in the Senate ?
DeMint: ‘I’d Rather Lose Fighting for the Right Cause’
September 15, 2010 4:16 P.M.
By Daniel Foster
Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) is now one of the most powerful forces in the Republican party, whether his colleagues in the Senate Republican leadership like it or not. And based on quotes like this, I’m going to guess the answer is “not.”
To ABC’s Jonathan Karl:
I asked Senator DeMint if he’ll have any regrets if come November 3rd he realizes Republicans blew their chance at winning a majority because some of the candidates he supported lost.
“No. I’ve been in the majority with Republicans who didn’t have principles and we embarrassed ourselves and lost credibility in front of the country. Frankly, I’m at a point where I’d rather lose fighting for the right cause then win fighting for the wrong cause,” he told me.
And to Alex Leary at the St. Petersburg Times:
“The GOP would not have a chance to take the majority in the House or the Senate if it weren’t for the tea party. To think that we could be where we are if we had Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist leading our ticket is just foolishness.”
That’s proved out by the fact that DeMint has picked primary winners with far greater success than the NRSC — which may explain why after an initial chill, Cornyn and co. have decided that they’d rather eat the resources spent on an O’Donnell loss than sit on the sidelines and watch DeMint and his PAC guide her to another upset.
UPDATE: Later on in the Karl interview, DeMint answers the 40/60 question:
“I’ve said I’d rather have 40 Marco Rubios than 60 Arlen Specters and the reason for that is if you want 60 Republicans, you’ve got to have at least 40 to start with who stand on principle. And if we can show America this election the clear contrast between the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda and more of a constitutionally limited government, if our candidates have that clear contrast, I think they’re going to win in every state.
“We’re going to have an earthquake election if we put the right candidates and I think that’s what we saw in Delaware last night. Christine O’Donnell has been maligned by everyone from the right to the left but people in Delaware love our country and they don’t want it to go bankrupt. They’re going see this contrast because now republicans are offering a contrast with the democrats who are going to continue this radical agenda with the President. I think the people in Delaware are smart and you’re going to see Christine O’Donnell win that election.”
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Harry Reid is a putz
Harry Reid’s Pipe DREAM
September 15, 2010 11:59 A.M.
By Mark Krikorian
Senator Reid announced yesterday that next week he’ll present the DREAM Act amnesty as an amendment to the defense spending bill. This is the bill that already includes the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allows elective abortions at military hospitals. Maybe you could use “support the troops” as a cudgel to get one of these things through; but to pack amnesty, gay rights, and abortion into a single defense bill and expect critics to be intimidated into voting for it strains credulity. I assume this is just a desperate attempt by him to motivate demoralized left-wing constituencies to help drag his sorry carcass over the finish line on November 2. But, as one writer observes, it is fodder for his opponent:
But Reid also sets a potential trap for himself, opening the door for Republican opponents — specifically Nevada challenger Sharron Angle — to emphasize his Washington insider habit of manipulating legislation so as to further his own political ambitions. “Harry Reid,” one can imagine the voice-over actor intoning, “would rather cater to interest groups than give our troops the support they need.”
And for those who say the DREAM Act would be a small amnesty, for just a handful of “kids,” the Migration Policy Institute, a pro-amnesty outfit, has estimated that 2.1 million illegal immigrants could benefit from it — not that much smaller than the 2.8 million who were legalized under the 1986 amnesty.
September 15, 2010 11:59 A.M.
By Mark Krikorian
Senator Reid announced yesterday that next week he’ll present the DREAM Act amnesty as an amendment to the defense spending bill. This is the bill that already includes the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allows elective abortions at military hospitals. Maybe you could use “support the troops” as a cudgel to get one of these things through; but to pack amnesty, gay rights, and abortion into a single defense bill and expect critics to be intimidated into voting for it strains credulity. I assume this is just a desperate attempt by him to motivate demoralized left-wing constituencies to help drag his sorry carcass over the finish line on November 2. But, as one writer observes, it is fodder for his opponent:
But Reid also sets a potential trap for himself, opening the door for Republican opponents — specifically Nevada challenger Sharron Angle — to emphasize his Washington insider habit of manipulating legislation so as to further his own political ambitions. “Harry Reid,” one can imagine the voice-over actor intoning, “would rather cater to interest groups than give our troops the support they need.”
And for those who say the DREAM Act would be a small amnesty, for just a handful of “kids,” the Migration Policy Institute, a pro-amnesty outfit, has estimated that 2.1 million illegal immigrants could benefit from it — not that much smaller than the 2.8 million who were legalized under the 1986 amnesty.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
ObamaCare updates - courts to decide constitutionality (& more)
Federal Judge Likely to Let Obamacare Suit Go to Trial
September 14, 2010 3:50 P.M.
By Daniel Foster
The AP reports:
PENSACOLA, Fla. – A federal judge said Tuesday he will likely dismiss only parts of a lawsuit by 20 states challenging the Obama administration’s health care overhaul as unconstitutional, though he didn’t specifically say what portions.
The Obama administration had asked U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to dismiss the entire lawsuit. The states and the administration disagree over whether people should be required to have health insurance, and whether states should pay additional Medicaid costs not covered by the federal government.
The judge said he will issue a ruling by Oct. 14. The lawsuit is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Also this:
Government Intimidation:
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has sent an organization of insurers a letter demanding that insurance companies stop attributing premium increases to the Democrats' health-care law.
"There will be zero tolerance for this kind of misinformation," she wrote.
The administration and "some industry and academic experts" think that Obamacare will have only a "minimal" effect on premiums. Apparently disagreement with these experts--note that she does not, because she cannot, say "all" experts--is "misinformation." What she is promising, in short, is zero tolerance for disagreement with her.
In the same breath, Sebelius raises the prospect that insurers with "unjustified" premium increases will not be able to participate in the health-insurance exchanges the new law sets up. The message is clear: Inform your customers about the reasons you believe their premiums are going up, and you'll be punished for it.
Critics of Obamacare have often said it was poorly designed, but in this instance it has achieved a kind of efficiency: It both creates the facts that need to be suppressed and gives the government power to suppress it.
During the debate over Obamacare, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent Humana a letter telling it not to warn its customers about the bill's cuts to Medicare Advantage. The law's passage has enabled this sort of thuggery to increase in scale. It's one more reason that Obamacare ought to be dismantled.
September 14, 2010 3:50 P.M.
By Daniel Foster
The AP reports:
PENSACOLA, Fla. – A federal judge said Tuesday he will likely dismiss only parts of a lawsuit by 20 states challenging the Obama administration’s health care overhaul as unconstitutional, though he didn’t specifically say what portions.
The Obama administration had asked U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to dismiss the entire lawsuit. The states and the administration disagree over whether people should be required to have health insurance, and whether states should pay additional Medicaid costs not covered by the federal government.
The judge said he will issue a ruling by Oct. 14. The lawsuit is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Also this:
Government Intimidation:
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has sent an organization of insurers a letter demanding that insurance companies stop attributing premium increases to the Democrats' health-care law.
"There will be zero tolerance for this kind of misinformation," she wrote.
The administration and "some industry and academic experts" think that Obamacare will have only a "minimal" effect on premiums. Apparently disagreement with these experts--note that she does not, because she cannot, say "all" experts--is "misinformation." What she is promising, in short, is zero tolerance for disagreement with her.
In the same breath, Sebelius raises the prospect that insurers with "unjustified" premium increases will not be able to participate in the health-insurance exchanges the new law sets up. The message is clear: Inform your customers about the reasons you believe their premiums are going up, and you'll be punished for it.
Critics of Obamacare have often said it was poorly designed, but in this instance it has achieved a kind of efficiency: It both creates the facts that need to be suppressed and gives the government power to suppress it.
During the debate over Obamacare, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent Humana a letter telling it not to warn its customers about the bill's cuts to Medicare Advantage. The law's passage has enabled this sort of thuggery to increase in scale. It's one more reason that Obamacare ought to be dismantled.
Primary Day -- No ID required (but it should be !)
I voted in a primary today. Nobody checked my ID - its not required, in fact, Democrats, liberals and illegals claim it suppresses minority voters. To which I say Bull$%&@ !
I need ID to drive. To board an airplane. To buy beer. To use a credit card. To enter an office building.
Of course you should show an ID to be able to exercise the right to vote.
Will Someone Please Check My ID?
September 14, 2010 12:23 P.M.
By Rory Cooper
This morning I took part in a sacred civic obligation: I voted. The casting of one’s ballot is a truly egalitarian American experience — everyone has an equal say in how they will be represented in matters of governance. It doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, religious or not, a Mayflower descendant or a newly sworn-in U.S. citizen.
But in Maryland, my rights were infringed upon when my identity as a legal voter was rendered insignificant. Nobody asked me for identification, nor was anyone obliged to do so. As a result of this inaction, voter fraud will not only be tolerated but is rendered likely.
Maryland is one of 23 states that maintain the most minimal standards for voter identification, only requiring that you show ID (photo not required) when you register, and never again after that. This allows anyone who knows your full name and polling location to vote in your place with no recourse.
Liberals led by the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, and the NAACP contend that voter-ID requirements are designed to suppress minority and Democratic votes, but that has been proven wrong time and time again. In 2008, Georgia and Indiana, two states where identification is required to vote without a provisional ballot, saw historically high turnout among African-Americans and Democrats. In Indiana, where voter-ID laws are strictest, Democratic turnout increased by over 8 percent in 2008 over 2004; this was the largest increase in the nation. Georgia’s voter-ID requirements got stricter between 2004 and 2008, but African-American turnout increased. And when compared to other states with similar populations but less strict voter laws, the argument that the turnout would have been even higher without the enforcement is laid to rest.
A Rasmussen poll in August 2010 found that a full 82 percent of Americans believe all voters should show photo ID before they are allowed to vote, representing a majority in every single demographic group. This is not a fringe opinion, but a national consensus.
Retired liberal Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens, a former anti-corruption lawyer from Chicago, agrees that lax voter-ID requirements lead to voter fraud. In the 6–3 majority opinion upholding Indiana’s new law, he writes: “That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”
In ruling after ruling, strict voter-ID laws have been found to be constitutional and not in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Yet that doesn’t stop liberal activist groups from spending countless court hours and taxpayer resources working towards an end goal that invites voter fraud.
Most recently, the Obama administration has made clear that it will not prosecute illegal immigrants who violate our voting laws by taking part in a process that is explicitly for U.S. citizens only. When Putnam County, Tenn., recently reported to the Obama administration that a person had voted illegally before becoming a citizen, the response was simply to ask if he had been taken off the voter rolls. This of course ignored that it is a felony under federal law to register and vote in elections as a non-citizen.
Illegal-immigration advocates address these instances as innocent mistakes, but the federal voter-registration form explicitly asks at the top, “Are you a citizen of the United States of America?” It then asks you to swear and reaffirm that statement when you sign your name. How many free passes do certain criminals get in the Holder Justice Department?
The point here is not that people should be denied their right to vote. Quite the opposite: Legal and registered citizens should not be denied their right to have their votes fully count by illegal ballots cast mere feet away.
The yearning to cast a vote in an American election is admirable but nevertheless punishable if done illegally. Those who wish to defraud and corrupt the process should not be given an easy path.
It’s time for all 50 states to have commonsense voter-ID laws that require photo identification every time you vote. It is the only way to protect the integrity and security of this sacred obligation for millions of legally registered Americans. Please, will someone check my ID?
— Rory Cooper is director of strategic communications at the Heritage Foundation. You can follow him on Twitter @rorycooper.
I need ID to drive. To board an airplane. To buy beer. To use a credit card. To enter an office building.
Of course you should show an ID to be able to exercise the right to vote.
Will Someone Please Check My ID?
September 14, 2010 12:23 P.M.
By Rory Cooper
This morning I took part in a sacred civic obligation: I voted. The casting of one’s ballot is a truly egalitarian American experience — everyone has an equal say in how they will be represented in matters of governance. It doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, religious or not, a Mayflower descendant or a newly sworn-in U.S. citizen.
But in Maryland, my rights were infringed upon when my identity as a legal voter was rendered insignificant. Nobody asked me for identification, nor was anyone obliged to do so. As a result of this inaction, voter fraud will not only be tolerated but is rendered likely.
Maryland is one of 23 states that maintain the most minimal standards for voter identification, only requiring that you show ID (photo not required) when you register, and never again after that. This allows anyone who knows your full name and polling location to vote in your place with no recourse.
Liberals led by the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, and the NAACP contend that voter-ID requirements are designed to suppress minority and Democratic votes, but that has been proven wrong time and time again. In 2008, Georgia and Indiana, two states where identification is required to vote without a provisional ballot, saw historically high turnout among African-Americans and Democrats. In Indiana, where voter-ID laws are strictest, Democratic turnout increased by over 8 percent in 2008 over 2004; this was the largest increase in the nation. Georgia’s voter-ID requirements got stricter between 2004 and 2008, but African-American turnout increased. And when compared to other states with similar populations but less strict voter laws, the argument that the turnout would have been even higher without the enforcement is laid to rest.
A Rasmussen poll in August 2010 found that a full 82 percent of Americans believe all voters should show photo ID before they are allowed to vote, representing a majority in every single demographic group. This is not a fringe opinion, but a national consensus.
Retired liberal Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens, a former anti-corruption lawyer from Chicago, agrees that lax voter-ID requirements lead to voter fraud. In the 6–3 majority opinion upholding Indiana’s new law, he writes: “That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”
In ruling after ruling, strict voter-ID laws have been found to be constitutional and not in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Yet that doesn’t stop liberal activist groups from spending countless court hours and taxpayer resources working towards an end goal that invites voter fraud.
Most recently, the Obama administration has made clear that it will not prosecute illegal immigrants who violate our voting laws by taking part in a process that is explicitly for U.S. citizens only. When Putnam County, Tenn., recently reported to the Obama administration that a person had voted illegally before becoming a citizen, the response was simply to ask if he had been taken off the voter rolls. This of course ignored that it is a felony under federal law to register and vote in elections as a non-citizen.
Illegal-immigration advocates address these instances as innocent mistakes, but the federal voter-registration form explicitly asks at the top, “Are you a citizen of the United States of America?” It then asks you to swear and reaffirm that statement when you sign your name. How many free passes do certain criminals get in the Holder Justice Department?
The point here is not that people should be denied their right to vote. Quite the opposite: Legal and registered citizens should not be denied their right to have their votes fully count by illegal ballots cast mere feet away.
The yearning to cast a vote in an American election is admirable but nevertheless punishable if done illegally. Those who wish to defraud and corrupt the process should not be given an easy path.
It’s time for all 50 states to have commonsense voter-ID laws that require photo identification every time you vote. It is the only way to protect the integrity and security of this sacred obligation for millions of legally registered Americans. Please, will someone check my ID?
— Rory Cooper is director of strategic communications at the Heritage Foundation. You can follow him on Twitter @rorycooper.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Lobbyist $$
Hmmm
Inconvenient Facts
September 13, 2010 2:15 P.M.
By Jonah Goldberg
Tim Carney:
If you read this weekend’s New York Times’ hit job on would-be Speaker John Boehner and his “lobbyist friends,” you might think, as the reporter clearly thinks, that John Boehner is cozier with lobbyists than most powerful politicians are.
But did you know:
• Nancy Pelosi has raised almost twice as much money from lobbyists this election as Boehner has?
• At least 18 House Democrats have raised more lobbyist cash this election than Boehner has.
• Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have pocketed more lobbyist cash in the past 18 months than Boehner has raised in the past 6 elections, combined?
Inconvenient Facts
September 13, 2010 2:15 P.M.
By Jonah Goldberg
Tim Carney:
If you read this weekend’s New York Times’ hit job on would-be Speaker John Boehner and his “lobbyist friends,” you might think, as the reporter clearly thinks, that John Boehner is cozier with lobbyists than most powerful politicians are.
But did you know:
• Nancy Pelosi has raised almost twice as much money from lobbyists this election as Boehner has?
• At least 18 House Democrats have raised more lobbyist cash this election than Boehner has.
• Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have pocketed more lobbyist cash in the past 18 months than Boehner has raised in the past 6 elections, combined?
About the Ground Zero Mosque Imam (Rauf)
doesn't look so moderate here; more like another silver tongued con artist ...
The Hidden Imam
September 13, 2010 12:30 P.M.
By Daniel Foster
In remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf gave his “pledge” to resolve discord around the proposed mosque near Ground Zero:
“Everything is on the table,” he said. “We really are focused on solving it” in a way that will be best for everyone concerned, he added. “I give you my pledge.”
He did not specify what compromises or measures might be part of the solution, although he welcomed what he said was a flood of good will and advice being offered, and suggested that a deliberate pause in moving forward was one possibility.
One council member asked Mr. Abdul Rauf if he would consider delaying the project to take that time to have more public conversations.
“Our advisers have been looking at every option — including that,” Mr. Abdul Rauf said.
Meanwhile, on the homepage today, Ibn Warraq gives a guided tour of the many prevarications of Imam Rauf, the “peacebuilder” who won’t call Hamas a terrorist organization and who thinks peace in Israel means an “Arab state” with a Jewish minority.
A flavor:
Rauf says one thing to Western audiences and another to Muslim audiences. He is quite capable of writing reassuring things, as in the New York Daily News earlier this year: “My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society.”
\
But when presented with actual opportunities to “interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society,” Rauf and most of his fellow Muslims decline. Nearly ten years ago, I was the guest of the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies (PISAI) of Rome. PISAI is dedicated to interfaith dialogue between Christians and Muslims. But as the director at the time said to me, “There is no real dialogue, since Muslims never reciprocate the goodwill gestures made by the Christians. The result is we sit down together, and the Christians say what a wonderful religion Islam is, and the Muslims say what a wonderful religion Islam is.” Rauf was invited to give a sermon in a church and did so, but he never reciprocated by inviting a Christian to give a sermon in a mosque. This, for Rauf and his ilk, would be unthinkable.
Like Tariq Ramadan, also touted by the unvigilant and ill-informed as a great moderate Muslim, Rauf is a master of double talk and prevarication. When asked if he considered Hamas a terrorist organization, as it is labeled by the State Department, Rauf ducked, weaved, and sidestepped:
“Look, I’m not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. There was an attempt in the ’90s to have the U.N. define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that.” The interviewer persisted. Rauf, clearly flustered, replied, “I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy.”
This unwillingness to criticize Hamas is hardly surprising, given his views on Israel. In a letter published on Nov. 27, 1977, in the New York Times, he wrote, “In a true peace it is impossible that a purely Jewish state of Palestine can endure. . . . In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority.”
The Hidden Imam
September 13, 2010 12:30 P.M.
By Daniel Foster
In remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf gave his “pledge” to resolve discord around the proposed mosque near Ground Zero:
“Everything is on the table,” he said. “We really are focused on solving it” in a way that will be best for everyone concerned, he added. “I give you my pledge.”
He did not specify what compromises or measures might be part of the solution, although he welcomed what he said was a flood of good will and advice being offered, and suggested that a deliberate pause in moving forward was one possibility.
One council member asked Mr. Abdul Rauf if he would consider delaying the project to take that time to have more public conversations.
“Our advisers have been looking at every option — including that,” Mr. Abdul Rauf said.
Meanwhile, on the homepage today, Ibn Warraq gives a guided tour of the many prevarications of Imam Rauf, the “peacebuilder” who won’t call Hamas a terrorist organization and who thinks peace in Israel means an “Arab state” with a Jewish minority.
A flavor:
Rauf says one thing to Western audiences and another to Muslim audiences. He is quite capable of writing reassuring things, as in the New York Daily News earlier this year: “My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society.”
\
But when presented with actual opportunities to “interweave America’s Muslim population into the mainstream society,” Rauf and most of his fellow Muslims decline. Nearly ten years ago, I was the guest of the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies (PISAI) of Rome. PISAI is dedicated to interfaith dialogue between Christians and Muslims. But as the director at the time said to me, “There is no real dialogue, since Muslims never reciprocate the goodwill gestures made by the Christians. The result is we sit down together, and the Christians say what a wonderful religion Islam is, and the Muslims say what a wonderful religion Islam is.” Rauf was invited to give a sermon in a church and did so, but he never reciprocated by inviting a Christian to give a sermon in a mosque. This, for Rauf and his ilk, would be unthinkable.
Like Tariq Ramadan, also touted by the unvigilant and ill-informed as a great moderate Muslim, Rauf is a master of double talk and prevarication. When asked if he considered Hamas a terrorist organization, as it is labeled by the State Department, Rauf ducked, weaved, and sidestepped:
“Look, I’m not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. There was an attempt in the ’90s to have the U.N. define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that.” The interviewer persisted. Rauf, clearly flustered, replied, “I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy.”
This unwillingness to criticize Hamas is hardly surprising, given his views on Israel. In a letter published on Nov. 27, 1977, in the New York Times, he wrote, “In a true peace it is impossible that a purely Jewish state of Palestine can endure. . . . In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority.”
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Newt Gingrich skewers Obama ... "authentically dishonest"
Wow ....
Gingrich: Obama’s ‘Kenyan, anti-colonial’ worldview
September 11, 2010 10:52 P.M.
By Robert Costa
Citing a recent Forbes article by Dinesh D’Souza, former House speaker Newt Gingrich tells National Review Online that President Obama may follow a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview. Gingrich says that D’Souza has made a “stunning insight” into Obama’s behavior — the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.”
“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”
“This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president,” Gingrich tells us.
“I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true,” Gingrich continues. “In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve . . . He was authentically dishonest.”
“[Obama] is in the great tradition of Edison, Ford, the Wright Brothers, Bill Gates — he saw his opportunity and he took it,” Gingrich says. Will Gingrich take it back in 2012? “The American people may take it back, in which case I may or may not be the recipient of that, but I have zero doubt that the American people will take it back. Unlike Ford, the Wright Brothers, et cetera, this guy’s invention did not work.”
“I think Obama gets up every morning with a worldview that is fundamentally wrong about reality,” Gingrich says. “If you look at the continuous denial of reality, there has got to be a point where someone stands up and says that this is just factually insane.”
Gingrich spoke with NRO after the premiere of his new film, America at Risk.
Gingrich: Obama’s ‘Kenyan, anti-colonial’ worldview
September 11, 2010 10:52 P.M.
By Robert Costa
Citing a recent Forbes article by Dinesh D’Souza, former House speaker Newt Gingrich tells National Review Online that President Obama may follow a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview. Gingrich says that D’Souza has made a “stunning insight” into Obama’s behavior — the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.”
“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”
“This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president,” Gingrich tells us.
“I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true,” Gingrich continues. “In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve . . . He was authentically dishonest.”
“[Obama] is in the great tradition of Edison, Ford, the Wright Brothers, Bill Gates — he saw his opportunity and he took it,” Gingrich says. Will Gingrich take it back in 2012? “The American people may take it back, in which case I may or may not be the recipient of that, but I have zero doubt that the American people will take it back. Unlike Ford, the Wright Brothers, et cetera, this guy’s invention did not work.”
“I think Obama gets up every morning with a worldview that is fundamentally wrong about reality,” Gingrich says. “If you look at the continuous denial of reality, there has got to be a point where someone stands up and says that this is just factually insane.”
Gingrich spoke with NRO after the premiere of his new film, America at Risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
