About that CNN Hit Piece on Michele Bachmann...

First of all, that CNN in general - Anderson Cooper in particular - is given any credibility is amazing in itself. CNN has a history of featuring dishonest flacks and news stories. Consider what Drew Griffin did to Walid Shoebat and Sarah Palin or what Sara Sidner reported from Gaza, or the Pallywood news footage that featured a large man faking an injury that Cooper was busted airing on his program and had to retract.

In the case of Sidner, she featured a news story that left viewers to believe that a Palestinian boy was killed by Israeli rocket fire. When it became apparent the boy had to have been killed by an errant Palestinian rocket, CNN's Don Lemon issued a pseudo-retraction right before he went to... wait for it... Sara Sidner for an update.

At about the same time, Cooper had to issue a retraction for airing the footage of the large man faking an injury. It's good he did so but c'mon, Palestinians staging scenes and passing it off as news is incredibly pervasive and none of it should be trusted, which would seem to indicate the retraction was issued only because the error was so egregiously obvious.

This brings us to the hit piece on Michele Bachmann this week by Cooper and Dana Bash, which focused on aspects of Bachmann's CPAC speech that included examples of Barack Obama's extravagant lifestyle as President. Cooper's report began with a short clip of Bachmann demanding answers to the attacks in Benghazi, after which Cooper said CNN has been critical of Benghazi and then began to move on to the small portion of Bachmann's speech about lavish White House spending.

The items of interest for Cooper were Bachmann's reference to a book that charged Obama as being the $1.4 Billion president. Examples provided were five chefs on Air Force One, two projectionists at the White House, and someone being paid to walk BO the dog. Cooper then proceeded to introduce reporter Dana Bash, who was almost apoplectic that she had to chase Bachmann down a hallway to ask her about the Congresswoman's statements during the speech.

Roger Aronoff does a good job of dismantling the report by Cooper and Bash and exposes it for what it is - a hit piece. It's quite apparent after reading it that Bachmann's words were twisted to intentionally smear. By airing a clip of Bachmann's comments on Benghazi and then saying CNN has been critical of the handling of Benghazi, Cooper asks viewers to accept the premise that he is balanced, objective, and without an agenda.

The premise is faulty. Whatever criticism CNN has had for Benghazi, it's been nowhere near interested enough in getting to the truth and unless I've missed something, I don't recall Bash chasing / badgering any administration official for answers, though I could be wrong. In any event, the attention given to a small part of a CPAC speech by a congresswoman could have been better spent doggedly pursuing answers to Benghazi, hey Dana?

The larger picture that CNN is obviously missing is the runaway spending, a $17 Trillion debt, and annual deficits the likes of which we've never seen. Focusing exclusively on Bachmann's examples without seeming to care about those larger issues is also quite revealing. In fact, instead of doing so, perhaps Cooper could do his job and investigate why there IS so much spending and where all the money is going?

At the 5:00 mark, Cooper also makes reference to the Huma Abedin controversy, saying:

"Congresswoman Bachmann has made other claims that simply do not stand up as well, namely that Huma Abedin, a top adviser to then Secretary of State Clinton, may be under the sway of the Muslim Brotherhood. That allegation was found factually groundless, drew sharp criticism at the time from both sides of the aisle..."

Hey Anderson, how would you know? You never addressed the facts about Abedin's familial background and actually aired news reports that defended her without exploring any of those facts. Ironically, while Cooper was dismissing Abedin's connection to the Brotherhood, he aired B-roll of her actually talking to the president of the Muslim Brotherhood's group in America - Mohamed Magid of the ISNA - at the 5:19 mark (though Magid not seen in the portion of the video that was aired during Cooper's report).

As for the Bash-chasing-Bachmann footage that was shown shortly thereafter, Cooper and Bash were both amazed that Bachmann turned the question about Obama having a "dog walker" back on Bash, when it was Bachmann who brought it up. Actually, as Aronoff points out, Bachmann never said Obama pays for a "dog walker", only that someone is paid to walk it, which is true.

A central theme of the Tea Party that was formed in early 2009 was that its members were willing to defend neither Obama nor his predecessor, George W. Bush when it came to spending. Hindsight is 20/20 but Bachmann could have responded to Bash by reinforcing this sentiment, saying that both administrations have been responsible for our monstrous debt, though it can't be denied that Obama shifted the debt-mobile into overdrive. Bash and Cooper wanted to contrast the money spent on the Obama presidency with that of the Bush presidency.

The fact is that both were (and are) out of control. If only Cooper was as interested in that self-evident truth as he is in smearing a congresswoman who desperately wants to do something about it.

If CNN is effective at anything, it's smearing those it wants to marginalize and running interference for those it wants to protect.

Transforming Obamacare into Boehnercare

If there's one thing that's been learned about Barack Obama, it's that not only does he avoid accountability but he's actually the one personally responsible for that which he is not blamed. If there is to be an exception to that rule - known as the 'Limbaugh theorem' - it would most certainly be something with his name actually attached to it - like Obamacare.

If there is a way for Obama not to accept responsibility for Obamacare, House Speaker John Boehner seems to be doing his level best to find it. In fact, when everything goes south and Obamacare becomes the disaster anyone with a functioning mass of synapses knows it will become, Boehner will at least be partially to blame because when he had the opportunity to de-fund it, he said no.

The Kabuki dance between Boehner and Paul Ryan was ridiculously transparent. Ryan, who had no power, talked tough while Boehner, who had all the power, punted. There is no doubt that Boehner wanted to hide behind Ryan's un-passable bill to defund Obamacare as the former refused to exercise his power to de-fund by demanding such a mechanism be part of the Continuing Resolution to fund the government for the next year.

Once again, in a game of chicken, Boehner always seems to blink first.

However, this time, as much as he'd like to, he can't duck it.

Note what he says in response to the question about including an Obamacare de-funding amendment into a Continuing Resolution that only serves to put the country into more debt. Boehner's reason for not doing so? Well, his goal is to cut spending, not shut down the government.

Uh, John, if the goal is to cut spending, wouldn't shutting down the government do just that better than anything else?

Via CNS News:

John Boehner's Inexplicable behavior continues

Since becoming Speaker of the House in 2011, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) has racked up a list of inexplicable - and sometimes egregious - behaviors that make one truly question his bonafides when it comes to leading. The latest example comes courtesy of his March 7th press conference, in response to a question about whether the House will include any defunding of Obamacare.

Boehner simply would not answer the question and in light of his past statements, it shouldn't have been a difficult question to answer.

Via CNS News:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would not say on Wednesday whether the Republican House leadership has any plans to curtail or de-fund any aspect of Obamacare in any must-pass legislation in this Congress.

This is despite the fact that Boehner himself declared a year ago that an Obamacare regulation requiring health-care plans to provide cost-free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs was an unconstitutional violation of the free exercise of religion and that Congress would not let it stand.

Check out the video. Boehner's obfuscation was Jay Carney-esque:

 

Talking tough when it's of little consequence and then acting weak when it's put up or shut up time is a common trait among many politicians but Boehner has gone out of his way to set a new standard in this regard. In this particular case, Boehner is on record as saying Obamacare - as established - is unconstitutional. Yet, when asked if he will live up to keep his word that he "would not let it stand", the Speaker equivocated.

Why?

Whether intentional or not, the Speaker's words, behaviors, and actions have served to protect the Obama administration over and over and over.

For example:

• It became painfully obvious during the Fast and Furious investigation, that Boehner wanted no part of it; he wanted it to go away. He said extremely little publicly about the investigation and did more to help the Obama administration stonewall than he did to help Rep. Darrell Issa and the Oversight Committee break through it. When Issa needed Boehner the most, Boehner wilted. In the vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, Boehner did not vote; he also scheduled the vote on the same day as the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, the same Obamacare he said was unconstitutional and would not let stand.
• Not long after that contempt vote, Rep. Michele Bachmann and four other congressmen identified then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's closest adviser - Huma Abedin - as someone having extensive familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Those who found Bachmann's claims to be warranted pointed to a laundry lists of irrefutable facts. Those who defended Abedin completely ignored those facts and impugned Bachmann. Boehner was one who defended Abedin and chastised Bachmann while ignoring those facts.
• The attacks in Benghazi on 9/11/12 continue to reveal more questions than answers. The administration has stonewalled the investigation in a way very similar to how it stonewalled Fast and Furious. The Republicans are in the minority in the Senate and are powerless when it comes to the formation of a Select Committee, made up of Senators from various committees. Boehner, on the other hand, has the power to form a House Select Committee but seems disinterested in doing so.
• On the day after the election, while still maintaining the majority in the House, Boehner publicly stated that the House he led would put 'revenues' (taxes) back on the table. This culminated in the 'fiscal cliff showdown' that involved closed-door meetings with Barack Obama.
• Not long after the 2012 election, Boehner booted conservative congressmen off of their committees. These congressmen represent the wing of the Republican Party that is most willing to take the fight to Barack Obama. Again, it was another move by Boehner that essentially helped the President.
• The subject of this post; his refusal to answer a simple question.

When it comes to budget showdowns, the perception always seems to be - save for sequestration - that Boehner has caved. It's quite possible that the reason he didn't cave on sequestration was that he knew there would be a bigger backlash than he was capable of absorbing, especially in light of the Continuing Resolution debate that looms on the horizon. Ironically, that CR is relevant when talking about defunding Obamacare, which Boehner seems reticent to do based on the March 7th press conference.

Speaking of sequestration...

Whether it's been TARP, Bailouts, raising the debt limit, CR's, or any other budget battle, conservatives always demand that Boehner and the Republicans not cave. Save for sequestration, Boehner and the Republicans always seem to do just that. In the case of sequestration, Boehner and the Republicans for once, didn't cave and look at what's happening.

Obama is losing the battle.

This is why the CR debate is so critical. Will Boehner learn from sequestration or will he revert back to doing things that serve to benefit the administration? If it's the latter, it will only add to his list of inexplicable behaviors.

Video: O'Reilly loses it; calls Alan Colmes a 'liar' to his face... several times

If I had to sit and listen to Alan Colmes spin Democratic Party talking points every week, I'd have a similar type of meltdown here. The argument started with O'Reilly asking Colmes where Obama committed to cutting federal spending. The only thing Colmes could come up with was an empty promise Obama to cut medicare. When O'Reilly asked for specifics, Colmes couldn't deliver.

The only missed opportunity from O'Reilly was that Obamacare does the exact opposite with medicare. In fact, the Democrats double-counted to get the CBO to score the cost under $1 trillion.

Via WND:

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

Is Paul Ryan wading into the Big Muddy?

When it came to Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, it was considered a good strategy because Ryan had developed a reputation as one of the few who could bridge the gap between the establishment and conservative wings of the Republican Party. This latest bit of news, if it bears out, could show that Ryan wasn't so much bridging a gap as he was attempting to play both sides of the fence, which brings us to an old adage that says:

You can't play both sides of the fence.

As differences between entities become more pronounced, riding the fence becomes less and less possible. There comes a point when everyone chooses a side and Ryan appears to be stonewalling questions about whether he had any role in helping Speaker John Boehner boot conservative members off of House financial committees. If he did play that role, he has chosen a side.

Via Breitbart:

On Monday, Boehner and House GOP leadership removed four conservative Republicans from influential fiscally focused committees. Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas were pulled from the House Budget Committee and Reps. David Schweikert of Arizona and Walter Jones of North Carolina were removed from the House Financial Services Committee. Huelskamp was also purged from the House Agriculture Committee.

For several days, spokespeople for Ryan – the Republican Party’s most recent vice presidential candidate who’s widely rumored to be positioning himself to run for president in 2016 – have refused to answer any questions about whether Ryan was involved and, if he was, what role he played.

Then, on Friday, Ryan spokesman William Allison would not deny Ryan’s involvement in the purge. “We are going to defer you to the Speaker’s office and the Steering Committee,” Allison told Breitbart News when asked if Ryan was involved and supported Boehner's move. 

A spokesman for Boehner didn’t return a request for comment when asked if Ryan was involved.

Couple that with an ABC News report from today, which said, in part:

The day after the election, House Speaker John Boehner, the man now at the center of the negotiations with President Obama, called Ryan, according to a Boehner aide, because the speaker wanted "to make sure he was in the fold from Day One," adding he's been a "close part of the thought process."

And an aide to Ryan, who asked that his name not be used, says the role of the Wisconsin congressman is as a "resource to the speaker, a resource to House Republicans."

"He has responsibilities as the House budget chairman, he has responsibilities to the first district of Wisconsin. He needed to be where the fight is," added the aide. Nevertheless he wants to be "deferential" to those leading the conversation -- namely Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy.

So, according to a Ryan aide, Romney's running made wants to show deference to Boehner. Of course, deference is defined as:

respectful submission or yielding to the judgment, opinion, will, etc., of another.

This is not what conservatives want in the Budget Committee chairman. Now, of course, if one was inclined to cut Ryan some slack, maybe the Congressman from Wisconsin thought he could be more effective by being deferential to Boehner than by being on the sidelines with Huelskamp, et. al. The problem for Ryan, however, is that if he had a hand in jettisoning principled conservatives in deference to Boehner, he risks becoming more like Boehner himself.

In fact, if this is all true, it means Ryan threw principled conservatives under the bus for political self-preservation.

Again, if true, Ryan is already compromised goods and cannot be trusted.

With that said, I'm going against my better judgment and posting this song from hardcore liberal whacko Bruce Springsteen is actually appropriate. It's called 'The Big Muddy'. One particular line of note is:

"I had a friend who said watch what you do. Poison snake bites you and you're poison too."

How Springsteen could write a song like this and be such an Obamautamaton is beyond me. Then again, maybe it's autobiographical, which might help explain it.

Does Petraeus come to mind when you watch this?



Conversely, this song by the Wood Brothers is about those who don't compromise their principles.

Mitch McConnell agrees to let Obama Fiscal Cliff Proposal come to vote; Harry Reid declines

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) proposed bringing the absurd fiscal cliff proposal brought forth by Barack Obama via Timothy Geithner. He was calling Majority Leader Harry Reid's bluff and it worked. Reid is refusing to vote on Obama's plan. This is precisely why I advocated such a position back on November 30th.

Via The Hill:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday offered an amendment to force a vote on President Obama’s deficit-reduction plan, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was having none of it.

“Last week [Treasury] Secretary [Timothy] Geithner brought up a proposal that was so unserious,” McConnell said on the floor, “I would like to see if my Democratic friends would like to support it.”

McConnell suggested that the Senate vote on what he called the president’s “ridiculous” plan as an amendment to the Russian trade bill that is being considered.

Here is McConnell's speech:



The reason for this is simple. If we are headed toward economic collapse regardless of these negotiations, giving Obama everything he wants will ensure that he owns the mess. Unfortunately, John Boehner doesn't see it the same way that McConnell does. Consequently, he's playing right into the hands of Obama's pseudo-negotiations and machinations, which illustrates perfectly the difference between caving and bluffing.

The more of these negotiations take place, the more opportunity Obama will have to blame Republican intransigence when the collapse happens.

In short, by negotiating with Obama, Boehner is playing right into his hands.

It'd be nice to see Republican leaders have as much spine when they're in the majority as when they are in the minority.

Fiscal Cliff: Time for John 'Renee' Boehner to walk away

As the fiscal cliff looms, talk of Republicans caving to Democrats is in abundance. It's not a question of whether they will cave but how much they will cave. Two days after the election, I wrote about holding Boehner's feet to the fire when he began talking of compromise. Since then, I've been coming to the conclusion that giving Obama everything he wants may be better in the long run than any concessions that may be negotiated. Obama doesn't want to own this economy because he knows it's doomed to fail. He wants to blame Republicans for it. Obama wants some form of compromise because it will give him something to pin on Republicans when this economy hits rock bottom.

Compromise with the Democrats will only benefit one side - the Democrats. When the stimulus package didn't work, liberals like Paul Krugman actually said the reason was that $800 Billion wasn't enough. Obama's budgets are voted down in the Senate by votes of 97-0 and 99-0 for one reason. He doesn't want to get everything he wants because he knows it will fail and he will have no one but himself to blame (that's why he voted 'present' for so long). He wants to be perceived as bi-partisan, someone who is willing to compromise with Republicans. When the same failures happen, the fault can then lie with what the Republicans demanded and Obama's fingerprints are off the destruction.

If there's one thing we know about liberals it's that in their minds, they're never responsible for anything bad. The way they perpetuate that perception is by blaming Republicans. They were blaming George W. Bush for the economy right up until Obama's reelection.

Before getting to Rush Limbaugh, I'd like to take a moment and throw this song out to John "Renee" Boehner.

Now, onto Limbaugh, who is 100% right here. The premise that says Obama doesn't want economic collapse because he doesn't want to destroy his legacy is a false one. The reason it's accepted is because the alternative is just too difficult for people to come to grips with. If you start with another premise, one that says a successful legacy in Obama's mind is one that includes the collapse of the United States on his watch, the fundamental transformation of this country, his actions make much more sense. He is a student of the Cloward-Piven strategy and he's executing that strategy perfectly. In essence, overwhelm the system with entitlements that the government will eventually not be able to pay and the economy collapses. It doesn't matter what Republicans get out of the fiscal cliff deal, when the Cloward-Piven strategy succeeds, Republicans will be blamed - and the same people who voted for Obama will believe it.

Liberalism always fails, which is why liberals always need scapegoats. Republicans have always been there for that. It's time for a new strategy and Limbaugh, as usual, perfectly enunciates it. Republicans should walk away from negotiations and give Obama whatever he claims he wants. When it fails - and it will - there will be an unmasked Obama for all to see and he will have no Republicans to blame. Only when this happens, will Americans - in much greater numbers - be able to see how destructive the president's ideas are.

Rush is advocating some tough, tough medicine here but let's face it. When Obama was re-elected, seeing him for what he truly is became the only viable option. He knows how to grant some concessions and then beat his opponents over the head with those concessions when he fails. Ironically, the line in the sand at this point is drawn with the intent of letting Obama cross it. We're headed for dark days and giving Obama what he wants is the only sensible way to go at this point because liberal lunacy will finally be left twisting in the wind and the thick-headed whack jobs who think it works will have no one to blame but themselves. At that point, there could be an awakening.

It's become our only hope for change.

Via the Right Scoop:



To Limbaugh's point about what Obama wants his legacy to be and what the latter would view as a successful one, let us not forget that if America survives Obama, he will have the worst legacy of any president in U.S. history. If, however, Obama destroys America, it will have been through fundamentally transforming it, which is exactly what he told us he would do.



Here's Krugman in 2011, saying that the $800 Billion stimulus package didn't work because it wasn't enough (the pointy-eared genius says so beginning at the 1:30 mark):

Is Boehner more responsible for increased Debt than Obama?

Don't look now but House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) may have another reason to cry. As Barack Obama rightfully faces criticism for his spending, Boehner should be taking much of the heat. We all know how this president likes to blame others. He may have a legitimate line of attack when it comes to Boehner.

Via CNS News:

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which took office in January 2011, has enacted federal spending bills under which the national debt has increased more in less than one term of Congress than in the first 97 Congresses combined.

In the fifteen months that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives--led by Speaker John Boehner--has effectively enjoyed a constitutional veto over federal spending, the federal government’s debt has increased by about $1.59 trillion.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution says: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” A law appropriating money cannot be enacted unless it is approved by the House.

The approximately $1.59 trillion in new debt accumulated since the Republican-controlled House gained a veto over federal spending legislation is more than the total increase in the federal debt between 1789, when the first Congress convened, and October 1984, when the 98th Congress was nearing the end of its second session.

This is yet another in a long line of examples that demonstrate why John Boehner is the wrong man for the job. He can't lead. Also, remember the question posed by CBS' Leslie Stahl that made Boehner cry shortly after the 2010 election, when he knew he would become Speaker.

As Speaker, Boehner is presiding over that which he professed to not wanting to see happen - snuffing out the American dream for future generations.

Can we now say that this was Boehner's 'fight or flight' response?

He has chosen flight.

Is China $1 Trillion in debt... to America?

This is certainly an interesting twist, reported by McClatchy of all places. Did you know that the American people are holding roughly $1 Trillion in Chinese bond debt? How is this possible, you ask?

Via McClatchy:

The story begins nearly 100 years ago, in 1913, when the government of China began issuing bonds to foreign investors and governments for infrastructure work to modernize the country. As the country fell into civil war in 1927, paying these debts became increasingly difficult and the government fell into default. Even so, in April 1938, the Nationalist government of China began to issue U.S.-dollar denominated bonds to finance the war against Japan's brutal invasion.

Locked in a pitched battle for survival, the government issued these bonds into 1940. As part of its wartime financial aid, the U.S. government further provided a $500 million credit to China in March 1942, shipping gold there and helping to stabilize the currency. In return, it appears that the U.S. government redeemed some of these dollar-denominated bonds. But China doesn't appear to have repaid this debt either, according to State Department records, and the declaration of the People's Republic of China in 1949 ended decades of political, military and financial cooperation.

While successor governments are usually bound by the debts of predecessor governments, the new Communist government refused to pay any of these claims. The issue lay dormant for decades, just as the bilateral relationship did. Then, in 1979, as part of normalizing relations, Washington released government financial claims regarding the expropriation of American property and appears to have dropped the matter of the war debt entirely. However, it is one thing for government decision-makers to let go of government debt, however questionable that is.

And it is entirely another thing for individual citizens to press their claims. Some U.S. investors tried to sue the Chinese government in the 1980s and 1990s. However, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act makes it very hard for any U.S. citizen to sue a foreign government in U.S. courts because the law generally says that U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction.

The law usually only allows the jurisdiction of U.S. courts if a foreign government waives its immunity, commits a tort or seizes property. Recent additional exceptions have been added for terrorism. China lost an initial summary judgment for failing to appear in court but, with the urging of the U.S. State Department, later appeared in court and successfully argued that U.S. courts did not have jurisdiction.

Today, the Chinese bonds held by U.S. investors may be worth as much as $750 billion, according to Jonna Bianco, president of the American Bondholders Foundation, who estimates the value of bonds held by investors worldwide may be $10 trillion, including interest and penalties for default.

Bianco, who is doing media interviews on this topic, is not happy about China reneging on this debt while purchasing American banks and AMC movie theaters.

Via Special Guests:

Jonna Bianco, president and founder of the American Bondholders Foundation (ABF) says that if China is the economic superpower the world believes it is, they should now begin paying back this debt to its American bondholders and the American people. Instead, China is ignoring these obligations and buying things like banks and movie theaters on American soil.

“Is it not enough that the bulk of our manufacturing base has shifted over to China placing millions and millions of Americans out of work? Is it not enough that China continues to provide ammunitions and weaponry to our enemies that are killing American troops overseas? Is it not enough that China continues to steal our intellectual property/trade secrets/patents making knock off products that they dump around the world costing American Businesses billions and billions of dollars in losses? Is it not enough that China has continued their cyber warfare attacks against American people, businesses and the American Government? Is it not enough that China continues to manipulate its currency? Is it not enough that China continues massive unfair trade practices? Is it not enough that China continues to support the North Korean and Iranian Nuclear Programs which continue to threaten the safety and future of America? At what point will Americans say....ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!! No More! We must stop the double standards that China has and make them pay their bills!

It appears that both the Bush and Obama administrations have refused to press this issue. That said, the American people were bilked by their own government in 2009 to the tune of $787 Billion in stimulus and now, if reports are true that the Obama administration could forgive China's debt to Americans, we could be bilked again for about the same amount.

In fact, in an email response I received from Bianco about how much we owe China vs. how much they owe us, she replied:

"China owes the U.S. including its bondholders more than we owe them by far!"

More on this subject at American Bondholders Foundation.

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: How Illegal Aliens get big Tax Refunds from IRS

In short, illegal aliens are allowed to work in the U.S. Since they don't have social security numbers, they are issued another type of identification number. With that number, they are allowed to take advantage of what's called an Additional Child Tax Credit. They have figured out that the more children they list on their returns, the more money they get back.

So what do they do? They list nephews and nieces.... who LIVE IN MEXICO!

Via WTHR, h/t Lynn Woolley:

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: 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

2003 Video: Did Santorum call for Stimulus?

In 2003, when George W. Bush was president, Rick Santorum seemed to advocate for an economic stimulus package while Democrats said it was too much money. Note that the reporter asked Santorum about a $600 Billion stimulus package. The Democrats stimulus package in 2009 was only $187 Billion more.

Santorum seems quite comfortable with the package. In fact, at the end of the clip, he said something about not having to worry about deficits during a recession.

Uhhhhhhhhh.... I..... think.... what... he... meant..... was........ never mind.



h/t Free Republic

Video: Chris Christie Rips Obama

This is the kind of talk from Chris Christie that led to talk about him running for president. Using passionate rhetoric, he asked the perfect rhetorical question of Obama: 'What the hell are we paying you for?' He also did a much better job of drawing a line of distinction between OWS and the Tea Party than he did several weeks ago.

Notice toward the end of the clip, Christie uses the word 'astonishing' to describe what Obama is doing / not doing relative to the economy. It's only astonishing if you don't accept the premise that says Obama is doing all he can to collapse this economy. It is vintage Cloward-Piven and the president has enough ties to that crowd to close the case, especially when one looks at what he's done.

Practically every single one of this administration's stances / policies feeds the Cloward-Piven strategy of collapsing our economic system.

1.) Stimulus
2.) Burgeoning Debt
3.) Runaway Deficits
4.) Obamacare
5.) Record number of food stamps
6.) Extended unemployment benefits
7.) No budget
8.) Endless spending
9.) Countless and absurd regulations (except for OWS)

And for the nice little cherry on top, Obama has expressed outright solidarity with the OWS movement, which is racking up quite the bill with cities all across the country. At last count, it was over $21 Million.

Again, if everything this administration does works toward the end of collapsing the economy, the word 'astonishing' isn't all that appropriate. It should be replaced with the word 'criminal.'

Anyway, here's Christie:



h/t Hot Air

Video: Obama by the Numbers

This video really nails the destruction wrought by the mantra of 'hope and change.' In 2008, Americans elected a president with such a propensity for lying that telling the truth seems to be a rare occurrence. In this video, there are clips of Obama speaking before he was elected and today, juxtaposed with factual statistics to the right of the screen that completely expose his lies. It's hard to imagine a bigger liar in the oval office pre-Obama but I'll say this, the YouTube age is helping to make Obama look like the worst ever, which he just might be.

From Powerline via Breitbart:

Video: Either Obama was Lying or he Believes we're not in a Recession

It wasn't that long ago that the debate over the debt ceiling was the top headline. Remember how everyone settled on deficit reduction numbers over the next ten years? The Tea Party didn't want to go along with it but enough House members caved to get it done. Barack Obama's new plan almost perfectly illustrates the problem. He wants to reduce increases in deficit spending (note, he doesn't want to reduce spending, just increases in additional spending) by raising taxes to the tune of $1.5 trillion. There is a very basic economic tenet which says you don't raise taxes in a recession. As recently as August of 2009, Barack Obama himself espoused this principle.

Via Breitbart:



Ok, so for Obama to want to raise taxes, he must believe we are not in a recession, right?

Via the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's proposal to reduce long-term deficits with $1.5 trillion in new taxes is less an opening bid in a negotiation than it is an opening salvo in a struggle to draw sharp contrasts with congressional Republicans.

Obama's proposal is aimed predominantly at the wealthy and comes just days after House Speaker John Boehner ruled out tax increases to lower deficits. It also comes amid a clamor in his own Democratic Party for Obama to take a tougher stance against Republicans. And while the plan stands little chance of passing Congress, its populist pitch is one that the White House believes the public can support.

The core of the president's plan totals just more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. It combines the new taxes with $580 billion in cuts to mandatory benefit programs, including $248 billion from Medicare.

So, which is it, Mr. Obama?

Were you lying in 2009 (that's a shocker) or do you believe we're not in a recession now? If it's the latter, don't tell the Congressional Black Caucus. They're already mad at you for the high unemployment among the black community. Say, doesn't that mean we're in a recession?

More Here.

Video: 2008 Obama Declares 2011 Obama Unpatriotic

In 2008, while on the campaign trail in Fargo, ND, Barack Obama pointed to George W. Bush's record on the accumulation of debt over his eight years. Though it was clearly a stain on the Bush presidency, the interesting part about this clip is that Obama is on track to blow the Bush record out of the water. Based on the standard Obama set in this clip, he is worse than unpatriotic.

Paging mainstream media, paging mainstream media:



h/t Hot Air