How defective Republican Congressional leadership threatens liberty

Wednesday morning on Bloomberg Business TV’s “The Pulse,” host Francine Lacqua brought up the situation in the House of Representatives following House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, announcing his retirement later this month. Program contributor Hans Nichols opined that a group of 40-50 Republicans that he characterized as saying no to everything, that doesn’t want to lead, and wants to shut things down, has plagued Mr. Boehner, whereas by contrast Mr. Boehner and the leadership were trying to “govern.” Although Mr. Nichols didn’t use a term to describe that group, “radical” is a term commonly used.

What Mr. Nichols misses is that the idea of “governing” employed by Speaker Boehner and his Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is all too similar to that of the former Democrat leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who led with such foresight that the Democrats lost control of the Congress.

Too many Americans seem not to understand that political parties evolved from differences in philosophies, which introduce a diversity of ideas into the governing process. (They like diversity, except in politics, where it is truly needed.) Thus, there is a better chance of finding good solutions to problems, when solutions are needed. And when no proposal can gather enough support among the diverse membership of the two houses, they enact no legislation.

What the “radical” faction of the Republican majority did is exactly what the Founders envisioned the Legislative Branch doing: introducing and advocating the things they believe are needed, and opposing those that they believe are not needed, or may even be harmful. Making legislation was never intended to be a smooth and easy process. As Otto von Bismarck said, “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”

The idea is that competing political philosophies propose ideas to address a problem and try to find areas of agreement on important and appropriate issues. Virtually every Republican or Democrat proposal contains elements that the opposing party will not agree with, but they may well – and should – contain elements that both sides can agree on. Those are what should become law, and the rest should be tabled or trashed.

This approach means that both sides get less than they want, but the country gets solutions that gather enough bi-partisan support to be approved, which likely means that a true bi-partisan solution has a fair chance of working.

It is not uncommon for Congressional Democrats to introduce legislation that they know Republicans will oppose, which then allows them to accuse the GOP of partisanship and obstructing progress for political purposes. The compliant media then engages its corruption squad to give the Democrat position nearly exclusive support.

It is a political process, after all. But which side is the more actively political: the one that opposes measures it believes are bad, or the one that designs measures to fail?

What if one party offers proposals that the other party, or a significant number of its members, can find no common ground in. What it Party A offers a measure for Party B to have his left hand amputated? Does Party B compromise on losing only a finger or two?

The “radicals” in the Republican Party oppose measures they see as antithetical to the founding principles. These are the kinds of proposals they say “No” to, and do not support.

When the Republicans gained a majority in both houses of Congress, their supporters rightly expected to see changes in the way Congress worked.  They wanted strong conservative actions from their elected representatives, in contrast to the liberal measures brought forth by the former Democrat majority.

Instead, Congressional Republican leaders have sat around while the president ignored the role and duties of the Congress to put his agenda in place. The “radical” Republicans strongly object to this failure of the legislative branch to protect its authority and do its duty. So should we all.

The Republican leadership cowers in a corner when there is pressure to bring a measure to a vote, knowing that even if the measure passes, the president will veto it. “If we know he will veto it, why waste the time it will take to pass it?” Here’s why: Because if Republicans don’t vote on and pass a measure, then they have taken no official position. The Congressional leadership will have decided the issue by inaction rather than forcing the president to take a public position by vetoing legislation passed by Congress. The majority party will have given the president an easy victory, and surrendered the right to complain about the results. This is not leadership.

The Republicans that Mr. Nichols seemingly holds in such disdain are working to uphold fundamental American political values, which is what the voters that delivered the Republicans the majority expect. If advocating fundamental principles has now become a radical activity, it demonstrates just how far the political left has moved from the principles that allowed America to grow into the most successful and free nation in history.

We must restore the founding values to the federal government: smaller, less expensive, non-wasteful, responsive, constitutional government, a government that truly serves the people who pay for it.

"Left" v. "Right" and the West Point "Far-Right Extremist" Paper

The Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy recently published a paper that would categorize our Founding Fathers as "far-right extremists."  This categorization stems from a lack of understanding of the true ideologies behind "right" and "left," which results from the progressive ("left") control of our schools, government, and the mainstream media, and sets up American patriots to at some point be considered "insurgents" against which America's own Counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine can be applied.

In November 2012, the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the United States Military Academy published a paper by Arie Perliger (the CTC Director of Terrorism Studies) entitled "Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," which relies heavily on the generally understood categorizations of "left" and "right" in order to categorize terrorism in "far-right" groups:

"Regarding affinity towards traditional values, a common perception is that liberal/left- wing and conservative worldviews are different in their time orientation. While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo. The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community. In many cases these past-oriented perspectives help to formulate a nostalgic and romantic ideological aura which makes these groups attractive for many who aspire to restore the halcyon days of a clear hierarchy of values and norms." (p. 17)

As you can see, the author (and society) is biased toward defining the "left" as looking toward the future while the "right" looks rearward at an idealized (implied: false, unobtainable) past.  The belief behind making these two categorizations is that there are no eternal truths, so change ("progress") is always desirable in a never ending quest for human perfection.  Therefore members of the "right" who look to the past are only obstacles to this human "advancement."

In reality, progressive (the "left") thought is not anymore forward looking than conservative (the "right") thought looks to the past.  Where their central difference lies is in their concept of "truth" and not necessarily in time orientation.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!" Romans 1:24-25*

Progressives reject God's Truth (following in the footsteps of Karl Marx, among others), so are actually returning to the thinking of Adam and Eve in Eden, Nimrod in Babylon, and the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, who all rejected God's Truth which ultimately resulted in despair and suffering.

Conservatives (the "right") acknowledge God's Truth and, just like our Founding Fathers, seek to lay that as the foundation on which all else is built.  Progressives deliberately suppress God's Truth in order to formulate their own and become like gods themselves.

America has consistently exchanged the Truth for lies as shown in the following beliefs that are being bolstered by the government:

• The Holy Bible is a collection of sayings and myths, not Truth
• Man was not made in the image of God, but "evolved"
• The universe created itself (the "Big Bang" theory)
• Homosexual behavior is normal and not rebellion against our Creator
• Abortion--what amounts in many cases to a blood sacrifice to cover the sin of fornication--is not murder
• The family unit as defined in the Bible and practiced over many centuries is an arbitrary creation and should be redefined at will
• The Constitution was created as a "living" document open to liberal interpretation
• The Founders intended for Biblical Truths to be completely absent from public discourse 

Prior to making the distinction between "left" and "right" the author paints the conservative ("far right") world view in a negative light:

"In the context of the far-right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective. Two elements are required for the fulfillment of this version of the nationalist doctrine. The first is that of internal homogenization, i.e., the aspiration that all residents or citizens of the polity will share the same national origin and ethnic characteristics. The second is the element of external exclusiveness, the aspiration that all individuals belonging to a specific national or ethnic group will reside in the homeland." (p. 15)

"Internal homogenization rejects the incorporation and recognition of those embodying different ethnic and national traits as part of the nation. In addition, nativism adds opposition to external influence, whether on a cultural, religious, or normative basis. Foreign influence is perceived as a threat to the entirety and homogeneity of the nation and, as a result, to its resiliency, its ability to counter external threats and to preserve its essential traits. The concept of nativism explains why in many cases the activities of far-right groups do not only oppose foreigners, but also those citizens who promote what is perceived as non-native norms, practices or values." (p. 16)

Internal homogenization and rejection of foreign influence are both important, but are not based on the shallowness of national origin or ethnicity.  What matters is a person's ideology, world view, and how they define "truth."  This is what must be protected in America because diversity of world views in a society leads to national schizophrenia and requires a strong central government to maintain order.

America's founding was unique among all world governments, before and since, because it was based on the Word of God.  It is not perfect (no human government can be), but it is the most effective form of government to maintain order and security in a religious and moral society while providing its citizens the maximum liberty to direct their own lives. Therefore we should be suspicious of outside "norms" (truths) which seek to encroach on our culture since they will most likely contradict the values of our Founding.  That is why immigrants who come to America should accept our form of government and our values, and not the other way around.

To attempt to rule a nation that contains a multitude of ideologies and world views will require much more power in the central government--just look at places like the former Yugoslavia or Iraq.  But remember--America was not founded for a specific color of people (even though others would like you to believe this narrative), but based on an idea and world view.  It should be expected of all who join us to accept that world view as primary in the nation.

The author also paints "anti-federalism" tendencies in a negative light:

"The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government." (p. 4)

The author fails to acknowledge that many of our forefathers were "anti-federalists" who feared that the Constitution in its original form would give the central government too much power and result in tyranny over the People and States.  That is the very reason why the Bill of Rights was added--to give additional protection to the People and States against the natural tendency of a government to unceasingly increase its power.

More importantly, those who reject ultimate Truth (the progressives) desire to perfect humanity by their own hands.  This will ultimately lead to tyranny as the government, who is expected to perfect life for all, continually fails to do so and therefore must assume more power at the expense of the People's liberties so they have total control over all aspects of life to arrive at their desired Utopia.

Thus we have irreconcilable differences within the United States because of the two competing world views.  One seeks to operate within the framework of the Constitution and the Word of God.  The other rejects both and seeks to rule the nation based on the ability of Man to "evolve" and solve all the world's problems given enough time, technology, and power.  This latter world view requires the commensurate (and necessary) loss of the individual's ability to choose their own ends in exchange for the coercive ends dictated by the government.

This paper,"Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," coming from one of the nation's military academies tasked with producing our future military leaders who will take an oath to support and defend the Constitution is disturbing to say the very least.

First, the paper demonstrates a lack of understanding of the founding of America and its Constitutional government.

Second, it potentially demonizes those who seek to follow in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers--a group who through study of the past and the Word understand the fallen nature of Man and the necessary limits that must be placed on government by a moral and religious people.

On the opposite side is a group who is vastly different, for they reject the past in the misguided hope that Man in all his Greatness can design a more perfect society this time around.  Those of us who study the Truth know that this will always result in misery.

That group, known as the "left" or "progressives," need to be identified for what they are--collectivists (as described by F.A. Hayek).  At their very core they seek to consolidate all power into the central government to determine the ends of the people as a whole.  They do not lament the loss of individual liberties, and are the anti-thesis of the vision of our Founding Fathers.  They go by many names--communists, Marxists, fascists, socialists, and progressives--and can be found in both parties, Republican and Democrat.  For those of us who love liberty, they must be resisted.  The Constitution and Truth must be defended.

By trusting in the Word of God and the form of government created by our Founding Fathers, this author has painted himself to be a "far-right extremist" according to the Director of West Point's Combating Terrorism Center.  This demonstrates just how far our nation has deviated from our creation, because, by Perliger's definition, our Founding Fathers would be far-right extremists and potential "terrorists" in America today.

If those who defend our Founding today are truly "far-right extremists," then they are in good company alongside our Founding Fathers.

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

--Against All Enemies

*Bible verse from Crossway Bibles (2011-02-09). The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Kindle Locations 44519-44521). Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition. 

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

GOP Set To Steamroll Conservative Voters … AGAIN!

GOP Set To Steamroll Conservative Voters … AGAIN!

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

I am fed up with being the “red-headed stepchild” of the Republican Party!

I am a conservative and have been my entire adult life.  When I registered to vote on my 21^st birthday, I registered as a republican.  I have remained with the party for over 50 years.

The past few election cycles, I have been forced to “settle” for non-conservative presidential candidates.  I expect this election to be no different.

All indications are that the GOP is going to nominate Romney as it’s presidential candidate for 2012. 

As a conservative, Romney scares the heck out of me.  I just do not see enough difference between Romney and Obama for me to even make the trip to the polling place in November of 2012.

I left the following comment on the Texas Fred Blog yesterday: “Romney was "The Chosen One" by the GOP/RNC from the beginning.  They are embarrassed and shamed by even having conservatives in the party.  I am sick to my stomach with it.  Hell, I already know what I'm getting with Obama!  With Romney, I expect to get the same thing ... but as a republican I'll be blamed for it! 

I have had it with the GOP. The northeast blue blood country club elitists have a choke hold on the GOP and as long as we conservatives remain in the party they will continue to use us and show their gratitude by treating us as floor mats.  I'm sick of it!”

I’d like to recommend you read Texas Fred’s post entitled:  “Romney to be GOP nominee – Elections no longer required” HERE. 

Look. I do not believe that Romney can win against Obama.  I have been saying that for a very long time now.  Nothing has changed that would lead me to believe otherwise. President Harry Truman told us the American electorate would choose the real thing over an imitation … every time.  He was correct.

Romney strikes me as another northeastern “milquetoast candidate” who can be steamed rolled by the democratic machine.

If you think the divide between the Congress and the Oval Office is wide now consider that should Romney win, the conservatives in the House and Senate are NOT GOING TO FOLLOW ROMNEY’S LEAD!  And they shouldn’t. The government will be locked down every bit as much under a Romney presidency as it is today under Obama.

I’ll say it again: Conservatives desperately need to pull out of the republican party and form their own party -- if they ever hope to have a real, lasting, impact on the US government.

Now, I know I’m going to be blasted by republicans for suggesting such a thing especially at such a critical time for America.  I would answer -- if not now – WHEN?

I come from a long line of South Carolina conservative hot heads. (You may recall the last time my ancestors had a beef with the US government.)  My home state is one of the most conservative states (if not THE most) in the country. We have a history of not caring for the “timing” of a scrap with those we perceive as antagonists. 

The US has reached the critical stage in its existence.  I am convinced that our survival as a free people hangs on the results of the 2012 election. I also know I am being about as delicate as a bull in a china shop suggesting that conservatives leave the GOP in these months before such an important event in our history. 

In my opinion, the RNC knows that a huge portion of the votes for Romney, especially in the south, will be votes not for Romney, but votes against Obama.  They KNOW that and they are counting on that very thing to push Romney across the finish line as the victor.

You say: real republican conservatives won’t run for President.   I ask – why should they?   See, they already know the deck, in the upper levels of the GOP, are already stacked against them.

So what about Cain and Bachmann?  Truthfully?  They haven’t a snowball’s chance in Hades of winning the nomination. 

So.  Here we conservatives are -- again.  About to lose an election even if the Republican Party wins.  Sound familiar?

What is it they say about doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results each time?  Oh, yeah.  Insanity!

J. D. Longstreet

Where did the “Silent Majority” go???

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

*************************

During the decade of the seventies the “Silent Majority” was often spoken of in the press. Prominent politicians, including the President, openly sought their support.Well, where did they go?

Oh, they’re still here… and just as powerful as before. You see them everyday. They’re all around you. They are the folks you see at parties who stand around the edges of a group discussing politics. They rarely have any input into the discussion… they just absorb it. They’re the folks who do not sit in on the coffee klatch discussion on politics and world affairs.


They’re the people who go to church, nearly every Sunday, and raise their children to be respectful of others and live useful, productive lives. They send their kids to church supported universities and colleges for a good education, rather than an indoctrination in the ways of the political left.

The Silent Majority is the folk who never miss an opportunity to vote. They believe men died to give them that opportunity, and they will not abuse the memory of those heroic men by not going to the polls to vote. They are also the people who will not tell those taking the Exit Polls who they voted for. They voted in secret, it’s their secret, and they will keep it, often never even divulging it to their families. They are, for the most part, conservative in politics as well as religion.

These are the people who shop at Wal-Mart, and K-mart, and drive 2, 3 or 4 year old cars. Most own their own homes. They have savings accounts and they have a family budget, which they will not abuse. Their lives are built around their families and their church. Many are veterans of America’s armed forces. They believe this country is worth fighting for and they will put their own lives on the line to protect her. They view politics as a necessary evil. They believe they should always vote for the man who best represents their belief. They will not support a candidate just because he, or she, wears the label of the party to which they, themselves, are registered.

They wield enormous power. These people can make, or break, a presidential election. When they step into the voting booth, they speak, loud and clear. It is there that the Silent Majority rejects their silence and shouts their politics to the world.

Today the Silent Majority has joined forces with the outspoken Conservative Movement in America in a desperate attempt to save America from the clutches of socialism.

President Obama and our socialist Congress should be mindful of these powerful Americans. They see it all, and they hear it all, and they silently form their conclusion about who should get their support. Politicians, beware! You neglect the Silent Majority at your peril.-- especially now that they have found their audible voice through the outspoken Conservative Movement (Example: The Tea Party movement).

Then -- there is the Mainstream Media. The voice of the American left. They make fun of one of the mightiest forces in American politics. The Silent Majority never fails to notice the press’s stifled giggles; and their backhanded insults of the conservative politics of these very real, very patriotic, Americans. They see it all and… they remember… and they take those memories into the voting booth with them.

So, here’s to the Silent Majority! May God bless them!

J.D. Longstreet

Taking Back Our Culture

Crossposted at The Lonely Conservative

The left owns American culture, from our schools, to news outlets and the entire entertainment industry. To the rescue comes Andrew Breitbart who launched Big Hollywood today!

Big Hollywood is not a “celebrity” gabfest or a gossip outpost - it is a continuous politics and culture posting board for those who think something has gone drastically wrong and that Hollywood should return to its patriotic roots.

Big Hollywood’s modest objective: to change the entertainment
industry. To make Hollywood something we can believe in - again. In order to give millions of Americans hope.

Until conservatives, libertarians and Republicans - who will be the lion’s share of Big Hollywood’s contributors - recognize that (pop) culture is the big prize and that politics is secondary, there will be no victory in this important battle. -Andrew Breitbart

It’s a bit like the conservative version of The Huffington Post. I wish him luck and will visit Big Hollywood often. With the likes of Ben Shapiro, John Nolte, Gary Graham and Greg Gutfeld it’s sure to be a hit!

U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter Explains "Democrat-Speak"

Originally posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

H/T to Jim Simpson at Truth and Consequences (a Maggie's Notebook and FaultlineUSA contributor). Here's Jim's email, which expresses my sentiments, including a very good idea to call Congressman McCotter and thank him for speaking out:

It is hilarious, spoken to the full House, explaining Democrat terms like "progressive" and "revenue enhancement."

Call his office to congratulate him on this rare act of relative courage (for Congressional Republicans). His number is 202-225-8171.

I told his staffer that it is nice to see a Republican showing some guts for a change, and that maybe he should encourage others to follow suit, rather than sitting around with their thumbs up their asses like they are now. The staffer told me, laughing, that the Congressman probably agrees with my sentiments.

Jim

Video courtesy of YouTube.com and The Minority Report Blog and Jim's source: Right Wing News

McCotter represents Michigan's 11th District and chairs the House Republican Policy Committee and is a member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Tracked back by:
Tortured Journalism
Excerpt: Tortured Journalism from Red_State_Blue - Excerpt: Tortured Journalism Part I

Technorati Tags:2008 Elections, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter, U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats, Progressives, Liberals,

Rush to eBay

Originally posted at Right Truth



What do you think?

A Skunk by Any Other Name is Still Amnesty!

Update: H/T to Texas Fred's New life for immigration bill?
Bush, allies hope to revive immigration bill
President to lunch on Capitol Hill Tuesday, new vote possible Friday
See blogger's response to e-mail campaign under Texas Fred's comments.

Thursday night the Senate voted 45 to 50 against invoking cloture on S. 1348. According to Numbers USA, Senator Reid has pulled the bill from the floor for now.

Let President Bush (who completely abandoned his Republican base on immigration) and the open borders hate America left call it what they will, the bill WAS an Amnesty Bill.

Americans, both conservatives and moderates alike, have spoken and the message should be loud and clear to any presidential hopeful. Americans are fed up with the “nuanced” double-speak of the left, political hacks, the endless games and hidden agendas. We want a plain-spoken traditional leader who is going to fulfill the will of the people – not the will law-breakers, of corporate globalists, or of subversive special interests (AKA: the crazy left).

Once again, this vote shows that the Democrat spinners have been wrong about who Americans really are and what we really want. Americans are a nation of ASSIMILATED immigrants who share a common history, a common language, and common values. We are proud of our unique national heritage and we will NOT tolerate law-breakers who flaunt our laws, who threaten our national security, who overwhelm our social resources, and who demand special consideration. NOT EVER!!! Got that President Bush??? Got that Congress???

The Democrats and the leftist controlled media like to spin the tale that the mid-term election was a disaster for the Republicans because of Iraq. Not at all true. Most conservatives have supported the war effort in Iraq. The conservative base understood that it was abandoned by their elected officials on the most important issue facing us in this era –our border security in a time of war and global terrorism. “It’s all about ILLEGAL Immigration!!!”

Now go and read all about the 20 loopholes in the Senate Immigration Bill and see why this bill needs a wooden stake driven through its stinky little heart!

Amnesty No! Conservative Power Yes!!!


Bush
comprehensive immigration bill
illegal immigration
border
terrorism
Senate