The Coming November Wars

[John81]

The Coming November Wars

By Patrick J. Buchanan

 

Friday - OctOBer 31, 2014

 

As it stands today, Republicans will add seats in the House and recapture the Senate on Tuesday.

 

However, the near-certainty is that those elections will be swiftly eclipsed by issues of war, peace, immigration and race, all of which will be moved front and center this November.

 

Consider. If repeated leaks from investigators to reporters covering the Ferguson story are true, there may be no indictment of officer Darren Wilson, the cop who shot Michael Brown.

 

Should that happen, militant voices are already threatening, "All hell will break loose." Police in the city and 90-some municipalities in St. Louis County, as well as the state police, are preparing for major violence.

 

After flying out to Ferguson to declare, "I am the attorney general of the United States. But I am also a black man." Eric Holder has once again brought his healing touch to the bleeding wound.

 

Yesterday, Holder said it is "pretty clear" that there is a "need for wholesale change" in the Ferguson police department.

 

But, Holder notwithstanding, that is not at all "clear."

 

Should the grand jury decide that Wilson fired in self-defense in a struggle with Brown over his gun, and fired again when the 6'4" 300-pound teenager charged him, what would justify a purge of the Ferguson police department or the dismissal of Chief Thomas Jackson?

 

What exactly have the Ferguson cops done to deserve the remorseless vilification they have received?

 

Yet, as St. Louis is bitterly divided over this incident and how it has been exploited, so, too, will be the nation, should November 2014 provide a replay of the urban riots of yesteryear.

 

And the president himself will invite a social explosion if he proceeds with White House plans for an executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens residing in the United States.

 

OBama is reportedly considering an end to the deportation of an entire class of illegals, perhaps numbering five million, providing them with work permits, and putting them on a path to permanent residency.

 

Such a post-election amnesty would bring a full-throated roar of approval from La Raza and the liberal wing of OBama's party, but it would evoke an even louder roar of protest from Middle America. And such a presidential usurpation of power would poison OBama's relations with the new Congress before it was even sworn in.

 

Undeniably, this would be a decision for which OBama would be remembered by history.

 

But it is not at all clear that he would be well-remembered by his countrymen.

 

Indeed, among the reasons OBama did not act before the election was that he knew full well that any sweeping amnesty for illegals would sink all of his embattled red-state senators.

 

The corporate wing of the GOP might welcome the removal of the immigration issue from the national debate. But conservatives and populists will bring it back in the presidential primaries in the new year.

 

There are also two simmering issues of foreign policy likely to come to a boil and split Congress and country before Christmas.

 

First is America's deepening involvement in the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, for which OBama has never received Congressional authorization. When Congress returns for its lame-duck session, opponents of this latest Mideast war will be demanding that a new war resolution be debated and voted upon.

 

As yet, the president has made no convincing case that ISIS terrorists are primarily America's prOBlem. Nor do we have a convincing strategy or adequate allied ground forces to fulfill OBama's declared mission to "degrade and destroy" the Islamic State.

 

What could bring this to the fore rapidly would be an Islamic State attack on Baghdad, the Green Zone, the U.S. embassy, or the Baghdad airport.

 

Some political and military analysts believe the attack on KOBane on the Syrian-Turkish border is a diversion from a planned attack on Baghdad to shock the Americans, just as the Tet Offensive of 1968 shocked an earlier generation.

 

While a military disaster for the Viet Cong, Tet convinced many Americans, Walter Cronkite among them, that the war could not be won.

 

Any such attack on Baghdad would likely trigger a debate inside the United States about whether, and at what price, we should try to put the Iraqi nation back together again.

 

Lastly, Nov. 24 is the deadline for the negotiations on Iran's nuclear program. If OBama decides that an agreement is acceptable to him and our European allies, and moves by executive action to lift some sanctions on Iran, he could face a rebellion in this city and on Capitol Hill.

 

Yet, should no agreement be reached, and the talks with Iran break off, there will be mounted a major drive by the War Party for the United States to exercise the military option to resolve the issue.

 

New battles at home, new wars abroad -- this remains, unfortunately, the future prospect as well as the old reality.

 

Read More At: http://buchanan.org/blog/coming-november-wars-7071

 

[John81]

Along with the prOBlems mentioned above there are many more coming our way. Already the Dems and liberal media are laying the groundwork for controlling the image of Republicans should the Repubs control the congress. There are calls for Republicans to not be partisan, to try to work with the Dems, to put aside divisiveness. All of this is nothing more than a call for the Repubs to compromise on issues the Dems don't like and to do things the Dems way...otherwise the Repubs will be heavily vilified in the media and by every talking head Dem.

 

At the same time many Repubs are already showing signs of capitulation, or more likely, a showing of their true colors. Many are becoming pro-homosexual "rights" or at least becoming silent on the issue. More are moving to the Dem side of "immigration reform". There are increasing calls to ignore "social issues". More Repubs now speak of overhauling OBamacare rather than repealing it. Many Repubs are calling for limited engagement by only putting forth those things the Dems will go along with and not tackling issues that would be tough to confront, might rile the Dems or might get them bad press.

 

We are poised to have a president ready to dictate by executive order, thus sidestepping congress. We have a likely Republican controlled congress seeming ready to either go along with Dems on several matters for the sake of appearances or to sit and complain while doing little to offend anyone.

[HappyChristian]

We already have a president who dictates by executive order...with some very serious ones lined up for after Nov. 4.

 

If Mitch McConnell becomes majority leader, the Senate will be as ineffective as the House has been under Boehner.  McConnell has reversed his stance on immigration reform and repealing BOcare just in the last couple of days due to the fact that he is in the race of his life. He and several other congressmen who have been in there for dogs' years are neck-and-neck with the Dems for more than one reason.

 

1. Their constituents are tired of what they've not been doing.

2. Dems are working overtime at voter fraud (from machines recording wrong votes to illegals [and this has been caught on video] being urged to vote).

3. "Independents" or Libertarians getting in and staying in the race, even when the GOP nominee is a constitutionalist (and, yes, there have been a number this cycle...most just haven't heard about them) and so siphoning votes from them.

 

Too many people - Rand Paul among them - believed that the seats needed to be "protected" by making sure the old guard won the seats (in the case of Thad Cochran, even at the expense of cheating and lying themselves) in the primaries. So they endorsed the old guard, sent mega money to them, etc. They won the primaries, but are not running away with the general.  I believe it's because people are just tired of the garbage.

 

The same will hold true in the next presidential election - if there is one. If an old guard gets the nominee for the GOP - by that I mean Romney, Jeb Bush, Huckabee, etc - Hillary will win. And the slide will continue... 

[John81]

I've noticed Jeb Bush once again seems to be testing the waters for a presidential run and there are several Republicans, including so-called conservatives, giving the idea a thumbs-up since they believe Jeb can carry Florida, he can gain perhaps a large share of the Hispanic vote as his brother did, and he's viewed as a moderate with some conservative leanings (I really haven't noticed that so I'm not sure what they are talking about on that point).

 

The Republicans need a fresh, bold, clear-spoken, solid and consistent stand holding candidate. We don't need the compromising old guard willing to do anything to try and win an election. We don't need the liberal leaning "moderates". We need a candidate in the style of Reagan, a candidate with a clear message that's clearly different from the Dems and most other Repubs, and who has a track record of holding to such positions and is able to communicate their ideals and vision for America.

 

The Republicans were counting on this being a very anti-Democrat election but it's looking more like an anti-incumbent election and just as LuAnne posted above, that's showing up in the tough fight incumbent Republicans are in this cycle.

 

Touching upon the Libertarian/Independent candidate aspect, as I was reading of various State races I came across campaign information from the Repub running for governor of Illinois pointing out that the Libertarian running for Illinois governor has received a lot of funding and support from Illinois Dems. The information also pointed out several areas where the Libertarian candidate was in agreement with liberal positions the Democrat candidate for governor holds. It seems the governor race in that state could be close enough that how many potential Repub voters choose to vote for the Libertarian rather than the Repub candidate could decide the race.

[Miss Daisy]

I live in Illinois and would LOVE to see our current governor ousted! I don't think most republicans would vote for a libertarian anyway. IMO. I wouldn't anyway. I vote straight party ticket republican. Except  for our local sheriff I don't think I will but I don't know if it makes any difference for sheriff's office or not.

Funny you posted that, because just today I got a giant mailer about the libertarian running and it's the first I even heard of him! 

[John81]

From what I've read the Republicans tried to get the Libertarian candidate banned from the ballot (I don't recall their legal reasoning) but a judge ruled the Libertarian candidate had to be on the ballot.

 

There is a goodly number of of Republicans (I don't know how many are in Illinois) who consider themselves Libertarian-Conservatives, or lean Libertarian (meaning Libertarian ideology, not the Libertarian Party). This is why in some close elections, the loss of even a small percentage to a Libertarian candidate of those who otherwise would have voted Republican can give the victory to the Democrat.

 

Democrats face the same prOBlem in a few States when they must deal with a Green Party candidate which siphons off a percentage of their voters and the election goes to the Republican.

 

While I agree with some aspects of Libertarian ideology, I certainly don't agree with all of it. One of the main prOBlems with the Libertarian Party in general, and Libertarian candidates in particular, is unless one really questions them it's impossible to know their exact positions on various issues. Some lean more towards what one might call, for the sake of simplicity, the liberal side of Libertarianism while others lean more conservative. Unfortunately, the same thing can now be said for Republicans too as these days they tend to be all over the ideological map.

 

The Republican Party is almost lost to those who hold to biblical Christian values and traditional conservatism. If there isn't a major and decisive change in the ideological direction of the Republican Party to a more "traditionalist" stance, within another election or two that Party could be a virtual total loss. The Republican Party is becoming filled more and more with pro-homosexuals, pro-abortion, pro-big government, pro-mass immigration, etc.

 

The Libertarian Party isn't the answer, yet a percentage of former Republicans have gone that direction.

 

A truly distinct, "traditionalist" so-called 'Third Party' is needed but such could only be effective if a very large percentage of constitutionalists, traditionalists, conservatives and biblical Christians jumped in with both feet and made a real go of it...similar to how the Republican Party got it's start. Otherwise another 'Third Party' will only further split our shrinking votes and achieve nothing helpful.

 

At the same time, if the Republican Party continues follow the Democrat lead towards ever increasing liberalism we will come to the point where voting Republican will not be helpful either.

 

We need real men of integrity with a "traditionalist", America First, constitutionalist core ideology that are capable of good public speaking and holding firm to their beliefs to rise up and run for local, county, State and federal offices. Along with this, we need like and similar minded folks to actually back such candidates fully.

 

How sad it's been to watch the last to presidential elections and see conservatives, Christians and similar to fail to support a good candidate early in the primary season and support them to victory. Instead, these voters acted like children unable to make a decision on the playground for fear of what others might think. These voters voted up and spoke up one candidate only to very quickly turn from them at the first negative story the media put forth. Then they jumped to another candidate only to repeat the process...and then the next...until finally the better candidates were no longer in the running and they found themselves with the "choice" of voting for this liberal leaning candidate or that one.

 

I'm not saying a perfect, or even near perfect Republican candidate ran for president in the last two elections, but there were a few who were open Christians and there were those who leaned conservative or "traditionalist", but with so many voters WANTING that "perfect" candidate, they enhanced those points where they disagreed with the better candidates rather than focusing upon their many points of agreement which led to them having to vote for a candidate with many more points they disagreed with than agreed with...or not voting...in either case, a better choice was wasted.

 

Let's hope some worthwhile men run for president this time around and Christian and conservative voters have learned their lesson and get behind the better candidate, or even couple of candidates, early on and propel them to victory in the primaries and build them up for the general election.

[Miss Daisy]

I have no faith in the government getting any better. The whole world is in downward slide. America is the leader for it all. My only faith and hope is in Christ and it will only get better when he returns. Until then, I'll always vote republican.

[John81]

I agree it's not at all likely the government will really get any better at this point. It's too far gone to be greatly effected by an election. Any politician who actually tried to restore the government to within the bounds of the Constitution would find themselves out of office come the next election; if some way weren't found to remove them before. The best we can likely hope for is to get some "better" men in office who will at least slow the speed at which we are driving towards the edge of the cliff.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say I will always vote Republican because there are getting to be more and more Republicans who hold to the same views as Democrats on key issues such as homosexual "marriage", abortion, mass immigration, etc. I won't vote for such Republicans any more than I would vote for such Democrats.