Posts Tagged ‘Bipartisanship’
I don’t take my position on any issue lightly. Especially for one who regularly expresses opinions on political and moral issues, I believe it behooves us to seriously research and consider all the facts and cornerstone moral principles before taking a position on an issue. I expect as much from those who seek to serve in public office. Sadly, it appears many politicians consider principles to be disposable things that can be discarded as soon as they are deemed inconvenient.
Senator Rob Portman became the most prominent Republican lawmaker to back gay rights when he reversed his opposition to same-sex marriage on Friday, two years after his son told him he was gay.
In a newspaper opinion piece on Friday, shortly before the Supreme Court is to hear arguments in two key cases on the issue, the Ohio senator said he now supports gay marriage.
“I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married,” Portman wrote in an op-ed piece in Ohio’s Columbus Dispatch.
“That isn’t how I’ve always felt. As a Congressman, and more recently as a Senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples. Then, something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way.”
Portman’s 21-year-old son, Will, told the senator and his wife in February 2011 that he was gay and had been “since he could remember.”
As a parent, I understand how love for one’s children can sometimes tempt us to blind ourselves to truths we’d rather not face. But it’s a temptation we must not yield to. Truth, right and wrong are not dependent on our feelings or circumstances.
Does that mean Portman should stop loving his son? Absolutely not! He should love Him unconditionally, no matter what mistakes he makes or what he’s struggling with. But loving a child doesn’t mean redefining an entire bedrock societal institution for their sake. It means embracing them for who they are, responding in grace to what they do, and remembering that all of us are sinners in need of a savior, whether gay or straight.
Leaving apart the question of whether marriage law should be changed, this strikes me as a problematic approach. I mean, marriage law should be changed or it shouldn’t be changed — but it shouldn’t hinge on the sexual attractions of one senator’s son, should it?
What if a conservative senator said, “I’m reversing my views on whether abortion should be legal because my daughter got pregnant and wished she weren’t.”
One of the fascinating things about society today is that personal experience trumps everything else in argumentation. Very few people seem to care about fundamental truths and principles while everyone seems to care about personal experience and emotion. It’s the Oprahfication of political philosophy.
Should a conservative determine good policy this way?
To state it bluntly, Senator Portman, Christianity, the Word of God, and the proper view of homosexuality has nothing to do with you or your changing perspective. It has everything to do with the unchanging Word of God. Your attempt to cloak your opinion by distorting the Word of God is not only offensive but blasphemous. I encourage you to open your Bible and read what it says about false teachers and those who add to or take away from the Word of God.
I understand that your son is a homosexual. As a Christian you are called to love him but you cannot condone his sin and encourage others to do the same. Principles are higher than our individual circumstances. Principles do not change because the circumstances in our lives change.
He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 10:37-39)
Condoning the sin of homosexuality will not help your son to lead a “happy, meaningful” life. He cannot lead such a life in direct opposition to the Word of the Lord. You have taken the easy path and it will only lead to sin and death, error, and worse.
My prayers are with you and your family but Christians must not let your attempt to pervert the Word of God to fit your own personal life go unchallenged.
Do you know what you believe, and why? Have you actually thought through your position on certain issues, taking into consideration all the facts and core values before taking a position?
This is a very unique and insightful view from an openly gay man with adopted children.
I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.
The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.
I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.
Learning from Experience
As a young man, I wasn’t strongly inclined toward marriage or fatherhood, because I knew only homosexual desire.
I first recognized my strong yearning for men at age eight, when my parents took me to see The Sound of Music. While others marveled at the splendor of the Swiss Alps displayed on the huge Cinerama screen, I marveled at the uniformed, blond-haired Rolfe, who was seventeen going on eighteen. That proclivity, once awakened, never faded.
During college and throughout my twenties, I had many close friends who were handsome, athletic, and intelligent, with terrific personalities. I longed to have an intimate relationship with any and all of them. However, I enjoyed something far greater, something which surpassed carnality in every way: philia (the love between true friends)—a love unappreciated by so many because eros is promoted in its stead.
I wouldn’t have traded the quality of my relationships with any of these guys for an opportunity to engage in sex. No regrets. In fact, I always felt like the luckiest man on the planet. Denial didn’t diminish or impoverish my life. It made my life experience richer.
Philia love between men is far better, far stronger, and far more fulfilling than erotic love can ever be. But society now promotes the lowest form of love between men while sabotaging the higher forms. Gay culture continues to promote the sexualization of all (viewing one’s self and other males primarily as sexual beings), while proving itself nearly bankrupt when it comes to fostering any other aspect of male/male relationships.
When all my friends began to marry, I began to seriously consider marriage for the first time. The motive of avoiding social isolation may not have been the best, but it was the catalyst that changed the trajectory of my life. Even though I had to repress certain sexual desires, I found marriage to be extremely rewarding.
My future bride and I first met while singing in a youth choir. By the time I popped the question, we had become the very best of friends. “Soul mates” is the term we used to describe each other.
After a couple of years of diligently trying to conceive, doctors informed us we were infertile, so we sought to adopt. That became a long, arduous, heartbreaking process. We ultimately gave up. I had mixed emotions—disappointment tempered by relief.
Out of the blue, a couple of years after we resigned ourselves to childlessness, we were given the opportunity to adopt.
A great shock came the day after we brought our son home from the adoption agency. While driving home for lunch, I was suddenly overcome with such emotion that I had to pull the car off to the side of the road. Never in my life had I experienced such pure, distilled joy and sense of purpose. I kept repeating, “I’m a dad,” over and over again. Nothing else mattered. I knew exactly where I fit in within this huge universe. When we brought home his brother nearly two years later, I was prepared: I could not wait to take him up in my arms and declare our kinship and my unconditional love and irrevocable responsibility for him.
Neither religion nor tradition turned me into a dedicated father. It was something wonderful from within—a great strength that has only grown with time. A complete surprise of the human spirit. In this way and many others, marriage—my bond with the mother of my children—has made me a much better person, a person I had no idea I had the capacity to become.
Intellectual Honesty and Surprise Conclusions
Unfortunately, a few years later my marriage ended—a pain known too easily by too many. At this point, the divorce allowed me to explore my homosexuality for the first time in my life.
At first, I felt liberated. I dated some great guys, and was in a couple of long-term relationships. Over several years, intellectual honesty led me to some unexpected conclusions: (1) Creating a family with another man is not completely equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.
It took some doing, but after ten years of divorce, we began to pull our family back together. We have been under one roof for over two years now. Our kids are happier and better off in so many ways. My ex-wife, our kids, and I recently celebrated Thanksgiving and Christmas together and agreed these were the best holidays ever.
Because of my predilections, we deny our own sexual impulses. Has this led to depressing, claustrophobic repression? No. We enjoy each other’s company immensely. It has actually led to psychological health and a flourishing of our family. Did we do this for the sake of tradition? For the sake of religion? No. We did it because reason led us to resist selfish impulses and to seek the best for our children.
And wonderfully, she and I continue to regard each other as “soul mates” now, more than ever.
Over the last couple of years, I’ve found our decision to rebuild our family ratified time after time. One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on. With two dads in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness.
There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch “deprivation” on their hearts.
Boehner Agrees To Fund Obamacare In Next Continuing Resolution; Won’t Risk ‘Shutting Down the Government’
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he would not include language to defund Obamacare in the continuing resolution bill when it returns to the House, stating, “our goal” is “not to shut down the government.”
Why on earth are they so afraid of a government shutdown? It certainly didn’t kill us in the 90′s – most people can’t even remember how (or if) it even affected them!
Maybe what they’re REALLY afraid of is Americans realizing that their lives can go merrily along just fine – and a lot freer – without Big Government interference every step of the way. That we really don’t need them as much as they need us (and our money) to legitimize their existence.
Thankfully, it appears there are at least a few Republicans in Washington with some spine left:
All Republican members of the Senate voted to defund Obamacare as an amendment to the Continuing Budget Resolution. The vote definitely puts a little heat on certain Dem. Senators up for re-election in 2014.
House Republican leadership recently pushed through a Continuing Resolution that included funding for Obamacare, despite the protests of many members of the GOP. Speaker Boehner and House Majority Whip Eric Cantor received flak in conservative circles for rushing through a hasty vote.
The House of Representatives possesses the “power of the purse” under Constitutional law, so it is not required to fund the executive branch’s activities. It would be extremely rare to withhold funding for government programs, but if there ever was a program as unethical and fiscally ruinous ever devised, it would be Obamacare.
Just two weeks ago, Obama tried to explain away his disastrous presidency by saying, ’The problem is … I’m not the emperor of the United States.”
Poor Obama. If only he were emperor, he could get so much done. Now he’s blaming his failures once again on the fact that we have this pesky constitutional republic that won’t allow him to act as a dictator:
“I am not a dictator,” President Obama said Friday while defending his efforts to stop the sequester. “I’m the president.”
Obama said there are limits to what he can do to get a deal on the sequester during a press conference in which he blamed Republicans for standing in the way of a deal.
Obama also hilariously confused Star Wars with Star Trek while lamenting that he didn’t have mind control powers over his opponents:
President Obama yesterday outraged nerds everywhere when he committed sci-fi heresy by mixing up “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” in remarks about budget cuts.
Speaking at a White House press conference, Obama joked that he couldn’t use a “Jedi mind meld” to get Republicans to agree to his budget plan.
“I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington, that somehow, even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable . . . the fact that [Republicans] don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right,” the president said.Obama — a professed Trekkie — was conflating the “Jedi mind tricks” of “Star Wars” with the “Vulcan mind meld” of “Star Trek” lore.
The blunder set off a frenzy of ridicule across the Twitterverse.
President Obama wished he could alternatively do a Jedi Death Grip on Conservatives, but that power was also not his to use. He concluded the press conference saying, “May the force be with you so you can live long and prosper.”
The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage and turn a skeptical eye on similar prohibitions across the country.
The administration says unequivocally in a legal brief filed late Thursday that gay marriage should be allowed to resume in California, where it has been barred since the passage of Proposition 8 in 2008.
The Executive branch has no business telling the states and the Judicial branch how to do their jobs, not that he has much of a track record of respecting the separation of powers. Now the Legislative branch is following suit:
More than 100 prominent Republicans have signed an amicus brief supporting Gay Marriage, which will be submitted to the Supreme Court this week.
[...] The Supreme Court will hear back-to-back arguments in two pivotal gay-rights suits next month, which center on California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage and the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.
[...] While amicus briefs often do not have a significant impact on the Supreme Court, legal analysts say the sheer number of prominent conservatives backing gay marriage in this case may present an exception. Tom Goldstein, publisher of Scotusblog, a Web site that analyzes Supreme Court cases, said the amicus brief “has the potential to break through and make a real difference.”
When they can’t do it by vote, they seek to impose it by force through the judicial system. This may be the Roe v. Wade of our generation, and again, it will be innocent children who pay the price for it.
Some former officials in the Republican Party are urging the Supreme Court to redefine marriage for the nation. But support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman is essential to American—and conservative—principles. Indeed, nothing could be less conservative than urging an activist court to redefine an essential institution of civil society.
As my co-authors and I argue in our new book, What Is Marriage?, and in the amicus brief we filed with the Supreme Court, marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a mother and a father. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes.
[...] Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children. It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that a child needs a mom and a dad. We know that children tend to do best when raised by a mother and a father. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and cause welfare programs to grow even more.
In recent years marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism: Emotional intensity would be the only thing left to set marriage apart from other kinds of relationships. Redefining marriage would put a new principle into the law—that marriage is whatever emotional bond the government says it is.
Redefining marriage to abandon the norm of male-female sexual complementarity would also make other essential characteristics—such as monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency—optional. But marriage can’t do the work that society needs it to do if these norms are further weakened. All Americans, especially conservatives who care about thriving civil society capable of limiting the state, should be alarmed.
The Republicans had the power to stop this, but they once again cowered and caved, allowing Obama to appoint the most radical, left-wing, anti-Israel Secretary of Defense in American history. This is what “bipartisanship” and “moderation” look like in reality: compromising with evil.
Chuck Hagel has been confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Defense, ending a long seesaw battle over his nomination. The Senate moments ago voted 58 to 41 in favor of confirming Hagel. Hagel now replaces Leon Panetta at America’s top defense spot. (A full roll call of the Senate vote is at the end of this article.)
[...] Despite this opposition, the Senate earlier today easily voted to end its filibuster on Hagel, with a 71 to 27 cloture vote in which 18 Republicans joined with the Democrats to bring Hagel’s bid to a vote. Although the Democrats have 53 seats in the Senate and caucus with two Independents, Sens. Frank Lautenberg (New Jersey) and Mark Udall (Colorado) missed the cloture vote.
If preventing the nomination from getting to the floor for a vote was the only way to stop it, that’s what the Republicans should have done. There is NO REASON why the Republicans should not use every strategy available to prevent radicals from gaining power. The GOP is continually cooperating the the cutting of their own throats, and the destruction of the nation they claim to love. The minority is under no obligation to compromise with the majority in an area that they know to be wrong and destructive.
Their willingness to allow Hagel to be confirmed has set the stage for a massive war in the Middle East, if not world-wide. The blood of the innocent will be on their hands.
Hagel’s qualifications and ideological views were the source of controversy. Though he had voted for the Iraq War in 2002, Hagel had spent much of the subsequent decade criticizing the war and the foreign policy doctrines he believes to be responsible for it. Along the way, Hagel adopted or reinforced views that came back to haunt him: his opposition to sanctions against Iran; his support for aggressive nuclear disarmament; and his belief in negotiating with anti-Israel terror groups such as Hamas.
[...] Aside from its effects on policy at the Pentagon, where Hagel will start his job with a diminished stature, the enduring legacy of the Hagel confirmation fight will likely be increased division between the two parties on Israel policy. Many of Hagel’s professed views about Israel would, until very recently, have been unacceptable to Democrats as well as Republicans. Yet during the Obama era, and under the influence of left-wing groups within the party, Democrats have shifted significantly on the issue.
Sentimentally, both parties are pro-Israel, but Democrats’ policy views place them sharply in opposition to the policies of most Israeli governments, and somewhat at odds with the strong pro-Israel policy preferences of the majority of Americans, as well as the preferences of the peace-seeking yet security-conscious Israeli public.
I gotta be honest…I just didn’t have it in me to watch this year. My BS meter was already maxed out, and every preview of the speech’s content pretty much assured me that a root canal would be preferable to sitting through this.
When I read the transcript, I toyed with the idea of going through it as I have in the past, debunking and translating the double-speak point by point. But there’s nothing he said that hasn’t already been debunked and exposed multiple times before. He really doesn’t have any new ideas…just the same old, tired, recycled talking points.
So I’m going to let the CATO Institute break it down for you. I honestly can’t think of anyone better (apart from their apparent agreement with Obama that Al Qaeda is “on the run,” but that’s to be expected of Libertarians):
View on YouTube
Here’s the Tea Party response from Sen. Rand Paul:
View on YouTube
Senator Marco Rubio delivered the official GOP response.
Dr. Ben Carson gave some great commentary, as well:
View on YouTube
Last year, Obama appointed three radical union hacks to the National Labor Relations Board to push a pro-union (and pro-Democrat) agenda. Knowing that they would never pass muster with the Senate, Obama declared that the Senate was in “recess” – when it clearly was not – and appointed them anyway, bypassing the constitutionally required vetting process.
Thanks to Mark Levin, a lower D.C. court has now recognized the unilateral appointments as blatant violations of the constitution and separation of powers:
Four days after President Obama pledged to “protect and defend the Constitution,” the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that he violated that oath in making several appointments last year.
The court said Obama’s three “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board weren’t recess appointments at all, since the Senate was still in session when he made them.
Assuming the Supreme Court upholds the panel’s ruling, all the decisions the board made over the past year will be nullified, since without those three there weren’t enough members on the board to make any rulings at all.
[...] Thankfully, there are still some judges around who see the virtue of protecting and defending our “messy” system, even if Obama and his sycophants don’t.
But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president’s recess appointment powers don’t apply to “intra-session” appointments — those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks. They said Mr. Obama erred when he said he could claim the power to determine when he could make appointments.
“Allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointments power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers,” the judges said in their opinion.
The judges said presidents’ recess powers only apply after Congress has adjourned a session permanently, which in modern times usually means only at the end of a year. If the ruling withstands Supreme Court scrutiny, it would dramatically constrain presidents in the future.
And the court ruled that the only vacancies that the president can use his powers on are ones that arise when the Senate is in one of those end-of-session breaks. That would all but eliminate the list of positions the president could fill with his recess powers.
Still, the appointees refuse to step down, and the NLRB appointees are continuing to push forward their agenda as if the ruling never happened:
Mark Gaston Pearce, chairman of the National Labor Relations Board…indicated that the NLRB will attempt to continue on regardless:
The Board respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the President’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld. It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case, Noel Canning, and that similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals.
In the meantime, the Board has important work to do. The parties who come to us seek and expect careful consideration and resolution of their cases, and for that reason, we will continue to perform our statutory duties and issue decisions.
Pearce, in short, is indicating that the NLRB’s strategy is to act as if the court’s ruling that the appointments were unconstitutional somehow only applies only to the particular case that went before the Appeals Court and hope that the White House can get the Supreme Court to quickly review the case.
Constitution? What constitution? Who needs a constitution or the rule of law, anyway?
The NLRB does not get to disagree with a Federal Appeals Court. It has already overstepped its jurisdiction infinite number of times. Its opinion of an Appeal Court ruling is completely irrelevant. It does not get to narrowly define the meaning of that ruling. It does not get to stay in business and declare that it will go on doing exactly what it was doing before because it is confident that the Supreme Court will rule in its favor.
But in ObamaTime that is exactly how it works. Powers are seized and the propaganda press starts screaming that this is the way it should be. Obama unilaterally declares the Senate in recess and appoints union lawyers to the NLRB. The NLRB ignores an Appeals Court ruling and declares it will go on functioning.
The rule of Obama is in direct conflict with the rule of law.
What are they THINKING? NO politician, NO party is above the law! ANY public servant that violates the Constitution – the ultimate law of the land – needs to be tossed out on their rear ends, regardless of party!
In legislation filed yesterday, the House GOP Leadership made an important twist in their plan to pass a short-term increase in the debt ceiling. Rather than increase the debt ceiling by a few hundred billion dollars, buying them time for further talks on the budget, they have opted to “suspend” the debt ceiling. Its a blatant abdication of their constitutional authority. It’s an ominous sign of the talks to come.
Article 1 of the US Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to borrow money to fund the government. Up until World War I, Congress would approve every bond issuance. The borrowing demands of the war made this impractical, so Congress authorized a “debt ceiling,” where the government could freely borrow up to a statutory limit and then go back to Congress to approve additional borrowing. Think of it as giving your teenager a pre-paid debit card.
With this measure, the government had more flexibility to manage its affairs while preserving the Constitutional principle that Congress controlled the purse strings.
“Suspending” the debt ceiling until May upends this principle. Upon enactment, the government’s borrowing authority would be unlimited until May. Presumably, the government could borrow trillions in this window, providing either the markets or the Fed would meet the new supply of debt.
Worse, however, is that the GOP move establishes a very slippery precedent. The left has been agitating to simply eliminate the idea of a debt ceiling entirely. For all its flaws, the ceiling at least guarantees we will have some debate about government spending. The left finds this annoying. Unfortunately, the GOP plan to “suspend” the ceiling provides at least partial support to this argument. If we can “suspend” it for three months, why not a year? Once you’ve surrendered the constitutional principle behind the ceiling where and how can you draw a line?
Last week, FreedomWorks launched the website, www.DCDoYourJob.com, to combat the pressure for a clean debt ceiling raise and to give grassroots America a platform to take back its voice in the secretive, closed-door budgeting process. The message from taxpayers is clear: There should be no debt ceiling increases until Washington returns to regular order and passes a budget.
FreedomWorks is urging all members to demand that Congress resist raising the debt ceiling clean, and instead return to regular order, do their jobs, and pass a budget as required by law.
Congress is the only thing standing between Obama and absolute dictatorial control. The battle for 2014 begins NOW.
President Barack Obama’s top political aide used an Inauguration Day interview to sketch out a provocative political strategy intended to split the Republican Party in time to impact the 2014 midterm elections.
“The barrier to progress here in many respects, whether it is deficits, measures to help economy, immigration, gun safety legislation … is [that] there are factions here in Congress, Republicans in Congress, who are out of the mainstream,” White House advisor David Plouffe said on CNN’s “State of the Union with Candy Crowley.”
“We need more Republicans in Congress to think like Republicans in the country who are seeking compromise, seeking balance,” he claimed.
Their public strategy is to try and divide Republicans on the issues of taxes, guns and immigration, where they believe the “moderates” will be willing to compromise and alienate their base.
Their hidden strategy will be the same Alinsky tactics they used during the campaign to smear the opposition: distracting voters and stoking division on social issues (“war on women,” contraception, rape, abortion, gay marriage, etc.). Which is kind of ironic, because social issues could really be used to split much of the socially conservative minority base (such as the black community) away from the Democrat party, if Republicans had the smarts to exploit it.
Either way, Obama’s #1 priority is to hammer what’s left of the Republican party into insignificance, and pave the way for single-party rule:
[I]f you want to know how Obama will actually govern in his second term, forget about these well-crafted speeches, and pay attention instead to what he said at his press conference a few days ago.
There he made it clear for anyone with ears to hear that his goal isn’t to achieve some kind of grand unity to tackle the nation’s toughest challenges.
No. Obama’s No. 1 goal in his second term is to do whatever it takes to destroy Republicans and win back Democratic control of the House in 2014, giving him two more years to enact his agenda without any GOP meddling.
Republicans, he said at that press conference, are holding “a gun at the head of the American people,” and are threatening either to “gut Medicare” or “wreck the entire economy.”
He said Republicans are “suspicious about government’s commitments to make sure that seniors have decent health care (and) have suspicions about whether government should make sure that kids in poverty are getting enough to eat.”
He described the GOP position on the debt ceiling as “either we get our way a hundred percent of the time or otherwise, you know, we are going to default on America’s obligations.”
You simply don’t bludgeon people you’re trying to work with.
Next, consider Obama’s actions since winning re-election.
Instead of living up to his campaign promise to focus on jobs, the economy and the national debt, he’s pushing hugely divisive issues — gun control, immigration, global warming — or in-your-face nominees like Chuck Hagel.
On gun control, Obama could have worked to reach consensus on reforms that might actually improve safety, but instead produced an aggressive gun-control plan guaranteed to force a nasty fight with the GOP.
Obama barely mentioned immigration reform during his campaign, but suddenly put it at the top of his agenda because he knows he can use it to hurt Republicans.
Republicans can no longer afford to underestimate our adversaries and their true agenda: to discard the constitution and “fundamentally transform” America into their Socialist Utopia.
“Our affairs have come to such a pass that there is no escape without running risks.”
So said a resolute Winston Churchill as, still out of favor with his own Conservative government, he stood up in the House of Commons in March of 1938 to protest the government’s passive response to the occupation and annexation of Austria by Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Or, as it is known to history, the “Anschluss.”
Churchill was rebuffed by his party’s leadership, which had less and less patience with him by the day. Indeed, Sir Alexander Cadogan, the British Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office and a devout believer in appeasement, wrote to the like-minded British Ambassador to Berlin that he, Cadogan, had “almost” wished Hitler “would swallow Austria and get it over.” He added:
“Thank goodness Austria’s out of the way. I can’t help thinking we were very badly informed about that country.… We should evidently have been very wrong to try to prevent Anschluss against the wishes of a very considerable proportion of the (Austrian) population. After all, it wasn’t our business: We had no particular feelings for the Austrians: We only forbade Anschluss to spite Germany.”
No one — to be abundantly clear — is comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler. Idiocy.
What does stand out in looking back at this particular lesson of history is the story of what human beings do when confronted withwhat they perceive as overwhelming opposition. When they look at a political situation and see — hopelessness. Causing them to act with timidity.
[...] It was the chief feature of British foreign policy in the 1930s — and an infamous failure. Prime Ministers Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, conservatives both, repeatedly misjudged the man they were dealing with. They looked at their adversary and saw a man whose only objective was his stated one of the moment. When his real goal was the Nazi domination of all of Europe — and the world beyond. The Thousand Year Reich.
It is safe to say that there is an impression abroad in the world of American conservatives that the urge with House and Senate GOP leaders Speaker John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell has been to approach President Obama one objective at a time. Today the fiscal cliff, yesterday Obamacare or an executive order on immigration or a trillion-dollar stimulus, and tomorrow the debt ceiling increase and so on and on.
[...] When taken together, from the Obama stimulus to Obamacare to the just-made nomination of Nebraska’s cranky dove, the anti-Israel Chuck Hagel, as Secretary of Defense, there are conservatives aplenty who see anything and everything Obama does as part and parcel a of long-term strategy to not simply “transform” America but to irrevocably make it a country that was never imagined in the wildest imaginings of its founding fathers.
To make of it a “post-Constitutional” America as Mark Levin discusses in his book Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America. A nation where Americans are gradually confronted with a reality that strips them over time of their most fundamental rights, leading them step-by-step to life in a country that has been deliberately, willfully bankrupted, riven by class and racial warfare.
This palpable concern that Republican leaders are repeatedly demonstrating a clueless inability to understand what it means to deal with President Obama is what is driving the not-so-behind the-scenes alarm with the fiscal cliff deal.
Denial…the mantra of every addict.
In an interview with Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, newly re-elected House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) opened up about President Obama’s utter unwillingness to cut a single dollar from federal spending. In a stunning admission, Obama reportedly told Boehner, “We don’t have a spending problem.”
Boehner added that President Obama continues to maintain that America’s federal deficit is caused not by governmental overspending but by “a health-care problem.” Said Boehner, “They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system.” Boehner told Obama, “Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with Obamacare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.” Obama eventually replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”
Obama may be tired of hearing Boehner talk about a spending problem, particularly when Obama has been re-elected on the basis of ignoring government spending. Nonetheless, America does have a spending problem, which Obama is steadfastly ignoring. “He’s so ideological himself,” Boehner explained, “and he’s unwilling to take on the left of his own party.” That’s why Obama refused to raise the retirement age for Medicare after agreeing to it. “He admitted in meetings that he couldn’t sell things to his own members,” said Boehner. “But he didn’t even want to try … We could never get him to step up.”
Someone needs a serious intervention!
Low-information voters are finally getting a wake-up call.
“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”
Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.
So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.
“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”
“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.” [...]
The Twittersphere was even funnier.
“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. [...]
“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” [...]
I’d like to be able to smirk, “we told you so,” but there’s no joy in knowing that millions of innocent people are suffering because of an ignorant electorate that was suckered by a lying administration and their accomplices in the deceitful media.
Mark Levin: Time To Politically Sabotage Obama Administration
View on YouTube
Let’s give it to him!
“What Obama deserves from us is defiance- what he deserves from Republicans in high elected office is obstruction -political sabotage- we shouldn’t participate as political partners in our own demise, and that’s exactly what’s going on here- this is for all the marbles…I don’t care what Obama ‘wants’ -‘Oh, I want 1.6 trillion’
- who gives a damn what you ‘want’, Mr President…?The US credit rating has already been downgraded, and it’s going to be downgraded again- they’re destroying the financial backbone of this country right before our eyes, and for what? Fora few more weeks of unemployment? So more people can be on food stamps? So Obama can create his paradise? And take money from people who actually earn it… a high price to pay for this experiment, and it’s a failed experiment- it’s been tried over, and over, and over…We have president of the United States who’s chosen to not participate in the free-market, capitalist system - never, ever-
yet today he rules over itWe have a president who’s only success is as a demagogue- where he trashes his opponents… lies and decieves in a serial fashion… he gets elected, and somehow -SOMEhow- he’s qualified to run everything! He’s qualified to re-write the Constitution… how did that happen? I dunno…In America now we’re supposed to despise people who actually achieve the American Dream… we’re supposed to despise people who follow the law, follow the rules, though hard work, through intelligence… long hours… invest everything they have… many of whom began with very modest means- now suddenly, if they don’t contribute to 50% of their income to Obama, to the Sentate, to the Congress, to the massive bureaucracy, SOMEHOW that’s unfair- unfair to whom?Like the mob, they’ve got their hands in our pockets- they’re the first ones there!This isn’t only a financial disaster, it is a constitutional disaster- and that’s the point, ever since the federal government became un-moored from the federal Constitution, it’s become this: an insatiable leviathan monster, it can’t stop- you heard Obama.It’s not about the rich… it’s about YOU- (Obama) hasn’t gotten enough, he wants more…This fiscal cliff discussion- what happened? The Republicans sold their soul to a president who would make Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky proud…
Happy New Year! Your paycheck just shrank!
Taxes for most Americans will still go up this year despite declarations from President Obama and others touting Tuesday night’s fiscal crisis deal as a victory for middle-class workers.
At the same time, tax relief that was included in the package comes at a cost — contributing, along with new spending, nearly $4 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, adding to the nation’s more than $16 trillion debt.
But there will be federal tax hikes in 2013. That’s because the legislation pushed through the Senate and House on Jan. 1 does nothing to prevent a temporary cut in the Social Security payroll tax from expiring. That means, under the agreement brokered by the White House and Senate Republicans, 77 percent of American households will be forced to fork over higher federal taxes in 2013.
Households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will face an average tax increase of $579 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center’s analysis. Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will face an average tax increase of $822.
For most families, the increase will end there. But for top earners, taxes will get considerably higher this year.