Will John Boehner Betray his nation on Second Amendment and Immigration?

It looks like House Speaker John Boehner may be paving the way for two of his biggest caves - on gun control and on immigration. If he does, it will mean that he will essentially be throwing in with the Democrats at the expense of a majority of his own caucus. It will be a colossal betrayal. We're talking Benedict Arnold type betrayal.

It would also make him a bald-faced busted... liar.

The 'Hastert Rule', named after Boehner's Republican predecessor Dennis Hastert, says that no bill will get a vote unless it has the support of a majority of the caucus. The Toomey-Manchin gun control legislation would not garner a majority of the caucus, which should make it DOA because Boehner has supported the Hastert Rule, though only when it seems to suit him, which doesn't seem to apply with the Toomey-Manchin bill.

Via the Washington Post (h/t Hot Air):

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) signaled Thursday that he may continue to bypass a House Republican rule that has required any legislation being voted upon to have the support of a majority of the GOP conference.

Boehner has flouted the so-called “Hastert Rule” — named for former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) — on a few pieces of key legislation so far this year, which hasn’t sat well with some conservatives.

He said at a news conference Thursday that he will continue to try and follow it in spirit, but also suggested he might well violate it for upcoming votes on guns, immigration and the budget.

“Listen: It was never a rule to begin with,” Boehner said. “And certainly my prerogative – my intention is to always pass bills with strong Republican support.”

Boehner in early March sought to reassure his conference that the rule would continue to be regular practice, but he broke it again earlier this week.

A common theme - demonstrated by Toomey - is that Republicans are incapable of presenting a united front on important matters. There always seems to be just the right number of votes from their caucus to give the Democrats what they want. In this case, if Boehner breaks the Hastert Rule on gun control, it will mean he knows the legislation will pass with a Democratic minority, coupled with a few Republican peel-aways. It will make Boehner a traitor to his party but more important, a traitor to the Constitution in general and its second amendment in particular.

On another huge issue to conservatives, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) more than just slightly rankled the right wing of his party when he became one of the 'gang of eight' and joined with the likes of Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on immigration reform (amnesty). The left will display photos of Rubio standing with them at a podium for years to come.

What Rubio didn't seem to understand or care about was that nothing - absolutely nothing - good could come out of his joining with those Senators.

Now, Boehner is hinting that he will betray conservatives on another promise. That promise is that he would honor regular order, which in the case of the monstrosity that is the immigration bill, is all that more important. Like the 2009 stimulus bill and the 2010 Obamacare bill, page numbers end with four digits.

Via Breitbart:

According to a recent Politico report, Boehner is seriously considering abandoning regular order to rush through immigration reform. Regular orders is the process by which a bill is supposed to come up through the respective committees of jurisdiction and allow members of those committees to offer amendments, an open and transparent process that then is supposed to continue on the House floor.

“The GOP is also mulling skipping the committee process and instead having lengthy discussions among Republicans to work out the legislation’s kinks,” Politico’s Jake Sherman wrote in the report. “This would allow leading conservatives who are crafting the deal with Democrats to explain the policy. That seems to be the preferred path, according to conversations with several GOP aides.”

Ain't that something. With that as a potential reality, it would mean that Boehner only feigned outrage when he slammed down the 1100 page Stimulus bill in 2009 because, for one thing, it was being rammed through without consideration for... wait for it... regular order:



Ah, the tale of two Boehners. First, the tough-talking Boehner can adequately express outrage when he has no power. Since becoming Speaker, he's rarely expressed even a modicum of that kind of indignation. Now that Boehner is in the majority and holding the gavel, he's just might be willing to do with a 1500 page immigration bill what he was so adamantly against being done with an 1100 page stimulus bill.

This would make him a liar in addition to being a weak leader. Apparently, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) agrees.

Democratic politicians should be recognized for one thing; they hardly ever break ranks. United fronts abound. Perhaps one of the best examples is the Senate vote on Bill Clinton's impeachment. Not one Democrat voted to remove him from office. It worked for them then and it's a strategy they've replicated many times over since.

Republicans, on the other hand, are behaving as if they want to lose the 2014 mid-terms because - as a group - they're incapable of standing on principle and are walking all over themselves to hand the Democrats victory after victory.

Western Civilization is being led by "Cave" Men

Everywhere you look today, men who are entrusted with great political power, are caving. In 2006, President George W. Bush caved when CAIR pressured him to never again use the phrase 'Islamic fascists'. Just last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu caved when Barack Obama pressured him to apologize to Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan for defending itself in the 2010 Gaza flotilla. There have been countless examples in between.

Before we get to some of them, consider what was taking place about this time nearly 2000 years ago. A man named Jesus was being arrested, thanks in large part, to elders and politicians, who on more than one occasion, attempted to get Jesus to cave. Had it not been for them, Pontius Pilate would have left Him alone. Even then, Jesus could have employed the desire for 'dialogue' with Pilate and the elders. He could have caved; he did not.

And he was even free of guilt and sin.

When it comes to Jesus' tortuous death, people reflect on His willingness to die for the salvation of all who believe in Him by rising again but there is another aspect to his death that is often overlooked. Consider the tremendous courage He had, standing there in front of Pontius Pilate, who was looking for a way to avoid what was coming. All Jesus had to do was cave and agree to the terms, which likely would have involved Pilate brokering a deal between Him and the Jewish elders and politicians.

Think of it. Pilate must have been beside himself. The Roman leader thought he had all the power! Human nature dictated that Jesus cave but Jesus transcended human nature because he was God in human form. Ultimately, it was Pilate who caved when he washed his hands.

This is not to say that the world's leaders today should be expected to have the same level of courage but if they're Christians, they are supposed to be as "Christ-like" as they can. These leaders are also not standing in front of Pontius Pilate, facing floggings and crucifixion if they stand their ground. If they can't be expected to have the same level of courage that Jesus exhibited then, shouldn't they at least be expected to follow the example of Joseph of Arimathea.

Via Catholic Encyclopedia:

He was a wealthy Israelite (Matthew 27:57), "a good and a just man" (Luke 23:50), "who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God" (Mark 15:43). He is also called by St. Mark and by St. Luke a bouleutes, literally, "a senator", whereby is meant a member of the Sanhedrin or supreme council of the Jews. He was a disciple of Jesus, probably ever since Christ's first preaching in Judea (John 2:23), but he did not declare himself as such "for fear of the Jews" (John 19:38). On account of this secret allegiance to Jesus, he did not consent to His condemnation by the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:51), and was most likely absent from the meeting which sentenced Jesus to death (cf. Mark 14:64).

Before one points to Joseph of Arimathea's "fear", consider that he did NOT succumb to groupthink and paid great honor to the Truth in the Flesh. Read on...

The Crucifixion of the Master quickened Joseph's faith and love, and suggested to him that he should provide for Christ's burial before the Sabbath began. Unmindful therefore of all personal danger, a danger which was indeed considerable under the circumstances, he boldly requested from Pilate the Body of Jesus, and was successful in his request (Mark 15:43-45).

While we're on the subject of the Catholic Church, let us consider the caving of its newly elected Pontiff, Pope Francis I, on two very significant fronts. First, in 2007, he signed a document which stated, in part, that elected politicians who are pro-abortion "cannot" receive holy communion. Yet, at his inaugural Papal mass in Rome, perhaps the two most prominent pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic - Vice President Joe Biden and Democratic Minority leader Nancy Pelosi - received communion. There are only two possible conclusions we can draw. Either Pope Francis did not mean what he said in 2007 or fear took charge in 2013.

A few days later, Pope Francis said that he wished to "intensify... dialogue with Islam". An important distinction must be made here. He didn't say that he wanted to intensify dialogue with Muslims so that they could be converted. This would be an example of what the role of the pope - any pope - is. No, he said that he wanted to intensify dialogue with Islam. In a word, he advocated caving. In essence, the pope appears to have succumbed to Chrislam.

Consider some other examples of what appears to be caving due to varying degrees of pressure...

House Speaker John Boehner: This is perhaps the most obvious example. Ever since taking control of the gavel in early 2011, Boehner has lost practically every showdown with his opposition. In several cases, he simply chose not to fight. Whether it involved not aggressively pursuing major scandals like Fast and Furious or Benghazi; expressing solidarity with Michele Bachmann over the latter's concern about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration; or choosing not to de-fund Obamacare.

Chief Justice John Roberts: When the Supreme Court handed down its ruling on Obamacare, Roberts twisted himself into knots by saying the law was unconstitutional but that it was constitutional under taxing provisions. Obama administration operatives did all it could to intimidate the court into ruling in its favor. There is no proof that Roberts was intimidated but his ruling was so bizarre that many believe he caved to relentless left-wing pressure.

Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney: Those unwilling to admit what really happened will say that Mitt Romney simply had a flawed strategy but that's not what happened. Romney took a dive at the third and final debate. He never challenged Obama on Fast and Furious, Benghazi, or on why the Obama administration labeled the Fort Hood jihad attack as 'workplace violence'. Romney refused to fight Obama. Simply looking at the third debate confirms the cave.

Secretary of the Army, Gen. George Casey: Three days after the Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 14 and injured 32, Case went on ABC This Week and told George Stephanoplous that the loss of "diversity" would be a "greater tragedy" than those 44 casualties. In short, Casey caved.

House Homeland Security Committee Chair, Michael McCaul: When the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera was announced at the beginning of this year, Rep. McCaul (R-TX) had a duty to investigate it. He was sent a letter requesting that he convene hearings on this egregious act. He has chosen to ignore that letter and appears to be looking the other way, possibly because of a full-scale lobbying effort but then again, that's just another way of saying "cave".

For the most part, the Democratic Party has thrown in with wickedness; it is a party that went over the cliff years ago. At best, a controlling majority of the Republican Party has decided - consciously or otherwise - to follow the Democrats. At worst, that majority is an overwhelming majority. Nonetheless, there are individuals who are part of it.

Joseph of Arimathea is remembered today for choosing the right side at great personal risk. There are only a precious few who are willing to do so today. Unfortunately, none of them have enough power.

Video: Senator Lindsey Graham calls out John Boehner over Benghazi

It would appear that Speaker John Boehner is feeling some heat directly from a Republican Senator in Lindsey Graham (R-SC) over getting to the bottom of the Benghazi attacks. During this interview, which took place last night, Graham said he would be meeting with House leaders "tomorrow" which is today. Can't wait to hear how that went.

Take note at the 3:00 mark. Shortly thereafter, Graham says:

"To my House colleagues, please, for God's sake step up your game when it comes to Benghazi."

I'd like to make a suggestion to Senator Graham. Pick of the phone and call Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee. I'm guessing Issa is sure to give you an earful about how Boehner did more harm than good when it came to helping with the Fast and Furious investigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video: Boehner says he 'absolutely' trusts Obama, says 'no issue there'

Just when you thought House Speaker John Boehner couldn't be more out of touch with conservatives, he lowers the bar on himself. During an interview on ABC This Week, in response to a question about whether he trusts Barack Obama, Boehner got immediately serious and did not hesitate to answer in the affirmative, saying, 'absolutely... there's no issue there' (2:30 mark).

Then, about one minute later, Boehner said, 'We do not have an immediate debt crisis.'

One question: Does he want to lose the majority in 2014?

If so, he's implementing the perfect strategy. It's safe to say that a vast majority of the Republican Party's most informed voters absolutely don't trust Obama.

Via RCP:

Is it time to investigate John Boehner?

"We need a select committee (on Benghazi). Every member of Congress - if you want to get to the bottom of this - should support a select committee." - Rep. Frank Wolf, 3/12/13

"To our leadership in the House, you're gonna have to up your game on Benghazi. - Senator Lindsey Graham, 3/15/18

House Speaker John Boehner is not doing his job... on many fronts... and needs to be replaced. It's become obvious on the Obamacare front that when it comes to de-funding it, the buck stops with Boehner and he's refused to accept it by attaching a de-funding mechanism to the Continuing Resolution. Instead, he's passed that buck again... to Barack Obama.

When it comes to investigating what happened in Benghazi, the buck is landing on Boehner's desk as well. It's beyond obvious at this point that there is a coverup taking place within the administration and if the House Speaker were truly interested in doing everything possible to blow a hole through the stonewall, he would form a Select Committee.

Like with Obamacare, Boehner is proving incapable of fighting.

Take note of the quote above from Rep. Frank Wolf, particularly this part:

"...if you want to get to the bottom of (Benghazi)..."

What followed from Wolf is something that only John Boehner can do - form a select committee. But that is something Boehner has refused to do.

If Wolf is right about a select committee being the way to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi, and Boehner doesn't form one, we are left to conclude one thing - Boehner doesn't want to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.

With increasing frequency, it is becoming apparent that Speaker John Boehner's actions (and inactions) are benefiting the Obama administration greatly.

Not only is it time that Boehner be replaced but perhaps it's time to investigate him.

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:

Video: Mark Levin channels Leo Amery on Hannity

It's very important to intuit what took place in this interview. For starters, Sean Hannity rarely, if ever, criticizes elected Republican officials. Second, it is common knowledge that he is close friends with Mark Levin, another radio talk show host. Third, Levin has a history of being very overt in his criticism of elected Republicans if he thinks they deserve it.

Last night, Levin appeared as a guest on Hannity's television show and was asked about House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican Levin has skewered on the air many times over.

With that as a backdrop, one is left to conclude that Hannity's reticence to criticize Republicans is more strategic than it is based on ideological alignment. What we very well may be seeing here is Hannity allowing Levin on his television show to do what Hannity doesn't like to do - throw down the gauntlet with House Republican leadership.

After watching this interview, I couldn't help but think of the words of British MP Leo Amery in 1940. Amery enunciated, almost perfectly, the frustration felt by those who knew Neville Chamberlain was the wrong man to stand against Hitler. Here is what Amery said in the spring of 1940 about Chamberlain, 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."

It will be interesting to see if Levin's appearance and stance on Hannity last night is a leading indicator that Hannity himself may be a step closer to adopting Amery's view about Chamberlain and applying it to Boehner, which Levin has apparently already done.

Via Daily Caller:

The Ryan Boehner two-step on Obamacare?

It's a tried and true Republican establishment practice. When your side is not in power, talk tough. When your side is not in power, seek compromise and acquiesce. Now we're seeing that principle at work within the Republican Party itself.

The latest example comes courtesy of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). When it comes to de-funding Obamacare, Boehner has the power to actually either make it happen or oversee a government shutdown by allowing a vote on an amendment that would be added to the Continuing Resolution (CR), which would fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year.

Why do we need a CR again? Oh yeah, because the Democrats haven't passed a budget.

That said, according to Byron York, when presented with the opportunity to tie passage of the CR to the de-funding of Obamacare, House Leadership (Boehner) not only refused to allow a vote on the amendment but that if he had, it would have passed. So, the man with the power to essentially de-fund Obamacare chose not to exercise that power.

Enter Ryan. In an obvious attempt to satiate overwhelming conservative opposition to Obamacare and make it appear that the House is doing all it can to de-fund it, Ryan introduced a budget which incorporates the de-funding ob Obamacare that he knows - as does Boehner - will not pass. To give House leadership the benefit of the doubt, it may be banking on a long-term strategy based on a self-evident truth that Obamacare will one day fail and Ryan's multiple budgets and predictions will be vindicated.

However, that's based on a flawed premise that liberals have the ability to admit when they're wrong. Moreover, the House Republicans are essentially doing nothing now in the hopes that they will be proven right when the country is in a shambles. Wouldn't a better idea be to do all you can now to prevent such a known outcome?

Here is Ryan talking tough when he can do so all day long without consequence because... his budget will not pass and Obamacare will not be de-funded.

Via CNS News:



Contrast that with Boehner last week, likely one day before the CR was passed without permitting a vote on the amendment to include Obamacare's de-funding. When asked if such an amendment would be part of the CR, Boehner not only didn't talk tough, he didn't even answer the question:

 

To demonstrate that Boehner knows how to talk tough when he's not in power, take a look at this from 2009, when he expressed OUTRAGE over the stimulus package, slamming the bill on the House Floor.

Why? Because it didn't matter and made for great theatrics:

Video: Freshman Congressman explains 'no vote' on John Boehner for Speaker

If you've read the excellent op-ed by Angelo Codevilla from last month, in which he talks about the 'ruling class' vs. the 'country class', the sentiment expressed by Freshman Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) about why he didn't vote for John Boehner as Speaker this year, is a case in point. It has long been apparent to many conservatives that Boehner does not represent them; he represents the ruling class and always seems to be more interested in deal-making, compromise, and avoiding conflict than in fighting for what's right.

Increasingly, the 'country class' is getting tired of it. In this interview with Ginny Thomas, Bridenstine explains why he voted against another Boehner speakership earlier this year. The longer the Obama administration continues to get the better of Boehner, the more likely the mindset of Bridenstine will represent an effervescent and growing insistence that Boehner go.

Via Daily Caller:

Video: Rep. Frank Wolf still calling for Select Committee on Benghazi

In addition to Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) continuing to call for a House Select Committee to investigate what happened in Benghazi on 9/11/12 - calls which John Boehner continues to ignore - he revealed something else noteworthy in this clip. There are still survivors of the attacks at Walter Reed six months later and we still know nothing about them.

Via Free Beacon:

Report: Boehner responsible for no De-funding of Obamacare

At a press conference on March 6th, House Speaker John Boehner did his best Jay Carney / Robert Gibbs impression when asked if there would be any must-pass legislation that would include the de-funding of Obamacare. The most obvious way to do this would be to leverage the Continuing Resolution by adding an amendment that says to continue funding the government, Obamacare would have to be de-funded. Boehne did what all politicians do when they don't like a question; he answered one that wasn't asked.

Now we know why. He had no plans to de-fund Obamacare despite his base's adamant insistence that he do so, despite the fact that had the amendment been introduced, it probably would have gotten overwhelming support.

Via Byron York at the Washington Examiner:

As the House prepared to consider its own version of the continuing resolution last week — it ultimately passed 267 to 151 — more than two dozen conservative GOP lawmakers signed on to an amendment that would have defunded Obamacare.  They submitted the amendment and hoped it would receive a vote but were stymied when the House leadership declared that no amendments would be allowed.

“If that amendment had gone to the floor, far and above a majority of the conference would have voted for it,” said Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon, one of the supporters, in an interview Saturday.  “I think everyone in the conference would have voted for it,” added Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis, another supporter.

Nevertheless, the Republican leadership did not allow the amendment to be considered.  And that, Salmon, DeSantis, and other conservative Republicans believe, is a measure of the leadership’s uneasiness with continuing the legislative fight against Obamacare.  Some Republicans — lawmakers who might have felt pressure to vote to defund Obamacare — believe privately that the fight is essentially over, and that the GOP should come to terms with the reality of national health care.

That lack of will to fight on the part of Republicans is what lost the 2012 election for them. Yet, they continue to double down on the behavior.

While many may be inclined to dismiss the allegations made about Boehner by former U.S. Congressman Bob Ney because the latter served jail time as a result of his relationship with Jack Abramoff, can you think of any better reason for Boehner's consistent unwillingness to fight?

Here's an interview with Ney on WND:

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.

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 John Boehner stonewalling... on Benghazi?

Stonewall: to block, stall, or resist intentionally

In the game of cricket, the term stonewall means to:

play a defensive game, as by persistently blocking the ball instead of batting it for distance and runs.

When it comes to getting the truth about the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, the Obama administration has lied - for two weeks, the administration blamed the attacks on a video - and it has stonewalled in the face of countless unanswered questions. In fact, when it became apparent that there were so many breakdowns on so many levels, Republicans from both Houses of Congress requested that select committees be formed.

In the Senate, Republicans are in the minority and Harry Reid has predictably stonewalled these requests because select committees that are formed to investigate scandals that could reach the president's office are much more effective than existent committees. Select committees would be made up of A-listers from various committees that would leverage their own individual areas of expertise. Reid is not going to put that kind of heat on a Democratic president.

Neither is Boehner; the Speaker of the House - a Republican - is stonewalling as well.

Check out what Boehner said last November, via Kerry Picket at Breitbart:

Both Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), along with other Democrats, rebuffed the idea of a joint select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack.

“At this point, I think that the standing committees of the House, whether they be the (State Department) oversight committee or the intelligence committee, are working diligently on these issues,” Boehner said shortly after his Senate colleagues floated the idea in November.

Some may see a bicameral committee (one that consists of both Representatives and Senators) as the best option, the absence of Senators does not preclude a select House committee from being formed. In fact, Rep. Frank Wolf wrote to Boehner in November and asked for that very thing. Boehner stonewalled the request then and is doing so now.

Writes Picket:

Speaker Boehner did not heed Wolf’s call for a select committee in the last Congress. In late January, Wolf refiled the resolution to establish a House Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. Boehner has yet to comment or act upon the resolution.

Breitbart News sent an inquiry to Speaker Boehner's office on Thursday afternoon that has gone unanswered.

When it comes to the details about what happened or didn't happen in Benghazi, the administration is preventing the truth from coming out. That is stonewalling. In Boehner's case, he is preventing the assembly of the best team possible to help reveal the truth. That too is stonewalling.

Are these two forms of stonewalling apples and oranges or are they distinctions without differences?

The answer is the latter. As the Speaker of the House - regardless of Party affiliation - Boehner should be spearheading any attempt to get to the truth about what happened on 9/11/12 in Benghazi. He is doing the opposite; he is doing what Harry Reid is doing.

John Boehner is stonewalling an investigation into Benghazi and when it comes to Boehner, this type of behavior is very predictable; he did the best he could to minimize the impact of the Fast and Furious investigation as well. That it went as far as it did is a testament to the likes of House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They pushed in spite of Boehner, not with his assistance. That was very clear.

In fact, Boehner scheduled the House vote on whether to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for not relinquishing documents subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee, on the same day that the Supreme Court rendered its Obamacare decision. As if that wasn't bad enough, on the day of the contempt vote, Obama did what Nixon did in Watergate; he asserted Executive Privilege to prevent the release of those documents.

Boehner protected the President. Period.

Some have suggested that the reason for doing so had to do with not wanting to harm Romney's chances in the 2012 election. Yeah? How'd that work out? The answer should be obvious. Romney lost the election and Republicans, in general, had their clocks cleaned because they chose not to fight. Fast and Furious is the quintessential example of something that warranted a high profile fight, if for no other reason than justice for the victims and their families, regardless of the election. Nonetheless, Boehner chose not to fight and his party lost big.

Benghazi is not all that dissimilar from Fast and Furious. Both involve guns (it's looking increasingly like Benghazi even involved gun running); both involved dead Americans; both involve an administration that is stonewalling the truth; and both apparently involve a House Speaker that prefers to sweep the carnage under the rug.

Imagine a House Select Committee that included members from the following Committees:

• Appropriations
• Armed Services
• Budget
• Foreign Affairs
• Homeland Security
• Judiciary
• Oversight
• Intelligence

Such a Committee would be formed to investigate the truth about Benghazi from every angle. It would include members who've demonstrated incredible political courage in the Fast and Furious investigation, chaired by the man who was at the tip of that spear:

Chairman: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)
Members:

• Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
• Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
• Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL)
• Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID)
• Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
• Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)
• Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
• Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
• Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
• Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA)
• Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
• Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
• Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)
• Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
• Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)
• Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

There may be other Republicans worthy of consideration but the aforementioned list consists of those who have proven their mettle. As for Democrats, who cares? They'll be Obama's pawns. They can have whomever they like.

The Benghazi attack / coverup along with Fast and Furious are the Obama administration's two biggest scandals. Both involve dead Americans; one also involves hundreds of dead Mexicans. House Speaker John Boehner fought House Republicans at every turn when they wanted to get to the bottom of Fast and Furious. It was obvious to even the casual observer that Boehner wanted that story to go away.

The main objective of the Democratic Party is to win back the House in 2014. Benghazi is playing out in this election cycle in much the same way that Fast and Furious did in the last one. It could be argued that Republicans lost in 2012 - in large part - because Boehner and other Republican leaders chose not to fight for the truth in the gun-walking scandal. If the Democrats win the House in 2014, it could very well be because Boehner and other Republican leaders chose not to fight for the truth about Benghazi.

When Communists chide their Opponents for being Intransigent

There are no better projection artists than communists and leftists. Why? Lying is a part of their fabric. It's like breathing. As such, they understand intimately everything they keep hidden; they understand motives; they understand intent; and they understand how badly it will go over if it is revealed. That is why it's so effective when they project those motives onto their opponents, who don't understand them and don't know how to refute them.

Those who do understand are rarely, if ever, ensnared.

Rush Limbaugh and Fox News just received a major badge of honor, courtesy of Barack Obama. Conversely, the likes of Republican establishment leaders - to include John Boehner - should feel driven into the arms of conservatives, in part, because of what Barack Obama told Franklin Foer in an interview.

Here are the words of Obama, via the New Republic:

“If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it,” he said. “I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.”

To illustrate the point further, check out this quote from Obama in the article:

“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” the president said in an interview with The New Republic.

This perfectly demonstrates the projection dynamic of Communists. Republicans are in sharply gerrymandered districts? The implication here is that Democrats are not. The exact opposite is true. Republican Party leadership actually bought into this argument, which is why good, conservative Tea Party congressmen like Allen West and Joe Walsh were... wait for it... re-districted out by their own party. Did this assuage the Democrats? Not in the least. It provided them with more fuel for their communist fire.

In reality, it's the Democrats that are very comfortably entrenched in gerrymandered districts. How else does one explain Jesse Jackson, Jr. getting re-elected with well more than 60% of the vote AFTER he claimed he was a re-incarnated chariot driver?

The intellectually-vacant vote was gerrymandered into a Democrat's district but we're to believe that Republicans are gerrymandered?

Until Republican leaders like Boehner admit to themselves - and then publicly to others - what we're up against, Obama's strategy of 'divide and conquer' when it comes to the Republican Party will continue to be effective. To this point, establishment voices not only refuse to rebut socialists' lies but think appeasement will cause them to stop.

Boehner is certainly not too old to understand what communism is. He was 35 at the height of the cold war in 1984. This necessarily means that he understands the threat of the ideology. He should also know that it cannot be negotiated with. The second you compromise with a communist is the second you've lost a battle. The only problem he has at this point is admitting that communism is back and it's taken root in the government he serves in as Speaker. It's a difficult reality for him - or anyone - to face but it is reality nonetheless.

Instead of Boehner seeing Obama's comments as incentive to go back to the conservative base and try to bring them to the middle, it's time for him and other establishment guys to come to grips with the fact that while the base may not be as politically polished or savvy as the seasoned politicians, it has been right all along.

The fence cannot be ridden any longer. Compromising with Obama or moving to the center is what Obama wants, not because the base is too radical. It's what he wants because he knows it will destroy the Republican Party. Obama learned a great deal by watching the Republican base stay home in 2012. He's attempting to replicate that in 2014.

When then-Rep. Allen West said there were dozens of Communist Party members in Congress, he was scorned and mocked by... communist sympathizers - the left. He was berated by a media that's in the tank for the president, who spent years of his childhood learning from a member of the Communist Party USA and later sought out Marxists in college (his own words).

Establishment Republicans didn't come to West's defense, even though he was right. The Gateway Pundit website proved the communist / Democrat nexus when the names of 70 Congressmen were found to be registered members of the Democratic Socialists Caucus of America (DSA) in 2009. These are individuals who aspire to the Communist ideology. Their membership in such a caucus should not be dismissed, massaged, or interpreted differently. They cannot and should not be compromised with. When Obama or any other Democrat accuses conservatives of being extremists, it's projection. Communists know they themselves are extreme and they know how to enunciate that extremism when they're honest (usually, only among themselves).

There was only one member listed on the DSA Caucus who wasn't a Democrat - Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a registered socialist (at least he's one of 70 who were honest about something) and he caucuses with Democrats.

By the way, Jesse Jackson, Jr. was one of the 70 members listed with the DSA Caucus.

Communists know they can't enunciate the truth about themselves, even though they're exhausted from hiding it for so many years. They're like pressure cookers. The best way for them to let it out is to enunciate it perfectly... while applying its agenda to their opponents.

The debate du'juor is Gun Control. Obama wants it and the conservative base says no way. You know who else wants it?

The Communist Party USA.

By compromising with the Democrats on gun control, Boehner would be giving communists some of what they want, which is always a battle lost.

Problem with Republican Leadership: Lack of Self-Respect

There is a fine line between taking the high road and losing your self-respect by not fighting back. If the 2012 elections taught us anything, it's that the Republican establishment doesn't know where that line is.

The leadership vacuum on the Republican side of the aisle keeps getting larger, louder, and even more obvious. If there is one common message from conservatives when it comes to the establishment, that message is to fight. The unwillingness to fight is why Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama in the election; the base didn't turn out.

The Obama administration knows this and is banking on its Republican opposition doing the same thing in the 2014 midterms so the Democrats can take back the House.

There comes a point when refusing to fight only garners more contempt from your opposition and even less respect from your own side. Planting their flag on what they perceive to be the moral high ground didn't work in the last election and it won't work in the next one. It's becoming increasingly obvious that while Republican leaders in Congress think they are better positioned by not lowering themselves to the left's level, they are also losing self-respect by not standing up for themselves. It's antithetical to leadership and when you don't lead, you lose followers.

Two incidents took place at Obama's second inauguration that illustrate this anecdotally.

First, Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee was booed and it was allegedly initiated by a Department of Justice Attorney named Dan Freeman. By the way, that charge was alleged by Freeman himself:

Via BizPac Review:

Second, House Speaker John Boehner got the Michelle Obama eye-roll. Watch the body language. At the :02 mark, Boehner taps Michelle on the left arm to jokingly get her attention about something. She then proceeds to put that left arm on the table, as if to say, 'don't touch me'. Boehner then says something else at which the first lady rolls her eyes.

h/t WZ:

The Democratic Party views the Republican Party leaders with contempt, sheer and utter contempt. The Obama agenda, as enunciated by David Plouffe is to so divide the Republican Party that the Democrats take the House in 2014.

Via the Daily Caller:

President Barack Obama’s top political aide used an Inauguration Day interview to sketch out a provocative political strategy intended to split the Republican Party in time to impact the 2014 midterm elections.

“The barrier to progress here in many respects, whether it is deficits, measures to help economy, immigration, gun safety legislation … is [that] there are factions here in Congress, Republicans in Congress, who are out of the mainstream,” White House advisor David Plouffe said on CNN’s “State of the Union with Candy Crowley.”

“We need more Republicans in Congress to think like Republicans in the country who are seeking compromise, seeking balance,” he claimed.

Granted, the two inauguration day incidents involving Ryan and Boehner mean nothing in and of themselves but they speak volumes when it comes to an unwillingness to fight on the part of Republican leadership. The administration is clearly banking on being able to continue bullying the leaders of their opposition.

This will serve two purposes. It will cause Republican leadership to continue rolling over, giving Obama what he wants and it will cause the conservative / Tea Party wing to sour on their Party's leadership. A consequence of that disenfranchisement will be staying home on election day in 2014. This will de-energize, de-motivate, and depress the conservative base in 2014. Why wouldn't Team Obama go that route? It worked for them in 2012.

Conservative voters carried all the water in 2010 and Republican victories were sweeping but Republican leaders prevented the Party from doing what it was put in power to do. That is why the base didn't turn out.

Team Obama knows that and will attempt to replicate it.

Consider the case of Ashley Judd running against Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. Last month, she trailed him by four points. Yes, four points! If she wins, it will be because McConnell will have chosen not to fight. It won't be because he wasn't moderate enough.

The Republican Party leadership continues to let the schoolyard bully take its lunch money.

If it is going to actually lead, it will have to stand up to the bully sometime between now and November, 2014:

Eric Holder's gun control audacity vs. John Boehner's political cowardice

The comments by Attorney General Eric Holder at the U.S. Conference of Mayors were intended to help push Barack Obama's gun control agenda. What they did was further expose what Fast and Furious was all about:

"...the administration has called upon Congress to... consider a series of new federal laws imposing tough penalties on gun traffickers who help funnel weapons to dangerous criminals." - Eric Holder on 1/18/13

Aside from the fact that such penalties should apply to high ranking Obama administration officials - to include Holder himself - for what happened in Fast and Furious, this is quite the exercise in contrasting audacity with cowardice.

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

Cowardice: lack of courage to face danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.

First up, the truth regarding what Operation Fast and Furious was all about. It is a truth that Speaker John Boehner has proven he'd rather ignore than confront. That operation was conceived and carried out at the highest levels of the Justice Department and ATF with the irrefutable proof that Attorney General Eric Holder's immediate subordinates knew about it.

Fast and Furious was about ATF Supervisors in Arizona requiring Gun Store owners to sell assault weapons illegally to straw purchasers who would then 'walk' those weapons into Mexico and give them to drug cartels. These thousands of assault weapons were then used to murder hundreds of innocents. Those murders will continue for years to come. As Joe Biden said about Sandy Hook's shooting victims, children murdered at the hands of the thousands of guns our government gave to Mexican drug cartels have been and are being 'riddled with bullets'.

Biden has never referred to the countless victims of Fast and Furious - which include children as well - in such fashion.

This makes the U.S. Government (DOJ / ATF at minimum) complicit in mass murder with... assault weapons.

All along, the plan was to draw attention to these murders as well as to the fact that they were sold by U.S. gun dealers in order to re-enact the 1994 assault weapons ban as well as to enact tighter gun control restrictions. The administration - as well as the usual cast of Democratic politicians like Dianne Feinstein - was even caught lying about the percentage of guns found at Mexican crime scenes.

Once you come to grips with that reality, it's easy to see what's going on with the latest gun control push. The Obama administration is clearly banking on Sandy Hook doing what Fast and Furious failed at doing. This is not conjecture. It is demonstrable.

Here is Holder at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, piggy-backing on the newly christened Sandy Hook exploitation exercise to enforce gun control.



To underscore the point, check out this video of Holder's immediate subordinate, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden in 2009, announcing what the goals of 'Project Gunrunner' (the larger umbrella term for Fast and Furious) were. Take note what he says at the very beginning as well:

"The president has directed us to take action to fight these cartels and Attorney General Holder and I are taking several new and aggressive steps as part of the administration's comprehensive plan."

It's rather eye-opening to watch this after watching Holder above:



That Eric Holder still has a job is not only brazen on the administration's part but it exposes Obama's complicity in Fast and Furious. We already know he's complicit in the coverup.

Just look at Obama's ultimate actions in Fast and Furious and Sandy Hook to this point. The former involved Executive Privilege and the latter involves Executive Orders. The primary difference between the two is that Fast and Furious blew up in the administration's face.

Sandy Hook is Plan B.

Only because it continues to be relevant... Eric Holder in 1995, when he was a U.S. Attorney. Note his comparison between gun owners and smokers. He refers to smokers as people who 'cower outside of buildings'. Nearly twenty years ago, Holder wanted a world where gun owners would 'cower' when it came to owning guns.

What's happening today?

The Obama administration is attempting to get gun owners to 'cower' by somehow blaming them for Sandy Hook. This administration is attempting to shame gun owners and the NRA. It's even brought back its 2012 election campaign team to help do it.

What the Republican establishment still refuses to either learn or admit is that the reason why the Obama campaign was so effective before the election was because the Romney campaign didn't fight. It will only be effective in the gun control push if Republicans repeat their failing formula.

The third presidential debate is where Romney lost the election. Why? Because he didn't hit Obama where the President was weakest - Fast and Furious and Benghazi.

On the same day that Holder was speaking at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Boehner's office was asked to respond to Obama's unconstitutional gun control push via twenty-three Executive Order slaps in the face of Congress.

The response from the most powerful Republican in the United States?

Speaker Boehner will "review the recommendations". One could make the argument that this is strategic on Boehner's part but his history doesn't indicate that in the slightest.

In 2009, Eric Holder called his political opponents 'cowards'. Boehner continues to prove him right.

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:

George Bush's Dubai Ports World deal vs. Al Gore's Al Jazeera deal

Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a mere 236 miles east of Doha, Qatar, where the headquarters of Al Jazeera is located. After the sale of Al Gore's Current TV to the Arabic news network, Al Jazeera America is expected to broadcast from New York.

Via World Atlas:

In 2006, the Dubai Ports World (DPW) controversy involved a deal - supported by then-President George W. Bush - that would allow the sale of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British Company, to DPW. Such a deal would have put the operation of six U.S. ports under the control of DPW. One of those ports was in New York. Ironically, while Bush supported the deal, then-Senator Barack Obama opposed it and said the following:

"Over four years after the worst terrorist attack in our history, not only are we failing to inspect 95% of the cargo that arrives at U.S. ports, but now we’re allowing our port security to be outsourced to foreign governments. Clearly, more time should have been spent investigating this deal and consulting with homeland security experts and local officials. I support my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are seeking a full review of this deal." - Barack Obama in 2006

As news of the deal grew, so did opposition. Then Senate-Majority leader Bill Frist, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, U.S. Senator from New York Chuck Schumer (D-NY), New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, and New York Governor George Pataki all expressed opposition to the deal. In fact, at one point, the prospect of legislation to halt the deal was gaining serious momentum and Bush seemed to play the Islamophobia card while talking to a gaggle of reporters on Air Force One. Via New York Times:

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly'." 

Another prominent politician to express opposition to the deal was none other than the opportunistic Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. The MSNBC link that included the following excerpt is now a dead one but the text is available elsewhere. Check this out:

Mrs Clinton's tough stance that the deal represented an "unacceptable risk" to national security has caused UAE officials some consternation. 

Regarded as the leading Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential elections, she has used the deal – which polls show is disliked by most Americans – and the anti-Arab sentiment it sparked to attack the Bush administration on national security, an issue that has been seen as a weak point for Democrats.

Essentially, Democrats rightfully opposed the deal for the wrong reasons. Those reasons involved going after Bush. That is, unless we are to believe that the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are Islamophobes (yeah, laughable, isn't it?).

In fact, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and other prominent liberal Democrats opposed the deal, along with Republicans like Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

When it comes to the Dubai Ports deal and the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera, there is one primary difference when it comes to American political leaders; Bush received bi-partisan opposition and Gore is receiving only conservative opposition.

Taken further, none other than Senator Chuck Schumer is regarded as being the prominent politician most responsible for bringing the Dubai Ports deal to light. Had he not done so, it's quite possible that the deal would have gone through; it didn't.

Check out this excerpt from an NPR report:

On the Banking Committee and representing a major seaport, and he was media savvy to boot. It was Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York. Schumer's office heard from Muldoon, from Eller & Company lawyer Michael Kreitzer, and from an Associated Press business reporter who had been talking with Muldoon and Kreitzer. In a period of four days, the AP reporter's story ran nationwide, Schumer called for a review by the Department of Homeland Security, and he held a press conference with 9/11 families. He called on President Bush to step in. DP World hired teams of lobbyists.

In essence, Schumer started the snowball that ultimately led to the defeat of the Dubai Ports deal.

This begs what should be a very obvious question. Who on the Republican side of the aisle will raise cain over Al Gore's sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera like Schumer rightfully did with Bush's desire to see P&O sold to Dubai Ports World?

Republicans are at a disadvantage in a couple of respects. For starters, the Republicans who opposed Bush in 2006 did so based on principle. They broke with their party because it was the right thing to do. Democrats JUST. DON'T. DO. THAT. If Al Gore wants to sell Current TV to Al Jazeera, Democrats support him because, well, he's a Democrat.

Conversely, when George Bush wanted to allow DPW to control U.S. Ports, prominent Republicans opposed him and sided with Democrats. Conservative Republicans are far more inclined to do that when it's the RIGHT. THING. TO. DO.

That said, who has the responsibility to be the anti-Schumer relative to Current TV's sale to Al Jazeera?

Unfortunately for conservative Republicans, the man who has the gavel is also the man who is dis-inclined to take the role.

In short, instead of crying after being re-elected Speaker, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) should be screaming about the Al Jazeera sale like Schumer screamed about the DPW deal...

...or he should resign.