Who Do You Want to Replace John Boehner?
Okay, grassroots conservatives, here's your chance. You wanted John Boehner out as Speaker, and now he's on his way out. Right now the buzz is that House majority leader Kevin McCarthy is a slam-dunk to replace him. If grassroots conservatives want one of their own to be Speaker, they have to unite quickly behind an alternative . . . and one who wants the job. Mark Levin mentioned Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Jim Jordan of Ohio as two better options: "McCarthy is definitely not one of them," Levin said. "Scalise isn't one. Rodgers isn't one. This is just the usual conga line of the Republican apparatus and bureaucrats, and that's exactly what we don't need." TheBlaze asked Levin, author of the recently released "Plunder and Deceit," if he's willing to name anyone yet. "Hensarling. I like Jordan," Levin said. "There are a number of them I like, and I don't want to exclude anybody by mentioning those two off the top of my head. They would be tremendous." Hensarling is mum, and Jordan issued a statement that didn't rule much in or out: The House Freedom Caucus has not yet decided who we will support for the office of Speaker of the House, nor for any positions that could subsequently become vacant. We look forward to meeting with each of the candidates and our Republican Conference colleagues over the coming weeks in a careful and deliberative fashion to discuss how best to ensure that we follow regular order in the House and give a voice to the countless Americans who still feel that Washington does not represent them. For what it's worth, Representative Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, one of the founders of the Freedom Caucus, didn't sound intractably opposed to McCarthy on Fox News Sunday: WALLACE: Congressman Mulvaney, will McCarthy be the speaker? And is there going to be a change? How many of your members of the harder line conservatives do you think that some will take the top position? MULVANEY: I think it's fair to say that Kevin has the inside track for the position of being our leader and so forth. I think the important question is, will things change? Will they change for the better or we simply replace Mr. Boehner with somebody else who do the same thing? So the question I think becomes more one of style -- excuse me, substance than of style. I think Kevin is more ground up than top down type of leader. But again, that's the reason we have elections. Representative Daniel Webster's running, one of the first declared alternatives to Boehner. But there's a catch: The 66-year-old faces an uncertain future as the Florida courts decide how to settle a court challenge over gerrymandering in Florida's 27 congressional districts. Webster's request to intervene in the ongoing case was denied; proposed new boundary lines would make his district much more Democratic, ensuring his political demise. (Daniel Webster's got a lifetime ACU rating of 78.83. Then again, to most grassroots conservatives the primary issue is not ideology or voting record but whether the next Speaker lets the caucus conservatives shape legislation through amendments and how effectively he fights President Obama.) FreedomWorks is boasting that its petitions and calls to Congress forced Boehner to resign. Okay, guys. Who do you want? Ace wants a whole new leadership team. Again, to do this, you need a slate of candidates better than the existing leadership. Last year a tea-party group started a petition to make Trey Gowdy of South Carolina the Speaker of the House. Never mind that Gowdy said then, and now, that he doesn't want the job. Is the GOP Anti-Islam? Is the Republican party not merely anti-Islamist, but anti-Islam? Sunday, ABC News' Martha Raddatz asked Ben Carson whether being a Muslim was sufficient probable cause for the police to track e-mails and cell phone calls. And Carson indicated . . . no, probably not, but seemed to leave the door open a crack: RADDATZ: But I want to turn to the migrant crisis. You told me a few weeks ago that bringing in people from the Middle East right now carries extra danger and we cannot put our people at risk because we are trying to be politically correct. Let's imagine some of those refugees get into the United States. For authorities to track emails, cell phone calls, they usually need to have probable cause. Do you think in some instances, religion should be enough for probable cause? CARSON: I personally don't feel that way, but I would certainly be willing to listen to somebody who had evidence to the contrary. I think that's one of the problems, we get to our little corners and we don't want to listen to anybody anymore. If we start allowing the government to wiretap people's phones and pry into their e-mails based solely upon their religion, what part of the Bill of Rights is more damaged, the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, or the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches? Is our attitude now that Constitutional rights are only for the people and religions we like? Someone argued, "Carson means ideology, not religion." That's not really clear from his answer, and later Sunday Carson seemed to contend that one can't be a "Muslim in good standing" and "a good American" at the same time: TAPPER: I've seen, I've heard from a lot of people who don't think that Muslims can be patriotic who agree with you. But I don't know if I were running for president if I would want the support of people like that. CARSON: Of course Muslims can be patriotic. I've worked with Muslims. I've trained Muslims. I've operated on Muslims. There are a lot of Muslims who are very patriotic. Good Americans and they gladly admit, at least privately, that they don't accept sharia or the doctrines and they understand that Islam is a system of living and it includes the way that you relate to the government. And you cannot, unless you specifically, deny that portion of Islam be a Muslim in good standing. Now if that is the case, if you are not willing to reject that, then how in the world can you possibly be the president of the United States? TAPPER: So you are saying there is something specific about being a Muslim, that you have to reject Islam in order to be president? CARSON: You have to reject the tenets of Islam. Yes, you have to. TAPPER: And that's different from an Orthodox Jew or a devout Christian? CARSON: If there is a devout Christian who is running and they refuse to reject the ideals of our Constitution, or if they want to establish a theocracy, I cannot advocate for them. I think a significant number of Republicans think that Islam itself -- not "Islamism" or "Wahhabism" or any other particular sect or interpretation of Islam, but the whole kit-and-kaboodle religion as a whole -- is sufficiently dangerous as a belief system that it does not deserve First Amendment protections. Maybe it's good that we're debating this . . . I just think that a movement that said that it wanted to return America to the principles of its Constitution seems awfully willing to jettison those principles. The Brazen Poison-Gas World that Obama Promised to Prevent The Daily Beast reminds us . . . On September 10, 2013, President Obama gave a stirring speech from the White House in response to the chemical-weapon attack on the Damascus suburbs of Ghouta which left over 1,400 Syrians dead -- suffocating from sarin gas launched in the middle of the night on a civilian population by the Assad regime. Many of the victims were children. Their images -- doll-like and waxy-skinned -- haunted the world. Obama asked members of Congress and the American people to watch the videos of Syrian children dying on hospital floors. He then asked, "What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?" It's been almost two years since that speech. Today, we live in the world that the president described. A world in which people in powerful positions chose to look the other way. And so the daily carnage in Syria, by barrel bomb, by beheading, and yes, by chemical weapons, continued. Today, almost half of the Syrian population has been displaced as a result of the relentless brutality of the Assad regime and the shocking violence of ISIS and Al Qaida. Eleven million people no longer live in their homes. Four million of them are refugees in neighboring countries. Over the past year, thousands of refugees have decided to risk their lives for a better future in Europe, embarking on harrowing "death routes" across sea and land. ADDENDA: Supreme Court junkies, have we got an event for you! The Second Annual National Review Institute / Pacific Legal Foundation Supreme Court Preview Luncheon is coming! The event will take place at 12 noon on October 2, 2015, at Jones Day (51 Louisiana Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.) and features Ramesh Ponnuru, Michael Carvin, Kannon Shanmugam, and Paul Smith. RSVP to KAP@pacificlegal.org. Plus, hey, lunch is provided! Buried deep within today's Quinnipiac poll: American voters oppose 53 – 41 percent admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees to the U.S. over the next year. Democrats support admitting refugees 60 – 33 percent, with Republicans opposed 71 – 24 percent and independent voters divided with 45 percent supporting the extra refugees and 48 percent opposed. Voters say 58 – 36 percent the refugees would pose a threat to U.S. security. | 
Comments
Post a Comment