RUTHFULLY YOURS

In preparation for this week’s debate in Cleveland, Jeb Bush this week posted his immigration plan: “Securing the Border and Enforcing Our Immigration Laws.” It’s basically a six-page summary of the Schumer–Rubio bill passed by the Senate in 2013, though without the other 1,194 pages of details.

It outlines six enforcement steps that he says must accompany — accompany, not precede — amnesty. He makes this explicit in the concluding paragraph, which begins (my emphasis):

These six proposals, when combined with a rigorous path to earned legal status, would realistically and honestly address the status of the 11 million people here illegally today and protect against future illegal immigration.

The beginning makes this clear, too, where he says illegal aliens will “obtain a provisional work permit” and then, “over an extended period of time earn legal status.” This con is so old that it’s hard to believe Team Jeb still thinks it will sell; as everyone figured out years ago, the “provisional work permit” is the amnesty. The only thing the former illegal aliens would “earn” is the right to upgrade from green-card lite to green-card premium.

The most remarkable accomplishment of the Hillary Campaign is this:

A mere four months ago the idea of Joe Biden as a viable presidential candidate was regarded by Democrats as a joke.Then Hillary launched.And now he’s their white knight in shining armor.

Great job, Hillary! If Joe says no, they’ll be digging up Robert C Byrd and propping him up for the New Hampshire pancake flip.

I have a modest preference for Biden over Clinton in that he is not as personally, ravenously, rapaciously sleazy and corrupt as the Clinta Nostra. So there’s that.

Answering the top lies in the president’s speech at American University.

Remember President Obama’s outright lies as he was selling Obamacare? He is now lying on an even larger scale as he tries to sell his fatally flawed nuclear deal with Iran to a skeptical Congress, and to the American people, who currently oppose the deal by a large margin.

In an address that Obama delivered on August 5th at American University, Obama deliberately misrepresented the terms of his deal and slurred those who dare to question it. In a highly offensive and partisan tone, he accused the Republican caucus of being in “common cause” with Iran’s hardliners opposed to the deal, ignoring the serious reservations to the deal among many in his own party and the American public at large.

At the outset of his speech, Obama claimed that “we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

Obama loves to play dress up. Sometimes he likes to play FDR, but his favorite costume is JFK. By claiming to be FDR or JFK, he convinces Democrats that he is part of a historical continuity, instead of a horrible aberration, and that he is doing exactly what FDR or JFK would do if they were alive today.

The costumes make Obama seem American instead of Un-American. Now Obama put on his JFK costume to play the leader who believes in a “practical” and “attainable peace.” His analogy of the USSR to Iran is both terrible and telling.

Nuclear war was not averted because of arms control. The USSR, like Iran, cheated blatantly. Unlike Iran, its leaders weren’t crazy enough to want to see the world burn.

The same can’t be said of the Supreme Leader of Iran who chants “Death to America” and means it.

Treaties did not end the Cold War. The collapse of the USSR, under the pressure of its economic failures, did. Had Obama kept the sanctions in place, Iran’s regime might have also collapsed.

Way before President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy put the finishing touches on the Clean Power Plan, the Texas Public Policy Foundation was figuring out a way to stop it.

The Obama administration unveiled [2] the Clean Power Plan on Monday, calling it “a historic step in the fight against climate change.”

The Clean Power Plan establishes the first-ever national standards to limit carbon pollution from power plants. It sets what the EPA and White House describe as “flexible and achievable standards” to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.

Opponents argue it is yet another assault in what they describe as the Obama/EPA War On Coal.

I rise early when at home. The outside temperature is checked. On summer mornings, if it is below 65°, the windows are opened and attic fans turned on. Fresh air courses through the house. After a couple of hours, with the summer sun rising and immersing us in its radiant heat, the windows are shut and the fans turned off. The air conditioning goes back to work…polluting the outside air. But being comfortable adds to my productivity and improves my outlook. It is one of thousands of trade-offs we make each day, like President Obama flying off on Air Force One to make a speech about excessive carbon dioxide emissions..

Growing up in rural New Hampshire, I remember old-timers saying, “If you don’t like the weather, wait five minutes.” That was true seventy years ago and still is today. Weather is unpredictable. Before my mother went to the village she made a list, not because she was concerned about emitting greenhouse gasses, but because time and money were important. Her efforts at conservation were driven by self-interest, not in obeisance to a government mandate.

Under questioning from a Senate Democrat today at a Banking Committee hearing on the Iran deal, the lead State Department negotiator said they never bothered to ask Iran if there are any other side deals floating around out there.

Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman came under intense bipartisan questioning about Iran’s agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry told lawmakers that he thought the only administration official who might have seen the agreement was Sherman.

Today, Sherman had a few explanations.

“I did see the provisional documents, I didn’t see the final documents,” she told Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

The United States Supreme Court has been asked to end a political subsidy to aliens through the use of alien population in allocating legislative seats. In a case arising out of the decision by Texas to count aliens — illegal and legal — in drawing legislative districts, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether using aliens violates the principle of “one person, one vote.”

The case is Evenwel vs. Abbott.

Currently, many states count aliens when establishing the population of legislative districts, therefore diluting the legislative clout of citizens. Legislative districts — whether for Congress, a state legislature, or a county council — must be more or less equal in population.

The case before the Supreme Court will decide what population must be used to calculate that “population.” If Texas prevails, illegal aliens and noncitizens may be counted. This means areas with high alien population will dilute the legislative clout of areas where the residents are almost all citizens.

A child of immigrant parents, in the nation that invented the idea that your status at birth is no limitation on your ultimate altitude, Rubio never forgets America’s exceptionalism.

The presidential primary process doesn’t help us to decide who’s qualified to bear the party standard, and to serve as chief executive. It’s just our way of crushing the hopes and dreams of anyone who dares poke head from hole. Because you already know all of the reasons why every candidate, and potential candidate, has no right to expect the nomination, I’m going to write an utterly one-sided series on why each one should get it.]

Today’s nominee: Senator Marco Rubio. (If you’re concerned that I’m not providing fair and balanced analysis, I’m sure the folks in the comment section will compensate for my deficiency.)

I just read Sen. Marco Rubio’s American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone, which combines stories of struggling Americans with often-innovative proposals to address our most besetting challenges in education, social welfare, health care, immigration, Social Security, Medicare and more. The book is worth the brief time it takes to read, even if you favor some other candidate for president.

Why Marco Rubio Should Be the Republican Nominee

1. Positive Vision for “A New American Century”: Republicans should not underestimate the value of a voice that stirs the human heart and reminds us of what we’re all about, and what we can be.

There is a myth promulgated by “Orientalists” including Bernard Lewis of a great golden age of comity between Moslems and the Jews…..this addresses the question…. “The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn by Andrew G. Bostom and Ibn Warraqrsk does it best….rsk
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors? Lessons from Medieval Interfaith Relations – By Alex J. Novikoff

In Neighboring Faiths, a recently published collection of essays, the historian David Nirenberg explores the relationship among the three religions during the Middle Ages. Alex Novikoff writes in his review:

Medieval Iberia has often been held up as a mirror to our own society, and for quite understandable reasons. For some, this bygone era represents a beacon of interfaith tolerance and cultural exchange of the sort we might learn from today. Convivencia (“living together”) has long been the descriptive term of choice, a word that over the years has achieved a sort of sublime meaninglessness. . . .

For others, medieval Iberia is best seen as a harsh and unrelenting mill that, through the grating and grinding of competing cultures and hostile takeovers, churned out some of the worst templates of religious intolerance: jihad and crusade, forced conversions, torture and inquisition, racial exclusion, wholesale expulsions, and more. . . . Yet other scholars . . . favor a more nuanced middle ground of [simultaneous] conflict and coexistence. . . . In this stimulating and deeply learned collection of essays . . . David Nirenberg reaffirms his mastery as an original and challenging expositor in this third category of historical interpreters.