Feed on Posts or Comments 30 May 2016

2016 Election Richard Falknor on 20 Mar 2016

Social Critic Camille Paglia’s Evolving Views On Donald Trump

Of course, social critic Camille Paglia is a Sanders supporter, but we know of her intellectual independence from her many years opposing political correctness and the resultant decay of the higher learning in America.

Click here.

“I have observed that working-class or lower-middle-class girls, who are from financially struggling families and who must take a patchwork of menial off-campus jobs to stay in school, are usually the least hospitable to feminist rhetoric. They see life as it is and have fewer illusions about sex. It is affluent, upper-middle class students who most spout the party line — as if the grisly hyperemotionalism of feminist jargon satisfies their hunger for meaningful experience outside their eventless upbringing.”

Last summer in a Salon interview, Paglia characterized Donald Trump a “carnival barker” who was “not remotely a president” — but she nonetheless commented:

“So far this year, I’m happy with what Trump has done, because he’s totally blown up the media!  All of a sudden, ‘BOOM!’  That lack of caution and shooting from the hip. He’s not a president, of course. He’s not remotely a president. He has no political skills of any kind. He’s simply an American citizen who is creating his own bully pulpit.  He speaks in the great populist way, in the slangy vernacular.”

Then, this month, Paglia wrote

“But only a few weeks after that interview of mine in Salon, I suddenly realized that Trump’s candidacy had a broad support that few had expected or discerned.  The agent of my revelation was a hilariously scathing, viral Web blog video posted by Diamond and Silk–Lynette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, two African-American sisters and former Democrats in Fayetteville, North Carolina.  They were reacting with indignant outrage to the first GOP debate, broadcast by Fox News from Cleveland on August 6 and hosted by Megyn Kelly, whose loaded questions had impugned Trump as a sexist.
 If Trump wins the White House, that no-holds-barred video will go down in history as ‘the shot heard round the world,’ Ralph Waldo Emerson’s phrase for the first salvo of the American Revolution by rural insurgents at Concord.  The video signaled a popular uprising and furious pushback against the major media and political elites, who had controlled the national agenda and messaging for far too long.  Diamond and Silk threw zinger after zinger in defending Trump:  ‘Here’s the damn deal, Megyn Kelly—or Kelly Megyn, whatever your name is!…. Go back and report news on Sesame Street!… You hit below the belt, Kelly!… He was the only one up there on that stage with any common sense!… He’s going to be the next president, whether you like it or not.  Get used to it, girl!  Get used to it!’
This fiery endorsement blew me away because it demonstrated how Trump was directly engaging with a diverse coalition in ways that the mainstream media had completely missed.  I felt, and still do, that Trump is far too impetuous and thin-skinned in his amusingly rambling, improvisational style.  The American president, who can spook markets or spark a war with a rash phrase, must be more coolly circumspect.  And aspirants to the presidency shouldn’t care what small fry like bobble-head TV hosts say or do.  A leader must have the long view and show an instinctive capacity to focus and prioritize.
 Nevertheless, Trump’s fearless candor and brash energy feel like a great gust of fresh air, sweeping the tedious clichés and constant guilt-tripping of political correctness out to sea.  Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose every word and policy statement on the campaign trail are spoon-fed to her by a giant paid staff and army of shadowy advisors, Trump is his own man, with a steely ‘damn the torpedoes’ attitude.  He has a swaggering retro machismo that will give hives to the Steinem cabal.  He lives large, with the urban flash and bling of a Frank Sinatra.  But Trump is a workaholic who doesn’t drink and who has an interesting penchant for sophisticated, strong-willed European women.  As for a debasement of the presidency by Trump’s slanging matches about penis size, that sorry process was initiated by a Democrat, Bill Clinton, who chatted about his underwear on TV, let Hollywood pals jump up and down on the bed in the Lincoln Bedroom, and played lewd cigar games with an intern in the White House offices.
Primary voters nationwide are clearly responding to Trump’s brand of classic can-do American moxie.”

Read more.

And yes, there are independent thinkers among The People of the Left.

Prudent conservatives (click here) should pay attention to deeply considered views from these voices  — recognizing, of course, that Paglia is no social conservative.

This widely appreciated social critic gives us perspective on how the leading GOP presidential candidate connects with a wide spectrum of Americans.

First things . . . Richard Falknor on 20 Mar 2016

Riots & Demonstrations: A Prediction From Rush!

Last Friday, Rush Limbaugh told us what to expect and why from the Hard Left (today’s Democratic Party and their vast network of agitators and  media megaphones)–

“You know what I told you I think’s gonna happen after this election, if a conservative Republican wins this election?  Whoever the next president is, is going to be harassed and harangued every day by the usual leftist suspects.  And if even element of the Obama agenda is attempted, if we try to get rid of it, Obama himself is gonna be on TV with his buddies in the media trying to defend it.  It’s not going to be for the faint of heart.  That’s why what’s happening in our campaign right now, this whole Republican primary, is tiddlywinks compared to what the future’s gonna be if we succeed in beating these people back. 
It’s tiddlywinks, and people have got to know how serious this is.”

Continues Limbaugh

“You’re worried about riots right now? You haven’t seen riots until somebody tries to unwind Obamacare.  You haven’t seen riots until the next Republican president takes dead aim at numerous Obama policies — illegal immigration, amnesty — until he takes dead aim at all of Obama’s executive orders. You haven’t seen riots.  They’re already promising us that it’s gonna happen. 
The Occupy Wall Street crowd, they’re already promising these things.  They’re bragging about the biggest riots anybody’s ever seen in the summer to protest Trump.  They’re gonna protest us no matter what, whoever on our side wins.  And what worries me is that we do not have a Republican Party apparatus that is equipped and prepared for this.  It’s a genuine concern of mine.  I don’t like using the word “cave,” but it’s patently obvious they’re not much into conflict.  It’s pretty clear that they are willing to compromise what they believe so that the media doesn’t call them names.  Well, we don’t even know what name-calling is yet. 
People are involved in this right now like it’s an academic exercise.” (Highlighting Forum’s throughout.)

Limbaugh translated: today’s GOP apparatus shrinks from the sting of battle!

quote-americans-love-to-fight-all-real-americans-love-the-sting-of-battle-george-s-patton-142694

If today’s Hard Left isn’t seriously attacking major GOP politicians, the Left has rightly figured that those politicians are all hat (self-styled “common-sense conservatives”) and no cattle (lacking the grit to plan successful action against the Hard Left’s agenda).

 

 

 

2016 Election Richard Falknor on 12 Mar 2016

UPDATED! Maryland & Virginia GOP Leaders And Pundits:Will You Defend GOP Candidate Rallies From The Hard Left?

UPDATE MARCH 14! David Horowitz: “How Not To Fight Our EnemiesSome Republicans seem more intent on destroying their allies.”
* * * * *

“I don’t care how much the totalitarian left hates rhetoric. When political speech is stifled, we are thru as a republic.”
“If you think Trump rally should’ve been cancelled, wait til you see what the goons have for the GOP in Cleve. Should THAT be cancelled too?
David A. Clarke, Jr. Sheriff of Milwaukee County

Yesterday the Institutional Left rioted and prevented Donald Trump from speaking in Chicago.

Instead of denouncing this mob opposed to American values and upholding free political speech and assembly, three GOP presidential candidates shamed themselves by instead blaming Trump.

(GettyImages)

(GettyImages)

 

But Breitbart’s Katie McHugh revealed here some of the consequences in her Voters Slam Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio for Blaming Chicago Rally Shutdown on Donald Trump

“Cruz supporters, incensed by the Texas senator’s blame game, stormed social media to express their anger. Top comments on a Friday Facebook post promoting a Cruz ‘victory fund’ drew furious responses (comments quoted here are unedited)”
. . . .
“Rubio fared little better. A pale but calm Rubio also cast blame on Trump on MSNBC, absolving violent agitators attacking Trump supporters and causing chaos by saying ‘Words have consequences.”

Breitbart’s Lee Stranahan reminds us here “Warned You: Chicago Trump Shutdown Is Just the Beginning”–

“No other news organization has documented the rise and origins of the groups behind Friday night’s madhouse as thoroughly as the team at Breitbart News. From its origins being exposed in the film Occupy Unmasked before the election cycle to covering and exposing every aspect of the new Black Lives Matter incarnation, we’ve given readers the intellectual ammunition to understand the dangerous rise of the new American left in the Obama era.
Just this week, we published two 2,500 word exposés that laid bare not just the history of deception and media collusion that made last night’s rout of Donald Trump’s rally in the Windy City possible, but we also examined the 50 years of progressive hatred that caused such an outpouring of bile on social media after the death of former first lady Nancy Reagan.”

Continues Stranahan–

The enemy here is the organized institutional left, and every single GOP candidate and surrogate needs to start educating the voters on who they are.
This is going to get worse. As I predicted in January:
As the newest incarnation of the activist Left, Black Lives Matter will not back down or rest until it is either stopped by someone gutsy enough to call them out or until it gets what it wants: a bloody revolution leading to a socialist/anarchist America.” (Highlighting Forum’s)

Regardless of struggles within the party, the GOP presumably still stands for free political speech and freedom of assembly –and puts these freedoms ahead of any individual politician’s future.

The governor of Maryland; Maryland and Virginia Republican House of Representatives members; state and local Republican committee chairs; General Assembly members; and local Republican pundits should denounce all such attacks by the Institutional Left on the rallies of our presidential candidates.

2016 Election Richard Falknor on 29 Feb 2016

Marco Rubio: A Danger To Our Sovereignty, Our Jobs, Our Culture Of Freedom

Conservative pioneer Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum gives us a current in-depth picture of the junior senator from Florida, Marco Rubio, and his efforts to replace traditional America–

Phyllis Schlafly: Marco Rubio Record Since His Election

“All of which adds up to: there is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio — no one who could deliver more votes in both parties for open borders immigration.  Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative.

Unlike other legislation, the effects of bad immigration policy cannot be repealed. They are forever. The Republican party would never nominate a pro-Obamacare candidate, and it must be an even stronger maxim that it should not nominate any candidate who is committed to a policy of mass immigration. Rubio wrote the Obamacare of immigration policies: a bill that would have eviscerated the middle class, plunged millions into poverty, legalized the most dangerous aliens on the planet, overwhelmed our schools and safety nets, and done irreversible violence to the idea of America as a nation-state. Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration, making one last attempt to pull off one big con.” (Highlighting Forum’s.)

Read all of the Eagle Forum memorandum here.

And just yesterday in Alabama, Breitbart’s Julia Hahn reported on the accusations of two of senator Rubio’s constituents–

Displaced Disney Workers:
Shame on You Marco Rubio; We Stand With Trump

“MADISON, Alabama — At Donald Trump’s Sunday rally at Madison City Stadium, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s own constituents—two displaced Disney workers—publicly denounced Rubio for prioritizing the interests of his big business donors over the interests of his own constituents. The two endorsed GOP frontrunner Donald Trump for President.” (Highlighting Forum’s.)

Today Hahn reports–

American Victims of Illegal Alien Crime Urge Nation: ‘Reject Rubio’

“The families who have had  loved ones murdered, raped, maimed, and tortured to death by illegal criminal aliens warn that Rubio is ‘the single most egregious congressional promoter of open borders.'”

        Click here for The Remembrance Project letter to Republican voters.

Ann Corcoran in her American Resistance 2016 post, “Since we have been talking about traitors at Fox News….”, gives us the best counsel on presidential candidate Rubio–

“Please America! No more boys (controlled by power hungry greedy globalists) in the White House!”

2016 Election Richard Falknor on 27 Feb 2016

Trump Overpass Media Message — Friday Rush Hour in Virginia!

Trump supporters send these images of their overpass-media display on I-66 in Virginia to Blue Ridge Forum, reporting —

  • “Friday rush hour coming straight out of DC. 
  • I-66 signs directly in the face of political elite and power classes heading towards VA suburbs.
  • 30,000 views.
  • Terrific working class support.”

Can't be bought...2.26.2016

email size 2...Trump VA 2.26.2016

Stay tuned for more overpass-media reports!

 

First things . . . Richard Falknor on 20 Feb 2016

Trump Iraq War Criticism Can Spur Rediscovery of First Principles For American Conduct in War and Peace

One of the many benefits of the Trump candidacy is that his iconoclastic criticism of George W. Bush and the War in Iraq may open the door to a rediscovery of the first principles of our foreign policy as developed by our founding statesmen.

Instead, what we have heard on the so-called Right, are politicians’ exhortations for the U.S. president to “lead”–somewhere with vague objectives and without reference to the military budget; debates over “boots on the ground” vs. airpower in the Middle East; reckless bi-partisan Congressional bankrolling of “moderate” Muslims in the Syrian civil war (resulting in Christian deaths); and no open accounting of what we were doing in Libya (Benghazi in particular) and which members of the Congress had signed off these questionable adventures. 

Moreover reports of U.S. efforts to hold Israel back from striking Iran’s nuclear capabilities are particularly troubling.

Donald Trump’s challenge to the validity of the Iraq War has opened a long-overdue public discussion of America’s policies on war and peace from the perspective of our national interest.

Bush2_Shoe

Islam scholar (and physician) Dr. Andrew Bostom last Wednesday (click here) examined the “dangerously misguided utopian mindset” that he believes was behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq (see his “WMD or ‘Democratization’? Bush II and the Iraq Invasion”).

Writes Bostom–

“Rancor unleashed by Donald Trump’s allegations during Saturday night’s 2/13/16 South Carolina GOP primary debate has completely obfuscated sober re-assessment of the overriding motivation for the Bush II administration’s March, 2003 invasion of Iraq.
I maintain that dispassionate analysis reveals Iraq was invaded on the basis of a dangerously misguided utopian mindset aggressively inculcated within eight days of the cataclysmic September 11, 2001 jihad terror attacks. Moreover, the abject failure of the Bush II administration to eliminate Iran’s much more tangible nuclear weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threat—clearly evident before, during, and after the Iraq invasion—objectively validates my argument.”

So what was the driving U.S.  policy behind invading Iraq after the Jihadist attacks of September 11, 2001?

Bostom points the finger at what he dubs the “Lewis Doctrine.”

“Notably absent WMD references, Peter Waldman’s methodical, well-sourced Feb 3, 2004 Wall Street Journal investigative report (‘A Historian’s Take on Islam Steers U.S. in Terrorism Fight  Bernard Lewis’s Blueprint—Sowing Arab Democracy—Is Facing a Test in Iraq’) stands as important confirmation of the overarching ideology which spurred the March, 2003 Iraq invasion. Waldman meticulously documented how the so-called “Last Orientalist,” nonagenarian professor Bernard Lewis, exerted profound influence in shaping the Bush II administration’s ‘Islamic democracy agenda’—invading Iraq being the sine qua non manifestation of this ‘Lewis Doctrine.’ Lewis, as Waldman notes, began evangelizing his ‘Doctrine’ to the highest level Bush II administration officials just over a week after 9/11, accompanied, significantly, by Ahmad Chalabi, a likely ‘vector’ of Iranian influence.”

Author Bostom continues–

“Eight days after the Sept. 11 [2001] attacks, with the Pentagon still smoldering, Mr. Lewis addressed the U.S. Defense Policy Board. Mr. Lewis and a friend, Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi –now [circa 2/2004] a member of the interim Iraqi Governing Council—argued for a military takeover of Iraq to avert still-worse terrorism in the future, says Mr. [Richard] Perle, who then headed the policy board…
Call it the Lewis Doctrine. Though never debated in Congress or sanctified by presidential decree, Mr. Lewis’s diagnosis of the Muslim world’s malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed democracy in the Mideast.… As mentor and informal adviser to some top U.S. officials, Mr. Lewis has helped coax the White House to shed decades of thinking about Arab regimes and the use of military power. Gone is the notion that U.S. policy in the oil-rich region should promote stability above all, even if it means taking tyrants as friends. Also gone is the corollary notion that fostering democratic values in these lands risks destabilizing them. Instead, the Lewis Doctrine says fostering Mideast democracy is not only wise but imperative.” (Highlighting Forum’s).

Readers may wish to consider the entirety of Dr. Bostom’s post here.

Congress’s Corker-Cardin Capitulation

In a previous article, Bostom blamed Republican leaders in Congress for not effectively opposing Obama’s dangerous Iran deal.

He presents Congress’s role in the Iran deal as a dereliction of duty to protect the country–a gross example of this Congress’ malfeasance and abdication of power.

Declared Bostom in hisCruz, Rubio, Paul: All abandoned ‘advice and consent'”–

“By voting for the Corker-Cardin amendment, S.615, ‘Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015,’ all three Republican senators running for president – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul (who just ‘suspended’ his presidential campaign) and Marco Rubio – relinquished their constitutional authority to manage one of the most important global security matters of our time.
Back in March of 2015 I supported the only member of the Senate who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Sen. Tom Cotton, and his March 9, 2015, ‘Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.’ Cotton’s letter, endorsed by 46 other GOP senators, informed the theocratic totalitarians of Iran – and reminded U.S. citizens – that, “In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.” Commendably, and consistent with the ‘advice and consent’ power of the Senate, Sens. Cruz, Paul and Rubio, co-signed Sen. Cotton’s letter. As signatories to the Cotton letter, these senators and presidential aspirants were cognizant – then – of the anti-constitutional Obama administration approach to such a dangerously destabilizing nuclear ‘agreement,’ shorn of senatorial review and debate, and mandatory two-thirds approval vote by that august body.”

The Blue Ridge Forum also addressed the Corker-Cardin disaster (click here) in our July 15 post “Iran Surrender — Worse Than Munich: Congress Greased The Way By Approving Corker Scheme With Huge Majorities Bigger Than Chamberlain’s in 1938.”

And we remind readers that constitutional scholar Andrew McCarthy termed here the Corker-Cardin scheme a “constitutional perversion” and explained here “Why GOP Congressional Leaders Support the Iran Deal in Fact — Follow the Money.”

First Principles: Drawing Sharp Lines between America’s Business and
That of Others, as Well as between Peace and War

Underlying both Bush’s and Obama’s foreign policy errors is the failure to identify America’s interest in making war and peace.

Many of us know Angelo Codevilla from his magisterial 2010 essay “America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution” (click here) in the The American Spectator: “The only serious opposition to this arrogant Ruling Party is coming not from feckless Republicans but from what might be called the Country Party — and its vision is revolutionary.”

In his 2014 book, Angelo Codevilla has written an essential guide (click here) to putting America’s foreign relations on a wise basis: To Make and Keep Peace: Among Ourselves and with All Nations

“Achieving ‘a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations’ is statesmanship’s proper goal. It is also naturally indivisible, because peace  with foreigners guards tranquillity among fellow citizens and nothing so incites domestic strife and fosters the loss of liberty as do war’s despotic necessities. Domestic harmony is as precarious as it is precious, everywhere. But nowhere as much as in America, our nation of many nations,’  where so much diversity offers so much occasion for division. Nor are any people so jealous of liberty as are Americans. Fear of war’s effect on peace and liberty at home is the reason why our founding statesmen, beginning  with George Washington, were willing to sacrifice so much for peace and agonized so deeply over war.”

The thinking of our leaders is quite different today–

“Often do our statesmen contemplate commitments to conflicts, but seldom how to end them in ways that benefit the American people.”

How did we stray from these first principles of foreign relations?

Codevilla explains–

Among later generations of statesmen, however, other concerns gradually obscured that healthy caution. The illusion of serving noble causes by making foreign quarrels our own has lured the past century’s statesmen to abandon their predecessors’ sharp distinction between war and peace and to fight wars mindless of war’s first principle: that it is an extraordinary event conceived to end in peace. The result, intended to be ordinary and permanent, has been violent ‘nation building’ abroad plus ‘homeland security’ in America, enforced by a national security–homeland security complex whose very size fits it for use as an instrument of partisan strife.Peace among ourselves and with all nations’ is beyond the horizon of twenty-first-century American statesmen.”

Codevilla urges–

 We cannot know whether America can ever live in peace again, what kind of peace we may win for ourselves, or what peace we may end up having to endure. But we do know that our statesmen and academics have ceased even to think about such things. Our purpose is to rekindle such thoughts.” (Highlighting Forum’s throughout.)

In his review of Codevilla’s book, David P. Goldman (Spengler) catalogues the current consequences our national journey “from hyperpower to hyperventilator”–of a decade of wrong-headed foreign policy (click here) —

“It isn’t just that the emperor has no clothes: the empire has no tailors. In the decade since President George W. Bush’s 2003 ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech, America has gone from hyperpower to hyperventilater. The Obama administration and Republican leadership quibble about the modalities of an illusory two-state solution in Israel, or the best means to make democracy bloom in the Middle East’s deserts, or how vehemently to denounce Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, everything that could go wrong, has. Europe’s frontiers are in play for the first time since the fall of Communism; Russia and China have a new rapprochement; American enemies like Iran have a free hand while traditional American allies in the Sunni world feel betrayed; and China has all but neutralized American sea power within hundreds of miles of its coast.”(Highlighting Forum’s.)

Let’s pray that the Trump Insurgency also spurs ordinary Americans to demand we return to first principles on war and peace.

(Post has been edited since its publishing on February 20, 2016.)

First things . . . Richard Falknor on 19 Feb 2016

Diana West’s “The Big Conservative Dictionary of Donald Trump, 2nd Edition”

Historian Diana West writes

“Unveiling a work in progress, The Big Conservative Dictionary of Donald Trump.
The fun part about The Big Conservative Dictionary of Donald Trump is that it is brought to you by those erudite conservatives who, some even between birthing the stink bombs below, endlessly deplore crudeness and ‘tone’ in simply scads of elevating sermons and television lecture-bytes. (See ‘Rudeness Is not a Conservative Value,’  ‘Against Trump,’ etc.).”

The Trump Insurgency has already changed the national conversation about America’s future: now focusing on legal and illegal immigration, one-sided sovereignty-ceding trade deals, and the grave dangers of importing Jihadists.

The venomous tone of the “conservative” establishment,  a.k.a. Conservatism, Inc., shows their well-grounded fear that they will no longer be able to shape the national conservative narrative.

Click here to read author West’s dictionary in progress!

 

 

 

First things . . . Richard Falknor on 03 Feb 2016

Report On The Trump Ground Game — And The Larger Importance Of Getting It Right!

Politico’s Ben Schreckinger today reports here in “Trump resists staff calls to change coursethat – –

“In the lead-up to Donald Trump’s loss in Iowa, staffers sought additional funding for campaign infrastructure and were denied. Now, six days from the New Hampshire primary and looking for his first win, Trump is still refusing to shake up his ground game.”

Read the entire post.

We cannot second-guess Trump’s Grand Campaign Strategy with the information we have.

Our gut, however, tells us that from what we have seen in our part of the forest (Maryland and Virginia), more talent and resources would be most helpful.

But this brings us to the larger picture of the Trump Insurgency, or better, the hopes for an American Reformation he has raised throughout the nation.

These hopes — for the return of our sovereignty through control of our borders, management of our legal immigration, trading arrangements that clearly benefit us; restoring our economy to benefit ordinary Americans; rebuilding a robust national defense while distinguishing between selected foreign actions that are our business and avoiding the many entanglements that are not our business — have taken on a life of their own.

From conservative patriots ranging from Phyllis Schlafly here to senator Jeff Sessions here to Ann Coulter here, to thousands of Americans who have lined up across America to hear Donald Trump, they are deeply invested in the future he has evoked.

Trump is now the steward of these widely held hopes — almost as if he were already in public office.

The message to  Trump: understand as you make your tactical decisions that your campaign has become a national movement to begin to resuscitate a seriously endangered United States.

The future of your fellow Americans depends on your careful judgment.

2016 Election Richard Falknor on 01 Feb 2016

Not The Heritage We Once Knew–Paul Ryan Keynotes Policy Conference–Will National Review Do An “Against Ryan”?

National Review on Line’s Elaina Plott reports here that–

“Heritage Action has tapped House speaker Paul Ryan to deliver the keynote address at its third annual policy summit next Wednesday, February 3, according to an agenda obtained by National Review.”

Plott continues–

“Ryan’s appearance at the summit highlights a remarkably rapid thaw in relations between Heritage Action and House Republican leaders. The group maintained a vocal distrust of John Boehner for the majority of his speakership — he was never invited to the policy summit — but has appeared more optimistic about Ryan since he assumed the gavel, largely because of his willingness to court conservatives and commit to offering a conservative legislative agenda in advance of the GOP convention. ‘He’s conservative — folks know that,’ says one leadership aide. ‘He was an obvious choice to lead this.'” (Highlighting Forum’s)

UPDATE: Click here to go to live streaming for Heritage meet tomorrow.

Sadly, much of Ryan’s conservatism is poppycock.

Last October, Senate immigration-control leader Jeff Sessions illustrated this in an exchange (via Breitbart’s Julia Hahn) here with Laura Ingraham–

 “The word is… that 2017 is the year to watch for immigration,” radio host Laura Ingraham asked Sessions. “What are the chances… that if Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is Speaker and Hillary Clinton is President of the United States, or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is President of the United States that they would move in the first 100 days to push a massive, similar [to the ‘Gang of Eight’] immigration reform bill?” Sessions replied, ‘I think there’s a great danger that that would happen.‘”(Highlighting Forum’s)
 
Ryan with Guteriz

Immigration expansionist Paul Ryan pictured with advocate Luis Gutierriz in 2013. Chicago Sun-Times via Breitbart.

And last November 2, Hahn revealed that “Pro-Amnesty Pundits Pine for ‘Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio Moment’”–

“In his Friday column, New York Times columnist David Brooks–who has called for ‘increased immigration’ and ‘normalizing the illegal’ population–hailed the prospect of a ‘Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio Moment.'”

Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz explained last December 17 in his Paul Ryan’s 11 Christmas Gifts to Obama

The enormity of this betrayal is breathtaking. At the same time, however, it perfectly illustrates why the American people are done with the Republican Party as currently constituted, as witnessed by the direction of the presidential primary.” (Highlighting Forum’s)

Readers are also urged to open these 11 Christmas gifts here!

December 28, PowerLine’s Paul Mirengoff shed more light in the “The problem with Speaker Ryan in one headline”– 

“Yesterday’s Washington Post featured an article by Amber Phillips called (in the paper edition) ‘A dismal congressional session, but a flicker of hope.’ According to Phillips, the ‘hope’ lies in the ‘fresh face’ of Speaker Paul Ryan and the bipartisanship he has already demonstrated. That the Washington Post sees hope in Ryan’s emergence tells conservatives everything they need to know about the new Speaker. Moreover, an article like Phillips’ is likely, in the time-honored Washington tradition, to induce Ryan to continue to yield to liberals, as he did in the disgraceful Omnibus spending bill. Phillips’ article does a good job of explaining how Ryan managed to sell out conservatives without drawing the ire of his conservative colleagues. She demonstrates the problem with House conservatives in two paragraphs….”

You can read the rest of Mirengoff’s analysis here.

Moreover Ryan’s well-established sovereignty-lite record over the years (see Julia Hahn’s House of Cards: Paul Ryan’s Campaign to Mislead Voters on His Immigration Stance) is frighteningly persuasive.

A Modest Proposal for National Review?

So we have a modest proposal for the National Review — as their first step to reclaiming some credibility after their self-inflicted wound entitled Conservatives against Trump, we urge NR’s higher direction to do a special issue devoted to “Conservatives Against Ryan”!

 

First things . . . Richard Falknor on 01 Jan 2016

The Omnibus: The Moral Failure of the House Conservatives — Did They Even Try To Derail The Omnibus Express?

The left-leaning Politico got it right when they declared “Conservatives give Ryan a pass on budget deal they despise” —

“But unlike past fiscal battles, when lawmakers took shots at GOP leaders and tried to tank bills, this time conservatives are largely holding their fire. Even as they vow to oppose the package, many are still praising Speaker Paul Ryan’s handling of the $1.1 trillion spending bill and $680 billion in tax breaks.” (Highlighting Forum’s)
“Virginia Republican Dave Brat, a Freedom Caucus member who also sits on the budget panel, said Ryan has also gained support because he has been ‘credible on regular order’ — Congress-speak for empowering committees and rank-and-file members — and has already teed up the budget process for the beginning of 2016, a starting point unheard of in recent years.
‘The end product here is just cleaning the barn; it’s a disaster,’ Brat said of the spending and tax deal. ‘We’re breaking our pledge on the budget caps to the American people, we’ve lost fiscal discipline, and we’re throwing it all on the next generation.’
But in the same breath, Brat praised Ryan: ‘Not only is he saying the right things, he is lining it up to do the right things … and then leadership can’t hijack the budget at the end of the year and throw in the kitchen sink, which we just did.’
Praise from members of the conservative flank is a sign that they believe Ryan (R-Wis.) is trying to chart a new course in his nascent speakership. The conservatives feel more included in the process and said Ryan’s staff has been vocal about wanting their feedback. But the lawmakers are also planning to watch the speaker closely in 2016, when they say he’ll have more control over the appropriations process and Boehner can’t be blamed.” (Highlighting Forum’s)

But PowerLine’s Paul Mirengoff has a sharper perspective in his “GOP leadership caves on Gosar Amendment”–

“From the Politico article, it’s clear that Freedom Caucus members like that Ryan is giving them face time. This represents the triumph of vanity over principle. Ryan is playing these folks and they seem happy enough to be played. (Highlighting Forum’s)
Ted Cruz likes to talk about the ‘Washington Cartel’ — the leaders from both parties who, he says, make sure business continues as usual, to the people’s detriment. Cruz’s rhetoric seemed extravagant to me, but now I wonder whether it is apt.”

Last week Mirengoff added further insights in his “The problem with Speaker Ryan in one headline”–

“[Amber] Phillips’ [WP] article does a good job of explaining how Ryan managed to sell out conservatives without drawing the ire of his conservative colleagues. She demonstrates the problem with House conservatives in two paragraphs:
Ryan managed to negotiate a spending bill with Democrats in the same manner and with largely the same outcomes that Boehner likely would have. But Ryan did it without earning the same kind of vitriol from the right flank of his party that Boehner likely would have. The group on the right didn’t like the spending bill, and many didn’t vote for it, but they didn’t call Ryan names for negotiating it with Democrats.
Knowing he was at risk of being compared to the politically toxic former speaker during these negotiations, Ryan did his best to subtly draw contrasts with Boehner outside of them — Boehner smokes and drinks; Ryan works out every morning. Boehner stacked powerful committees with his allies; Ryan opened the positions up to the whole House.
Apparently all it takes to turn House conservatives into poodles is a morning workout and the promise of ‘openness.’ Amazing.” (Highlighting Forum’s)

Who Voted Against The Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2016 &
The Rule Enabling Its Consideration?

Take a look who voted no on these two bills:

Think about this. If just 40 of the 95 Republican members (42%) who voted against the bill itself had earlier voted against the Rule (together with the 183 Democrats who did so), they might well have brought the Omnibus Railroad to a halt.  

The reasonable and publicly defensible objective would have been to enact a further continuing resolution until mid or late-January (as Americans for Limited Government urged), allowing both the members of the Congress and the public carefully to examine and consider this enormous legislative package.

Daniel Horowitz summed up the Omnibus problem in his “Paul Ryan’s 11 Christmas Gifts to Obama–

“At 1:34 on Wednesday morning [December 16], the party of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan dropped their Christmas package off at the White House lawn in the form of a 2,009-page omnibus spending bill and a 233-page tax subsidy bill.  The House plans to vote on the tax bill today and the spending bill tomorrow [December 18].  The enormity of this betrayal is breathtaking. At the same time, however, it perfectly illustrates why the American people are done with the Republican Party as currently constituted, as witnessed by the direction of the presidential primary.  Amazingly, many ‘D.C. conservatives’ are giving Paul Ryan a pass.” (Highlighting Forum’s)

Perhaps even a seriously organized pushback of House conservatives against rushing this monstrous Omnibus to approval might have failed — with Nancy Pelosi getting enough Democrats and Ryan enough Republican Poodles to get the House to approve a Rule giving the green light to the Omnibus Railroad before Christmas.

But if House conservatives had pushed back hard against the GOP leadership on the Omnibus, whatever the outcome, they would have kept their credibility — and their honor — for the future.

* * * * * * * * *

For readers’ quick reference, the following articles make it very clear what this Omnibus should have accomplished, and suggest just some of the damage already identified in that lamentable measure.

“By locking in the President’s refugee, immigration, and spending priorities, Ryan’s bill is designed to keep these fights out of Congress by getting them off the table for good. Delivering Obama these wins–and pushing these issues beyond the purview of Congress–will suppress public attention to the issues and, in so doing, will boost the candidacy of the Republican establishment’s preferred presidential contenders, who favor President Obama’s immigration agenda.” (Highlighting Forum’s)

« Previous PageNext Page »