Friday, February 7th, 2014 and is filed under Foreign Policy
The media is constantly bemoaning the lack of bipartisanship in Congress, with the lion’s share of their scorn directed at conservatives for being too “intransigent.” Well, almost the entire Senate GOP Conference – both moderate and conservative members – actually united behind a Democrat-sponsored bill to implement sanctions on Iran. Yet, the Democrats and their allies are spoiling this superlative opportunity to work together on a goal that is supposedly shared by both parties.
Last November, President Obama forged a deal with Iran that should be called the “if you like your nukes you can keep them” deal. As part of the Geneva agreement, Iran is not required to destroy a single centrifuge it has already produced, but is required to end any future development of nuclear operations. Even with the future promises to curtail their nuclear program, the Iranians probably have enough material already to create a bomb. They are just working on a warhead and delivery capabilities, which are not curtailed by the Geneva deal. Moreover, there is no requirement that Iran suspend their global terror operations, which in many ways are more dangerous than their nuclear program.
In return for their trustworthy promises to reduce their nuclear program, Obama agreed to suspend sanctions against them for six months. But fear not, if they don’t uphold their side of the deal, Russia and China, which have permanent veto power over any sanctions, have agreed to re-impose the international sanctions on a rogue Iran.
In response to this outrage, a group of senators from both parties introduced a bill to re-impose sanctions on Iran (S.1881). The bill was sponsored by Democrat Senator Robert Menendez. Almost every Republican along with 16 Democrats co-sponsored the bill. What a great opportunity to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor, no?
As we all know, the Democrats had no intention of ever holding a vote on the bill. They just wanted to show their constituents that they are just as strong on national security as Republicans, but never wanted to bring the bill to the floor, lest they embarrass the messiah and leader of their party.
After refusing to hold a vote, a group of 42 Republicans sent a letter to Harry Reid asking for an up-or-down vote on this bill, which supposedly is supported by many Democrats. The only Republican who didn’t join in is RINO Bob Corker. Needless to say, not a single Democrat signed the letter. Then, AIPAC parachutes in and defends Obama while voicing opposition to the GOP effort to push for a floor vote on sanctions.
In recent years, AIPAC has been more concerned with giving cover to Obama and the Democrats then with national security or authentic pro-Israel policies. AIPAC’s hypocritical and politically-motivated move was so bizarre that The Hill had to verify that their statement was true. The Hill reporter was clearly unaware of their history of shielding Democrats in an effort to obfuscate the political divide over Israel.
So, the next time you hear a Democrat complain about too much partisanship in Washington, tell them to look in the mirror.
Cross-posted at RedState.com
Thursday, November 21st, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy, Immigration, News
One question about our broken immigration system that cuts across all ideological lines is why we continue to let in people from countries and regions that represent a security risk. That is the obvious question that comes to mind when examining the story at the top of Drudge last night about Al Qaeda in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
In 2011, two Al Qaeda terrorists were arrested in Bowling Green for allegedly shipping weapons to the insurgents in Iraq. The two terrorists were Iraqis who were let in through our front door under our ridiculously abused refugee policy. Yesterday, ABC News obtained the FBI video showing these terrorists in action in heartland Kentucky.
An al Qaeda-linked terrorist, who was resettled in the U.S. as an Iraq War refugee after allegedly killing American soldiers, was caught on camera in Kentucky handling heavy weapons that the FBI said he believed would be sent to insurgents back in Iraq.
The 2010 video, obtained exclusively by ABC News, was part of a broader ABC News investigation into the flawed refugee vetting program, which officials said may have let “dozens” of terrorists into the country.
In the video, Waad Ramadan Alwan is seen expertly field stripping what the FBI identified as a Russian PKM machine gun. Other still images provided by the FBI from hours-worth of surveillance footage show Alwan and an accomplice, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, handling a Stinger missile launcher and a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launcher.
The amazing thing is that the entire GOP establishment and donor class is pushing the Obama-Senate amnesty bill, which exacerbates our already-flawed refugee and asylum policy. The Senate bill expands refugee status in a number of ways, including for those “whose resettlement in the United States is justified by humanitarian concerns.” It also creates a new category for “stateless persons.” And it allows all illegal aliens who have been in the country for one year to apply for refugee status.
In light of the new focus on the Bowling Green terrorists, it is important to remember that the senior senator from Kentucky privately supports the Senate bill. Many of his donors, alumni, and associates are invested heavily in the amnesty lobby. His former chief of staff, Billy Piper, along with former NRSC Executive Director Rob Jesmer, lobbies for Zuckerberg’s group, which has now resumed a barrage of deceptive ads touting the Senate bill.
Even when McConnell begrudgingly voted against the bill at the last moment (after praising it), he lauded the legal immigration provisions in the bill as a move towards merit-based criteria. Never mind that only roughly 7.8% of future flow over the next 10 years under this bill – about 2.5 million of 30 million – would be merit-based. The bill completely blows up our refugee and asylum policy and worsens our national security problems.
The ticking time bomb of radical terrorists in our country is just another casualty of a political class that cares more about special interests than the American people and our security.
Tuesday, September 10th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy, News
The debate over the ridiculous Syria intervention is a superlative example of Mitch McConnell’s modus operandi in the Senate. Despite his status as leader of the Republican conference, McConnell fails to lead on the most contentious issues, even those for which the public strongly sides with conservatives. He waits until the very end, when the bill is no longer in dispute or is destined to pass, in order to voice his opinion. Throughout the process, he declines to whip up support for the conservative positions – the entire purpose of being party leader.
The question conservatives should be asking is what is the purpose of being floor leader if McConnell is always going to wait until the issue is already won or lost to take a position – much less attempt to marshal support from others? Here are some of the headlines from the past week:
“On Syria, McConnell Remains Lone Hill Leader on the Fence”
“Sen. Mitch McConnell mum, Sen. Rand Paul rails on Syria attack”
“Mitch McConnell: Capitol Hill’s last undecided party leader on Syria”
“Vulnerable Senators Straddle The Syria Fence”
Taken as a whole, instead of waking up every day to see how he can best fight for Americans, McConnell spends his time plotting the path of least resistance that will best preserve his power, while concurrently retaining his image as a conservative.
Wednesday, September 4th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy
If you want a glimpse into how Mitch McConnell operates, take a look at how he is dealing with Obama’s Syrian escapade.
With the implementation of Obamacare set to take effect in just four weeks, President Obama is seeking to distract us all with intervention in a Syrian civil war – one which involves elements on both sides that are enemies of the United States. Senator McConnell has failed to lead the fight to defund Obamacare, and now he is declining from taking a definitive position on Obama’s Syrian escapade. Senator McConnell has, thus far, issued his typical innocuous statement, declining to voice his view on the issue and take a leadership role. McConnell owes it to his Kentucky constituents to divulge whether he believes there is any benefit to spending time and resources siding with one enemy over another in Syria.
Senator McConnell is always proud to tout his “clout” as GOP Leader. It’s time he project that clout and actually lead an opposition to this ill-advised intervention for the failed Arab Spring. As GOP Leader, does McConnell plan to whip up votes against the war resolution? Does he plan to stand with Rand Paul and Matt Bevin, and categorically oppose this deleterious distraction? Or will he, once again, squander his position of power to quietly cheer for the vote while voting against it once it appears to have enough votes to pass?
So far, McConnell is the only GOP leader not to take a position on getting involved in the civil war. Contrast that to Bevin’s clear vision on the Arab Spring.
Tuesday, September 3rd, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy, News
This commentary is posted at FoxNews Opinion
As bankrupt as elected Republican leadership is in Washington vis-à-vis domestic policy, they are completely clueless as it relates to foreign policy. While America continues to become an economic and moral wasteland under this regime, Obama is attempting to spend American treasure helping one nefarious side of an Islamic civil war in Syria – one which involves Iran-allied supporters of Hezbollah (Assad regime) vs. predominantly Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels.
Astoundingly, most GOP leaders are either siding with Obama or are totally insouciant to this reckless fomenting of an Islamic insurrection. Instead of fighting Obamacare, they are allowing Obama to distract from the upheaval at home by focusing on this inane escapade in Syria.
Most media figures discuss the current foreign policy debate in broad platitudes pitting so-called neo-conservatives vs. libertarians, hawks vs. doves, or interventionists vs. isolationists. But these labels are non-sequiturs to the reality of the current debate. Most mainstream conservatives are not Ron Paul libertarians who don’t support any war on terror. Quite the contrary, we support a robust intervention to repel Islamic terrorism when it threatens our interests. But in the case of Libya, Syria, and Egypt, we are actually intervening on behalf of our enemies.
Granted, Syria is more complicated than the other two examples. Bashar Assad is a sworn enemy of the United States, the closest ally of Iran, and a prolific exporter of terror. In a perfect world, it would be great to overthrow him and stick it to Iran (and their Russian allies). But the reality is that the strongest elements of the insurgency are saturated with Al-Qaeda affiliated extremists, backed by Pan-Islamist Turkish President Recep Erdogen, much like the insurgencies in other countries. Why place American money and weapons in the hands of people who will be just as adversarial to our interests as the current regime?
This is not a matter of opposing intervention for the sake of isolationism; it is a matter of not supporting intervention that is either superfluous or deleterious to our national interests. A “hawkish” stance towards Assad is a dovish stance towards Al-Qaeda. As Sarah Palin noted, in a battle with Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah on one side and Al-Qaeda and Turkey on the other, let Allah sort it out.
This should be a slam dunk opportunity for GOP leaders to oppose a wrongheaded and unpopular intervention, while shifting the focus back to the Obamacare civil war at home. Yet, House leaders are either ambivalent or downright supportive of Obama’s planned strike on behalf of Al-Qaeda. In the Senate, Mitch McConnell put out his signature mealy-mouthed parsing of words, declining to take a stand on any contentious issue.
“Today the President advised me that he will seek an authorization for the use of force from the Congress prior to initiating any combat operations against Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons. The President’s role as commander-in-chief is always strengthened when he enjoys the expressed support of the Congress.”
So much for the clout and power of being “GOP Leader:”
Wednesday, July 31st, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy, News, Press
For Immediate Release:
July 31, 2013
Contact: Daniel Horowitz
Madison Project Highlights McConnell’s Flip-Flop
on Foreign Aid to Egypt
McConnell was for funding the Muslim Brotherhood before he was against it
Washington, D.C. – The Madison Project PAC released the following statement regarding today’s vote on Senator Rand Paul’s amendment to freeze all foreign aid to Egypt [Roll Call #195]:
“Once again, Senator Mitch McConnell has shown that he has no ideological consistency and is guided by his political weather vane,” said Daniel Horowitz of the Madison Project. “Breaking his normal voting habits, Senator McConnell joined a small group of Republicans to support Senator Paul’s amendment to the annual Transportation-HUD appropriations bill, which would have frozen $1.5 billion in annual aid to Egypt. While we applaud his newfound opposition to aiding our enemies, his timing is completely suspect.”
Earlier this year, McConnell opposed Senator Paul’s efforts to block the transfer of F-16s and M1 tanks to Egypt [Roll Call #9, 1/31/2013]. He also voted against a Senator Ted Cruz amendment in March, which would have cut aid to Egypt and reallocate the funds for missile defense projects [Roll Call #85, 3/23/2013].
“What is even more jarring is that he supported such aid back when the Muslim Brotherhood controlled the country, but now opposes it after they have been deposed,” said Horowitz. “It’s extremely difficult to discern any coherent governing philosophy with Mitch McConnell – that’s just troubling.”
“This is yet one more example of how Matt Bevin is already making a difference,” said Drew Ryun of the Madison Project. “He is forcing Mitch McConnell to vote with conservatives against his own intuition. That is why we are proud to have endorsed Matt Bevin. Matt won’t be a fair weather friend to conservatives in Kentucky. He will consistently promote Kentucky values.”
To view our endorsement of Matt Bevin, click here.
The Madison Project supports and raises money for conservative candidates that have demonstrated a commitment to full-spectrum conservatism. The Madison Project website can be found at http://madisonproject.com/
Tuesday, June 4th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy
When conservatives won 31 consecutive pro-marriage amendments on state ballots throughout last decade we were told that most people want to subvert marriage by including gay relationships in the standard definition. Now that the forces behind redefining marriage have won 4 victories in 2012, we are told that we must get on board because ubiquitous gay marriage in “inevitable.”
Well, if there is one place where that should be true, it’s in Illinois – a dark blue state that has radical Democrats controlling all levers of government. They should have easily walked into a gay marriage law. Well, that’s not exactly what happened. (lifesitenews.com)
Thursday, May 23rd, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy, News
Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 15-3 to arm the Syrian “rebels” in their civil war against the Assad regime. Rand Paul was the only Republican to vote no. James E. Risch, Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Jeff Flake, John McCain, and John Barrasso all voted to arm the same people who will turn on us with our own weapons one day.
For far too long, the debate over foreign policy has been expressed though the prism of the false choice between interventionists and isolationists. Those of us who oppose the interventions on behalf of the “Arab Spring” islamists are called isolationists. The reality is that we are Reagan conservatives who believe in a robust effort to repel Islamic terrorism. We don’t oppose interventions that are in America’s best interests. Quite the contrary, we want to kill as many Islamists before they kill us. But in the case of Libya, Syria, and Egypt, we are actually intervening on behalf of our enemies.
Granted that Syria is more complicated than the other two examples. Bashar Assad is a sworn enemy of the United States, the closest ally of Iran, and a prolific exporter of terror. In a perfect world, it would be great to overthrow him and stick it to Iran. But the reality is that the strongest elements of the insurgency are saturated with Al-Qaeda affiliated extremists, much like the insurgencies in other countries. Why place American money and weapons in the hands of people who will be just as adversarial to our interests as the current regime?
Friday, March 22nd, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy
One of the more intractable components of our foreign policy dating back to the Clinton years has been the obsession of creating a Palestinian state. The career egghead diplomats in the State Department believed that if we would only send billions in aid to the venerable leaders of the Palestinian Authority and grant them statehood, they would put down their terror toys and sing kumbaya. To that end, we have given them billions in aid and provided them with military training during the past two decades.
Some conservatives have done a good job exposing the absurd expenditures that taxpayers fund, such as wine-tasting sessions and reality TV in India. But wine-tasting is certainly not as offensive as funding terrorists. It’s time to end this insanity once and for all.
Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, is introducing legislation today that will finally halt the open-ended commitment to the so-called Palestinians. No, a few hundred million dollars in cuts will not balance the budget; however, we should not be sending one red cent to terrorists anywhere in the world.
The Palestinian Accountability Act would cut off all aid to the PLO, estimated at $500 billion, until among other things:
- An audit of the PLO’s governing authority is conducted
- They dismantle the terrorist organizations
- All incitement in their media and education is halted
- Israel’s right to exist is publicly recognized and accepted
The bill also prohibits official state documents from referring to areas of Israel as “Palestine” until those benchmarks are met. This comes as the Obama administration refuses to recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel on the map depicting Obama’s visit.
Thursday, March 7th, 2013 and is filed under Blog, Foreign Policy, Issues
What was it about Rand Paul’s filibuster that has captivated conservatives all over the country and reinvigorated their desire to fight for our Constitutional Republic? The irony is that the drone issue was not even one of the most popular issues among many conservatives until last night. I suspect that many conservatives don’t necessarily agree with some of Paul’s assertions about targeting terrorists like Al-Awlaki overseas, although we are all (everyone except for McCain and Graham) concerned about targeting Americans on American soil. Yet he has become an overnight sensation, not just among his core libertarian base, but among the broad conservative movement.
Conservatives have been starving for a fighter; longing for someone who will do something drastic, engage in a media savvy fight against an imperialistic president who has no respect for checks and balances and an invidious disregard for the separation of powers.
We have witnessed this president shred the Constitution and implement his radical agenda by administrative fiat. We the People stand by flummoxed and frustrated at the lack of courage among Republicans to counter the president with anything more magnanimous than a press release. We have seen him abrogate our immigration laws, grant administrative amnesty, and let criminal aliens out of jail. Yet nobody has used their position and identified a point of leverage at which to take a stand and draw extended scrutiny to the issue or any other breach of authority.