August 4th, 2015

The Iran deal: Schumer’s choice

Senator Charles (“Chuck”) Schumer of New York faces a tough choice: back Obama’s Iran deal and anger many of his New York Jewish constituents, or oppose the deal and anger Obama and much of the Democratic Party leadership.

Prediction: Schumer will cave to Obama. Or he will take the weaselly option mentioned here, voting to override Obama’s veto of a Congressional bill to continue sanctions and block the Iran deal’s lifting of them, but being careful to not bring along enough people with him to make an override stick. Schumer, as the probable heir apparent to Reid’s position, seems to have quite a bit of influence over his fellow Democratic senators who are likewise hesitating, and therefore his vote is considered a sort of bellweather or linchpin.

Here’s a good discussion of the “is the Iran deal a treaty or not?” question, from back in March. Most people who condemned Corker-Menendez as a surrender of Congress’s power to approve treaties haven’t dealt with the reality that if Obama doesn’t regard it as a treaty there is little Congress could do to effectively challenge that position.

There is no currently no suit on the issue being discussed on Capitol Hill, and it’s far from clear that Republicans would be standing on firm legal ground with such a challenge. The debate, rumbling for decades, has yet to be definitively resolved in case law.

“It is a very interesting question,” said Nicholas Burns, a former senior U.S. diplomat, arguing that it is essentially up to the administration to decide whether it is negotiating an agreement that formally binds the United States to commitments under international law; i.e., a treaty, or a less stringent arrangement.

“interesting question” indeed. It seems obvious that whether an agreement is a treaty or not should not be left solely to the discretion of a president, because that would make the treaty power of the Senate a joke. A president would have carte blanche to make any sort of arrangement he/she wanted and just call it an agreement and not a treaty, and no one could fight that designation. What’s the point of Senate approval or disapproval if a president can, by this simple expedient, negotiate an unpopular treaty and then avoid the need to have the Senate vote on it merely by not having the Senate vote on it? Surely the Senate’s advise and consent power wasn’t meant to just be a rubber stamp?

And yet I am relatively certain that if Republicans tried to bring such a case, SCOTUS would either say they had no standing, or rule in Obama’s favor 5-4 with Kennedy as the deciding vote.

From that same article:

Biden argued Monday [back in March] that this practice is as old as the United States itself.

“Under presidents of both parties, such major shifts in American foreign policy as diplomatic recognition of the People’s Republic of China, the resolution of the Iran hostage crisis, and the conclusion of the Vietnam War were all conducted without congressional approval,” he said in his statement opposing the GOP letter.

But were these so-called “major shifts” disapproved of by a majority of the Senate at the time they happened? No [and see the “NOTE” below about Nixon and China and the differences between that and Obama’s Iran deal]. Were they disapproved of in a bipartisan manner by every single member of the opposition party, plus a significant number of members of the president’s own party? No again. Any previous president who had thought to do anything like what Obama is doing in opposition to Congress would have feared losing his own party members, and even perhaps risked impeachment and conviction. Obama has tested his party and has no such fears.

So, besides Schumer (who actually may have made up his mind already and only be pretending to waver), how many Democrats are wavering over their vote on the deal? I don’t think there will be enough to override, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

Here is the sort of unicorn mentality we are dealing with in some of them:

Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., called voting for the Iran nuclear deal “the most important decision we may ever make in our lifetime,” and tantamount to “averting nuclear war.”

“I grew up in the ’60s, and what got me into politics was ‘give peace a chance, avoid war,’” Farr told reporters. “For the first time in my life, instead of voting on whether we’re gonna invade Iraq or not invade Iraq, or invade this or invade that, or Bosnia, or whatever, for the first time in my life we have a chance to vote on something that will avoid war. And that’s so fundamental, so historical. I can’t see why anybody in their right mind wouldn’t support this.”

I think there’s a lot of blah blah blah among Democrats about how they have reservations about the deal, but that’s just to show they’re not Obama’s puppets and to imply that they are being really really contemplative. But in the end they will not oppose Obama or their leaders. Remember all the wavering on Obamacare before it was passed? In the end, a few people were allowed to vote against it to protect themselves if they came from red or purple areas, but the number of such allowances was limited in order to assure there would be just enough votes to pass Obamacare.

You can bet there will be a great many twisted or even broken arms among Democrats on Capital Hill before this is through.

As for Schumer himself, this Politico piece says he’s still undecided and may vote against Obama, while this from Michael Goodwin in the NY Post says that Schumer’s loyalty as a party man with lots of ambition will overshadow any lingering inclination to be an Israel hawk.

I’m with Goodwin. As I wrote earlier, however, the only way I believe that Schumer would vote against Obama is if he makes sure there are enough votes for Obama to carry the day.

[NOTE: Nixon’s trip to China is not a good analogy with Obama and Iran, although the left is very fond of making it. Among other things, Nixon’s well-known history of anti-Communism defused criticism to a large extent, but Obama has no such hardline history on Iran. Au contraire.

Nixon faced very little criticism from either party in a Democratic-dominated Senate (it was 54/44 D/R and the House was 255 to 180).

This rather obscure piece is the only article I’ve found online so far that deals in any detail with the amount of Congressional or popular opposition Nixon faced. Basically, any serious opposition was limited to William Loeb, who had been the editor of the very conservative Manchester Union Leader, and just a few others. Similarly, the MSM was almost universally approving and optimistic about his overtures, as was most of the public. Taiwan was understandably negative about the US rapprochement with China, but that seemed a minor problem on the US domestic scene.

But the huge differences between Nixon/China and Obama/Iran are hardly limited to the differences in US public opinion, although that’s important. There are large substantive and strategic differences as well. Also important was the fact that Nixon was not negotiating a nuclear arms deal, but rather beginning diplomatic relations and opening trade, a far less controversial process (although at this point we see that it has had major repercussions, some of them negative for the US). But China already was a nuclear power at the time of Nixon’s trip, and had been for several years.]

[NOTE II: You can see in the comments section in threads such as this that many Democrats would see a Schumer vote against Obama as choosing Israel’s interests over that of the US, the old “dual loyalty” accusation. Of course, in this case, we on the right see Israel’s and the US’s interests as the same, and Obama as opposed to both.]

35 Responses to “The Iran deal: Schumer’s choice”

  1. Cornhead Says:

    This “not a treaty” idea is key and was planned by the Obama Administration from the outset. They knew they didn’t have the votes so they just went around the Senate.

    Who is going to stop Obama? A federal judge?

    That’s the lawless way. That’s the Chicago way.

    Destruction of the American Rule of Law culture is Obama’s legacy.

  2. Cornhead Says:

    And as to Nixon and China, there would be no Wal-Mart but for cheap manufacturing in China. We would still, however, have an American textile industry.

    What does American business get out of the Iran deal. We sell Boeing jets, Apple phones, Coke and Disney IP.

    Iran, on the other hand, crushes our new oil business.

    But what’s important is that BA, APPL, KO and DIS don’t need Iran revenue as they are doing fine.

    Follow the money.

  3. neo-neocon Says:

    Cornhead:

    Agreed.

    This is also a test of the integrity of the Democratic senators, however. If they were dedicated to the rule of law, they would override his veto. But I don’t think they are or that they will. Obama could not have come to power without a country whose leaders already have fallen from the Founders’ vision and principles.

  4. Artfldgr Says:

    Schumer ‘loses it’ during meeting with Jewish leaders…

    http://nypost.com/2015/08/04/chuck-schumer-loses-it-during-meeting-with-jewish-leaders/

    Sen. Charles Schumer was ready to discuss everything from gun control to drones during a press conference in his Midtown office Monday — except his position on the Iran nuclear deal.

    “This is such an important decision that I will not let pressure, politics or party influence [me],” Schumer said, holding fast to his weeks-long insistence that he’s still in the decision-making stage.

    Schumer has come under mounting pressure from opponents of the Iran agreement — including many of his Jewish allies — to vote against it next month in Congress.

    One source said the normally thick-skinned senator — who is also feeling the heat from Democrats to back the deal — “exploded” during a meeting last week with about 60 Jewish leaders.

    Schumer “lost it,” said the source.

  5. Fred Says:

    Is it a Treaty Or Agrement?

    “The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (.pdf) defines a treaty as “an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.”

    Treaties can be referred to by a number of different names: international conventions, international agreements, covenants, final acts, charters, memorandums of understandings (MOUs), protocols, pacts, accords, and constitutions for international organizations. Usually these different names have no legal significance in international law. Treaties may be bilateral (two parties) or multilateral (between several parties) and a treaty is usually only binding on the parties to the agreement. An agreement “enters into force” when the terms for entry into force as specified in the agreement are met. Bilateral treaties usually enter into force when both parties agree to be bound as of a certain date.”

  6. Jimmy J. Says:

    “I grew up in the ’60s, and what got me into politics was ‘give peace a chance, avoid war,’” Farr told reporters. “For the first time in my life, instead of voting on whether we’re gonna invade Iraq or not invade Iraq, or invade this or invade that, or Bosnia, or whatever, for the first time in my life we have a chance to vote on something that will avoid war. And that’s so fundamental, so historical. I can’t see why anybody in their right mind wouldn’t support this.”

    This attitude is ubiquitous among progs that I know. I have several relatives and friends who use this very argument. Ah, if only we could be more like Switzerland, seems to be their mode of thought. Yes, wouldn’t that be wonderful except for the fact that there are people who want to destroy the West – because success.

  7. Cornhead Says:

    Fred:

    But the law or the legal definition of a treaty is not self- enforcing.

    Our political system requires that both parties be of good faith and dedicated to the Rule of Law. Not the case with Barack and today”‘so Dems. Just win, baby!

  8. Cornhead Says:

    Should read above “today’s Dems.”

    Last point on money. After 40 years we are finally at the very of North American energy independence. We can’t finally cut our dependence from the lunatic Muslims in the Mid East.

    But noooo.

    Barack has kill KXL and then bring Iran’s oil online.

    That’s the REAL story.

  9. Fred Says:

    Iran, on the other hand, crushes our new oil business??

    This is not accurate statement?
    According to new feed iran oil infrastructure can not hold vey and sadden in oil production some iranian official also voiced that, some estimated between 6 months to years to get the oil network to handle increasing production of oil

    However the Building of oil network needs new tech also new materiels this as most knew vey spcifice company supply these most US company so there is money follow to US from the deal

  10. Daniel in Brookline Says:

    Perhaps it should have been obvious. But in retrospect, we can see that, while our Constitutional system was deliberately designed, with checks and balances, to NOT rely on leaders of good will… we didn’t have much of a test of that, until we got a leader willing to run roughshod over that system, with little to no opposition.

    In fact, it took a leader, willing to do anything he could get away with — knowing full well that many would be afraid to criticize him, and taking subtle steps to make sure others got the message — to show us just how much damage an unscrupulous leader could cause, even under our system.

    The contrary question, of course, is whether our Republic is strong enough to weather the storm. Similarly, we could not have known, prior to seeing a threat such as this.

    For better or for worse, we’ll find out.

  11. Cap'n Rusty Says:

    It is a mistake of historic proportions that Iran will be given a green light and the funding to develop deliverable nuclear warheads, simply because Obama uses the word “deal” instead of the word “treaty.” Dante would add another circle in Hell for those Democrat Senators who will allow this to happen.

    However, for what it might be worth, last March, Sen. Tom Cotton sent an open “letter” to the leaders of Iran, co-signed by 46 other Republican Senators. That letter explained to the Iranian theocracy how our Constitutional system works. Certainly those 47 Republican Senators, and any Democrat Senator who seeks a legacy other than infamy, could warn Iran than the “deal” it will have is only with Obama, and that it will not last beyond January 20, 2016, because in this country, the people are sovereign, not the government, and a substantial majority of Americans are opposed to the “deal.”

    It isn’t much, but it might set the historic record straight.

  12. neo-neocon Says:

    Daniel in Brookline:

    I wrote about that two years ago. Excerpt:

    The entire situation brings home the fact that our entire government, with its delicately and brilliantly-engineered system of checks and balances, is in the end a gentlemen’s/women’s agreement. It runs on respect for the rules and the fact that if you violate them the whole structure could come tumbling down to everyone’s detriment. But Obama doesn’t play by those rules, and he doesn’t have to.

    The key in all of this has been the press’s abdication of its duty to be a critic of the powerful. We can ridicule the press all we want, but it is one of the most important linchpins of our republic, and if it fails to function to keep those in power under check then tyranny can more readily flourish because of a compliant and soothed public.

  13. Paul in Boston Says:

    The agreement only matters in that it releases a great deal of money to the Iranians and ends sanctions. In fact, they probably already have enough material for a bomb, if they haven’t already built one and tested it in North Korea. The numbers quoted in the Iran Watch article below lead me to this conclusion, in particular, the two month time to produce enough material for one bomb along with their refusal to let the IAEA to inspect military sites.

    As John Adams said, the Constitution can only work for a moral and religious people but is wholly inadequate for any other. Once there is an executive in place that is lawless and irresponsible it will break down and we’re watching that happen live helped by the leftist indoctrination of the schools and the mindless idiots of the press.

    http://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/irans-nuclear-timetable

  14. Ymarsakar Says:

    In fact, it took a leader, willing to do anything he could get away with — knowing full well that many would be afraid to criticize him, and taking subtle steps to make sure others got the message — to show us just how much damage an unscrupulous leader could cause, even under our system.

    The extent of the damage is shown by how many people thought Wilson and FDR were harmless, that the dangerous people were Presidents they knew in life this century.

    But, of course, the damage to the US had already begun, centuries ago. The idea that most of it happened recently, is an illusion, due to the times. And it shows just how much the system had been undermined with people thinking otherwise.

  15. Cornhead Says:

    Paul:

    The $100-150b to be released to Iran is a huge percentage of their GDP. Something like one-third to one-half. Huge.

  16. neo-neocon Says:

    Ymarsakar:

    Actually, I think most people here think the damage has been slowly accruing, and that Wilson and then FDR were major players in that. But Obama seems to have constituted a Great Leap Forward.

  17. parker Says:

    I agree neo, although Wilson in particular was a true villian, bho is indeed a “great leap forward”. On one hand I fear the damage done by ‘progressives’ can not be repaired, on the other hand I still (perhaps foolishly) hope for a gradual turn of the tide. As is usual for our species, we live in interesting times.

  18. Ymarsakar Says:

    and that Wilson and then FDR were major players in that.

    That would make the system obvious, given how easy and repeatedly it was damaged or suborned. But that’s not what Daniel implied here.

    Perhaps it should have been obvious. But in retrospect, we can see that, while our Constitutional system was deliberately designed, with checks and balances, to NOT rely on leaders of good will… we didn’t have much of a test of that, until we got a leader willing to run roughshod over that system, with little to no opposition.

    A single leader, rather than multiple leaders.

    If people had been paying attention to the truth of history rather than the rewritten histories they were taught in Leftist schools, they may have realized the obvious by now.

    Thus I don’t agree with this line of thinking:Similarly, we could not have known, prior to seeing a threat such as this.

    Plenty of people figured it out.

  19. F Says:

    Cap’n Rusty: Jan 20, 2017.

  20. F Says:

    Would that it were 1/20/2016!

  21. Ymarsakar Says:

    But Obama seems to have constituted a Great Leap Forward.

    Hussein merely ordered the Leftist alliance to mobilize, to begin mobilizing. What people see are the mere hints of the Leftist alliance’s power, from 1% to 15% mobilization between 2007 and 2015.

    The Left has had the power to do what Hussein did, for quite some time now, but nobody thought it was time yet to mobilize for Total War. They, for whatever reasons, have decided to come out of the Shadows.

  22. Ymarsakar Says:

    Btw, Schumer’s a zombie by now, the Leftist necros control him, that’s my pov at least.

  23. neo-neocon Says:

    Ymarsakar:

    Wilson must have had some opposition, because he was followed by Coolidge, a true conservative (and some other Republicans who were less conservative than Coolidge)–at least for a while.

    And FDR had opposition that stopped him from the court-packing scheme (that opposition was in his OWN party, by the way, not just the opposing party).

    Obama is the first one with so little opposition, and with so much of the press in his pocket. So he can go much further.

  24. Ymarsakar Says:

    Wilson must have had some opposition

    Having opponents doesn’t mean the system was going to become stronger in the decades after those incidents. It’s quite easy to see that FDR’s logistical reforms of gold, currency, and welfare, provided significant military logistical output to certain later factions. Some at the time, even said FDR was going to destroy the country with these “reforms”. Merely because it didn’t happen just yet, means little.

    Whether evil has opposition to it or not, says little about whether people should have realized their democratic system was built on sand and illusions.

  25. Ymarsakar Says:

    Obama is the first one with so little opposition, and with so much of the press in his pocket. So he can go much further.

    The reason why a mechanized brigade or a division of tanks can go further is because logistics gets them the fuel and munitions they need to keep on going.

    You were always concerned chiefly with Hussein the person, Neo, even in 2009 perhaps. Where these logistical foundations and resources came from, you didn’t concern yourself with. If anything, you thought Hussein was the cause of why these resources exist. But that’s not why they exist and it’s not why Hussein can go so far.

  26. Cap'n Rusty Says:

    F:
    My wishful thinking. . .

  27. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif. like all appeasers, offers a rationalization for moral cowardice.

    “One source said the normally thick-skinned senator — who is also feeling the heat from Democrats to back the deal — “exploded” during a meeting last week with about 60 Jewish leaders.

    Schumer “lost it,” said the source.” Artfldgr

    That’s a huge indication that Schumer has already decided to back Obama. His ‘explosion’ is fear based, that his stabbing Israel in the back and betrayal of America will be exposed before the vote.

    “The contrary question, of course, is whether our Republic is strong enough to weather the storm.” Daniel in Brookline

    Our Republic’s reelection of Obama demonstrated a profound lack of moral fiber, one entirely insufficient to the coming storm.

    Cap’n Rusty,
    Iran being given a green light and the funding to develop deliverable nuclear warheads is of historic proportions but it is NO ‘mistake’. Intentionality precludes ‘mistakes’.

    “The key in all of this has been the press’s abdication of its duty to be a critic of the powerful.” neo

    The media’s criminal responsibility cannot be overstated. More than any other party, they bear collective responsibility for our current state of affairs.

  28. Paul in Boston Says:

    Cornhead,

    Yes, that’s what matters. Now the French and Germans plus the Russians can start selling all sorts of goodys to Iran. If Iran ever explicitly violates the terms of the deal so that sanctions are supposed to “snap back” watch for a repeat of Iraq and Oil for Food with the UN bureaucrats bribed and the EU looking the other way.

  29. Oldflyer Says:

    Two points.
    I would never expect Schumer to do the honorable thing.

    I do not believe that our “delicate” system of checks and balances rely on a “gentleman’s agreement”. It does, however, rely on the other two branches of government to hold firm if one runs amok, or tries to usurp their power. There’s the rub.

  30. neo-neocon Says:

    Oldflyer:

    But that is part of the “gentleman’s agreement.” Each branch—and a non-tyrannical government—relies on the integrity of the 2 others (or at bare minimum, one other). Without that, it doesn’t work to check anything.

  31. neo-neocon Says:

    Ymarsakar:

    I was only concerned with Obama the person for 2 reasons. The first is that I initially I needed to decide what he really intended, and I decided that even before the 2008 election. The second was that it indicated that either the public couldn’t see it, or saw it and didn’t care, or saw it and supported it. That was more important than who or what he was.

    I always have been concerned with the left and its plans, and have written about them from early on in my blogging life (particularly is it affected the course of the Iraq War during Bush’s presidencey). That concern has certainly continued during Obama’s presidency, and I have seen him since 2008 as a man of the left. As such, he is of course not alone.

    Early in his campaign I was discouraged and very troubled when I saw that his supporters were prepared to wink at his lies and his betrayals. This was very disturbing. My post about it was here:

    There was something even more perturbing to me than what Obama was doing or even how he was doing it, and that was the reaction to him. The mainstream press (with only a few exceptions) seemed to take it in stride, mentioning it but not making a fuss about it, seeing it as a pragmatic decision. But what of Obama’s supporters? Would they not feel betrayed by his hypocrisy on campaign financing? After all, wasn’t his perceived trustworthiness, his business-as-unusual persona, a great part of what attracted them to him in the first place? Would this lack of integrity not make the scales fall from their eyes?

    Once again, with just a few exceptions, the answer was a resounding “no.” It was merely seen as a clever move, a sign that Obama was a winner rather than a loser.

    Yet another thought then came to me—the idea that this action of Obama’s had been a sort of test—not of him, but of us. In weighing whether to go ahead and refuse public financing, he had probably calculated that the extra money he’d have access to if he broke his pledge might be the key to his winning. So, although it would give his opponents further ammunition with which to criticize him, and might offend his base by showing that he was just a pol like any other after all, he felt it was probably worth the gamble. But his public’s reaction told him that there had been virtually no risk at all, and gave him a green light for future reversals and other cynical moves.

  32. Ymarsakar Says:

    Early in his campaign I was discouraged and very troubled when I saw that his supporters were prepared to wink at his lies and his betrayals. This was very disturbing.

    Don’t you remember the 1980s or maybe it was the 70s, where Leftist psychologists tested a method to implant false memories of child rape into their subjects?

    If you just tie the dots together, it wouldn’t be so disturbing. Or at least, not more than before.

    My point is that whatever people see Hussein using or doing, much of it came from previous Leftist advances. Research and Development, lots of money and time went into perfecting certain Leftist operations and offensive techniques. Hussein didn’t develop all of it on his own, even though he is a malignant narcissist and tyrant.

    Because this developmental cycle on the Left’s part is long, there were plenty of hints. If people merely connected the dots together.

    Without that, it doesn’t work to check anything.

    The people must have some of the seven heavenly virtues. All we have are the 7 deadly sins at the top, the middle, and much of the bottom too.

    The government is by the people? Then once the people are corrupted, there’s nothing standing in the way of government corruption.

    Neo, if you were to collate all the operations and previous actions of the Left, and built a set of lines connecting it like a graph, where it moves perpetually upward, many of the connections would appear to you that otherwise would not.

    For example, if you remember the Leftist psychological experiments in the past, but considered them a one time thing or something that’s not related to the line of Leftist advance, then Hussein’s near hypnotic control of the Left, would seem crazy or unbelievable. However, that changes if people connected the dots before hand. That changes their perspective.

    Choosing to see historical Leftist actions as isolated, as one time things that would never ever reappear or wasn’t connected to the other Leftists, changes people’s conclusions about things. Their viewpoint becomes distorted or warped, certainly different.

    Anyone that knew how tyrannies in Japan or Germany or Soviet Russia developed, could tell, just by looking at the change in the people and at Leftist operations to manipulate the people. What some countries required 4-10 years to change, can also be done in a far better way through 100 years.

  33. BRD Brown Says:

    As Mark Levin pointed out from the beginning, the Senate alone has the ratification power and need not rely on permission from the Executive or the courts to hold hearing and vote. Had McConnell simply asserted Senate authority, the burden would be on the President to get 2/3 of those present to approve. The President could go to court, but the precedents are of the courts refusing to rule on “political questions.” Had McConnell ever really wanted to stop the agreement, he would have been in the stronger position.
    We are watching what Ace calls “failure theater.” There is money to be made all around in Iranian infrastructure reconstruction and in the coming arms race – and McConnell’s allies/patrons in the Chamber of Cronyism intend to get a piece.

  34. neo-neocon Says:

    BRD Brown:

    I disagree with you, and it is my opinion that Mark Levin is wrong and has succumbed to wishful thinking.

    See this and this.

    From the latter [emphasis mine]:

    The power to enter into international agreements is a fundamentally important power of the American presidency. Historically, international agreements have played a prominent policy role—from the creation of important alliances and the ending of major wars to the emergence of critical international organizations and global trade structures. As discussed in the introduction, a new policy innovation emerged during the twentieth century that enabled the president and Congress to effectively deal with the increased diplomatic demands of America’s new leadership role: the executive agreement. Executive agreements do not require super-majority support in the Senate as do formal Article II treaties. Since the 1940s, the vast majority of international agreements have been completed by presidents as executive agreements rather than as treaties. This major policy evolution occurred without changes to the Constitution, though Supreme Court decisions and practice by the political branches have validated the change. This has led some scholars to conclude that the treaty power “has become effectively a Presidential monopoly” (Franck and Weisband 1979: 135; see also Corwin 1984).

  35. Richard Saunders Says:

    I think it’s actually a good thing not to call it a treaty. If, God willing and we don’t shoot ourselves in the head in 2016, a Republican president can say, “Treaty? What treaty? We don’t got no stinkin’ treaty! We don’t need no stinkin’ treaty!

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge