July 31, 2012
Jul 31 05:33 Gingrich Defends Bachmann, National Security Five Jul 31 10:53 Fighting the Photo ID battle in Minnesota and beyond Jul 31 12:12 The indictment against Obamanomics
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Gingrich Defends Bachmann, National Security Five
Newt Gingrich isn't staying silent about the media's crucifixion of Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney, Trent Franks and Lynn Westmoreland, aka the National Five. Gingrich used this Politico op-ed to ridicule the Washington elites from both parties:
The recent assault on the National Security Five is only the most recent example of the fear our elites have about discussing and understanding radical Islamists.
When an orchestrated assault is launched on the right to ask questions in an effort to stop members of Congress from even inquiring about a topic, you know the fix is in.
The intensity of the attack on Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) as well as Republican Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Tom Rooney of Florida and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia is a reminder of how desperate our elites are to avoid this discussion. Yet consider this rush to silence questions in light of our history of unpleasant surprises during the Cold War.
It's shameful that political opportunists like Jim Graves and go-along-to-get-along types like Speaker Boehner and Sen. McCain have taken shots at Michele. I can partially excuse Graves because I don't expect much from DFL candidates. I won't excuse Boehner's and McCain's behavior because they should know that the National Security Five asked totally legitimate questions.
We have replaced tough mindedness about national security with a refusal to think seriously and substituted political correctness and a 'solid' assurance that people must be OK because they are 'nice' and 'hard working' for the systematic, intense investigations of the past.
That's the case the media and the left have made on Huma Abedin's behalf. I've said throughout that I won't accuse her of being a terrorist plant. There's simply no evidence of that. I've been just as consistent in insisting that it's perfectly legitimate for legislators to question the procedure by which she received a security clearance.
How bad is this denial? Here's how bad it iss:
After Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted, 'Allahu Akbar' ('God is great') in Fort Hood, Texas, and killed 12 soldiers and one Army civilian while wounding 29 others, there was pressure to avoid confronting his acts as inspired by his support for radical Islamism.
An American of Palestinian descent, Hasan had been in touch with a radical American cleric in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki. He declared Hasan a hero. Al-Awlaki was himself declared a 'specially designated global terrorist' and, with presidential approval, was killed by a predator missile.
Yet, despite the evidence, Wikipedia reports, 'One year after the Fort Hood shooting, the motivations of the perpetrator were not yet established.'
It did offer suggestions about motivation, however. For example, 'A review of Hasan's computer and his multiple email accounts has revealed visits to websites espousing radical Islamist ideas.' Talking about Islam, he said, 'Nonbelievers would be sent to Hell, decapitated, set on fire and have burning oil poured down their throats.'
A rational person would have some hints about what motivated a terrorist killing spree.
If even Wikipedia could reach some conclusion about motivation, you would think the national security system could do the same. Not so.
I wish I could say I'm surprised but I'm not. This administration say that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren't wars but instead called "overseas contingency operations" and that terrorist attacks would be called "man-caused disasters." Why should we be surprised that this administration won't officially declare Maj. Hassan's killing spree a terrorist attack?
Speaker Gingrich is a serious man when it comes to national and homeland security issues. It's anything but surprising that he's defending Michele and the National Security Five for asking unpopular but important questions.
If a few feathers get ruffled by asking the difficult questions, that's the price that must be paid to do the right thing.
Mr. Graves' cheapshot was a futile exercise in political opportunism. It wasn't an act of bringing people together. It revealed his lack of foreign policy gravitas. It showed Graves' willingness to play political games on important issues. Far from being the witch hunt that Graves calls it , it's really a congresswoman taking national security seriously.
The reaction to the National Security Five and their request for investigations by the inspectors general must be seen in this context of willful avoidance and denial.
In fact, there is a good deal in the Obama administration's national security and foreign policy to ask about. One theme of the inspectors general letters is the administration's courting of individuals viewed as leaders by the U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood. A recent terrorist finance trial produced 80 boxes of evidence related to the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood network in North America over the past 40 years.
Apparently, it isn't PC to think that the Muslim Brotherhood wants to influence U.S. foreign policy just because there's boxes of documentation showing the Muslim Brotherhood's attempts to influence U.S. foreign policy.
The scandal isn't that the National Security Five asked important questions. It's that the media, Washington DC and political candidates turned this into a circus this easily. In that sense, it's really an indictment of DC, the media and Jim Graves.
Tags: National Security Five , Michele Bachmann , Political Correctness , Newt , National Security , Muslim Brotherhood , Louie Gohmert , GOP , John Boehner , John McCain , Jim Graves , Witch Hunt , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:33 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 31-Jul-12 07:58 AM
Ellison puts Bachmann to shame. He is competent. He is not a bothersome loud mouth.
The big question, how did the Bachmann/cosignator letters become public knowledge?
Any answer, Gary?
My guess, she did it as a publicity stunt, and had no intention of keeping it quiet and discrete. Those are two words the lady fails to have in her dictionary.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 31-Jul-12 08:26 AM
Ellison is a slippery snake. He's broken House rules on gifts. He's been the subject of a House Ethics Committee investigation.
I've dealt with him before. He's all spin, no substance all the time. I wouldn't trust him if my life depended on it because he's a deceitful, dishonest man.
If that's what you think is competence, then that says everything I need to know about what priority you put on character, honesty & decency.
Initially, a reporter found out about them. After that, Michele published the letters to set the media straight after they started unjustifiably crucifying her for doing the right thing.
Eric, your hatred for Michele isn't just baseless. It's irrational & misguided. Just once, I wish you'd pull your head out of your arse & see things objectively rather than through the rose-colored glasses that the DFL supplied you.
Comment 3 by Jeff Baumann at 01-Aug-12 09:02 PM
I'm willing to bet that Mr. Newt would agree with the following phrase:
"Evil so foul, a Wikipedian almost noticed."
Fighting the Photo ID battle in Minnesota and beyond
I've long been an advocate of requiring photo identification for voting. Historically speaking, it's made sense to me since before the 2004 election. Just recently, I was asked to help with the Vote Yes for Photo ID campaign. I immediately agreed.
It's important for people to know that I was asked to help with this campaign because I've always believed in the importance of this policy. I didn't have a mysterious conversion after being asked to help with this campaign.
What I'm about to write is my opinion on the issue of Photo ID. I wasn't given the assignment of writing about Jamelle Bouie's article . I saw it this morning. After seeing the misinformation in it, I decided that it needed to be addressed. Here's one thing that must be addressed:
So far, liberals have devoted their time to showing the rarity of in-person voter fraud - the kind ostensibly prevented by voter ID - and the low likelihood that it would affect the outcome of an election. Tactically, this makes a lot of sense. The push for voter ID includes stories of massive voter fraud that play on public distrust toward government. If you can counter those stories with facts, you can make people think twice about implementing an additional burden to voting.
Thus far, progressives have spent their time attempting to disprove verifiable facts. Voter fraud exists. We know that because brave people like Anita MonCrief and Artur Davis have stepped forward and told us that voter fraud exists. Here's what Rep. Davis said about voter fraud :
When I was a congressman, I took the path of least resistance on this subject for an African American politician. Without any evidence to back it up, I lapsed into the rhetoric of various partisans and activists who contend that requiring photo identification to vote is a suppression tactic aimed at thwarting black voter participation.
The truth is that the most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community, at least in Alabama, is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.
Voting the names of the dead, and the nonexistent, and the too-mentally-impaired to function, cancels out the votes of citizens who are exercising their rights; that's suppression by any light. If you doubt it exists, I don't; I've heard the peddlers of these ballots brag about it, I've been asked to provide the funds for it , and I am confident it has changed at least a few close local election results.
The fact that Rep. Davis was asked to help fund "the wholesale manufactor of ballots" is proof that voter fraud exists. People don't ask a sitting congressman to pay for a theory. They ask a sitting congressman to pay for an established operating system.
Here's the WSJ's article about Anita MonCrief's testifying against ACORN:
The FBI is investigating its voter registration efforts in several states, amid allegations that almost a third of the 1.3 million cards it turned in are invalid. And yesterday, a former employee of Acorn testified in a Pennsylvania state court that the group's quality-control efforts were "minimal or nonexistent" and largely window dressing. Anita MonCrief also says that Acorn was given lists of potential donors by several Democratic presidential campaigns, including that of Barack Obama, to troll for contributions.
In other words, ACORN's operation was built on creating fictional voter registrations. ACORN wouldn't do that if the reward wasn't significant. Here's the best that the left can do in its writings about their opposition to Photo ID:
Which is to say that a liberal response on voter ID needs to be immediate, forceful, and able to engage voters on the plane of ideals and principles.
Because the truth isn't on the left's side, their response necessarily can't be forceful or able to "engage voters on the plane of ideals and principles." The best that can be hoped for is to not get beat up too badly by the truth. Here's a blast of silliness that can't go unchallenged:
Simply put, voter-ID laws limit the number of voters who are able to vote.
At this point, that statement isn't provable or knowable. I'll grant that it's an authoritative sounding statement but its content is speculative at best. TakeAction Minnesota's Dan McGrath admitted that in his debate with Minnesota Majority's Dan McGrath last Friday night.
I'll trust Artur Davis's op-ed and Anita MonCrief's testimony infinitely more than I'll trust Mr. Bouie's spin. That's why I'm fighting hard to make Photo ID part of Minnesota's constitution.
Tags: Protect My Vote , Photo ID , Artur Davis , Anita MonCrief , Voter Fraud , ACORN , Elections
Posted Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:53 AM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 31-Jul-12 11:14 PM
Let's be politically incorrect and to the point...passing voter ID would actually hurt Democrats more than Republicans. It's the dirtly little secret Democrats don't want to admit publicly. Passing voter ID is really a no brainer. You need a valid ID for cashing checks, getting some over the counter prescriptions at the drugstore, getting on an airliner, and yes . . . even some unions require a valid ID to vote. It's always entertaining to hear the argument that passing voter ID would be really expensive or would disenfranchise people. Yes, it will disenfranchise many people who commit voter fraud.
Comment 2 by MinnetonkaMoose at 31-Jul-12 11:34 PM
Why do the Demogogues get away with saying this will end same day registration? Won't the law allow people without proper ID to cast a provisional ballot without them needing to find someone to lie and "vouch" that they live in the precinct? This amendment is a huge improvement over the existing system which has no method of verifying identity.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Aug-12 04:47 AM
The fact that you're calling them on it & the fact that Photo ID will pass overwhelmingly indicates that they aren't getting away with anything.
For the record, the photo ID amendment has as much to do with eliminating EDR as Tarzan has to do with saving the Delta Smelt in California. They're different issues that don't have anything to do with each other.
Photo ID is a constitutional amendment. Changing EDR requires changing existing statute, meaning it requires the governor's signature. The wording of the constitutional amendment is clear. It deals with requiring Photo ID for voting. It doesn't say anything about EDR.
This is just the DFL's feeble attempt to scare people.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 01-Aug-12 04:23 PM
Gary:
I think another thing we need to call them out on is their claims that this voter suppression. I had a woman today treating me very rudely (yelling, saying she should be helped here) because she believes this is voter suppression.
The reason why she was mad was my office can't execute a first time ID card application thanks to the federal government (she didn't want to hear the explanation)so she was mad her son's first vote was going to suppressed. And when I tried to help her out by telling her what her son will need (a second document besides the birth certificate) she thought that was another effort to suppress her son's vote.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The indictment against Obamanomics
I've heard enough from what's best described as the 'it isn't Obama's fault crowd'. Conservatives can probably mumble the left's argument in their sleep. For newcomers, it goes something like this (in no particular order):
- Bush put 2 wars on the national credit card.
- President Obama inherited a mess.
- The rich aren't paying their fair share.
That's nothing more than a steaming pile of BS. While the first 2 points are true, they're also irrelevant.
Putting 2 wars on the national credit card has nothing to do with this administration's hostility towards the business community. It has nothing to do with the EPA's inflicting pain on families and power plants through an out-of-control regulatory regime. Those wars have nothing to do with the EPA's attempt to shut down the coal industry in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Indiana.
Those wars have nothing to do with President Obama's decision to push the biggest job-killing bill in US history, the ACA, down our throats against the will of the American people. Those wars didn't prevent companies from putting their capital at risk during the Bush years.
Capital didn't start redeploying to places other than the American economy until this administration took over. The left still hasn't explained why that 'redeployment' happened. I don't think we'll hear an explanation until after the election.
The deficits didn't start increasing until after the election disaster of 2006. The deficits didn't start skyrocketing until President Obama laid out his misguided economic blueprint. Democrats can't blame President Bush for President Obama choosing not to start the Keystone XL Pipeline. In fact, if President Bush was still the president, it's a lead pipe cinch he would've approved the project, thereby creating tens of thousands of construction jobs while reducing U.S. dependence on Saudi oil.
President Obama won't attempt to rebut my 'indictment' against their economic policies because the indictment is airtight. It's true that President Obama inherited a mess. It's verifiable that President Obama promptly made things worse. Here's how he 'accomplished' it:
- pursuing an agenda filled with hostility towards businesses large, small and in between,
- unleashing the EPA to demolish the coal industry and coal-fired power plants,
- starting a war against fossil fuels,
- pushing the biggest job-killing bill in US history down our throats and
- pursuing a strategy that created economic uncertainty at the very time we needed economic and regulatory certainty.
If you're looking for a blueprint to destroy a nation's economy, you needn't look further.
Tags: President Obama , Keystone XL Pipeline Project , Unemployment , Recession , Deficits , The Rich , Fair Share , EPA , Affordable Care Act , Wars , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:27 PM
Comment 1 by craig at 31-Jul-12 06:47 PM
Could you pass on a PO Box where I could mail a donation. Bad expereience with PPal. Won't use it.
