Obama to Republicans on National Debt: Heads I win, Tails you lose

Every time we reach another national debt crisis fork in the road (debt ceiling, continuing resolution, fiscal cliff, etc.), Barack Obama flips a coin. Right before doing so, he sets the rules: heads I win, tails you lose. The problem is that his opponents accept the terms.

It's common knowledge that Obama is quite familiar with the Cloward-Piven strategy. In fact, he's been implementing it since he was first inaugurated in 2009. That strategy is to so overwhelmingly burden entitlement programs that the system eventually collapses. The strategy was originally created in the 1960's and the Obama administration has applied it in a 21st Century world (Obama phones just one example).

As the debt climbs higher and higher, Obama banks on two theorems he might see as a win/win situation (heads and tails):

1. The collapse of the society Cloward-Piven strategists want, gets closer.
2. Arrest / reversal of the process becomes increasingly more difficult as collapse approaches.

Theorem number one is precisely why Obama doesn't just appear to be disinterested in solving the debt crisis; his actions and demeanor clearly demonstrate that he's interested in furthering it (heads I win). The lavish vacations and runaway spending that seems ridiculously outrageous to clear-thinking individuals will never embarrass him because it's all part of his plan. The longer his opponents attempt to embarrass him, the more he spends because he knows he either has those opponents snookered or neutered (Boehner saying he 'absolutely' trusts Obama is a case in point). The reason he's behaving like a man who wants to collapse the economy is because he does.

The more debt the country goes into, the closer we get to the endgame of the Cloward-Piven strategy - collapse.

Yet, for some reason, Obama's political opponents who have the power to confront this problem (House leadership), refuse to admit the truth and, subsequently allow Obama to further test and reinforce his first theorem. This can be seen perfectly in Speaker John Boehner's refusal to attach an Obamacare de-funding mechanism to the Continuing Resolution, which means a monstrous steroid injection to both theorems. That Rep. Paul Ryan put forth a budget that de-funds Obamacare while also knowing it hadn't a chance of passing, demonstrates that Obama's opponents know what's right but refuse to do it.

The longer theorem number one can be tested before Republican leadership decides to arrest and reverse the process, the better it is for Obama because it will only strengthen theorem number two.

Sequestration gave us a look into what Obama would do if Speaker John Boehner, et. al. chose to test theorem number two on a more grandiose scale, like say, the upcoming CR (tails you lose).

Up until sequestration actually happened, the Republicans never really knew how Obama would handle things if the former never caved because... Republicans always seemed to cave. Whether it was the debt ceiling, CR's, or the fiscal cliff, in the end, Obama always got another blank check and the national debt has just continued rising. As such, the president has been able to further test both theorems.

When sequestration happened, we got our first glimpse at Obama's playbook if Boehner, et. al. ever made a serious attempt to reverse the country's self-destructive fiscal course. The cancellation of White House tours and the release of hardened criminals were indicators. In the first instance, American citizens were told to stay off their own property. It wasn't just unnecessary, political, petty, and punitive - it was also symbolic. More seriously, the decision to release thousands of hardened criminals was meant to threaten a much larger White House-sanctioned prison release if House leadership decided to finally deal with the debt crisis.

In essence, Obama was saying that if the opposition attempted to confront the real debt problem, he would hold America hostage. This communicates something else as well, namely, that Obama isn't as eager to test theorem number two as he is theorem number one. He's acting like a man who wants to reach the Cloward-Piven endgame by never having to win a game of chicken over theorem number two. The administration's handling of sequestration did more harm to Obama than it did to House Republican leadership, which is why the latter should ultimately force Obama's hand.

If this administration was so willing to use sequestration to so transparently harm Americans, what would it do if the government was shut down because House leadership decided not to pass that CR?

Perhaps Obama doesn't want us to find out because he knows his actions will finally be transparently his alone and that he will lose.

John Boehner Projection: Obama has 'balls made out of marshmellows'?!

Caveat necessary. The video below does not consist of House Speaker John Boehner saying that Obama's balls are made out of marshmellows. However, it does include a man named John Mauldin who claims to have been present when Boehner said it and it's not at all likely that someone like Mauldin would falsely attribute those words to Boehner.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume Boehner actually said it. According to Mauldin, the House Speaker made the charge during the debt ceiling debate, which took place in the summer of 2011. In a word, the charge meant that Obama lacked 'audacity', which is defined as:

boldness or daring, especially with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions.

Yep, that pretty much describes Obama. It's also the opposite of Boehner's assessment.

If we include the debt ceiling debate and every battle Boehner has been involved in with Obama since then, how many has Boehner actually won?

Uh, can't think of any.

When it comes to the most powerful Republican in elected office (Boehner) and the most powerful Democrat in elected office (Obama), there have been two kinds of battles.

1. Battles fought
2. Battles not fought

As for the battles fought...

• The debt ceiling
• The 2012 elections
• Fiscal cliff
• Tax cuts
• Spending cuts
• Sequestration
• Continuing Resolution
• Healthcare Debate
• Deficit / Debt Reduction

In all of the battles fought, it's hard to find one instance in which Obama has lost since the 2010 elections, which were actually won by the same Tea Party Boehner doesn't seem to have much regard for.

The debt continues to grow, despite the fact that the House is responsible for the purse strings; the 2012 elections were a major embarrassment for the Republican Party in general, to include Boehner as the House's gavel-holder. His lack of fight after the 2010 elections contributed to the base staying home in 2012. Boehner bemoaned making mistakes in the fiscal cliff talks by saying he shouldn't have negotiated with Obama and that he was 'full of regret' over how he handled it. Spending cuts? What spending cuts? Sequestration? Well, despite it being Obama's idea, Boehner is proving woefully inadequate when it comes to making the president own it.The continuing resolution debate will heat up in March. If the government is not allowed to shut down, Boehner will lose another round to Obama. Healthcare debate? Obama definitely didn't lack fortitude / audacity there.

As for debt / deficit reduction... Obama loves runaway debt and deficits. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Boehner wants to stem / reverse the tide. After the Republicans were swept into office in great numbers in the 2010 elections, Boehner had momentum (and the gavel). When it comes to the national debt / annual deficits, nothing has changed.

Advantage: 'Marshmellow' balls.

As for the battles not fought, two come to mind:

• Fast and Furious
• Benghazi Investigation

How about the battles not fought? Boehner REFUSED to make an issue of Fast and Furious; the Obama administration was wobbly in the knees for several months. Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa was essentially on his own. It was obvious Boehner wanted to avoid getting to the bottom of a scandal that demanded justice.

Marshmellows, Mr. Speaker?

How about the investigation into Benghazi? Boehner has been all but silent. Rep. Frank Wolf has twice formally asked the Speaker to form a House Select Committee to help get to the bottom of that scandal, which involves dead Americans and likely criminal activity on the part of the Obama administration.

Marshmellows, Mr. Speaker?

Really?! I believe Barack Obama is the worst president this country has ever had but to accuse him of having 'balls' of 'marshmellows' is rather audacious in light of your track record when it comes to fighting him.

Boehner's behavior smacks of projection. His entire record over the last two years reveals a man who is afraid to fight and is getting beaten like a drum. Yet, the guy who beats him is the coward? Mr. Boehner, with all due respect, the accusation you allegedly made about Obama 18 months ago appears to be an accusation you should be levying at yourself. Instead, you appear to be employing a psychological defense mechanism that is preventing you from making that admission.

Projection is a psychological defense mechanism which states:

Projection is the misattribution of a person’s undesired thoughts, feelings or impulses onto another person who does not have those thoughts, feelings or impulses. Projection is used especially when the thoughts are considered unacceptable for the person to express, or they feel completely ill at ease with having them. For example, a spouse may be angry at their significant other for not listening, when in fact it is the angry spouse who does not listen. Projection is often the result of a lack of insight and acknowledgement of one’s own motivations and feelings.

If Boehner is uncomfortable accepting the reality that it is he who lacks courage, he very well could be projecting that lack of courage onto Obama. The question that needs to be asked of Boehner is a simple one:

If Obama has 'balls made out of marshmellows' Mr. Speaker, how come he keeps beating you?

There's really no reason to doubt the authenticity of what Mauldin attributed to Boehner as having said but it is truly unbelievable that Boehner - of all people - would be the one to say it:



h/t WZ

Memo to John Boehner: 'In the name of God, go.'

In 1940, as the fate of Great Britain was in grave doubt, Member of Parliament (MP) Leo Amery gave a speech that called for the necessary ouster of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. In 2012, the United States finds itself in a similar position and the man who holds the position that wields the most power is John Boehner, someone on par with Chamberlain. Here is an excerpt from Amery's speech, via the Guardian:

Somehow or other we must get into the government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory. Some 300 years ago, when this house found that its troops were being beaten by the dash and daring of Prince Rupert's cavalry, Oliver Cromwell spoke to John Hampden. In one of his speeches he recounted what he said. It was this: "I said to him, 'Your troops are most of them old, decayed serving men and tapsters and such kind of fellows'… You must get men of a spirit that are likely to go as far as they will go, or you will be beaten still."

It may not be easy to find these men. They can be found only by trial and by ruthlessly discarding all who fail. We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all; we cannot go on being led as we are. I have quoted certain words of Oliver Cromwell. I will quote certain other words. This is what Cromwell said to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."

Speaker of the House John Boehner is a weak leader who must be ruthlessly discarded, not with violence but with resolve and fortitude. His fight or flight response is to cry; we saw that after the Republicans won a majority in the House after a tidal wave of Tea Party support and enthusiasm. Conservative voters did their part. They put Republican congressmen - who chose to have Boehner lead them - in charge of the House of Representatives. Boehner was entrusted with voter confidence and he has failed them.

In the first two years of the Obama administration, Boehner was essentially powerless to stop the Democratic agenda. But he talked very tough. Why? For one thing, there were no real consequences - other than support from a base that lapped up the red meat afforded them by a commiserating leader - for doing so.

Remember this outrage at the stimulus bill?



For some perspective, the stimulus bill that Boehner was so indignant about then is a drop in the bucket of what he's advocating for today - when he actually has power. Negotiations to avoid the 'fiscal cliff' have involved two people behind closed doors - Barack Obama and John Boehner - and every time those two people emerge from behind those closed doors, one of them emerges as a beaten man, a man on the brink of crying.

We know this because that beaten man proceeds to negotiate with himself.

In 2009 and 2010, Boehner was leading the charge against closed-door meetings; now he's a participant. In fact, he's advocating for the same deal that former Speaker Pelosi put forth several months ago.

Via The Hill:

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told House Republicans on Tuesday he will move to a “Plan B” on the fiscal cliff by having the House vote on legislation to extend tax rates on annual income under $1 million.

The bill would allow tax rates on annual income above $1 million to rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, but make permanent lower rates on income below that threshold, Boehner's office said.

Boehner's office noted that Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) have previously expressed support for raising tax rates on annual income above $1 million.

But a Schumer spokesman said things changed with the reelection of President Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to raise tax rates on annual income above $250,000.

"Republicans should've taken Senator Schumer's offer two years ago when they had the chance," Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon said. "We've had an election on the president's tax plan, the president won, and Republicans can't turn the clock back."

Translation: Boehner is groveling to the Democrats with a plan in his hand that Pelosi put forward several months ago, before the election. Predictably, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and the Democrats are turning up their noses. They are doing so because Boehner is not acting like he's the Speaker of the House; he's acting like a semi-reluctant presidential subject.

If Obama is the cat, Boehner is the yarn ball.

Yes, Boehner is so weak that not only is he doing deals behind closed doors with Obama - something he decried when he wasn't in power - but he is advocating a position once espoused by Nancy Pelosi when he's in the room alone with the president. And Obama is still telling him no.

If such a position was strategic and done early on in this process, Boehner could be excused. Now that it appears to be an act of desperation, he may as well be running around a race track in his underwear:



Imagine if, in 2009, Obama and Pelosi negotiated behind closed doors to negotiate a new tax deal. Not only would Boehner have heard a cacophony of outrage from Tea Partiers but he'd have responded with like-minded outrage... and it would have been easy because it wouldn't have required leadership.

Whether it's caving on tax rates or the debt ceiling, Boehner is revealing himself as a political eunuch on practically a daily basis. This debate is no longer about the 'fiscal cliff'. Frankly, we've already gone over it. This is about Obama breaking the will of conservatives by breaking the back of John Boehner.

The problem is that Boehner's back is much more brittle than the back of the conservative wing. It should be the other way around, which is why we conservatives must shout with one very clear voice:

"You (Boehner) have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, we say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."

Let's face it. Boehner has failed and must be "ruthlessly discard(ed)" because of that failure.

Otherwise, we all fail.

Report: House Majority Whip responsible for Boehner's 'purge list'

There appears to be a source for Breitbart who has access to the goings-on inside House Republican leadership circles when it comes to the now infamous 'purge list' John Boehner used to oust four conservatives from the Budget and Financial Services Committees. If this source is correct, Rep. Paul Ryan's role in the purge may also be coming into clearer focus.

Via Breitbart:

A House GOP source has confirmed to Breitbart News that House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy was the one who drafted the secret criteria list House Speaker John Boehner used in his purge of conservatives from House committees.

The source, someone with inside knowledge of how Boehner conducted the purge, told Breitbart News that McCarthy crafted the list, which included a scorecard of where several conservative members stood on certain votes. According to the source, it’s unclear at this time whether McCarthy made the list of his own accord or if he did so at the request of somebody else in GOP leadership – like Boehner or House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

The source alleges that McCarthy brought the criteria list to the House GOP Steering Committee where it was used to purge four conservatives from their House committee spots.

As for Ryan, not only is he being conspicuously silent on this whole thing but he is both on the Steering Committee, which includes 31 members, and chairman of the House Budget Committee, which saw two conservatives jettisoned. Breitbart reported earlier that a GOP leadership aide originally suggested Ryan and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Financial Services Committee chairman, were responsible for the ouster of two conservatives from each committee.

However, Hensarling has been quite critical of the move while Ryan has been in stonewalling mode.

In short, this entire purge thing stinks and Ryan, who has enjoyed conservative - as well as establishment - support, is looking a bit more establishment with every development in this story.

In any case, those responsible for this purge are using the same tactics employed by the Democrats over the last four years, which they decried at every turn. Ryan was one of the most critical opponents of backroom deals when it came to Obamacare.

...and Boehner cries.

Video: Socialist US Senator Bernie Sanders channels Nathan Thurm

Despite the fact that the Democrats have not passed a budget in well over 1,000 days, Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (the socialist moniker is official, not ad hominem) is living in a world where the Democrats passed one last year.

Via Breitbart:



I haven't seen that kind of denial since Nathan Thurm:

Video: Rick Santelli Shreds the 'Buffet Rule'

Why isn't this man running for President?

Via Daily Caller:

Video: Paul Ryan Cat vs. Timothy Geithner yarn ball

This is a baffling exchange for multiple reasons. Of course, the visual of  Rep. Paul Ryan's chart vs. the visual of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's chart would be laughable if not so serious. Both charts show an out-of-control budgetary trajectory beginning in 2012. The main difference is that Ryan's chart includes an alternate path; Geithner's chart does not.

Ryan's alternative path is backed up by a plan. Geithner concedes the administration has no long term plan to deal with the unsustainable path that he concedes we're on. In a sane world, since he has no plan, he should be willing to implement Ryan's plan.

This is not a sane world.

Watch all the way to the end. Geithner actually says he has no plan but won't accept Ryan's because he doesn't like it.

I'm not kidding.



h/t RCP

Video: Obama OMB Director makes Big Gaffe

It's been a rough week for Barack Obama's OMB Acting Director Jeffrey Zeints. It began when Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made him look foolish after Zeints wouldn't answer a very basic question.

A day later, Zeints was in front of the House Budget Committee and actually torpedoed a central component in the argument of Obama's Justice Department in defense of Obamacare's individual mandate. First, the argument is that portion of the law that allows the government to fine anyone who doesn't purchase health insurance is rooted in the government's taxing authority.

Via National Law Review, h/t Hot Air:

The minimum coverage provision is independently authorized by Congress’ taxing power. The DOJ argues that the provision operates as a tax law, and the validity of an assessment under Congress’ taxing power does not depend on whether it is denominated a tax.

Yet, while being questioned by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Zeints responded to a question about whether the fine was a tax by saying it wasn't.

Busted. Not that it matters, though. This administration has absolutely no problem with doing whatever it wants while lying all along the way.



h/t Washington Examiner

Video: OMB Director Lies his face off for five straight minutes

I seriously do not understand how these people stand existing inside their own skin. For five straight minutes, Barack Obama's OMB Acting Director Jeffrey Zients would not answer a very simple question from Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) about whether the proposed budget would increase spending.

Wow, just wow.



h/t Fox Nation

Psssst. Scott Walker's Cuts in Wisconsin are Working

At this point, anyone on the left that continues to attack Wisconsin governor Scott Walker is one of two things: a lemming or someone so completely prideful that they're unwilling to admit the truth. Walker's plan is working. The public sector is being forced to balance its books in Wisconsin and it is doing so successfully. The best part? There was no substantial cut in services. In fact, some schools have actually - are you sitting down - decided to look at meritocracy and paying teachers based on performance in order to make up the difference.

Christian Schneider at NRO has more. Check out the reaction of Walker's Democrat opponent in the last election, Tom Barrett, who is also Milwaukee's mayor:

Recently, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted that under Walker’s plan to require greater health-care and pension contributions from government employees, the City of Milwaukee actually comes out $11 million ahead — contravening Mayor Tom Barrett’s March prediction that Walker’s budget “just makes our structural deficit explode.” Barrett, who lost to Walker in the 2010 Wisconsin gubernatorial election, refuses to give the governor any credit for helping him balance his city’s books, instead complaining that Walker’s plan to curb collective bargaining went too far.

How about that meritocracy idea?

Yet many governments are putting the collective-bargaining rollback to good use. In suburban Milwaukee, the Brown Deer school district is implementing a plan to allow performance pay for its best teachers. “No Wisconsin public-school district has ever had the opportunity in any of our lifetimes to even think about these things,” said Brown Deer Public Schools finance director Emily Koczela in an interview with a local television station. “We’re looking at understanding what effective teaching is, how to measure it in the children’s point of view, and how to reward teachers that consistently turn in a performance that’s better than the norm,” added Koczela.

One of the arguments against Obamacare and health insurance reform was that we should allow open markets across state lines. Here is that idea being applied to a school district. Go figure, making insurance companies compete for business.

In Appleton, the collective-bargaining reforms allowed the school district there to save $3 million by bidding for health care on the open market. Previously, the district had been required to purchase health insurance from WEA Trust, which is affiliated with the state’s largest teachers’ union. When the Appleton School District put their health-insurance contract up for bid, WEA Trust magically lowered their rates, saying they would match any competitor’s price — a sign they had been fleecing local taxpayers for years.

As Schneider points out, this is all being done through the right kind of 'shared sacrifice.'

Read it all.

Video: Best Way to Solve Debt Problem?

The federal government increases its spending each year by between 6% - 7% and when you hear politicians talk about spending cuts, they're talking about reducing the amount of future growth in spending that grows government by a slightly less amount. It's Washington logic. Only there could increases in spending be called spending cuts. True spending cuts would involve freezing the amount of government spending so that the 6% - 7% figure actually becomes 0%. Reductions in spending should be done from that because well, that would be an actual spending cut.

That brings us to the plan of Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL). Basically, if you cut spending by 1% each year, the budget will be balanced in eight years. Instead of growing government spending by 5% instead of 7%, and calling that a cut, we'd actually be at -1% growth in spending. In many ways, this plan would be like applying the Wisconsin model - which is already working - to our federal government.

If the results of the 2012 election is able to usher in a plan like this, there could be some good to come out of a Barack Obama presidency.



h/t Hapblog

Video: Rappin' 'bout the Debt Ceiling

Well, now that you've done all you could by telling your Representatives to vote 'no' on the Boehner / McConnel sandwich, it's time to move on to the next fight and remember the names of those who didn't listen so you know how to vote in 2012. In the meantime, why not enjoy this rap from Remy? It's called 'Raise the Debt Ceiling.' If you haven't been following the debt ceiling debate and are mildly confused by all the fuss, this might help explain it.



h/t Impeach Obama

Videos: Tea Party Senators vs. CNN Anchors

The insane has become mainstream. In the first exchange between CNN's Don Lemon and Senator Rand Paul, Lemon is clearly agitated with the Tea Party's demand for a balanced budget and sees Paul as the poster child against whom he can take out his frustrations. This nation is over $14 Trillion in debt with no plan in place to lower it. In fact, the Boehner plan will only raise it by trillions of dollars over the next ten years while all of the Bill's proponents sing its praises because it includes cuts. Yet, Lemon attacks Paul because the Kentucky Senator wants a balanced budget amendment?!

Seriously, the insane has become mainstream.



This second exchange, between both Wolf Blitzer and Lemon with Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is over the same issue. For some reason, the left simply doesn't seem to grasp the much larger problem, which is a continued increase in our already unsustainable national debt. Note that Lee is threatening to filibuster the debt deal; this is good news.

Michele Bachmann's Stock Likely to Rise with the Tea Party, West's is Falling

On July 29th, the Hill listed 22 Republicans that rejected John Boehner's debt ceiling bill. Michele Bachmann was one of those on the list. On August 1st, as the alleged final deal agreed upon by both Houses of Congress, Bachmann is still on that list when several Tea Party Reps sided with the establishment. Surprisingly, Lt. Col. Allen West was one of them and he's not even running for president. Bachmann passed a major test with the Tea Party over this vote. In fact, she's leaving Iowa just so she can got to Washington to vote 'no' on the deal.

Via CNN:

Washington (CNN) - Rep. Michele Bachmann is cutting short her presidential campaign trip to Iowa to return to Washington for a vote on a debt ceiling deal.
Bachmann was to make two appearances Monday - a midday event in Newton and a late afternoon backyard chat in Dexter - but her campaign said she was instead flying back to be ready to vote against the bill later in the day.

The Minnesota Republican has opposed any increase in the debt ceiling during negotiations.

"The 'deal'... spends too much and doesn't cut enough," Bachmann said in a statement released Sunday after President Barack Obama announced the agreement with congressional leaders.

"Is this the deal I would have preferred? No," Obama told reporters. "I believe that we could have made the tough choices required - on entitlement reform and tax reform - right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year."

"This isn't the deal the American people 'preferred' either, Mr. President," Bachmann said in her response. "Someone has to say 'no.' I will."

Mark this down. Every 'crisis' we've had in the past, whether TARP 1, TARP 2, Auto Bailouts, AIG Bailouts, Stimulus, etc. always ends up coming back to bite those who voted for them. Yet, the same crowd continues to do so. One day between now and November 2012, there will be some who voted for this deal that will wish they hadn't. Those who voted against it - like Bachmann - will proudly point to their vote.

In fact, when McCain dropped his campaign back in 2008 so he could return to Washington to help solve the financial crisis, it was a disaster. What Bachmann is doing will likely have the opposite effect with the Tea Party.

h/t Hapblog

Video: Why Marco Rubio will be a Future Leader

I can't recall seeing a freshman Senator ever smacking down one of the most senior members of the Senate before but Marco Rubio (R-FL) did just that to Senator John Kerry (D-MA) from the Senate floor. The subject was the debt ceiling and Rubio was landing blow after blow against the establishment. He did so well at it that Kerry apparently couldn't resist the urge to intimidate the young, inexperienced Senator. Unfortunately for Kerry, Rubio batted him down like an annoying gnat and Kerry didn't know what hit him.

Rubio can string extremely cogent and powerful thoughts together very quickly. It will serve him well as a presidential nominee one day. It will serve the Republican nominee very well to put him on the 2012 ticket. After watching this, ask yourself what a debate between Rubio and Biden would look like.



h/t Weasel Zippers

Video: Harry Reid Tables His Own Bill

Let's set the table here. First, the Democrat controlled Senate has violated its Constitutional mandate to pass an annual budget; it's been more than 800 days. In this debt ceiling debate, the House has passed two bills and sent both to the Senate. Harry Reid has refused to allow votes on those bills. Instead, he's led votes to 'table' them while not passing a bill of his own.

In fact, when Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called for a vote on Reid's bill, Reid objected.

The man is insane.



h/t Weasel Zippers

Video: White House Spokesman Jay Carney (Barker) Indicates Obama will Invoke Fourteenth Amendment

Let the impeachment talk begin. White House press secretary Jay Carney has now officially tipped the administration's hand as to what the Obama strategy will be if the debt ceiling isn't raised; this short clip seems to indicate that Obama will raise the debt ceiling by invoking the Fourteenth amendment. If that happens, be prepared to see the Tea Party freshmen in the House, those who would ultimately be responsible for refusing to raise the debt ceiling, raise Cain.

The relevant portion of the fourteenth amendment is section 4, which states:

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The argument against Obama here is that this portion of the Constitution speaks to incurred debt, not future debt. Nonetheless, Tea Party freshmen like Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) are already on record as saying such a move would be impeachable.

First up, here is Carney saying, 'we have to take action to ensure we do not default.'



Here is none other than Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) arguing in support of Obama invoking the fourteenth:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

He's not the only one. Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist - VT) says Obama should do that as well:



Here is Rep. Scott at a recent town hall:



h/t Weasel Zippers

Videos: Dueling Tea Party Arguments on Boehner Plan

Here is a good juxtaposition between two opposing Tea Party views. One is held by Rep. Lt. Col. Allen West (R-FL) and the other by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). In many ways the line of distinction begins with a premise that says the anticipated 'crisis' that will befall America on August 2nd is real. If you're a Tea Party member and you believe that it is real, you're likely inclined to side with West. If you don't believe it's real, you'll likely side with Paul. There is another aspect to West's argument that's worth noting and it has to do with who will be blamed if no deal is done.

West points out that the House passed Cut, Cap, and Balance. Not only did the Senate refuse to vote on it, but Harry Reid offered no alternative. West says if Boehner's bill passes and suffers the same fate in the Senate, it will demonstrate that any calamity would be a direct result of an intransigent Senate, not an uncompromising Tea Party. West then throws on another relevant factoid about the Senate - it hasn't met its Constitutional obligation of passing a budget in well over 800 days.

First, Allen West's take:



Here is Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). If you're in the camp that says the debt ceiling crisis is nothing more than fear mongering, you might agree with Paul. One of the things he's been railing on should stick in the craw of every American. When Boehner says that his plan cuts $1 Trillion in spending over 10 years, he's not talking apples to apples. As Paul points out, Boehner's talking about cutting $1 Trillion from the $7 Trillion of projected spending increases over the next ten years. In that regard, Boehner and any establishment Republican who avoids enunciating that fact is engaged in quintessential deceit.

Here is Paul's take:



h/t Hot Air

Videos: John McCain Mocks Tea Party

When you watch these clips, it demonstrates just how far this country has moved away from the establishment mentality since 2008. The notion that the Republican Party would nominate a man like John McCain as its presidential candidate is so far removed from reality in 2011 that it seems like there should be much more time separating us from that election. The Senator from Arizona rarely, if ever, displays this level of scorn for his Democrat opponents because, well, he likes to 'reach across the aisle' in search of compromise.

When it comes to the Tea Party demands relative to the debt ceiling, they're just 'hobbits.'



At another point during McCain's rant, he accused the Tea Party freshmen of 'deceiving' the American people into believing that a Balanced Budget Amendment has a chance of passing. Talk about irony. Never before have I heard Senator McCain say that it is deceptive to tell the American people that any proposed spending cuts aren't really cuts at all. They're simply reductions in projected future spending.

Some on the right argued that McCain's primary opponent in 2010 - J.D. Hayworth - had no chance against the Democrat nominee and that was reason enough to vote for McCain. As I've said for a very long time, the Tea Party would have been better off if McCain had been defeated by a Democrat. At least such a person would actually represent his own party.

This is disgraceful:



h/t The Blaze

Audio: Boehner's Interview with Rush Limbaugh

Don't be fooled by Rush's very gracious welcome of House Speaker John Boehner to his show. In fact, Rush was so masterful at getting Boehner to expose himself that the Speaker realized what he said and so anticipated Rush's obvious next question that he answered it as if it were actually asked. Listen to the whole exchange but the nugget starts at the 3:40 mark. Limbaugh asks Boehner about the $1 Trillion increase in the debt ceiling compared with the $1.1 Trillion in spending cuts. The former will be spent in six months while the latter is spread out over ten years. Boehner realized he was busted and threw out a pretty lame excuse to justify the gross disparity.

Boehner's excuse? 'We waited to long to deal with the problem' and then he goes into some bizarre explanation about baby boomers.

h/t Hapblog: