Category Archives: US vs. The Establishment

Happenings

Posted on by

The lead-off story today is one of valor. Sgt. Kyle J. White, 27, a Seattle native who now lives in Charlotte, will receive the Medal of Honor today for saving his fellow soldiers after a 2007 ambush in Afghanistan.

Former Army Sgt. Kyle J. White to receive Medal of Honor

By Jon Harper, Stars and Stripes, Published: April 15, 2014

Staff Sgt. Conrad Begaye awards Spc. Kyle White the Combat Infantryman Badge during a ceremony in Nuristan Province, Afghanistan, Nov. 6, 2007.
  
Photo courtesy of Kyle White

WASHINGTON — Former Army Sgt. Kyle J. White will be awarded the Medal of Honor at a White House ceremony on May 13, 2014, the White House announced late Tuesday afternoon.

White, 27, will receive the nation’s highest military award for his actions during a dismounted movement in mountainous terrain in Aranas, Afghanistan, on Nov. 9, 2007.

White was serving as a Platoon Radio Telephone Operator assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion (Airborne), 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade, when his team of U.S. and Afghan National Army soldiers were set up and ambushed by a much larger and more heavily armed Taliban force after a meeting with Afghan villagers.

“There was one shot, you know, down into the valley, and then it was two shots, and then it was full-automatic fire and RPGs … it was coming from multiple directions,” White later recalled, according to an Army news release.

White was knocked unconscious by a rocket-propelled grenade that landed near him. When he woke up, 10 of the 14-man American element and the ANA soldiers were gone. To avoid the enemy fire, they had been forced to slide 150 feet down the side of a rocky cliff.

White noticed that his teammate, Spc. Kain Schilling, had been shot in the arm. After White and Schilling found cover under a tree, White put a tourniquet on Schilling and stopped the bleeding. Then White saw Marine Sgt. Phillip Bocks lying out in the open, badly wounded.

White sprinted 30 feet across open ground under a hail of bullets to reach Bocks. White made four runs out in to the open to drag Bocks out of the line of fire. He succeeded, but Bocks eventually succumbed to his wounds. Soon afterward, Schilling got hit in the leg by small-arms fire. White again saved his life, using his belt as a tourniquet to stop the bleeding.

Then White noticed his platoon leader, 1st Lt. Matthew C. Ferrara, lying face-down on the trail, motionless. White again exposed himself to fire and crawled to Ferrara’s position. After he realized Ferrara was already dead, White returned to Schilling’s side and began using his radio, until an enemy round blew the hand-mic out of his hand and disabled the radio. White grabbed Bocks’ radio and used it to bring in mortars, artillery, air strikes and helicopter gun runs to keep the enemy at bay. Friendly fire gave him his second concussion of the day when a mortar round landed too close and knocked him off his feet.

After nightfall, White marked the landing zone and assisted the flight medic in hoisting the wounded Americans and Afghans into the helicopter. White would not allow himself to be evacuated until everyone else was in a position to leave.

Six American servicemembers died in the battle.

Well done, Sgt Kyle.

***

Today is Primary Day in at least two states, Nebraska and West Virginia. Both elections may foretell the path of the GOP come November.

The GOP establishment touted the election of North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis, who won the U.S. Senate primary against his Tea Party opponent, as a major achievement. I’m not so sure. Tillis’ voting record is as conservative as that of his Tea Party opponent. Yes, he had the endorsement of the establishment but that doesn’t guarantee allegiance to Mitch McConnell.

The Nebraska GOP Primary is between Ben Sasse, a former Bush administration health policy wonk who helped turn around a struggling Nebraska college, and former state Treasurer Shane Osborn, who has been supported by Karl Rove and McConnell’s Republican National Senate committee (RNSC). Sasse has received the endorsement of Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee plus support from The Heritage Foundation and Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservative Fund (SCF).

According to that latest polling, Sasse is favored to win. That trend apparently has motivated Osborn to use Karl Rove’s favorite tactic—mud-slinging and negative ads.

The other potentially significant primary today is in West Virginia where seven-term Rep. Shelley Moore Capito is expected to easily win the Republican primary for the US Senate. Capito is widely favored to win the seat currently held by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV. Current democrat Senator Joe Manchin has praised Capito in the race. Manchin is one of several democrats being courted by ‘Pubs to switch parties.

***

On the Missouri side, state ‘Pub Senate leaders have reached a deal with democrats to end their filibuster on the 72-hour wait for an abortion. The deal? It was for the dems to end their filibuster and allow the Early Voting bill to pass. In return Ron Richard, RINO-Joplin, would not bring the Paycheck Protection bill and the Voter Photo-ID to the floor.

“What was the grand bargain between Republican Senate Majority Floor Leader Ron Richard and Democratic Senate Minority Leader Jolie Justus? … Democrats agreed to end their filibuster of the 72-hour waiting period for abortion and to not block the Republicans’ early voting proposal, while Republicans agreed to not bring up ‘Paycheck Protection’ and a ballot question that would allow the legislature to require voters to present photo identification at the polls. The abortion legislation was sent back to the House by a 22-9 vote, where it was originally supported with support from 113 lawmakers. … The Republican early voting plan, which also passed, would ask the voters to allow six early days for voting. All of the early voting days would be on weekdays during business hours, which Democrats have broadly opposed.” — PoliticMO Newsletter, May 13, 2014.

Yes, folks, Ron Richard has betrayed us again, the second time within a year. I can’t understand why our Jeff City republican leadership allows this traitor to the Republican party to continue to hold his post in the Senate. 

Facebook

Good news…bad news

Posted on by

We had good news in Missouri late yesterday. Nixon’s veto of the tax-cut bill, SB509, was over-ridden in the Missouri Senate on a vote of 23-8. The Missouri House voted later. “The House vote was 109-46,” to override Nixon’s veto with the help of one democrat, “Rep. Keith English, D – Florissant, joined Republicans in voting for the tax cut.” Rumor has it that Representative English has been called, “a traitor to his party,” by opponents of the tax cut. (I say, “rumor,” because I saw the quote earlier this morning and now I can’t find it.)

Other bills are still pending. The paper ballot bill requires two more votes and has yet to be placed on the calendar. The impeachment bills are stuck in committee. The members and the committee chair are afraid to vote.

In addition, time is running out on HB 1439, the Second Amendment Protection Act. The Missouri Senate restored some language to the bill requiring one more confirming vote in the House. So far, that vote has not taken place and time is running out.

***

On the other hand, conservatives lost some primary elections. John Boehner, with the help of his local organization and cross-over votes from democrats, won his primary election in Ohio.

Boehner wins Ohio primary, despite national unpopularity among GOP base

By , Published: May 6, 2014

House Speaker John A. Boehner cruised to victory Tuesday, easily beating two tea party challengers in his Ohio congressional district and proving that in spite of his unpopularity with the Republican base, his grip on power at home remains firm.

It was a rare moment of celebration for Boehner, who has endured a rough year, from the ongoing fights within his party over immigration reform to the tumult of October’s government shutdown.

Boehner’s win, however, does little to provide him with a significant boost in political capital in Washington, where he has been dogged by rumors about retiring and, failing that, a host of conservative critics who are plotting to oust him from his post later this year.

The column continues at the website and speculates on Boehner’s plans for pushing amnesty this summer.

In North Carolina, House Speaker Thom Tillis won the U.S. Senate primary against his Tea Party opponent.

Tillis Takes N.C. Primary in Win for GOP Establishment

By Scott Conroy – May 7, 2014

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — In a significant victory for the Republican establishment, which has aggressively sought to beat back challenges from Tea Party-aligned candidates, North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis won the U.S. Senate primary outright here on Tuesday.

Tillis garnered 45.7 percent of the vote, easily clearing the 40 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff that would have initiated a costly intra-party battle preceding his general election matchup against incumbent Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan.

One interesting point in this election was that democrat candidate, Kay Hagen, supported Tillis’ primary opponents hoping to cause a run-off election. Her hope was for a runoff electoin that would further fragment conservative voters in the state and thus help her own chances come the Fall.

It is not surprising that the liberal press is touting the GOP Establishment vs. Tea Party battle for control of the party. CNN, the New York Times, and others have columns today on that subject.

Missouri’s primary won’t come until August. Neither of our Senators are up for re-election. Roy Blunt as two more years in his term and Claire McCaskill has four more years. On the other hand, all of Missouri’s Representatives will be up for re-election and some, like Vicky Hartzler, have conservative/Tea Party primary opponents.

It will be an interesting summer.

Facebook

News from the Front

Posted on by

At times I feel like channeling Edward R. Murrow. There aren’t too many people who still remember viewing and hearing him. I’m one of those.

Murrow had a news program, See it Now, on CBS in the 1950s. Mom and Dad didn’t have a television on The Farm at that time. Instead, we’d drive over to Grandma’s place and watch TV there. Dad liked to watch Murrow and Dragnet. Mom liked listening to Murrow on the radio but she was never a TV fan. She’d rather read.

Imagine…instead of hearing Murrow say, “This is London,” as he would report during World War II, imagine him saying, “This is…,” and then pick a US location. Somewhere in Texas, Missouri, anywhere except Washington. In our version of history, image reporting as it was during WW II. Think of the parallels. Britain is now the  United States. In the imagined parallel, Washington must be Berlin. With that world in mind, we have two items in the news today; news from the front.

Conservatives forces are making gains on the continent…er, in Washington. Reports from the field have conservatives strengthening their positions as they advance on establishment positions. After a successful counter-attack led by Senator Ted Cruz, we have this news release.

Conservative insurgents strike blow against GOP Establishment

By TIMOTHY P. CARNEY | JANUARY 14, 2014 AT 6:30 PM

Sen. Ted Cruz is shown. | AP PhotoCold cash, together with control of institutions, is what makes the Establishment the Establishment. But in the current Republican civil war, the insurgents have secured their own money pipelines, and they control their own institutions – which means the GOP leadership and its allies in the business lobby have a hard fight in front of them.

The firing and hiring of conservative staffer Paul Teller makes it clear that the anti-establishment has built its own establishment.

Teller was a House staffer for more than a decade, and was longtime executive director of the conservative Republican Study Committee. The RSC always exerted a rightward pull on party leadership, but it is nonetheless a subsidiary of the party.

After the 2012 election, the Republican Establishment captured the RSC, in effect, by getting Congressman Steve Scalise elected chairman. Scalise is a conservative, but he is also a close ally of the party leadership – much more so than his predecessors Jim Jordan and Tom Price. Scalise immediately swept out most of the RSC staff.

Last month, Teller was accused of working with outside groups such as Heritage Action to whip RSC members – and Scalise showed Teller the door.

In the old days, this might have been a disaster for Teller. He had lost his job and landed on the wrong side of the party leadership. Anyone who picked up Teller would be spitting in the eye of the Establishment. But this week, Sen. Ted Cruz announced he had hired Teller as deputy chief of staff.

The Establishment no longer has the power it once had to demand obedience.

How did the party leadership maintain such power in the past? Basically with money. Party leaders had a near monopoly on access to money, both in terms of raising funds for candidates and landing jobs for individuals.

Floor leaders and committee chairmen have always been the GOP’s main contact point with corporations’ political action committees and lobbyists. If a member stays on the good side of party leaders, the leaders make a phone call to a lobbyist who throws the member a fundraiser.

Similarly, if a staffer always played nice with the Establishment, that brought with it job security: Even if your boss retired, you could land on your feet, as the leadership would recommend you for a job in another office, or K Street would hire you.

You can see how this would make dissenting staffers and members watch their words and actions. Sure, members were allowed to vote against the leadership – as long as the leadership didn’t need your vote. But at the end of the day, you had to play ball, otherwise you got no money for re-election, and no jobs for you or your staff.

But Teller landed on his feet — and today any conservative staffer disposed to fight the party leadership can hold out the same hope. The GOP Establishment has lost its monopoly, and the insurgents now have many bases of power – and thus many sources of money.

Conservative activist groups have always existed inside the GOP, but because they couldn’t raise and distribute large amounts of money, they functioned mostly through moral suasion – which means they were largely powerless. Eventually, these Beltway conservative groups grew dependent on the GOP, and instead of holding the party accountable, they often ended up being the establishment’s liaison to the conservative base.

Today’s conservative groups are fully armed, though. Thanks to advances in Internet fundraising and changes in campaign finance laws, the Senate Conservatives Fund, FreedomWorks, and the Club for Growth can raise and spend enough money to compete in GOP primaries with the Chamber of Commerce and lobbying firms.

Beyond these new pipelines of campaign cash, the insurgents now control institutions – institutions they created, and ones they took over. Jim DeMint, who founded the Senate Conservatives Fund in 2008, left Congress in 2013 to head the Heritage Foundation.

Heritage used to be a faithful ally of the GOP – at least when it counted most. Under DeMint, Heritage is a scourge of the GOP leadership and an enforcer of a hard limited-government line.

And the Senate offices of Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul are three insurgent beachheads on Capitol Hill. Being a senator doesn’t merely give one a vote — it gives these men the budget to staff a congressional office. As they gain seniority, the Tea Partiers will get control over budgets for committee staffs.

When a member’s re-election, or a staffer’s ability to pay the mortgage, doesn’t depend on the Establishment’s favor, the Establishment may need to find a new way to gain conservatives’ loyalty.

Another news report from the Front exposes an attempt by enemy agents to infiltrate conservative support organizations. The target of these infiltrators was to misdirect funds and reinforcements from conservatives. The infiltrators, funded and organized by liberal operatives, were exposed as reported below.

The “Republican Main Street Partnership” is Democrat Funded

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  January 14th, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Steve LaTourette, a former congressman and friend of John Boehner, runs the “Republican Main Street Partnership”. Note the word “Republican.”

As the left-wing Talking Points Memo reported a month ago, LaTourette and his Main Street Partnership have created an affiliated SuperPAC called “Defending Main Street PAC.” Along with the Chamber of Commerce and Republican Leaders, the Main Street Partnership wants to take out troublesome conservatives.

Defending Main Street PAC plans to raise $8 million in this election cycle; by contrast the Senate Conservatives Fund handled $12 million in 2012 and expects to raise even more this time around.

Note, first, that LaTourette spoke with a left-wing site to reveal his plans. Note second that Defending Main Street PAC has had to release its year end campaign finance numbers.

According to its fundraising report, Defending Main Street PAC received its money from a Democrat donor, a group of unions, and an Indian tribe.

More specifically,

  • Bonderman, David gave $30000.00 – the Los Angeles Times referred to him as “David Bonderman, a significant contributor to Democrats, “
  • Laborers’ Political League Education Fund gave $100000.00
  • The Chickasaw Nation gave $50000.00
  • International Union of Operating Engineers [EPEC] gave $250000.00
  • Laborers’ International Union Of North America (LIUNA) PAC gave $150000.00
  • MEBA PAF gave $15000.00 (Marine Engineers Beneficial Association)
  • Working for Working Americans-Federal gave $250000.00 (Building Trades / carpenters PAC)

In other words, the “Republican” Main Street Partnership’s affiliated PAC intends to use George Soros connections and Democrat back groups’ money to defeat conservatives.

More troubling, the Republican Main Street Partnership has a lot of ties to Republican leaders. Again, folks, it is us versus them. You pick.

It is no longer sufficient nor wise to assume anyone claiming to be republican is working for our benefit and is a conservative. All too many ‘Pubs, elected using the Tea Part and other grassroot organizations, have turned out to be turn-coats. Instead of listening to and following the demands of their constituents, those who elected them, these turn-coats parrot the establishment line. In many cases, the turn-coats talk and agree with their constituents at home, while voting, in lock-step, with the establishment in Washington.

It is worse. The local party officials quake in fear of these turn-coats. They point to their massive campaign funds, funds gathered with the help of those local dupes, and declare the turn-coats are unbeatable. That may be true, if the local and state party organizations don’t disavow and work to present primary opponents to remove these traitors in our ranks.

Failure of the county and state parties will likely result in a repeat of 2012 in 2014 and 2016. The conservatives, feeling unrepresented and seeing no real difference between the two national parties, stay home. The dems retain the Senate, and may take back the House. It will be Pelosi back as Speaker and a repeat of 2008 through 2010.

Will it take a repeat of of 2012 to make the ‘Pubs listen? Or, in disgust, will conservatives leave the party forever, creating a new party that speaks for them. Only the republican officials can say.

It’s 1856, ‘Pubbies. Think on that.

Facebook

Another chip gone.

Posted on by

Chip? What chip? It is a chip off the stone of GOP solidarity. Boehner and McConnell, in order to preserve their political futures, have started a war they cannot win. In the short term, as the GOP continues to fragment, the only winners are the democrats. In the long term…who knows. The real question is whether, when all the chips have fallen, will there be anything to rebuild—of the nation and the Constitution?

The Ryan-Murray budget ‘deal’ is another chip off that rock of GOP solidarity. Ryan, Boehner and the rest of the Washington establishment are willing to risk everything to avoid confrontation before the 2014 elections. Instead, they have risked the entire country to gain a little time.

What Ryan, Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and the others have done is to increasingly solidify the opposition of conservatives against them. The article below from the Washington Times supports the reports of growing opposition to the budget deal.

All-out war breaks out in GOP over budget

By Jacqueline Klimas and Seth McLaughlin, The Washington Times, Wednesday, December 11, 2013

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio,joined by House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., takes reporters' questions, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2013, as House Republicans signaled support for a budget deal worked out yesterday between Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chair Rep. Patty Murray, D-Wash. The budget deal was one of a few major measures left on Congress' to-do list near the end of a bruising year that has produced a partial government shutdown, a flirtation with a first-ever federal default and gridlock on President Obama's agenda. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)Tea party groups and fiscal conservatives wasted no time Wednesday in savaging a bipartisan budget agreement negotiated between House Republicans and Senate Democrats, drawing an unusually angry response from House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

All sides were rating the winners and losers in the deal struck a day earlier between House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, Washington Democrat. The modest deficit-cutting deal had some sweeteners for defense contractors and oil drillers, while air travelers, federal workers and some corporate executives would take a hit.

But most of the passion focused on the politics of the deal, with Mr. Ryan, Mr. Boehner and the House GOP leadership defending their handiwork from attacks from conservative colleagues on Capitol Hill and from outside groups such as the Club for Growth, Heritage Action and Americans for Prosperity. Critics said the agreement effectively raised taxes in the form of higher fees, failed to restrain entitlement programs and permitted new spending in the short term in exchange for vague promises of long-term cuts.

Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, said in an interview that Republicans sacrificed their biggest point of leverage — the tough “sequester” spending cuts that were already in force — in the rush to get a short-term deal that did not address the long-term costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

“I am against [the deal] from just a basic point that we embarked on a position at the beginning of the year that said, ‘We will keep the sequester in place unless we get to make changes on mandatory spending that will save those program and put the budget on path to balance within the next 10 years,’” Mr. Jordan said.

Added Chris Chocola, president of the fiscally hawkish Club for Growth, “Apparently, there are some Republicans who don’t have the stomach for even relatively small spending reductions that are devoid of budgetary smoke and mirrors. If Republicans work with Democrats to pass this deal, it should surprise no one when Republican voters seek alternatives who actually believe in less spending when they go to the ballot box.”

— Continue reading here.

Unfortunately for fiscal conservatives, Boehner is pushing for a vote on the ‘deal’ as quickly as he can. The vote could take place as early as today and he, Boehner, wants a quick vote to prevent “interference” from conservatives. Heritage Action, Club for Growth and the American’s for Prosperity initiated call-in campaigns yesterday.

The lines are being drawn as more ‘Pubs shift to one side or another. Some will continue to try to sit on the fence, fearing offending one side or the other. Like so many in the months prior to December 1860, they will discover that fence-sitters will be despised by both sides and have support from neither.

Here is some links to addition columns in today’s digital newspapers.

KIBBE: Another Republican budget surrender

The short-term deal will assure long-term overspending — Washington Times

—

Budget Agreement Gets Attention from the Tea Party (Video)

—

John Boehner rips conservatives for prematurely bashing budget deal, but rushes bill to floor

By PHILIP KLEIN | DECEMBER 11, 2013 AT 5:48 PM(Washington Examiner)

—

Budget deal a step backward: Opposing view

—

December 11, 2013 at 4:06 pm (The Foundry)

—

Boehner’s Outburst Fuels GOP Civil War

The worst speaker of the House and Republican leader in the memory of living men. (PJ Media)

—

To say this deal is unliked is an understatement of biblical proportions.

Facebook

The Return of the Friday Follies

Posted on by

This has been an interesting week—interesting as in the old Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.” Obamacare continues to disintegrate. The GOP Establishment howls, “See! See!”, as if it vindicates their ineptness and lack of leadership opposing it and the dems in general.

More dem pols are attempting to distance themselves from Obama and Obamacare, Mark Pryor of Arkansas is an example. The twenty and thirty-somethings, those whom the libs depended upon to fund Obamacare, are rebelling. That subject, rebellion, revolution, was spoken aloud this week by Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute before a congressional judiciary committee and was supported, obliquely, by law professor Jonathan Turley, an Obama supporter.

Frankly, I, like any sane citizen, would rather not live in interesting times. Unfortunately, we, collectively the citizens of this nation, have allowed the situation to occur. And, the longer the condition is allowed to continue, the worse it will be and the more difficult it will be to correct.

If it can. That was the underlying concern espoused by Michael Cannon and Jonathan Turley.

But, I’ve already written about those subjects. Today is Friday, December 6, 2013. Tomorrow is Pearl Harbor Day. I wonder if it will be remembered by the intelligentsia in Washington…or used as another campaign event by the democrats and Obama celebrating our slide into totalitarianism and a police state, of a one-party rule like that of the old Soviet Union.

***

The GOP Establishment as acquired an ally in their war against the Tea Party and their party’s core conservatives—the US Chamber of Commerce. That alliance created a reaction. The Club for Growth has joined the fray on the side of conservatives.

New battlefront emerges in war between Republicans, tea party

By Seth McLaughlin – The Washington Times, Thursday, December 5, 2013

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s new push to get involved in Republican primaries by defending incumbents against tea party challengers could actually make it easier to unseat them, according to the head of the influential Club for Growth.

Chris Chocola, the club’s president, said the battle between the chamber, which he said advocates big business, and the rank-and-file free-market conservatives whom his group represents is well underway as Republicans try to field their candidates for the 2014 congressional elections.

The latest fight is shaping up in Idaho, where the chamber announced this week that it will run ads defending incumbent Rep. Michael K. Simpson, a Republican, against a challenge by lawyer Bryan Smith. The club has endorsed Mr. Smith.

“The chamber is pro-business and we are pro-free market, and that is the difference,” Mr. Chocola told The Washington Times. “The opposing views are not new, but there seems to be some heightened interest from the establishment types to get involved in a race like Idaho. If that heightened interest continues there might be more chances that we end up on opposite sides.”

The column continues, here, at the website.

Not only has the anti-conservative campaign of the GOP establishment drawn out national organizations such as the Club for Growth, it has also started a wave of grassroots activism and reactivation of local Tea Party groups rallying to fight that establishment from both parties.

***

Speaking the truth. It is a dangerous occurance, regardless of the validity of the statement. Here in the U. S., it can get you fired. You’d think the consequences would be worse is socialist Europe and the UK. If you thought that, you’d be wrong.

PRUDEN: British press horrified as London’s new mayor dares to proclaim the truth

By Wesley Pruden – The Washington Times, Thursday, December 5, 2013

LONDON — Free speech is good, but sometimes dangerous in practice. Saying what you think can get you sacked in America even if it’s something that most people think. Practicing free speech here in the old country is risky, too, but saying the wrong thing appears to be a misdemeanor, not yet a felony.

Boris Johnson, the irrepressible mayor of London, said some provocative things the other day to a private think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies, and political London — mostly the scribblers, anyway — has been in a tizzy since.

The mayor playfully invoked Gordon Gecko, who exists only in a movie, and his economic philosophy that “greed is good” to make the point that intelligence, ambition, inspiration and above all perspiration is the irresistible driver of prosperity for everyone. He observed that some people are smarter than others, and that the 2 percent pulls the 98 percent into the good life. To the consternation of conservatives in the government and the left-wing columnists and commentators, the mayor is still upright and walking around.

The 98 percent should be grateful to the 2 percent and not spend a lot of time cultivating resentment. “Some measure of inequality is essential for the spirit of envy,” he said, “and keeping up with the Joneses is, like greed, a valuable spur to the economy.” This reflects an unremarkable understanding of what was once called human nature before the liberals — “progressives,” they call themselves now — decided that the state can install a better nature than God did.

Mr. Johnson then went even further. He said nice things about Margaret Thatcher, who has never been forgiven in certain of these precincts for pulling Britain out of the deep coma imposed by a welfare state that had reduced an empire to “a little England.”

The mayor sometimes talks less like a mayor than a newspaper columnist, which he is as well, for The Daily Telegraph. The squeals from the left and the harrumphs from the right after his Maggie Thatcher remarks may be less about the interpretations of his message than about the folly of electing a newspaper columnist to high office. Instead of bashing the rich, he wrote the other day, “we should be offering them humble and hearty thanks. It is through their restless, concupiscent energy and sheer wealth-creating dynamism that we pay for an ever-growing proportion of public services.”

You can read more here.

***

The topic, State Nullification, is a continuing subject in many conservative circles. It appeared in a Washington Times column this week in a discussion of the overbearance and possible Constitutional violations by the government and the NSA. Nullification, contrary to popular thought, is not supported in the Constitution. It was, however, discussed in the Federalist Papers and in those papers, advocated as a possible solution to the excess of the federal government.

The Constitution and state-level resistance to NSA spying

Wednesday, December 4, 2013 – A View from the Tenth by Michael Boldin

LOS ANGELES, December 4, 2013 –  In Federalist #46, James Madison advised state-level actions in response to unconstitutional or unpopular federal acts. He wrote that a successful strategy includes a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.”

As reported by US News, and linked at the top of the Drudge Report yesterday, a coalition of organizations is working to put that advice into practice in response to mass NSA surveillance programs.

The activists would like to turn off the water to the NSA’s $1.5 billion Utah Data Center in Bluffdale, Utah, and at other facilities around the country.

 Dusting off the concept of “nullification,” which historically referred to state attempts to block federal law, the coalition plans to push state laws to prohibit local authorities from cooperating with the NSA.

Draft state-level legislation called the Fourth Amendment Protection Act would – in theory – forbid local governments from providing services to federal agencies that collect electronic data from Americans without a personalized warrant.

This morning, at the TIME Swampland blog, Nate Rawlings picked up on the story as well, but opined that the “effort is sure to be stymied by federal authorities.”

Such an opinion assumes that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to stop states from opting out of federal acts and programs, or has a history of doing so.

Both assumptions are incorrect.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly supported the ability of states to opt out of federal acts and programs. The legal principle is known as the “anti-commandeering doctrine,” and says that the federal government cannot force, or “commandeer,” states to enact, administer or enforce federal regulations.

The relevant court cases are:

* 1842 Prigg: The court held that states were not required to enforce federal slavery laws.

* 1992 New York: The court held that Congress could not require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.

* 1997 Printz: The court held that “the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

* 2012 Sebelius: The court held that states could not be required to expand Medicaid even under the threat of losing federal funding.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a state to help the federal government do anything.

The 4th Amendment Protection Act is a state-level bill which seeks to put the anti-commandeering doctrine into practice. The Act would thwart NSA surveillance by banning a state from participating in any program that helps or utilizes NSA surveillance.  This would include providing natural resources, information sharing, and more.

The question, then, is this: Do enough states have the will to follow the advice of the “Father of the Constitution?”

Yes, that is an interesting question.

***

And for a parting shot, let this item from FOX News be a reminder what we, the conservatives, are opposing.

OBAMA SAYS ONE-PARTY CONTROL NEEDED
President Obama told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that Republicans are to blame for the failings of ObamaCare and other national problems. Obama said making concessions on his signature entitlement program was “out of the question.” The way forward, the president said, was to end divided government. “In our history, usually when we’ve made big progress on issues, it actually has been when one party controlled the government for a period of time,” he said. “The big strides we made in the New Deal, the big strides we made with the Great Society – those were times when you had a big majority.” — Chris Stirewalt, Digital Politics Editor, Fox News.

Facebook

Krauthammer, Redux

Posted on by

Part of my blog yesterday concerned statements by Charles Krauthammer, MD, Pundit, and FOX contributor. Krauthammer stated that there were no functional differences between the Tea Party and the GOP establishment. I took him to task and today, The American Spectator joined me. I found this article through a Facebook post by Mark Levin. If you have a Facebook account, I would urge you to ‘like’ his page.

Dear Dr. Krauthammer

O’Reilly, Roger Ailes, and the GOP Civil War.

By

November 12th. As the O’Reilly Factor begins, host Bill O’Reilly gets the ball rolling with a talking points discussion about the divide in the Republican Party, saying that politics are getting “even more bitter ” and that “Tea Party conservatives, as well as the hard right, continue to reject the moderate wing of the party.” O’Reilly segues to a clip of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin praising Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and saying among other things that the two were asking for debate and that “when you stand in the middle of the road you’re going to get hit on both sides of the road.”

O’Reilly divides GOP party leaders as moderates, represented, he said, by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Senators John McCain and Marco Rubio as well as Congressman Paul Ryan. He calls conservatives the “hard right,” pegging the leadership as Senators Cruz, Lee, and Rand Paul as well as Governor Palin. O’Reilly notes that “at this point there’s no détente, both sides are far apart” and refers to the frequent labeling of “RINOs” (Republicans in Name Only) by “talk radio and some on cable news stoke the fire.”

There is a reference to the previous night’s appearance by commentator Bernard Goldberg in which Goldberg accuses the GOP “hard right” of ideological rigidity and need for ideological purity. Also mentioned: “thousands” of letters/e-mails to O’Reilly from conservatives upset with not only O’Reilly and Goldberg but Karl Rove and Brit Hume as well, accusing O’Reilly of being a “traitor” and the others as RINOs. Krauthammer acknowledged that he too had received such missives.

What was striking in all of this was Krauthammer’s insistence that the differences between conservatives and moderates are all about tactics, not goals. Among other things, Sir Charles said that:

I think this whole thing is very much blown up in the liberal media…. The difference between the hard right and moderates is really one over tactics rather than over ideology and objectives…. On objectives you tell me what is the fundamental difference between the so-called moderates and radicals. I don’t see it. We all agree on limited government, we all agree on restoration of individual rights, we all agree on liberty being the central ideal, we all agree on the restoration of individual responsibility and initiative… where’s the big difference?… This is ginned up by a lot of players for a lot of self-interested reasons…. Cool this a little bit by looking rationally at what are the real differences… and they are tactical.

Respectfully, I disagree.

So perhaps it’s best to discuss in letter form to the good doctor, who in fact is highly respected not just here but in many solidly conservative quarters.  (And for the record, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Charles Krauthammer has also been honored by many conservative organizations including both The American Spectator and, just this fall, the conservative Media Research Center. It should also, of course, be mentioned that Dr. K. has a bestseller now on his hands, Things That Matter: Three Decades of Pastimes, Passions and Politics)  and he was the subject of this recent Fox special hosted by Brett Baier.

So, a letter.

Dear Dr. Krauthammer:

The other night on the O’Reilly Factor, you made the case that the differences within the Republican Party were “really one over tactics rather than over ideology and objectives…. On objectives you tell me what is the fundamental difference between the so-called moderates and radicals. I don’t see it.”

With respect, I do see that fundamental difference. And it is certainly safe to say I am not alone in seeing some moderates as having long ago abandoned the GOP’s core beliefs  — and that is in fact a fundamental difference.

The reason there was such heat in the debate between the Cruz-Lee supporters and others over shutting down the government in order to defund Obamacare — or, at a minimum, to delay it a year — was precisely because this was seen on the conservative side of this divide as merely the latest example of moderation at work. And when I say the “latest example” I specifically mean “latest” in the sense that the moderation displayed has been going on now for decades. This was not some one-shot, one-time stand-alone difference.

There is a reason conservatives believe so-called moderates do not, in fact, share the same goals.

To use a central point at issue, just as you correctly say, at the core of the Republican Party is a belief in limited government.

Is that really the case for so-called “moderates”?

In 1980 Ronald Reagan ran for the presidency on a platform that read, in part, this on the subject of education:

… the Republican Party supports deregulation by the federal government of public education, and encourages the elimination of the federal Department of Education.

President Reagan failed to eliminate the Education Department. Why? As his OMB Director David Stockman noted in his baleful memoirs, there were Republicans who “could not and would not disown… the ‘me-too’ statism that had guided it” for the decades leading up to the Reagan presidency. Indeed, Stockman’s point was that there were so many statist Republicans in Congress at the time that there was “no political home” for the idea of limited government in the GOP.

The column continues at the website turning to George W. Bush continuing support for the Department of Education. The creation of the Department of Education was a pivotal point in the socialization of America. The left, in a few years, controlled the institutions across the country, where a few years earlier, those same institutions, were strongly conservative.

I can attest to that. During my college years, 1964 through 1969, my university, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, was thoroughly conservative.

One of my History, American Foreign Policy instructors was a former Deputy Secretary of State for NATO under John Foster Dulles. He lectured on recent events such as the 1956 Arab-Israeli War, the Hungarian Uprising, and the British fight against communist insurgents in Malaya. His version of events, supported by reams of declassified documents from his days in the State Department, differed greatly from the versions I heard at my democrat parents dinner table.

There was one daily paper in our county. We read it from front to back, but it was the columnists, Drew Pearson and others that formed our viewpoints—democrat, liberal columnists.

It took me some time to compare the opinions from the democrats and the republicans. The democrats presented opinion. The republicans presented facts. In a short time I knew where I stood. I became the second Republican in the family following my older sister, who like me, saw the differences between leftist rhetoric and the actual events.

A few years later, with the ascendancy of federal and state control of education funds under the direction of Johnson’s Great Society, those same conservative instructors were gone replaced by leftists and marxists, secure in tenure, who were last seen on the streets of Haight-Ashbury.

The issue of the elimination of the Department of Education is one proof that the division between the GOP establishment and the grassroots voters is not recent but goes back for decades. The pundits in Washington ignore these examples from history. They fit not their vision and goals, hence they make myth of those divisions blaming liberal media.

They could not be more wrong.

Facebook

There I wuz…

Posted on by

Today will be a short post…unless I get on a roll.  I had an appointment this morning that upset my normal schedule.

Today’s post is a continuation of a theme from earlier this week. A variety of groups are attempting to build a coalition to effect change within the Republican party. Some of these groups are frustrated Ron Paul supporters. Others are local Tea Party groups hoping to expand and consolidate into a viable state-wide organization with a consensus on platform and action-plans. They all are having a rough start. The biggest hurdle I’ve seen is their inability to believe that other conservatives may have legitimate opposing viewpoints.

Case in point. A large conservative social group in Missouri almost dissolved just before the primary this year. The group had been incorporated with rules prohibiting favoritism of one candidate over another. Favoritism could cause tax issues with the IRS. However, one candidate’s followers persisted in pushing their candidate in violation of the rules. The group owner dropped all of the membership and reconstituted as a closed group whose members would abide by the rules.

The election is now over. We lost. Some blame, not all, can be levied towards those who refused to vote for ABO…Anyone but Obama. i.e., Romney. He wasn’t the best candidate and some suspected he may not be as strong a conservative as some of the other ‘Pub candidates. In the end, Romney was the selected ‘Pub candidate and truly, had the only real change of defeating Obama and he did come close.

But not close enough.

Now after the election, various groups and individuals are attempting to reconstitute the people and organizations that won so many seats in 2010. 2014 is coming soon and is very important. We must retain our control of the House and expand our members in the Senate. If that is the goal…and for some, I believe it is not, we must have a united platform and a united organization. That cannot be achieved if we do not follow this rule.

You do not achieve your goals by pissing off those you wish to influence.

It’s a difficult lesson to be learned but learn it we must if we are to achieve our goals—first to control Congress and in 2016 to expand that control with winning the White House. Once we have the political power, we can begin to implement our agenda. It’s a long-term plan with short-term mileposts. The long term is limited government, the repeal of Obamacare, Frank-Dodd and other liberal legislation passed over the last seventy years.

The short term goals can only be achieved by unification. Unifying our groups, our people and laying aside those issues where we do not have consensus. When i bring up these points, I’ve been accused of selling out to the democrats, being in favor of Obamacare, being a tool of the establishment and those are just the more polite labels.

Vilifying the opposition is not a winning plan. Let’s start anew and remember Reagan’s and Goldwater’s rule: Never speak ill of a fellow Republican (Tea Partier, Conservative, etc.) Once we achieve this goal, we can begin to work towards some of those longer term goals.

Facebook