Tag Archives: Rand Paul

Refuting the myth of Reagan the Peacenik

ReaganPeaceQuote

Ronald Reagan was such a successful President that, unsurprisingly, many people want to claim his legacy as their own. Many people, usually falsely, claim he would’ve supported their policy and ideology if he were alive today. Many falsely claim he implemented this or that policy instead of that one.

The Gipper was, depending on whom you ask, a neocon, a paleocon, an isolationist, an interventionist, a conservative, a liberal, a free-marketer, a welfare stater, a free trader, a protectionist, a warmonger, a peacenik, etc. The list goes on.

But if you read and listen to Reagan’s own words – rather than anyone else’s claims – and analyze’s Reagan’s real actions, a clear and correct image of Reagan prints itself.

Despite the Left’s, and a certain isolationist Senator’s, pathetic attempts to depict Reagan as a nuke-hating, pro-disarmament, war-weary pacifist, Ronald Reagan was very much a hawk, even though he was careful about when and where to intervene militarily in the first place.

But intervention was so rarely necessary BECAUSE Ronald Reagan had built up America’s military strength so much that America’s adversaries usually retreated in the face of that military might.

Rebutting Rand Paul’s Lies…

Writing recently in the leftist Politico magazine, Sen. Rand Paul claims that:

“This [foreign policy – ZM] is where many in my own party, similar to Perry, get it so wrong regarding Ronald Reagan’s doctrine of “peace through strength.” Strength does not always mean war. Reagan ended the Cold War without going to war with Russia. He achieved a relative peace with the Soviet Union—the greatest existential threat to the United States in our history—through strong diplomacy and moral leadership.

Reagan had no easy options either. But he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt. Some of Reagan’s Republican champions today praise his rhetoric but forget his actions. Reagan was stern, but he wasn’t stupid. Reagan hated war, particularly the specter of nuclear war. Unlike his more hawkish critics—and there were many—Reagan was always thoughtful and cautious.”

Paul is attacking a straw man here, as well as conveniently omitting an important fact. The straw man attack is “Strength does not always mean war.” Nobody in the Republican Party wants war, Senator, or thinks that “strength” means war. In fact, it is the Democrats, not Republicans, who are most likely to involve America in wars and interventions around the world, usually for reasons unrelated to US national interests.

Need I remind you, Senators, that it was the Democrats who involved the US in two huge wars in Korea in Vietnam which they were not willing to win nor to end? Wars which Republican Presidents extricated the US out of?

Or that, more recently, Presidents Clinton and Obama involved the US in pointless humanitarian crusades in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Libya, and Obama wanted to do that in Syria as well?

Yes, Ronald Reagan was much more cautious than Democratic Presidents about intervening militarily abroad. But when such invasions WERE necessary, he did not shy away from them. He intervened to stop Communism’s spread in the Carribean. He sent US troops to Lebanon. (He made a huge error by withdrawing from there after the Beirut bombing of 1983; America’s retreat from there emboldened Islamic terrorists in the region.) And most importantly, he conducted powerful strikes against Qaddafi’s regime in Libya in 1986, despite the Left all around the world (including your own father) condemning him for it, and despite no US ally, excluding the UK, supporting him.

No, Ronald Reagan did not hate (nor love) war. When intervention was required, he did not shy away from it.

But most of the time, he didn’t need to launch military interventions, because despite the resistance from the Democrats and from your own father, Senator, he build the strongest military in world history (of which today’s US military is just a shadow). By the late 1980s, America’s military might was such that no adversary dared to challenge the US head-first.

In parallel, Reagan supported anti-Communist movements and insurgencies (“proxies”) all around the world, including Latin America and Afghanistan.

You, Senator, are conveniently ignoring the “strength” component of peace through strength. Peace was possible ONLY because of US strength. Without that strength, there would’ve been no peace. There would’ve been war.

Weakness invites war. Strength guarantees peace.

But that lesson is totally lost on you, Senator. You have advocated, and continue to advocate, deep, crippling cuts in America’s defenses – including and beyond sequestration (a monstrous mechanism which, if not repealed, will cut $550 bn from the defense budget over the next decade).

Yet, you advocate even deeper cuts – and the withdrawal of US troops from abroad. This in spite of the fact that foreign bases – of which the US has far fewer than your kooky father claims – are necessary for power projection over long distances and help deter adversaries and reassure allies.

You are a faux-Reaganite, Senator, despite your desperate and pathetic attempts to cast yourself as Gipper’s acolyte. Your policy is not Peace Through Strength. Your policy is Hoping For Peace by Unilateral Disarmament and Withdrawal From The World.

It is no coincidence you are completely isolated in the GOP on foreign policy. That’s what advocating isolationism leads to.

If you’re advocating such foolish policies in the vain hope that doing so will win you votes and perhaps the White House, stop dreaming. Despite what the leftist media and pseudo-pollsters tell you, there is no popular demand for isolationist and anti-defense policies today, in stark contrast to the 1930s and the 1970s, and nobody in the GOP except Congressmen Amash, Duncan (TN), Massie, and Labrador shares your views.

You should run for the Democratic nomination instead. In that party, a man with your views would be warmly welcomed.

… And Peter Beinart’s

Your Politico piece contains a link to an utterly ridiculous garbage screed from 4 years ago by Peter Beinart, wherein the author falsely claims that Ronald Reagan abandoned his hawkish policies in late 1983 and thereafter pursued a conciliatory, dovish policy towards the Soviet Union until the end of his administration. Beinart explicitly calls Reagan’s post-1984 policies “dovish.”

But this is completely false – like the rest of Beinart’s claims. As Professor Robert G. Kaufman nicely sums up:

When circumstances changed during Reagan’s second term, he adjusted his policies—but not the premises underlying them. He responded positively to the changes in the Soviet regime during Gorbachev’s tenure. Ultimately, Gorbachev and the Soviet Union agreed to end the Cold War not on their terms, but on Ronald Reagan’s.

American pressure on the Soviet Union did not abate at any point during the Reagan presidency, despite his view that engaging Gorbachev could facilitate the implosion of the regime. Reagan refused to abandon SDI or the Zero Option calling for the elimination of all intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe; Gorbachev capitulated. American defense spending continued to rise, peaking at $302 billion in 1988 (6.6 percent of GDP). The Reagan Administration continued to aid freedom fighters, draining Soviet resources in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.

Nor did Reagan relent in his assault on the moral legitimacy of the Soviet Regime. In June 1987, over the objection of his so-called more realistic advisers, he called on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, excoriating it as the symbol of Soviet totalitarianism

Reagan’s understanding of himself also demolishes the revisionist interpretation of his motives and policies. Summing up his foreign policy legacy to students at the University of Virginia on December 16, 1988, he welcomed the improvement in Soviet–American relations but urged Americans to “keep our heads down” and “keep our skepticism” because “fundamental differences remain.” He attributed that improvement to his policy of firmness, not conciliation:

Plain talk, strong defenses, vibrant allies, and readiness to use American power when American power was needed helped prompt the reappraisal that the Soviet leaders have taken in their previous policies. Even more, Western resolve demonstrated that the hard line advocated by some within the Soviet Union would be fruitless, just as our economic success has set a shining example.

Reagan contrasted his policies with the more conciliatory policies of his predecessors during the 1970s:

We need to recall that in the years of détente we tended to forget the greatest weapon that democracies have in their struggle is public candor: the truth. We must never do this again. It is not an act of belligerence to speak of the fundamental differences between totalitarianism and democracy; it is a moral imperative…. Throughout history, we see evidence that adversaries negotiate seriously with democratic nations when they know democracies harbor no illusions about their adversaries.

Those are Reagan’s own words – not mine, and not Professor Kaufman’s.

It was in 1987, not 1981, that Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate and loudly challenged Gorbachev to “open this gate” and “tear down this wall.” And at the very end of his Presidency, in December 1988, he STILL urged Americans “keep our heads down” and “keep our skepticism” because “fundamental differences remain.”

Nor did Ronald Reagan abate in his defense buildup and pursuit of military pressure on the Soviet Union. In his 1986 speech on defense issues, he warned that:

tonight the security program that you and I launched to restore America’s strength is in jeopardy, threatened by those who would quit before the job is done. Any slackening now would invite the very dangers America must avoid and could fatally compromise our negotiating position. Our adversaries, the Soviets — we know from painful experience — respect only nations that negotiate from a position of strength. American power is the indispensable element of a peaceful world; it is America’s last, best hope of negotiating real reductions in nuclear arms. Just as we are sitting down at the bargaining table with the Soviet Union, let’s not throw America’s trump card away.

 

Our Armed Forces may be smaller in size than in the 1950’s, but they’re some of the finest young people this country has ever produced. And as long as I’m President, they’ll get the quality equipment they need to carry out their mission.

 

We set out to narrow the growing gaps in our strategic deterrent, and we’re beginning to do that. Our modernization program — the MX, the Trident submarine, the B-1 and stealth bombers — represents the first significant improvement in America’s strategic deterrent in 20 years. Those who speak so often about the so-called arms race ignore a central fact: In the decade before 1981, the Soviets were the only ones racing.”

Beinart also falsely claims that in 1983, Reagan suddenly had a change of heart about defense issues, military might, and nuclear weapons in particular, and began pursuing dovish defense policies and overruling the supposed “hawks” in his administration.

These are also blatant lies – just like everything else Beinart (a far-left propagandist) writes.

Reagan’s defense buildup NEVER abated at ANY point during Reagan’s presidency.

Throughout his presidency, the American defense buildup continued, peaking, as Professor Kaufman, noted, at $302 bn and 6.6% of GDP in 1988. In the late 1980s, at Reagan’s insistence, dozens of new weapon types (including new strategic delivery systems) joined the US military’s inventory: MX Peacekeeper ICBMs, the B-1 bomber, the F-15E strike jet, W84, W87 and W88 nuclear warheads, and the AH-64 Apache helicopter to name just a few.

Not to mention the many weapon systems the Reagan Administration (or its predecessors) developed and began deploying earlier: the Ohio class of ballistic missile submarines, Los Angeles class attack submarines, PATRIOT missile defense systems, F-15 and F-16 fighters, Black Hawk helicopters, Ticonderoga class cruisers, Nimitz class carriers (two were ordered in June 1988, in the last year of the Reagan Admin), Trident ballistic missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles (nuclear- and conventionally-armed variants alike) M1 Abrams tanks, M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack jets, and so forth. These weapon systems, unlike those in the paragraph above, had already begun entering service in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it was only in the late 1980s when they joined the military’s inventory in really large numbers… thanks to the investment of the Reagan Admin and at the insistence of President Reagan.

Moreover, Reagan also developed other cutting-edge weapon systems that entered service in the 1990s: the B-2 stealth bomber, the F/A-18 Super Hornet naval jet, the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers, the Trident-II ballistic missile, and so on.

Image the US military today without these cutting edge weapon systems.

Imagine the US Air Force without B-1 and B-2 bombers, F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack jets, and F-15E Strike Eagles, and without significant numbers of F-16 fighters.

Imagine the US Navy without Ohio class ballistic missile subs and Trident missiles – which the Left wanted to cancel – and the two carriers the Reagan Admin ordered in 1988 – the USS John C. Stennis and the USS Harry S. Truman.

Imagine the US Army and Marine Corps with just a puny number of M1 Abrams tanks, still stuck with obsolete M60 Patton tanks as the Left wished.

And of course, the Reagan Admin never cancelled or even curtailed the Strategic Defense Initiative. Nor did the Bush Administration. It was the Clinton administration that killed it.

Reagan Did Not Join the Nuclear Freeze Movement – He Defeated It

Nor did Reagan had a change of heart about defense spending and nuclear weapons, as Beinart falsely claims. Nor did he cave in to supposed public pressure to cut defense spending and implement a nuclear freeze, contrary to Beinart’s blatant lies. On the contrary, Reagan resisted these stupid, suicidal policies with every fiber of his body for the entirety of his presidency – and America is safer now because of that.

In 1983, when the nuclear freeze movement, led by Congressman (now Senator) Ed Markey, was at its peak, and when the House passed a resolution demanding the freeze, Reagan completely rejected it and went to his Evangelical Friends in Texas to ask them to support his continued hawkish policies towards the Kremlin… and called the Soviet Union “the Evil Empire.”

In his 1984 reelection campaign, Reagan unequivocally rejected all “nuclear freeze” proposals and was rewarded with a 49-state landslide reelection victory, one of the greatest in US history, over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale, who advocated a nuclear freeze.

Throughout the 1980s, the Reagan Administration continued to develop, test, and produce more and more nuclear weapons and delivery systems of increasing sophistication. In 1986, it deployed the MX Peacekeeper missile and the B-1 strategic bomber.

As for defense spending, in 1985, Ronald Reagan relunctantly agreed to slow down its growth – but in real terms it continued to grow, peaking in 1988 (not 1985, as many falsely claim) at $302 bn in then-year dollars and 6.6% of the economy – levels not seen since then, and not seen at any point during the 1970s or early 1980s.

That’s because Reagan was very cautious about and weary of the Soviet Union – even Gorbachev’s Soviet Union. He wanted the US to maintain a strong, ever-modernizing military at all times.

In 1993, after the Cold War was over, when the Clinton administration cancelled the SDI, Reagan condemned that, exhorting the administration to “open its eyes” if it thought there were no more threats to America’s security.

All in all, all of the Left’s claims about Reagan are blatant lies.

No, Ronald Reagan was never a peacenik, nor did he ever relent in his enormous military, economic, and diplomatic pressure on the Soviet Union at any point during his presidency. THAT is what ended the Cold War. On Reagan’s terms, not Gorbachev’s.

Rebuttal of Rand Paul’s straw man claims

ReaganPeaceQuote

The National Review has recently published an article by Sen. Rand Paul wherein the junior Kentucky Senator falsely claims that there is no room allowed for disagreement on foreign policy in the GOP; that we defense conservatives have a “either you’re with us or against us” mentality; that he’s displaying some foreign policy nuance and strategic ambiguity that we fail to appreciate; and then spends the rest of his op-ed railing against the Iraq war, quoting William Buckley’s opposition to it, as if it were the only thing he disagrees with defense conservatives on.

Needless to say, he’s dead wrong on all counts.

As I refute his claims, I shall speak directly to him in this article.

Senator, you claim that:

“You are either for us or against us. No middle ground is acceptable. The Wilsonian ideologues must have democracy worldwide now and damn all obstacles to that utopia.”

That is completely false. No conservative that I know of is saying that, or advocating that the US try to democratize the world (and BTW, THIS hawkish conservative is a sworn opponent of democracy.) Stop making straw man claims, Senator.

Perhaps you are confusing conservatives with the liberals in the Obama admin who, everyday, sip coffee in the WH, point their fingers at a world map, and say which country should be invaded next :)

As for the Iraq war, it was indeed an error, and I opposed it from the start. But your foreign policy differences with us conservatives hardly end with the Iraq war – they barely begin with it, contrary to your false claim that:

“Foreign policy, the interventionist critics claim, has no place for nuance or realism.”

No, Senator. What you are displaying is neither nuance nor realism. What you are displaying is a LIBERAL policy of appeasement of America’s enemies and support for unilaterally disarming the US, and when you are justly criticized for those policies, you backtrack somewhat, thus making yourself sound totally incoherent.

There is a BIG difference between nuance and incoherence.

You are displaying neither nuance or realism. You are displaying a staunch disagreement and break with the entire GOP and the entire conservative movement on the whole gamut of foreign and defense policy issues.

You support deep, crippling defense cuts, up to and even beyond sequestration. You claim defense spending hasn’t been cut nearly enough. You have railed on liberal TV networks against Republicans who disagree. You support closing virtually all US bases abroad (which are crucial for power projection and for reassuring America’s allies) and dramatically cutting equipment spending. You advocate containment of Iran.

You accuse Dick Cheney, most people on the Congressional defense committees, and anyone who advocates striking Iran, of being war-profiteering warmongers. You have claimed that sanctions provoked Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. You were one of the very few Senators to vote AGAINST sanctions on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, and one of only four GOP Senators (along RINO Dick Shelby, RINO Thad Cochran, and Nebraska’s Mike Johanns) to vote to confirm Chuck Hagel.

You have even claimed that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be a threat to the US or even to Israel. You also consistently oppose all of the Bush admin’s war on terrorism policies that have proven very successful in eliminating terrorists: drones, effective interrogation techniques, GITMO, and so forth.

In one of your recent op-eds for WaPo, just as Russia was beginning to invade Ukraine, you claimed Obama’s appeasement (reset) policy towards Moscow was working very well and “we ought to be proud of that”, and you blamed any troubles in the relationship solely on your fellow Republicans, whom you falsely accused of being “so stuck in the Cold War that they want to tweak Russia.” You whitewashed Russia and absolved it of any blame and urged Americans to be “respectful” towards Moscow.

No, Senator, you are not displaying any “nuance” or “strategic ambiguity” on foreign policy, you are displaying utter ignorance, recklessness, and incoherence at best, and your father’s repugnant Blame America First, Second, and Third beliefs at worst.

You have falsely claimed that your refusal to say clearly whether you would or would not rule out the containment of Iran amounts to “strategic ambiguity” and have wrongly invoked Ronald Reagan as someone who would’ve endorsed such lack of clarity.

Strategic ambiguity means being ambigous about the strategy you’ll employ to achieve your goals – but not about what the goals themselves are. Ronald Reagan was never unclear about those and articulated them clearly, in public and in private. His goal was nothing short of sending Communism and the Soviet Union “to the ash heap of history.”

Your lack of clarity on one of the most important foreign policy issues of our time – whether or not to try to contain Iran – has nothing to do with “nuance” or strategic ambiguity” and would send absolutely the wrong signal to friend and foe alike. America’s allies in the Persian Gulf would be in the dark on whether or not the US, under your leadership (should you be elected President), would stop Iran’s nuclear program. America’s foes would be emboldened by such lack of clarity and would continually test your – and America’s – patience with ever-graver provocations.

Fortunately, as AmSpec’s Jed Babbin says, you stand NO chance of ever getting elected President. A man of your extremely-leftist views stands zero chance of ever being elected President. No matter when you run, you will be justly clobbered, if not in the primaries then in the general election. Because even if you do somehow win the Republican nomination, you will definitely lose in the general election, as nominating you will disenfranchise tens of millions of pro-defense voters.

You might want to take that into account when you decide whether to run for President in 2015-2016 – which will be the biggest decision of your life.

Perry, Paul & Huckabee at CPAC 2014

Gen. John Bell Hood, another Texan that could get a crowd moving.

Gen. John Bell Hood, another Texan that could get a crowd moving.

Gen. Robert E. Lee used Texas infantry as his reliable shock troops during the Civil War. If Hood’s division couldn’t drive the Yankees from a position, then no troops could.

Evidently CPAC schedulers are of the same opinion.

On both of the first two days of the conservative conference Texas speakers were used to soften up the crowd for all the speakers that followed.

On Thursday it was Sen. Ted Cruz (R–TX) and on Friday it was Gov. Rick Perry (R–TX).

Perry hit the stage cold to the tune of AC/DC’s ‘Back in Black’ and did so without anyone to introduce him. Perry is now sporting black nerd glasses that make him look more intellectual without softening him up so much that he looks like pajama boy in the Obamacare ad.

The governor began by stating that on the battlefield of ideas “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.” Then there was a long pause, which started to produce debate flashbacks for me, but it proved to be just a slow Internet connection.

Besides being another step on the stairway to political redemption, the speech was a rousing defense of federalism. Perry says for the solution to the problems facing the country we should not look to Washington, but instead we should look to the states that “are laboratories of innovation.”

And the states provide a contrast between two visions. In the blue vision the state “plays an increasing roll in the lives of citizens.” Taxes are high, public employee pensions are out of control and jobs are leaving.

Perry contrasted that smothering philosophy with the red state vision where “freedom of the individual comes first and the reach of government is limited.” There taxes are low, spending is low and opportunity is high.

Then Perry did something surprising. On Friday when Chris Christie spoke the examples were mostly about him and about New Jersey. But that’s not what Perry did. He started off by giving other Republican governors credit for their good ideas and successful records.

He mentioned Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Rick Scott in Florida. Then Perry proceeded to list accomplishments particular to each.

Perry was halfway through his speech before he even mentioned Texas. He spoke first of the common denominator among all red state leaders, “Conservative governors who know freedom of the individual must come before the power of the state…the contrast is crystal clear.” He then used an example from the world of transportation. “If you rent a U–Haul to move your company it costs twice as much to go from San Francisco to Austin as it does the other way around, because you can’t find enough trucks to flee the Golden State.”

Only then did Perry say, “Let’s pick a large red state, shoot let’s pick Texas” as he began listing his accomplishments. This is one of the reasons Perry is so likable: He doesn’t appear to take himself too seriously. He, in contrast to Obama, is not The Great I Am.

His speech was full of humor, substance and energy. Perry has been on the comeback trail now for two years and he’s making progress. His demeanor and energy level is in marked contrast to that of the disastrous 2012 presidential campaign.

I have no way of knowing if he’s a terror to his staff or if he kicks the family dog, but you certainly can’t tell it from his personal appearances. If it wasn’t for his squishiness on illegals, I’d almost be ready to vote for Perry today.

I can’t say that for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Politically Huckabee is simply George Bush who can tell a joke. There are many things I admire about Huckabee: His faith, his conservative social values and his sense of humor in particular. But as president he would be spending at least as much as Bush and I see no indication that he’s ever seriously considered putting Uncle Sam on a diet.

And speaking of diets, Huckabee’s is evidently not going too well. In stark contrast to his former fit self, now if the occasion arose Huckabee could fill in quite nicely as Chris Christie’s body double.

Huckabee’s speech began on a discordant note. He was given the same 10 minutes as Rick Perry, but he wasted some of the time complaining about only getting 10 minutes. In contrast to Perry’s upbeat and dynamic address, Huckabee came off as slightly petulant.

His speech was structured around a series of “I knows” that included, “I know the IRS is a criminal organization. I know that life begins at conception. I know there’s a God and this nation would not exist if He had not been the midwife of its birth.”

He even obliquely addressed homosexual marriage when he quoted Mrs. Billy Graham who said, “If God does not bring fiery judgment on America, God will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Huckabee concluded with a final “I know” that brought back memories of his rocky beginning when he said, “I know my time is up and I must go.”

Diet jokes aside, he simply wasn’t a heavyweight on Day Two and if Huckabee is indeed running for president in 2016 this speech didn’t help his case.

Sen. Rand Paul (R–KY) was the other major league presidential candidate speech of the day. He had double the time allotted to Perry, yet I don’t think his speech had the same impact. They are two entirely different personalities. Paul comes off as somewhat remote and clinical when he speaks. He certainly says the right things and delivers a polished speech, but he doesn’t have the infectious enthusiasm of Rick Perry.

Personally I wonder how many of the reporters who pronounced Chris Christie as rehabilitated after the response to his speech the day before were around for Paul’s. The packed room was on its feet and cheering before the senator could say a word. Christie on the other hand had a much smaller crowd and response was polite until very late in his performance.

Paul’s speech was about liberty but it was also about sending a message to the Mitch McConnells, John McCains, Lindsey Grahams and other establishment RINOs. Paul asked the audience to “Imagine a time when our great country is governed by the Constitution. You may think I’m talking about electing Republicans, but I’m not. I’m talking about electing lovers of liberty.”

“It isn’t good enough to pick the lesser of two equals,” Paul explained. “We must elect men and women of principle and conviction and action who will lead us back to greatness. There is a great and tumultuous battle underway not for the Republican Party but for the entire country.

Then in a challenge to elected leaders and party supporters alike, Paul asked, “The question is will we be bold and proclaim our message with passion or will we be sunshine patriots retreating when we come under fire?”

Paul then focused on the NSA, data mining and the entire security mindset of the government, which he believes is dangerous. He referenced the Sons of Liberty from the Revolution who stood up to King George and predicted, “The Sons of Liberty would today call out to the president. ‘We will not submit. We will not trade our liberty for security. Not now. Not ever.’”

Getting down to cases with an audience that skewed toward youth and tech savvy, Paul explained, “If you have a cell phone, you are under surveillance. I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business.”

His other examples of government overreach in the name of security included detention without a trial, individual warrants applied to a class of people, credit card data collection, cell phone metadata and other violations of the 4th Amendment.

The senator stated flatly “Government unrestrained by law becomes nothing short of tyranny.” Then he used Daniel Webster to show the fight for liberty has been an ongoing struggle that must be continued today. “Daniel Webster anticipated our modern day saviors who wish to save us from too much freedom. He wrote: ‘Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It’s hardly too strong to say the Con was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.’”

Paul wasn’t giving so much a speech, as he was Peter the Hermit asking the young people to join in a crusade. He has passionate ideas and beliefs, but Paul’s delivery is simply not as winning as that of Perry. One can be serious without being sepulchral.

It will be very interesting to follow the arc of both campaigns as I see Perry being a bigger threat to Paul than the other Texan, Ted Cruz.

Rand Paul Blames America First, Advocates Appeasement

If you needed any more evidence that Rand Paul is totally indistinguishable from his father on foreign and defense policy and is a member of the Blame America First crowd, here’s that evidence.

On February 25th, when interviewed by the Washington Post’s Robert Costa, Sen. Paul falsely accused “some Republicans” of harboring a Cold War mindset and exhorted the US to maintain a “respectful” relationship with Russia even in the face of Russia’s invasion and occupation of the Crimea.

Speaking to the liberal WaPo, Rand said:

“Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don’t think that’s a good idea.”

Excuse me? REPUBLICANS are stuck in the Cold War era?

On the contrary, it is Russia’s government, especially its President Vladimir Putin (an unreconstructed KGB thug) and his inner circle (composed mostly of his fellow KGB thugs and other members of the Saint Petersburg clique) who harbor a Cold War mindset – and deep-seated hatred of America and the Western civilization.

(Which is not surprising, because just like a wolf will always remain a wolf preying on sheep, KGB thugs will always remain KGB thugs and will always prey on weak victims.)

It is Vladimir Putin’s Russia which has, in recent years:

  1. Repeatedly flown nuclear-armed strategic borders into US, allied (Japanese), and even neutral (Swedish) airspace and said the Russian AF was “practicing attacking the enemy.” What on Earth have SWEDEN and JAPAN done to Russia? For that matter, what has America done to Russia? Nothing.
  2. Repeatedly (on at least 15 separate occassions) threatened to aim or even use its nuclear weapons against the US and its allies.
  3. Invaded two sovereign countries that dared to try to break out of Moscow’s sphere of influence and align themselves with the West (Georgia and UKraine) and continues to occupy both countries.
  4. Repeatedly violated several arms reduction treaties, including the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and the INF Treaty, the latter being violated by Russia by repeatedly testing and deploying nuclear-armed missiles banned by that treaty.
  5. Deployed nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad District, next to Poland, threatening that loyal ally of the US.
  6. Backed America’s enemies around the world – North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba – to the hilt, with diplomatic protection at the UN Security Council, weapons (including the advanced S-300VM air defense system), nuclear fuel (Iran), and nuclear reactors (Iran).
  7. Stationed a spy ship, the Viktor Leonov, in Cuba (it’s still there).
  8. Conducted, and continues to conduct, a wave of hateful anti-American propaganda in domestic and foreign (e.g. RussiaToday) media.
  9. Sent an Akula-class nuclear-armed submarine close to the US submarine base in King’s Bay, GA.
  10. Domestically, assassinated high-profile dissidents (Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko) and jailed hundreds of others.

Yet, Rand Paul claims that REPUBLICANS are the ones “stuck in the Cold War era”?!

How dare you even make such a false and outrageous claim, Senator?!

America is supposed to have a cordial, “respectful” relationship with such a hostile country, led by a KGB thug, and appease it (“avoid antagonizing it” in Randspeak) ?

No, Senator. You are dead wrong. Most Republicans are very critical of Russia (and of President Obama’s soft policy towards it), but NOT because of Cold War past.

Republicans are critical of Putinist Russia and Obama’s reset – and demand a tougher policy – because of Russia’s CURRENT and RECENT behavior, which has been very aggressive, anti-American, and dangerous to America’s own national security.

It is because of Russia’s CURRENT and RECENT behavior that Republicans demand that tough steps be taken towards Russia.

But Rand says no. He claims the US should “avoid antagonizing Russia” and have “a respectful relationship” with Moscow even despite Russia’s recent aggression, because Russia is still a geopolitical and military power which wields hundreds of ICBMs.

You are dead wrong again, Senator.

The only right response to intimidation and aggression, especially from dictatorships like Putin’s Russia, is strength and toughness, not “respect” and appeasement as you advocate.

ReaganPeaceQuote

In fact, the ONLY thing dictators and bullies like Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un respect and fear is STRENGTH combined with TOUGHNESS – a bold moral stand against them combined with a demonstrated willingness to use that STRENGTH if need be.

Dictators and aggressors like Putin understand only the language of force. The only thing that can deter them is superior military and economic force, combined with a proven willingness to use it to stop these dictators and aggressors. All human history, from the ancient times to the 21st century, demonstrates this.

Potential aggressors prey on weak victims, not strong ones. Weakness is provocative; it entices aggressors to commit actions they would otherwise refrain from.

And it is ESPECIALLY important to build up and show strength in the face of POWERFUL aggressors like Russia and China. They, having dramatically built up their economic and military strength, are so self-confident, so sure of their power, so emboldened and arrogant, that ONLY superior military and economic power, combined with a proven willingness to use both, can deter them from making more mischief.

Rand’s argument is essentially: “Russia is a geopolitical and military superpower, so let’s be weak in the face of such power and play nice with it.” That is a recipe for aggression, death, and destruction.

But Rand Paul, despite his pious assurances that he supports a Reaganite “Peace Through Strength” foreign policy, clearly doesn’t understand that, and never will. He claims Obama’s “reset” (read: appeasement) policy has been good for America – even though it is that failed “reset” policy that got us into this mess in the first place!

“We ought to be, I think, proud of where we’ve gotten with that relationship, and even when we have problems with Russia, realize that we’re in a much better place than wer were once upon a time.”

At a time when most Americans have realized that Obama’s “reset” policy has been an utter and disastrous failure, Paul thinks it has worked great and thinks the US should be “proud” of it!

Dictators and aggressors like Putin will not cease attacking weaker victims, and threatening the United States, if the US continues its utterly failed “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia, China, and Iran. This is the very policy that got us into the current mess in the first place. Yet, Rand wants to double down on it.

Rand also says the US should “avoid antagonizing Russia over Ukraine” because Ukraine has, for a long time, been in Russia’s sphere of influence. “The Ukraine has a long history of either being a part of the Soviet Union or within that sphere.”

It’s true that Ukraine has long been in Russia’s orbit – but NOT by its own free will! NO country on Earth has ever freewillingly been in Russia’s sphere of influence! All countries which have ever been in Moscow’s orbit fell into it as a result of Russian aggression, whether an overt invasion and occupation (as in Ukraine’s case) or through Russian-sponsored coups (e.g. Cuba and Nicaragua) and guerilla wars (e.g. Vietnam).

The only reason why Ukraine has been under Moscow’s yoke for a long time is because of Russian occupation – that is, Russian domination imposed by force.

Now Ukraine is trying to break free of Moscow’s yoke – and THAT is why Russia has invaded it.

But Rand doesn’t stop there. Not only does he advocate more appeasement of Russia, he falsely accuses America of telling Ukraine what to do. He told the WaPo on Feb. 25th:

“I don’t think it behooves us to tell the Ukraine what to do.”

You are lying yet again, Senator. No American politician is telling Ukraine what to do. The US, along with the European Union, is simply supporting (although inadequately and half-heartedly) Ukraine in its desire to free itself from the Russian yoke and integrate with the West – a choice the Ukrainian people have freewillingly made (and stood for even when their former dictator sent snipers and riot police against them).

The US has never dictated to the Ukraine what to do. OTOH, Russia has, and continues to. Russia has always adamantly opposed Ukraine’s possible integration with the West and last December even bribed the oligarchs in the Ukrainian parliament to steer Kiev away from the West. Now that the Ukranian people have ousted their former dictator Viktor Yanukovych and his oligarch chums, Putin has invaded the Ukraine – to ensure, by brute force if necessary, that Ukraine does not join the EU and does not integrate with the West.

Rand Paul is lying once again, in the “best” traditions of the RussiaToday/Alex Jones/Blame America First/Ron Paul crowd: he accuses AMERICA of telling another country what to do, when it is actually America’s adversary who is dictating to that country its future path.

Shame on you, Senator Paul, for lying so blatantly to the American people, for badmouthing America and your fellow Republicans while speaking to a liberal media outlet, for whitewashing and appeasing Russia, and for advocating treasonous policies!

Shame on you, Washington Post, for giving this traitor another venue to vent his anti-American garbage!

Shame on you, 31% of CPAC attendees, for voting for this traitor!

Rand Paul is the one distorting Reagan’s foreign policy

ReaganPeaceQuote

 

Ronald Reagan was such a successful President – especially in the foreign policy realm – that virtually all Republicans today want to project themselves as the next Reagan and claim that their foreign policy is the same as Reagan’s in order to woo national security oriented voters.

One such politician is Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Because his principal rival for the 2016 Republican nomination, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), has distinguished himself from Paul by adopting Reagan’s foreign policy principles while exposing Paul as the neo-isolationist that he is, the Kentucky Senator is desperate to defend himself.

Therefore, he has recently launched an attack on unnamed “Republicans” (presumably Cruz) on the Breitbart website, falsely accusing them of “warping” Reagan’s foreign policy.

But in fact, it is Rand Paul, NOT Ted Cruz or other Republicans, who is warping and distorting the Gipper’s foreign policy. Let me demonstrate how.

Rand Advocates Deep Defense Cuts

Rand advocates deep, crippling cuts in America’s defenses, including and beyond sequestration; withdrawing US troops from strategically important bases around the world which are needed for power projection; isolationism masquerading as noninterventionism; and opposes even the most modest sanctions on Iran, claiming they would lead to war (a false claim that the anti-defense Left, including the Ploughshares Fund, also makes). Indeed, Rand has said that “not only should the sequester be maintained”, but that government spending, including defense spending, should be cut even further – as if the sequester’s and pre-sequester Obama defense cuts were not deep enough.

As a reminder, in his first two years, Obama killed over 50 crucial weapon programs, including the F-22 Raptor fighter (the only aircraft capable of defeating the newest Russian and Chinese fighters), the Zumwalt class destroyer, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, the Multiple Kill Vehicle for kinetic missile defense interceptors, and much more. In 2011, Obama cut another $178 bn from the defense budget under the guise of efficiencies. And in August 2011, Obama demanded and obtained another $1 trillion in defense cuts over the FY2012-FY2012 decade, including a $550 bn sequester that will take defense spending to $493 bn (less than 3% of America’s GDP) next year and keep in there until the mid-2020s!

Yet, Rand Paul thinks these defense cuts are not sufficient and demands even deeper, more crippling, defense cuts. This completely belies his claim that

“I believe, as he did, that our National Defense should be second to none, that defense of the country is the primary Constitutional role of the Federal Government.”

If the cuts required by the sequester (let alone the deeper cuts Rand demands) are implemented, the US military will be gutted. It will be a paper tiger, not a military force “second to none.”

Reagan would NEVER advocate such idiotic policies, and indeed throughout his entire presidency implemented the very OPPOSITE of the policies Rand advocates. OTOH, Ted Cruz – unlike Rand Paul – does support a Reaganite foreign policy: rebuilding America’s defenses, standing up to dictators like Putin where it matters, but avoiding being drawn into irrelevant or murky jihadist viper pits like Syria.

But it gets even worse. In the Breitbart article cited above, Rand not only distorts the Gipper’s foreign policy, he shows he completely doesn’t understand what that policy was and how it worked, and demonstrates – there, as well as in his recent (Feb. 25th) Washington Post op-ed – that he does NOT support a Reaganite “Peace Through Strength” foreign policy.

He claims that:

“Reagan also believed in diplomacy and demonstrated a reasoned approach to our nuclear negotiations with the Soviets. Reagan’s shrewd diplomacy would eventually lessen the nuclear arsenals of both countries.”

Leaving aside the undisputable fact that cutting America’s nuclear deterrent has proven to be a foolish mistake, it was Reagan’s toughness, not diplomacy, that won the Cold War. In fact, it was his toughness that brought the Soviet Union back to the arms reduction barganining table in the first place.

The Soviets returned to the negotiating table because they knew the US could keep up the arms race for long, while their own economy was flagging (and in 1991, it collapsed, as did the USSR itself) and couldn’t really sustain the arms race any longer, especially with the costs of the Afghan war, the Chernobyl disaster, and the late 1980s’ oil glut added. (Reagan convinced Saudi Arabia to dramatically increase its oil output to cut global oil prices and thus undermine Moscow’s oil-dependent economy).

I’ll repeat it again: it was Reagan’s TOUGHNESS, his harsh policies towards the USSR, that brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table and eventually won the Cold War. Not diplomacy, not detente, not nice words, not his friendship with Gorbachev.

Reagan never sheathed the sword – the sword was always hanging over the Soviets’ heads. And that’s PRECISELY why Gorbachev agreed to make concessions.

Rand further claims that:

“Many forget today that Reagan’s decision to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev was harshly criticized by the Republican hawks of his time, some of whom would even call Reagan an appeaser.”

But, as demonstrated above, it was Reagan’s TOUGH POLICIES, not diplomacy or nicety, that brought the Soviets back to the bargaining table. And Gorbachev initially wasn’t in a mood to make concessions. It was not until he understood the US was in a far stronger negotiating position, and when Reagan revealed the documents Col. Ryszard Kuklinski (a Warsaw Pact defector) handed over to the CIA, that Gorbachev began to make concessions.

(At the first Reagan-Gorbachev meeting, in 1985, the Soviet leader was initially as stubborn as his predecessors, not willing to make policy concessions. Then, Reagan’s Defense Secretary, Cap Weinberger, took his ace out of his sleeve: he gave the maps [stolen by Colonel Kuklinski] of secret Soviet bunkers, built for nuclear war, to Reagan, who gave them to Gorbachev, who in turn gave them to Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev, the Soviet Chief of the General Staff, who accompanied Gorby. Akhromeyev was very scared upon seeing the documents, and explained their importance to the civilian Gorbachev. From then on, the Soviets were more willing to make concessions.)

Rand also believes firmly in a soft, appeasement-like policy towards Russia – ignoring the fact that it was such policy that led to the current  Crimean crisis in the first place. He falsely claims in his WaPo op-ed that America’s relationship with Russia should be “respectful” and that:

“There is a time for diplomacy and the strategic use of soft power, such as now with Russia. Diplomacy requires resolve but also thoughtfulness and intelligence.”

No. Diplomacy has had its time – and has dismally failed, as usual. Now is the time for FIRMNESS and MANLINESS. Now is the time to impose the harshest sanctions on Russia that are possible and to dramatically increase oil and gas production in the US (ANWR, NPRA, OCS, shale formations, authorizing the Keystone Pipeline) and to export these fuels to Europe to dramatically reduce its dependence on Russia for hydrocarbons. This would strike Russia where it would really hurt Moscow – and accomplish America’s goals without a single soldier and without firing a shot.

As for a “respectful” relationship with Russia – tell that to Vladimir Putin. Lecture him about “respectful” relationships, Mr Paul, not your fellow Republicans. Putin’s Russia has, in recent years:

  1. Invaded two sovereign countries on false pretexts, and in reality because they started aligning themselves with the West.
  2. Threatened a nuclear attack on the US or its allies at least 15 times.
  3. Repeatedly flown nuclear-armed bombers into US and allied airspace (and even into the airspace of neutral Sweden) on many occassions, even once on July 4th,
  4. Provided diplomatic protection to Iran, North Korea, and Syria, nuclear fuel and reactors to Iran, weapons to Iran and Syria, and sold tons of advanced weapons to China – weapons which will be used to kill American troops.
  5. Murdered journalists and other dissidents (e.g. Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko), and jailed many others, opposing the Putin regime.
  6. Conducted a huge military buildup that continues to this day and is slated to continue for long but which long ago has exceeded Russia’s legitimate defense needs.
  7. Repeatedly violated the INF treaty by testing and deploying missiles banned by the treaty.

And the US is supposed to have a “respectful” relationship with such a hostile regime, Senator Paul? Are you on drugs? Who is your foreign policy advisor, Pat Buchanan?

In short, Rand has shown, once again, that he is NO Reaganite, that he is virtually indistinguishable from his father on policy matters, and that he clearly does not believe in a “peace through strength” policy. Furthermore, he’s distorting the Gipper’s foreign policy record. Conservatives must not allow him to fool them; he would continue and even double on Obama’s failed twin policies of unilateral disarmament and appeasement of America’s adversaries. Just like Obama, Paul advocates appeasement towards the world’s most dangerous regimes, from Russia, to Iran, to Syria. No real conservative would ever vote for him.

Could Expats Decide the 2016 Presidential Election?

2016Election

NEW YORK, Jan. 27, 2014 /PRNewswire-iReach/ — In past years, the Democratic party had a virtual stronghold on the expat community vote in presidential elections. This year may be different. The Republican National Committee (RNC) is making a strong case for US expats living abroad to vote Republican. The party has begun a campaign to repeal FATCA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which is causing an uproar throughout the world.

FATCA was originally created in 2010 to uncover tax cheats who are hiding funds in overseas accounts. The Act requires individuals to report on their assets abroad if they exceed certain thresholds, and is also now requiring foreign banks and financial institutions to report on the accounts of their American clients. This has been an uphill battle for the US, as many overseas financial institutions pride themselves on their banking secrecy laws. The additional reporting requirements of FATCA have prompted many foreign banks to refuse new American clients, and even close the accounts of the existing ones.

The RNC believes FATCA violates American citizens’ right to privacy. The resolution to repeal FATCA gained full support of the RNC Resolution Committee, as well as 26 co-sponsors, which virtually guarantees it will pass when voted on at the party’s winter meeting later this month.

According to a Washington Times article, Solomon Yue, a prominent RNC member from Oregon who is leading the charge on the issue, said “The law as it stands forces US citizens to make a modern day’s ‘Sophie’s choice’ between their love for their country by not renouncing citizenship and their love for their families by continuing to provide for them without banking services.”

The RNC believes the privacy rights infringed upon by FATCA is unfairly targeting innocent expats, not tax dodgers as the bill is designed to catch. The hope is that American expats feel strongly enough about this issue that they will be inclined to change their vote to possibly improve their lives abroad.

Democrats Abroad, the official arm of the Democratic Party for US citizens abroad, have traditionally won the support of expats. With offices in Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and the support of the presidential office, their extensive presence has helped them solidify the expat vote.

Republican Senator Rand Paul led the charge against FATCA when he introduced legislation to repeal certain parts of FATCA. The RNC is taking it one step further and attempting to eliminate it altogether. If the RNC is successful in gaining the expat community vote, it very well may have a significant impact on the 2016 presidential election.

“FATCA is a major issue for expats and it is quite possible that they would be willing to change their vote in the hopes that FATCA will be repealed,” commented David McKeegan, co-founder of Greenback Expat Tax Services. “Our past surveys reveal that expats feel like they lack a significant voice in the US government, and this may be the perfect opportunity for them to take a stand and be heard.”

Hypocrisy When It Comes To Obama

DonkeyHotey (CC)

The nation recently celebrated Martin Luther King’s million man march and famous speech in Washington D.C. in which he declared, ”I have  a dream where we judge a person not by the color of his skin ,but the content of their character.” Enter Barack Obama. Ask anyone why they voted for him and blacks say “Because he’s black”’ and whites say, ”because he’s the first black president,” even though nobody knew anything about him and the  media never properly vetted him. If you dare criticize Obama you are labled a racist. Today there are still many unanswered questions about him from who his real father is, his fraudulent birth certificates (he listed three versions), his fraudulent social security number (they claim it was a typo),his questionable college attendance since there are no records of him attending Occidental or Columbia and no pictures of him  in any yearbooks or newspapers and nobody remembers him at either college, and how a young kid fresh from Indonesia  with no job could afford both colleges and there is no record of him taking out any loans, but he’s the first black president so that’s all that matters and if you criticize him on any of these you’re branded a racist. What happened to judging a person by the content of their character and not the color of their skin? MLK must be turning in his grave. I wonder what these people think if they knew MLK was a republican?

Recently on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said the reason republicans in congress are reluctant to criticize Obama with the exception of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio is because of being labeled a racist.

Well lo and behold, wonder of wonders, two leading Hollywood leftists, Ed Asner and  Mike Farrell are speaking out against their guy Obama on Syria and admit that Hollywood is not speaking out against Obama like they did with George Bush for fear of being labeled anti-black.

Another reason some Hollywood progressives have been reticent to speak out against war in Syria, according to Asner, is fear of being called racist.

“A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama,” he said.

Farrell and Asner both say that beating the war drums on Syria is one of many mistakes Obama has made.

“I voted for him, but I’m not proud. He hasn’t thrown himself on the funeral pyre. I wanted him to sacrifice himself. Instead, he has proved himself to be a corporatist, and as long as he’s a corporatist, he’s not my president,” Asner said. “A lot of people have lost hope — with the betrayals, the NSA spying … People aren’t getting active because ‘Who gives a shit?’ is essentially the bottom line.”

Adds Farrell: “I’m frankly deeply disappointed in the president’s foreign policy, war-making, his reliance on military rather than diplomatic responses, his use of drones, continued allowance of the Guantanamo prison. He’s a disappointment to me and other people I know.”

As much as Obama is loved by Hollywood power-brokers, Asner says he doesn’t fear backlash by speaking against the president.

“Hollywood can’t mobilize for that either,” he joked. “If they try to punish me, what are they gonna do? Take away my pension.

Another one speaking out against Obama going into Syria is his biggest cheerleader Chris Mathews. What’s the matter Chris, lose that Obama thrill running up and down your leg?

Many people are viewing  the attack on Syria as a beginning of biblical fulfillment of the coming  end of times with Damascus being leveled “Behold, Damascus is about to be removed from being a city, and will become a fallen ruin,” reads Isaiah 17, a passage some Christians say they believe details a horrific event that leaves the city uninhabitable and leads to worldwide tribulation and the second coming of Christ. Damascus is the Syrian capital and one of the world’s oldest cities.

Another passage in Isaiah 19 deals with civil war in Egypt and the rise of a “fierce king.”

Talk of those prophecies has intensified as President Barack Obama considers a U.S. military strike on Syria in response to what Washington says is evidence that the Syrian leadership used chemical weapons against its own people. In turn, Syria vows to retaliate against neighboring Israel if the U.S. strikes.

Speaking at a news conference in Paris, Sec.of State John Kerry said the videos make clear that the attack is not something Americans can ignore.

The United States has accused Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government of using chemical weapons in an Aug. 21 assault, and cited intelligence reports as saying it killed at least 1,429 people, including more than 400 children. The videos show the victims exhibiting what appear to be symptoms of nerve gas poisoning.

“Those videos make it clear to people that these are real human beings, real children, parents being affected in ways that are unacceptable to anybody, anywhere by any standards,” Kerry said. “And the United States of America that has always stood with others to say we will not allow this – this is not our values, it’s not who we are.”

Where was Kerry when Saddam gassed 5000 people in one day and killed a million of his own people. Kerry, Hilary, Harry Reid and I bet even Obama were castigating Bush for going into Iraq. Kerry bashed our troops just like he did in the 60’s saying “American soldiers were terrorizing Iraqui women and children in the dead of night kicking their doors down.” Now all of a sudden they want to do this “across the bow” strike on Syria that will open up a whole can of worms? Assad has Russia, Iran, and North Korea in back of him while all we have is “moral support” This can kick off  WW 111. Incidentally the so called stockpiles of gas Assad has are the WMD’s we were looking for in Iraq. Saddam had them shipped out before, during and after the war by Russian soldiers disguised  as Iraqis which is why we didn’t find them so Bush didn’t lie after all. Besides, Germany said Saddam had them, France said he had them, Britain said he had them and Saudi Arabia said he had them and he did have them until he shipped them out to Syria.

At a recent press conference Obama’s chief of Staff   Denis McDonough said Obama, Congress and the rest of the world no longer doubt the fact Assad carried out such horrific crimes against his people.” McDonough also said we have no military allies just  their moral support and don’t need them for just a missile strike.

As one commenter noted: “How can we believe ANYTHING, especially since this press conference was filled with BLATANT LIES…

LIE – “We feel very good about the support we have”
….REALITY – Obama et al are HORRIFIED at the broad coalition AGAINST their plans.

LIES – “Nobody now debates the intelligence” – “Everybody believes that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people”
….REALITY – Everyone doubts the intelligence. Many wonder whether the rebels themselves did this to bring us into the war.

LIE – “If chemical weapons are moved to the front lines, it means a greater risk of them being proliferated”
….REALITY – If chemical weapons are moved to the front lines, they will be USED, not “proliferated”

Columnist Kyle Smith in today’s N.Y.Post said,”Ruthless dictators who have been murdering their own citizens by the thousands aren’t likely to be scared by a pre-announced two day show of fireworks. Obama’s message that we should send  in a “clear and decisive very limited way”is another classic. Dictators don’t do limited.They do ruthless. That’s how they passed their final exam in dictator school.”

As columnist Charles Krauthammer  said, ”I say send a text. It’s less expensive.” :D

Ed Asner Explains Hollywood Silence: They 'Don't Want to Feel Anti-Black'...

Syria's 'rebels' and soldiers agree: Military strikes will change nothing...

Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate

OBAMA TO LINK SYRIA WITH IRAN?

Some see biblical visions of doom...

WorldTribune.com: UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD on eve of war

PAPER: Regime forces may have used gas without Assad's permission...

Rep. King: Obama Acting More Like ‘Community Organizer’

Norquist and Kudlow have finally proven they are strident liberals

Donkey Hotey (CC)

Donkey Hotey (CC)

Donkey Hotey (CC)

While Washington has in recent weeks been pondering what to do about illegal aliens, a number of pseudoconservatives have recently(and finally) outed themselves as strident liberals after decades of pretending to be conservatives.

They are: ATR President Grover Norquist, CNBC host Larry Kudlow, and NH Senator Kelly Ayotte.

There was plenty of evidence even before their jump on the amnesty bandwagon that they are not conservatives. This was especially true of Norquist, who has advocated (and continues to advocate) appeasing Islamists, implementing Sharia in the US, deep defense cuts, isolationism, and protecting tax loopholes for Washington lobbyists that contribute significantly to the deficit problem and allow rich liberals like Warren Buffett to pay little to nothing in taxes.

Ayotte, for her part, has advocated killing the crucial MEADS missile defense system and succeeded in cutting the Air Force’s airlifter fleet.

And now, we have both of them advocate for amnesty for 12-20 million illegal immigrants.

They falsely claim that immigration, per se, is good for America, and that illegal aliens should be legalized because, well, everyone in America except the Indians is an immigration or descendant of immigrants. In other words, Republicans should reward lawlessness.

Not only will this reward lawbreaking and make legal immigrants – and those currently waiting for an immigration visa to the US – look like fools, it will also alienate the vast majority of Republican voters, sending the GOP to the dustbin of history.

And worst of all, amnesty will create 12-20 mn new Democratic voters, by putting illegal aliens on a pathway to citizenship within no less than 5 years. If that happens, there will never again be a Republican President or Congressional majority. And you can take that to the bank and cash a check on it.

Don’t believe me? Let’s do simple math.

Let’s assume, conservatively, that there are 12 mn illegal aliens in the US, and that if legalized, they’ll be voting Republican in George W. Bush numbers (44%).

OK, now the math:

44% * 12 mn = 5.28 mn new GOP voters

56% *  12 mn =  6.72 mn new Dem voters:

Net gain: 1.44 mn new voters for the Democrats.

So even under the most optimistic assumptions, if amnesty is passed, the Democrats will gain, on net, 1.44 mn more voters than Republicans – strengthening the Dem majority even further and forever making the GOP a minority party. The two major parties will be the Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party and the Ed Markey Democratic Party.

Rand Paul – another pseudoconservative who has jumped on the amnesty bandwagon – falsely claims that Republicans must win California back and that supporting amnesty will help the GOP do so. He falsely claims California is winnable and its citizens want the same thing as other Americans – lower taxes, lower government spending, balanced budgets, etc.

Actually, California is permanently, irrevocably lost to the GOP, and it’s precisely because of uncontrolled immigration – legal and illegal. California is actually a textbook reason why amnesty MUST be defeated at all costs.

Massive immigration, both legal and illegal, but mostly legal, has transformed California from a Republican bastion into such a liberal state that no Republican, moderate or conservative, can get elected statewide in California anymore. Not so long ago, this state gave America such great Republican Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

Between 1952 and 1988, California voted Republican in every presidential election except in 1964.

But since 1988, it has become a stridently liberal state where fewer than 30% of voters are Republicans.

What’s worse, the vast majority of Californians WANT Big Government, high taxes, and high government spending. They’ve passed  an anti-business cap-and-tax system and stringest “fuel efficiency” standards. Their state is highly unionized. In 2010, they rejected proposals to suspend cap-and-tax until the unemployment rate drops, and last year, they elected a State Senate Democratic SUPERMAJORITY, allowing the Democrats – who already control the State Assembly and the Governorship – to raise taxes without limits.

As a result, productive citizens and businesses are fleeing the state en masse. The few who remain yet are being taxed to death. Those who remain in California are predominantly welfare moochers, government employees, union thugs, gangsters, and members of extremely leftist organizations.

This is what the ENTIRE country will look like if amnesty becomes law. If it does, the entire country will have the electorate of California. AND THERE WILL BE NO TURNING BACK.

It will actually be worse, because millions of voters will desert the GOP for supporting amnesty and thus rewarding lawbreaking.

The GOP will then be unable to even maintain 41 seats in the US Senate.

Thanks to Republicans’ repeated betrayals of American workers and selling out to K-Street bundlers, the GOP already has enough problems cobbling together an electoral majority.

California and New Mexico are lost forever to the GOP. Colorado, Virginia, and Florida haven’t voted Republican since 2004. Republicans can barely defend Arizona these days. Only Texas remains secure – for now.

If Texas goes, America goes.

Capitulate on illegal immigration, and there goes Texas, the entire Southwest, Florida, Virginia, and there goes the presidency, forever.

And what policies will these illegal aliens – whom the Rubio-McCain-Rand amnesty will turn into 12 mn new Democrat voters – support?

A Big Government and an even bigger welfare state with higher taxes and higher government spending.

Successive polling by the Pew Research Center and other polling organizations shows that Hispanics, by overwhelimng majorities, suport such policies, including a “bigger government with more” over a “smaller government with fewer services”; and that the vast majority of Hispanics trusts the federal gov to “do the right thing” “always” or “almost always”.

No amount of “voter education” will conver these voters to conservatism, because people are unwilling to give up their political beliefs. You can’t convert a Latino-American socialist from Mexico or Argentina to conservatism any more than you can convince an Islamist to give up on jihad or North Korea to give up on Kimilsungism (juche).

Have you ever wondered why most Latin American countries have socialist governments? Because the vast majority of their citizens are socialists. And by importing them to the US, you’re only going to make the US another socialist country. People’s political beliefs don’t change simply because they step onto American soil.

(Similarly, French socialists have, for decades, been importing millions of poorly educated, unskilled, socialist-minded Arab immigrants into France, knowing full well that this will eventually create an unbeatable socialist majority in France. But unlike the US, French rightwingers actually fight fiercely against this scheme; rightwing President Nicolas Sarkozy was particularly tough on immigration, deporting illegals and cutting even legal immigration levels by half.

Who are the real surrender monkeys here: the French or the citizens and politicians of this country?)

For those who still believe socialist Hispanic voters are winnable, I say: Look at the majoritzy of Hispanic families.

They’re headed by single mothers, without a father in the home. Their children are educated at taxpayers’ expense K-12 and receive Pell Grants and student aid.

For food, there are foodstamps.

If mom works, she gets the Earned Income Tax Credit which keeps her below the income tax treshold. If she doesn’t work, she receives 99 weeks of unemployment benefits and other welfare checks.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.

In other words, the majority of Hispanic (and black) families are totally dependent on the federal government – from birth to adult life to the grave.

Yes, we all know a few Hispanic families who aren’t dependent on the federal government and who are hard-working, productive, God-fearing, and perhaps even conservative. But they are very few in number. The vast majority of Hispanic families fit the description above.

A typical Hispanic woman far more likely than white women to become pregnant out of wedlock and be a single mother. Her children are far more likely than white children to be fatherless, do poorly in school, drop out of high school, be unemployed, commit crime, and end up in prison.

Why should these people – who depend on the federal government for their livelihoods – vote for a party that pledges to cut taxes they don’t pay and to reduce the government programs they depend on and live off, instead of the party that pledges to let them keep what they already get and to give them more?

Especially in today’s world, where the vast majority of voters in all countries are interested only in getting more from others – preferrably for “free” – and forcing others to pay the bill?

“But we must pass amnesty to appeal to Hispanics, or we will never win another election!”, you will say.

That’s nonsense. Republicans don’t need to. Republicans instead need to appeal better to white voters – especially women and Hispanics. And passing amnesty will only infuriate these voters. Especially traditional Republican voters.

As Byron York has shown, using Nate Silver’s highly accurate election result forecasting model, even if Romney were to win 70% of the Hispanic vote last year, he would STILL have lost the presidential election. Even with 70% of the Hispanic vote.

Romney lost because too few white voters supported him – and because blacks, eager to defend Obama turned out in even greater numbers than in 2008, and in even greater numbers than whites did.

Obama’s incumbency and Hurricane Sandy also certainly played a role. Before Sandy, Gallup had Romney ahead of Obama by 5 points; after Sandy hit the East Coast, Romney’s margin dwindled to just 1 point, and eventually, Romney lost the popular vote in addition to the EC vote.

Nate Silver’s model shows that Romney would’ve needed to win 73% of the Hispanic vote – a share that NO ONE in US history has won, not even Barack Obama – to win the 2012 election.

Even Barack Obama has never won 73% of the Hispanic vote: in 2008, he won 67%, and last year, he won 71%. But never 73%. And the notion that any Republican, even an amnesty supporter or a Hispanic like Rubio, can ever win 73% of the Hispanic vote, is ridiculous. Nobody in US history, not even Barack Obama, has achieved this.

But, as Nate Silver’s model shows, had only 4% more of white voters backed Romney, he would’ve won the election.

Last but not least, as one Latina has recently pointed out in the Mediaite, amnesty will utterly fail to win Republicans new Hispanic votes, because Hispanics don’t care about immigration. Their top issues are jobs, the economy, education, and the budget deficit – NOT immigration. And many of them probably don’t want a new influx of cheap illegal alien workers competing with legal Hispanic immigrants for jobs.

A legal Hispanic kitchen maid earning 10 dollars/hour will probably not appreciate new illegal alien workers competing with her for a 5 dollar/hour salary.

Because that is why Republicans are really pushing for amnesty: their K-Street bundlers want to bring in even more, even cheaper, foreign workers to displace American and legal immigrant workers.

Employers love to hire illegal immigrants, as they can pay these people less and also evade all federal and state employment laws.

It’s the business lobby and the two major parties against the American people. Like Timothy Carney points out, it’s K Street against Main Street.

To sum up, Republicans lost last year due to a number of factors, but Hispanic voters were not one of them. They were still only 8% of the electorate. Trying to please Hispanic voters with amnesty will utterly fail; on the contrary, it will create, on net, millions of new Democratic voters who will send the GOP to the graveyard.

If amnesty becomes law, these illegal immigrants will become US citizens and will give the Dems a permanent, unbeatable majority. The entire country will have the electorate of California – and there will be no turning back. And to see how well that works out, just look at California.

Rand Loves The Drones? Not Quite…

randpaulfilibuster-300x225

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has learned another key lesson of the “age of sound bytes.” During an appearance on Neil Cavuto’s Fox Business Network show, Paul pointed out he didn’t mind using drones or any kind of technology against an “imminent threat,” whether it was a terrorist or “someone coming out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash.” He also said it didn’t matter if it was a cop or a drone who killed the criminal. To fans of his father, ex-Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the reaction was fast and it wasn’t pretty.

Rand Paul was called someone who was “bullsh—tting,” a “politician” (which he is), someone who supported “the militarizing of police” and someone who needed to get away from neoconservatives because they were “rotting your brain.” Even Matt Drudge threw up the clever headline, “RAND LEARNS TO LOVE THE DRONE!”

However, people are ignoring the second half of his quote. Paul specifically said it was different if a drone wanted to go over someone’s hot tub or yard just to look at you. Even when Cavuto asked what if police were searching for a criminal and accidentally found something “bad,” Paul didn’t budge. He said no one should be looking into someone’s backyard and didn’t want surveillance when there wasn’t “probable cause.” Paul made it very clear police must have a warrant to use a drone, unless there was a “killer on the loose” or someone “running around with a gun.”

 

This is very similar to what he said during his 13 hour filibuster and the comments he made afterward. It’s also part of the no domestic drone strike legislation he and Texas Senator Ted Cruz co-sponsored. Drones can only be used on “dangerous criminals” and people who poses an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” to another person. So Paul is being consistent.

 

There are still problems with how Paul worded what he said. The definition of a “dangerous criminal” may mean someone like the Boston terrorists, who engaged in an active shootout with police. But, as Paul pointed out in his filibuster, the Fusion Center of Missouri considers “dangerous criminals” as people who have pro-life bumper stickers, people who may want more border security, support third party candidates or might be in the Constitution Party. Unless the “dangerous criminal” terminology is strictly defined, the use of drones by governments on American soil could end up being as slippery of a slope as warrant-less wiretapping. Even with the strictest of definitions, it may not be worth it, despite how awesome the technology is.

 

By making broad comments on an issue, Paul giving potential political enemies more ammunition against him. It also disappoints his supporters and those who consider him a “political hero.” Plus, the liquor store example is a bad example, which Paul realized. He made it clear in a statement he released Tuesday. After all, hindsight is 20-20.

 

There may be ways to figure out how people in the private sector (i.e. farmers) could use drones, without raising questions about privacy. Drone countermeasures are already being developed and sold to those who can afford it. That may be the ultimate solution.

 

But in the end, Lucius Fox may have it right when he raised questions about technology Bruce Wayne developed in The Dark Knight. Even when it was obvious Batman could use a city-wide tracking device to find the Joker, Fox said, “No one should have it,” because the tracker could be abused.

 

It may be time for us to listen to Lucius Fox on drones. Cool technology, but not worth using.

 

Rand Paul supports amnesty, bilingualism, and open borders, opposes employment verification

In recent weeks, Rand Paul has made a meteoric rise in Republican politics, dramatically raising his name recognition, winning (albeit by a slim margin) a CPAC straw poll, and successfully duping many conservatives (including some of my friends) into believing that he’s more sane and more practical than his nutty father, whom Republican voters rejected overwhelmingly in 2008 and 2012.

Sadly, these people are wrong. Rand Paul, like his father, is a leftist libertarian. His leftist brand of libertarianism is evident on many issues: deep defense cuts, supporting the cretinous “Balanced Budget Amendment”, supporting violations of states’ rights Paul’s pet issues, opposing action against Iran.

But on no issue is it more visible than on illegal immigration. Rand Paul supports a full-throated amnesty for illegal aliens (without calling it that way; he deceptively calls it “a pathway to citizenship”), bilingualism, and open borders, and opposes employment verification, including the very effective E-Verify Program.

Employers, including Big Business, are lobbying hard for amnesty and against E-Verify, because they love to hire illegal aliens; they can pay them much less than Americans and avoid federal and state employment laws.

But doesn’t Rand Paul realise that amnesty and bilingualism will only lead to bigger, more costly government? Don’t his supporters realize that?

Don’t they and their idol Rand Paul realize that amnesty (or “pathway to citizenship”, or whatever you want to call it) is TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with limited Constitutional government (not to mention that it rewards lawbreaking, and a limited government – Constitutional or otherwise – cannot exist if the law is not obeyed)?

Don’t they and Rand Paul understand that amnesty will create 12-20 million new Democratic voters who will send the political Right (not just the GOP) and all conservatives to the political graveyard and give the Democrats a permanent, unbeatable majority?

As Ann Coulter rightly says, as soon as the nation starts to resemble California demographically, it will also resemble California politically.

To see what amnesty would mean politically, just look at California, where whites are now only 40% of the population – a “majority minority” state. Massive immigration – both legal and illegal – has transformed California into such a liberal state that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Taxes are going in only one direction, the state is on the verge of bankruptcy, and there’s no one left to pay the bill anymore, because businesses are fleeing Commiefornia en masse.

Not so long ago, this state gave America such great Republican Senators and Governors as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Ronald Reagan, and Pete Wilson.

But now, California is permanently lost to the GOP. The Dems control the governorship and have 2/3 majorities in the state legislature.

This is what the ENTIRE country will look like if amnesty is passed. The two major parties, as Ann Coulter rightly says, will be the Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Democratic Party and the Chuck Schumer Democratic Party.

Contrary to the popular canard that “Hispanics are natural conservatives/Republicans” and that “the Hispanic vote is winnable for the GOP”, they’re not and it’s not. The converse is the truth: Hispanics are natural liberals.

They are less likely than anyone but Jews to attend religious services and to oppose abortion and gay marriage. They are more likely than anyone else except blacks to be born out of wedlock, do poorly in school, drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock themselves, be poor, be dependent on the federal government for survival, commit crime, and go to prison. They depend on an entire cornucopia of federal programs to survive – from cradle to grave.

As Pat Buchanan points out, most Hispanic households are led by single mothers who, if they work, have no tax liability (due to the high tax-free treshold and the EITC), and if they don’t work, they receive welfare rolls and 99 weeks of unemployment checks. For food, she gets foodstamps and her children receive 2-3 “free” meals at school.

For healthcare, there’s Medicaid and Obamacare.

Her children are educated for “free” K-12 and can apply for Pell Grants and student loans.

Why would these people vote for a party that promises to cut taxes they don’t pay, but pledges to cut government dependency programs they do “benefit” from and use? Doesn’t self-interest dictate voting for the party that pledges to let them keep using these programs and, if anything, promises them more “free” giveaways?

The vast majority of Hispanics are government dependents (i.e. ideal Democratic voters). Republicans will never beat the Democrats at the giveaway offering game.

Have you ever wondered, Dear Readers, why most Latin American countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Mexico, etc.) have socialist governments? Answer: Because most of their citizens are socialists.

Most Americans don’t know that decades ago, the Democrats began implementing their plan to create an unbeatable Democratic majority by importing millions of immigrants from the Third World while making it harder (nigh impossible) for well-educated, highly-skilled Europeans to immigrate to the US. This plan is close to being completed. Amnesty #2 would be the final step – and the final nail in the GOP’s coffin.

The Democrats did not, and do not, want to change their ideology or their policies; instead, they’ve decided to change the voters, and they’ve done so and continue to do so.

Someone will say, “But in 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote!” Yes, he did, but that’s not a great result. If repeated at future elections and if amnesty is passed, the GOP will still be doomed. Let’s do simple math.

Assuming that there are 12 million illegal aliens in the US, let’s say 44% of these people vote Republican once naturalized, and “only” 56% vote Democratic. That is, let’s assume they’ll vote Republican in George W. Bush numbers.

OK, here’s the math:

44%*12 million = 5.28 mn new GOP voters

56%*12 million = 6.72 mn new Dem voters

Net gain: 1.44 mn new voters for the Democrats.

 

So on net, the Dems would gain 1.44 mn new voters.

Easy to see why the Democrats are for this. But why would a GOP that were not suicidally inclined support such a policy?

Those who support amnesty, including Rand Paul, need to ask themselves only this question:

If there was ANY chance – even the slightest chance – that amnesty could help Republicans in ANY way whatsoever, do you think the Democrats would’ve supported it?

The answer is obvious. It’s a resounding “no”.

Rand Paul must not be allowed to win a GOP presidential or vice presidential nomination under any circumstances whatsoever. Nominating Rand Paul for President or Vice President would be an electoral suicide for the GOP and would be an utter rejection of all conservative principles the GOP has ever stood for.

Rand Paul is a total fraud, a RINO, and a leftist libertarian

There appears to be a consensus on the Right that former Congressman Ron Paul (RINO-TX) is a leftist libertarian nut, a fruitcake, and a man totally unfit for public office. That consensus cost him three presidential elections in which he failed to win a single state (thus losing in all 50 states 3 times each): in 1988, 2008, and 2012.

However, many of my fellow right-wingers, including some of my good friends, are for some reason infatuated with his son, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, and are open to voting for him if he runs for President. They have been fooled by him and the pseudoconservative media, and delude themselves, that Rand Paul is more reasonable, saner, and less extremist in his libertarian beliefs than his father.

This is the result of careful media efforts by Rand Paul himself and his staffers. Rand Paul, who apparently wants to be elected President someday, understood early on that to win, he’d need to get the votes of conservatives, and to receive them, he’d have to moderate his image.

But he also understood that he would not have to change the substance of his views and the policies he supports – merely the way he advocates them. In other words, he would have to soften only his style, not the substance. Only the rhetoric, not the policies themselves.

Compared to his loathsome father, he has changed only the style, not the substance.

The only difference is the STYLE, not the SUBSTANCE. His father was a wolf in wolf’s clothing; Rand is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Let’s look at what he has actually done and said.

Rand Paul, the defense weakling

Rand Paul, like his father, supports massive defense cuts. The difference between him and his father is that he pretends to support a strong defense – while supporting deep budgetary cuts.

He claims he’s for a strong defense, but he supports sequestration and possibly even deeper defense cuts. Sequestration, as I have already documented, means cutting $46 bn from the base defense budget in FY2013 alone, and $55 bn in every successive FY through FY2022. It means cutting the base defense budget from $525 bn pre-sequestration to $469 bn in FY2013 post-sequestration (while the OCO/war budget is also being cut significantly) and keeping it down for the remainder of the sequestration decade (if not longer). By FY2022, a decade from now, the defense budget will still be at a low, pathetic $493 bn – $32 bn LOWER than two weeks ago (before sequestration).

defensebudgetaccordingtothecbo2

And under sequestration, the DOD has NO latitude whatsoever about to where to make the cuts. The House and the Senate originally planned to give the DOD that latitude, but the Senate has now backtracked on that plan.

But Rand Paul doesn’t merely support the sequester. He thinks that not only should the sequester be kept, but that defense spending should be cut even further.

Simoultaneously, Paul has been spreading utterly false garbage propaganda from leftist libertarians (such as Veronique de Rugy and CATO Institute propagandists) claiming that sequestration would be a mere cut in the rate of growth of defense spending and not a real defense spending cut. But, as I have proven above, and many times on my blog, sequestration is not a mere cut in the rate of growth of defense spending; it is a REAL, DEEP, IMMEDIATE, and PERMANENT cut in defense spending.

He has also falsely claimed that defense spending has increased by 137% (when it has actually increased only by 67% since FY2001, has declined since its peak in FY2010, and that includes GWOT spending) and made other false claims about defense spending.

So not only does he support deep defense cuts, in concert with his CATO Institute buddies, he also spreads utterly false propaganda about US defense spending, thus misleading the public. A liar cannot and must not be entrusted with public office.

Rand preaches the Constitution, but doesn’t respect it himself

Rand Paul likes to lecture others about the need to respect the Constitution and says that “the Constitution should be our guide.” But he doesn’t respect it himself. Like all other politicians in Washington, DC, he has his pet issues and is willing to set his principles and the Constitution aside for the sake of these pet issues.

For example, he supports the National Right to Work bill, which, if passed, would overturn all state laws on the subject of employment and unionization (or the lack thereof) and mandate the right to work by federal statute. This would not only violate the 10th Amendment and state laws on the matter, it would also take away a key competitive advantage of conservative states (like Texas, Virginia, and Florida) away from them.

He also supports a federal ban on abortion, again disrespecting the Constitution, which reserves this issue (and millions of other issues) to the states. Don’t get me wrong: I’m firmly pro-life. But I believe in the Constitution first and foremost. And the Constitution reserves all issues not explicitly assigned to the federal government to the states. The federal government has no power to ban abortion, just like it doesn’t have any power to legalize it. The issue is up to the states to decide.

The problem with Roe v. Wade is not so much that it legalized abortion as that it took away the states’ right to settle this issue. The genius of the Constitution is that it reserves virtually all contentious issues (other than questions of war and peace) to state and local governments, thus allowing each state and each city/town to decide how to settle this issue in line with the wishes of their respective citizens. Thus, all states and their citizens can live in peace, because each state can settle an issue in line with what its citizens want, regardless of what other states or the federal government think.

Before Roe, there were 50 different state laws. The US still has 50 different state laws on issues such as marriage, road safety, drivers’ licensing, employment, construction, etc. And that is as it’s supposed to be.

Yet, Rand Paul wants to take away states’ rights to settle issues reserved to them as they see fit. He wants to set the federal government up as a policeman over the states. This is the last thing the Founding Fathers wanted.

Rand Paul and the Balanced Budget Amendment

But even that affront to the Constitution, to states’ rights, and to the people’s right to settle issues as they see fit is dwarfed by Sen. Paul’s (and all other GOP Senators’) endorsement of the Balanced Budget Amendment, which, if ratified (God forbid), would forever end the Constitutional limitations on the federal government.

As my fellow conservative blogger Publius Huldah has documented, the Constitution currently authorizes only a federal government of very limited, strictly enumerated powers. Accordingly, most annual federal spending (75% according to my analysis) is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

But, as PH also documents, the BBA would transform the federal government into one of general, unlimited powers. It would legalize the current, illegal federal Leviathan forever. It would authorize the feds to spend money on anything they want – as long as their annual spending doesn’t exceed 20% of America’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

And what is GDP? It’s a computation produced by the Department of Commerce, an agency controlled by the President. In other words, the President would determine the basis on which to assess whether federal spending exceeds the BBA’s limit of 20% of GDP. (Under the BBA, the President would also write the budget, including determining both taxes and spending – powers reserved strictly to the Congress. Goodbye, Congressional power of the purse.)

So the BBA would change the Constitution beyond recognition – from one authorizing a limited government of enumerated powers to one authorizing an unlimited federal Leviathan of unlimited, general powers, and from one reserving the power of the purse (i.e. authority on taxes and spending) STRICTLY to the Congress to one delegating that authority to the President – the figure about whose accumulation of power Sen. Paul pretends to be concerned about. He thinks it’s wrong for the President to kill you with a drone or to detain you indefinitely, but it’s OK to give the President the power to tax you to death and to spend your money as he sees fit.

This is the scam that Sen. Paul supports – as do all other GOP Senators.

“Containing” a nuclear Iran

Sen. Paul also supports a policy of “containment” towards a nuclear Iran and adamantly opposes any notion of a preemptive strike on Iran, any talk about it, and even voted against a resolution merely stating the sense of Congress that a nuclear Iran would be unacceptable, falsely claiming that it was a blank check for war with Iran and an endorsement of the concept of preemptive war.

His claim is utterly false – the Senate was merely disapproving the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran – and voting for it was not an endorsement of war with Iran (preemptive or otherwise), let alone of the concept of preemptive war in general. Moreover, a nuclear-armed Iran, if it were to become a reality, could not be “contained” – it would spark a regional nuclear arms race in the Middle East, as other countries in that region – especially in the Gulf, where ballistic missile flight times are measured in single minutes – would race to develop their own nuclear arsenals. CENTCOM commander, Gen. James Mattis, has recently confirmed in a Congressional testimony that at least one Middle Eastern country has indicated to him that it would develop its own nuclear weapons if Iran goes nuclear.

In general, Rand Paul is hopelessly naive: he talks about “containing” Radical Islam, which, being Islam, cannot be contained: its goal is the conquest of the whole world. Islam divides the world into “Dar al-Islam” (“the House of Islam”), where Sharia already reigns supreme, and “Dar al-Harb” (“The House of War”), where Islam does not yet prevail, and commands its followers to wage a holy war (“jihad”) upon the “House of War” until it is subjugated to Islam.

Any person claiming that Radical Islam, or a nuclear-armed Iran, could be “contained” is hopelessly naive, if not worse.

A change in style, not in substance

It is surprising and astonishing how many conservatives Rand Paul has managed to fool. Make no mistake, he professes the SAME libertarian, anti-American, pro-weak-defense views as his father Ron Paul. The only thing that’s changed in comparison is the style, not the substance.

Ron Paul was a wolf in wolf’s clothing. Rand Paul is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Conservatives must not be fooled by this pseudoconservative imposter. The GOP’s future depends on it.

And in general, conservatives must beware this libertarian tactic of trying to gain conservatives’ trust by agreeing with us on 95% of the issues so that we’ll overlook the other 5%. The 5% that counts most.

I, Zbigniew Mazurak, like everyone else, have some personal flaws. But all of them can be overlooked with just a little good will. But if I were to sell drugs to schoolchildren, that could NOT be overlooked. That would be a friendship breaker.

Similarly, Rand Paul’s and other libertarians’ advocacy of deep defense cuts, isolationism, a federal policeman over the states, and of the Balanced Budget Amendment cannot be overlooked. It MUST be a disqualifier.

No one should be fooled by Rand Paul.

Postscript: Libertarians, of course, wish for Rand Paul to win the 2016 GOP presidential nomination and the White House, a goal that his father never even came close to accomplishing. But while Rand Paul may win the nomination, he will certainly fail to win the White House. There is NO Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton in 2016 (or 2020). (Although part of me would like to see Rand Paul be nominated and then crushed by Hillary so that he and his libertarian fans would at least be taught a lesson.)

Dear Sen McCain, It’s Time for a Change.

john mccain

john mccainDear Senator McCain,

Maybe it’s time.

We’re writing you as longtime supporters. As Arizona residents we’ve watched your support of the state. We’ve watched your support of the military. We’ve watched your support of the constitution.

And we admired you. What you endured as a captive meant you were stronger and braver than us.

We admired when you talked of compromise and you reached across the aisle.

And we admired your tenacity during the run for president. We couldn’t imagine keeping the pace needed as candidate when the media kept reminding us of your age. Like many we were sad to see your handlers reign in the ‘maverick’ but then you surprised everyone with the unknown Palin, a maverick, in her own right and we were impressed.

In 2010 when people began speaking out against the skyrocketing government spending we saw your support of many young Tea Party voices and we thought we were all on the same page.

But maybe it’s time.

Last week we knew you, along with other key Republicans were meeting with the president. So we did understand when you weren’t apparent in the senate chambers during the unexpected Paul filibuster.  We hoped that you, along with your other senate colleagues would at least make an appearance after your dinner.  After all, the Twittersphere and other social media were going crazy with updates on Rand Paul. Surely, C-SPAN doesn’t see such high viewer numbers as they had that night of conservatives, watching and listening.

Don’t get me wrong. We are not Libertarians. And there is much about Rand Paul that we question. But the filibuster was a unifying moment for many conservatives. We aren’t paranoid but we are concerned that this administration who works by executive order and fiat might want to watch, spy and yes, even target key dissenters.

We are worried about the changes we see. So maybe it was just one small, common thread, but common it was and Paul’s questions to Holder and the administration were not irrelevant comments made by a fringe element.

Which is why we were very sad to see you and your pal Lindsey mock the filibuster and Paul’s statements. Even worse, you continued to show up on every news show and further denigrate Paul.

What were you thinking? Momma always told us, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” Who did you think you were helping with your criticism?

This was an opportunity to unite conservatives but instead your guffaws became the topic of conversation.

Yes, maybe it is time…Time to step aside and let the next generation take charge. We’d say maybe it’s time to retire gracefully…but we might be too late for that.

Sincerely,

Some of those Wacko Bird nuts you’ve been talking about…just remember, we vote.

 

Time for Old Soldier McCain to Fade Away

mccain

Senator John McCain (R, AZ) continues his criticism of fellow Republicans for filibustering confirmation of CIA Director John O. Brennan over the White House’s drone policy.

mccainWhile interviewing with the Huffington Post, McCain used the term “wackos” to describe Senator Rand Paul (R, KY), Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) and Representative Justin Amash (R, MI).

“They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else…But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone,” said McCain.

When pressed for clarification on who the wackos are, McCain responded “Rand Paul, Cruz, Amash, whoever.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/08/mccain-calls-paul-cruz-amash-wacko-birds/

It seems like just yesterday that McCain was relishing his role as maverick, while using the megaphone provided him by the media to gain the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

Some Republicans, led by McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham (R, SC), worry that the filibuster, which focused lots of positive attention on Paul, might end up reflecting poorly on the party.

Might these be the same Republicans who nominated Gerald Ford in 1976, sought to nominate John Connally or George H.W. Bush while opposing Ronald Reagan in 1980, nominated Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney?

Clearly, the most successful nominee in that bunch was the most Conservative: Reagan.  That the GOP continues to cling to the notion that presidential electoral success hinges on nominating the most moderate candidate largely explains their lack of recent success.

To his credit, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who may prove to fit into the Conservative new blood category, described the filibuster as “completely awesome.”

Meanwhile, in a radio interview with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Paul responded to McCain: “You know, I think he’s just on the wrong side of history, and on the wrong side of this argument, really.”

Paul continued by saying he respects both McCain’s military service and his legislative record, but stressed that McCain’s experience does not mean he is always right: “I treat Senator McCain with respect. I don’t think I always get the same in return.”

Americans on both sides of the aisle honor McCain for his service.  However, McCain must realize that it is time to pass the torch of leadership to a new generation of Conservative leaders demonstrably capable of filling his seemingly vacated role as maverick while leading Republicans to electoral victory.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/time-for-old-soldier-mccain-to-fade-away/
Give the Gift of Courage

Stand with Rand

randpaulfilibuster

Some of Senator Rand Paul’s (R, KY) colleagues were left unimpressed by Wednesday’s filibuster.  The day following Paul’s action, Senators John McCain (R, AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R, SC) criticized him, saying Paul was doing a “disservice” to the debate about drones.

When was the last time either McCain or Graham raised concerns over the White House’s use of drones?randpaulfilibuster

“I don’t think what happened yesterday was helpful to the American people…What we saw yesterday is going to give ammunition to those who say the rules of the Senate are being abused,” McCain said.

Since when is proper use of the Senate filibuster abuse?  McCain seems more concerned with getting along with “progressives” in the Senate than preserving the United States Constitution.

Paul was attempting to get the Obama administration to confirm it will not kill non-combatant Americans within the United States.  Graham apparently viewed that as a farcical question.

“I do not believe that question deserves an answer,” Graham stated.

What question would Graham consider worthy of reply?  Do assurances from the DOJ that they will not selectively ignore constitutionally protected rights of American Citizens to judicial due process not qualify?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/mar/7/graham-mccain-blast-paul-filibuster/

Concerns over the administration’s drone program led lawmakers to question Attorney General Eric Holder about legal justification for targeting American Citizens.   Similar concerns prompted Paul to begin his filibuster, demanding answers from the White House.  Paul said he would relent only if the Obama administration stated publically that it will not target Americans on American soil.

The administration apparently believed it could kill Americans it suspected of having terrorist ties without putting them on trial.

Concerns over protection of due process for American Citizens are bipartisan.

“You can hear almost unanimous concern about transparency and wrestling with how to move forward here in a way that protects both our constitutional liberties and our security as a nation,” Senator Christopher A. Coons (D, DE) told Holder.

Under careful examination by Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX), Holder repeatedly stated U.S Citizens on American soil were not “appropriate” targets for executions without due judicial process.  Cruz said that was an insufficient answer.  “You keep saying ‘appropriate.’ My question isn’t about propriety. My question is about whether something is constitutional or not,” said Cruz.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination-cia-direc/

McCain and Graham aside, Rand Paul, Christopher Coons and Ted Cruz are on the right side of the debate.

Since McCain and Graham apparently believe it is most important for them to get along with “progressives”, no matter the cost to the Rights of American Citizens at home, their criticism of Paul is out of hand.

Let them face the repercussions in their next election.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/stand-with-rand/

Revolution is coming.

« Older Entries