Sunday, November 13, 2011

Michele Bachmann on Pakistan

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) spoke about Islam at an ACT! for America event last year. As I wrote at the time:

I had never heard Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann speak before, and was impressed with her energy, her spirit, and her thorough grasp of the facts about Islam. She spoke at length about the grave danger of Iran’s nuclear program, and pointed out that anyone who ignores what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is planning has not learned the lesson taught by Adolf Hitler, who exposed his intentions in detail in Mein Kampf. She also described the foolhardy behavior of the Obama administration, which is actually contributing to the funding of Hamas.

Rep. Bachmann took part in the Republican TV debate last night, and she was just as sharp as ever, demonstrating that she fully comprehends the danger posed by Pakistan and the complexities of dealing with it.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately while I agree with Ms. Bachmann on several positions, I still can't get a wrap around her anti-LGBT attitude. It smacks of religious pandering to the Baptist camp here in the midwest. It would be nice if we could end up getting a politician of Geert Wilder's or even the late Pim Fortuyn's character in the US. At the moment I'm still backing Ron Paul, although he's hardly perfect either. At least the guy is honest and has a staunch belief in secular government, despite his own faith beliefs.

Prospero said...

@Anonymous(?) Ron Pauls domestic approach may be accessible in light of his secular position, yet his naive positions regarding dealing with a pre-(post?) nuclear Iran scares the bejesus out of me.

Dymphna said...

I wish we could take a hank of hair and a bit of bone, etc., and make our own bespoke candidate.

My concern isn't anyone's pro or con "LGBT attitude". It's so irrelevant at this point as we swirl down the drain...

Our bloatd govt, crony politicians, and metastasized bureaucracies are crucial issues for me.

*no pipeline from Canada
*no drilling permits
*no new energy initiatives beyond a few windmills
*increasing unemployment
*implosion of our economic base
*continued refusals to deal with our Ponzi-schemed federal retirement 'system'

Look at this from October:

Derivatives: The $600 Trillion Time Bomb That's Set to Explode

Given what we're facing, opinions about sexual orientation seem...well, they seem so 2007. Those worries will be obliterated by what's coming down the pike for everyone no matter what kinds of sexual expression they prefer...

Anonymous said...

If any of you are looking to find a candidate who is tuned in to the Islamization situation, you should know that both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are aware of the threat. Some candidates have no perspective on the subject or don't even believe it exists. I've read both Romney's and Newt's books and those men have a good perspective on the evil of Islam. Especially Romney--who is an unyielding, confirmed, and uncompromising PATRIOT . I don't know how others feel, but I believe, while there are many important other things that matter , being a patriot at this time in history is an absolute necessity in a candidate. It surpasses almost everything else.

Sagunto said...

Anonymous (got a nick?) -

At least the dramatically minimized role of the federal government would lead to a state that is far less capable of pushing the nefarious policies that spread privileged multiculturalism and creeping islamization. That is besides the huge benefit of a return to a state that would somewhat resemble free market conditions.

The other day, in some conservative radioshow, I heard Ms Bachman say that she wants the state to give young people opportunities.. And I thought to myself, what is there for the state to "give", Ms Bachmann? The state takes like a dissimulating mobster and then distributes as if it were some benevolent saintly Claus, handing out privilege like candy for the assembled clientèle (Muslims in the front line of beneficiaries). So yes, "opportunities" for sure, as long as you're politically well connected and have your high falutin' stockings handy to be stuffed with goodies from Santa Government..

What she, and all other sound-biting establishment candidates should really do is: step aside and let Ron Paul get rid of government to restore a free economy to a genuinely constitutional republic America once was.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

Nick said...

That's some lady; she's spoken up for Israel before now. In today's America that is a rare event indeed!

Sagunto said...

Anonymous II -

*** to all "anonymouses" out there, please, as a courtesy to other commenters: pick a nick and put it at the top/bottom of your posts, thank you ***

Mitt Romney you say? Is this line of argument ("support Israel", "join the war on Terror") going to be something like the mirror image of the way Christian conservatives get conned into supporting empty suits (and skirts, in the case of Ms Bachmann) whose main job is to sell us Supersized Government out of our own pockets?

Think these establishment candidates will ever utter anything other than that depressingly PC slogan, "Islam is a Religion of Peace"? Would they support Serbia, like they suport Israel? Think these are the ones to fight the creeping islamization of the West, which is the biggest threat to our way of life?

These people merely support the "War on Terror" while spreading "democracy" around the globe, and the way the latter is playing out now in Egypt and Libya, like it did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia (thank you Mr Clinton for creating that Muslim state inside of Europe), is that it means a great boost for the Muslim Brotherhood. Hubris galore..

To my knowledge, the only US politician with a firm grasp of the existential threat that Islam is posing to Western civilization is Allen West.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

P.s.: anonymous I, indeed the murdered Pim Fortuyn combined two essential qualities needed i.m.o. to preserve or restore (in the sense of a free market economy) Western freedom: a Ron Paulian grasp of free market economy and freedom, and a sharp Allen West-like sense of the imminent danger of Islam.

Lawrence said...

Unfortunately while I agree with Ms. Bachmann on several positions, I still can't get a wrap around her anti-LGBT attitude. It smacks of religious pandering to the Baptist camp here in the midwest. It would be nice if we could end up getting a politician of Geert Wilder's or even the late Pim Fortuyn's character in the US. At the moment I'm still backing Ron Paul, although he's hardly perfect either. At least the guy is honest and has a staunch belief in secular government, despite his own faith beliefs.


Interesting that you can support Ron Paul who is willing to forgo his personal religious ideologies in favor of a contradictory secular political agenda.

Makes me not want to trust him.

Bachmann's honesty in this is understanding how special interest issues shouldn't dictate overall policy and is willing to face that face in open public debate.

The LGBT interests are not going to frame the greater debate, and at least she is being honest about it instead of pandering for votes.

Sagunto said...

Lawrence -

"Interesting that you can support Ron Paul who is willing to forgo his personal religious ideologies in favor of a contradictory secular political agenda.

Makes me not want to trust him."


Actually, the anonymous poster (I) is wrong about Ron Paul and secular politics. His politics are about a drastically reduced state that respects the boundaries of the US Constitution, as they were once ment by the Framers and ratifiers. Logically RP doesn't want the central state to have any say whatsoever in religious matters. That is something entirely different from pushing a secular political agenda.

Cheers,
Sag.

Sagunto said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sagunto said...

Here's another genius, empty suit candidate, and his take on the Lybia situation.

Must have worked for the FED at some point in his career..

Dymphna said...

Actually, Herman Cain made his money in the private sector. And while I didn't watch the video re his 'take' on Libya, it couldn't have been any worse than the reality of our current Oval Office resident, the one who "leads from behind" and never asks permission for waging war on the fly. So to speak.

-------------

Obama's millions came from donations from...well, they must've flown in on the wings of the Democrat Money Fairy cuz he never did much beyond his vaunted "public service". Amazing the millions that arrive at one's door that way. Ten or fifteen years ago (or so) Obama was struggling to pay his student loans...

Obama's wealth is not like Herman Cain's rise from poverty to the position of CEO. Instead Obie learned early how to milk the governmental cash cow and push the buttons of professional grievance. His has become the new "great American story"...

...it's a darn shame that we're stuck with the bill for his bad dreams and his Communist parents.
---------------
Bad mouth any presidential candidate currently running. However, the reality remains: none come close to the incompetency leading us from behind right this minute.

Sagunto said...

Dymphna -

You don't mean to question the fact that Mr Cain is a former Kansas City Federal Reserve chairman?

Some more bad mouthing this poor Cainsian (though I agree with your take on the reality of the Barack O. disaster):

Support Herman Cain, and you're likely to:

1) support TARP, and a candidate who took the establishment side against the people on this eminently important economic issue;

2) worry about spending but don’t really care to hear about any actual spending cuts;

3) overlook when a candidate relegates simple questions to "experts" he’ll hire after being elected;

4) believe, like Mr Cain did, that Mitt Romney is a terrific leader;

(5) think it doesn't matter that a presidential candidate in the midst of an epic economic collapse couldn’t see it coming one week before it hit home. According to Mr Cain, the US economy was a-okay on 09/01/2008;

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

Anonymous said...

Herman Cain is so far from being qualified for president of the United States you need a telescope to find him.

babs said...

I personally think that Mr. Cain is quite qualified to be POTUS:
He has served in the military
He has risen from poverty on his own initiative
He has turned around two major American corporations upon which tens of thousands of American jobs relied.
He is a mathematician

Mr. Cain is a decision maker, a business man, a mathemetician and a Veteran.

In the real world where your money and many jobs are on the line you gather facts and opinions from those around you and make a decision. That's the way things work outside of gov't.

I would really like to give it a try inside gov't. We need a Vet, mathematician, business man CEO to get us out of the complete mess we are in.

As to his not predicting the financial meltdown; Mr. Cain was not privy to the type of info needed to make that call. When queried on foreign affairs I have heard him state at lest twice that he does not have access to critical info in order to lay out specific plans. Neither did Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, or Mr. Clinton when they came into office. At least Mr. Cain is honest about it.

It is an absolute travesty that our current Sec. Treas. was the chairman of the NY Fed. Reserve while the meltdown was in progress.

Sagunto said...

Babs -

Do you believe the Founding Fathers intended a Nation where citizens pay nearly half of everything they earn to government?

Because that's exactly what one supports with any one of these establishment candidates.

And what's with this argument stressing the need for a businessman? You can't run government like a business, for the simple reason that central government can't get to large amounts of money by earnest means, nor can it create wealth, or jobs. These days, the nanny state can only take from people by either: taxing the public; printing money out of thin air; or accepting foreign loans. In a business, provided it isn't depending on government favours, one has to earn the money. That's a different ballgame.

Cheers,
Sag

babs said...

Sag,
Of course I don't think our Founding Fathers intended the situation we now find ourselves in. They would be as disgusted as we are, probably more... If the American taxpayer got a bill every 12/31 for every tax they owe; sales tax, property tax, city, county, state, federal, FICA, medicaid, medicare, unemployment, workers comp, permits, licensing and excise (did I miss any? Probably) we would have another revolution!

As far as the "establishment candidates" are concerned, this is what we HAVE to choose from, sorry bud. I would also say that Mr. Cain is the least "establishment candidate" of the field. Every other candidate is a politician.

Mr. Cain brings some very unique qualifications to the race IMO that I think would change the direction of the country in a positive way.

And, I do think you can run gov't like a business. Gov't can create wealth and jobs by taking the shakles off private industry, innovation and entreprenuership. The performance of that task could be approached under a business model.

The only two things you mention that a business can't do are tax the public and print money. Business certainly can borrow from domestic and foreign sources and meet with disaster. Need I mention Solyndra???

I am sick to death of career politicians and their destructive insanity. Churning around the same failed ideas, making things so complex that they become out of reach for a normal citizen. It is called job security. SOMEONE has to come in and stop the thing.

No more shutting down some of the most fertile farm land in the world because of a two inch bait fish living in a canal. No more arresting farmers for farming their own property because the plow killed a kangaroo rat. No more blowing up of dams because of a salmon. The situation has gone overboard. Have you heard a peep of outcry from our career political class over these egregious and destructive actions?Do you really think a businessman would agree with these things? I don't and there are a thousand other examples I am sorry to say.

Do you recall last year during budget cut debates Sen. Harry Reed going on record that funding to the "Cowboy Poetry Festival" simply could not be cut? Say what? You are spending my tax money to fund a Cowboy Poetry Festival in Nevada? And this is the majority leader of the Senate saying this.

It is insanity writ large and IMO due to the fact that we just keep recycling the same people through Gov't. We need some seriously new blood and a very different perspective from our Gov't. We will not get that if we keep recycling career politicians.

I am really not clear on why you have such intense vitriol for Mr. Cain but, I appreciate your passion.

Archimedes2 said...

I agree that Bachmann appears to be well-informed, etc and has the right positions. However in this clip she is misunderstanding or mischaracterizing Perry's statement about foreign aid starting from 0. To be fair, it is the moderator of the debate who is (I believe) deliberately twisting his intentions.

Perry's statement was clearly not a call to eliminate all foreign funding. It was a statement that we should reverse the onus for foreign funding from what it is now: we are giving X amount of dollars to government Y -- if you want this reduced, you'd better give a good reason; to: We assume, from the outset that we do not owe any governments anything in aid. If $X in aid is to be given to government Y, then it is necessary to have sufficient reason to justify it.

Under Perry's approach Israel (for example) will not be defunded -- it will simply be necessary to explicitly justify what aid is to be given. Nor, necessarily, will Pakistan, but all unjustifiable aid would disappear. Obviously a certain sort of aid is necessary to secure the Nukes. And, as Bachmann well knows, the U.S. has a contingency plan in place for dealing with the Nukes should there be danger of an imminent takeover by radicals in Pakistan. By providing this layer of "security" to that arsenal the U.S. is giving a sort of "military aid" to Pakistan, but one which is clearly well-justified. Thus, it meets Perry's criterion.

Sagunto said...

Babs -

"As far as the "establishment candidates" are concerned, this is what we HAVE to choose from, sorry bud. I would also say that Mr. Cain is the least "establishment candidate" of the field. Every other candidate is a politician."

No need to be sorry. I guess that, from your perspective, Dr Paul is hiding in plain sight..

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

babs said...

Sag,
IMO Dr. Paul is completely unelectable. He will never get the nomination and, if nominated by some miracle, he would lose in the general.
I know that his supporters are very passionate about him but let me ask you this:
If Congressman Paul is so right about things why has he been a lone wolf for so long? Why can he not persuade anyone to join with him, why is he often one of a very few dissenting votes on a bill?
For the amount of time he has spent in congress if Mr. Paul had leadership qualities he would have been able to form a significant voting block. He has not.

Mr. Cain has proven conservative leadership qualities. This is something that we are desperate for at this time. I say give him a shot.

"Mr. Paul hiding in plain site." Did you have to get snippy with me?

Babs/out

Sagunto said...

Babs -

"Did you have to get snippy with me?"

Typically American way to end a conversation after first starting to "bud" around: complain about the tone of voice. What a let down.

You said that the US public had to chose among establishment candidates only, remember?

"As far as the "establishment candidates" are concerned, this is what we HAVE to choose from, sorry bud."

So logically, I concluded that Dr Paul must have been hiding in plain sight (you don't need to watch that clip).

His chances to get the nomination were not the issue, just your claim that the only choice was between establishment candidates. By your own admission, Dr Paul doesn't belong to that category. I say, good for him.

Sorry you decided to take my observation the wrong way and then bow out on that defensive note, babs. If you've anything further to add, I'm right here.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

babs said...

Sag,
"His chances to get the nomination were not the issue"

Well then, what the horse hockey are we talking about?

I conclude that you are not an American. I draw that conclusion from your attempt to put me down by saying "how American."

If you disliked my use of the word "bud" then I apologize. I tried to have a polite discussion with you laying out the attributes of Mr. Cain vs. the other R candidates. Had I known that the use of the word "bud" would offend you I would not have used it.

"your claim that the only choice was between establishment candidates. By your own admission, Dr Paul doesn't belong to that category."

By my own admission? Dr. Paul is a career politician. The fact that he is a side show and you support him is beside the point. He is an establishment candidate. You misunderstood me. Career politicians like Dr. Paul are by definition establishment candidates.

Look Sag, our situation in the states is dire. We are riding on an express train about to go over a cliff. I tried to lay out my reasons for support of Mr. Cain. I am looking for someone THAT CAN WIN, not a pie in the sky ideologue no matter how much I may agree with his opinion. Dr. Paul is a career politition, lacking in leadership qualities and is completely unelectable as POTUS no matter how passionate your support of his positions might be. I need to put my support behind someone I think can GET ELECTED and move the country away from the brink.

The discussion has clearly turned nasty. I don't engage in nasty discussion on the internet and especially at this site.

I wish you well.

Sagunto said...

"If Congressman Paul is so right about things why has he been a lone wolf for so long?", says babs.

Two premises*:

(1) Since 1914, historical development has been characterized by the inherent interests of the state being extended to society, through the extension of its authority to once free areas of human activity, including the economy.

(2) In our times, the updated version of this managerial state masks the exercise of power as a form of caring. As both the protector of designated victims and the sensitizer of consciousness, this expanding centralized state is authorized to make constant interventions, directly or indirectly, in a wide range of human and commercial relations.

This applies to the nations of Europe since the outbreak of the First World War, but also to the US since its involvement in that war and the domestic changes in the monetary superstructure.

The only thing that sets some of the US people apart from us here across the Atlantic, is that in the USA, a residual classical liberal (i.e. free market) mentality still persists as a restraint on the political establishment.
Those people are the ones carrying the so-called "Ron Paul Revolution", which equals conservatism as it once used to be: free market capitalism and a government drastically reduced to its original, Constitutional limits.

It is of course understandable that such a principled view of the role of government hasn't been received with much enthusiasm by the teleprompted, focus-grouped, left-wing (Liberals, D) and right-wing (neo-Progressives, R) representatives of the managerial state and their lapdogs in the MSM echo chamber - with their efforts to "pathologize" unorthodox views by placing them outside of public discussion - at universities, in government agencies and so on.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag

** These are derived from Paul Gottfried's excellent "Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: toward a secular theocracy" (2002).