Tag Archives: Republicans

Dem Lobbyist: GOP Will Control House and Senate in Mid-Term Elections

WASHINGTONApril 24, 2014 /PRNewswire-iReach/ — APRIL 24, 2014-WASHINGTON, DC—The Republican majority in the House will rise to its largest margin in history and the Senate will transfer from Democratic control to Republican come the November mid-term elections, says Neil Dhillon, a Democratic lobbyist and former senior congressional aide.  It’s inevitable with the President’s approval rating at a record low 37% plus the traditional gains for a President’s opposing party in mid-terms that it will be an historic night for Republicans in November.

Even with 6 months out it’s an easy call to make now, says Dhillon.  There’s an added clincher that a large population of newly registered Republican voters are Asian and Hispanics and that will further propel the Republicans in November.   The President’s pressure on Congress on Immigration Reform, Energy Dependence, Federal Deficit, and Health Care will continue to determine whether his approval rating will rise or lower over the next few months.

The only good news for Democrats is that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) raised close to $3 million more than Republicans in the last quarterly report.  The Democrats will need to raise at least $20 million more each quarter to have any chance of forgoing full Republican control.  And that is a tough road to climb.

The Senate presently has 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans and two Independents.  The Republicans need a net gain of 6 seats out of 36 Senate races with Democrats fighting to retain 21 seats that include 6 races in states that Governor Mitt Romney won big in 2012.   President Obama should do everything he can do now to forge some type of relations with the Senate Republicans to help ease the pain of his final two years in office.  This will not be an easy task as the President and Congress barely talk as it is.

The House presently has 233 Republicans, 199 Democrats, and 3 open seats. Historically, the President’s opposing party makes big gains in mid-terms election plus the President’s approval rating is a low 37%.  It appears that the Republicans will gain close to 10 seats and get over a 242 seat majority.  If this occurs, this would the largest majority ever by Republicans.  Republicans held a 239 seat majority in 1949 and a 242 seat majority in 2010.

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.

Could Expats Decide the 2016 Presidential Election?

NEW YORK, Jan. 27, 2014 /PRNewswire-iReach/ — In past years, the Democratic party had a virtual stronghold on the expat community vote in presidential elections. This year may be different. The Republican National Committee (RNC) is making a strong case for US expats living abroad to vote Republican. The party has begun a campaign to repeal FATCA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which is causing an uproar throughout the world.

FATCA was originally created in 2010 to uncover tax cheats who are hiding funds in overseas accounts. The Act requires individuals to report on their assets abroad if they exceed certain thresholds, and is also now requiring foreign banks and financial institutions to report on the accounts of their American clients. This has been an uphill battle for the US, as many overseas financial institutions pride themselves on their banking secrecy laws. The additional reporting requirements of FATCA have prompted many foreign banks to refuse new American clients, and even close the accounts of the existing ones.

The RNC believes FATCA violates American citizens’ right to privacy. The resolution to repeal FATCA gained full support of the RNC Resolution Committee, as well as 26 co-sponsors, which virtually guarantees it will pass when voted on at the party’s winter meeting later this month.

According to a Washington Times article, Solomon Yue, a prominent RNC member from Oregon who is leading the charge on the issue, said “The law as it stands forces US citizens to make a modern day’s ‘Sophie’s choice’ between their love for their country by not renouncing citizenship and their love for their families by continuing to provide for them without banking services.”

The RNC believes the privacy rights infringed upon by FATCA is unfairly targeting innocent expats, not tax dodgers as the bill is designed to catch. The hope is that American expats feel strongly enough about this issue that they will be inclined to change their vote to possibly improve their lives abroad.

Democrats Abroad, the official arm of the Democratic Party for US citizens abroad, have traditionally won the support of expats. With offices in Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and the support of the presidential office, their extensive presence has helped them solidify the expat vote.

Republican Senator Rand Paul led the charge against FATCA when he introduced legislation to repeal certain parts of FATCA. The RNC is taking it one step further and attempting to eliminate it altogether. If the RNC is successful in gaining the expat community vote, it very well may have a significant impact on the 2016 presidential election.

“FATCA is a major issue for expats and it is quite possible that they would be willing to change their vote in the hopes that FATCA will be repealed,” commented David McKeegan, co-founder of Greenback Expat Tax Services. “Our past surveys reveal that expats feel like they lack a significant voice in the US government, and this may be the perfect opportunity for them to take a stand and be heard.”

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.

The Republican Party: When the Body Guard joins the Bully!!!!!

Rush LimbaughI was listening to Rush Limbaugh (Wednesday Dec. 17, 2013) and he had a very interesting call from a woman relating to a survey Limbaugh discussed about men not arguing with or disagreeing with their wife.  The survey found that when men never challenged the wife’s decisions the marriage got worse instead of getting better as is the common belief.  The caller made the point that men who never stand up for their opinions and beliefs don’t get respect from women.

I am not trying to quote her but rather describe the impression conveyed to me as a listener.  She made a point that I have made many times.  I don’t know who she was or where she was from but she sounded like a plain everyday American citizen.  The interesting thing is that she applied this survey to politics in a way that is practical and makes sense, and goes beyond gender in the analogy.  She said that women respect Democrats, even when they don’t agree with them or like them, because they stand up for what they believe in, right or wrong.

I have written many times about my attitude towards Democrats and Republicans.  I have a respect for Dingy Harry Reid that Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, John McCain, or any other “moderate” Republican, will NEVER see come their way.  I despise everything Reid stands for, and would like to see him go to prison for the rest of his life for the Demomcrat Logocorruption and the violations of the rights of We the People, and the Constitution.  He has continually ignored the very Constitution he swore an oath to protect and defend.  But Reid is fighting for the tyranny he believes in, and regardless of whether I like his beliefs or not, I respect him for being willing to fight.

Okay, so now you know I don’t care much for Harry Reid.  The caller, like me, has no respect for the Republican Party because they are seen as wimps, and can never be depended on to stand up for us against bullies.  The constant “bi-partisanship” is not politically attractive to the average woman, or man, in America.  No woman wants to be bullied by a man, but no woman wants a man who will let others bully her either, or for that matter let her bully him.  Same goes for citizens and politicians.

The TEA Party, as defiled as it is, has a 67% following among American citizens.  We the People, the 67% TEA Party We the People, swept Republicans to record setting election results in 2010.  This woman caller seemed to be under the TEA Party banner philosophically.   The “body guards” (Republican Party) we hired in 2010, the ones who told us they would protect us cower in the corner while the Democrat bullies pound us into submission.  What good are they?  And now they are joining in with the bullies to pummel the Constitution and We the People.

Sarah Palin identifies with both men and women because she is rightly seen as one of us.  She is a fighter, a combatant in the war being waged for liberty.  When I see a “Joan of Arc” being attacked by those I send to defend her I am not Sarah Palininclined to ever trust them again.  I voted for Republicans in 2008, 2010, and 2012.  Now I hear them call me the enemy and a roadblock to “progress”!!!!!   The body guard has decided to join in with the bully and hope they get a small piece of the spoils.  And they can be sure they won’t be attacked by the bullies if they cower and passively go along with the bullying.

There are those men and women who stand up for us in the realm of politics.  Men and women in Congress like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Louie Gohmert, Jim Bridenstine, Michelle Bachman, Marsha Blackburn, etc. ARE standing up for the Constitution and freedom of choice of citizens.  Not only are these “dedicated body guards”  seriously outnumbered by Democrat bullies, they now find themselves being stabbed in the back by those other “body guards” who promised to stand with them against the bullies.  The average American citizen wants security but not the kind of “security” we are getting out of those we send to “administer” our government functions.  We the People don’t want to be protected from ourselves.  We want to be protected from the bullies running a tyrannical government.

I don’t pay a bodyguard to join the bully and help him terrorize me.  We the People “hired” the Republican Party in 2010 to protect us from the bullies in the Democrat Party.  What do we see in 2013?? The Republican Party establishment, led by Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Reince Preibus, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, John Cornyn, John McCain, Lindseyrepublican logo Graham, Peter King, etc. ad nauseum; attack those who are doing what we pay them to do.  These “RINO” Republicans have joined in on the bullying we “hired” them to stop.

Ted Cruz and those who stand with him are doing the job we paid them to do.  This caller to Limbaugh made the point that those standing against the Democrat bullies are the ones she admires and respects.  I was able to identify with her about three sentences into her call.  She first talked about the personal relationship a woman wants with a man and then made a political comparison.  I am not a woman but I understand basic human nature.  I don’t want “friends” who will turn on me when I need them and I don’t want political “representatives” who will turn on me because that is the easiest and most profitable path for them.

People who give me the “if you don’t blindly vote for Republicans you are voting for Democrats” line are wasting their Don't Tread On Metime.  I will vote only for those who will be the bodyguard I pay them to be and no one else, regardless of party.  The days of me voting for Republicans because they aren’t Democrats are over.  I really don’t see any benefit to vote for them.  When they aren’t cowering in fear they are joining in on the bullying, and that isn’t something I am going to vote to continue!!!!!

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

January 5, 2014

 

Are You A Republicrat?

Are You A Republicrat?

I am not a liberal. I am a conservative. When I say conservative, I do not mean the rank and file CINO, or Conservative In Name Only. I mean that I am a genuine, common sense, down to earth person who will vote for a candidate based on moral constitutional principles of integrity regardless of party. Now before you turn me off labeling me as some fringe wacko libertarian kind of nut, just hear me out.

I am conservative! I am conservative in my suits, ties, manners, religion, music, politics . . . etc. I am a church attending Christian, pro-life anti-abortion, heterosexual husband and father, gun owning, Bible totin’, evangelistic man. I agree with your right to disagree with me and will help you defend that right, but will not stand by passively while you shove your opposing views down my throat. Your opinion is not more important than mine and warrants no special treatment above mine. I believe prayer in Jesus’ name in public or private is constitutional and believe the state should keep its nose out of the free exercise of religion, as stated plainly in the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I am not for legalizing drugs, and am opposed to big brother government, and think government should be shrunk by at least 95 % since government has boldly gone where our founding fathers never intended. I support the average American little guy of any color or ethnic background, who breaks his back supporting this country and its socialist agenda of spending. I know how to spend what little I make better than out of touch politicians who are more concerned about padding their pockets, pleasing fringe groups and influencing their constituents, rather than representing their constituents.

May I continue in honesty? Thank you. The Democrats started giving away the store under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then mainstreamed it with Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “Great Society,” Barack Hussein Obama has now taken this country to new heights (by the trillions) making Roosevelt, Johnson and others look like amateurs. Though the Republican Party at one time in the past, vigorously opposed this type of liberalism and socialism repeatedly, there is not a dime’s worth of difference today between the elite leadership of the Democrats and the Republicans. The GOP has not stood where it should have stood concerning such things as NAFTA and TARP and stimulus spending, and raising the debt ceiling, and has sold us all down the river on Obamacare.

I am not a party man. I swear allegiance to principle, not party, and that principle is reflected in any candidate I may support. The issue today is no longer between the donkey and the elephant. America does not have a two party system: there is only one party with two branches, Democrat and Republican or what I call the Republicrats. The battle is between the America hating, Marxist/socialists from both parties as they try to run rough shod over We The People, the ones who elect these charlatans. It is time to wake up smell the coffee, re-elect NO ONE and throw every politician out of office, replacing each and every one with statesmen and patriots who will serve the people who elected them, then go back home to their jobs and let the next round of elected officials serve their term, then go home, etc. etc.

I will not vote for another Republican in conservative clothing. Will the real America wake up, unite and prepare for battle? This can be our finest hour.

Joseph Harris is a pastor and former Bible college instructor and has been writing columns since 2000. [email protected]

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!”

NEXT with Jonathan D. Sangster Week 2

nextWhere: NEXT with Jonathan D. Sangster

What: Looking for something more than the typical mainstream take on news and entertainment? Don’t miss NEXT with Jonathan D. Sangster. Talk radio for people that are looking for more than just the same old talk – for people that are looking for what’s NEXT.

Tonight: It’s time for Week 2 of NEXT with Jonathan D. Sangster. We’ll be going over Sunday’s major head lines, the Czech elections, the NSA protest in DC, recent terrorism in Denver, obstruction in game 3 of the World Series, Favre rejecting the Rams.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

A House Divided is Good?

Donkey Hotey (CC)

Donkey Hotey (CC)

One of the interesting items which occurred during the vote in the Senate to stop the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling was the surprise appearance of the Senate stenograhper at the microphone. She took the mike and began to decry the vote by shouting about the Freemasons and the Constitution and then quoted the Bible verse, “A house divided cannot stand.”

What I found fascinating was that this woman unitentionally stated the current condition of the Republican party especially in the Senate. I saw this division commented on in news programs both before and after the agreement was reached. Commentators from the right and left were both saying how this war among Republicans was a very bad thing for the party. I suggest this is not necessarily the case.

First of all, an examination of the groups within the GOP is in order. One group is popularly known as the “Establishment” Republicans. They are the members of Congress who have been in office the longest and were elected prior to the 2010 mid-term elections. They are characterized by Senator John McCain and those like him. They believe that in politics you must “go along to get along.” They continually give in and compromise to the opposition so as not to offend anyone else and maintain party power in Washington. In other words, the priority of the Establishment GOP is the maintaining of political power for themselves.

The second group in the GOP are known as the “Tea Party” Republicans. They basically came into existence with the 2010 mid-term election victories. They are represented by people such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, both of recent filibuster fame. This group is excoriated repeatedly by the main stream media, the Democratic Party and the Establishment GOP as those who cause division and stir up trouble on Capitol Hill. Which is exactly what they do. However, contrary to their opposition, they act because of the ideal that our nation is a Constitutional Republic and should therefore be both morally and fiscally conservative. In other words, the priority of the Tea Party fealty to our founding document and principles of freedom which inspired it. That priority is what they have remained loyal to no matter the vitriol thrown their way.

Democrats suffer no such division. Those on the left are united behind their leader, President Obama. And President Obama is very much a commited zealot to, as he himself put it, the “fundamental transformation of America.” I maintained as long ago as the primaries for the 2008 nomination, this was the one statement then candidate Obama made everyone should believe and beware of, because Obama believes it himself. His actions demonstrate that he is sold out to an ideal of a Socialist state with at least Muslim leanings. He and those with him will never compromise anything unless it furthers his cause.

This appears very bad for the Republicans, however in truth, it is only bad for the Establishment GOP. They are used to politcal battles. They know how to fight for political gain with compromise. They do not know that to win against those committed to a cause, you must be more committed to the rightness of your cause. History has demonstrated this time and time again. WWII and the Cold War were examples of such.

That’s why the Establishment GOP is in big trouble, and why the Tea Party Republicans have hope of victory. Tea Party Republicans hold fast to an ideal of freedom not unlike the Allies in WWII and the West during the Cold War. Establishment Republicans only seek political survival. No one outside party loyalists is inspired to commit to the non-ideal of simply gaining political power. Unless the Establishment types convert to the ideals of the Tea Party, they will continue to lose and eventually cease to exist as even a political force. Money may prop them up for a while, but sooner or later they will fade away, and I would say good riddance. In a war for freedom against “fundamental transformation” to socialist servitude, there is no place for fear and the compromise politics resulting from it. In this case “a house divided” is a good thing for it forces the power mongers to change or leave as long as we who fight for the right ideal of freedom stay the course. The result is a stronger and more effective political force that can fight and prevail against the left.

Why did government shutdown?

Ever since Ted Cruz decided to take a stand against the Democrats, we’ve been going in circles making the entire situation far too complicated. What made the shutdown such an abysmal failure for Republicans? You want a simple answer to that question, watch this video from CDN Radio’s own Dustin Hoyt. We did this to ourselves, with stupid infighting, and a failure of constituents to remind their elected officials exactly how our system works. People like John McCain need to be reminded that they can (and should) be removed from office by the people, when they fail to do what they’ve been elected to do. Also, we need to stop letting the Democrats control the narrative. Republicans were not the ones that refused to negotiate – they were.

Dems outraise GOP for first time

For the first time this year, extreme left progressives have raised more money than moderate and conservative politicians.

The Democratic National Committee has narrowly edged its Republican rival in fundraising for the first time all year.

In a Sunday release, the Republican National Committee reported raising $7.1 million in September. Democrats on Friday reported a cash haul of nearly $7.4 million in September, while finishing the month with more than $5 million on hand.

Despite bringing in less money than democrats, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus tried to put a positive slant on the news by saying, “It’s because of the strong support of our donors that we are able to build a permanent ground operation and ensure a year-round presence in communities all across America.”

Realizing that the Democrats have had a solid focus on the banning of firearms, ammunition and accessories related to hunting and the shooting sports, this news should be alarming. Our current administration has signed the U.N. Arms treaty and several Democrat states have put oppressive bans in place. Hearing that large companies are funding the progressive agenda is what sends up the red flags – it may take a grass roots movement if there is to be  hope to save the right to own a firearm.

The scandals in the NSA and IRS, failures in implementing Obamacare, the tragedy in Benghazi, the endless and misguided military presence in Afghanistan, an economic recovery that is leaving more people on disability, unemployment and the street than ever before .. and the party in power is still able to raise gobs of money.

It would seem that progressives are indeed VERY happy with the direction the country is headed in.

 

 

 

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge

When:Saturday, October 19th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radiosncl_logocdn

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Tonight is special because Texas Senator Ken Paxton joins to discuss his run for Attorney General. Why is he running? What makes him different from his opponents, state Representative Dan Branch and Railroad Commissioner Barry Smitherman? Could he draw in libertarians? What does he think about Battleground Texas?

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

How Obamacare Screws the Working Class…Hard

Now that it is becoming clear that the establishment House Republicans are about to capitulate to the Senate Democrats and Obama Progressives, it is clear that, short of Republicans taking the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016, Obamacare is set to sink into the flesh of the American entitlement system not unlike a bear’s claws sink into the flesh of its prey. Regardless of whether or not the federal healthcare exchange website functions adequately or not (get used to it, it’s government inferiority at work), the bureaucracy has just expanded and your wallets are about to do the opposite.

One of the things that people are going to have to come to understand is how the Internal Revenue Service – yes, the same Internal Revenue Service currently under investigation for targeting Conservative political groups – will be assessing the penalties (read: enforcing Obamacare) on those who choose not to “participate.” The fact of the matter is that it is both less ominous, yet more disturbing, than people think.

The penalties levied under the Affordable Care Act, under the usually heavy hand of the IRS, is not so much under the ACA. In fact, the pathway for extracting the Obamacare penalty from non-participants is exclusive to the garnishment of any federal tax refunds due. If one chooses not to acquire qualifying health insurance, the IRS will withhold the amount of the penalty that must be paid from any federal tax return refund that is owed an individual in violation of the statute.

According to BusinessInsider.com:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2 times the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won’t be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

So, unlike when an individual fails to pay their federal income taxes, there won’t be a cadre of black uniformed federal agents armed with fully-automatic weapons kicking in your door in the middle of the night. You won’t be “frog-marched” out of your house in irons, past your disenchanted neighbors, to face the swift righteousness of redistributive social justice (I am being sarcastic, but less so than I would have been just a few years back).

But one question that eludes the thoughts of most people where this matter is concerned is this. What happens if you don’t “participate” in Obamacare but you aren’t due any federal tax refund? What if you are one of the 47 percent who does not pay federal income tax? What if you are über-wealthy and can afford a wizard tax attorney who can figure out how you can “zero out” on your federal taxes each year?

Well, the short answer is this. If you don’t pay federal income tax, technically, you don’t have to pay the fines under the Affordable Care Act. If you are one of the hard-working Americans who has federal taxes withheld from your paycheck – oh, you know, like Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law – you will have to pay the penalty out of your tax refunds. If you are one of the 47 percent of the American public who doesn’t pay federal income taxes, you get to “skate” the Obamacare penalty. Ditto for the “One Percenters.”

One has to wonder whether H&R Block is going to be flooded with new clients trying to figure out how to pay their federal income taxes to the penny throughout the year so that they “zero out.”

And let’s be honesty, the IRS is not going to come after every person who “skates” the $95 dollar (or 1 percent of earnings) penalty being assessed in 2014, even if they did seek to hire upwards of 16,000 new IRS agents since the passage of this freedom-crushing law.

So, when one comes to understand this very stark reality, the obvious question is this. If the indestructible demographic (the 21 to 32 year-old demo) doesn’t sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges in droves – and droves upwards of 80% of their demographic, and 47 percent of the country doesn’t pay federal income taxes, who actually pays for the expanded coverage mandated under the Affordable Care Act? Who is on the hook for Obamacare?

The answer – again – is the Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law…and new taxes on everyone. Again, BusinessInsider.com reports:

Here are some of the new taxes you’re going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:

A 3.8% surtax on “investment income”( dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc.) when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000, $250,000 for joint-filers. What is “investment income?” (WSJ)

A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more, $250,000 joint. (WSJ)

Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. (ATR.org)

The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to 10% of adjusted gross income. (ATR.org)

The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. (ATR.org)

A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)

A 40% tax on “Cadillac Health Care Plans” starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. (ATR.org)

A”Medicine Cabinet Tax” that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. (ATR.org)

A “penalty” tax for those who don’t buy health insurance.

A 2.3% excise tax on medical devices costing more than $100. (Breitbart.com)

So those are some of the new taxes you’ll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare…

Note that these taxes are both “progressive” (aimed at rich people) and “regressive” (aimed at the middle class and poor people).

The cost of this program will not be affordable for the individuals – almost every story but for those who get taxpayer-funded subsidies is one of tripled premiums and deductibles, and it won’t be affordable for the country, especially when the bureaucrats and elitist political class put the price tag of the whole Obamacare ball of infected earwax at approximately $2 trillion dollars.

Now, President Obama is quoted as having said, in an interview with the Spanish-Speaking television network Univision, that:

Once [the budget impasse is rectified], you know, the day after – I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform…And if I have to join with other advocates and continue to speak out on that, and keep pushing, I’m going to do so because I think it’s really important for the country. And now is the time to do it.

And as the “indestructible” demographic (21-32 years of age) fails to sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges, pro-amnesty Progressives will begin insisting that illegal immigrants (I’m sorry, I mean undocumented uninvited guests) be added to those eligible for Obamacare. Understanding that the 47 percent of those who do not pay federal income tax cannot be fined, and that the One Percenters can affords to have their taxes “zero out,” how long will it be until Progressives scream “crisis” and demand massive, Middle-Class killing. economy destroying, Cloward-Piven-styled tax increases?

Who is John Galt?

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge October 12th

When:Saturday, October 12th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radiosncl_logocdn

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Tonight is Texas politics and cigar talk with Scott Braddock! He’s not just from Texas…he’s OF Texas. Also expect some TX/OU weekend talk to, but only if we’re either A) Shocked at how much OU beats TX by or B) Shocked TX actually makes it a decent game.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Federal Government: Embarrassing to the Point of Painful

As the so-called “government shutdown” drags on, one thing is hard not to admit: the Obama Administration is acting in a manner that is attempting to extract the maximum amount of pain on the American people. While many are wondering how it came to this point, those of us who actually paid attention in Social Studies, Civics and American History classes – school subjects that are, today, given little, if any, attention –
understand it’s because the US Constitution and the purity of the original governmental process has been raped by the opportunistic political class.

Our nation has always had a robust political discourse, commencing from before we were even a documented nation. We have always been represented by a passionate, spirited political class; strong in their beliefs, but educated and knowledgeable enough to legislate and govern for the good of all the people. Today, this is not the case.

Today, we have a political class that insists on the importance of ideologically motivated political “achievements” over the honest representation of the American people; loyalty to political faction – of which each and every Framer and Founder warned – over loyalty to those who delivered them to power via the ballot box.

Today, we literally have people in the political class that have an inferior command of the English language, an inferior and under-performing understanding of the principles of the Constitution and the Charters of Freedom, and a devotion to Progressivism; a non-indigenous, Marxist-based ideology that believes the State is the Alpha and the Omega; the giver of rights and the final arbiter of freedom and liberty.

Today, we have a government that does not – does not – serve the American people, evidenced – in a singular point – by the overwhelming and sustained majority of Americans who do not want the Affordable Care Act implemented on any level.

FOX News reports:

Is the Obama administration employing a make-it-hurt strategy to gain political leverage in the budget battle on Capitol Hill?

Republicans are making that charge as the stalemate drags on, and point to the Pentagon furlough of 400,000 civilian staffers — even though Congress passed and the president signed a bill to supposedly keep them on the job…

Republicans argue that the intent of the law was to keep them on the job, and that the Obama administration “narrowly interpreted” it against congressional intent in order to furlough more employees.

It’s one example of how, Republicans say, the administration is making the partial shutdown of government services worse than it needs to be. Many have complained about the National Park Service cordoning off even open-air monuments in Washington, DC, such as the World War II Memorial.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), responded to criticisms by saying, “It is time for Speaker Boehner to stop the games.”

Shamefully, FOX also reported that correspondence on this situation has stalled because, as Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), stated, “Unfortunately, most of the staff who draft congressional correspondence are furloughed.”

A few notes on this shameful situation.

First, and to be equally critical to both sides, if “staffers that draft congressional correspondence” have been furloughed, perhaps those elected to Congress should learn to (and actually) write their own correspondence.

Second, to the Progressives, Democrats and our embarrassing President, it is never “game-playing” when the taxpayer’s money is being spent. It is “game-playing” when members of our military who have been maimed and permanently injured can’t get medical care because the politically opportune refuse to entertain appropriations passed through a traditional method (not every spending bill has to be an omnibus package, in fact traditionally, the 12 appropriation bills have been passed separately).

House Republicans “screwed the pooch” when they didn’t advance ACA funding as a separate, stand-alone appropriations bill from the start. When House Speaker Boehner stated that this Congress would operate under “regular order” he should have stated that the House would be de-bundling all legislation into stand-alone pieces, shining the light of truth and accountability on everything that passed across the House floor. Sadly, traditional, inside-the-beltway pork politics prevailed and the practice of bundling legislation to appease the politically greedy has delivered us to this point.

Truth be told, had the political class not blindly followed the Progressive Movement into ratifying the 17th Amendment, none of this would have ever come to pass. But, then, the Commerce Clause wouldn’t have even come close to allowing much of what the Federal government has done that encroaches into our daily lives.

Additionally, if Harry Reid would have operated lawfully, the omnibus appropriations package would have already been legislated, as he is – is – bound by law to have produced a budget by April 15 of each year. He has not done so since before Republicans took control of the House.

The sad, but glaringly true, fact is this. Our government has become too big and too bureaucratic. Our government has manipulated and strayed from the boundaries of the US Constitution, which is a mandated blueprint for limiting government.

Until We the People insist on repealing the 17th Amendment so as to re-employ constitutional protections for the States, and until Congress re-visits the Federal government’s grotesquely over-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it will be up to the States to save the nation, either by Constitutional Convention (which in and of itself is very dangerous were the original words of the Constitution to be manipulated by the opportunistic) or by, God forbid, secession.

And it is with tears in my eyes for our country; for freedom; for liberty itself, that I acquiesce to the notion. Buy, my God, are we to allow the greatest achievement of freedom in the history of the world be extinguished at the hand of ideological bullies?

The words of Patriot Patrick Henry said so very seriously then, are just as cogent today:

“Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! — I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

« Older Entries