Posts

Rex Tillerson is neither a yes man nor will he be boxed in on U.S. foreign policy

In a The Daily Signal article titled “9 Issues Discussed at Rex Tillerson’s Confirmation Hearing to Be Trump’s Secretary of State” Josh Siegel reported on the confirmation hearing of U.S. Secretary of State designate Rex Tillerson.

Reading Siegel’s article I came away with two impressions of Mr. Tillerson, first he will not be boxed in and second he is not a yes man. How refreshing.

First let’s look at Tillerson as a man who will not be boxed in when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. Siegel reported:

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who ran for president against Trump, pressed Tillerson on whether he backs the assessment of U.S. intelligence agencies about Russia’s election-year hacking.

“Do you believe during the 2016 presidential campaign that Russian intelligence services directed a campaign of measures involving the hacking of emails, the strategic leak of emails, the use of internet trolls, and dissemination of fake news to denigrate a presidential candidate and undermine faith in our election process?” Rubio asked.

Tillerson described the findings by the intelligence agencies as “clearly troubling,” and called cyber attacks from foreign actors such as Russia “the greatest and most complex threat” facing the country today. He labeled Russia’s annexation of Crimea to be “illegal” and proposed tougher measures to combat the Kremlin’s invasion of eastern Ukraine, vowing that he would advocate providing Ukrainian soldiers with weapons.

But Tillerson expressed hope that he could help improve relations with Russia, potentially seeking to ally with it in areas of common interest even if America “will not likely to be ever friends with the Kremlin.”

“Dialogue is critical so these [issues] don’t spin out of control,” Tillerson said. “We need to move Russia from adversary always to partner at times.”

Read more…

Tillerson clearly understands that Russia, and many other countries, act in their own self interests and against the interests of the United States. His reply was measured in that he understood that cyberwarfare is a national security threat, that invading another country is wrong and both must be punished. However, diplomacy is not just about jumping into a hot or cold war, as Senator’s Marco Rubio, John McCain and Lindsey Graham seem to want. Rather it is about pressuring those who would do us harm using all means available. The above interaction shows the sophistication of Tillerson, a man who thinks outside the box. Tillerson’s statement, “We need to move Russia from adversary always to partner at times” is that of a man who understands Russia more than some members of the U.S. Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike. Again, refreshing.

Tillerson is not a yes man for President-elect Trump either. Siegel noted:

In the presidential campaign, Trump questioned the NATO alliance, and said members need to do more to earn the U.S.’ support.

Tillerson expressed a stronger commitment to NATO, promising to follow Article 5 of the treaty that enshrines the principle that an attack against one member is an attack against all.

“The Article 5 commitment is invaluable and the U.S. will stand by the commitment,” Tillerson said.

He also expressed concern for Baltic states that worry about Russian incursion on their borders.

“Our NATO allies are right to be alarmed about a resurgent Russia,” Tillerson said.

[ … ]

In another contrast with Trump, Tillerson did not say he explicitly opposes the Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

“I do not oppose TPP, but I share some of Trump’s concerns that it doesn’t fully support American interests,” Tillerson said.

[ … ]

Echoing Exxon Mobil’s evolving calculus on climate change, Tillerson said he recognized the threat of a warming planet, and that the U.S. should “be at the table” in coming up with solutions to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

If confirmed, he said he and others in the Trump administration would review the 180-country Paris climate change agreement before deciding whether to remain party to it.

“It’s important that the United States maintain its seat at the table with the conversations around how to deal with the threats of climate change,” he said.

As chief of Exxon Mobil, Tillerson publicly backed a tax on carbon in 2009, and expressed support for the Paris Agreement in 2015.

Yet, late in the hearing, he seemed to downplay the threat of climate change.

“I don’t see [climate change] as the imminent national security threat as perhaps other do,” Tillerson said.

Read more…

Tillerson will, on some issues, present a President Trump with differing views. That is healthy. It shows that President-elect Trump is filling his cabinet with quality people who think differently than him and provide opposing views. Once again, refreshing.

Donald Trump’s selection says as much about the President-elect as it does about Mr. Tillerson. There is a new way of thinking about foreign policy and a fresh approach that is pro-U.S. interests.

After reading Mr. Tillerson’s testimony it is clear he will not be foreign a policy rubber stamp as were former Secretaries Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and that he will think outside the foreign policy box of the Obama administration.

Very refreshing indeed.

RELATED ARTICLE: Secretary of State Nominee Tillerson Criticizes U.S. Decision to Abstain from UN Israel Vote

Three Names that will go down in infamy: Crist, Rubio and Cruz

There are now three infamous “Republican” names that will be remembered for decades to come. Each harmed not only their Party but also betrayed the American people. The names are:

  1. Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who when he lost his GOP Primary bid for the U.S. Senate ran as an independent, then changed party affiliation and is now running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Florida’s District 13 (prophetic).
  2. Senator Marco Rubio, who won the GOP Primary for the U.S. Senate promising that the word “amnesty” was not in his lexicon. Once elected Rubio became the face of the GOP effort for “immigration reform”. Rubio lied and Floridians carry the $5 billion burden to medicate, educate and incarcerate illegal aliens. Rubio is running to keep his seat in the U.S. Senate after a failed campaign to become the GOP nominee for president.
  3. Senator Ted Cruz, who began his run for the GOP nomination for president as an outsider and then became the consummate insider. Cruz failed to endorse the GOP nominee on July 20, 2016. This failure led to his being booed at the GOP Convention (watch the video below).

VIDEO: Wednesday, July 20 2016: During his speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ted Cruz refused to endorse Donald Trump and was booed by the RNC crowd – then Donald Trump shows up before Cruz is finished speaking and the crowd goes wild!

After Cruz’s remarks Ann Coulter Tweeted:

Last night, Cruz showed that he’s earned a leading role in the nation’s political future. And that nation is Canada.

An op-ed titled “That Moment When Ted Cruz Doused Himself With Gasoline and Lit the Match On Stage” notes:

It’s called self immolation.  July 20th 2016 will go down in Cruz family history as that moment when Ted Cruz detonated his career suicide belt and created the #NeverCruz movement.

Forget the non endorsement, that’s not the issue.  Senator Cruz had a remarkable opportunity, he blew it.  Cruz accepted an invitation to speak to the GOP convention then insulted the audience.  Cruz couldn’t rise above his own brutal ego and petty selfishness.  The arrogance simply went too far, he humiliated himself in front of millions.

It happened just like we predicted it would.  Donald Trump gave Senator Ted Cruz the rope, and Ted hung himself -diminished himself- on national TV.

Don’t be too angry…  The backlash Cruz is going to get from his prideful and arrogant display will be written in the annals of political history and shared with political science classes for generations.

Read more.

Ted Cruz now joins a rogues gallery of those who cannot abide losing and will do anything to win, even if it means harming their party and the people who trusted them and put them into positions of power.

I recall a Tweet that pointed out TrusTED was the past tense of the word trust. I guess that Tweet was prophetic. Can you say betrayal, traitor, establishment republican?

These three names will live in infamy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Cruz gets booed after he declines to endorse Trump

Video: Laura Ingraham Challenges “Boys With Bruised Egos” To Follow RNC Pledge, Endorse Trump

Tucker Carlson: No Chance Cruz Will Ever Get Elected President, Voters Will Not Forget This

Cleveland Police: Protester Lights Himself On Fire While Trying To Burn American Flag

Who’s Driving The Trump Train?

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Wondering who the key players are in the Clinton, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, Sanders and Trump camps are? Qorvis MSLGROUP’s “Influencer2016” digitally shows the connections between the candidates and his or her staff.

“Hate them or love them, the 2016 presidential candidates have proven to be some of the most fascinating personalities we’ve ever seen,” said Michael Petruzzello, president of Qorvis MSLGROUP, “We think voters are curious about the people behind the scenes and, with Influencer2016, you can see who’s involved in the campaigns, where the spheres of influence are, as well as the extent of those links.”

CLICK HERE TO LEARN WHO IS BEHIND EACH OF THE CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT CAMPAIGN.

About Qorvis MSLGROUP

Qorvis MSLGROUP is the Washington, D.C.office for MSLGROUP, the flagship strategic communications and engagement consultancy of Publicis Groupe.

With more than 3,000 people across close to 100 offices worldwide, MSLGROUP is also the largest PR network in Europe, fast-growing China and India. The group offers strategic planning and counsel, insight-guided thinking and big, compelling ideas – followed by thorough execution.

About Publicis Groupe

Publicis Groupe [Euronext Paris FR0000130577, CAC 40] is a global leader in marketing, communication, and business transformation. In a world marked by increased convergence and consumer empowerment, Publicis Groupe offers a full range of services and skills: digital, technology & consulting with Publicis.Sapient (SapientNitro, Sapient Global Markets, Sapient Government Services, Razorfish Global, DigitasLBi, Rosetta) – the world’s largest most forward-thinking digitally centered platform focused exclusively on digital transformation in an always-on world – as well as creative networks such as BBH, Leo Burnett, Publicis Worldwide, Saatchi & Saatchi, public affairs, corporate communications and events with MSLGROUP, ad tech solutions with VivaKi, media strategy, planning and buying through Starcom MediaVest Group and ZenithOptimedia, healthcare communications, with Publicis Healthcare Communications Group (PHCG), and finally, brand asset production with Prodigious. Present in 108 countries, the Groupe employs more than 76,000 professionals.

School Is About Freedom, Marco Rubio, Not Just Money

Republicans including Marco Rubio parrot leftist lines about how education’s ultimate goal is money. It needs to be a great deal more than that if our republic is to survive.

Once again, presidential candidate Marco Rubio, when asked a question about education, disparaged liberal learning by repeating his well-rehearsed lines about preparing students for careers in a “global” and “twenty-first-century” economy.

During the CNN town hall last week, he said that rather than teaching philosophy (“Roman philosophy,” no less), colleges should teach practical things—like welding. Sadly, Rubio is not alone. Many Republicans, forgetting their conservative roots, have joined Democrats in advancing a utilitarian view of education.

Now, there is nothing wrong with being a welder. My father, an immigrant, was one. And there is nothing wrong with philosophy—for the student in a technical school. In fact, it was our Founders’ belief that only a literate, well-educated citizenry could govern themselves. Even the tradesman should be versed in the basics of literature, history, and ancient philosophy, they thought. “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people,” said James Madison.

Modern Philosophy Is Merely Cynicism

Rubio, however, does not distinguish between legitimate philosophy and what philosophy, like the rest of the humanities, has become under the regime of tenured radicals. The problem is that philosophy professors no longer teach their subjects or, if they do, it is to cast suspicion upon the very enterprise, as I learned in graduate school in the 1990s.

Yancy would do well to review the Greek philosophers on the art of rhetoric and what they have to say about not insulting your audience.
My seminar on ancient rhetoric consisted of the professor elevating the sophists, the teachers who for fees taught the art of persuasion by making the worse case seem better. The ends were practical: so citizens could defend themselves in court. To my amazement, my professor ridiculed the traditional philosophical goals of searching for the truth.

In the intervening decades, the situation has become worse. Consider Emory University philosophy professor George Yancy. This full professor, according to the university’s website, specializes in “Critical Philosophy of Race (phenomenology of racial embodiment, social ontology of race),” “Critical Whiteness Studies (white subject formation, white racist ambush, white opacity and embeddedness. . .),” and “African-American Philosophy and Philosophy of the Black Experience (resistance, Black identity formation . . .).”

Yancy received national attention in December for penning the screed “Dear White America” in The New York Times. He began, “I have a weighty request. As you read this letter, I want you to listen with love, a sort of love that demands that you look at parts of yourself that might cause pain and terror, as James Baldwin would say. Did you hear that? You may have missed it. I repeat: I want you to listen with love. Well, at least try.”

Yancy would do well to review the Greek philosophers on the art of rhetoric and what they have to say about not insulting your audience (“Did you hear that?” “Well, at least try.”). Behind such appeals like Yancy’s is an implied threat. Invoking the names of Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and other allegedly innocent victims of police violence, he accused “White America” of being racist through and through. Such rhetoric presages and justifies the angry mobs on our campuses and in our streets.

Philosophy Doesn’t Mean Grievance-Mongering

College campuses, once the places where the civilized arts of debate and the pursuit of truth were taught, have become places where the PhDs, doctors of philosophy, lead mobs of students in pursuit of retribution against some “systemic” wrong, usually in reference to race, ethnicity, or gender. Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, supporter of the Black Lives Matter mob movement, is promising to make such education free.

Our presidential candidates should consider what philosophy, rightly understood, could do. Indeed, by studying Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” students would be able to distinguish between different rhetorical appeals and learn the legitimate arts of persuasion—those that allow us to live in a civilized manner, where we resolve our differences through debate, not violence.

Were students to study Plato’s “Republic,” they might understand the dangers of a popular democracy and why the American Founders rejected one. They would consider Thrasymachus’s contention that justice is synonymous with strength, with being a “winner,” regardless of the methods. They might decide to evaluate such rhetoric carefully when it comes from a political candidate, like Donald Trump.

They would consider whether it is good for the government to put people in certain classes, as craftsmen or “guardians,” instead of allowing them to choose for themselves, or whether government should raise children rather than parents. What has been the historical outcome of such societies with centralized government, five-year economic plans, government-assigned jobs, and child-rearing from infancy? Are there any similarities to what Sanders is proposing?

Education Is Ultimately about Self-Governance

This is not to say that a class discussion should center on current political candidates. Indeed, the truly philosophical professor will keep the discussion largely away from the immediate. If the lesson is taught well, the student should come to his or her own conclusions and be able to carry those lessons into adulthood. That is the purpose of an education, not regimented job training and political molding.

The student should come to his or her own conclusions and be able to carry those lessons into adulthood. That is the purpose of an education.
The responses to Rubio’s statements in November, by such leftist outlets as ThinkProgress, CNN, and Huffington Post, were quite telling. They replied in kind to his materialist arguments. “Philosophers make more money than welders!” they said. In this they betrayed their utilitarian view of education, one that dominates the Obama administration, specifically through Common Core, a federally coerced program designed to produce compliant workers in the global economy.

The job training part has lured some short-sighted or corrupt Republicans. In higher education, too, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker advanced short-sighted “careerism,” as if he had forgotten, as Peter Lawler pointed out, Alexis de Tocqueville’s argument for studying the Greek and Roman classics. Earlier this year, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin suggested that electrical engineering was worthy of support, while French literature was not.

The other part of the progressive vision for education is to produce graduates who adhere to the state’s status quo. Students are trained to work collectively, focus on emotions, refrain from making independent judgments, and read in a way that does not go beyond ferreting out snippets of information. They are not asked to read an entire Platonic dialogue or novel. They do not get the big picture, from the dawn of civilization.

Our current educational methods are a far cry from the Founders’ robust views, of preparing citizens who are literate, logical, and knowledgeable; citizens capable of voting intelligently.

We Need Cultural Renewal, Not Materialism

We should embrace this conservative view of education. Although it is extremely rare in today’s college classrooms, it is being advanced in more than 150 privately funded academic centers on and off campuses. According to the John William Pope Center for Education Renewal, these centers “preserve and promote the knowledge and perspectives that are disappearing from the academy.”

One of these is the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, where I am a resident fellow. It was founded by three Hamilton College professors in 2007, and is located in the village of Clinton.

AHI offers students the option to read the classics in a manner that is increasingly difficult to find in the typically highly politicized open curriculum. AHI-sponsored reading groups have focused on the works of such important figures as Leo Strauss, St. Augustine, and Josef Pieper. This semester Dr. Elizabeth D’Arrivee is leading a discussion group on Plato’s “Republic.”

Political candidates would do well to explain how they will support such efforts for educational renewal, instead of disparaging philosophy and literature.

RELATED ARTICLE: Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College President’s Resignation

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist. Photo Crush Rush / Shutterstock.com

Marco Rubio holds the coat tails of Mitch McConnell

Why would Marco Rubio get behind and support a Republican in Name Only (a.k.a. GOPe) like Mitch McConnell (R-KY) over the conservative TEA Party patriot Matt Bevin?

Well, first of all you must understand that Marco Rubio is not a TEA Party conservative. He just played one on TV in a previous movie role and fooled thousands of people across the great state of Florida.

Rubio is a weak capitulating boy wonder that is afraid of his own shadow. He does not belong in the U.S. Senate or in the White House. He is now owned and operated by the embedded GOP establishment in D.C.

Why Senior Chief, are you not friends of this guy? You have his cell phone and personal email accounts ?

Yes, indeed I do and that information will remain private and confidential. I will never release it. But with that said, my political opinion of Marco Rubio is that of disgust and disdain. He is a fake and a total failure to his constituents.

Marco Rubio stuck a knife in the back of this retired Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer after he got what he wanted from me politically. Then his true colors washed ashore like the wreckage from a Malaysian jet airliner.

Hmm, so you have a beef with the guy and want to hurt him politically?

I do what must be done to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Friendships are flushed when people on my very short friends list act in a treasonous way.

If I cut you off and bury you, the chances are you handed me the scissors and the shovel. In this case I had to pull a knife out of my back first before I could start digging the hole in which to plant this lair.

So to answer the question why is Marco Rubio backing Mitch McConnell over the TEA Party Conservative Matt Bevin. I offer you some suggestions.

In 1964, Mitch McConnell was ceremoniously thrown out of the U.S. Army for an incident whereby he propositioned another male soldier and grabbed his p****s for extracurricular activity. The recruit promptly reported this incident to his superiors who then took action against McConnell. McConnell was thrown out of the Army for engaging in homosexual behaviors and disrupting good order and discipline.

Then the alleged cover up started when McConnell used his connections to a U.S. Senator who very nicely changed the reason why he was thrown out of the Army. His discharge was changed from gay sex to having some sort of eye illness which was all bogus.

According to some accounts Mitch McConnell also loves going to Thailand to attend private parties where wealthy and powerful gay and bisexual American men procure young Thai men for gay sex.

One report has Mitch McConnell seen with one of his male buddies at one of these parties. Not accusing but lets get a Freedom of Information Act release on Mitch McConnell’s flights abroad. Just curious if the tax payer is funding it?

Perhaps Marco Rubio who was also allegedly engaged in foam parties can relate to this guy. Just my opinion. Not accusing. Do not hide who or what you are. Integrity!

So what other reasons would you see Marco backing this GOPe liberal Mitch McConnell instead of Matt Bevin the conservative TEA Party Senator? Does Marco Rubio agree with abortion? Good point.

Mitch McConnell actually supports Planned Parenthood and when the tax payers of the United States saw the videos of them selling baby parts for profit the out cry was to defund this slaughter house of unborn children. Planned Parenthood was scheduled to be successfully defunded in a Highway Bill but Mitch McConnell blocked an amendment that would have stopped it. Instead he let it go through as fully funded. That my friends is working hand in hand with Satan himself.

So you have to ask yourself why would a Catholic boy like Marco back a person that supports the slaughter of unborn children? Good question. Do you want this man Marco Rubio in the White House now?

Perhaps Marco Rubio was happy when the unconstitutional Obama-Romneycare passed because he signed up using tax payer money for the subsidy of about $15,000, which is our money by the way.

So why would Marco get behind Mitch McConnell and publicly support defunding Obama-Romneycare and then take the tax payer subsidy?

Perhaps it is because Mitch McConnell also supports Romney – Obamacare.

In May 2014 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) implied and then followed through by funding Romney Obama care when he said he would not support repealing, Kentucky’s state-run health care exchange.

In order to stop Romney – Obama care one must defund it and return the money back to the U.S. Treasury. McConnell thinks other wise. Marco signed up for it.

Marco makes $174,000 a year and can well afford private insurance but instead he put his hands in our wallets and we are paying his insurance premiums now. The fact that Romney – Obamacare is unconstitutional does not matter to these two.

Perhaps Marco Rubio agrees with Mitch McConnell’s position much like Obama’s that the rich (the job creators) are not paying enough taxes and must redistribute more of their wealth. Forget the fact that nobody reading this has ever worked for a poor person unless doing a volunteer civic duty. Agreed ?

Here are Mitch McConnell’s own words, part of a verbatim transcript from Mitch McConnell’­s 1990 reelection campaign ad, entitled “Fair Share”:

“Hi, I’m Mitch McConnell. I’m sure you’ve been watching this mess in Washington. I’d like you to know how I feel about it.

I haven’t voted for one of these lousy budget packages for years and I won’t vote for this one. It would raise taxes on the wrong people.

Unlike some folks around here I think everyone should pay their fair share. Including the rich.

In a time of financial difficulty, we all need to make sacrifices, and asking people with a lot to pay just a little more, is not unreasonable. It’s just simply the way you solve financial problems”.

Patriots, who was the last person you heard say a rich mans pay check belongs to someone else because they must pay their fair share ?

OBAMA!!!!

We as tax payers are also funding illegal immigrants which Marco and Mitch also support. I can say with full authority that the U.S. Constitution is under a full frontal assault from these two guys.

They both need to be removed from office as soon as possible to protect the fiscal and moral and constitutional well being of this nation.

So there you have it ladies and gentleman. A perspective from the Senior Chief on the man leading the U.S. Senate Mitch McConnell and his man cub Marco Rubio, now holding his coat tails and learning from his Senate mentor how to steer this nation towards Socialism/Communism/Marxism.

Is Marco Rubio a man you want in the White House? An indecisive weak capitulating turn coat who gave John Kerry a job, gave Obama his TPP bill and has been MIA on most every other major piece of legislation critical to the constitutional governance of this nation?

I don’t think so either. He not only let down his constituents but he also is an embarrassment to his team that works hard for him. They are forced to cover their eyes when he acts and votes like a left wing New World Order socialist.

RELATED ARTICLE: Opinion: Marco Rubio goes into freefall among those betting on the New Hampshire primary

Marco Rubio’s Recent Climate Change of Heart ‘Disingenuous’

ken fieldsNEW YORK, NY /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In response to Marco Rubio’s recent campaign event in New Hampshire where the candidate appears to have made a climate change of heart and has called for America to be “number one in wind, and number one in solar, and number one in biofuels, and number one in renewables, number one in energy efficiency. Let’s lead in all of these things,” independent presidential candidate Ken Fields (pictured right) responded by saying:

“For someone who has so vehemently opposed any acknowledgement of the scientific consensus backing the evidence of human-caused climate change due to our planet’s reliance on fossil fuels, Rubio’s change of heart seems disingenuous at best. He has voted against energy efficiency and clean energy tax incentives. It’s hard to believe him.”

When pressed for further comment, Fields stated, “The recent and continued volatility in global oil markets should be evidence enough that energy security is not simply a matter of having and exploiting our own fossil fuel resources, but rather being completely independent of fossil fuels altogether.”

Fields officially launched his campaign last week on January 8th, 2016. His platform revolves around his slogan, “Greatness Must Be Earned” and to do great things, he has advocated the transition to 100% renewable energy for the country over the next 20 years. His policy plan includes, but is not limited to, creating the public and private mechanisms to encourage and nurture the financial markets to participate, a tax holiday for repatriated corporate capital that is invested in renewables and a carbon tax and dividend plan.

For further information on his policies and positions feel free to visit www.kenfields.net.

Senator Marco Rubio straddling the fence on Muslim refugees/Muslim migration

Julia Hahn has another good piece at Breitbart yesterday (hat tip: Joanne) on the refugee resettlement controversy and how it is roiling the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Haven’t we seen what happens when a boy runs this country?  And, so I can’t believe that any thinking person could say that Florida Senator Marco Rubio is ready for the job—don’t you think it’s time for an alpha male?  (O.K. throw tomatoes, eggs, whatever at me, I said it and stick by it!).

Somali terror woman

This Somali refugee woman was convicted of terror funding in Minnesota in 2013.

Here is Hahn about what Senator Rubio said yesterday in an interview with Chris Wallace:

In a surprising twist in the 2016 election, presidential aspirant Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has proposed a new plan for helping President Obama resettle Syrian refugees in the United States.

Under Rubio’s new proposal, outlined on FOX News Sunday, the United States would focus on resettling the oldest and youngest refugees inside the United States, including those orphaned and widowed in what has become an Islamist battleground.

Rubio argued these refugees could be admitted under the “commonsense” test: “the 5-year-old orphan, a 90-year-old widow, and well-known Chaldean priest, these are obviously commonsense applications, and you can clearly vet them just by commonsense.”

This new tactic may be a politically risky one for Senator Rubio, as an outright majority of all voters oppose any Syrian resettlement—and, according to Rasmussen, 65 percent of conservative voters want zero refugees admitted into the U.S. from the Middle East.

Rubio cannot be trusted on immigration, the most important issue this country faces, or may ever face!

rubio

Continue reading here and consider a few additional points.

Once the women (not all will be old because they won’t leave the young mothers and bring in the children) are admitted they can apply, under the present refugee program, for their family members to join them (this is called chain migration).  In 2008, the Wall Street Journal first reported the shocking (maybe not so shocking!) news that thousands of Somalis had entered the US illegally by claiming a relationship to those already here.  The family reunification (P-3) was closed by the US State Department for years, but is now wide open again.

We covered the discovery and aftermath extensively, here.  The fraud was originally reported at the Wall Street Journal in August of 2008.

Even for those who say the State Department could now catch the fraudsters, does anyone really think that the women and children won’t be quickly applying for more family members to join them.  On what grounds would the husbands be refused?

~ Hahn discusses it, but I want to reiterate that it is the next generation of a refugee family where the jihadist recruitment is happening.  The parents might pass security checks while it is those little children (grown up) we raised and educated with our tax dollars who are thumbing their noses at your generosity and heading off to join al-Shabaab and ISIS.  Remember this?  Just a few news stories beginning back in 2008!

~And, what on earth makes Rubio think that American taxpayers are willing to bring in old women who will be placed immediately on Supplemental Social Security? See here, once and for all—-refugees over 65 years old are eligible for benefits under SSI!

~Hahn mentions Senator Rand Paul who was brave back in 2013 when he realized refugee terrorists had been resettled in his home town and wondered out loud why we were bringing in all the Iraqis and putting them on welfare.  He has since stopped asking that question, why?  Here is our complete archive on Rand Paul and Iraqi refugees.   See especially here and here (what role did Grover play in dissuading Paul from earlier critical comments?).

Following that Syrian refugee “vetting” shiny object?

And, my final thought as I watch and listen to Syrian refugee news on TV and on radio:  Are we being distracted (I know Trump is!) by the Syrian refugee resettlement plan at a point in time when we are bringing in thousands of other Muslim refugees who frankly can’t be screened much better—thousands and thousands of Somalis and Iraqis for instance (Uzbeks, Rohingya and Afghans too)?

I think the average American (watching TV) is thinking that the Syrians are the only refugees we are bringing in from the Middle East and Africa, and it isn’t helping them understand the serious implications of resettlement when they think the resettlement is in the future and that Obama is to blame—Republicans have supported the migration for decades as well!  They are here!

And, on the vetting issue, we have plenty of evidence that the youngsters are growing up radicalized (more devout!) in the US and the West generally, so let’s stop talking about vetting for just a few minutes!

Ted Cruz: It’s In His Heart

A frustrated hopeless patriot wrote…

Unfortunately Mr. Marcus, it’s not only the left but also the right that is out to destroy America. Wicked people in high places, the elite if you will, control both parties. That is why no matter who is elected that nothing changes.”

This patriot brother’s discouragement explains why I want Ted Cruz in the driver’s seat as president. On numerous occasions, Ted Cruz has proven that he has no problem being odd-man-out in regards to Washington politics. Cruz desires the same for our country as We the People.

I have made the following point numerous times. Politicians promise the moon on the campaign trail. The 64,000 dollar question is who will have the cojones and core conservative instincts to follow through if elected? Atop my list is Ted Cruz.

A gospel classic is titled, “It’s in My Heart.” Folks, Ted Cruz has proven that conservatism is in his heart. Our only hope of liberating ourselves from the “Washington cartel” (both parties conspiring against the people) as Cruz perfectly described it is to select a presidential nominee with conservatism in his/her heart.

Cruz is well experienced in being hated by both political parties and the media. He acts like a duck, allowing their relentless venomous rebukes to roll off his back. Cruz stays laser focused on doing what is right for God, country and We the People. That’s what has me standing up and cheering for Ted Cruz.

I love Dr Ben Carson. However, early in his campaign, I wrote an article praising Dr Carson for standing firm on a non-PC comment he made. My publisher informed me he could not publish the article because Dr Carson apologized. As I stated, I highly respect and love the man, but that action scared me folks. Early in his campaign, political inexperience prompted Dr. Carson to imply that he may be open to controls on owning a semi-automatic weapon depending on where one lives. Dr Carson now stands strong for the Second Amendment.

Trump’s success at slapping PC in the face has emboldened other presidential contenders to do the same, including Dr Carson. Will Dr Carson stand strong for conservatism if elected president?

Donald Trump has been a huge blessing, voicing the frustrations, outrage and desires of millions who long to see America made great again. It is quite remarkable that because of racial guilt, we have allowed an anti-American regime to dethrone us as the world power and transform us culturally, morally and economically for the past seven years. But I digress.

Unquestionably, if elected, Trump will make positive changes regarding our economy and immigration. On social issues extremely critical to who we are as a people, I do not sense much passion, urgency or commitment from brother Donald.

Ted Cruz is the total package.

Here are just a few of Sen Cruz’s greatest hits standing up for America and conservatism. With facts and common sense, Cruz crushed can’t-we-all-just-get-along-with-the Left John Kasich in debating Obama’s insane Iran Nuke deal

Cruz fearlessly called out the CNBC debate moderators, exposing them as “left-wing operatives.” 

Cruz blasted Obama for supporting sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration law; endangering the lives of Americans.

Democrats arrogantly refuse to obey laws they do not like such as immigration law. This same bunch of Democrats/Leftists jailed Christian clerk Kim Davis. Davis refused to betray her faith by issuing same sex marriage licenses. Some Republicans/conservatives faltered. Cruz sent out a clarion call to “constitutionalists and lovers of liberty” to stand with Kim Davis. 

Cruz promises his first day as president will be extremely busy. He will “rescind every illegal executive action taken by Barack Obama,” including his “executive amnesty.” Cruz will instruct the DOJ to investigate Planned Parenthood and prosecute any criminal conduct uncovered.

Obama has been using the DOJ and IRS as his personal hit-squads against anyone opposing his transformation of America. Cruz promises to instruct both agencies to “cease persecuting” individuals for standing up for their rights.

Remember the Catholic nuns that have been helping the poor and elderly since 1839 bullied by Obama for not signing on to birth control against their faith? Cruz said as president he will send the Little Sisters of the Poor a letter dismissing their case. Cruz would also invite them to the WH to tell the world their story.

Continuing his first day in the Oval Office cleaning house, Cruz will end Obama’s catastrophic Iran Nuke deal. Ending day one as president, Cruz will begin the process of moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Cruz said moving our embassy to Israel’s “eternal capital” sends the world the message that we stand with our allies. 

Folks, any one of our GOP presidential contenders is far superior than soulless politician and sociopath Hillary Clinton. Hillary in the White House would be a continuation of the Barack Obama nightmare. The only difference is the MSM would characterize opposing Hillary’s far left radical policies as sexism rather than racism. You know the drill folks.

Therefore, I will wholeheartedly rally behind our GOP nominee; Dr Carson, Trump or any of the others.

But the candidate who checks all of my boxes for not giving a rat’s derriere about what the Washington cartel and media thinks of him; the candidate who places America and her people first; the candidate who is unapologetic regarding his Christian faith; passionately defends liberty and honors our Constitution is Sen Ted Cruz. Will Cruz remain the same person when elected? You betcha!

Amending the U.S. Constitution by Fiat – Part II

A great many Americans, including a substantial number of my own readers, remain confused about the question of who is and who is not a “natural born” citizen, eligible to serve as president or vice president of the United States.  They remain doggedly convinced that Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio are all eligible to serve merely because they were born on American soil.  That simply is not the case.  From the comments I have received in response to a recent column titled, “Amending the U.S. Constitution by Fiat,” it appears as if some either read much too quickly, or are a bit lacking in reading comprehension skills.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution tells us, “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.”  It’s pretty straightforward.  Nevertheless, it appears that when many read those words they are immediately struck by a strange form of dyslexia.  What their brains register is a clause beginning, “No Person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President…” 

The qualifications related to the age of the president and the number of years of U.S. residency are not at issue… they are quite straightforward and leave no room for misinterpretation.  It is the status of the candidates’ citizenship that causes problems for many people… many of whom read the clause as if the legislatures of thirty-eight states had just approved an amendment dropping fourteen words from the middle of the presidential eligibility clause.

Clearly, the use of the word “or” early in the clause tells us that a natural born citizen is someone entirely different from a mere citizen.  That was true on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, and it is still true today; the provision has not been amended.  The term “citizen” encompasses a broad range of citizenship categories, including “native born,” “natural born,” and “naturalized.”  The term “natural born” refers to a specific sub-set of citizens.

When the Founders met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives.  So is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have produced a Constitution that would allow an individual holding dual US-British citizenship to serve as commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy?  It is a preposterous notion on its face.  To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.  Yet, that is precisely what those who use the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably would have us believe.

To illustrate, let’s pretend that we are present at Independence Hall in Philadelphia on a cold winter’s day in January 1789.  It is just seven months after the people of New Hampshire voted to ratify the U.S. Constitution, making it the official law of the land.  The third session of the Continental Congress has just been called to decide who should be selected to lead our new nation as president of the United States.  The Constitution required that the man they selected had to be either a natural born U.S. citizen… or… a citizen of the United States on the day that the Constitution was ratified, at least thirty-five years of age, and a resident of the U.S. for at least fourteen years.

If those who drafted Article II of the Constitution had insisted upon the same qualifications for president and vice president as they had for members of Congress and members of the federal judiciary, including members of the United States Supreme Court, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution would have begun, “No Person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President…”  In a nation of 4 million people, nearly every male citizen over age thirty-five would have qualified.

But if the Framers had produced a document that began, “No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President…” they would have been presented with an insoluble problem because, in 1789, when the first president of the United States was elected, the only natural born citizens in the entire country… those born after the signing of the Declaration of Independence to U.S. citizen parents… were less than thirteen years old.

Fortunately, the authors of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution had foreseen the problem and, realizing that there could be no thirty-five-year-old natural born citizens during the earliest years of the republic, provided language making it possible for those born prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to parents who were not U.S. citizens, to serve as president or vice president.

It is not as if the country did not enjoy an excess of strong and capable leaders, men of major accomplishments.  General George Washington, who led the continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was available.  He was born in Wakefield, Virginia on February 22, 1732, forty-four years before the Declaration of Independence.  Eighty-four-year-old Benjamin Franklin, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Constitutional Convention and one of the most prominent men of the time was available.  Franklin was born in Massachusetts in January 1705, and lived most of his life in the U.S.  George Mason, a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention who came to be known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” was available.  Mason was born in Virginia on December 11, 1725, and lived his entire life in the U.S.

However, none of the three were “natural born” citizens because they were born to parents who were subjects of King George III, but who became U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed.  And since the Framers had foreseen the problem and had provided a “grandfather” clause to cover the situation, all three were made eligible under the Article II, Section 1 language reading, “or a citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

In fact, none of our first seven presidents… Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, or Jackson… were natural born citizens.  Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, born to U.S. citizen parent at Kinderhook, New York, on December 5, 1782, six years after the Declaration of Independence, was our first “natural born” president.  Every president since Van Buren, with the exception of Republican Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was a British

subject at the time of his birth, and Democrat Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth, has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Those who doggedly insist that all that is necessary to be a “natural born” citizen is to be born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status, have an obligation to explain why the Framers were so careful to distinguish between the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” while setting out the qualifications to serve as president of the United States.

Why did the Framers make that distinction?  Although it is impossible for parents to know beforehand how their children will ultimately develop, we can all agree that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct and intellectual development.  It was that hope of parental and environmental influence on which the Framers pinned their hopes for a Christian nation comprised of Godly citizens who would be capable of maintaining a constitutional republic.

What the Founders feared most, and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born,” was the fear that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment or a foreign political ideology that might cause him to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

No president has been more emblematic of the worst fears of the Framers than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania, Ave., Barack Hussein Obama.  His father was a Muslim and a black African socialist; his mother was a left wing socialist flower-child; his stepfather was an Indonesian Muslim, subject to Sharia Law; his grandparents were dedicated socialists, perhaps communist sympathizers; his father figure during his teen years, Frank Marshall Davis, was a nationally known Communist Party writer and propagandist; the people who were instrumental in launching his political career in Chicago were radical Weather Underground terrorists who had participated in the killing of U.S. law enforcement officers; and his religious mentor during his post-college years in Chicago was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an America-hater of the first order.  Nothing good can come from a lifetime of exposure to such people, so is it any wonder that he has dedicated himself to “fundamentally transforming” the government and the culture of the greatest nation on Earth?

Anyone wishing to take up the challenge outlined above might also wish to enlighten us by preparing a comprehensive list showing how Barack Obama’s governing principles mesh with governing principles contained in the U.S. Constitution.  After eight years of Obama rule in the White House, it may help us to decide which poses the greater danger: a) a competent socialist who knows exactly what he’s doing and why he’s doing it, or b) an incompetent socialist who hasn’t the foggiest notion of what he’s doing or how it might impact the greatest nation on Earth.  Of the many unknowns surrounding Barack Obama, this may be the most profound.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama May Have Been Elected With Illegal Votes – Judicial Watch

Donald Trump and Ben Carson Top the GOP field, Jeb Bush trails nationally and in Florida

SAINT LEO, FL /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson has basically tied with billionaire businessman Donald Trump as the leading presidential candidate among likely Republican voters surveyed nationally by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute.

Meanwhile on the Democratic side, likely voters nationally again put Hillary Clinton in the lead.

Carson Makes Impressive Show in Crowded National Field
Among likely Republican voters nationwide, those polled said their favored candidate was: Donald Trump (22.7 percent); retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (22.2 percent); U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, (11.1 percent); former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (8.4 percent); former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (5.8 percent); and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas (4.0 percent).

“We’re starting to see some ‘Trump fatigue’ setting in,” said Frank Orlando, instructor of political science atSaint Leo University. “Donald Trump thrives on the media attention. With the lull between debates and his upcoming ‘Saturday Night Live’ appearance (November 7), the soft-spoken, ‘anti-Trump’ candidate Ben Carson, has emerged as a viable candidate,” said Orlando.

Interestingly, Orlando noted, when support for Carson, Trump, and Fiorina are combined, 51 percent of the national likely Republicans voters support non-politicians. Orlando interpreted the collective sentiment as a signal that: “These voters would rather have people with no specific plans than people who they are afraid would let them down.”

Democratic Politics Continue to Favor Clinton
Among the likely Democratic voters nationwide, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton drew 54.8 percent of the respondents’ support. Since Vice President Joe Biden announced on October 21 that he will not run for president, the 15.8 percent of Democratic likely voters who favored him will likely become Clinton supporters, Orlando said. U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders was selected by 12 percent of the likely Democratic voters.

“Hillary’s still the horse in the Democratic race, and I think that [Vice President] Biden’s support will now gravitate to her,” stated Saint Leo’s Orlando. “It (Biden’s support) won’t jump to Bernie Sanders as he’s more of an anti-establishment candidate. At the same time, Sanders needs to be more aggressive in his attack on Clinton and increase his rhetoric.”

Florida Results Surprising

Among Florida likely Republican voters, Donald Trump is first (25.8 percent). Trump was followed in Florida by Senator Rubio (21.5 percent); then former Governor Jeb Bush (15.3 percent); and then Carson (14.7 percent). The margin of error was 7 percentage points, based on a sample of 163 respondents.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has a substantial lead (50.9 percent). Senator Sanders pulled 13.3 percent. (Vice President Biden had 15.2 percent.) The margin of error for this question was plus or minus 7 percentage points, based on a sample of 165 likely Democratic voters in the state.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of the Associated Press.

Trump Solidifies Support in GOP Field, Carson and Rubio Pull Away From Pack

BOSTON /PRNewswire/ — A new poll shows former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton extending her lead over Senator Bernie Sanders by a margin of 68% to 20%. This sizable boost may indicate she is winning over would-be supporters of Vice President Joe Biden, who was included in a prior poll in September, but not the most recent one. Support for Sanders has remained flat since September at 20%. Biden’s window of opportunity to join the race may be closing; when asked if he should run, 43% of respondents said no, compared to 32% who said he should.

Clinton’s bounce might also be attributed to last week’s Democratic debate. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of those surveyed watched the debate, with 36% saying Clinton won, 17% giving the nod to Sanders, and 40% saying they were undecided about the outcome.

On the Republican side of the race, Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson continue to lead the GOP pack. Trump’s 32% support reflected a 1-point drop from the September poll, while Carson edged up 3 points, from 20% to 23%. Marco Rubio improved from 8% to 14%, appearing to draw voters away from Jeb Bush, who fell to 8% from 12%. Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina, with 6% each, trailed well behind the leaders.

The general election remains very tight. In head-to-head matchups, Clinton trails Trump (46% to 44%) and Carson (47% to 45%). She is tied with Rubio at 44%, and holds a slight margin over Bush (45% to 43%).

Of all the candidates, Carson is the one most favorably viewed by women and younger voters. His favorable/unfavorable ratio with women is 54/31 (+23) compared to Trump’s 42/50 (-8) and Bush’s 38/59 (-21). By a wide margin, women view Clinton unfavorably, 38/60 (-22). Sanders’ has the biggest gender disparity gap, -31 points among females. In the 18-34 age group, Carson’s net favorability is +14, compared to Trump (0), Clinton (-22) and Sanders (-10).

While religion has been a major element of discussion and coverage in past presidential campaigns, it appears Sanders being Jewish is at this time, not an issue.  The majority of voters are unsure of Sander’s religious views with 23% identifying him as Jewish, while 48% were not sure. If elected, Sanders would be the first Jewish president.

RELATED ARTICLE: Does Class Warfare win elections?

ABOUT THE EMERSON COLLEGE POLLING SOCIETY POLL

The Emerson College Polling Society poll was conducted from Friday, October 16 through Saturday, October 17. The polling sample for the Democratic and GOP primaries consisted of 390 and 403 likely primary voters, respectively, with a margin of error of +/-4.9% and +/-4.8%, margin of error and 783 registered general election voters with a +/-3.4%, and a 95% confidence level. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. The full methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com.

Vast majority of U.S. Muslims are Democrats, so why does Marco Rubio want more?

Julia Hahn, who has been doing a fantastic job at Breitbart on the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program has another good article yesterday entitled, ‘REPORT: MUSLIMS ARE THE FASTEST GROWING IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY‘  (hat tip: Cathy).

Here is how she begins (with some much-needed data!):

Zuckerberg

Trump, never shy to speak up, said in August that the billionaire Facebook founder and No Borders advocate, Mark Zuckerberg, had his own personal U.S. Senator—Marco Rubio.

“Muslims are the fastest growing bloc of immigrants, according to new census data published by the Center for Immigration Studies.

The report, which analyzes data from American Community Survey (ACS), finds that the foreign-born population in the U.S. hit a new record high 42.4 million in July 2014.

The report details that some of “the sending countries with the largest percentage increases in the number of immigrants living in the United States since 2010 were Saudi Arabia (up 93 percent); Bangladesh (up 37 percent); Iraq (up 36 percent); Egypt (up 25 percent); Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia (all up 24 percent); Nigeria and Ghana (both up 21 percent).”

“In contrast to most sending regions and countries, the number of immigrants from Europe and Canada declined,” the report notes.

As Breitbart News has previously documented, every year the United States voluntarily imports more than a quarter of a million– or 280,000– Muslim migrants. This number includes 117,423 migrants who were permanently resettled with Legal Permanent Resident status, as well as an additional 122,921 temporary Muslim workers and foreign students, and 39,932 Muslim refugee and asylees. This means that each year, the U.S. admits a number of Muslim migrants larger in size than the entire population of Des Moines, Iowa.”

Readers, although the number of refugees and asylees is lower than some other categories, remember that they are eligible for all forms of welfare immediately upon arrival as compared to those who entered under other legal immigration programs.  They also get a federal resettlement contracting agency to hold their hands as they sign up, so they are much more costly to the US taxpayer.

What is up with Rubio? 

Muslim immigrants (like most immigrants) are going to vote for Democrats, so why should Senator Marco Rubio be open to inviting more to America?   On the Syrian issue he squished out here earlier this month by saying he was “open” to taking in Syrians Muslims who are now swamping Europe.

Hahn continues at Breitbart:

According to Pew Research, only 11 percent of Muslim Americans identify as Republican or leaning-Republican, making them one of the most reliable Democrat voting blocs in the country.

[….]

Despite the fact only 11 percent of Muslim voters say that they “lean” Republican, many Republican presidential candidates would like to see the number of Muslim immigrants expanded even further.

For instance, GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)—whose campaign predicts he will be in first place by February—has introduced a new foreign worker bill which would substantially increase Muslim immigration. His bill, known as the I-Squared bill, has been described as the “gold standard of high-tech reform,” by billionaire Mark Zuckerberg’s immigration lobbying group.

[….]

In addition, Rubio has also his argued that the United States should increase the number of poor Muslim migrants the United States admits as refugees— on top of the tens of thousands already admitted each year. Experts project that the cost of admitting just ten thousand additional refugees will cost U.S. taxpayers $6.5 billion dollars.

There is much more, continue reading here.

I have a hunch that Fox News is hankering for a Rubio/Fiorina ticket in 2016 (or at least that could be Fox owner Rupert Murdoch’s dream team),here.  Both could be counted on to do as they are told and support bringing in cheap immigrant labor for big business, something Murdoch has been openly supporting.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Senator Sessions Unswayed by Pope Francis on Immigration, Ect.

Germany PM Merkel in the news trying to extricate Germany from the “chaos” she created!

30 Second Video: Kerry – Iran ‘Atomic Bromance’ Explained

Is John Kerry ‘related’ to Mohammed Zrif?

HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH OF THIS IRAN-KERRY INSANITY YET?

Either Kerry is the biggest buffoon who just had an Iranian “information operation” spun on his head or he is so partial to Iran that he wants them to exert regional dominance in the Middle East, thus clearly threatening Israel.

What will it take for Americans to realize that we MUST dump this Iran nuke deal, get the Iranians back to the negotiating table and require complete dismantling of their key nuke facilities.

Washington, D.C. At today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing regarding the Obama Administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) highlighted the importance of U.S. sanctions as a viable alternative to President Obama’s deal and outlined how, if the deal is implemented, Iran will be in a much stronger position when the deal expires.

“When people vote on this deal in a few weeks, you’re going to live with this for the rest of your life,” Rubio said during the hearing. “In 10 years, in 12 years, when Iran has a nuclear weapon and we can’t target them, people are going to remember this vote that’s coming up and this deal as what laid the groundwork for it, and I keep hearing this notion that there is no other alternative and no other way forward, but I disagree.

“I believe U.S. sanctions are the most important part of all the sanctions,” Rubio continued. “I believe that these banks in Europe, German banks, whatever banks may be, if they were forced to choose between having access to the American economy and access to the Iranian economy, that’s not going to be a hard choice for them.”

A video of Rubio’s remarks and the full exchanges is available here.

Transcript of Senator Rubio’s.

Senator Marco Rubio: “The choice right before us was two things.

“On the one hand was to continue with what we thought was the strategy which is international sanctions that had an impact on Iran’s economy. They continued to make progress in their enrichment capabilities and so forth, but it was a combination of international sanctions and the threat of credible military force, which no one wants to talk about, but that was on the table, and the President has said that, in fact, if it came down to it, the U.S. would do that, if it were necessary.

“Versus what we have now, which is a deal that basically argues, well what this will do is that if they comply with it, it will slow them down, and in 10 years if they want to break out, it buys us 10 years of time, and it avoids, assuming everybody complies with everything.

“Here’s my problem with that analysis. My problem with it is that in 8 to 10 years, which sounds like a long time to all of us here, it’s nothing. Ten years goes very quickly, and that’s if we’re optimistic. In 10 years, Iran will be in a much stronger position. In fact, I think in 10 years they’ll be immune from international pressure compared to where they are today, and here’s why.

“First of all, they are going to use this sanctions relief and the billions of dollars that it frees up, and I know everyone wants to believe they’re going to invest it in hospitals and roads and social services in order to win their next election. I promise you, they’re going to win they’re next election. I don’t think they’re worried about that as much as they are about their need for example, to get to modernize their enrichment capability into a 21st century industrial system.

“It actually falls right in line with the mandate that the Supreme Leader, I believe, gave to the negotiators, which is, ‘Don’t agree to anything that’s irreversible. Go as far as you need to go to get the sanctions removed, but don’t agree to anything that’s irreversible.’

“So they’ll have less centrifuges, but they’ll be better ones and they’ll be modernized, and they’ll retain that infrastructure, which is the hardest part of any nuclear program, is the infrastructure, the hardware that it takes to do this.

“But here’s what else they’re going to do, they’re going to continue to build their conventional capabilities. We don’t think about that enough, but Iran in 10 years will have conventional capabilities, maybe less, that could potentially drive us out of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz because the price of being there will be too high, I mean they can buy Chinese asymmetrical capabilities that allow them to kill ships, add to these fast swift boats things that they’ve been able to come up with that can threaten an aircraft carrier. They’re going to continue to build long range rockets. Why are you building a long range rocket, an ICBM? Are you going to put a man on the moon? No. They’re building it for purposes of targeting the continental United States. And they look at North Korea and say, ‘Yeah the North Koreans have a long range rocket.’ We don’t know where it is going to hit yet because they aren’t very good yet at guidance, but it will hit somewhere, like the West Coast of the United States. That alone has made North Korea immune.

“And they’re going to continue to build up their surrogates in the region, which I would argue already, even now before the sanctions relief has given Iran tremendous leverage over U.S. policy. As an example: Iran has laid out some pretty clear red lines. They are going to hold back Shi’ite militias in Iraq from attacking American troops or going after Americans. They’ll agree to hold them back if, we don’t cross certain red lines they have made very clear.

“What are their red lines? For starters they don’t want to see any U.S. combat troops in Iraq, and if we make any move toward any sort of permanent presence in Iraq in the future, we are going to get attacked by Shi’ite militias at their orders. They don’t want to see us take any concrete steps to remove Assad from power. If they see us moving toward getting Assad out of power, we’re going to get hit by surrogate groups in the region, including Hezbollah and their Shi’ite militia. If we take steps to help put in place an Iraqi government that actually unifies that country and isn’t a puppet of Iran, not to mention one that might actually be hostile toward Iran’s ambitions in the region, they’re going to attack us.

“So they already have leverage over our policy. Now extrapolate that 8 to 10 years from now, when their conventional forces are higher, when these groups are better armed, when Hizballah in a couple of years doesn’t just have rockets, they have guided rockets, guided missiles that don’t just hit somewhere in Israel, they hit exactly what they want to hit.

“So imagine a world in 10 years, where Iran decides, or 8 years, or 12 years, where they just decide, ‘You know what, we’re building a nuclear weapon because we believe Israel has one or because we think someone else is going to threaten us.’

“What can the world do then? Well then reimposing sanctions really won’t be an option at that point because all these companies that are deeply invested in that economy just won’t let their nations or their governments do anything about it. We’ve already seen that in the case of the Europeans.

“But what will the price be of actually going after their systems? It’ll be worse than the price of going after North Korea now. Do we have a credible military option today to target the North Koreans’ program? We do not. We do not because we know that the price of going after the North Korean program through a credible military option, the price of that is Tokyo, the price of that is Seoul, the price of that is Hawaii, they’ll hit us back.

“Well imagine Iran where the price of going after the Iranian program in 10 years if they decide to break out will be Washington, D.C. or New York City, not to mention Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and any number of places in the region that are our allies.

“So my argument is that, in fact, what I think we’ve done here is walk right into the situation they wanted to lay out, they didn’t want a nuclear weapon next week anyway. But we have created a system where in 8 to 10 years they will be, they will have the capability to quickly become, walk into the nuclear weapons club, not sneak in, walk in to the nuclear weapons club with a world class industrial enrichment capability, a much more powerful conventional weapons force capable of actually asymmetrically driving our navy from the region or further out and quite frankly immune from any sort of credible military action because if we attack them the price is going to be a nuclear devastating strike, potentially even on the continental United States.

“So my point is that when people vote on this deal in a few weeks, you’re going to live with this for the rest of your life. In 10 years, in 12 years, when Iran has a nuclear weapon and we can’t target them, people are going to remember this vote that’s coming up and this deal as what laid the groundwork for it, and I keep hearing this notion that there is no other alternative and no other way forward, but I disagree.

“I believe U.S. sanctions are the most important part of all the sanctions. I believe that these banks in Europe, German banks, whatever banks may be, if they were forced to choose between having access to the American economy and access to the Iranian economy, that’s not going to be a hard choice for them.”

Poll: Teflon Donald Takes Double Digit Lead into GOP Debates

BOSTON /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — One week out from the first GOP debate, Donald Trump leads the Republican field with 31% of the vote, followed by Gov. Jeb Bush at 15% and Gov. Scott Walker in third at 13%. The survey was conducted July 26 to July 28, with 481 likely GOP voters at a 4.4% margin of error.

248896

Forty percent (40%) of respondents viewed Trump’s comments regarding Senator John McCain’s War record as unimportant to their vote while another 47% said they would be less likely to vote for Trump because of his comments about the Arizona Senator. Interestingly, 11% percent said they were more likely to vote for Trump because of his commentary on McCain.

Rounding out the top 10 Republicans in this poll were Sen. Ted Cruz at 8%, Gov. Mike Huckabee at 6%, followed by Dr. Ben Carson at 5%, Sen. Rand Paul at 4% and Sen. Marco Rubio at 4%. Carly Fiorina was in 9th place at 3% and Gov. John Kasich was tied with Gov. Chris Christie with 2% of the vote. All other candidates received under 1% of the vote; 7% of Republican Primary voters were undecided.

Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a significant lead with 54% of the vote in the Democrat Primary with Sen. Bernie Sanders in second at 33% and VP Joe Biden at 9%.  All other announced candidates register under 2% of the vote each. The sample size of likely Democrat Primary voters was 476 with a margin of error of 4.4%.

248897

In a head to head contest, Clinton holds a 2 point lead over Jeb Bush 44% to 42%, an 8 point lead over Walker 49% to 41%, and a 9 point lead over Donald Trump 49% to 40%.

The poll suggests that likely voters are not that thrilled with any of the presidential candidate as all held higher negative then favorable opinions except for Sanders who had a 33% favorable and 32% unfavorable opinion.

Clinton holds an overall 38% favorable and 48% unfavorable rating, Trump is at 31% to 56% rating, Bush at 25% to 52% and Walker at 24% to 38%.

Trump holds the highest favorable rating among Republican primary voters at 54% to 33%, with Bush at 40% to 39% and Walker at 46% to 20%.

ABOUT THE  EMERSON COLLEGE POLL

The Emerson College Polling Society poll was conducted Sunday July 26 through Tuesday July 28. The polling sample for both the Democrat and the GOP Primary consisted of 476 and 481 likely voters each, with a margin of error of +/-4.4% and a 95% confidence level. The General Election sample consisted of 950 likely voters with a margin of error of +/-3.1% and a 95% confidence level. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system. The full methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: SHOCK POLL — Donald Trump Leads Jeb Bush in Florida

Hearst Television to Carry August 3rd New Hampshire Presidential Forum

LogoHearstTINEW YORK /PRNewswire/ — Hearst Television Inc., one of the country’s largest television station groups and a Peabody- and Cronkite-award-winning leader in television and digital political journalism, today announced it will televise the August 3 Voters First Forum, featuring GOP presidential candidates, in the 27 local Hearst markets across the United States.  The forum is produced and hosted by New Hampshire’s Union Leader newspaper and C-SPAN.

The two-hour forum will start at 7pm ET at the Dana Center at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, on Monday, August 3.  Currently 14 candidates are scheduled to appear: Jeb Bush, Ben Carson,Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul,Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and Scott WalkerJack Heath of Manchester’s WGIR-AM Radio, host of the station’s New Hampshire Today program, will moderate the forum. Each candidate will have approximately five minutes to answer questions individually on the stage.

Hearst Television, collectively reaching nearly 21 million households, will provide the C-SPAN telecast to its stations for local broadcast.  The forum will air on either the station’s primary or digital channel and will be streamed from its website.  This enables broadcast-only viewers in these markets the opportunity of seeing the forum as part of Hearst Television’s ongoing Commitment 2016 initiative, which will include multiple debates at the national, regional and local levels, as well as other special political coverage leading up to November 2016.

Hearst Television reaches millions of viewers throughout key election states. Three Hearst stations serve viewers in the first three caucus and primary states: WMUR-TV in Manchester, NH, KCCI-TV in Des Moines, Iowa, and WYFF-TV in Greenville, South Carolina.

“This is an opportunity for us to provide our viewers a chance to see and hear from the large majority of the GOP candidates in advance of the first national debate,” said Emerson Coleman, vice president, programming, at Hearst Television.   “There are more than two million households in the cities we serve that may not otherwise have the ability to view this important event on television.”

C-SPAN will show the forum, in its entirety, on C-SPAN TV, C-SPAN Radio, and via livestream on C-SPAN.org.  In addition to C-SPAN, the Union Leader, WGIR-AM and St. Anselm, forum co-sponsors include: I-Heart Networks; the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Gazette; KCRG –TV, Cedar Rapids; the Charleston (S.C.) Post & Courier; and WLXT-TV, Columbia, S.C.

About Hearst Television

Hearst Television, a national multi-media company, owns and operates 31 local television stations and two local radio stations, serving 32 U.S. cities and reaching approximately 19% of U.S. television households.  The TV stations broadcast 60 video channels, featuring local and national news, weather, information, sports and entertainment programming, and local community service-oriented programs.  The stations also host and operate digital on-line and mobile platforms that extend the company’s brands and content to local, national and international audiences.  Hearst Television is recognized as one of the industry’s premier companies, and has been honored with numerous awards for distinguished journalism, industry innovation, and community service.  Hearst Television is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hearst Corporation.  The Company’s Web address is www.hearsttelevision.com.