GOP Leaders—A craven of cowards?Or something worse?by ALAN KEYES on JUNE 9, 2014
Is there a word for a group of cowards? You know, like a pack of wolves, or a gaggle of geese, or a coven of witches? A group of curs is called a cowardice, so it’s tempting to call a group of cowards a cur. But a cur is a mongrel dog, and experience gives me no reason to assume that all mongrels are cowards. While hunting for the right word, I considered the word “craven”. As an adjective it adds intensity to the word “coward” as in “craven coward”. But it can also be used as a noun.
Individual feelings are intensified by association. So the shared feelings of a group of cowards intensifies their fear (a circumstance that has undoubtedly turned many an ordered retreat into a rout.) Therefore, though I’m not sure it’s been used this way before, I think it makes sense to refer to a craven of cowards, extending and specializing the use of the word as a noun.
My hunt for the right word was, in this case, instigated by a WND article in which sources on Capitol Hill are cited to explain why the GOP leaders in Congress refuse to defend the Constitution and safety of the United States from Barack Obama’s increasingly bold and multifarious attacks.
Despite anger in many quarters of the nation over the president’s prisoner swap, Republicans are backing off impeachment threats because they fear it would rally President Obama’s Democratic base and kill the GOP’s chances to win the Senate, according to congressional insiders and sources.
“150 days out from a general election is not a realistic time to begin such a solemn and Constitutionally important process,” said one advisor to House GOP leaders.
“That would have the opposite effect of what we are planning for in November. We are planning for fewer Democrats in the House and fewer Democrats in the Senate and less power for President Obama in January. Impeachment, which would never pass the Senate, and would rally Obama’s currently demoralized base, would limit, if not eliminate possible GOP gains in the House and Senate,” added the adviser.
The words “they fear” immediately tempted me to accept the notion that fear does, in fact, motivate the GOP leadership. Hence my interest in finding just the right word for a group of cowards. Thank God, though, that I have the habit of pausing to reflect before I say or write anything that might be construed as gratuitous name calling. I will only take the risk if and when I am reasonably convinced that I’m accurately describing a fact. Accurate description has no more to do with name calling than referring to an orange as an orange.
As I reason it out, however, the alleged fear these anonymous Hill sources impute to the GOP leaders assumes that Obama’s blunders have dispirited and demoralized the Democrats. In light of this, their reasoning goes, if the GOP calls him to account for his offenses by Constitutional means, they’ll hand him an opportunity to rally the cowed spirits of his political followers. But if Obama has in fact blundered, what sense does it make to assume that, apart from the irrational ideology- or race-based preferences of some of his supporters, other elements of his Democrat base will rush forward in eager defense of his misdeeds?
Even habitually feckless GOP leaders have been willing to decry, as unconstitutional derelictions of duty, Obama’s repeated failures to abide by and enforce laws passed pursuant to the Constitution. Even they have decried as lawless his dictatorial abuse of executive orders, in order to act by decree, without warrant from the Constitution or laws of the United States. Even they have expressed grave concern over the circumstances and damaging implications of the murders of U.S. personnel in Benghazi; the reeking disregard for law and national security involved in the release of thousands of criminal illegal immigrants; and the deadly comfort given to America’s enemies by the release from U.S. custody of the five terrorist leaders Obama handed over in the Bergdahl swap.
Are these matters as serious as the outraged cries of Obama’s GOP opponents make them out to be? Or has the outcry against Obama on all these matters been nothing but partisan posturing, for political effect. Are GOP criticisms the dutiful work of serious patriots, or deceitful posturing from self-serving politicos who are actually convinced that Obama has done nothing that deserves a serious response from Congress or the electorate?
We’re supposed to believe that the GOP will face a serious backlash if they do what their oath to defend the Constitution requires them to do. But if their own inaction suggests that they are slandering Obama without good cause, why is it rational to assume that fair minded Americans will not be roused against them on this account, including some who are outside of his hard core base of supporters? Why is it rational to assume that fair minded voters will not condemn the GOP for sacrificing truth, and the nation’s historic respect for the Office of President of the United States, in reckless pursuit of a victory in November, a victory their unsubstantiated and divisive slanders prove they do not deserve.
Americans know what to think of people who loudly accuse others of crimes, but refuse, by lawful indictment and trial, fairly to investigate, try and convict them of those crimes. It is unfair, unjust and un-American to do so. The Constitution’s provision for impeachment and removal of civil officers, including the President and Vice-President, is the due process fairness demands in such cases of alleged high crimes and misdemeanors. The GOP’s unwillingness to do what the Constitution requires suggests that they believe they can only score political gains in November by lynching Obama from the election stump, because they lack sufficient evidence and Constitutional justification for the accusations they have made against him.
Which do you think shows greater and more culpably unfair prejudice: adhering to the Constitution’s provisions for accusing, trying and removing civil officers for their offenses against the United States; or refusing to follow the constitution’s due provisions in order to maximize partisan political gain? People may object to the “solemn…and Constitutionally important” impeachment/removal process, but by doing so they defy the Supreme Law of the land. But when officials in Congress decry the occupant of the White House for offenses, yet refuse their duty to investigate and try the charges against him, they not only neglect their sworn duty to the Constitution, they abandon the promise of justice for all that ought now and forever to be common ground for citizens of the United States.
So by refusing to initiate the required national inquest into the conduct of Obama and his cohorts, the GOP makes itself vulnerable to a fierce counterattack from the Obama Democrats in the run up to the November elections. Fear of that counterattack will cause them to shy away from constitutional issues voters need to take seriously, including Obama’s constitutionally questionable implementation of his socialist healthcare scheme. Thus, however the election turns out, Obama’s abuses will go unchallenged. The stage will be set for the two wings of the sham party system to continuing collaborating in pursuit of the agenda the leadership of both Parties actually serves- the elitist faction’s agenda for ending the exceptional liberty and self-government of the American people.
http://loyaltoliberty.com/gop-leaders-a-craven-of-cowards/
