Governor Palin is right, and I’m inclined to act on the principle that there is nothing to be gained by compromise with the GOP establishment. I am to the point where I’d rather have an open leftist elected to office than to see one more of these despicable, snake-in-the-grass RINOs who act like Democrats when they get to Washington DC anyway. Here’s Governor Palin from Hannity on FNC last night:
Archive for the ‘GOP Establishment’ Category
There really is something deeply wrong with the GOP establishment, and as nearly all conservatives have always suspected, it’s this: Despite all of the GOP establishment’s haughty talk about moderation, they are willing to do anything, no matter how repulsive, to achieve their political ends in order to maintain power. In Mississippi, Thad Cochran held onto his seat by the slimmest of margins over conservative Chris McDaniels. Had there not been a laundry list of out-of-state, center-left interests pouring money in on Cochran’s behalf, this race would have come out differently, but what I want dispirited conservatives to know is that despite the loss, you won. It might be hard to see at the moment, but there’s really something to be said for your accomplishments in this race. The truth is now plain to see, and for those who doubted it before, the veil should now be thoroughly lifted: The GOP establishment is comprised of a mafia-like element that will use any tactic necessary to keep its scumbags in office, and in this election, it was revealed in full, but this was only possible because conservatives pushed them to the brink.
Thad Cochran has been in political office nearly all of my life. Now he faces an election for a seventh term, and if he succeeds, he will have served in the US Senate for forty-two years by the time the new term expires. This is despicable. What makes it all the more disgusting is the manner of his primary victory. He did not win on the strength of his record, which is sorely lacking. He did not win on the merits of his legislative proposals. He did not win because Republicans in his state favor him. He did not win even because Republican voters though McDaniels was an inferior candidate. No, he won on the strength of contributions from his center-left connections, shady endorsements, and because his campaign’s proxies illegally urged Democrats to cross over and vote for him in the Republican primary. They gave “walking-around money” to would-be Democrat voters, and they basically called McDaniels and the TEA Party “racists” who were out to get Barack Obama. Take a look at this flier, circulated prior to the primary run-off(H/T John Fund at NRO):
Let me say this clearly. Thad Cochran is a scumbag, and that he would employ such an outrageous tactic merely speaks to his unfitness for office. Were I a Mississippi conservative, there is no way I would vote to re-elect this dirtball. Instead, I would vote for the Democrat. You might ask: “But Mark, if the Democrat is elected, we might not retake the Senate,” to which I must respond with a question: “We?“ Who comprises any “we” in any of this? It is not Republicans and conservatives. It is not TEA Party and constitutionalists. The only “we” who will run the Senate, even if the Republicans win a majority in 2014 is the GOP establishment mafia. I’d like Mississippi conservatives to think about that.
Haley Barbour and his extended gang, including Michael Bloomberg, Karl Rove, the Chamber of Commerce, a Facebook executive, and a legion of GOP establishment thugs were willing to use ginned-up Democrat support to steal this seat away from Mississippi conservatives. Mississippi conservatives and TEA Party activists should know that there can be no restoration of the constitutional government they hope to promote so long as a gang of criminal cronies own their Senator. The worst of it may have been the last-minute use of a sickening tactic of soliciting Democrats to support Cochran even if they would not vote for him in the Fall.
Listen to the following recording for a sample of what establishment Republicans(!) did to secure victory:
This call went out to black Democrats to get them to vote in the Republican primary.
This is the establishment of the Republican Party. They’re every bit the statist, mafia-like dirtbags the Democrats are, and as you can see, they will work with Democrats whenever necessary to maintain their grip on power. What is my suggestion to the conservatives and TEA Party folk in Mississippi? Either run McDaniels as an independent in November, or simply go out to support the Democrat. Yes, I actually suggest supporting the Democrat, because since Cochran is willing to invite Democrats into the primary campaign, Mississippi conservatives should turn the table on him and give him a dose of his own medicine. Yes, this means the Democrat will sit in office for six years, but to quote Hillary Clinton, “what difference does it make?” You now have a six-term RINO running for a seventh term who is firmly in Haley Barbour’s and Karl Rove’s pocket. This November, for much the same reasons, I am voting for anybody but the RINO liar John Cornyn(R-TX.) If we’re going to take our country back, we’ll first need to surrender a few things, and in this case, it means giving up the illusion of a Republican-led Senate that wouldn’t be the least bit conservative anyway.
On Saturday, it was revealed that the IRS has been contracting with Sonasoft for the back-up of emails since 2005, and indeed, looking at Sonasoft’s clients list, listed there is the Internal Revenue Service. Adding to my list of things about which the Republicans should seek testimony (if they’re serious,) the specific details of the performance requirements of this contract must now be considered. Undoubtedly, in soliciting bids for back-ups, there must have been a policy for back-ups the bidder must have been prepared to fulfill. These details would have been dominated by a records retention schedule that would have been designed to comply with statutory minimums. In any event, such a contract would have been carefully vetted for specific performance requirements, the methodology by which performance could be verified, and the chain of responsibility for those on the government side of the contract to make sure performance was fulfilled, or to seek remediation if the requirements were not met. There would be a schedule of audits of the performance, and there should be no excuse for pretending somebody hadn’t known their specific duties, on either side of the contract. Here’s the point: We very likely have an organized criminal conspiracy, and if the Republicans don’t begin to immediately turn over rocks to find the culprits, the evidence will be destroyed, but that may be precisely what the GOP leadership wants.
People continue to question whether I’ve entered the realm of “tinfoil-hat-wearing” conspiracy kooks, because I doubt the seriousness of the intent of the House Republican leadership in pursuing this scandal. After all, they ask, why would the Republicans seek to cover the scandal? Let’s be blunt, shall we? As long as this scandal has been going on without serious investigation, how much evidence has been destroyed in the interim? It is true that if there is a cover-up, there will always be some evidence of that, because it’s impossible to completely cover the tracks of what has been done. Permitting a delay of the investigation would allow the culprits to destroy the evidence so that any crimes perpetrated in the original scandal would be hard to substantiate to the satisfaction of a jury, or an impeachment proceeding, even if the evidence of a cover-up would be harder to conceal. In the end, however, let us imagine that there had been a few Republicans who had wanted to hammer the TEA Party, like John Boehner, or Mitch McConnell. They’ve said as much in open contempt for the TEA Party. By permitting the administration and its lackeys to destroy evidence, the evidence of their own complicity would be hidden too, and all that would remain are the allegations and evidence of a cover-up of something, in which the Republican leadership would not be implicated. After all, they’ve been conducting an investigation, right?
If this sounds too conspiratorial to you, consider that these are the same people who invented voting for a thing before voting against it. John Cornyn had no problem voting for cloture on the Senate Amnesty bill last year before coming home to Texas to tell voters he had voted against the final bill, which he had. He repeated the procedure at the time of the government shutdown last October, again voting to bring the bill for a vote, so that he could vote against it thereby claiming “conservative credentials” all the while have enabled the bill to see the light of day in the first place. They bank on we voters remaining largely ignorant of their scandalous manipulations, so that a less-than-vigorous investigation wouldn’t provide much of a surprise. By the way, and by way of evidence of the establishment’s thesis in operation, John Cornyn won his primary by pretending to be a conservative while relying on the longterm detachment and ignorance of voters. Still, roughly forty percent of the Republican electorate in Texas was able to see through his nonsense, but not enough to replace him as our Senator.
My point to you is this: It may be too late to salvage the data, because this has been left withering on the vine for much too long. The list of particulars I provided yesterday should have been exercised more than two years ago, and it should have been done with vigor. If there is no active complicity by Republican leadership, there is at least gross incompetence verging on the criminally negligent. Are we to believe that none of the people in leadership had any idea, and that none of their staff had any idea how to approach such a scandal? Are we to believe they had no access to any person with sufficient technical understanding who would have apprised them of the sort of things that would need to have been done to “disappear” such data? Are we to believe that those who were conducting the preliminary investigations on behalf of House committees could not imagine to immediately contact people specializing in data recovery? Why has it taken until yesterday to discover that the IRS had contracted with Sonasoft? What were these investigators investigating? Didn’t they look at the IT expenditures and contracts of the IRS for clues? You see, once you consider all of this, it’s easier to understand how an observer could reasonably conclude that the Republicans didn’t want to investigate, and having been forced into it by public pressure, have done a half-hearted job of it.
How can we be nearly three years into this investigation, and we’re only now finding there had been a back-up company contracted? I will not be surprised to learn that the IRS contract with Sonasoft required them to hold emails for a period of only three years, so that by now, Lois Lerner’s emails have fallen off the archive due to age. A serious investigation would have immediately discovered the existence of a contract with Sonasoft, and those records could have been pulled three years ago. What will we get as a result? At best, some underlings who were a part of the cover-up will be burned, but the chain of command to the top will be obfuscated, and then we will get some dog-and-pony IRS Reform bill that will require the agency from this date forward to maintain all emails for ten years, or some such thing. Then it will all go away, and the original participants in the scandal of targeting TEA Party groups and their members will be forgotten, and life will go on in Washington DC, with we being the only victims, now poorer and less free, and deprived of justice.
The questions I’ve posed over the last thirty-six hours are the sort I would expect of a serious investigation. To date, we’ve had a lot of finger-waggling by Republicans asking questions of witnesses, but we’ve gotten no meat from these bones. Certainly, it does not help that we have a Department of Justice that is led by a crook and crony, and it does not help that the media covers everything up on behalf of this administration, but if the Republicans had been serious about getting to the bottom of this scandal, they would have taken significantly more exhaustive steps by now, but to date, all they’ve done is generate ominous soundbites that tend to feed the red-meat aspects of politics, yet have resulted in no arrests, no indictments, and no justice. In three years? This scandal is well on its way to becoming a cold case, and that’s just how Washington DC likes it.
Update: The Daily Caller reports that the IRS cancelled its Sonasoft contract only weeks after Lois Lerner’s hard-drive “crash.”
On Friday, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives continued its wholly political, and ultimately theatrical investigation of the IRS Tea Party-targeting scandal. Chairman Dave Camp’s(R-MI) committee brought current IRS Commissioner John Koskinen before the committee to testify as to the loss of Lois Lerner’s emails, among other misdeeds. You may argue that Paul Ryan(R-WI) was very aggressive in his examination of the witness, but that entire exchange was mere political theater that will evince nothing at the end of the investigation. Had the Republicans in Congress the first inclination to get to the bottom of this scandal, they would begin by taking the following series of steps:
- Bring before the committee the entire IT staff that supports the IRS, particularly its executives.
- Audit the purchase records and replacement schedule of equipment used to support Lois Lerner’s computer usage. Congress should want to know how old her computer had been when the hard disk “died.”
- Require IT staff managers to testify as to the method of email archiving, email storage, email backups, and the entire email system used by the IRS.
- Seek a federal court order requiring the production of all existing equipment that is currently, or has ever been in use by the IRS in storing email,over the period of the last six years, including particularly SAN devices and servers.
- Seek a federal court order requiring the immediate production of all backup media on which IRS files and email may have been copied.
- Form a select committee with broad investigatory powers to pursue the entirety of this affair, particularly with an eye toward fraud, destruction of government records and data, as well as political influences brought to bear on the IRS from any branch of government or outside interest groups.
- Bring in experts to audit access records for servers and storage devices to discover when anybody interacted with the equipment in question. These devices and servers maintain extensive logs of the commands issued from administrators. Knowing who did what will be a key to cracking this case. The government may well have logging servers to which all events are reported.
For those of you who are less than technically inclined, I will be glad to explain to you why this whole “lost hard drive” claim is a dodge, and for those who may have less than a strong understanding of the politics, I’ll be glad to explain to you how I know the Republicans are playing a game for show, but do not want the truth to come out.
As an information systems professional, who works with storage systems, backup systems, networks, servers, and workstations every day, and who works with the applications and databases which is the purpose of all of that lovely, grotesquely expensive equipment, let me tell you a few things you won’t read in the media. You might even take a moment to learn a bit more about your own computer.
First, the email system the IRS uses is almost certainly an IMAP or MAPI variant. This means that on the most basic level, emails are not stored on the client, except as a temporarily cached copy. Deleting it may cause the email to appear deleted for that user, but the mail archiving functionality will maintain a copy for a period as prescribed by policy, usually determined in applicable statutes and regulations. Most corporate and government environments will not even permit users to store mail in local folders(email folders solely on your local computer) unless they are first archived in the email archiving system, which is generally part of the same overall system. Nevertheless, examining the event viewer in Windows will offer some insight into what may or may not have been done on a given workstation or server. Linux and other operating systems have similar logging facilities. (If you have Windows, you can get an idea by going to your Control Panel, then to Administrative Tools, and Event Viewer. You will be surprised what you can learn about your computer’s routine operations.)
In the second place, the number of servers used for an email system to support an organization the size of the IRS must be quite large. It undoubtedly consists of multiple servers, at multiple server farms, in a redundant scheme of some sort intended to prevent the loss of data. You, the taxpayer, has spent billions upon billions since the advent of email to provide these facilities for our federal bureaucracy.
Third, since email storage in such an environment is bound to be monumental in scale, there are undoubtedly many storage blades of some form, probably Storage Area Networks(SANs) to handle the storage needs of the mail system servers. These are also geographically dispersed for reasons of data security, and what you should know about these technologies is that if your Storage Administrators are doing their jobs, there is virtually no credible fashion in which data of this sort could be lost simply because somebody’s office computer’s hard disk died.
To put it in context, consider one of the leading manufacturer’s systems. Called an ISE2, it’s made by X-IO and it can contain two datapacs that contain what are essentially a stack of hard disks that are effectively “self-healing,” and in common usage, contain more than fourteen terabytes of data in each datapac. By design, such a device already creates a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks(RAID) by virtue of its design, permitting the administrator to choose either RAID 1(mirroring) or RAID 5(a form of quasi-mirroring). The way these devices are used is to create storage volumes in the datapacs and attach those volumes to servers. They can be swapped in and out, and they can be mirrored as individual entities across other devices. The servers in question see these volumes as hard-drives, and in effect, they function in precisely that manner. I would be stunned to find that the US Federal government is not using such an arrangement, whomever the vendor, and there are many. Chances are high that wherever the server farm is that operates the IRS email system, there are likely to be many SAN units, or other storage containers that have similar functionality.
Putting of all of this into simplest terms, the series of failures that would be required to disappear Lois Lerner’s emails, along with those of six other IRS executives, is an astonishing string of virtual impossibilities and displays of incompetence and malfeasance that should result in the ouster of every IT manager supporting the IRS. It’s not that I don’t believe there are incompetents working in government, or that I don’t believe there are some slothful folk administering systems for the IRS, but that the totality of this loss of data represents a complete failure at virtually every level and every step of the organization. Even in a clunky, bureaucratic, top-heavy organization like the IRS, there are still some competent people who keep it working despite all the obstacles placed in their way. The manner in which their storage systems and server farms are designed tends to preclude the chance that something so seemingly innocuous as the loss of one person’s email(or seven) is even a remote possibility.
Knowing how such systems work, and knowing that the government spends more money on the core computing technology than any entity on the planet, their claim to have lost the email due to a hard drive failure on a client machine is an absolute farce. To claim even that no data was recoverable on that hard drive is pretty hard to believe too, since I’ve seen data recovered from hard disks that have been in computers essentially destroyed by fires. In fact, given the nature of the data I have handled over the course of my computing career, it is common that when a computer reaches the end of its service life, organizations resell the computers but strip the hard drives out of them for mechanical destruction so that no data may be recovered from them. (In many cases, this involves drilling holes through the platters, using a cutting torch, or other methodology designed to destroy the actual storage media in the drive, which is generally very hard metal platters.)
All of that doesn’t matter in the least, however, as the servers and archive servers and storage devices in the systems are apt to have contained one or more(probably many more) copies of the target emails. Then there are backup tapes or other backup devices. No, ladies and gentlemen, if the administration’s hacks like Mr. Koskinen come forward to tell you in smug tones that the data was irretrievably lost, they are lying. It may have been irretrievably destroyed, but that would require a conspiracy because no one computer technician could possibly have access to all the relevant systems in an organization so large.
The technician who was responsible for maintaining and repairing Lois Lerner’s computer is not the same technician who administers the email system. That administrator is not the same person who operates and maintains the bulk data storage containers, nor is that the same person who operates all backups and certainly not the same person who maintains and administers the network on which all of this computing takes place. It’s not plausible in an organization the size of the IRS. In many cases, data is duplicated and moved off-site for disaster recovery purposes. No, if this data is unrecoverable, it is because it was ordered to be placed in that state. Knowing this, and knowing what would be entailed in literally destroying any trace of these emails, I can only conclude that this administration is lying, and is an active participant in a criminal conspiracy and cover-up of crimes that would tend to place Lerner and her superiors in jeopardy of long jail terms, and this president in the direct path of impeachment proceedings.
At the beginning of this article, I explained to you that I believed that the claim about the emails being “lost” is nonsense, and a lie. I hope I’ve managed to illuminate a few of the reasons why you should not believe such claims, but I also contended that you should not believe that the Republicans are very serious about uncovering the truth, despite their harrumphing to the contrary. You see, if the Republicans in Congress were serious about all of this, they would issue subpoenas to the entire IT staff. They would drag them in, one at a time, starting at the top, and working their way down to the lowest technician. They would have questions, specific technical questions, prepared for them by people like me, or actually those rare birds who designed such systems, and they would begin the grilling. Under oath. Somebody would crack. A lie of this sort cannot be hidden if there is a consistent and tireless effort to uncover it.
The problem may be that to uncover Lois Lerner’s email would reveal something no Representative in that committee hearing room wants you to know: Lerner may have been receiving emails from both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill urging audits and investigations into Tea Party groups. The IRS was used in this instance to quell a peaceful, political uprising by making the formation of a group so painful and problematic as to frustrate into capitulation all but the most insistent and persistent persons. The Republicans tried first to co-opt the Tea Party phenomenon, making it their own, but when they found they were unable to control the myriad of organizations springing to life around the country, their next motive was to destroy it because they posed a serious challenge to the orthodoxy of establishment power in Washington DC. Most Republicans in Washington DC want the Tea Party buried, some of them more fervently even than the Democrats.
If the Republicans in the House cannot muster a select committee to look into this and other matters of extreme government corruption, it is only because they do no want the truth discovered. If they will not bring an endless string of witnesses to testify as to their role in the email “losses” and the system design of the email and data facilities of the IRS, then they don’t want an answer. Paul Ryan and others can put on one Hell of a show in the committee room, but the truth is that saying “I don’t believe you” in an exchange with an IRS commissioner isn’t going to turn over many stones. If you want the truth, you bring in the subject matter experts and responsible parties, and you grill them and continue to remind them of their oaths. At some point, some junior flunky intern who was told to ditch a hard disk in the Potomac is going to squeal, because he doesn’t want to go to prison. Then you bring back the person who gave him that order, and then the person who issued that order from higher on the food chain. Work your way down to get them on the record, until somebody cracks, and then work your way back up, exposing lies until the scheme is revealed in full.
If the Congress won’t do this, they’re not serious about the matter. It suggests strongly that they don’t want the truth revealed any more than the administration. There are plenty of smart people on Capitol Hill, and they have plenty of contacts who understand such systems and could provide technical advice both in the formation of questions and in the manner by which to challenge the credibility of the answers. Those behind this atrocious abuse of government power must be held accountable and jailed for their crimes. Make no mistake about it: Grievous crimes were committed both as a part of the targeting, as well as during this extended cover-up. If the Republicans now fail to uncover those crimes and see this investigatory process through to a just ending, you can be sure that they hadn’t wanted the truth to be discovered, because their fingerprints are all over this too.
They intend to shove an immigration bill through the House this summer. They’re aiming for August, with the intention of pushing this through while the nation is busy with summer vacations and the return of its children to school. It’s diabolical to the degree that I now believe John Boehner and Eric Cantor are simply wolves wearing wool. Years ago, I asked my readers to consider whether Obama was merely incompetent, or instead a malevolent actor who was following a script of purposeful destruction. Now I ask you to consider: Can this be coincidental? Can the efforts of House Republican leadership to shove amnesty down our throats be the result of simple incompetence, or is it the result of a malevolent takeover of the Republican Party in Washington DC by people who are effectively in league with the Democrats and their nonstop neo-socio-fascist push? Now, even a Washington Post article questions the foolishness of an immigration bill from a Republican perspective, so that we must ask ourselves: How do we defeat the Republican leadership without removing the majority conservative caucus from power?
According to the article, precisely what I have suspected is likely to come true: With a vast number of new citizens who will mostly be Democrats, Texas (and several others) may well turn from “red states” to “blue states. From the article:
“If many of the Hispanic non-citizens across the country became voting eligible citizens through immigration reform, some of those states become much more interesting politically. Take Texas, where only 22 percent of voters were Hispanic, but they make up 37 percent of the total population of the state. The pattern is similar in Arizona, where 17 percent of voters were Hispanic but they accounted for 29 percent of the total population. “
This shouldn’t be difficult to translate into political ramifications: Republicans won’t be able to win in Texas, Arizona, and any number of border states, no longer being Republican strongholds, and instead at best becoming slightly purple-tinted blue states.
Under that regime, it will be impossible to elect a Republican, never mind a conservative, to the presidency, and it will become increasingly impossible to elect a conservative House, much less a Senate. This will be the end of any and all hope to stop the growth of the Federal Government, and it will mean diminishing liberty and prosperity for all Americans.
We’re taught by polite society not to question peoples’ motives, and to avoid guessing at them, but one can scarcely look at the current Republican leadership without asking this question repeatedly: “Why?”
It would be easy enough to believe that they’re merely incompetent simpletons, reacting precipitously to what they see as a demographic inevitability, but as the Washington Post article reveals, they will simply speed up the process, making no ground against the actual problem. Indeed, they will almost certainly seal their own fate. One thing we must acknowledge from the outset is that they are not conservatives. Neither Boehner nor Cantor; McCarthy nor McMorris Rodgers; McConnell nor Cornyn; none of these Republicans in leadership in Congress are conservatives in any measurable sense. They are all party hacks, and they are all leading actual conservatives to utter disaster. I do not believe it is possible to conclude that they are accidental actors who simply don’t know any better. Indeed, the coordination of their efforts on other matters, like the debt ceiling, and like the budget negotiations suggests to me that rather than being a “loyal opposition,” they are indeed colluding with Democrats to advance the neo-socio-fascist agenda.
After all, when Democrats in the house in 2010 “deemed the bill passed,” enacting Obama-care, a law with vast new taxing authority, who among the “Republican leadership” protested the fact that all bills levying taxes must originate in the House? Where were they? Boehner put on a show of choked-up, crying but resolute resistance, yet that “resistance” has turned out to be all howl but no fangs, expressed in pointless show-votes of repeal, but never implemented in an actual showdown with the Senate and White House. Is this leadership committed to turning aside rampant statism?
No, ladies and gentlemen, this leadership is worse than any Neville Chamberlain. These are Quislings, all of them, and the singular question that falls to us is how to defeat them without yielding the republic. How can we topple these sell-outs without discharging the actual conservatives from a functioning majority in the House? We are at a crossroads, when we can neither suffer the treacherous leadership of this bunch any longer, nor can we permit ourselves to lose the House. Both circumstances are disasters, and yet we know that left in charge, these people(and several others, including Ryan in the House and McCain in the Senate) will happily march the Republican Party off an electoral cliff, while simultaneously wrecking the country at large.
I do not hold with others who believe we can make a difference by quietly going about the job of voting. I think the time is coming when we will need to be in their faces, all day, every day. Whether it is driven by old-fashioned corruption, or instead by actual ideological concordance with the left, we can no longer tolerate a leadership that is clearly marching us over a cliff. We can ask why it is that House chairmen, all Republicans, will not demand a select committee to investigate Benghazi, or the IRS scandal, or any other corrupt and criminal action of this administration, but I think the answer is clear: Those now in leadership in the House are captured-by-extortion, bought-and-paid, or deep-cover operatives for the progressive left. If we do not throw off the yoke they’re placing across our shoulders, and soon, we will be forced to bear it until the death of our once-thriving civilization.
Let’s just get this out in the open: Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC) is a liar. On Friday, when the Senate voted on whether to end debate on the House continuing resolution, that was the ball-game. Once the number of Senators needed to amend the bill had been reduced from sixty-one to fifty-one, Reid was free to strip the de-funding language from the bill. Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC) was among the twenty-five Republican sell-outs who voted to permit Harry Reid to do so. In tweets and in an official news release, Senator Graham subsequently claimed to have voted against funding for Obama-care, when that can be true only if you ignore the first vote for cloture. The simple truth is that Lindsey Graham enabled Harry Reid to modify the bill. Now he claims to be for de-funding Obama-care. This half-truth is really a whole lie, but he will seek cover behind the latter vote. He’s busily telling his constituents that he’s opposed to Obama-care, and that he voted to de-fund it, but he’s lying through his teeth, using the procedural nuances of the United States Senate as political camouflage. Graham’s constituents need only ask him one direct question:
“Would Harry Reid have been able to amend the House continuing resolution without the support of Republicans, like you, Senator Graham?”
The true answer, indeed the only answer to this question is “no.” Anything else is an attempt to obfuscate, evade, and otherwise obscure the truth.
Here had been his tweet, just moments after the vote:
Lindsey Graham is a despicable liar. He’s hoping that the old formulation of being “for it before he was against it” will be enough to get him past his next re-election campaign, but voters of South Carolina should know that he’s lying to them, and that they now have an option. Graham is being challenged in the primaries, and it’s about time somebody holds his feet to the fire. What he’s done in the US Senate has been despicable. His lies, misrepresentations, and his unflagging support of statism have earned him an involuntary early retirement from the US Senate. It’s now up to the people of South Carolina to deliver it.
Lindsey Graham had hoped to do what twenty-four of his fellow Senate Republicans had hoped to do: Deceive voters with a shell-game. Vote for cloture, permitting the bill to be amended, followed by a vote against the amendment, as the means by which to pretend he had voted to de-fund Obama-care. The simple fact is what it is, and lying, duplicitous, back-stabbing politicians hope to trick voters with this sort of thing. It’s really just a slightly different formulation of John Kerry’s infamous “for it before I was against it” nonsense of the 2004 campaign. It’s always the same. Graham isn’t listening to the people of South Carolina, and he’s gambling that most of them aren’t paying much attention, or will be fooled by this procedural dodge.
He may get away with it if the people of South Carolina don’t take the time to examine what he’s done, but he won’t get away with it here: Senator Lindsey Graham is lying when he claims to have voted to de-fund Obama-care as his previous vote enabled Harry Reid to remove the de-funding language. This sort of behavior has become increasingly common from Senator Graham, who has supported going to war in Libya, and who has remained one of the key drivers in the Senate for the amnesty bill, leading many to refer to him simply as “Grahamnesty.” Whatever else he is, he’s neither honest, nor conservative, and it’s time he was sent home for good. Most politicians can be found to have told a whopper or two during their careers, but Graham along with the others who are pretending to have voted against funding Obama-care after enabling it to go forward are simply liars.
Editor’s note: Senator Graham is being challenged in the GOP Senate primary by Nancy Mace, who is trying to overcome the Senator in a bid to replace him in the Senate. She may represent exactly what South Carolina needs in order to get beyond Graham’s duplicitous career in which he says one thing before voters in South Carolina, and another thing while in Washington DC. As you might guess, she has a few thoughts on Senator Graham, here.
In the last several weeks, the number of analysts and columnists who have advised Republicans to accept Obama-care as the law of the land has been on the rise. One after the next, they claim in low tones that if only we will accept the fate of Obama-care “for now,” when Republicans re-take control of the Senate and the White House, we will be able to repeal Obama-care and replace it with something slightly less disastrous. Their prescription boils down to “elect more Republicans,” but I must confess that this “solution” leaves me a bit flat. After all, what good are Republicans, and how will they be elected in greater numbers if there is no effective difference between them and their supposed opponents? Instead, I have come to interpret such advice differently, because I can rely on history as my Rosetta stone: “Quit, surrender, and capitulate in a battle you cannot win because we haven’t the energy or will to fight it.” What all of these pragmatists ignore is the moral component of this fight. They forget or choose to ignore that Obama-care will have very real and often lethal consequences for Americans. It will destroy lives, families, and businesses. Even assuming we might elect more Republicans in future elections, that will not restore or repair all the lives that will have been shattered by Obama-care, and to ignore this in order to justify surrender is an impeachment of all those who advocate it.
Let us consider the first victims of this strategy of appeasement and capitulation. Already, more than one-hundred-thousand American workers have had their hours slashed in order to get below the “part-time” threshold as defined in Obama-care as thirty hours per week. If you had been a part-timer working thirty-six hours weekly, to get below the threshold, your employer will likely cut you back to twenty-nine hours. Having been schooled prior to the advent of the US Department of Education, I know that this cut represents a loss of roughly twenty percent of one’s wages. If I approached you and demanded that you surrender twenty percent of your weekly wage, you’d rightly punch me in the mouth. Which twenty percent of your income are you able to live without? This feature of Obama-care alone will result in more people subsisting on the welfare state, and more people thrust down the income ladder into poverty. On what basis can one claim that we should permit this until we elect a few more Republicans to help us undo it, when Republicans have sufficient power to stop it now?
Consider the Americans who will not find jobs because of Obama-care. Small businesses won’t be hiring despite having been the well-spring of seventy percent of new jobs in America for most of my life. More dependency. More poverty. More burdens for taxpayers. It means more shattered American lives. In the case of the young who are entering the work-force, it means arrested development in an economic sense, and it will result in more wretched conditions in young families, who generally need the health-care the least, since they’re generally healthier, but who will be held to pay for the health-care of others. What sort of hay-wire moral compass must exist in the Bermuda Triangle that makes real lives disappear into a sea of uniform numbers in Washington DC? This is abominable, but what makes it all the more ghastly is that there are those who don’t mind the tragedy if it somehow helps to elect more Republicans, though they can’t tell us why this would happen.
Imagine that the purveyors of temporary surrender are correct, and that despite any clear reason, Republicans are able to take over the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016, giving them the power to fully repeal Obama-care if they so choose. What consolation will this be to the Americans who have their lives cut short by a denial of life-saving treatment, or to their families after they’ve gone? How many more Americans will not be treated until their various afflictions become lethal because the wait for treatment had become insufferably long? How will electing more Republicans at some future date help to save them from now to the time of the supposed elections and mythical future repeal?
Barack Obama offers “if it will save only one child’s life, we must act” as justification for gun control, but such a view of Obama-care is not forth-coming despite his own cold, calculated prescription for Grandma to “take a pill.” He knows, as Congressional Republicans know, that Obama-care will lead to the deaths and suffering of millions. They even know it will not substantially change the number of uninsured, and we already know by virtue of our own premiums that it is already driving up costs. Nothing is good or right or moral about this program, and yet the advocates of appeasement and surrender continue to insist that we ought to just swallow hard and wait for a moment that may never come, particularly for those who may not now live to see it.
The advocates who tell us that we must wait on such a moment are of the same mind as those pragmatists who would not rise in opposition to slavery. They’re entrenched, but paralyzed with fear. They label their opponents “radicals” and “extremists,” and they cast aspersions at those who still revere Barry Goldwater’s 1964 declaration that “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.” It’s small wonder that they rise in anger to the well of the Senate to bemoan their comparison to the likes of Neville Chamberlain: It’s not so much a matter of comparison as it is an identification. They claim to fear a destructive civil war within the Republican party, but what they won’t mention is that they have been waging it against conservatives for decades. They demand a return to the party of Nixon, Ford, Bush and Bush while what the country urgently needs is a return to the party of Reagan and Lincoln.
I am willing to wage a civil war within the Republican party, because by my estimation, it’s already begun, and there is no way to repair it to my satisfaction by any other means but naked, political warfare. The evidence is in, and there can be no realistic expectation that the surrender-monkeys – the Vichy Republicans – are up to a needed fight, because when it comes to identifying one’s adversaries, they are nearly indistinguishable from Democrats, too frequently collaborating with them.
We must defeat this impulse to surrender, because our country and the lives and fortunes of millions of Americans are very much at stake. To take the advice of the surrender lobby is to attempt to defer a fight, the costs of which are much too high to ask a people to peaceably bear. If they will not engage now, we must battle on without them, and fight them too, or first, if they evince themselves as an obstacle to victory. There is a deep moral crisis in the Republican party, and it issues forth from the mouths and keyboards of these advocates of surrender because they expect to avoid the consequences of capitulation. For the rest of us, who know there can be no escape or safety in delay, this war must be our urgent endeavor. While they defer engagement in order to save a supposed electoral victory in a future that may never materialize, we are fighting to save the lives and liberties of real Americans in the here and now, and it’s a battle we dare not lose because it’s as much for the soul of a nation as for the individual souls we’re fighting to save.
If it wasn’t clear before, it should be clear now. Virtually every one of the Republican senators who voted Friday with Harry Reid and the Democrats for cloture had precisely one motive, and it is the thing that has caused them to rise in indignant rage against Ted Cruz, particularly, but also Mike Lee and the others who sought to stop the vote. They were unmasked as charlatans and frauds, all of them. Once Ted Cruz and Mike Lee explained to you the dirty little secret behind the fraudulent, wholly symbolic vote, there could be no way for them to carry out their fraud and deception. These guys, all of them, each and every one, can now be said to have in John Kerry-fashion been for Obamacare before they were against it, and they know it. All of them. When the vote amending the bill and stripping the House language was passed just a little while later, it was a strict party-line vote, and every Republican voted against it, knowing it would not matter, and that they could no longer stop it. The first vote required at least a few Republicans to go along, where as the second required none. This is the scam. This is the trick. Every one of these worthless RINO senators then went out to make statements claiming to have voted for defunding Obama-care, when the truth is that each of those who voted with the Democrats in the first vote actually helped to ensure it would be funded.
Simply, Ted Cruz and his twenty-one hour speech addressed this point repeatedly, revealing the true reason for the establishment’s hatred of him. They claimed to have a difference with Cruz over tactics, and they surely do: He actually wanted to stop Obama-care, but you can bet every one of these weasels who voted for it have figured out some manner or method by which to make a [larger] fortune over their involvement in the law, somewhere, somehow. They voted for cloture because they want the issue behind them, and they want to make money from the suffering of millions of Americans that will result from this law. The Democrats are already raking it in, and they wanted in on the action. We know too well from the reporting of Peter Schweizer how the Washington DC profiteers function, and it’s clear that some of these Republicans are in on the game too. The only other possibility is that they are complete and utter cowards, or Manchurian Republicans, really stealth Democrats, but no matter which, these people are dirty politicians who have betrayed you.
Here is the complete list of these charlatans and frauds:
Additionally, Orrin Hatch(R-UT)
and the aptly named Jeff Flake(R-AZ)(see editor’s note below) didn’t even vote one way or the other on cloture(the first vote) instead opting to vote only on the amended bill, at which time both of these along with the rest on this list joined the other heroic nineteen in voting “no.” After enabling the amendment, stripping the de-funding language, these rotten villains wanted the cover of a “no” vote. “I voted against stripping the de-funding language.” Yes, but only after making it possible to amend the bill at all.
I saw Senator Wicker’s statement, and it was a laughable claim to have voted for de-funding. Ditto Cornyn. In fact, in some form, nearly every one of these senators made a similar statement, and they are all liars. They get away with this because we let them. We don’t bother explaining this to our less-informed brethren, and our less-informed brethren are likely only to see the senators’ statements, if anything, and since our less-informed brethren outnumber those of us who bother by a substantial margin, these bottom-feeding charlatans are able to get by in election cycle after election cycle faking their ways through.
In fact, of the nineteen who stood and voted against cloture, there are a few of them who supported amnesty, so I will be watching them closely. Almost all of these are solid conservatives in most every issue, and if they happen to be your senators, consider yourself lucky, and if both your senators are on this list, count yourself doubly so(Alabamans, Idahoans, and Kansans):
These seemed at least reasonably sincere in their intentions, in stark contrast to the for-it-before-against-it crowd in the first list. If you want to know why Cruz and Lee are hated for this, it is precisely because they exposed the frauds among the GOP senators. None on that first list should ever be considered “conservative” by any rational standard, given this vote. I’ll tell you another thing these two list separate: Those who will be able to mount a credible run for President from those who will not. Drop those from the second list who supported amnesty, and what you will see is the list that conservatives will consider among senators who might choose to run for the White House in 2016. Given the age of a few, and the expressed lack of ambition of others, that thins the herd considerably. Any who express ambitions for higher office ought to be judged sternly on the basis of their positions in political offices beforehand.
I hope my fellow conservatives will join with me in properly contending with the sell-outs who voted for cloture, enabling Harry Reid and the Democrats to strip the de-funding language from the House continuing resolution. In the end, Obama-care will be implemented only because Republicans had refused to stand in the breach and do the hard work for which we’ve elected them. Those who took on this job, like Cruz, Lee, Sessions, and just a few others deserve our support and our respect. The rest deserve a measure of contempt at least equal to that which they have shown for us, and for the oath they had sworn. In 2014, we need to send as many of these conniving, duplicitous Senators home as we are able. I’m starting with un-Texan John Cornyn. Texans are looking for his replacement now.
What Cruz and Lee exposed is the dirty little secret of DC Republicans: They aren’t interested in fighting if they can put on a show but keep the party going. When Cruz took to the floor for twenty-one hours and nineteen minutes, he did so from a sense of duty to the promises he had made when seeking office, and from a firm belief that we ought not have meaningless, symbolic votes that offer cover to people who are factually betraying us. If you wonder why there had been such a shrill reaction from some of his Republican colleagues, this is it: He exposed them as double-dealing frauds who claimed to oppose Obama-care while actually enabling its funding. Is it any wonder McCain was on the Senate floor making a perfect ass of himself? Was it any wonder he did so with the assistance of Reid, Durbin, and Schumer? I suppose if I were a duplicitous hack like McCain, or Cornyn, I too would be mad at Ted Cruz. As it is, I thank him and Mike Lee for showing us which Senators are really on our side, but also those who are not. The effort was magnificent, and we would do well to learn all we can from it, acting accordingly in future elections.
Editor’s note: With apologies to Senator Flake, it appears he was otherwise engaged. Read the story here. Given his vote on the immigration bill, I still believe he is aptly named.
I’ve lived in Texas almost precisely one-half of my life. In that time, I think I’ve done a fair job of becoming a Texan, instead of trying to turn Texas into that which I had escaped. I’d like to thank Texans for their hospitality and patience as I’ve tried my best to assimilate. I like to say that I am an American by birth, and a Texan by choice, but the truth is that I couldn’t have become a Texan without the forbearance of natives. I’ve noticed a tendency over my years here in Texas among many immigrants to the state to immediately set about turning it into the sort of liberal bastions from which they had fled, making them little different from Mark Levin’s description: Locusts. Worse than the rank-and-file locusts are the carpetbaggers who come to Texas telling us how it ought to be more like their native states. What I’ve learned along the way to becoming a Texan(or the most reasonable facsimile a non-native can be) is that Texans don’t like to be poked and prodded with a good deal of politically-correct claptrap. “Say what’s on your mind, and move along, son.” That’s an important lesson, but I’d like to tell Texans about another class of people who may not hold their best interests at heart. These are the expatriated Texans who go to Washington DC forgetting what Texas is or what Texans hold dear. Today, I want to address one of these, who has spent a decade in Washington DC, and who is no longer a Texan, having been absorbed into the elitists’ ranks. Once upon a time, John Cornyn may have been a decent politician, but now it is clear that he isn’t really a Texan any longer, however he may have begun.
On Friday, he joined with Harry Reid,Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democrats as well as several Republican sell-outs in voting for cloture(the procedure by which debate is ended in the Senate and a vote is held) on the continuing resolution to fund government while blocking Obama-care. John Cornyn, after enabling the vote, then made a phony, impassioned speech against stripping the language from the bill that would have de-funded Obama-care. His vote for cloture enabled Harry Reid to carry out the modifications to the bill. So you see, John Cornyn will now tell Texans truthfully that he voted against funding Obamacare, but it’s only a half-truth. While being able to claim this with a straight face, the fact is that Obama-care could not have been funded had he merely remained resolute and stood with our “junior” senator Ted Cruz in opposing cloture on the bill. Whatever John Cornyn tells you from this day forward, you must know that on any and all issues, he will try to play both sides of the street, being for something before he’s against it, or being against something before he was for it. If I’ve learned anything about Texans in my twenty-four years here, it is that this is not the temperament or practice of a real Texan.
Real Texans stand for what they believe. Real Texans do not try to occupy both sides of a serious argument. Real Texans do not try to carry out a complete and utter fraud against the people in whose service they are sworn, or otherwise sully the oaths they have taken. John Cornyn has abandoned any claim to being a Texan, and since he is up for re-election in 2014, I am asking my fellow Texans, in just recognition of John Cornyn’s betrayals on this and other issues, to seek out an select an opponent worthy of replacing Mr. Cornyn as one of our two US Senators. While Ted Cruz has been busy doing us proud, John Cornyn has been busy undermining him. While Ted Cruz was fighting to defeat and defund Obama-care, John Cornyn has been back-stabbing and whipping other Republicans into supporting an affirmative vote on cloture.
This is a shameful situation. As our nation’s economy hobbles along, its latest burden in the form of Obama-care’s mandate is going to destroy what remains of the healthier segments of the economy. It is going to reduce the standard and availability of care for all Americans. It is going to result in the denial of care, not as a “bug” but as a “feature” of the program. It’s going to increase our national debt to knew heights. It’s already causing employers to cut hours for workers, and while many think that they’re somehow immune, it’s clear that many of these will soon learn otherwise. This law is so bad that they’ve exempted themselves. It’s so bad that the unions who supported it, like the Teamsters, are now in favor of repealing it, saying that they can “remain silent no longer.” All of this, John Cornyn and the other Republican sell-outs in the Senate have enabled. When you lose your health insurance or your job; your hours are cut or your treatment (or the treatment of a loved-one) is denied by Obama-care, you can blame John Cornyn as one of the conspirators in your undoing. You should know this. You must not let him get away with his duplicity.
I wanted my fellow Texans to know this, so that when in 2014, any opponent rises to challenge John Cornyn, I will get behind that candidate, and if he survives the primary process, I will vote for a Democrat. It is my long-considered conclusion that we are better off with lying Democrats who we know will be hard-core leftists than with lying Republicans who we cannot trust to abstain from betraying us. John Cornyn will hereafter be known on this site as the Un-Texan, because his behavior and maneuvering in this [and other] issues has earned him the highest contempt real Texans can muster. He will claim that it had been about a difference of opinion over tactics, but the truth is that he’s been following the lead and the advice of the DC consultancy, and he is doing now the bidding of political elements who care not for Texas or Texans. He is beyond redemption. This had been his last chance. God may forgive him, but I, for one, will not. Others may forget his betrayal, but I will not. John Cornyn must go, and I will not be satisfied until he no longer sits in high office defrauding the people of the Great State of Texas.
I am now actively seeking a prospective challenger or challengers to Mr. Cornyn, because the simple fact remains that we Texans cannot tolerate – we must not tolerate - this sort of duplicity from those who would claim to represent us. John Cornyn betrayed Texas and Texans on Friday, and then sought to cover that up with a wholly symbolic gesture. We Texans must remain people who will not prefer symbolism over substance, and we must not reward those who do. It’s time we bring John Cornyn home, so that he might re-learn what it is to be a Texan, but I fear that if we unseat him, he will remain in Washington DC in perpetuity, working for or establishing his own lobbying firm. More, I want him to live under Obama-care if the rest of us must. The fight is not over, and it’s moving to the House of Representatives, but John Cornyn has just made our fight so much harder. To Hell with John Cornyn. I will fight for Texas with real Texans!
I have never really observed Ronald Reagan’s “eleventh commandment” whereby he disclaimed the idea of speaking ill of his fellow Republicans, but it’s true to say that I avoid being unnecessarily harsh where I expect some bridges might be built. On this day, I come to you to explain why I am going to speak ill of certain Republicans in the most heartfelt, sincere manner. Watching the senior Senator from Arizona deliver his critique of Senator Cruz after his magnificent twenty-one hour speech, I couldn’t help but think how far John McCain(R-AZ) has fallen. Just five years ago, he had been the nominee of his party, a party that ultimately accepted and supported him despite the fact that he’s been a thorn in the side of conservatives for decades(and in no small measure because he chose a running mate who was dynamic and powerful.) Now John McCain appears to be nothing more than an angry old man, who once championed the idea of “maverick senator” right up until he was swallowed by the DC establishment. Now firmly entrenched in the good ol’ boys club of Washington, and accustomed to being the center of attention, McCain looked the fool on Wednesday as he belittled the efforts of Ted Cruz and other conservative Senators who decided to oppose Obama-care.
John McCain has built quite a record of opposing conservatism over the years since his presidential loss. He’s been subsumed into the general ideological quagmire of moderates like his chief adviser, Steve Schmidt, who never met an actual conservative he liked. Just a few months ago, he referred to Cruz(or those like him) as “Wackobirds.” Before that, he made a long speech mocking the “hobbits” of the Tea Party. McCain wishes to share in the control of Middle Earth these days, and he’s more than satisfied to lie down with the dogs of Obama’s encampment. He wants to bomb Syria so badly, he was willing to hang out with terrorist thugs, and he now holds conservatives in such thorough contempt that he’s willing to consider gun control measures. Now, he rushes to the defense of the DC status quo establishment in order to preserve Obamacare on the basis of the shoddy but oft-repeated argument that “Obama won.” If this is the length and breadth of the Senator’s vigor for the fight, perhaps he should simply retire. This country has no room any longer for the vigorously inept or the supinely resistant.
There are those Republicans, though not so many conservatives, who insist that one must make allowances for Senator McCain’s previous service as a pilot and a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam, but given his performance on the floor of the Senate Wednesday, I believe it’s fair to suggest that he’s used up the last of his tokens for past honorable conduct. What Senator McCain did was a crass spectacle in opposition to both the mood and the temperament of the nation, possible only because he will serve at least three-and-one-half years longer without an election. I can virtually promise you that his intemperance with respect to the grass-roots would never have made it past a primary in 2010 had he displayed such contempt for Tea Party-inclined conservatives, and the Senator knows it. In short, he faked-out the world and Arizonans in 2010 by pretending he was a conservative, when indeed, there are few conservative reflexes in Senator McCain’s body.
McCain said he took umbrage at Senator Cruz’s comparison of some to the appeasement of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain, but I must ask why Senator McCain would take offense at this at all. McCain has basically said that he is surrendering on Obama-care on the basis of an election almost eleven months ago, and that he will do nothing to oppose it. That sounds a good deal like Neville Chamberlain to me. If McCain would merely embrace Barack Obama and claim to have gained “comity in our time,” the picture would be complete. Not satisfied with that, McCain tried to drag his father and grandfather into the argument, an absurd juxtaposition that allowed him to pout and spout, but to make no sense whatever. The truth is that in his statement, McCain looked afraid, and barely cogent. His words were incoherent. He said “I resoundingly reject…”[Cruz's remarks] but I think it is clear from the aftermath of Cruz’s speech that what is being rejected resoundingly is John McCain and his ethos of capitulation. A writer less-concerned with honoring Ronald Reagan’s eleventh commandment might observe that he’s apparently accustomed to living in political captivity at the behest of communists.
I honestly cannot tell you that I’ve ever thought much of John McCain. I supported him in 2008 only after he picked a running-mate I thought might well salvage the ticket – and almost did – until John McCain’s brilliant adviser convinced the Senator to suspend the campaign to return to Washington to “confront the financial crisis” in which he was factually almost entirely powerless to act. McCain may well enjoy deriding and defaming actual conservatives, but what I find more egregious is his contention that since Barack Obama won, conservatives in and out of Washington DC ought to surrender to his agenda. Last I checked, Ted Cruz also won in 2012, and as I remember from the 2012 campaign, nobody talked about Obama-care except conservatives, in part because the GOP nominee had inflicted a similar program on Massachusetts, and also because Obama himself didn’t want to talk about it. Besides, nearly a year having elapsed, the facts or at least the opinion the American people hold about them have changed, and as more facts come to light about the consequences, Senator McCain should be taking heed to the catastrophic effects of the law.
I don’t know why Senator John McCain is so intent on destroying conservatives and conservatism, but he is. It could be that he feels most fulfilled when being treated by the establishment media as their favorite pet Republican. Even the speech he made in the Senate on Wednesday was arranged by Democrats. I wonder if he’s simply just another Arlen Specter-like liberal who has been posing as a Republican. Whatever the motive, his speech of Wednesday dishonors whatever good he had done in his service to the country, while openly disavowing any claim he has made to conservatism. With respect to John McCain as well as Barack Obama, 2016 cannot possibly come soon enough. It’s time to retire this oaf.
It seems like a day doesn’t elapse without catching a glimpse of Karl Rove and his whiteboards on FoxNews. From the sounds of things, you might come to think he’s in charge of something at the GOP. Unfortunately, while he holds no official office, he’s always working on behalf of his patrons in the party, and he serves the interests of the surrender-monkey wing of the Republican party. Steve Schmidt, the architect of McCain’s loss in 2008, is another example of the sort of consultant with which DC Republicans seem to surround themselves. Schmidt is still bitter over his 2008 defeat, and he blames much of it on Sarah Palin. The truth is that she was the only good thing about the ticket, and exit-polling demonstrated quite clearly at the time that McCain would have done far worse without her on the ticket. It was Schmidt’s bright idea to have McCain suspend his campaign, and that was precisely the root of the collapse in McCain’s support. Looking to blame his own strategic failings on somebody – anybody – Schmidt is still on the Palin-hater bandwagon because to regain any credibility in his profession, he must shift blame to somebody else. These consultants are one of the biggest problems grass-roots conservatives face because they tend to turn candidates against their base, and wonder why they lose.
In an epic rant for Politico, McCain adviser and professional boot-licker Steve Schmidt claimed to feel “deep regret” for helping to fuel the creation of a “freak show” wing of the GOP. By “freak show” wing, he means you and I. He means real conservatives. He is referencing those who rose under the general label of “Tea Party.” Most of all, in singling out somebody that personifies what he termed “asininity,” he means Sarah Palin. Said Schmidt:
“For the last couple of years, we’ve had this wing of the party running roughshod over the rest of the party. Tossing out terms like RINO saying we’re going to purge, you know, the moderates out of the party,” Schmidt said. “We’ve lost five U.S. Senate seats over the last two election cycles. And fundamentally we need Republicans, whether they’re running for president, whether they’re in the leadership of the Congress, to stand up against a lot of this asininity.”
“You finally you saw it with Ted Cruz. Maybe he was the one that who’s got a bridge too far,” Schmidt said. “Maybe we’ll start seeing our elected leaders stop being intimidated by this nonsense, have the nerve, have the guts to stand up and … to fight to take conservatism’s good name back from the freak show that’s been running wild for four years and that I have deep regret in my part, certainly, in initiating.”
Psssst. Hey Steve! We should purge you from the party, since there seems to be no other way to have you shut up and go away. Massive failure doesn’t seem to convince you. Frankly, the reason Republicans lose elections is because they listen to jerks like Schmidt who view actual conservatives as the problem. You see, Schmidt doesn’t recognize actual conservatism, but instead views “conservatism” as a label to be shifted onto his clients who in no way match the meaning of the term. If one wishes to see this at work, consider only the Bush campaigns of 2000 and 2004. Here, you had Rove positioning Bush as a “compassionate conservative,” when it was evident(or should have been) that Bush wasn’t conservative, and that he would wreck actual conservatism by the false association. In 2006, when Republicans lost the Congress, it was on the basis of this bastardized notion of conservatism. The Republicans lost control of Congress because under Bush, they were spending just like big-spending Democrats. It had been consultants like Schmidt and Rove who led the GOP to that and subsequent defeats.
If you want to know what constitutes a real freak-show in the Republican party, it is the unparalleled spectacle of hucksters in the consultancy class attempting to pass off moderates as conservatives. It is the inglorious pinnacle of asininity to pretend now that John McCain is conservative, and even more galling to pretend that his policy positions represent conservative principles, and yet con-men like Schmidt labor endlessly to carry out that fraud. When McCain was up for re-election in 2010, you may remember that the McCain camp had no problem soliciting the help of Sarah Palin, but now they betray her with this nonsense about “freak show” and alleged “asininity.” McCain might have been beat in the 2010 primaries without her, but does that fact earn even the smallest bit of respect from a hateful little troll like Schmidt? No. You see, in his book, it’s all about him. Admitting that Sarah Palin did more to boost either McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, or his 2010 Senatorial re-election campaign would be to admit that Schmidt is entirely useless, never mind the candidate in question.
The fact of the matter is that Schmidt and those in the consultancy class like Rove, who infamously once claimed that Palin’s endorsement wasn’t “worth snot” don’t have any credibility. For all their alleged gifts and talents as political analysts, advisers, and consultants, they don’t seem to have produced results to scale of their fame. Bush barely managed to prevail over Al Gore in 2000, relying on the electoral college, and in 2004, what should have been a walk-over victory was uncomfortably close against John Kerry, a man who should never be let near the oval office. Worse, under the guidance of Rove, in 2006, Republicans lost the Congress, permitting Barack Obama to have both Houses in 2009. We wouldn’t even be talking about Obama-care had the Republicans not joined Democrats in spending like drunks in support of the George W. Bush spending priorities, which had been massive.
It was the participation of Republicans like McCain in the Amnesty kerfuffle of 2007 that helped keep the Republicans in the wilderness too, another great idea from the consultancy wing of the party. How did that work out for us? Democrats kept control of Congress, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made sure we’d have Obama-care so we could learn what was in it. We’re learning, and the real lesson we conservatives must take is that these professional beltway consultants and advisers are leading us off a cliff.
There’s no way around it. If we listen to the likes of Schmidt or Rove, we’re taking advice from people who don’t have our interests at heart. They’re profiteers on the political process, and they ply their trade by linguistic manipulations. It’s no surprising that they work hardest to protect their own images, and will stab anybody in the back in order to preserve their own reputations. In the end, they’re only accountable inasmuch as their political patrons are held accountable. They aren’t elected, and they never pay the price for shafting the American people. They are insulated from our direct anger as voters, and they always seem to move on to new patrons if their existing ones fall out of favor with voters. As long as they’re setting the direction of the Republican party, one shouldn’t expect that the GOP will be friendly to actual conservatives. They don’t care about our principles, as they pursue profit and power at our expense. If the last decade has taught us anything, it should be that it is we who are forced to pay for their failures. Noticing that fact will brand you as part of a “freak show.”
A report came to light on Tuesday morning from Breitbart.com detailing the maneuvers being used by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to fully fund Obama-care. John Cornyn(R-TX) serves as minority whip, and in that capacity, he is helping McConnell in an effort to undermine the efforts of Ted Cruz(R-TX). This instance demonstrates perfectly the sort of back-stabbing that goes on in Republican leadership in Washington DC. While Cruz fights to stop the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obama-care, his colleague and fellow Republican from Texas is working against him. In 2014, when Cornyn comes up for re-election in the Lone Star state, I will support nearly any primary challenger. Texans can’t afford six more years of fake conservatism. Cornyn also supports the immigration reform bill, and on other issues important to conservatives, he’s been either invisible or in opposition. Cornyn is no conservative, and it’s time we Texans brought him home. We mustn’t let the Vichy Republicans run the GOP any longer, because they undermine the work of real conservatives, who are actively working to forestall the disaster that is Obama-care.
When one observes such behavior from a self-proclaimed conservative like Cornyn, it’s easy to understand why conservatism continues to take a beating. We permit people like Cornyn to represent us, but the truth is that he’s another Washington elitist who has no regard for his fellow Texans. In fact, during his tenure in the Senate, Cornyn has worked against conservatives on a number of issues, and his attitude has reflected a certain contempt for grass-roots conservatives. Meanwhile, Cruz is fighting. We conservatives like those who will fight for our principles, and in this case, while McConnell and Cornyn follow the advice of Karl Rove, Cruz is out front along with Mike Lee(R-UT) fighting to stop a national catastrophe.
At stake is the future of the country. If Obama-care is permitted to be fully implemented, we will have in place one more massive entitlement program that will bankrupt the country. It’s already driving businesses to curtail hours, and to avoid hiring full-time employees. It will have tax consequences that are far outside the bounds of what most Americans had expected, and it will crush economic activity in general. It’s already happening, even before the program has been fully implemented. If we don’t find a way to slay this dragon, we will lose the country.
I would urge my readers, particularly my fellow Texans, to call their senators and demand that Obama-care be de-funded. At this late date, it is the last thing that can be done short of full repeal. Disclosed yesterday, a Pew Research poll shows that the “blame” for any government shutdown will go equally to Republicans and Democrats, so there’s no need to fear any of this. If anything, this should buttress arguments of conservatives who assert that fighting this law is a winning issue for Republicans. In 1995, during that infamous shutdown, Republicans were overwhelmingly blamed, however it should also be noted that they gained two seats in the Senate in 1996., losing two in the House, but hanging onto their majority for the first time in more than one-half century.
As Sarah Palin explained in an op-ed on Sunday, Cruz is “over the target” on Obama-care, and it should be a matter of “bombs-away.” The American people don’t want this law, and Democrat talking points aside, it is as weak a proposition as ever. People are seeing their insurance premiums skyrocket, they’re watching their physicians retire out of exasperation, and they’re losing their jobs, or seeing their hours cut. Even the unions aren’t very happy, because Obama-care is a job-destroyer.
The tricksters of the GOP establishment are trying to sabotage the efforts of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Mitch McConnell is the sorriest example of a Republican leader we’ve had in the Senate for some time, and now he’s playing parliamentary games in order to prevent Cruz from succeeding while still giving Republicans a chance to make a symbolic vote against Obama-care. It’s time we put an end to this nonsense. McConnell and his sidekick Cornyn are attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. These “Vichy Republicans” are the bane of conservatism, and given what Obama-care will do to the country, surely of all Americans. Call your senators. Call every Senator. De-funding Obama-care isn’t a game. It’s life or death for millions of Americans, their jobs, and the country at large.
Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
If you are a Texan, you can call this rattlesnake and let him know we’ve got his number: John Cornyn (202) 224-2934 If you want to take a crack at Vichy Republican Leader McConnell, here’s his number: (202) 224-2541
The message went out from the establishment intelligentsia: Link Syria to Iran and talk about the Iranian nuclear weapons program, and more in Congress will buy it. John Boehner continues to “lead” House Republicans into President Obama’s pocket, as the word circulated that if a House vote on the use of force looked like a loser, they would spare Obama the embarrassment by simply tabling the matter. Why are House Republican leaders seeking to spare Barack Obama the humiliation of losing a vote on anything? If Boehner were any kind of opposition leader, he would revel in it. The plain truth of the matter is that one can imagine a vital US interest in Syria’s civil war by the most contorted linguistic machinations. We, the American people, have no interests there, and as polls reveal, we damned-well know it.
John McCain(R-AZ) can shout down detractors at town hall meetings all he likes, but simply put, the Senator is representing somebody the interests of somebody else when he advocates sending American forces to attack Syria. Karl Rove is pushing, and all the rest of the DC intelligentsia is demanding a war on Syrian dictator (until recently referred to simply as “President”) Bashar Assad. What is Assad’s grave crime? Allegedly, forces under his command employed chemical nerve agent(s) against some number of civilians, estimated by the media in the range of 1,400. Meanwhile, in the last two years, under the horrors of civil war, nearly 100,000 people have perished. The calculation in use by Washington DC is that because Assad is alleged to have crossed this “red line,” employing these weapons of mass destruction, he must be punished(and ejected or killed) while they deny being after regime change.
Civilian death is horrible, but it is also an ugly and sometimes unavoidable reality of war. The US has bombed civilians into oblivion in every war since the advent of the airplane. We excused those deaths as unavoidable “collateral damage.” I don’t believe the method much matters. This is another instance of Washington DC imposing its morality on the rest of us. In 1994 Rawanda, when an estimated one-million Tutsi were murdered by the Hutus, nobody in Washington DC batted an eye. You see, they weren’t slaughtered with chemical weapons, but in the main by Hutus wielding machetes. Once again, the Washington DC establishment is more concerned with the weapon than the fact that people died. More Americans will die prematurely as a result of Obama-care than have died in Syria as a result of chemical weapons. Can we consider Congress and the President war criminals too?If chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, what then must we call Obama-care? It’s a legalized genocide machine, but nobody in the DC establishment seems the least bit perturbed by it.
For his part, President Obama has conducted his foreign policy like a lunatic. Since he’s a looney-tunes leftist, this isn’t much of a surprise, but what has been more maddening is the voices of establishment Republicans rushing in to support him. Most notable among these is that daft bugger with an anger-management issue from Arizona, who cannot wait to oust dictators in the Islamic world in order to replace them with even worse enemies of freedom in the form of al-Qaeda and its affiliate groups. What sort of madman would demand a replacement of a known quantity of evil with a potentially more vast one? John McCain believes apparently that any change is good change.
In fact, it seems as though McCain has been on a mission to sabotage the American people. Some will cite his status as a war hero when excusing his bizarre policy positions in favor of illegal immigration, restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of Americans, as well as the First Amendment rights against which he legislated(McCain-Feingold.) Frankly, it doesn’t much matter whether he’s incompetent or nefarious. The fact is that his open support of this President’s anti-American agenda is all that one needs to know that something is wrong with McCain. McCain was openly challenged by Arizonans at his town-hall meeting this week. Every one of his detractors appeared more sensible than did the Senator. While some think he’s senile, I think it’s worse than a touch of dementia.
The fact is that John McCain has joined the DC establishment-class at least a decade-and-one-half ago, as he sought the GOP nomination for President in 2000. His treatment of the American people is driven by apparent disdain, and his contempt for plain old American values is shocking. Why would he impel our country to intervene on behalf of rebels who are linked to the people who attacked us throughout the 1990s and particularly on 9/11/2001? There are plenty of conspiracy theories, naturally, but whatever his reasons, they simply don’t add up in the manner he’s pitching them. Of course, it’s more than John McCain.
The entire DC establishment wants this war. As our economy careens toward a cliff, and as Washington DC inflates our money while preparing to stiff us on amnesty/illegal immigration and the funding of the WMD known as Obama-care, they want us watching Syria. After all, if people in a town-hall are clobbering McCain over Syria, they’re not clobbering him over immigration or Obama-care. I’m not suggesting that Syria is entirely a distraction, except that as creatures of opportunity, the establishment doesn’t mind using it that way. Once again, however, the people who run this country are pushing an agenda the American people largely oppose. Obama-care, amnesty, and military action in Syria are all things to which the citizens of this nation currently stand opposed.
It is for this reason that Iran and its nuclear weapons have now resurfaced as an issue linked to Syrian action. Meanwhile, the people in Washington continue to angle for the creation of a vast new caliphate spanning the Islamic world, and they’re willing to use US forces as the mercenaries in that pursuit, as the Saudis and others offer to pay for the costs of removing Assad. It’s become so bizarre that McCain claimed “Allahu Akbar” means “thank God.” Literally translated as the battle-cry it has been, it means “Allah is greater[than your God.]“ For those who have bought the misplaced notion that Islam worships the same god as Christians and Jews, this might pass the sniff-test, but for those who have studied the matter, McCain’s comment reeks of a naiveté or blatant dishonesty, either of which represents a clear and present danger to our country.
We have no business in Syria, never mind assisting the radical elements there. 1,400 civilians have been killed allegedly by chemical weapons, allegedly employed by Assad, but the American people have seen no evidence. Instead, the DC establishment chatters about “intelligence briefings” as if the same people who didn’t prevent 9/11 are some sort of omniscient Oracle that knows, or that having seen such alleged intelligence, we, the American people ought simply to believe them, and accept it without further discussion. Honestly, we’ve been here before.
While Washington DC prepares for war against Assad, we should remain mindful that the government is largely in a war against us. No longer interested in serving the interests of the American people, and no longer bothered by that fact being obvious, they intend to have their war whatever we may think about it. Just like Obama-care, and exactly like amnesty. It’s all part of one war: Washington DC against us.
It should come as no surprise to conservatives that we’re being shafted on virtually every issue by some gang-of-eight or other assembly of Republicans who simply will not stand up to the Democrats. Normally, I don’t spend much time guessing at their motives, instead tending to examine the results of their positions. I don’t necessarily assume that our GOP establishment opponents are evil, but merely misguided. This view has been changing, because the more closely I examine their positions, the more baffled I become by any logical standard of measurement. The problem is that discovering their motive has become increasingly important to the prospect of defeating them. If we understood what it is that they’re after, we might find it somewhat easier to beat them or make them irrelevant. Sadly, I have begun to conclude that my worst fears may be true. The GOP’s establishment wing clearly runs the show, leading us to perpetual defeat. It is time to ask ourselves why by considering the issues on which they’ve abandoned conservatism.
My first question must go to folks like Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan(R-WI) on the issue of immigration reform: “Are you stupid?” I know this will seem a bit blunt to some people, but it’s a sincere question. The Senate Gang-of-Tr8ors bill offers to create between twelve and thirty million new citizens over the coming decade. We already know that the overwhelming majority of them will be Latinos of Mexican origin, and that their tendency is to vote for the Democrats by a seven-to-two ratio or worse, once they become eligible. What sort of complete and utter moron must one be to believe this could in any way redound to the benefit of the Republican party, conservatism, or even our nation’s future? Given the stance of Ryan and his cohorts, we are left to conclude that there can be only two things driving their position. Either they are among the most pathetically irrational and moronic persons, or they must know what will happen and wish to gain that result. There are no alternatives.
On the issue of the budget, the establishment Republicans insist that we must support Paul Ryan’s pathetic, tinkering attempt at reform, even though it establishes no concrete foundation of reform, instead promising to reduce the rate of growth of the deficit, but not arresting it entirely, never mind addressing the mounting debt. More, when you call members of the House or Senate to demand an explanation as to how the official National Debt count has been stuck for two months running, despite the fact that the government is taking on more debt, none of the Republican members seem all too interested in finding an explanation. Once again, we are confronted with the question: Are these people simply oblivious? Why aren’t they screaming at the top of their lungs? Here you have an administration that is exceeding the statutory debt limit by billions of dollars, and in order to disguise it, they’ve stopped the debt clock. Other than the frozen clock, they’ve continued business as usual. What good is a sequestration of funds? What good is a debt limit fight if the guys who must engage have already surrendered? Do you believe for one moment that Paul Ryan or the rest of the RINO phalanx in Washington DC is unaware? Do you believe they are so incompetent as to miss the significance of these Treasury Department actions? It is either true that they are so incompetent that we must for the good of the nation replace them, or they are willing to let Obama do what he’s doing, in which case we must be rid of them for the same reason.
I have said many times that it doesn’t really matter whether they’re simply foolish or guilty of collusion, but I’ve come to change my view on this. One can’t forgive negligence born of incompetence, but one must punish willful misdeeds more harshly as a warning to other would-be scoff-laws. It’s a matter of intent. Are the establishment Republicans in Washington DC, under the “leadership” of John Boehner(R-OH,) Mitch McConnell(R-OH,) and all the other big-government Republicans simply guilty of foolishness and incompetence, or is their behavior evidence of malice? This is the ugly question we must ask ourselves, because we may choose one or the other alternative postulate, but never both.
It’s now clear to me that the Republican party as expressed by its “leaders” in Washington DC is in open collusion with the Democrats and President Obama. There is no other way to explain their willingness to go along, knowing what the results will be. On Benghazi, they help the Democrats obfuscate, and on the IRS scandal, they gum up the works, but on legislative matters of significance, they are lending an assist to Democrats: On immigration, the budget and debt ceiling, the funding of Obama-care, and a range of somewhat less significant issues at the moment, they are not merely capitulating, but assisting the Democrats. They must be either the largest collection of stupid people in any government on the planet, or they intend the results their efforts are obtaining. It cannot be both.
A conservative must now ask with pointed clarity: Does it matter if John Boehner or some lunatic Democrat wins his seat in 2014? Does it matter in the least if Lamar Alexander or some Tennessee Democrat wins that Senate seat in 2014? The answer is yes: The prospective Democrat in either case is at least being honest about his or her intentions, in the main, at least to the degree that by running as Democrats, we voters may make an accurate guess about what sort of legislation will result. This cannot be said of the RINOs in the GOP. By running as Republicans, there has been at least the implicit idea that such candidates will oppose statism, but that simply hasn’t been the case. If ever there had been a time in American history when the willingness of voters to be true to themselves was the most critical aspect of their political activism and engagement, now must be that time. We must admit in the open what we have long suspected: The establishment wing of the GOP consists of traitors to every value and ideal we hold sacred, because they are in open collusion with those who are actively seeking the destruction of our country.
Make no mistake about it: They want the destruction too.
I take some knocks from a few of the haughty sorts of Republican who believe the conservative base of the GOP mustn’t be trusted with leadership. In their view, riffraff like me are simply “too extreme” (read: consistent) to be taken seriously. Their shills head out onto to television to offer the best thinking of the establishment’s intelligentsia, but despite their theorizing, and their whiteboards, they simply don’t understand why the average conservative can’t see things their way. One of the things that causes some eye-rolling amongst the “elites” in my own locality is to mention my ongoing, unwavering support of Sarah Palin. In their view, she epitomizes the sort of conservatism they abhor: Honest, plain-spoken, and trustworthy fighters who tend not to bite their tongues. In this context, as the eyes roll, I hear in response: “Oh, that makes perfect sense.” On Greta’s show on FoxNews last night, Governor Palin displayed these simple virtues that make GOP establishment hacks roll their eyes. On full display was a white envelope, covered in the names of scandals surrounding Barack Obama. In open mockery of Karl “Tokyo” Rove, she called it her “redneck whiteboard.” Here’s the video:
One can only imagine how this went over within the confines of the Republican establishment’s inner circle. Gov. Palin’s plain-spoken truth on the matter is why despite the eye-rolling of the Republican elite, the conservative base of the party supports the former Alaska governor. Her message is much too rare in GOP circles, and while the establishment in Washington DC helps to delay and obfuscate on Barack Obama’s behalf, the truth out in fly-over country is that the American people want the answers on all those issues listed on Palin’s “redneck whiteboard,” and despite the assistance of certain Republicans in helping to cover them, eventually, we’re going to have at the truth. One might run out the clock on this administration, but one cannot run out the clock on the truth. Governor Palin rightly points out that the 2008 McCain campaign failed to make an issue of any of the negative material swirling around Barack Obama, ultimately forbidding her from raising questions about his personal history on the campaign trail. How can anybody be expected to win when they’re fighting with one hand tied? Governor Palin is right: It’s time to deal with these scandals, and Barack Obama should be ashamed for pretending they are all phony, when it’s clear there is so much more to these matters.
Observing the fight within the Republican Party over funding Obama-care, one might come to understand how thoroughly broken is the moral state of so many politicians. One might also begin to grasp the fullness of the amoral position of political advisers and analysts, who help to shape the debate while bearing none of the consequences for its outcome. The proposition advanced by Karl Rove and the hapless congressional Republicans who drink his brand of kool-aid is that threatening a government shutdown over the funding of Obama-care is dumb, since in their expressed view, it will somehow “collapse under its own weight.” I wish to direct your attention to the ethical position of this group of moral defaulters, and what it says of their view of fellow Americans, even if we take them to be sincere: They are willing to see billions or trillions of dollars wasted in order that the program will “collapse on its own.” There is a certain cowardice attached to this sentiment, but more, it speaks to a deep depravity that is part and parcel of their notion of governance: They wish for you to believe that “triumph” may be had by a moral default that will destroy the lives of millions.
Naturally, given the advocates of this position, one is right to wonder in the first instance how sincere they may be. After all, it is not exactly a state secret that many of these Republicans and their puppet-masters will make out like bandits from the implementation of Obama-care. If the program collapses in the end, it won’t matter because it will have been during the implementation phase that they had made off with the loot. Contracts of every description are being made between the federal government and vendors, so that a huge sum of money is flowing directly from the Treasury into the hands of cronies who are filling their pockets with cash. Not nearly all of those cronies are Democrats. For this reason alone, it is wise to suspect the sincerity of Rove and others like him who wish to continue implementing Obama-care on the basis that its collapse is allegedly nigh.
Taking them at their word, momentarily, let us imagine that they’re clean and pure as the wind-driven snow. Let us imagine that they’re not filling their pockets with as much Obama-care implementation cash as their pockets and the pockets of their friends can hold. Let us further stipulate that they may sincerely believe that Obama-care is so obnoxious to liberty and so burdensome to economic prosperity that it will be crushed under its own weight. Even if this is so, what can one say about the moral depravity of a person who stands aside as a children play with matches having doused themselves with gasoline? Is it possible to later claim that one hadn’t possessed some responsibility to intervene and to stop the certain disaster?
If and when Obama-care “collapses under its own weight,” I suspect this crowd will show up on television to gloat and to proclaim themselves “right.” It will be an empty victory dance to be sure, since along the path from the passage of the Affordable Care Act to the supposed collapse, trillions of dollars will have been wasted on implementing a bad idea, trillions of dollars in economic activity will have been suppressed, and real people will have their lives shattered or ended if they happen to lose life’s lottery and come to need substantial health services during the period Obama-care remains in effect. How many tax-payers dollars will have been squandered? How many people will endure extended, protracted poverty because they were unable to obtain full-time employment because companies will restrict workers to twenty-nine hours per week? How many will run head-long into those death panels Sarah Palin predicted while her critics chortled, only to later admit that rationing is a primary goal of Obama-care? How does one perceive victory in any of this?
When Senatorial lemmings like Richard Burr(R-NC) suggest that Mike Lee’s(R-UT) intention to fight Obama-care by de-funding it even at the cost of a government shutdown is the “dumbest idea” he’s ever heard, what one can detect in his further explanation with laments about 1995 is the pulse of a coward who hopes to escape the difficulty of taking a solid position, instead hoping to win by default. This man and all those like him, including Rep. Tom Cole(R-OK) hope to avoid controversy and avoid any political blame, but I must demand that they take the blame for failing to stop what they admit they already know will be a catastrophe.
I blame each and every Republican, whether elected or instead part of the consultancy class, because these alleged “leaders” who by their own statements on the terminal estimates of Obama-care, know full and well that it is a calamity. By standing up and being counted now, they could help the country to avoid the grotesque spectacle of a health-care law that is certain to fail and cause untold suffering for millions, perhaps tens of millions, but they are not haunted into action by the ghosts of their future victims. This disease that pervades Washington DC and its professional consultancy permits them to imagine they will be insulated from judgment, but every American, whether they had supported Obama-care, or instead like the vast majority who opposed its passage and implementation will have known or ought to have known that these default-merchants are really amoral merchants of death.
There is no moral abstention possible in a matter in which the lives and financial futures of three-hundred million Americans are at stake, and the outcome is already known. They claim to sincerely believe that it will collapse, but even if we imagine that they are not filling their pockets from the mad scramble to implement this program, these people claim to understand what a disaster the Affordable Care Act will be, so that they have a responsibility to act. Instead, what we get from these political cowards and opportunists is a dance of default, hoping to celebrate on the ashes of a program that will have destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth for average Americans and prematurely ended the lives of so many who need not have gone to their graves so soon. When I see the grinning face of the rotund, balding and bespectacled carnival-barker on FoxNews, holding up his whiteboard while advocating the acceptance of an onrushing disaster we should have avoided, I know I am seeing the Devil incarnate, because what he demands that we accept is a vast slaughter of Americans and their wealth so he can later claim: “It told you so.”
“Winning” by that sort of default is no victory. If conservatives wish to take the moral high road, we must first discard this shoddy notion of “triumph by default,” deciding instead to fight against this as the last living defenders of ourselves and our fellow man, knowing that if it does collapse under its own weight, Obama-care will crush the lives of millions. Worse yet, what will the wreckage be if it doesn’t collapse? Rove and his acolytes never answer this question, but it is one we must confront as we consider his advice. If the road to Hell is paved with allegedly good intentions, then the speed at which we travel down it will have been determined by our own moral default.
At the end of the road, you may pass a welcoming man with a whiteboard.
There has been a great deal of discussion over the last week concerning the remarks made by Governor Palin in answer to a question from Josh Painter, regarding the possibility of a new party to supplant the GOP. As Steve Deace covers in his own cost/benefit analysis of the idea, there are a few practical considerations to leaving the Republican Party that make for a gargantuan series of problems, including effectively surrendering the whole governance of the country to the Democrats in the short run. As Deace also explains quite effectively, if we don’t change the direction of the country, it won’t matter much because with the current supine and tepid leadership of the GOP, we have arrived already in that effective condition. What opposition to the Obama agenda do conservatives see from the GOP? There has been little evident among establishment Republicans, often behaving more like collaborators than opponents. This conflict has been a long time in coming, but I believe we must face it squarely or surrender to statism. If we are going to conquer our political foes, we must clean up our own house, refusing to abandon it to the slumlords of the GOP establishment. For once, let us do the unexpected, turning tables on them: We must build a party within the Party as the means by which to take it over, but this time, for keeps.
Ever since the days of the progressive era, there has been a class of Republicans the members of which don’t hold republican ideals. Their manner of coming to dominate the GOP was a form of stealthy infiltration and guile. They looked like conservatives, and they used many of the appropriate conservative buzzwords in speeches and articles, so that it was somewhat harder to recognize them. They gained influence by building their own parallel mechanisms within the Republican Party, all aimed at supplanting conservative ideology and philosophy with their own. Cronies were inserted all up and down the Republican totem pole, giving them vast power with which to override any conservative sentiments. Time after time, they managed to keep conservatives out, and the few times they failed, they almost always managed to sabotage them somehow. When Barry Goldwater(R-AZ) sought the Republican nomination in 1964, they submarined him, the Rockefeller Republicans withdrawing virtually all support, barely managing to pretend they would support Barry Goldwater.
In 1980, the same crowd finally lost another round of the RNC nomination fight, having nearly lost it four years earlier. Ronald Reagan wasn’t getting much establishment support early on, even immediately after the nominating convention, but when they saw that the train was going to leave the station without them, they hurried to climb aboard, pointing to moderate VP choice George HW Bush as the thing that made Reagan “tolerable.” The truth is, they saw Reagan as a plausible vehicle to install their own people at the highest levels of government, for later use, but also as a way to confound and steer the Reagan administration. America would have its first conservative president in generations, but the establishment Republicans were going to use every bit of influence they could to turn it to their advantage. They did this as they always do, establishing their own chain of cooperation and control within the Reagan administration. The amnesty bill of 1986 was probably the greatest evidence of their scheming, a bill that contributed to the loss of Republican control of the Senate that year by depressing conservative turnout, much as what happened in 2006 when Republicans lost the Congress after that year’s amnesty attempt.
We conservatives should take a few lessons from this, and I believe if we’re attentive to the details, it will be easier to understand what must be done and how we must do it. Others have written extensively about how to carry out a virtual overthrow inside the Republican Party, so I won’t expend too much of your time on that. Instead, I wish to talk about the character of what you must do. What we need is a party within the party. Rather than trying to become our own free-standing party, a solution we already know will take many years and even decades to complete, let us create a subset of the Republican Party and we can call it the “Freedom Faction.” Freedom of association being what it is, I’m sure the Republican Party won’t mind if some of its members are simultaneously members of another group over which they have no control. Well, perhaps they will not mind too much, but if they do, to devil with them. They’re who we mean to defeat firstly.
This is what the Tea Parties has been, with the singular distinction that they were not officially a subset of the Republican Party, and did not seek to be. This has permitted them independence of action and advocacy, which is a critical thing common-sense conservatives need, but it is also a detriment inasmuch as it is more difficult for them to guide the direction of the GOP. In fact, most of us who are most desperately frustrated with the direction of the Republican Party are precisely the Tea Party folk, meaning many can merely adopt the “Freedom Faction” and move in. My point is that despite all that has been said about the Tea Party, many of them soldier on in spite of the way they’ve been treated by Democrats and Republicans alike. The left likes to say that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” so since they consider Tea Partiers “terrorists,” let us instead be freedom-fighters. That’s what we really are, and that’s what our movement must embrace. We’re small “r” republicans who constitute the Freedom Faction of the Republican Party. It was always our party, despite the RINOs and the establishment hacks, and it can still be our party if we simply act to take it back, but to do so, we’ll need to build a party within the party so that as insurgents, we can place our own in the places of influence.
The Republican Party is willing to except Democrats in open primary states to help them select establishment nominees, and since they haven’t demonstrated the will to stop that, I doubt they’ll muster the sentiment to stop us, although we do pose the larger threat. What do my small “r” republican readers think? Is it time to build our Freedom Faction and use it as a platform from which to recapture our party? It will take discipline, teamwork, and a broad coordination, all things of which we are capable, but which are are somewhat alien to our general dispositions. We are demonstrably an independent lot. The establishment will know something is afoot, and they will try to thwart us, but we have an advantage demonstrated by Romney’s miserable election day ground-game: We’re more agile and fluid, while they are grinding cogs in a hopelessly malfunctioning machine. They won’t want us. They don’t have a choice. Will they show their true colors and banish us from the party? Not likely. Will they try to control, infiltrate and sabotage us? Absolutely. Will they send Karl “Tokyo” Rove to attack us? I can’t wait.
If a party is free to makes its own rules, it seems to me that a party within a party should be able to do the same. The establishment Republicans never seemed to have a problem setting up rules and procedures to their liking, or rigging conventions four years in advance. Of course, I’ve never built a party before, though I may have a few useful ideas. Nevertheless, to bring this to fruition will take more than one anonymous curmudgeon on a blog site. If you’re interested, let me know at firstname.lastname@example.org. I’d love to read your ideas! Some of you have decades of experience in local political activism, so that your wisdom will be needed by younger activists who wish to establish a Freedom Faction. If we hope to take control of the Republican Party, while avoiding the daunting problems of simply abandoning it for a new party, I think building an explicit faction within the party is a great idea. After all, that’s what the establishment, RINO Republicans have been doing to us for ages. Is it not time to turn tables?
The DC insiders say the Tea Party is dead, but I don’t believe that. I think they’re about to run into a “Tea Party” the likes of which they’ve never imagined, and it may just be out to clean up Washington DC with a vengeance.
I’m a conservative, and I’m also a “republican,” but I am the latter only in the sense of a lower-case “r.” I believe in the republican form of government promised in Article IV, section 4, of the US Constitution. Many Republicans (members of the political party) seem to be confused about what this means, and I suppose it is only fair to make them aware of the distinctions between the things many current Republicans now advocate that violate the platform and the principles of republicanism that their party claims to uphold. Those who become confused about what it means to be a RINO (“Republican In Name Only”) need only consider the small “r” form of the word. It’s easy to fill out a voter registration card and check the box beside the word “Republican,” but it’s another matter entirely to know what is republicanism. As we debate issues of critical import to the future of the nation, it’s more important than ever that conservatives know what it is they are fighting, and what form it takes. The outcome of 2014 and 2016 will set the course of the nation for generations, and we must win it. This is the heart of the battle between the so-called RINOs and we constitutional conservatives, and it will determine our nation’s future.
One of the concepts that has long been associated with republicanism is that we hold in disdain the notion of a “ruling class,” a presumptively superior elite who by virtue of some unknown mechanism somehow know better than the rest of us with respect to how we ought to be governed. Indeed, when our republic was established, it was with the experience of a people who had freed themselves from the bonds of a King, who claimed his right to rule over us by virtue of his station of birth. I do not doubt that some people are superior to others in some particular way, but nearly everybody can claim some attribute in which they are superior to most others. Some of that is a result of education, experience and training, while some of it results from pure genetic gifts. There is no gene, however, that entitles one man to rule over others. There exists no family lineage in America that can rightly claim to exercise a disproportionate power over the affairs of nations and men. We do not have kings, and while there were a few in early America who advocated for a monarchy, the broad body of the American people rejected the idea as an apostasy aimed at thwarting the very revolution in which they had only so recently succeeded.
The only thing I hold in greater contempt than the man (or woman) who would claim the right to rule over me by virtue of family lineage or family station(a.k.a. “nobility”) is the poor, twisted soul who would consent to such a proposition. I am no person’s chattel, and I abhor any human being who claims membership in this species who would surrender themselves as having been of no greater significance than a possession of “better” men. Those lacking the essential self-esteem to realize that they are by right the sovereigns over their own affairs, equal to any other on the planet, ought to immediately depart these shores to seek refuge in some Kingdom as a serf. In this sense, it is fair to say that I not only reject a supposed “ruling class,” but also that I likewise hold in contempt the corollary premise of a “ruled class.” Part of the republican ideal is that classes are a subjectively-defined fraud perpetrated against a people who ought not to be willing to accept it. Why is it that so many Republicans prefer to think of Americans in a class system little different from their alleged ideological opponents, the statists? The answer is that too many Republicans are statists themselves, having rejected the fundamentals of republicanism.
By what strange and mystical knowledge do the brothers Bush claim to have the better answer on the subject of immigration, both now pushing the Gang-ofTr8ors Bill? Why do so many Republicans accept their claim in the unthinking form of a command received from on high? It is because too many Republicans have either surrendered or rejected the republican principles under whose banner they march. If you listen closely enough, you can hear in their intentionally vague language the lost concepts that they will not name, never having believed in them from the outset. Although a few are now catching themselves in pursuit of the betterment of their propagandists’ art, you will invariably hear them speak of democracy as the goal and the object of their advocacy. This is not merely loose wording, but a true reflection of the form of government they seek, a form so terrible that our founders placed a stricture against it in the US constitution in the form of an endorsement of republican government.
A democracy is not a form of government most rational people would want, except that they have been taught that it is the desired form. To hear a President say that he wishes to spread democracy to the Middle East is an arrow through the heart of republicanism. We have seen what democracy creates in the Middle East and throughout the Arab-speaking world. Pakistan is a democracy. Egypt is now a democracy. Libya is now a putative democracy. Iraq now is a sort of hybrid democracy, but in each of them, what you will observe is how the whole course of the nation is changed by political instabilities, and that the rule of law acts as no restraint upon political leaders in working their will. Barack Obama is intent on turning the US into a democracy, because democracy is always the precursor to despotism. Most of the worst thugs of the twentieth century came to power on a wave of popular support that defines the democratic model: He(or she) with the biggest mob wins. Even now, in Cairo, when the military perceived that President Morsi (the Muslim Brotherhood’s stooge,) no longer held sway over the largest mob, they placed him under house arrest and offered an interim president who will enjoy for at least a time some popular support. Throughout the third world, it is fair to say that most countries have adopted some form of governance that lurches repeatedly and often from some sort of feigned democracy to absolute despotism.
A republican form of government is much more stable, and it has been the underlying root of our general prosperity for some two-hundred-twenty years, with a few notable exceptions, in largest measure because nearly all of the occupants of the land had accepted the orderly rule of law and the specific, constitutional methodology by which laws are to be adopted, modified, or repealed. Having a set of rules that is inflexible, particularly with respect to changing those rules, and obtaining the consent of those who must live under them for a span of two centuries is an extraordinary feat in human history. The dire flaw in all of this is that from the moment of its adoption, people begin to conspire to overthrow it in one fashion or another, by finding loopholes, imagining a “flexibility” that does not exist, inciting rebellion against it, or seizing power over it with which to subsequently ignore the mandates of the law.
In American history, we have seen all of these methods employed, indeed, some of them are being employed even now, as our President conspires with his cabinet to ignore the rule of law, ignoring the plain language of the law as often and as thoroughly as they believe they can manage in a particular political context. What good is a law that those who are charged with enforcing it refuse to rise to carry it into execution? When the public officials whose job it is to see to it that subordinate officials execute the law refuse to discipline those who will not obey, always claiming as an excuse some alleged greater “public good,” what you are witnessing is the reduction of a republic to the state of a pre-despotic democracy.
Many Americans who are demonstrably ignorant of the world’s history of governance believe that our Electoral College is anti-democratic, and on this basis, advocate its repeal, demanding instead to rely upon a majority (or plurality) of the popular vote. While they are correct that the Electoral College is undemocratic, their ignorance is born of an educational system that has misled them to expect majoritarian rule in all cases as the preferred model. Naturally, that same system has failed to teach them about federalism, the ninth and tenth amendments, and the whole construct that is a constitutional, representative republic, being the precise form of government the framers of the US constitution did adopt and ratify .
Informing them of this distinction, many are still suspicious of it, because it sounds strange and foreign to them, most under the age of forty having never been taught a syllable about it in the government schools. Even in the school from which I graduated a long, long time ago, the senior-year civics class was entitled “Problems of Democracy.” Had I been a more thoroughly-engaged student, I might have questioned it then, but like virtually all of my peers, I did as I was told, never considering a word of it. It would take years of study to unlock the knowledge of which I had been cheated, and at first, I resisted it. How could all of this be true? How could America not be a “democracy?” How could democracy be a bad thing? This is where many Americans get hopelessly stuck, because we’ve adopted the flexible language of lunatics, where we interchange words with the imprecise vulgarity of schoolyard bullies. “The difference between a democracy and a republic won’t matter to you so much after I beat your face.”
The truth about democracy is what has always been its fatal flaw, perhaps best described by a phrase often mistakenly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but possessed of perfectly sanguine execution, irrespective of its source:
“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what will be for lunch.”
Indeed, in a true democracy, there can be no protections of any minority but by violence. This was the great object the framers of our constitution had hoped to impede. They knew that majoritarian rule is no form of government for a peaceable, civil society, and that such governments are always ripe for manipulation by unscrupulous and demagogic usurpers. The whole purpose of all their checks and balances had been to obstruct to the degree humanly possible the sort of instability made easier by democratic rule. Their constitution set at odds every branch of government, and even divisions within branches, like the House and Senate. It relied upon a competing fight for sovereign power between the several states and the federal government, all at odds in most cases, except when the most pressing of public crises may discipline them to more affable cooperation. This was their plan, and their intention, and they hoped that in little-modified form, it could survive some severe tests that they knew would come, as they must for all nations.
With the onset of the progressive era in the early twentieth century, there was a move toward greater “democratization,” that brought with it a string of constitutional amendments, causing a great unwinding of our nation. The 16th, creating an authority to tax income (and the legal establishment of a class system;) the 17th, changing the manner of election of US Senators; the 18th, instituting prohibition; the 19th finally giving women the right to full political participation all came in this era, with only one of them(the 19th) having been justifiable among civilized people, and one of them(the 18th) creating such terror that it was ultimately repealed by the 21st amendment. Progressive Republicans of that era helped to install these amendments, and none of them did more damage to the system of checks and balances the framers had invented than the 17th amendment. It effectively muted the voices of the states as sovereigns in the federal system. It did so by causing Senators to be popularly elected in their respective states, shutting out the state governments as a confounding, obstructive influence on the growth of centralized government.
Our republican form of government was constructed to sub-divide government into so many competing segments and interests that it would be nearly impossible for any one interest to gain supremacy. It succeeded in many ways so long as politicians held onto the general republican ideals, for more than a century generally held by members of both parties. (It is instructive to remember that the forebears of the modern Democrat Party called themselves “Democratic Republicans” for many years before dropping the second half of their name with the ascendancy of Andrew Jackson.) It is therefore no surprise that a Democrat party would become the party of the slave-holding South, or that the Republicans would supplant the Whigs by championing the rights of an enslaved minority. Words, including even party labels, meant something distinct in those days.
In the progressive era, mostly for the sake of political expediency, there were a number of Republicans who began to adopt more democratic notions of governance, including the predisposition of their Democrat brethren to an elitist view of a class system not only in the general populace, but also among political offices and those who occupied them. The influences of corporations grew, as did the corrupting influence of gangsters during prohibition. From that era arose an establishment of Republicans who were nothing of the sort, and with few exceptions, have managed to maintain a fairly strong control over that party, most often as the minority party. Viewed in this fashion, it could be said rightly that the Republican Party has been charged with managing the real republicans into submission.
Who are the real advocates of republicanism in the Republican Party? Nowadays, we call them “conservatives,” although they are actually the philosophical heirs to the classical liberals of the late eighteenth century, by and large. “Conservative” is approximately opposite of “liberal” or “progressive” in popular connotation, and since the Democrats had successfully co-opted the term “liberal,” despite being nothing of the sort, they managed to carry off a vast fraud on the American people using a sort of primitive branding that set conservatives against the liberal Democrats and the progressive Republicans. It has been in this approximate form ever since, with the Republicans adopting “moderate” from time to time as a way to escape linkage with the frightful failures of the progressive era.
Now come we full circle to the moment that is both the beginning and the end. The Bush clan seems to have some special public sense of duty to rule over the country, as evinced by the fact that despite having had two members of their clan accumulate two solid decades of first influence and then dominance over the Republican Party, they are far from finished. Their ideas are as progressive as any Democrat you will ever meet, the singular difference being that they seem to temper the left’s radical secularism with public professions of faith in the Almighty. Put in plainer language, they are approximately ecumenical communists, and their particular subset of the broad statist philosophy is known as communitarianism. Whatever did you think is “compassionate conservatism?”
They don’t believe in the supremacy of the individual over the interests of the community. Most conservatives are almost precisely opposite in philosophical leanings to the communitarian front, being Christian individualists in the main. While they certainly work in their communities and contribute to them greatly, they believe in an individualized form of salvation, and an individual responsibility in obtaining it. The communitarians conceive instead a form of “collective salvation.” If that term sounds vaguely familiar to you, it is because your current president has used it too. In this sense, it is fair to say that from Bush the elder, to Barack Obama, we have been on a nonstop course of communitarianism since 1989. They do not believe in the small “r” republicanism of our founders, and they certainly do not believe in the containment of the state, the only discernible difference being their apparent relative positions on the scale between religious and secular intent.
To demolish the United States will require demolishing its distinct culture, any sort of nationalistic sentiment among its people, and the broadening of the definitions of citizenship and nationhood. Did you think the Senate’s amnesty bill was just about cheap labor? It is about deconstructing the United States as a sovereign entity responsive to the interests of its inhabitants. Now that brothers George W. and Jeb Bush are openly pushing for the Senate bill in the House, or indeed any bill at all that can be a vehicle for the Senate bill in conference, one should be able to discern quite clearly that more is at stake in the matter than cheap labor for some construction contractors.
For those of you who now wonder how any of this pertains to small “r” republicanism, it is so simple as this: Very few of your elected leaders or even your supposed “conservative” spokesmen are interested in the sort of republicanism your founders brought out of deliberations from a sweltering Philadelphia convention. If you wish to discern who are Republicans of the “RINO” construct and who are actual republicans, you need only key on their records of adherence to lowercase “r” republican principles, including primarily their previous adherence to the US constitution and its framers’ intent. Flowery words don’t matter. Professions of faith aren’t enough. Look at their records. Look at their ideas and the principles upon which they rely. If you are constitutional conservatives, you must in the name of all you cherish perfect the ability to recognize the charlatans at a mile’s distance. In Washington DC, and in states’ capitals, Republicans are legion, while actual republicans are few, and it’s a ratio we must reverse.
Given their clear penchant for betraying conservatives, and given the half-fast approach they have taken to the investigation into the IRS Tea Party-targeting scandal, and also considering the apparent reluctance of some House Republicans to seek a special prosecutor on this and related matters, I have begun to wonder if perhaps our Republicans in Washington DC are “un-indicted co-conspirators” in this IRS scandal too. We already know that Republicans have been aware since early 2012, and perhaps a good deal sooner, but one must wonder how much they knew. They have happily trotted-out a number of requests sent to the IRS by Democrats asking for audits of Tea Party groups, but I wonder what would be revealed if IRS correspondence with Republican members is scrutinized at some future date. Would we find that Republicans, particularly of the Tea Party-averse establishment stripe would suddenly materialize before us? Back in July 2011, I may have been more right than I had dared to suspect when I wrote about the bi-partisan war against the Tea Party.
It became fairly clear in the aftermath of the 2010 mid-term elections that something wasn’t quite right. In the Spring and Summer of 2011, Tea Parties began to raise Hell even with wavering Republican members over the debt ceiling issue. It was at this time that the split between the conservative base of the party and the establishment intelligentsia began to widen. This is purely speculative, but I wonder if we shouldn’t insist on finding out who on the Republican side might have had a hand in the effort to quell the Tea Party. After all, among Washington DC and establishment Republicans, there is no feeling of unity with the Tea Party, in purpose or motive, and in many cases, it would be fair to say there is some substantial enmity. Why didn’t Darrell Issa(R-CA) throw up some sort of red flag in 2012 when the Treasury Department informed him of the problem in 2012? More, as it turns out, Issa specifically requested that the audit be limited to IRS groups, even though there were others acknowledged to be on the so-called BOLO(Be On Look-Out) lists. Why narrow it? Could it be that there was far more targeting going on, perhaps directed from both sides of the aisle?
Again, while I have no direct evidence to support such an allegation, we do know with certainty that the initial foray by the House into the matter of Tea Party-targeting by the IRS was tepid, and slow in coming. We also know there exists scant love for Tea Partiers on Capitol Hill. Could it be that these same treacherous Republicans who have conspired to destroy the country by amnesty for illegal immigrants might also have taken part in this effort at targeting the Tea Party? Time will tell, but if you assume the GOP establishment in Washington DC wouldn’t resort to such tactics, you may be in for a shock. I surely hope that a special prosecutor is brought on, despite the fact that I have my doubts about any willingness on the part of the Obama administration or the Holder Justice Department to diligently investigate anything, but because I know that is and has been impossible to trust Beltway Republicans, I’d just as soon learn the truth if they had a hand in it. Some may complain that I don’t have anything like a bullet-proof case, but the problem is that we conservatives can no longer trust the GOP in Washington, so we mustn’t take anything for granted.
What should serve as a clear warning-shot to the GOP establishment will likely go unheeded, but it’s time for Republican voters to consider re-enfranchising themselves by ditching the Republican Party. In a posting on Facebook, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had some strong words for the bankrupt, insider Republican establishment in Washington DC over their betrayal of their voters – indeed most Americans – on the issue of immigration. It should come as no particular surprise that as the Beltway Republicans continue to stiff their voters, Governor Palin is again among the few voices willing to stand and be counted in opposition. She isn’t willing to abandon the country’s future to the intransigence of Washington politicians, be they Democrats or Republicans. Demonstrating her commitment to our country, Gov. Palin wasted no time in boiling the issue down to its vital essence:
“Please take a look at the article linked below to understand how the amnesty bill the Senate passed yesterday is a sad betrayal of working class Americans of every ethnicity who will see their wages lowered and their upward mobility lowered too. And yet we still do not have a secured border. This Senate-approved amnesty bill rewards lawbreakers and won’t solve any problems – as the CBO report notes that millions of more illegal immigrants will continue to flood the U.S. in coming years.”
This critique of the bill sums up the shortcomings of the legislation as well as the attitude of the GOP establishment in Washington DC.
“Great job, GOP establishment. You’ve just abandoned the Reagan Democrats with this amnesty bill, and we needed them to “enlarge that tent” of which you so often speak. It’s depressing to consider that the House of Representatives is threatening to pass some version of this nonsensical bill in the coming weeks.”
Here, Palin alludes to the fact that whatever the House may pass, what comes out of conference is likely to resemble the Senate bill as I explained Friday morning.
“Once again, I’ll point out the obvious to you: it was the loss of working class voters in swing states that cost us the 2012 election, not the Hispanic vote. Legal immigrants respect the rule of law and can see how self-centered a politician must be to fill this amnesty bill with favors, earmarks, and crony capitalists’ pork, and call it good. You disrespect Hispanics with your assumption that they desire ignoring the rule of law.”
Again, cutting through the fluff of the DC consultancy class that has claimed that all Republican shortfalls in electoral success revolve around a lack of support from Hispanic voters, Palin explains the true nature of the problem the GOP is enduring, and she notes the implication of this approach that should be insulting to every American, but particularly Hispanics. She then delivered a stark warning to the GOP establishment in a fairly unambiguous way:
“Folks like me are barely hanging on to our enlistment papers in any political party – and it’s precisely because flip-flopping political actions like amnesty force us to ask how much more bull from both the elephants in the Republican Party and the jackasses in the Democrat Party we have to swallow before these political machines totally abandon the average commonsense hardworking American. Now we turn to watch the House. If they bless this new “bi-partisan” hyper-partisan devastating plan for amnesty, we’ll know that both private political parties have finally turned their backs on us. It will then be time to show our parties’ hierarchies what we think of being members of either one of these out-of-touch, arrogant, and dysfunctional political machines.”
Indeed, this has been the lament of this website for a long, long time, as recently as this morning. Many of us have long ago walked away from the GOP, though we may support some candidates, and others have simply abandoned the sinking ship to its captains and the admiralty of the GOP that has run it aground. Governor Palin is correct: If we don’t turn out backs on this party in light of what it has done on this and so many other issues, it will be our own fault when the country collapses.
She concluded with a link to this piece on Breitbart, and it’s critical that one understands how thoroughly destructive the whole immigration bill will be to Americans, particularly American workers. Sarah Palin is one of the only voices with sufficient power to make this argument to the American people, so that they can know in advance what the Congress will have done should the House enact some phony immigration reform bill that will be replaced in conference with the Senate’s amnesty bill. Thankfully, Sarah Palin gets it, and she sees clearly the betrayal that is coming. It’s up to us to lend support to her voice and stand with her in opposition to this bill. It’s our country and its future that hangs in the balance.
We have discussed this here before, and I have previously shared with you my conclusion: Republicans may not fear their party’s base because they may be less than earnest members of the Republican party. It may be that as soon as they can hand the House back to the Democrats in 2014, we may witness a sea change as many of the people you’ve come to think of as RINOs jump ship to become Democrats simply so they can be a part of the majority again. In Washington DC, there is only one effective party, and it is the party of big government. Do not be surprised when this pack of traitors defects from the GOP at the first substantially favorable opportunity. Do not expect party loyalty, because their only loyalty is to their own political hides, and do not be surprised to discover that this amnesty bill vote in the Senate had been about their future prospects as Democrats. The fundamental principle I believe is driving the Republican leadership is best described and encapsulated in the following quote, as coincidentally posted today by long-time reader “The Unit:”
If this suggestion seems impossible or “conspiratorial” to you, remember that these are people who have just voted on a bill that will flush the entire country into a sewer, and that they did so despite widespread disapproval by conservatives, but also the American people in general. The only party in which their positions on this bill could meet with something approaching a majority’s approval is the Democrat Party. They aren’t even particularly worried about being challenged in a Republican primary because many of them intend to switch parties and run as incumbent Democrats if their support in the Republican party grows too weak or the party’s influence wanes dramatically, as is the likely result of the immigration bill.
One shouldn’t wonder when a putative Republican leader like Boehner adopts the tactics and strategems of the left. Whatever the motive driving them, whether as the result of extortion or through willing collusion, the Republican leadership in Washington DC has participated in the wrecking of this country as surely as any leftist, but in order to have you tolerate it, their voting base must be convinced that they are diligently working to oppose the left. If only they are able to make it look like they’ve put up a “valiant effort,” you will likely be convinced to let them remain in office. If you do happen to lose patience with them, posing a serious primary threat, they may simply change parties in order to maintain their offices.
Do you suppose the conservatives in John Boehner’s district feel any better about the impending immigration disaster than do you? Certainly not. They feel as betrayed as do you, but their voices will be muted if their only choice in November of 2014 is between Boehner and an open leftist. This is the manner in which we are being controlled. This is why I continue to contend that only by wrecking the GOP and building a new party without any of the same old sell-outs will we be able to retake this nation, restoring it to a constitutional, representative republic.
It’s not as though my proposition is without precedent. In 1995, following the overwhelming ouster of Democrats in both houses of Congress, there was a sea change through which thousands of elected Democrats across the country simply switched away from the Democrats to the newly ascendant Republicans. Who among us would contend that these people, or their successors would not change parties if they thought it to be in their own best political interests? They are politicians, after all, and we’ve seen scant evidence that there exists any real difference among them. Yes, there are a rare few exceptions, but they merely prove the rule. The primary motivation of most politicians is to retain power, and if they need to jump from one party to the other, and then back again, they have shown that they are willing and able. Ask yourself:
Do they ignore your wishes because…
- They are crooks on the take?
- They are being blackmailed?
- They are Democrats in Republican clothing?
One or more of these must be the underlying motive. No person is so stupid as would be required to support such legislation as the immigration bill that is so obviously an act of suicide for Republicans, particularly conservatives. It will have immense negative repercussions for the nation as a whole, but for the conservative movement particularly. If this is so, let us assume that the establishment wing of the Republican Party is acting on the basis of an ulterior motive. It’s simply stretches the limits of credulity to believe that they don’t understand where this is leading, whatever they may say publicly. If this is the state of the GOP, then I must strenuously work to destroy it before it can destroy us, if it hasn’t already.
Whatever Amnesty they inflict on this country through this bill, if we are unable to stop them, we must offer them no amnesty in 2014, 2016, and 2018. None of them. If it costs us the House, so be it. If it means we lose ground in the Senate, so be it, but by the end of 2014, we must clean House, and we must endure all the difficulties that will come with it. If we can’t primary them out, we must simply vote them out on election day, even if it means yielding the seats to open Democrats. Staunch Republicans may recoil at the suggestion, but I must remind Republicans in the most strenuous terms that Barack Obama has succeeded in furthering his agenda precisely because Republicans of the establishment stripe have willfully delivered the country into his hands.
You see, just as it no longer matters whether Obama’s destruction of the US is a result of incompetence or malevolence, it also irrelevant whether the GOP establishment in Washington DC(or anywhere else) is rigging our defeat because they are simply inept, or deviously treasonous. The result is the same in either case: Conservatives lose, and America is destroyed without a fight. For those who would argue that Republicans leaders simply cannot be traitors to their party, or to the country, I would remind the purveyors of such arguments that we have been deceived and betrayed many times before, although admittedly neither on such a scale, nor with such catastrophic results. Whether by design and intention or unhappy accident, we must proceed now as though it were the plan of our alleged “leaders.” Some will conclude that I had possessed no evidence for such a charge, but my retort will be simply that the proof is witnessed in the predictable results.
What conservatives must now ask of themselves is whether we can afford to wait any longer for the final betrayal. How long will leadership of the party string us along if we do not challenge their direction, their “leadership,” and their motives? You can see the results. Since Republicans took over control of the House in the midterms of 2010, we have added more than three trillion dollars in new debt, and despite the sound and fury over the debt ceiling and the “sequester,” the growth of government remains virtually unlimited. All the while, bit by miserable bit, our liberties are being stripped away, and all the while, the GOP establishment poses as our protectors and guarantors of our liberties. A simple review of the last three years demonstrates convincingly that they are and have been nothing of the kind.
It is with a deep sense of foreboding that I give voice to that which I have suspected for quite some time, but let me assure you that if my conclusion about the real nature of our alleged “leadership” in Washington DC is even approximately correct, you must know that what you’ve seen heretofore will have been merely a sampling of the betrayals in the offing. It’s going to be up to we conservatives to save this country if it is to be saved at all, but we cannot do so with blinders obstructing our peripheral vision. We must be able to look around and see clearly who it is that we must defeat, because not all of our worst enemies stand in open aggression on the other side of the battle lines. Many are among us, and would happily deliver us to our antagonists precisely because while claiming kinship to us, they are merely saboteurs leading us into disaster. John Boehner is one of these, but there are many others, and we must begin to either strip them of influence or be prepared to abandon the party to them. Only in so doing will we defeat the left, because for the moment, our alleged “leaders” in Washington DC are merely agents of statism in our midst.
Writing a Breitbart-exclusive op-ed, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sounded-off on Sunday evening over the ridiculous “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill pending in the US Senate, and in so doing, she stepped out to join other rare leaders on the conservative side of the debate. Just a few big-name conservatives have been vocal in their opposition to this bill, but this piece by Governor Palin seems to lay down a marker for others in the GOP to consider. The conservatives who have been doggedly fighting against this immigration bill for all its mortal failings have been heartened to see the freshman Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, stepping up to fight against a terribly abusive and nonsensical bill. With this most direct entry into the fray, Gov. Palin has made clear her continuing ability to lead from the outside, and it is most invigorating to grass roots conservatives that she has chosen this dark moment to speak up and do battle with the DC-Beltway, permanent political class that is trying to foist this bill upon the American people.
As is her habit, she wasted no time with pleasantries and minced no words:
“Just like they did with Obamacare, some in Congress intend to “Pelosi” the amnesty bill. They’ll pass it in order to find out what’s in it. And just like the unpopular, unaffordable Obamacare disaster, this pandering, rewarding-the-rule-breakers, still-no-border-security, special-interests-ridden, 24-lb disaster of a bill is not supported by informed Americans.”
This opening salvo sets the tone for the entire piece, because while like so many of us, Gov. Palin believes in legal immigration because she understands that we are a nation built by immigrants who faced tremendous challenges to conquer a continent, she also reveres the rule of law and understands quite well what happens when government becomes an agent of anarchy. In that vein, she wrote:
“I am an ardent supporter of legal immigration. I’m proud that our country is so desirable that it has been a melting pot making a diverse people united as the most exceptional nation on earth for over two centuries. But I join every American with an ounce of common sense insisting that any discussion about immigration must center on a secure border. The amnesty bill before the Senate is completely toothless on border security. “
Lamenting the many holes in the legislation now pending, including the amendments offered thus far, she took the time to single-out one of the bill’s key proponents, Senator Marco Rubio(R-FL). Earlier Sunday, she posted on Facebook and via Twitter an article revealing Rubio’s hypocrisy on the subject, and it is here that one gets a sense that the “Mama Grizzly” is just getting warmed-up:
“It’s beyond disingenuous for anyone to claim that a vote for this bill is a vote for security. Look no further than the fact that Senator Rubio and amnesty supporters nixed Senator Thune’s amendment that required the feds to finally build part of a needed security fence before moving forward on the status of illegal immigrants who’ve already broken the law to be here. And if shooting down the border fence wasn’t proof enough, they blew another chance by killing Senator Paul’s “Trust But Verify” amendment which required the completion of a fence in five years and required Congress to vote on whether the border is actually secure before furthering any immigration measures. And then they blew it yet again, nixing Senator Cornyn’s “Results” amendment, which also required border enforcement standards. Now the Senate’s pro-amnesty crowd is offering a fig leaf to security via the Corker-Hoeven Amendment, but this is really nothing more than empty promises. It’s amnesty right now and border security… eh, well, someday.”
This is more than fair in the sense of a well-deserved rebuke, and it also illustrates some of the games being played by the DC crowd. There really wasn’t any reason for Republicans to vote for cloture, permitting this bill to come to the floor for debate in the first place, but now that we’re stuck with this process, we ought to know who is doing what. She takes careful measure of the bill, stating simply:
“There are plenty of other commonsense solutions, but this bill isn’t about fixing problems; it’s about amnesty at all costs.”
In this allegation, there can be no doubt. So intent are these Senators to pass amnesty “at all costs” that they are willing to wheel and deal, but you should know as I have reported and she has identified again, part of this bill is nothing but a load of pork to be fed to the permanent political class who will trade their votes for goodies, including the bipartisan cabal of Senators from her own state:
“Just like they did for Obamacare, the permanent political class is sugaring this bill with one goody after another to entice certain senators to vote for it. Look no further than page 983 of the bill, which contains a special visa exemption for foreign seafood workers in the 49th state despite huge unemployment numbers in the American workforce. This is obviously a hidden favor designed to buy the votes of Alaska Senators Murkowski and Begich.”
One thing among many to be admired about Sarah Palin is her insistence on pointing out the con-artists in her own party. Few politicians will do such a thing, but she’s been doing so since she was the mayor of Wasilla, AK. It’s heartening to see her continue this fight, even as one realizes with sadness the fact that when it comes to corruption, there’s no end in sight, but Gov. Palin offers us many reasons for hope, and she implores the grass-roots to rise up against this horrible bill:
“It’s time for concerned Americans to flood our legislators’ phone lines with the input they need to hear from We the People. Join the mama grizzlies who are rearing up tirelessly to swat away false claims that amnesty is a good thing. Michelle Malkin rightly said the issue is not secure the border first, it’s “secure the border. Period.””
Amen. In the end, she reminds politicians of that which we must not forget, win, lose or draw on this particular issue:
“And 2014 is just around the corner.”
So it is, and we’ll be there too. You betcha!
Barack Obama promised fundamental transformation, and with the help of his own party, as well as a lengthy list of traitorous, sell-out vermin in the Republican Party, he’s having an easy time of it. The Corker-Hoeven amendment to be voted on Monday will not have been read by anyone as the vote is tallied, but it constitutes a re-write of the bill almost in its entirety. The details of the original bill and the amendment constitute more than merely awful legislation, to the extent all the provisions are known, and it is the intention of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell along with a legion of co-conspirators in both parties to put this bill over on the American people before they can know what has hit them. If this bill passes in any form, it will have been the final legal nail in the coffin of our Republic. Swept aside will have been every possible obstacle to the overthrow of constitutional government in the United States of America, by virtually any interested foreign power. This is only possible because a large segment of the GOP has decided to be on the side they believe will win. It’s that simple: America will be ruined with Republican assistance.
There is a common temptation to think of the immigration reform bill as pertaining to people who have crept into our country from Mexico and points South. I would ask my fellow Americans to reconsider this assumption carefully, because there is no language in this law that limits the benefits of this law to only those hailing from Mexico. This law would pertain to Mohammed Atta, or other terrorist elements who overstayed visas. This law will effectively throw our nation wide-open to a world full of people not all of whom love us or will come here merely for economic opportunities. This bill will create a new class of residents who may lawfully remain in the United States despite having violated our laws. There will be no fear of deportation. There will be no further purpose for ICE agents, except as tax collectors. This is a statist pipe-dream come true.
Barack Obama is leading the overthrow of our form of government, our culture, and our economy while people wonder whether Nik Wallenda will survive his walk on a cable spanning the Grand Canyon. Worst of all, the party elected to stand in opposition to all of this is lending an assist, while far too many of the American people are oblivious to what is being done. For me, this is the most troubling aspect, because rather than zealously guarding their liberties and relative prosperity, a huge swath of America won’t know what will have been done until there is virtually no peaceable means remaining by which to reverse it.
I do not mean here to whine, because I have a small but loyal readership, and most who read these postings will appreciate them, but the fact that it is such a small sliver(relatively) of the overall population bothers me, not because they don’t read this site, but because so many don’t read anything of consequence to the future of our country. I am mortified when I consider that some times, my biggest-drawing posts on a given day are things I wrote weeks or months, and in a few cases more than a year before that only then find their way into a bit of attention from a wider audience. Short of stripping naked and running down the street ablaze(and nobody wants to see that,) I don’t know what more we conservatives can do to pierce the veil of indifference that seems to have settled over this country.
On Sunday, we learned that there would be a vote on the Corker-Hoeven amendment that will serve as a vehicle to substitute for the entire immigration bill. Byron York seemed to spend most of Sunday busily tweeting various provisions and commentary on this issue. We also learned that all of these supposed new-hire Border Patrol agents won’t even begin until 2017. By then, how much will it matter? We learned on Friday that the Corker-Hoeven amendment will permit those who overstay their visas to stay on a path to citizenship. Why bother with visas? I suppose I should blend with the herd and figure out who Paula Deen is, but it seems fairly trivial alongside the overthrow of our constitutional republic.
Monday is the day on which we need to raise unholy Hell over this immigration bill. I have my call list, and I’m starting early. The sun will scarcely be up by the time I begin calling, and this is important enough that I intend to set aside several hours for this task. These politicians don’t view our lives as important, because in their view, we’re simply cogs in a machine from which they profit tremendously. It’s time to get a little fury in our voices and let them know that they’re not so special that we can’t send them home. Sure, they’re reorganizing this country into a statist, third-world slave-pit, but nowhere is it written that we must accept it, or even go along quietly. It’s time to make some noise, for the love of all you cherish. They may overthrow us yet, but we mustn’t make it easy for them. Our only choice is to fight or to fold, and for all I hold dear, I will fight.
Rich Lowry, writing for NRO Sunday, posted a bit of an exchange between Chuck Schumer’s staff and Marco Rubio’s staff on the haggling over the immigration reform bill. In that exchange, the Rubio aide, purportedly said:
“There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly.”
I’d like to address this sentiment, but for the purposes of this discussion, I am going to assume that Lowry’s reporting as well as the source materials he’s relying upon are accurate. Rather than direct my ire at Senator Rubio for employing such a dolt, or assuming that he shares the twisted reasoning of his staffer, I simply wish to direct this to the staffer in question:
You take a salary month after month, and month after month, the American worker is the poor rube paying it. The “American worker” is defined by men and women of all ages and races, including those who have been naturalized as citizens. To say that the “American worker can’t cut it” is the most intensely disdainful remark you could make about the people your boss was elected to serve! The people who keep the lights on in your office are the American worker. You defame the people who get up each morning and who beat you to the Starbucks, who also seem to “cut it” as they’re making your coffee. The people who keep the traffic flowing as you make your way to work seem to “cut it” as you move on down the road. The poor bastards who keep the lights burning certainly “cut it.”
You and your boss along with the ninety-odd other dolts and their staffs seem to have no problem with the American worker “cutting it” when it comes to spending their money, and spending their future earnings. No, I suspect the American worker “cuts it” just fine in that context. Your boss wasn’t elected to represent the Chamber of Commerce or to take their position on the immigration bill, but then again, maybe he was. True, there is no presumption that we’re all star performers, except when it’s time to pay the nation’s bills, but one would think that you’d have the decency to consider them before the interests of the Chamber of Commerce.
Do you want to know what really doesn’t “cut it?” I’ll be happy to tell you, on behalf of all the men and women who will have done more before 8 o’clock this morning than you will have done by day’s end: Foolish, arrogant staff to elected or appointed government officials who along with their bosses hold the American people in disdain don’t cut it! In short, you don’t cut it. I can understand why you wouldn’t want your remarks repeated in public. I can understand why Senator Rubio’s office doesn’t want NRO disseminating the remarks. As reported, what your remarks reveal about the sentiment of those in Washington DC who are pushing this immigration reform boondoggle is that the American people at large don’t “cut it” in your view.
Screw you. The very idea that you would take such a position in an argument against the American worker should tell voters everything they need to know about you, and about your boss. It surely didn’t take the space of four years for your boss to become captured by the machine, of which you are a part. The truth may be that he had been captive all along, and ultimately, he bears responsibility for employing you. We’re going to need to see what we can do about that, although I have no doubt that even if dismissed, you’ll wind up working for a lobbying firm, perhaps arguing on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce that the American worker “can’t cut it.”
In my nearly half-century, I have watched the American worker “cut it” under the most egregious of conditions at times, and while it is always true that there may be some person in some job who is not quite up to it, the fact is that the American worker has managed to create trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of wealth during that span, much of which you and your boss and those with and before him have squandered. Naturally, in a free market, you will get only as good as you give in most cases, but that’s a two-way street. Over the last decade, costs have risen for businesses, but for consumers, they have risen even more. How much has the average American’s wage increased?
There is nothing wrong with the American worker that the free market can’t fix, but sadly, you wish to tinker with the free market to the degree it still exists in the United States by changing the rules, in this case seeking to flood the market with millions of new employees. All of this is because your real bosses – the people for whom you work while we who “can’t cut it” pay you – want bargain prices for labor and because your opposites on the political spectrum want more votes. The truth is that you’re all a gang of criminals. What this Immigration Reform bill will do to the American people, particularly the American worker, and to the American polity is and should be considered a criminal act. I view it as treason. How well does treason pay in Washington DC? Apparently, quite well, with the tax-payer footing the bill.
It’s finally time the American worker taught you just a little bit about who runs this frigging show. You wizards sit there in Washington DC, looking out over the land, imagining yourselves as captains of industries you could not build, you could not grow, and you certainly could not staff. You dispense with our liberties and property and our wealth as though it had been yours to do by right, but when there are budget shortfalls because you spend our wealth like there’s no tomorrow, you undoubtedly conclude it’s because we, the American people, simply “can’t cut it.”
Here’s a little tip, and I hope you and your boss and all your analogs all over Capitol Hill will understand: This immigration reform bill stinks, and if you pass it, we who allegedly “can’t cut it” are going to send your asses home. If there’s one thing to be learned in all of this, it is that we have left it in your hands far too often and without the oversight your intransigence has earned, in large measure because in the crippled economy is making it increasingly difficult to “cut it” as we pay our monthly bills while still funding your bloated salary.
“Can’t cut it?” This comes from a staff member of an institution that has done nothing in more than five years to substantially relieve the burden on the American worker. This comes from a glorified civil servant who enjoys the best benefits the government offers. This sorry notion is born in a city that disposes of Americans and their wealth without the first thought to the morality of having done so. This idea is the byproduct of a select club of people who cannot(or will not) balance a budget, fix the welfare-state bearing down on the American worker, or even protect the rights of the average American who simply wants to go about his life and business in peace.
This legislation was crafted as a compromise between big labor and big business, neither of which give a damn about the American worker. Sir, what doesn’t “cut it” is your legislation. What doesn’t “cut it” is your point of view. That which doesn’t “cut it” is your deal-making with or on behalf of everybody under the sun except those who pay the freight on this whole mess. What doesn’t “cut it” is the manner in which you so recklessly dismiss and disregard the hopes, the dreams, and the tireless exertions of the American worker. What doesn’t “cut it” is how you talk about us when we’re not in the room, which is most of the time, because we’re too busy trying to “cut it” in this mess of an economy you have made. That doesn’t cut it. You don’t cut it.
There’s a good deal more I could say to this staffer and all those like him on Capitol Hill who look with disdain or outright contempt upon the American people and the American worker, but most of it is not fit to print. I dearly hope the American people will wake up to what this latest amnesty attempt will do to their lives and to their country, but I know that under these economic conditions, they’re awfully busy trying to “cut it.”