Category Archives: 2014 Election News

CPAC 2014 AS IT HAPPENS

 

Sen. Mitch McConnell with an item from the CPAC Lost & found.

Sen. Mitch McConnell with an item from the CPAC Lost & found.

CPAC begins in less than an hour. I’ll be covering the speeches that matter (as least to me) and the panels that are relevant (see previous).

Since I’m a one–man news team, I can’t make everything, but I’ll do my best to be your eyes & ears.

(Sorry for the delay. The CPAC/Gaylord WiFi is pathetic. Impossible to if you depend on it to work. Now that the media center has cleared out I can get a connection.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SEN. TED CRUZ

This is my first time for an in–person Cruz speech. Not sure he needs a microphone, Cruz really projects.

He began by pointing out the obvious under an Obama administration. Liberty is under assault. But the question is how do we win?

Cruz wants to mobilize the country starting with the young who have the most to risk. He explained the two Republicans that appealed most to younger voters were two of the oldest candidates: Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul.

According to the senator, They didn’t do it because they were young, too. Their appeal was based on a strong and principled stand on the issues. Their vision appealed to younger voters, not their chronology.

Cruz wants to follow in their footsteps and to do it he outlined a 10–point program designed to “tell the truth.”

1. Defend the Constitution
2. Abolish the IRS: Simple,flat tax
3. Expand energy in this country & create high–paying jobs all over America.
4. Expand school choice
5. Repeal Dodd–Frank
6. Audit the Federal Reserve
7. Pass strong balanced budget amendment
8. Repeal every single word of Obamacare
9. Stop the lawlessness in the White House
10. End the corruption

The tenth item is where Cruz earns his reputation for not playing nice in Washington. “Ending the corruption” offends all the insiders, starting with the GOP. He wants to “eliminate corporate welfare and crony capitalism.” Which offends the Chamber of Commerce. Then Cruz proposes a lifetime ban on lobbying for anyone that has ever served in Congress, which includes past and current colleagues.

He completes the trifecta of tribulation for the political class by calling for a Constitutional amendment establishing term limits for Congress. Serve in Congress? Win a lifetime ban on lobbying. Which includes most of those the first two items left out.

Cruz says the DC consultant’s choice of stand up for principles and lose versus keep your head down and let the Democrats defeat themselves is false.

Cruz intends to win by taking strong stands and making a “clear distinction” between the two parties. He hopes the CPAC conservatives are with him.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PAUL RYAN

Ryan speaking after Cruz is unfortunate scheduling for Rep. Paul ’The Compromiser’ Ryan, because his speech embodied “the DC consultant’s choice” Cruz was warning against: Keeping your head down and letting the Democrats defeat themselves, instead of giving voters a clear and distinct choice.

Ryan’s speech was more about the Obama failings in the news everyday and much less about what Republicans should stand for to win. He was more for broadcasting Obama failings rather than giving voters a clear choice. The Ryan option: Vote for us, because we aren’t charge of this disaster.

His speech was also a chance for the audience to recover from the Cruz address. No standing ovations until Ryan left and his jokes only received polite chuckles.

The congressman admitted “we have our internal disagreements, but I prefer to think of it as creative tension.” He called it a dispute over tactics and not principles. The problem with that is the election is only eight months away and it’s time to make a decision.

As Cruz pointed out 30 minutes earlier, playing it safe has been beating Republicans for decades.

Ryan is optimistic. Ironically, he used his budget work as an example of conservative progress. “In 2008 my budget only had eight co–sponsors.” Now he’s passed three budgets in a row, but what he failed to mention was his latest budget “compromise” that reversed the sequester cuts and increased spending and the deficit.

Ryan said the “left offers a full stomach and an empty soul.” His speech filled the time allotted him but left the audience empty of inspiration.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mitch McConnell

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell comes on stage brandishing a flintlock rifle. I wouldn’t have been more surprised if he’d come out dressed in a loin cloth.

My first thought was isn’t it a little early in the program to be announcing items left in the Lost & Found? Shouldn’t Mitch just send it to the Charlton Heston estate? Besides, in Maryland – site of CPAC this year – that rifle might qualify as an assault weapon since men in uniform have fired it at the enemy.

McConnell is a back room operator, a legislative technician. I could see him proudly sporting a quill pen, that’s in character. McConnell is not Ronald Reagan. Heck, Mitch isn’t even Clint Eastwood’s chair. His persona doesn’t lend itself to dramatic symbolic gestures. He says something to Sen. Tom Coburn as the senator from Oklahoma leaves the stage. Maybe the transcript, if it ever appears, will clear up this firearms mystery.

McConnell starts praising Coburn, who is leaving the Senate even before his self–imposed term limit takes effect. It seems each morning when he arrives at the office, Coburn empties his pockets and goes through the metal detector like every other regular taxpayer who visits the Hill, rather than flashing his Senate I–don’t–have–to–endure–petty–annoyances card. McConnell likes this common touch and says Coburn is the only senator that does this.

Evidently he doesn’t realize the contrast between him and Tom Coburn does not work to his advantage. On the previous panel Coburn had stressed the importance of term limits to restoring the Republic, while McConnell personifies the time servers who help grow big government.

McConnell, still tone deaf, then tells the audience how much time he’s spent filing briefs at the Supreme Court trying to thwart Obama. Which is one of the problems of his ‘leadership.’ Separation of Powers means co–equal branches of government, which means in turn that McConnell and Boehner shouldn’t be running to daddy supreme every time that bully Barack takes his lunch money.

McConnell then assures us he won’t let us down. But he already has. Mitch likes Coburn’s example. He just won’t follow it.

 

Democrats Already Rush To Defend Hillary’s Disastrous Russia Record

Vladimir Putin,Hillary Rodham Clinton

Nobody except Barack Obama himself has been as responsible for the utterly failed “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia, the disastrous results of which are now available for the entire world to see.

From Ukraine to Iran, to Syria, to Cuba, to the Snowden affair, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has successfully defeated the US and undermined US national interests at every turn while arming and emboldening America’s enemies everywhere. The Russian military now occupies all of the Crimea, a Russian spy ship has docked in Cuba, the Iranian nuclear program is proceeding apace, North Korea is testing ballistic missiles, Bashar al-Assad continues to murder his own people while refusing to turn over his chemical weapons.

These are the disastrous results of the “reset” (read: appeasement) policy towards Russia which Obama and Hillary Clinton, then Obama’s Secretary of State, inaugurated in 2009.

Hardly surprising, then, that Hillary’s supporters are now desperately rushing to defeat Hillary’s utterly failed and disastrous foreign policy record, while simoultaneously denying that there was any serious trouble in the years 2008-2012, when Dmitry Medvedev (Putin’s puppet) was President of Russia.

Just recently, the ridiculously-named “Correct the Record” group (which should be called “Falsify the Record”, because that’s what it actually does), through its communications director Adienne Elrod, falsely claimed that:

“Secretary Clinton worked to successfully secure Russia’s cooperation toward anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan, and worked with Russia to secure critical, crippling sanctions against Iran. Not to mention, Secretary Clinton oversaw passage and enactment of the New START Treaty reducing nuclear weapons and making us all safer. This is another case of selective memory lapses by Republican opportunists.”

These are all blatant lies. Here’s an ACTUAL correction of the record – which is badly needed, so that Hillary Clinton does not get away with her treason against the US and her disastrous foreign policy record:

  • The New START  is a disastrous and treasonous treaty which is making America dramatically LESS secure, not more, by requiring dramatic cuts in America’s deployed nuclear arsenal while also constraining America’s missile defense programs (and Hillary has lied to the Congress by claiming the contrary). The only country required to cut its nuclear arsenal under New START is the US – not Russia. Moscow is allowed to GROW its strategic nuclear arsenal under the treaty, and its tactical nuclear arsenal – estimated at up to 4,000 warheads and their various delivery systems – is not covered by the treaty at all.
  • Therefore, Hillary Clinton and her supporters should be deeply ASHAMED of Clinton’s support for New START. Negotiating it and ramming it through the Senate was an act of treason. Lying to the Congress in support of New START was a criminal act.
  • Moreover, the New START is, in any case, utterly useless because Russia has NEVER complied with ANY arms control treaty it has signed. Since 2009, it has tested and/or deployed several types of land-based intermediate range missiles banned by the INF Treaty.
  • As for Iran, Russia never supported (and still opposes) any serious sanctions against that country. No “crippling” sanctions have ever been imposed on the Islamic Republic – whether before, during, or after Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Hardly surprising, then, that under Clinton’s tenure, the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program proceeded apace, without interruption – the mullahs’ will was never broken by the pathetically weak sanctions Russia did agree to. This was BEFORE Obama, with a new Secretary of State (John Kerry), lifted the sanctions this year.
  • On Afghanistan, Russia’s cooperation has been very meagre – allowing NATO to use Russian transit lines to that country – and it had been going on long before Clinton arrived at the State Department. It had been going on ever since 2002. Clinton had nothing with this. Russia has cooperated with the US (in a limited way) on Afghanistan because it is in Russia’s own interest to prevent the Taleban’s return – even more so than in America’s interest.

But Hillary’s foreign policy record as SecState is even much worse than that:

  • Under the “reset”, Clinton and Obama made an entire slew of unilateral concessions to Russia, from cancelling plans to deploy missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland (promised to those countries), to ignoring Vladimir Putin’s outrageous human rights abuses, to ignoring repeated simulated Russian nuclear strikes on the US and its allies, to ignoring Russia’s repeated violations of arms control treaties.
  • Hillary has also turned a blind eye to human rights violations everywhere else, not raising a peep in public about this and publicly subordinating human rights to “climate change” in talks with China, one of the worst human rights offenders in the world.
  • Hillary appeased China, not raising a peep about its massive military buildup and increasingly aggressive behavior, either, thus emboldening China to continue this course while worrying America’s allies. Now China claims the entire South China Sea as its internal lake, has declared an ADIZ there, and overtly threatens US allies and partners, including Japan and the Philippines.
  • Hillary has also allowed China to join (as an observer) the Arctic Council, a council of countries having access to the Arctic Ocean, where China does not belong (but wants to be, in order to access the Arctic Ocean’s vast natural resources).
  • Under Hillary, the State Department has resumed funding for the UN Family Planning Fund, which pays for coercive abortions in countries like China. Indeed, as Secretary of State, Hillary campaigned vigorously for “abortion rights” around the world.
  • Under Hillary, the US also loosened sanctions on the criminal regime of Raul Castro, and President Obama personally met with that thug.
  • Under Hillary, the US turned a blind eye to the bloodshed committed by Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad against his own people, starting in 2011 – two years before Clinton left the State Department.
  • Under Hillary, the US did, however, support populist, Islamic fundamentalist revolutions against other Arab dictators, most of whom were America’s friends, including those in Tunisia and Egypt, paving the way for the Muslim Brotherhood to seize the latter country. Egypt has been saved only thanks to its military – which now sees Moscow, not Washington, as its ally. You can thank Hillary and Obama for that.
  • And of course, under Hillary, the US Consulate in Benghazi was attacked, and four Americans, including the US Ambassador to Libya, were murdered with impunity. Clinton never provided any security to that consulate. Then, when testifying to the Congress about the attack, Clinton asked, “What difference does it make?”

In short, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as SecState, appeasement of America’s enemies, especially Russia and China, combined with America’s unilateral disarmament through treasonous treaties and budgetary defense cuts, became America’s official foreign policy.

This is the policy Hillary advocated before and during her tenure as Secretary of State.

The current Russian aggression against Ukraine is nothing but an inevitable and direct consequence of that disastrous policy. No amount of wishful thinking, liberal lies, or fairytale stories will change that fact.

By advocating and implementing that disastrous, utterly failed policy, deceptively called “the reset”, Hillary and Obama brought about the current crisis and are completely responsible for it. And decent Americans MUST NOT allow Hillary to avoid responsibility for that disaster.

The basic principle on which world politics operates on is quite simple: weakness and appeasement only invite aggression, while building up strength and showing willingness to use it prevent war and guarantee peace. Sadly, the Left will never learn that lesson.

ReaganPeaceQuote

John Boehner’s Incremental Amnesty Surrender Strategy

130319-three-amigos-boehner-jeb-bush-rove5Mathematicians have long contended that if you give a million monkeys a million typewriters and an infinite amount of time, eventually the simians will produce the King James Bible. Maybe so, but why inflict such a difficult challenge from the get–go? It could severely damage monkey morale.

I suggest assigning monkey scribes the task of producing the House GOP leadership’s “Immigration Reform Principles.” They should be able to knock that out in about a day — even with frequent banana breaks — and if they don’t replicate the document exactly, what the monkeys produce can’t be much more incoherent than the steaming pile the House leadership authored.

The document begins by stating: “Our nation’s immigration system is broken and our laws are not being enforced.” Naturally, their solution is to jettison the law. I’ve already outlined why amnesty is a bad idea for Republicans in an earlier column located here. So I won’t belabor that point, but what I would like to do is analyze Boehner & Company’s strategy for any evidence that it will accomplish their misguided goals.

Based on statements to the media and the “Principles,” Speaker Boehner’s concerns focus on three main areas:

  1. Negative media coverage of Republican opposition to amnesty
  2. Pressure from farmers and corporate America who want cheap imported labor that considers insultingly low wages a big raise from what they got back home
  3. Overwhelming Hispanic voting support for Democrat politicians

What Boehner does not appear to be worried about is the loss of support from the GOP’s conservative base after amnesty is passed.

So to achieve his goal of improving the Republican image, getting lobbyists off his back and showing Hispanics that he’s a verdadero amigo, Boehner wants a “step–by–step” process that constitutes an incremental surrender to Democrats and other tribal advocates. Boehner’s document begins with a list of bromides the House GOP leadership uses in an attempt to pull the wool over conservative’s eyes: “zero tolerance,” “visa tracking,” “employment verification” and I think an end to chain migration, but the “Principles” are so vague on that point it’s hard to tell.

I guess we will have to await clarification from the monkey’s version of the document.

But the linchpin of the “principles” is the statement: “There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation’s immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law.”

Instead Boehner unveils a grand public relations coup: Republicans propose to let illegals stay in the U.S. as Untermenschen. Whoops, sorry, I mean as legal residents but not citizens. They must pass background checks, pay “back taxes,” speak English (unless stopped by a policeman), give up any and all “rights” to welfare and be able to read the Constitution in Chinese. (No wait, that’s only if they want to vote in Alabama.)

This is like a land owner telling a trespasser who’s been on squatting in the house for years that he and his family can stay in the house he doesn’t own, but you won’t give him a clear title.

As they say in The Game of Thrones: You know nothing John Boehner.

After decades of being media whipping boys, elected Republicans not only don’t know how to advance an argument, they don’t even know how to avoid a public relations disaster.

Boehner — not the monkeys — will have recreated Exodus with Hispanics in the role of the Israelites. And just like the Jews trapped in Egypt, they can work all they want and the generous GOP will even give them straw for the bricks, but they will never have the vote or the dole.

And God help us, Chuck Schumer gets to be Moses.

As soon as the ink is dry on their 2nd class citizen documents, the formerly illegal are going to be demonstrating against Republican Apartheid. It’s going to be the story of the decade for the Mainstream Media and John Boehner gave it to them on a platter.

Every Election Day the 2nd classers will be demonstrating outside Republican polling places, yelling and brandishing signs for concerned network correspondents.

Queremos que el voto y lo queremos ahora! (We want the vote and we want it now!)

Estoy soñando con el voto (I’m dreaming of the vote)

Segunda clase es la ciudadanía apartheid (2nd class citizenship is apartheid)

Dicen a la familia a venir del Norte (Tell the family to come North)

Then there are the human tragedy stories that bring home the cost of Republican heartlessness courtesy of NPR. The grownup anchor babies who have to tell madre y padre they can’t go to the polls today and vote like they did in Venezuela under Chavez, because John Boehner says they’re less than citizens.

And don’t forget the groundskeeper who lost a foot to a runaway weed beater while working on some one percenter’s estate. He and his family are living in a Kelvinator box under a bridge abutment because he can’t work and he can’t collect U.S. disability checks thanks to Ebenezer Boehner. With tears in his eyes, Piers Morgan will tell viewers, “He was good enough to mow the lawn, but he’s not good enough to cash a disability check.”

That’s the kind of publicity that will have younger citizens leaving their Chipotle burritos uneaten as they run to the nearest party headquarters so they can register to vote Republican and grind the brown man down.

My prediction is six months max and Boehner will be throwing himself on Nelson Mandela’s grave and begging Obama to sign his Full Amnesty with Added Reparations bill.

Why endure the agony of an incremental amnesty? You can’t be half pregnant and you can’t pass a half citizenship bill. Boehner needs to either surrender now and line up a nice lobby job or finally start listening to his own disenfranchised conservative base.

Obama’s speech: translated so useful idiots and low information voters can understand it

emptychairredoLast night was without a doubt the most vile, disgusting, and terrifying State of the Union speech in our Nation’s history. I do not mince words here. What the people that are paying attention witnessed last night was the first American dictator.

Comrade Obama’s speech was exactly what you would expect to hear from a Socialist third world leader. He did what all dictators do; he refused to take responsibility for his failures. He promised to rule without Congressional approval and he mandated, dictated, and cut off all debate; and he did it all in a way that most didn’t even realize.

You see, Communism and Socialism if implemented correctly can sound very appealing to an uneducated ear. His speech had a populist tone to it and he made it sound like he is a person for all the people. The truth is he is anything but. The most disheartening part of his speech was the fact that both parties actually clapped and applauded as the imperialist in chief boldly and bluntly told the American how he planned to strip away our freedoms!

Comrade Obama’s speech last night was less exciting than a deep sea fishing tournament featuring the old lesbian water polo and synchronized swimming team. It was chock full of lies and revealed just how far our great nation has fallen.

Let’s translate a few of his more radical and reckless statements:

First on the list is the blame game.

He said, “Our differences shut down government” Wrong, he and his cronies shut down the government and then blamed it on Republicans. The liar in chief even admitted that he wanted the shutdown to be “as painful for Americans as possible.”

“The debate is settled, climate change is real.”

So because the weatherman in chief must have consulted with God and Mother Nature herself we are to just take his word and believe him? Climate change is nothing but hot air. Some of the hottest days on record were in the 1910’s 1920’s and 1930’s according to the World Almanac. This was also at the very start of the Industrial Revolution. Hardly enough time to affect the weather.

“Whenever and wherever I can take steps without legislation I will”

What happened to checks and balances? They were put in so we could avoid having an imperial dictator like Obama. What about the enumerated powers of the United States Constitution? Why aren’t the Republicrats standing up and stopping this nonsense? Who has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to him?

“Congress needs to get on board.”
This was a veiled threat aimed at weak kneed Senate Republicans. Translation: “if Republicans don’t pass my Socialist agenda I will just pass whatever I want through executive orders.” This statement was designed for cover for Democrats who then can run around in 2014 saying Republicans blocked Obama’s policies.

Democrats are always blaming Republicans and calling us obstructionists for not going along with destroying the country with their leftist, reckless, agenda. They like to label us the party of no. Well if that means we are doing everything we can to stop Obama’s goal of fundamentally transforming America than your damn right we are the party of no.

When it comes to blocking legislation that brings us further and further along the path of Socialism we need to be the party of Hell NO! When Democrats try to pass legislation to remove our ability to protect ourselves we need to remain the party of Hell No! When they try to spy on us, target us, and deny us our freedom of speech we need to be the party of Hell No!

Americans have fought and died in foreign wars against the same kind of dictators that we now find in our beloved White House. We must protect this country from all enemies both foreign and domestic. The time may come when in order for us to survive as free people we will have to put a stop to this administration and this president.

I am not suggesting anything here I am simply stating that as Americans we are not going to live under bondage and slavery. This is why it is so vitally important that we win in 2014 and in 2016. We need to stay focused, vigilant, and involved. We need to tell anyone who will listen and show them examples of how this administration is limiting our freedoms. As Thomas Jefferson said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

Suggested by the author:

How gun free zones and liberal policies contribute to mass shootings

Barack Obama, liberal policies fan the flames of racism against White America

2013 was one big 404 error

Obama’s DHS: Drones, Hollow Points, and Secrecy

A hapless journey’s end

TX Democrat Gubernatorial Candidate Wendy Davis’ Slip Is Showing

Wendy Davis memeWendy Davis is not the first Democrat to use a fetus pile as a stepping–stone to higher office. She’s only the latest. But Wendy is in such a hurry to run for governor of Texas that she’s left a lot of inconvenient facts behind.

Davis first came to prominence when she lead a filibuster on the floor of the Texas Senate in favor of allowing women to abort their child as late as three months into the pregnancy. She termed it a “human right.” In contrast to Senator Ted Cruz (R–TX) who read children’s books during his filibuster, Davis essentially read the unborn the riot act.

Although Davis is ruthless when it comes to the unborn, she expects Texas voters to have enough sympathy for her climb up from a hard–scrabble background to make her the first Democrat governor since 1995. She describes herself as a divorced teenage single mom who went from living in a trailer to Harvard Law and the Texas Senate.

Like Massachusetts’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Falseahontas), Davis believes that redneck chic is a real vote getter among women and low information voters. And just as Warren’s tale of adolescent privation and Native American ancestry didn’t hold up to scrutiny, neither does Wendy’s.

The only element of the tale that’s entirely true is she’s a woman, of sorts. As reported by The Dallas Morning News’ Wayne Slater, Davis was 21–years–old when she divorced. After the divorce she remained in the mobile home where she’d been living with her former husband. Although she may not have been too popular with neighbors since she also received three vehicles in the settlement.

Based on those qualifications I could be governor of Texas having lived in a trailer for an entire semester at college.

Davis didn’t stay single for long. Seeing an opportunity she morphed into a dress–wearing John Kerry. Wendy had her father approach a friend of his and ask, “How do you like younger women? My daughter wants to go out with you.” Husband–to–be Jeff Davis said in an interview. “I was flattered so I took her out. We dated two or three years, then got married.”

Jeff paid for Wendy’s last two years at Texas Christian University, although her spin is, “It was community resources. We paid for it together.” Sure, Jeff wrote the check and she cashed it.

Mother–of–the–Year Wendy then applied to Harvard Law School and was accepted. (I would really like to get a look at her application essay. It would no doubt move Charles Dickens to tears.) After her acceptance at Harvard, Jeff dutifully cashed in his 401(k) retirement account to cover the initial years and then took out a loan to pay for his wife’s last year.

In the meantime Wendy was faced with a dilemma regarding the children. Her daughter from her first marriage was 8 and the daughter with Jeff was 2, so it was obviously way too late to abort them. But how would it look for a hot little blonde to be toting children that reminded her of mobile housing?

So she left both girls with Jeff back in Fort Worth while she went to pursue her dream solo.

Wendy graduated in 1993 and returned to Fort Worth where one assumes her daughters asked to see a photo ID and then welcomed her home. In 1998, running as a Republican, Davis won a seat on the city council and began her climb up the political ladder.

Ironically enough, the day after Jeff made the last payment on the loan he took out for Wendy’s Harvard Law degree, she moved out and filed for divorce. Of course Wendy takes umbrage at the thought that poor Jeff was just another stepping–stone. Slater quotes her vehemently denying any exploitation, “I was a vibrant part of contributing to our family finances from the time I graduated to the time we separated in 2003,” she said. “The idea that suddenly there was this instantaneous departure after Jeff had partnered so beautifully with me in putting me through school is just absurd.”

Vibrant? Who talks like that and what does it mean? Wendy oscillated when she got a check? Here’s a rule of thumb from a media consultant: When descriptive words are excessive for the surrounding context it means they’re lying. Like when Obama talks about “robust diplomacy.”

For his part, Jeff wasn’t feeling so beautiful. The divorce filing listed adultery on Wendy’s part and he asked for a restraining order against Ms. Vibrant requesting the court require her to refrain from the use of drugs or alcohol “within 24 hours of contact with her children.”

The divorce allowed Wendy to again demonstrate her deep concern for children as she chose to give sole custody of her 12–year–old daughter to her husband; saying it just wasn’t a good time for her to have a daughter tagging along.

So there you have it. The darling of Texas Democrats and leftist abortion supporters nationwide is a liar who won’t even agree to raise her own daughter if it interferes with her overwhelming ambition. She’s used and discarded her way into Democrat political stardom.

Maybe Wendy Davis is simply the culmination of the decades–long feminist campaign to remake America. Now a woman can be as callous and unscrupulous as male politicians and still run for office.

For her part Davis realizes she’s going to have to do something about that biography. “My language should be tighter,” she said. “I’m learning about using broader, looser language. I need to be more focused on the detail.”

Or she could just trying telling the truth for a change.

Amnesty: The Next GOP Leadership Betrayal

House GOP leadership prepares to negotiate amnesty with Democrats.

House GOP leadership prepares to negotiate amnesty with Democrats.

House Republican leadership is preparing to betray the base. Again. To illustrate the magnitude of the sellout I was going to use a hypothetical analogy with Democrats and their base. Initially I was going to posit that Sen. Tim Kaine (D–Secular) had changed his mind about abortion.

For years Kaine has said that although he’s personally opposed to abortion, he is not willing to impose his beliefs on a ‘woman’s right to choose.’ Essentially confessing that his Catholic faith is not strong enough to get in the way of his political ambitions. (In his last campaign he became even more weaselly, saying he didn’t want to stand in the way of a woman exercising her “constitutional choices,” unless the choice involved a handgun.)

In my hypothetical Kaine would announce he had decided that what the Catholic Church teaches and the Bible says is the truth and he will no longer support any abortion unless it is to save the life of the mother. Kaine would also declare that he will no longer vote for any taxpayer dollars to be given to Planned Parenthood since both his beliefs and opinion polls show Americans don’t think tax money should pay for or help support abortion facilities.

It’s a great analogy but it has one problem: No one would believe it. The analogy is too fantastic for even temporary suspension of disbelief. Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica, put it nicely this week: “So what’s the difference between Boehner and Pelosi and McConnell and Reid? Answer: The Democratic leadership honors its promises. Republican leaders have abandoned theirs.”

This House GOP leadership betrayal is passage of an amnesty bill, probably before the November election. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R–Sellout) says leadership supports an amnesty bill for 12 million illegals that includes tighter border enforcement as a sop to conservatives.

Boehner pays far more attention to agitation from people who shouldn’t be in the country than they do to conservative citizens. And unprincipled businessmen who want a steady supply of imported serfs are far more influential than mere voters.

National Republicans are forever pursuing the ‘independent voter’ at the expense of the base. Democrats on the other hand solidify their base first and then move to the independents. You think that might be why they win elections?

Besides the betrayal of the base, which is bad enough, what political goal do these masterminds in House leadership (to borrow an adjective from Mark Levin) think they are going to accomplish?

Boehner has picked an issue that was a failure the last time Republicans supported it. Ronald Reagan signed a one–time–only–amnesty–that–will­–also–seal–the–border–tighter–than–a–teenage–miniskirt.

The results of that amnesty were fourfold:

  1. Granted citizenship to people who came and stayed illegally
  2. Produced millions of new votes for Democrats
  3. Legalized low–skill labor for employers & reduced wage rates for citizens
  4. Attracted another 12 million illegals who want their amnesty now.

Does Boehner expect amnesty to attract Hispanic voters? California Hispanics now make up the largest ethic group in the state as a result of amnesty and Democrat failure to seal the border. There is not one Republican statewide official. California is a GOP desert as Hispanics proved singularly ungrateful.

Does Boehner think amnesty will improve the party’s image? A Gallup poll lists a total of 3 percent of the populace ranking immigration “reform” as a top priority and I’m guessing all their names began with Jesus.

Does Boehner think amnesty will mean more contributions from big business? Possible and it may last a cycle or two, but once the amnestied voters gravitate to Democrats, Republicans will start losing. And the Business Roundtable doesn’t back or finance losers for long.

Immigration polling, which has evidently frightened the GOP leadership, is dishonest. Respondents are offered unrealistic or nebulous choices. For instance the Public Religion Research Institute proclaims, “Support for a path to citizenship has remained unchanged…an identical number (63%) supported a path to citizenship for immigrants currently living in the United States illegally.”

Yet their poll offers three choices that are false or too general to be useful: “become citizens provided they meet certain requirements,” “become permanent legal residents but not citizens” or “Identify and deport them.”

“Certain requirements” is not defined and therefore is useless in determining public policy. Poll respondents can interpret “certain requirements” in a number of ways ranging from “learn to speak English like Tom Brokaw” to “stand in a long line for an autographed photo of Obama.”

“Legal residents but not citizens” is an outcome that creates a permanent helot class that won’t survive the first Democrat Congress. And no sane conservative has ever advocated mass deportation. We believe they got here under their own power and they can leave the same way.

I have yet to see a poll that asks a question that offers a conservative choice. For instance: Do you support a step–by–step approach to the immigration problem that begins by removing the economic incentive for illegal immigration thru a law that makes it a criminal offense for employers to hire illegal aliens?

If illegals can’t work and they can’t collect welfare or rebates from the IRS then the invasion will begin to reverse. Presto the “immigration problem” solves itself! Sure the bill won’t pass the current Senate, but so what? It offers a conservative alternative to the amnesty now crowd and it preserves the rule of law, but that pales in comparison to Boehner’s dreams of campaign contributions from the Business Roundtable.

Before elected officials — Republicans again — got cold feet in Prince William County, illegals were fleeing after an anti–illegal enforcement act was passed. The county saved millions as they fled to nearby “sanctuary” cities and states. The same can happen in a nation that takes its own immigration laws seriously.

Unfortunately that is not this nation and it’s not this Republican Party.

Neal Boortz is right: “social conservatives” will cost the GOP more elections

republican logo

In a recent talk radio show, while filling in for Sean Hannity, conservative-libertarian Neal Boortz (the co-author of the FairTax) warned that Republicans will not recapture the Senate this year, because, says Boortz, they have an insatiable “urge to get into social conservatism”.

Boortz believes Republicans will once again prioritize social issues above all others, advocate radical no-compromise policies on those issues, and once again make stupid statements on these issues. He points to Georgia GOP Senate candidate Paul Broun as an example. (Broun’s most famous statement, other than his defense of Todd Akin, is his claim that evolution, embryonics, and Big Bang are “lies straight from the pit of hell.”)

Shortly after Boortz made that statement, an avalanche of insults, attacks, and false claims was launched against Boortz from every “conservative” corner of the Net. His critics, and they are legion, claim Boortz is an “establishment liberal Republican” and a “blowhard” just trying to attract attention. They furthermore deny that social issues and radical socially conservative politicians like Akin and Broun have hurt the GOP in the past.

But no amount of denial and false claims can change the fact that Boortz is absolutely right: radical policies on social issues, and politicians espousing such policies, have cost the GOP heavily in the past, and will cost it even more elections in the future.

Why? After all, didn’t social issues mobilize millions of voters in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s to the GOP’s standard? Weren’t American voters overwhelmingly socially conservative in those times?

Yes – but those were totally different times, decades ago. To advocate returning to policies of long bygone eras enacted (or advocated) in a totally different society is to lead the Party to disastrous defeats.

Today, Americans are a completely different society than they were 20-30 years ago. The GOP’s problem is that it hasn’t changed with them.

17  ago, a vast majority of Americans opposed gay marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act was passed with over 80 votes in the Senate and signed by President Clinton. Today, though, according to reliable pollsters like Gallup, a large majority of Americans approves of legalizing gay marriage and of DADT repeal. Banning gay marriage and gays from the military is a decidedly losing proposition supported only by a small minority.  Over time,  this small minority will shrink even further as older, more socially conservative voters die and are replaced by younger, socially libertarian voters.

As for contraception, support for its legality is – and has long been – so broad that most pollsters don’t even bother to ask the question.

On abortion, Americans are roughly equally divided, with the pendulum slightly swinging one way or the other from time to time. However, only a small majority supports banning abortion in all or most cases (per Gallup). So radical social conservatives’ position is again that of a tiny minority and a sure election loser.

The fact is that social issues are electoral losers for Republicans. The American people don’t want politicians to legislate morality anymore than they want them to legislate prosperity (neither of which can be really legislated, BTW – but that hasn’t stopped politicians from trying :) ).

The truth, therefore, is that – as Boortz says – Republicans will continue to lose elections by landslides if they continue to take radical positions on social issues. Or nominate radically socially conservative candidates like Paul Broun.

This truth has proven itself over and over again, even in “red states” like Missouri and Indiana where Republicans should win easily. All it took for GOP Senate candidates to lose there by landslides was a radical position on abortion and one stupid remark about rape. Not only did Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock lose their races, they cost other Republicans (like Scott Brown) their races as well.

This is because the voters Republicans need to win over – siphon from the Democrats, to be precise – are suburbanites, most of whom are fiscally conservative but socially liberal (especially suburban women, and American women in general, who currently support Democrats by a large margin). Saying that abortion should be banned in all cases, that a raped woman should be forced by law to bear the child of her rapist, and that two loving people shouldn’t be allowed to marry based on sexual orientation, is an electoral loser with suburbanites, women, minorities, and youngsters.

Boortz’s critics claim this is just a call to make the GOP more liberal, more leftist, and more in line with the GOP Establishment.

On the contrary, if fiscal and defense, rather than social, issues were the conservative “litmus test”, the vast majority of the GOP’s Establishment and its past candidates (including Daddy Bush, Bob Dole, Dubya Bush, and Juan McCain) would’ve had no business being in the GOP, let alone being GOP presidential nominees. Nor would John Boehner have been Speaker.

It is social conservatives who have enabled these RINOs to hijack the party and the country. All these RINOs had to do to win social conservatives’ votes was to promise to work towards banning abortion and gay marriage, and social conservatives supported them, regardless of their lack of fiscal conservative credentials (to say it mildly). So-cons didn’t care that Daddy Bush denounced Reaganomics as “voodoo economics”, or that Dubya was a failed businessman. All they cared about were these RINOs’ useless promises on social issues. As long as the Bushes, McCain, Dole, and Boehner pledged to fight against abortion and gay marriage, social conservatives were willing to overlook everything else.

On social issues, the Bushes, McCain, and Boehner have solid records.

But if fiscal and defense, rather than social, issues were the conservative “litmus test”, those RINOs would’ve had no business being in the GOP. Ditto Eric Cantor, Rick Santorum, and Tax Hike Mike Huckabee.

Social conservatives protest that “social and fiscal issues are inextricably linked.” No, they are not.

In fact, trying to impose one’s preferred policies on social issues on the rest of the society is every bit as much a Big Government statist policy as trying to impose a health insurance mandate, a new tax, a soda ban, or a lightbulb ban. So-called “social conservatives” are every bit as much Big Government Statists as Michael Bloomberg, Bill de Blasio, and Nancy Pelosi. They only difference is what exactly their pet issues are. For “social conservatives”, it’s abortion, gay marriage, and contraceptives. For Bloomberg, de Blasio, and Pelosi, it’s lightbulbs, SUVs, soda, and fast food.

But these people are all the same: all of them want to take away YOUR right to do what you want with YOUR money, YOUR vehicle, YOUR stomach, YOUR body, and YOUR home.

As any real conservative will tell you, the ONLY legitimate purpose of any government is to protect our rights and our liberty against those who would take them away, whether that’s you, my neighbor, a religious group in my town, or the majority of the society at large. The only legitimate purpose of any government is to protect our rights and freedoms – and to let us live as we wish to, as long as we don’t threaten anyone else’s rights and freedoms.

Whenever a government goes beyond that purpose, it becomes Big Government – and a danger to people’s rights and freedoms, regardless of whether it tries to legislate morality or prosperity. (And Americans don’t want it to legislate either.)

Therein lies the problem with the two major parties: both want to take your freedoms away. The Democrats want to legislate the economy, while Republicans want to legislate morality. The Democrats want to dramatically limit what you can do with your money, while Republicans want to dramatically limit what you can do with your body. For the last four decades, both parties have tried to do that and look just how dramatically the size and scope of the federal government has expanded.

It is NONE of any government’s business to legislate whether you or I can use contraceptives, whom I can marry, and whether or not a raped woman can seek an abortion. It is NONE of any local, state, or government’s business – and NONE of YOUR damned business, social conservatives.

And just think about it: if abortion, gay marriage, and/or contraceptives were banned, that would require yet another government agency (or agencies), costing billions of dollars annually and employing tens of thousands of bureaucrats and agents, to enforce such bans. You think the IRS is bad and oppressive? Or that the NSA is? Just imagine what a National Abortion Police or a National Counter-Contraceptives Agency would do if social conservatives got their wish.

As for funding for abortion, the fiscally conservative answer is simple: end it.

Finally, social conservatives claim there is a “moral decay in America”, and that fiscal issues cannot be solved without tackling these problems.

To some extent this is true when you look at divorce, single motherhood, alcoholism, and drug usage rates. But instead of targeting these very real and very serious problems and formulating positive solutions to them, “social conservatives” have, in the last 4 decades, railed exclusively against abortion, gay marriage, contraceptives, and DADT, and still continue to obsess about them, even though they are all lost issues.

So few Americans support banning gay marriage and contraceptives, or reinstating DADT, that these issues are, politically, irrevocably lost. As for abortion, it is legally lost because no Supreme Court, especially not one led by John G. Roberts, will overturn Roe v. Wade. If “social conservatives”  couldn’t get Roe overturned in the last 4 decades, they never will.

In fact, abortion, gay marriage, contraceptives, and repealing DADT have not done any damage to America’s prosperity or well-being. Contraceptives have, in fact, helped stem the plague of STDs and unwanted pregnancies (they are highly effective at fighting both). Repealing DADT has saved taxpayers millions of dollars lost on discharging qualified, disciplined men who happened to be gay (and has not caused any turmoil in the military, contrary to grave predictions made in 2010).

Similarly, legalizing gay marriage has not done any harm to anyone. It has only increased people’s freedom by letting them marry whatever person they love. (A few decades ago, when bans on interracial marriage were being repealed, Southern “social conservatives” were saying exactly the same thing they clam today: that repealing the bans would threaten “the integrity of the institution of marriage.”)

If “social conservatives” were really concerned about America’s societal ills, like divorce and single motherhood, they’d be tackling them. But they don’t want to challenge the powerful divorce attorney lobby; instead, they prefer irrelevant issues like “gay marriage” and “contraceptives.”

Gay marriage is not a threat to anyone’s marriage, or to the integrity of the institution, in any way. Divorce – particularly no-fault divorce, now legal in all 50 states, is.

(BTW, know who was the first state Governor to sign legislation legalizing no-fault divorce in his state? Ronald Reagan.)

So Neal Boortz is absolutely right, and so.-called “social conservatives” (I prefer to call them social Big Government Nannies) are dead wrong. “Social issues” like abortion and gay marriage are sure election losers; they alienate suburbanites, youngsters, women, and minorities from the GOP; and advocating bans and legislating morality on these issues is every bit as much a Big Government Policy as banning sodas or SUVs is.

Re-Writing Benghazi for Political Purposes

In typical Progressive fashion, the New York Times set itself to re-writing the events of al Qaeda’s 2012 attack on the US embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya; an attack that took the lives of four Americans, including a US ambassador. At any other point in the history of our country, the assassination of a US ambassador by a foe that launched an attack against American citizens the magnitude of September 11, 2001, would be greeted with a united front; embraced as tantamount to an act of war. But the United States has been co-opted by the Progressive Movement and when one of their own is in the White House – or when one of their own is positioning for the White House – history is subject to revision.

Incredibly, the New York Times – long understood by “the aware” to have ceased being a provider of truth and fact, in deference to position and ideology – has issued a “report” that not only flies in the face of the facts (facts acknowledged not only by State Department officials intimate with the events, but by factious elements of al Qaeda in Libya) but go well beyond any semblance of credibility in its conclusions:

“The investigation by The Times shows that …Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.

“The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses…”

This accounting completely disregards many facts that congressional hearings have brought forth from State Department and CIA operatives knowledgeable on the events of September 11, 2012. It also defies testimony by those with infinitely more knowledge on military capabilities than a lone researcher at the New York Times, including elected intelligence committee members from both sides of the political divide:

“‘I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,’ Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told FOX News Sunday.  He also repeatedly said the story was ‘not accurate.’

“Rogers was joined on the show by California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, ‘intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.’”

That said, the efforts by New York Times researcher David D. Kirkpatrick are not centered in confronting the facts of the events of Benghazi, they are focused on changing the narrative ahead of the 2016 General Election.

It cannot be denied that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – now the Progressive front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president two years out from the 2016 General Election – was considerably marginalized by not only ineffective stewardship of the embassy compound in Benghazi in the days prior to the attack, but by the almost non-existent  response during the attack and the incredibly  inept response to the slaughter when called on the carpet by those elected to represent the people. This “triple whammy,” if left “un-spun,” would cripple the candidacy of even the most connected of Progressives – even with the support of a favorable mainstream media.

Enter the New York Times and David D. Kirkpatrick. Devoted sycophants to the Progressive cause, they have embarked on the rejuvenation of Ms. Clinton’s political reputation by attempting to re-write the facts of the event, already proven, in an effort to move her out of the ring of responsibility; in an effort to remove the stain of culpability and responsibility from the fabric of her candidacy. Sadly, even those in the mainstream media who exist on the Right side of the political divide, are tunnel-visioned in their focus; focused on the report and the reports conclusions rather than the motives behind the creation of the report – a work of fiction in its conclusions.

If the establishment Right – both inside the beltway and in the mainstream media, along with the Conservatives in the new media, fail to spotlight this blatant attempt to re-write history; fail to spotlight and explain the motives behind this manipulation of the truth, then we, as a nation, will have fallen – once again – for the Progressive tactic of re-definition of words, facts and events, in their quest to advance the Progressive agenda – and agents who would advance that agenda – into the accepted American lexicon.

The fact of the matter – and this cannot be denied when the facts are acknowledged and accepted – is this: Ms. Clinton failed to answer the “emergency 3am phone call” and because of that people died and an act of war against the United States by our global foe – al Qaeda and the radical Islamists who fuel the movement – was executed. In Ms. Clinton’s failure to act as an adequate steward of the US State Department, and in her refusal to resign for President Obama’s completely disingenuous excuse for the catalyst for the attacks – an excuse that Mr. Kirkpatrick and the New York Times have advanced – she has exposed herself as just another Progressive political minion who will do anything and say anything to gain power; who will lie, cheat, steal and deceive to advance the Progressive cause.

But then, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

House GOP Doesn’t Listen Any Better than Walmart

New GOPOccasionally the wrong person takes a column to heart.

Earlier this month I wrote that Walmart doesn’t help its PR efforts when the company acts in a manner that only serves to reinforce its reputation as the Simon Legree of retail. (Details here.) In this instance an Ohio store had a display in the employee break room asking for donations to help other Walmart employees that had fallen on hard times during the Thanksgiving & Christmas season.

Asking employees who earn an average of $12.83/hour to contribute to other employees is a touching testimony to the innate decency of the Walmart workforce, but it also calls up unfortunate images of the widow’s mite particularly in comparison with the wealth of the Walton family.

The column concluded with a look at Walmart’s Associates in Critical Need Trust. This is a fund that dispenses up to $1,500 to employees suffering severe financial setbacks. (This does not include a bad losing streak in connection with the Powerball lottery.)

I liked the sound of that, until I learned that once again these donations are no skin off the Walton family’s stock certificates. This trust is funded by voluntary payroll deduction, again from the $12.83/hour employees.

And that’s when problems began at the Shannon household.

My wife announced that unless the Walton family stops being so selfish (they have $144 billion in Walmart stock) and makes a major contribution to the Trust we will be boycotting Walmart. Generally I have no problem with boycotts. It’s an individual decision that uses the market to bring pressure on a merchant. No government intervention required. Colonists did it during the run up to the Revolution.

For taste and political reasons, I never darken the door of Starbucks (homosexual marriage is “part of the corporate DNA”), Caribou Coffee (Sharia–compliant finance) or Chipotle (one of the nation’s leading employers of illegals).

On the other hand I’m also cheap, so I regularly shop at Walmart, in spite of linguistic encounters with Walmart employees that graphically illustrate what retail shopping is going to be like after John Boehner decides it’s safe to grant illegals amnesty.

The wife says Target is going to be the windfall beneficiary of Shannon shopping dollars in the future. But I have mixed emotions regarding that store, too. All too often in the Sunday advertising circular the clothes younger models wear contribute to the sexualization of tweenaged shoppers. Young girls are hard enough to shop for without major retailers urging them to dress like pint–sized Kim Kardashians.

This is not a problem encountered when viewing the frumpy models in a Walmart catalog. I don’t know for certain whom it is wearing those dowdy clothes, but most of them appear to be related to Fred and Ethel Mertz. Regardless of age there are no sex symbols in a Walmart catalog.

Besides the Target food section is mostly full of do–it–yourself yogurt mixes and it is about one third the size of Walmart’s. (Although, credit where credit is due, Target does carry Malt–O–Meal.) I do hate sneaking around behind my wife’s back. The fact that my future secret assignations are with a major retail chain and not a hoochie mama is probably a commentary on the dullness of my existence, but I plan to continue to visit Walmart.

On the other hand I won’t be visiting Republican members of the Virginia House delegation. Last week I wrote about the shameful Boehner/Ryan sellout they tried to spin as a “budget deal.” (Details here.) This capitulation raises taxes (fees), increases spending and negates the sequester.

Ryan is so proud of himself. The good congressman says he’s increased Pentagon spending by $2 billion, which means all the Coffee Colonels there can go back to using the Keurig instead of making do with Nescafe. In return for all this bounty Ryan agreed to let the Democrats increase their spending by $22 billion! That’s an 11 to 1 ratio and we’re on the short side.

GOP apologists talk about future spending cuts contained in the deal, but with these big spenders the cuts always remain in the future, just over the horizon, like a mirage.

You can’t bind a future Congress to a deal made today. Heck this Congress can’t even bind itself. Who do you think negotiated the original sequester?

Now Boehner is flush with positive MSM coverage and has declared war on the TEA party. He’s tired of having Obama hand him his hat, so the great strategist turns on his base. Now maybe Karl Rove will return his phone calls.

At times like this the favorite criticism of the TEA party centers on Senate candidates. The TEA party supported candidates that lost and that cost Republicans the Senate.

Establishment Republicans never foist a loser on the electorate. Just look at the great work being done by President Romney and Senator George Allen. Not to mention that paragon of tanning, Senator Charlie Crist from Florida. All these worthies are (or were, Crist became a Democrat this year) establishment Republicans with the full support of party elders.

The TEA party is not a monolithic closed structure resistant to outside ideas — wait that sounds like Boehner’s cabal — it’s a loosely affiliated collection of like–minded conservatives and tin foil distributors. (Just kidding.)

There is no national body that selects candidates. Local groups support local candidates.

The TEA party–backed candidate lost in Missouri because establishment Republicans in that state utilize a primary system that doesn’t have a runoff if no one gets 50 percent of the vote. That’s how Todd Akin becomes your nominee with fewer than 35 percent of the vote. Akin and his gynecological theories could have never won a runoff. The TEA party candidate would not have survived the primary if Missouri Republicans ran the party like Texas Republicans.

In Delaware, Christine O’Donnell was simply mislabeled. She would have had no problem winning as a Democrat. If Patty Murray of budget deal negotiating fame can win her first race running as “a mom in tennis shoes,” O’Donnell would have had few problems as “a mom who’s not a witch.”

Country club Republicans conveniently overlook the fact that TEA party energy is responsible for Boehner sitting in the Speaker’s chair today.

This wretched budget deal has now passed the Senate where Republicans with primary opponents voted against it as a sop to people like you and me. There was never a doubt as to House passage. If you want to see how your house member voted you can check here and here.

I’m sorry to say the deal passed with every GOP member from Virginia voting ‘yes.’ These Republicans are either too timid to vote conservative or they simply aren’t conservatives.

Regardless of the reason for their failure, I’ll be happily boycotting every one of these politicians until they’re out of office. No money and no votes from the Shannon household and I urge every conservative reading this to do likewise.

This is a boycott every conservative can get behind.

House GOP Has Nothing to Offer Conservatives

GOP surrenders principlesHere’s the situation: You’re in a high–stakes negotiation with an untrustworthy opponent. The opposition has violated every agreement the two of you have made in the past. Enforcement mechanisms are weak or non–existent.

In other areas of mutual interest your opponent regularly violates the law and dares you to do something about the violation. Your weak and vacillating leadership can’t be counted on in a pinch. And finally, the opposition lies shamelessly to the state media, doing its best to paint you as a fanatic and pathological liar.

So what do you do?

Bomb Iran is a good answer, but it’s not the answer for this question, because I’m talking about negotiating a budget deal with Democrats.

The Republican House leadership decision in this case was to sell out their conservative base in a brazen attempt to insure their own re–election at the expense of the nation’s fiscal future.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R–WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D–Sneakers) have presented us with a plan that shatters the spending ceiling that was the main result of the bruising sequester fight, dilutes the small budget cuts from the sequester and raises taxes (Ryan calls it a “fee” but if the feds get more money and it comes from our pockets it’s the same as a tax).

Ryan even has the gall to say the deal will balance the budget in ten years and sidestep the threat of government shutdowns in January and October 2014.

And those dates are what are really important for craven House negotiators. In fact, the real motivation for the deal is Ryan’s shutdown statement. House Republicans still think they suffered a near–death experience in the recent government shutdown. But instead of seeing Jesus and a bright light, they saw a Mayflower moving van and a bright white resume. For them if it’s a choice between selling out to the Democrats and losing their cushy Congressional job, sellout is just another word for job security.

The risk of a potential shutdown in January and October of an election year was simply too much uncertainty for these stalwarts to bear. So instead of simply passing a continuing resolution as has been done for the past few years and keeping the sequester savings, Ryan decided to remove all uncertainly and cave in this year.

Ryan and Speaker Boehner (R–Risible) think they can get away with this lie to conservatives because the result of increased federal spending and budget busting won’t have the personal impact on voters that Obama’s insurance lie had. You don’t get a letter from the government cancelling your future. You get a Chinaman repossessing the Washington monument.

The rationalization for this total surrender is threefold according to our betters: The agreement restores some defense spending reduced by the sequester, cuts the budget and brings the entire budget into balance in ten years.

Let’s start at the top. Ace negotiator Ryan was able to restore $2 billion in Pentagon spending next year in return for letting Democrats increase wasteful social spending by $ 22 BILLION! That’s a ratio of 11 to one in welfare to warfare spending.

The sequester was bad enough — defense took half the cuts, while social spending took the other half spread over countless pointless programs — but this disaster in multiplication makes that deal look positively prudent.

Second the budget cut. I admire Ryan’s poker face as he announced $26 billion in cuts over ten years. This means the federal government will be cutting $2.6 billion a year out of a budget that’s over $1 trillion! For comparison purposes, the city of Washington, DC spends more than $2.6 billion in four months. In 2012 the IRS issued $11 billion in fraudulent income tax refunds. In the same year the government wasted $95 billion in programs identified by the Government Accounting Office that duplicated other wasteful government programs.

In federal terms, Ryan’s $2.6 billion is pocket change.

Finally, the budget balances in ten years. This is not because spending will finally be brought in line with revenue, which is how individuals balance budgets. No, Ryan is hoping that federal tax revenues will grow enough through a recovering economy to finally match the spending right now. In the other nine years the deficit continues to pile up.

This is like a drunk driver careening the wrong way down the interstate hoping his blood will absorb enough of the booze for him to regain control before the car hits the bridge abutment.

David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director who saw firsthand how Republicans agreed to increase taxes for Democrat spending cuts that never came, says, “First, let’s be clear—it’s a joke and betrayal. It’s the final surrender of the House Republican leadership to Beltway politics and kicking the can and ignoring the budget monster that’s hurtling down the road.”

Earlier this week reporter Paul Kane of The Washington Post seemed confused that TEA party members were mounting challenges to incumbent Republican senators. The answer is simple; conservatives have no reason to support big government incumbentcrats, regardless of whether they are Senators or Congressmen. Keeping the likes of Boehner or Ryan or Orrin Hatch in office is not the be all and end all of our existence. If nothing else even an unsuccessful primary can be a wakeup call for these whited sepulchers.

Why fight for them if they won’t fight for us? Why waste the gas necessary to drive to the polls to vote for these weaklings?

The only difference between these Republicans and Nancy Pelosi is we go broke slower and there’s a slim chance we won’t have to attend a same–sex marriage ceremony to qualify for Social Security benefits.

Retreating to a compound in Idaho is looking better and better. And since Janet Reno is no longer attorney general, we might even survive until the Chinese foreclose.

Lies. Damned Lies. And Obamacare Statistics

Carnac: The software that knows what you want to spend before you spend it.

Carnac: The software that knows what you want to spend before you spend it.

The latest batch of October statistics from the Obama White House credits me with buying a Mercedes, BMW and an Audi. And the best part is it didn’t cost me a dime! All I did was take three test drives and here I am: A GDP–generating fool.

This flexible interpretation of window–shopping and tire–kicking has great potential for the future. I’m thinking about taking credit for job creation when I get a haircut or have my car washed. With just a bit more attention to my personal appearance I could find states competing to offer me subsidies and tax breaks like Terry McAuliffe got from Mississippi.

And wouldn’t you know it, this conceptual breakthrough started with Obamacare and the HealthCare.dud website.

Some of my conservative colleagues complained when Obama minions began counting people who only visited the HealthCare.dud website and selected a plan, but didn’t pay for it as Official Obamacare Enrollees. These stalwarts contend that until the victim has actually paid for the plan there is no sale and consequently no enrollment, regardless of how much they need the insurance or how many hours they wasted on the website.

What’s more, if we let Obama get away with this, soon people who only thought about health insurance would be counted as part of the system.

The private sector equivalent of this new White House statistical interpretation would be Amazon.com counting items still on shopper’s ‘wish lists’ as being revenue generating sales; and then releasing the information to Wall Street so as to drive up the stock price.

Since he’s not president, the result would be Jeff Bezos facing charges, while Obama merely faces a hostile — make that mildly annoyed — press corps that is having trouble coming up with new excuses for the president’s failures.

The conservative objection, while true, misses the larger point. Based on the Phantom Obamacare Enrollee Precedent, when I buy my 2013 copy of TurboTax and fill out the form, I should be counted as having paid my taxes without sending the IRS a check!

I call it my own private sequester. And when you consider how the number of people who take more from the government than they pay in taxes is increasing, it finally puts me on the right side of history.

The Obamacare rollout — or ground out, if you prefer — does have implications for Obama’s future after the White House. If he’s as smart as the MSM assures us, Obama will steer clear of the private sector. That’s because if he tried the same marketing tactics outside of government, he would be subject to fines and possibly jail time.

As Orson Swindle, a Federal Trade Commission member from 1997 to 2005, pointed out in the National Review the HealthCare.dud website is deceptive, misleading and illegal. Jay Carney’s “wild west” indeed.

You may recall a recent furor over airline websites that were allegedly hiding baggage and other add–on fees until just before the consumer purchased the ticket. “Consumer advocates” and other busybodies complained that by waiting until the end of the purchase process to give the consumer a total price, airlines were trying to pull a fast one.

Airlines responded that where else would you give a total price unless it was at the end of the purchase process?

And besides the Carnac the Magnificent software was not ready for launch. Protests fell on deaf government ears and the FTC required the websites to be reprogrammed to sound a klaxon and flash red lights every time a consumer made a choice that would add more than a nickel to the ticket price.

Soon shopping for a big–ticket airfare came to resemble crash–diving in a submarine.

Yet the HealthCare.dud site is programmed to hide any cost information until after the consumer has created an account and been forced to divulge detailed financial information. And even then the information is purposely inaccurate.

As Swindle says, quoting CBS News, “HealthCare.gov contains a pricing feature that tends to “dramatically underestimate” the cost of insurance. The website’s “shop and browse” feature divides users into two broad age categories: “49 or under” and “50 or older.” Price estimates for the first age group are based on what a 27-year-old could expect to pay, whereas as the latter group’s price estimates are based on what a 50-year-old would pay, a practice that inevitably produces wildly misleading results for individuals significantly older than the base age. In some cases, actual premiums are nearly double the projected amount.”

Swindle concludes, “The bottom line is that no private entity would be allowed to get away with what the Obama administration is trying to get away with.”

And we haven’t even mentioned the “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it” shuffle.

The bad news is we have conservative busybodies, too. Rep. Fred Upton (R–MI) — descendant of Civil War hero Gen. Emory Upton — passed a bill in the House to allow insurers to continue to sell policies that the feds have canceled. What’s more, Upton persuaded 39 Democrats to join him in supporting this “bi–partisan” legislation. (Unfortunately for comity in the House, the bill must have passed on the weekend, because I don’t remember any praise for Upton from the MSM for reaching across the aisle to garner Democrat support.)

Too bad this is exactly the wrong thing to do.

If we are to rid ourselves of this Obamacare monstrosity, it will only come after the pressure on Democrats is so great they beg for political mercy. And that will only happen after all those who didn’t take time to read the law, feel the impact of the law.

Interim fix–its to reduce the pain undermine what should be conservative’s long term goal, which is end it, not mend it.

A Successful Script for Prolife Republicans

'War on Women' attacks on GOP candidates aren't going away any time soon.

‘War on Women’ attacks on GOP candidates aren’t going away any time soon.

Virginia voters decided after much deliberation that they would rather be ruled by a sleazebag than a puritan. And if Ken Cuccinelli needed any more proof that he should have run for re–election as attorney general — something he promised initially — Tuesday’s election results should have provided it.

Cuccinelli had a number of problems that hampered his campaign (outlined here). But the biggest problems he had were caused by Ken Cuccinelli. First he fell into the “new best friend” trap and took gifts from Star Scientific’s Jonnie Williams, a man whose ethical profile is much like that of our new governor, Terry McAuliffe.

Second, Cuccinelli used the “duck and cover” method of responding to McAuliffe’s obsession with abortion and activities involving female private parts.

Marjorie Dannenfelser — President of the Susan B. Anthony Lists — calculates that McAuliffe blasted Cuccinelli with 5,600 negative commercials on abortion and contraception. Talk about a campaign obsessed with social issues!

The attacks ranged from “Cuccinelli will force you to have the baby after a crazed member of the TEA party rapes you” to “Crazy Ken wants to melt all your rubbers.”

Cuccinelli’s response was much like that of the Obama Administration last year on 9/11 in Libya: He pretended nothing was happening while the campaign burned down around him.

I’ve got news for Republicans. This ‘War on Women’ attack is going to be a staple of Democrat campaigns as long as Amnesty; Abortion & Alternate Lifestyles are the three main planks of the party platform. Duck and cover would not have worked during nuclear attack in the 60’s and it won’t work under pubic attack now.

GOP candidates must either meet and defeat this tactic or at the very least blunt its impact.

I’m a media consultant and I hate to write commercials for free — somehow it feels like I’m betraying capitalism — but this is a script Cuccinelli could have used to counter McAuliffe’s negative ads.

The production would be simple and straightforward, as befits a serious topic. Cuccinelli should deliver the message himself looking straight to camera (this time memorizing his lines, which he evidently didn’t do for most of his commercials). The set should not be distracting, but he needs a light package that doesn’t make him look like he needs a transfusion. His tone begins by dismissing one of the McAuliffe attacks and then concludes with a serious defense of life.

 

(KEN CUCCINELLI) HI, I’M KEN CUCCINELLI AND I’D LIKE TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.

TERRY MCAULIFFE AND HIS SUPPORTERS ARE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH WHEN THEY SAY I WANT TO BAN CONTRACEPTION. MY WIFE, TEIRO AND I HAVE SEVEN CHILDREN. I’VE HEARD THERE ARE OTHER FAMILIES IN VIRGINIA WITH FEWER AND EVEN SOME WITH NO CHILDREN. AND THAT’S FINE WITH ME.

WHEN A COUPLE USES CONTRACEPTION IT’S THEIR CHOICE AND NONE OF GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS.

BUT ABORTING A PREGNANCY IS ANOTHER MATTER. I BELIEVE THAT LIFE IS PRECIOUS AND JUST AS GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH CONTRACEPTION, IT ALSO SHOULD NOT ENCOURAGE ABORTION.

BECAUSE NO MATTER HOW OFTEN MY OPPONENT TALKs ABOUT HEALTH AND DOCTORS AND ‘CHOICE,’ THE FACT IS ABORTION IS NOT ABOUT REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; IT’S ABOUT ENDING A LIFE BEFORE IT HAS A CHANCE TO BEGIN.

I THINK THAT’S A TRAGEDY FOR BOTH THE MOTHER AND THE UNBORN CHILD. YOU MAY NOT AGREE AND YOU ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO VOTE FOR MY OPPONENT. BUT PLEASE, DON’T DO IT BASED ON HIS DISTORTIONS AND EXAGGERATIONS.

 

It may not be the perfect :60 script, but I would nominate it for the perfect free script. After the shooting is done the campaign puts the commercial on cable TV, where the rates are lower and you can afford to run :60s. Then the spot runs until the campaign is over. It answers the McAuliffe mudslinging without being hysterical.

Responding in this manner does bring up a topic that a large portion of the electorate opposes. And some consultants are simply uncomfortable with the subject.

But the abortion–obsessed aren’t going to vote for Cuccinelli anyway, and answering the topic beats hoping it will go away. The commercial is designed to persuade the “moderates” and independents that Ken isn’t Cotton Mather in a poplin suit. Moving the opposition from “OMG he wants to take us back to colonial times!” to simply disagreeing with Cuccinelli is a giant step that was not taken this campaign.

And it certainly beats the Cuccinelli strategy of not answering the attack at all or using women in tangential ads to prove Republicans are as good at showcasing tokens as the Democrats.

If Christian conservatives are interested in winning they are going to have to address these attacks forcefully and change the debate. As Robert Knight wrote this week, “Ever since the GOP-controlled Virginia legislature in 2012 passed a law requiring abortionists to give women ultrasound imaging before an abortion, Democrats have had a field day accusing Republicans of being “extremists” who want to force women to have “transvaginal ultrasounds.” The Democrats are fine, of course, with “transvaginal abortions.”

If we don’t change the context we can’t hope to change the culture.

Sun Tzu predicted Republicans’ and Tea Partiers’ defeat over 2,500 years ago

suntzusartofwar

Well before the government shutdown had begun, I knew it was a supremely stupid idea and a fight that would gain nothing for Republicans and the Tea Party (other than further damage of their image in the American people’s eyes), and I warned my friends on Facebook who thought it was a good idea they were wrong.

On October 11th, after 10 days of the shutdown, CDN published my article explaining, in detail, why the government shutdown was a foolish idea, why there was nothing to be gained from it, why it was impossible to repeal or defund Obamacare while Obama is still wielding a veto pen (and a 55-seat Senate majority), and why Republicans need to first win the argument, then win the vote, and only then make policy. I also predicted Republicans would eventually cave in.

I was right, and those who argued otherwise, including Tea Partiers, were dead wrong. But another man had predicted Republicans’ and Tea Partiers’ defeat much earlier – in fact, over 2,500 years ago. His name is Sun Tzu.

Yes, that Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese general and strategist who authored the world’s first military treatise, the Art of War, a masterpiece that inspired leaders as diverse as Emperor Qinshi Huangdi, Oda Nobunaga, Togo Heihachiro, Douglas MacArthur, Vo Nguyen Giap, and Stormin’ Norman Schwartzkopf.

Contained in this succint treatise that would fit on 13 pages of A4 paper today are the keys to victory in all competitive endeavors – war, business, sports… and politics.

And this masterwork, completed sometime in the 6th century or the early 5th century BC, explains nicely why various battles and wars throughout history have ended they way they have. Including Republicans’ and Tea Partiers’ recent Obamacare debacle.

Basically, in virtually every case in history, the losing side ignored at least one, if not more, of Sun Tzu’s teachings, or the winning side successfully utilized the principles he taught.

In this case, we can see that going into the government shutdown battle, Republicans and Tea Partiers cavalierly disregarded not one, not two, but SEVERAL of Master Sun’s teachings, to their detriment.

Sun Tzu wrote:

“Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical.” – Chapter XII, verse 17

“Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” – ch. III, v. 17

“There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must be not attacked, towns which must not be besieged, positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed.” – ch. VIII, v. 3

Yet, Republicans started a battle they never had any chance of winning, a battle they were doomed to lose, at the wrong time and the wrong place against a much stronger, well-entrenched enemy, a battle from which there was nothing to be gained.

Intelligent people, such as Dr. Charles Krauthammer and this writer, warned Republicans even before the shutdown that there was no way they could’ve defunded Obamacare from one house of Congress, because the Senate would never pass, and Obama would never sign into law, a bill or resolution defunding his sole legislative “achievement” – so there was no way they’d agree to doing so even if the shutdown took place – which it did, and Obama still didn’t agree to defund Obamacare.

Indeed, Obama and the Democrats, not Republicans, were the only side that could’ve gained anything from the shutdown – an opportunity to portray Republicans as extremists who want to send the country into havoc.

Sun Tzu wrote:

“The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one’s deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.

These are:

(1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.

The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.” – Ch. I, v. 3-4.

These aqre the five constant factors governing warfare and determining who wins and loses. It is no coincidence that the first factor Sun Tzu lists is “Moral Law” – or, as translated by Samuel Griffith (I’m otherwise quoting the Lionel Giles translation here), “Moral Influence” – in other words, popular support, i.e. moral support from the general populace.

This is a crucial factor for victory in virtually every war, even for dictatorships – this is why America had to withdraw ignominiously from Vietnam and Iraq and is now withdrawing from Afghanistan – because the American people no longer support these wars. Even Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, under popular (and financial) pressure, had to withdraw Soviet troops from Afghanistan in 1989 after 10 years of fruitless fighting.

Popular support is even more important for those fighting in the political arena, especially in democratic countries (i.e. those with democratically-elected governments). If Republicans want to ever retake the Senate and the White House, let alone enact their policies, they must enjoy thef support of a majority of Americans.

Yet, by starting the government shutdown, Republicans and Tea Partiers have only alienated large swathes of the American electorate, already largely unfriendly to them in 2012. Most Americans do oppose Obamacare in principle – but not to the point they want the federal government to shut down.

Moreover, according to Gallup, a significant majority of Americans wants Republicans and Democrats to compromise (yes, that dreaded c-word), and according to another poll (not by Gallup), 51% of Americans say Republicans should just “get over the fact that Obamacare is the law.” Also, according to Gallup polling, by far the biggest criticism levied by most Americans (and a plurality of Republicans) against the GOP is that it is too inflexible and too unwilling to compromise.

Sun Tzu wrote:

“If the enemy occupies high ground, do not attack him; with his back resting on hills, do not oppose him.” – ch. VII, v. 26 in the Griffith translation

Yet, Republicans have attacked a much stronger enemy who was occupying high ground – a President Obama wielding a veto pen and controlling the whole executive branch and a 55-seat Senate majority. In addition, the public opinion sided mostly with Obama on the government shutdown, even though it does not approve of Obamacare itself. Even before the shutdown, Obama had approval ratings much better than those of Congressional Republicans and the Tea Party, above 40%. Today, Obama still has approval ratings above 40% – at 43% according to Gallup. While these ratings are nothing to boast about (his disapproval ratings vary from the high forties to the low fifties), they are still way better than those of Congressional Republicans, their leaders, and the Tea Party.

Republicans made the same foolish mistake they made in 1995: they tried to implement a radical change (in this case, repeal or defunding of a newly-enacted major law) while controlling only the Congress, and without a veto-proof majority, while a Democratic president wielded a veto pen. This time the mistake was all the more foolish, because Republicans controlled only one chamber of Congress.

Republicans were hardly the first “army” to attack an enemy occupying high ground. The Union Army did so in 1862 at Fredericksburg and the Confederate Army at Gettysburg in 1863. That latter battle arguably, in the long run, cost the Confederates the war. The Confederacy is no more any longer. The same could very well happen to the GOP.

Sun Tzu wrote:

“When the common soldiers are too strong and their officers too weak, the result is insubordination. ” – ch. X, v. 16.

“If soldiers are punished before they have grown attached to you, they will not prove submissive; and, unless submissive, then will be practically useless. If, when the soldiers have become attached to you, punishments are not enforced, they will still be useless.

Therefore soldiers must be treated in the first instance with humanity, but kept under control by means of iron discipline. This is a certain road to victory.

If in training soldiers commands are habitually enforced, the army will be well-disciplined; if not, its discipline will be bad.

If a general shows confidence in his men but always insists on his orders being obeyed, the gain will be mutual.” – ch. IX, v. 42-45.

“When the common soldiers are too strong and their officers too weak, the result is insubordination. When the officers are too strong and the common soldiers too weak, the result is collapse.

When the higher officers are angry and insubordinate, and on meeting the enemy give battle on their own account from a feeling of resentment, before the commander-in-chief can tell whether or not he is in a position to fight, the result is ruin.

When the general is weak and without authority; when his orders are not clear and distinct; when there are no fixed duties assigned to officers and men, and the ranks are formed in a slovenly haphazard manner, the result is utter disorganization.” – ch. X, v. 16-18.

Clearly a big factor in Speaker Boehner’s and Leader McConnell’s defeat was the large, undisciplined, insubordinate contingent of radical Republicans (Tea Party Republicans) in Congress, led by Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz in the Senate and by Congressmen Raul Labrador, Justin Amash, and Mick Mulvaney in the House. With soldiers like that, no military commander, not even Sun Tzu, would’ve been able to win any battle.

These Congressmen and Senators – most of them very young and very inexperienced (Cruz has been in the Senate only since January, Paul since 2011) – are arrogant, overconfident, and very aggressive in their demands. Yet, despite their junior status, they have been able to hold the GOP Congressional Leadership hostage due to their large numbers. So in the Republican “Army”, the common soldiers are too strong and the officers are too weak. There is disunity in Republican ranks. The commanding generals – J0hn Boehner and Mitch McConnell – are weak and without authority within their contingents.

That is so because they – at least until recently – have failed to keep their troops “under control by means of iron discipline”, which, according to Sun Tzu, is “the certain road to victory.” They have failed to insist on the GOP’s leadership’s orders being enforced with stern discipline; they have failed, until recently, to punish those radical Republicans who aren’t team players, insist on unattainable non-negotiable demands, disrupt the work of the Congress, and don’t support the party’s agenda.

In January, the GOP House Caucus removed four such insubordinate, disruptive Republicans (including Justin Amash) from key committees. Conservative media hysterically called it a purge; in fact, it was a minor and long overdue correction. A purge would’ve meant removing all insubordinate and disruptive Congressmen from all key committees. Likewise, Mitch McConnell has only now belatedly begun to fight back against pseudo-conservative groups like the Senate Conservatives Fund, the “Club for Growth”, and FreedomWorks by denying NRSC contracts to companies that also do business with these groups. These radical organizations claim to be conservative, but in reality, they only serve to get more Democrats elected and to advance their agenda by targeting mainstream-but-not-radical Republicans whom they don’t consider “pure enough” and by ensuring that totally unelectable fringe candidates (like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and Ken Buck) win GOP primaries and then lose general elections.

And yet, it was not until this month that McConnell began taking action against these groups.

One’s own soldiers must be treated humanely, but also kept under control by means of iron discipline, as Sun Tzu wrote.

Sun Tzu wrote:

“Sun Tzu said: The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy. To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. (…) Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.” – ch. IV, v. 1-2 and 15

Yet, Republicans started a battle before devising any plan to win it. They went into battle without any plan to win. Like all other vanquished armies in history, they first fought and then sought victory – exactly the wrong order.

Had Republicans and Tea Partiers been wise people, they would’ve first devised a plan for victory, then would’ve created the conditions for triumph (which would necessarily mean retaking the Senate and the WH), and only then would’ve fought.

Thus you can see why Republicans lost – and were doomed to lose – the government shutdown battle against Obama, and how Sun Tzu predicted their defeat over 2,500 years ago. Republicans and Tea Partiers will continue to suffer further defeats if they continue to recklessly ignore Sun Tzu’s wise advice.

Let Master Sun have the last word here, across 2,500 years of time:

“The general that hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer: let such a one be retained in command! The general that hearkens not to my counsel nor acts upon it, will suffer defeat:–let such a one be dismissed!”

Why Changing Demographics Mean More Democrats

spyonme1They always shoot the messenger. Even when he’s being optimistic.

And Mitt Romney was optimistic when he said only 47 percent of the potential electorate wouldn’t vote for him because they were dependent on the government. The actual Census Bureau figures are much worse.

The bureau reports 49.2 percent of your fellow citizens received some type of benefit from one or more government programs. A more accurate term would be ‘residents’ since when bureaucrats display their compassion by distributing your money, a lack of documentation is seldom an obstacle. These particular recipients are not conservative, small government voters. They constitute a large portion of the Democrat base.

People in the US that receive means–tested government benefits actually outnumber the people who worked fulltime in 2011. In the fourth quarter of 2011, 108,592,000 individuals were on the receiving end of federal goodies compared with only 101,760,000 working fulltime.

This is a catastrophic situation for supporters of conservative, small government and it threatens to undermine the nation’s social fabric. Possibly you feel sorry for these unfortunates, at least the ones that don’t loot Walmart when the food stamp verification system crashes. But they don’t return the favor.

Our current situation is the equivalent of enjoying a business dinner at a popular restaurant. At the conclusion of the meal other diners, waiters, valet parkers, kitchen staff and the hostess look at the remnants of your prime rib repast and vote to have you pay for everyone eating dinner that evening and add a 25 percent tip to the bill.

(I know some of you parents are thinking, “Hey! That’s exactly what happened to me when my daughter got married!” But these are strangers sucking you dry, not relatives.)

Or you go to the doctor’s office and while you sit in the waiting room, the other patients notice your elegant topcoat and they vote to have you foot the bill for everyone’s treatment that day.

Farfetched? Unrealistic? A similar scenario takes place every Election Day when people who are essentially wards of the state vote for politicians who tell you to foot the bill for the ward’s benefits. Please don’t bore me with “but these people pay taxes, too.” Paying sales tax with taxpayer’s money is hardly “paying taxes.” It’s closer to an inefficient form of recycling.

Although these recipients are the vast bulk of the Democrat base, they are not alone. The big government base (BGB) also includes federal, state and local government employees; government contractors, grant recipients and the non–profit sector.

Here’s how the numbers break out:

20,269,000 total government workers

13,700,000 non–profit workers

4,400,000 government contractors

100,000,000 enrolled in one of 80 different and overlapping “means–tested” welfare programs                            (this figure does not include Social Security or Medicare recipients)

         TOTAL BGB: 138,369,000 individuals

In fact the federal government alone employs more people than the top ten private sector employers combined! Federal: 18,000,000 (not counting military) Vs. 5,677,046 for General Electric, Hewlett–Packard, Home Depot, Kroger, Target, UPS, IBM, McDonald’s, Yum! Brands and Walmart.

Factor in another 9,000,000 or so formerly illegal voters after “immigration reform” and we are well on our way to Argentina.

This goes a long way toward explaining Obama’s re–election.

Of course not all the 100,000,000 welfare recipients are voting age and not all government workers and contractors pull the Democrat lever. I know of patriotic government employees and contractors that put the good of the country before their own economic interests and I say God bless them.

Unfortunately, those stalwart individuals are more than offset by working Americans under the delusion Democrats favor the middle class. And don’t forget the workforce also includes moles that work for MSNBC and other propaganda arms of the BGB, along with private university professors and other assorted leftists.

This is why it doesn’t matter that the Obamacare website cost $500 million in hard–earned tax dollars and Chinese renminbi. That’s more than Facebook spent in six full years according to reporter Andrew Couts.

But aside from the embarrassment, no one in the BGB cares. Their criteria for success is not does the website work, is the program efficient or are we using tax dollars wisely. The BGB measure of success is: Did I get my check and did it cash?

Voters living on Uncle Sam’s dime are not going to be voting to downsize government. BGB economics are based on the existence of a money tree, possibly growing in China.

The Chinese and our other creditors would be the greatest gift to conservatives since Ronald Reagan if they simply refused to lend the Uncle Sam any more money. Limiting federal borrowing will limit the size of the federal government. Even our rapacious leftists couldn’t tax their way out of that hole.

Unless the size of the government shrinks — and that includes benefits — there is no hope for avoiding soft socialism in our future. And — judging by the number of government agencies that have their own SWAT teams — maybe not so soft at that.

There are principled conservatives in office who refuse to vote to increase spending without a corresponding cut to balance the total. That’s fine, but it’s not enough. They must also refuse to add to the number of government employees or contractors without a corresponding reduction in force in another part of government.

Otherwise potential death spirals won’t be limited to Obamacare.

How Advice from Three Frenchmen Could Have Won the Shutdown Battle

Don't let the floppy hats fool you. The Three Musketeers could have helped during the Shutdown fight.

Don’t let the floppy hats fool you. The Three Musketeers could have helped during the Shutdown fight.

Speaker John Boehner is the Adm. Karl Dönitz of Republican politics. Hemmed in on one side by the pounding batteries of the Mainstream Media and on the other by a mob of howling leftists eager to send him to a self–criticism session on MSNBC — Boehner desperately tries to negotiate a surrender to Supreme Commander Obama that will leave him with a shred of dignity and continued access to the Congressional tanning bed.

What really sticks in Boehner’s craw is the realization he’s going to be stuck with the blame for the shutdown defeat! He warned the caucus what would happen if they followed a strategy designed by crazy people. But no, they were intoxicated by the crowds at the rallies and stem–winders on the Senate floor. Victory was at hand!

Yet now the loonies are out of the picture and here Boehner sits in the ruins of the Shutdown Bunker wondering if Harry Reid will allow him to smoke at the signing ceremony.

That’s what Boehner gets for trying to fight a two–front war. The struggle over Obamacare should have been either the continuing resolution shutdown or the debt ceiling. Not a bizarre push–me­—pull–you that blurred the two issues and made the public think the country hitched a ride with Thelma & Louise.

Giving credit where credit is due, Boehner started out well. The House GOP passed the initial continuing resolution with everything funded but Obamacare and sent the bill to the Senate where is disappeared like it was term limits legislation. So the government was at impasse.

It’s possible that if Boehner had donned a turban and started enriching uranium, Obama would have agreed to negotiate with him, but there wasn’t enough time to install the necessary number of centrifuges in the Rayburn office building.

During past shutdowns our leaders attempted to limit the inconvenience. This was a policy the Obama Administration could not afford to follow, as I pointed out last week, because after losing the sequester a painless shutdown would help make the case for even smaller government.

That’s why the Spite House made sure this shutdown hurt as many civilian bystanders as possible. Collateral damage was the order of the day. In total disregard of negative publicity Obama used his human drones in the Park Police to close the WWII monument, national parks, private businesses, roads, athletic fields and anything else they could get away with.

It drove Obama’s approval rating down to Jimmy Carter Land at 37 percent, which is an all time low for the light bringer. Yet he held firm, ironically enough employing the Nixon “madman” strategy. As Nixon once said, “I call it the Madman Theory… I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them that, “for God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can’t restrain him when he’s angry—and he has his hand on the nuclear button.”

The only difference is Obama — totally lacking a foreign policy — uses the Madman theory to intimidate his Republican domestic opposition. It’s remarkable that a fellow who wears mom jeans and would probably have trouble bench-pressing a juice box, is so eager to roll the dice when other’s futures are at stake.

So as the nation’s busy borrowers at the Treasury threatened to crash into an unyielding debt ceiling, Boehner was genuinely worried that Madman Barack might actually cause the country to default, if it meant he would win the confrontation.

So Boehner blinked and surrendered.

Here is where the Frenchmen could have provided the margin of victory.

If only Boehner had employed the Three Musketeer Strategy the county and the GOP would have won in the long run. The Three Musketeer’s motto was: One for All & All for One.

Instead of allowing craven porkmeister Sen. Mitch McConnell (R–I’m not for sale, but I rent cheap) to seize the agenda and pass a combination government funding and debt ceiling agreement, Boehner should have had the House pass a bill that did that AND required everyone, every company and every member of Congress and their staff to submit to Obamacare this year without any waivers.

One for All & All for One; with the “All” in this instance being Obamacare. That way the fight is still about Obama’s signature bill, the one he shut down the government to save, but in a brilliant bit of political ju–jitsu his bill is turned against him.

Making the entire country suffer under the full Obamacare this year would have resulted in a disaster at the polls for Democrats in 2014. What’s more, the administration knows it, which is why it exempted employers from the mandate until AFTER the election.

Even better the Three Musketeer bill has the virtue of simplicity: all the money and all the Obamacare. With only two elements the MSM could not bury coverage of the Obamacare waiver removal, as it buried Obama’s plunging poll ratings. (Most poll stories trumpeted declining GOP ratings in the headlines and only mentioned the new low for Obama as a passing aside.)

A Three Musketeers bill would have been a poison pill for the administration. Signing it means a disaster at the polls next year. Not signing it and defaulting because Republicans were too bi–partisan and Obama didn’t want his signature bill to take effect for everyone would be a PR disaster even the MSM could not ignore. And Democrats would still face a wipeout in 2014. All victory would have required was for Boehner to hold fast regardless of Obama’s choice.

If the signature bill of the president is so good for the country, as the MSM claims, then Republicans should have done their best to make sure the nation gets it, as H. L. Mencken used to say, “good and hard.” After all, what’s wrong with using “settled law” to unsettle the populace?

« Older Entries Recent Entries »