Solving America’s DHS Funding Impasse

P1030871Boehner and McConnell are both in need, as is the country, of a strategic solution to the DHS funding impasse. The current situation exists in response to President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty. The execution arm for that illegal action lies within the Department of Homeland Security. It’s clear that Senator McConnell is unable to get the existing House bill, which defunds the president’s illegal amnesty, passed in the Senate. It’s also clear that he could quite easily pass a clean HS funding bill. If McConnell and Boehner truly want to thwart the president’s illegal amnesty, and stand up for Constitutional separation of powers, then they need to use the fact that the Senate can pass a clean DHS funding bill as part of the strategy to defund the president’s illegal amnesty.

First, the Senate passes a clean bill, and sends it back to the House. Next, the House deconstructs DHS down to its component agencies, and separately funds those that have nothing to do with enforcing the president’s illegal amnesty through what I would call a UNIBUS. (OMNIBUS is used to describe massive government wide funding bills). The following agencies are some of those within DHS that should get funded through individual clean agency bills: USCG, FEMA, FLETC, TSA, USSS, NPPD, S&T and DNDO. Once an agency bill is passed, FEMA for instance, then that bill is sent to the Senate where the clean bill is also voted upon. It it may be possible to pass these bills without even needing Democrats in the Senate, as a clean FEMA Bill was already passed by the Senate within the full clean DHS bill. It’s possible that McConnell could deem it passed and move it on to the President and force his hand to either sign or veto a clean FEMA bill. The other agency bills should follow that bill rapidly and the Democrats and President forced to turn them back or fund DHS piecemeal. Once the agencies, which are the source of problem such as ICE and CBP, are the only ones left, their funding should be looked at for independent partial funding, and starved if necessary.

In the end this is a positive funding scheme as opposed to a negative funding scheme currently at impasse. The bills would positively fund only those agencies that the Republicans in the House and Senate what funded instead of trying to negatively withhold funds in a massive bill covering all of DHS.

Why Boehner’s Clever Tactic Is Bad Strategy

Tea Party Rally in Washington DC, 10 Sep 2013

Tea Party Rally in Washington DC, 10 Sep 2013

Speaker of the House John Boehner successfully maneuvered the CRAMNIBUS through the U.S. House. An argument could be made that it was a resounding tactical success. From a short-term perspective the speaker’s 1600-page bill funded most of the federal government through the end of September 2015. The House GOP leadership claims this is smart business because it allows them to focus on the Republican agenda when the new Congress is sworn in next month instead of having to go back and waste time and energy funding the government.

There’s no question that Boehner and the GOP establishment should soon have a majority in Congress within which to move their agenda. Tactical success, but will the CRAMNIBUS turn out to be a strategic blunder?

Americans gave the GOP a historic victory in November. Not a single Republican, including John Boehner, ran on a platform of furthering Barack Obama’s agenda. Even Democrats ran against Barack Obama and most attempted to distance themselves at every opportunity. The country is watching and they expect that the GOP is going to follow through with their campaign promises. The potential is very high that Boehner’s tactical victory with the CRAMNIBUS will disenfranchise GOP voters and convince them that they were duped. I’ve knocked on a lot of doors and I’ve heard a lot of people argue that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, Boehner’s proving them correct when he enlisted Barack Obama’s help to pass the CRAMNIBUS.

In addition, Republicans were elected to repeal Obama care. They were elected to stop what was known to be a pending constitution busting executive amnesty. The Republicans just completely funded Obama care and gave the President three months to institutionalize executive amnesty through CR funding for DHS. The excuses must stop. There can’t be any more cries from the GOP leadership that they don’t have enough votes in Congress, or that they don’t control the White House, or that they don’t have enough power to over ride a veto. These complaints ring hollow. The GOP will soon control both chambers in Congress. They’ll control the legislative body in Toto. We are all watching, and a failure now to live up to campaign promises will surely result in strategic failure in the 2016 election. For if Boehner proves that he’s as untrustworthy as he himself stated the President was, the good will shown the GOP will die. Failure in 2016 will doom the country to solidification of a big government, authoritarian, progressive Democrat agenda.

Speaking of Trustworthy!

Why Speaker Boehner Is Channeling Speaker Pelosi

rp_314110554_150_150.jpgNot a single Republican in the House or the Senate voted for the Obama care law. Outrage over the way that the bill was rammed through Congress, literally in the dark of night, and without time for any Senator or Congressman to read, let alone understand the bill continues unabated today.

Remember Nancy Pelosi’s infamous “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it’ quote? Now, on the eve of the GOP wresting control of the Senate from Harry Reid, the same disgusting tactic is underway to fund most of the federal government through the rest of fiscal year 2015. Known as the CROmnibus, as it consists of a Continuing Resolution (CR) to temporarily fund the Department of Homeland Security, while using an Omnibus to fund the rest of the government. Since this is being foisted on America without time to read, let alone understand, I suggest that the bill should be called the CRAmnibus, as its being crammed down our throats, much like Obama care.

The GOP controlled House was certainly put in a very bad position. The House did a significant amount of work to pass individual funding bills, know as regular order, but Harry Reid did not reciprocate in the Senate. That was wrong! Forcing the CRAmnibus through is a second wrong, and although it sounds cliche, two wrongs don’t make a right!

Pass a two-month CR. Get the new GOP controlled Congress sworn in next month. Pass the individual bills through regular order, while defunding the President’s illegal amnesty, and begin dismantling Obama care. It’s why Americans elected Republicans in the midterms.

What’s The Right Path For GOP?

rp_P1030865-300x225.jpgThe right path for the new GOP majority in Congress is quite simple:

Govern for the next generation,

Not the next Election.

Do the former, and the latter will take care of itself!

How Much Control Does The GOP Have?

Sen Cruz Standing Up for Liberty at Anti-Obama Care Rally

Sen Cruz Standing Up for Liberty at Anti-Obama Care Rally

Since the 2010 mid-term elections, when Americans gave the GOP control of the House, Republican leadership stated that their power was limited by the fact that they only controlled 1/2 of 1/3 of the Federal Government. No surprise coming from Washington, but that statement is misleading. Although true, the Supreme Court, 1/3 of the Federal Government, shouldn’t come into this discussion. By design, no party is ever supposed to “control” the SCOTUS. So, the GOP actually controlled 1/2 of the 1/3 that writes the laws. Now, following the 4 November midterms, the GOP controls 100% of the Congress, and 100% of the Nation’s purse strings. They also control 100% of the law making body in the Federal Government. The President can’t make laws, he can only sign or veto what Congress sends him, so the GOP has far more power than they will admit.

America’s voters gave them a mandate, and it’s time to step up to the plate and defend the Constitution, and the liberties of the American People.

America’s “Center of Gravity”

US Capital Building, Washington DC

US Capital Building, Washington DC

Prussian military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz formulated the military concept of “Center of Gravity”. Center of gravity isdefined as

“The source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act”.

Even though it’s a military term, the best practical description I’ve ever heard of center of gravity was in a discussion of fire ants. A United States Air Force instructor at the Air University described his fight to rid his yard of fire ants. He had tried everything from burning the anthills, scorching the earth black, to various types of poisons. Nothing that he tried ever held the ants at bay for long and they soon returned as strong as ever. The solution, he found, was a special type of poison. When presented to the ant colony, the workers would bring the poison to their queen and feed it to her, and she would quickly die. She was the colony’s center of gravity. With her death the fate of the entire colony was sealed, and his yard was soon ant free.

The United States has a center of gravity as sure as an ant colony does. America’s center of gravity is the United States Constitution. Efforts to destroy our country will fail unless they focus on undermining that most essential governing document. Our Constitution lays the framework for America’s exceptionalism. Without it there’s no freedom of religion,guarantee of life, liberty, property or protection from an all-intrusive government. Progressives know all too well how important the U.S. Constitution is to America’s sovereignty and our peaceful way of life.

This explains why they go so far out of their way to attack, undermine, and redefine it both legislatively and through judicial fiat. If we are to remain a free people we must elevate the U.S. Constitution back to the lofty position that our framers intended it to hold.

President Lincoln and Eric Cantor

Battle of Gettysburg Reenactment - Jul 2013

Battle of Gettysburg Reenactment – Jul 2013

What do President Lincoln and Eric Cantor have in common?

Throughout the Civil War president Lincoln searched for a union general who could take the fight to the south. Lincoln was also searching for a commanding general who had the foresight, skill cunning and courage to win the war. In his search for that general, Lincoln fired Generals McClellan, Burnsides, Hooker and Mead before finally appointing Ulysses S Grant commanding general of the Union Army. Although he’s not a military general, Eric Cantor is clearly a leader of the GOP, holding the number two position of power in the House of Representatives, and responsible for setting and moving the Republican agenda.

President Lincoln fired general after general in search of a man who would fight. Eric Cantor was fired by the voters of Virginia’s Seventh District for the same reason. The American people are well aware of the destruction being heaped upon this country, and they expect the Republican leadership to stand against it. They expect the Republican House to act as a firewall against the Democrat’sradical agenda. Lincoln would have been incense with any general who furthered the cause of the South. Americans are likewise incensed by Republicans aiding the “progressive” agenda.

There’s a very clear lesson to be learned from Congressman Cantor’s defeat; he won’t be the last GOP “general” to get the ax if the tides of destruction in America don’t change.

The Fallacy of the Safety Net

President Obama and the Democrats found themselves in a position of falling popularity and support. As a result, they began a campaign discussing the importance of the safety net and bemoaning “income inequality”. For decades they’ve attacked Republicans as mean spirited, and heartless because they don’t support the safety net with the same single-minded zeal that Democrats do. Republicans and conservatives need a counter to the visual of the safety net in order to paint a picture in American’s minds of the reality of the safety net in this country.

Trapeze Artists

Trapeze Artists

The term safety net has its origins in one, two, and three ring circuses. Every American can picture a net strung out below a high wire or trapeze act, and imagine a circus performer making a mistake, plunging downward only to be caught by the safety net supported and saved. It’s this visual that the left has relied upon for years to sell their social programs. Today however, the reality of that safety net is a much different picture! Republicans and conservatives need to speak to the intent to the safety net. When circus performers fall and are saved they don’t just lay there in the net waiting for the next circus performer to fall, potentially landing on top of them. After getting saved, performers make their way to the edge, and get off. By vacating the net, it’s left fully prepared and able to catch the next performer who slips and falls. What we have in America today is a safety net that’s full of people and one supporting an enormous and growing weight. The reality of the cost of all of those people in the safety net is that it threatens to bring down the entire tent upon not only the people in that net, but also down upon the rest of the American people who support it.

The visual that needs to be discussed is of an crowded and sagging safety net stretching toward the ground, bending the very supports that are holding up the net, the high wire, and the tent. Given our massive national debt, the strain upon those supports is becoming unsustainable. If we don’t relieve some of the pressure in the safety net it will go plunging to the ground leaving no safety net for the future at all. Republicans are labeled as heartless when they attempt to reform social welfare programs. The truth is, that it’s heartless to lie to the American people and tell them that there’s no limit to how much money can be spent on the social safety net. For the vast majority of people, the net is intended to be a temporary situation, not a way of life. There are, of course, those who are mentally or physically handicapped who will never be able to work and support themselves. They are the exception! Most of the people in the safety net are intended to get off, making room for the next person. Our country has spent over $20 trillion on wealth redistribution for the safety net. It’s possible to conclude that if not for the war on poverty, the United States wouldn’t have a national debt at all. The humane thing to do is to save the safety net for current and future generations. The only way to do that is to reduce the weight that’s in the net.

Sadly, Pres. Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats continue to pass laws, regulations, and presidential orders that are the equivalent of tossing cinder-blocks onto the safety net. Obama care alone will cost US taxpayers over $2 trillion, and is the equivalent of dropping an entire pallet load of cinder-blocks on the safety net! It’s only a matter of time before Democrats, progressives and liberals collapse the net. trip_tent_ropeWhen it goes it will bring the high wire, the trapeze and the big top itself down upon the American people.

It’s this visual that needs to be conveyed, used over and over and over again and hammered home every time the safety net analogy is brought up. Republicans are trying to save the safety net. That is the humane thing to do. Democrat policies will collapse it, and nothing could be more inhumane than that!

Obama Care Implosion

The implosion of Obama care is an “Othello” opportunity. This is an incredibly unique and teachable point in history, where Conservatives and Republicans can shore up their supporters and get converts by pulling them from rank and file Democrats, and opening the eyes of low information voters. Here’s how this must get played:

  • Aggressively demonstrate (to family, friends and neighbors locally, and across the airwaves and print media nationally) Obama care’s disaster is the result of government overreach. Use Obama care’s implosion to broaden the lesson from just healthcare to one of constitutionally limited government vs. progressive democrat socialism and nanny state authoritarianism.
  • The Federal Government can do a few things well, and they are enumerated in the Constitution. It should stick to those things and leave the rest to the states and the American people. Progressives want more and more power and they root against free markets and overtly distrust trust them. It’s a zero sum game; the more centralized power they get, the less Americans have left to live their own lives. Americans are the free market; to hate one is to hate the other.

Obama care is just a symptom of progressives’ fervent yearning for an all-powerful government. Spread the word, this disaster is just a microcosm of our country’s future!

Related Articles:

Applying the US Armed Forces Principles of War to Preserving American Liberties

The principles of war constitute the framework from which all military operations should be modeled. These principles represent the combined lessons learned from wars, campaigns, battles, and military theorists across recorded history. Adherence to the principles of war won’t guarantee military victories, but failure to follow them will almost certainly result in defeat. Conservatives (i.e. Freedom loving Americans) and the Republican Party need to learn from these same military principles, peacefully apply them to defeat progressives and their Democrat Party, and use them as a critical strategic component to return Constitutional freedoms to the American people.

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy (Picture from Defense Industry Daily)

Lockheed C-5 Galaxy (Picture from Defense Industry Daily)

JP 1: “War is socially sanctioned violence to achieve a political purpose. War historically involves nine principles, collectively and classically known as the principles of war.” (I-3).

JP 3.0: “Joint operations doctrine is built on a sound base of warfighting philosophy, theory, and practical experience. Its foundation rests upon the bedrock principles of war and the associated fundamentals of joint warfare.” (I-1)

Principals of War:

  1. Objective
  2. Offensive
  3. Mass
  4. Economy of Force
  5. Maneuver
  6. Unity of Command
  7. Security
  8. Surprise
  9. Simplicity

Joint Principals (recently added):

  1. Restraint
  2. Perseverance
  3. Legitimacy

Objective JP 3.0 “The purpose of specifying the objective is to direct every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive, and achievable goal.”

The principal of objective is perhaps the most frequently violated by the Republican Party. One of the biggest critiques of the Republican Party is that they don’t stand for anything anymore.

What is the Objective of the Republican Party? It should not be to imitate the Democrat Party. Its objective should not include supporting the same goals of the Democrat party when they go in opposition to the Constitution, liberty, freedom and the history of this nation.

The objective of the Republican Party should be to protect the American people, and their liberties. It should be to seal the borders, to stop Obama care at all costs. Its objective should be the uncompromising protection of the Constitution. It should be championing the fight for sound fiscal policy, balancing the budget and strengthening the economy.

The objective of the Republican Party should be farsighted to protect the uniqueness of the United States and to never allow its corruption and metamorphosis into the types of socialist or authoritarian governments that exist in so many other countrie on earth. Objective is critical and it must be clear because no one will rally behind a cause that they can’t see or do not understand.

M50A1 Ontos - US Marine Corps Museum, Virginia

M50A1 Ontos – US Marine Corps Museum, Virginia

Offensive: JP 3.0 “The purpose of an offensive action is to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative.”

Another heavy critique of the Republican Party and its candidates is that they are always reacting to democrat policies, their crisis of the day, i.e. “Mountains” and stay bogged down on the defensive.

The American people don’t even care about most of these.

Republicans need to seize the initiative and maintain the offensive.

When polled, comprehensive immigration is a priority for only a small percentage of Americans, so why is Congress pushing so hard to pass it? The answer is that Democrats are on the offensive, moving to secure their agenda and the Republicans in Congress are left to react.

Instead of playing that game, Republicans should be taking the offensive, creating “win-win” arguments, and forcing the issues that clearly lead to their objectives. Sen. Cruz established such a win-win argument in his plan to defund Obama care by attaching its funding to the debt crisis and government shutdown fight. His position is to fund all of government except Obama care which is highly unpopular. This strategy forces Democrats and President Obama to either defund Obama care or they shut down the government in order to fund it. This is a win-win for Republicans and the American people, and a lose-lose for Democrats.

Mass: JP 3.0 “The purpose of mass is to concentrate the effects of combat power at the most advantageous place and time to produce decisive results…Massing effects of combat power, rather than concentrating forces, can enable even numerically inferior forces to produce decisive results and minimize human losses and waste of resources.”

Tea Party Rally in Washington DC, 10 Sep 2013

Tea Party Rally in Washington DC, 10 Sep 2013

Mass is probably the easiest principle of war to describe in the context of political activities. It’s clear that in an election whichever candidate or party masses the most voters at the polls is going to win an election. It’s also clear that in representative bodies such as the US House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate whichever party can mass the most representatives or senators to vote in favor of their agenda will win.

What’s less obvious is the impact of mass on swaying the opinions and ultimately the votes of elected officials. It was the massing of grassroots Americans flooding phone banks, sending emails, writing letters, and interacting on social media that stopped the anti-gun effort earlier this year.

Mass as a concept does not necessarily mean that you outnumber your opponent. What mass means is that you are able to assemble your forces at the right time, and at the right place to overwhelm your opposition. It’s clear that the left employs this principle very effectively. Poll after poll shows that the liberal and progressive percentage of US population is a minority, at best 30%. Those same polls also show that Americans who consider themselves conservative range closer to 40%.

The effectiveness of the progressives and the left is that they mass a smaller number of people in large campaigns to present the impression that they are much larger in number than they are. Conservative organizations, such as the TEA Party, need to use the principle of mass in the same way.

Obama care was nearly stopped dead in its tracks due to an overwhelming tide, a mass, of American grassroots anger flooding Capitol Hill. The result was that not a single Republican voted in favor of the law. It’s highly unlikely this result ever would’ve occurred if not for the grassroots uproar. Sadly, an inability to mass a majority of votes in either the Senate or the House resulted in its passage.

Mass applies to financing, as well as people and votes. Financing allows the massing of media in the right markets at the right times and with the right messages. It also allows the massing of voters in get out the vote campaigns. The explanations in the applications of mass are innumerable, but you get the point.

Economy of Force: JP 3.0 “The purpose of economy of force is to expend minimum essential combat power on secondary efforts in order to allocate the maximum possible combat power on primary efforts…Economy of force is the judicious employment and distribution of forces.”

Economy of force is an interesting principle of war to apply to politics. A very strong case can be made that the efforts of liberals and progressives in the left has been to overload the rest of society on so many fronts, and in so many areas, that they dilute the ability of conservatives and Republicans to respond. The effect is to make economy of force extremely difficult.

The challenge to conservatives and Republicans is to prioritize, to choose the fights that matter the most, and to focus their efforts on winning those fights. By going on the offensive, choosing the battles to wage and the time and place that they get fought, the principle of economy of force can be employed and in so doing put the left on the defensive.

Maneuver: JP 3.0 The purpose of maneuver is to place the enemy in a position of disadvantage through the flexible application of combat power…Maneuver is the movement of forces in relation to the enemy to secure or retain positional advantage, usually in order to deliver or threaten delivery of the direct and indirect fires of the maneuvering force. Effective maneuver keeps the enemy off balance and thus also protects the friendly force.”

Maneuver enables both Mass and Economy of Force. Unions, Jessie Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition and Rev. Al Sharpton are masters of maneuver. Whenever they get involved in opposition to policy, or support for policy, the news cycle is consumed by their marches, picket lines, and blow horn speeches. They consist of relatively small numbers, but through effective maneuver, they can mass and appear much larger than they are. By taking over the news cycle, their positions are echoed across the country.

Unity of Command: JP 3.0 “The purpose of unity of command is to ensure unity of effort under one responsible commander for every objective. Unity of command means that all forces operate under a single commander with the requisite authority to direct all forces employed in pursuit of a common purpose. During multinational operations and interagency coordination, unity of command may not be possible, but the requirement for unity of effort becomes paramount. Unity of effort…the coordination and cooperation toward common objectives, even if the participants are not necessarily part of the same command or organization is the product of successful unified action.”

Unity of command is a difficult concept outside of the military. By its very nature, our society depends upon freedom of thought, unique thought, and the ability to openly express one’s opinion. In the military, unity of command is a much easier principle to apply and is a critical concept of military action. Failure to maintain unity of command compromises the ability to maintain a common objective and its cascading effects compromise many of the other principles of war. One of the tenants of unity of command is a concept called centralized command and decentralized execution. The theory here is that orders are relayed downward, but execution of those orders is left to the professionalism of lower-level echelons in military organizations. They are best able to analyze the fluidity of battle, the fog of war, and execute in a manner that achieves the overarching objective.

Unity of command requires leadership. Republicans have failed as a party recently because they don’t have people in leadership positions that can, or will LEAD. When they do have someone stand up and take the leadership mantle, like Senator Cruz, the establishment attacks them, and creates “disunity of command”. Republicans must stop eating their own and clearly define conservative, Republican Party objectives (defeating Obama care is supposed to be one). Stand up for those clear objectives, maintain core values and beliefs, and perpetually teach them to all Americans who’ll listen. This may not lead to pure military style unity of command, but it will create a surrogate, “unity of purpose”. Execution of that common purpose equates to decentralized execution and would go a long way to solidifying a Republican Party brand the American people would support!

Security: JP 3.0 “The purpose of security is to prevent the enemy from acquiring unexpected advantage…Security enhances freedom of action by reducing friendly vulnerability to hostile acts, influence, or surprise.”

Security involves keeping secrets, which politicians historically can’t do. Hillary Clinton’s home-brew email server is the most egregious example. From plans to elections to potential use of Surprise, its important to keep the opposition off balance and guessing. See discussion on Surprise.

Surprise: JP 3.0 “The purpose of surprise is to strike at a time or place or in a manner for which the enemy is unprepared…Surprise can help the commander shift the balance of combat power and thus achieve success well out of proportion to the effort expended.”

October surprises prior to elections, coming up with bogus crisis out of whole cloth i.e. making “Mountains Out of Molehills” progressives and the left are notorious for applying this principal.

Simplicity: JP 3.0 “The purpose of simplicity is to increase the probability that plans and operations will be executed as intended by preparing clear, uncomplicated plans and concise orders.”

Pardon the pun, but no Principle is simpler that this one to apply. Issues are hard to explain, and complex issues even more so. Don’t over-complicate them. Ex. Obama care is a disaster, crushing the American people, oppose it at every turn.

The worst violation of Simplicity in recent political history was the 2012 Romney Campaign’s get out the vote effort. Code named Project Orca, it was a complex, morass of organizing, training, information technology and massive failure.

Three additional Principles were added post 9-11 in JP 3.0 to define the Principles of Joint Operations. One, Perseverance, is responsible for progressives’ successes and must be a foundation of conservative response.

Restraint: JP 3.0“The purpose of restraint is to limit collateral damage and prevent the unnecessary use of force.”

This is the one principal that doesn’t fit well. If anything, Republicans are far too restrained. They allow themselves to be painted as extremists, and suffer from “moderates” like McCain and Graham who torch their own every chance they get. Republicans like Sen Cruz and Sen Lee understand the need to fight, and to show the American People that their representatives are listening to them.

Perseverance: JP 3.0 “The purpose of perseverance is to ensure the commitment necessary to attain the national strategic end state…The patient, resolute, and persistent pursuit of national goals and objectives often is essential to success.”

As discussed above, the progressive left has persevered across many decades to achieve their ideological dreams, and transform America. Conservatives and the Republican Party must take on the same long term, and I argue, perpetual, mindset.

Legitimacy: JP 3.0 “The purpose of legitimacy is to maintain legal and moral authority in the conduct of operations…Legitimacy, which can be a decisive factor in operations, is based on the actual and perceived legality, morality, and rightness of the actions from the various perspectives of interested audiences.”

Pretty simple here also. If you act in accordance with the US Constitution, you are by definition, legitimate. Anybody, or any policy that doesn’t, is also by definition, illegitimate. Support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic. Legitimacy is assured when goals and policies are set in accordance with that oath. The TEA Party stands for this very ideal.