Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the John McCain category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘John McCain’ Category

Saying that Jeff Flake is a legislative lightweight is to demean lightweights. It’s insulting that Sen. Flake compared President Trump with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. What’s worse is that he made the comparison on the Senate floor.

Sen. Flake is a wimp and an airhead. Anyone that thinks that a combative president should be compared with a brutal dictator who killed millions of people isn’t intellectually qualified to be a U.S. senator. Further, Sen. Flake essentially capitulated to the Democrats on border enforcement. Thankfully, that’ll make it easier for Arizonans who worry about border security and preventing cartel-related human trafficking to elect a serious senator who won’t cave like Sen. Flake just did.

Sen. McCain wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post (naturally) that criticized President Trump. In that op-ed, “Mr. McCain joined his fellow Arizonan in calling for the president to stop attacking the news media.” In the op-ed, Sen. McCain said “We cannot afford to abdicate America’s longstanding role as the defender of human rights and democratic principles throughout the world. Without strong leadership in the White House, Congress must commit to protecting independent journalism, preserving an open and free media environment, and defending the fundamental right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

Coming from the man who wanted to gut the First Amendment, that’s rich. Further, Sen. McCain should know that the U.S. form of government isn’t a democracy. The Founding Fathers created a constitutional republic that said our rights come from “Nature’s God”, not from government. The difference between the 2 types of government is gigantic.

As President Reagan said in his farewell address, “‘We the People’ tell the government what to do; it doesn’t tell us. ‘We the People’ are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which ‘We the People’ tell the government what it is allowed to do.”

When Sen. McCain collaborated with Russ Feingold to write their campaign finance law, they wrote a law that told citizens involved in the political process when they could criticize politicians and what times were off-limits. Anyone who didn’t hesitate in telling ‘We The People’ how they can react is someone who isn’t morally fit to instruct presidents about right and wrong.

About 2 hours ago, Sen. John McCain announced that he’ll vote for the GOP tax bill. That pretty much guarantees the bill’s passage. In a statement, Sen. McCain said “After careful thought and consideration, I have decided to support the Senate tax reform bill. I believe this legislation, though far from perfect, would enhance American competitiveness, boost the economy, and provide long-overdue tax relief for middle-class families.”

It appears as though the only question left is whether any Democrats will vote for the bill. All day yesterday and thus far this morning, House Democrats have waged a furious Twitter war using #GOPTaxScam as their hashtag. This Pelosi tweet is typical. It says “Republicans will do anything to obscure the devastating impact their #GOPTaxScam will have on middle class families nationwide.”

It’s impossible to take Ms. Pelosi seriously. That tweet (and others like it) have a whiff of desperation to them. Sane people don’t think that the GOP tax cuts will hurt the middle class. Unfortunately, Democrats have deployed their fear-mongering tactics so long that that’s all they know. Check out Jeff Merkley’s tweet:

Headed to the floor to vote on whether or not to move forward with the most egregious bank heist in American history. My vote? No way. We don’t need a political system or an economy that is even more rigged for the privileged and powerful than it already is. Stop the #GOPTaxScam.

Remember that Merkley voted for all of the Obama budgets that produced the weakest recovery since the Great Depression. Today’s Democratic Party doesn’t have any credibility when it comes to the economy. That’s because most of them have gulped too much of the socialist Kool-Aid.

UPDATE: The Dow roared past 24,000 today, at one point gaining 315 points. This is mostly attributed to the Tax Bill passing the Senate this week:

“This tax-reform bill is not just about” potentially lowering taxes said JJ Kinahan, chief market strategist at TD Ameritrade. “It’s also a psychological factor that Congress can get something done. That would be a positive.”

Sen. John McCain said Thursday he would support the bill, making it more likely that the GOP-led Senate will pass its bill. The Senate is expected to vote later on Thursday. If the upper chamber’s bill passes, the House and Senate would have to work on a new bill they can send to President Donald Trump.

This makes it official:

This article was written either by a dishonest reporter or a reporter who still doesn’t understand the political situation we’re in. Specifically, the reporter wrote “In a speech announcing his decision, he offers a stinging rebuke to the path of the Republican Party under Trump and says he felt he no longer had a place in the party. Flake’s decision generates uncertainty about the future of his seat and the GOP’s Senate majority.”

With tax reform now looking likely to pass by Christmas, the question isn’t whether Republicans will hold their majorities in the House and Senate. The question is whether they’ll gain 4-5 Senate seats or if they’ll flip enough Senate seats to hold a filibuster-proof Senate in 2019.

Sen. Flake’s speech showed how out-of-touch he is with his party, saying “And so, Mr. President, I will not be complicit or silent. I decided that I would be better able to represent the people of Arizona and to better serve my country and my conscience by freeing myself of the political consideration that consumed far too much bandwidth and would cause me to compromise far too many principles. To that end, I am announcing today my service in the Senate will conclude at the end of my term in early January 2019. It is clear at this moment that a traditional conservative who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, who is pro immigration, has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican party; the party that has so long defined itself by its belief in those things. It is also clear to me for the moment that we have given in or given up on the core principles in favor of a more viscerally satisfied anger and resentment.”

Naturally, Democrats, both in DC and the media, are praising Flake. Whatever. Flake served a single term in the Senate. Saying that his time in the Senate was unimpressive is accurate. While he wasn’t the unpredictable vote that Sen. McCain was, Flake wasn’t the reliable conservative vote that Sen. Kyl was or that Kelli Ward will be, if and when she’s elected. After watching Sen. Flake’s retirement announcement speech, it’s safe to say that some of his points seem more than a little overdramatic:

It isn’t that I’ll spend a ton of time bemoaning the lack of civility in DC. What I will do is bemoan the fact that too many Republicans aren’t fighters. Principled compromise is a good thing. Unprincipled compromise is just capitulation. There’s too little of the former, too much of the latter.

This was always going to be a tough re-election for Sen. Flake. Now that he’s announced his retirement, let’s hope this moves this seat back into the Solid Republican category rather than letting it languish in the Toss-up category.

Kim Strassel’s latest WSJ article perfectly illustrates the threat that the Swamp poses to America. The question that Susan Collins, John McCain and Rand Paul needs to be asked is whether they hate President Trump more than they love America. At this point, it seems like they hate President Trump more than they love America.

Ms. Strassel notes that “Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have also led revolts against bills, again based on shared criticisms. But what do the Arizona maverick, the Maine moderate and the Kentucky libertarian have in common? Very little. Well, very little save motivations that go beyond policy. And that is the crucial point that is missing from the endless analyses of the McCain-Collins-Paul defections on health care. The media has treated the trio’s excuses for killing their party’s top priority as legit, despite the obvious holes in their objections over policy and process. What in fact binds the three is their crafting of identities based primarily on opposition to their party or Mr. Trump.”

Ms. Strassel eviscerates the trio, writing “The press was fixated this week on Mr. McConnell’s bad week, which is an easy piece to write. But it ignores the obvious reality that the Triumvirate seems to have never had any intention of letting its party succeed. After all, a senator who intended to stand firm on “regular order,” as Mr. McCain said, would have informed his colleagues of that demand at the beginning, rather than allow his colleagues to set up for another vote and then dramatically tank it (again) at the last minute. A senator who voted for ‘skinny’ ObamaCare repeal in the summer on the grounds that anything was “better than no repeal,” in the words of Mr. Paul, would not suddenly engineer an unreachable set of demands for his vote on an even better repeal.” This will never be forgotten by Republicans:

Let’s state this clearly. By making up flimsy excuses for why they’re opposing a health care plan that would be dramatically better than the ACA, this trio is proving that they’re putting egos ahead of doing what’s right for the American people. In that way, Paul, McCain and Collins are as disgusting as Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi.

While there are other Republicans who haven’t enthusiastically supported President Trump’s agenda, this trio of traitors should be expelled from chairmanships and plum committee assignments. Rather than calling them “the Never-Trump Triumvirate”, let’s call this trio what they are: the trio who hate President Trump more than they love this nation. What a disgusting bunch. They’re more disgusting than the reptiles protesting during the National Anthem. They’re almost more disgusting than Antifa.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Jazz Shaw’s post is today’s must reading for immigration hawks. In his post, Jazz cites this article. The highlight of the article comes when it starts citing statistics. Without further adieu, let’s get to those statistics.

The article’s opening paragraph says “Speaking on the second anniversary of the government’s move to seal Hungary’s border with Serbia — which is also an external border for the European Union — Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Chief Security Advisor, György Bakondi, announced that the fences have caused illegal immigration to collapse from 391,000 in 2015, to 18,236 in 2016, to just 1,184 in 2017.” According to Jazz, that’s a 99% drop in illegal immigration. Actually, it’s a 99.7% drop in illegal immigration but what’s seven-tenths of a point amongst friends?

Jazz sums things up perfectly, saying “The math here should be a bit too much for any but the most willfully blind to ignore. In 2015 there were an estimated 390,000 illegal border crossings. Thus far this year the number is barely over one thousand. That’s not just impressive… it’s staggering.

The next time a wobbly Republican or a weak-on-law-and-order-Democrat start whining about the cost of building the wall or how walls don’t work or other BS, point them to this article, then ask them if a 99.7% decrease in illegal immigration is worth paying for. I’m betting that we’ll find that border security isn’t a priority with these politicians. It’s time to let them know that they’re in the minority. Yes, a majority of people want DACA-protected illegal immigrants to stay but it’s also true that they want the border wall built.

This information proves that walls work in keeping out drug cartels while stifling human trafficking in addition to stopping illegal immigration. Democrats and GOP fluffs like John McCain and Jeff Flake don’t support the wall. Is it because they want a deal so badly that they’re willing to ignore the other national security threats posed by lax border enforcement?

Here’s hoping that President Trump plays hardball with Democrats. This isn’t just another issue. To those living along the southern border, it’s a matter of life and death. Literally. Things have improved since President Trump took over, thanks mostly to Jeff Sessions’ work in taking border security seriously. What’s important, though, is noting that, without a wall, Democrats can stop taking border security seriously … again. and we’d be right back with floods of illegal immigrants again.

The wall will stop that flood forever. That’s the last thing that Democrats want, though minds are changing about that. As they settle into this country, lots of Hispanic immigrants start thinking of themselves as white. If that’s the case, then the political advantage for Democrats is overstated, which is a game-changer. At that point, enforcement becomes the most important issue. Once the fight moves onto that turf, Democrats, McCain and Flake lose.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

If Minnesotans needed additional proof that Emperor Dayton doesn’t understand the importance of enforcing our nation’s laws, we got it this week. This past Tuesday, Emperor Dayton said that enforcing our nation’s immigration laws was “lunacy.” While greeting students outside Meadow Lake Elementary School in New Hope, Emperor Dayton said “It’s just shameful. I mean you have Republican members of Congress as well as Democrats saying this is the wrong way to go. Here in Minnesota we have a shortage of skilled workers. So we’re going to take some 6,200 that are here under DACA and send them away? It’s lunacy.”

I know that some Republicans don’t believe in enforcing this nation’s immigration laws, too. Names like John McCain and Lindsey Graham immediately leap to mind. The term “comprehensive immigration reform” immediately pops into my mind, too. Most importantly, the term open borders comes to mind because that’s essentially what we’ve had the past 16 years. This CIS report says that the “total number of illegal immigrants (11 to 12 million) has held roughly constant in recent years because the number arriving has roughly balanced the number going home or getting legal status. This has created the mistaken impression that the problem is largely over. The most recent estimates from the Center for Migration Studies indicate that 1.7 million aliens joined the illegal population from 2009 to 2013 and Pew Research Center estimates indicate 1.5 million, 300,000 to 400,000 a year. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates an additional 790,000 joined the illegal population since 2013 for a total of 2.5 million new illegal immigrants since President Obama took office.”

I’d love to hear Emperor Dayton explain why consistent enforcement of our nation’s laws is lunacy. I’d love to hear him explain why turning a blind eye to illegal immigration is acceptable. President Obama and Emperor Dayton have turned a blind eye towards this problem. As a result, wages have stagnated and economic growth has been pathetic.

When President Obama and Emperor Dayton turned a blind eye towards illegal immigration, things got worse, not better. When Rahm Emanuel turned a blind eye towards gun violence, things got worse, not better. That’s the history of pacifism. Things get worse, not better. Pacifism told Ayatollah Khomeini he could start an Islamic revolution. Pacifism told Hitler that he could conquer Europe without much of a fight. Now, pacifism is telling illegal immigrants that they’re welcome to stay here without impunity.

Pacifism is lunacy. Consistently enforcing the law is the start of sanity.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Anyone who’s followed Sen. McCain’s political career knows that he’s had a holier-than-thou attitude. When he co-authored the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold legislation, his interviews on the legislation focused on perceived corruption rather than on whether the legislation violated people’s civil rights. Sen. McCain insisted that ridding society of corruption, whether it was real or imagined, was more important than protecting a person’s civil rights.

Later, Sen. McCain helped push through legislation that tied the hands of interrogators interrogating terrorists, supposedly because these EITs were helping terrorists recruit more terrorists and because the EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques) were hurting our standing in the world. The truth is that a handful of countries were complaining about the EITs but that the problem was more imagined than real.

Now, Sen. McCain is criticizing President Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Arpaio, saying “”No one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold.”

It’s indisputable that Sen. McCain is an American military hero. Spending years in the Hanoi Hilton bought him that honor. As a politician, though, he isn’t an American hero. It’s important to separate those identities. Sen. McCain isn’t a team player. He’s loved playing the part of a maverick essentially the last half of his political career.

I salute McCain, the war hero and POW. I’d ignore Sen. McCain, the politician, if he didn’t keep jumping into the middle of controversies, then making ill-advised decisions.

The Left’s latest chanting point is that President Trump’s pardon of Sheriff Arpaio means that he might pardon his friends facing federal investigations. That’s why it isn’t surprising to read Phillip Bump’s article, which reads like a liberal hissy fit on the subject.

Bump writes “The broader question raised by the pardon, then, is where Trump would draw the line. If he’s willing to pardon Joe Arpaio for ignoring a court order in service of a political goal Trump embraces, why wouldn’t he pardon another individual he respects for similarly ignoring a demand from the court.”

First, Bump’s premise is beyond flimsy. Presupposing that members of President Trump’s administration have committed crimes isn’t supported by any investigations. Until there’s more than unsubstantiated allegations of crimes being committed, I’ll ignore Bump’s liberal bias. The naming of a special counsel doesn’t prove anything except that Democrats will do anything in their attempt to delegitimize President Trump’s election. I’ll categorize that as the longest case of sour grapes in political history.

If there’s any doubt that this is the Democrats’ latest talking point to delegitimize President Trump’s election, check out this interview:

Then check out how similar this interview is to the first interview:

The clear message that I think President Trump is sending is that he isn’t like President Obama because he’s serious about protecting Arizona’s people from drug cartels and human traffickers. If Democrats want to pick that fight, let’s get it on. The Obama administration found a liberal judge to torment Sheriff Arpaio with a BS verdict.

Further, the Obama administration wasn’t serious about fighting illegal immigration. That’s indisputable because they frequently tied law enforcement’s hands behind their backs on immigration:

A group of immigration agents filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration Thursday, saying they are sick of being told not to do their jobs, a feeling intensified by the president’s new non-deportation policy and a previous memo directing them not to arrest certain illegal immigrants.

Sen. McCain, Sen. Flake, former President Obama and essentially all of the Democratic Party serving in DC have fought against enforcing the Tex-Mex border. Most importantly, they’ve fought against protecting law-abiding U.S. citizens.

As for the possibility of a president pardoning people whenever they want, that’s always been a possibility. There’s no reason to think that President Trump will pardon his political cronies, partially because his campaign staffers aren’t in trouble. The other faulty part of Bump’s premise is that there isn’t any proof anyone’s broken any laws. Why would anyone lie if they didn’t need to?

It’s frightening to see how constitutionally ignorant U.S. senators are. In this Hill article, Sen. Jeff Flake, (R-AZ), shows his ignorance to the Constitution. It’s a frightening sight.

Quoting the article, Sen. Flake told MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell “I think that if he were to be removed, however it’s done by the assistant attorney general or a new one, Congress would assert its prerogatives. That would mean hiring a special prosecutor, and that might even be Bob Mueller.”

That’s frightening stuff coming from a liberal’s mouth. To hear it coming from a Republican is doubly frightening. Hint to Sen. Flake: take a look at a organizational chart of the executive branch. Next, compare that with an organizational chart of the legislative branch. The Justice Department, the FBI and the U.S. attorneys are found on the organizational chart of the executive branch, not the organizational chart of the legislative branch.

The article continues, saying “Flake has become one of Trump’s most prominent Republican critics. He recently said that Republicans were in denial about Trump’s first few months in office, calling members of Congress to speak out against the president’s policies that stray from the conservative agenda.” Based on Sen. Flake’s limited understanding of the Constitution, it’s difficult for me to think of Sen. Flake as a conservative. By contrast, it isn’t difficult to picture Sen. Flake as a moron after watching this video:

It isn’t possible to be thought of as a principled conservative if you don’t have a basic understanding of the U.S. Constitution or principles like separation of powers or the different branches of government. Apparently, Sen. Flake isn’t aware of these foundational principles. Apparently, Sen. Flake graduated from the John McCain School of Constitutional Law. (Think McCain-Feingold.)

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Reid Epstein’s article on Sen. Cruz isn’t a flattering portrayal of Sen. Cruz. Frankly, Sen. Cruz’s statements sound whiny and jealous. When Sen. Cruz said “I understand that in the media newsrooms and in the Washington establishment circles, Marco is the chosen one”, it came across as if Sen. Cruz is jealous that Sen. Rubio is getting glowing attention from reporters. At some point, Sen. Cruz should examine why he isn’t getting positive coverage in the press.

It isn’t a secret that Sen. Cruz loves bragging that he isn’t liked by “the Washington cartel.” He wears like it’s a badge of honor. If Sen. Cruz wanted more positive coverage, it might help to not wear his disdain on his sleeve.

That isn’t to say that Sen. Cruz should thirst for the MSM’s approval. Conservatives shouldn’t want that. There’s a difference in degrees, though, between wanting fair coverage and wanting the MSM’s approval.

Launching into bitter-sounding diatribes won’t improve Sen. Cruz’s image with voters. Already, Sen. Rubio is reaching out to the entire Republican Party, something that Sen. Cruz should’ve already started. Instead, Sen. Cruz did this:

Later, inside the packed bar while a repeat of Wednesday night’s hockey games played on the flat-screen TVs, Mr. Cruz launched into another tirade against Mr. Rubio, seeking to cast doubt on the Florida senator’s argument he’s the most electable in the GOP field.

“The media adores him,” Mr. Cruz said. “These are the same people who told us Bob Dole was the electable one, that told us John McCain was the electable one, that told us Mitt Romney was the electable one. You’re always the electable one until you win the nomination, and then you cannot possibly win the election.”

First, comparing Sen. Rubio to Dole, McCain and Romney is like comparing Cadillac Escalades with a Prius. While they’re both vehicles, that’s where the similarities end. Rush Limbaugh never said that Dole, McCain or Romney was “a legitimate, full-throated conservative.”

What’s worse is that Sen. Cruz’s unscripted complaining diminishes him. Rather than being bitter, Sen. Cruz should work on not being as antagonistic as he’s been thus far this campaign.

The reason why the press likes Sen. Rubio is because he’s actually an interesting, positive person. What person, whether they’re a member of the media or not, doesn’t appreciate listening to calm-tempered people over bitter-sounding people?

Rather than complaining about Sen. Rubio, Sen. Cruz should try changing his approach towards the media. Loosen up a little. Don’t be an antagonist. It might help.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,