Archives for November 2012

With the nation just five weeks away from plunging off the so-called “fiscal cliff”, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert says the lines currently drawn in this debate are badly focused – largely due to poor or non-existent.

Since Election Day, President Obama has continued to insist that more revenue needs to be generated through income tax hikes on households earning more than $250,000 per year.  Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner, have said they will not support marginal tax hikes on any individuals or businesses but they would entertain increasing revenue through other changes in the tax code – namely ending some or many deductions.

Gohmert has no patience for either position.  He says any additional tax hikes would further stifle economic recovery, but he’s also appalled by the targeting of tax deductions as a way to boost revenue.

“Good grief!  Do you know the damage that will do to charity?” said Gohmert.  “The people in this administration want the government in charge of everything.  We’ve seen with Hurricane Sandy and Katrina.  We’ve seen whether it’s Democratic or Republican administrations how poorly government responds in times of emergency.  It is the American charitable beliefs, the American charitable spirit that actually gets help to people quicker.”

Instead of tinkering around the edges of the tax code, Gohmert sees this crisis as a golden opportunity to overhaul the tax system in a way that provides a massive kick start to the economy.

Gohmert says he does feel uneasy when a CEO pays a lower tax rate than his secretary as a result of his income coming on investments rather than salary.  But Gohmert says the solution is not to punish the rich, but to bring everyone’s tax rate down to 15 percent across the board and then scrapping all deductions – except for charitable contributions and the mortgage interest deduction.

“Now is the time, since (Obama’s) saying ‘fair share’ that we say ‘you betcha’ and nothing will make sure that we’re doing fair share more than a flat tax,” said Gohmert.

Spending cuts are also on Gohmert’s agenda.  He wants to go back to 2008 spending levels, which he says would instantly reduce the annual deficit by a trillion dollars.

Gohmert’s approach is not gaining much traction at this point and the congressman says that largely due to a Republican leadership that’s not leading much of anything.

“Maybe we should say ‘the people at the top of our party’ instead of leadership because we need to see some leadership and not just being defensive,” said Gohmert.  ” Let’s go start pushing what the American people want to see and what they believe in instead of caving in on what this president’s wanting to do which is more damage to our economy.”

Gohmert’s frustration with the current House leadership of Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor is no secret.  Earlier this month, Gohmert nominated Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House for the coming two years, citing Gingrich’s record of balancing the budget and passing welfare reform back in the 1990s.

“That was leadership,” said Gohmert of Gingrich’s tenure as Speaker.  “It would be good to have someone (like that).  I don’t care if it’s John Boehner or somebody, but somebody to lead instead of being the one that leads us in caving in.  That’s not real leadership.”

Gohmert believes pressure from the American people will be the only way leaders in both parties will end up with the right approach to this mess.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleasantly surprised that the new film on the raid that killed Osama bin Laden is not the liberal puff piece that most conservatives expected.  They also shake their heads as Egypt’s new radical Muslim president decides he wants to be an autocrat too.  And they have very little sympathy for liberal Susan Estrich who strongly supported Obama but now is horrified that her taxes may soon increase.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review use the occasion of Black Friday to offer some small gifts for various political figures ranging from President Obama to Republican Chairman Reince Priebus to House Speaker John Boehner.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review explain three things for which they are politically thankful this year…and they offer some personal reflections as well.

Last week, former CIA Director David Petraeus told Congress he knew immediately that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was an orchestrated act of terrorism and it was described as such in CIA talking points.

On Tuesday, new reports suggest that the decision to remove references to Al Qaeda and terrorism from those talking points was made by the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and agreed to by the CIA and FBI.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says this is just the latest revision of the White House narrative.

“It contradicts what the Director of National Intelligence, General Clapper himself, testified last week to committees of Congress that he didn’t know who made the last changes,” said Bolton.  “The very fact this story keep changing shows the administration knows it is vulnerable.  They made up this story about the out of control demonstration because of the Mohammed video and now they’re just trying to find some way to sustain it.”

If the new report is accurate, it would represent the third version of events offered by Petraeus and at least the second from Clapper.  Bolton says Petraeus, like Clapper, was clear in his congressional testimony that he always saw this attack as terrorism.

“If he sticks by that story, it’s going to make it very hard for the White House to sustain this latest version,” he said.  “These hearings have just begun.  I think we’ve got a long way to go on this.  I just hope the Republicans don’t lose heart because of the administration’s stonewalling and obfuscation.”

Bolton says the administration’s response to this deadly attack was bad enough, but he sees an even worse repercussion from all the spinning.

“The threat of terrorism, quite obviously, is not receding despite the administration’s rosy-eyed view of the world,” said Bolton.  “Not being able to understand reality obviously makes it very hard to formulate policies that protect the United States and its friends and allies around the world.

“To me Benghazi was not only a tragedy because of administration failures to grant enhanced security that our embassy in Libya was requesting before the attack, and not only the tragic events of 9-11 itself and not only this ridiculous story that they concocted to explain the attack afterward, but what it reveals about the overall disintegration of American policy in the Near East and in the War on Terror more generally.”

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased but not surprised that the American people overwhelmingly side with Israel in its conflict with Hamas.  They also rip Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner for advocating the abolition of the debt ceiling.  And they discuss Mitt Romney’s vote total surpassing the 2008 figures of John McCain.

Israel appears to be rejecting the latest efforts by Hamas and Egypt to impose a cease-fire after several days of intense fighting.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says Israel has no appealing options right now but may be choosing the least objectionable course for the moment.  He says a cease-fire now solves almost nothing.

“If Israel actually does stop it’s response before it eliminates those missiles and arrives at some kind of mechanism to keep replacements from coming into the Gaza Strip, we’re either going to see this past week repeated or Israel will face a real threat from Iran (through Hamas) being able to hit Israel from its own backyard,” said Bolton.

But while Bolton fears a cessation of hostilities now would not accomplish much in dismantling the threat posed by Hamas, proceeding with a ground campaign carries obvious risks of its own.

“Although Israel’s air force was successful in destroying a fair number of the rocket launching sites and maybe some of the storage facilities and the like, they’re clearly concerned that they were unable to find all of the sources of rockets both short range and long range,” said Bolton.  “That’s why they’re contemplating going in on the ground.  That is something that will cost them politically.  It could be substantial casualties for the Israeli ground forces.  They’ll get publicity about innocent Palestinians being killed, and they still might not be able to get all the rockets.  On the other hand, if they leave Hamas in possession of the longer range missiles that can hit Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Iran and Hamas have really moved to a new strategic plateau that leaves Israel more vulnerable the next time around.”

A new wrinkle in this latest conflict is the role of Egypt.  Bolton says former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak hated Hamas just about as much as Israel does, but new President Mohammed Morsi is far more sympathetic.  But while Morsi may feel solidarity with Hamas, Bolton says other realities greatly limit Egypt’s options.

“Number one, I think the Egyptian military still thinks pretty much the same way Mubarak did, so they’ve got disagreement within the government of Egypt over that,” he said.  “And Egypt is in very desperate straits financially.  They’ve just signed a new deal with the International Monetary Fund.  They desperately need more debt relief.  If the U.S. and Europeans were to cut them off from the financial aid spigot, they’d be in real trouble.”

Bolton says the long-term prognosis of a Muslim Brotherhood-brokered cease-fire is a terrible prospect for Israel.  He adds that a more radical and financially stable Egypt could provide major headaches for the Israelis in the years ahead, so it makes even less sense for Israel to postpone military action now that will be inevitable down the road.

The former ambassador also offered some frank analysis of the Obama administration’s policy on the conflict.  Bolton says there is a significant difference between the public statements and the private arm twisting.

“President Obama has given rhetorical support for Israel, said that Israel obviously has a right to self-defense,” said Bolton.  “Behind the scenes, my understanding is the president’s putting unbelievable pressure on Israel not to go in on the ground.  If he succeeds, and that may be the message that Hillary Clinton is carrying, a cease-fire here doesn’t resolve anything.  It merely postpones another clash.”

Bolton isn’t sure what the Israeli government will decide.  He believes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows a cease-fire only delays the obvious.  He also says a ground campaign would be very thorough.

“If they decide to go in on the ground, I think it will be a very sustained operation,” said Bolton.  ” I think as you and I are talking, this is very much in the balance in the security cabinet of Prime Minister Netanyahu.”

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are impressed at how well Israel’s “iron dome” missile defense system works.  They are horrified at the incompetence of the vote counting in the Allen West House race.  And they take aim at the gotcha questions GQ magazine fired at Marco Rubio and at the crazed reaction to Rubio’s answers by some on the Right.

Lawmakers have just scratched the surface in their investigation of the terrorist attacks on our consulate in Benghazi, but Congress has made progress on getting to the bottom of the biggest mysteries – why the State Department denied requests for more security at the consulate and what information the White House initially received from intelligence sources.

California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is chairman of its Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.  He says the Democrats have an explanation for the lack of security that simply doesn’t hold water.

The Democratic contention is that Republican budget cuts in security spending is responsible for the consulate being vulnerable to attack.  Rohrabacher says the State Department official responsible for turning down the request for more security in Benghazi told his committee that theory was wrong.

“I personally asked her, ‘Was budget consideration any part of your decision not to have a higher level of security?'” said Rohrabacher.  “And she answered, ‘No, there was no consideration of budget.’  So the Democrats trying to politicize this and get away with it doesn’t work.”

Rep. Rohrabacher says the official believed local militias could adequately enhance consulate security, a conclusion that was obviously wrong.  But the congressman sees another troubling reason as to why the administration rejected calls for security upgrade.

“The administration has been trying to downplay the threat of radical Islam for the last few years.  The president can’t even get those words out of his mouth, radical Islamic terrorists,” said Rohrabacher.  “They’ve been excusing every one of these actions as something else other than radical Islamic terrorism.  You have a mindset in the administration of minimizing the danger, and perhaps that had something to do with her decision as to having a lower level of security than was necessary.”

As for the administration’s explanation of the attack to the American people, Rohrabacher says United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice blatantly misled the American people by claiming several days after the attack that an internet video was responsible for inciting the attacks.

“You got the ambassador to the United Nations out there saying something that is factually not true six days after it was clear to the CIA…that it was a terrorist group and not a movie rage that resulted in the deaths of our diplomatic personnel,” said Rohrabacher.

While Rohrabacher finds Rice’s conduct unacceptable, he aims far more blame at President Obama.

“It was also the president himself who kept, over and over again, talking about this movie rage and how we need to be more sensitive,” he said.  “Meaning blaming us, blaming the United States, blaming us for having freedom of speech so somebody could make a film, that somebody else was upset about.”

Nonetheless, Rohrabacher is among some 100 House members to sign a letter to President Obama strongly urging him not to nominate Rice as the next Secretary of State.

“Rice was a good soldier.  She was going along.  What we don’t need are good soldiers who will go along if the American people are being lied to,” he said.

The congressman is also deeply troubled by the conduct of former CIA Director David Petraeus, in that Petraeus has now offered two very different stories about his assessment of the Benghazi attacks.

“What’s going on with Petraeus is mighty peculiar and there’s a lot of questions there,” said Rohrabacher.  “This man changed his testimony between the first time he testified and the second time.  During the middle there, he was kicked out of the CIA and we found out that people were keeping a secret dossier on his private life.  There’s a lot of bad implications to that we need to tie down and investigate.”

The day after President Obama was re-elected, his administration acted to jumpstart a United Nations treaty that critics say takes direct aim at second amendment freedoms here in the U.S.

Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly is pushing House legislation to demand the president reject any efforts at the United Nations or anywhere else to infringe on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  The House doesn’t have any real jurisdiction on the issue as the Senate gives the final word on treaties, but Kelly says raising public awareness is critical.

“Our ability to keep and bear arms is constantly under attack,” said Kelly.  “Our second amendment is constantly under attack by an administration that uses this wordsmithing and this constant massaging and spinning.”

Kelly is referring to what he sees as a regular Obama administration habit of insisting legislation and regulations are not going to do what critics fear, but an actual reading of administration policy shows the exact opposite.

At issue is the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.  It’s stated purpose is to crack down on the proliferation of weapons, but critics like Kelly see it as a means of targeting U.S. gun rights and stopping us from arming our allies.

Supporters of the treaty say Americans won’t be impacted at all by the treaty because nothing coming from the UN can trump the U.S. Constitution.  Kelly says that provides him no comfort.

“I just look at the last four years,” said Kelly.  “Anybody that’s buying that, I’ve got a great piece of land for them in some swamp somewhere.  I have lost faith and trust in this administration.”

The specter of being blocked by a UN treaty from aiding and arming friends like Taiwan and Israel is horrifying to Kelly.  He says that creates all sorts of problems because nations won’t be able to count on us – a problem he sees in abundance even before the final vote on the treaty now scheduled for March.

“Whenever you start to lose your ability to protect yourself , whenever you lose your ability to trade arms with your friends, with your allies, then they begin to lose faith in you,” said Kelly.  “It breaks down a very delicate relationship that is very strained right now.  We’ve sent so many mixed messages to the world as to who we are and where we’re going to be.”

Kelly urges citizen action now – even before the UN vote – by aggressively lobbying the White House to back away from this treaty and putting pressure on senators to reject the plan if it ever gets there.

“This is critical for us as a nation,” he said.  “I don’t want anybody tramping on our second amendment rights.”