Republican Establishment Betrays American People; Omnibus BudgetBill Fully Funds Obama’s Agenda

The House and Senate, with bipartisan majorities, passed a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending package that funds the federal government through September, 2016.

Despite frantic last-minute lobbying efforts by Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that made passage seem uncertain, the House passed the bill by a lopsided vote of 316-113. 95 House Republicans bucked Speaker Ryan and the Republican leadership and voted no, joining 18 Democrats in doing so. The Senate later passed the bill by a vote of 65-33, with six Democrats and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont joining 26 Republicans in opposition.

Despite historic gains in the midterm elections in 2010 and 2014, leaving Republicans with majorities in the House and Senate, the Republican leadership choose to thumb their noses at the voters who elected them to halt President Obama’s far-left agenda and approve a spending bill that fully funds every item in his agenda.

The mainstream media, and the Democratic Party establishment, have suggested the reason behind the willingness of the Republican leadership to acquiesce to the continued funding of Obama’s agenda is due to the Democrats’ willingness to support lifting the decades-old oil export embargo.

“Republicans’ desperate thirst for lifting the oil export ban empowered Democrats to win significant concessions throughout the Omnibus, including ridding the bill of scores of deeply destructive poison pill riders,” Pelosi wrote in a Thursday night letter to Democrats, according to The Hill.

Among the concessions made by Republican leadership includes:

• Fully funding Obamacare, and approving a two year suspension of the so-called “Cadillac”tax on high-cost insurance plans (something sought by big unions who want the tax itself repealed as it effects many in high level union positions).
• Removing all provisions that sought to strip funding for Planned Parenthood.
• Removing all provisions that sought to stop Obama’s “refugee” resettlement plan (in fact, the spending bill provides funds for nearly 300,000 visas for Muslim “refugees”).
• Fully funding the monetary commitment made by Obama following the”climate change” conference held in Paris.

According to The Washington Times, the White House declared “total victory” in the “budget battle” with Republucan leaders. The headline itself is not accurate, as a battle implies both sides were actually opposing each other. The Republican leadership offered token resistance, at most, to Obama and Congressional Democrats.

The vote on the omnibus spending bill demonstrated something many Americans already know: the leadership of both political parties two sides of the same coin.

As talk-show host Rush Limbaugh said on Thursday, “This was out-and-out, in-our-face lying…There is no Republican Party! You know, we don’t even need a Republican Party if they’re gonna do this. You know, just elect Democrats, disband the Republican Party, and let the Democrats run it, because that’s what’s happening anyway.”

End the War on the Second Amendment in America

The New York Times dedicated nearly a third of its front page to an editorial promoting gun control following the San Bernardino shooting. The editorial board, ignoring many other historical moments over the last century, decided increased gun control was an important enough issue to warrant its first front page editorial since choosing to criticize the Republican Party for nominating Warren G. Harding for President in 1920.

Arguing that it is a “moral outrage and a national disgrace” that Americans are able to purchase weapons “designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency”, the editorial board makes a direct call to American citizens to turn in their guns “for the good of their fellow citizens.”

That statement demonstrates a view held by many liberals: it is the sole responsibility of the state to protect us and private gun ownership is a hindrance to that goal.

Referring to firearms as “tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection”, gun owners are portrayed as men trying to reassert their masculinity or violently overthrow the government.

It is clear that the true intentions of the Founding Fathers when drafting the Second Amendment have fallen by the wayside, something intentionally done by liberal academics, political pundits and others who believe private gun ownership is a threat to government power or a vestige of white culture that deserves to be eliminated from society.

The Founding Fathers lived under an oppressive power who denied the colonists all of the rights now guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. After achieving independence from Great Britain, the framers of the Constitution wisely enshrined all of the rights they were denied to all future generations of Americans.

The Second Amendment was drafted to give future generations of Americans the ability to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Many Americans believe the prospect of a tyrannical government coming to power today is an impossible concept promoted only by conspiracy theorists, yet they are blind to the growing police and surveillance state coming to shape around them based on the constant threat of terrorism (a threat manufactured by the forces that have hijacked our government to achieve that very end).

Private gun ownership is the only major obstacle preventing the complete destruction of America as we know it, and the elimination of the rights many take for granted every day; the same rights our Founding Fathers risked their lives to leave to us.

As Noah Webster said in 1787, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

In Federalist 28, Alexander Hamilton said, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”