What’s interesting out there today?
____________________________________________________
First an UPDATE to a story from yesterday. Senators Paul and Cruz, who also spoke during the filibuster, have introduced legislation to limit drone strikes against American citizens.
The civil war between conservatives and moderate/liberals in the Republican party will continue. They’re ignoring the leadership and doing what they believe to be right. Meanwhile, the old guard led by McCain and Graham whine about grandstanding by Paul (while grandstanding themselves), and how wonderful dinner with Obama was.
From CruzSenate.Gov
“U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) today introduced legislation to prohibit drone killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat.
“Our Constitution restrains government power,” Cruz said. “The federal government may not use drones to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat. The Commander in Chief does, of course, have the power to protect Americans from imminent attack, and nothing in this legislation interferes with that power.”
Key bill text: The Federal Government may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who is located in the United States. The prohibition under this subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another individual. Nothing in this section shall be construed to suggest that the Constitution would otherwise allow the killing of a citizen of the United States in the United States without due process of law.”
Some on the left are coming out in agreement with Paul’s way of thinking as well. Plus a video of tone deaf McCain, if you want to watch it.
From HotAir
“Erika already touched on this but watch the vid too to see one of the more memorably tone-deaf performances in modern political history. Whatever your feelings about Paul’s position on drones, there’s no denying the truth of what Philip Klein says here:
A lot of the outpouring of conservative support for Paul’s filibuster on Obama’s drone policy went beyond the libertarian and anti-interventionist blocs of the movement who were also deeply troubled by Bush era counter-terrorism policies. Even those conservatives who may not agree with all of Paul’s views on presidential war powers were supportive if for no other reason than they relished seeing a conservative win a messaging war with Obama. It was impossible to dismiss this as just a right-wing Tea Party attack, because a lot of liberals agree with the substance of Paul’s criticism. This filibuster had to get under Obama’s skin. As much as anything else, he was elected on a promise to turn the page on the Bush era and conduct the war against terrorism with greater concern for civil liberties. Watching Paul’s filibuster last night, I couldn’t help but think that this is how Obama imagines himself – a principled crusader for justice. When Bush and Cheney were running the show, whatever could be said about them, at least they were consistent in supporting broad presidential powers in the realm of national security. But it’s hard to look back at the pre-2009 Obama and see him as anything other than an arrogant hypocrite now — somebody who thinks a muscular executive branch is okay so long as he’s running it.”
____________________________________________________
Here’s another Update to one of yesterday’s stories. The White House has pulled the planned International Woman of Courage Award for the anti-Semitic/anti-American remarks made by Samira Ibrahim.
From TheHuffingtonPost
“The Obama administration is postponing an award for an Egyptian activist who rallied worldwide attention against forced “virginity tests” on female protesters because of anti-American and anti-Semitic comments discovered on her Twitter account.
The State Department announced earlier this week that Samira Ibrahim would be among 10 recipients of the International Women of Courage award presented by Secretary of State John Kerry and first lady Michelle Obama on Friday.
But State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Thursday the U.S. would hold off on awarding Ibrahim while officials investigate the tweets, which include support for attacks against U.S. diplomatic installations and praise for a terrorist assault against Israeli citizens in Bulgaria.”
Meanwhile, she doubles down. From TheWeeklyStandard
“Finally, Ibrahim herself has spoken, writing in Arabic on her Twitter page. Egyptian democracy activist Mina Rezkalla provides the translation: “I refuse to apologize to the Zionist lobby in America regarding my previous anti-Zionist statements under pressure from American government therefore they withdrew the award.”
This would seem to settle the question as to whether or not her page had been “stolen.” Now all that’s left is for the State Department to demand that Ibrahim reimburse American taxpayers for her trip to the United States.”
____________________________________________________
And while we’re on the subject of anti-Semites, it’s off to Harvard for the next one.
From IsraelNationalNews
“In Harvard University’s latest attempt to promote the delegitimization of the state of Israel, Jewish students in freshman and upper class dormitories received mock eviction notices in light of “Israel Apartheid Week”, which is currently being organized on college and university campuses worldwide.
The campaign, organized by the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee, distributed notices at the beginning of March which read, “We regret to inform you that your suite is scheduled for demolition in the next three days”, a reference to the group’s views regarding Israel’s treatment of the Arab population.
The Anti Defamation League (ADL) expressed outrage over the prestigious university’s latest attempts to daunt Jewish students and demonize the state of Israel saying, “This tactic is designed to silence and intimidate pro-Israel advocates at Harvard and campuses around the country.”
____________________________________________________
Hugo Chavez’s supporters are convinced foul play was involved. The implications are that the US was responsible. And like any good lefty, Chavez said we should blame George Bush. 🙄
From TheWashingtonPost
“Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had been fighting cancer for two years when he died this afternoon at age 58, but some Venezuelans — including new President Nicolas Maduro — are convinced foul play is to blame.
Maduro promised on state television that a “scientific commission” would look into Chavez’s death and the possibility that his “historical enemies” had somehow induced his disease, reported El Diario. On social media and in several news outs, that “historical enemy” was interpreted as the United States.”
____________________________________________________
This is just disturbing. This is yet another indictment against the public school system. Throwing money at it has solved nothing. But that will be what they say they need to fix it.
From NYCBSLocal
“Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.”
“When they graduated from city high schools, students in a special remedial program at the Borough of Manhattan Community College couldn’t make the grade.
They had to re-learn basic skills — reading, writing and math — first before they could begin college courses.”
“In sheer numbers it means that nearly 11,000 kids who got diplomas from city high schools needed remedial courses to re-learn the basics.”
And that’s just one major city, and it’s not the only one.
____________________________________________________
And this one I’m putting up because all too often we hear rich people, mostly liberals, talking about the rich paying more. The problem is, they never volunteer more of their money to help out. Well this one is, and no, he’s not a liberal. Warren Buffet could learn a lot from this guy. And unlike Warren, I bet this guy doesn’t own millions in back taxes either.
From HotAir
“The White House’s transparently petty decision to inflict sequester’s pain on America’s middle-schoolers (as if those years aren’t tough enough) revealed its sequestration doomsaying as silly and its post-doomsaying behavior as spiteful. In a rare good PR turn for Republicans, what was meant to make them look like heartless meanies has held the White House up for ridicule for its utter unwillingness to prioritize. Upon hearing the estimates that the White House’s cancellation of tours might save the administration $18,000-$72,000 a week, Fox News anchor Eric Bolling— I’m sure they’re fans at the White House— decided to come to the aid of The Children.
In a Facebook post on Thursday, anchor Eric Bolling announced that he will offer to personally pay the costs to keep the tours at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue open for a week.
During Thursday evening’s episode of “The Five,” Bolling elaborated. “I will absolutely write the check if they open the doors next week.”
“I’ll make you a deal Mr. President…Let these families take their White House tours next week and I’ll cover the added expenses. Word is it will cost around $74,000.”
Wandering Views 
Get ready people. When you are in a dog fight and you have to choose between a Jew and anything else besides a Christian you best choose the Jewish person. We may have been grafted in but God chose them waaaayyyy back in history.
The Harvard thing is disgusting.
LikeLike
I’m with Kim…it’s going to come down to those who support God’s chosen and those who don’t…I know which side I want to be on!
LikeLike
For once the ADL is correct. I don’t see how the university could give eviction notices. How do they know who the Jews were? At Carolina in 1957 there were clubs for various denominations. Baptist Student Union, Canterbury Club for Episcopalians, Hillel for Jews, etc. if they wanted to join.
This could be a hoax.
LikeLike
…somebody who thinks a muscular executive branch is okay so long as he’s running it.
Doug Wilson said, paraphrasing, that you shouldn’t enact policies ensuing leaders may abuse. He could have said (and I’m sure he believes) you shouldn’t enact policies that are inherently wrong to begin with. We Christians (who like to refer to ourselves as “conservatives”) have got to get a grip on our bloodlust. This drone stuff is atrocious. Drones in Pakistan have killed hundreds of citizens, many of whom are children. More have been injured. We (this Administration and the last one) are either careless or crass:
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/04/obama_again_bombs_mourners/
Kill ’em all and let God sort it out. Call that stuff “conservatism” if you want, but it’s not Christian.
Still confused as to what relevance the non-summarily executed Herbert Haupt and George Dasch have to this drone issue.
LikeLike
SP, actually, drones involve considerably less collateral damage than any former aerial bombing techniques. As long as there is no intention to harm civilians in a military strike of any sort, collateral damage is legal under international humanitarian law including the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute.
As to Haupt, an American citizen involved as an unlawful enemy combatant in 1942, he was arrested due to information provided by a fellow saboteur, tried and executed through a military tribunal in about a month. Had Haupt been involved in a fire fight during sabotage, he could and should have been legally slaughtered.
LikeLike
drones involve considerably less collateral damage than any former aerial bombing techniques.
That’s reassuring to Pakistanis who lost children and wives. If it only kills one of my three kids, as opposed to all of them, I should be happy.
So explain to me the relevance of Haupt. You’ve never made that clear.
LikeLike
Solar, I am thankful than drones and precision munitions have greatly reduced the number of civilian casualties inflicted by our military in war. In WWII, we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in bombing raids on Dresden, Tokyo, etc. The fire bombing of Dresden was certainly questionable. However, I remember when Clinton (who like many today wanted to treat Al Qaeda as a criminal matter) chose not to kill Bin Laden (prior to 9/11) because a relative of one of our allies was with him. I think the whole world is now on notice: If you associate with Al Qaeda leaders, you are at risk of instant death. This is how it should be.
LikeLike
I am thankful than drones and precision munitions have greatly reduced the number of civilian casualties….
I am thankful for measures taken that reduce the number of abortions, but the elephant is still in the room–innocents are being killed. If a couple of my kids were killed by a drone, I’m not sure you’d expect me to be thankful the attack was at least precise enough to merely injure my third–even if she did, through no intention of her own, “associate with Al Qaeda leaders.”
…inflicted by our military in war.
Which is even further removed from the objection being raised by Rand Paul. But either way, and even if drone use on U.S. citizens without due process *wasn’t* an inherent wrong, our government has hardly demonstrated it would use them responsibly.
LikeLike
SP, it would be wonderful to have neither war nor abortions; however, we live in a fallen world where war is sometimes a necessity including collateral damage. Ricky is spot on with his comment that WW II was a nightmare of collateral damage compared to present drone and other aerial warfare.
On abortion, also, the perfect is often the enemy of the good. Serious Christian writers including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin have understood the cruel necessity of war and compromise in a fallen world.
Your arguments on both drones and abortion are rather insufferably moralistic and righteous.
LikeLike
Gotcha on the insufferable and moralistic stuff, Sails. Good one. Also question-begging, but whatever. You seem to have lost track of the discussion. Remember Rand Paul?
But why consume bandwidth on straw men and red herrings? a) Neither Haupt nor Dresch were summarily executed. Heck, even the *Germans* involved stood trial. b) Living in a fallen world justifies collateral damage? Hadn’t heard that exegesis before. Explain. b-1) Living in a fallen world justifies the “necessity” of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians? Exegete that, too. c) “The perfect is often the enemy of the good.” And exegete that.
LikeLike
Sails
As long as there is no intention to harm civilians in a military strike of any sort, collateral damage is legal under international humanitarian law including the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute.
Intent is not good enough. For example; you didn’t intend to run someone over but you are still liable. And America (and any other country) should be held liable for collateral damages. Dresden and Hiroshima would be (and justly so) considered war crimes today. The bar has been raised to the benefit of all.
LikeLike
Holding Harvard Jews responsible for Isreali foreign policy is beyond the pale.
LikeLike
HRW, after having defeated the formidable Axis powers in WW II, iti s easy enough to moralize regarding Dresden and Hiroshima, as the righteous hard left and isolationist right are wont to do. Most serious historians of WW II claim that Churchill and Truman had good reason for these hard actions.
Truman was advised that without nuking Japan, America and its allies would have to face a Japanese Army of some two million that would involve about one-million Allied casualties along with hundred of thousands of Japanese civilian ones.
Churchill was advised that unless the will of the German people was broken through in part the bombing of cities in the heart of which war industrial outfits were located. Churchill, also, held strongly that WW II could have been prevented had the pacifist Left and Isolationist Right been less influential during the inter-war Twenties and Thirties.
Wars are prevented through credible military strength and threat. Just now a wobbly and dithering America and West are laying the ground for what will likely end with a terrible war against a nuclear Iran.
LikeLike
More thoughts on Rand Paul from First Things:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2013/03/08/thoughts-on-the-rand-paul-thing/
(From the post: I think that one possibly unfortunate outcome of the filibuster is a strengthening of the libertarian tendency within the Republican party. I was sorry to see Senator Ted Cruz give an extravagantly favorable mention to Ayn Rand. That doesn’t mean there are no ideas worth borrowing from people who identify as libertarian. It does mean that a Republican party that is seen as too hostile to the government isn’t going to win. The social democratic statist individualism of the Democrats will beat libertarian on-your-own individualism under all but the most favorable circumstances. Republicans need to be the party of populist, limited, and effective government. Romney didn’t lose because the median voter thought he would tax too much, spend too much, and regulate business too much. It was because they thought Romney’s policies (as they under stood those policies) had no obvious benefit to the middle and working-classes.)
LikeLike
Defending Dresden, Hiroshima, and the other hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians made in God’s image is defending murder. The attacks happened from the air. OK. Would it have been justified if; somehow, infantrymen could have sneaked into homes and butchered those hundreds of thousands of civilian children and women and entire families with machetes?
LikeLike
Respectfully, firsthings doesn’t know what it’s talking about, and Rand Paul isn’t really all *that* libertarian, really.
LikeLike
Actually, First Things makes a salient point. The Paulian libertarianiist and isolationist view is not only poorly founded but a losing political proposition. Donna has this perfectly right.
LikeLike
Yes, that strategy is what accounts for the wave of Republican victories we’ve been seeing for 25 years. We really need to stick with that successful formula.
LikeLike
Well, I suppose you could say Rand Paul is somewhat less libertarian than his father. Thankfully. 😉
LikeLike
SP, indeed, Republicans need to intelligently reform their policy positions, though doing so by adopting Paulian views is dubious in that the Pauls have proven to appeal to a small majority of the electorate. Rand Paul is a bit more sophisticated than his father, though underneath he disfavors strong, engaged national security policy, something that most Americans regard as ridiculous and dangerous to American interests.
The truth is that heartland isolationists, especially righteous Christian ones, are rather dangerous to American interests. They are blinded by a crude moralism that ignores the fallen condition of both individuals and nations.
LikeLike
Excuse me, in the above I meant to say in the first sentence …a small minority….
LikeLike
So what policy positions do they have to reform?
American Christian conservative warmongers are more scary and dangerous than Paulian non-intervention. It’s that “conservative” bloodthirst, couched in “sophisticated” sounding terms of “national security” that has Christians defending the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Yep, that’s what we’ve come to. But as you say, we’re fallen, so it’s no surprise we may be inclined to such sins. It’s been that way since Cain and Noah.
LikeLike
Yes, it has been that way including with the Paulians who compound it with the naivete of heartland isolationism.
LikeLike
Yeah Paulian non-interventionists didn’t and don’t have anything to do with sanctioning the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians made in God’s image. I really don’t know why or how you justify such a practice. Maybe I’m too naive.
LikeLike
You need to read Donald Kagan’s book On the Origin of War and the Preservation of Peace which argues that most wars are caused by vacillation and military weakness. Wars are prevented by credible military strength and credible threats against tthe rogue nations and leaders who disturb the peace. Kagan is a Yale professor of world military history. He brilliantly shows how the Pelpennesian, Carthaginian, WW I and II, and the 1963 war against Cuba need not have happened were it not for vacillation and lack of credible military threat.
Just now Obama is vacillating on the Iranian nuclear threat that will likely end in a vicious war against a nuclear Iran. Paulian non intervention against Iran in the long run courts a major future war. Heartland isolationists in the Thirties prevented Roosevelt from assisting Britain in defeating Hitler diplomatically before WW II.
LikeLike
Non-interventionists have had little effect on U.S. foreign policy for a century. You need to read Buchanon’s “Unnecessary War.” Either way, non-interventionists rightfully do not justify killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. I’m sorry so many Christians so casually accept such a monstrous prospect.
Iran and nukes is another in a long line of affairs out of which we need to keep our nose. If anyone wants to flex muscle, let Israel do it. We’ve dug a deep enough hole for ourselves over there. Didn’t you notice?
LikeLike