The Front Page Cover
"I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened"
.
Featuring:
Our Navy, our destiny
Geroge Will
.
"Know who you are standing with"
"Show me your friends and I'll show you your future"
~~~lll~~~
.
HOW LONG CAN RAND STAND? To have read media musings on the 2016 race a year ago, Sen. Rand Paul entered the Republican presidential contest as a force of nature. But today finds him unable to stir the slightest breeze.
Paul is running tenth and has to make increasingly adamant claims that he is “in it to win it,” which is to campaigns what “Secretary Soandso has the full confidence of the president” is to the job security of cabinet officials.
With news this week that a libertarian super PAC has cut off Paul and the Kentuckian soon heading home to try to bolster his concurrent Senate bid, things are looking grim. Like John Huntsman in 2012 and Chris Christie this cycle, Paul seems to have been more hurt than helped by the expectations and attention from the establishment political press.
While we could blame Paul’s plight on debate performances or campaign style, the substance here seems to be the problem. Paul’s campaign concept was to take the committed core of libertarian voters he inherited from his father and then woo new voters from the GOP establishment wing and beyond.
In so doing, Paul left his back pasture open to his longtime rival, Sen. Ted Cruz, who has been rustling libertarians and young voters while Paul’s attentions were focused on making peace with his party’s elders.
Paul’s hit against Cruz on “Kilmeade & Friends” Tuesday reflects his state of mind. He blasted Cruz for violating the “decorum” of the Senate and being unable to get things done because of a lack of support from other senators. Cruz couldn’t have said it better himself. That’s his whole selling point. He is a disruptor.
In Paul’s dogged defense of cannabis oil in the second GOP debate and adamant non-interventionist stances, we see a candidate trying to reconnect with the libertarians who financed and fueled his candidacy. But as David Drucker reports, Cruz is implementing a longstanding, well-funded effort to seal the deal with those voters.
By the time Paul gets back to the ranch, he will find that the herd is already gone.
No doubt Paul has been hurt by the merciless taunts of Donald Trump, but frontrunners in 2008 and 2012 did the same to Paul’s dad and it didn’t seem to hurt him with core voters. It may have even helped him by calling attention.
It’s not like his dad was in the hunt at the end, having been unable to turn fervent support into sufficient votes. But that’s the fundamental flaw in Paul the younger’s plan: You can’t expect ideologically demanding activists who care more for purity than electability to tolerate neglect.
Paul, who is running an expensive operation, cannot continue to burn through cash in hopes of retaining his former status. Will he retrench to a handful of caucus states in hopes of scraping up enough delegates and pray for a brokered convention? Or will he, like fellow former frontrunner Scott Walker, decide to fold up his tent and let the circus leave town without him?
If he doesn’t decide soon, the organizers of next month’s debate may decide for him. -Fox News
Paul is running tenth and has to make increasingly adamant claims that he is “in it to win it,” which is to campaigns what “Secretary Soandso has the full confidence of the president” is to the job security of cabinet officials.
With news this week that a libertarian super PAC has cut off Paul and the Kentuckian soon heading home to try to bolster his concurrent Senate bid, things are looking grim. Like John Huntsman in 2012 and Chris Christie this cycle, Paul seems to have been more hurt than helped by the expectations and attention from the establishment political press.
While we could blame Paul’s plight on debate performances or campaign style, the substance here seems to be the problem. Paul’s campaign concept was to take the committed core of libertarian voters he inherited from his father and then woo new voters from the GOP establishment wing and beyond.
In so doing, Paul left his back pasture open to his longtime rival, Sen. Ted Cruz, who has been rustling libertarians and young voters while Paul’s attentions were focused on making peace with his party’s elders.
Paul’s hit against Cruz on “Kilmeade & Friends” Tuesday reflects his state of mind. He blasted Cruz for violating the “decorum” of the Senate and being unable to get things done because of a lack of support from other senators. Cruz couldn’t have said it better himself. That’s his whole selling point. He is a disruptor.
In Paul’s dogged defense of cannabis oil in the second GOP debate and adamant non-interventionist stances, we see a candidate trying to reconnect with the libertarians who financed and fueled his candidacy. But as David Drucker reports, Cruz is implementing a longstanding, well-funded effort to seal the deal with those voters.
By the time Paul gets back to the ranch, he will find that the herd is already gone.
No doubt Paul has been hurt by the merciless taunts of Donald Trump, but frontrunners in 2008 and 2012 did the same to Paul’s dad and it didn’t seem to hurt him with core voters. It may have even helped him by calling attention.
It’s not like his dad was in the hunt at the end, having been unable to turn fervent support into sufficient votes. But that’s the fundamental flaw in Paul the younger’s plan: You can’t expect ideologically demanding activists who care more for purity than electability to tolerate neglect.
Paul, who is running an expensive operation, cannot continue to burn through cash in hopes of retaining his former status. Will he retrench to a handful of caucus states in hopes of scraping up enough delegates and pray for a brokered convention? Or will he, like fellow former frontrunner Scott Walker, decide to fold up his tent and let the circus leave town without him?
If he doesn’t decide soon, the organizers of next month’s debate may decide for him. -Fox News
.
.
Did Muslim group break tax-exempt rules in calling out Carson? - Daily Caller: “The largest Muslim civil rights group in the U.S. may have violated the federal tax code when its executive director last week called on retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson to drop out of the presidential race because of his comments about Muslims. … Nihad Awad, the executive director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), responded in a press conference last Monday, calling on Carson to end his bid for the White House. … But Fox News’ Megyn Kelly reported on Tuesday that Awad’s statement may put CAIR in violation of federal tax law. As Kelly noted, the section of the Internal Revenue Code which sets rules for non-profit — section 501(c)(3) — states that such organizations ‘are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.’” -Fox News
.
.
Huckabee praises pope for meeting with Kentucky clerk - Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., praised Pope Francis for meeting with Kentucky county clerkKim Davis, who gained media attention for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses. Huckabee said, “The Pope recognized something that the chattering class in Washington and Wall Street will never understand—that Kim Davis followed her conscience and convictions. The Pope thanked Kim for doing so and congratulated her for her stand.”
-Fox News
.
.
ROMNEY RE-EMERGES Mitt Romney is making a rare visit to Washington today to address the grandees at the Aspen Institute. Romney has cut a lower public profile since his very public flirtation with a third presidential run that ended in January. Romney’s low-key approach has been in keeping with his stated desire to allow “one of our next generation of Republican leaders” to emerge and be well-positioned to defeat the Democratic nominee.
Romney’s remarks were interpreted at the time as a dig at then-frontrunner Jeb Bush, and in encouragement to younger candidates, particularly Marco Rubio. Rubio has embraced the mantel, hiring key-Romney aides and scooping up Romney donors. But despite recent success has still not managed to dispatch the struggling Bush, or crack into the top-tier in recent polls.
What Romney says today could stoke a not-fully-extinguished yearning in the GOP donor class for a Romneysian return. He could also offer further guidance to his backers about where they ought to be placing their bets – a move that Rubio’s team is no doubt hoping for – or Romney could offer his advice on how to deal with the party’s current frontrunner Donald Trump.
If you want a hint about how closed the door is to another Romney run check out what Anne Romney said on “Kilmeade & Friends” Tuesday: “It’s not even like we are talking about it Brain, I can say other people are talking to us about it but we, Mitt and I are not even ready to talk about it.” Not being ready to talk about it at least suggests that they might become ready… -Fox News
Romney’s remarks were interpreted at the time as a dig at then-frontrunner Jeb Bush, and in encouragement to younger candidates, particularly Marco Rubio. Rubio has embraced the mantel, hiring key-Romney aides and scooping up Romney donors. But despite recent success has still not managed to dispatch the struggling Bush, or crack into the top-tier in recent polls.
What Romney says today could stoke a not-fully-extinguished yearning in the GOP donor class for a Romneysian return. He could also offer further guidance to his backers about where they ought to be placing their bets – a move that Rubio’s team is no doubt hoping for – or Romney could offer his advice on how to deal with the party’s current frontrunner Donald Trump.
If you want a hint about how closed the door is to another Romney run check out what Anne Romney said on “Kilmeade & Friends” Tuesday: “It’s not even like we are talking about it Brain, I can say other people are talking to us about it but we, Mitt and I are not even ready to talk about it.” Not being ready to talk about it at least suggests that they might become ready… -Fox News
.
.
Is Iran already gaming the nuclear deal?
{J. Matthew McInnis} ~ While the world focused on the escalating Russian and Iranian intervention in Syria, the continuing debate in Tehran over adopting the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has gotten a little lost... But listening to the Iranian parliament argue whether the nuclear deal should be adopted—something the US Congress will not get a chance to do—provides great insight into how the leadership intends to implement the deal. Little of this insight is reassuring. As we approach the deal’s October 19 Adoption Day anticipated by the United Nations Security Council, there is no indication that Iran is backing away from the JCPOA. That has not stopped Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei from letting the parliament and hardline critics from having a go at the JCPOA’s flaws, especially if that helps check President Hassan Rouhani’s popular support. The special parliamentary commission established to review the JCPOA has frequently taken an adversarial stance towards the deal and the president over the past few weeks. .
Fixing decades of failed dogma on Medicaid
{Scott Gottlieb} ~ A major part of the conservative plans to reform Medicaid turn on the assumption that states will be better able to manage the program, and deliver its benefits... free from all the intrusive regulation that Washington imposes. In return for relinquishing control of the program to governors (in the form of fixed grants of money made to the states) most conservative reforms also cap the rate of growth in this funding, tying it to some measure of the overall growth of the economy. This is not a new policy construct. In fact, a major chunk of the money that offsets the cost of nObamacare came from a cap that the law imposed on the rate of growth in Medicare spending, to put the program on a more predictable fiscal footing..
Hilly Clinton’s nObama-Style Dictatorial Threats On Gun Control
{rickwells.us} ~ The tone and tactics have changed a bit since the left’s last hard push at gun control in 2012... Rather than attempting to operate within the Constitution and the law, they’re publicly announcing their attempts to distort or reinterpret existing laws, stretching them past their original intentions and common sense interpretations to fit the authoritarian’s needs. Since 2012 they’ve experienced success to varying degrees with refusing to enforce immigration laws and redefining a refugee as well as the outright illegality of a ‘president’ and his DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson re-writing immigration law with an illegal amnesty. In addition to the efforts of those who currently occupy positions of power within the regime to pursue these unconstitutional objectives, the narrative is being shifted from one of an acceptance of the limitations imposed by the rule of law and the Constitution to one of “if I could only find a way to get around it I’d act.”.
Sen Jeff Sessions Not Buying “We Vet Syrian Refugees” Claims
{rickwells.us} ~ Senator Jeff Sessions has serious concerns about the tremendous potential and likelihood that the “Syrian refugee” open door is one that would provide easy access to the United States for our enemies... particularly those of a terrorist nature, intent on committing acts of aggression against us on our own soil. He notes in Senate hearings before his subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest previous testimony by Michael Steinbach, FBI Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, in which he identified the absence of any national infrastructure and data collection and storage operation inside of Syria as a chief obstacle which prevents the proper vetting of potential refugees. He noted that the systems are in place on our end but there are no resources from which to access vital information inside Syria. http://rickwells.us/sen-jeff-sessions-not-buying-we-vet-syrian-refugees-claims-when-systems-to-do-so-dont-exist-in-syria/.
Bill Promoting Indian Tribe Energy Production Faces Dem Opposition
{Lachlan Markay} ~ House Democrats are expected to oppose legislation this week that would remove regulatory burdens for energy production on Native American land that tribes say have cost them tens of millions of dollars... The Native American Energy Act would vest more regulatory authority over tribal energy production with the tribes themselves, rather federal regulators that have recently sought more stringent regulations on oil and gas production on federal land. The bill passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee last month with just a single Democratic vote. Among its provisions is language that would exempt tribal land from new Interior Department regulations on hydraulic fracturing, an innovative oil and gas extraction technique commonly known as fracking. http://freebeacon.com/issues/bill-promoting-indian-tribe-energy-production-faces-dem-opposition/.
nObama Threatens to Veto ‘Biggest Reform’ to Pentagon in Decades
{Daniel Wiser} ~ President nObama’s threat to veto the national defense bill could leave vital benefits for troops in limbo and hamper some of the most substantial changes to the Department of Defense in decades, according to analysts... The Senate is set to vote on the National Defense Authorization Act on Tuesday after it passed the House last week. The annual legislation, which authorizes several compensation and equipment programs for troops but is separate from the actual defense appropriations bill, has been signed into law every year for more than a half century and is rarely vetoed by presidents. However, nObama has threatened to veto several versions of the act during his presidency, and appears to be linking the 2016 bill to the broader debate in Congress about funding the government..
News editor denigrates Naval hero to defend Obama’s Islamist policies
{Jim Kouri} ~ While most media critics — Fox News Channel’s Howard Kurtz for one — are quick to dispel accusations that the left-wing “progressives” are in control of most news organizations... a well-respected editor took potshots at a former four-star U.S. Navy admiral who openly opposes President Barack nObama, especially hisnuclear weapons pact with Iran. According to top news media watchdog, Accuracy in Media, the Huffington Post, which is part of America Online, has once again shown itself to be a compelling example of the liberal-left news media’s “willful ignorance and its consistent spin” on behalf of the nObama White House, the politicized government agencies, and all people associated with the Democratic Party, including its heir apparent to the White House, Hilly Clinton. However, instead of blasting Hilly Clinton’s track record in the Middle East and North Africa or her shenanigans that poured millions of dollars into her husband’s coffers, Huffington Post’s senior political editor, Sam Stein, an August 18 column that denigrates the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi member and former Commanding Officer of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Admiral James “Ace” Lyons. http://www.aim.org/guest-column/news-editor-denigrates-naval-hero-to-defend-obamas-islamist-policies/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=email091415&utm_medium=email.
Fox star slams NRA, then admits: I'm a member
{CHERYL CHUMLEY} ~ Geraldo Rivera engaged in a fiery debate with fellow Fox News "The Five" co-hosts, particularly Eric Bolling, over the issue of gun control... demanding at one point the names of all those who receive money from the National Rifle Association have their names published for the world to see – and then dropping this bombshell: Yes, I'm a member of the lobby group. "The Five" debate centered on the recent Oregon community college mass shooting, and the potential for universal background checks to prevent such violence from re-occurring. Bolling said universal checks only hurt poor people; Rivera, however, favored them.
.
Terror analyst: ISIS just 'hours' from destruction
{CHELSEA SCHILLING} ~ A top terror expert says ISIS is now so weak that it could be decimated within hours... According to a London Express report Monday evening, Russian airstrikes, unruly leadership and numerous defections have destabilized the terror organization to the point that it is no longer capable of fighting off even a small attack. Terror analyst Dr. Afzal Ashraf told the paper that ISIS has drastically exaggerated its military power, prompting an international counterattack. Ashraf urged Western leaders to act now to wipe out the jihadi group. The U.S. has led a coalition of airstrikes against ISIS. The New York Times reported that the coalition is preparing to open a major front in Raqqa, a city in northeastern Syria that is widely considered to be ISIS’ capital. President nObama has also ordered the Pentagon to provide weapons to Syrian rebel groups. If this is actually true, it would be great. Russia, not the U.S. will take credit. http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/bombshell-isis-just-hours-from-destruction/.
Unnecessary Loss of Life
{Dr. Walter E. Williams} ~ War is nasty, brutal and costly. In our latest wars, many of the casualties suffered by American troops are a direct result of their having to obey rules of engagement created by politicians who have never set foot on —- or even seen —- a battlefield... Today’s battlefield commanders must be alert to the media and do-gooders who are all too ready to demonize troops involved in a battle that produces noncombatant deaths, so-called collateral damage. According to a Western Journalism article by Leigh H Bravo, “Insanity: The Rules of Engagement“, our troops fighting in Afghanistan cannot do night or surprise searches. Also, villagers must be warned prior to searches. Troops may not fire at the enemy unless fired upon. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. And only women can search women. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said: “We handcuffed our troops in combat needlessly. This was very harmful to our men and has never been done in U.S combat operations that I know of.” Collateral damage and the unintentional killing of civilians are a consequence of war. But the question we should ask is: Are our troops’ lives less important than the inevitable collateral damage?
.
.
Our Navy, our destiny
Geroge Will
.
.
Far out into the South China Sea, China is manufacturing mini-islands out of reefs, many of which used to be underwater at high tide. China is asserting sovereignty above and around these militarized specks in the congested cauldron of this sea. Through it and adjoining straits pass half the world’s seaborne tonnage; five of the United States’ 15 most important trading partners are in this region. Until President Trump launches his many trade wars, those partners include China, which is America’s third-largest export market and largest source of imports. The nObama administration has rejected challenging China’s audacity by not sailing through its claimed territorial waters — within 12 miles — around the new reef-islands.
Far out into the South China Sea, China is manufacturing mini-islands out of reefs, many of which used to be underwater at high tide. China is asserting sovereignty above and around these militarized specks in the congested cauldron of this sea. Through it and adjoining straits pass half the world’s seaborne tonnage; five of the United States’ 15 most important trading partners are in this region. Until President Trump launches his many trade wars, those partners include China, which is America’s third-largest export market and largest source of imports. The nObama administration has rejected challenging China’s audacity by not sailing through its claimed territorial waters — within 12 miles — around the new reef-islands.
.
Henry J. Hendrix of the Center for a New American Security argues that, like the battleships that carriers were originally designed to support, carriers may now be too expensive and vulnerable. China has developed land-based anti-ship missiles to force carriers to operate so far from targets that manned aircraft might become less useful than unmanned combat aerial vehicles operating from smaller, less expensive carriers.
Henry J. Hendrix of the Center for a New American Security argues that, like the battleships that carriers were originally designed to support, carriers may now be too expensive and vulnerable. China has developed land-based anti-ship missiles to force carriers to operate so far from targets that manned aircraft might become less useful than unmanned combat aerial vehicles operating from smaller, less expensive carriers.
The newest carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, to be commissioned next year, costs $12.8 billion. Add the costs of the air wing, the support of five surface combat ships and one attack submarine, and 6,700 sailors. The bill for operating a carrier group: $2.5 million a day. China, says Hendrix, could build more than 1,200 of its premier anti-ship missiles for the cost of one Ford carrier, and one of the 1,200 could achieve “mission-kill,” removing the carrier from the fight for months.
.
The bad news is that the U.S. entitlement state is devouring the federal budget. The good news might be this axiom: As money gets scarcer, people get smarter.
The bad news is that the U.S. entitlement state is devouring the federal budget. The good news might be this axiom: As money gets scarcer, people get smarter.
.
It might be smart to reduce spending on the astonishingly expensive and operationally dubious F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and redirect the money to unmanned combat aircraft that could extend, for a while, the carriers’ viability. For $3 billion the Navy could have 10 more nimble littoral combat ships providing increased day-to-day presence. Furthermore, of the 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines that were built for 30-year lives, the youngest is 17 and all might be kept in service until they are 40. Buying conventional guided-missile variants of these stealthy arsenals would bring many precision-strike missiles close to land targets, obviating anti-surface-ship missiles. The undersea component of the Navy is the most survivable, but it is not inexpensive: The first replacement of the Ohio-class submarines, due in 2021, will cost $9 billion, with subsequent ones costing about $5 billion in 2010 dollars.
It might be smart to reduce spending on the astonishingly expensive and operationally dubious F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and redirect the money to unmanned combat aircraft that could extend, for a while, the carriers’ viability. For $3 billion the Navy could have 10 more nimble littoral combat ships providing increased day-to-day presence. Furthermore, of the 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines that were built for 30-year lives, the youngest is 17 and all might be kept in service until they are 40. Buying conventional guided-missile variants of these stealthy arsenals would bring many precision-strike missiles close to land targets, obviating anti-surface-ship missiles. The undersea component of the Navy is the most survivable, but it is not inexpensive: The first replacement of the Ohio-class submarines, due in 2021, will cost $9 billion, with subsequent ones costing about $5 billion in 2010 dollars.
.
War-fighting calculations are not, however, the only pertinent considerations. The Navy remains the primary manifestation of America’s military presence in the world, and carriers are, beyond their versatility, an especially emphatic presence. The Navy believes it does not need more than 11 carriers (counting the Ford), but that it cannot perform its myriad missions, from preserving the free flow of world commerce to bringing airpower within range of the Islamic State, with fewer.
War-fighting calculations are not, however, the only pertinent considerations. The Navy remains the primary manifestation of America’s military presence in the world, and carriers are, beyond their versatility, an especially emphatic presence. The Navy believes it does not need more than 11 carriers (counting the Ford), but that it cannot perform its myriad missions, from preserving the free flow of world commerce to bringing airpower within range of the Islamic State, with fewer.
.
Day by day, hour by hour, there is no more complicated government job than that of the chief of naval operations (CNO). Beyond the management of moving pieces in every time zone, the CNO must attend to the maintenance of an industrial base capable of sustaining technological advantages with weapons systems that take decades moving from conception to deployment.
Day by day, hour by hour, there is no more complicated government job than that of the chief of naval operations (CNO). Beyond the management of moving pieces in every time zone, the CNO must attend to the maintenance of an industrial base capable of sustaining technological advantages with weapons systems that take decades moving from conception to deployment.
.
Adm. Jonathan Greenert, who stepped down as CNO last month, says Chinese carriers are “rudimentary” but their pace of improvement is “extraordinary.” Also extraordinary, given the United States’ current political climate, is the bipartisan agreement that the Navy must grow. The nObama administration’s budget calls for the active-duty fleet, which today has 273 ships, to reach more than 300 by 2020.
Adm. Jonathan Greenert, who stepped down as CNO last month, says Chinese carriers are “rudimentary” but their pace of improvement is “extraordinary.” Also extraordinary, given the United States’ current political climate, is the bipartisan agreement that the Navy must grow. The nObama administration’s budget calls for the active-duty fleet, which today has 273 ships, to reach more than 300 by 2020.
.
The United States was blown into world affairs by the 1898 explosion — an accident mistakenly blamed on Spain — that sank the USS Maine in Havana Harbor. The Navy that America chooses to maintain always indicates the nation’s current sense of its character and destiny. So, presidential aspirants — parsimonious Republicans and militarily ambivalent Democrats — should talk about the Navy they want to wield.
The United States was blown into world affairs by the 1898 explosion — an accident mistakenly blamed on Spain — that sank the USS Maine in Havana Harbor. The Navy that America chooses to maintain always indicates the nation’s current sense of its character and destiny. So, presidential aspirants — parsimonious Republicans and militarily ambivalent Democrats — should talk about the Navy they want to wield.
.
Comments