The GOP, Boehner, and the Battle of San Jacinto
- Details
- Created: Wednesday, 25 September 2013 11:49
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
History is marked with pivot points. Those are points at which a seemingly inevitable outcome is dramatically altered almost instantaneously - often due to the single decision of a single individual. Few of these pivot points were as dramatic as the Battle of San Jacinto; and it bears more than a few similarities to the current Battle of ObamaCare.
For those who are unfamiliar with this pivot point in Texas, U.S., and World history....
The Republic of Texas had declared it's independence from Mexico. The Mexican army was in the process of destroying this rebellion. Mexicans slaughtered Texans at battles of Goliad and The Alamo. The Texas army was in retreat from March 13th until that fateful day of April 21st. As the Mexican army pursued General Sam Houston's retreating army, the force was heckled and jeered by locals, ridiculed by the sitting Texas President, and faced a mounting mutiny by soldiers that wanted to engage the Mexicans.
Finally trapped at the banks of the San Jacinto River, Sam Houston stopped his retreat. The Mexican army, somewhat weary from their long pursuit, knowing the Texans were trapped - decided to make camp, rest a day or so - and kill all the Texans when they were better rested.
Though historical accounts are unclear, I'm sure that a furious argument over "tactiics" ensued in the Texan camp. The assumed tactic was to reinforce their position and hope to repel the inevitable Mexican attack. But someone came up with "a better idea." Realizing the Mexicans, believing the Texans were trapped, had allowed themselves to become vulnerable to a surprise attack. This "better idea" eventually prevailed, and in broad daylight on April 21st, 1835 the Texans attacked a "resting" Mexican army - and killed almost all of them - in about 18 minutes.
That decision and ensuing act changed what seemed to be an inevitable course of human history. Today, every Texan, and to some degree, every American and Mexican lives a life with the inherited benefits of the outcome of that battle.
Today, John Boehner and the GOP face a similar situation. The ObamaCare legislation that is emblematic of a seemingly inevitable trend from Liberty to Authoritarianism has been left vulnerable by a Democrat Party that believed it would hold permanent majority status in Government. The Democrats could easily have protected ObamaCare from a "defund" effort in the House (where the GOP majority has every vote it needs to do so) by simply passing a Budget.
Even more brazen, the Democrats allowed the current approved funding for Government, and the debt ceiling limit to virtually coincide with the implementation of ObamaCare. It NEEDS the cooperation of the GOP lead House, both for continuing operating funds (CR) and for a debt limit increase.
Boehner will soon face a decision much like Sam Houston. Despite the heroics of Ted Cruz, he will soon receive an amended CR from the Senate that fully funds ObamaCare. He can use this momentary vulnerability to attack ObamaCare, and send it back EXACTLY as originally passed. Despite the emphatic proclamations to the contrary - it's quite likely that it will be the Democrats that quickly cave in the wake of a Government shut down.
Seriously, who needs Government more?
Democrats and their constituents or Conservatives and their constituents?
The remaining question is whether Boehner will attack ObamaCare at perhaps it's last point of vulnerability, begin to reverse the march toward Authoritarianism, and take his place in history as the political General that changed the course of history - or will he just be the putz we all assume he is.
Well, many people didn't think Sam Houston would attack either...
Add a commentCoalitions - A Mystery to the GOP
- Details
- Created: Thursday, 22 August 2013 12:09
- Written by Super User
The Republican Party appears to be on the verge of a Civil War. The "Establishment GOP" are openly attacking the "Tea Party Wing" as dangerous , and liars . The Tea Party Wing is punching back with strong rhetoric and even some TV ads. Almost every evening, Mark Levin attempts to rally listeners to "defeat" the establishment GOP.
While this writer strongly identifies with the "Tea Party" wing of the GOP; we wish to emphasize a point that seems lost on the leaders of both wings.
Neither "wing" can defeat the Democrats without the support of the other.
This reality was never more evident than in the last Presidential election. Mitt Romney failed to enthuse either wing of the GOP, most likely because he has been members of both. For those with limited memory capacity, in 2008 Romney was the conservative challenger to the uber-moderate John McCain. In 2012, many conservatives cast Romney as the uber-moderate and rotated through a series of "anti-Romney" candidates ending with Rick Santorum.
By the time Romney was nominated and the General Election began, both wings believed "the other side" won this one. Accordingly, each wing felt it was up to the other to rally the public and generate momentum for Romney. In the end, even though (contrary to popular myth) Romney significantly improved on McCain's vote totals - it wasn't enough.
For those who cling to the myth that Romney didn't match McCain's totals...
vs.
(Election totals courtesy of David Leip's US Election Atlas)
The point here being, that 2012 wasn't the tectonic shift that many have proclaimed; it is simply the result of lagging enthusiasm in BOTH factions of the GOP. In fact, only 170K flipped votes, or 344K more GOP voters (in FLA, OH, VA, NH) would have made Mitt Romney the President.
The Solution - Recognize and Embrace the Coalition
Add a commentDefeating the Lib Agenda - Time to Shut it Down
- Details
- Created: Wednesday, 23 January 2013 01:00
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
Through a strikingly divisive inaugural address, and various commentary from the left; it has become clear that a war has been declared on those that dissent from the Democrat Liberal agenda. John Dickerson spelled it out clearly in his factually flawed "Go for the Throat" piece in Slate. Perhaps this piece and others like it will wake the GOP from it's coma like trance and understand that it is in an existential battle - both for the party, and for the future of Constitutionally limited Government.
Currently, the Obama administration and the Democrat party have not the slightest fear of a battle with Conservatives. They believe they hold all the cards; they have a recent election victory, a compliant fawning major media, throngs of mush minded youngsters raised on liberal public school tripe, and an ever growing group of low-information government dependents. They are certain they can thrash Republicans - any time, anywhere, on any issue.
And why shouldn't they?
The new norm - 8% unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, food stamps for every one - just got a vote of confidence from the American voter. Meanwhile, the GOP has retreated faster than a French battalion on every major spending issue.
Yes, Obama and the Libs's can beat the hapless GOP like wet yard dog; but they can't beat reality. They've been living in a make believe world where they can monetize debt and pay no consequence. A fantasy land where they can promise the moon, sun, and stars - and pay for it with another round of quantitative money creation. This fantasy land can only exist if the GOP lead House of Representatives allows it to continue by authorizing future spending and debt.
The GOP must use it's only remaining tool, to force the Administration to face reality. They must demand a SUSTAINABLE BUDGET be submitted prior to authorizing new debt. They must then be committed to a significant Government Shutdown until it's done.
No, they shouldn't submit they're own "cuts." That's been done. The country and the Dems despised the "Ryan Budget." The Dems have the obligation to run the country in a fiscally sound manner. The House has the obligation to withhold appropriations until they bring forth a budget that does so.
Further, they should make it known that they're prepared to have the Government run in a permanent state of "shut-down" for the duration of this session of Congress. They need to be willing to fade the blistering heat of media attacks, and simply anwer - "Send us a sustainable budget, and we'll appropriate funds."
Of course, the Dems will refuse; and begin a full out attack on the GOP. They'll never expect that they'll not soon fold. They'll be completely unprepared for their true mortal enemy - reality. Yeah, Obama will threaten to withhold Social Security and military pay. Republicans need to be ready, and simply say - "That's his choice-he's got plenty of revenue to pay those bills - but chooses FAT CAT BUREAUCRATS instead". And then walk calmly away, perhaps reminding people - Hey you voted for him.
Before long public outrage would turn toward the Executive Branch; the party in power - it always does. When it does, the Dems will plead for a truce. They'll ask for an immediate cash influx in return for a promise to comply with the budget demands in a certain number of days. Again, the House should just say no. By this time, huge swaths of the bloated bureaucracy will be crumbling. Lay-off's, shut downs, ya know - just like the what happens in the "real world."
The private sector may even respond positively. With Government hand outs diminishing and government employees looking for work, businesses will be able to fill vacant positions with capable people. After a short period of "cold turkey" - folks might even realize - "Hey, we don't really need these clowns after all."
It's unlikely that such a long term shut down would ever occur - but if the GOP has any hope of survival; it must at least make it known that this is being seriously considered - and that may in itself cause the DEMS to back down. Because there's one foe the DEMS don't want to fight - that's REALITY.
Add a commentWhy Libs Love School Shootings
- Details
- Created: Tuesday, 18 December 2012 18:26
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
<UPDATE: 2/18/2018>
Everything is true today, that was true after the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012. Democrats still LOVE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, and they still reject any action to make schools safer.
I believe there is one significant change in the calculated political strategy of the Democrats.
Democrats don't really want to ban guns anymore. (Or perhaps they realize that will never be achieved.) Rather, they want to create a collective assumption that there is a simple quick "Legislative Fix" that will stop school shootings - but that the Republicans oppose it due to their allegiance to NRA campaign donations.
This is, of course, demonstrably false on every count, and could only be contrived and believed by people with serious mental or emotional dysfunction - in other words - Democrats.
This is a perfect mid-term election issue for Democrats. An emotional untruth that can mobilize large numbers of stupid people (ie. the Democrat Base.) The Dems will demand that Congress "Do Something" or "Do Anything," - but if Congress takes the bait and does something like ban slide fire stocks, or improve State compliance with reporting to NICS - Dems will roundly denounce it as laughably inadequate - and pray for another school shooting to prove them right.
In the mean time, schools will continue to advertise themselves as "gun free" zones and take no meaningful steps to make schools physically or operationally less inviting to demented, twisted, evil people who crave fame via public free fire zones called schools.
</UPDATE: 2/18/2018>
Original post below:
(apologies to Mark Levin)
Libs LOVE school shootings. They can't wait for the next one. Sure they feel bad for the victims, but they're giddy for the chance to tweak the emotions of an ignorant public with their anti-gun propaganda. They love these school shooting so much they demand that schools at all levels remain Government sanctioned "free fire zones" for all willing psycho lunatics. Yes. rather than make any serious attempt at "hardening" the school targets against wacko's - they wring their hands and decry that millions of others that pose no threat what so ever also have the same kind of weapon as the last wacko killer. That's because school shooting are the libs "best ammunition" to attempt to disarm America.
Libs hate guns. They hate them more than they hate hydro-carbon fueled cars. Individually owned firearms are the ultimate expression of individualism as opposed to collectivism. By owning a firearm, an individual is proclaiming his self sufficiency, while simultaneously serving notice to governmental powers that he considers himself to be sovereign. This individual empowerment is wholly incompatible with Liberal collective utopian schemes.
Individual gun ownership, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment; is the single biggest deterrent to collective tyranny in the world. That's why libs hate it. They will often remark that in an age of tanks and drones, the concept of armed resistance to military aggression is useless.
They are wrong. They are totally oblivious to the size, scale, and power wielded by private gun own owners in the United States. To show some perspective, the armed private citizens of the United States make up the largest single body of arms in the world. In fact the number of armed Americans is larger than the combined Military, Para-Military, and Reserve Armies in the entire world. Yes, it's a fact. Combine all the standing armies and their reserve components and they are outnumbered by the number of armed private citizens in the United States.
For those that "doubt it." Here are the facts:
| Standing Army + Paramilitary | |||
| Country | In millions | ||
| North Korea | 9,495 | ||
| South Korea | 8,691 | ||
| Vietnam | 5,495 | ||
| India | 4,768 | ||
| China | 4,508 | ||
| Iran | 3,833 | ||
| United States | 2,927 | ||
| Russia | 2,230 | ||
| Taiwan | 1,964 | ||
| Brazil | 1,667 | ||
| Pakistan | 1,434 | ||
| Egypt | 1,344 | ||
| Cuba | 1,234 | ||
| Ukraine | 1,214 | ||
| Turkey | 1,197 | ||
| Iraq | 1,005 | ||
| Indonesia | 982 | ||
| Thailand | 758 | ||
| Isreal | 749 | ||
| Syria | 747 | ||
| Argentina | 581 | ||
| Spain | 527 | ||
| Singapore | 522 | ||
| Burma | 513 | ||
| Columbia | 491 | ||
| Algeria | 484 | ||
| Italy | 478 | ||
| All others combined (approximately) | 15,000 | ||
| Global Total Military + Paramilitary | 74,838 | ||
| Total Private U.S. Gun Owners | 80,000 |
This massive force serves not only as a safeguard against tyranny; but as a deterrent against invasion. Still think that armed Civilians couldn't stand up to a heavily armed military? Hopefully we'll never find out. But they could damn sure be employed to fortify schools against psychos.
There are no reasoned or logical arguments to be made against private gun ownership. They have only knee jerk emotional pleas buoyed by shooting victims of a mass shooter. The more and younger the victims - the better for the libs illogical emotional pleas for banning gun ownership. That's why libs love school shootings.
The most recent shootings In NewTown are a dream come true for socialist libs. Christmas time, high body count, young victims, all shot by a rich white kid in a rich neighborhood . A veritable wet dream for gun hating libs. The lib media is in full court press. There will be no stopping the endless faux. misery portrayed by media morons as they demand "meaningful" change.
But they won't get it- at least not this time.
Yeah, they may pass some idiotic "assault weapons" ban, or some "magazine limit": knowing full well that such a ban is nothing but eye candy. Automatic weapons have been banned for decades. The guns they're banning are functionally identical to many other rifles. They are semi-automatic rifles capable of firing one round, ejecting the cartridge, and chambering the next round. That's it. One pull, one shot.
For example, the Ruger 10/22 rife (pictured below) has never been the subject of a proposed "assault gun ban."
The Ruger 10/22 can be had at most local WalMart's for under $200.00. It functions exactly the same as any proposed to be banned "assault weapon.." Perhaps equally important, is that it will accept several extended magazine clips. For about $25 additional dollars 10/22 owners can pick up one of these:
Yep, a 30 round extended clip. There you go. After "Assault Weapons" are banned; for under $300.00 the next school shooter can walk into the Government approved killing zone with a rifle and three 30 round clips which can be changed in less than two seconds.
The libs are in a one track mode. That is to pass some useless and ineffective anti-gun legislation, while refusing to fortify the soft targets against psycho shooters. After 9/11 people nearly demanded armed marshals on every flight. Soldiers roamed the airports openly carrying REAL automatic weapons. Can't remember a single lib whining about the proliferation of guns.
But when it comes to schools, libs don't want to solve the school shooting problem. They want to disarm America. They can only do that by dramatically changing public opinion on fire arms. They don't have the will, or the might to disarm the public by force. School shootings are their best friend. The more often they can show a scene of senseless carnage with young innocent victims - the better their chance to gain voluntary surrender of gun ownership.
So, look for some stupid legislation; and then wait for the next shooting in the Government Approved Free Fire Zones they call "schools." Libs will eventually say, "We've tried EVERYTHING else" now we just need to take all the guns. Of course, they'll never try actually "Protecting" schools...
...that would ruin everything.
Add a comment