Liz Cheney: Obama is uniquely dangerous president

Above video is set to start at 9 min 46 sec.

Transcript

Megyn Kelly: Do you think that President Obama is dangerous?

Liz Cheney: Yes … I think there’s no question. I think he is unique in terms of a president who is sitting in the Oval Office who has made very clear that his desire is to weaken the nation.

And whether you say it’s his intent, whether it’s naivety, you can now look at the result of the policy of the past six years.

… There’s no question that he’s a dangerous president, and that we’ve got to fight back and we’ve got to ensure that people understand the importance of American power in securing our freedom and security.

Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz Cheney, have started a new organisation, Alliance for a Strong America

 

Report This Post

Unable to confirm Chris Berg’s claim that David Brat is “anti-immigration”

Chris Berg

… of the Institute of Public Affairs refers to “Brat’s attack on immigration” and writes:

… what could be more respectful of the tenets of individual liberty than allowing individuals and families to travel across national borders to make a better life for themselves?

I haven’t seen anything from David Brat that opposes this.

What David Brat states on his campaign website is:

When addressing the issue of immigration, we must start by securing our border. An open border is both a national security threat and an economic threat that our country cannot ignore. I reject any proposal that grants amnesty and undermines the fundamental rule of law.

… I support proposals that will secure our border, enforce our current laws, and restore an orderly and fair process to allow law abiding individuals to work towards becoming citizens of this great nation.

Repeat: “… to allow law abiding individuals to work towards becoming citizens …”

Thomas Sowell

… in his article on David Brat’s defeat of Eric Cantor explains the importance of “law abiding”:

A key issue in this campaign was amnesty for illegal immigrants.

… Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed almost entirely in terms of what can be done to help those who have broken the law. Some want to help a little and some want to help a lot. But amnesty lite is still amnesty.

… Amnesty is not some esoteric concept. It means that you are not going to be punished for breaking the law — and that simply brings laws into contempt. Denying citizenship is not a punishment because crossing the border illegally does not entitle you to citizenship. Providing a legal status short of citizenship is not punishment either.

… If you are serious about controlling the borders, then you pass laws to control the borders first.

Some years later, after you can see whether the border has been controlled or not — you can start discussing what our national immigration laws should be.

The free movement of people

Chris Berg says it’s time for …

… politicians who proclaim the virtues of liberty to discover its connection with the free movement of people

I support the “free movement of people” and the “virtues of liberty”.

That’s why I think it’s great that:

Over a million people a year are granted permanent residence (green card) status in the USA (link to PDF)

Between 600,000 and 750,000 people are granted citizenship each year in the USA (link to PDF)

Between 5,000,000 and 9,000,000 non-immigrant visas are granted each year in the USA (link to PDF)

That’s a lot of people following the law, isn’t it?

That’s a lot of people who have made the effort, paid the fees, passed the tests — in order to be in the USA.

The USA has a lot of legal immigrants and visitors. To me, this represents a lot of “free movement of people”.

And demonstrates that America is quite “respectful of the tenets of individual liberty … allowing individuals and families to travel across national borders to make a better life for themselves”.

And it’s nice to meet people who get visas or green cards or citizenship by means of respecting the laws of a country which is so much in favour of the “free movement of people”.

So, Dr Brat?

I haven’t heard David Brat complain about any of the above, wonderful people. Have you?

If he was “anti-immigration” you’d think he’d be quite annoyed about all or most or some of those millions of people, wouldn’t you?

But he doesn’t seem to be bothered.

Conclusion

I have been unable to confirm Chris Berg’s claim about David Brat “attacking” immigration.

Videos

Get acquainted with David Brat ….

Mark Levin talks about Brat, Conservative principles, and unleashing the American economy …

 

Report This Post

Islamic violence inexplicable — but for the Koran

David Woods ponders the inexplicable:

How do so many Muslims keep misunderstanding Islam and concluding that it commands them to “fight those who do not believe in Allah” (Qur’an 9:29)?

Why do so many Muslims think that they are supposed to “strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them” (Qur’an 9:73)?

Why do so many converts to Islam decide that they must be “severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves” (Qur’an 48:29)?

Where are they getting this stuff from?

Haven’t Muslim groups like CAIR and ISNA explained to them that Allah always means the opposite of what he says?

PS: Above video of David Woods in drag is from his presentation, “Muhammad, Cross-Dressing, and the London Muslim Patrol”.

Report This Post

Jihad and psychopaths. A match made in …

Nemmouche Logoindex: Primary suspect in Brussels Jewish Museum attack, 24 May 2014

Nemmouche Logoindex: Primary suspect in Brussels Jewish Museum attack, 24 May 2014

Theodore Dalrymple writes:

Jihad is a concept perfectly suited to giving psychopaths the idea that their viciousness serves an ideal other than their own gratification.

That doesn’t mean all Jihadists are psychopaths, but the Jihad aspect of Islam — and that’s no small part of Islam — does provide opportunities for individuals without conscience or moral qualms.

Report This Post

Brendan O’Neill: Abolish Australian Human Rights Commission

Brendan O'Neill in Australia defending free speech

UK writer and activist, Brendan O’Neil, editor of Spiked Online, in The Australian:

IMAGINE if there were a women’s rights organisation that said women should stay in the kitchen and leave the world of work to men.

Or a gay rights group that argued homosexuality was sinful. We would think that was weird, right?

Well, it is no more weird than having a human rights commission that has devoted itself not to the expansion of freedom but to the strangling of it, to the straitjacketing of liberty in the name of protecting people from offence and defending public morals.

Australia’s Human Rights Commission must be one of the worst cases of Orwellian doublespeak in the modern world.

… this vast bureaucratic outfit that is funded by government to the tune of $25 million a year does far more to thwart freedom than it does to promote it.

… Without the freedom to speak our minds, publish our ideas and hawk our ideologies, everything from the right to vote to artistic rights becomes meaningless, ­impossible even.

… in the debate about section 18C, in this key ideological clash over whether the state should have the authority to tell individuals what they can think and say, most of the HRC has come down on the side of the state control rather than the individual liberty.

via Abolish the Human Rights Commission, and return us to the Enlightenment’s positive values | The Australian.

 

Report This Post

David French: Bergdahl Exchange for Taliban Dream Team encourages future hostage-taking

Bring Home Bowe Bergahd Billboard

David French @ NationalReview.com

A successful rescue typically results in the death or capture of enemy soldiers, costs the enemy its valued asset — in this case an American prisoner — and discourages hostage-taking by raising the price for no return.

A ransom, on the other hand, gives the enemy an additional asset (in this case, five valued commanders), leaves his capturing forces intact, and encourages future hostage-taking.

The defeat of ransom is compounded when we give far more than we receive: giving away the Taliban “dream team” for a sergeant who apparently deserted his post.

Good points.

But as for whether or not Bergdahl deserted his post, that needs to be established by an appropriate court. We need to get both sides of the argument. We need to hear Bergdahl’s side.

The media statements of his fellow soldiers may be compelling, but it’s still not proper proof.

And of course even an alleged deserter deserves to be rescued.

The other thing I’d like to know is: Why did the United States government exchange FIVE hardcore Jihadists for this soldier? Why not fewer?

Doesn’t that reduce its future negotiating ability? If it had only traded ONE Jihadist, it would then have four more Jihadists than it does now for use in any future trade — should the need and opportunity arise.

Furthermore, the USA government must now keep tabs on all these Jihadists.

Robert Tracinski @ The Federalist describes the Taliban Dream Team who were swapped for Bergdahl:

These were top officials in the Taliban regime:

a provincial governor,

a deputy defense minister,

a deputy intelligence minister,

a top arms smuggler,

and a top Taliban military commander.

Two of them are wanted by the United Nations for war crimes committed against Afghanistan’s Shiites.

 

 

 

Report This Post

Greg Sheridan: India gears up for 8 percent annual economic growth

Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India.

Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India.

Greg Sheridan on the election of  Narendra Modi:

Here is a big tip.

Modi will get Indian economic growth back to 8 per cent a year well within his first term.

This will change everything.

… He is a supply-side economic reformer.

He wants to free up the constraints on the supply side of the economy.

As much as Tony Abbott in this country (Australia), Modi wants to be known as the infrastructure prime minister.

via Plug into the Modi moment | The Australian.

Report This Post

Pat Condell: Sweden goes insane

Report This Post

Heritage Foundation’s Obamacare Parody

 

Report This Post

Jack Wakeland: Obamacare was designed to fail

Obama depicted as the Nihilist Joker from Batman movie

Obama depicted as the Nihilist Joker from Batman movie

Robert Tracinski‘s friend and colleague, Jack Wakeland says:

Obamacare can’t be fixed because it was designed to break.

Obamacare was designed to fail; to fail slowly and incrementally; to fail in a way that would convince people that private, for-profit health insurance companies are the reason why America’s catastrophically overpriced and malfunctioning health care system hasn’t worked, doesn’t work, and will never work.

The architects of the Affordable Care Act wanted to ‘prove’ that third-party private insurance should be scrapped entirely and replaced with a single-payer system: straight socialism.

The ACA was supposed to fail slowly and painfully over the course of two or three or four presidential election cycles (which is why Obamacare’s namesake, Barack Obama, saw to it that it wouldn’t be implemented until the second half of his second term).

When the backlash came, it was supposed to come on some other president’s—preferably a Republican president’s—watch.

But instead of failing on schedule, four or eight or twelve years from now—it has failed instantly, upon contact with reality

…. Obama, Reid, and all of the other architects of the Affordable Care Act have created a problem for themselves that was designed to be insoluble.

In early 2012, Dr Jill Vecchio explained Obamacare, step-by-step, in a series of clear, well-presented, non-partisan video presentations.

Here is the first of her video series:

(Thanks to Barboo for drawing my attention to these.)

 

 

 

Report This Post