Thursday, June 21, 2007

Steve King has ‘em, why don’t more of us?

We are in a war, a very big war against a weird coalition of enemies who mostly share only two goals: dominance of the global economy by controlling the Middle Eastern oil supplies and the annihilation of Israel. The enemy has both state and non-state actors. While all don’t share a long term desire to actually physically destroy the United States, some do and all wish to limit American power and prosperity.

Our Founding Fathers anticipated such wars because they had all survived the very bloody and brutal civil war that we call the War for Independence” or the “Revolutionary War”. Everything we daily see and read about Iraq are dwarfed by the cataclysm our own first civil war. So John Adams, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton knew something about what it takes to win a big national war.

Part of that wisdom was the obvious need for national unity in all things diplomatic. The first rule of victory is the value of conquest by division. A nation cannot have a majority and minority diplomatic position-it can only have one. Again, this is either a premise in which one believes or not. I believe the Adams, Jay and Hamilton types probably were right-they usually were.

Logan Act of 1799 was designed to prevent members of the out of power party from negotiating with foreign powers, particularly during times of war. Not surprisingly, a willingness to side with France in the undeclared war with France in 1798-1799 was the issue that gave birth to the Democrat Party of Thomas Jefferson. Alas, how close the acorn has fallen.

Nancy Pelosi’s willingness to go to an enemy state (Syria) and declare
an alternative foreign policy with that state is outrageous. Only the most sophistic of argument could justify such action, particularly given the need for Syria’s Baathist terror regime to be first isolated from its Iranian ally and then collapsed. That’s right, libs, our national objectives and safety cannot coexist with Syria’s so the time has come for you to choose.

Well, Steve King has made his choice, loud and clear. Iowa’s 5th District Congressman Steve King has forced the issue of the outrageous impropriety occasioned by Pelosi’s trip to Syria. This is one of those big historic moments, where the venal of
demagogues erodes 200-year principle of executive diplomatic exclusivity. Steve has introduced very important legislation that will prohibit Pelosi from further trips to known enemy states. Opposition to the bill is nothing more than ratification of Pelosi’s blatantly illegal conduct and approval of future claws at the constitutional fabric.

We do our party and our nation a great disservice if every Republican-and I mean nationally and not just in Iowa-fails to voice their support for this important legislation. One seldom finds better evidence of the left’s rejection of significant elements of our constitutional structure than Pelosi’s willingness to entertain separate negotiations with Syria. The collapse of this compromise will bread future chaos, and remember there will probably be Democrat President’s and Republican Congresses in the future so this cuts both ways.
Pelosi says this is a trivial issue. We need to prove her wrong!


still trying to be like ted said...

spot on papa bear!

why isn't O'Reilly on all over this issue?

Spotlight said...

Maybe O'Really remembers this discussion better than Mr. Sporer does, so he's moved on.

Remember, Gingrich and Hastert did much more blatant "negotiating" when they were Speaker and the Rs all were cool with it. So this sounds a tad partisan.

And what's this about our enemy wanting to control the world economy and destroy Israel? I thought they had WMD and hated us for our freedoms! Is this still the same war?

As for isolating Syria and then "collapsing" both them and Iran, Adams had something to say about that, too:

"America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

Such good advice. Like you said, Mr. Sporer.

johnny did it too! Wah wah said...

Whatever....this is now. It is immaterial to the discussion at hand. How about you respond to the current issue being discussed.

steve king went to washington said...

And then, Steve King comes along. He really does fight the fights we want fought. This is a great move. Way to go fight for National Security! You absolutely never have to guess where he stands. He says what he means and he means what he says. That's refreshing.

KenRichards said...

Steve King is one of the true heroes in our Congress. Too bad he is not running for President. I know he'd do very well in Iowa as well as other states.

Anonymous said...

I REALLY hope Steve King runs for Senate against Harkin........but Harkin would probably win with 80% of the vote.

Cedar Waxwing said...

Hey Spotlight..

What countries did Hastert/Gingerich negotiate with?

Pelosi went to countries with whom we have little to no diplomatic ties with..for a very good reason.. THEY"RE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM!

And for her to go over there..and to try to represent the US and policy that is CONTRARY to the stated policy of the United States is a blatant violation of the Logan Act..pure and simple

Spotlight said...

Gingrich: China
Hastert: Columbia

You can't just talk to your allies. You have to talk to everyone. Unless war is your preferred way of dealing with the world.

About Pelosi in Syria: "Despite the inference that the White House has tried to draw concerning Pelosi’s trip to Syria, the administration has failed to produce any evidence that she did or said anything in her meetings in Damascus that went beyond her role or responsibilities as a member of Congress. Indeed, her schedule was arranged by the U.S. Embassy there and diplomatic personnel representing the president were present at all times. It is certain the White House would have known instantly had such a breech of conduct had occurred." from ThinkProgress at

Where oh where has my little Yoda gone? said...


Gingrich went with Clinton's Presidential delegation. Remember the great press/SNL skit you D's pushed about him crying about being seated way in the back of AF1?

Hastert went with the President's blessing.


Cedar Waxwing said...

Spotlight.. If that's best you've're a complete and utter fool.

Pelosi was asked repeatedly by the Administration NOT to go to Syria..she went anyways..

She went to Syria..claming to send a message to Syria from which the Israelis very quickly proved was completely incorrect.

We consider Syria to be a state-sponsor of terrorism throughout the world...yet the Speaker seems to think that all we have to do is "talk" and everything will be all better.

There is a reason why these people our are enemies..there is a reason why we do not do "business" with them...They can not be trusted..nor are they willing to conduct business of state in an acceptable manner (meaning not promoting terrorism!)

Pelosi was trying to send a subtle message to Syria--"You should deal with me, not Bush..I'm really the one calling the shots here now"...

RF said...

You people are really grasping at straws here. A bit moody after a 6.5-year fiasco?

Spotlight said...

King's amendment was defeated 337-84. Hastert did not vote. From

"The amendment -- attached to appropriations legislation -- would have prohibited Pelosi from using State Department funds to visit Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan or Syria.

"Needless to say, all the Democrats voted against it, thus confirming once again the party's uniformly traitorous bent.

"However, only 84 of 201 Republicans voted for the measure, suggesting that many Republicans, too, think it's okay for Pelosi to consort with the enemy. Go figure."

RF said...

WAR Hot mature women who are not afraid of the bad guys!

Anonymous said...

We're not moody at all RF..

Pelosi was in the wrong..and she's being backed up by members of her own party and unfortunately weak kneed GOP members who don't want to create a stink.