Congress criticizes General Dempsey who questioned whether military should vote

The Washington Times reports that twenty-two Republican senators have cited recent comments by the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff “that appear to call into question
whether military service members should vote.”

In a letter sent Thursday, the senators urge Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey
to make a public statement urging every service member to vote and
telling them how they can register and cast ballots if they are deployed
abroad.

General Dempsey spokesman responded:

His remarks are the latest in a series of comments apparently
responding to the formation of political action groups headed by former
military personnel that have excoriated President Obama and his
administration over leaks about the nation’s intelligence and
counterterrorism victories.

Col Lapan said he was responding to reporter’s questions about the groups, and
“Had he been asked about groups of former military supporting Democrats,
or even Libertarians, he would have responded in a similar way.”

This statement is truly remarkable in that Dempsey’s defense is a partisan statement itself.  The prepared statement deflects from the real non-partisan issues raised by the Senators and other groups about low military voting participation rates, the importance of voting, and his equivocating out loud about whether the military should be neutral, apolitical, or even vote at all.  Having obviously not read the letter from the Congress, General Dempsey erroneously attributes the letter to the recent flare up he had with former active duty veterans criticizing President Obama for national security leaks. Wrong.

In August, Dempsey publicly criticized former military members for their criticism of the President.  Of course, these former military veterans have no obligation to hold back in asserting their free speech rights in the political arena.  Even in that instance, the highest ranking military officer in the land, General Dempsey, inappropriately inserted himself into the political process as a foil for President Obama.  It was unnecessary and inappropriate as the political process would have played itself out in the debate over the disclosure of national security secrets.  In that case, the non-political Dempsey, while in uniform, felt the need to defend the Commander in Chief from…..political ads and civilian speech.  So much for non-partisanship, apolitical neutrality coming from the highest ranks of the military.   

Lastly, the comments of his spokesman are simply untrue. General Dempsey’s comments to the troops on “neutrality” go way back to April 2012 with his essay in a military publication called Joint Forces Quarterly where, in a presidential election year, instead of encouraging participation, he lifted up the example of voting abstinence, General Marshall, who never voted in his life.  General Dempsey should stop engaging in political retorts and answer the substantive questions posed by the Congress or he will have many more questions to answer. 

Congress criticizes General Dempsey who questioned whether military should vote

The Washington Times reports that twenty-two Republican senators have cited recent comments by the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff “that appear to call into question
whether military service members should vote.”

In a letter sent Thursday, the senators urge Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey
to make a public statement urging every service member to vote and
telling them how they can register and cast ballots if they are deployed
abroad.

General Dempsey spokesman responded:

His remarks are the latest in a series of comments apparently
responding to the formation of political action groups headed by former
military personnel that have excoriated President Obama and his
administration over leaks about the nation’s intelligence and
counterterrorism victories.

Col Lapan said he was responding to reporter’s questions about the groups, and
“Had he been asked about groups of former military supporting Democrats,
or even Libertarians, he would have responded in a similar way.”

This statement is truly remarkable in that Dempsey’s defense is a partisan statement itself.  The prepared statement deflects from the real non-partisan issues raised by the Senators and other groups about low military voting participation rates, the importance of voting, and his equivocating out loud about whether the military should be neutral, apolitical, or even vote at all.  Having obviously not read the letter from the Congress, General Dempsey erroneously attributes the letter to the recent flare up he had with former active duty veterans criticizing President Obama for national security leaks. Wrong.

In August, Dempsey publicly criticized former military members for their criticism of the President.  Of course, these former military veterans have no obligation to hold back in asserting their free speech rights in the political arena.  Even in that instance, the highest ranking military officer in the land, General Dempsey, inappropriately inserted himself into the political process as a foil for President Obama.  It was unnecessary and inappropriate as the political process would have played itself out in the debate over the disclosure of national security secrets.  In that case, the non-political Dempsey, while in uniform, felt the need to defend the Commander in Chief from…..political ads and civilian speech.  So much for non-partisanship, apolitical neutrality coming from the highest ranks of the military.   

Lastly, the comments of his spokesman are simply untrue. General Dempsey’s comments to the troops on “neutrality” go way back to April 2012 with his essay in a military publication called Joint Forces Quarterly where, in a presidential election year, instead of encouraging participation, he lifted up the example of voting abstinence, General Marshall, who never voted in his life.  General Dempsey should stop engaging in political retorts and answer the substantive questions posed by the Congress or he will have many more questions to answer. 

Minnesota Secretary of State uses government resources for partisan advocacy against voter ID

ProtectMyVote.com Chairman Dan McGrath says
Ritchie is using public resources to campaign against the amendment and
that the claims made on the site are speculative.


He pointed out a page that says the amendment will end same-day registration, which McGrath says is false.  “This is on the Secretary of State’s website,
that’s funded by our tax dollars. This is political campaign propaganda
being pushed forth as facts by our chief election official,” McGrath
said.


He went on to ask, “How can we trust him to
impartially administer our election system when he has taken such a
biased position?” McGrath says they are asking Sen. Mike Parry
(R), who chairs a committee that oversees the Secretary of State’s
office, to investigate potential criminal

Link.

Minnesota Secretary of State uses government resources for partisan advocacy against voter ID

ProtectMyVote.com Chairman Dan McGrath says
Ritchie is using public resources to campaign against the amendment and
that the claims made on the site are speculative.


He pointed out a page that says the amendment will end same-day registration, which McGrath says is false.  “This is on the Secretary of State’s website,
that’s funded by our tax dollars. This is political campaign propaganda
being pushed forth as facts by our chief election official,” McGrath
said.


He went on to ask, “How can we trust him to
impartially administer our election system when he has taken such a
biased position?” McGrath says they are asking Sen. Mike Parry
(R), who chairs a committee that oversees the Secretary of State’s
office, to investigate potential criminal

Link.

Thwarting Judicial Activism: “Keep Florida Justices or kick them out?”

The Orlando Sentinel asks the question and conservatives know the answer.

Restore Justice 2012 — led by one of today’s Front Burner columnists,
Jesse Phillips — is urging voters to remove the three justices.
Phillips and other critics of the justices contend their decisions have
been bad for Florida.

Defenders of the justices — including
today’s other columnist, former Democratic legislator Dick Batchelor —
argue that efforts like Phillips’ are politically motivated, and would
compromise the court’s independence if they succeed. The three justices are the only ones left who were appointed by a Democrat, former Gov. Lawton Chiles. The court has angered Republicans in recent years with several decisions that thwarted GOP priorities.

Restore Justice is informing Florida voters on their right not to simply retain Florida Supreme Court justices.  Democrats are upset that voters might actually exercise their very limited and controlled right to choose the new members on the court because these members are liberal judicial activists.  Republicans should remember the actions of activist Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court in 2000.  If you are seeking a more conservative judicial temperament to replace the non-stop judicial activism, you should vote “no” on whether to retain the
current justices.