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

Boehner not long before agreeing to raise taxes: Raising taxes 'unacceptable'

George H.W. Bush was rewarded for going back on his, 'Read my lips. No new taxes' comment by losing a re-election bid. Boehner did exactly  the same thing and is still the Speaker. Check out what he said two months ago.

Via CNS News:

Is House Leadership ready to Cave on Gun Control too?

Thanks to an email produced by a radio talk show host, Republican leaders may be ready to cave in on the gun control issue (in addition to the fiscal cliff issue):

Via Doc Thompson:

A friend has a connection in the office of a Member of Congress (in a leadership position.)
He forwarded this email exchange that seems to indicate the Republicans will agree to SOME new laws that limit your 2nd Amendment rights. Could it be that, behind closed doors, they have ALREADY caved in?

Click here to see the email.

In 2006, Congressional Republicans paid dearly at the polls for imitating Democrats when it came to spending. In 2008, the relevant purge was all but completed and power was handed over to the Democrats, who took back the House, enjoyed a super majority in the Senate, and saw the most progressive president in the history of the country take the White House.

From 2009 - 2010, the Tea Party performed a tremendous amount of grunt work and ultimately put Republicans back in power while insisting on one caveat - don't go back to your old ways.

On New Years Eve, 2013, Senate Republicans fell off the wagon. On New Years Day, House Republicans did the same.

It is quite telling that Speaker John Boehner relied on Democrats to help him pass a bill that raises taxes and dramatically increases spending. In fact, more of his caucus voted against him than with him (by a margin of almost 2-1) on the Senate bill crafted by Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden. It's the quintessential allegory for why Boehner is a failed leader.

Before Rep. John Boehner was handed the gavel in 2011, he provided Americans with a foreshadowing of his leadership; he cried, and he cried, and he cried, and he.... In hindsight, it should be fairly obvious that his tears were not solely the result of emotion; they revealed his fight or flight response when faced with tremendous challenges.

Throughout his term as Speaker in the 112th Congress, Boehner played it safe, avoiding legitimate fights. With the largest bully pulpit on his side of the aisle, in either House of Congress, Boehner refused to use it. He was a man who seemed to be riding out the clock until Obama could be defeated at the polls in 2012.

That didn't happen and in large part it didn't happen because Boehner played it safe for two years. Ironically, playing it safe turned out to be a very dangerous strategy.

For example, in the same month that Boehner broke down in front of CBS's Leslie Stahl before being sworn in, Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was gunned down in Arizona. Thanks to a courageous whistleblower, it was learned that weapons at the scene were part of a corrupt and wicked government operation - led by the ATF and DOJ - that involved placing AK-47's, .50 Calibers, and other high powered weapons into the hands of drug cartels.

House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Senate Judiciary ranking member Charles Grassley (R-IA) led a thorough, high profile investigation into Operation Fast and Furious that lasted the majority of Boehner's term as Speaker in the 112th.

While Senators generally wield more power than Congressmen, Issa had more power than Grassley in the investigation because he was in the majority party. The same would go for Boehner. As Speaker, he held a large gavel and carried much more sway than Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), for example. In fact, Boehner is second in line for the presidency and currently holds the most powerful position in the Republican Party, though he doesn't act like it in the slightest.

If there was one glaring problem with the Fast and Furious investigation, it was that Issa was out-gunned. He needed backup and reinforcements; he needed the bully pulpit of Boehner to help drag the media kicking and screaming to this murderous scandal that went all the way to the top of several departments and agencies, to include DHS, State, DOJ, ATF, FBI, etc.

Instead, it was obvious that Boehner didn't want the fight; he wanted Fast and Furious to go away. In fact, when it came to the contempt vote for Eric Holder that would be the crescendo for the investigation in many ways, the Speaker communicated loudly through his actions that it was he who desired cover. He scheduled the contempt vote on the same day that the Supreme Court would rule on Obamacare.

While Boehner occasionally made statements that expressed support for the investigation, he seemed to do so begrudgingly and without much substance. As a result, he allowed an administration to skate on a scandal that made Watergate look like Romper Room.

Now, if the aforementioned email portends what it appears to, Boehner is more willing to hold a citizenry accountable for the actions of one insane individual while going out of his way to avoid holding accountable multiple government officials with blood on their hands.

If the fiscal cliff deal doesn't ensure House Republicans will lose the majority in 2014, giving in on the second amendment most assuredly will.

Audio: Today's Podcast - Interviews with Larry Pratt and Jeffrey Lord

On December 28th, while guest hosting for Lynn Woolley, I had the opportunity to interview Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator.

I talked to Pratt about his interview with CNN's Piers Morgan as well as the blatant hypocrisy from the left when it comes to Sandy Hook vs. Fast and Furious, an operation run by the ATF and DOJ. I spoke with Lord about his recent column on the fiscal cliff negotiations in which he made very salient comparisons between what's going on today and what happened in 1982.

Incidentally, Morgan's interview with Pratt continues to have legs. After tens of thousands of people of signed a White House petition demanding that Morgan be deported, the CNN anchor has written a column of his own in which he threatens to deport himself and actually names Pratt specifically as being the catalyst for the anti-Piers sentiment.

Video: CNBC Hostess directs Santelli-style rant at Democratic Senator

Perhaps one of the biggest differences between Rick Santelli's 2009 Tea Party rant on CNBC and this rant by CNBC's Maria Bartiromo is that Bartiromo's was directed squarely at a Democratic Senator during a live interview. Other than that, very similar, even right down to the cheers from the floor behind her. The Senator that Bartiromo thoroughly shamed was Ben Cardin (D-MD) and what made it borderline epic is the fact that the typical spin coming out of the mouth of a politician was met with righteous indignation and batted away like a fly by Bartiromo.

Cardin's spin was like oxygen from a bellows directed at Bartiromo's fire.

Even Cardin couldn't refute what was at the heart of her anger, which was essentially, Congress has had more than a year to avoid the proverbial 'fiscal cliff' and it's still not close to a deal with less than a week to go. The only response Cardin could put forth was one that validated Bartiromo's indignation - it's the Republicans' fault.

It'd be nice to see this kind of fire from Republican leadership. It's what voters have been demanding for quite some time. Why Mitt Romney lost is a case in point.


Of course, this will never get old:



h/t The Blaze

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.

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.

John Boehner fighting conservatives more than Obama, and the counter-intuitive Grover Norquist dilemma

This mess between the Republican establishment and conservatives may just be incredibly simple to understand on one hand and incredibly complicated on the other. First, the simple part. House Republican leadership (John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy) has clearly decided that it is best to do battle with their own party than to fight the agenda of the most radical president in the history of the Republic. One day after the election, Boehner all but rolled over with an admission that increased 'revenues' (taxes) would be on the table before he ever engaged in any negotiations.

Obama exploited that extremely poor decision by leaving Boehner twisting in the wind before he would do anything.

Three weeks later, Boehner was stripped down to his political skivvies when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner presented an insane proposal that included a request for the House to cede its power of the purse by raising the debt ceiling to infinity. Time for Boehner to play hardball, right? Time to marshal both the conservative and establishment wings of his party against the Democrats, right? After all, talk about a slap in the face right?

Not so much. After Boehner admitted to being 'flabbergasted' by Geithner's proposal, he proceeded to drive a bigger wedge between the Republican establishment and the conservative wings of the party by booting legitimate fiscal conservatives off the budget committee.

Via Breitbart:

Effective next Congress, leadership pulled Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp, Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash and Arizona Republican Rep. David Schweikert off committees from which they could exert conservative pressure on fiscal matters. Amash and Huelskamp were pulled from the Budget Committee and Schweikert from the Financial Services Committee.

Time for a metaphor. I have two dogs and there is definitely an alpha and a beta. If I remotely bother that alpha while it is eating, it will not snap at me; it will snap at the beta, who has done nothing wrong. Boehner is the dog that is eating and instead of going after the source of his problems, he is choosing to use the psychological defense mechanism known as displacement. Since he feels inferior to Obama and either can't or won't fight, he lashes out at those who are weaker in stature than he is. Let's face it. Obama has been playing Boehner like a fiddle since winning the election.

Now, since Boehner's appearance on Fox News Sunday to say he was 'flabbergasted' at Geithner's proposal, he has again played right into Obama's hands, agreeing to tax increases that will total the same amount of the 2009 stimulus package that began the Tea Party movement, albeit over ten years.

Via Red State:

On the same day John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy punished fiscal conservatives for standing up for their convictions, they sold out their own convictions by agreeing to raise taxes by $800 billion. They intend to seem reasonable to the press in negotiations with the White House. They’re going through an elaborate kabuki dance, but they’ll get blamed nonetheless.

There are three significant differences between the $800 billion stimulus package of 2009 and $800 billion in increased taxes in 2012. The first difference is that in 2009, it was put on Americans' credit tab and in 2012, it's coming straight out of their wallets. Second, in 2009, it was a lump sum taken from the future at once. In 2012, it's coming right out of Americans' pockets in annual installments over ten years. Third, in 2009, Republicans overwhelmingly opposed bilking taxpayers for $800 billion at once. In 2012, when Boehner has the power of the purse, he supports it soaking them for the same amount, incrementally over ten years.

That leads me to a recent article by Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator, in which he singled out two Republican establishment consultants (Steve Schmidt and Mike Murphy) as being quite similar to Boehner when it comes to catering to big government:

Schmidt and Murphy are the political Quislings of conservatism.

Say what? Say who?

Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian politician. In April of 1940, when the Nazis were invading Norway, instead of leading a resistance movement Quisling launched a Nazi-backed coup against his own people. As the Nazis settled in to occupy Norway Quisling settled in to live the life of luxury as Norway's "Minister President" -- and avidly assisted as a participant in what is known to history as "the Final Solution."

His betrayal of his own people was so stark that within days of Quisling's assumption of power the Times of London wrote an editorial saying of those who cooperated in betraying their own country that there were "Quislings everywhere."

John Boehner is coming precariously close to a legacy on par with that of a Quisling.

Ok, that's the simple part I mentioned at the beginning of this post. The more complex aspect to all of this is one that is rarely talked about and involves a man at the center of this debate; his name is Grover Norquist. On the surface, it would seem that he is an ally of the conservative wing in this debate. In reality, his ties to Muslim Brotherhood affiliated individuals should caused him to be jettisoned from the debate entirely. Conservatives should distance themselves from Norquist and his group, Americans for Tax Reform, as quickly as possible and this is not a matter of compartmentalizing Norquist's alleged good qualities while rejecting suspect ones.

In fact, one of the three conservatives whom Boehner booted from the Budget committee has expressed his continued solidarity with Norquist's anti-tax pledge, via Breitbart:

Earlier on Monday in an interview with Breitbart News, Huelskamp again reaffirmed his support for the Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) anti-tax pledge. He’s encouraging his colleagues in the House to come out publicly against potential tax increases and asking citizens across the country to help.

As Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer points out, people like Huelskamp are supporting the wrong person for the right reasons. Spencer says the following in his piece entitled Grover Must Go:

...for fear of crossing Norquist and losing his favor, Republicans for years have been turning a blind eye to all his ties to shady Muslim individuals and groups. If they signed his tax pledge, they were effectively pledging also not to make trouble about the access and influence he was facilitating for people linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Thus was removed the only possible effective counterweight to the Democrats’ active collaboration with Islamic supremacists.

And...

I offer, as an alternative to Norquist’s toxic cocktail of No Taxes Plus Collaboration with Islamic Supremacists, a genuinely pro-freedom tax pledge. Call it the Robert Spencer Tax Pledge. Here it is: “I solemnly pledge to oppose new tax increases, to work to cut existing tax rates, and to oppose Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in our government and the concomitant dismantling of our resistance to the jihad and Islamic supremacism.”

Norquist's ties to Islamists and Islamist causes are well documented and quite extensive. He is also at the center of an epic and internecine battle between two factions of the Republican Party - Establishment and conservative.

Uber-stealth jihad?

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):