Bedtime for the #NeverTrump Anger Babies - INTELLECTUAL FROGLEGS

If the GOP did not want to have someone like Mr. Trump as the presumptive nominee, then perhaps they should have done a better job of actually standing up for conservative principles instead of bargaining them away in the name of that lopsided bipartisanship in which we lose principled positions while the left gains yet another incremental step towards their overarching goals. The best way to gain trust is to be trustworthy and the GOP has not been.


How can I say that the GOP has not stood up for principle or been trustworthy? As a woman, I now have to risk my safety when I use a public restroom because I can no longer ask to have men removed from the ladies room.

At least not until that man has already done me harm.

And the GOP Hypocrisy Begins

I had much to say on Mr. mcconnell's comments shortly after the elections. (If you are so inclined, you may listen to the Nov 5th show on the sidebar.) I was hard pressed to say it without the use of profanity. My main thoughts, I have already posted on this blog under the title:  "Or Else What?".

 From Mr. mcconnell's remarks in his post election interview with Time - especially this one ""Notably, a full repeal of Obamacare was not on his mind, but rather a partial repeal through the appropriations process. Finally, he named his new top priority: keeping the Senate in 2016" "(emphasis mine) , it is clear that reversing the effects of this lawless current administration is not his top priority. In fact I wonder if reversing any of the horrifically egregious legislation passed by the 111th congress is on his - or the GOP's plate. Because it is clearly the GOP's plate and not America's. Otherwise the listed top priority would be considerably different. 

To be absolutely crystal clear, I think that top priority should be for the House and the Senate to bury the Oval Office under full repeals for deathcare. Not weaselly funding and appropriations bills-although do those too, by all means - but full repeal bills. There should be nothing else - with the exception of the protection of this nation's borders - on their plate until deathcare is gone. If  Mr. obama vetoes it, send him another one. Make his office so full of them that he signs one by mistake. Let there be stacks of them piled so high that the man cannot enter the office for the stacks of them. If he vetoes one, send it back for an overriding vote until the communist/democrat holdouts give in and do the right thing because of the sheer persistence of their colleagues and because their constituents are demanding it of them. Yes, people, it is time to get on the phones and flood their offices with demands -not requests- demands for full repeal. 

Because I am so very incensed by those remarks, and because I choose not to use the unladylike language which is currently the majority of what I am thinking in response to that reading, I am going to share the thoughts on this election and Mr. mcconnell's remarks from a twenty something young man of my acquaintance.
With his kind permission, the thoughts of young Mr. P. 

"Obviously one might expect me to be happy about yesterday's election results given how conservative I claim to be....I'm not sure though. As far as I can tell the Republican party has sold out and it's only a matter of time before they collapse. I no longer view Republicans as a conservative party, I view them as cheerleaders. Their greatest ambition in life seems to be gaining popularity more than doing what's right. I found Mitch McConnell's statement this morning rather unsettling. I hope that Republicans either miraculously start doing the right thing instead of trying to be popular or that this republican congress ticks people off so much that they lose everyone's support and the party collapses so we can finally get candidates who stand for something. It actually pains me a little bit to see the Republican landslide because I know it'll take at least one more pendulum swing before we start seeing candidates with integrity, and I don't know if America can take it. Impeach Obama. That is all." 

And after a few comments back and forth, he shared this in reaction to the quote above:

"Lol, and they're not going to keep the senate forever. Haven't they learned how a pendulum works? Mitch McConnell said a lot of stuff about how he wanted republicans and democrats to pass bills they both agreed on and find ways to work together. 
I'm sorry, but I don't elect my representatives/senators to go and avoid conflict. I elect them to represent my interests, and what I believe are the best interests of the nation. I elect them to do the right thing, not the convenient thing and not the thing we can all agree on. I don't elect them to wring their hands and do nothing when the acting president betrays our country, our citizens are in danger from within and without and the country has been sold out from under us. I don't elect them to pander to me and tell me everything is fine. And I don't elect them because of their party affiliation. I don't want them to get along with all the yahoos that are spending us into oblivion and supporting our moral degradation and destroying the constitution and taking away our liberty. I want them to fight and fight and fight and fight and keep fighting from day one until they are removed from office or die. If they don't, they are wusses, and the Republicans are the biggest wusses of all, and I'm sick of it. 
Rant over."
"He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit." ~ Proverbs 12:17

Why only the GOP?

"Keep the pressure on the GOP" "Fractures in the GOP" "We need you to call the GOP members of the House Rules Committee..."

Why am I only receiving alerts to call the GOP and hold their feet to the fire? Aren't all of our Congressmen and women supposed to be doing what is right for this nation? Do we think that those supported by the Democratic party or the independents are so far lost to reason that communication is not even possible?

Or have we just given up?

I ask that because, the last time I checked, there is still a democratic majority in the Senate. So, unless some of those democrats are brought to reason, this is all a losing battle. There's no reason to exclude democrats from those calls, they need to hear from us too. What they do affects us all, so don't be discouraged by the fact that you may not be a member of this one or that one's constituency. If you have valid points to make for why they should vote a certain way for the good of the nation, they need to hear from you.

Beyond that, this goes directly to the heart of why Mr. Washington warned us against adopting a party system of politics. The people we elect to these offices are to be doing what is right for the nation, not voting according to party lines.

It's shameful that we have a situation where pundits can predict the success or failure of a piece of legislation by counting up votes along party lines. This is NOT how our system is supposed to work. Call your congressman or woman, by all means, but don't refuse to call them or committee members simply because of their party affiliation.

"And he said, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. " ~ Gen 18:32

Republic or Oligarchy?

Our legislators are to represent "We the People" not The Republican party or the Democratic party or the Green party or the Libertarian party or any other party. That is why we have a republic and not an oligarchy.

Or so we think. If a candidate takes money from a political party, are they obligated to vote as that party would have them vote? The technically correct answer is, of course, no. But the real life answer is all too often yes.

When the parties are able to withhold financial and other resources from candidates in order to influence their vote, then there is a conflict of interests involved in a candidate's acceptance of party support.

• When those who are running the parties have no problem with using the resources at their disposal to influence a legislator's vote, we have a problem.
• When getting re-elected is more important than representing one's constituents faithfully, we have a problem.
• When "We the People" allow these things to become accepted practice and question neither the ethics of the parties nor the ethics of the candidates/legislators, we have a problem.

The problem we have, when these things are true, is that we no longer have a republic. We do not have a republic, at that point, because the legislators have effectively sold their votes to the political party or group from whom they wish support. If they have sold their vote to a political party, then they are not representing us. If they are not representing us, but rather the party or group who assures them of re-election resources, then what we have, has become an oligarchy, ruled by those groups(the media, the political parties, etc.) who can command the most legislative votes.

When there is any question that a legislator's vote is dependent upon how that vote will affect that legislator's ability to get re-election resources from a political party, there is something dreadfully wrong with the republic. This is why we now have terms like RINO and DINO to describe candidates who do not share the values of the parties from whom they accept financial and other resources in their campaigns to be elected and re-elected.

It is a shame to us as a people that we have allowed our election process to be usurped in this manner. This is why so many call for term limits, because they think this will solve the problem by limiting the damage that can be done by any given candidate. The problem is, that since the root of that problem is not that the candidates and parties are behaving badly, but rather that "We the People" have been lazy in allowing the political parties and the media to choose our candidates for us, giving us an easy button in the form of term limits will no more solve that problem than putting bumpers along the sides of the road will keep people from driving recklessly.

We can do better. The people of this country have morals and standards. We must no longer stand by while political parties or other groups usurp our authority by purchasing the votes of legislative candidates. It is a lie that a candidate cannot win without the support of a major party and it has always been a lie. When We the People bestir ourselves to determine the best candidate on an objective basis, we will have a republic and not before. That is the true message of the TEA Parties, that We the People are done with allowing others to steal our authority over the political process in this nation. The parties would do well to pay attention and become honest brokers of the values and principles they purport to hold.

"He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. " ~Matt 13:22

Breakfast with Sen. Liebham-Part 1

I had the opportunity to attend a breakfast with my state senator this morning. He was holding it to give some of his constituents a legislative update, okay, really a briefing on Mr. Doyle's proposed budget. A budget which contains an large number of non-fiscal items.

One of the more alarming things about this budget is that this governor, having a clear majority in both the assembly and the senate, still feels the need to include these items in the budget. It is my understanding that this practice (including non-fiscal items in the budget)is done in order to get legislation passed - or at least looked at - that would otherwise be difficult to pass. Let me say that again. Our governor, here in WI, a governor with a majority in the assembly and the senate, feels the need to include these non-fiscal items in the budget, ostensibly because even with a majority, they would be difficult to pass otherwise. There is good reason for concern on his part about passing these items. Some of them are nothing less than social engineering on a grand scale. Perhaps that is the payback for the bailout he went hat-in-hand to Washington to obtain. I hope to post a bit about the various items over the next few weeks, but for today, I want to look at leadership.

There was some concern about who will be running for office in the next election cycle. While there are a few looking at the governor's seat, there isn't anyone stepping up to challenge Mr. Feingold. This is something that interests me because I have been hearing variations of the "We need new people to run" concern across the net, but especially in the conservative camp. I find this interesting because one of the challenges I have seen in my own volunteer work of choice is getting people to step up and take leadership positions in the group for which I volunteer. These are small leadership positions and it's a real challenge to get people, so I can certainly understand the concerns I am reading and hearing about a leadership deficit in this country.

I am wondering right now if the same techniques that work to get those volunteer leaders would work to fill these larger roles. To some extent, I think they would. I think many are intimidated by the sheer unfamiliarity of the job along with the potential to make huge, horrible, public mistakes. The idea of campaigning for office is also repugnant to some.

First, I think we need to lay out the requirements for the job. That way, folks would have the same decision making process to approach a run for office as they would for any other job.

Lay out the requirements: travel; public speaking; communication skills; marketing(or the ability to recruit someone who will do that for you); fund-raising; reading and reading comprehension, familiarity with the legislative process and legalese(yes, I know that's not a word-just what grandpa and I used to call the peculiar language lawyers use to write contracts.) and etc. Then lay out the benefits in a similar manner. Is a degree required? I recognize that it may be difficult to get elected when one's opponent can point to your lack of a degree, but is it a requirement? Abraham Lincoln didn't have one.

What is the day-to-day schedule of a legislator like? It seems to me that that is something I would want to know before putting myself or my family into that life.

So, that's the first step, giving people the ability to envision their lives in that position.

The second step is finding someone who is upset enough at the current situation to be willing to work to change it, to take a personal role in changing it.

If the GOP is really sincere about finding new candidates, here's what they should do: Look at the people who are complaining the most at the current situation and wanting them to "do something". Find the ones who can articulate their concerns effectively and who can pass a background screening. Then look in that group for those who would be successful at maintaining their principles in the face of pressure and whose values reflect those of your constituency. I'm sure they can think of other qualifiers to narrow down the list if it's still too large.

Third step: Evaluate the fitness of those folks to serve. Do they have the capacity to do what's required? Can they learn on the job? Do they have the temperament?

I detest political parties, but they are good at supporting a candidate for office-they should be, isn't that what they are for? Stop whining about a dearth of leaders and go out and find some.

Fourth step: Damage control. Stop portraying candidates of the opposing parties as corrupt and evil. They may be corrupt and evil, but it's our duty, as an electorate, is to look at our legislators objectively and evaluate their performance and behavior and replace those who are corrupt and evil. It's a decision we can make for ourselves, given honest, objective reporting. Stop telling us how to think. Those of us who vote have been thinking and making decisions for at least 18 years. (I'll grant you not all of us will make good decisions, but that's the risk we take to be a free people.)

I'm not a big fan of Joseph Lieberman, but he wrote a book called "In Praise of Public Life" encouraging more people to get involved in government service. If we hold our legislators to high standards of behavior, perhaps public service will once again be viewed as service and not the fast track to corruption. Promoting the view that all government employees are corrupt does not encourage participation by those who value their good names. If you want those folks, you need to show that you are not willing to smear opposing candidates. (Presenting objective facts is okay, putting an editorial spin on those facts is not.) People of good character recognize that, what you are willing to do to someone else, you will do to them eventually and will have nothing to do with you if you are willing to engage in that sort of behavior.

"Be of good courage, and let us play the men for our people, and for the cities of our God: and the LORD do that which seemeth him good." ~2 Sam 10:12

Mr. McMorris

I found the conversation with Rep. McMorris' to be disappointing.

He clearly has a set script of reasonable sounding doublespeak and redirection for most questions and used it. He said of the republican party: "We hear the public and we have changed our ways and we understand what the public wants and needs".

It's a shame that he made that statement as a follow up to a question about whether or not it was appropriate for the government to break up businesses rather than letting free market forces act. He essentially said that he does believe the government should have a role in breaking up businesses and regulating them in an unconstitutional manner. While he said he understands that the bailouts are not a good idea for the financial sector and others, he believes they are necessary for the auto industry.

These remarks were prefaced by his statement that he was the first person in either house to speak out against the bailouts.

Good for him, I wonder what his constituency is thinking about the "enforced" resignation of GM's Rick Waggoner.

The beginning of one question was asking if the regulations that forced the banks and other lending institutions to make poor quality loans had been dealt with or removed. The answer, (stripped of all the the-housing-bubble-wasn't-entirely-the-government's-fault babble) was no. This is a telling point, because what is the point of bailing out or restructuring lending institutions if they are still going to be forced to write the same types of loans?

He put forth some good sound bites, including the 5 principles most Americans and republicans can agree on. I'll publish them here as a thank you to the Rep. for participating, because I know his participation was voluntary and he was probably expecting positive coverage, which this is not. I'm sure that there will be some who think my posts on the meat of the call thus far should be tempered to encourage the participation of more Reps in the future. I think the time for flattery is well past. The truth is too important to be toned down at this point. I think our country is in an all out battle to retain the founding principles of America. In my opinion the founder's vision is still the preferable one and turning to flattery at this point serves no one.

5 principles most Americans and republicans can agree on:
1. Our liberty is from God, not the government
2. Our sovereignty is in our souls, not the soil. (What exactly does he mean by this one? No idea, but it sure sounds good doesn't it?)
3. Our security is from strength, not surrender.
4. Our prosperity is from the private sector, not the public sector.
5. Our truths are self evident, not relative.

"He that rebuketh a man afterwards shall find more favour than he that flattereth with the tongue."~Prov 28:23

GOP Conference Calls

My apologies for the lengthy break between posts. I have been distracted by my non-blogging life of late. I hope that is settling and I will be able to post more consistently for this next bit. I would like your help to decide about a new opportunity that has been presented to me recently.

On March 16th, I received an e-mail from the House Republican Conference. It said that they are reaching out to blogs who do not currently receive their Congressional updates and videos.
They also extend invitations to exclusive blogger conference calls with House members on hot topics being discussed in Washington. I participated in my first such conference call with Reps. King, McCotter and McMorris Rodgers on the 25th.
Some of the topics addressed were the strategy of the current administration, the debt, increases in spending, entitlement spending, AIG, and etc.
To hear the call click here. This call lasted about 30 minutes. Mr. McCotter's remarks starting at 27 minutes, 45 seconds are refreshing.
"Our truths are self-evident, not relative"

I'm not quite sure why I was invited to participate in these calls as I am not a republican, but rather a conservative.
Let me know what you think. Is this sort of conference call valuable?
If so, and I decide to continue to participate and post on them, Would you prefer that I write a transcript of the call, post a link to the call itself, as I've done here, or just excerpt bits that I find relevant?

"The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame. "~Zeph 3:5