Trump: Obama is a Clear and Present Danger to America

Editor’s Note – This article was republished by Special Operations Speaks.

Obama welcomes an Islamist Trojan horse: Consider who is selecting our refugees

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner – World Tribune

“President Obama is a threat to our country,” Donald Trump told me in a recent interview.

He’s right. Mr. Obama now poses a clear and present danger to America.

His stubborn insistence on resettling so-called “refugees” from Syria threatens to Balkanize our country and subvert it from within. The president is willing to potentially sacrifice countless Americans on the altar of liberal multiculturalism. He is gambling with our lives.

Obama’s resettlement plan is replete with lies and progressive propaganda. At first, the administration said it only wanted 10,000 refugees to enter the country. Now, the White House is openly talking about allowing 250,000 per year.

In fact, the president recently announced that his goal is an “open-ended” refugee resettlement effort — meaning millions could be allowed to flood our country.

If-you-dont-defend-liberty-get-UN-Islam-or-communism

Moreover, who are these refugees? The answer is simple: They are predominantly young Muslim men. In Europe, nearly 80 percent of the migrants pouring into countries, such as Germany, Sweden and France, are Muslim males in their teens and 20s. In other words, they are the very profile of potential Islamic Jihadists.

Yet, while Europeans are waking up to the civilizational invasion taking place, our morally arrogant liberal elites continue to peddle the fiction that only “widows and orphans” will be allowed to enter.

The administration also claims that the Muslim Syrian refugees are the “most thoroughly screened and vetted category of travelers” who can come into the United States.

That is another lie. For the Obama regime and its media allies are deliberately leaving out one salient fact: We do not pick the asylum-seekers, the United Nations does. In particular, it is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Antonio Guterres, in coordination with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that selects which refugees can be settled within our country.

It is not the State Department, Homeland Security or even the White House that chooses the refugees, but an anti-American leftist bureaucrat and a global Islamist organization.

Mr. Guterres is a self-described “socialist,” who champions open borders and repopulating First World nations with Third World peoples as part of a radical internationalist agenda to redistribute wealth. From 1999 until 2005, he was the president of Socialist International, a global network of over 160 Marxist and far-left-wing parties active in about 100 countries. Their goal: “one-world government” through unlimited immigration.

The OIC is an international Islamic body that consists of 57 Muslim nations. It has deep links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC’s founding charter openly espouses the expansion of Sharia Law and defends what it calls “legitimate Jihad.” In other words, it is an Islamist front group.

Think about this: Obama is entrusting the security of Americans — enabling the very “refugees” who could be coming to a town or community near you — to U.N. leftist globalists and radical Islamists. His policy is not only irresponsible and reckless; it borders on the criminal.

trump-obama-christiansThe Islamic State of Iraq and Levant has already boasted it has infiltrated the waves of Muslim migrants with thousands of Jihadists.

In the Paris attacks, which killed 130 and wounded over 350 persons, ISIL made good on its threats: One of the terrorists managed to enter France posing as a “refugee” with a fake Syrian passport.

As Investor’s Business Daily reports, what Islamists are engaging in is what they call “hijra” — immigration Jihad. The aim of radical Muslims is to invade and conquer Western lands through mass migration.

“Muhammad told his followers to migrate and spread Islam in order to dominate all the lands of the world,” Ann Corcoran, the author of “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America,” said in an interview with IBD.

“He said they were obliged to do so — and that’s exactly what they are doing now with the help and support of the U.N.”

The Boston Marathon terrorist bombings should have taught Americans the folly of welcoming “refugees” from Muslim hotspots. The Tsarnaevs were from Chechnya. They were allegedly “screened” and “vetted.”

Yet, this did not stop them from blowing up pressure cooker bombs at the finish line, murdering four innocent civilians and wounding over 260 — dozens of them maimed and crippled.

Their massacre was part of a larger war against the West to establish a global Islamic caliphate.

We are about to drink from a poisoned chalice. Obama is deliberately — and dangerously — bringing in an army of Muslim migrants. Like the Tsarnaevs and in France, some of them are bound to be Islamist butchers.

It is collective suicide masquerading as compassion. Americans must block his Trojan horse before it’s too late.


Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at WorldTribune.com and the host of “The Kuhner Report” weekdays 12-3 pm EST on WRKO AM-680 in Boston.

Be Sociable, Share!

Adm. Lyons – Can you tell whose side Obama is on?

Editor’s Note – When it comes to National Security we really should be listening to those that are experienced military advisors, not political advisors pretending to be National Security advisors.

Obama’s distorted strategy

The president soothes anti-Western grievances at great cost

Washington Times

While France remains in a state of shock over the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, they are also most likely confused and disappointed over President Obama’s declaration that there will be no fundamental change to his current policy and strategy to “now contain and defeat ISIS.”

President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey.
President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey November 12th.

During his Nov. 12 remarks in Antalya, Turkey, Mr. Obama appeared to be petulant and arrogant when responding to legitimate reporter’s questions, perhaps a “crack” in the carefully constructed veneer that has concealed his true character and now has been exposed.

However, on Nov. 17, The New York Times editorial board quickly came to the rescue by declaring that Mr. Obama “hit the right tone” in his remarks.

But his remarks should leave no doubt that he has a far-reaching strategy. That strategy is embedded in his declaration to fundamentally transform America. Actually, the way we are restricting our operations in the Middle East today has its roots in America’s transformation.

Those who say the administration is incompetent — are wrong. With the complicity of our congressional leadership and the mainstream media, the administration has executed their strategy brilliantly.

In order to understand Mr. Obama’s strategy, you first have to understand the threat that has been deliberately distorted. When President Erdogan of Turkey was prime minister, he said it best — Islam is Islam. There are no modifiers, such as violent extremism.
Democracy is the train we ride to achieve our ultimate objective, Mr. Erdogan implied, which is world domination. It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.

No matter how many times “progressives” try to rationalize or accommodate perceived Muslim grievances, the fact remains that Islam has been involved in a struggle for world domination for over 1,400 years.

• James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. He is now a member of the Legacy National Security Advisory Group with MG Vallely

What the world witnessed in Paris, and certainly here in America on Sept. 11, 2001, was a continuing clash of civilizations between Islam and the Judeo-Christian values of the West.

As the noted historian Samuel P. Huntington implied, Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western values and cultures.

There can be no peace or co-existence between Islam and non-Islamic societies or their political institutions. Clearly, there must be a reformation of Islam.

Once the Islamic threat has been exposed and understood, then any thinking American should be able to grasp Mr. Obama’s strategy. It is anti-American; anti-Western; but pro-Islamic; pro-Iranian; and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.

This raises the question: Why would an American president with his country’s Judeo-Christian heritage, who professes to be a Christian, embrace Islam? Or for that matter, why would an American president embrace Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, which has been at war with the United States for over 35 years? They have caused the loss of thousands of American civilians and military lives.

Also, why would an American president embrace the Muslim Brotherhood, whose creed is to destroy America from within by our own miserable hands, and replace our Constitution with seventh century Shariah law? They have been able to penetrate all our national security and intelligence agencies. Consequently, they have had a major impact on our foreign and domestic policies as well as the way our military is restricted on fighting our wars.

It is not possible to list all of President Obama’s executive orders and policies that have imposed undue restraints on our military forces and first responders, but illustrative of those are the following:

  • The unilateral disarmament of our military forces. This makes no sense when we are being challenged throughout the world.
  • Compounding the unilateral disarmament issue is the social engineering that has been forced on our military to satisfy an ill-advised domestic agenda. It has adversely impacted the military’s moral fiber, unit cohesiveness, integrity and most importantly the “will to win.”
  • The purging of all our military training manuals that links Islam with terrorism. Our forces are being denied key information that properly defines the threat.
  • Emasculation of our military capabilities by imposing highly restricted Rules of Engagement. It makes our military look ineffective.
  • Curtailment of Christianity and its symbols in our military, e.g., restricting the display of the Bible.
  • Making our military forces in the Middle East either ignore or submit to the atrocities authorized by Shariah law, tribal customs and traditions, e.g. wife beating, stoning, sodomizing young boys.
  • Unfettered immigration with open borders, plus seeding Muslim immigrants throughout the country.
  • Shifting sides in the Global War on Terror by supporting al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood militias, and facilitating the removal of all vestiges of secular rulers who were in fact our allies in the war on terror.

When President Obama gave his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University, co-hosted by Al-Azhar University, the center of Sunni doctrine for over 1,000 years, he stated, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” that said it all.

Again, when he spoke at the U.N. on Sept. 25, 2012, after the Benghazi tragedy and stated that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” — case closed. Andy McCarthy, author and National Review columnist, made a compelling case for Mr. Obama’s impeachment in his book, “Faithless Execution.”

Clearly, the president has exposed where he stands when the issue is Islam versus our Judeo-Christian heritage. Certainly, the case is there to be made for his removal from office for his illegal, unconstitutional and treasonous acts.


James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Obama Scolds, Kerry Says Hebdo Attackers Had 'Legitimacy'

Legitimate Fears in US Over Da’esh Attacks Possibly Here Next

By Scott W. Winchell

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and Bernie Sanders live in an alternate universe – it is no longer in doubt. If it were not so sad and dangerous, one would have to laugh.

Talk about delusional people, it’s time we re-examine that old r/K selection theory again to understand people who cannot face adversity with the words necessary, yet they spout inanities and scold us when we do not agree.

Why didn’t Kerry and/or Obama show up for the unity parade in Paris last winter after the Charlie Hebdo attack while Mr. Kerry did say that the attackers had “legitimacy” and then immediately realize he had to correct himself now? Why, because that was what you really meant, delusional:

...open mouth, remove all doubt!
…open mouth, remove all doubt!

“There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that,” Kerry said. “There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, ‘Okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.’ This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate.” (Read the rest here at the Daily Caller.)

Benjamin Netanyahu showed up, and dared to march arm-in-arm despite very serious threats to his well-being, while we get our own President once again complaining about our Republican candidates and anyone who just wants to keep their families safe here while he is on foreign soil.

It is just amazing how Obama bad-mouths Americans for wanting to be safe when 53% indicated they do not want any refugees here after what happened. Embarrassing displays both – again. Are you watching the same planet we are Mr. Obama?

“Widows and children,” really Mr. Obama? Where was Kerry and Obama when Al Assad was barrel-bombing women and children, or gassing them with chlorine in Syria?

What about the female terrorist who blew herself up killing a police dog today in a wild firefight with French authorities. Can’t women strap on suicide vests and aren’t children being trained by Da’esh now? Didn’t we hear that over 5,000 rounds were fired in that Saint Denis raid in France today where she blew herself up after learning that another attack was imminent?

The worst thing is the manner in which Obama spoke in yesterday, his delivery, the facial expressions, body language – he is a very petty man, just embarrassing, and so reprehensible. He scolds a very large swath of his own countrymen, no wonder Josh Earnest and the White House were walking their statements back today.

ied-isis-dabiqRemember, this was followed up by the Russian admission that their plane was blown up in the air and Da’esh even showed us a similar version of the bomb they used in their Da’biq magazine.

All this just in the last several days while our own homeland officials talk of Da’esh threats to Washington, D.C. and fears of major misdeeds over our holiday season.

What happens when a real bomb goes off on a plane in someone’s luggage over Kansas, or Ohio like it did over the Sinai? With TSA failing test after test, what’s to say another Sharm-el-Sheikh moment does not visit us here?

Didn’t two French planes that where threatened today have to abort their planned trips to Paris to return to the ground for inspection?

Da’esh has proven they can strike anywhere, are we next? Just now we learn that another video came out with threats to New York City and Las Vegas.

But Obama scolds us over the refusal of so many governors and American citizens for taking Syrian refugees in and Kerry says the attacks last January were legitimate. All while Sanders and Hillary can’t utter the words “Islamic Terror” in the Debate last Saturday night like Obama and Kerry.

What would the state of fears be if Da’esh or any terror group pulled off something as the busiest flying days approach next week or a football stadium has to be cleared on Thanksgiving Day or any other day on national television like what Germany had to do last night in Hannover? Will we be allowed to express our fears then?

America may have “bought crazy” in 2008 and 2012, but we ain’t buying anymore on this street corner – go sell crazy somewhere else Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Sanders.

It would be insane to accept refugees now so take your strawman arguments somewhere else as well – in our universe, our citizens’ safety comes first. We are just insulted and embarrassed.

White House on defense over Kerry, Obama comments on terror threat

By Fox News

The White House was on the defense Wednesday morning for statements made by President Obama — who labeled Friday’s Paris massacre that left 129 dead a “setback” — and Secretary of State John Kerry’s claim that the terrorists who in January attacked Charlie Hebdo had a “rationale.”

Asked about the comments during a contentious interview on Fox News, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest suggested too much attention was being paid to officials’ words.

“I would encourage you to spend just as much time focusing on the president’s actions as you do his words,” Earnest said on “Fox & Friends.”

Earnest noted that Obama, speaking in Turkey on Monday, also called the attacks “sickening.” Plus he said Obama called the French president to offer support — while strategizing with his own security advisers on the U.S. response.

President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey.
President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey.

Earnest said the president is consulting on “what sort of military steps we could take to ramp up our efforts inside of Syria and make sure we can support our French allies.”

But the words of both Obama and Kerry have stirred concerns about the gravity with which the administration is treating the threat.

Kerry discussed the Charlie Hebdo attack — an Al Qaeda affiliate attack against employees at a satirical publication that had published Prophet Muhammad cartoons — during remarks on Tuesday to U.S. Embassy employees in Paris.

He at first suggested there was “legitimacy” to those attacks but then corrected himself and said they had a “rationale.”

He said: “There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that.

%CODE%

There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.

This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people.”

Afterward, State Department spokesman John Kirby defended the secretary’s remarks.

The administration’s comments on the terror threat, though, have even started to draw some Democratic criticism.

After Obama said, in an interview shortly before Friday’s attacks, that ISIS is “contained,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told MSNBC that “ISIL is not contained.”

“ISIL is expanding,” she said.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who typically aligns with the president, scolded Obama in an op-ed.

“Obama’s tone in addressing the Paris atrocity was all wrong,” he wrote. “At times he was patronizing, at other times he seemed annoyed and almost dismissive.

The president said, essentially, that he had considered all the options and decided that even a large-scale terrorist attack in the heart of a major European capital was not enough to make him reconsider his policy.”

Meanwhile, Earnest continued to defend the military strategy and stand by plans to bring Syrian refugees into the U.S.

“That is still the plan,” Earnest said of the refugee plan. “The reason for that is quite simple. The first thing that people should understand, refugees who are admitted to the United States undergo more rigorous screening than anybody else who tries to enter the country.

Typically, it takes between 18 and 24 months for people to be cleared. … These are the victims of ISIL. These are the victims of that terrible war inside of Syria.”

Appeals Court Upholds Decision on Obama Amnesty Ploy

Editor’s Note – It’s the rule-of-law Mr. Obama! Okay, maybe not for the Obama and Clinton types who rule by fiat and expect you to take the punishment and just ask for another one.

Fortunately we have Texas, a state none-to-pleased with Obama’s unilateral executive orders, especially on illegal immigrants and numerous suits and attacks on that state’s government and a court system with a spine. They had Judge Andrew Hanen, a sober and sane judge who ordered Obama’s DHS to stop its unilateral deportation amnesty and support scheme.

In December, 2014, Texas and 25 other states, including North Carolina, filed a lawsuit in the  Southern District Court of Texas seeking to block both DAPA and expanded DACA. The main grounds for their suit were the costs of issuing driver’s licenses and other associated costs of giving the undocumented immigrants legal status. Other issues being considered included exceeding executive power, failure to adhere to rulemaking procedures, and standing — the right of the states to challenge federal immigration policies.

On February 16, 2015, Judge Andrew Hanen issued a temporary injunction blocking both programs from going into effect. Current DACA requirements and two-year terms were supposed to remain unchanged and DAPA has not been implemented. (Read more here at the National Law Review.)

And then the judge had to reprimand the DOJ lawyers:

A federal judge in Texas on Tuesday angrily denied the federal government’s request to allow President Obama’s immigration executive actions to proceed, even as an appeals court signaled that it might disagree with the judge when it takes up the issue next week.

Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in Brownsville, refused late Tuesday night to lift the injunction he had placed in February on the president’s program, saying that to do so would cause irreparable harm. (Read more here.)

Then, that ruling was upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, so now what is Obama and his Department of Justice (for friends only, weaponized for enemies) want to appeal to the Supreme Court:

President Obama will ask the Supreme Court to clear the way for his long-delayed immigration overhaul, administration lawyers said Tuesday, setting up another high-stakes legal contest in the nation’s highest court over the fate of one of the president’s signature achievements.

The Department of Justice said in a statement that it will appeal a federal appeals court ruling that blocked Mr. Obama’s plan to provide work permits to as many as five million undocumented immigrants while shielding most of them from deportation.

“The Department of Justice remains committed to taking steps that will resolve the immigration litigation as quickly as possible in order to allow DHS to bring greater accountability to our immigration system by prioritizing the removal of the worst offenders, not people who have long ties to the United States and who are raising American children,” said Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesman for the Justice Department. “The Department disagrees with the Fifth Circuit’s adverse ruling and intends to seek further review from the Supreme Court of the United States.” (Read more here at the NY Times.)

We hate to break it to you Mr. Rodenbush, what your team is trying to do is anti-constitutional…but you really knew that already didn’t you? It’s called Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: Naturalization and was confirmed as follows in 1795:

Congress claimed exclusive authority over naturalization by establishing new conditions—”and not otherwise”—for aliens “to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them.” In Chirac v. Lessee of Chirac (1817), the Supreme Court affirmed that “the power of naturalization is exclusively in congress,” notwithstanding any state laws to the contrary. (Read extensive summary here at the Heritage Foundation.)

Once again, a co-equal branch of our federal government had to intervene and set the Obama administration straight. In fact, the appeals court used Obama’s very own words from the many times prior in which he said he could not do what he eventually did anyway – another end run around Congress. Read more here at Politico’s “Appeals court keeps block on Obama immigration actions.”

So much for the imperialism of this Presidency, welcome back rule-of-law! SCOTUS must continue to find for the constitution in this latest appeal as well.

Judges use Obama’s own words to halt deportation amnesty

A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.

ObamaFifthCircuit

The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama’s immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.

In an opinion freighted with meaning for the separation of powers battles, Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for himself and Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, singled out Mr. Obama’s own claim that he acted to rewrite the law because Congress wouldn’t pass the bill he wanted.

The key remark came in a speech in Chicago just days after his Nov. 20, 2014, announcement detailing his executive actions. Fed up with a heckler who was chiding him for boosting the number of deportations, Mr. Obama fired back, agreeing that he’d overseen a spike in deportations.

“But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” the president said.

The two judges said the Justice Department failed to explain away Mr. Obama’s remarks.

“At oral argument, and despite being given several opportunities, the attorney for the United States was unable to reconcile that remark with the position that the government now takes,” Judge Smith wrote.

Whether Mr. Obama acted within the law is the crux of the case.

Texas and 25 other states, which sued to stop the amnesty, argue Mr. Obama went beyond the boundaries set in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which sets out specific instances where, on a case-by-case basis, the Homeland Security secretary can waive penalties and allow illegal immigrants to stay, granting them work permits which then entitle them to Social Security cards, tax credits and state driver’s licenses.

A federal district court in Texas agreed with the states, halting Mr. Obama’s policy, and now an appeals court has also sided with the states.

Writing in dissent on Monday, Judge Carolyn Dineen King dismissed Mr. Obama’s claim that he changed the law, saying presidents often use imprecise language when talking about laws. She said Mr. Obama wasn’t making a legal argument in his response to the heckler.

Mr. Obama’s plan, known officially as Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals, or DAPA, was intended to grant up to 5 million illegal immigrants a proactive three-year stay of deportation and to give them work permits, allowing them to come out of the shadows and join American society — though they were still considered to be in the country illegally. To qualify, illegal immigrants had to be parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent resident children.

The president characterized his plan as a use of prosecutorial discretion, reasoning that he was never going to deport them anyway, so they should be granted some more firm status.

But the court ruled that he not only didn’t follow the usual rules in making a major policy change, but that his claims of power to grant tentative legal status to a massive class of people went beyond the waiver powers Congress granted him in the law.

Monday’s decision is already reverberating across the presidential debate, with Hispanic-rights activists insisting Mr. Obama file an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court, and vowing to make immigration an issue in the 2016 election.

Establishment GOP, throws in towel? "A sign of weakness!"

Editor’s Note – The ‘Establishment’ GOP throws in the towel without even putting up a fight? Does the ‘Ol’ Guard’, establishment GOP,  represent “We the People” or even those that put them into their offices?

The Senate GOP Plan to Surrender Debt Control to Obama

By Mike Flynn – Breitbart News

Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, (R-KY), are reportedly planning legislation allowing President Barack Obama to lift the nation’s debt ceiling on his authority, according to sources on Capitol Hill.

Under the potential Senate Republican plan, Congress would merely retain the right to “disapprove” of the President’s action to lift the nation’s debt limit. But disapproving the action would require a hard-to-reach two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2008, regarding the financial crisis. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Political observers may recognize this move. It is similar to the Corker-Cardin legislation that allowed Obama to agree to the nuclear deal with Iran. The Corker legislation simply allowed Congress to disapprove the action, albeit with a vote threshold that was almost impossible to attain.

It conveniently allowed the Iran deal to come into force while enabling Republicans to vote against the treaty in everything but name.

Adopting the Corker framework for the debt ceiling does two things important to Sen. McConnell. It would allow the nation’s debt ceiling to increase, empowering the Treasury Department to continue borrowing funds.

It would also allow most Republicans to cast symbolic votes against lifting the debt ceiling. They could then campaign saying they were against raising the debt ceiling in the upcoming elections next Fall.

It’s a plan only a politician in Washington could love. It also goes a long way to explain the visceral disgust most voters feel towards Washington. On a more fundamental level, it explains the existential crisis gripping the Republican party.

The debt ceiling limits the amount of debt the federal government can accumulate, and is now set at $18,100 billion.

The federal government is borrowing additional funds for the expected 2016 budget, so it will hit that limit sometime after Nov. 3. Unless raised again, the ceiling would bar additional borrowing, and would force politically painful cuts in annual federal spending.

The Republican party in Washington is basically in the business of hiring hit-men, to ensure it has a solid alibi when a crime is committed.

The operational strategy of the Republican party now is to avoid any protracted political fight with Obama or the Democrats and hope to gain marginal political advantage in the next election. It presumably is working for a day when it control all levers of government by such a margin that it can enact its platform with zero political risk.

In the coming weeks, while most of the political world is consumed with the battle to replace

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) as House Speaker, the Congressional calendar is chocked-full of measures that the Washington establishment thinks must be passed. A new spending bill must be authorized by early December.

The Treasury Department says the debt ceiling must be lifted in early November to avoid a potential default on the nation’s debt. There is a “need” to shore-up the Highway Trust Fund and a desperate push by corporate donors to reestablish the Export-Import Bank.

The pending Senate plan to give Obama the power to lift the debt ceiling is preview of how Republicans plan to navigate these waters. They would rather cede Congressional authority over the purse to Obama than have a debate or fight.

If Senate Republicans go through with a Corker-type bill granting Obama the power to lift the debt ceiling, as seems likely, it raises the question not only of why we have Republicans, but why we have a Senate.