Video: Harry Reid calls Ted Cruz a 'Schoolyard Bully' (Scut Farkus alert)

If there is one thing Democrats have in their DNA, it's projection. Nearly every single criticism that Democrats levy at their opponents is nothing more than an act of projection. In this case, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - the same guy who helped to ram Obamacare down the throat of the American people who didn't want it - calls Ted Cruz a 'schoolyard bully'. What's particularly interesting is that Reid is the most powerful bully in the Senate. Cruz, a freshman, should be the weakest.

In reality, Reid is like Scut Farkus calling Ralphie a 'schoolyard bully'.

Watch Cruz show his senior colleagues how it's done:

Oh, wait. When the schoolyard bully pushes his victims around for a little too long, this is what usually happens. Reid, the real bully, is behaving like Scut Farkus:

When you're a freshman GOP Senator who gets called a 'wacko-bird' by an establishment RINO Senator, it means you're ruffling feathers. It also means you're exhibiting leadership and showing your colleagues - all of whom have more experience and should already be leading - how to lead as well. When your Democratic colleagues - like Senate Majority leader Harry Reid - calls you a 'school-yard bully', it means you're making life difficult for those who have been running roughshod over the Constitution for far too long. Besides, whenever a Democrat calls you a name, it's usually projection.

The truth is that conservative voters have been screaming for backbone and leadership from their party for over four years now. To this point, no one at Cruz's level has met the challenge.

That he is a freshman should be an embarrassment to the rest of his caucus, who should lead, follow, or get out of the way (that includes McCain).

Via HillTube: 

Must-See Video: Ted Cruz rips RINOs over Gun Control

There are many reasons to like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). First and foremost, the Sarah Palin effect, which is that the more a political figure is ridiculed by the mainstream media and the left, the more that political figure should be supported by conservatives. The second indicator is when RINOs like John McCain calls you a 'wackobird'.

There is another reason that comes across in this video from Freedom Works and it has to do with the ability to inspire and encourage.

Right out of the gate, Cruz doesn't just tell the audience what he knows they want to hear - that they are 'winning' - but he does it in such a way that it's believable. He then proceeds to make the case by citing what happened in the recent gun control debate. The story he relays from a Senatorial luncheon is classic and has John 'wacko bird' McCain written all over it.

Via NRO:

Look, the Tea Party in particular and the conservatives in general started becoming demoralized and a bit more crestfallen each day it became more apparent that Mitt Romney was going to be the Republican nominee. Rock bottom was hit on election night. Establishment Republicans in office began caving to the Obama agenda almost immediately. Conservatives were so de-energized that they did little more than watch in disgust.

If there has been a consistent theme among conservatives since the election - perhaps even since the 2010 mid-terms - it's been disgust over the Republican Party's willingness to admit the truth and fight the Obama agenda.

Ironically, Cruz said establishment guys who wanted to cave in to the gun control push, yelled at him for not going along with the program. It's a self-evident truth that such political hacks are more comfortable yelling at a principled member of their own caucus than they are at our "Muslim socialist" president.

By the way, those aren't my words; they're Obama's:

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.

Ted Cruz on the 'defeatist attitude' of Republicans

In an interview with the Dallas Morning News, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) gave some extremely interesting answers to Todd Gillman's questions. Perhaps the most insightful exchange came when Cruz gave his psychological assessment of Republicans inside the beltway.

Via DMN:

Q. You’re 10 weeks on the job. What have you learned? Has anything surprised you? Is there anything that you’ve needed to retool in your approach?

A. The biggest surprise has been the defeatist attitude of many Republicans in Washington. A lot of Republicans felt beaten down, and that there was nothing they could do to stop the erosion of liberty in this country. I have been encouraged that the last several weeks have demonstrated that there is a great deal we can do to turn things around. Indeed, if you look at the vote on sequester, the filibuster on drone strikes and the vote on defunding Obamacare, for three weeks in a row, Republicans have stood together for principle. And in doing so I believe we are winning the argument. We are doing what the American people expect us to be doing, which is standing for principle, defending liberty and defending the Constitution. I am hopeful the pattern of the last three weeks will prove a recurring pattern going forward. I believe that’s the direction Republicans need to go.

Q. This defeatism is among incumbent senators?

A. Yes. I’m referring to those who have been here a long time and have suffered some difficult election results and who I think were discouraged about being able to get anything done.

Q. So it sounds like you’ve been teaching them a few lessons. Is there anything that you’ve learned on the job yet?

A. What I think all of us have learned together is the power of leaders standing for principle. You asked what I learned. I can tell you the most inspirational moment since I’ve been here has been Rand Paul’s filibuster. When Rand Paul went to the floor at 11:47 am, many of his colleagues viewed what he was doing as curious if not quixotic, as an endeavor that was doomed to failure. … It captivated the attention of the American people as millions of Americans watched Rand Paul and others standing for principle and began engaging directly in the process, on Facebook and email and Twitter….. As a result of Sen. Rand Paul’s courage, the Obama administration was forced to concede in writing that it lacks the authority to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.

It is amazing that elected Republican officials felt beaten down because their conservative base felt beaten down by the unwillingness of those officials to fight for them.

Read it all.

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:

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:

Why are CAIR, Code Pink, Van Jones and Cenk Uygur all supporting Rand Paul?

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) made big headlines this week in a showdown with the Obama administration over the latter's refusal to unequivocally state that it would not use armed drones to kill Americans on American soil who posed no imminent threat to the country. Paul was relegated to eating candy bars during his twelve-plus hour filibuster while establishment types like Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were dining with Barack Obama.

The conservative base ate it up. Finally, the new guard was doing what the old guard never seemed interested in doing; Paul was taking Obama on while standing on principle and the establishment didn't like it one bit. McCain referred to the Senator from Kentucky as well as Senator Ted Cruz as 'wacko birds'.

However, in addition to winning over conservatives and libertarians, Paul has garnered the support of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front in America; Turkish Current TV (Al Jazeera) host Cenk Uygur; former Obama Green Jobs czar Van Jones, who is a fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) - a George Soros entity; and Code Pink, a far left group who was behind the 2010 Gaza flotilla.

CAIR's Executive Director - Nihad Awad - said the following in a press release:

"We welcome Senator Paul's efforts to press for a firm answer as to whether drones may legally be used to kill American citizens on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, the initial administration response to that question left room for doubt. We acknowledge today's statement by Attorney General Holder and hope that it represents a clear and unequivocal rejection of that obviously unconstitutional authority."

Uygur, long recognized as a far left commentator who left MSNBC to work at Current TV, said the following in reference to Paul's filibuster:

“I don’t care what his (Paul's) opinions on other things are — you can call him anything you like, but here he happens to be a constitutional hero.”

Uygur's employer - Current TV - was recently sold to Al Jazeera, another arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

How about Van Jones? Here is a guy who worked very closely with the inner circles inside the Obama administration when he was the Green Jobs czar. Jones resigned in 2009 amidst a string of scandalous revelations about his past, which included his signature appearing on a 9/11 Truth document. When he left the administration, he became a senior fellow at CAP, an entity TIME Magazine referred to as the Obama administration's "idea factory".

Here is what Jones had to say about the Rand Paul filibuster:

"Well let me just say, I might shock a lot of people as somebody, you know I love this president and I respect this president, Rand Paul was a hero yesterday, and what I've been hearing is a lot of shame from liberals and progressives who felt like geez, we should be up there sticking up for civil liberties and we should be the ones asking those tough questions."

As for Soros, he supported the 'Arab Spring' and has some very distinct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood himself. This would at least theoretically explain why both Jones and CAIR are on the same page here.

Then, of course, there is Code Pink's Medea Benjamin, who said of Paul:

"...compared to the Democratic senators who have, with few exceptions, remained either silent or support of President Obama's killer drones, Rand made a heroic stand. In gratitude, progressives should "Stand with Rand."

In 2010, Benjamin worked with Obama friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn - through the Free Gaza Movement - to coordinate the Gaza flotilla that attempted to break the Israeli blockade. This was a pro-Hamas movement as well; Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood.

There are two traits we've come to associate with left-wing groups. One is that when they want to collectively push a narrative, there's a cross-polination of shared words embedded in that narrative that supposedly independent groups all use. Note that in the examples above, Jones, Uygur, and Benjamin all refer to Paul as being a 'hero'. The second trait is that leftists - especially those in positions of prominence - don't break ranks. When Van Jones outwardly expresses a view that is in support of someone who is in direct opposition to Obama on a particular issue, it's both noteworthy and curious.

Conservatives are always talking about how they can't trust leftists. Now, all of sudden, because the leftists are agreeing with a conservative / libertarian Senator's stand against the Republican establishment, we're to take them at their word? Why isn't it possible that these leftists see an opportunity to further divide the Republican Party?

Remember, one of Saul Alinsky's rules states, in part:

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

This is not meant to say that Paul is wrong and the likes of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are right. In actuality, on balance, Paul is more right than they are.

McCain and Graham are an interestingly bizarre pair. Both have supported - and continue to support - arming Muslim Brotherhood rebels to fight dictators. McCain called such Libyan rebels his 'heroes' while backing NATO's efforts to oust Gadhafi. Both Senators have continued to back support for the Syrian rebels as well.

So, McCain and Graham seek to empower the Muslim Brotherhood abroad but want more latitude to attach them domestically. Conversely, Paul rightfully wants to stop funding the likes of Egypt's Mohammed Morsi and the Syrian rebels while at the same time, he gains the support of Nihad Awad, the head of a Muslim Brotherhood group in America.

In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Paul said the following about McCain and Graham:

They think the whole world is a battlefield, including America, and that the 'laws' of war should apply. The laws of war don't involve due process.

In reality, the whole world IS A BATTLEFIELD in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood, which consists of CAIR, Hamas, and Al Qaeda. The problem for the likes of Paul, McCain, and Graham is that they do not understand that America is also a political battlefield in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood groups here.

Again, this goes back to one very simple reality; The United States did not sufficiently identify its enemy after 9/11 (all Muslim Brotherhood groups in America and Saudi Arabia by extension). As a result and as a nation, we are confused about how best to confront that enemy almost twelve years later.

Until then, internecine battles like this one will continue.

John Boehner's Inexplicable behavior continues

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

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

Via CNS News:

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

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

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

 

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

Why?

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

For example:

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

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

Speaking of sequestration...

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

Obama is losing the battle.

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

Video: John McCain assumes role of Jay Carney on Senate Floor, rips Rand Paul's Filibuster

As Rand Paul was making a stand by filibustering the nomination of John Brennan, John McCain was having dinner with Obama. The day after Paul's filibuster, McCain attacked Paul.

Via GWP:

RINO Lindsey Graham 'honored' to have dinner with Obama while chiding Rand Paul's filibuster

On the same day that Republican Senator Rand Paul took to the Senate floor to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director, Barack Obama had dinner with 13 other Republican Senators. Perhaps there is not better allegory to illustrate the complete inability of Republicans to put forth a united front.

It didn't end there, however. The man who organized the dinner was Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who spoke glowingly of the President while chiding Paul for filibustering.

This statement from Graham, from the Washington Post (via GWP) is outrageous:


If you think that was low, take a look at Graham the morning after, slamming Paul's filibuster after saying he was 'honored' to have dinner with Barack Obama:



At the end of the clip, Graham said 'the American people need to understand the threat we face'. Ironically, it is Graham who doesn't seem to understand the threat the Obama administration poses. Not only should Graham do some serious self-examination about praising the most radical Democratic President in the history of the United States while chiding a Republican counterpart who took a stand but he obviously doesn't understand the Muslim Brotherhood agenda in the United States.

**UPDATE** Here is the list of the 13 Senators who dined with Obama as Paul ate candy bars while speaking for 12 hours, via the White House Dossier:

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, and Dan Coats of Indiana.

This is not ok.

Video: Interview with Ted Cruz

In an interview with CBN, U.S. Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz said two very significant things that resonate with true conservatives. One was that Barack Obama is the 'most radical' president we've ever seen. The other is that by failing to stand on principles, many Republicans should share some blame for that 'most radical' president being elected in the first place (ain't that the truth!).

The biggest frustration among conservatives is an unwillingness (cowardice) to fight on the part of Republicans. It's early but Cruz is showing signs of galvanizing such conservatives. A consequence of that - as we found out with Sarah Palin - is relentless media attacks. The good news? Cruz's effectiveness will rise in direct proportion to how much he is attacked in the media.

Via CBN:



Here is the perfect example to demonstrate how best to deal with the media (pay attention, Boehner). After the mainstream media dredged up what they thought would be considered outrageous comments by Cruz years ago - that the Harvard faculty is rife with Marxists - the Senator from Texas did not go on defense; he went on offense with a super-appropriate tweet.

Via Ted Cruz:

MSNBC is shocked -- shocked -- to discover that there are Marxists on the Harvard faculty... youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi0…
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) February 23, 2013

Video: Republican running for Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s seat

Despite revelations shortly before the 2012 election, that Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) had become so mentally unstable that he believed he was a reincarnated chariot driver, he was still overwhelmingly elected with more than 60% of the vote. Now, just a few months later, he's going to serve significant jail time for using campaign contributions to enrich himself.

Enter Paul McKinley, a Republican who is running for Jackson's old seat. Watch McKinley explain how the Chicago Machine works in less than three minutes.

This guy understands what's going on better than more than a super majority of Congress (both houses):



h/t GWP

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:

Video: Colin Powell attacks Republicans for racism; ignores in-your-face Democratic racism

It is quite clear that Colin Powell views the world most through a racial lens. On Meet the Press, he defended his two votes for Barack Obama and claimed that there is a 'dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the (Republican) Party', saying it has lurched too far to the right. He then shockingly said that the Party's move to the right is why the Republicans lost the election.

Lost on him is the fact that Barack Obama is the most left-wing president in U.S. history and the Republican Party's nominee for president in 2012 was a moderate. Yet, Powell says he is still a Republican and that he's a 'moderate'.

Apparently, Powell is willing to overlook Obama's countless affiliations with some very intolerant people.

Moreover, following Powell's logic, the Tea Party is more intolerant than Occupy Wall Street, which has a website devoted to glorifying its high number of arrests.

He's either lying or so blinded by race that he's afflicted with an extreme case of denial.

h/t GWP:

House Leadership acting like Democrats; McCarthy avoids Republican Study Committee

How in the world can conservatives expect House leadership to fight the Obama administration when it employs the same tactics? The House 'Purge list' that has served to widen the chasm between the establishment and conservative wings of the Republican Party continues to be hidden from view by House leadership.

Breitbart's Matthew Boyle reported that the alleged author of the list - House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy - agreed to meet with the Republican Study Committee (RSC) to provide some clarity and transparency. However, something apparently came up and McCarthy did not attend the meeting.

Via Breitbart:

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy blew off a scheduled meeting with the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) on Wednesday. At the meeting, McCarthy was going to explain the secret criteria list, including a voting scorecard, that he created for House Speaker John Boehner to use in his purge of conservatives from influential House committees.

A source familiar with the situation told Breitbart News that McCarthy backed out of the meeting at the last minute – after having agreed to it last week. “Congressman McCarthy did agree last week to attend today’s RSC meeting to discuss the issue of the four members removed from their committees,” the source told Breitbart News. “Citing the need to attend to a family matter, he did not end up making it to the meeting.”

Roll Call and POLITICO both have articles that point to what could be a new narrative developing as to the reason for the jettisoning of the four conservative House members from their committees - that the men were booted because the were "A-holes" who publicly criticize House leaders. In either case, the stonewalling that has come from House leadership only serves to raise more questions and exacerbate tensions.

For example, there seems to be some inconsistencies with respect to McCarthy's absence from the RSC meeting.

Via Roll Call:

Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, who was booted from a coveted spot on the House Budget Committee and also lost his position on the Agriculture Committee, told reporters that McCarthy was going to address the group. RSC Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio told the group the whip would be there to explain whether a secret vote scorecard had been used to weigh whether to kick members off committees. But a GOP leadership aide said McCarthy was never scheduled to attend.

That led to Jordan telling the group that McCarthy had, in fact, bailed out at the last minute to tend to a family emergency, said Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, who was at the meeting.

“That was the announcement Jim made, that [McCarthy] was going to be here to tell us whether or not there was scorecard and what it meant if there is one and then some things came up at the last minute,” he said. “My understanding is a family matter came up and he’s leaving to go back home.”

McCarthy was still in town when the House voted, hours after the RSC meeting.

So, did McCarthy miss the meeting because he wasn't scheduled to be there or because of a family emergency? While we're at it, were the four conservative members booted from their committees because of their votes or because they were "A-holes"?

Perhaps we'd know if Mr. McCarthy would tell us.

Is House Majority Whip coming clean on that 'purge list'?

The stonewalls coming from House Republican leadership - and Paul Ryan - about the secret 'purge list' that led to the booting of true conservatives from the Budget and Financial Services committees may be starting to crack. Matthew Boyle at Breitbart is reporting that the man identified as being the one who created the list - House Republican Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy - has agreed to meet with the Republican Study Committee (RSC) to explain it.

Via Breitbart:

Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp said in an interview that McCarthy has agreed to explain to the conservative members of the House his role in drafting the scorecard used to purge conservative House members from their committee assignments.

“They’ve requested McCarthy to come tomorrow to RSC to explain his scorecard,” Huelskamp told Breitbart News. “I’ve seen the stories about ‘McCarthyism’ and it is his scorecard. Who put it together and how? What’s on it? That’s what we’re trying to get a hold of.”

“He [McCarthy] told [RSC Chairman Rep.] Jim Jordan he’d show up at RSC tomorrow,” Huelskamp added. “He said he would come. But, until he shows up, we’ll see. If he doesn’t show up, he’ll have to answer to Jim Jordan about misleading him. But I hope he shows up. They still don’t have the guts to release the scorecard.”

When you get right down to it, House Republican Party leadership is doing what it has long decried Obama for doing - backroom deals and political payback for those who aren't in lockstep. If that's the culture the GOP is creating in the House, it should prepare to lose the majority in 2014.

The movement to replace Boehner, Cantor, and McCarthy continues but the candidates of choice seem to be reluctant.

Frankly, reluctant leaders might just be a breath of fresh air. They usually make better ones anyway.

Is Paul Ryan wading into the Big Muddy?

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

You can't play both sides of the fence.

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

Via Breitbart:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Petraeus come to mind when you watch this?



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

Before planning to oust Boehner, Conservatives should look to Texas

There is a movement afoot to jettison John Boehner from the Speakership. At first blush, it seems incredibly attainable; it's that second blush that gives one a double-take. The idea, courtesy of Ned Ryun at Red State is quite simple in theory. In order to be re-elected as Speaker, Boehner needs to receive 218 votes. If 16 Republicans abstain, he only gets 217 and the House would be Speaker-less.

As Doug Ross points out, it may not be that simple:

My only fear about this idea is that House Democrats will join with the RINO establishment to keep the Weeper Speaker in power.

Actually, that reality may end up being why conservative Republicans choose not to implement Ryun's strategy. I'm not sure if that strategy has been tried on a national level but something very similar to it happened at the state level in Texas after the 2008 elections.

Up until that time, Rep. Tom Craddick (R-Midland) had been the Speaker. Then, in January of 2009, he was voted out and replaced by Joe Straus (R- San Antonio), a RINO / social liberal - despite getting a huge majority of Republican votes. How'd that happen? Democrats in the Texas House decided it was better to have a RINO in charge than a Speaker who was more conservative. Straus was elected by lobbying for - and getting - all of the Democrats to vote for him.

Via Tea Party 911:

Joe Straus, a Republican with poor conservative credentials, connived with 65 Democrats and 11 “moderate” Republicans to take over the speaker of the house for the 81st session in 2009, a betrayal of the other Republican members and the voters who elected them.  It is a well know story in political circles how Democrats were allegedly rewarded for their votes with prominent committee positions.  As a result, the Democrats were able to substantially block the conservative Republican agenda in the 81st legislature in Texas.

In short, even if 16 Republican Congressmen withhold their votes, they will only guarantee that Boehner doesn't get 218 Republican votes. If that scenario unfolded, Boehner could retain the Speakership by getting 217 Republican votes and just one Democrat vote. Why? Perhaps Democrats would prefer Boehner to someone like Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), whom Ryun suggests.

Say 30 Republicans abstain; it would only take 15 Democrats (likely blue dogs) to guarantee Boehner's job. What's more is that under such a scenario, Boehner would be even more beholden to the liberal agenda and would actually update his list of Republican House members who would deserve retribution for not towing the line.

That would be Obama-esque.

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

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

Via The Hill:

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

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

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

Here is McConnell's speech:



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

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

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

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