If at first you don't succeed, pivot to the next best alternative. That seems to be the strategy…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Marco Rubio Evolving on Immigration

If at first you don't succeed, pivot to the next best alternative.

That seems to be the strategy used by U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) as he positions himself for a potential White House run in 2016.

Rubio, once the darling of conservatives and a top GOP presidential contender, quickly fell out of favor with the grassroots when he supported a version of comprehensive immigration reform championed by the Obama administration and some of the most liberal members of Congress.

After the Senate's "Gang of Eight" bill was pronounced dead-on-arrival in the House of Representatives, Rubio has since modified his position on how to pursue immigration reform. Unsurprisingly, it now aligns with what conservatives have said all along: secure the border first, build trust in the federal government…[more]

September 01, 2014 • 06:54 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
In the War on Terror, a Surrender Print
By Troy Senik
Thursday, June 06 2013
[H]istory also advises that wars don’t end because one side signs a piece of paper that the other ignores.

James Lileks, the great wag of Minnesota, recently opened his National Review column with an observation that deserves to be placed onto a plaque hung permanently in the Oval Office: “Second terms are the price a man pays for the hubris of thinking he deserves one.” Because Barack Obama’s supply of hubris is in surplus, it should come as no surprise that he’s now paying an extraordinarily high price.

We all know the cliché: Presidencies fall apart in the second term. Nixon had Watergate. Reagan had Iran Contra. Clinton had the Lewinsky scandal and the subsequent impeachment. George W. Bush had the chaos in Iraq, which cleared up just in time for an economic disaster.

Now Barack Obama has a scandal cocktail consisting of the deception surrounding last September’s terrorist attack in Benghazi; the IRS’s harassment of conservative non-profits, and the Justice Department’s surveillance of journalists. Obama may have thought he could stem the rise of the oceans, but he can’t resist the gravitational pull of a second term.

There is a playbook for these sorts of travails. A president generally focuses on “getting back to work,” in an attempt to both distract attention from scandal and reassert his relevancy. Most often, this takes the form of a focus on foreign policy, an area where presidents are relatively free to work their will without the intrusion of a Congress that regards them as irrelevant once lame-duck status sets in.

This was likely the motivation for Obama’s recent decision to give a major foreign policy address at the National Defense University in Washington D.C. Media coverage of the speech focused mostly on an extended exchange between Obama and a left-wing heckler over Guantanamo Bay, which buried the real story: Barack Obama has a plan for winning the War on Terror – he’ll simply say it’s over.

During his remarks, Obama proposed repealing the authorization of military force that emerged from Congress in the aftermath of 9/11 – the document that provides the legal justification to pursue terrorists around the globe and, it should be noted, which allows for the drone strikes that the president spent much of his speech bending over backwards to defend.

Now, Obama is far from the only person to take issue with the breadth of that authorization. Senator Rand Paul has also criticized the broad interpretation of the law, which has allowed the original post-9/11 mandate to extend to current conflicts with extremist groups (like those in Yemen and Somalia) that didn’t even exist at the time that Congress passed the bill.

Fair enough. But apart from a vague assertion that “Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue,” Obama didn’t offer any thoughts on what would replace the authorization of military force … which is important, because you can’t keep up that “systematic effort” without some legal authority. Instead, he offered a particularly listless bromide, noting that, “this war, like all wars, must end.  That’s what history advises.  That’s what our democracy demands.”

Well, yes, but history also advises that wars don’t end because one side signs a piece of paper that the other ignores. It’s true, as Obama noted in his remarks, the scope of our war with Islamist terrorists has narrowed. We haven’t had anything remotely approaching another 9/11, thanks largely to the aggressive posture adopted in the wake of those attacks. But the threat has only been reduced because we’ve applied relentless pressure. Let up a little bit and you can be assured it will flare back up. That’s the thing about theocratic martyrs – they tend to define defeat differently than we do.

A more sober president would have taken the reality as he found it – Al Qaeda weakened, but not defeated; Islamists still keen to strike the United States – and tailored a strategy accordingly. Obama, by contrast, believes that, since things are going our way, this is as good a time as any to call off the whole affair. This is what happens when a president is guided by that aforementioned hubris: He begins to believe that reality will take whatever form his speechwriters command.

The task of combating radical Islam will be Obama’s for the rest of his term, whether he likes it or not. It will likely occupy several of his successors as well. The president can declare himself done with the War on Terror if he pleases. He just shouldn’t expect the War on Terror to return the favor.

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following individuals is credited with describing the office of Vice President of the United States as “the spare tire on the automobile of government”?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Too many Republicans are running on the promise that they will 'check' the president in some unspecified way. They are running as people who dislike Obamacare but have no plans to replace or alter it. But there are persuadable voters who worry that they will lose their health coverage if Republicans get their way, and ones who worry that Republicans will settle for Obamacare Lite. By keeping…[more]
 
 
—The Editors, National Review Online
— The Editors, National Review Online
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you believe ISIS currently has the operational ability to carry out a significant terrorist attack inside the U.S.?