House in Chaos: Illegal Immigration Vote Closed Over Republican Protests
The Democratic Congress operated like a Banana Republic yesterday. The guys at The Politico describe some of the action here..."numerous Republicans argued afterward that they had secured a 215-213 win on their motion to bar undocumented immigrants from receiving any federal funds apportioned in the agricultural spending bill for employment or rental assistance. Democrats, however, argued the measure was deadlocked at 214-214 and failed, members and aides on both sides of the aisle said afterward.
One GOP aide saw McNulty gavel the vote to a close after receiving a signal from his leaders – but before reading the official tally. And votes continued to shift even after he closed the roll call"
So far, no record of the vote has appeared on congressional websites. This outrage cannot be permitted to go unchallenged. The rule of law is at stake and thus our very Republic itself. People who follow this site know that I don't hesitate to criticize Republicans when I think they earn it. Hopefully, that will give me some kind of credibility when I say that the Democrats are doing an abysmal job of running Congress. I would rather be ruled by the first 535 names in the NWA Area Phone book than to be ruled by this Congress and Senate. Their corrupt and incompetent management is as bad as their flawed and morally destructive policies. Our nation is in trouble, and we cannot afford to return them to power again.
Now with a very few exceptions like Oklahoma Senator James Coburn, the best Republicans are in the House. My theory, supported by considerable evidence, is that the globalists who run the Republican party only let patriotic conservatives rise so far in the ranks before they either 1) leave them twisting in the wind in key elections or 2) actively campaign to defeat them. They are trying to undermine the grassroots, but their reach does not extend to every congressional district in this country. Because of that, a number of good people do make it to Congress- but that is as high as they normally go. If they try to get any higher, the opposition from the power brokers becomes stronger.
Occasionally, a James Coburn will get in anyway, but it will not be with their help but rather in spite of their determined opposition. This also explains grassroots dissatisfaction with the GOP field. The kind of people that the grassroots prefer are not allowed to rise high enough to be "top tier" candidates. The net result is that the House Republicans are largely still loyal to the citizens of the United State of America while the Republicans in the Senate are loyal to global interests. There is no "Senate in Chaos" story because Trent Lott and Ted Kennedy both agree that Talk Radio is too powerful and that it is a shame they could not impose the amnesty bill on this country.
The House Republican caucus is our last thin thread that keeps the globalists from imposing their will on this country. They have the White House, they have the Courts, they have the Senate, they have the Media. They have most of the Democrats in the House and a good part of the Republicans in the House. What they don't have are The People, but they are working to make sure that does not matter. At this time in our history the house Republicans who still care about the United States should reach out to the few house Democrats who still do and join together to stop this madness.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Friday, August 03, 2007
6 Comments:
Correction: the esteemed Senator from Oklahoma is Tom Coburn.
And you are correct he is a cut above.
mark
i would like to ask an honest question. it may sound stupid & maybe I've missed something, but i have been see a lot of references to "globalists".
could you define the term for me & what you mean by it?
Thank you for your question. A globalist is someone who wants to weaken the national sovereignty of individual nations in favor of a unified world system, in an effort to advance some other goal.
They come in various flavors. For example, a leftist may want to advance a single set of rules for "gay rights" and impose that agenda on cultures they feel are "backward". A multi-national corporation may seek such a system in order to maximize its own profits, regardless of the costs to others.
While you may think that a gay rights activist and a global corporation have little in common, you can see that both share the same goal of weakening national sovereignty in order to impose unified global rules that are in their own interests. This helps explain the otherwise inexplicable support for the homosexual agenda you see in so many giant corporations such as Ford Motor Company.
As for the political class, their interest is in obtaining more and more power over your life with less and less accountability to you. This is why unless they make a conscious and sustained effort of the will to fight it, government people tend to be centralizers. They like to centralize control and decision making. Global government gives them one more layer of power and one more layer of bureaucracy between them and their subjects.
There is also the tendency to see themselves as the "cream of the crop" from their own nation. As they pursue relations with those who view themselves as "the cream of the crop" from other countries, it is only human that a certain amount of elitism creeps in. That is, they come to view the foreign leaders as their friends and equals while viewing the "little people" in their home countries as inferiors.
I need not take the space here to inform you that the Founders were in steadfast opposition to such thinking. They desired to give only limited essential authority to the central government and let regulation of most daily affairs of life pass to the states, or to the people.
Here is a Milton Friedman quote which applies, ""Government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. [Because] if I do not like what my local community does, I can move to another local community... [and] if I do not like what my state does, I can move to another. [But] if I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations." -Milton Friedman
Of course, a global government would make it even harder to hide from a government which goes wrong and starts persecuting people for the sake of "political correctness".
It may surprise some that the scriptures also take a dim view of the nations becoming united under one banner. Psalms chapter two is one of the classic passages in which it is revealed that world leaders will attempt to shake off the constraints that God has declared apply to all men. The elite, used to having their own way, are most likely to resent God's standards for civil government and private conduct.
A radical hyper-individualistic view of freedom is that no locality has any right to impose any rules on you. A classic view of liberty respects the rights of localities to order their lives as they see fit by imposing agreed-upon rules on its members. Under the latter view, a homosexual man cannot strut into a town which considers homosexuality a deviant act and demand that they change all their rules to accommodate he and his partner, who wants to be the church organist. Under the former view, a central government can impose its own standards, or lack thereof, on the community. Thus, this view of government and individual rights takes form the townsfolk the liberty to order the rules of their society as they see fit and transfers that authority to a distant and unaccountable elite in a distant capitol.
In this short article I have not written a tithe of what I could write on the wicked potential of globalist thinking. Suffice to say that it is the duty of all persons who desire freedom for their posterity to fight the rising power of globalism.
I think your comments here may have been even better than the post. Great read. If I may humbly add, another reason for a push for globalism in this country is to get around those pesky constitutional restrictions that make it so difficult to control and oppress the citizens of the U.S.
Thank you and you are correct about the other reasons.
Are you aware that the Washington County Militia is affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan? Do you care that your link to "Free Wayne" is tainting anything that you want to press forward on your political agenas? I am not aware of any situation where a private citizen needs to have access to 3 machine guns. I am a gun owner and support 2nd amendment rights. I do not, however, feel that you have fully examined your position and are blinded by the mere hint of a 2nd amendment issue. Not to mention the baggage that being obliquely affiliated with the KKK affords your organization. I was going to contribute, but I cannot based on your links.
Post a Comment
<< Home