The ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Debate [Reagan Should Have Ended This As Part of Amnesty Deal]LATimes ^ | October 26, 2014Posted on 10/26/2014, 2:01:14 PM by SteelfishEditorial The ‘Birthright Citizenship’ DebateBy THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD
The new Rand Paul vs. the old Rand PaulThe Los Angeles Times ^ | October 24, 2014 | Doyle McManusPosted on 10/25/2014, 3:44:24 PM by 2ndDivisionVetRand Paul, the heretofore libertarian senator from Kentucky, gave a foreign policy speech to Republican grandees in New York last week with a clear message:
I’m not an isolationist like my dad..The senator’s peppery father, the thoroughly libertarian former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, hardly ever saw a U.S. military intervention he liked. He said George W. Bush’s war in Iraq was nuts, suggested that the United States could live with a nuclear Iran and thought stationing U.S. troops overseas was just an expensive way to invite trouble.
On Thursday evening in a Manhattan ballroom, Sen. Paul, a probable GOP candidate for president in 2016, declared himself an advocate of “conservative realism” and named as his models Ronald Reagan, Dwight D. Eisenhower and even on free trade, not military adventures George W. Bush.“The war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world,” Paul said.
Speaking in a way likely to make Dad shudder, he called military force “indispensable … when vital American interests are attacked and threatened,” and said he supports airstrikes against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria but not arming Syrian rebels, whom he considers unreliable.But the most intriguing aspect of the speech wasn’t Paul’s attempt to distance himself from his father; it was his attempt to distance himself from himself….
Excerpt Read more at latimes.com …
Mark Cuban‘s Advice for the GOPRush Limbaugh.com ^ | October 22, 2014 | Rush LimbaughPosted on 10/22/2014, 3:39:35 PM by KaslinBEGIN TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Mark Cuban has got the answer.
“Mark Cuban has some advice for the Republican Party: Drop the social issues. ‘If I was going to give guidance to the Republican Party, I’d say, ‘Stay completely out of social issues.'” He said it on CNBC today. I’ve been hearing that since 1992.BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH:
I can’t tell you how many years, since 1992, that I have been hearing: “The Republican Party better get rid of the social issues or it doesn’t have a prayer.” And the theory, here’s what Mark Cuban says. “If you stay out of social issues, then the conversation from that side will only be about economics, and business, and growing business, and ideas. It should be easy! The generation of sex, drugs, and rock and roll didn’t turn out quite like we planned, right? We thought we’d be like, ‘Live free.
Stay out of the bedroom. Stay out of everybody’s lives. Let’s just focus on business.’ It turned out to be the exact opposite.”By the way, there are plenty of Republicans that have stopped talking about social issues. They still get hammered with ‘em. The Republicans are gonna get hammered no matter what they do. The Republicans are gonna get hammered. Look at the War on Women. There wasn’t one. There isn’t War on Women, other than the one the Democrats conduct. There is not a War on Women. And yet it exists.
And it’s not because of anything the Republicans do. It’s not because of anything the Republicans have said. It was totally made up out of whole cloth.You know, giving away ammunition is not the solution to your political problems. Abandoning 24 million voters is not the route to victory. But it’s amazing how the smart people keep coming up with the same suggestion.BREAK TRANSCRIPT
As the debate rages over whether the president needs congressional authorization for war prior to his deployment of the military to degrade or destroy ISIS, the terrorist organization that none of us had heard about until a few months ago, the nation has lost sight of the more fundamental issue of President Obama’s infidelity to the rule of law.On the lawfulness of his proposed war, the president has painted himself into a corner.
Last year, he quite properly recognized that the Authorization for Use of Military Force AUMF, a statute enacted by Congress in 2002 to permit President George W. Bush to use the military to track down, capture, degrade or kill all persons or organizations that planned the attacks of 9/11, cannot apply to organizations that did not exist at the time of 9/11, of which ISIS is one.
Generals skewer Obama for ‘control’ of airstrikes… ~ “Vallely believes Obama should resign. “He has no capability of leading this country at this time,” he said. ‘No clue what to hit’ Vallely, who was deputy commanding general of U.S. Pacific………….”
Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely and U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin said the prospect recalls the Johnson administration’s micro-managing of the war theater in Vietnam, when decisions made from Washington often resulted in selecting the wrong targets.
Boykin, an under secretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, said that while Obama’s reported decision to make all the bombing calls of ISIS targets in Syria were reminiscent of Vietnam, President Lyndon Johnson “at least had some military experience.”
Lt. Gen. Jerry BoykinRet. Lt. Gen. Jerry BoykinBoykin pointed out Obama has never served in the military.“[Obama] is absolutely not serious about strategy or destroying ISIS,” Boykin said.
“There is no way we can destroy ISIS with the strategy he’s laid out, and it’s more problematic if he selects the targets.”
The Wall Street Journal reported Obama said he would exert “a high degree of personal control” over military strategy against ISIS in Syria in an effort to avoid getting too involved in the country’s three-year-old-plus civil war.In testimony on Capitol Hill, however, Secretary of Defense
“The Reluctant Warrior”
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | September 11, 2014 |
Rush LimbaughPosted on 9/11/2014, 1:57:00 PM by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Do you remember, ladies and gentlemen, when George W. Bush — some of you new to the program, if you’ve not heard this, it’s amazing.
I’m your guy.” And Bush said, “You know what, you’re right. You don’t need to look. You are my guy.”
So Bush chose Cheney and the media went out, and we had an audio montage put together, had to be 25 different media people all explaining how Bush had chosen Cheney because he needed gravitas. I