No, George Washington DIDN’T Say America Should Stay Out Of Foreign Affairs

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

 photo George Washington_zps0svkfnk9.jpg
George Washington, first President of the United States

Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Publius’ Forum.

A great piece on the Father of our Country.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With the talk of how bad Islam is for civilization and the question of just what to do about it, we are seeing those lightly informed about American history claiming that our founders–in particular George Washington–warned us to stay out of “foreign entanglements.” In fact, however, Washington neither said this, nor meant for such a policy to be enacted.

Many on the left and the isolationist right try to use the father of our country to support their ideas against the GOP and to justify their hope that the USA will pull out of the Middle East. Specifically they cite Washington’s farewell address where a retiring president supposedly warned Americans against getting involved with foreign nations and getting caught up in those evil “foreign entanglements.”

On one hand, it is quite amusing to see lefties in love with a founding father or American history and principles for the first time in their lives, certainly, but it isn’t just the left revealing a sudden respect for a founding father with citation of Washington’s address. On the other hand those Ron Paulites and his isolationist wing on the right have for years been bandying about Washington’s farewell address as some sort of “proof” that one of our “first principles” was to stay away from foreign nations.

So, what was Washington really saying? Did he warn us against “foreign entanglements”? Did he think the U.S. should steer clear of all outside political situations and relegate ourselves only to trade with foreigners?

We have to point out, that Washington never used the exact words “foreign entanglements” in his farewell address. That has been a decades-long misconstruction of his last letter to the nation. He did ask why we should “entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition,” but he never used the exact words “foreign entanglements.”

That dispensed with, we move on to the assumed isolationism of George Washington’s address. What did he mean and did he mean it to be a permanent principle from which the U.S. should never stray?

First of all we must realize that the U.S. had been up to its neck in “foreign entanglements” before it had even become a nation. With wars against the French decades earlier, then the rebellion against Britain with help from the French, pleas to the Dutch for loans, not to mention intrigues in Canada and clashes with Spanish holdings in the new world, the progenitors to the United States, with all that our nascent nation was already a key player on the international stage.

Further the United States had envoys in most of the major European nations long before Washington’s farewell address. So, to say that the U.S. was isolated from the rest of the world and that Washington’s entreaty meant for us to stay that way, to say that this was some axiomatic delineation of American foreign policy is a wrong headed claim. The U.S. was already so “entangled” that it couldn’t be untangled.

One of the important goals of Washington’s letter was to shore up his own foreign policy decisions. Washington had angered the Jefferson/Madison wing of the federal government when he decided not to side with France against England after our revolution ended. In fact, while leaning toward being an anglophile, Washington tried to tread a fine line of “neutrality” between France and England. His farewell address was in part meant to justify a policy choice he had made as president. It was less a doctrine for the ages and more an immediate act of politics.

There was also an important bit of reality that caused Washington and Alexander Hamilton to eschew full support of France and lean toward England. We didn’t have the naval power to back up any major involvement in Europe. In fact, if we had decided to jump in with France, there was no way at all we could have escaped major damage from the extensive and powerful British Navy if we sided too directly with France.

Washington’s idea of neutrality was based in part on the complete inability of the U.S. to back up its foreign policy. But even in that case he did not say in his address that we should forever stay away from any foreign involvement.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Here is the key section of his address:

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

To warn Americans against “permanent alliances” really should go without saying. Decades later a fast friend of the United States basically said the same thing when he, Winston Churchill, said there are “no eternal allies” and “no perpetual enemies” for any nation.

Washington went on to say, though, that sometimes we must form alliances. “Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture,” he wrote, “we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

Obviously he understood that always staying neutral–as Paulites and liberals maintain–is not possible.

It should also be realized that this was Washington’s (and Hamilton’s) vision. The farewell address was not an explication of standard practice even when it was written, but Washington’s ideals. Many founders disagreed with this vision. So to act as if an isolationist policy was a singular founding principle is a horrible misread of history.

In To the Farewell Address, the seminal book about Washington’s document and the era in which it was given, Felix Gilbert warned us all not to accept these flawed misconstructions we are discussing here as an explanation what was going on with Washington’s farewell address.

In the conclusion to his essay, Gilbert wrote:

Because the Farewell Address comprises various aspects of American political thinking, it reaches beyond any period limited in time and reveals the basic issue of the American attitude toward foreign policy: the tension between Idealism and Realism. Settled by men who looked for gain and by men who sought freedom, born into independence in a century of enlightened thinking and of power politics, America has wavered in her foreign policy between Idealism and Realism, and her great historical moments have occurred when both were combined.

In other words, today’s neo-isolationist view of America’s “real” foreign policy ideals is woefully incorrect. The U.S. was never isolationist as a first principle. Ron Paul and his isolationists are wrong and so are the liberals who have a sudden and uncharacteristic respect for a founding father.

Finally, it must be noted that this article of mine is discussing only one thing and that is the purpose of Washington’s farewell address when it was delivered in 1796 and what it means to American first principles. I have no interest in using this piece to excuse or justify anything that happened after Washington left the scene. This article is not meant to ascertain what amount of foreign policy is optimal, only that isolationism is not an American first principle.

If WWI or WWII were wrong or our Middle East policy is misguided, those are discussions for other articles, not this one.

.

.

.

Share

Trump On The Attack: Romney ‘Choked Like a Dog’ in 2012 Campaign

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

donald trump 001

 

Hat/Tip to Sandy Fitzgerald at Newsmax.

Never one to back away from controversy or let the media set the tone in whatever endeavors he participates in, Donald Trump is at it again. This time it’s about the next Presidential election and he minces no words.

Mitt Romney “choked like a dog” in the 2012 election, Donald Trump said Monday, adding that neither Romney nor most of the slate of frown-romneypotential GOP nominees will be able to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

“I supported Mitt Romney and he didn’t bring out the people,” Trump said on “Fox & Friends” Monday. “He choked in the end … frankly, he just choked, choked like a dog, and we cannot allow that to happen again.”

Trump went on…

Romney’s last month of the 2012 campaign “was a disaster,” added Trump, who said he’s going to decide on his 2016 campaign aspirations within the next three or four months.

“He should have won that election. He was going against the president, who was absolutely not good and not doing well.”

Romney, if he finally decides on a 2016 race, will lose again, Trump said.

“The ‘Romneycare’ is still with you, many other issues with you, including the 47 percent statement that’s going to be brought up again, and he’ll lose for the same reasons,” said Trump.

And further, while he describes Romney as “a nice man,” Trump said the former Massachusetts governor doesn’t have what it takes to win a presidential race, and he never did.

“Most importantly, some people cannot get the ball over the line and he was never able to get the ball over the line,” said Trump. “We can’t do it again…. We really need help in this country. This country is going to be a disaster if we keep going along the way we’re going.”

Read the full story here.

.
.
.

Share

Conservative Lawmakers Plan To Vote Against Boehner For Speaker

Share

boehner

 

Hat/Tip to Alex Pappas at The Daily Caller.

File this one under, “Maybe there is STILL hope for the GOP.”

Some disaffected conservative House Republicans are planning to rebel and vote against John Boehner for speaker of the House when the new Congress convenes next week.

The official speaker’s election is set for Jan. 6., when the House will convene for a public floor vote to open the new Congress.

 While the vote is usually just a formality, these conservative lawmakers are planning to vote for someone other than the Ohio
Republican who has been speaker since 2011.
There are a lot of Conservative alternatives to choose from, as well.

Read the rest of the story here.

.

.

.

Share

Conservatism: What It Is And Why Is It Needed So Badly In 2016?

Share

ice cold conservative

edmund-burke
Edmund Burke

Conservatism is by today’s standards closely associated with Edmund Burke’s philosophy. I think it goes beyond that, in that it is more than merely a political doctrine. It is, in my estimation, a way of life, a code of conduct that associates one’s property with one’s liberty. For how can one truly be a free man when his property is not his to do with as he wishes? Russell Kirk, a man who has had a big impact on 20th century conservatism and has helped to shape it going into the new millennia was quoted as saying that conservatism is “the negation of ideology.”

russell kirk
Russell Kirk

How is that ‘negation of ideology’ translated into today’s conservative movement? The word ‘conservative’ is derived from the Latin verb, conservare, meaning to preserve or to save. So by its very nature, it would seem that to be Conservative is to hold onto the past. Then how do we arrive at what seems to be an oxy-moron such as ‘modern conservatism?’ How does one combine 21st century thinking with a traditional approach to life and politics? It’s not that difficult, really. I think Kirk was onto something important when he called it ‘the negation of ideology.’ For if one is to examine the Statist’s modus operandi, it is clear that amassing power and expanding the role of government in the life of the “masses” is his number one priority. It has been said that the far left, which is the controlling faction of the Democratic Party at this time, is part and parcel with big government. In other words, the Democratic Party needs big government for power and big government needs the Democratic Party to exist. It is a symbiotic relationship that is troubling to say the least and dangerous in the extreme.

DA-SC-90-03096
Ronald Reagan

To be honest, some Republican Presidents have increased government spending as well. Let’s look at Ronald Reagan. He did increase government, but he did it in a slightly different way. Reagan dramatically cut the role of the Federal Government in domestic programs and shifted the focus to increasing the military. Of course, this is well known today to be one of the leading reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. So this begs the question, did Reagan increase or decrease the role of government in our lives? On the domestic front, he dramatically decreased it, so the argument can be made that he was a small-government conservative. If one takes into the account the expanded size of the Federal Government due to the military build-up during the Reagan years then the answer seems less clear unless you remember one key factor.

Our Constitution.

It specifically calls for the Federal Government to provide for the common defense; it does not call for entitlements, or other socialistic programs. So in retrospect, Reagan was definitely a true conservative.

It is very unfortunate that we do not have a true conservative in the White House at this time. Instead we have a man who was raised by Marxists, steeped in Communism and cut his political teeth in Chicago while studying the Alinsky method of community organizing.

budget-create-deficits-606Barack Obama is the most pure statist in American history to ever occupy the Oval Office. If you only look at the unprecedented spending undertaken by this administration, then you see that we are on a course of financial ruin.

  • $787 billion stimulus package which morphed into $1.6 trillion in spending
  • $400 billion “son of stimulus”
  • $700 billion Wall Street bailout package
  • $1.7 trillion Obamacare
  • trillion dollar deficits almost every year he has been in office
  • explosion in the National Debt, from $10 trillion to $18.7 trillion today, and looking to be north of $20 trillion by the time he leaves office

To assail his critics at the time, Obama promised to find $17 billion in cuts from his obscenely bloated budget. If it weren’t so scary, it would be laughable. As Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) said, “It’s as if you took a teaspoon of water out of the bathtub while you left the spigot on at full speed.”

So what we, the American public have been stuck with is the bill for a pure Statist’s Utopian DEBT HELD BY PUBLIC-OBAMA BUDGET-CHARTdream. Can we afford this? Can our children or our grand-children afford this? The answer is no and it is only one of the many reasons why we need conservatism so much right now. So let us choose carefully who we decide to put into the Oval Office in 2016. We can ill afford another term of statism on steroids; and that is exactly what has happened. President Obama has led our country down the winding road of socialism. He made a promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” and that is unfortunately the one campaign promise he has attempted to keep.
But it isn’t just his spending that makes Barack Obama the most dangerous President the United States has ever had.
As the list of his insane spending boggles the mind, so too will this list of his scandals and lawless actions.

  • Implemented portions of the Dream Act, (which had been rejected by Congress) by Executive Order
  • Refused to prosecute violation of drug laws with certain mandatory minimums
  • Illegally refused to act on Yucca Mountain’s application to become a nuclear waste repository
  • Refusal to act during Benghazi terror attacks, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans in our Consolute in Lybia, and the resulting Cover-Up
  • Gave billions in Foreign Aid to the Muslim Brotherhood after their coup gave them control of Egypt
  • IRS Scandal in which Conservative groups were targeted ahead of the 2012 Presidential Elections
  • Continually re-wrote the ACA or ObamaCare Law via Executive Fiat
  • Implemented moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico even after a Federal Judge ruled it invalid
  • Re-wrote Federal Bankruptcy Laws during GM’s and Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings, giving the UAW controlling interest in the auto companies
  • Government agencies are engaging in “Operation Choke Point,” where the government asks banks to “choke off” access to financial services for customers engaging in conduct the Administration does not like—such as “ammunition sales”
  • Declared the Senate in recess to illegally make appointments that required Senate approval
  • Targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen by falsely labeling him a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a new leak
    Fast & Furious and the resulting cover-up
  • Targeted former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson because of her thorough coverage of the IRS scandal and the Benghazi Cover-Up
  • Granted Amnesty to millions of illegal aliens via Executive Order, after saying publicly for 6 years that he didn’t have the authority to do so

So what is Conservatism and why is it so desperately needed at this time in United States history?

Because we need to nominate a candidate that articulate Ronald Reagan’s message of “Morning in America,” showing a positive outlook that our best days are STILL ahead of us.

If we nominate another mushmouth candidate from the bushy center, who espouses the “big tent” philosophy, it will relegate the GOP to become the permanent 2nd Party.

If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything and that is what is happening now. We need a platform of smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations, and more individual liberties, because a rising tide does in deed, lift all boats.

So, let’s remember as we approach the presidential primaries, we need a candidate that will unabashedly fly the flag of Conservatism. Choose carefully my friends, choose carefully.

.

.

.

Share

Is It Time For Trey Gowdy To Be Speaker Of The House? It Sure Looks Like It

Share
Select Commitee 001 Trey Gowdy
Trey Gowdy R-SC

Is it time for John Boehner to go?

In this author’s opinion, not only yes, but “Hell yes!”

But who would we like to see in his place? Well there are some good choices and some not so good choices:

  • Trey Gowdy R-SC
  • Darrell Issa R-CA
  • Jeb Hensarling R-TX
  • Kevin McCarthy R-CA
  • Walter Jones R-NC
  • Jim Jordan R-OH
  • Steve Scalise R-LA
  • Tom Price R-GA
  • Paul Ryan R-WI
  • Cathy McMorris Rodgers R-WA

In all honesty, this author would have to say that the best choice for Boehner’s replacement would have to be Congressman Trey Gowdy from South Carolina. He’s a tough as nails prosecutor and is getting to the bottom of the Benghazi Cover-Up, not to mention the way he has torn into the IRS officials for what they did to honest, hard working Americans.

If he were to be half as tough negotiating with the Left and the Democratic House members as he was and is as a prosecutor, then he’d be a better Speaker of the House than John Boehner has, by a far sight.

Here are but a few links that show the tide is swelling for a Gowdy Speakership:

And here a few Tweets featured on twitchy.com:

.

 

 

.

 

.

 

 

.

 

.

 

 

.

 

.

 

 

.

 

.

 

 

.


Coming soon, a poll on who our loyal readers want for Speaker of the House.

.

.

.

Share

Dana Carvey: Liberals ‘Brutalize’ Conservative Comics

Share
Image: Dana Carvey: Liberals 'Brutalize' Conservative ComicsActor and Comedian Dana Carvey. (Bryan Bedder/Getty Images)

Hat/Tip to John Blosser at Newsmax.

Many of us remember him from his impersonations of Dan Quayle, H. Ross Perot, Jimmy Stewart, Johnny Carson or even Keith Richards. Or as The Church Lady, Hans (from Hans and Franz), or the ever popular Garth from Wayne’s World. So to say that Dana Carvey is mulit-talented comedian would be understating it.

His career post Saturday Night Live seemed to be taking off. Then in the late ’90s he underwent a simple heart-bypass operation. However, the surgeon worked on the wrong artery, and Dana’s health worsened. After corrective surgery, he sued the first surgeon and was awarded 8 million dollars – which he awarded to charities. In our book, that’s called being a class-act.

Via People:

The $7.5 million medical malpractice lawsuit comedian Dana Carvey filed against heart surgeon Dr. Elias Hanna for operating on a wrong artery has been settled. Financial details were not disclosed, but Carvey — who discusses in this week’s PEOPLE cover story how his life went awry after his bungled 1998 double bypass — told the Associated Press that the settlement will be divided among charities, including those involved in heart research. “This lawsuit, from the beginning, was about accountability and doing everything I could to make sure that it wouldn’t happen to someone else,” said Carvey. “Both my wife and I are very satisfied with the outcome and bringing resolution to this case.” A subsequent angioplasty alleviated Carvey’s heart blockage, though in the meantime, he said he was so weak that he was forced to refuse acting jobs.

In a recent interview, he talked about how left Hollywood and the Comedic world are. Making no bones about it, he says that if you’re a comedian and you’re Conservative, you’d better have some body armor.

Carvey, in an interview with Kozlowski for Pasadena Weekly, said that cracking jokes about President Obama still can land comedians in hot water with liberal crowds, but he doesn’t let that stop him.

“Because of the sensitivity of having an African-American president, which is completely understandable, people tend to tread lightly, but policy-wise there was some disconnect because people had complaints.

“It took a while to satirize our president but that’s American. It’s what we do,” Carvey said.

“I come from the old school that says you go where the power is and make fun of it. When it becomes off-limits to say or do certain things without being brutalized or uncensored, that’s a shame, but it’s where the country’s going right now.”

Of course, we all remember, and were fans of his impression of George Herbert Walker Bush, and it seems so was President Bush.

Carvey’s satirical impersonation of President George H.W. Bush was a big hit for him on SNL. However, Bush, who invited him to the White House to do the impression for him, was a good sport about it.

“The first two years, Bush was so popular we were just going with what the rhythm was,” Carvey told Kozlowski.

“Then, when the country’s mood turned and got a little more satirical towards him, it certainly didn’t help him, but he could sense I’m not an ideologue in the traditional sense where ‘someone who opposes me is my enemy.’ I’m an Americanist. I’m a radical moderate. He sensed that and did not take it personally.

And even when it comes to politics, Dana is an equal-opportunity satirist.

“I always want to be funny, number one, and political arguments often end up ugly,” Carvey said, Pasadena reported.

“Politics is the most toxic area a comedian can go into,” Carvey told the Reno Gazette-Journal. “We’re all in metaphorical foxholes right now, as a society. If you say or write one thing accidentally, it can get you in a lot of trouble.”

However, he added, “I don’t shy away from it, either. In fact, now that the elections are past, I’m getting bigger laughs with my Obama satire than any other thing in the act right now.”

As to the belief that only liberal comics are funny, Carvey told Kozlowski, “That’s just crazy leftover ideas from Watergate. I always believed you question authority. Whether it’s Asian-American, a woman president or Native American, you have to hit.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Obama, Democrats Take Hard Left Turn, Ignore The Will Of The American People

Share

President Obama

I have long since lost count of the times conservatives have been described as hard, right-wing idealogues that care only for our conservative ideology. The issue doesn’t really matter. The left always accuses us of being unwilling to bend our conservative principles. President Obama has been especially adept at this, along with outgoing Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. They are fond of describing to the world how Republicans are just the party of NO. Incidentally, they want the rest of us to forget that it was President Obama who refused to negotiate with the Republicans during last year’s government shutdown. And Harry Reid has killed how many bipartisan bills? That’s something else I’ve lost count of.

It can not be denied that the Democrats took an historic beating in the mid-term elections. They simply got walloped because the American people are tired of the direction they have taken the country since President Obama was sworn into office. One would think this would be cause for reflection on their part. One would think they would ponder what the American people really want them to do. One would be sadly mistaken. Since the mid-term beating became apparent, something else has became abundantly clear. The Democrats are determined to go their own route and ignore the will of the American people.

It didn’t take the President long to come out with a defiant speech, telling the country he was going to work on his own, since it was clear the Republicans would not work with him after they assumed complete control of Congress in 2015. He was in no way apologetic about his actions. In Congress, elections were held to choose their leaders for the upcoming Congress. Care to guess who the Democrats chose to lead them, yet again? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. That tells me they are not interested in changing the course they are on. And last night, President Obama doubled down on his threat to go it alone on immigration reform. He announced to the world that almost 5 million illegal immigrants no longer had to worry about deportation.

What does the President’s actions tell us? Really, nothing new. Many of us have tried to show, since before he was even elected, that the man was a pure ideologue. He believes in his liberal philosophy so strongly, he can not deviate from it. He showed that in his second inaugural address, when all he cared to talk about was climate change. Unlike William Jefferson Clinton, who cared enough about his legacy to move to the middle and work with the Republicans after 1994, Barack Hussein Obama is determined to get his way. That’s why he is forging ahead on immigration, granting deportation relief to the parents of American citizens. Is this full amnesty? Not in the legal definition, but it is a step in that direction. If Obama is allowed to force this new executive action down the throats of the American people, it is not a great leap of faith to believe he will go even further and grant them complete amnesty.

It is important to note one thing. Many who may agree with the President on his desired result on immigration disagree with his methods. Even they believe he is taking the wrong approach to correct the perceived problems with our immigration system. When some of your own party are raising red flags at your actions, would it not be safe to assume that you might be taking things a bit too far? That does not trouble President Obama, evidently. He has been stymied in his desire to help illegal immigrants for much too long. Therefore, he is acting on his own and in doing so, he is taking a hard left turn.

My hope is that the Republican-led Congress will use every means at their disposal to stop President Obama’s attempts to bypass the Constitution in its tracks. The man has been able to shed criticism because he is a black man. Every accusation of impropriety has been met with charges of racism. He accuses others of not being willing to negotiate, when he refuses to do so himself. He loves the blame game, especially when it comes to things he is guilty of. If we were in a school yard, he would be called a bully. And as far as I know, there is only one way to stop a bully. Slapping them down works wonders and it’s about time the Republicans wielded their power and slapped the man who would be king back to his rightful place of limited authority. It’s what the American people want.

.

.

Share

Liberals Focus On Conservative Money, Ignore George Soros

Share

 photo georgesoros001_zps9ee8a10c.jpg
This is not something new. Liberals are fond of pointing out everything they perceive conservatives are doing wrong, but conveniently ignore the “sins” that are glaringly apparent in their own backyard. This is especially true since the Citizens United decision was handed down by the Supreme Court. It chaps liberal skins all the way from Washington, down to the state and local level. They can’t stand it because they don’t have access to the information that would tell them who is spending how much in each election cycle.

Now, these liberals would have us believe that allowing outside groups to spend more money to promote the issues that are important to them has been bad for our system of elections. Countless studies have been performed, the results of which always seem to show how much money conservative groups are spending to promote the issues they care about. The chapping of skin comes from the fact that liberals can no longer force these groups to disclose their donors. Hence, the attention paid to the Koch brothers. If we are to listen to their liberal detractors, they are the worst thing to happen to the world since Adolph Hitler decided he wanted to annex the countries surrounding Germany.

In reality, Charles and David Koch are more libertarian than they are conservative. Much of the money they spend, however, does go to support issues that are important to conservatives. This where they cross swords with liberals who hate their guts. I dare say, if the Kochs decided to switch their allegiance to liberal issues, the crying and gnashing of teeth wouldn’t be nearly so prominent. At any rate, the spending of money, not necessarily by the Koch brothers, is what prompted the witch hunt that is currently underway in Wisconsin.

It is a well-known fact that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is not liked by Democrats. He has been successful at turning his state’s government around. Its finances are in much better shape, thanks in large part to the effort to restrict public sector unions ability to negotiate such lucrative contracts for their employees that it was literally breaking the bank. You remember that fight, I presume. Governor Walker won that round and faced a recall election for his troubles. He won that round as well and then came the witch hunt I mentioned previously.

The liberals did as liberals normally do. They went ape crazy, trying to prove this, that, or the other, against Governor Walker. They just knew he was guilty of something, anything. The investigations began into everything related to Walker and his campaign. And the tactics they are using are worthy of the NSA. (Please note the unusual number of links included in the quote. I normally remove the links from most of the quotes I use, but because these links give a plethora of background on the John Doe investigation, I felt it needful to retain them.)

Wisconsin Reporter – Conservative targets of a Democrat-launched John Doe investigation have described the secret probe as a witch hunt.

That might not be a big enough descriptor, based on records released Friday by a federal appeals court as part of a massive document dump.

Attorneys for conservative activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth point to subpoenas requested by John Doe prosecutors that sought records from “at least eight phone companies” believed to serve the targets of the investigation. O’Keefe and the club have filed a civil rights lawsuit against John Doe prosecutors, alleging they violated conservatives’ First Amendment rights.

Subpoenas also demanded the conservatives’ bank records, “emails from every major private email provider” and other information in what some have described as a mini-NSA (National Security Agency) operation in Wisconsin.

The documents raise serious concerns about the tactics of Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, two of his assistant DAs and others involved in the investigation targeting dozens of conservatives.

Chisholm, a Democrat, launched the dragnet two years ago, and, according to court documents, with the help of the state Government Accountability Board, the probe was expanded to five counties. The John Doe proceeding compelled scores of witnesses to testify, and a gag order compelled them to keep their mouths shut or face jail time. Sources have described predawn “paramilitary-style” raids in which their possessions were rifled through and seized by law enforcement officers.

Prosecutors have operated the secret investigation under the legal theory that at least 29 conservative organizations may have illegally coordinated with Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign during Wisconsin’s partisan political recalls of 2011 and 2012. Two judges, including the federal judge presiding over the civil rights lawsuit, have said the prosecutors’ theory doesn’t hold water. The presiding John Doe judge quashed subpoenas issued in the raids because prosecutors failed to show evidence that a crime had been committed.

Court documents show the extraordinary breadth of the prosecutors’ subpoena requests.

They sought phone records for a year-and-a-half period, “which happened to be the most contentious period in political politics,” the conservatives note. They note that prosecutors did not pursue the same tactics with left-leaning organizations that pumped tens of millions of dollars into Wisconsin’s recall elections, in what certainly appeared to be a well-coordinated effort.

Among other documents, prosecutors sought “all call detail records including incoming and outgoing calls,” “billing name and information,” “subscriber name and information including any application for service,” according to the conservatives’ court filing.

Calling the John Doe investigation a wide net is like calling the Pacific Ocean a body of water. John Chisholm was either strongly convinced of conservative wrongdoing, or he was simply desperate to find dirt, even a tiny speck, that would taint Governor Walker and the conservative groups that supported him during the recall election. The breadth of the investigation is staggering and unwarranted. So much so that the judges involved have begun tempering it with a bit of judicial reason. What strikes me as almost humorous is how they subpoenaed such a wide range of records that could possibly be related to the conservative groups they love to hate. And they say the investigation of what happened in Benghazi is a political witch hunt?

Please read the second to last paragraph of the quote, paying special attention to the emphasis I added. This is one reason why I am writing this post. Liberals are overly fond of criticizing every penny conservatives spend. They make outlandish claims about how conservative money is the bane of politics. They try to convince the general public that conservative groups with nefarious purposes are spending money to drown out the voices of the little people liberals claim they want to help. All the while, they fail to mention the money they receive from liberal groups that support their liberal agenda. Yes, that’s right. Conservatives are not the only ones who spend big money to support the issues they feel are important.

Case in point would be the nonsense going on in Texas. If you didn’t know by now, Texas Governor Rick Perry has been indicted by a Travis County grand jury for supposedly abusing the power he holds as Governor. You know the story, I’m sure. The head of the Public Integrity Unit in Texas, Rosemary Lehmberg, was arrested for driving while intoxicated. She then proceeded to make a complete fool of herself, threatening the officers who arrested her, and generally trying to use her influence as leverage. She was pressured to step down as head of the PIU and when she refused, Perry threatened to use his line-item veto power to remove the funding for her unit. She did not relent and he followed through with his threat.

Personally, I do not believe Governor Perry did a single thing wrong. I can fully understand why the head of a Public Integrity Unit would need to retain her own integrity. Her actions, before, during, and after her arrest, clearly show she has no such integrity. One would think she would use a little common sense and step down from her position. She didn’t and that has led us to the point of the Perry indictment.

This is where things start to get interesting. One specific group filed the complaint that led to the indictment. That group would be Texans for Public Justice, part of a progressive coalition. Care to guess who gave them $500,000 in funding for their efforts? That would be George Soros. You aren’t hearing about that in the mainstream media, now are you?

Fox News – According to a Media Research Center analysis, from the moment Perry was indicted on two flimsy counts by a Travis County, Texas grand jury on August 15 through the morning of August 20, the Big Three broadcast networks – ABC, CBS, and NBC – have run 24 stories totaling 38 minutes and 34 seconds across their morning and evening broadcasts.

In all that coverage, not one single story mentioned that the group responsible for filing the complaint against Perry in June, Texans for Public Justice (TPJ), is part of a “progressive” coalition that has received $500,000 in funding from prolific left-wing billionaire George Soros.

It’s a clear effort to undermine and circumvent the political process and yet the media refuse to divulge his role. Not one reporter, on any program, could find the time to report this as part of the Perry story – never mind this being its own story? This is deliberate censorship.

Any mention of Soros-funded TPJ is almost as difficult to find. Of the Big Three, only ABC named the organization during Monday’s “World News” broadcast and made no mention of the Soros connection. Switch to cable, and TPJ remains almost entirely anonymous with the exception of the inevitable positive shout-out from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow lauding the group for spurring the bogus two-count indictment.

CNN mentioned the group a handful of times, but never made the Soros connection. On Saturday’s “New Day,” correspondent Peter Hamby referred to TPJ only as “a left-leaning watchdog group.”

The next morning Mary Maloney, on the same program, reported the story saying, “The corruption charges stem from a complaint filed by Texans for Public Justice, a public interest group.”

Later that morning on “State of the Union,” an infographic stated, “”Texans for Public Justice identifies itself as a non-partisan watchdog group.”

A second box a moment later clarified, “Some consider Texans for Public Justice to be a left-leaning group.”

At no point was TPJ’s benefactor mentioned.

This is typical of liberaKoch Brothers 1102ls. They love to hate the Koch brothers, or anyone else who spends their money to support conservative causes, yet they somehow forget the billionaires who spend money to support the liberal agenda. And as you can see, the mainstream media eats it up. As the author of the Fox News article mentions in his writing, were the roles reversed in Texas, the stories we are seeing in the media would be much different. If Rick Perry were a Democrat and the Koch brothers were involved in funding the group that helped bring him down, you can bet your last dollar, it would be all over the big networks and the liberal blogs.

That’s how they work, their standard method of operation. Liberal groups love to point out everything conservative groups do as partisan, while describing themselves as nonpartisan. If that tactic had not been so successful, it would almost be funny. Do liberal groups really expect us to believe they are nonpartisan, but conservatives are evil incarnate? Hypocrites, much?

Share

Tea Party/Conservative movement alive and well, making big gains

Share
Former Secret Service Agent, Dan Bongino
Former Secret Service Agent, Dan Bongino

Hat/Tip to the Tea Party News Network.

Some Tea Party Victories the Mainstream Media Refuses to Cover

The far left wingnuts in power in the MSM are trumpeting the news that the Tea Party is dead.

LOL

Fat chance, but keep trying to fool yourself there, MSM.

The mainstream media is back at it. The McDaniel campaign appears to be mounting a legal challenge to the dirty tricks that won Thad Cochran the GOP nomination, but the media has once again pounced on the narrative that the Tea Party is dead.

We’ve heard it all before.

It’s easy to announce the Tea Party dead when one refuses to look at the bigger picture and when the media selectively cherry-picks which races they will discuss. No political movement wins 100% of races and if the media focus is primarily on lost races, it offers a skewed narrative.

Let’s look at the list of Tea Party victories.

  • Dan Bongino. The former Secret Service agent who has risen to the national spotlight espousing Tea Party ideas beat his opponent last night. He didn’t just beat him, he annihilated him 84%- 16%.
  • What about Curt Clawson? The Tea Party candidate easily won the House seat for Florida’s 19th District last night in a special election. The media, however, has remained silent.
  • Tea Party candidate Ken Buck won a four-man primary for his nomination for Colorado’s Fourth District and still, the media has said little about it.
  • Alex Mooney won in West Virginia
  • Ben Sasse won in Nebraska
  • Tea Partier John Ratcliffe even defeated incumbent Rep. Ralph Hall, the nation’s most senior Member of Congress- the first time an incumbent Congressman had been defeated in a runoff election since 1996.

Quite an impressive list, and keep in mind it’s just a quick and not necessarily complete list.

It looks as if Conservatives are making huge strides in putting a dent into not only the Democratically controlled seats, but also the ones occupied by GOP Establishment RINOs.

The struggle to take back the Republican Party is not a sprint, but a marathon fraught with defeats and disappointments, but a continual march down the field.

We are not winning 100% of the races, but we are winning a good amount of races and, perhaps even more importantly, we are changing the way Republicans operate.

Whereas once Republicans bickered about who could cooperate more with Democrats by acting as moderates, now the exact opposite is occurring; virtually every Republican race occurring in 2014 has been about one thing: who is the most conservative. Countless races have devolved into a bickering match between candidates touting their conservative credentials.

Read the full story here.

Share

Reports: More Obamacare Cancellations, Premium Hikes On the Way

Share

Hat/Tip to Townhall.com for this bit of news.

 Outgoing Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, President Barack Obama, and current budget director and nominee to replace Sebelius at HHS, Sylvia Mathews BurwellOutgoing Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, President Barack Obama, and current Budget Director and nominee to replace Sebelius at HHS, Sylvia Mathews Burwell

It just keeps getting better and better…

/sarcasm off

Kaiser Health News reports on the increasing likelihood of more and more large employers dumping employees into Obamacare’s exchanges. An untold number of employees will discover that they can’t keep their plan, especially if they’re a high-risk, high-cost employee. The Obama administration estimated that as many as 93 million Americans will lose their existing coverage under the new law, despite what the president promised repeatedly.

Can corporations shift workers with high medical costs from the company health plan into online insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act? Some employers are considering it, say benefits consultants. “It’s all over the marketplace,” said Todd Yates, a managing partner at Hill, Chesson & Woody, a North Carolina benefits consulting firm. “Employers are inquiring about it and brokers and consultants are advocating for it.” Patients with preexisting medical conditions like diabetes drive health spending. But those who undergo expensive procedures such as organ transplants are a burden to the company as well. Since most big corporations are self-insured, shifting even one high-cost member out of the company plan could save the employer hundreds of thousands of dollars a year—while increasing the cost of claims absorbed by the marketplace policy by a similar amount. And the health law might not prohibit it, opening a door to potential erosion of employer-based coverage.

It looks like more bad news is coming down the pike.

There’s a reason why insurers are pleading with the White House to reject regulations that would limit total expenditures in programs some have described as bailouts.

No matter what happens, the taxpayers (that’s you and me) are going to be left holding the bag.

Whether through bailout-style payments or sharply increased premiums, taxpayers will end up footing the bill for rising costs and outlays. Americans are already bracing for significant premium hikes heading into 2015, which have been forecast by insurance companies, brokers, and even the administration. Many of the new rates will be announced this fall. More consumers will also receive cancellation notices informing them that their preferred plans are being terminated. Public opinion on Obamacare hasn’t budged, with polling remaining ugly on both the national level and within the context of key 2014 races. I’ll leave you with this surreal request from the state of Massachusetts, which is scrapping its failed Obamacare exchange. Surprise — they want more taxpayer money to do so. A lot more.

A lot more. And that’s on top of the huge sum they’ve already wasted:

 

Share

Video: Students Shocked to Hear What Hillary Said

Share

This is an excellent video that shows not only the institutional bias that colleges foist upon our young people, but it also shows how much of  a pass they are willing to give Democrats. At first, when MRCTV’s Dan Joseph read this quote, the students virtually all said that it sounded like something “any Republican,” or Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum might say.

“Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”

He then asked if they would be comfortable with the author of that quote speaking at their school. Most were uncomfortable with the idea, but a few said that the person who said that quote had the 1st Amendment right to do so, and they ought to be allowed to speak at the campus even though they disagreed with them.

Then when he revealed that Hillz is the author of that quote, the students had two reactions.

First they displayed shock.

Then they gave Mrs. Clinton a pass, flippantly saying she was probably chasing votes because now she is for gay marriage.

So what we have here is a student body not liking the author of the quote at all. Some even grudgingly acquiesce to the idea of the author of the quote speaking on campus. But when it is revealed to be Hillary Clinton, all of sudden it is okay because she is now probably pandering for votes since she “evolved” her position on this.

Odd that the view is bad if held by a Republican, but when espoused by a Democrat, it is okay as long as they give lip service to gay marriage, if only to get votes.

What a sad, sad double standard the Liberals have drummed into the youth of this country.

Share

Only 18% of Conservatives want Jeb Bush to run for POTUS in ’16

Share
“Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love.” – Jeb Bush on illegal immigrants
“Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love.” – Jeb Bush on illegal immigrants

 

You could say the same thing about pedophiles.  And a lot of Democrats have. Republicans, however, usually side not with the perpetrators of a crime, but with its victims — in this case the poor American taxpayer, routinely dunned for millions in order to subsidize the well-being of people who shouldn’t be here in the first place.  No wonder conservatives are treating the idea of a Jeb Bush candidacy with all the fervor usually reserved for outbreaks of the swine flu.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, considering a 2016 presidential bid, does not have the support of his party’s base, with just one in four Republicans eager for him to run and an even worse 18 percent of self-identified conservatives backing his bid … A word bubble produced by the poll showed the hurdles he faces entering the presidential race. The acronym RINO, or “Republican in name only,” is prominent(4-traders.com)

The thought of having to choose between another President Bush or another President Clinton is enough to send even semi-responsible citizens screaming to the nearest liquor cabinet — and I’m as semi-responsible as anybody. But after suffering through 5 years of Barack Obama, my booze bin is as empty as a liberal’s brain.  I can’t afford Democrats OR Republicans any more.  At least, not the kind that the Beltway bunco artists keep offering.

Share

Who Brought Down the Deficit? (Hint: Their initials are TP)

Share

In his first year in office, President Obama gave us the insanely huge, unprecedented deficit of $1.3 TRILLION. Oh he tried to blame it on his predecessor, George W. Bush (a mantra he’s since perfected), but the stark truth is that he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi all conspired to throw mountains of debt onto the backs of taxpaying American citizens.

A budget deficit of nearly half a trillion dollars is hardly something to cheer about, but the big decline in federal red ink as a share of our national output has been a

stunning achievement. The new April budget update from the Congressional Budget Office tells us that, in 2009, Barack Obama and the Democrats rang up an elephantine

$1.3 trillion deficit, which amounted to 9.8 percent of GDP.

However, we are seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. This year, the deficit will be two thirds less than Obama’s first year spending.

This year, the deficit is expected to fall to 2.8 percent of GDP. This seven-percentage-point, two-thirds decline in borrowing is gigantic progress in four years. It’s the most sizable cut in deficit spending since the demobilization of the military after we won World War II.

Now before the Liberals start glad-handing themselves and begin to tout Obama as some sort of fiscal hawk, let’s take a look at just WHO is responsible for this cut in spending. And even though he is no darling of the Tea Party movement or Conservatives anywhere, for that matter, John Boehner gets quite a bit of credit on this one.

So how did it happen? The overlooked story here has been the triumph of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives elected by Tea Party activists and other fiscally conservative voters who were fed up with >the reckless path set by Mr. Obama in cahoots with Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House speaker Nancy Pelosi. Their Keynesian playbook told them that the more money the government spent and borrowed — even when it subsidized failed projects like Solyndra or turned one in seven families into food-stamp recipients – the faster the economy would heal. The theory didn’t turn out so well, as evidenced by the flimsy pace of recovery over the last four and a half years.

In 2011, we saw a U-turn change in fiscal direction. New House speaker John Boehner went to the mat on the debt ceiling and insisted on big cuts in spending and hard caps for the rest of the decade. Barack Obama wanted higher taxes, and the GOP wisely refused to capitulate. It was John Boehner’s finest hour.

Despite establishment Republicans raising the sequester spending caps in 2011, this is largely an unsung victory for the GOP in the House, yet it is a huge feather in their cap and something every House Republican ought to run on.

In the end, as the debt-ceiling deadline drew closer and closer and bond traders shouted “default,” Democrats caved and agreed to tight spending caps in domestic and defense programs, and automatic “sequester” cuts if those ceilings were violated. The deficit started to tumble almost immediately, and the progress continues to this day. Yes, big spenders in the GOP forced House Republicans to foolishly agree to raise the spending caps last year by about $1 trillion over ten years, but even these elevated caps are better than the previous regime of an unlimited credit card.

The budget deal of 2011, which was all spending controls and no tax increases, will go down in history as one of the great achievements of modern times. Mr. Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky negotiated the fiscal surrender of Barack Obama — the most liberal president since FDR. Liberals now whine about just how badly they got rolled.

Many conservatives don’t appreciate how much spending has actually fallen. It hit nearly 25 percent of GDP in the first year of the Obama stimulus but is now close to 21 percent. More than half of that cut came out of defense, but the programs that liberals care about — green-energy subsidies, foreign aid, job training, and transit grants — have also been whacked.

Now going forward, we must address the entitlement programs, Obamacare being the biggest boondoggle in US history, and hold strong on these hard fought spending cuts.

Entitlements haven’t been touched, of course, and Obamacare is the biggest expansion of the entitlement state since the 1960s. But the best way to force Democrats to modernize these programs is by draining funding for everything else.

The key now, as Mr. Boehner tells me, “is to hold the line on those spending caps and don’t let Barack Obama slip out of them. It’s our best leverage right now.” Obama wants a $100-billion-plus infrastructure bank, but, sorry, Mr. President, the spending caps you agreed to make that a non-starter.

To answer the question in the title of this piece, we look to its author, Stephen Moore.

So who brought the budget deficit down? The much-maligned tea-party movement and the people they put in control of Congress back in 2010 to right the ship. The April budget update from the CBO is a reminder of how the tea partiers helped save the country in those dark early days of the Obama presidency. They deserve to take a bow.

Read the full story here.

Share

Boehner & Establishment GOP Declare War on the Tea Party

Share

boehner“I have made it clear that I have great respect for the tea party and the energy they brought to the electoral process,” said Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R) Ohio to reporters in February of this year. Then, in a statement that more resembled his famed crying incidents, he went on to whine, “My gripe is with some Washington organizations who feel like they’ve got to go raise money by beating on me and others.”

That’s what politics is all about, I thought. But it seems the establishment GOP takes offense to being reminded that their constituencies would like them to stand up for Conservative values.

Well, evidently the message that the Tea Party brings to the table is lost on Boehner. Living in the bubble that is Washington DC, most Republican politicians lose sight of what got them elected and only every so often, during election time do they even begin to “remember” to be conservative and Boehner is no exception to this phenomenon.

Now it would seem that Boehner has taken his rhetoric a step further and decided to openly declare war on the Tea Party. Red State has reported that Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor along with 26 other House members will be attending a $5,000-a-head event hosted by The Republican Main Street Partnership’s advocacy group. This fund-raiser is putting the money raised into the anti-Tea Party super PAC Defending Main Street. This PAC has received most of its funding from labor unions.

This anti-Tea Party event is going to be hosted at the Ritz Carlton on Amelia Island in Nassau County, Florida.

Both the Republican Main Street Partnership and its advocacy group, Main Street latouretteAdvocacy are headed by former Rep. Steve LaTourette. He’s committed to raising money to defend centrist congressional Republicans (RINOs) from challenges by those evil Tea Party folks.

“They have decided to systemically go against center-right Republicans in primary elections,” LaTourette previously told The Daily Caller about his Tea Party rivals. LaTourette said that tea partiers are happy to call him a “RINO” but that that they go “apoplectic” when the “RINO gets a gun” and “fires back.”

“Here’s the deal: we didn’t start this fight,” LaTourette said, “but I’m going to finish it.”

But who is Steve LaTourette?

 

He is the same Steve LaTourette who came to national office in the wave of pre-Tea Party Conservatism of 1994 which saw 73 Republicans sweep in, ending the Democratic House rule of four decades. And despite his conservative roots, he displays his scorn of the 2010 Tea Party members elected to office by referring to them as “knuckledraggers that came in in the last election that hate taxes.” So it’s no surprise that he also voted against defunding NPR and against a motion to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt of Congress.

This is also the same Steve LaTourette who left his wife of 21 years to marry his former chief-of-staff, Jennifer Laptook. She has since gone on to be vice president of Van Scoyoc Associates, where her work consists of lobbying the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. LaTourette just happens to sit on this committee, but both vehemently deny any conflict of interest in this area. LaTourette also is chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.

pelosiBut the GOP isn’t the only political entity that hates the Tea Party, former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D) CA and present House Minority Leader also took questions this past February on the Tea Party.  The California Democrat said the tea party had “hijacked” the Republican Party, and that tea partiers “considered it a success when they shut down government.”

Pelosi said her message to Republicans was this: “Take back your party, this isn’t who you are.”

While we on the right appreciate Pelosi’s advice, we take it with a grain of salt, especially coming from a woman who has helped the Far Left effectively take over the Democratic Party.

But what the establishment GOP and the Democrats in DC fail to understand is the power of the Tea Party and its huge grassroots following. So, in the words of Mark Twain, “The reports of my (our) death have been greatly exaggerated.”

Share

Liberals are such panty-waist freaks

Share

To my Christian readers, I apologize for the unsavory language, but sometimes “darn” and “heck” does not cut it.

You know something folks, I’m so sick of pussies ie liberals who cannot take the same crap they dish out. Their little panties get in a wad acting so offended, crying like the little bitches they are when their freakish mind-set is pointed out. This morning I made a comment in my post, A Child’s Sexual Identity … Justice finally arrives for murdered teen, which was,  To liberals only the innocent in the womb and new born children are worthy of death. “I can’t believe he said that!” says the liberals. I made that statement because it happens to be the absolute truth. During the Kermit Gosnell trial there were horrific pictures of fully developed babies who had their spinal cords snipped by Mr. Gosnell and then just thrown into the trash. Liberals commented saying “Women need these kinds of services.”  The babies damn sure didn’t. Yet now that their dementia is highlighted at Cry and Howl with the above statement by me, liberals are aghast saying I have a tortured mind saying such a thing. Tell me who’s tortured … a person who can see a fully developed, viable baby chopped up and thrown in the trash and say … “women need this” or me by my saying “to liberals only the innocent in the womb and new born children are worthy of death?”  I might be tortured, but it’s by the stunning callousness and sick perverse minds inhabiting the every day liberal.

Liberals claim conservatives want to cut the poor off from food. Conservatives want dirty water for children to drink. Conservatives want to get rich off the backs of the poor. Conservatives oppress the poor and needy.

Some of the dumbest, most asinine, ignorant lines of bullshit I’ve ever seen … yet the poor little pussy-assed liberal gets offended when the truth about them is revealed. They rejoice in the deaths of the innocent because they are low-life twisted freaks whose belief is, that good is evil and evil is good.  Government is their god and all good things come from Obama. Liberals are full of envy, hate and greed, and cannot stand people more successful, better looking, kinder, more talented and smarter than they.

Go to any left-wing blog or news site and you’ll see some of the most demented claims imaginable against conservatives and Republicans. The dumbasses don’t even know Republicans are not conservatives. They think the Tea Party is responsible for the demise of America.  An entity, not a single national organization which has been in existence for what … five years? But they are “Tea-baggers”  and racists and bigots!  Nice huh? What class!

Cry and Howl

Share

Mitch McConnell on Conservatives: ‘I think we are going to crush them everywhere’

Share

My favorite term as of late has been “crapweasel.”  Basically, it conveys the dismissive, yet contemptuous attitude regarding another person.  Given that, I think Mitch McConnell fits that perfectly. 

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that he would work to destroy the efforts of conservative organizations seeking to primary mainstream Republicans. “I think we are going to crush them everywhere,” he stated. “I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country.”

Over the past two election cycles, mainstream Republicans have become more and more upset over the rise of Tea Party-backed candidates who have primaried GOP incumbents, then proceeded to lose general elections. McConnell has been personally attacked by the Senate Conservatives Fund, which supports businessman challenger Matt Bevin. McConnell recently began running an ad targeting both Bevin and SCF. The ad accuses SCF of soliciting “money under the guise of advocating for conservative principles but then spends it on a $1.4 million luxury townhouse with a wine cellar and a hot tub in Washington, D.C.”

If I were not a Christian man who really tries to walk the walk, my response would consist of a profanity laden tirade.  But, we’ll keep it clean and make the observation that the GOP has never really liked Conservatives.  They hated even Reagan, and only took to him after he won by landslide.  Most typically, they run mild and unexciting candidates, and they lose far too much.  They stand for nothing more than a cowardly caution.  They stand for little, and inspire even less.  Mitch McConnell would prefer that-having the GOP attack only those that would strngthen it, rather than the democrats.  Forget standing up for something-just trash the ones that would.

In all honesty; Mitch McConnell and his ilk disgust me.  I expect the democrats to be traitorous slime-it’s in their DNA.  When the GOP does it?  Let’s just say I have always expected better.  Now however, I had she that unrealistic expectation.

H/T: IOwnTheWorld

Share