Featured Post

Abortion is The Evil of our generation

So yesterday I came across a rather  appalling article  that tried to make it sound like states having increased abortion restrictions were ...

Friday, March 29, 2013

Being a parent, not a friend, to your children

In a recent post I talked about about the amazing Dr. Ben Carson.  And while there's plenty of positive things to talk about him, there's a particular piece in his Prayer Breakfast Speech that stuck out at me that I wanted to touch on.  In his speech, he mentions how his mother made him and his brother read books and give her written book reports on what they read.  He mentions how other parents and neighbors ridiculed her for this decision, saying how they (him and his brother) would hate her for making them read these books and give reports.  And he admitted that yes, at the time, he hated her for it.  Though years later, he appreciated what she did for him and his brother as it was this prodding to read and her unflinching expectation of excellence that allowed him to rise out of poverty.  He recognized that his mom did what she knew was best for her children, even if they hated her for it at the time.

The anniversary of my father passing was just the other day.  It was a rough day, but it reminded me of my own childhood in conjunction with Dr. Carson's  anecdotes.  Growing up, my dad was the Bad Guy.  I was afraid of my dad and at times I hated him for how cruel he seemed to be.  I also grew up in the 80's, quite easily the decade where the trope "parents just don't understand" became prolific.  Heck, Will Smith, back then half of the rap duo DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince had a hit single "Parents Just Don't Understand".  Family sitcoms and movies were rife with child angst at parents not understanding.   And while I'm aware the child-parent conflicts are nothing new to the 80's, this explosion of entertainment expressing this angst definitely exacerbated the issue via indoctrination of an impressionable mind.  So it wasn't until my mid 20's that I started to see what my dad had done.  He had raised me right.  He had done his job as a parent and there's much I have to thank him (and my mom, of course) for becoming the person I am today.  By no means perfect, but the solid foundation he laid via discipline, at the price of me hating him, is something I value tremendously.

Now this isn't an indictment on anyone nor am I trying to call out anyone, but I've run across quite a few parents that seem hesitant on disciplining their children for fear that the child will hate them.   This fear of not being liked by one's children is natural,  yes, though I believe it's ultimately not a good measuring stick when administering discipline.  Here's a couple points to consider:

  • Discipline, by nature, is not fun - for either the child or parent.  The parent has the aforementioned anxiety about being hated combined with not liking to see their children cry/be miserable.  The child, because, well, the parent is not only preventing them from doing something they want, but is forcing them to do something they definitely do NOT want to do.  So naturally, there are going to be feelings of resentment from a child when you enact discipline.  I would posit to say that any discipline a child actually doesn't dislike is probably not effective discipline.  
  • Most children I know have an amazing ability to bounce back from being irate, upset, or screaming bloody murder about their discipline to being just fine.   Once the  high flowing feelings "burn out" of them, they'll come down to more a lucid state where they're not screaming how much they hate you (which btw, my parents never tolerated even that).  Rational discipline will not "leave them scarred for life".  And it's in my view that kids are deliberately designed, by God, to have this resilience so they can be disciplined by loving parents without "breaking".
And speaking of the Bible, sparing discipline is considered to be tantamount to hating your own children.  Proverbs 13:24 states "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them." The rod, in this case, is referring to discipline.  In the Old Testament days, shepherds had rods that they used to keep their flocks in order.   Why does the Bible say you hate your children if you spare the rod (and btw, rod in this sense means discipline, not explicitly spanking)?  It goes something like this:

A parent's primary duty as a parent is to raise their children to be good people (in God if you're Christian, naturally).  To equip them with what they need to know to live good and moral lives on their own so they can in turn be successful in life.  It falls under the notion that children, like all of us, are not naturally good (as we're born into sin).  And that a child that is not disciplined will be spoiled, selfish, and a burden to those around them.   Therefore, by withholding discipline, they're deliberately dooming their child to not growing up good.  Thus, what kind of parent would deliberately do this?  A parent that hates their child.  

Sounds pretty extreme, considering how potent wielding the word hate can be.  Though, it's not meant to be a condemnation, but more of a discernment on the results of your inaction.  "You must not like your child very much if you choose to let them grow up this way".  

One thing I also wanted to point out in that passage is the "careful to discipline them" part.  Careful being the key word here.  It is possible to have too much discipline just as there is possible to have too little.  Having a measured approach and deciding which aspects of child behavior matter most to you is a good way to establish when it's time to "lay down the law" and when you don't necessarily need to drop the hammer.  

Your children, when they children and even young adults, are not supposed to be your friends.  The duty of the parent is to shape the child into becoming a moral, upright human being - even when it's against the child's will.  That's the price of being a parent.  Yet, when they get older and wiser, they'll come back and see the sacrifices that were made to mold them, and thank the parent for it.  

Of course, all this comes from my own experiences and observations.  So this is pretty much one parent to another.  Don't let the fear of your kids hating you prevent you from doing what you need to do to ensure they grow up to be strong, moral, and upright people.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Eye on the Prize: Extending His Kingdom (EHK)

Lately,  my posts have been quite political.  Not that I think I shouldn't have written them, but I'm aware that the battle I'm waging in that area is not necessarily where I should be focusing my energy.  As I've mentioned previously,  politics is down stream from culture and culture downstream from hollywood/entertainment.  And while many conservatives had a political wakening, I'm sure many of them, like me, find themselves at odds with some aspects that have been ingrained in us through culture.  For instance, while I believe and know, that Christian beliefs were, and still are, foundational to our government, it some times takes a moment to shake the liberal notion that government should be purely secular and not express religion in any way.   Why? Because I grew up wrongly believing (like so many do) that the separation of church and state meant that the state was not supposed to espouse any type of religious beliefs or values.   And where did I learn that? Nowhere in particular.  It came just from being born and growing up in a time where the nation's culture was becoming more and more secular.

In that post, I mention how Hollywood/entertainment is at the heart of this cultural shift and that in order to correct this shift, we had to change Hollywood/entertainment.  We change the entertainment to transmit Christian and conservative values and eventually the nation's culture would come back around.  Sounds pretty impossible?  Sure it does.  The entertainment industry is a liberal stronghold.  In fact, it is so liberal that many "normal" liberals think these Hollywood liberals are too extreme.  And this industry routinely black lists conservatives and outspoken Christians.  There's no way to gain a foothold in there, right?  Sure seems that way.

Thankfully though, there are signs that it's not impossible.  Just look at how the History Channel's The Bible is crushing every other show in ratings.  People are craving faith based entertainment and I can't help but think this is a direct result of people noticing how empty a secular culture truly is.  Not only is it empty, they can see the results as our country continues its "progressive" slide backwards.  The veneer of secularism is beginning to crack, showing that no, it's not impossible to take on the entertainment industry.

Of course, there's always another, and simpler, reason why it's not impossible:  God.  If it's indeed His Will, that's all we should need to know that we'll be victorious.

And this is where Extending His Kingdom (maybe I'll start just calling it EHK) comes in.  You see, Extending His Kingdom is the one mandate God gave his people.  As Dick Iverson put it, the church is the instrument for extending His Kingdom.  We are His Kingdom and we extend it by bringing the light of Christ to everyone around us.

How does this tie in with taking back the entertainment industry?  It's quite simple, really.  If we carry out God's mandate, EHK, then His Will will be done.  And who can argue that carrying out His Will is not the best thing we can do?  No, this does not guarantee we'll take over the entertainment industry, or even turn this country around.  What it means is so much more valuable:  The Plan, His Plan, God's Plan is being carried out.  The Plan transcends culture and nations.  It is The Plan.  It's universal and its implications are powerful and awe inspiring beyond our own limited imaginations.   If there's one cause to get behind, it's The Plan, His Plan.  And our part in that plan is EHK.

Now, of course, how to exactly enact EHK is a tougher question, but I can say that the answer is definitely not anything uniform.  It's not strictly through politics or reviving this nation, though I'm sure some will be lead to head in that direction.   The primary fundamental to keep in mind, though is whenever we act in His Name, we need to do so under the direct banner of Extending His Kingdom.   While it's possible that God might lead some people into politics, we must never lose sight of EHK, especially its very core:  spreading your light to those around you.

So while taking back the entertainment industry and this nation are indeed noble goals, just keep in mind that they are not necessarily God's goal.  And in comparison, His goals are far more profound than any our short-sighted, though noble, goals.

Monday, March 25, 2013

Senate Democrats propose budget with $1 Trillion tax increase, refuses to balance budget

Remember when President Obama said he's looking out for the middle class and didn't want to raise taxes on them?  And remember how his campaign misleadingly said Romney's tax plan would raise taxes by $2,000?  I sure do.  Not two months after the election, taxes on the middle class increased, breaking his promise.   Everyone's paycheck nation wide decreased due to Obama allowing the Bush Era Tax cuts to expire.  And while that hit had an impact, it was bearable (at least for me, but still - less take home pay sucks).  

But alas, this is already old news in today's hyper accelerated news cycle.  However, what is somewhat fresh news, maybe you've heard about it.  The Democratic controlled Senate, for the first time in 4 years, has proposed a budget.  Good news, right?  Sure, if you're a firm believer in Statism and that a central government can tax and spend their way out of any problem.  Here's the highlights:

  • Increases taxes by $975 billion
  • Increases spending by 62%, an additional 2.1 trillion per year
  • Makes zero attempt to balance 
  • Makes zero non defense spending cuts
So, their budget is not only going to raise taxes, but they're actually going to spend even more than this supposed tax increase will offer.  In other words, they're going to hurt the economy even more by raising taxes and then also accelerate the rate at which we go into debt.


Republicans attempted to offer amendments to try to rebuff this insanity by asking the plan to go back to committee for balancing.  This was defeated along pure party lines.   My very own Senator Grassley attempted to get the tax increase reduced or removed, but this was also defeated along party lines except for one Democrat defector.   

This country's economic solvency has been on a steady decline for decades.  Obama's policies for the first 4 years caused this decline to a sharp downward turn.  But this proposed budget makes Obama's economic record look sterling in comparison.  This doesn't just accelerate our downward trajectory, it it's like deliberately flying your plane nose first into the ground.

If this budget passes the Senate, which it most certainly will, there should be a heavy political price to pay just like what Obamacare did in the 2010 midterms.   

Forget all the partisan sniping for a second.  Forget your party allegiances for a moment and just look.  This is not a budget.  This is a reckless spending plan that will further burden the middle class and drive us into economy killing levels of debt.  

It's these types of economic policies that will ruin this country.  Every Senator that came up with and voted for this in committee needs to be voted out.   Every Senator that votes for this when the budget comes to the floor needs to be replaced.  This is not a partisan concern, this is about kicking out the people that seem dead set on reducing this great nation to a shadow of its former self.  An irresponsible budget like this goes a long way to accomplish this.   

Get the word out.  The Democratic supported budget should be the political death knell for any and all who support it.  In later posts, I'll explain why it's so bad to be in debt and why a strong, vibrant economy is the backbone of a strong and free America.  For now though, just get the word out.  These Senators need to pay a hefty political price for this.

Friday, March 22, 2013

Meet Dr. Ben Carson, an American success story

In conjunction with highlighting some of this administration's and the leftist Democratic party's deplorable political behavior and stunts, I'm going to also highlight some of the best conservative speeches, writings, and people as a juxtaposition to the pettiness of the left and Washington elites.  To show that not only is the conservative message not bigoted, racist, misogynist, -ist ad nauseum, but it's also the more moral, noble, and liberty driven philosophy.

With that said, I'm going to start with one of the better speeches at CPAC 2013 (Conservative Political Action Conference) by Dr. Ben Carson.  If you're not familiar with CPAC, it's pretty much a conference for leaders and political figures of the conservative movement to speak about the conservative movement and its current challenges.    It's been going on for 40 years and has been attended by pretty much every major conservative figure in those 4 decades, including the much venerated Ronald Reagan.   And every year, the leftist media does their best to find ways to distort this conference to paint conservatives in the *ist light that they've been doing for decades.  But make no mistake: CPAC is a great place to get a sense of what the conservative movement is about and who's who on the conservative scene...as long as you watch the speeches and panels for yourself without someone in the media distilling it down into a few hundred word article riddled with their particular political slant.  

With that said, let's get on to Ben Carson.  If you want to look for a shining example of the American Dream, you need not look any farther (though there are plenty of them out there!).  This man grew up in poverty, raised by a single mom who worked three jobs.   A mom who made a young Ben shut off the TV in fifth grade and instead made him read books (and give book reports on them).  A mom who believed in her son and wouldn't settle for less than excellence.  Obviously, it paid off as he became a world famous neurosurgeon.  

Before his appearance on CPAC this year, Dr. Carson became famous (or infamous depending on your perspective) for his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in February.  In that speech, with Obama sitting only a few feet from him, he had the courage to say what he believes which also contradicted with Obamacare and some of Obama's philosophy.  He didn't denigrate.  He didn't call out.  He was instead graceful in his disagreement. Overall this speech rang true, sincere, and powerful:

The reaction from the left was to instantly attempt to invalidate the man's beliefs by playing the race card. You see, if conservatives tout a black conservative, they're just doing it because he's black and thus they're racist for promoting a "token black conservative".   This is what they've done for every black conservative out there hoping to retain their supposed "racial high ground" vs conservatives.  Anyway, Dr. Carson was invited to speak at CPAC, in which he gave a tremendous speech that indicted this administration as well as making excellent points about conservatism...

This man is very smart, very articulate, and quite obviously very compassionate.  A man who is an example of the American Dream.  He's also recently published a book, America the Beautiful. The speeches are both long, but well worth listening to.  You don't have to stay glued and watch them, feel free to just listen to the audio while you continue doing what you're doing.  In part of the CPAC video, he mentions "if I were in the White House" to which the audience gives a resounding applause.  

If Dr. Carson doesn't end up running for President, he should at least run for Congress and/or be a part of a future Republican presidential administration.   He is the type of leader we need for our country.  

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Mitch McConnell and other Republican Senators vote to fund Obamacare

If you want a prime example of political betrayal by your own party, this is it.  While any Republican voting to fund Obamacare stings, what McConnell's done is far worse.  If  you didn't catch it, McConnell actually gave a pretty nice speech at CPAC this year.  He came in with a prop:  20,000 pages of regulations written in direct response to Obamacare, thus making the unpopular health care bill the centerpiece of his speech.   It's important to point out how he said he'd "fight Obamacare tooth and nail" etc. against the government healthcare takeover.  On top of that, he also supported Ted Cruz's amendment to defund Obamacare.

But when it came time to vote on the principles touted just a few days earlier, he decided to go with funding the very same thing he was supposedly heroically fighting against at CPAC.  So now, what seemed like a very nice speech at CPAC championing conservative causes, now knowing his vote to fund Obamacare, turns out to be more like re-election lip service.

This is why we can't have nice things.  Because we have Congressmen who say one thing, then do the exact opposite on Capitol Hill.   Republican leadership is particularly weak in both the House and Senate.  In the House, Boehner is quite easily the Democrat's best weapon.   And in the Senate, where Republicans are in the minority, we have Senators with no will power to stand up  (As an aside, I'm relieved  Iowa's Grassley is not on the list of Republican Senators who voted for funding).   And speaking of, here's the list of Senators who supported Cruz's defund amendment, but then flipped and voted to fund Obamacare (taken from this Red State post):

  • Alexander (R-TN)
  • Barrasso (R-WY)
  • Blunt (R-MO)
  • Boozman (R-AR)
  • Chambliss (R-GA)
  • Coats (R-IN)
  • Cochran (R-MS)
  • Collins (R-ME)
  • Corker (R-TN)
  • Cornyn (R-TX)
  • Hatch (R-UT)
  • Hoeven (R-ND)
  • Isakson (R-GA)
  • Johanns (R-NE)
  • McConnell (R-KY)
  • Murkowski (R-AK)
  • Sessions (R-AL)
  • Shelby (R-AL)
  • Thune (R-SD)
  • Wicker (R-MS)
So, the million dollar question is why would McConnell, after whole heartedly going all in against Obamacare at CPAC, do the exact opposite and risk pissing off his constituents?  Simply put, this vote is actually less politically risky in his eyes.  As I've mentioned previously about RINOs, they like the power structure as it is in Washington.  From their perspective, Obama and his ilk are nothing more than a passing storm, one that they need to hunker down and weather through until their party is back in power.   Once they're back in power, that's when they can really do something! Until then, they won't  do anything that will seriously risk them getting voted out before their party's back in power.   

Essentially they're more afraid that the Democrats will demagogue their no vote as being "obstructionist" and therefore to blame for the woes of the country ("They didn't want you to have health care!") than they are about their own constituents remembering that they voted for the very same thing they said they'd fight against.  And since their vote is "meaningless" right now, might as well just duck and cover until they have a majority again.   

In other words, they're cowards.  Just like the servant who hid his talent, so afraid that he'd lose it, instead of using it to be productive for his master as instructed, these cowards are wasting the power their masters (we, the people) have given them (via election) because they're afraid to lose it.  

While I'd never want to cede a Republican seat to a Democrat (especially if it's Ashley Judd, though I hear even her own base is shying away from her bid already), I hope the people of Kentucky will remember this and hold McConnell accountable by voting for a true conservative in the primary.  Naturally, the conservative candidate would still need to be a good, thoroughly vetted candidate and not go off spouting crazy, idiotic stuff at the worst possible time (thank you, Todd Akin, for giving Claire McCaskil another 6 years in the Senate).   But if Kentucky finds such a person, I'd be for putting up the "unknown quantity" conservative candidate and have a riskier general election then just go with another 6 years of McConnell.   I'd say that for any Senator who's more afraid of  Democratic demagoguing than they are their own constituents.  

And let's face it, you pretty much should hand in your conservative card if you vote for a bill that McCain voted against - particularly one that deals with Obamacare.

If your state is on this above list, I'd heavily consider looking more into their voting record.  While McConnell's CPAC about face is enough for me to want to get him out of there (combined with overall weak Republican leadership), other Senators may require more digging.   And if they don't match up to principle, start looking for candidates that will go to Washington and raise hell.  

The RINOs need to go and it's up to each state's constituents to start looking for quality candidates now so by the time election time rolls around next year, they're primed and ready to get these clowns out of office.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

7 Marines dead in training accident, Democrat Senator Harry Reid blames sequester

Seven Marines died in a mortar explosion as a result of a training accident earlier this week.  And in a not so surprising display of appalling politicizing, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid pretty much blames the accident on the sequester. To quote:

Mr. President, it's very important we continue training our military, so important. But one of the things in sequester is we cut back in training and maintenance. That's the way sequester was written. Now, the bill that's on the floor, we hope to pass today helps that a little bit. At least in the next six months, it allows the military some degree of ability to move things around a little bit. Flexibility, we call it, and that's good. But we have to be very vigilant. This sequester should go away. We have cut already huge amounts of money in deficit reduction. It's just not appropriate, Mr. President, that our military can't train and do the maintenance necessary. 

 So in other words, because the military didn't have the money to conduct the proper training, these marines died.  Let's get the easy part out of the way:  This is pure nonsense.  First, the investigation is still pending, so we don't know exactly why the mortar exploded when it did.  Second, accidents happen.  And third, the only way this can be blamed on budget cuts is if somehow the base switched to a "cheaper" vendor (that has quality control issues) in response to budget cuts and that this shell was part of those cheaper shells purchased.

But now let's get down to the slimy, egregious part of Senator Reid's statement.  Even if they can somehow pin this accident on recently purchased lower quality shells, thus blame the sequester, it is their (Democrat and Obama's) fault.   Instead, Reid, and Obama, are doing their absolute worst to make these sequester cuts look as painful as possible in order to make Republicans look bad (since they rightfully allowed the sequester to take place).  Let's review some facts:

  • The sequester was Obama's idea in the first place.
  • It was Obama who decided to place the heaviest cuts in the military
  • It was Reid that did not bring House bills to the Senate Floor that would have avoided military cuts
  • It was both Reid and Obama who stopped a Senate bill that would have allowed Obama to administer the sequestration cuts at his discretion
  • Finally, it's been Reid's senate that has refused to pass a budget which caused all this drama to begin with
So basically, Reid is trying to politicize the accidental deaths of 7 marines so he can blame Republicans for something that is his and Obama's doing.  They desperately want to blame their failing policies on Republicans in order to get the House back in 2014 and they're using every dirty trick in the book, including stopping White House tours for children that cost $3 million dollars while still sending Egypt (you know, the country where our embassy was attacked and is ruled by the anti-American flag burning Muslim Brotherhood?) $250 million dollars to make these cuts in spending look like the worst things possible.

Now while I profess that getting mired in the political battles is small potatoes compared to what God's mandate of extending his kingdom, but I also cannot idly sit by and let these leftist snakes continue to ruin this country through lies and subterfuge.  The American public needs to be made more aware of these things and it's quite clear the media has no intention of exposing this administration and its far left Democrat accomplices for what they are: the destroyers of America.  So what do we do? We get the word out ourselves.  Tell the people you know.  Share this post (or others like it) on Facebook, Google+, etc.  

There will be more posts like this.  We have 20 months to expose the people that need to get voted out of Congress  (although yes, Reid himself is not up for election until 2016), but any Senators - be them Republican or Democrat complicit in this man's terrible leadership should be replaced.  

Monday, March 11, 2013

The real battle in 2014: RINO hunting

So it's been a while, not that I have an excuse aside from finding time to continue this blog.  But I'm not done, that's for sure!  So it's been a great year so far, hasn't it?  In the weeks of my absence, so many things have popped up on the political scene that I've been finding difficulty to find the right thing to write about.  In these weeks, we've seen Obama demagoguing Republicans for the sequester (that was originally his idea, which he conveniently leaves out) in order to get control of the House in 2014.  We've also seen an anti-Israel, pro-Palestine, not-know-much-about-the-military RINO (Republican In Name Only) get confirmed as Secretary of Defense by the worst margin in history (no Secretary of Defense has ever received 41 no votes).  And we've also seen Rand Paul throw down the conservative gauntlet in an epic filibuster that was pretty much a conservative manifesto.  Plenty to write about, which I'll get to.  

But today, there's one thing on my mind that I think is super important for all conservatives to understand.  It's not a new point.  It's nothing earth shattering, but it needs to be underscored.  And that thing is this:

There are enemies of conservative Republicans within the ranks of the Republican party itself.

While we're all worrying about the left, the mainstream media, and the liberal Democrats, we also have a problem right within our own back yard.  Keep in mind, throughout history it has been the Republican party that has brought about positive change.  The Republican party was born out of the abolitionist movement of the mid 19th century.  It was the Republican party that pushed civil rights legislation through.  It was a Republican president in the 1980's that turned this country's economy around in a miraculous way.  (slight aside:  if you think the "job growth" of today is satisfactory, compare it to Reagan's job growth.   It'll make you realize how much of the "job growth" being touted these days is a bunch of Orwellian B.S.)  Simply put, it's been Republicans that have brought about positive change.  And in most situations, it's been the Democrats that have been the obstructionists (Jim Crow laws were a Democrat invention).  

The Republican party has always been "fighting the good fight" (not saying there aren't Democrats who have because there have been).  Yet, despite the party's rich history, it also has it down sides.  One of them being that it's also stuffed with big government politicians that really have no interest in relinquishing the power they have.  These are what we call RINOs: Republicans In Name Only.  Because while they may be in the Republican party, they surely don't honor the party's tradition with their "moderate" (and I use that term loosely since the definition of a moderate is a constantly moving target) pro government agendas.  

While I've always known about RINOs in the party, I would always assuage my concern by saying "Well OK, they may be pro government, but at least they'll lean to the right and oppose leftism...right?"  And I think many conservatives might think the same way:  "They're not exactly in our corner, but at least they're on our side."   And sad to say, after seeing the reaction of Senators McCain and Graham to Rand Paul's conservative manifesto filibuster, even the previous statement is not certain.   

It's always been aggravatingly baffling when a RINO Congressman smacks down a conservative member of their own party.  Why on Earth would they do that?  Why would they sneer at someone boldly calling out the hypocrisies of the current and previous administrations?   Why would they intentionally attempt to politically tackle Rand Paul instead of stand by him?  

I'm sure to some reading this the answer is simple and obvious.  But when thinking about it some more, I came to a couple conclusions regarding RINOs:
  1. They want to preserve their power.  Hence they immediately come out to try to look like the "voice of reason" by ridiculing a "childish" colleague.  They derisively claim this junior Senator doesn't really understand how Washington works (or something in a similar vein) and that he shouldn't do these childish stunts.  To translate:  They like how Washington operates now and don't want some upstart conservative ruining their power.
  2. As much as they may dislike Obama, they dislike the Tea Party conservatives almost or just as much. Tea Party conservatives, as noted above, are largely against the DC machine, which diminishes their own power the more the conservatives gain clout.  
In other words, they like their power.  They like the way Washington operates because it's a power structure they're familiar with.  And those darn Tea Party conservatives come and try shake it all up on them and they will not stand for it.   This is why they're so often seen doing the "bipartisan shuffle" as to somehow apologize for their crazy cousins' insane notions about liberty, freedom, and limited government.   It's a "Hey guys, I'm sorry for this crazy guy raving for the last 13 hours, as you can see I'm embarrassed by him and think him and all his followers are nuts.  On the contrary, I'm sane and therefore should be re-elected when it comes time because you need my bipartisanship to keep these crazies at bay".   Again, they like the power structure as it's built in Washington and don't want it to change.  Sure, they'd rather be the guys in the White House and in congressional majority because the structure is the same, just who's on top is different.  They'd take being the minority and resign themselves to "gracefully losing"  over allowing conservatives to come in, rock boats, and cause "political upheaval".  

To distill that down further, all the RINOs are doing right is buckling down and trying to weather Political Storm Obama until 2016 where they have a chance to regain control.  They have no interest in political change now.  They have no interest in doing something as dramatic as defunding Obamacare.  Why? Because that would buck the system they love too much.  They do as little as possible to keep their constituents happy in order to secure re-election, and then spend the rest of the time tackling any conservative politicians that want change now, like the rest of the country.  

And the thing is, as long as we have these tools in office, they'll continually attempt to brow beat conservative politicians to get them in line (aka meekly accepting the DC political machine and its power structure).   That is why while 2014 will be a pretty defensive election year (keeping control of the House should be the most important goal), we should also work towards replacing these RINOs by winning the primaries.  Of course, this is risky since that would put any unseated RINO's seat into more serious contention between two relative unknown quantities in the general election.  But honestly, waiting for 2016 to get more politicians with spines into Congress is just too long.  We have to go on the offensive, and that includes cleansing our party of the politicians that are as much part of the problem as the liberal Democrats.   

Even if we don't gain any seats in the House or Senate (though it'd be nice to take the Senate, but I'm not holding my breath), if we're able to flip a few from RINO to conservative, then that might be enough to gain more support for more bold action...such as unseating Boehner as Speaker of the House.  He was pretty close to losing it this time if only a few more politicians grew spines.  

Either way, how can the Republican party ever hope to turn this country around if the conservatives are being beset by the RINOs in their own party?  Clean out our party, re-capture the party's rich heritage, then fight in solidarity against the big government left.  But we need to get rid of the RINOs plaguing the party first.  So in 2014, it's RINO hunting season....