Ron Paul (a.k.a. Tehran Ron) is once again apologizing for the
Iranian regime. He insists they don't have a weapon but if they
do obtain a weapon then it's our fault. Tehran Ron claimed
we're "encouraging them to have a weapon."
Given that Iranian children
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI-DiaBi7VE">chant "Death to
America" and "Death to Iran" each day at school I don't think we're
exactly doing all that much encouragement.
News, ads, friends, all yours for free ©
American Spectator
Wednesday 22nd of February, 2012
As Ron Paul says that Iran isn't a threat (during the debate), a
commenter at Red State writes this:
Comment From None of the Above
If Newt is successful in colonizing the moon, Paul will finally be
successful in his quest for a presidency...they'll need a leader up
there.
Wednesday 22nd of February, 2012
Ron Paul just said the draft is coming back.
This is the line I heard from The Left shortly after the War in
Iraq began. I can't tell you how many times lefties told me that
Bush and Rumsfeld were going to bring the draft back. Well, it
didn't happen then and it isn't going to happen now. Paul's
analysis is simply not grounded in reality.
Wednesday 22nd of February, 2012
With Rick Santorum already on the defensive over earmarks and
votes to fund Planned Parenthood from Mitt Romney, he brought up
Romneycare. But Romney reminded Santorum that he had supported him
in 2008. Then Romney went for the jugular by bringing up Santorum's
support of Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004. Santorum argued
that Specter was needed to appoint conservative justices like John
Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Santorum
responded in a very round about manner and the damage was done. It
doesn't look like Santorum can't withstand Romney's assault anymore
than Newt.
Wednesday 22nd of February, 2012
Mitt Romney claimed he had balanced the budget during the 2002
Olympics.
I'm surprised Rick Santorum didn't challenge him given that he
has
"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-18/santorum-criticizes-romney-for-bailout-of-2002-winter-olympics.html">pointed
out that Romney sought federal money to save the
games.
It was a missed opportunity for Santorum.
UPDATE: O.K., maybe not. But Santorum gave a
rather convoluted explanation of earmarks. Romney acknowledged
seeking federal money for the Olympics and said to Santorum, "While
I was saving the Olympics, you were saving the Bridge to Nowhere."
This conversation isn't helping Santorum at all.
Wednesday 22nd of February, 2012
Wednesday 22nd of February, 2012
Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul will be
debating once again on CNN. It is the first Republican presidential
debate of this month and it comes at a potentially pivotal point in
the race. Romney is clinging to a narrow lead in Arizona and is
eroding a similarly slim Santorum lead in Michigan, both states
holding their primaries on Tuesday.
Santorum has emerged as Romney's latest leading challenger and
knockout wins on Tuesday could make him the frontrunner. Santorum
has already leapfrogged Romney in most national polls. Similarly,
if Romney holds on in Arizona and comes back in Michigan -- one of
his home states -- it will give him a boost heading into Super
Tuesday, perhaps rekindling talk that he is the inevitable nominee
once again.
One thing to watch will be Romney's stance toward Santorum in
the debate. Will he be conservative, hoping to avoid a mistake that
will stall his Michigan momentum and deal him an embarrassing loss,
or will he take the aggressive approach that worked against
Gingrich in Florida? Romney's attempts to paint Santorum as a
fiscal liberal have floundered because both he and his
congressional surrogates lack a clearly superior record on these
issues. It is hard to see how he can directly go after Santorum on
social issues without also bringing up his own liberal baggage from
Massachusetts.
An x factor in this debate, as usual, is Paul. Paul has gone up
on the air with anti-Santorum negative ads in Michigan, where the
Texas congressman is running ahead of Gingrich in the polls. Paul
can more credibly attacks Santorum on issues like Medicare Part D,
because he actually voted against the entitlement expansion.
UPDATE: Matt Lewis
"http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/22/debate-night-what-to-watch/">makes
a good point: "Gingrich tends to perform exceptionally well as the
underdog. His performances as the front runner, however, weren't as
good. The pressure should be off tonight. Expect Gingrich to have a
solid performance."
Wednesday 22nd of February, 2012
I'm an Episcopalian. These days the national Episcopal Church is
a hotbed of liberal asininity. But even the Episcopal Church, in
its modern, liberal iteration, holds fast to the idea that Satan is
real and that he is insidious and that he must be repeatedly
renounced and rejected. Here is a key part of the current Episcopal
liturgy for Holy Baptism:
Then the Celebrant asks the following questions of the
candidates who
can speak for themselves, and of the parents and godparents who
speak
on behalf of the infants and younger children
Question Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual
forces
of wickedness that rebel against God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce the evil powers of this world
which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you
from the love of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as
your
Savior?
Answer I do.
Question Do you put your whole trust in his grace and
love?
Answer I do.
So why are Santorum's remarks even an issue?
Wednesday 22nd of February, 2012
All of this "Satan" talk is completely out of context. There is
absolutely nothing wrong with somebody in a religious context
talking about Satan being loose in the world. There is almost
nothing that Rick Santorum said that wasn't in line with the
fictional but theologically sound take on the forces of eveil that
C.S. Lewis described in The Screwtape Letters. And
there is absolutely nothing that isn't standard Catholic doctrine.
Consider that for years every Catholic Church recited, ever week,
the
"http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/b009rpMichael.htm">prayer
to St. Michael the Archangel, pasted below, and that many
Catholic churches still do. This includes the Catholic Church in
Alexandria, VA that is the home parish for a host of leading
conservative Catholics in the DC area. Here is the prayer as
regularly recited (the link above is to the long version and the
history thereof):
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our
protection against the malice and snares of the devil. May God
rebuke him we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly
host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil
spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls.
Amen.
To complain about what Santorum said is to show an appalling
lack of perspective and understanding of Catholicism, of
Christianity, and of religious faith in general. Those complaining
should be ashamed of themselves -- it, that is, they had any
shame.
Wednesday 22nd of February, 2012
Yesterday, I posted a brief
"http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2012/02/22/al-qaeda-iraq-syria/">
piece for the Foreign Policy Association
regarding the precipitous drop in violence localized in Iraq's
Nineveh province. This decline in hostilities is notable for one
very important reason: Nineveh has served as the informal
headquarters for al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) since the insurgency moved
to Mosul and Tal Afar following the Battle of Fallujah in
2004.
Since that time, the region has experienced some of the
worst, and most chronic, bloodshed in the country -- daily car
bombs and IED explosions have proved a fact of life on terror's
home turf.
Yet now, while the rest of the country is enduring a steep
uptick in violence since the end of the U.S. counterinsurgency,
Nineveh is enjoying a relative calm. Certainly, this represents a
breather for the Maliki government, which has been staggered by
political fragility and sectarian violence reminiscent of pre-surge
Iraq. So this is good news, right?
Not really. Reports suggest that this comparative serenity
is more likely indicative of AQI's physical relocation, as opposed
to an indicator of combat fatigue or tactical
adjustment.
So where are they off to? Well, at the moment, Syria
sounds like a pretty popular destination for battle-hardened,
Kalashnikov-toting zealots taking their cues from al Qaeda's
braintrust.
Lest we forget -- last week, Osama bin Laden's right hand
man and presumptive successor, Ayman al Zawahiri, released a
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17002573">video
imploring Muslim radicals in neighboring countries to join the
growing uprising against Syria's Assad government. AQI was
sponsoring violence before this summons, but formal marching orders
have prompted a dramatic increase in the number of fighters
crossing the border into the embattled neighbor-state.
With al Qaeda set to play an expanded role in the Syrian
drama, it's worth considering where they fit in this increasingly
bewildering regional conflagration. As it happens, they're simply
the latest exogenous actor competing against (or alongside) a host
of contenders including (but not limited to) our NATO ally Turkey,
the Iranian menace and the region's leading Sunni power and oil
spigot, Saudi Arabia.
Not to be outdone, Senator McCain has
"http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57381422/sen-mccain-its-time-to-arm-syrias-rebels/">
suggested it's high time we arm the
rebels:
I'm not calling for an invasion of Syria, but I am calling
for practical measure which can be of assistance to them, which
would break this stalemate, which would allow the Syrian people to
achieve the aspiration that we hold for all people.
Noble sentiments indeed and I appreciate the senator's
fondness for a fair fight. Rebels in the city of Homs -- epicenter
of Syrian uprising, past and present -- are increasingly concerned
by the mass of tanks and troops outside of their hometown. They're
outmanned and outgunned, and international observers fear a
massacre. Arming these civilians would give them a fighting chance
to dislodge the 40-year-old Assad regime, and simultaneously serve
America's short-term interests. The end of Allawite tyranny would
rob Iran of its primary client state, and disrupt the flow of
monies and munitions into Lebanon and Gaza.
However, I question the logic of inserting ourselves into
a civil war on behalf of some seriously dubious partners
through the provision of arms and ordnance. If we decide to equip
the rebellion, we will escalate conflict, amplify
violence and spark untold and unintended regional
consequences.
Not to mention, in our haste to "
"http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/01/wrong-assumptions-on-syria">oust
a brutal dictator and puppet of Iran" it appears we'll
undoubtedly arm opposition forces that have been busy killing
American soldiers in Iraq for the past decade.
That strikes me as an unpleasant proposal.
