Amnesty and Republican Party leaders

7
1375

WASHINGTON, December 4, 2014 — Nothing gets a knee-jerk Republican Party voter more angry than reading a commentary piece pointing out the obvious: That GOP leaders in Congress can’t wait to hand President Obama and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a victory on amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.

One Facebook response from an angry reader was, “STUPID… this is Democrat PROPOGANDA or just plain STUPIDITY… Boehner and McConnell are not the enemy… you F’ing IDIOTS… Obama and the Democrats are… MORONS!!!!

The angry response results from a piece I wrote,“Does Boehner want to cave to Obama on immigration?” As I pointed out in the commentary, election campaign promises notwithstanding, House Speaker John Boehner and prominent Senate Republicans have made no secret of the fact they would like to pass “comprehensive immigration reform,” similar to that which opened the illegal-immigrant floodgates in 1986.

An estimated 5 million illegal aliens resided in the nation then. An additional 6.5 million have flooded over the border since the 1986 “reform.”


GOP presidential loser John McCain was a camera-ready advocate for the Senate’s pro-amnesty “Gang of Eight.” And John Boehner was caught on camera mocking anti-amnesty Republicans for opposing his and Obama’s pro-amnesty agenda. That is, until GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost in the primaries to economics Professor Dave Brat.

Brat was the kind of Republican that GOP analysts (Karl Rove) said could win primaries but not general elections. Dave Brat will be sworn in as a member of the 114th Congress this January. He ran on an anti-amnesty pledge.

The typical knee-jerk GOP voter suffers from the Hollywood Syndrome, which says, “For every villain there must be an avenging hero.” They never stop to consider the darker reality that there are scenarios in which there are no good guys. Just because it has a capital “R” in its designation, does not guarantee it is good, principled, or virtuous.

That mindset can only be described as the ten-thousand-flies-can’t-be-wrong argument.

The GOP’s Congressional leadership must earn loyalty and respect. It should never be given to them freely. They must prove themselves daily, not with words but actions.

Americans rallied around the Grand Old Party this year in a desperate effort to stop President Obama’s brazen authoritarian usurpation of power through executive action. House Speaker John Boehner and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell say they won’t use the power of the purse to defang the despotic ambitions of the man in the Oval Office.

That being the case, it’s hard to explain the purpose served by the elections held last November if its outcome was to guarantee Obama’s fundamental transformation of America; or the reason for having a so-called opposition party; or the reason for having a Congress that serves no purpose other than to serve as a rubber stamp to one man’s twisted will.

It’s often said that voting third party is a “wasted vote.” So, if you vote for a Republican politician who advances the aims of the opposition party and its fearless leader (funding Obamacare and sanctioning the importation of millions of Central Americans to overburden our welfare rolls and change the outcome of future elections), here’s a question for no-questions-asked, knee-jerk Republican voters: Have YOU wasted your vote?

I make no bones about the fact that I support the Tea Party. I do so because they take seriously the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which prizes individual freedom over the arbitrary power of the state and the political majority.

One would think after the defeats of 2008 and 2012, Republican voters would want to turn their embarrassing political party into a muscular, principled arm for freedom. One would think that by calling themselves “Republicans,” such persons would want to fight to preserve and restore what is best in the American Republic.

Abraham Lincoln stopped practicing law and entered politics as a Republican. He left the old Whig Party at a time of national crisis. The crisis swirling around the question of slavery was not, to Lincoln’s thinking, met with a fevered opposition he felt it required. Like today’s GOP under Boehner and McConnell, the Whig Party of the 1850s stood for nothing.

“The darkest places in hell,” wrote Dante, “are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.”

If Republican voters don’t demand better of their so-called leaders in this time of moral crisis, they will lose their party and, in time, their country.

“Be with a leader when he is right,” said Lincoln, “stay with him when he is still right, but, leave him when he is wrong.”

If Republicans begin to lose elections because a third party splits the Republican vote, you can thank GOP duplicitous nonentities like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • apostasyusa

    First off you say, “Americans rallied around the Grand Old Party this year”. Last time I checked the midterms were record lows for turnout and the elections were close so I wouldn’t call the results a mandate of “Americans”.

    Secondly you claim to take seriously the principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which you say “prizes individual freedom over the arbitrary power of the state and the political majority.”

    If the individual freedom is the prize then why would our founders write such arbitrary documents that outline a rule of law, such as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? Why did our founders not just advocate for anarchy over principled written documents?

    This is the problem I have with tea party folks or the modern GOP in general, they have no consistency and end up looking like hypocrites in the end.

    • Stephen Z. Nemo

      Our Founders did codify individual liberty in the law. You might have heard of it – the Bill of Rights.

      The First Amendment (which sets the tone for the original 10) begins with the five most beautiful words in the English language, “Congress shall make no law…”

      That means the individual’s right to speak freely, worship as his conscience dictates, and to be safe in his property from government theft, trumps the democratic will. Freedom, not democracy, is the highest principle in a free and civil society.

      America suffers under the yoke of the despotic, anarchic democracy.

  • sharpeshooter2

    The Tea Party’s certitude that they serve the purposes the founding fathers proposed in the constitution is contradicted by their support by and for the Corporate elitists whose capitalistic excesses ensure that individual freedom in America is forever stifled by the resulting class system and institutionalized income inequality.

    • ginjit.dw

      Tripe personified.

  • wotmot

    Well, that was an entertaining bit of propaganda.

  • This principled student of history seems to have missed the point of the constitutional conventions of 1787-1789. Having been governed since 1776 under the Articles of Confederation with a very weak central government, the American system was falling apart and the “independent” states and individuals were virtually at war with each other.

    The constitution was formed in desperation, to establish a central government with the authority to control this clash of free wills. “Individual freedoms” are taken care of by proportional representation in the House, and by the Bill of Rights, but the Senate does not represent individuals- only states.

    So it is a hodge-podge, cobbled-together form of government that bears no resemblance to the Tea Party ideology that individual freedoms are intended to reign supreme. We tried that, and it didn’t work. Individuals are selfish,quarrelsome, and poor at governance. Our system is designed to alleviate that.

  • robert88871

    Wow, I did not realize I had a voice in journalism…thank you Commdiginews, and Stephen Nemo in particular. I could not find a single statement in this entire piece in which I did not agree…