Senator Rand Paul responded to criticism from fellow Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, saying that the filibuster was never about the nomination of John Brennan but about the White House not answering basic questions about the appropriate use of drones on U.S. citizens.
“Do you all feel that your party is somehow being held hostage?” Bob Schieffer asked Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, presumably referring to those opposed to raising taxes. Touting President Obama as the reasonable one who “has talked about kind of a ‘common sense caucus,’” within the same long-winded question on Face the Nation, Schieffer repeated his accusation: “Are people on the extreme ends of your party holding the rest of you hostage here?”
Not ten minutes later, however, with Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, Schieffer not only failed to characterize Obama as an obstinate extremist for demanding another tax hike two months after Republicans acceded to one, but he suddenly decided: “I think we are beyond arguing about who’s fault it is on how we got here.”
Read More at The Media Research Center . By Brent Baker.
Here is the text of Senator John McCain’s response to a letter I sent him regarding Obama’s ineligibility to hold the office of President:
Dear Mr. Ballantyne:
Thank you for contacting me about the citizenship requirements for the office of President of the United States. I appreciate knowing your views on this issue. [Really, Senator?]
As you may know, Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” [And your point is?]
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this very important matter. Please feel free to contact me on this or any other issue of concern. [Why would I or anyone else ever bother writing to you again, when you refuse to engage in a rational exchange of facts?]
United States Senator
And here is my response to his rather pathetic response:
Do you actually think that you have addressed the subject of my question? Of course I know that Article II, Section 1 (Paragraph 5!) specifies the requirements for one to be eligible to be president. Barack Obama does not meet either of the requirements for being what you quote as “natural born.” A patently fraudulent digital creation [of a "birth certificate"] on a website proves nothing…other than, coupled with his absolute refusal in court for some 5 years now, that he does not have a legitimate (non-”altered”) original! Nothing could be clearer, except to the willfully blind.
In addition, it is clear that in order to meet that higher standard, established by Jay, Madison, and Hamilton (whoever they were…), one had to be born of citizen “parents.” Barack Obama Sr. was never a US citizen, thus making Barack Jr. a British subject at birth. [See British Nationality Act of 1947.]
So what was it that you were pretending to demonstrate, Sir, by quoting the very clause in the Constitution that shows him to be patently ineligible? You, of course (along with everyone else in the room, and around the world) know that he is not; but you violate your oath of office, before both man and God, by refusing to do anything about it.
You were once revered as a war (prisoner of war) hero, Senator, but that was a long time ago. All that matters now is how you honor your oath of office today. Telling the Cuban immigrant recently that Mr. Obama had “done nothing worthy of impeachment” (or words to that effect) is an outrage and an insult. He tramples upon the Constitution and our inalienable, God-given rights on a daily basis; and you sit idly by and pretend that he is “duly-elected” in spite of the most massive and overt voter fraud in our nation’s official 224 year history.
We are “only as good as our last game,” Senator, and it has been a long time since you came to the plate and stood up for the Constitution. We appreciate your efforts with respect to Benghazi, but everything this tyrant has done is a direct result of your allowing him to usurp the highest office in the land, in broad daylight, unopposed by a single Republican in either the House or the Senate. Is this what a war hero does in the face of mere ridicule. much less real danger? It is not, Sir. These are the actions of both traitors and cowards…or, at the very least, those who are incapable of grasping indisputable proof – also known as the truth.
Tom Ballantyne – Author of Oh Really, O’Reilly! a thorough and riveting expose of the greatest fraud and cover-up ever perpetrated upon the American People!
Buy my book here: https://www.createspace.com/3673914
Senator John McCain dismisses a question about the impeachment of President Obama and makes light of the questioner. He asserts that the recent popular election overrides any Constitutional issues or criminal actions by Obama. Following McCain’s logic, an anti-American dictator can be elected, who commits criminal acts, and Congress can do absolutely nothing about it.
I wonder if Senator John McCain has done the same!
WASHINGTON — Barring any new, damaging information, Chuck Hagel has secured the necessary votes for the Senate to confirm him to be the nation’s next defense secretary. A vote ending the bitter fight over President Barack Obama’s choice for his revamped second-term, national security team is expected next week.
Hagel cleared the threshold when five-term Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama said he would vote for the former GOP senator from Nebraska after joining other Republicans last week in an unprecedented filibuster of the Pentagon nominee.
“He’s probably as good as we’re going to get,” Shelby told the Decatur (Ala.) Daily.
Although a Republican, Hagel has faced strong GOP opposition, with many of his former colleagues voting last week to stall the nomination. Republicans have questioned Hagel’s support for Israel, tolerance of Iran and willingness to cut the nuclear arsenal. His opposition to the Iraq war after his initial vote for the conflict angered his onetime friend, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
GOP lawmakers demanded more time to review the nomination that a divided Armed Services Committee had approved on a party-line vote.
Read More at OfficialWire . By Donna Cassata.
America has almost 12 million illegal immigrants.
Many of them came here on visas and never left.
But about 60 percent of them walked in from just one country — Mexico.
Though the stalled Obama Economy has caused about 900,000 to go home since 2007, there are still about 6 million Mexicans living in the United States who’ve sneaked across our borders.
Everyone from Marco Rubio to John McCain and our golfer-in-chief are trying to figure out how to deal with the illegal immigrants we have already and prevent future waves of Mexican migrants.
But no one seems to be talking about why so many Mexicans risk so much — including their lives — to break into America.
What is it that makes so many of them leave their families and children behind and travel — often on foot — to seek economic opportunity in the USA?
I’ve been to Mexico on business and on vacations. It’s a beautiful country, rich with oil, gas, and other natural resources. It’s blessed with 114 million good and hardworking people.
Mexico has everything it needs to be a First World country. But it’s cursed.
Its government is corrupt and inept — and always has been. Now its federal government is a running joke. It’s unable — and unwilling — to stop illegal drugs or people from crossing into the USA.
Mexico has become one of the most dangerous places in the world. Deadly criminal cartels effectively control the U.S.-Mexican border, trafficking in drugs and humans. Drug violence is so widespread that some cruise ships no longer visit Mexico’s Gold Coast.
No wonder so many Mexicans come north to a country where good jobs are plentiful, the wages are high, and the streets are safe. If I were a Mexican, I’d be leaving too.
Yes, as Republicans say, it’s time to protect our borders better. Yes, it’s time to come up with realistic ways to deal with the illegal immigrants we already have living among us.
But it’s also time for one of our so-called political leaders to ratchet up the rhetoric and pull a Ronald Reagan.
When the Soviet Empire still controlled half of the world, my father stood near the Berlin Wall in 1987 and famously told Mr. Gorbachev that if he was really for peace, prosperity, and liberalization, he should “Tear down this wall!”
It was a bold and masterful political move that showed the whole world that Ronald Reagan and the United States stood steadfastly on the side of freedom in the waning days of the Cold War.
One of our most important wars today — and one we clearly are not winning — is the drug war on our southern border.
What we need now is for President Obama to skip the back nine at the Floridian, go down to our border with Mexico, and deliver a message to Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto.
“Senor Nieto,” our part-time president should say, “End the corruption. Crush the drug cartels. Make Mexico a peaceful and safe society. Free your economy from the shackles of socialism so your citizens can go back home to prosper.”
President Obama also should declare to the world the United States is ready to do everything it can to help Mexico become a land of freedom and opportunity, not a land of fear and corruption.
Turning Mexico into a better place for its citizens to live and work — a place more like Canada, for example — would also do a lot to solve our future immigration problems.
Mexicans would stay home. And we wouldn’t need an army of border control agents and a 20-foot fence protecting our southern border any more than we need them on our northern border to protect us from illegal Canadians.
Pop Quiz: When is a Neocon Not A Neocon? Answer. When he’s wrong. Which is most of the time. And that irks Charles Krauthammer.
Dr. Krauthammer is an interesting character. For some thirty years he’s been a Washington fixture. Trained as a psychiatrist, he became a speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondale. He then began to write for the Washington Post, feeling right at home, since, at the Post, all abnormal behaviors are deemed normal.
Mondale. The Post. Those two credits are similar to those of many other “former” liberals who have become neoconservatives over the years. But these days the Doctor Is In, and he’s pouting. Why? Well, just two years ago he was bragging: “Today, everyone and his cousin supports the ‘freedom agenda’. Of course, yesterday it was just George W. Bush, Tony Blair and a band of neocons with unusual hypnotic powers.”
Hypnotic? Well, remember, the Doc is a shrink, and a proud one at that. But he also believes in mandatory amnesia, because today his celebrated “freedom agenda” has once more blown up in his face, so he now gripes that people are calling him names.
Neoconservative? He’s not a “neoconservative” at all, not any more, he tells National Review’s Rich Lowry. Better not argue (and Rich, shame on him, didn’t), because Dr. K. is on a roll: “Neoconservative is an ‘epithet’ [sic]. Today [he continues] it’s usually meant as a silent synonym for ‘Jewish conservative.’ And when it is meant otherwise, I would ask you whenever you hear the word [to] challenge the person to describe and explain to you what a neocon is.”
Yes, the good Doctor is in, but he’s totally out of it. Frankly, I don’t blame him for ducking the neocon label — it’s as closely identified with failure as “Bush” is. Mr. Lowry’s magazine quietly admitted as much in the run-up to the 2012 elections. Moreover, Dr. Krauthammer’s “challenge” comes off as somewhat insincere, considering how, ten years ago, he had no time for rational discussion, brushing off Bush’s conservative critics as “navel gazers” because they insisted on a debate that would apply constitutional principles to Bush’s wars — which, like Bush, were failures (John McCain, another failure, to the contrary).
On brief inspection, the doctor’s tendentious tantrum borders on hilarity. Many neocons wear the label proudly. After Obama’s illegal war on Libya (another disastrous failure, but I digress), Bill Kristol cheered, and proudly baptized Obama as a “born again neocon.” Did Mr. Kristol’s use of that sly “epithet” intend to brand Obama as a “Jewish conservative,” I wonder? Mr. Kristol is often off the wall, and even more often wrong, but even he has his standards.
Mr. Kristol’s father, Irving, proudly referred to himself as the “godfather of all those neocons” just ten years ago, in his son’s magazine. Neoconservatism, wrote Kristol, is “forward-looking” conservatism. Moreover, “neoconservative policies have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters,” he insisted.
“Forward-looking.” Well, as Charles Burton Marshall once observed, “there’s no such thing as the foreseeable future.” But, “backward looking,” as we conservatives are wont to do – you know, history, and all that stuff — in the ten years since Kristol père made that presumptuous assertion, “neoconservative policies” have destroyed the GOP, brought the country to its knees, and delivered the White House to Obama on a silver platter.
Well. Mr. Krauthammer pretends to issue a challenge. Let’s take him at his word.
Who are the “neocons”? To begin with, Krauthammer and a small group of other well-compensated neocons are the “conservatives” appointed by the leftist media — because, as we will see, they both speak the same language, the dialectic. The Left loves them because the neocon wrecking crew has been so wrong on virtually every foreign policy issue for the past ten years. The media thus makes them their convenient poster boys for the argument that all conservatives are as dumb as the neocons are.
But wait, are we ducking the good doctor’s “challenge”? No way. He smugly asserts that his critics are as dumb as his victims – those poor, misled conservatives who were duped by neocons like Cheney, Bush, Lowry, McGurn, (Michael) Novak, and other fine Christians to cheer on the criminals who plundered the country, established a domestic police state, destroyed the economy, and cashed in big-time on two unwinnable, illegal, and immoral wars.
But the Doctor demands definitions – so let’s start with Aristotle’s “limits.”
Like their leftist forbears, neocons defy constitutional limits on presidential power (viz. their embrace of the “unitary executive”), and thus defy metaphysical limits on government. They deny religious limits on government, an Augustinian principle which is unique in history to Christendom – that is, Western Civilization. As history repeatedly demonstrates, these denials open the door to totalitarianism. Neocons employ the Trotskyite dialectic (traditionally known as “lying”) to stay in power, regardless of principle or party. Next, Bill Kristol’s baptism of Obama reflects another neocon intellectual indulgence, the denial of Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction. They only criticize power when somebody else has it and uses it against them. For them, power has the force of gravity: they can’t resist it.
Neocons accept the dictum of Marx’s Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach: they evade rational discussion, and demand immediate action instead, in the service of the ideological demand to change the world without understanding it – thus George W. Bush’s fanatical promise to “rid the world of evil.”
So much for the Prince of Peace.
Neocons are not religious fanatics — often, they are not religious at all. But like Rousseau, they find religion useful. Ten years ago, they were able to dupe several million anti-Catholic Dispensational Evangelicals (who haven’t a clue about metaphysics but who want Armageddon now) into supporting the Iraq war because it was “God’s will.” In like manner, neocons embrace the Manichaean hubris of self-deification: their cause is perfect good, while every enemy (and critic) is “another Hitler” – if not sheer evil, at least an anti-Semite. But the neocon dialectic can’t help rotating Hitlers — Saddam, Osama, Ahmadinijad, and now Mokhtar Belmokhtar. As Tom Lehrer used to sing, “Who’s Next?”
And speaking of Hitler, neocons also falsify history: for them, it’s always 1938; disagree with them and you’re Neville Chamberlain. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have very bad consequences. The neocon’s self-divinization permits torture, lies (falsely attributing that “right” to Socrates and the “noble lie”), premeditated Murder-By-Predator of Americans, worldwide death squads for democracy, imperial swagger, defiance of accountability, hubris as virtue, power lust (libido dominandi: Augustine, City of God, Book I, Preface), lust for fame and glory (superbia vitae: 1 John 2:16), and endless, profound, but always unintended, collateral damage.
Dr. Krauthammer’s taunt is both tawdry and typical. Which raises one last, but essential, point: the neocons are always wrong; and they never, ever apologize.
This column first appeared in From Under the Rubble is copyright (c) 2013 by Christopher Manion. All rights reserved. This column is sponsored by the Bellarmine Forum, and distributed by www.fgfBooks.com. The weekly Manion column is available by subscription for just $35 per year. Order online here or by calling 877-726-0058.
OLYMPIA, Wash. — The “Washington State Preservation of Liberty Act” introduced on Wednesday condemns and criminalizes the use of the 2012 NDAA‘s provision purportedly authorizing the indefinite detainment of U.S. citizens.
After news of H.B. 1581′s introduction caught wind, an Internet campaign went viral asking activists to contact their Washington state representatives to co-sponsor the legislation.
In less than 24 hours, the number of the bill’s co-sponsors tripled.
Many believe the bill’s success hinges on bipartisanship. While only one of the original sponsors of the bill is a Democrat, Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos, eight of the later co-sponsors are also House Democrats, making for a fairly even split of nine to 12.
With this legislation, lawmakers strive to make Washington the fourth state to pass a law in response to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
This state’s legislation focuses primarily on Sec. 1021 of the 2012 NDAA to make its case.
The bill points out the ability of the president to use armed forces to detain terror suspects at his discretion.
H.B. 1581, Sec. 2. (7):
Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA purports to authorize, but does not require, the president of the United States to utilize the armed forces of the United States to detain persons the president suspects were part of [terrorist organizations.]
The bill continues, outlining what the 2012 NDAA grants the president to do with such captured individuals:
(a) Indefinite detention without charge or trial until the end of hostilities authorized by the 2001 authorization for use of military force against terrorists, 2001 P.L. 107-40, (b) prosecution through a military commission, or (c) transfer to a foreign country or foreign entity;
While U.S. citizens aren’t mentioned in this language, what makes Section 1021 a problem for U.S. citizens is not what it says; it’s what it doesn’t say, according to Sec. 2. (9):
Section 1021, unlike section 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, makes no specific exclusion for United States citizens and lawful resident aliens for conduct occurring within the United States;
Some would argue this omission does not imply permission. However, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham disagree, asserting that 2012 NDAA’s indefinite detention provision applies to U.S. citizens.
H.B. 1581, Sec. 2. (13) (e):
United States Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham declared in colloquies on the floor of the United States senate that section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA authorized the indefinite detention of United States citizens captured within the United States by the armed forces of the United States;
The Preservation of Liberty Act has now been referred to the House’s Committee on Public Safety, chaired by Rep. Roger Goodman (D) and the Senate’s Committee on Law & Justice, chaired by Sen. Mike Padden (R).
Both await the appointment of a hearing which rests in the hands of the respective committees’ chairmen.
Last year’s version of the bill died in committee, so supporters are urged by activists to pressure the chairmen of the committees to act while the tide is high.
By Emilie Rensink.
Photo credit: watchingfrogsboil (Creative Commons)
WASHINGTON (OfficialWire) — Republican Sen. John McCain, a sharp critic of Chuck Hagel’s nomination as defense secretary, said Monday he will not support a filibuster of President Barack Obama’s pick, even though he declined to say whether he intends to vote for confirmation.
“I do not believe a filibuster is appropriate and I would oppose such a move,” McCain told reporters Monday, two days after Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell raised the possibility of forcing a showdown vote.
In the fiercest exchange of Hagel’s confirmation hearing last week, McCain questioned the nominee about the Iraq war and whether he was right or wrong in opposing an additional 30,000 U.S. troops in 2007. The Arizona senator said he still has questions on the nomination and “was not happy with his (Hagel’s) failure to answer a really simple question.”
But McCain insisted he would not support use of the filibuster, a procedural tactic which can derail a confirmation vote and which can be stopped only by the votes of 60 of the 100 senators.
Read More at OfficialWire . By Donna Cassata.