Posted on 12/11/2014 4:56:48 PM PST by xzins
The only ethical response to betrayal by one's own leader is to find a new leader.
There have been famous betrayals, but for America one stands out. Benedict Arnold was a general in the American Revolution. Thousands of officers and enlisted followed him, obeyed him, attended to his every word. That was prior to September 21, 1780 and his plot with the British to turn over the critically strategic ground of West Point to the British in exchange for money and position. After his betrayal of his country, it would have been a strange thing indeed to have found his troops arguing that they still owed Arnold that same loyalty as they had before. After all, his own actions had violated the trust they had placed in him.
During the Speakership of Dennis Hastert (Republican, Illinois) Hastert verbalized the idea that a speaker who relied on the minority party to pass a bill was violating the trust of his fellow majority members. Hastert said that it was not his job to push legislation that had been rejected by most of those who had elected him to the office of Speaker of the House. The unofficial rule is that a majority of the majority party must support a bill before it is brought to a vote. Otherwise, a Speaker is using cronies to permit the minority party to rule the House of Representatives.
During his time as Speaker, John Boehner has violated the Hastert Rule six times, and even though Boehner himself once rejected the idea of passing bills with minority party votes, he has used this method of passing spending bills that would have been rejected by his own supporters.
Boehner's most famous betrayal was last February 2014 when he had support from only a mere TWENTY-EIGHT Republican representatives but still put a so-called 'clean debt ceiling' bill up for vote. That bill passed by a vote of 221-201, overwhelmingly democratic. Boehner had obviously betrayed the trust of his supporters while heeding the voices of 28 cronies against the vast majority of his own people.
Much was made this past election about those who were shunned in their House races for election when they suggested that they might not support Boehner for Speaker in the new Congress that takes power in January 2015. Marilinda Garcia had funds withheld by the Republican Campaign Committee when she hinted that she would not support Boehner for Speaker. http://www.redstate.com/2014/10/06/nrcc-withholds-funds-after-marilinda-garcia-nh-02-says-she-may-not-vote-for-boehner/
At best, this is a new member of the Republican House being told that loyalty is expected of its members. At worst, it is campaign extortion. In either case, however, there is the message being sent from the Speaker that support should be forthcoming from the membership toward the leadership.
But support is a two way street.
Arnold expected support from his troops. He was their general. He had been victorious in battle, had suffered hardship alongside them, and had even shared the danger of the heat of battle. In many ways he had earned their respect and their support.
But his betrayal canceled all that. He went over to the other side. He put his own troops at grave risk. He is justly condemned by history. His name has become a byword for traitor.
A leader who turns to his enemy to win a victory for the enemy over his own troops and their interests is rightly called a "Benedict Arnold."
Speaker Boehner has willingly betrayed his own troops in the past. If he does so in this matter of a funding bill that permits our lawless President to pay for illegal immigrants to receive status and benefits, then Boehner has betrayed not just his own caucus, but he has betrayed the huge majority of voters who chose republicans this past November to stop amnesty, to stop ObamaCare, to stop out-of-control spending, and to stop a chaotic foreign policy.
Boehner will steal one entire year of power from the Congress that has not yet taken office, for their power of funding will be neutered until September of 2015. He will betray the support his own people have shown him by siding with the enemy.
He will also violate the terms of his understanding with those who were to support him for Speaker. They give loyalty in return for loyalty. They give support in return for support. They will have been betrayed.
There will be zero reason to continue him as Speaker of the House. The only ethical response to betrayal by one's own leader is to find a new leader.
Paul Wyerich was sounding the alarm about the take over but few would listen only when it was too late.
Come to think of it recounts are pretty rare aren’t they. Late counting, especially of “provisional ballots” is where we really get ducked.
While Weyrich had editorial and programing control it was a great network. There were some real sharp minds involved like Bill Lind, Janet Parshall, Tom Jipping, Major Garrett, Brad Keena, Larry Klayman and Tom Finton, John Lofton, Alan Keyes, & many more had shows. A few of them like Paul's show "Direct Line" you could call in live and talk to the guest many times a congressman or senator. It was staged my wife and I would call in sometimes & got through and put on the air many times.
He stepped on some toes it seems. Sponsors/Donors pulled out and GOP-E walked in and took control. Instead of a Conservative format it was Conservative/Liberal and the network changed names to America's Voice. You had Armstrong Williams and Ellen Ratner on a show, Jerry Falwell and Bob Beckel on another show, and so it went right into the ground.
We need a good conservative journalist to get the dirt on Boehner. There’s bound to be some seeing what kind of person he is by his actions.
The age-old political question: where does compromise end and capitulation begin?
With Lois Lerner, the anti-conservative IRS operative in the Cincinnati Office, next door to Boehner’s own district, I’d bet everything about Boehner is already known and followed up on.
Indeed, I would have preferred to see a short-term continuing resolution rather than this $1.1 trillion behemoth — 1600+ pages of intransparency, loaded up like a Christmas tree.... I do not know what motivated Boehner, and by implication, Mitch McConnell, to go this route. But I doubt it has much to do with desiring to make a pact with the Devil, er, 0bama. Somebody please explain to me what would be "in it for them" and the GOP in so doing. I figure these are not stupid men — so, what are they up to?
One thing this bill did was to dramatically increase the limit on donations to political campaigns, rising to $2 million per donor if I understand correctly. (Nancy Pelosi is having fits over this, so it can't be all bad.) While I'm all for the increase, if these prospective increased revenues turn out to be coming from rich people with K Street connections (e.g., the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, proponents/beneficiaries of the Ex-Im Bank, large-scale ranching and agricultural interests, et al.), I really don't consider this much of a blessing. Rather, increased revenues to the GOP from these sources would only reinforce "business as usual" on Capitol Hill, and further strengthen the corporatist state.
But THAT is precisely what must END.
There's a whole lot that I don't know. But what I do know is I'm sick and tired of these omnibus bills. I would desperately like to see the return to Regular Order in the production of the federal budget, one department at a time. I would like to see a citation of the relevant Constitutional mandate before any proposed federal legislation can be advanced. I would like to see draconian restrictions on the introduction of amendments to proposed legislation that have nothing to do with the underlying subject matter of the bill.
Of course, insisting on such things goes against the very grain of recent procedural customs in both Houses, and would result in the diminution of privilege of Senators and Legislators. Not to mention such measures would help to put a kerbosh on vote buying by well-connected "political clients" and organizations that fund political campaigns.
Anyhoot, dearest sister in Christ, we'll just have to wait and see what plays out.
As for me, I continue to hope, and to pray for a national spiritual reawakening! For there's little that can be accomplished by politics if the underlying culture is rotten, corrupt. As I do believe it is.
May God help us!
Somebody please explain to me what would be “in it for them” and the GOP in so doing. I figure these are not stupid men — so, what are they up to
My take... One worlders are on the same page.. Pity is many republicans are also one worlders.. like the Bushes.. Most democrats are and not a small amount of republicans..
Of the democrats that are not one worlders they are still socialists which puts them on the margins of the same page..
A mystery to all of them is the runious direction the socialist Europeans And Canadians and Americans are on..
ALL are bewitched by Democracy..
That democracy is Mob Rule by Mobsters does not effect them..
They WANT TO BE part of the MOB.. and all told.. THEY ARE..
The dem/rep... good guy bad guy ploy seems to be working..
as does “bait and switch” -OR- “switch and bait”..
Its brilliant actually.. Saul Alinsky was on to something..
Indeed. And how does one know the difference?
You didn’t ask me, Chaplain, but capitulation begins when compromise begins. Every time.
I almost never say this, but see my tagline.
Wearing one of my other hats, that of marriage family educator/consultant, I know that in male/female relationships that compromise is often a 'pause' giving the marriage partners time to reflect on what is and isn't important. I also know that some compromise in a marriage truly is a demarcation of lines that are mutually agreed upon...(I will do the outside, garage, cars, maintenance, if you will do the floors, laundry, dishes)...and that actually work for different couples.
What is evident is that there is an agreement which satisfies both parties and after which they don't believe either of them have 'lost' ground.
Applying that same sense to politics, a true compromise is one in which one side doesn't believe they have lost, certainly not anything vital. Because of that, the CRomnibus was no compromise. It was not a pause, because 1.1 trillion will be spent, much of it on frivolous or illegal matters. There is no getting that money back. It definitely left a sense of loss, and that primarily because it supports an unconstitutional action by a president that undermines the entire system of checks and balances enshrined in our constitution...it makes the legislative branch henceforth irrelevant other than as an idea generator and scripter.
Capitulation is when one party knows there will be a loss and goes forward anyway while still calling a deal a compromise.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Words of wisdom, dear brother in Christ!
The only fly in the ointment here is that the communication of what you find "evident" utterly depends on the receptivity of your audience to rational, logical, critical analysis.
But I daresay many if not most people reading your words wouldn't really know what you're talking about; because they are not rational, don't know what logic is, and so could not do a "critical analysis" of anything if their life depended on it; they're just too busy with their daily lives, dontcha know....
It is evident that America is now a "house divided against itself." And, as Lincoln well knew, a divided house cannot stand.
The culture itself is divided between so-called "conservatives" and "progressives." The divide exists, because the fundamental question posed to Man is, as it has always been: Do you believe in God? Or do you believe in Man?
So the culture appears to be divided at its very heart. After all, the exceptional American Experiment was/is premised on the living reality of the Creator God and His Moral Law. If this cultural understanding is to be eclipsed by the hallucinations of psychopathologically disordered souls, then what would our beloved country look like? What would we now living be leaving to the following generations of Americans — our kids and grandkids?
Must leave that question there for now. I want to talk about other really interesting "divisions" that are occurring right now. I am speaking of the profound split that can be found in the Republican Party — between the Establishment wing of the GOP, and the Tea Party "insurrectionists."
Funny thing is, these days the same sort of thing is playing out in the Democrat Party — that is, the evident split between the Progressives (who appear to be ascendent right now), and the "Reagan" or "Blue-Dog" Democrats.
In the last election, the Democrat Party in the South was electorally destroyed, obliterated. Probably because "progressive ideas" do not catch on easily in the more traditionally-minded South.
Personally, I'm all for being "traditionally-minded." That's just another way of saying "conservative"....
You give an excellent definition of what it takes to effect a good compromise, an agreement in which neither side gets everything he wants, but is able to preserve and protect what is most valuable to him.
Reasonable men of good will can do this sort of thing. Unfortunately, it appears that reasonable men of good will are in rather short supply these days.
I keep waiting for "the adults" to show up. Alas, that's like Waiting for Godot....
Thank you so much for all your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
As it was in Lincoln’s day, has been ever since, and always was.
“Givers and Takers..” AND
Giver-takers and Taker-Givers..
God the ultimate giver and humans the ultimate taker..
Where does it end?... in gratitude and thanks-giving.. -OR-
GREED..
Liberals always were Pro-Slavery and they remain Pro-Slavery (they just work the scam a little differently now).
So, there's nothing worth saving here?
Nothing is perfect in this world. Certainly not social systems and politics. Mankind is utterly incapable of constructing a utopia. But it seems to me this does not absolve any man from the responsibility, even the duty, of building a better human community, of which he is ineluctably a part and participant.
Anyone who wants to see the very obverse of what I'm suggesting here need only view the film, The Wolf of Wall Street, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, directed by Martin Scorsese. [All I can say is: Shame on them!] It is replete with banal pornography; it depicts the evolution of a self-obsessed, ego-maniacal character who is totally self-isolated, self-absorbed in his own individual personality and lusts, and thus rejects any possibility of relating to others in ways that are mutually beneficial. The movie gives us a detailed picture of what it is like to fall into the very sewer of moral anarchy.
It kind of reminded me of the rather lurid paintings of Hieronymus Bosch....
No, I can't agree with your rather cynical view that there is nothing worth saving in America: You seem to suggest that we ought to be condemned for our moral hypocrisy, on exhibit in our history from first to last....
And yet it is the historical genius of America that we redress past wrongs, and work — not to make a "perfect" Union, but a "more perfect" one.
Perfection in human affairs is an unattainable goal. But consider the old [Russian?] proverb: "If you aim for the stars, you will land on the roof. But if you aim for the roof, you will land in the mud."
Or am I reading too much into what you wrote, dear brother in Christ?
Whatever the case, it's always lovely to hear from you, dear YHAOS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.