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

2008 Video: Newt Insists Individual Mandate is Necessary

If there are two words that became radioactive in 2009-2010, 'individual mandate' fits the bill. It was a different story in 2008, which might help explain why Newt Gingrich gave a speech, in which he expressed a view that said everyone should be required to pay for health insurance (that's individual mandate).

At first blush, this might sound like a cogent argument. Such things are Newt's strength. People are more willing to pay their credit card bills than they are to pay for health insurance. The reason for this is that we have a culture that is being taken advantage of because people know there will be no real consequences for failing to pay for health insurance. There ARE consequences if you have a poor credit rating (mortgage crisis notwithstanding).

However, that's not the point or the solution. It's called creating a bigger problem through misdiagnosis and treating a symptom instead of the illness. The point is that the government should not have to force its citizens to buy anything. The biggest part of the problem with healthcare has been government meddling, regulation, and illegal immigration. In every case, government IS the problem, either through egregious actions (over-regulation) or inexplicable inaction (illegal immigration). What Newt is advocating for in this speech is more government intervention when the answer is less (except in the case of immigration).

Forcing people to pay for insurance is like mandating everyone pay income tax. We'll get to a point where not everyone pays while still mandating law-abiding citizens continue to do so, when they were already paying in the first place. Half of this country already doesn't pay income tax. The other half has to deal with the IRS every year, an undertaking that will become even more difficult with the implementation of an individual mandate - except for the people who already don't pay taxes.

This idea should never see the light of day. The two things that should be done right off the bat are to seal the borders and allow insurance companies to do business across state lines. This will reduce the insurance pool, increase competition and efficiency, and thereby make it more affordable for people to buy health insurance. Yeah, some government bureaucrats will have to be fired and earn a living in the real world but how is that a bad thing? They can start contributing to economy instead of living off the taxpayers while making it more difficult for those taxpayers to do so.

It might sound reasonable, Newt, but more government is NOT the answer.



Here is a memo penned by Newt in 2006 that echoes the same sentiment.

h/t Daily Caller

Debate Video: Mitt Bets Perry 10k, Loses with Voters

The damage Rick Perry did to himself when he drew at 52 second blank in a previous debate may have been done to Mitt Romney in this latest one. In essence, the Texas governor went back to the line in Romney's book that was taken out in a later edition.

Back in the September debate, Perry brought up the fact that Romney's first edition said Romneycare should be applied nationally.

Via ABC News:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said during the Florida debate that Romney took out the single line that suggested the Massachusetts health reform law could be applied to the country. The line that is removed in the paperback version reads, “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country.”

Perry brought it up again last night and Mitt had no response. Consequently, he reverted to a childish tactic. He stuck out his hand and offered to bet Perry 10k.

Not only was that an inadvisable response to an indisputable fact highlighted by Perry but that's a lot of money for Iowan voters who probably didn't appreciate Romney's ability to put that much money on the table over such an issue.

Perry did it all with a smile, too. This one may have cost Mitt some real percentage points.

Via Breitbart:

GET OFF THE COUCH AND PICK UP THE PHONE!!!

Your PHONE CALLS to Stop/Kill/Derail Obamacare socialized Medicine are working and the tide is turning our way!! We just need to KEEP making PHONE CALLS:

Barrackaid Rob Morrow sends in the info.....

Sen. Charles Grassley 202-224-3744 THE #1 PLAYER IN SENATE ON THIS ISSUE

Sen. Max Baucus 202-224-2651

Sen. Olympia Snowe 202-224-5344

Sen. Mike Enzi 202-224-3424



Rep. Mike Ross 202-225-3772 LEADER OF THE BLUE DOGS ON HEALTHCARE!

Rep. Heath Shuler 202-225-6401 (also a leader of Blue Dogs)

Rep. John Barrow 202-225-2823

Rep. Bart Gordon 202-225-4231

Rep. Jane Harmon 202-225-8220

Rep. Baron Hill 202-225-5315

Rep. Jim Matheson 202-225-3011

Rep. Charles Melancon 202-225-4031

Rep. Zack Space 202-225-4436

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin 202-225-2801



Google “House Members phone numbers” to get ALL phone numbers for Congress

Google “Horrors in the ObamaCare Bill”

VIDEO: White House Beginning to WRITHE in Desperation

Hot Air began reporting on this yesterday and Real Clear Politics has the video of the Fox News Alert from this morning. In any case, it appears that Obama's preference to outsource strong-arm tactics to his Community Organisms is giving way to the, "If you want to get something done right, you have to do it yourself" adage.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been a thorn in the side of Obama's reckless economic policies for a while now but they apparently crossed the line last week when CBO Chief Doug Elmendorf gave a resounding THUMBS DOWN to the Obama Health Care debacle.

In true Chicago-Way style, Obama allegedly attempted to bully Mr. Elmendorf into coming around to see "reason" by summoning him to the White House for some canoli. Fox News picked up the story. Check out the Video here. Doesn't this remind you of the Inspectors General scandals? Like the IG's, the CBO chief is SUPPOSED to report to Congress. Like the AmeriCorps IG Gerald Walpin, Obama appears to have thumbed his nose at the law.

Lastly, here are the applicable Alinsky rules Obama likely referred to in deciding to summon Elmendorf:

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

h/t to Hot Air for linking to the Fox News story

Obama Projects Fear-mongering

Merriam-Webster's definition of Projection: the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects ; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety

When someone has a strong argument you know it because they address the strongest point(s) presented by the opposition. Whenever Barack Obama argues a point, he never seems to do this which usually indicates a weak argument. What he continues to do is AVOID his opponents' strongest points entirely.

We saw this on display when he took the position that ousted president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, should be reinstated because he was duly elected. The strongest point of the opposition is that Zelaya attempted to break the rule of law by disregarding the Constitution while the Supreme Court, Congress, and Military of Honduras all supported the ouster on Constitutional grounds. To this point, I've not seen ONE instance where Obama has acknowledged this reality.

On to Healthcare. Financial Times is reporting that Obama is whipping out the FEAR card which his ideological mentor, Saul Alinsky LOVED to use. This is a sign of desperation. He's also using the OBSTRUCTION card.

The problem is that the FEAR card is being played to communicate that if the new health care bill isn't passed, our health care system will basically collapse. That is a lie. The American health care system is THE BEST IN THE WORLD. Obama doesn't address that issue, which means his argument is weak along those lines.

Next, the OBSTRUCTION card. Obama would have you believe that health care legislation is being held up because of partisan opposition. Has anyone noticed who has the overwhelming majority in the House and a Filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? What Obama is NOT addressing is the fact that the legislators who are "obstructing" are in his own party. Again, he does not address his opposition's strongest point(s) which is why his argument is made weak.

That leads me to Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, RULE #10, which says....

The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. AVOID being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Notice the word, "AVOID"? Obama is the King of "AVOIDING" the strongest points presented by his opposition. This indicates a WEAK position, which is likely why Alinsky was big on BULLY TACTICS. It may also go a long way in explaining why co-opting the media was so important.

Now for Mr. Obama's PROJECTION...

He's playing the FEAR card, right? The problem is that HE'S actually the one instilling the fear and NOT his opposition. His opponents want to slow down, think this through, and not sign a huge piece of legislation they could regret down the road. Meanwhile, Obama is INSISTING that it get passed.

One should step back and ask, "Who's actually afraid here?"

Remember that Obama's stance is that the American Healthcare system is broken (despite it being the best in the world) while accusing his opposition of causing fear by remaining calm while HE wants them to act without thinking or deliberation. WHY is that?

Quoting from the FT report:

With his own Democrats divided and Republicans determined to kill off legislation before the congressional recess next month, Mr Obama said the country could not afford to continue with a healthcare system that everyone agreed was not working. “But I also think that it’s very easy to scare people that it’s going to get even worse,” he told NBC’s Today show.

Very easy to scare people that it's going to get even worse? Who is he talking about? In any case, that's EXACTLY what HE is doing.

Merriam-Webster's definition of Projection: the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects ; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety

And of course, we couldn't leave out the Alinsky tactic Obama is using with respect to this EXTREME URGENCY to pass a health care bill that actually WILL cause our health care system to end up worse. Much worse.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

It's how he's run his entire presidency.

WARNING: The following video may cause extreme irritation in people who are averse to BALD-FACED LIES:


h/t to Gateway Pundit for the video link

AUDIO: Obama Admits Ignorance on House Healthcare Bill

Does Section 102 of the House health legislation outlaw private insurance? How dare anyone doubt the President's word! Nonetheless, Obama was asked that question and his response doesn't instill much confidence. During a conference call, a blogger asked Obama about it based on what he'd read in Investors Business Daily. Obama's response?

Hear it for yourself right here.

Ok, as you let it sink in that Obama is "not familiar" with a key provision in House Bill 3200, take a look at the Investor Business Daily article. Apparently, Mr. Obama could have become familiar with the provision by getting through the first 16 pages.

IBD Reports..

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

Here's part of Section 102, which is the provision in question:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

Hmmmm. Check out the whole bill if you dare.

KEY QUESTION: During the audio, Obama says he will NOT SIGN any bill that prevents people from keeping their existing medical coverage. Does anyone think that if a 1018 page Healthcare bill ended up on Obama's desk right now, he'd give a rip about what's in it?

He's demanding the bill be passed before the August recess and he hasn't even gotten to page 16 yet!

VIDEO: Obama Gaffe on Healthcare INEFFECIENCIES

Did he really say that? $100 says the Teleprompter now has a counseling report in its file. There are freudian slips that are innocuous, some that carry irony, and still others that seem to reveal true intent. Echoes of when Obama said, "an acorn doesn't fall far from the tree" back in October.