(Video) In which Marco Rubio tac-nukes Obama

March 19, 2015

x

I haven’t seen the Senator from Florida this fired up since he roasted now-retired Senator Harkin (D-IA) over Cuba. And Rubio has every reason to be angry: Obama’s petulant and childish refusal to call (1) and congratulate Israel’s prime minister on his election victory is a disgrace and embarrasses the United States. Even Iranian President Rouhani received the courtesy of a call soon after his win, and he heads an enemy state!

Of course, this is only the latest in a string of insults against Netanyahu and Israel that demonstrate Obama’s antipathy toward the Jewish state, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. I have to suspect that’s why the LA Times hides (or has disposed of) the Khalidi tape: if it were to come to light, it would expose for all to see the antisemitism  I suspect Obama harbors in his heart.

Anyway, enjoy:

You know, if he keeps this up, he’s going to make a lot of people forget his “Gang of Eight” immigration debacle.

Footnote:
(1) Apparently he finally did, but the delay was unconscionable.

 


Ben Sasse (R-NE) on the Iran negotiations: the administration is “explicitly tolerating a renegade nuclear program”

February 25, 2015

The junior senator from Nebraska nails it in this video. Unlike our administration, he seems to have a clear understanding of both the ramifications of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and the Obama administration’s feckless, delusional approach. Well worth watching:

via Fred Fleitz, who writes:

Obama officials defend their approach to the nuclear talks because they claim a final deal will be subject to robust verification by IAEA inspectors. This argument is hard to take seriously since Iran has never fully cooperated with the IAEA and has specifically refused to cooperated with IAEA inspectors during the talks and cheated on the interim agreement which set up the talks.Moreover, yesterday’s revelations (if they are true) by the NCRI, an Iranian dissident group, that Iran has been operating a secret facility where it has been developing advanced uranium centrifuges and may be enriching uranium adds to the suspicion that Tehran cannot be trusted with any dual-use nuclear technology.

It’s a shame Senator Sasse isn’t leading the negotiations, rather the buffoonish John Kerry.


Truth-telling on race, politics, and America, courtesy of @BobbyJindal

February 9, 2015
x

Wait. He’s not White?

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is on my short-list (1) of presidential candidates, and his recent statements on race and politics in the wake of a silly “controversy” over a portrait that painted him with very light skin:

But in an interview with reporters during a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor on Monday, Jindal rejected the premise that Americans should be defined by race — for any reason, politics included.

“You mean I’m not white? I’m shocked at this revelation,” Jindal, 43, said sarcastically upon being asked about a portrait that reportedly made him appear Caucasian. “I will give you permission in every picture you run of me, every story you run about me, you have my permission to put a disclaimer, to put a note that, I’m not white.”

“I think this whole thing is silly. I think the left is obsessed with race. I think that the reality is, one of the dumbest ways we divide people is by skin color,” Jindal continued. “We’re all Americans, and one of the great things — one of the great aspects of our country is that we’ve been a melting pot, it shouldn’t matter whether you came here five minutes ago or 100 years ago, we’re all Americans and that’s the important thing.”

Spot on, both about the Left’s mania over race and on the nature of the United States. The Hill has more on Jindal’s views on Democratic politics:

Jindal on Monday accused liberals of seeking to make an issue of his race.

“I think the left is devoid of ideas, and unfortunately this is what they’ve resorted to – name-calling, going back to dividing people by the color of their skin,” he said. “This is nonsense.”

Again, right on the money. Progressivism (2) is a bankrupt ideology that’s failing even as it achieved its greatest electoral victories in decades in 2008. It has nothing to offer anyone except perpetual victimhood and dependency on government. So all they’re left with is the politics of division, resentment, and envy, as the Community Organizer in Chief shows again and again. Unable to offer good government, genuine opportunity, and real prosperity, they have to divide people into groups and set them against each other. And, given America’s history, race is the quickest, easiest, and dirtiest way to do it.

Like the Governor said, it’s “nonsense.”

Footnote:
(1) Subject to change as new data warrants. But, in case you’re curious, and in no particular order… Top-tier: Jindal, Perry, or Walker. Second-rank: Rubio, Cruz. After that, everyone else. Generally I prefer governors over senators who haven’t yet been a governor.
(2) I prefer this term to “liberal,” since I think it’s more honest about modern American liberalism’s roots.


Something I rarely say: “Good for you, Senator McCain”

January 29, 2015
Get off his lawn.

Get off his lawn.

I’m not a great fan of John McCain (R-AZ) (1), but when given a choice between him and the juvenile, narcissistic, sanctimonious anti-American pendejas of Code Pink… Well, the choice is obvious:

As the protesters from the group Code Pink chanted “arrest Henry Kissinger for war crimes” and waved a pair of handcuffs in the 91-year-old’s face, former Secretary of State George Shultz, who was also called to testify, confronted them, and several senators, including Republicans Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Joni Ernst of Iowa, came down from the podium to assist. Capitol Police, meanwhile, did not intervene to stop the protests.

“You’re going to have to shut up or I’m going to have you arrested,” McCain told them, then added: “Get out of here, you low-life scum.”

Code Pink protesters are a common feature at Armed Services hearings in both chambers, but McCain said Thursday’s protest was beyond the limits of what was acceptable.

Damn straight it was unacceptable. We give plenty of leeway to protesters and they have many means to make their voices heard. However, disrupting a hearing in a democratically elected legislature and attempting to intimidate a witness –a 91 year old witness– is not one of them. McCain wants these brownshirts pinkshirts prosecuted, and I hope the Capitol Police follow through on it.

One question: Why the heck did the Capitol Police let it get this to the point where US senators felt they had to come down to protect Dr. Kissinger?

One observation: Both Senator Cotton and Senator Ernst recently served in the Army. I would not have laid money on Code Pink’s chances, had they tried to press their luck.

Footnote:
(1) In fact, I’ve been know to utter the words “vain old fool” in connection to him…


On History, Race, and the Mythical Party Switch

December 7, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

A good article by my friend agconservative correcting misconceptions surrounding the switch of the South to mostly voting Republican and of the damage done to Black families by LBJ’s Great Society.

Originally posted on agconservative:

The New York Times’ Nate Cohen had an interesting article yesterday looking at the decline of Democrats in the South. A lot of liberals predictably reacted to the article by assuming it confirms a popular historical myth among Democrats that the parties switched places in the 1960’s and Republicans have dominated the South since due to their appeal to the historically racist voters in the region. However, despite the left’s constant repetition of this claim, it has no basis in reality. In fact, even the data in the article disproves this version of history. While the Democrat dominance of the South did begin to decline in the 1960’s, they still controlled a majority of the region’s governors’ mansions, senators’ seats, and state legislative bodies in 2002. It was not until very recently that Republicans truly began dominating the South, which completely dispels the notion that the dominance is due to some…

View original 792 more words


#ISIS: Rand Paul’s declaration of war

November 24, 2014
"Of course you know, this means war."

“Of course you know, this means war.”

One of the criticisms of President Obama’s conduct of our foreign affairs (and of our domestic affairs, frankly) is that he disregards statutes and the provisions of the Constitution whenever it is convenient for him to do so. This extends to the war powers inherent in the presidency under Article II. Both in Libya and, now, in Syria and Iraq in the fight against ISIS, Obama has been accused of acting without authorization from Congress, either under the specific War Powers Act of 1973 or Article I of the Constitution, the latter of which grants Congress the sole power to declare war. With regard to ISIS, Obama has claimed authorization under the existing Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) against al Qaeda, since ISIS is an al Qaeda “spawn.” Not surprisingly, critics call that a stretch.

One of the critics is Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who has often accused Obama of acting unconstitutionally. At PJM, Bridget Johnson reports that Paul has plans to assert Congress’ authority over the war-power by introducing a bill to declare war on ISIS:

The resolution would kill the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force and put a one-year expiration date on the 2001 Afghanistan AUMF. The administration has been leaning upon those war on terror statutes to conduct current operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

It notes that “the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State has declared war on the United States and its allies” and “presents a clear and present danger to United States diplomatic facilities in the region, including our embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.”

“The state of war between the United States and the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the United States Constitution,” the resolution states.

“The President is hereby authorized and directed to use the Armed Forces of the United States to protect the people and facilities of the United States in Iraq and Syria against the threats posed thereto by the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).”

The bill also contains specific limitations on the authorization to use force, namely action is to be limited to ISIS and its “affiliates,” and specifies that ground troops can only be used to protect Americans and American facilities, and in certain limited offensive operations.

I have my quibbles with this proposal (1), but overall I support the idea. Obama has created a constitutional crisis by pushing the limits of the presidency’s powers past their breaking point. We’re running the risk of passively acquiescing to our transformation from a republic with separate, co-equal branches of government, each with their own powers, to more of a strongman presidential model, such as in France (2).

To prevent that, Congress needs to start acting to jealously guard its prerogatives and assert its status, as Madison described several times in the Federalist Papers. Senator Paul’s bill to declare war may be a good start to redressing the balance.

RELATED: Charles Cooke on why Republicans should not retaliate in kind for Obama’s usurpations. Jay Cost on the proper way to rebuke Obama. Andrew McCarthy on “President Orwell.”

Footnote:
(1) Namely that I believe US “boots on the ground” in offensive operations will be necessary to defeat the new Caliphate; the Arab forces in the area are worthless.
(2) Not that I’m implying that France is a dictatorship — far from it. But the presidency under the Gaullist system is quite a bit more powerful than the legislature.


2016

November 7, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

Some food for thought from my friend AGconservative about where to rank the various potential Republican presidential candidates.

Originally posted on agconservative:

Earlier tonight I posted my 1st ranking of the 2016 contenders on Twitter (shown below). There was a lot of disagreement and demands that I explain some choices. While I plan to eventually write full and detailed explanations for each ranking, let me give a brief synopsis for some key choices now.

Screen Shot 2014-11-06 at 4.15.46 PM

Why is Rubio first and the only Senator in the top 5?

Rubio is first for several reasons. First, I believe he is the greatest Republican orator since Ronald Reagan and the Obama era proved this is vital for a good candidate. His speeches are absolutely remarkable. Most importantly, he puts things in a way that people can understand. His focus is on restoring the American Dream, something everyone can comprehend. This message resonates with the conservative Democrats that have been lost to the party. The truth is that voters care about things that affect them. They…

View original 1,208 more words


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 14,819 other followers