fine for a person to drawing a conclusions based on a confidential source that person trusts. But Robert’s insistence on “evidence to support the conclusions” is merely due diligence – someone not privy to the confidential source must challenging the conclusions and seek solid ground.

    That said, Robert, how do you justify being so ethical defending Nan while at the same time being so caviler in the other thread criticizing Ron Paul’s foreign policy? You tell Raquel to “build your case with evidence” yet even when directly challenged you offered not a shred of support for your opinion or any semblance of refutation of my defense of Ron Paul’s policy. (Note that I hold the easily defended position not that his foreign policy is necessarily “correct” but merely that it is honorable and well reasoned.)

    Your most recent comment in that discussion was bereft of substance. I responded to it, albeit a bit belatedly. If you wish to take another stab at providing something tangible to bolster your claim, please go for it. As you say, “Let the best man or woman win.”

    By Brian Kearsey on Mar 6, 2010

  42. And, Alice, I’m still chuckling over you grossing about Robert’s “personal attacks” against you, given your penchant for attacking Ron Paul as a “neo-Nazi” who is “very close to being a Truther.” Time you started heeding God’s advice – put the stones down and go repair the broken window of your own soul (or can’t you see it with the mote in your eye?).

    My words are there in that post, and serve as a rather hearty meal for one of us to eat. My salt shaker is out, but I don’t think I’ll be needing it.

    By Brian Kearsey on Mar 6, 2010

  43. Brian, go take a walk – it is a nice day. The fact is that neo-Nazis were among his supporters and he did not denounce them. I guess he will take his votes where he can get them. He is an old fool. As for Robert, his hatred of social conservatives is well known.

    By Alice L. on Mar 6, 2010

  44. Well, now that you’ve posted your exhaustive research Alice, I guess I’m stuck with resting my case and allowing your unsupported allegations and innuendos speak for themselves, conceding that you are correct, or indulging in your invitation to drag your over the hot coals of tangible information. Let me think about it for a moment.

    Sigh. You may not be worth the time, Alice, but another reader may well be, so I will spend it. Did it ever occur to you that someone like Ron Paul scares the neocons, and that it would not take too many brain cells to try to drag him into the gutter by trying to associate him with such unsavory groups? Or are you well aware of it, and think the strategy is a good one? Who in God’s name are you to declare Ron Paul a racist because he didn’t spend enough time appeasing the neocons and other detractors trying to convince them of his character? A ghost writer spewed a few regrettable remarks in a newsletter while he was busy delivering babies (he acknowledges that he should have kept a better eye on the letter) and a neo-Nazi donated $500 to his campaign (which he refused to return, opting instead to promote his ideas of the Constitution and liberty). But, contrary to your uninformed delusion, not only has he never displayed, written, or spoken anything to infer he has a racist bone in his body, but he has spoken and written about racism lots of times. Just one example:

    “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.” (source: Ron Paul, Government and Racism, April 16, 2007 http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm )

    It hardly takes much digging to find the accusations of his enemies (I’ve read many of them), but neither does it take much time to find plenty of support for Ron Paul against your unsupported smear. Austin Texas’ NAACP Director Nelson Linder has known Ron Paul for several decades. Listen as he is interviewed by Scott Horton of AntiWar radio concerning the accusations of racism against the congressman:
    http://thestressblog.com/2008/01/14/austin-naacp-president-nelson-linder-defends-ron-paul/

    Now, another reader of more integrity than you may well be able to provide fodder to bolster the case that Ron Paul is a closet racist, and if they do I will consider it. But they have to offer something more tangible than your foggy mist. I’ll sign off for now with a link to Justin Raimondo kicking some “Little Green Footballs” around as he dissects the arguments that you could have provided to try to support your views:

    “Dr. No has a non-racist, nonviolent, anti-collectivist explanation and solution for what White and his fellow Nazi nutsos attribute to a nonexistent “Jewish conspiracy” – the Federal Reserve, bank credit expansion, and subsequent waves of bankruptcies and foreclosures. Paul offers his growing audience of politically and often economically disenfranchised voters a rational explanation in the insight of the Austrian economists and the works of Ludwig von Mises, while White and his tiny cadre of National Socialist Workers look to the discredited pages of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

    Ron Paul vs. the Dirty Tricksters
    by Justin Raimondo, December 25, 2007
    source:
    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2007/12/24/ron-paul-vs-the-dirty-tricksters/

    By Brian Kearsey on Mar 6, 2010

  45. Thanks Brian! I am enjoying the lively debate as well.

    We can agree that there is a difference between “suspicion and rumor and isolated facts” but when you’re painting an unknown picture, rumor and facts tend to blend like colors.

    Is it fair? Probably not. But when a person is running for such a powerful position in modern day politics, the stakes are too high, and conclusions are made, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

    ———————

    I don’t agree with you Alice that Ron Paul is a Neo-Nazi because some of his supporters may have been and he will not disassociate himself from them.

    If the Birch Society supported me in an election I wouldn’t disassociate myself with them, because I believe they are entitled to their opinion, and I don’t have to necessarily agree with everything they spew.

    It’s worse that Obama associated himself in a personal relationship with anti-Semite Reverend Wright for 20 years. Here, it’s fair to make the connection, but with Paul I’m not so convinced??

    Of course, you probably have more information in that smart head of yours that you are keeping to yourself for whatever reason. (Everyone else — pay attention — Alice may be crass at times but she’s not stupid!!!)

    I disagree with a lot of Mr. Paul’s foreign policy positions, but other than that I think he’s one of the good guys, and I know he’s 100% pro-life, he can’t be that bad??

    By Raquel on Mar 6, 2010

  46. I agree Raquel, except I think it is fair. We’re all adults. Without going back and parsing your posts, it’s my impression that maybe you could have added a few more qualifiers here or there, but it was clear to me that you were digging and raising questions to get a much needed discussion started. I thought it was healthy that Robert challenged you.

    If you can convince Alice to offer some more support for her allegations, I’d weigh it. The same is true for Robert on the foreign policy. Your views are reasonable – you disagree with Ron Paul. I get frustrated when people make blanket statements or dismiss opinions out of hand and refuse to back it up (like Robert saying he knows “nothing whatsoever” about terrorism. In fact, Ron Paul eloquently explains his foreign policy views with loads of historical references. If Congress weighed the questions and decided to go a different route, I’d have no problems at all. When I’m in Congress, I don’t want to make such heavy decisions alone – I am not wise enough and neither is anyone else. We need to get around the table and let the debate fly, and then use the process set out in the Constitution to make a decision. My frustration arises from the fact that Congress does not have the debate Ron Paul has initiated. Rudy G was a prime example in the one debate – he wrapped himself in the flag and refused to engage on an intellectual level. Robert and Alice did the same thing.

    We should all try to be patient and forgiving with each other and not be too cutting in our criticisms. I try to stick to the high road, but I also struggle with venting harshly when pushed, because this entire economic and Constitutional trainwreck has been a slow motion disaster that I’ve seen coming and fought to prevent for decades. History and economics were my side passions, and I tried, more often than not in vain, to get people reading and thinking any chance I got. I was happy fighting that uphill battle and running my tiny private schools for decades. That was tough enough because the socialist nature of our education system makes even middle class families think twice. My school does phenomenal prep school work with that segment of our population, but has a decidedly non prep school affect (by design) and happens to attract mainly middle and lower middle class families. We made a meager living in the best of years, but were happier than pigs in a sty. As the economy crumbled we started hemorrhaging money. And we were the proverbial canary in the legendary coalmine, losing a third of our students for the 07-08 school year. It has gotten no better since. And it’s a direct result of the bipartisan collusion of Congress, the Federal Reserve, Wall St, and the host of special interests, from the unions and trial lawyers to the defense and oil industries. Both parties are guilty. Both allow the Federal Reserve to have monopoly control over the supply of money and credit to our economy. Both kept the floodgates open at the border and encouraged the tsunami of illegal immigration. Both allow Congress to micromanage health, education, and welfare – more blatantly under the democrats but still decidedly true under republicans.

    We need to rebuild our economic, political, and educational paradigms as a nation, reducing the role of the fedgov and returning much of the power to the states and, if I have my way, even more local levels. I leave a light on in my heart for the Republican Party, but have no illusions that they will return to the Constitution. If they do, I’ll be there waiting. I’m going to run as an independent, offering the compromise platform to both parties that they put down the club on the federal level, cut the fedgov way down in its size, cost, and influence, and resume the very same fights over health, education, marriage, and perhaps even abortion to the state level. Abortion is a tough one, but if we can’t convince our friends and family on the state level to make it illegal, we will never convince the nation as a whole. The states have wide leeway to impose socialism. I’ll have my personal say on that debate and accept the outcome in stride. I will not accept it on the federal level given the simple, clear language of the Constitution.

    I realize that I severely limit myself by taking such a hard line on my positions, but I refuse to compromise further – accepting socialism on the state level is more than enough compromise for me. If enough of the voters in the 19th district agree, I’ll gladly represent them. If not, that’s just life – I’ll keep trying to elevate the debate and educate my family, friends, and neighbors enough to create a base of voters who agree.

    By Brian Kearsey on Mar 7, 2010

  47. Ron Paul is not a good guy and he never denounced the neo-Nazis who supported him even when they were exposed. He should be ashamed of himself and his isolationsism. He and Brian are two peas in a pod.

    By Alice L. on Mar 7, 2010

  48. AS for the John Birch society, when they were invited to C-PAC, Mark Levin refused to speak and removed himself from the program. I would not accept support from crazy extremist groups and I am quite stunned that anybody on this blog would. AS for Paul’s being “pro life”, his voting record is a mere 58% – he has voted against parental consent and restrictions. He is not a pro lifer.

    By Alice L. on Mar 7, 2010

  49. Thanks Alice for your insight!

    I didn’t know that about Paul’s record. I heard him on a news program once and his defense of life was admirable. (that stood out in my head)

    As for the Birch Society, while I cannot speak for them as a whole, and I admit I do not know much, but I do have a good friend in Queens who is in the Birch Society, very pro-life, and when I questioned him about claims of Neo-Nazism within the rank and file, he denied those claims.

    I don’t think Mark Levin is pro-life, but I don’t listen to him much.

    By Raquel on Mar 7, 2010

  50. P.S. Alice – I AM going to the Bridge to Life Dinner, so make sure I’m at your table.

    By Raquel on Mar 7, 2010

  51. Brian,

    Have you officially announced yet? Can I have a phone interview? Email me at raquel@raquelokyay.com.

    “…it’s a direct result of the bipartisan collusion of Congress, the Federal Reserve, Wall St, and the host of special interests, from the unions and trial lawyers to the defense and oil industries. Both parties are guilty. Both allow the Federal Reserve to have monopoly control over the supply of money and credit to our economy. Both kept the floodgates open at the border and encouraged the tsunami of illegal immigration. Both allow Congress to micromanage health, education, and welfare – more blatantly under the democrats but still decidedly true under republicans.”

    Excellent observation and so true!!

    “…if we can’t convince our friends and family on the state level to make it illegal, we will never convince the nation as a whole. The states have wide leeway to impose socialism.”

    It takes time to change hearts, but if you believe, you do not abandon the principle of protecting life just because you see a nation that will “never” abandon abortion protections.

    In the future, when “pro-choice” advocates die off, and more “pro-life” activists emerge, you are going to want to be on the “pro-life” side, because future generations will not look kindly upon politicians who did not at least try to end this barbaric practice.

    By Raquel on Mar 7, 2010

  52. Brian, I didn’t get into a lengthy debate about Ron Paul for two reasons, 1. this post wasn’t about Ron Paul and didn’t want to stray that far off topic; and 2. I’ve tried having this conversation with friends who like Paul and it usually isn’t very productive.

    I will admit that I have not done any research on Paul’s past, but have been told by pretty reliable writers that he did have a long connection with racists, and that the ghost writer he used was in his service for well over a decade. That is a long time for someone not to notice anti-semitic screeds being sent out in his name.

    I have also been informed by these same people that he consorts with Truthers and is involved with them in some way. More detail than that I can not give without doing some research.

    My main issue with Paul was his denunciation of the war in Iraq. I believe my comment was that Paul had no understanding of the “threat” of terrorism, not of terrorism itself. There is a difference. His opposition to the was in Iraq to me is proof of that, and the basis for my statement.

    To me he sounds like an isolationist and reminds me in many ways of Pat Buchanan. However, I have really not paid him much attention beyond this, as I see him as an anachronism in American politics. His age maybe fits with his ideology of a time gone by, as his best days are surely behind him and he will not be a force in the future to be reckoned with.

    That is not meant to be an insult, just an honest observation. His time is past.

    I also want to say that in spite of the rather heated debate between Raquel and me, I think the world of her. A better person you could not ask for. I usually enjoy jousting with people like this, but in this case it’s been very hard for me to disagree with her so vociferously.

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 7, 2010

  53. “His opposition to the was in Iraq to me is proof of that, and the basis for my statement.”

    That should read “war in Iraq” not was in Iraq.

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 7, 2010

  54. Alice & Robert on the racist charge:

    Alice, you say Ron Paul never denounced the Neo-Nazis. That’s just not true. I heard and watched him explain that he abhors racism and does not support them. It was in an interview in which he explained that he was going to keep the $500 and use it to promote liberty and the Constitution. Feel free to criticize him for that – it’s not the decision I’d make – but that’s a far cry from your charge.

    Robert, I understand you haven’t taken the time to research on Paul’s past – it’s a never ending, uphill struggle to stay informed. I’ve been addicted to researching decades and have barely scratched the surface of my “to do” list. Every time I think I get a handle on some topic or person or group I find another rock under which lays another can of worms. At some point we have to rely on our instincts and the opinions of our trusted sources. Based on my research I do not trust your sources, though that does not make them wrong. Just like you ask Raquel for proof, I’d like to see the proof of your sources.

    I did a lot of digging into Ron Paul before jumping the republican ship back in mid 1987. If you have a few links from your “very reliable writers” I’d be glad to review them; if not, no sweat.

    I presume that the “long connection with racists” is actually his friendship with Lew Rockwell. I love most of what I have read by him. The racist charge against Rockwell only came to (my) light during the last Ron Paul campaign. I do not know how true it is. I hope at worst it is similar to the same charge against Buchanan. I learned of that at the same time and checked it out. It’s tenuous in my opinion. If he is a racist he cloaks it well and uses code words. It is my STRONG impression that the newsletters were over a few months, and not a decade. Ron Paul accepted responsibility and denounced their content.

    The “Truther” charge has less traction to the degree it implies that the gov’t was complicit in the 9-11 attacks or covered them up. I’ve watched hundreds of hours of him speaking and read a tremendous amount of his voluminous writing and not only never heard or read him make this claim, but have heard him deny it. Could he believe it and be too smart to say it? I suppose, but I think not. It is my impression (hope?) that Ron Paul has a similar view as me – he knows how poorly our fedgov handled Oklahoma City and Waco, and he knows the Bush administration stonewalled an investigation for as long as possible. He knows they lied about never even considering the fact that airplanes would be used as weapons and he knows they led America to believe Saddam was tied to 9-11. Simply, he neither accuses the gov’t nor gives them any unearned trust without due diligence.

    Bottom line: When I look over the political landscape and see the strengths and weaknesses of republicans people like Nixon, Bush Sr., Newt, Bush, McCain, et al and compare them with those of Ron Paul, there is no question who I’ll support. Foreign policy is his weakest link politically, and he’s on solid, respectable, defensible ground there even if the nation charts a different course. I’m all for a heated discussion on that, since my position is still wavering (see other post).

    By Brian Kearsey on Mar 8, 2010

  55. On the John Birch Society

    I’ll preface this my noting that Alice uses Mark Levin as a pole star. Poor choice in my opinion, but everyone has their dirt, which is my point. I was glad I forced myself to read his book Liberty and Tyranny. I almost didn’t because he is an obnoxious, nasty, curt, radio host who does great harm to our cause with his on the air demeanor. I knew I agreed with most of what I heard of his views on issues, but could never listen too long before getting disgusted. I am about halfway through the book and it is excellent, in stark contrast to his in person affect. He highlights what a mixed bag humans can be.

    Most people over 30 have an impression of the JBS. The vast majority really do not know from whence that opinion comes – they have never read a thing they’ve written or watched a video they have produced. Alice, at the risk of eating my words (which I will do humbly), am I correct that you fall into this category?

    Raquel’s friend sounds very representative of the JBS. I post a lot on the local Journal News forums and comments sections. I just penned a long piece about my experiences with them there. If anyone wants to follow me down the rabbit hole, I’m Cicero:
    http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckForum&plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3a0fffd1b6-c46b-4f2f-af83-a1bff251617bForum%3a6d086057-47b6-40e0-aebd-dd9e702dc6b7Discussion%3a977b6a8f-7ac4-4dd7-8266-fe96f784ed9d

    By Brian Kearsey on Mar 8, 2010

  56. General to Raquel on My Running

    My heart is torn asunder by the fact that we may have to close the school, not to mention the stress financially and the pressure of working 60 hours a week keeping it open at least through June while losing money. That angst is compounded exponentially by the fact that the iron is hot RIGHT NOW politically. I’ve tilled the barren soil and planted and nurtured the seeds of this Tea Party revolution for decades. Suddenly it seems to have reached a critical mass and ignited almost overnight, but the flame is fragile. Mainstream republicans are swooping in from one side and leftists are buzzing around the edges like gnats to discredit it, using the ammo supplied in no small part by the support of those mainstream republicans who give lip service to the ideas. It is a frightening possibility that they will win the day, attracting enough of the energy back into politics as usual to see the movement collapse and the opportunity lost. But July is the earliest I can devote time to getting a website up and really making a run. Too late, I fear, to do more than influence the debate and prepare for 2012, hoping to keep the flame alive. At the very least I want to have the site up and see how many of my fellow constituents support the general vision. I’m at about 1,000 supporters on just my second circle (friends of friends who know me, trust me, and like the blueprint). If that number doubled a few times over the summer and early fall, we could help pull the candidates a little closer to the Constitution and support the best man. (Or, and I’m dreaming here, my neighbors are more frustrated and more aware and more receptive than I think, and the fire will rage and allow for a real run for this November.) In any case, I’d be honored to give you the first interview.

    More later on abortion and foreign policy – the kids are waiting…

    By Brian Kearsey on Mar 8, 2010

  57. Robert, thank you for fleshing out the thoughts more. I’m glad you have thick skin too and that you, too, see the value in dialogue. We don’t have to agree on everything by any means to have a fruitful relationship. The nation needs more people to engage on this level with good hearts and open minds.

    By Brian Kearsey on Mar 8, 2010

  58. I admire Mark Levin and I don’t always agree with everything he says. However, he is right on the JBS (they are a bunch of wackos – all two of them) and he refused to address C-PAC after he heard that they had been invited. We all know “decent” people who belong to wackey groups – that does not make the groups good. Ron Paul’s right to life record is not very good – he has voted against many restrictions on the grounds of being a “civil libertarian”. National RTL does not give him a high rating.

    By Alice L. on Mar 8, 2010

  59. Raquel, if you are going to the Bridge event, you have to get in touch with them right away. By the way: Levin is pro life.

    By Alice L. on Mar 8, 2010

  60. Brian, if it’s all the same to you, I’d rather pass on the Ron paul debate. I really don’t care that much about him to invest time reading and doing my usual level of research to satisfy my curiosity. As I said, his time is past, he will serve some more years in the House and that will be the end of his career.

    I don’t disgree with many of his domestic policy positions, but feel he is the wrong person to leading the charge. The tea party movement will surely bring many new leaders to the fore who can pick up the baton and run with it.

    I also don’t disagree that the gov’t fudged on a few things re 9/11. If that is truly RP’s position, and not some conspiracy/coverup, then I stand corrected. However, the link to Saddam has borne out to be true, although not totally direct. But that is surely another debate for another time.

    And I don’t doubt we will continue this elsewhere, either here or on Urban Elephants.

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 9, 2010

  61. Alice, it is my bet that you have have never seen a thing the JBS has produced or met a member, and that you formed your unconscious impression of them based on osmosis from the mainstream and liberal media. If you want to trust Mark Levin to form your opinion of them, by all means, go for it. If you want to learn about my experiences with them, the link is above.

    Raquel says you have a sharp mind and a lot of knowledge. I’ll have to trust her on that, because you’ve shown neither so far in my discussions with you.

    By Brian Kearsey on Mar 9, 2010

  62. I’m fine with that Robert – I understand how valuable the time is and I appreciate your openness and your honest criticism. We’ll keep in touch here and, as my time frees up and I get to know more of these relatively local forums, in those. I don’t pretend to be “right” about everything either. “Facts” are so often like one single pile of Legos that different people can build different things with using the same set. It happens even when each person is trying to be objective. I sure feel more comfortable disagreeing when I can engage like this and trust the other person is honest and sincerely trying to discern as much objective truth as we can flesh out in this crazy world. Sigh.

    If you have any links to more info on the Saddam connection, I’m open (now or in the future). Also, if you come across anything that might give me more pause on any of my views, I trust you won’t develop a shy side!

    By Brian Kearsey on Mar 9, 2010

  63. Brian, if you want to be nasty and insulting do it on your own time and on your own dime. I have a low opinion of the JBS – all two of them! Send in your membership dues.

    By Alice L. on Mar 10, 2010

  64. Brian a couple of quick links on Saddam to help you get started:

    ABC news story on Bin Laden from 1999:
    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/1999-abc-news-on-saddam-bin-laden-nexus

    ABC news report that confirms connections:
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

    Article from frontpagemag.com:
    http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=3662

    A post on Free Republic that cites many news stories. No working links though, but seems to be legit:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947627/posts

    Another FR post:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947627/posts

    By Robert Hornak on Mar 10, 2010

  65. Thank you Robert – added to the “to do” list!

    By Brian Kearsey on Mar 12, 2010

  66. Alice, I’m using my dime to type. I stand by everything I posted. You have big impressions that you toss around disparagingly, and when challenged you dig yourself into a corner, tacitly acknowledging that you know not about what you opine. If you do have any moral or intellectual integrity, you have failed to reflect it thus far in my exchanges with you. As I stated, there are any number of reasonable criticisms that can be leveled at the JBS – you just don’t know enough about them to offer an informed opinion because you’ve never met a member or seen anything they’ve written or produced. Now if your pappy or some other trusted source didn’t like them and you want to fly with that as your pole star, by all means, go for it – I just think that the defecation you spew should be delivered with that caveat, and if you don’t have the spine to admit it, I’ll make that fact clear to anyone else reading this.

    By Brian Kearsey on Mar 12, 2010

  67. Brian, Brian: The JBS was and is a wacko group and that you defend them with your high fallutin’ words, shows where you are coming from. You should also wash your mouth out with soap and water. I guess you and your JBS pals (all two of them) sit around the table plotting.

    By Alice L. on Mar 13, 2010

  68. My “high fallutin’ words” sure stood up very well, but that isn’t saying much given your dearth of substance in smearing the JBS. If you knew enough about them to intelligently criticize them, you would have done so. But you don’t know. And you can’t even admit that you don’t know. Some day I may have time to sum up my criticisms of them. I’ll try to track you down if I get to that so you can take a primer course.

    By Brian Kearsey on Jul 11, 2010

Post a Comment

Advertisement:travertine | pool builders | child protective services | restaurant equipment supply | commercial kitchen equipment