Tea Party Conservatives Are The Bane Of The Republican Party

Anyone who thinks Republicans and Tea Party Republicans are one and the same, think again.  Isn't it time for both to move on?  They're definitely not compatible.

Go back to 2010 with the likes of Tea Party favorites Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle.  These Tea Party favorites cost the Republicans two seats and essentially the Senate.  Today's favorites are Ted Cruz who cost the Republicans dearly with his Quixotic stand on ACA defunding.  Marco Rubio has turned tail on immigration reform and Rand Paul is now attacking Chris Christie to deflect his own problems with plagiarism.

Then came Virgina. Yes, Terry McAuliffe's Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. It was the Tea Party Republicans.  He didn't win the race as much as they gave it to him.  They changed the rules to select their nominee for governor from an all inclusive primary to a convention where self interest rules.

They bypassed a very popular Lieutenant Governor, Bill Bolling, for a social conservative who was far less popular but met their social criteria. Those who read me know I don't think social issues should dominate politics the way they do.  Apparently other Republicans and Independents agree so they now have the less than squeaky clean and very liberal Terry McAuliffe.

For a long time I gave the Tea Party a lot of slack for lack of experience and political savvy.  It is no longer just that.  It has become the vehicle for social conservatives.  All you have to do is listen to the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity, if you can stomach it, to realize this is true.

Social conservatives are all wrong when they label moderates RINOs.  Republicans In Name Only.  They've been around a lot longer and personify what the Grand Old Party used to be.  It's the social conservatives who are out of step with the party, not the other way around.

That being said, the Republicans still need a voice.  Their figurehead is now Chris Christy who has shown he can work with Democrats and more importantly is willing to do so. He can also win!  Too bad he has a state to run because that will keep him busy.  No one in the House or Senate seems to be willing or, more likely, able to take the bull by the horns and do what needs to be done. In one way or another it falls to Christy, at least for awhile.

2014 will be here before we know it and then the action will shift to 2016.  Essentially two years to pull it together.  One hopes they don't wait until the last minute like they usually do.  They may not have an "Obamacare" to bail them out is it almost did for Cuccinelli. Almost.

If the Republicans in Congress won't clamp down on the social conservatives, then what?  So far they aren't strong enough to push their agenda through on their own so they really need the Republicans who have a misguided idea that they have to stick together.  On the other hand the Republicnas really don't need the obstructionist social conservatives.

Perhaps it's time for that third party. Democrats.  Republicans. Social Conservatives.  That gives the independants and libertarians another choice, a better choice.  And the Republicans might actually win something. 

Holier Than Thou

There is a good reason for the separation of church and state.  Ironically, the  Value Voters Summit is a prime example of why.

I have no objection to believing in a Deity,  and  embracing the tome that justifies it in ones mind.  I do have an objection to one such group denigrating those who don't believe the same dictums, especially when it comes to the ability to capably lead our country.

We're not looking at radical Islam here.  We are looking at freedom of religion.  Freedom to worship as you believe without penalty from those who disagree.

The Value Voters crowd is not looking at what solutions the candidates have to solve the problems that are plaguing our country.  Economic meltdown, joblessness, crumbling infrastructure, instability world wide.  No.  They're looking for the candidates to bow to their dictates on social values.  The media eggs them on.  The candidates pander.  That pandering makes me take a much closer look at those who chose not to do so.  Jon Huntsman.  And yes, Newt Gingrich.

You see, I'm not a Christian Conservative.  I do not agree with much that they demand.  I do not believe it makes me an evil person, nor does it diminish in any way my abilities in the areas in which I am capable.

Preachers from their Mega churches seem to have the ability to mesmerize their followers into believing extreme views.  Like insisting Mormonism is a cult.  I could say all organized religions are cults because they do not believe as I do.  I can hear the hue and cry now!

I listen to how many of these people have actual conversations with God.  I should run.  I shouldn't run.  He told my husband and my husband told me.  Please. I have never, ever heard such voices and don't tell me it's because I don't believe.  I can't accept that as fact.  If God were having conversations with the candidates, why isn't He telling the rest of the world to quit having wars or beating our wives or killing our kids?

I also can't take a movement seriously when their pastors say, as truths, "Homosexuality caused the Holocaust."  Boy, is that an over used theme.  Or, "The government 'incentivizes' African-Americans to 'rut like rabbits'." Talk about racist.  It seems to me neither statement has a thing to do with the worship of God nor an indication that the pastor who made the statements is in any way capable of defining who would make a good presidential candidate.  Why are such people even elevated to the prestige of being a pastor?

There are so many religions in the world, and even a brief study of their symbolism indicates a penchant for peace and tranquility. Not divisiveness and hate. There are good and bad among all of them.   When the bad tends to be radical, though most haven't devolved to the extent of the radical Islams where heads are cut off and societies targeted for annihilation, they are getting precariously close.  Our society is just as threatened by 'Christian' radicals who would deny good people from serving because of their religious backgrounds as we are from the Islamic terrorist cells we're told are within our country.  They both aim to conquer.

With the country teetering on the edge of anarchy with the growing protests spreading from city to city, we had better band together in looking for qualities of leadership and sound policy rather than divisive self interest.  I'm not sure the country is any longer capable of it.

Speaking of divisive self interest - the media isn't helping.

Who Are The Oath Keepers?

Another Drudge headline caught my eye today. Should it be of concern? READY TO REVOLT: Oath Keepers pledges to prevent dictatorship in USA...

We know there has been an upsurge of militant groups of late. We've a few around here trying to resurface but have yet to get traction. Thank goodness!

So who are the Oath Keepers? They say they're dedicated to preventing a dictatorship from overtaking the United States. As much as I distrust what the administration and Congress are doing, I don't think it is an imminent threat. I could be mistaken.

So here's the gist. They think the government is coming after us and stating emphatically, "Not on our watch." Nothing new here.

Off to their web site. They state quite clearly what steps they are willing to take and speak of a like minded group known as the Three Percenters, who are are apparently of the "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore" mode, prepared to back it up with guns.

Of interest is the claim they are successfully recruiting fire and policemen as well as veterans and active military. The photo supposedly shows a GI in Iraq wearing their tabs on his uniform. Personally, I don't buy it. One, the uniform is too clean and two, I cannot believe the military would allow it! Am I wrong?

As for successful recruiting, I can envision disillusioned GI's fighting without a mission as fair game. Then there's the story of the firefighter in Philadelphia who was suspended for refusing to peel an American flag sticker off his locker in the adult equivalent of zero tolerance policies being found in schools.

A lot of these men are ex-military and take the symbolism American flag quite seriously. It has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with country.

What seems like a minor infraction of rules can spark interesting consequences. So can the lack of common sense. It's a militia recruiter's paradise!

Is Everyone Who Isn't A Card Carrying Democrat A Potential Right Wing Extremist?

There is an unclassified document from the Department of Homeland Security making the rounds that has certain segments of our society up in arms. I can't say that I blame them. The way it reads, from the title on, makes it seem like anyone who holds a view that is out of step with the current administration is suspect. That would include me. It is entitled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

Well, yes. This would not be rocket science. As evidenced by the spate of violence around the country. Be it the killing of a small child, stuffing her in a suitcase and dropping her in an irrigation pond or a mad man slaughtering police officers, when people are desparate enough, they can snap.

Many veterans groups are especially up in arms, not because
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stands behind the report but because of the negative light it shines on returning soldiers. It says, in part:

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

It goes on to suggest:

"The return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

What bothers me about this is the fact that it shouldn't even be an issue. We ask so much of our military, under the most trying of conditions. If they come home alive, many are without limbs or full minds, many have mental problems that may not manifest for years. However, given the proper care and opportunities to return to a "normal" life would certainly help negate some of these suggestions before they become fact. The administration has made lots of promises in this area, but it's time for action, not just rhetoric. I'm also uncomfortable with the assumption that enough of our military return in such an unstable state that such occurrences are likely to happen in the numbers insinuated.

It gets worse. It suggests anyone from those opposed to abortion to animal rights activists may be ripe for recruitment. They've suggested to law enforcement agencies to watch for "suspicious" individuals who may have bumper stickers for third party candidates such as Ron Paul and Bob Barr. That would make a lot of folks here in northern Idaho suspect! There are still a good number of Ron Paul signs to be seen around the area.

The American Legion said that this report unfairly Stereotypes veterans.

John Boehner, House Minority Leader said, "To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as a potential terrorist is offensive and unacceptable."

He's correct. Take it even further - to lump environmentalists, animal rights advocates, those who prefer local government control over federal, or dare to display the "wrong" bumper sticker - or maybe even having attended a "tea party" as potential extremists sends a harsh message.

Our government doesn't trust us. If the feeling is mutual we're all in trouble. Beware the rip tides.