August 27-28, 2012
Aug 27 04:38 Extremist president calls centrist candidate extremist Aug 27 05:33 This choice election is a referendum on President Obama Aug 27 18:20 Minnesota Supreme Court rules against Mark Ritchie, ACLU, LWV-MN Aug 28 08:14 Constitutional amendments and the history of titles Aug 28 14:00 Party of tolerance strikes again Aug 28 15:09 World class election systems? Not in Minnesota
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Extremist president calls centrist candidate extremist
There hasn't been a shortage of proof that President Obama's campaign team is willing to lie through their teeth if they think that'll help them win. While that's been happening, though, President Obama didn't distance himself from Bill Burton's disgusting 'Mitt killed my wife' ad for Priorities USA PAC.
He argued that Obama campaign Deputy Communications Director Stephanie Cutter hadn't accused Mitt Romney of being a felon. This was refuted within minutes on Drudge with video of Stephanie Cutter accusing Mitt Romney of either being a felon or a liar.
Apparently, President Obama understands that this election might slip away from him if something dramatic doesn't positively impact his campaign. That's a possible explanation for his going negative in his interview with the AP :
"I can't speak to Gov. Romney's motivations," Obama said. "What I can say is that he has signed up for positions, extreme positions, that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken. And whether he actually believes in those or not, I have no doubt that he would carry forward some of the things that he's talked about."
The vast majority of people would argue that protecting babies that were born after an attempted abortion isn't extreme. In fact, the vast majority of people would say that a physician who didn't protect that human life would be guilty of infanticide.
Based on his votes as a state senator, President Obama thinks requiring a doctor to care for a child born after an attempted abortion is unacceptable:
Barack Obama could favor denying legal protection to babies after they are born and the press wouldn't bat an eyelash. In fact, he did.
In the Illinois legislature, he opposed the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" three times. The bill recognized babies born after attempted abortions as persons and required doctors to give them care. About a year after his final vote against the bill, Obama gave his famous 2004 Democratic Convention speech extolling post-partisan moderation.
But he couldn't bring himself to protect infants brutalized and utterly alone in some medical facility. Some moderation. The federal version of the bill that he opposed in Illinois passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. Some post-partisanship.
President Obama is an extremist on abortion. His views on abortion fit better with China's one child policy than with mainstream American beliefs.
Abortion isn't the only issue where he's an extremist. When President Obama rejected the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, he said that militant environmentalists were his allies through thick and thin.
His administration's EPA's hostility towards the coal and natural gas industries certainly aren't centrist policy positions. If he admitted that he's opposed to fossil fuels, cheap gas prices and inexpensive energy bills to Midwestern families, he'd lose those battleground states by 12 points on average. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, Virginia and possibly Pennsylvania would flip into the red column.
Finally, President Obama's spending is unprecedented. It's a significant part of why President Obama is the only president in history to run a $1,000,000,000,000 deficit. That means he's the only president who's had 4 trillion dollar deficits. In fact, he's the only president who's had 4 consecutive trillion dollar deficits.
President Obama's positions on abortion, the environment and spending are extremist positions. The media should laugh him off the stage the next time he says Mitt's an extremist.
Finally, it's a joke for President Obama to admit that he doesn't know Mitt but that he has "no doubt that he would carry forward" extremist policies. Is President Obama's statement based on knowledge or is he just making things up?
I suspect it's the latter.
Tags: President Obama , Born Alive Infant Protection Act , Coal , Natural Gas , EPA , Spending , Deficits , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Monday, August 27, 2012 4:38 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 27-Aug-12 11:44 AM
"Finally, it's a joke for President Obama to admit that he doesn't know Mitt but that he has 'no doubt that he would carry forward' extremist policies. Is President Obama's statement based on knowledge or is he just making things up?"
Perhaps it's based on knowing Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts. Since many of his pro-abortion, pro-gay, Obamacare-lite, cap-and-tax-supporting policies really aren't terribly different from Obama's, he knows whomever is elected won't reverse the train wreck that is coming.
Thanks, GOP-E. Thanks for giving us the worst possible candidate to combat the worst President in American history. This election will require double clothespins to pull the Romney lever.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 27-Aug-12 01:35 PM
Bob, Saying that Gov. Mitt Romney is the same man who's campaigning on major changes with Paul isn't well-informed.
Second, President Obama is lying through his teeth when he says that there's no doubt that Mitt's suddenly an extremist.
Thanks, Mitt, for giving us that known 'establishment' VP candidate, Paul Ryan.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 27-Aug-12 03:33 PM
Bob:
I'm sorry John McCain, Bob Dole, and George Bush 41 are in a close contest for the worst candidate in history for that party gop-E. Romney is far supperior than those three.
So are you saying it's extreme to build the XL pipeline?
Are you saying that it's extreme to want to balance the budget since that is what Romney did in MA?
And unlike MA when Romney is elected in November there will be a repbulican houe and senate to pass his bills.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
This choice election is a referendum on President Obama
I enjoyed reading Bill Kristol's latest column, aptly titled What If Everyone's Wrong? Mr. Kristol starts the article with this question:
Everyone knows vice presidential candidates don't matter. Except that on August 11, the day Paul Ryan was announced, Mitt Romney trailed by almost 5 percentage points in the RealClearPolitics average of polls. Two weeks later Romney had pulled to within 1 point? - ?his strongest rally of the general election season.
Everyone knows that when a president is running for reelection, the race is a judgment on the incumbent? - ?and that if the country isn't in great shape, it's very much in the challenger's interest to keep the focus on the incumbent. Make it a referendum on the president. Don't let the incumbent make it a choice.
This is that rare instance where a Paul Ryan turns a choice election into a referendum on President Obama's record.
President Obama, David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Bill Burton wanted a choice election based on the image of Mitt they created with their smear campaign. They didn't want a choice campaign based on substantive issues.
I'd argue that they weren't prepared to fight on Paul Ryan's turf.
Paul Ryan's presence brings a seriousness to the race that wasn't there previously. Instead of this being the personality choice campaign that Mssrs. Obama, Axelrod, Burton and Plouffe wanted, Paul Ryan's presence has turned this into a referendum of which economic plan voters prefered.
It's now a choice between letting the oil companies, the coal mining companies and the natural gas companies using fracking lower gas prices and electric bills vs. letting the EPA run roughshod over the coal, the natural gas and the oil industries.
It's now a choice between free market capitalism vs. crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is based, at least in this instance, on who President Obama's most prolific fundraising bundlers are. Free market capitalism is based on whose ideas consumers find most appealing.
It's now a choice between government-mandated health insurance vs. telling the American people they should be better health care consumers, then giving them the tools to be better health care shoppers.
There's a time-tested axiom that you can't beat something with nothing. That's especially true in presidential elections. I knew that it would be important to make the case against President Obama's policies. Still, I knew that it would be important to give voters a reason to vote for the GOP nominee, too.
President Obama has an uphill fight in this type of choice election because it's also a referendum on his economic record.
That's the worst of all possible worlds for President Obama.
Tags: President Obama , Mediscare , EPA , ACA , War on Coal , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Paul Ryan , Natural Gas , Oil , Free Markets , Capitalism , Medicare , Choice Election , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, August 27, 2012 5:33 AM
No comments.
Minnesota Supreme Court rules against Mark Ritchie, ACLU, LWV-MN
Earlier this afternoon, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Secretary of State Mark Ritchie doesn't have the authority to change the title of the proposed constitutional amendments . They also ruled against "liberal-leaning groups" who sought to keep the proposed Photo ID ballot question off the ballot:
ST. PAUL, Minn. - The Minnesota Supreme Court has thrown out ballot title changes submitted by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie for two constitutional amendments voters will address this fall.
The high court on Monday rejected the titles written by Ritchie for the photo ID amendment and another amendment that would ban gay marriage in the state.
Republicans had argued that Ritchie overstepped his authority and was trying to influence voters to reject both amendments.
In a separate decision, justices also shot down a lawsuit from liberal-leaning groups who argued that lawmakers had failed to give voters the full scope of the changes that would result from the photo ID amendment.
These are stinging defeats to Secretary Ritchie, Common Cause, the ACLU-MN and the League of Women Voters-MN. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the remedy sought by the ACLU-MN and the LWV-MN wasn't warranted :
The court majority wrote that the photo ID ballot question "is not so unreasonable and misleading" that it should be taken off the ballot. The justices said striking the question from the ballot would have been "unprecedented relief" and that the voters will be "the sole judge of the wisdom of such matters."
The Supreme Court's ruling diplomatically says that the ACLU-MN, the LWV-MN and Common Cause tried to use the courts because they couldn't win at the ballot box. The Supreme Court essentially said that the legislature has the authority to pass ballot questions and that citizens have the right to vote yes or no on the proposed constitutional amendments.
Ritchie changed the title for the marriage ban from "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman" to "Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples."
He rewrote the photo ID title from "Photo Identification Required for Voting" to "Changes to In-Person & Absentee Voting & Voter Registration; Provisional Ballots."
Citing its own precedent, the court found that when the Legislature includes its own title for ballot questions, then it goes beyond the authority of the secretary of state to replace it. The majority opinion said the secretary of state has "no constitutional authority over the form and manner of proposed constitutional amendments," and directly ordered Ritchie to restore the original wording as set by the Legislature.
Secretary Ritchie intended to influence the outcome of a constitutional amendment based on his political preferences. That's unacceptable because he's a constitutional officer, not an elected politician.
That's why Secretary Ritchie should be impeached.
Secretary Ritchie's disdain for upholding the Constitution is showing. His attempt to confuse voters is a political act that the Constitution doesn't allow and that Minnesota voters can't tolerate. He's a political hack who's attempting to give himself extraconstitutional responsibilities.
Tags: Minnesota Supreme Court , League of Women Voters-MN , ACLU , Voter Fraud , Mark Ritchie , Common Cause , Corruption , DFL , We The People , Constitutional Amendments , GOP , Elections
Posted Monday, August 27, 2012 6:20 PM
No comments.
Constitutional amendments and the history of titles
Monday afternoon, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Secretary Ritchie overstepped his authority in changing the titles of the marriage amendment and the Photo ID amendment.
It's interesting that Ritchie didn't feel the need to change the title the legislature gave to the Legacy Amendment ballot question. It's interesting that Ritchie wasn't interested in the titles of proposed constitutional amendments until he personally opposed this year's proposed constitutional amendments.
The title given to S.F.1308 , aka the Marriage Amendment was pretty straightforward:
Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.
Ritchie said that he needed to change the title of the Photo ID amendment because it was misleading. I don't believe that for a split second but let's stipulate, for the sake of this discussion, that Ritchie's right. What's the need to change the title of the Marriage Amendment?
Here's what Ritchie changed the title to:
Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.
The title Ritchie tried applying to the marriage amendment has a thoroughly negative tone, which Ritchie intended. That stinks of political kibitzing, something that's forbidden of constitutional officers.
It also stinks of political mischief, another thing that's forbidden of constitutional officers. Fortunately, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Secretary Ritchie went too far with his political mischief.
It's clear that Secretary Ritchie isn't interested in upholding Minnesota's election laws, which is his responsibility. It's impossible to invest this much time campaigning against the Photo ID laws, then enforce it when it's approved by the voters.
Tags: Constitutional Amendments , Minnesota Supreme Court , Mark Ritchie , Voter Fraud , Photo ID , Corruption , DFL , Elections
Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:14 AM
No comments.
Party of tolerance strikes again
Democrats talk like they're the most compassionate people in the history of mankind. This article is proof that they aren't the compassionate people they portray themselves as:
On Sunday, Ellen Barkin expressed her hope that Tropical Storm Isaac would smash up the Republican National Convention in Tampa and drown all its delegates.
She retweeted the message of one of her followers that read: 'C'mon #Isaac! Wash every pro-life, anti-education, anti-woman, xenophobic, gay-bashing, racist SOB right into the ocean! #RNC' Barkin did not express any disagreement in her retweet.
Ms. Barkin is a disgusting hateful woman. What's most disgusting is the fact that her accusations aren't close to being accurate. They're fictional. They're chanting points that the DNC published 20 years ago.
What is it about Hollywood types thinking of themselves as being worthy of judging others? James Earl Jones, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover and others have made disgusting, hate-filled, statements over the past 4 years. Had a Republican made their statements, the media would've demanded that the GOP cease to exist.
When this collection of bigots, has-beens and haters make the disgusting remarks that they've made, the press just shrugs their statements off. It's time for the press to start criticizing these haters.
It doesn't matter whether they're role models or public figures that people look up to. They're haters. People should reflexively ridicule haters wherever they're found. PERIOD.
Ms. Barkin, you're a disgusting human being. Step out of the public eye so we don't have to tolerate your disgusting accusations.
Tags: Ellen Barkin , James Earl Jones , Harry Belafonte , Danny Glover , Hollywood , Hatemongers , Liberals
Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:00 PM
No comments.
World class election systems? Not in Minnesota
Yesterday's ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court is a major step in the right direction to restoring election integrity in Minnesota. Unfortunately, it's the first step. Unfortunately, it isn't the silver bullet solution.
Glenn Reynolds' op-ed highlights what's needed for a truly world class election system:
An ideal voting system would:
- Make it easy for voters to register.
- Positively ensure that voters were who they said they were.
- Make certain that no one could vote more than once.
- And guarantee that votes properly cast would be properly recorded, while making the recording of fraudulent votes impossible.
Unfortunately, no such system exists, and the ones we have are far from the best available.Reynolds then highlighted another problem that needs addressing:
In Minnesota's 2008 disputed US Senate election, won by Al Franken, who proceeded to cast the deciding vote in favor of ObamaCare, the margin of victory was 312, but it turned out that 1,099 votes were cast by felons who were ineligible to vote. Many of them have gone to jail, but Franken has remained in the Senate.
Secretary Ritchie's office failed Minnesotans because they didn't enforce key provisions in HAVA. Specifically, Ritchie's office didn't meet HAVA's requirements :
The Help America Vote Act also lists strict standards for each state in maintaining its Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS). HAVA mandates that each elections official at the State and local level MUST perform list maintenance on their SVRS with respect to the computerized list on a regular basis as HAVA mandates when a state does SVRS list maintenance that if an individual is to be removed from the SVRS from their respective state, that this maintenance must be done in the compliance of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.) which lists what is legal and illegal for reasons for a state to legally purge their voting rolls what is illegal to remove voters from the SVRS .
When a state removes a ineligible voter from the official list of eligible voters states mandated as follows that: Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 that each respective state's election authority must coordinate with their Department of Corrections the computerized list with State agency records on felony status of convicted felons if they are eligible to vote under each state's voting laws of allowing convicted felons to vote under probation/parole or released from prison If a registered voter dies that the registered voter under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 each state's election authority MUST coordinate with the respective agency handling birth and death statistics (i.e. Department of Health and Human Services) in removing these voters as soon as possible from the voting rolls when the death is reported . Also, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) puts in strict requirements and oversight to make sure that each state is following their own laws on enforcement of maintenance of their respective Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS).
In other words, HAVA requires timely updating of the SVRS to prevent ineligible felons and dead people from voting. The fact that Ritchie didn't enforce this key provision in HAVA indicates his disinterest in enforcing election laws. It doesn't appear as though county workers are that interested in preventing voter fraud either:
The county workers' attitude is pretty arrogant:
INVESTIGATOR: In theory, I could just, you know, say I have some illness or disability and just be at home and there's no way that the state would know otherwise. WORKER: You are signing a statement, a form, that the information you're providing is true and correct. INVESTIGATOR: So that's it? It's just kind of the honor system? WORKER: Yes, I guess, it's, I mean, it's been that way for many, many years, that, you know, Minnesota's been an after-the-fact type of state. And, now, we do catch people, that do things, and they're investigated and charged. But it is, you know, after-the-fact. My election judges have a difficult time with that. It's like "Change the law. Change the law."
These county workers admitted that voting fraud happens but that the fraudulent votes get counted.
There's a national movement to restore election integrity, a tide that the Democratic Party is fighting against. It's time that that tide swept these
Still, a white hot spotlight should be shined on
Tags: Voter Fraud , Photo ID , HAVA , SVRS , Felons , Al Franken , Dead Vote , Corruption , Investigation , DFL , Impeachment , Elections
Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2012 3:56 PM
Comment 1 by Cameron at 29-Aug-12 09:04 AM
Why do you presume that a felon that voted would have voted for Franken? And what is your support for the claim that 1099 felons voted?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Aug-12 09:12 AM
First question first: polling shows that 80% of former felons vote Democrat. In this instance, that's a split of 879 votes for Franken, 220 for Coleman. That's a 559 vote margin. Franken 'won' by 312 votes.
Second question: The 1,099 felon figure comes from Ritchie's office.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 29-Aug-12 03:42 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget those are the only ones we know about. Lying about where you vote or if you're a US citzien is a felony, but you have to be prosecuted something which DFL coverup prosectors like Freeman in Hennepin County are doing.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
