Dr Benjamin Carson Schools POTUS at National Prayer Breakfast

While President Obama continues to insert raw partisan politics into absolutely everything he does and every speech he makes, the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning was no exception.

The annual National Prayer Breakfast bills itself as a celebration of faith and togetherness. Unfortunately, President Barack Obama noted, that spirit doesn't last much past the coffee.During his speech at the breakfast Thursday morning at the Washington Hilton, where he spoke before community and religious leaders as well as some lawmakers, the president lamented the current tone in Washington."I do worry sometimes that as soon as we leave the prayer breakfast, everything we've been talking about the whole time at the prayer breakfast seems to be forgotten. On the same day of the prayer breakfast," Obama said, and paused as the attendees laughed. "I mean, you'd like to think the shelf life wasn't so short. I go back to the Oval Office and I start watching the cable news networks, and it's like we didn't pray."

It is no wonder that the American public, people who don't always follow along with politics as closely as some of us do, believe we are a people divided now more so than ever.

In a December Pew Research Center poll, 80 percent of respondents said the country was more divided politically than in the past. In a separate question, 60 percent said people they know are more divided politically than in the past. These were the highest responses on these questions since Pew began asking them in 2004. In a November Gallup/USA Today poll, 69 percent of respondents said Americans were “greatly divided” when it comes to the most important values; 29 percent said Americans were united and in agreement about them.

Leadership comes from the top down. President Obama continues to lead a divided nation by encouraging more division.

"Dr. Benjamin S. Carson at National Prayer Breakfast slammed political correctness, health care, and the national debt with President Obama seated right in front of him." Dr. Carson is Pediatric Neurosurgery Division Director at Johns Hopkins Hospital. This man spoke truth to power as President Obama didn't look too terribly happy about it. Dr. Carson does it with much humor and a happy spirit.  I highly recommend watching the video of the speech.




Dr. Carson and his wife began the Carson Scholars program sixteen years ago.  Since then, they have awarded 5,000 scholarships to students for college education.  They are now in all 50 states and support a diverse group of young people.  Dr. Carson spoke of the beginnings of his scholarship program, which began when he saw a need to praise and support young scholars with the same enthusiasm as young athletes.  


President Obama didn't bother to applaud as the rest of the audience did when Dr. Carson spoke with common sense about scholarship, fairness in taxation, common sense solutions to health care delivery and the like.  To her credit, the First Lady was shown applauding with the others. 

Hagel Not First Enlisted Man Nominated for Defense Secretary

Poor Chuck Hagel. One claim he had going for him in support of his nomination to be the next Secretary of Defense was that he would be the first enlisted man to hold that position.  It would be an historic nomination, brought forward by an historic president.

Oops.

Turns out that was just another bogus claim broadcast by Team Obama - the people who want you to believe that everything President Obama does is an historic move. 

As usual, the watchdog American media didn't bother to either fact check or correct the claim.  One former Secretary of State, Republican Melvin Laird, now 90 years old admits he was a bit taken aback that the claim has been so freely promoted without correction.

It has been widely reported since Chuck Hagel's nomination as defense secretary that he'd be the first former enlisted man to serve in that office. 
But that overlooks several former Pentagon chiefs, including Wisconsin's own Mel Laird, now 90, who served as defense secretary under Richard Nixon in the latter years of the Vietnam War. 
Laird enlisted in the Navy during Word War II, eventually becoming an officer and seeing combat on a destroyer in the Pacific. 
"It doesn't bother me," Laird said in an interview Monday, though he expressed surprise the record hadn't been set straight before now. 
This Associated Press report cites three other former defense secretaries who spent part of their military service in the enlisted ranks. 

"Several" former defense secretaries, according to this article.  Imagine that.

Naturally the White House tried to put out an explanation for the characterization of Hagel's nomination, since the president called him  "the first person of enlisted rank" :

A White House spokesman said Tuesday that formulation was intended to refer to Hagel's highest rank in the military -- meaning Hagel would be the first defense secretary who served only in the enlisted ranks. 
But whatever the intended meaning, this particular factoid about Hagel has been restated in language that is clearly wrong. 

Laird, by the way, wasn't very impressed with Hagel's hearing.

Laird said he watched the Hagel hearing on television, and thought Hagel "wasn't prepared as well as he should have been." Laird also said he thought the hearing was so dominated by foreign policy that issues specific to the Pentagon and military were given short shrift. 

 This information was on the Pentagon's own website.  Team Obama is sloppy in their research.  Or they just deliberately fib to make the story more compelling. Either way, the American people deserve a more efficient, honest White House.

Cantor Promotes Common Sense Way Forward for GOP

A sign that the speech delivered by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was an important one at AEI on Tuesday was the White House scheduling President Obama's remarks on the debt and deficit problems facing our country during the same time.  It's a classic political move - try and drown out the other party's message through media coverage.

Cantor's speech was all about making life work.   “Making life work for more working people, and all who want to work, is the best way to a future of higher growth and more opportunity.” It was getting out in front of the president's upcoming State of the Union address.

The government should ensure that Americans from all walks of life have a fair shot to pursue success and achieve their dreams, declared US House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) in an address Tuesday at the American Enterprise Institute. In the address, Rep. Cantor unveiled a series of policy proposals aimed at “Making Life Work” for more Americans that will serve as legislative priorities for House Republicans in the 113th Congress.
Although parts of Rep. Cantor’s address touched on the fiscal challenges the United States faces, inparticular a looming entitlement crisis brought on by Medicare and Medicaid, most of his remarks focused on creating the conditions necessary to maximize opportunity for everyday Americans.
Rep. Cantor articulated the House GOP’s vision for the upcoming legislative agenda, spotlighting priorities including education, tax reform, immigration, and health care. He put a human face on many of his proposals by citing anecdotal evidence from several guests in the audience who have struggled to navigate these systems and urged Congress to “move heaven and earth” to address these problems.

It is about time that GOP leadership gets out there and tells our story. We are not the party of no government. We are the party of small government. We are compassionate and want all to have the tools to succeed.

Hillary Bids Adieu to State Department

Somehow it seems appropriate that on Hillary Clinton's last day as Secretary of State that it would be shadowed by yet another terrorist attack at one of our overseas embassies.  This time it was in Ankara,Turkey.  

Given that she escaped virtually blemish free after the horrific actions in Benghazi, Libya and that so many on the left continue to sweep it all under the rug as quickly as possible, it seems just a wee bit of karma is in play.

Matter of fact, Hillary Clinton's popularity remains the highest of any other member of the Obama administration.  One could argue that it is possible that since she was always traveling and out of the public light and not doing much in the form of political statements, her warm and fuzzy status will be soon tarnished back into the reality as she prepares to re-enter the political world. 

This is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bidding adieu to her minions:



You'll hear her say that the world is a safer place now. Yeah, the Ambassador in Turkey is on line one, Hillary.

The lapdog media would have you believe that she left with the loudest applause of appreciation ever from the State Department employees.  The truth is, that is how it is always.  They are career workers who show that level of deference to whomever is in the job.  That is how they keep their jobs.  The last Secretary of State left to the same applause and by all accounts was much admired and respected by those with whom she worked.  That was Condoleezza Rice.

More truth about Hillary Clinton's record - some are willing to write about it.  She was challenged over her assertion  that the U.S. is more respected now than when she went into her position four years ago.  Also, former Secretary Rice was cited for working far more diligently on the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

But if Clinton has mastered the lingo and the memes — the Twitter feeds and town halls that are now required tools for top diplomats — her substantive legacy remains thin, especially when it comes to the Middle East.

Clinton was prescient in predicting the upheavals that have convulsed the Arab world over the last two years. At a forum in Doha, Qatar, in January 2011, she warned assembled dignitaries that “in too many places, in too many ways, the region’s foundations are sinking into the sand.”

But she and the administration she serves have struggled to keep pace with developments in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and most especially, Syria. The death of US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans last September at the hands of Muslim extremists who have yet to be caught and punished occurred on Clinton’s watch; the US failure to adequately protect its mission in Benghazi will remain a blot on her record.

On Arab-Israel peace, Clinton did less than her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, and has little to show. After an early effort led by the Obama administration’s special envoy, George Mitchell, failed, the peace process has remained in limbo. Clinton’s only major accomplishment was helping to clinch a cease-fire last year between Israel and Hamas in a brief war that neither side wanted to prolong.

And while Clinton bragged on Thursday about the international coalition the Obama administration has assembled against Iran and the “crippling sanctions” that have been imposed against that country, a negotiated cap on Iran’s nuclear program and improvement in US-Iran relations seem as elusive as ever.

Clinton said nothing Thursday about the negotiating stalemate with Iran, promising only that “we will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”

During a brief question and answer session, she was asked why America is even more unpopular in the Middle East than it was during President George W. Bush's administration — at least judging from public opinion polls. Clinton said that was “unfortunate.” But like  many of her predecessors, she seemed to blame anti-Americanism in the region more on a US failure to explain itself properly than on US policies that continue to antagonize and disappoint local populations.

The fact is this - the U.S. is not liked around the world, whether we exhibit an aggressive foreign policy promoting our principles of freedom and democracy, as in the Bush administration or if we exhibit a lead from behind passive foreign policy, as in the Obama administration. No other country has our power or might and that causes bitterness and jealousy.

Given an opportunity, Hillary Clinton smacked the Bush administration as often as possible.  Whether it was the ridiculous disaster of the "re-set" with Russia photo op or the delusion that by the simple act of a change in administration brings a new respect for America overseas, Hillary has been ok but not particularly good and certainly not great.  Her record will find her performance wanting.

Hillary will be back, mark my words.  She'll take a nice rest and enjoy having the luxury of her time being her own.  She's had a full four years of non-stop world travel and now boasts of the most miles traveled as Secretary of State. It's a good excuse to not have to stay home when you don't want to do that so much.  You'll remember the criticisms Hillary faced for her love of travel as a First Lady and taking her pals along for the fun.

Yes, I think she'll be back.  I'm certain she still wants to be president.  Time will tell if she has the energy to try it one more time.

Hagel Should Ask Obama to Withdraw His Nomination

ABC News Chief White House Correspondent on Twitter - Jonathan Karl ‏@jonkarl

This quote from Hagel today is an instant classic: "If confirmed, I intend to know a lot more than I do".

That was an actual quote from Secretary of Defense nominee, Chuck Hagel during his Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing.  It was just one of many quotes that will be recited as anyone who watched the hearing shakes his/her head and wonders what in the world Hagel was thinking as he sat in that chair facing the committee to answer their questions.

As pointed out HERE, Hagel is no novice.  He is in possession of qualifications for the position.  

Hagel, as a former Republican U.S. Senator from Nebraska and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee might be uniquely qualified to oversee the long-term re-ordering of our military forces in a time of withdrawal from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the short term issues that attend the looming sequester.

A former infantryman in Vietnam with two Purple Hearts, Hagel should have been sailing through the confirmation process as easily as former Naval officer in Vietnam, John Kerry, sailed through his confirmation to be Secretary of State.

And, unlike Kerry, he didn't begin his political career by throwing his medals over the fence at the White House, going on to slander and outright lie in Winter Soldier theatre of the absurd.

As most reasonable people do, I, too believe that a president is entitled to his choice of cabinet members.  These are the people with whom a president will work most closely with and he should pick accordingly. Under our Constitution, it is the job of the Senate to advise and consent on these nominees. All of this is simple enough to understand.

Sometimes something so odd happens, though, that it makes me pause and think perhaps a nominee shouldn't be confirmed after all.  Thursday was one of those times.  

I've been upfront with my disapproval of the Hagel nomination but I recognized all along that he will be the next Secretary of Defense.  There are enough Democrats in the Senate to allow that conclusion.  After the hearing, though, I do believe it may be a close vote.  

Even though Hagel has a good resume for the job and he won't be making policy, it is hard to think of him in comparison to the last few people who have held that position.  Even just going back to the 1980's, does Hagel fit in among Weinberger, Carlucci, Cheney, Aspin, Perry, Cohen, Rumsfeld, Gates and Panetta? Maybe one didn't always agree with the men on their opinions offered on foreign policy matters but all of them rose to the occasion and none made the listener question the sincerity or thought process of the answer.  

The problem with an opportunist like Hagel is we never know who will show up.  Also it was abundantly clear that he isn't up to date on some important positions held by the administration in which he hopes to serve.  Time and time again, Democrats came to his rescue and led him through cleaning up a previous answer.

This from a summary of Thursday's hearing:

According to numerous sources a staffer passed Hagel a note after which, having read it, Hagel said:

"I misspoke and said I supported the president's position on containment. If I said that, I meant to say we don't have a position on containment."

But, as the Chairman of the Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), pointed out, "We do have a position on containment, and that is we do not favor containment. I just wanted to clarify the clarify." 

That is an important distinction, don't you agree? Someone had to pass him a note and the Chairman had to define the administration's actual position.

Hagel not only embarrassed himself with his bumbling and odd performance, he embarrassed the president under whom he will serve.  Hagel has begged for this job since the 2008 election cycle when he chose to support and campaign with Obama instead of John McCain.  There is no love lost between McCain and Hagel.  One would have thought Hagel would have been well-prepared to explain his flip-flopping on some major issues, especially statements on Iran, Israel and the Iraq war that he had to have known would come up.  

Democrats and Republicans alike were flabbergasted at the performance exhibited by Hagel. Certainly people like me who were watching on C-SPAN were surprised at just how incompetent Hagel looked.

I don't think Hagel is smart enough for the job.  I also don't think Hagel has the strength of character to be confident in his own opinions - he changes them to fit the situation.  During the hearing it appeared he was changing his opinions before our eyes.

The honorable thing to do is for Hagel to ask the president to withdraw his nomination.  I think his ego will not allow him to do the right thing, as he clearly is not ready for this promotion, more is the pity.

 

Cruz Holds Hagel Accountable During Confirmation Hearing

As he promised, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has released for the record the 2009 al-Jazeera interview show in which Chuck Hagel agreed with a caller's statement that the U.S. is a bully and isn't laying down its nuclear weapons as we ask other nations to do. Also, he agreed with a caller that there is an absence of "moral leadership" in the world.

First, the question and answer part of Senator Cruz and Hagel: 




Next, the most dramatic part of the questioning as Senator Cruz introduces video confirmation of his line of questioning:

Some Highlights of the Hagel Confirmation Hearing

The level of unpreparedness exhibited by nominee Chuck Hagel Thursday before the Senate Armed Forces Committee was surprising, to put it mildly, to both Democrats and Republicans.  The water carrying media was shocked.  It was Hagel looking like Obama in the first debate against Mitt Romney.  He was unprepared and fumbling around for answers as he was questioned on past statements and votes.

This was a devastating part of the Hagel nomination hearing in the Senate Armed Forces Committee Thursday.  Senator Lindsey Graham, (R-SC) grilled Hagel on his ugly comments about Israel, in particular his reference to the "Jewish lobby" and Senators who are pressured to do "dumb things" to appease that lobby:



Two previous works of Hagel were mentioned multiple times in questioning. One was a paper put forth by GLOBAL ZERO -  U.S. NUCLEAR
POLICY COMMISSION REPORT where Hagel had to back off his position of nuclear disarmament.  The other was from The Center for Strategic and International Studies in which Hagel speaks about Iran and criticized the Bush administration's approach to that country.  He advocated, in 2007, that we must hold unconditional talks.

In the last year, the President has authorized the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to hold narrow and limitedagenda bilateral talks with Iranian officials regarding Iraq and I have supported this effort.  Three rounds of talks have been held, with another round scheduled soon.
However, now is the time for the United States to actively pursue an offer of direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran.  We cannot afford to refuse to consider this strategic choice any longer.  We should make clear that everything is on the table – our issues and Iran’s….similar to the opportunity that we squandered in 2003 for comprehensive talks with Iran.  This should include offering Iran a credible way back in from the fringes of the international community, security guarantees if it is willing to give up nuclear weapons ambitions, as well as other incentives.  This will require the day-to-day efforts and presence of a very senior administration official, higher ranking than the American Ambassador to Iraq. 

And, yes, Senator Hagel has a book to hawk.  These guys read it so you don't have to do it.

We'll conclude with "The 80 Worst Seconds of the Chuck Hagel Hearing" from the GOP Rapid Response team: 



Yikes.

Hagel Appears Before Senate Armed Forces Committee

I have written about former Senator Hagel and the opposition he faces in his nomination to be Secretary of Defense. To say his hearing before the Senate Armed Forces Committee Thursday was brutal, to put it mildly.  He took fire from both sides of the panel. 

President Obama used this quote during his second Inaugural speech as he dipped briefly into foreign policy:

"Peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes".

Was it ignorance of his speechwriters or was it a deliberate choice to use a quote which is credited to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain as he wanted to bury his head and appease an advancing Hitler in Europe?  Perhaps this is the "common creed" Hagel subscribes to with President Obama. 

President Obama has a distinctly off-putting habit of using a bury his head in the sand stance as first reaction to global happenings.  Chuck Hagel hopes to sound as though he is in favor of a lighter footprint in the world from America.  It is no doubt one of the most ingratiating aspects of his foreign policy ideology that Obama finds acceptable from a Republican so will be his administration's token appointment.

This is a list of recent happenings, however, from The Wall Street Journal, which may prove to be difficult for Obama and Hagel to ignore:

In the week since President Obama declared "a decade of war is now ending" at his inauguration, a few things happened.

• Israeli warplanes on Wednesday struck a truck convoy outside Damascus and headed to Lebanon's Hezbollah, according to news reports, amid concern about the spread of chemical and advanced antiaircraft weapons from convulsive Syria.

• The U.S. commander in Kabul predicted a tough spring of fighting and "an uncertain future" for Afghanistan.

• The French retook northern Mali from Islamist militias.

• Egypt's military chief warned of the "collapse" of the Arab world's largest nation.

• China moved ahead with naval exercises around Pacific islands disputed with Japan.

• And the Pentagon announced plans to boost American cyber defenses and set up an air base in north Africa (near Mali, Libya, Algeria, etc.).

Hagel's complete embrace of bending to popular opinion and saying whatever works best for him in a situation, the hearing day conversion of past remarks and votes was in full display.  Noted HERE , pretty much has allegiance for his own political career and little else. It seems he isn't so troubled over a possible sequestration of the military funding, either.

This may not trouble Mr. Hagel, a former Republican Senator from Nebraska in the President's dovish mold. In his most notable comments about the Pentagon, he averred last year that the military is "bloated." According to Bob Woodward, such advice secured Mr. Hagel the Pentagon nod.

Hagel will be a good fit for Team Obama, especially teaming up with the new Secretary of State Kerry.  These three will no doubt change the face of American foreign policy.  

Elections have consequences.

Obama Demands Immediate Action on Immigrant Reform

So, President Obama flew to Las Vegas Tuesday to deliver his thoughts on immigration reform.  Why he felt the urge to continue to campaign on the taxpayer's dime instead of simply delivering the speech in the Washington, D.C. area remains to be uncertain. Though the Congressional Hispanic caucus asked him to not do it, President Obama again ignored the legislative process and demanded his wishes be immediately put into law.

As was pointed out HERE , the President's fake urgency and bossiness over scheduling immediate action on an immigration reform bill is a bit much:

"If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist they vote on it right away.

"Yes, well, when he is Prime Minister of the World he might be able to tell the Intergalactic Parliament what to vote on and when, but as of now Mr. Obama is merely the President of the United States and the Congress has been loathe - over the past 224 years - to cede the power of Floor scheduling to the White House.

Someone should remind the President each and every day that he is now entering his fifth year - not fifth day - in office and he could have "insisted" on Immigration Reform at any point in his first term

 It is clear that one could question Obama's sincerity here.  He would like nothing more, no doubt, to use this hot button issue as a battering ram on Republicans in the 2014 elections, should it twist in the wind until then. He will continue to rant about non-existent straw men, as is his nature.  Instead of working with Congress, letting the process move forward, he had to jump in and up the ante.  He raises concerns that Democrats hoped to sidestep.  

Republicans were burned in the 1980's when Ronald Reagan struck a lopsided deal with Democrats.  Complete, unequivocal amnesty was granted then and the border remained unsecured.  It is understandable for reasonable people now to question how stipulations and requirements will be enforced.

This is the statement from Senator Rubio, one of the gang of eight, as he noticed a lack of enforcement triggers mentioned by the president:

“I am concerned by the President’s unwillingness to accept significant enforcement triggers before current undocumented immigrants can apply for a green card. Without such triggers in place, enforcement systems will never be implemented and we will be back in just a few years dealing with millions of new undocumented people in our country. Furthermore, the President ignored the need for a modernized guest worker program that will ensure those who want to immigrate legally to meet our economy’s needs can do so in the future.  Finally, the President’s speech left the impression that he believes reforming immigration quickly is more important than reforming immigration right. A reform of our immigration laws is a consequential undertaking that deserves to be subjected to scrutiny and input from all involved.  I was encouraged by the President’s  explicit statement that people with temporary legal status won’t be eligible for ObamaCare. If in fact they were, the potential cost of reform would blow open another big, gaping hole in our federal budget and make the bill untenable.”

Liberals will argue that border enforcement is at its strictest now. That also means that the number of those illegally crossing is increasing. That number is up 9%.    

Even as President Obama travels to Las Vegas Tuesday to call for legalizing illegal immigrants, the latest numbers from the U.S. Border Patrol suggest that the flow across the nation’s southwest border jumped by 9 percent last year.The Border Patrol made 356,873 arrests along the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal year 2012, up from 327,577 in 2011, according to figures obtained by the Associated Press and confirmed by The Washington Times. Border Patrol officials estimate that apprehensions are a good proxy for illegal crossings, so when the numbers go up, it means that the flow of illegal immigrants is going up as well.Last year’s increase marks a reversal. Apprehensions peaked in 2005 at 1.2 million and had been steadily dropping every year since as first President George W. Bush and then Mr. Obama committed more manpower and resources to the border.

President Obama may think he can simply declare the border secure and the issue dead, thus reform measures are ready to be made. That is a troubling assertion, considering the data would indicate the number of illegal crossings are increasing now, not on the decline.

This issue doesn't have to be rushed.  We have the time to do it right.

Senators Roll Out Immigration Reform Proposal

Another secretive gang of eight in the U.S. Senate has emerged from behind closed doors and presented what is described as a bipartisan approach to immigration reform.  The continued use of legislating with these small, shadowy groups is disturbing but now we have to hope some meaningful reform will begin to be discussed.

The members of the panel are four Democrats: Senators Schumer, Durbin, Menendez and Bennet.  The Republicans are: Senators McCain, Graham, Rubio and Flake. It would seem we have seen this show before.

The proposal is quite close to the reform that former President George W Bush tried to move forward in 2007.  This was quickly shut down by both Republicans and Democrats.  Democrats certainly didn't want a Republican president to lead such major reform that will affect future voting populations.  HERE are the four specific points of the current proposal:

1. Create a tough but fair path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants currently living in the United States that is contingent upon securing our borders and tracking whether legal immigrants have left the country when required;

2. Reform our legal immigration system to better recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the American economy and strengthen American families;

3. Create an effective employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and end the hiring of future unauthorized workers; and,

4. Establish an improved process for admitting future workers to serve our nation’s workforce needs, while simultaneously protecting all workers.

It looks good on paper but it is easy for Republicans to be skeptical working with this very liberal President and Senate leadership.  It is easy to realize that the safeguards of accountability over border security and reforming visas will be tossed to the curb when it is all done.  Democrats do not support accountability measures, as a general rule.  This president is far to eager to ram through sweeping legislation rather than allowing Congress to do its job and provide sensible and workable solutions.  Remember Obamacare?  Obama's legacy is more important to him than the future needs of our country.

The senators rolled out their framework for immigration reform Monday, the day before President Obama traveled to Las Vegas (why?) to deliver his own speech containing his proposal.  He has a habit of overreaching, this president. He compliments the senators for their work then goes on to muddy the issue with his own words.  The legislative body should be able to present and debate the issue on its own.  Even the Congressional Hispanic caucus asked Obama to not give his speech, to let the debate blossom and not muck things up. So, naturally, his ego made the decision.  He flew to Vegas and bloviated.

As he was interviewed Tuesday morning, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) said on getting out in front of the president's speech in Las Vegas on immigration reform: "If people don't know where you stand on something, your opposition will say where you stand and I guarantee they will not tell the truth."


The two Texas senators- both Republicans-  have exhibited restraint in their support of the reform measure put forth.  Senior Senator John Cornyn expressed concern that citizenship for those here illegally would allow them to jump the line over those doing it the legal way:

Speaking on Andrea Tantaros’ radio show Tuesday, Cornyn said he didn’t “want to discourage” the bipartisan effort by the eight senators, but he added: “I do worry that people get the cart ahead of the horse and start talking about a pathway to citizenship before they talk about the prerequisites to that — and really what I would consider to be necessary confidence building measures — to show that the federal government and Congress can be trusted when it comes to border security, when it comes to work site enforcement and when it comes to visa overstays, which accounts for about 40 percent of immigration currently.”
Cornyn also said he thinks the solution, if possible, should come from the Judiciary Committee and was skeptical of a plan crafted “behind closed doors.

Newly elected Senator Ted Cruz also expressed concern about the process put forth for a pathway to citizenship. The statement released by his office:

I appreciate the good work that senators in both parties have put into trying to fix our broken immigration system. There are some good elements in this proposal, especially increasing the resources and manpower to secure our border and also improving and streamlining legal immigration. However, I have deep concerns with the proposed path to citizenship. To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally.

This sums it up as to how many conservatives and Republicans brace for the upcoming legislative battle:

If we’ve learned anything from the 1986 amnesty, it is that trust but verify is not going to cut it when it comes to illegal immigration policy.  We need inviolable enforcement mechanisms on the enforcement side before we are prepared to make painful concessions.  Otherwise, comprehensive immigration reform will look a lot like comprehensive healthcare reform.  And we will be having this same debate in 20 years from now, albeit with a permanent Democrat majority.

This is just beginning.  Stay tuned.  Pay attention.

Obama and Hillary on 60 Minutes

I think it is safe to say that Hillary Clinton will run for president in 2016.  As part of repayment for assisting his re-election using her popular husband and for saving him from being called before Congress to testify about Benghazi, President Obama sat for a joint interview with Hillary Clinton on 60 Minutes Sunday night.  He has not done that with any other member of his cabinet.  Frankly, the only other joint interviews he does is the occasional one with is wife.

It was a slobbering love fest.  No questions of worth were asked of the outgoing Secretary of State.  Nothing about how this administration has failed on the world stage, nothing about the continuing Arab unrest, nothing about digging deeper into the Benghazi tragedy, just nothing.  It was all about how does she feel and how is her health and the like.  It was a big ole campaign hug for Hillary 2016.

Can you imagine that kind of interview with a Republican, any Republican at all? No, of course not.  

THIS is a good list of pros and cons for Hillary's 2016 run.

Republicans and conservatives and Independents continue to make Fox News Network the most watched on cable television for a reason.  After decades of only one point of view - the liberal world vision - it was a breath of fresh air to hear both sides of political arguments.  Barack Obama, however, has renewed his objection to Fox News and to conservative talk radio. He would like to demand only his ideas to be in the public square but can't really officially demand that of television viewers, so he whines.  

It is normal for a president to voice despair with the media and reporters.  It is not normal for a president to call for a boycott of a news organization simply for allowing more than one point of view to emerge on its airwaves.  Remember during the 2008 campaign when Team Obama decided to shut out Fox News from their press plane and gave no interviews to the network reporters? Yeah.  Like that. 

This 60 Minutes interview was an embarrassment.  Some even on the left call it dangerously close to something a state run media would run. You may remember Ms. Powers from the Clinton administration as she was in the State Department and a big supporter of both Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The New Republic, a liberal online publication, has re-launched and lo and behold, the cover story is on President Obama and a main point is how displeased he is with FOX News and conservative talk radio. The publisher and editor in chief is Chris Hughes, a dot com millionaire and a major Obama donor.  He pledged non-biased reporting but the very first issue violates that promise. On working with the other party, Obama expects the media and reporters to carry his water and tout his agenda.

And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. So I don't think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground.One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you'll see more of them doing it.

It's that uncooperative Fox News, I tell you.


Washington Post political columnist and commentator Charles Krauthammer said that Obama's scowl towards FOX News should be accepted with pride:

I love to hear the president whine about FOX News and talk radio. I think we ought to be proud of the fact that we annoy him so much. If you look at the line-up on one side, the liberal media, you start with ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, the elite newspapers, the one remaining news magazine, the universities, Hollywood -- it doesn't stop anywhere. And on the other side, talk radio, FOX News. And they can't stand the fact that they no longer have a monopoly. 
So, I think it ought to be taken as a compliment. What I've always said about Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch, their genius was understanding and locating a niche audience in broadcast cable news, which is half the American people. The half that have suffered for decades by the fact you get the news presented from a single perspective over and over again. 

In Barack Obama's world, it is never his inability to govern or to work with Republicans or socialize with those in Congress to establish working relationships.  No, it is any variance of the mainstream, liberal media and press.

Presbyterians Pontificate Progressive Points as Doctrine

I was raised in the Presbyterian church. I was baptized in that church, too.  My parents were active in the church. My husband was also raised in the Presbyterian church.  Articles written by members of the Presbyterian church, therefore, catch my attention.  In recent years, though, I am left with a feeling of disappointment.  

The reason my husband and I no longer support the church is because the politicization has penetrated too deeply.  We don't think God is either a Democrat or a Republican.  We think God has bigger issues to deal with than American politics.

We believe in the separation of church and state.   

An article I read recently was a glowing account of the Inaugural speech delivered by President Obama.  It was further justification for our feelings towards our church.

Obama’s speech, his second inaugural address, repeatedly cited civic and religious doctrines — namely the God-given equality extolled by the “founding creed” of the Declaration of Independence — to essentially reconsecrate the country to the common good and to the dignity of each person.
It was a faith-infused event that recognized both the original sins as well as the later atonements of America’s history, especially on race, which was front and center as the nation’s first African-American president took the oath on the holiday commemorating the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
And Obama and other speakers vividly traced the nation’s tortuous path from slavery to civil rights — from the Emancipation Proclamation 150 years ago to the March on Washington 50 years ago, the latter presided over by King.

No mention of this, though:

Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of civil-rights activist Medgar Evers, delivered the invocation at President Obama's second inauguration today. She is the first woman and the first layperson ever to do so; ordained pastors or priests have always performed the invocation prior to Evers-Williams. 

The author was more concerned about noting over and over the elements of Obama's speech which reached out to gays and Latinos.  Rich with irony is the lack of criticism that Team Obama disinvited the first pastor invited to deliver the benediction, due to some anti-gay speeches made in his earlier career.  Christians defend him by saying he was delivering the message in reference to Biblical text.  Also, Obama's thoughts on the rights of gay Americans conveniently "evolved" to include the acceptance of gay marriage - only as a state issue - in the last months of his last presidential campaign.

Nevertheless, the article insists this Inaugural speech proves a Fourth Great Awakening.  No, I am not kidding.

“If you had any doubt that we are in the middle of a Fourth Great Awakening, you just missed one of the greatest inauguration speeches in American history,” Diana Butler Bass, a historian of American religion, wrote on Facebook as she watched the speech.

I don't remember any glowing reports written about former President George W. Bush, though I do remember much angst from the left side of the aisle that the man embraced his religious beliefs.  Usually he was accused of exhibiting a false sort of religious expression - as though he was faking it.  

So, I googled it.  I came across this guy:

GORDON C. STEWART

Social commentator, writer and radio commentator on Minnesota Public Radio's "All Things Considered" (MPR), 91.1 FM. Pastor, Shepherd of the Hill Presbyterian Church in Chaska,MN. Live and breath reflection on the spoken and hidden convictions that shape the news and personal life. Dyed-in-the-wool Phillies and Twins fan!

And his blog post from August, 2012 HERE.  See, George W. Bush and Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan are bad, as they pose with military equipment. Martin Luther King, Jr. is good. It is a nonsensical comparison yet this is what is expected today in the intersection of politics and religion.  National security and non-violent protests are not in the same argument for common sense people.

The First Presbyterian Church in Houston doesn't seem to be too thrilled with the overtly liberal agenda pushed by a growing number in the church.  

One of the largest Presbyterian churches in the country, located here in Houston, is voting this Sunday on whether or not to enter into a discussion of what its ultimate affiliation should be with its denomination — the Presbyterian Church USA

 The minister clearly states it is not just the matter of interpreting gay rights in a church's doctrine, but the overall direction of the church.

In May of 2011, The Presbyterian Church USA, or PC USA, voted to allow openly gay clergy.  Just this past summer, PC USA narrowly defeated a motion that would create a path to same-sex marriages. First Presbyterian Church senior pastor Birchfield says issues over homosexuality and the church aren't what's pushing them into having a vote."No, at this point it's really not about gay marriage. It's really more about the fundamental differences in how we interpret scripture and how we view the nature and work of Christ."A church document posted on its website lists the theological drifts from PC USA.  Bullet points include defeated motions on the "singular saving of Jesus Christ," encouragement to not use words like "Lord" and phrases like "spiritual blindness" and only a narrow defeat on the redefinition of marriage.Birchfield says he has no end game in mind.  But he does hope that the church body this Sunday votes to have a discussion."My biggest hope is that should we go into the process that we will allow the process to lead us to the conclusion about what our options are at the end."

Yes, this is a discussion long past due.  By taking this vote, First Presbyterian Church in Houston leads the way in the process.

Kerry Appears Before Senate Foreign Relations Committee

President Obama begins his second term in the office with potentially a very different foreign policy team around him.  The new team of a Secretary of State John Kerry and a Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel - no doubts, really, that they will both be easily confirmed - signals a clear choice to stand down.  The team of Bob Gates or Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton were much more mature, reasoned and attentive to the hot spots in the world.  As Hillary Clinton testified for the last time Wednesday, she warned of this administration's tendency to withdraw rather than engage.  She warned of the emerging strength of the terrorists to do harm in Northern Africa, for example.  

John Kerry appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Thursday morning.  The last time he was doing that was during the Winter Soldier hearings and he was deliberately slandering his fellow soldiers.  He even had the audacity to reference this past performance as a protester was escorted from his hearing:




Most Vietnam veterans, certainly the one living in my house, think of him as a deeply flawed man. His despicable behavior during the Winter Soldier hearings was immoral and dishonest, all for his own political gain.  It was sick. This is the man our president - who proclaims an undying respect for the military - has nominated to be Secretary of State. So be it.

A president nominates his choices to serve in his cabinet.  Elections have consequences. The Senate will do its job of "advise and consent" and he will be accepted as one of their own in that network. Even John McCain, a Vietnam veteran who was tortured as a captured serviceman, said that Kerry would get the job easily, though Kerry would not have been his personal choice for the job. You may note that Kerry is the outgoing Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the committee holding his hearing.

Chuck Hagel will be the token Republican as Secretary of Defense.  Remarks made during his political career in Congress have brought questions and criticism from other sides of the aisle. Thursday Senator Barasso wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. On television you will see him sitting next to Senator McCain. Just back from a visit to Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu,  he voiced concern about disparaging remarks made by Hagel while in office and votes taken concerning Israel's enemies.

Since Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator, was nominated to be the next defense secretary, there is new attention on his many controversial statements. One of them, his remark that "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people" on Capitol Hill, I found to be particularly offensive and wrong.As a senator required to provide "advice and consent" on his appointment, I recently asked Mr. Hagel about his comment. He apologized for it and explained that he was only commenting on the strength of the lobby. While I respect his apology, I can't respect his explanation. My national-security votes are based on America's national security—not lobbyists' issues, interests or intimidation.
While Mr. Hagel's troublesome and insulting words matter, his policy positions matter even more. He has a record of votes and decisions that are far outside the mainstream of foreign policy supported by both Republicans and Democrats.
Mr. Hagel was one of only two U.S. senators to oppose financial sanctions against Iran in 2001. In 2007, he wrote to President George W. Bush urging "direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran." In 2008, he again was one of only two senators to vote against sanctions. That same year, he even implied, in his book "America: Our Next Chapter," that a nuclear Iran might not be so bad because countries with nuclear weapons "will often respond with some degree of responsible, or at least sane, behavior."

Like John Kerry, Chuck Hagel is a political opportunist.  He voted for the war in Iraq and then decided to openly withdraw that support.  He was adamant that the surge would not work, too. The surge proved to be a turning point in the war. He threw his support to Barack Obama in his run for president over John McCain.  He campaigned around the country for Obama and ingratiated himself at every opportunity, laying the groundwork for his current nomination.

Like John Kerry, Chuck Hagel has been consistently wrong on decisions involving foreign policy.  I am certain that he will, however, be the next Secretary of Defense.

Hagel is slowly building support from the Democrats who will vote for him in the Senate.  To date, no Republican has voiced a commitment to voting for his confirmation.  Today after some Democrats came forward with statements of support, Kerry spoke up for Hagel:

Their statements came shortly after Sen. John Kerry, the president's choice for secretary of state, found himself defending Hagel at his confirmation hearing.
"I know Chuck Hagel. I think he is a strong patriotic former senator, and he will be a strong secretary of defense," Kerry said of Hagel, who, like Kerry, served in Vietnam.

The team of Kerry and Hagel will be interesting to watch.  It will be very dangerous for our partner in democracy, Israel, and that is a pity.  While Barack Obama clearly hopes to focus on domestic issues in his second term, this is no time for America to bury its head and withdraw from the world.

Americans are worried about the direction in which our country is going.  This week's polling showed that Americans are the most downbeat about the state of our country since the days of the Jimmy Carter presidency.

Hillary Clinton Testifies Before Congress on Benghazi

Hillary Clinton ends her reign as Secretary of State soon and Wednesday marked her last scheduled appearance to testify before Congress.  She testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the morning and the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the afternoon.

Clinton has been mum about any future political plans but if we are to take a cue from Congressional Democrats, she's a contender in 2016 in the Democratic presidential primary. Freshman congressman from California Bera said : "We didn't get a chance to really serve with you. We hope in a few years we will get that chance again."

Not exactly what Vice-President Biden wants to hear.

No new truths were gleaned from the hearings.  I didn't watch the morning session but I saw the afternoon session.  The big news from the morning Senate hearing was the theatrics between the Secretary of State and Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got testy on Capitol Hill Wednesday in response to a query from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who called into question her department's accounting of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Facing expected scrutiny from Republicans during her testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Clinton appeared to take exception to Johnson's pointed inquiry into the State Department's initial report that the attack had been mounted spontaneously as a reaction to an anti-Islam YouTube video.
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans," Clinton responded, raising her voice at Johnson, who continued to interrupt her. "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

Clearly, Hillary had this answer well rehearsed. The Democrats needed a strong Hillary moment. The bolded sentence is my emphasis.  It set off a firestorm in social media and a Washington Post reporter responded to it:

No matter your view of the media’s role in Benghazi; no matter your take on whether U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice leveled with the country on the Sept. 16 talk shows; no matter your view of Fox News’s Benghazi campaign, it surely does make a difference whether it was “because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans.” It makes a difference to the media, the public, the government, everyone.
The trustworthiness of the administration’s version of events — even the early one — makes a difference. Whether it was hard-core terrorism or a spontaneous attack or something else — that makes a difference too, with strong implications for intelligence accountability. Goodness gracious, in her very own statement, Clinton herself even seems to acknowledge that it makes a difference, when she says, “It is our job to figure out what happened …”
At one point in the proceedings, Clinton stated, “Maybe we didn’t do a good enough job of explaining that we didn’t have a good picture.” Yes, that would have helped. 

I firmly believe that had Fox News not stayed on the story and addressed it consistently, the White House would have successfully allowed it to be swept away.  None of the other networks would touch it until it simply became too embarrassing to ignore it any longer. It does matter that the American people were deliberately mislead to support the re-election of Barack Obama.

Rep Faleomavaega of Guam felt the need to state that politicians "shouldn't use terrorist attacks for political gain" which was a flash of irony, given that is exactly what Hillary Clinton did as Senator Hillary Clinton after the attacks of 9/11/01.  She went to the floor of the Senate and held up a New York Post  headline: "Bush Knew" as she spoke about that day.  Yeah, so that happened.

Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) countered during his questioning time by stating that it is not seeking political gain but the democratic way to fix problems by asking questions and placing blame for mistakes.  Hillary was masterful, as usual, at diverting the questions from real substance.

Democrats were strongly going for sainthood.  Saint Hillary was even praised for her "extraordinary daughter" who helped out at The Rockaways after Hurricane Sandy by Rep Gregory Meeks, (D-NY).

Republicans weren't having it. Rep Jeff Duncan from South Carolina - "you allowed the consulate to become a death trap", for example, voiced with frustration in statement as Clinton continued to deflect responsibility to the barrage of  correspondence her office receives as she insisted she was taking responsibility.

Democrats continued with their insistence that it was the penny pinching GOP led House of Representatives that wouldn't appropriate more money to keep our foreign service personnel safe overseas.  The commission hired by Hillary Clinton published the conclusion, however, that more money would not have solved the Benghazi tragedy.  It was found to be caused by systematic failure.

The four employees suspended after the findings were published are still being paid.  They have not been fired.  The only person held accountable to date has been the video maker who is in jail now after all the publicity which caused his past troubles to be known.  Hillary Clinton now denies she blamed the video, though we remember her speech at the Andrews AFB hangar in which she clearly blamed anger over the video for the attack. She never answered clearly why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi instead of at the secure embassy in Tripoli on the date of 9/11/12.

It is always all about politics for Hillary Clinton.

40 Years After Roe v Wade Decision

Tuesday marks the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision known as Roe v Wade.  This decision's influence in the political landscape resonates today.  

Republicans wear the pro-life badge with pride.  Democrats view it as a woman's choice as it relates to her life and her health. I am of the opinion that this subject is a decision best made between a woman, her God and her doctor. 

I am of an age that I remember this decision and look at it from conditions both before and after this became federal law. I will not demonize anyone for whatever belief is held - it is a very personal opinion. Speaking as a woman, I resent the political football it has become.

The decision is showing an increased support among Americans while the majority of supporters also believe that some restrictions should be made.

Seven in 10 Americans believe Roe v. Wade should stand, according to new data from a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, as the landmark Supreme Court abortion-rights ruling turns 40 on Tuesday.
That is the highest level of support for the decision, which established a woman's right to an abortion, since polls began tracking it in 1989. The shift is mostly the result of more Democrats backing the decision—particularly Hispanics and African-Americans—and a slight uptick in support from Republicans.
But the poll showed a consistent tension in Americans' attitudes toward the decision. Almost seven in 10 respondents say there are at least some circumstances in which they don't support abortion.

President Obama is the most abortion-friendly of our American presidents. He was the most liberal in the U.S. Senate, though his service there was brief before taking the presidency.  In the Illinois legislature, where he served longest in his political career, he was known for being in favor of late term abortion and for a vote on allowing an aborted child who was alive at delivery to not be resuscitated by medical staff.  That is infanticide and a gruesome opinion to have. He famously said on the campaign trail in 2008 that no young girl should be "punished" with a baby, as justification for being pro-choice.

 U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) today issued the following statement:

Today marks the dark anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that overturned a Texas law that prohibited abortion on demand. Since that 1973 ruling, more than 55 million lives have been lost to abortion.

Defending life, at its core, includes protecting both the unborn child and his or her mother from an irreversible injustice.

We cannot know how many inventors, musicians, scientists, athletes, physicians, and entrepreneurs were never allowed to breathe their first breath of life. We cannot know the medical cures, artistic masterpieces, thriving businesses, and life-transforming charities that never came into existence.

Today we mourn those 55 million souls.

I have been honored to defend the dignity of human life, helping successfully defend the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act, state parental notification laws, and Texas’s law prohibiting state funds for groups that provide abortions.

No right is more precious and fundamental than the right to life, and any just society should protect that right at every stage, from conception to natural death.