BluegrassBulletin.com

McConnell's Great Commission

When Mitch McConnell becomes the next majority leader of the United States Senate he will have achieved a life long dream.  Not only will he deserve the job, but he should enjoy the credit for having created the majority that will elect him.

Mitch McConnell is a master of the political process.  It was he who made the 2014 mid-term elections a referendum on Barack Obama which ended up being the force beneath the ground swell of discontented voters who swept republicans into office in greater numbers than anytime since the reign of FDR converted so many to the democratic party where they have remained ever since.

Not only did Mitch substantially outperform the polls which nearly all predicted that a win in Kentucky, by either candidate, would be within the margin of error.  Not only did he exhibit great poise and leadership in his acceptance speech in contrast to what even liberal pundits are saying about how ungracious his opponent was in defeat.  But Mitch McConnell helped orchestrate the national conversation we all have been having for the last few years which conversation became the sentiment which was then mobilized into the movement that has now demanded that someone turn the direction we are heading around.  And as reward for all of those things Mitch McConnell won not only his race, but an incredible, historic obligation.

It is he who told America that there is a better way forward than the path our current president and his troops in the Senate and the House have been marching us down.  It is he, McConnell, who has promised to repeal Obamacare "root and branch".  It is he who has promised to get the Congress working again, to bring matters to a vote, to pass a budget and to improve the prosperity of our country.  These are huge tasks, and they are now his burden.

I once had the chance to meet Karl Rove when I was a candidate for office and asked his advice.  He actually grabbed me by my necktie, pulled me close and gave me his wise insight.  He looked me right in the eye and said, "remember, if you win this, you asked for it."  McConnell has really asked for it.

Not only will he have the burden of a victor on his shoulders as well as the burden of defining his own legacy on his mind, but the architect of the republican party in Kentucky will have the fate of the republican party of America in his hands.

It was McConnell who motivated and moved the electorate by his carefully planned campaign talking points which were repeated with great discipline by the candidates that he, the NRSC, and other influential republicans all working together helped to put into place by winning primaries for those candidates who they deemed could eventually and did win November.

To accomplish this these so-called mainstream republicans had to go out and defeat the kind of fringe candidates that had been buoyed through primaries by the seething discontent of many republicans who had left the fold, formed splinter groups and ran as much against the GOP as they said they would against the democrats.  That hadn't worked out so well and so the adults in the room had to bring order back to the process.  They did, and they won.

But that doesn't mean McConnell will get the unanimous support of every one of his republican members.  Grandstanders like Ted Cruz and presidential hopefuls like Rand Paul will certainly take shots at their own party and its leaders in order to get the kind of attention they crave and to appeal to those fragile parts of their own coalitions they perceive to be necessary to their own political survival.

And Mitch will have to weather the criticism of many others elected under the GOP banner who came to Congress just to be troublemakers and who will not be able to control their rhetoric because it has become indistiguishable from their identity.

But perhaps the greater battle Mitch has won is the obligation to direct the battle to save the republican party.  While Rand Paul goes about trying to build a new kind of GOP in much the same patchwork quilt manner that the democrats have done for years, Mitch can look out over the groundswell of support given to his candidates and see that a much more congruent mindset joins the republicans and democrats and independents alike who joined their votes to give the GOP the victory they achieved.

While many would be right to say that the outcome was a repudiation of Barack Obama and his agenda, it was also at the same time, and by virtue of that repudiation, a collective agreement that if the republicans say they really can turn the country around, now is their chance to put up, or shut up.

As crass as it is when LBJ pushed so hard to create his "great society" he admitted that he had a political motivation behind him when he stated "

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs. liveleak.com

What is really at stake for McConnell is nothing less than the future of and the relevance of the republican party.  Unless he and his fellow republicans deliver what the voters want, he may end us casting the GOP into the dark abyss for a century or more to come.

And those who know this is what is at stake and who want him to fail in that quest will bring incredible forces and resources to the battlefield in order to prevent him from succeeding.

Gridlock is not dead, it will be like the undead, nearly impossible to kill, raging out of control, incorrigible on all levels, defiant to a fault, relentless and vicious.  For McConnell to save the nation and the GOP he will face a battle on a scale not unlike a world war.  And I do not use that comparison lightly. 

 

As in all prior wars where the American people rallied in support it was in defense of liberty, human rights, freedom and western prosperity that was threatened by socialist movements, dictators and those that opposed our way of life.  That's just how the voters on Tuesday see the world today and McConnell has been elevated to be our supreme commander in that war.

 

He and the republicans must succeed and success will not be measured in small accomplishments.  The mindset of McConnell's generation does not resonate today.  The notion of working hard, saving a little, and watching progress come to your own life a little at a time isn't shared by many any more.

 

America today is filled with the "me generation", people convinced that they are the center of the universe, who refuse to accept that they can't have everything they want just for the asking, who through an ignorance taught to them for generations deeply believe that anything they want is a "right".

 

If McConnell believes that he can re-train America to accept incremental progress after six years of perceived decline he may lose his grip on the tiller before the ship of state crashes.  He must make big moves, bold moves and each and every one must succeed.

 

He should sponsor legislation immediately to create jobs in America while at the same time reducing corporate taxation, ending our dependence on foreign manufacturing as a national security measure and get America working again.  How?

 

Pass legislation giving not just a tax deduction, but a dollar for dollar tax credit for wages paid in America to companies that bring manufacturing jobs back from overseas.  Tie this commitment to a three year term of guaranteed American employment. 

 

Sure, our treasury would suffer the loss of corporate taxes, but the taxes on the incomes of workers would help to offset that.  In addition, those wages being paid to American workers will be spent in America boosting the economy, resulting in a better standard of living for every one.  As money circulates in America it too produces revenues to offset the corporate tax credits.

 

As manufacturing in America increases investment in buildings, equipment, housing and all sectors will improve.

 

On a political level this appeals to the corporate players, the out of work Americans, the housing, banking, manufacturing, tooling and other interests who are clamoring for bold initiatives.  It could end up, after more careful analysis than some lowly blogger in Kentucky has given it, as nearly revenue neutral, but because it is founded on such a strong nationalistic and patriotic core it could marginalize opposition.

 

How about being even bigger and bolder and legislate away the IRS?  Replace it with a fairer system eliminating the abusive power so many Americans perceive that this one private army of the government wields?

 

Big, bold moves include putting a bill to allow the Keystone XL pipeline on the president's desk but only AFTER other bold moves.  The people know when special interests jump line and get ahead of their own and this has been the criticism of the GOP for a long, long time.  Don't let that happen Senator.

 

Big bold moves include a total repeal of Obamacare being passed at the same time as a balanced budget.

 

These are the kinds of things people expect to see out of McConnell's party,  now in power.  And I predict they will accept nothing less.

 

Yes Mitch deserves great credit for what he has accomplished.  But in exchange he has also now received a great commission.  There is much riding on what he does.

 

And so Senator, as one who has backed you in all your races, let me at this moment while you are enjoying the after glow of your victory, remind you that you are standing on the threshold of an historic era.  And as you go forward let me repeat for you what Karl Rove once said to me, "remember, you asked for it."

Miss Me Yet?

Look, we've had a very, very busy year.  We started a new business venture to bring wholesome, naturally grown food to a wide audience.

We've developed the recipe for a number of new products.

We've opened a Kentucky Proud store to give exposure to many great local products.

We've expanded our farming operation, built a new market, run a bistro, developed a great customer base and concentrated on being a family, on being a good neighbor and on practicing law.  Who had time to blog?

But with the elections upon us I thought a little update on my endorsements might shed some light on what has been going on.  After that, I'll probably go dark again for a while.

But, in the  meantime, stay tuned.

Endorsements coming up!

Hello.  Hello.  Is this thing on?

Why I Have Not Been Blogging

When I started this publication the blogosphere in Kentucky had been kick started by a kick in the mouth.  A foul mouthed, mean spirited, rankly partisan website took the Commonwealth by storm.  I wanted to offer a more honest and respectful forum for debate.

Since then I have found that most people have tuned out of the mainstream media.  People now rush to their comfort zones for information.

Studies have shown that the explosion of interest in Facebook has devolved into people gravitating to groups, friends and sources that reaffirm their own beliefs.  People either love or hate CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC and the other TV channels.  Each has an agenda and people tend to watch the channel that tells them what they want to hear and already believe.

My experience in politics has led me to a similar conclusion.  Despite how "revolutionary" some newbies to the political process feel about their patriotism it is my observation that they tend to follow and support only those candidates who tell them what they want to hear.  It's a sick game.  People lusting for power, fame and maybe even riches, play the public these days by preaching that they are driven by altruistic principles.  I've been around long enough to have sniffed out their dissimulation.

And I've also come to believe that because people have become so distrustful of news, facts and opinions, that it is far harder to earn their trust.  So many people are addicted to the gotcha game, or the relentless pursuit of finding fault or have ended up among the seemingly growing corps of the weak minded that their approach to life has seduced them into a state of belligerence toward anything that doesn't match their preconceived notions.  And for those who have been beguiled into supporting the "new politics" over time they begin to exhibit cognitive dissonance when confronted with the truth that their favorites are really no different that the ones they oppose.

I believe we are in a very dangerous state of mind right now.  National pride and national identity have been effectively destroyed.  We are a nation of special interests without a strong common bond.  Everybody distrusts everybody else and this makes us weak both in the perception of the world and in the reality of where we stand in the world.

Rush Limbaugh jokes that he is right 99 point something or other percent of the time.  I have tried over the past 7 years to seek to be right all of the time, but I am human and sometimes despite my best efforts at observation, study and reasoning the unexpected causes a different result.

I sincerely appreciate the support I have gotten from this effort.  I sincerely appreciate the folks who are regular readers and who share my posts.  I also appreciate the debates I've had with those who disagree, some of them at least.  I prefer to debate in a fair and polite forum rather than in the mud of name calling and hatred.

But I have concluded that this voice has become one of many where in the beginning I was one of a very few.  I have proposed to some folks who I think know alot about human nature that a larger more effective conservative project is needed in order to penetrate the noise.  I still believe this is true but I no longer believe that this format is of much use in making any significant difference in the world.

Just before a recent trial a wonderfully talented consultant sat me down and told me that I was trying to solve too many social and legal issues in one case.  She said I needed to dial myself back, focus on how to win this one case for this one client and let the other cases with other clients and other lawyers in other courtrooms combine to make the difference I sought.  She was right then and it applies now.

So, I will be focusing on my law practice, on my farm, on my family on my aging body and leave the crazy world of public interest in the game of politics to others.

I might post from time to time and if you are interested in seeing what I do without having to find me everyday, consider using the subscribe button in the upper right of this blog to get notified if and when I post.  I can tell you that this week I will be posting some endorsements with reasons behind them.  But after that, I'm just going to kind of fade away.

I will continue to keep paying to keep this blog up and all of my archives alive as well.  As time goes by perhaps you might find something I said to have come true.  Or you may want to revisit the political history chronicled here as it developed.  But the job of reporting and commenting on political things appears to me now to be more of a distraction than a contribution.

Stay tuned.  Subscribe.  God bless.

The Crime In Crimea

Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan had this to say about Putin's move in Ukraine:

Russian President Vladimir Putin will seize even more territory if the United States isn’t “a little bit tougher” on him, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said Sunday.

“He goes to bed at night thinking of Peter the Great and he wakes up thinking of Stalin,” the Michigan Republican said of Putin on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“We need to understand who he is and what he wants," Rogers said. "It may not fit with what we believe of the 21st century.” [POLITICO]

Which made me think.  One huge advantage of Putin's occupation of Crimea is the delivery of natural gas to a thirsty European market. 

When Russia annexed Crimea, it seized not just the land, but also the resource-rich waters that surround it.

Crimea may account for less than 4 percent of Ukraine’s gross domestic product but is vital to developing the substantial Black Sea oil and gas that lies in its watershed. Moscow’s acquisition of the Ukrainian peninsula blocks Kiev’s physical access to those resources and is scaring off private foreign capital that seemed ready to develop them.

If the region is to stay under Russian control, as seems all but assured, Russia’s state-owned oil and gas giants will likely step in to fill the void. That would further expand Moscow’s resource leverage over Europe and again hamper Kiev’s efforts to secure its energy future. [CS Monitor]

Rogers, chair of the House Intelligence Committee says that the USA and Europe need to get tougher with Putin.

Now consider this.  We could get real tough with Putin if America found a way to export more of our abundant natural gas and destroyed him in the marketplace.  And though it occurred to me recently, others have already given it detailed thought.

The U.S. government is facing pressure from all corners to ramp up natural-gas exports as a way to weaken Russia’s hand over Ukraine. To the casual observer, this debate might have seemed to come out of nowhere.

Why are exports of natural gas such a hot topic in the Ukraine crisis, but not oil?

The difference is in how they’re priced. Oil is priced on a global market, while natural gas is priced on a regional basis. Russia has used its relative monopoly—within Europe it supplies six nations with 100% of the gas they consume, and it supplies seven nations with 50% or more—as leverage over the region, and in some cases it’s gone so far to cut off gas resources to these countries when it wants to flex its muscle. In the U.S., prices are dirt cheap compared to Asia and Europe, so Europe sees the U.S. as an attractive source for natural gas. Such exports would have the added strategic benefit of reducing Ukraine’s dependence on Russia.

Why don’t we export more natural gas, since we have so much of it now?

A law dating back to 1938 restricts such exports. For the 20 countries that are free-trade partners with the U.S., such as Mexico and South Korea, the law requires the Energy Department, which has primary authority over energy exports, to automatically approve applications to export natural gas. For countries that do not have free-trade agreements with the U.S., which happen to be the ones who want our gas the most (i.e., Ukraine and other European nations) the law says the Energy Department must first determine whether it’s in the “public interest.” This means DOE must determine whether exporting natural gas to these countries serves the U.S. interests, weighing factors like the economy, environment and national security.[Wall Street Journal]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm convinced that Putin believed he was making a wise move in Crimea, but when billions of dollars in natural gas exports are involved, don't for one minute think that others haven't been tinkering with the politics in Crimea. 

The US employs many, many overseas political operatives who act in ways that, at the time, seem to benefit the USA. 

As I've always said, if something happens in politics, you can pretty well expect that somebody planned it that way.

Look for calls to export more liquid natural gas to ramp up considerably.

Anniversary Of Stimulus Smells Like A Bust

From the Wall Street Journal:

Five years ago today, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law. The $830 billion spending blowout was sold by the White House as a way to keep unemployment from rising above 8%. But the stimulus would fail on its own terms. 2009 marked the first of four straight years when unemployment averaged more than 8%. And of course the unemployment rate would have been even worse in those years and still today if so many people had not quit the labor force, driving labor-participation rates to 1970s levels.

It might seem like old news since everybody knows the recovery act was a terrible failure, but what needs to be remembered is that the money actually went somewhere, it's just that it went to well connected cronies and into the pockets of the wealthy.

 

But what is perhaps worse than all of that is the reality that no one, and I mean no one seems to have a plan or an idea that will save us from catastrophe.  I have a plan, and a good one, but damned if anybody ever wants to listen to reason.

Right now we are an economy of consumers with most of our products being made overseas.  That means the money you spend on foreign made goods is going out of this country and not coming back.

Our economy is a "circulatory system".  When a manufacturer sells a product he pays his workers, distributes his profits to his shareholders and sets aside a certain amount to be spent on improvements or business expansion.  The workers then take their paychecks and spend them in our economy.  That in turn pools money into the local grocery store, the local car dealership or that money pays the local carpenter to add a deck onto the worker's house.  In turn the grocer has money to spend on new flooring, on advertising, on parking lot expansion.  The car dealer makes money which he in turn spends on a new house.  The carpenter buys lumber from the local lumber yard improving the bottom line of the lumber dealer and on and on and on the money in circulation in our nation passes through any number of hands and improves the life and the prosperity of us all.

But when the money made by a foreign manufacturer comes in, it gets spent in that country, not ours.  The workers may be subjected to near slave labor conditions in that country and thereby unable to improve their own economy, but regardless, the money leaves America and does not come back, except as a loan to us, a debt we are required to pay.

The solution to our economic problems may lie in a very simple policy change, one that doesn't increase taxes at first but will in the end increase revenues thus alleviating our dependence on borrowed money.

Not all foreign manufacturing is being done by foreign owned companies.  Many of the jobs which have gone "off shore" are jobs in foreign plants working under contract to supply goods to American importers.  And in some cases, the companies that used to make goods in America are now making them elsewhere.

If the Federal Government would give a tax credit to any company equal to 100% of the wages paid to workers for every job now being done overseas if that job was brought home to America, think what that would do.

First, the foreign companies are not paying taxes here anyway, so giving them a tax credit is a net zero impact on revenue.

Second, the tax credit could be phased in over a five year period and tied to the requirement that the jobs be maintained for five years in order to get the credit.

For every job brought into the USA a worker would get a paycheck that is now going to somebody in another country.  That paycheck would be taxed as always and thus the government would be receiving revenue from a source that currently does not exist.

In addition the earnings would be put into circulation in our country.  Those earnings would not only improve the prosperity of the workers, but as they spent that money in our own economy, they would lift all boats along the way.  And as things currently exist, as that money circulated and became income to more and more people as it traveled around in our economy, it would generate revenue at many stages along the way.

Over a short period of time a large number of people could return to work.  This would lessen the economic burden on the government at the same time as revenues were increasing from the growing prosperity.  Because manufacturers would be free from heavy corporate taxes this would provide an incentive for companies to find America a friendly environment in which to do business.  In addition, free from heavy taxes due to the tax credits, companies could keep prices competitive with foreign produced goods particularly adding to our nation's awareness of how despite our current racial tensions, we are still supporting slavery around the world.

With more and more jobs being created, with prices more competitive due to the favorable tax environment, with more revenue pouring in at the same time as entitlement costs are going down, an aggressive Congress might see enough light at the end of the tunnel to begin a serious plan to balance the budget.

Over time as the notion of tax cut incentives improving the overall economy caught on the opportunity for more people from other countries to come here and participate in our prosperity could add many more people to our consuming public all living here rather than in some other nation, spending money there.

The plans for fixing our nation's bleak outlook isn't as hard as some might like you to think.  But it is very difficult when you have Barack Obama, Harry Reid and their democrat friends in power who are pulling us in the opposite direction, increasing the cost of government, increasing unemployment and incorrigible when it comes to talking about any form of tax cut or credit.

Is my idea workable?  Might it succeed?  Others can make that decision on their own.  But one thing is clear.

We are not going to get out of this rut until we remove Barack Obama, Harry Reid and the progressive liberal democrats from power and the start of that juggernaut begins this year.

God help us.

$1T Farm Bill - How They Voted - What It Does

John Yarmuth and Rand Paul voted against the $1 Trillion Farm Bill.  All the rest of the Kentucky delegation voted for it.

So what do you need to know about what it does and doesn't do?

It is in essence a government perk for corporate farms. 

It props up the corporate food producers by spending billions of dollars each year buying food with taxpayer earnings for people who "qualify" for free food.

It drives the price of land downward benefiting big agri-business, and hurts the small farmer whose land could now be worth less.

It raises taxes on the backs of rural residents by adding a cost to their heating oil.

It opens the door to growing hemp.

It imposes some additional labeling requirements for certain foods.

Oh, and no pun intended, it is laden with pork:

[T]he 949-page bill is packed with pork and giveaways to favored groups.

For example, the bill includes $1.5 million in funding this fiscal year to strengthen and enhance “the production and marketing of sheep and sheep products in the United States.” It also creates a National Christmas Tree Board, funded through a 15-cent tax on every Christmas tree sold. The bill maintains the Department of Agriculture’s $17 million per-year catfish-oversight program, even though the Food and Drug Administration has a nearly identical program (which costs a mere $7 million a year!). The Department of Agriculture will also be establishing new federal standards for “the identity of honey.” Apparently even bees are helpless without the federal government. [NRO]

Have You People Lost Your Freaked Out Minds?

Rational thought cannot explain what is going on in the world of politics today.  It's as if the American people have been dosed with seconal and mentally kidnapped.

The liberals are engaged in a perpetual rant that the republicans have waged a war on women.  This ridiculous claim is grounded primarily in the lie that only republicans oppose abortion.  Lots of people oppose abortion including many, many democrats.  But not all democrats.

Al Gore, one time democratic presidential nominee, is now calling for "fertility management", specifically in Africa, to control global warming.  Do you not know what he is saying?  This is right out of the Margaret Sanger eugenics playbook.  It's about forced population control, particularly among the dark skinned people of the world.  Snap out of it!  Remember what she said:

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

Pro choice my ass.  Isn't having a child a choice?  Isn't having as many children as you want a choice?  What are you people who support these loons thinking?

They are the ones who have an evil plan for the world.  They are the ones with a racist plot to limit the number of dark skinned people in Africa through "fertility management", and for what?  For their phony chicken-little screech about global warming?  It is now and always has been a front for controlling people.  How is it that my friends in the democratic party can't see this?

Is it because you have been mesmerized into thinking that George Bush was the great evil of our lifetime?  For God's sake wake up!

You allowed yourselves to be cursed with tunnel vision and believed that "The Bush Doctrine" was a one dimensional description of a war monger president who claimed the right to launch "pre-emptive strikes" even in nations that were no direct threat to the United States.  Forget for a minute that "The Bush Doctrine" was not the over simplistic concept that Charlie Gibson was high-fived about when he sneered at Sarah Palin.  Stop to look at how much farther than even what you THOUGHT George W. Bush was planning your own president is going in his slobbering lust for power:

In a video posted Wednesday at the Right Scoop, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Senators the administration would seek UN or NATO approval for the deployment of U.S. forces overseas while deciding whether or not it would seek approval from Congress.

The statement shocked Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who asked Panetta if he could "initiate a no-fly zone in Syria" without Congressional approval.

"Again, our goal would be to seek international permission and we would ...come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress - I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here," Panetta said.

"Obama is bypassing Congress every chance he can to do whatever he wants. He did it in Libya and then never complied with the War Powers Act, and I’d expect he’d do that again. He is a totalitarian, it’s just that simple," notes the Right Scoop.[Examiner]

And the world of the crazy left in the media centers went all ape-ish over comments by Mike Huckabee in a speech to the Republican National Committee.  Huckabee said that "no co-pay" birth control is an affront to women suggesting to them that they can't get by "without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government."

But Al Gore can call for the imposition of "fertility management" on an entire continent of Africans and the world just sits there blinking and nodding and drooling a little bit?

Have you people lost your ever loving freaked out minds?

Just go on, watch another reality TV show, buy what they are selling you, run up your credit cards, pretend that political debate and the future of our country are matters too far beyond your control to be bothered with, hope and pray that your unemployment gets extended, take advantage of every government benefit that comes your way and lay down on your face with your hands behind your head whenever you are told to do so.  It's all going to be okay.  Here's your medicine.

Now get off my lawn.

Massie Gloats Over Stevens Decision

Steve Stevens assessed his position when considering the urging of many friends to challenge Thomas Massie for the Fourth District seat in Congress and decided that he would not run.  Massie gave an update on his actions in Congress to a local TEA party group and when asked about Stevens said this:

“I think that rocket blew up on the launch pad,” Massie told the tea party crowd on Monday. “It didn’t even get one inch off the ground. Once you start running the numbers and looking at how that would play out, it would be a replay of races that we have seen before, and I’ll just leave it at that. I’m trying to be gracious.” [Cincinnati.com]

This is gracious?  Stevens said he would not run because he really didn't have the fire in his belly.  That says more about Stevens priorities than Massie's strength.

But this type of attitude, particularly when surrounded by your core group is not uncommon.  In the past comments by George Allen, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to what they considered loyal core supporters have come back to haunt them.

Massie's report to a TEA party group was that the outcome of a challenge to him would be a "replay".

He may very well avoid a challenge this year and certainly self confidence has become a very important part of the typical candidate's persona of late, but Massie would do well to avoid the trappings of the "typical" candidate and strive for the more humble role of a servant to others, as so many of America's founders did, particularly since his core group cherishes those days so much more than the modern era of political behavior.

Despite his claim of "graciousness", he was not.

Does Rand Paul's Support Come From The "Hate America" Crowd?

Representative Peter King of New York had this to say about Rand Paul:

The New York Republican accused Rand Paul of “lies” and “misperception” :

“So Rand Paul does not know what he’s talking about. And, Rand Paul is really spreading fear among the American people. And, he also today, I understand on the show, he was also was comparing General Clapper to Snowden. To me, he’s either totally uninformed or he’s part of that hate America crowd that I thought left us in the 1960s. In any event, he doesn’t deserve to be in the United States senate for spreading that type of misperception and absolute lies to be honest with you.“ [Gateway Pundit]

What he was referring to was a comment by  Rand on the  Sunday shows discussing his lawsuit against the NSA over illegal snooping.  In some of those comments he had this to say:

"I don't think Edward Snowden deserves the death penalty or life in prison; I think that's inappropriate, I think that's why he fled, is that's what he faced," Paul, a possible 2016 contender for the Republican presidential nomination, said on ABC's "This Week." "Do I think it's OK to leak secrets and give up national security [information] that endangers lives? I don't think that's OK, either. But I think the courts are now saying he revealed something the government was doing that was illegal."

Paul, who's pushing a class-action suit against the National Security Agency over its data collection tactics, has said that Snowden and Clapper should "share a prison cell," charging that Clapper lied to Congress.

"It is a grand tradition," he said. "Part of that tradition is, you pay the consequences. If you break the law because your conscience says you have to, you stand trial." [POLITICO]

So the question I have for readers today is this: Does some part of Rand Paul's support come from the "hate America" crowd that Congressman King mentioned?

Let's take a look.

Clearly there is a portion of the Obama support group that one could argue hates many things about America.  Dinesh D'Souza has made the argument that Obama is out for revenge over what his father hated which is "colonialism", the kind of attitude he attributed to the United States participation in "raping" third world countries of their riches to make Americans rich.

In addition Obama has aligned himself with radicals and domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who clearly hate many things about America.

So, is Rand Paul courting those folks?  I think not, but on the other hand he might find some support among the less militant among the remaining sixties liberals who like his stance on personal freedom and pot and the kind of things Richie Havens and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young were singing about.

But who among the GOP crowd might be pegged as part of the modern day "hate America" crowd?  Well, that depends upon which America you are talking about.

The "big business" America which has become the controlling interest in most legislation and regulations over the past thirty years has its share of supporters.  They don't hate America.

But the small business, ultra conservative TEA party crowd does have its share of "hate America" folks.  At least they seem to hate the incumbent elected officials who they view as ruining America.  They see America headed in the wrong direction.  And some of them even hate many of the institutions of America such as party politics, checks and balances and the orderly interpretation of the Constitution through the court system.

Some of the more militant among this last bunch seethe with contempt for the "mainstream", which of course is the American mainstream and tend to lean very far toward the very liberal philosophies of Libertarianism and even anarchy.  They hate that America won't let them steer the ship of state, are angry about it and do in fact pose some threat to our national security.

And then out there on the real fringes are those who are systematically plotting against America, the true enemies of our way of life, whether driven by religious extremism or a desire to consume our resources even if it means war.  They are the ones who stir up civil unrest, engage in acts of terrorism to disrupt society and take advantage of every opportunity to destroy America because they truly, to their core, hate us.

Obviously Rand Paul is not courting the support of any of the fringe or the near fringe.  But, and I say this with obvious respect for Senator Paul, the razor's edge he walks in order to build his own constituency on his way to a 2016 run for the White House is a topic of frequent discussion in the media.  Clearly any divergence from the hard line of the TEA party gets him nailed by its members.  Any time he leans toward a more moderate position his TEA party friends try to pull him back.  And then he goes and tries to win them over again by standing firm on issue after issue of greatest concern with them, like his lawsuit against the NSA.

I'd like you to weigh in on this, but in my humble opinion, Rand Paul does in fact get some of his support from those who hate the way America has been run, who hate the excesses of our government and hate the fact that they seem to be fighting the very people they entrusted with the reins of power.  Is this what Peter King was referring to?

Those of us who have been standing up for civil liberty, freedom from government overreach, demanding accountability and honesty from our elected officials for as long as I have don't consider ourselves as hating America, but rather loving all that is good about America and hating that those are the very, most precious things about the America we love which we seem to be losing.

Rand has the chance to stand very tall in this fight, but he needs to be very careful not to give in to the other forces at work on the fringes and in the shadows.  The closer he becomes with what can be labeled "extreme" positions the more frequently he will have to face accusations like those of Peter King and though his TEA party friends might rush to his defense he will have to work that much harder, and spend that much more money to discredit people like King than he needs to.

Thank You Mitch McConnell

There is an article at the Wall Street Journal in which Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell does a great service for the GOP and the country.  He tells it like it is about America's frustration with government, what the TEA party is up to and why he clearly deserves to be the next majority leader of the US Senate.

"The most important election yesterday wasn't the governor of New Jersey and it wasn't the governor of Virginia, it was the special election for Congress in South Alabama, where a candidate who said the shutdown was a great idea, the president was born in Kenya, and that he opposed Speaker Boehner came in second." The victory of a more electable Republican, is significant, Mr. McConnell says. To govern, parties must win. To win, parties must "run candidates that don't scare the general public, [and] convey the impression that we could actually be responsible for governing, you can trust us—we're adults here, we're grown-ups."

EXACTLY!  Sure, you can grouse all you want about the fact that McConnell wasn't able to single-handedly repeal Obamacare, but just listen for a minute.  Expecting him to have THAT much power is a disconnect from reality.

Is the GOP in civil war? "No, I don't think so." Everyone agrees on the central issue: "We would all love to get rid of ObamaCare. If we had the votes to do it we'd do it in a heartbeat. It's the single worst piece of legislation that's been passed in modern times."But "we have a disability right now—it's called in the Senate '55 of them and 45 of us.' I'm not great at math, but 55 is more than 45. . . . I think it's irresponsible for some people to characterize themselves as sort of true conservatives, to mislead their followers into believing you can get an outcome that you can't possibly get."

And Mitch is spot on in his analysis of what many in the TEA party are really up to.

The tea party, he says, consists of "people who are angry and upset at government—and I agree with them." But "I think, honestly, many of them have been misled. . . . They've been told the reason we can't get to better outcomes than we've gotten is not because the Democrats control the Senate and the White House but because Republicans have been insufficiently feisty. Well, that's just not true, and I think that the folks that I have difficulty with are the leaders of some of these groups who basically mislead them for profit. . . . They raise money . . . take their cut and spend it" on political action that hurts Republicans.

In his usual calm, reasoned and measured approach to political reality Mitch has provided us once again with a voice of reason.  We need to elect adults, not tantrum throwing protesters.  We cannot beat back the Obama agenda until we get a majority in the Senate and hopefully control the White House.  And for all the good ideas that many in the TEA party have, and their understandable anger, many of those who are taking the lead in that group are in it for the money and the power and the prestige who are misleading their followers.

Are members of the tea party on the ground being fooled by operators, profit makers and cynics? "Yes," he said, followed by a brief silence. He declined to say more, but emphasized again that "I make a distinction between the leaders and the followers. I mean, I think a lot of well-meaning people are sending money to organizations having no idea they're gonna spend all that money against Republicans. Because they're being misled."

I've been saying these things for a long time now.  Thank you Mitch McConnell for saying them so much better.

Oh, and thank you for saying without a flinch something else I've been saying all along too.

He refers to the Senate Conservatives Fund. "That's the one I'm prepared to be specific about." The fund "has elected more Democrats than the Democratic Senatorial Committee over the last three cycles." The group is targeting Mr. McConnell with ads slamming his leadership during the shutdown. "Right now they're on the air in obvious coordination with Harry Reid's super PAC—Harry Reid's!—in the same markets, at roughly the same amount, at the same time." But says he isn't worried about his own race: "I don't wanna be overly cocky, but I'm gonna be the Republican nominee next year."

Damned right you are Mitch.