Cochran Votes to Reject Amendment That Would Treat Obama’s Iran Agreement as a Treaty

Yesterday, the US Senate rejected an amendment offered by Republican Ron Johnson of Wisconsin that would treat any deal negotiated by Obama with the Islamic Republic of Iran as a treaty, requiring 2/3s of the Senate to ratify it.  Sadly, only 39 Republicans supported it, including Roger Wicker I might add, and the amendment failed by a vote of 57 to 39.

Once again, Mississippi’s Thad Cochran sided with all Senate Democrats and 11 other Liberal Republicans to support Obama’s position on the Iranian negotiations.  Mark Levin tore into these 12 Republican Senators, calling them, appropriately enough, the “Dirty Twelve.”

Obama does not want his agreement, whatever that may be, treated as a treaty because it will never get a 2/3s vote, and he knows it.  In fact, he doesn’t want the Senate, or even the House for that matter, to have any input at all.  So Cochran has voted to abdicate the Senate’s duties in foreign policy and to ensure that Obama will get his way on Iran.

Let us again offer our congratulations to all of Thad Cochran’s supporters.  I hope y’all are proud of YOUR Senator!

Iran: Connecting the Dots

By Senator Chris McDaniel

Chris McDaniel

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Americans awoke to the realization of international terrorism.  Soon thereafter, the federal government began seeking answers as to how such a calamity could have possibly taken place and which terror networks were behind it.

The consensus from Washington seemed to be that intelligence agencies had failed to connect the dots that led directly to the horror of 3,000 dead Americans on our home soil.  It was a mistake we vowed not to make again.  But now, with the rogue nation of Iran, we seem to be as negligent as we were in the 1990s, only this time willingly so. [Read more…]

Moderation in Foreign Policy: Why It Never Works

Ryan S. Walters | @ryanswalters73

Today our nation faces numerous threats and trials around the globe – the dangers of ISIS in the Middle East, a potentially nuclear-armed Iran, an unstable Russia, an aggressive China, just to name a few. Our foreign policy must rise up to meet these challenges.

History teaches us that we must be aggressive in our approach to foreign affairs, particularly in our ever-dangerous world. But an aggressive foreign policy does not equal internationalism or nation building crusades, like George W. Bush’s ill-fated promotion of democracy around the globe or Woodrow Wilson’s “war to end all wars.”

Although we did have a more isolationist foreign policy in times past, the world has become a very dangerous place, so we need to be more active in certain areas and be able to deal with serious national security threats as they arise.

What we can’t afford is moderation, a plague that has crippled our foreign policy in the past and caused more problems than it solved.

History is full of examples but I will examine three of the biggest. [Read more…]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress