Friday, November 21, 2014

Yeah, What He Said

Here, go read this.

It says something I've been thinking- and even saying- for the last week or so.

Let's set aside all the problems with Emperor Obama's Amnesty.  Let's pretend he did something I liked.  I dunno- an across the board tax cut, just to pick something.

That makes it no less wrong.  That makes it no less evil.  Barack Obama is not an Emperor- or, he's not supposed to be.  He is a President.  Our Founders sought for just the right term for the Chief Executive of our Nation for some time before settling on "President."  He "presides."  He is supposed to "faithfully execute" the law, see that it is Justly applied to all.

But note that he is precisely operating as an Emperor.  Even if he were going to simply ignore immigration law, that would be one (very, very bad) thing.  But it would be equally applied to all.  Instead, he enacted- by executive fiat- new law.  He did not simply say, "I'm just ignoring immigration law," his plan has requirements and prerequisites which must be met.  That's not "details about the execution of a law."  That's not "discretion."  That's authoring new law.

And the Legislature will let this stand.  The Republicans will do nothing because there's nothing they can do.  All the talk of defunding the government or shutting it down?  It won't stop this amnesty.  It won't stop an Imperial President.  Not confirming presidential appointees?  For one thing, no one will really notice that.  For another, that *also* won't stop the amnesty.

There is only one remedy- the Constitutional remedy: impeachment.  And Republicans will not do that, because the Democrats will not do that.  Democrats have welded themselves to the SCOAMT.  They hitched their wagons to him in 2008, and now it's too late.  If they turn on him now, they lose *both* the black and hispanic vote.  At least, that's their fear, and it's not entirely irrational.

Absent some real action from the Legislature- a united legislature looking to preserve the great Republic our Founders created- we have just witnessed the end of the American Experiment.

The Protection Racket

For the record, let's state that what the SCOAMT did last night was tantamount to an imperial takeover.  Apparently, now, the President and not the Legislature or even Judiciary is the arbiter of what is and is not law.

I wish I could say I was surprised.  I am outraged.  But in a sense that's like being outraged at a scorpion for stinging.  I do not believe that his character would allow him to do anything else than what he did.  Malignant Narcissism is *going* to assert its power, especially after being told it's not so powerful after all.

However, I do have more outrage for the Media.  The MFM consensus seems to be this: "Barack Obama is protecting illegals."  Yes, that is their word of choice: "protecting."  It's odd to me that they would discuss the decision not to see justice done against law-breakers as "protecting."

Would they be so sanguine if he "protected" thieves in the same way?  Murders, arsonists, identity thieves, or even dead-beat dads?

Let's say the President had said this:  "Too many Americans must live in the shadows.  Their situation requires that they live outside our normal bounds of law, but it is not their fault.  Society and their history have forced them into these shadows.  It is their poverty, their lack of education, and their lack of opportunities- a lack reinforced by law and custom- which causes them to live on the outside.  So tonight I am declaring an amnesty for all thieves.  If not for their poverty and lack of other options, they would not steal your cars, your jewelry, or your money.  It is a failure of our system- a great moral failure- to hold them accountable for their past deeds.  So I am now offering complete amnesty for any past crimes and wiping the slate clean."

Would the MFM be speaking glowingly of him "protecting" the thieves?

Yet that is just what he has done.  Illegal aliens break laws all the time.  Setting aside the ones we might normally classify as "criminal"- those who have committed heinous crimes- even the most benign routinely commit fraud and identity theft.  They drive illegally and have no insurance- and they don't drive particularly well.  The most "deserving" illegal alien broke the law first by coming across our border illegally, and then repeatedly breaks the law any time they work, receive welfare benefits, or drive.

And what of those here legally?  What of low-income, low-skilled legal aliens or citizens?  It is they who will see most of the negative effects of this.  They are the ones who will face additional competition for already low-wage jobs.  It is they who will have to face waiting rooms- for Doctors who accept Medicaid, and for Hospital Emergency Rooms- filled to overflowing, even more than now, with the children of illegals.  It is these in our society- those most already in need of "protection" who the President just threw to the wolves.

Then we consider legal aliens, especially naturalized citizens.  If this is anything other than a strongly-expended middle digit toward them, I can't see what.  Legal aliens jumped through numerous hoops- even those on temporary visas.  They pay high fees for their residency.  They know that one misstep in regards to our laws- even one relatively benign- can get them sent back to their country of origin with no chance of ever returning legally.  Those who seek naturalization wait years and pay astronomical fees to do so.

Yet now they look at what this President has just done, and realize their foolishness.  Why obey the law, why pay all those fees?  They could have just come illegally and been saved all of that.

Yet it is the illegals who are being "protected."

Monday, November 17, 2014

Lamentations of Their Women:

CNN Cries over GOP Wave


So, continuing the leftist post-election trend going back to at least 2000 in Florida, CNN has decided that the only way the GOP won this election was through cheating.  How?  By violating campaign finance laws, in spirit if not in fact.

Their logic goes something like this: Campaign finance laws forbid specific candidate campaigns from coordinating with super-PACs and other non-candidate organizations.  "Someone" was tweeting what looked like poling data.  Since every Dick, Jane, and Harry wouldn't have been able to decode the tweet, it MUST be collusion.

Now they don't know who "Someone" was.  And by their own admission, they didn't find out before the accounts were deleted.  That would seem to be a hole in their case, but maybe that's just me.

Now, there are lots of problems with the whole article, so you should read it for yourself.  But I was taken by two things.  The first was the almost reflexive "they cheated!" reaction.

This article took some time to research.  The twitter accounts they reference were not widely known, so this wasn't something that was "general knowledge."  They had to have been looking for it.

Yet it is not Republicans who are known campaign finance law violators, unlike several prominent Democrats, the President among them (remember 2008 and not checking if donations were foreign?  Making a campaign speech on foreign soil?  Yeah- not legal.)

Projection, as they say, is not just a river in Egypt.

The other thing that I noticed was they spend a whole lot of time saying, basically, "Those wascawy Wepubwicans!  They used Twitter effectivwy! That must be iweagle!"  And then, for support they go to leftists.

Case in point, this quote:

"It might not be legal.  It's a cutting edge practice that, to my knowledge, the Federal Election Commission has never before addressed to explicitly determine its legality or permissibility."

That comes from one Paul S. Ryan, cited as "senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center."

CNN references the Campaign Legal Center as "a nonpartisan organization," but, this being CNN, I figured I'd double-check their math.  If you follow that link above, it goes to the CLC's "Election Center."  Among their blurbs are "what the Court got wrong in [Citizen's United]," and bragging that their president played "an incredibly important role" as the "'personal lawyer' to comedian Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central's 'The Colbert Report.'"

Does anyone seriously think that a center which sees being the "personal lawyer" for the Colbert Report and opposing Citizen's United is "nonpartisan?"  Seriously?

But the best part of that quote might be the idea that the FEC should have to rule on whether something is "explicitly" legal.  Umm... that's not how the law works.  Something is legal unless it is "explicitly" illegal.  Murder?  Explicitly illegal.  We don't have to ask if any given killing is "explicitly" legal.  It is legal (assumed innocent) until it is proven to be illegal.

This is how leftists work.  Does anyone seriously think we'd be hearing anything about this if it had been Democrats and they had won an historic majority?

Perhaps the best part is the end of the article, wherein CNN acknowledges that, yes, this is probably legal.  I'll leave with that quote (emphasis mine):

Despite the questionable nature of the Twitter communications, experts doubt the FEC will do much to act. Members of the commission have been deadlocked along party lines for years and attorneys for these groups often develop legal arguments before engaging in such practices to avoid acting outside the bounds of the law, Ryan said. 
"In many instances, we have very sophisticated political players with really good lawyers who know where the legal lines are and know where to push them to their client's advantage," he said.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Not the response they wanted

Dear Republican National Committee

Before I get to my response to the fundraising letter you sent me today, please go see the comments of the new House Majority Whip's new Communications Director
.
Oh, you might also want to go take a look at the emails you are sending.

Now on to the response.

I am not some low-information, uninvolved voter.  I assume you listed me as a registered Republican (more on this in a minute) because of a "citizens' congress" event I attended with Representative Joe Barton several years ago (he called me a better Lloyd Doggett than Lloyd Doggett- I'm still not sure if that was a compliment).  I maintain a political blog.  I have a fair idea of what is going on in my State, the country, and the world.

Further, I consider myself a "Tea Party" Conservative- note the word I did not use, that will be important later.  I believe in limited, fiscally sound government.  I believe that the Federal Government is supposed to be constrained by the Constitution- that it enumerated specific powers for the Federal Government and any which were not specifically enumerated were reserved to the People or the States.  I believe "that Government governs best which governs least."

Since 2008, I have seen nothing that would make me support the Republican National Party, and much that disgusts me about you.  People actively opposed to limiting government have leadership positions; those actively attempting to limit government are removed from leadership positions.  When you had several chances to stop Obamacare cold, you have continually refused to take them.  And don't give me "1/2 of 1/3 of government."  The simple expedient of withholding unanimous consent during the "debate" over Obamacare would have ended it- no one was going to sit while 1800 pages were read so that a bunch of old men and women could hear them.

I could expound at length about how you seem intent on remaining disconnected from the American People (the vast majority support legal immigration while opposing illegal immigration or any form of amnesty, for instance, yet you continually seek "comprehensive immigration reform").  I could point out the awkward and pathetic attempts you have made to seem "hip" and "cool."  I could point out time after time after time that senior Republicans have called those like me "the fringe."

But I will not.

Had I known that I had been registered as a Republican, I would have asked that registration be removed long ago.  Any party of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn is not a party with which I identify.  Perhaps you can hit me up again when you have listened to the likes of Mike Lee, Pete Sessions, and Ted Cruz.  Maybe I'll be more willing to listen when you grow a spine, or testicles, or both.  Until then, no, not one red cent.
More Sincerely than you can possibly Imagine,

The Dedicated Tenther

Friday, July 25, 2014

Who Abandoned Whom?

So, I got this in my email today.



Now, normally I get these emails and I just ignore them.  If I decide I want to give money, I will.  I don't give money to the RNC for lots of reasons, but those have been *my* reasons and I've kept them to myself.  However, accusing me of "abandoning the Republican Party" is a bridge too far.

You know what Mr. RNC Treasurer Tony Parker?  You asked for it, you're getting it.

When I was a kid in the 80s, I believed, with the innocence of youth, that the Republican Party was a conservative party.  How could I not?  Ronald Reagan was president.  My Conservative (yes: Christian) parents loved him.  My father (in banking) never bought into the idea that the S&L crash was due to too little government.  The Republicans had reduced taxes, and, if they had also increased spending, at least it was spending on conservative things, right?

Then came the 90s.  I got a little older.  I was still a kid, still innocent, but I was pretty sure that raising taxes wasn't the conservative option, whatever George HW Bush had said.  And I'd been taught lying was bad (Read my lips).  Both George HW Bush and Bob Dole were certainly better than Bill Clinton- a draft-dodging womanizer (at best)- who never met a government program he didn't like, but I was beginning to see that things weren't so clear as I'd believed when I was (yet) younger.

My first Presidential election was in 2000.  I enthusiastically voted for George W Bush.  He'd been my governor, I knew I liked how Texas was running, I figured we'd be back to conservatism after 8 years in the Prog/Commie desert.  And things started out well.  The crash of 2000 happened (that no one remembers), and President Bush responded as he should have- by cutting taxes and putting money back in the hands of the citizenry.  If he also gave some of my money to people who already didn't pay taxes... well, the economy was in a slump.

And after September 11th, 2001, I was incredibly glad he was at the helm.

But George Bush was never Conservative.  Maybe "conservativist" might be a better term, but really he was always a big government progressive who happened to believe in slightly smaller government than the Democrats.  The Patriot Act passed at his insistence.  The Department of Homeland Security quickly started stepping on the Constitution.  No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D both passed and were signed by President Bush.

For 2001, and the immediate aftermath, I was still young enough to believe that "as long as people we can trust" were in charge, the law giving them the power to trample on the Constitution would not be abused.  I have since come to realize the error in that thinking was flawed.  For one thing, people we trust will not always be in charge.  For another, you should never trust government in the first place.

I've grown wiser since then.  It's been nearly 13 years since Muslim Terrorists flew airplanes full of our neighbors, brothers, sisters, parents, and children into three buildings -and attempted another- in the largest single attack on US Soil in history.

And what does the RNC Stand for now?
1- They stand for big government.  I have never heard a Republican on the national stage- except for Presidential debates, which don't count (words are cheap) call for an end to the grossly unconstitutional government overreach which exists.  Find me the Constitutional Authority for the EPA, DoE (either one), No Child Left Behind, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or any other big government program.  The Constitution is short, I'll wait. 

Republicans don't want to shrink government.  They don't want it out of our lives as much as possible.  They want it under their control.

2- They stand for amnesty.  Over and over Republicans have tried to force amnesty (under the Orwellian term "comprehensive immigration reform") down the nation's throat.  We don't want it.  A nation which cannot or will not control its borders is not a nation.

And what do Republicans stand against?

1- They stand against small government.  If you are for big government, you cannot be for small government.  QED.

2- They stand against border control and sane immigration policy.  See above.

3- Most importantly: They stand against their own constituents.  Over and over since 2010, engaged Republican voters at a grass-roots level have shown their displeasure with the current status quo by selecting actual conservative candidates to run against incumbents.  Some of those were... ill advised.  But some were not.  Some were men and women quite capable of winning their elections.  How did the RNC respond?

When they engaged in the primary at all, they always did so on the side of the incumbent.  I suppose that's fair enough.  But what did they do *after* the primary?  Well, when the incumbent won, they proceeded to rub Conservatives' noses in the fact that their candidate lost, and then immediately called for "party unity."  When the incumbent lost, they gave words of faint praise, and then mostly did nothing.  That was bad enough.

But then came the Mississippi run-off between Thad Cochrain and Chris McDaniel.  In that race, the Republican National Committee shat upon Conservative Republicans from a great height.  When Republican Leadership bought ads smearing Chris McDaniel as a racist homophobe- the very same deceitful attacks Democrats use- they were saying to Conservatives across the nation: "We don't want you.  We don't value you.  We don't think we need you to win."

To which I say, "Fine.  Then you won't have me."

I will vote for Republicans in my Great State of Texas.  I will vote for Ted Cruz- one Republican who does seem to get it.  I reserve the right- if the Republican Party stops trying to urinate on me and tell me it's precipitation- to vote for whoever is the Republican nominee in 2016.

But the RNC will never see another dime from me.  And if the candidates are not as conservative as I am, they will not get my vote.  If they're too Progressive, I'll vote Democrat.

No more.  You have pushed me too far, and you will push me no further.

Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.

Friday, June 6, 2014

The Case for Divorce - Brief

"When, in the course of Human Events..." thus begins one of the greatest declarations for Liberty in history.  I believe that threshold has been crossed.  I believe the differences between Progressives and Conservatives in America are irreconcilable.  In this place over the next several posts, I will lay out why I believe the United States as it exists today cannot continue, and why Conservatives should start talking earnestly, passionately, and logically about a National Divorce.

This is not a subject approached lightly.  This is not flippancy, or a tantrum over "not getting my way."  This is a sober reflection on the state of our Nation, and on what I believe must follow if we are to live in peace with each other.  This is not a call to revolution or rebellion.  It is a call for discussion amongst ourselves, and with our political rivals.

I will lay out four areas I believe show that we have gone too far; that the Federal Government of the United States no longer protects those Liberties it was constituted to protect.  Those areas are: The Executive, the Legislative, the Judiciary, and Economics.

I hope you will give these arguments thoughtful consideration; I'm not trying to "throw bombs."  I'm trying to save Liberty for my children.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

SCOAMT^2

Readers of this blog know that I believe that the President of the United States is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.  I have been saying the same since shortly after September 11, 2012.

Well, now I have more evidence.  Enter Bowe (pronounced, I’m told, “Bo”) Bergdhal.  Young Mr. Bergdhal was rejected from the French Foreign Legion before joining the United States Army (hey: US Army- you might take that under consideration).  Apparently, he believed that USA, in this case, meant US Aid and was a humanitarian outreach program, as opposed to a military force designed to kill people and break things.

So, upon being deployed to Afghanistan and actually required to fight against terrorists, he decided “this blows” and walked away.  Literally walked away- he left his duty station along with a note (apparently) in which he declared his desire to renounce his citizenship.  Now, the US Army has Views on people who leave their duty stations in the middle of a war.  It’s called Desertion in the Face of the Enemy, and it’s perhaps the second-biggest no-no an Army private can commit.

But, it turns out, this was not the end of his parsimonious behavior.  When US Army forces were sent to apprehend him, they discovered that he specifically wanted to join the Taliban.  This moves from second biggest no-no (desertion) to the biggest no-no: treason.  Providing Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.  That crime for which there is exactly one punishment.  Yes, Bowe Bergdhal is, at best, a deserter who got half-a-dozen of his buddies killed, and at worst a traitor.

So it makes all kinds of sense that the Traitor-in-Chief would release five of our highest-value terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison to secure his release.  Absolutely.  Hey, we’re only down a net 4 terrorists.  This is also “Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.”  Releasing five guys to do more harm to Americans (because that’s what they want to do) in order to get back one deserter?  Whatever happened to “we don’t negotiate with terrorists?”

Oh, SCOAMT is all over that one, too.  Now, apparently, these enemy combatants taken on the field with no uniforms, answering to no government, and representing no organized military force are somehow POWs.  That deserter? Not a deserter who was taken hostage- but also a POW.  So it’s a POW-swap.  Because King Barakanhanen said so, you racist tea-bagger.

Now, I actually expect this kind of behavior from the Man-Child-in-Chief.  He was under heat for the VA scandal, and wanted something to take that heat off.  As Ace pointed out today, it’s a political decision that Democrats can spin- unlike the VA scandal.  So it makes some sense.

What doesn’t make sense is that Republicans have remained almost uniformly silent on this.  What does it take to get John Boehner and Mitch McConnell fired up?  The President of the United States just arguably committed treason.  He violated several laws to do so- on top of all the other laws he’s already broken, and his general Imperial approach to the Presidency.  If that’s not grounds for Impeachment, what is?

It may already be too late, but Republicans must push back against the SCOAMT.  They must start stone-walling him at every turn.  No more bipartisanship, unless it’s unification against the SCOAMT.  No more pushes for Amnesty.  No more “my friends across the aisle.”  Either the Democrats are with America, or they’re with Barack Hussein Obama.  And the Republicans face the same choice; they are either for America, the Rule of Law, and basic moral decency, or they are with Barack Hussein Obama.

Which is it?