It’s by “a Jordanian-Palestinian politician” but it’s also in the Jerusalem Post: Saudi Arabia is bringing Iran to its knees. This is the opening para:

On January 11, 2016, Iran’s official media confirmed the state had filled the Arak nuclear reactor core with concrete. In short: Iran has killed its flagship nuclear site and its nuclear program is now limited to smaller projects, paperwork, research and, of course, propaganda videos.

Now read the rest. It turns out the bit about Arak is true. This is so extraordinary I have to ask why have I not heard any of it anywhere else before?

We don’t vote in American elections so it is all academic in a way. But it is worth having some sense of who’s doing what and where things are heading. A Malcolm-led Liberal Party may be the best there is across the world, so think about that. This is Mickey Kaus on The Rubio Menace which more or less says the same as I did in my post yesterday on Rubio Would be a Disaster. This might bring out the extent to which the American election cycle is a charade which, given the unstoppable success of Hillary, we knew already. This is Rubio who has taken up the mantle that was supposed to fall to Jeb Bush.

Bush is explicit about his support for mass immigration and amnesty. Rubio has now effectively wormed his way into a position where championing mass immigration and amnesty would involve breaking what seems to be an explicit policy pledge. But anyone who has followed Rubio knows that’s exactly what he’ll do. a) He’s done it before, having opposed amnesty when seeking his Senate seat only to become its front man on arriving in Washington; b) He dissembled when necessary to push the Gang of 8 bill, why not dissemble now? c) The GOP establishment thinks that’s exaclty what he’ll do; d) His retreat from the Gang of 8 has been grudging and weaselly, always giving as little ground as he thinks he can get away with until he discovers he has to give a little more; e) He still hasn’t repudiated the bill, let alone apologized for it; and most important, f) actually achieving an Enforcement First solution would mean standing up to the Democrats, who will demand quick legalization, and the bulk of the GOP Congressional caucus, who will be happy to settle for a fig-leaf of enforcement they can try to sell their voters (not unlike the fig leaf added to the Gang of 8 by the for-show-only Corker-Hoeven “double the border patrol” amendment). The current flash mob of GOP representatives streaming into Rubio’s camp suggests they recognize him as someone who won’t make their lives difficult — when that’s exactly what is required.

Rubio’s not going to drive Jeff Sessions from the capital. But you can count on the combination of President Rubio and Speaker Ryan to quickly pass an amnesty bill that (like the Gang of 8) contains only the most chimerical guarantees of new enforcement measures. You can also expect them to promote and defend trade, including “trade in services” that involves foreign workers performing those services on American soil. And what about the Sessionsesque suggestion that immigration levels actually be lowered? As one Senate immigration advisor said, “We have a better chance of discovering time travel than getting Rubio-Ryan to take up immigration-reduction bill.”

And on the off chance you are of the opinion that Rubio has that spontaneous human touch, you might like to look at this.

Marco Rubio is running a presidential campaign marked by precision, caution and discipline — so much so that the Florida senator delivers the exact same speech, jokes, quips and one-liners wherever he goes.

When he addresses the media, his aides select the reporters who can ask questions, often shutting down follow-ups. During media interviews and presidential debates, Rubio is quick to fall back on the same script that he often delivers before GOP audiences in New Hampshire and Iowa.

His campaign makes sure every room is packed. Lately, that’s because an overflow audience is interested in hearing from the surging candidate. But other times his aides have cut the room in half with drapes, ensuring it’s a standing-room-only crowd.

It’s great theatre, but is it politics?

The Republican establishment is now backing Marco Rubio to the hilt against Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. I actually saw Rubio speak in Las Vegas the day before Trump and I could not believe how weak and ineffectual he came across. The words were all right, but the lack of conviction was palpable. No one came away fired up about his prospects, unlike my experience when I had listened to Rand Paul (the year before) or Donald Trump. Hillary will eat Rubio for lunch.

But what makes Rubio likely poison is his lack of creds on border protection. This was published just two months ago, in December, The Ugly Truth About Marco Rubio And His Gang-of-Eight Amnesty Bill and represents a very strong attitude among Republicans:

Rubio was a Jeb Bush acolyte who embraced the Tea Party and ran for senator in Florida against Charlie Crist. Crist was the popular sitting governor in the state and Rubio was thought to be a huge underdog. However, the grassroots embraced Rubio. Just to give you an example, very early on I organized a coalition that endorsed Rubio and encouraged people not to give money to the NRSC over its endorsement of Crist. I even called for NRSC chairman John Cornyn to RESIGN over his decision to get involved in the race on Crist’s behalf.

Back then, Rubio was talking very tough on immigration by necessity. Although Rubio is significantly more conservative than Crist, the conservative base would have never rallied to his side if he had supported amnesty; he would have lost in a landslide. In other words, Rubio’s anti-amnesty position was one of the central promises of his campaign. In fact, Rubio slammed Charlie Crist for being pro-amnesty and very specifically said he opposed giving illegal aliens citizenship. Back then, Marco Rubio sounded like Jeff Sessions on immigration. . . .

Unfortunately, even though Marco Rubio is only in the Senate today because he claimed to be in favor of securing the border and stopping amnesty, his position shifted 180 degrees and he became the front man for the Gang-of-Eight amnesty bill. . . .

Getting beyond the Gang-of-Eight bill, as late as June of this year, Marco Rubio was openly saying that he wanted to make illegal aliens citizens. However, today he tries to muddy the waters about the subject by merely saying he thinks illegal aliens should eventually be able to get green cards. Of course, people who have green cards are allowed to apply for citizenship; so it’s the same difference over the long haul.

I don’t think Rubio can win – he is no JFK – but really what difference would it make if he did. As noted in the article:

If Rubio’s lying, it doesn’t really make much of a difference over the long haul whether you elect him or Hillary because his immigration policies would permanently cement liberals in power without securing the border or doing anything of significance to stop illegal immigration.

If Marco Rubio becomes the President of the United States, the future of our republic depends on Rubio telling the truth this time after he already lied about the same thing to people who walked over broken glass to get him elected.

So now, are you ready to walk over broken glass to get Marco Rubio elected? Choose wisely because if Rubio becomes President and he’s lying about immigration again, it will be the end of the road for conservatism in America.

All you need to know is that Rubio is the choice of the Republican establishment who have been trying to get amnesty passed over the massed opposition of the people who actually vote for Republicans. Rubio would be a disaster as president but why worry? He would anyway almost certainly lose to Hillary if he became the nominee. It is either Trump or Cruz. Rubio is no answer, which is why the media is now doing everything it can to help him along.

MORE ALONG THE SAME LINES: This time from Phyllis Schlafly, as iconic a conservative as there is to be found anywhere: Schlafly unloads on Rubio: ‘He betrayed us all’ with the sub-head, “Conservative icon calls media favorite ‘lackey for the establishment'”. She writes:

“When Marco Rubio ran for the Senate in Florida, I think I was the first one to endorse him,” said Phyllis Schlafly. “I made a trip down to Florida in 2009 just for the purpose of helping him.”

But Schlafly, a legendary conservative activist, author and WND columnist, now says she is bitterly disappointed by Rubio’s record.

“Once he got elected, he betrayed us all,” she told WND. “He said he was against amnesty and against the establishment. And once he got in, right away, he became an agent of the establishment. And now, of course, he’s big for amnesty and letting all the illegal immigrants in. He betrayed us a number of times on that issue.”

Schlafly said she was startled at the magnitude of Rubio’s “betrayal” on amnesty.

“It was so public,” she said.

“He’s a lackey for the establishment now,” she said. “There’s no question they’re picking up as Plan B – or maybe Plan C in this election cycle, or whatever we’re on now – but he certainly is an establishment agent.”

At a campaign rally in Milford, NH yesterday. His greatest virtues are his vices and his vices his greatest virtues. He may still be the only one who can beat Hillary. Or he may be the only one who can make Hillary electable.

I came out:

Trump 94%
Rubio 91%
Cruz 90%
Santorum 87%
Carson 86%
Paul 84%
Bush 79%
Clinton 15%
Sanders 13%

So far as the parties went:

Republicans 98%
Constitution Party 93%
Libertarians 74%
Democrats 30%

Not much of a surprise to me. You can try it yourself right here.

I might just mention here Conrad Black’s assessment, Donald Trump knows how to make a deal in which he writes:

In fact, Donald Trump is reasonably conservative. He opposes tax breaks for the rich and back-handers for rich cronies, if not as histrionically as Warren Buffett does (though Buffett has often been a beneficiary of them). Moreover, he spares the country the tedious spectacle of politicians ambling about with begging bowls or cupped hands asking for money, because Donald is paying his own way. His presentational methods grate on the nerves of sophisticated people, but it is an Archie Bunker approach by a man who is a successful businessman rather than, like Archie, a blue-collar clock-puncher. And the approach works: He is leading the polls. In a democracy, the people are always right, and if he wins, it will be because an impatient and disserved people wishes it so.

It’s just an opinion, of course, but I do see his point.