She is one of the most, if not the most impressive and clearest speakers in the race. As Andrew notes, she handles herself and unscripted questions very well, no umms or aahs.
Yes, the Iran deal is.
But it’s not like it’s his first impeachable offense. The Founders would be aghast at a Congess that has let a president get away with so much. But it happened because the separation of powers becaame severely weakened with the development of political parties (that most of them hoped would never happen), in which loyalties to one’s own party, even in another branch of government, has superseded loyalties to the institution of Congress and its Constitutional prerogatives. Plus, while electing Barack Obama was clearly an act of color blindness, impeaching and removing him over his repeated abuse of his power would obviously be racist (do I need a sarcasm tag on that one?).
Ultimately, of course, as we saw with Bill Clinton, what constitutes a “High Crime And Misdemeanor,” even when it involves multiple federal felonies and flouting of one’s oath of office, is a political judgment. So we’re stuck with him for another year and a half.
Rivkin and Casey are right about the Constitution’s treaty power being circumvented, with the unfortunate blessing of a cowardly Congress. They’re also right that the Administration’s decision to obtain a speedy U.N. Security Council resolution prior to the Corker-Cardin congressional vote is a blatant and reckless end-run around U.S. sovereignty, bypassing our national legislature in favor of a multi-lateral, extra-sovereign body. Any future President wishing to unravel the Iranian nuclear deal–which Secretary of State has assured us repeatedly is “not legally binding“– will now be branded by the U.N. as an international “law breaker,” a point I made back in April.
I hope States do, indeed, continue to refuse to do business with companies doing business with Iran. The financial impact probably won’t be enough to trigger an Iranian accusation that the Obama Administration isn’t enforcing the deal, however, and consequently the Administration is unlikely to march into court claiming that the Supremacy Clause trumps States’ actions. So I doubt States’ doing this will “prompt the [nuclear] deal to unravel.” Nonetheless, this is one interesting and creative way that States can constitutionally push back.
The States need to start reasserting their rights in general, and restore the 10th Amendment and federalism from a federal government run amok (with the aid of both Democrats and Republicans, for decades).
How Obama is using him to nuke the US-Israel alliance.
You know, Obama doesn’t have to go before the voters again. A lot of Democrat senators do.
This is pretty funny, particularly in light of recent flag-related events: “In a twist to recent controversies, Southern States’ militias arming quickly to defend Federal (Union) troops.”
The level of stupidity from the elites in this conversation has been more staggering than usual. First, General Ordierno issued this idiocy:
“I think we have to be careful about over-arming ourselves, and I’m not talking about where you end up attacking each other,” Gen. Ray Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, told reporters. Instead, he said, it’s more about “accidental discharges and everything else that goes along with having weapons that are loaded that causes injuries.”
No one is proposing that anyone “over-arm” service people. And the notion that this has anything to do with Posse Comitatus is ridiculous. They aren’t going to be carrying automatic weapons.
Then we had Martha Radatz, who asked something like “what does that look like”?
Here’s the reality. In the many states that are shall-issue (and the number is growing), a properly soldier can go out and get a CCW, and carry anywhere it’s forbidden. Few non-idiots think that this actually presents a threat to the populace. But when he enters his place of employment, (s)he has to surrender the weapon that (s)he can carry everywhere else, giving up the Second-Amendment natural right of self defense. As a result, a few dozen military personnel have been killed on base over the past few years, mostly by Islamic nutjobs who (unaccountably!) ignored the no-gun policy on base. (including one that was an Army major). The death toll in each and every one of these cases would have been eliminated or dramatically reduced had those present trained and allowed by the civilian government to carry been allowed to carry on base.
The issue of recruiting stations is a different problem because it’s a result not of outdated military policies, but of the “gun-free” mentality of shopping malls. In this case, I think the solution is a few lawsuits by the families of those murdered by people who (unexpectedly!) didn’t pay attention to the sign or policy.
[Update a few minutes later]
So why would a commander not order troops who have qualified on their M9 pistols to draw sidearms and ammo and carry them during their duties, at least until this crisis passes? Perhaps their discretion has been withdrawn from higher command – that’s possible, especially with this toxic administration. But more likely it’s because of fear.
It’s the fear that some solider is going to have an “incident” carrying a weapon, and that that incident is going to lead to questions, and in an environment where the Armed Forces are shrinking, the mention of an incident on an officer’s annual evaluation report can mean the difference between a career and a pink slip. It’s the same zero defects mentality that is keeping our military leadership from being an audacious, aggressive band of warriors and morphing it instead into a timid, passive pack of timeservers.
Yeah, troops do dumb things sometimes. During my 27 years leading soldiers, I was consistently amazed by their creativity both in solving problems and in getting into trouble. But while real issues are rare – negligent discharges, lost weapons – they do happen. I dealt with them myself. But that risk is the price of doing business, and when our men and women are being shot down in the street without even a chance to defend themselves, it’s not too high a price to pay.
You train your troops and then you trust them. You punish the knucklehead who screwed up and then you drive on. You don’t turn everyone in uniform into a sitting duck because you don’t want to have to explain to the two-star why Private Snuffy misplaced his Beretta.
Modern America would have lost WW II.
It’s time to a) stop pretending that Islamists are not waging war on us and b) allow our unarmed forces to defend themselves. I know this will sound crazy to some, but no, you don’t give up your second-amendment right to self defense when you enlist.
[Update a few minutes later]
An open letter from a military wife:
These incidents, which resulted in the deaths of 35 innocent people and serious injuries to 51 others, might all have been minimized or even prevented by trained, armed military members.
Why is it that these men and women, who carry firearms on our behalf, whom we entrust with the security and well-being of our nation, aren’t allowed to bear arms on military bases in order to defend themselves and others?
The militia is re-forming. Not any too soon.
…is worse than Munich.
I remember those quaint good old days, when treaties had to be approved by two thirds of the Senate.
[Update a few minutes later]
Also, from Austin Bay:
It begins with a broken promise. Once upon a time, President Barack Obama vowed to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons quest. Promise made, promise broken.
All of Barack Obama’s pronouncements come with an expiration date.
Clueless reporters question President Pinocchio at press conference:
One could deconstruct his evasions line by line, but that would largely duplicate the content of many posts we have done over the past weeks and months. Instead, I want to focus on a few key issues. But first, this observation: if any of the reporters present had read the agreement, which is only 159 pages long, it was not apparent. Maybe reporters are not accustomed to reading legal documents; maybe they are too lazy to try; maybe they have read and understood the agreement and are just partisan hacks, covering for their president. But I have a full-time job, and nevertheless have read the agreement several times. Why can’t reporters do the same? That would seem to be a prerequisite to participating intelligently in a press conference on the subject.
They were told there would be no reading.
They’re both wrong. We don’t need an RD-180 replacement; we need an Atlas replacement. And ULA wants to build one. They know that a re-engined Atlas isn’t going to be competitive with SpaceX. But there’s not enough graft in that for some on the Hill.