Categories

Archive for the ‘Obama’ Category

At his press conference yesterday, President Obama declared that the debate over Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act, was over:

President Obama is a skilled whopper-teller, probably because he tells so many whoppers. He said that “Republicans said nobody would sign up” even though Republicans never said that people wouldn’t sign up. He said that Republicans “don’t have an alternative” for replacing Obamacare even though they’ve submitted a bill in the Senate called the Patient CARE Act.

President Obama’s wildest statement was that the debate over Obamacare “is and should be over.” There’s a simple question I would’ve asked President Obama if I was attending his press conference: Mr. President, how can the debate over the ACA be over when you’ve ordered that major provisions in the bill not be implemented?

The truth is that the ACA isn’t “the law of the land.” The bill that President Obama signed into law on March 23, 2010 isn’t what’s been implemented. Democrats whine consistently about House Republicans voting 40-something times to repeal Obamacare. I’ve yet to hear a single Democrat complain that President Obama has unilaterally changed the ACA more than 30 times.

Robert Gibbs, President Obama’s first press secretary, admitted that “the employer mandate will be one of the first things to go“:

“I don’t think the employer mandate will go into effect. It’s a small part of the law. I think it will be one of the first things to go,” Gibbs said…

When Obama’s apologists say that major parts of the ACA won’t be implemented, it’s natural for people to ask if other parts of the bill will be scrapped forever. That’s the next logical question.

President Obama obviously wants this debate to be over because Republicans are using it like a sledgehammer on vulnerable
Senate Democrats. That’s too bad for him. As George Will recently said, “when someone declares that the debate is over, you can be sure of two things: that the debate is raging and he’s losing.”

Amen to that, Brother Will. So it is with this case.

Technorati: , , , , ,

According to the Hill’s Bob Kusack, Democrats think Sen. Reid is “curmudgeonly.”

They like the fact that he says things they wish they could say. That’s proof that Democrats are totally out of touch with America. This article highlights just how evil Sen. Reid and the Democrats are:

While many have condemned the strong-arming and pseudo-military tactics of the Bureau of Labor Management in its standoff with Cliven Bundy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, reserved his criticism for the Bundy family and their many supporters — which he labelled domestic terrorists.

That’s despicable. Sen. Reid should be thrown out of the Senate on a unanimous vote. The fact that Democrats think Sen. Reid is “effective” shows that they don’t treat character as an essential trait for leadership positions. What’s interesting about Andy McCarthy’s article is that Democrats don’t think highly about the rule of law, either:

The underlying assumption of our belief in the rule of law is that we are talking about law in the American tradition: provisions that obligate everyone equally and that are enforced dispassionately by a chief executive who takes seriously the constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully. The rule of law is not the whim of a man who himself serially violates the laws he finds inconvenient and who, under a distortion of the “prosecutorial discretion” doctrine, gives a pass to his favored constituencies while punishing his opposition. The rule of law is the orderly foundation of our free society; when it devolves into a vexatious process by which ideologues wielding power undertake to tame those whose activities they disfavor, it is not the rule of law anymore.

The Obama administration doesn’t believe in the rule of law being applied equally and dispassionately. The Obama administration believes in looking the other way when their friends violate the law. This administration only believes in enforcing laws if it punishes their political enemies;

The legitimacy of law and our commitment to uphold it hinge on our sense that the law and its execution are just. As John Hinderaker points out, concerns about the desert tortoise—the predicate for taking lawful action against Nevada ranchers under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)—turn out to be pretextual. The ideologues who run the government only want to enforce the ESA against a disfavored class, the ranchers. If you’re a well-connected Democrat who needs similar land for a solar project, the Obama administration will not only refrain from enforcing the ESA against you; it will transport the tortoises to the ranchers’ location in order to manufacture a better pretext for using the law to harass the ranchers.

Sen. Reid thinks it’s right to use his overly-exalted position to hurt the Bundys and to help his parasite of a son, Rory, make a quick buck. That’s what parasites do.

When law becomes a politicized weapon rather than a reflection of society’s shared principles, one can no longer expect it to be revered in a manner befitting “political religion.” And when the officials trusted to execute law faithfully violate laws regularly, they lose their presumption of legitimacy. Much of the public is not going to see the Feds versus Bundy as the Law versus the Outlaw; we are more apt to see it as the Bully versus the Small Fry.

We’re most likely to see Sen. Reid as lacking the character to be a leader. Even if Democrats are ok with him as a leader, the American people shouldn’t accept him as a leader.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Recently, I’ve written about a corrupt government agency that’s titled the IRRRB, aka the Iron Range Resources & Rehabilitation Board. In this post, I wrote about something that the IRRRB funded:

It was a company with direct ties and allegiance to the Democratic Party. After Republican President Richard Nixon’s resignation over the Watergate scandal the business created an “innovative small donor fundraising program called the Dollars for Democrats program,” according to the Meyer Teleservices website.

This afternoon, I wrote this post to talk about how the IRRRB resurrected that program with a little twist:

EVELETH, Minn.— Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB) Commissioner Tony Sertich today announced that New Partners Consultants, Inc. will operate a call center for its customers at Progress Park in Eveleth. The company is finalizing plans to lease the space that formerly housed Meyer Associates, Inc. New Partners will utilize some equipment from the Meyer operation, which is currently under IRRRB’s ownership.

The Minnesota offices of Dollars for Democrats went bankrupt a few weeks ago, leaving Minnesota taxpayers on the hook for $650,000 in unpaid loans from the IRRRB. What’s disgusting beyond the stupidity of making $650,000 worth of loans to a company on the verge of bankruptcy is that taxpayers were paying for a political operation.

That shouldn’t happen. Ever. Still, it’s happened twice in the past couple months. Government, whether it’s state or federal government, shouldn’t make loans or give grants to political operations. Period. If a political party wants to open a call center or coordination center, they should do it with their own money. Taxpayers shouldn’t finance political operations.

Here’s the IRRRB’s mission statement:

Iron Range Resources & Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB) is a State of Minnesota development agency located in Eveleth, Minnesota. IRRRB’s mission is to promote and invest in business, community and workforce development for the betterment of northeastern Minnesota.

IRRRB provides vital funding, including low or no interest loans, grants and loan guarantees for businesses relocating or expanding in the region. Additionally, a variety of grants are available to local units of government, education institutions, and nonprofits that promote workforce development and sustainable communities.

How can the IRRRB or New Partners say that getting equipment from a bankrupt company is investing businesses, communities or workforce development?

Another thing that’s disgusting is New Partners is an operation for national Democrats. Here’s part of New Partners’ leadership team:

Paul Tewes
In 2007, Paul began the Obama for America campaign as State Director for the Iowa caucuses. For nearly a year, Paul and his team built the largest grassroots organization in caucus history. The year culminated with an Obama win in January 2008, a win that launched his historical campaign. Paul was also instrumental in putting together the blueprint for President Obama’s organizational efforts in the General Election.

Tom McMahon
From 2005-2009, McMahon served as Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). There he was one of the principal architects of the ground-breaking “50 state strategy” that transformed and modernized the Democratic Party resulting in historic electoral gains in both 2006 and 2008 at the state, local and federal levels and laying the groundwork for President Obama’s historic win in 2008.

Cara Morris Stern
From 2000-2004, Cara served as a spokesperson for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. During her tenure at the DSCC, Cara worked with national political reporters to help frame the nation’s most visible and competitive Senate campaigns as well as develop message for donor communications.

The IRRRB, led by former DFL House Majority Leader Tony Sertich, just provided seed money and equipment to a political organization whose goal is to elect Democrats. Minnesota taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for any political operation from any political party. Period.

That’s before talking about whether the business model makes sense. (It doesn’t.) This is what politically motivated crony capitalism looks like. Inevitably, crony capitalism is corrupt, which this operation certainly is.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

According to this email from Corie Beckerman, the director of Student Health Services at St. Cloud State, MnSCU has decided to drop its “domestic student health insurance plan for the 2014-2015 academic year”:

To all SCSU Faculty and Staff:

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) has decided to no longer offer a domestic student health insurance plan for the 2014-2015 academic year. Due to the requirements of the Affordable Care Act that went into effect January 1, 2014, the cost of insurance for domestic students by our current provider would have increased substantially. There are several insurance coverage options available to students, which include being covered on their parent’s policy until age 26 or purchasing coverage through the Minnesota Health Insurance Exchange (MNsure). A detailed explanation of this MnSCU decision can be found at www.stcloudstate.edu/healthservices.

Resources:

MNsure has numerous resources available on their website for students to help navigate their system as well as address any health insurance questions – www.mnsure.org or toll-free 1-855-366-7873.

For assistance in the in the St. Cloud area, students may contact Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid at projectcare@mylegalaid.org or 1-320-253-0121.

International students will continue to be required to purchase health insurance through the MnSCU sponsored health plan, as in the past, in accordance with MnSCU Board Policy 3.4.1 part 3, subpart B.2.

Thanks

Corie

Corie Beckermann, Director
Student Health Services
St. Cloud State University
720 Fourth Avenue South
St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498

This sentence jumps off the page in importance:

Due to the requirements of the Affordable Care Act that went into effect January 1, 2014, the cost of insurance for domestic students by our current provider would have increased substantially.

This is a stunning admission that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, isn’t affordable. MnSCU is filled with people who support President Obama and Obamacare. This isn’t a decision they made lightly. It’s instructive that MnSCU didn’t make this decision out of spite.

MnSCU made this decision because the ACA, aka Obamacare, is exceptionally expensive.

Last week, President Obama had his “Mission Accomplished” moment in the Rose Garden. The thing he highlighted most was the enrollment numbers. That moment will be fleeting. Most people have forgotten about the enrollment figures. Since that event, the administration has gotten hit with stories like MnSCU cancelling its health insurance program for domestic students and other horror stories.

Kathleen Sebelius must feel like the weight of the world’s been lifted from her shoulders now that she’s resigned. She won’t have to deal with the ACA mess once her replacement is confirmed.

That’s the opposite of Gov. Dayton. This is just another reminder that the ACA is anything but affordable.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

When it comes to energy issues, Rolf Westgard is worth listening to. Apparently, though, he’s developed a habit of hearing what wasn’t said:

More than 90 percent of Crimeans vote to rejoin Russia, and Russia gets ready to annex Crimea. The West protests the referendum with threats of sanctions.

We have short memories, having forgotten how Texas, New Mexico, and California were “annexed” from Mexico. Then, we didn’t even wait for a vote.

Republican war drums are rolling, accusing Obama of not getting tough. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, has blown his trumpet in stating, regarding Ukraine, that we have a “weak and indecisive president” who “invites aggression.”

He must know there is nothing militarily that any American president could or would have done to deter Putin in this situation.

That’s shameful. “Republican war drums” aren’t rolling, as Westgard accuses. The sharpest Republican foreign policy/national security minds have said that arming Ukraine while reaching missile defense agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic would tell Putin that his expansionist ambitions have consequences without going to war.

That President Obama has refused taking that step, instead opting for sending Ukrainians MREs instead of actual weapons proves President Obama is “a weak and indecisive president.” I never thought I’d live to see the say that I’d see a wimpier president than Jimmy Carter. Suffice it to say that I’ve lived to see that day.

That’s only part of how to make Putin rethink his expansionist ambitions. Last week, I heard a pundit say that Putin’s the 800-pound gorilla in the room. That’s BS. Putin’s acting like the 800-pound gorilla, which isn’t the same as being the 800-pound gorilla.

Dramatically increasing American oil and natural gas production would dramatically hurt the Russian economy, which is heavily reliant on oil revenues. Those of us who lived through the 1980s remember that President Reagan used a multi-pronged approach in bringing the then-Soviet Union to its knees. First, Reagan built up the military, which Jimmy Carter had decimated. Next, Reagan made the U.S. economy the envy of the world, ushering in 6 straight quarters of economic growth that exceeded 5% annual growth. Finally, he deregulated the oil industry, which devastated the Soviet economy.

That’s how President Reagan acted forcefully while demolishing the Soviet Union without firing a shot. That’s what mainstream Republicans are pushing for today. That’s the opposite of Dr. Westgard’s accusations. The difference is that I can verify my statements. Dr. Westgard can’t verify his accusations.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In 2007, Julianne Ortman voted for the Next Generation Energy Act, aka the NGEA. The vote was 59-5. Here’s one of the requirements of the NGEA:

The plan must determine the feasibility, assess the costs and benefits, and recommend how the state could adopt a regulatory system that imposes a cap on the aggregate air pollutant emissions of a group of sources, requires those subject to the cap to own an allowance for each ton of the air pollutant emitted, and allows for market-based trading of those allowances. The evaluation must contain an analysis of the state implementing a cap and trade system alone, in coordination with other states, and as a requirement of federal law applying to all states. The plan must recommend the parameters of a cap and trade system that includes a cap that would prevent significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions above current levels with a schedule for lowering the cap periodically to achieve the goals in subdivision 1 and interim goals recommended under paragraph (a).

This sentence jumps off the page:

The plan must recommend the parameters of a cap and trade system that includes a cap that would prevent significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions above current levels.

I’ll stipulate that this vote was taken long before then-Sen. Obama made his infamous comments about his Cap & Trade bill:

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

Still, policymakers knew that Cap & Trade would significantly increase the price of electricity. Sen. Ortman voted for a bill that a) imposes a cap on greenhouse gases and b) increased the cost of generating electricity. How is that the right thing to do? At the time, did Sen. Ortman think this bill would make life better for the average Minnesotan?

The NGEA didn’t just raise the price of electricity. It created a significant burden for energy transmission companies:

The plan must include recommendations for improvements in the emissions inventory and recommend whether the state should require greenhouse gas emissions reporting from specific sources and, if so, which sources should be required to report.

In other words, the NGEA increased compliance costs for power plants. That necessarily drives up the price of electricity. Unfortunately, there’s still more to this horrific bill:

The state must, to the extent possible, with other states in the Midwest region, develop and implement a regional approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from activities in the region, including consulting on a regional cap and trade system.

NGEA also created new responsibilities for state government. It’s a public employee union’s dream come true because it requires people to monitor regional greenhouse gas emissions.

According to FactCheck.org, the NGEA requires Minnesota to reduce GHGs, aka Greenhouse Gases, by 80%:

But the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 didn’t “only” take “steps on renewable energy,” as Pawlenty said. It established strict statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2015 and 80 percent below those levels by 2050.

The fact that Sen. Ortman voted with the overwhelming majority in support of the BGEA isn’t comforting. Minnesota doesn’t need a politician that goes with the flow. Minnesotans need a leader who does the right thing.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Lots of conservatives have ridiculed Al Franken about not being funny. They’ve criticized him for being a temperamental hard left lefty, too. While those are accurate, that isn’t Franken’s biggest problem. In fact, they’re far from it. This WashPo article works overtime to make Franken sound like a serious legislator:

“He stays home and studies for the next day,” a staffer says. Franken is known for actually reading committee witness testimony and even digging into the footnotes, looking for holes or contradictions.

Wow. Al Franken has finally started taking his job seriously. Let’s remember that he didn’t attempt to read the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, aka the ACA. He just voted for that destructive bill because that’s what Harry Reid and President Obama wanted him to do.

So like a good little puppet, Al Franken voted for a bill that’s raised families’ health insurance premiums and deductibles while shrinking families’ networks. Sen. Franken abandoned families when they needed him the most.

While that’s Al Franken’s biggest mistake, that isn’t the only time he’s abandoned families. He’s done nothing to help the hard-working people of the Iron Range because he’s refused to lift a finger to make PolyMet a reality. That’s because Franken is more worried about raking in max donations from his friends in Hollywood and other militant environmental activists.

These hard-line environmental activists don’t take kindly to politicians they support voting for the Iron Range’s blue collar workers. That’s because they’re most worried about their ideology. Worrying about hard-working families is well down their list of priorities, if it’s there at all.

As for whether Al Franken is a serious legislator, I’ll just post this video of Sen. Franken making a fool of himself while questioning Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings:

I’d submit that Sen. Franken isn’t the serious man he’s trying to portray himself as.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s passion for school choice is eloquently laid out in Gov. Jindal’s op-ed. First, Gov. Jindal makes the case against the status quo:

In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio has embarked on a systematic campaign to destroy the city’s burgeoning charter school movement. He’s diverting more than $200 million in funding marked for charter schools, and has also thrown hundreds of students out of their promised school buildings. He has also declared his intent to nullify arrangements that allow charters to locate in existing public schools rent-free.

The mayor’s open warfare against Eva Moskowitz, who founded a network of 22 charter schools, has all the markings of a petulant tyrant holding low-income students hostage. De Blasio has said, “There’s no way in hell Eva Moskowitz should get free rent” — as if the 6,700 students in the charter schools she runs were a mere afterthought in his personal vendetta against a fellow Democrat.

Last May, he told a teachers-union forum that Moskowitz “has to stop being tolerated, enabled, supported.” Yes, by all means, let’s not “tolerate” someone behind a movement to empower parents and students with more — and better — education choices. This woman who is making it possible for low-income kids to have an equal opportunity for a quality education must be stopped.

Gov. Jindal gets it. He’s consistently talked about school choice in the context of giving students a shot at the American Dream. He’s even got a history of fighting for his policies:

In Louisiana, we know a thing or two about government authorities meddling in parents’ right to choose the schools that are best for their children. President Obama’s Justice Department filed a lawsuit trying to impede our program that gives parents of low-income students in failing schools an opportunity to attend a better school. Fully nine in 10 students participating in the program are minorities, yet the Justice Department seeks to block the program on the grounds that it would lead to racial segregation. The lawsuit would be funny if it weren’t so sad — and if the lives of so many young African-American children weren’t at stake.

President Obama’s Justice Department filed their lawsuit to placate their allies in the teachers union. That’s the same reason why Mayor de Blasio is implementing his anti-choice policies in NYC. It’s shameful that President Obama and Mayor de Blasio worry more about placating their special interest allies than they worry about doing what’s right for the nation.

In that respect, President Obama and Mayor de Blasio are showing their anti-American stripes. If they cared about making life better for everyone, they wouldn’t be attempting to implement these misguided policies.

Thankfully, people are standing up for themselves and their families rather than just caving in the face of the Left’s peer pressure.

Gov. Jindal understands this, which is why I think he’s the favorite to be the GOP presidential nominee. It isn’t thatI haven’t notice that other polls show Christie or Bush or Rand Paul leading or near the top. It’s that Gov. Jindal has a lengthy history of domestic policy successes without angering the GOP’s conservative base.

Gov. Jindal has championed school choice. He’s pushed tax reform. Those are definitely issues conservatives will positively respond to. Most importantly, he hasn’t hugged President Obama like Gov. Christie and he hasn’t been a foreign policy pacifist like Sen. Paul.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article is proof that Hillary Clinton is worried that her incompetence on foreign policy and national security matters will cost her the White House:

In recent weeks, as the standoff over Ukraine escalated, Hillary Clinton did something that she never did as secretary of State: She put considerable distance between herself and the president she served loyally for four years. While Barack Obama cautiously warned Vladimir Putin to back off his claims on Ukraine, Clinton rolled out a rhetorical cannon, comparing the Russian president’s moves to the seizure of territory by Adolf Hitler that set off World War II. Her comments were so harsh and controversial that she was forced to walk them back a bit, saying, “I’m not making a comparison, certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before.”

Clinton’s remarks appeared to be an indication of two things. One, she’s concerned enough about shoring up her reputation for toughness that she may indeed be thinking about running for president in 2016. Clinton offered up, in other words, a rare and enticing hint about the question that everyone in the politics game is asking these days. Undoubtedly she knows that the effort she led as secretary of State in 2009, an attempted “reset” of relations with Russia that included a new arms treaty, now looks naive in the face of Putin’s repudiation of Obama over Ukraine and his lack of cooperation on other issues, such as resolution of the Syrian civil war. Two, Clinton could be worried that by the time the next presidential season rolls around, what was once seen as one of Obama’s stronger points—foreign policy—could easily become a liability to whomever is seeking the Democratic nomination.

Hillary’s tough-as-nails image is just that — an image. It doesn’t have anything to do with reality. She played the fool on the world stage by handing Russia the now-infamous Reset Button:

She’s the one that announced the United States was reneging on its commitment to their allies in Poland and the Czech Republic. There’s no doubt that President Obama agreed with these policies. Still, there’s little doubt that Hillary thought these were the right decisions at the time.

Hillary is nothing if not a shrewd politician. She isn’t hesitating in throwing President Obama under the bus for being a pacifist. It’s apparent she thinks she has to look tough on the international stage. The best thing that Republican presidential candidates can do is question Hillary’s competence, highlighting her appeasement-first attitude with regards to Benghazi, her dovishness towards Iran and her naivete towards Putin’s Russia.

For all her supposed foreign policy expertise, she’s been wrong on almost as many national security issues as John Kerry, which is frightening considering he’s been making national security mistakes for almost 30 years.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

After reading Rand Paul’s op-ed about Ronald Reagan, it’s clear he doesn’t understand President Reagan. This part is particularly upsetting:

Many forget today that Reagan’s decision to meet with Mikhail Gorbachev was harshly criticized by the Republican hawks of his time, some of whom would even call Reagan an appeaser. In the Middle East, Reagan strategically pulled back our forces after the tragedy in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 241 Marines, realizing the cost of American lives was too great for the mission.

There were Reagan supporters who would’ve done anything for him who didn’t have a clue about President Reagan’s strategy. Apparently, Sen. Paul doesn’t either:

There is a time for military action, such as after 9/11. There is a time for diplomacy and the strategic use of soft power, such as now with Russia. Diplomacy requires resolve but also thoughtfulness and intelligence.

What President Reagan did wasn’t “soft power.” What he did was show the world, especially the Soviet presidents of the time, that he was committed to simultaneously waging war by rebuilding the U.S. military and through showing the Soviets that their economy couldn’t keep pace with a U.S. economy that was growing like gangbusters.

In short, President Reagan’s idea of “soft power” was to scare the bejesus out of Soviets militarily while burying them economically.

As for President Reagan’s conservative critics, they literally littered the landscape. It was 10 times worse with Democrats. As a newly elected senator, John Kerry said that President Reagan’s installing Pershing II missiles in western Europe would destabilize the U.S.-Russian relationship. Six years later, the Berlin Wall was smashed by liberty-loving East Berliners.

Apparently, Sen. Paul didn’t notice that President Reagan didn’t start serious negotiations with the Soviets until his 2nd term. Once, when a reporter asked President Reagan why he hadn’t held a summit with his Russian counterpart, President Reagan replied “Because they keep dying on me.”

Old school ‘experts’ thought it was unthinkable for a U.S. president not to have a yearly summit with the Soviet leader. President Reagan was a master negotiator. He wasn’t worried about doing things for appearances sake. President Reagan didn’t start negotiating with the Soviets until he’d laid the foundation for intimidating Gorbachev.

Another thing President Reagan should be praised for is his fierce insistence on winning and losing. When asked what his strategy was towards the Soviets, President Reagan simply said “We win, they lose.” The world was stunned when they heard that. They didn’t like it, either, when President Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” He was right in calling them evil.

What else would you call an expansionist-minded, murderous empire that throws dissidents into harsh gulags? That’s where Putin got his worldview.

I’ve talked frequently about the Reagan Doctrine, which I describe as President Reagan utilizing the threat of military force and economic superiority to negotiate the USSR into history’s dust-bin of failed ideologies.

It worked in toppling the Soviet Union. It’ll certainly work now in toppling Putin. At this point, we have proof that Sen. Paul and President Obama haven’t grasped that concept, much less unleashed its power.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,