Tag: Senate

The Syria Situation: Obama, the Democrats, and the Vichy Republicans Vs. America

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

obamaburningconstitutionAs I was riding with my non-political bride to work yesterday, I was telling her about the goings on in Washington, concerning inserting us into a Civil War in Syrian, just so the Manchurian Candidate can save face, and at the same time, possibly fulfill promises made to the Muslim Brotherhood during their visits to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, as the guy who promised to “stand with the Muslims should the political winds blow in an ugly direction”.

I said,

Honey, Obama and Congress are going to get us involved in Syria, even when 80% of the country does not want us there.

My bride replied,

Since when have the people ever had a choice, when we went to war?

She had a point. Usually, such decisions are made in the Halls of Power. However, the President and Congress usually seek the consent of the people before they send our Brightest and Best off to battle.

Not this time. And, as nationalreview.com reports, the backlash shows why.

Arizona congressman Matt Salmon’s constituents have called his office 500 times about Syria, he tells National Review Online in an interview, but only two callers have expressed support for intervening there. “This is not hyperbole!” he says emphatically.

And Salmon himself is firmly against authorizing a strike. “I don’t see any national-security imperative for our country at all. Both sides in this equation are bad actors.” He also notes that Obama has been unable to form an international coalition and hasn’t laid out an overall objective for a missile strike. “Other than saving face for the president, I don’t understand what we would be doing,” he says.

Further, Salmon doubts the intervention will be brief. “Nobody believes this is going to be a couple surgical strikes,” he says.

Salmon agrees the dynamics of the vote are likely to mirror the July vote on an amendment from Representative Justin Amash to reign in the NSA’s broad surveillance powers, except the vote against authorizing Syrian intervention is likely to have more support. The authorization “will fail by 20 votes,” he predicts.

Salmon praised President Obama for coming to Congress for authorization, but he fears whether the president will abide by the will of the legislature. It would be a constitutional crisis if Obama overrode the will of Congress on Syria, he says, describing that scenario as the “most significant flouting of separation of powers in this nation, if this happens.”

Salmon is part of the right flank of the GOP conference, someone who is deeply frustrated with Speaker John Boehner’s unwillingness to use the upcoming continuing-resolution fight to draw a line in the sand over Obamacare funding.

He also sees the Syria fight as part of a larger battle for the heart of the GOP’s foreign-policy soul. The lessons of Iraq, but also the “past 30 or 40 years” are that “we should be a lot more cautious.” Of the Iraq War, launched by Republican president George W. Bush, he says “We’ve spent countless lives and dollars, and for what?” Salmon says that his fellow Republicans who weren’t in office during the Bush years were more likely to have learned those lessons from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars than those who were in D.C. to authorize them.

Yesterday, the Senate Committee rammed through their resolution on a 10 – 7 vote, allowing Dinghy Harry Reid to bring it up for a floor vote as early as next Wednesday. The Senate Resolution has plenty of loopholes in it for Obama, including the authorization to put “boots on the ground”.

Sen. Ted Cruz was interviewed earlier yesterday on The Blaze Radio. He remarked,

“We certainly don’t have a dog in the fight,” Cruz said, calling it a civil war in Syria. “We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.”

…“It appears what the president is pressing for is essentially protecting his public relations because he drew a red line, and, essentially, the bluff was called,” Cruz said.

Cruz said of nine major groups of rebels fighting in Syria, at least seven had ties to Al Qaeda, and a strategy from Obama that would arm those groups “makes no sense whatsoever.”

“I’ll give you one of the simplest principles of foreign policy that we ought to be following: Don’t give weapons to people who hate you. Don’t give weapons to people who want to kill you,” Cruz said.

About that “Red Line”…

“First of all, I didn’t set a red line,” said Obama. “The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it.”

On Monday, August 20, 2012, at an impromptu press conference, speaking about Assad and Syria, the Prevaricator-in-Chief said,

We cannot have a situation in which chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people. We have been very clear to the Assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized.”

Pantalones en fuego.

Lt. Col. Allen West said the following about this situation on his Facebook Page, yesterday,

Listening to President Obama in Sweden saying he never set a red line and that his credibility isn’t on the line, but rather the credibility of America, Congress, and the International community. It never ceases to amaze me how Obama never takes any responsibility for his actions. He is the leader of the United States of America and he sets the tone, not Joe and Jane. As a leader, he did nothing for all these months and now wants to enjoin everyone in his abject failure and abdication of accountability. I am not buying into Obama’s weak attempt of guilt-tripping us. Mr. President, you have not earned anyone’s respect to follow you, May I remind you of the result of your unilateral actions in Libya? Also, is it not perplexing that within the last 6 years, Pelosi, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton all sat with and praised Assad, but now they want to blow him up?

To summarize, the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States, have become, in essence, Breznev and the old Soviet Politboro.

It does not matter what Americans, the people whom they are supposed to be serving, want. It is all about them.

If the actual Conservatives in Congress don’t stand up on their hind legs and tell Obama, and the Democrats and the Vichy Republicans in Congress,  NO, we will be intervening in a Civil War on the other side of the world on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.

And, this is all happening less than a week before September 11th.

The actions of this President and this Congress, by attempting to go to war on behalf of the MB and al Qaeda, dishonors the memories of the 3,000 Americans who died that horrible day, now almost 12 years ago.

They should all be ashamed.

Until He Comes, KJ 

Obama, Amnesty, and Vichy Republicans

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

ibamaillegalimmigrationWell, the President of the United States is taking his show on the road, again. Unfortunately though, he is not traveling out of the country, he is coming to see us.

Ol’ Scooter is still all wee-wee’d up by the possibility of creating millions of new Democratic Voters by signing into law the Senate Gang of 8’s Amnesty Bill.

According to The Wall Street Journal,

Mr. Obama likely will travel in the coming months to some of the battleground states he won with the help of a robust Latino vote—possibly including Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Florida—to argue the economic case for passing the immigration overhaul. He will also try to convince reticent Republican lawmakers that the GOP’s viability as a national party with aspirations of winning back the White House is linked to the fate of the bill, White House officials said.

Mr. Obama’s strategy carries personal risks as well. Should he take on a partisan tone, he may antagonize House Republicans and scuttle a bill that is the centerpiece of his second-term agenda, feeding perceptions that he is a lame duck.

On immigration, Mr. Obama played a largely behind-the-scenes role as the bill worked its way through the Senate, with his aides providing technical assistance and giving quiet advice to lawmakers. With the action moving to the House, the White House is devising a new strategy to push the bill through a chamber that is more resistant to the prospect of a path to citizenship for the 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally.

…As he travels to presidential swing states, Mr. Obama won’t attempt to pressure particular House members, but rather underscore the point that the GOP must improve its standing among Latino voters if it hopes to win presidential races down the road, White House officials said.

He will go to “areas that Republicans hope to do better in and need to do better in,” one White House official said.

Another of Mr. Obama’s imperatives is ensuring the momentum created by the Senate’s solid bipartisan vote doesn’t fade, White House officials said. To that end, the White House is enlisting business leaders in hopes of persuading House Republicans to back the bill. Last Tuesday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough met privately with the American Bankers Association, the National Retail Federation, the Financial Services Forum and other business trade groups, to discuss ways to advance the bill.

A small group of Republican House Members actually met last night to discuss the possibility of passing the Immigration Bill in the House of Representatives.

In a related story, Amnesty Advocates and desperate Democrats have been quietly circulating the following list of Republican House Members who they believe may be stupid and spineless enough to vote for the Gang of 8’s Amnesty Bill:

Immigration Reform in the House – Republican Targets July 3, 2013

If there is a vote on comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship in the House, it will pass with a bipartisan majority. If all but a handful of the House Democrats vote yes, and at least 20 Republicans from the list below come along, reform can easily clear the 218 necessary to pass the lower chamber. Looking at the list of 99 House Republicans below, it’s clear that capturing those 20 or so Republican votes is well within reach. Our target list includes several different groups of Republicans, such as:

Republicans with growing numbers of Latino and Asian constituents. While redistricting has temporarily insulated many House Republicans from the “demographic cliff” their party faces if it caters only to white voters,” at least 38 Republican members of Congress represent heavily Latino districts–and approximately 25 GOP members are in diverse swing districts where the growing Latino, Asian, and immigrant vote is crucial. These include California Republicans Jeff Denham, David Valadao, Gary Miller, Buck McKeon and Devin Nunes; Colorado Republican Mike Coffman; Florida Republicans Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (both of whom are longtime supporters of immigration reform); New York Republicans Peter King and Michael Grimm; and Nevada Republican Joe Heck.
Republicans with agricultural or high-tech interests in their districts. Both the agriculture and high-tech sectors urgently need immigration reform to secure a 21st century workforce. Republicans who should support reform for the economic well-being of their districts include Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Spencer Bachus (R-AL),and Sam Johnson (R-TX), all of whom represent agriculture-heavy districts, and Darrell Issa (R-CA), whose district includes tech interests.

Republicans who understand the need for the Party to tackle immigration reform for its own future. Several leading figures inthe House GOP have come out in favor of immigration reform since the election, understanding that, as a Republican NationalCommittee report put it this spring, “among the steps Republicans take in the Hispanic community and beyond we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our Party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.” This group includes Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), who told reporters last month that he believes the House can pass immigration reform with a path to citizenship; NRCC chairman Greg Walden (R-OR), who told USA Today last month that he believes the undocumented should have access to a path to citizenship; and rising star Raul Labrador (R-ID), who has remained committed to immigration reform even after leaving the bipartisan House “Gang of 8.”

If any Republican House Members join the gullible traitors in the Senate, like Rubio, McCain, and his pet dog, Graham, in voting for this “get out of jail FREE card”, I have they have a trade to fall back on, Because, they will be primaried in 2014, and sent packing.

A couple of years back, the following allegorical story went viral.  You may have seen this already, but it explains illegal immigration as succinctly as anything I have come across:

Let’s pretend I broke into your house.  When you discover me there, you insist I leave.  But I say, “I’ve made all the beds, washed the dishes, did the laundry, and cleaned the floors; I’ve done all the work you don’t like to do. I’m hardworking and honest (except for breaking into your house). Not only must you let me stay, you must also add me to your insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide these benefits to my husband, too (he will do your yardwork, he’s honest and hardworking too–except for that breaking in part). If you try to force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house and proclaim my right to be there! It’s only fair, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m trying to better myself. I’m hardworking and honest…except for, well, you know. I will live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness and prejudice.

Oh yeah, I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me.

Good plan..don’t you think?

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children.  We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight.  But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

Former Texas Democratic Representative Barbara Jordan was a big believer in assimilation. During her time on Capitol Hill, she chaired the US Commission on Immigration Reform.

In their 1997 Report, which they dedicated to Rep. Jordan, published after her passing, they wrote the following principles:

We believe these truths constitute the distinctive characteristics of American nationality:

*American unity depends upon a widely-held belief in the principles and values embodied in the American Constitution and their fulfillment in practice: equal protection and justice under the law; freedom of speech and religion; and representative government;

*Lawfully-admitted newcomers of any ancestral nationality—without regard to race, ethnicity, or religion—truly become Americans when they give allegiance to these principles and values;

*Ethnic and religious diversity based on personal freedom is compatible with national unity; and

*The nation is strengthened when those who live in it communicate effectively with each other in English, even as many persons retain or acquire the ability to communicate in other languages.

As long as we live by these principles and help newcomers to learn and practice them, we will continue to be a nation that benefits from substantial but well-regulated immigration.

The great Michelle Malkin added,

Those principles have been abandoned, scorned, and sabotaged. You have not heard an iota about them from Washington. It is the erosion of Americanization and the ascendancy of the collectivists that helped create the conditions for Election Day.

Amnesty instead of assimilation is a recipe for even greater GOP losses at at the ballot box.

Amnesty instead of assimilation is a recipe for the furtherance of American decline.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish.  But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

You cannot buy Patriotism.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Obama…

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics6 Comments

obamalameduck

“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” – Proverbs 16:18

Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) was re-elected President of these United States on November 6, 2012.

Liberals rejoiced. Republican Moderates looked around in disbelief. Conservatives in the Heartland said, “I told you so.”

With the 47% solidly behind him (as long as he keeps giving them stuff) and the Main Stream Media lying their posteriors off for him, Obama and his trusty sidekick, Crazy Uncle Joe (Biden, not Stalin. Although…) prepared themselves to finish the job of “radically changing” America.

First thing, though, before Obama could get to his pet issues, was the Sequester. As the deadline neared for it to take effect, he took to the airwaves, going on camera to “warn” Americans about the devastating effects  that would be unleashed upon the land,  if Republicans didn’t bow down to his wishes, and throw more money at the ever-expanding Obama Administration, then American, as we know it, would cease to exist…or something.

The Republicans, to their credit, decided to let the sequester end, which resulted in absolutely nothing happening.

Being made to look like a fool, the Petulant President started making things happen on his own. He stopped tours of the White House, and started making cuts to essential services, like small town airports.

Obama set his sights next on Gun Confiscation, announcing that it was for the “chirren”. Never mind, that in his own hometown of Chicago, Black chirren are being turned into gang bangers, and, subsequently, killing each other at an alarming rate.

Instead, Obama decided to go after us law-abiding “bitter clingers”. Knowing that he couldn’t overtly go after our Bibles, he decided to try to take away our guns, by blaming the mass murder of children at Newtown on guns, instead of the psychopath who actually was responsible for the murder of those precious children and the adults who tried to protect them.

The Senate’s Gun Control Bill, created at the request of Obama, was killed right there on the Senate Floor, leading the Petulant President to hold a hastily-arranged Press Conference, where he proceeded to trot out family members of the Newtown victims, using them as a political tool, like Hitler did on several occasions, when he surrounded himself with children for photo ops. Surrounded by these family members, Obama proceeded to throw the first Presidential Temper Tantrum, blaming everyone but himself for the failure of the bill, sounding like a didactic visiting lecturer at the University of Chicago, instead of the Leader of the Free World.

The second of Obama’s pet issues that he is setting his laser-like focus on is Immigration Reform, or, as we “bitter clingers” call it, Amnesty. A Senatorial “Gang of Eight” has been working on a bill which will create 33 million new Democratic Voters.

One member of the committee, Republican Marco Rubio, has recently been hitting all of the Conservative Talk Shows, in a determined effort to try to convince us that Amnesty is a great and wonderful thing.

He has been received by Conservatives about as well as someone popping open a can of beer on a back row of a funeral chapel, with the service in progress.

All young Marco has achieved, unfortunately, is the demise of his standing as a Tea Party Favorite. You just don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Additionally, with several of the Muslim Terrorists who planned and executed the New Boston Massacre turning out to be here illegally, the Amnesty Bill is dead in the water.

The last two issues on Obama’s agenda pits this country’s Administration directly against the Lord Almighty.

The first is Homosexual Marriage. Obama decided a while back that he would be perceived as being “cool” and “electable” if he came out (if you’ll excuse the expression) in favor of Homosexual Marriage.

The only problem with his plan is that the majority of states have already voted against it. So, there was only one thing for him and his merry band of Liberal Hopers and Changers to do. Take it to the court system., seeking to overturn the will of the people. Sound familiar?

The Supreme Court will being hearing arguments soon.

The other issue,  inter-twined with “Homosexual Marriage”, that Obama and his minions are pushing, is the Elimination of Christianity. First, as I have previously chronicled, they are beginning their quest in the Armed Forces, having already used them as Lab Rats in their quest to “normalize” Homosexuality in the Military by ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

The Obama Administration has decided that the Military is no place for Americans to be sharing their faith with one another. Recently, Obama and his minions blocked the Southern Baptist Convention’s website from Military Servers. The SBC is the largest  Christian Evangelical Denomination in the world.

Next, as I wrote earlier this week, they consulted with Mikey Weinstein, a bitter little former Air Force lawyer, who heads the atheist group, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF).

After meeting with Weinstein, the bureaucrats who run the military have decided that sharing your faith within the military is punishable by court martial.

If they are bold enough to try to eliminate Christianity from our Armed Forces, how long will it be, until speaking against Homosexual Marriage from civilian pulpits is a Hate Crime, and, attempting to force churches to perform Homosexual Marriages?

Do you want to hear some GOOD NEWS?

First, God is in control. And, He loves you and me.

Also, the sleeping giant who President Nixon referred to as “The Silent Majority”, is waking up. People are starting to slowly get involved. They are calling their Congresscritters and letting them know that average Americans do not appreciate the Manchurian President’s attempt to take away our Constitutional Rights from us.  

They are also letting them know that as politicians, they work for us…not the other way around.

Americans will not let their country be turned into a Third World Marxist Nation without a fight.

As this involvement by average Americans continues to grow, Obama’s plans to bring his Far Left/Socialist Agenda to fruition will be thwarted.

The true power of America does not reside in government bureaucracy, but in the faith and strength of average American Citizens, standing up on their hind legs, and saying 

NO MORE!

STAY STRONG, AMERICANS!

FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT.

PRAY FOR OUR NATION.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Epic Failure of the Republican “Establishment”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

Boehner2Last week, in a post titled,”The Failed GOP Strategy of Passive Resistance”, I observed,

Out here in the Heartland of America, I have heard from Conservatives who are bumfuzzled by the actions (specifically, the lack thereof) of the Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate, in regards to the full throttle offensive battle being waged against America by its own president, Barack Hussein Obama.

I believe that the GOP Establishment have ordered the rank and file to shuddup and practice “Passive Resistance” in an effort to show the party as being “bi-partisan” and able to “reach across the aisle”.

The reason for their inaction has to do with the fact that the Republican Establishment are all Moderates. And, as the great Margaret Thatcher once said,

Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.

And, evidently the Northeast Republicans’ Club, soooper geniuses that they are, love the abuse.

On Novmber 8, 2012, Jeffrey Lord wrote the following in an article for The American Spectator:

And so, another moderate fails.

Governor Romney is a good person, a great business leader.

But, alas, he is also a moderate Republican.

As were Herbert Hoover, Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Thomas E. Dewey, Gerald R. Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain. Making Mitt Romney a historical asterisk as the tenth moderate GOP nominee (Dewey was nominated twice) to lose the White House.

The exceptions to the rule are Dwight Eisenhower, who won not because he was a moderate but because he was the general-hero of World War II. Richard Nixon campaigned as the moderate he was in 1960 and lost. By 1968 he had won the nomination of a party that had shifted back to its conservative roots and he campaigned accordingly — as he did in 1972. He won narrowly the second time, by a landslide the third. George H.W. Bush ran as the heir to Reagan in 1988 and won. Governing as a moderate he lost — and lost badly in his 1992 re-election effort. George W. Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative” — which is to say a moderate — in 2000 and 2004 and squeaked by the first time thanks to the Supreme Court, winning the second time by a bare 100,000 votes in Ohio.

On Tuesday night, it comes clear, as this is written using the latest Fox News figures, Mitt Romney lost to President Obama by 2,819,339 votes.

And the news ekes out that Moderate Nominee Number 10 Romney received some 3 million Republican votes less than Moderate Nominee Number 9 — John McCain in 2008.

Which is to say, 3 million base GOP voters simply refused to vote for Romney. Doing the available math, that means had those 3 million Republicans voted for Romney he would have, as this is written, a margin of victory in the national popular vote of 180,661. Depending on the state spread, potentially an Electoral College victory as well.

Does the message get through here?

Well, for some in the GOP — no.

The usual call will now go up — just as it did in 1950 from two-time loser Dewey — that to nominate a conservative is to lose. Somehow heedless that it wasn’t Ronald Reagan and his conservatism that lost or almost lost the White House, it was this seemingly endless stream of very nice moderate Republicans.

Reasonable people can be expected to raise the point of just when that old joke attributed to Einstein will come clear. You know the one. That the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. For Republicans, this translates as yet again nominating a moderate who is said to “move to the center,” “can attract women,” “get the youth vote” and “get the minority vote.”

The strategy has failed repeatedly for some 80 years. Say again… 80 years!!!!! And yet there are still those out there who insist on doing the same thing  over — and over and over and over — again.

As we head into the Lightbringer’s second term, it appears that the Republican Establishment would rather find a scapegoat for their collective misery, that learn anything in their defeat.

On his radio program on January 13th, Rush Limbaugh said:

I think the Republican establishment is of the same frame of mind as Obama is, that the opposition is conservatives. The opposition is conservatism. And that’s why we’ve had some people ask me, “What was Colin Powell doing?” Colin Powell was on Meet the Press yesterday doing what Scarborough did on MSNBC this morning, which is what a lot of Republicans are doing, and that is criticizing conservatives. Every problem we’ve got, from the gridlock to intransigence to spending, it’s all the fault of conservatives.

Mark Levin nailed the problem with the GOP last Monday on Sean Hannity’s radio program, as therightscoop.com reported:

The Republican establishment is destroying the Republican Party. The only reason they’re in the majority in the House is because of conservatives, conservatives across the country, the grassroots.

They lost the Senate. They like to point to 2 races, one in Missouri and one in Indiana. I can point to 10 races where there were liberal to moderate Republicans who lost and of course they never mention that.

The fact of the matter is that in my opinion…until the Republican leadership that has brought us McCain and Romney, that has a feckless RNC, a preposterously incompetent get-out-the-vote operation, is removed and replaced with fresh, smart, confident, knowledgeable people, until some of our backbenchers move to the front, some of the young, tea party conservative candidates who can articulate our vision and our principles, this is going to continue.

Obama may want to destroy the Republican Party, but the Republican Party is imploding. And you know what? It needs to be cleansed, it needs to be cleaned out – not for purity reasons, not for absolutism, but because it needs to be a party that stands for something.

I agree with “The Great One”. Until the good ol’ boys, or the Northeast Republicans’ Club, as I like to call them, realize that the majority of Americans out here in the Heartland are still Conservative “bitter clingers” who love God and country, they will be victims of their own hubris, and continue to lose elections.

And, it will be nobody’s fault but their own.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The Failed GOP Strategy of Passive Resistance

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

boehnercryingOut here in the Heartland of America, I have heard from Conservatives who are bumfuzzled by the actions (specifically, the lack thereof) of the Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate, in regards to the full throttle offensive battle being waged against America by its own president, Barack Hussein Obama.

I believe that the GOP Establishment have ordered the rank and file to shuddup and practice “Passive Resistance” in an effort to show the party as being “bi-partisan” and able to “reach across the aisle”.

Merriam-Webster Online defines “Passive Resistance” as

resistance especially to a government or an occupying power characterized mainly by noncooperation

Examples of passive resistance are easily found in many societies in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Student protestors occupied Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989. Nonviolent movements across Eastern Europe brought down Communist governments in the same year. In 2000 a nonviolent movement in Serbia ended the dictatorship of Slobodan Milošević (1941–2006). Civilians on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have periodically employed the technique. Indigenous peoples forced the collapse of the government in Bolivia in 2005 with protests and work stoppages.

The most important development of the concepts of passive resistance came from Mohandas Gandhi and the Indian campaigns for independence. As a young lawyer in South Africa at the turn of the twentieth century, Gandhi organized Indians to resist discrimination and unequal treatment. Claiming their rights as citizens of the British Empire, they refused to carry passes and held public acts where they burned the government-issued passes. Out of these experiences, Gandhi developed his idea of satyagraha, which is often translated as “soul force” or “truth force.”

One of the key principles of Gandhi’s use of passive resistance was to find opportunities to publicly confront unjust laws or authority. Protestors, or satyagrahis, defied the laws, but sought to maintain a posture that treated the agents of authority with respect and even compassion. Gandhi argued that the means of struggle must be morally compatible with the ends being sought. Protestors often submitted to arrest and even violence, but did not resort to violence themselves. In a protest march to the gates of the saltworks in Dharsana in 1931, for example, protestors willingly walked up to the waiting police, who beat them brutally.

Passive resistance gained a broad public recognition in the United States as the civil rights movement exploded in the 1950s and 1960s. Throughout the movement years, techniques of passive resistance were used both to assert a moral position about rights and equality and to apply economic and political pressure. Martin Luther King Jr. drew on Gandhi and his own Christian tradition to formulate a strategy of nonviolence. Like Gandhi’s satyagrahis, civil rights activists marched peacefully and publicly in Birmingham, Alabama, in Selma, Alabama, and elsewhere. They also accepted upon themselves the costs of their actions, including discomfort, arrest, beatings, and even death.

Nonviolent actions often also exerted economic and political leverage. Boycotts of busses and department stores pressured private business to end their policies of exclusion. Sit-ins at segregated lunch counters disrupted business until owners relented. Defiant demonstrations often led to mass arrests, which encumbered the police and judicial systems. Provocations of the police to brutality gained national and international political sympathy for the movement.

In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the uses of passive resistance in many conflicts around the world became more overtly strategic and less concerned with the moral character of the tools. Passive resistance, one of many forms of nonviolent action, provides a source of power to those disenfranchised from traditional politics. When used as part of broader strategy, it has contributed to powerful movements for social change.

The Republicans have got the “passive” part down pat. The problem is…the Republicans are not resisting. 

Sure, they are talking a good game, but, that’s about it.  

Does the term “Vichy French” ring a bell?

The Franco-German Armistice of June 22, 1940, divided France into two zones: one to be under German military occupation and one to be left to the French in full sovereignty, at least nominally. The unoccupied zone comprised the southeastern two-fifths of the country, from the Swiss frontier near Geneva to a point 12 miles (19 km) east of Tours and thence southwest to the Spanish frontier, 30 miles (48 km) from the Bay of Biscay.

Pierre Laval joined the government the day after the armistice was signed and became the main architect of the Vichy regime. It was he who on July 10, 1940, persuaded the National Assembly (summoned at Vichy to ratify the armistice) to grant Pétain authority to promulgate a new constitution (569 votes in favour, 80 against, 18 abstentions), so that Pétain was able, the next day, to assume in his own name full legislative and executive powers in the “French State.” The Vichy governments in fact survived for four years by never promulgating a new constitution. Their policy changed in tune with the fortunes of the war. When close collaboration with the Germans proved impracticable, a plot was formed at Vichy against Laval, who fell from power in December 1940 and was succeeded as premier by Pierre Étienne Flandin and then by Admiral Jean Darlan. Backed by Charles Maurras’s Action Française (a newspaper that advocated traditionalist, semiroyalist doctrines), Pétain and Darlan embarked on a period of attentisme (“wait and see”) in their dealings with Germany. Vichy became, at least superficially, a corporative state. The republican slogan of “Liberty, equality, fraternity” was replaced by “Work, family, fatherland.” A labour charter was passed, and there was much talk of a Pétainist “national revolution.”

In April 1942 Laval returned to power and contrived to convince the Germans that they could get more active collaboration from him. Germany was now engaged in massive war with the Soviet Union and with the United States and needed greater security in western Europe. But six months later the whole basis of Vichy’s position was transformed. U.S. and British forces landed in North Africa; the main units of the French fleet were scuttled by their crews at Toulon to prevent their falling into German hands; and on November 11, 1942, Germany occupied the whole of France and disbanded the “armistice army” of Vichy.

If these Vichy Republicans do not “man up” soon and start “‘resisting” the plans of Obama and his minions to turn the “Shining City on the Hill” into a Third World Barrio, they are going to find themselves out of a job after a Mid-Term Election in 2014,  that will make the political bloodbath of 2012 seem like a squirt gun fight.

Do not forget, GOP: You serve at OUR pleasure. Not yours.

Until He Comes,

KJ

“What Difference Does it Make?”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Hillary2One month after being called to testify before a Senate Committee, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally graced them with her presence. To say she showed her hindquarters and prevaricated it off, at the same time,  is being kind.

(But then again, I am a Christian Southern Gentleman.)

James Taranto reports or The Wall Street Journal that

Hillary Clinton is ending her tenure as secretary of state in fiery fashion. “You really get the sense that [Mrs.] Clinton barely managed to restrain herself from dropping an F-bomb there,” remarks New York magazine’s Dan Amira. He refers to an exchange between the secretary and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing this morning.

Johnson pressed her about the administration’s conflicting explanations for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which killed the ambassador and three other Americans. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” said the secretary snappishly to the senator. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”

So it’s “our job to figure out what happened” but it doesn’t make a difference what happened? Huh? What would we do without rhetorical questions? We suppose we’d answer them, as Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin does:

“The answer to her question is clear. An administration that sought, for political purposes, to give the American people the idea that al-Qaeda had been “decimated” and was effectively out of commission had a clear motive during a presidential campaign to mislead the public about Benghazi. The fact that questions are still unanswered about this crime and that Clinton and President Obama seem more interested in burying this story along with the four Americans that died is an outrage that won’t be forgotten.”

Especially if she runs for president in 2016. As we watched this exchange, it occurred to us that Mrs. Clinton was back in a familiar role, and an ironic one for someone who is supposed to be a feminist icon. Once again, she was helping the most powerful man in the world dodge accountability for scandalous behavior.

As I said, she was prevaricating her hindquarters off, because the truth condemns her, President Barack Hussein Obama, and the entire feckless, anti-American Administration.

On October 25th, 2012, contributor Peter Ferrara summarized what actually happened in an Op Ed for Forbes.com:

As the anniversary of 9/11 approached, the Obama Administration should have known that more security was necessary to protect diplomatic missions in the increasingly hostile country, especially on that sensitive date. But they did just the opposite, reducing security. The Wall Street Journal reported on October 10 that the Administration removed a well armed, 16 member, security detail from Libya in August, to be replaced by the Libyan security personnel that Ambassador Stevens had just told them could not be relied upon.

Based on documents released by the House Oversight Committee, the day of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, September 11, the White House situation room starts receiving emails at about 1 pm that the mission is under hostile surveillance. The only response was that the Pentagon sends a drone armed with a video camera so that everyone in Washington can see what transpires in real time, as it happens, at the White House, at the State Department, at the Pentagon, at the CIA.

The drone documents no crowds protesting any video. But at 4 pm Washington receives an email from the Benghazi mission that it is under military style attack. Subject: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The email states,

“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

The attack was then fed to all of them, the White House, the Pentagon, the State Dept., the CIA, through live video feed. A later email that day reported, “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.” The feed showed no protest of any supposedly offensive You Tube video.

Just one hour flight time away were U.S. Air Force bases that could have been rousted in minutes to send fighter planes and attack helicopters that could have routed the attackers in minutes of fighting. As Investors Business Daily editorialized on October 24, “Within an hour’s flight time from Libya, at the large naval air station in Sigonella, Italy, and at bases in nearby Aviano and Souda Bay, were fighters and AC 130 gunships that can be extremely effective in dispersing crowds or responding to a terrorist assault.” But the order for the rescue never came. Maybe because Barack Obama did not want to offend Muslim sensibilities by such a show of force.

I was going to show the well-publicized picture of the blood stained wall of the American Consulate, but, that image is probably already seared in your mind, as it is in mine. 

In fact, there are a lot of images that race through my mind as I sit here at my computer.

I remember the image of a lone terrorist, brandishing a machine gun, standing in front of the burning Benghazi Consulate.

I also remember the image of Benghazi barbarians dragging a murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens through the streets, taking pictures every few yards, with their cell phones. 

My mind envisions the image of two brave Americans, up on a roof holding off 100 Muslim Terrorists, trying desperately to hold out for help which was denied to them, until finally the overwhelming numbers which comprise the horde of barbarians, murdered them as well. 

I imagine Ambassador Stevens’ elderly mother, making the trip from the West Coast to the East Coast to pick up the lifeless body of her abused and murdered son, whom she and her entire family were so proud of.

Finally, I remember the show of hypocrisy involving members of this anti-American Administration solemnly welcoming the bodies of those brave Americans home.

Secretary Clinton…the truth makes a big difference…to the families of those that were so savagely murdered that fateful night…and to the millions of Americans who still believe in this “Shining City on a Hill”.

Americans deserve the truth.

And, you should be ashamed.

Reflecting on Reagan and RINOs

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

reaganYesterday, despite the hopes and prayers of the Conservative Base for a return to Conservatism in the Grand Old Party, it was business as usual for the NE Moderate Republicans’ Club, up on Capital Hill.

The Washington Times has the story:

In the Senate, the two top leaders have at least for the time being averted a potentially disastrous fight over filibuster rules, and the inspiring return of Sen. Mark Kirk, Illinois Republican, from a yearlong recovery from a stroke left the upper chamber awash in optimism.

In the House, Republicans and Democrats issued a call to focus on civility, even as they try to tackle big issues.

“If you have come here to see your name in lights or to pass off political victory as accomplishment, you have come to the wrong place. The door is right behind you,” Mr. Boehner said after winning the speaker’s gavel for the second time. “If you have come here humbled by the opportunity to serve, if you have come here to be the determined voice of the people, if you have come here to carry the standard of leadership demanded not just by our constituents but by the times, then you have come to the right place.”

He reconvened the House at noon, just minutes after the 112th Congress officially gaveled to a close, shutting the door on two years that set records for legislative futility.

Indeed, all of the issues that stymied lawmakers remain — and leaders want to add to the list. President Obama and Mr. Boehner have said they want to try to pass immigration legislation, and the recent school shooting in Connecticut has boosted gun control onto the agenda, joining debt and tax reform.

Mr. Boehner kept the speakership despite the defections of 10 House Republicans who didn’t vote for him — a reflection of simmering discontent after a rough several months for the Ohio Republican.

In the speaker’s race, Mr. Boehner received 220 votes, or three more than he needed to guarantee the top post, which leaves him second in the line of presidential succession.

On September 29, 2011, Rush Limbaugh made some very pertinent points concerning the difference in political ideology between the Conservative Base and the NE Moderate Republicans’ Club:

This is fascinating. I spoke earlier in the previous busy broadcast hour about Reagan’s campaign for governor in California in 1966. It is instructive because of this battle here between American conservatives and the Republican establishment, and believe me, they’re two different things. Now, George Will says there’s no Republican establishment and there hasn’t been since, what, 1966. But there is. The Republican establishment for all intents and purposes for the sake of our discussion here, is made up of what you would call RINOs.

The Republican establishment is northeastern Republican conservatives. They’re right on the fiscal side of things most of the time, but they don’t want any part of the social issues. They can’t stand it being part of the party platform. They don’t want to talk about it. They have no desire to be part of that discussion. They think it’s going to lose elections, all that kind of stuff, plus they do tend to believe Washington is the center of the universe. Republicans win elections. They’re in charge of the money. They like that. They tend to believe that an energetic, powerful executive wielding financial powers, spending money for the national good with conservative instincts is a good thing. So if government grows under that rubric, then it’s fine.

We, of course, as conservatives, don’t see things that way, and there is the divide. And the Republican establishment is made up of a lot of powerful people with a lot of money, and they want to win. Just like we do. They employ whatever muscle they have to see to it that they do. They want their candidates to be representative of what they want, all of which is understandable. So there’s this battle going on. The added intensity this time around is another point of disagreement. That is the Republican establishment doesn’t really think the country’s threatened. They don’t like Obama. They think Obama’s a disaster, but the country’s not in any danger here of real long-term damage. I mean, it’s just overblown, all this talk about saving the country, it’s not that bad. All we gotta do is get our people in there and put us back on the responsible fiscal track and everything will be fine.

They don’t see the Democrat Party the same way we do. They don’t see the Democrat Party as basically socialist liberal, and they cringe at such talk. And these people never really were enamored with Ronald Reagan. They never really liked him. They just lived on edge every day: What’s this guy going to do that’s going to embarrass us? What mistake is he going to make? What stupid thing is he going to say? They actually had this view. Tip O’Neill was not the only one who thought that Ronald Reagan was an amiable dunce. There were in the Republican establishment who thought that before Reagan ever ran for office and after he won the presidency. And they thought that back in 1966. After all, he was just an actor, introduced GE Theater.

…He was talking about the Goldwater campaign of two years past. This is ’66; the Goldwater campaign was ’64….Reagan said, “We don’t intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals of our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all,” and the traitors he was referring to were the Rhinos of his day who had undermined the Goldwater conservatives during the 1964 campaign. And Reagan was saying: Over my dead body is the Republican Party going to be turned over to those people. We’re only going places if we conservatives run this party, if we take it over and if we are unified.

Just as they underestimated Ronaldus Magnus, I truly believe that the Country Club Republicans underestimate their Conservative Base.

Reagan Conservatives are the bedrock of this nation. We pay these bozos’ salaries, and get shafted in return.

You know what I want for the 23% (soon to be 40%) of my hard-earned money which  I send to our nation’s capital to pay for Obama’s and Congress’ Revenue?

I want Conservative Leadership. I want somebody to stand up on their hind legs and tell Obama the way the cow ate the cabbage. I want someone to actually give a hoot ‘n holler about the average American, not the special interest groups, not the lobbyists, not “the smartest people in the room”…me.

I want an American President and competent American Congresspeople.

I want a dadblamed budget, first. I want them to be good stewards of MY money. Not their “revenue”. I want someone to stand up and be a MAN…or a WOMAN.

I am so dadgum tired of mealy-mouth squishes and political niceties and expediences, I could spit. Too many Americans are out of work and doing without this Christmas, while the three ring circus performs unabated under the Big Top on Capital Hill.

The American people are tired of cleaning up after the donkeys and the elephants.  

Until He Comes,

KJ