Google+

The Corner

The one and only.

The Latest Tweets from Team NRO . . .


Is This the Real Reason Why Obama Won’t Just Say ‘Radical Islam’?



Text  



And why George W. Bush’s administration toed that line carefully, too? Eli Lake offers a useful answer to the question in a column today, albeit one many won’t find satisfactory: “The long war against radical Islamic terrorists requires at least the tacit support of many radical Muslims.”

His whole piece is worth reading, but the short summary is that American counterterrorism policy, to varying degrees over time, has assumed that we want the support of Muslim allies — many of whom don’t love vociferous condemnations of their religion, even just the extreme bits of it. There are varying degrees of this kind of accommodation: Accepting essentially radical but non-violent allies, especially clerics, as the Obama administration has, or just worrying, in general, about the sensitivities of our key Arab allies (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf kingdoms). Regardless, it’s left American foreign policy in the same place, with a diplomatic code that requires non-Muslims to keep saying they don’t see their enemies as representing true Islam. 

Lake’s piece jibes with what I’ve heard from others who’ve dealt with implementing this policy over the years, and it’s worth keeping in mind. Of course, the explanation says nothing about whether the bargain we’ve made is a wise one.

Let Them Pay More for Their Artisanal Cupcakes



Text  



NY1 reports that liberal interventionism and economic reality could be able to hit Manhattan’s high-end-cupcake businesses:

[New York City] could be getting its own separate minimum wage under a new proposal by Governor Andrew Cuomo. . . . It would be the first time that the minimum wage in the five boroughs would be higher than the rest of the state.

Under the governor’s plan, the state’s minimum wage would rise to $10.50 an hour by the end of 2016. But it would go up to $11.50 in the city. . . .

John Nicolaides, owner of Molly’s cupcakes in the West Village, says a minimum wage increase would delay expansion plans that would include more jobs. But he wouldn’t cut his staff or their hours.

“We have 401k profit sharing and full health care with Blue Cross Blue Shield. So it’s not that I don’t care about employees but it’s tough to impose a minimum wage sometimes,” Nicolaides said.

The governor still has to present his idea to the state legislature. But he could face a challenge getting the wage hike passed by the Republican-led State Senate.

This happens to be a nice display of the bizarre relationship between the New York City government and the New York State government, which gets to control a substantial amount of policy you’d think the former would handle. This has mostly been to the good over the last few years, as Andrew Cuomo has pushed moderate-Democrat priorities (e.g., small-beer pension reform and poorly designed tax cuts) while the New York city council and now Mayor de Blasio are more into Sandinista-type stuff. 

The NYC proposal is probably just part of Cuomo’s constant balancing act between moderate and liberal policies, a way to match or outdo de Blasio’s successful effort to raise something called the “living wage” that applies to some workers in NYC. But the idea of a different minimum wage for the city isn’t unreasonable — it’s much better than raising the wage to that level everywhere.

Conspicuously, while President Obama has pushed a higher national minimum wage in the last two State of the Union addresses, the topic is getting little attention this time around (he’s pushing new tax and spending proposals instead). That comes after a number of state governments have been raising their minimum wages — not a great economic policy either, I’m inclined to think, but one much less noxious to conservatives, as I argued soon after last November’s election. Pushing these decisions to a more local level is a small victory, but a victory nonetheless.

ADVERTISEMENT

Snipers, Correct and Incorrect



Text  



Were a confused Michael Moore and others faulting American Sniper on the argument that Chris Kyle was a sniper per se, or that he was an American sniper? 

I don’t remember Michael Moore or any other Hollywood grandees objecting much to the 2001 war film Enemy at the Gates, which was supposedly loosely based on the controversial (and perhaps less than verifiable) career of the deadly sniper Vasily Zaitsev. That movie portrayed the expert Zaitsev as a hero in trying to cut down Wehrmacht officers and soldiers on behalf of the Soviet cause. It reminded audiences not just that Zaitsev’s sniping could save his fellow Russians, but that it was also a very dangerous business for the shooter: As the hunter, Zaitsev often very quickly became the hunted.

Nor did Moore et al. object to the positive portrayal of the sniper Private Daniel Jackson (Barry Pepper) in Saving Private Ryan. Jackson, from his hidden perches, kills lots of unsuspecting Germans with his telescopic sniper rifle, saving members of hero John Miller’s company—until he himself is blown up by German tank fire.

In Captain Phillips Navy SEAL snipers are portrayed as “marksmen” who nonetheless stealthily blow apart Somali pirates, and thereby save Phillips’s life. Hollywood and film critics were also quite enthusiastic about that movie, apparently including the final rescue of Phillips by skilled “snipers” (i.e., the targeted pirates never knew that they were being targeted and never knew what hit them).

What has more likely caused some controversy over American Sniper is not the sniper profession per se of Chris Kyle (since snipers were not de facto deemed suspect in prior films), but three other considerations:

a) American Sniper often portrays the Islamist insurgents as savage, and Kyle as complex, but nevertheless both patriotic and heroic in protecting other Americans from them;

b) the movie does not serve as a blanket damnation of the Iraq war, at least as is otherwise typical for the Hollywood Iraq film genre; in this regard, unlike many recent Hollywood film titles with the proper noun American in them (e.g., American HustleAmerican GangsterAmerican PsychoAmerican History X, American Beauty, etc.), the film quite unusually does not dwell on American pathologies; and

c) perhaps most important, the film is very successful, and has resonated with the public at the precise time when other recent movies more welcomed by the establishment, such as Selma, have so far not.

Web Briefing: January 25, 2015

Re: Rand Paul and Activism



Text  



John Yoo asks where Senator Paul stands on Roe v. Wade and U.S. v. Windsor. When Windsor was decided, ABC reported that Senator Paul told it that the decision was appropriate.

The senator has described Roe as “now-infamous” and said that “as constitutional law, it was a disaster.” He has also said that we should not “grovel before the Supreme Court.” His website says that he “would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade.” So his view appears to be that the courts should intervene to block a legislature when it “does bad things,” unless Congress has told them not to.

ADVERTISEMENT

Where Hearts Take Over: Unwinding Confusion And Embracing the Blessing of Life



Text  



Dan LaHood and his wife, Cubby, founded Isaiah’s Promise, which provides support for families who choose life after being given a severe or fatal diagnosis and the 32-year-old Saint Joseph’s House, their home, a home for children and young adults with disabilities in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Tomorrow — Tuesday, January 20 — LaHood will speak at an event co-sponsored by the National Review Institute and the Heritage Foundation titled “Welcoming Every Life: Choosing Life after an Unexpected Prenatal Diagnosis,” joined by Carly Fiorina, who will be giving a brief keynote, Mark Bradford of the Jerome Lejeune Foundation, and Charmaine Yoest from Americans United for Life. Sarah Torre from Heritage will be hosting the event (at Heritage) and I’ll be moderating the panel.

Please come to the event, if you can. You can watch the event live on Heritage’s website. Follow — or tweet — on Twitter using the #MarchforLife and #EveryLifeAGift hashtags. 

The LaHoods daughter, Mary Frances, playing with her friend Curtis Teets, who has Down Syndrome. (Photo appeared in the Catholic Standard.)

 

Kathryn Jean Lopez: What is it that got you into this world of “special needs”?

Dan LAHOOD: Two events when I was young, the first was in the second grade when a Sister of Charity told us that a new student was coming who used crutches and asked for a volunteer to be his “friend.” Everyone in those days raised their hands with the “Sister, Sister!,” and out of that sea of hands she chose mine. He became my great friend that year but died the following summer. No one ever told me how or why. Around that same time I had a cousin who died shortly after birth. My family attended his burial at Arlington and I became aware that “something was wrong” from the adults whispering. I remember wondering: “What was so terrible that it couldn’t be spoken of?” After that my uncle had a breakdown and was sent to a hospital and discharged from the Navy. My young mind could not make sense of it. I sometimes do wonder if I spent my early life trying unwind the confusion I felt at the time with the death of my friend and my cousin. 

 

LOPEZ: How much of your work is about your son Francis?

LAHOOD: This dovetails with my previous answer. Francis’ brief life again left me at the graveside of an infant where “Something was wrong.” The diagnosis in utero was a blessing, not seeming like it at the time. I was forced by events to search for an answer someplace I had given up looking for answers. So there I was banging on the door of the rectory of Holy Redeemer, where I went to grade school. I pleaded with Father David Breault for answers and he gave me one, one that since has informed just about every aspect of our lives. About Saint Joseph’s House, Isaiah’s Promise, Cubby’s cancer, he said “You’ve been asked to do the hard thing.” So if we have done any good, if we have helped anyone in any way it was because of Francis.

 

LOPEZ: What does Isaiah’s Promise and St. Joseph’s House mean to you?

LaHood: IP and SJH is our life’s work. Our most fervent hope is that these ministries or similar ones continue after we are done. The prospect of having a child with a handicap, according to the world, is the worst thing that can happen to families. Our experience is that in many cases it is the best thing that can happen to a family. It is an experience of love that is unknown to most people. Years later, decades later, our parents cry at the memory of their child. Love like that will not end.

 


Dan LaHood assists with dinner at St. Joseph’s House. (Via American Catholic.)

 

Lopez: What has it meant to your marriage?

Keep reading this post . . .

re: Twenty Things that Caught My Eye Today



Text  



For those interested: 10 Catholic things.

How Keystone and State of the Union Set up 2015 Fights



Text  



Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) is building some goodwill on the right with the Keystone XL vote this week, more because of the process that he is following than the particular policy.

“The story this week is that McConnell kept his word that we’re going to have an open process on bills,” a conservative Senate aide tells National Review Online. “That’s been the source of most conservatives’ [anger] over the last four years, both with Harry Reid and with our own leadership.”

The open process, the source says, means that Republicans can shift away from internal fights about tactics to fights about policy. That’s a particularly welcome change on the eve of President Obama’s State of the Union address, which is a wish list of liberal priorities, many of which never drive the headlines.

“The crazy things that Obama is talking about in his speech tomorrow night is a never-ending grab bag of goodies for Republicans to beat Democrats over the head with,” the aide says. “It’s going to be awesome.”

Congressional Black Caucus Member: ‘Ferguson Is the New Selma’



Text  



Democratic congressman André Carson of Indiana traveled to Ferguson, Mo., with other members of the Congressional Black Caucus to commemorate Martin Luther King Jr. Day. According to the Associated Press, Carson compared the events in Ferguson to the civil-rights movement of the 1960s.

“Ferguson is the new Selma,” Carson said. “It’s time, in Ferguson.”

Carson was referring to the march led by King in 1965 from Selma, Ala., to the state’s capital of Montgomery to push for voting rights. The march is dramatized in a new film, Selma, which has received a Best Picture Oscar nomination. 

Fellow Congressional Black Caucus member William Lacy Clay Jr. (D., Mo.) joined Carson in Ferguson. Lacy Clay spoke at a local church on Sunday and called on the parishioners to get angry.

“We need to be outraged when local law enforcement and the justice system repeatedly allow young, unarmed black men to encounter police and then wind up dead with no consequences,” Lacy Clay said. “Not just in Ferguson, but over and over again across this country.”

Lacy Clay reportedly went on to criticize the St. Louis County prosecutor’s investigation into Michael Brown’s death, while lauding the Justice Department’s ongoing civil-rights investigations into Ferguson police practices. The members of the Congressional Black Caucus also stopped to meet with several young protesters while in Ferguson.

What Rand Paul’s Embrace of Judicial Activism Says about Him



Text  



Paul’s claims about judicial activism raise fundamental doubts about his positions on social issues. He says he is for judicial activism, but he also asserts he is pro-life. So does that mean he is for or against Roe v. Wade, perhaps the ultimate case of judicial activism in conservative eyes, a case where even liberal heavyweight scholar John Hart Ely said, “It is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Paul claims to be against gay marriage. So does he support the Court’s activism in United States v. Windsor in 2013, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act?

Conservative commentators will criticize Paul for his immature views on politics and the Constitution. And rightly so. But I think there is something even deeper here. Paul’s favor of judicial activism has the effect of relieving himself, as a member of the Senate, of any responsibility for solving constitutional problems. If he really believes that the NSA surveillance program violates the Fourth Amendment, he should do the heavy lifting in Congress to cut off funding for it or to place it under heavier congressional oversight. Instead, he takes the easy route of demanding that the courts do something about it. If Paul really thinks that the president is waging unconstitutional wars, Paul should persuade his colleagues to defund the strikes in Syria and Iraq. It is politically and constitutionally lazy to just demand that the courts do something about it instead.

Paul’s position on judicial activism represents an abdication of his constitutional responsibility, as a member of a coordinate branch of government with an equal obligation to enforce the Constitution. Or perhaps he does not understand that the separation of powers demands that each branch pursue its interpretation of the Constitution — which would be worrisome in a senator, and disastrous in a president. Paul’s demands for judicial activism represent his failures as a senator to convince his colleagues of his point of view — which is the mode of the successful legislator. And if Paul cannot do his job well as a senator, why should we think he could do a good job as president? Hasn’t the country already made the mistake, to its regret, of elevating inexperienced legislators to chief executive?

Behold: The Bookmonger



Text  



My longtime National Review Online podcast Between the Covers is now new and improved–and co-produced with our friends at Ricochet. We’ve renamed it The Bookmonger, and the first episode is now available–a conversation with Stephen Kotkin, author of Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928. We discuss how the son of a shoemaker and a washerwoman could become one of the world’s great tyrants, what would have happened to the 20th century if Stalin had died in Russia’s revolutionary purges, and how an American historian knows how to tell the truth with Soviet sources.

Give it a try: The podcast never has sounded better and we even have a rock-music intro.

American Sniper Has Created a Cultural Moment: Here’s Why



Text  



At 9:30 p.m. on Saturday night, a packed theater in Franklin, Tenn., was completely quiet. As the credits rolled, some folks were filing out, but many more were standing, still looking at the screen, honoring the man whose life they’d just seen portrayed on the silver screen. 

Before the movie, I’d never seen the parking lot so crowded. I had to park more than a quarter-mile away, hidden in the corner of a restaurant parking lot (hoping I wouldn’t be towed), and watched in amazement as people were streaming into the theater from parking spaces scattered far and wide. It almost goes without saying when a January movie release breaks $90 million in three days, but I felt as if I was witnessing an important cultural moment. This movie was striking a chord in America beyond any post 9/11 movie — beyond even the best of movies about the War on Terror, including Lone Survivor. I think I know why.

First — and most important — it’s a phenomenal movie. America is awash in “message movies,” left and (recently) on the right. While there are some people who’ll attend movies just to make a statement, most of us want to see good movies, with the right statement merely an optional bonus. American Sniper is better than good. It’s one of the best war movies I’ve ever seen, and is now in the pantheon of my all-time favorite movies of any type. Bradley Cooper is outstanding, and the movie pulls off something I’ve never truly seen in a war film: It creates fully realized characters both inside and outside the combat environment. By the end of the movie, we feel that we understand who Chris Kyle was, who is wife is, what they endured, and what motivated them. They’re not one-dimensional heroes but fully realized people who did heroic things.

Second, it tells a story that America isn’t told. I’ve beaten this drum for a while now, but one of my core criticisms of movies about the War on Terror is that they flinch — not when telling of the horrors of war for American soldiers — but when describing the true nature of the enemy. American Sniper goes where no movie has gone before in showing how the enemy uses children, kills children, and savagely tortures its enemies (Kyle discovers a torture room in Fallujah, and its portrayal is very close to reality). The movie isn’t excessively grisly (so wide audiences can see it), but one doesn’t need to show the close-up of a terrorist killing a young boy with a power drill to understand what just happened. When Kyle describes the enemy as “savages,” you know exactly why, and you agree with him.

But it’s not just telling the story of the enemy, but also of a key reality about our soldiers that many Americans don’t get. Of course war is horrifying. There are real consequences in PTSD and survivor guilt, and for tens of thousands there are real consequences in enduring physical wounds. Your psychological reality can essentially “flip” for a time so that you become a better functioning warrior than you are husband or father (in one telling moment, Kyle lands back in Iraq for yet another deployment, and a fellow SEAL tells him “welcome home”). But here’s the thing: The vast majority of soldiers get through that trauma and emerge on the other side, often better men. At the end of the movie, we see a Chris Kyle who is a good husband and father — who is truly “home” — extending his mission of helping his brothers by helping them heal. 

This is an important story. Yes, there is grief that endures. And, yes, there are often wounds that won’t fully heal. But there is also fierce pride in service, new insights on life and our world, new appreciation for the blessings of liberty and the love of family, and many other perspectives and experiences that enrich the lives of veterans and veterans’ families. It was just as critical to see Chris Kyle heal as it was to see him suffer. 

Finally, the movie gives America something it’s lacked since the start of the war — a war hero on a truly national, cultural scale. Yes, we’ve learned the stories of Marcus Luttrell and others who’ve achieved great and heroic things, but with the success of this movie, Chris Kyle has entered the pantheon of American warriors — along with Alvin C. York and Audie Murphy — giving a new generation of young boys a warrior-hero to look up to, to emulate. After all, our kids’ heroes can’t be — must not be — exclusively quarterbacks, rappers, or point guards.

No one is claiming that Chris Kyle is Jesus. Every human being has flaws. And he risked no more and no less than the thousands upon thousands of anonymous soldiers and Marines who fought house-to-house during their own turns downrange, but he undeniably did his job better than any man who came before him — or any man since — and he did that job as part of his selfless service to our nation. I’m thankful that my own son counts Chris Kyle as a hero. 

Leftists such as Michael Moore will rage on, and professors will judge the movie without seeing it — and all that backlash may cost the movie an Oscar — but Clint Eastwood has done something far greater than win an Oscar. He reached a great nation with a story it needed to hear.

Saudi Arabia Arrests Man Who Filmed State-Sanctioned Public Beheading



Text  



The Saudi Arabian government arrested a man who filmed the state-sanctioned beheading of a woman in the Islamic holy city of Mecca last week, with authorities calling the action a cybercrime but refusing to specify a charge.

On January 12, Saudi authorities publicly executed a woman accused of beating her seven-year-old stepdaughter to death. In the grainy video apparently shot on a mobile phone, the woman repeatedly claims her innocence before a swordsman takes three swings at her neck, finally silencing her cries. 

It’s the eleventh execution carried out by Saudi Arabia since the start of the year, which has also seen the public flogging of a blogger convicted of insulting Islam. Saudi authorities postponed the blogger’s next round of beatings — which were set to continue for another 19 weeks — after video of his punishment went public online.

Some Saudis are outraged by a renewed focus on their nation by human-rights groups, claiming the state only executes people for serious crimes and that their methods are no less humane than those practiced in the United States. They have called for a crackdown on those spreading videos of the gruesome punishments.

The Saudi newspaper Okaz reported that the man arrested in Mecca on Sunday was a security officer who leaked the video to human-rights activists. The paper said the officer would face both civilian and military justice.

Via Mediaite.

Twenty Things that Caught My Eye Today



Text  



1.

2. The inconsistencies of “Je suis Charlie”.

3. 

4. The upside of “female-validating talk about vaginas is now forbidden.”

5. On The Goldfinch.

6. “Catholic schools, get in step.”

7. “What is the point of Davos?”

8. Philadelphia’s Archbishop Charles J. Chaput on Martin Luther King Jr. Day:

Keep reading this post . . .

‘Miss Lebanon,’ Beauty Queen, Apparently Not in Support of World Peace



Text  



The 2015 Miss Universe pageant has sparked more than its usual share of geopolitical controversy. The Lebanese government is threatening to disqualify its beauty queen, Saly Greige, after she appeared in a selfie taken by the representative of Lebanon’s “sworn enemy,” Doron Matalon, Miss Israel:

(Matalon is at far left, with Greige beside her)

 Via the NY Post:

“Since the first day of my arrival to participate to Miss Universe, I was very cautious to avoid being in any photo or communication with Miss Israel ([who] tried several times to have a photo with me),” this year’s Miss Lebanon Saly Greige, who​ is set to compete in ​the Miss Universe contest​ in Miami​ on Jan. 25, wrote on her Facebook. . . .

In 1993, the country stripped its Miss Lebanon, Ghada al-Turk, of her title after Agence France Press distributed a photo of her smiling arm-in-arm with her Israeli contender.

This time around, the Lebanese government has vowed to “launch an investigation” and will decide this week whether the offensive photo will get her crown snapped, too.

That’s exactly what Miss Israel was shooting for, said Miss Lebanon’s delusional agent, who likened the beauty to a stealthy saboteur, stalking his client with her camera drawn before she “photo-bombed” Greige standing with Miss Japan and Miss Slovenia, according to Lebanese media.

The whole thing is unfortunate. After all, don’t all the contestants really just want world peace?

Michael Moore Inadvertently Supports Second Amendment



Text  



Probably not what he meant, but still the smartest thing liberal filmmaker Michael Moore has ever said:

Hours before, tweeting about the newly released Chris Kyle biopic American Sniper, Moore provoked a Twitter firestorm by calling snipers cowards.” The public seemed to disagree: The new Clint Eastwood film, which stars Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle, the deadliest sniper in American history, earned $90.2 million this weekend, smashing the previous opening-weekend record ($68 million) set by Avatar in 2010.

Europe’s Leaders Continue to Misrepresent the Reality of Jihadism



Text  



The Kouarchi brothers murdered the Charlie Hebdo journalists and then ran into the Paris streets shouting that they were avenging the Prophet Mohammed. The motivation is all too plain, you might think, but François Hollande, the French president, came up with a startling counterfactual view: “Those who committed these acts have nothing to do with Islam.”

Michel Gurfinkiel, one of the most perceptive commentators in France, has taken up this presidential absurdity. “The question is not so much whether one sees the truth or not, but rather what one is supposed to do once truth has been seen.” Four million French men and women turned out for demonstrations in Paris and other cities, presumably because they already had a good idea of the truth. But marching in the front ranks were personalities from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Palestinian entity, and others who condone expedient violence in practice and continually arrest and suppress journalists whose freedom of speech they were supposed to be defending.

Likewise in Germany. Pegida, the acronym in German for Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West, is a new and gathering mass movement that has been mounting demonstrations in major cities. “We are the people,” is their popular slogan, first heard when Germany was re-united in 1991, and picked up again now under the shadow of Islamist terror. Chancellor Angela Merkel is as inventive as Hollande when it comes to misrepresenting reality. “Prejudice, coldness, even hatred,” are the characteristics she applies to Pegida marchers, whom she even finds “unsettled perhaps because we don’t know enough about Islam.” She wanted to stop a big Pegida demonstration in Dresden, and the police obliged by discovering at the last moment an Islamist plot to open fire into the crowd.

Fudging the truth, Hollande and Merkel are helping to bring about the very outcome they fear. Polls have long since been showing that over 70 percent in France think that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Western civilization. That proportion is surely higher today. It is timely of Gurfinkiel to warn that our masters are clueless. He is not alone. Roger Cukierman, president of France’s leading Jewish organization, predicts that the choice for the country is either sharia law or fascism. Another thoughtful commentator, Guy Millière, goes further: “The jihad in Europe is just beginning.”

NR Magazine Subscription Scam Alert



Text  



We’d like to remind all NR magazine subscribers that ONLY bills which are from Palm Coast Data (PCD, based in FL), or, in some cases, bills that come directly from NR (215 Lexington Avenue in NYC), are valid. Anything else is bogus. There are industry-plaguing scammers out there who are now aggressively mailing our subscribers (cold comfort: and those of other magazines).

Specifically, the current effort is coming from an entity called “Readers Payment Service” with a mailing address of P.O. Box 2489, White City, OR 97503-0489. Please ignore them. Not to make light of this, because the matter is serious, but — accept no substitutes for PCD or NR.

David Cameron: It’s Not ‘War,’ It’s ‘Just a Huge Challenge Our Society Faces’



Text  



On CBS’s Face the Nation, British prime minister David Cameron declined to describe the fight against Islamic terrorism as a “war.”

“It has many similar aspects [of war], but my way of expressing this is that this is just a huge challenge our society faces,” Cameron said. “What I don’t want to do is try and posit that there’s some clash of civilizations going on because that is what the terrorists want.”

Cameron continued to explain that the terrorists are not true adherents of Islam, and are best understood as “fanatics who have attached themselves to a death cult.” Cameron said describing the conflict as a war of “us against them” would only help the terrorists’ narrative gain traction.

Tags: Sunday Shows January 18 2015

Chaffetz: Romney Says the Rumors Are True



Text  



On CNN’s State of the Union, Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz said Mitt Romney solicited his input as Romney is gearing up for another presidential campaign.

“He wanted some advice and input, but [said] the rumors that were out there were true,” Chaffetz said. “I think he’s very seriously considering it.”

Chaffetz said he thinks Romney has three advantages over other potential candidates: he’s been vetted, he’s been proven right on domestic and foreign-policy issues, and he can raise the $1 billion needed to defeat Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Tags: Sunday Shows January 18 2015

Gibbs: We’re at War with Terrorism, Not Islam



Text  



Former Obama White House spokesman Robert Gibbs reiterated on Sunday’s Meet the Press that the war against terrorism is not a war against Islam, and that United States has the responsibility of communicating that to the Muslim world.

“I think one of the things that we’re going to have to do is show to the more than 1 billion Muslims in the world that we are not at war with their religion,” said Gibbs. “We are at war with people that take the beliefs of that religion and bastardize them to the point that justifies them to the point of killing.

“You talked about hearts and minds. We are going to have to have a greater effort on counter-radicalization, to let people know in this world that they have an outlet for frustration that doesn’t include either joining an army in Syria or training in their home country to attack someone who doesn’t believe what they believe.”

Tags: Sunday Shows January 18 2015

Pages

Sign up for free NR e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review